The Economic Weapon punctures the myth that sanctions have been an alternative or antidote to war, while tracing their shifting purpose from preserving inter-state relations to toppling internal political regimes. Based on rigorous and broad research, it offers crucial lessons for historians and policymakers. Despite the hopes pinned on them, sanctions typically donât produce the regime change desired, and they take an enormous toll on those subjected to them. The very anticipation of sanctions triggers actions that preclude their effectiveness: aggressive statesâ ambitions are stoked further by desire to secure additional resources to immunize against the deprivations of threatened sanctions. The premise of sanctions â that societies make political decisions based on economic rationalism like fear of falling living standards â is not borne out by history. People often prefer bad conditions to foreign rule.
Gazprom said on Friday that it would postpone restarting the flow of natural gas through a closely watched pipeline that connects Russia and Germany, an unexpected delay that appeared to be part of a larger struggle between Moscow and the West over energy and the war in Ukraine.
The Russian-owned energy giant had been expected to resume the flow of gas through the Nord Stream 1 pipeline on Saturday after three days of maintenance. But hours before the pipeline was set to reopen, Gazprom said that problems had been found during inspections, and that the pipeline would be closed until they were eliminated. It did not give a timeline for restarting.
The announcement had the hallmarks of a tit-for-tat move. Earlier on Friday, finance ministers for the Group of 7 countries said that they had agreed to impose a price cap mechanism on Russian oil in a bid to choke off some of the energy revenue Moscow is still collecting from Europe.
this is a really bad sign for russia in general, especially longer term
hopefully some of the talent will consider returning when stable leadership shows up
my worry is that putin is in denial and won't respond to rational, reasonable policy
his hardline belief system doesn't seem to gaf
maybe can he put the sh*t back into the horse or he might opt to ride his country into the ground
let's hope he or someone around him comes to their senses the alternative is disastrous and will cause grief and suffering on millions of innocent people
In reality, no one involved actually expected trade to drag to a halt after the invasion. Banning imports of certain items would likely do more harm to those sectors in the U.S. than in Russia.
Editor's Note, April 2022: We encourage you to explore this research brief and the full report that it is based on. However, because Russian state media entities and individuals sympathetic to Putin's decision to invade Ukraine have mischaracterized this research in recent weeks, we also encourage you to explore this helpful resource on Russia's âfirehose of falsehoodâ approach to propaganda and our research on âTruth Decay,â which is a phenomenon that is driven in part by the spread of disinformation.
And what makes you think that I have not read or watched RT?
Yes, you are right. In fact, it sometimes looks like you only read and watch RT:
westslope wrote:
I see it as a dog's breakfast of a country where people do not play particularly well together.
OK, so that was a cheap shot. But your western arrogance is glaring. Given, that you actually do have half a brain, which I believe you do, how do you reconcile current Ukrainian unity with your statements now? How do you square the fact that Ukraine kept its defence plans secret, even from the US, right up to the date of the invasion? How do you explain that they have very effectively bloodied the nose of what was supposed to be the second best army in the world with just a tiny fraction of their military might? And they have done this with one hand tied behind their back as virtually no country dared to give/sell them the weapons they needed/wanted and have very politely agreed not to attack Russian territory (at least overtly). I mean, srsly? The Ukrainians have been bloody amazing.
On a separate and unrelated note. I don't get your fawning over Russia. What is so great about this fascist dictatorship that appeals to you? I mean the dictatorship of the proletariat was only ever meant to be a temporary thing to facilitate agrarian Russia through its capitalist transition towards communism and class consciousness. It's now been going on over 100 years and I don't see any nascent class consciousness developing anywhere there, just crude nationalism and a policy of brutality pursued by kleptocrats who like living it up on the Cote d'Azur. That's my take. I would seriously like to know yours. I understand that you despise US foreign policy. I get the reasons for that particular sentiment, though I don't share it. But why on earth do you support Russia, which in my view is just the Russian sister of German fascism. I am seriously confounded by your stance.
At least some Russians are honest and straightforward about how modern war is waged. Better than all the pompous self-righteous posturing and outright lies that come out of the USA.
oh, if it's hypocrisy and posturing that gets your goat, I strongly recommend watching more RT. Takes newspeak to a whole new level.
At least some Russians are honest and straightforward about how modern war is waged. Better than all the pompous self-righteous posturing and outright lies that come out of the USA.
Not better at all. Acting like it is all acceptable is a race to the bottom.
