Doubts about the effectiveness of sanctions from now on who have imposed on Russia for the war in Ukraine express the New York Timesunderlining, as an alternative, two things: the need to give more support to Ukraine itself militarily and financially, and the need to make clear to the Russian side those conditions that could lead to the lifting of sanctions.
The New York Times editorial board warns of some of them dangers lurking behind the West’s strategyin the context of an article published under the title “Can sanctions really stop Putin?; »
More specifically, as noted: sanctions are not a recipe for guaranteed success. On the contrary, they are accompanied by dangers and weaknesses, while could even have the opposite of the expected results in some cases against a country such as Putin’s Russia which is still far from being considered isolated on the international stage.
Therefore, what is required is to form a parallel one Ukraine’s support strategy but also a crisis exit strategy which will make clear the conditions that could lead to the lifting of these sanctions.
When Russian President Vladimir Putin invaded Ukraine last February, international sanctions were indeed the right choice in response to the United States and its allies. So far, after almost eight weeks of war, These sanctions have hit the Russian economy and affected its ability to wage war on Ukraine.
The “limits” of sanctions
However, as the Biden administration weighs in on the next phase of this ongoing conflict, we need to have a clearer picture of the limits of what could be achieved through sanctions, the New York Times notes in its article.
There is now a lot of evidence that the war – and the sanctions it caused – could have a long duration. And as in military conflicts, so in the case of economic warfare there must be not only specific goals but also an exit strategy.
The West has been using sanctions increasingly since World War II – in places as diverse as South Africa, the Soviet Union, Cuba, Venezuela, North Korea and Iran. The reason for a series of sanctions that are usually “relatively easy” to impose and where they almost always meet domestic political need to «we do something»Except to engage militarily.
Doubtful effectiveness
The New York Times, however, emphasizes that beyond any “convenience”, the sanctions have not so far proved to be very effective neither in changing regimes nor in bringing about changes in the behavior of dictators.
To say the truth: Cuba, Venezuela and North Korea have never succumbed to US demands, despite the sanctions imposed on them. Iran, for its part, has been forced to sit at the negotiating table for its nuclear program, but has not given up on its nuclear ambitions. In South Africa, too, apartheid may have come to an end, but for a number of reasons that were not solely related to the cost of sanctions.
But on the US side, when the Arabs imposed an oil embargo on the United States in the 1970s, the US side suffered at a cost but continued to support Israel.
The Biden government deserves praiseaccording to the New York Times, because it laid the groundwork for multilateral sanctions, which are the only ones that – as multilaterals – have the greatest chance of success.
Sanctions imposed on Russia recently, for example the exclusion of some Russian financial institutions from the SWIFT interbank trading system, would have been unthinkable a few months ago. At the same time, through the imposition of these sanctions, it appeared to acquire a new, strengthened and revitalized spirit of cooperation and the G7 team.
Even Russian President Vladimir Putin himself was forced, in such a context, to accept that the sanctions “have achieved some results.”
Alternative options
However, the New York Times emphasizes that giving more weight to Ukraine’s own financial and military aid may prove more productive than any new sanctions against Moscow.
Sanctions alone – or at least those sanctions that European countries would be willing to consider now – will not bring Russia to its knees any time soon. As long as Europeans continue to depend on Russian oil and gas, Moscow will be able to generate significant revenue from this relationship.
The oligarchs, who are now losing their yachts, and ordinary citizens, who are struggling to make ends meet, have little influence over the Kremlin, and Putin, for his part, now has an easy “I told you” answer. the Westerners who “want the evil of Russia.”
Can the sanctions imposed by the G7 team lead to the same Russia’s real international isolation; The New York Times’s response is that “no». This is because there are countries such as Mexico, Saudi Arabia, South Africa and, above all, China, which still maintain close “friendly” ties with Moscow.
These countries even include hostile forces, such as Pakistan and India, Iran and Israel, which, however, demonstrates Putin’s continued influence in Asia and the Middle East.
Side effects
The United States could increase its economic pressure on Russia by imposing secondary sanctions. US officials are already appearing to threaten Indian and Chinese officials with such a possibility. Secondary sanctions are indeed one powerful tool pressure to force other countries to align with US policy. But any potential benefits of such a move should be weighed against the risks and potential costs. The extraterritorial application of US laws can cause deep resentment in the ranks of US allies. Therefore, as noted in the New York Times article, secondary sanctions should be used sparingly and only after consultation with partners.
Sanctions, however, are likely to have other side effects. It can for example end up strengthening the power of a dictator allowing him to exercise even greater control over the domestic economy. Private companies may find it difficult to deal with a flurry of sanctions, but authoritarian regimes and state-owned enterprises often find ways to circumvent them.
Sanctions also provide dictators with a credible external enemy whom they can then blame for all the suffering of the people. Instead of forcing citizens to revolt against authoritarian leaderships, sanctions often inspire a rallying cry around the dictator.
For the rest, sanctions are presented as an alternative to war. But they can also be harbinger of war, as in the case of the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor a few months before which the Americans had imposed an oil embargo on Japan while freezing Japanese assets.
Exit strategy
In order for there to be a change when sanctions are imposed, the New York Times must, at the same time, announce the steps that should or could be taken to lift those sanctions.
The United States should have a clear plan for how and under what circumstances these sanctions should be lifted.
Daily
Follow Skai.gr on Google News
and be the first to know all the news
