I love this new style of warfare that allows us to force a country to our will – or face implosion – without firing a shot. Are we (the US) able to do this to anyone? China? The UK? North Korea – if we really want to go full bore?
That was the idea behind the Cold War, and it kind of worked. Unfortunately we spent too much on weapons and wars we didn’t need instead of making the investment for future ecomomic growth. Right now we don’t have that kind of economic power, it’s a global economy now, if we don’t trade with other countries someone else will. And don’t count on congress going along with any plan that hurts the bottom line of any major corporation.
Which countries are you thinking of, that have been “forced to our will” by the new strategy?
It wouldn’t work with North Korea. We essentially have no trade with them.
We have lots of trade with China. But it’s a toss-up over which country would be more hurt if China and the United States broke off trade.
We could probably hurt the UK. But what dispute do we have with them? And if we started a trade war with the UK, they’d have Europe to fall back on.
Economic war requires the following situation to work:
- The two countries have to have an existing trade relationship.
- The trade relationship has to be unbalanced so one country would be more hurt by cutting it off then the other country would be.
- The country that’s cut off can’t have other countries it can easily replace your trade with.
Seems like the US and our allies in Europe are doing a pretty good job of this on Russia right now.
It doesn’t seem to have worked well on Cuba.
Is what is going on with oil prices now actually economic warfare against Russia? Prices are crashing, which is a small problem for some countries, but in Russia, where much of their economy is based on oil, it’s a huge problem.
J.
The Saudis are mostly responsible, not us. It is also economic warfare on Iran and Venezuela, so win-win-win.
But maybe someone can define economic warfare? Is it oil, or is it the sanctions? Much of it isn’t new at all.
Very similar to my first thoughts but I’d also include 4 and 5.
4. The country targeted needs to value the economic effects more than whatever behavior change the economic warfare is trying to change
5. The country economically targeted needs to not have realistic options using other instruments of power to achieve their ends
The scrap iron and aviation fuel trade actions by the US against Japan fit the first three. Japan chose a shooting war in response.
Like any other form of warfare, it only works if you have an advantage. And the USA does not, with regards to many countries.
I wouldn’t call it new. The Vikings were faced with two choices- convert to Christianity or lose all trade. The allthing voted. They chose conversion.
I was thinking just that. NATO isn’t doing the Ruble any favors, that’s for sure.
But in what sense has it brought Russia “to our will”? Are they pulling out of Crimea, Donetsk, Luhansk?
Here is a list of America’s largest trade partners. We could do the most damage to Canada, Mexico, the carribean and South America.
That would be pretty much the entire world. The US not only imposes sanctions against governments it doesn’t like, it imposes sanctions against anyone who trades with the offending government. This is why the US can fine French banks for doing business with Iran. Questions arise over the legalities of these practices under GATT and the WTO agreements, but for the most part, the US is not concerned with legalities.
This was an effective tactic used by unions in the US. If a union was boycotting company A, and company B was doing business with company A, the union would boycott company B as well. It is called a secondary boycott, was very effective, and therefore was declared illegal under the Taft-Hartley law in 1947.
The US has a minimal trade relationship with Russia, but was able to “twist arms”, in VP Biden’s words, to impose sanctions. This is virtually cost-free for the US. Europe is paying the price.
This video pretty much sums up my understanding of the issues the OP has raised.
It has caused immense problems for Cuba. Cuba was a virtual colony of the US in 1960. When you lose your main market and your supply of parts to service your infrastructure, you are in a world of hurt. Then the secondary boycott made it very difficult to trade with anyone else.
On the bright side, if trade barriers are relaxed, Cuba could become a major exporter of '57 Chevys 
If the “economic warfare” just weakens a belligerent nation, but they remain belligerent, what’s the point? Is Putin likely to “give up” on wanting to keep a part of Russia that historically belonged to Russia, and the only year-round seaport in his entire nation just because his country is suffering due to sanctions?
What’s an example of a belligerent nation changing their mind because of sanctions and not just becoming more stubborn?
We can wage economic warfare on pretty much anyone. Some countries, including China, can wage economic warfare right back on us. Like with any kind of warfare, just because you can doesn’t mean you should, because sometimes the price is too steep.
We can’t wage economic warfare on North Korea for the same reason that you can’t burn ash.