At least some Russians are honest and straightforward about how modern war is waged. Better than all the pompous self-righteous posturing and outright lies that come out of the USA.
Well, Pavel Filatyev appears to not understand the rationale. Please, please: understanding and agreeing are separate notions. They are not the same. Many rich country soldiers have a rather elementary or poor understanding of national security and strategic considerations. Their opinions and attitudes still matter.
Then we have a number of reports that Russian soldiers were given little information and rationale leading up to the invasion. That hints at the notion that Russia's invasion was somewhat spontaneous but if you back up, that is clearly not the case.
Pavel Filatyev's description suggests more than a few Russian soldiers were caught off guard by the often hostile reception by civilians and the determined defensive fire by Ukrainian forces, militia and other irregulars. Disillusioned soldiers will eventually weigh heavily on Russia's willingness to continue this conflict and settle in the for the long haul.
This war may currently enjoy the support of most Russians. That could erode going forward. I don't have a clear picture but we already observe some sub-cultural schisms in Russian society in regards to supporting the Ukraine invasion.
That said, it is important to recognize several key factors:
- for the Russian old guard and security establishment, this is an existential conflict. See Russian history.
- this war has the reasonably solid support of Russian political and security elites. For the moment.
- Russia has been preparing for this possibility for a long time.
- little strategic planning went into according the Baltic states and Poland NATO membership; similarly little strategic planning went into choices regarding economic and financial sanctions levied at Russia and its citizens. These sanctions have more than likely already driven most European economies and the US economy into recession.
- US-lead NATO managed to deftly revive the non-aligned movement. BRICS could soon become BRICSA. Trade patterns are and will continue to shift. BRICSA member countries do not mean the USA or its citizens harm; they simply do not want to be harmed by US policy. Naturally, US hegemony will decline at an accelerated pace.
- Russia has the capacity to engage US-lead NATO through proxy nation Ukraine for longer than the Ukraine, the US and US-ally nations can stand it.
- Ukraine has already paid an enormous price and will continue to pay an astronomical price in human lives and welfare if this conflict drags.
- Much of Europe is going into a sharp recession and may have to ration heating and lighting this coming winter. The USA is likely already in recession though optimistically it should not be deep or long. This not a good time to be poor on fixed income or a low-income earner in the USA.
- US economic and financial sanctions in the post-war period have been remarkably ineffective and costly. Other nations can reasonably anticipate that the US will continue to levy harsh sanctions against non-allied nations because they politically sell in the USA despite the collective costs and political risks.
- Chair Powell et al are still acting Dovish. That simply means even more pain and suffering for America's most vulnerable slightly farther down the road.
Long-term solution?
So how do we put this costly and extremely dangerous conflict behind us?
I have no prior preferences for Ukraine other than a deep sadness for its long far too often bloody career. I see it as a dog's breakfast of a country where people do not play particularly well together. Ukraine makes me think of a few Black African countries where European colonial powers carved up tribal and pre-colonial 'national' groups into separate nation states and lumped incompatible others together. That is not necessarily the best metaphor.
Nigeria, for example, verges on a failed state. Ukraine is poor and not a great place to invest (coincidence?) but it was a functioning nation state that allowed itself to be lulled into a false sense of security by not entirely credible assurances from the US leaders. Ex: Vietnam, Kurds, Afghanistan, Somalia.
Viewing American 'commitments' as iron-clad is fraught with risk. It is important to recognize how special interests and myopic political considerations drive US foreign policy. Or risk becoming State Dept. roadkill.
Taking shape?
I believe we already know the rough shape of a lasting and durable settlement though the appetite for prolonging the conflict appears to be still quite high. The eastern Russian ethnic-dominated regions will become independent and autonomous protectorates of Russia. Ukraine, the US and NATO will agree to refraining from according Ukraine NATO membership.
There might be agreements restricting weapons assistance and deployment in both Ukraine and the eastern Russian-ethnic buffer zone. A negotiated partial disarmament.
In the best outcome, economic and financial relations are normalized relatively quickly. Europe would be a colossal fool to not continue buying natural gas and other forms of energy and commodities from Russia.
Canada, USA, Australia and several Gulf of Persia countries would all benefit enormously if Europe stopped buying Russian natural gas. At the same time, a number of politically sensitive commodity prices would continue to stay high — oil, fertilizer, grains — if this conflict drags. BRICSA would take on greater material importance.
