What's the pragmatic case for sanctions on Russia?

In My Humble Opinion
1

Ever since Ukraine was invaded, I’ve supported imposing the harshest possible economic sanctions on Russia. I mean not just on the oligarchs (who anyway deserve no mercy) but on the entire country.

Supporters of sanctions hope they will do one or more things: a) cripple Russia’s power to continue or expand its military aggression; b) create popular discontent that would push Putin toward the negotiating table; or c) spark a coup or political transformation that would sweep Putin away, end the war, and maybe even lead to liberal reforms.

And given the devastating impact that sanctions have already had on the Russian economy, at least some of those goals might appear to be within our reach.

But lately I’ve been looking at academic studies of sanctions and their effectiveness.

The expert take is that, in practice, sanctions rarely work. What’s worse, they often have their own unintended consequences (see: Cuba; Iraq), and these can be catastrophic, particularly to the poor and powerless.

The conclusions from some of these studies have been summarized on Wikipedia.

I was hoping the experts would tell us how to make sanctions smarter. So far, I haven’t seen much on that subject, which suggests they consider it a lost cause.

My gut still says we should punish Russia through sanctions. We have the right to turn our backs on Russia, and we have the means to make the Russians pay dearly for disrupting the peace in Europe.

What’s more, I find it very hard to stomach the idea of letting Russians go about their lives unscathed as their troops destroy apartment blocks, schools, and hospitals in Ukraine.

And yet, and yet… we all know the damage that gut-based policy-making can do (see: Bush, G.W.).

I want our foreign policy to be based on experience, evidence, and results. I want us to study the mistakes of the past and to adjust our policies accordingly.

So… is there a pragmatic, dispassionate case for imposing sanctions on the Russian population?

Or is it more about punishing Russia and feeling like we’re “doing something,” without regard to the consequences?

2

What are we comparing it with? What are the consequences of not imposing consequences on Russia at all? What are the consequences of NATO further expand into the role of world police?

It’s the pragmatic choice, and sanctions for wars of aggression should be discussed separately from sanctions trying to force a regime change.

3

What does it mean to work? If nothing was done to Russia, there might be other countries that support Russia. China? South Africa? Brazil? But hold off for fear of sanctions. If there were no threat of sanctions, who knows what Putin plans next. Poland? Moldova? Rumania?

The Times yesterday had a discussion and concluded that sanctions work (attain the main part of their objectives) maybe a third of the time and work at least to some extent maybe as much as 60% of their objectives. The trouble is how to calculate the cost of doing nothing.

4

@Hari_Seldon

I guess you’re referring to this NYTimes piece?

These conclusions are certainly more encouraging than the ones I read earlier.

5

Isn’t the US the only country that boycotted Cuba? That seems ineffective if they can still trade with Mexico, Canada, Europe and the rest of the world. The current Russian sanctions seem more widespread.

6

I think that’s the case.

I was standing in line at Disneyworld a few years ago, and got chatting with the family in front of me. Guy says, “That’s a nice straw hat you’ve got. Where did you get it?”

“Cuba” I said.

Ended the conversation. They turned forward and didn’t talk to me anymore.

P.S. @Chad_Sudan , great thread title!