February 28, 2022
The New Russian Sanctions Playbook
After Russian President Vladimir Putin launched a full-scale invasion of Ukraine last week, U.S. President Joe Biden made good on his threat to impose “swift and severe consequences” on Russia’s economy. His administration has enacted a set of sanctions far stronger than those deployed in 2014, after Moscow’s last incursion into Ukraine. This latest package includes sanctions on Russian banks, debt and equity restrictions on state-owned enterprises, and unprecedented multilateral export controls designed to cut Russia’s high-tech imports in half.
These sanctions, coupled with similar measures from the European Union and other U.S. allies, will accelerate Russia’s isolation from the global economy. Such moves, however, are not a sign of policy success—despite the impressive transatlantic diplomacy. On the contrary, they represent a failure to deter Putin from invading Ukraine. It is possible that the threat of sanctions failed because Putin was determined to invade regardless of the cost. It is also possible that Putin underestimated the damage that Western sanctions would cause. The 2014 measures sent Russia’s economy into a tailspin, but the country stabilized after several years.
Just because threatening sanctions failed, however, doesn’t mean the United States should abandon them altogether.
Beyond exacting a price for military aggression and signaling solidarity with Ukrainians under fire, punitive economic measures can demonstrate to Russian elites and society that Putin’s imperial fantasies have costs. Declining living standards and diminishing prospects could, in turn, weaken Putin’s domestic base of support, siphoning attention and resources away from foreign policy.
Over the long term, economic penalties can also degrade Moscow’s ability to project power abroad. With Russia’s army already deployed across Ukraine—and little prospect for a dramatic shift in Russian foreign policy while Putin is in office—sanctions are now less a tool of behavioral change than one aimed at economic and technological attrition. Their primary objective is no longer to deter Moscow from taking particular actions but to drastically alter the trade and investment links between Russia and the United States and its allies—to the latter’s geopolitical advantage.
Read the full article from Foreign Affairs.
More from CNAS
-
Ziemba: Oil Market Overlooks Buffers Amid Long Conflict
Oil held a decline as tankers laden with crude continued to exit the Persian Gulf, despite persistent threats and limited progress on a deal between Iran and Oman to reopen th...
By Rachel Ziemba
-
Jones Act Relief Extended, Iran War Presses On
President Trump extended a waiver Monday for foreign ships transporting oil around the US as the war in Iran continues to disrupt supply chains. Bloomberg News' Mike McKee & B...
By Chris Kennedy
-
The Blind Spot in U.S.-China AI Competition with Paul Haenle and Terah Lyons
Paul Haenle and Terah Lyons of JPMorganChase join Emily and Geoff to talk about their recent report on U.S.-China AI competition and what policymakers miss when they only look...
By Emily Kilcrease & Geoffrey Gertz
-
Weapons Stockpiles Become the Next Constraint
Rachel Ziemba, adjunct senior fellow at the Center for a New American Security, joins Bloomberg Surveillance to discuss U.S. weapons stockpiles and their impact on future nego...
By Rachel Ziemba