The UK and EU are seriously
discussing further packages of sanctions
against Russia over the invasion of Ukraine, and trying to pressurise Trump
into implementing further US sanctions as well. There does seem to be a feeling
that the US Congress might be willing to impose further sanctions, although there
is considerable doubt as to whether Trump will support it. Sir Starmer is doing
his best to sound tough as he talks about ‘ramping up’ (one of his favourite phrases)
economic sanctions against Putin and Russia. But hold on a minute. Over three
years into a disastrous war in which hundreds of thousands have died, and there
are still more sanctions which haven’t been applied yet? When he says ‘we will
apply more sanctions unless you…’, what I hear is ‘we haven’t yet done
everything we could’.
How effective
sanctions have been – indeed, how effective they can ever be – is a question
which people who can’t think of anything else to do don’t really want to
discuss. The reasons for that are entirely understandable: if countries are
unwilling to move to direct military aid of Ukraine, and if sanctions don’t
force Russia to back down, then all that is left is a negotiation which will
inevitably make concessions to Russia. It represents neither fairness nor
justice, but if all that we can think of are sanctions, then we should
seriously have been applying them to the maximum already. Tough talk without
tough action simply condemns more Ukrainians to fight and die.
But here is the
truth that they can’t or won’t admit: sanctions aren’t forcing Russia into
backing down and probably never will. Telling members of the Russian regime
that they can’t come to London (one form of sanctions which has been applied)
isn’t actually the sort of punishment which makes them quake in their boots,
and they are still obtaining most of the goods they require by other routes.
There are three main reasons why sanctions are probably doomed to failure.
The first is that
Russia is big. It has an abundance of natural resources, and is able to produce
much of what it needs; maybe not in the cheapest or most efficient way, maybe
not always to the same standards, but a big country will always be more
resilient in the face of sanctions than a smaller one.
The second is that
they are not being universally applied. There are still plenty of countries
(including, of course, China) willing and able to supply Russia with the goods
it needs. That actually reflects a deeper problem, which remains unaddressed:
not all countries see the Russia-Ukraine conflict in the same simple terms as
the EU / UK, namely an unprovoked invasion of one country by another. That’s
not to say that they’re right in coming to a different interpretation, but
whether they’re right or wrong is irrelevant to the ground fact that they are
continuing to both buy and supply goods which are subject to sanctions by
others. Many of us might regret that the world does not have an effective means
of disciplining a rogue state, but regret doesn’t change the facts.
The third reason is
that sanctions hurt the economies of those applying them, so companies are
finding ways around sanctions. As trade with Russia has dropped, demand from
countries aligned with Russia for the same goods has miraculously increased.
Some of those countries are landlocked and the goods can only reach them by
traversing Russia. The idea that they all get to their planned destination, or
even that they all stay there when they arrive, is for the birds. Western
companies are supplying sanctioned goods to Russia and pretending not to know,
and their governments are pretending not to notice. And the capitalists make
their sales and take their profits.
That sanctions will
not, and probably cannot, achieve their aim is a dismal conclusion to draw, but
if it’s what we are going to depend on, then implementing them in packages over
a period of years and turning a blind eye to alternative supply routes doesn’t
cut it. Sir Starmer’s projected strength is actually a cover for weakness.
Posts
No comments:
Post a Comment