For example russia you will put maximum tarifs and sanctions over all countries who trade with anything with russia this way you can stop Wars.
For example UK eu and USA could punish china and india all the ways for example to put china trading tarifs If china want to sell anything to west they will have 80% tarifs.
+ All the Indian china and other brics nation people money confiscation and sanctions to iran indian and china business owners maximum ways there is a lot indian iran and chinese people capital in western banks my method will recomend to take this money.
So If russia cant trade or deal with anyone it's hard to keep war going on.
When you disturb the economy and trading you really disturb ability to keep war on.
Also it can help If you bomb the weapons supply routes like ships and others Also USA UK europe can cut off the off shore kind of neutral countries system for example Monaco and switzerland or put sanctions over UBS bank for example ITS easy.
More sanctions restrictions and assets freeze will make anyone think twice before they use guns again
Sanctions are an important tool, but they are often not the sole solution. Similarly, economic sanctions, as a tool of international diplomacy, are ineffective and play no role in stopping wars. Furthermore, sanctions also have a price to pay, often backfiring on those who impose them. The constellation of international relations is not simple; there are many overlapping interests between states and non-state actors (NGOs, MNCs, global elites, terrorist networks), and diplomacy is the art of negotiating in a VUCA world. This is why sanctions are limited in their effectiveness if they are not accompanied by a calculation of their side effects and without the support of a broad range of actors.
When we talk about war, we inevitably talk about the military and the world's military dominant force, namely the United States (the victors of World War II and their privileges, namely winner-take-all). With all its achievements, appreciation, and privileges, the United States can conclude that wars make money, wars bring glory to the United States, and wars save the United States from crises.
The Military-Industrial Complex was the heart of post-World War II industrialization and the driving force behind the US high-tech economy, through innovation, job creation, and long-term economic stimulus. That's why I think the US loves war. Another reason is that for the US, war is a fiscal stimulus, and conflict drives a surge in consumption of logistics, production, and defense industry research. Military financing also drives financial markets; US debt is made productive to finance war, and defense bonds become safe assets. The MIC becomes a financial ecosystem that absorbs international capital, war, military technological innovation, commercial superiority, and technology exports, thus dominating the economy. The MIC is state-sponsored and creates new industries through privatization.
The geopolitical advantage the US gains from war is maintaining the role of the dollar and petrodollar by securing energy supply chains, and the coalition serves as a network for arms markets, which also means economic and military dependence on the US. From this, we can see that war does not mean a failure of diplomacy, but rather market expansion through other means. So, from the US perspective, war is created, not avoided, to absorb surplus production when the market is saturated and the deficit increases. The MIC, as a shadow government, wields extraordinary political influence over Congress and the Pentagon not only in fiction but in reality; they lobby and fund think tanks and political campaigns. War is a perpetual business model, whose language maintains conflict to ensure the continuity of defense contracts, military aid, and arms sales.
In conclusion, the US prefers war not because of bloodlust, but because it sustains its economic system. War is not the sole source of GDP, but rather a structural driver of growth, innovation, and dollar hegemony. In the US, the MIC is an unstoppable political-economic machine that maintains a cycle of global threats: weapons production, sales, profits, research investment, and then the creation of new threats. What the world has left behind is a perpetual Cold War, not based on ideology but on maintaining a US-centric global economic structure.
That's how World War starts, basically. You are not suggesting anything positive, but it will backfire, and you should be aware that countries no longer rely solely on America, even though they heed its indications. India is known as a friendly country of the USA, but Trump increased the tariff for them, which backfired. India is now cooperating with Putin and is now supporting Afghanistan with making an air defence system and more, while Trump is trying to occupy the Bagram air base.
So you are just another Trump who thinks these tariffs will bring peace. You don't understand that you are fueling World War III, which will explode after all these actions. You should stay out of politics if you lack a sound understanding.
I agree with you.
Because when war becomes an extension of economics, economic hegemony is derived from the ability to produce and market weapons that support geopolitical influence. Sanctions, embargoes, and realpolitik, in effect, separate the two sides and encourage the formation of separate defense market blocs.
Sanctions, tariffs, and embargoes are no longer tools to stop war; they are often designed to maintain, manage, and even prolong conflict for the strategic interests and political-economic gains of certain parties. They have evolved from diplomatic tools to mechanisms of global control. By maintaining permanent tension, great powers can maintain their hegemonic positions, extract economic benefits from uncertainty, and ensure the world remains in their orbit (under the guise of stability and security).
Currently, the world is renegotiating its relationship with the US. Many countries no longer believe the US is the protector of democracy, but they also know that the US still controls the global economic architecture. Therefore, the responses vary, not direct confrontation, but rather a gradual withdrawal from its orbit. However, as long as the US continues to control technology, the military, and the global financial system, the world will never truly emerge from it, only dancing between two axes of power. There's a saying that says, "Peace is unprofitable, but controlled conflict keeps the machine running." The fear is that intense economic pressure exerted by the US will be responded to by other countries declaring military war.
