Ariel Petrovics
The U.S. and its allies have relied on sanctions as one of the primary tools for curtailing Russia's military operations in Ukraine.
Running the gamut from individual limits against Russian leaders and businesses, to comprehensive restrictions on key sectors like Russian oil and natural gas, these sanctions are intended to impose unacceptable economic costs that directly hinder Russia’s war effort and indirectly incentivize Russia to end its campaign.
However, experts have been debating whether and how well they have worked. Some argue that the comprehensive sanctions, and in particular the widespread restrictions against its oil and gas revenue, are bringing Russia’s economy — and therefore its military campaign — to its knees. Others concede that sanctions may not successfully end the war outright, but contend they at least offer an inexpensive and low-risk way to slow Russian advances and take a public stand against the invasion. And yet, after nearly three years, the war still rages, Russia’s economy has rebounded, and Russian domestic support for Putin and the Kremlin are at an all-time high.
The problem with this solely economic debate is that it overlooks the risk for more serious counterproductive consequences. Sanctions are not just failing to end the war in Ukraine or weaken the Kremlin’s warfighting currency, they’ve also backfired, inadvertently strengthening Moscow’s hardline position, undermining the utility of alternative strategies, and shoring up the Kremlin against future international coercion. As a result, the fallback position that sanctions are at least better than nothing ignores their long-term perverse consequences for regional peace and international stability.
No comments:
Post a Comment