Are economic sanctions Cold War or already a hot one?

On 21 June 2021, the EU Council of Ministers agreed on economic sanctions against Belarus “in order to have a lasting impact on the country’s export earnings”. The sanctions are officially justified by the arrest of two activists of that “colour revolution” that has been attempted for half a year now – with funds from the USA, the EU (60 million euros) and George Soros – in order to remove the elected president Alexander Lukashenko from office. Both arrested persons wanted to fly over Belarus on a Latvian plane. The plane landed in Minsk because of a bomb threat.
  Sanctions are always an attack on the sanctioned country. The EU calls the landing of the Latvian plane a violation of free air traffic. The EU, cheated out of its 60 million revolutionary subsidies, responds with economic sanctions, the precursor to a state of war.
  Sanctions as economic warfare have been introduced and become common in the last 20 years, and are used against friend and foe, especially by the USA, whenever the Americans are not handed freely the means to achieve their economic or world power goals:

• for example, against Iran, because it does not let American companies sell its oil,
• and against Russia, because that country also wants to remain independent as a world power and oil competitor. Since Russia also snatched the dominion over the Black Sea away from the USA through Crimea, US sanctions no longer know any limits.
• Germany and German companies are also subject to sanctions because of Nord Stream 2, because this country takes the liberty of buying Russian gas instead of American gas, as the latter is too expensive.
• Recently, China, as a primarily digital enemy, is also being hit with sanctions on Chinese companies, imports and persons.
• Many other countries, among others Syria, Afghanistan, North Korea, Nicaragua, Venezuela, have been harmed by American economic sanctions because they “presumed” to resist American world power aspirations or to compete with the American economy.

The dollar empire tolerates neither dissent nor recalcitrance.
  Technically speaking, any country could complain to international organisations such as the UN, WHO, etc. in the case of unilateral economic sanctions, and even initiate legal proceedings against the sanctioner. In practice, however, this is not successful because all these international organisations are paid with US money, staffed with US personnel and run according to US purposes. Moreover, the USA is economically still so strong that counter-sanctions against the USA (such as, for example, EU counter-sanctions) are ineffective, purely token actions. Only the strong can blackmail the weak, but not vice versa.
  With these sanctions, the USA wants to economically force the governments of other countries to change their policies, to correct or to submit them. In practice, however, it is rather the citizens of the sanctioned country who suffer from these sanctions, because they lack important goods, because their economy is blocked, because their prosperity is destroyed. Those who suffer are always at the bottom, rarely at the top. In this respect, economic sanctions – regardless of whether they are effective at all – always harm an entire people.
  This has been demonstrated for decades in Iran, whose economy has been brutally blocked by US sanctions. The resulting impoverishment hit the people, not the country’s politicians. It is the same with the sanctions against Russia, against Belarus, and others. Ultimately, therefore, economic sanctions are not a strategic means against a political leadership, but an asocial damage to the prosperity of an entire people.
  The sanctions against Venezuela seem particularly anti-social. Just because this country wants to sell its oil itself and not hand it over to American companies, the entire population has been kept in the most bitter misery for years; more than 3 million Venezuelans have left their poorhouse by fleeing, there is a lack of all necessities. In contrast, Venezuela could be a rich country if it were free to sell its oil itself, if the Americans did not claim economic domination over this country and its oil and try to enforce this through sanctions.
  Sanctions are a hostile act against a free country, an act of economic war. They are also described as such by the sanctioners (USA or EU) and also have damaging consequences in the sanctioned country, as would do a military war.
  The USA tried out sanctions when ever it realised that it had regularly failed with hot war, i.e. with military war of conquest by its own troops: in Vietnam, in Afghanistan, in Syria, etc. Economic war is therefore already a campaign against a country, but not yet a military campaign.
  Nevertheless, economic sanctions are illegal under international law, contradict all international trade laws and trade regulations, and thus flout all international law. Power shall break justice. Law is only supposed to apply when it is on the side of the powerful. And it is not even permitted to charge the powerful lawbreakers.
  So, when the EU imposes sanctions on Belarus, it is committing an act of war, it is acting in violation of international law, and this is purely an act of revenge, because Lukashenko will not allow the EU co-financed revolution to take place, because he refuses to hand Belarus over to NATO.
  But it is pretty bad that at the same time the EU officials claim to be acting in the name of law and order.  •