12 ms·

Why economic sanctions do not work (1997) [pdf]

61 points by monort 5y ago

bitcharmer 5y ago
The scale of today's sanctions against Russia is unprecedented. I don't think this study applies here in the slightest. We (the West) can't just invade Russia and enforce peace that way. Political, economical and cultural isolation is the next best thing we have. I fully support sanctions against them.
- mongol 5y ago
  Yes the sanctions against Russia feels almost nuclear in comparison to what we have seen kn the past. But still they can be tuned up higher, so I think they are not yet in nuclear territory
- blihp 5y ago
  I agree that the scope and scale of these sanctions are beyond anything I think we've seen before. However, I don't think that invalidates the question 'how effective are they really?' Let's not fool ourselves into thinking they will act as a short-term deterrent as current events are showing. Sure, they may very well cripple and/or even lead to the collapse of Putin's regime given enough time. (i.e. likely years or more) That's not much help to Ukraine in the time frame they have to operate in.
  - verve_rat 5y ago
    No, they might not help Ukraine, but they might stop the next one from happening.
    - blihp 5y ago
      Not likely as long as Russia has at least one major trading partner (i.e. China) who can redirect critical goods to them. If all major trading partners cut them off, then possibly.
    - ReptileMan 5y ago
      Doubt it. The US will never get punishment for Iraq and Afghanistan so the precedent of we go to war because we really want to will stay. The lesson will be - be better prepared.
      - verve_rat 5y ago
        For anyone with a brain watching the lesson will be: you get to invade other countries when you have enough friends, or at least, not enough opposition. Which has been the case since countries started being a thing.
  - mannerheim 5y ago
    It would certainly help Ukraine if Russia is deprived of the parts and material it needs to maintain equipment. E.g., Russian airlines will soon be in dire straits as sanctions are cutting off their access to vital replacement parts; sanctions could have a similar effect for Russia's air force.
  - sofixa 5y ago
    The Russian economy might very well implode soon ( weeks to months), and the rapid disappearance of many brands and types of products from the Russian market is probably highly unpopular with the population. If they're forced to send in reservists ( which isn't out of the question seeing how the initial Russian advance is stalled on basically all fronts), that will only add to the growing resentment. There's historical precedent for forced conscripts to turn around and fight against the authority conscripting them ( French Revolution, Russian Revolutions and Civil War).
    - 29athrowaway 5y ago
      Venezuela and Cuba have had sanctions for decades.
      - gassius 5y ago
        No. Venezuela had 'sanctions' starting on 2016, last year of Obama presidency. The scope of those sanctions is very limited to SOME individuals either in the Government and some business associates. There is no general embargo. And while the political scenario seems to no have changed very much, at least on the name and faces, the sanctions are the clear starting point on a big economic change that happened on 2018, where the economy opened up and was unofficially dollarized, probably by those who were not longer able to easily extract those dollars and euros into the US and EU (and fiscal paradises)like they were use to do. In this case, the sanctions had improved millions of lives and I guess that is good enough
      - sofixa 5y ago
        Not to the same extent they haven't, and even if that were not the case, there's a big difference - Russia was a developed-ish country. People have Internet everywhere, mobile phones, computers, gadgets, Netflix, Spotify, etc. Lots of heavy industry relying on imported machinery. Lots of exports. Cuba, North Korea didn't have any of those. Venezuela and Iran only share the export-reliant economy bit. If the goal is to make the population turn on Putin's regime, sanctions are more likely to work here than ever before.
  - tpm 5y ago
    They will cripple russian industry (already some factories stopped production) including parts of military production, which in itself means they are at least somewhat effective.
- indemnity 5y ago
  If anything, the sanctions are not enough. Bite the bullet, cut off all their energy exports. Putin stooges and apologists like to bring up European winter and industry. Whatever, Europe survived without Russian gas, there are substitutes even if they cost more Bringing Russia to her knees is worth the price.
- int_19h 5y ago
  You don't need to invade Russia to enforce peace. You just need to start targeting anything that crosses into Ukraine.
avereveard 5y ago
Tbh I don't care so much whether they're working or not, it's about public and private money from my country not financing war crimes that I do care about. A good chunk of euros Germany spent on Russian gas entered into the war machine killing people in Ukraine Economic isolation at least makes sure we're not paying for their bombs, and even for that goal alone they make sense. It's not about punishing, duh.
- mercy_dude 5y ago
  How about a large part of taxpayers money being used for buying oil and gas from Saudi? Or war in Afghanistan? Or the dire conditions of the factories where the fifth iphone upgrade was made? If you decide to wage a moral victory then at least do it at your own cost.
  - verve_rat 5y ago
    So you are saying that because we don't live in a perfect world, we should all do business with the scum of the Earth? It is all or nothing? We can never start with the case at hand and maybe do better on the other ones later? That's pretty sad dude.
    - mercy_dude 5y ago
      No my point is our warmongering regime needs a reason to continue the military spending spree. In an ideal world, we don’t have any business transactions with the Middle East where our values clearly don’t match and democracy is just a mockery for dictators to legitimize. Yet last I checked US is in bed with the Saudis even with after the 9/11 attack.
      - indemnity 5y ago
        Here is your 1 rouble payment comrade
      - verve_rat 5y ago
        Yes, and that is bad. But so is Russia. We should stop dealing with both, but not trading with one is better than trading with both, right?
jdrc 5y ago
Any iranians or north Koreans here to confirm?
- johnny22 5y ago
  I don't think any country that hasn't ever been part of the global economy in a serious way can be a good example.
  - barry-cotter 5y ago
    > The Anglo-Persian Oil Company (APOC) was a British company founded in 1909 following the discovery of a large oil field in Masjed Soleiman, Iran. The British government purchased 51% of the company in 1914,[1] gaining a controlling number of shares, effectively nationalizing the company. It was the first company to extract petroleum from Iran. In 1935 APOC was renamed the "Anglo-Iranian Oil Company" (AIOC) when Reza Shah Pahlavi formally asked foreign countries to refer to Persia by its endonym Iran. > Fate Became "British Petroleum Company", assets nationalised by the Iranian government https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anglo-Persian_Oil_Company https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anglo-Persian_Oil_Company
darawk 5y ago
A big part of the point of these sanctions is effectively communicating to the Russian people the scale of the rest of the world's disapproval of their government's actions. The Kremlin can propagandize all they like, but it's pretty tough to explain McDonald's and Coca Cola, both profit seeking companies, voluntarily choosing to withdraw operations from their country. It's a message that can cut through the propaganda and can't be ignored. The sanctions have already had a profound impact on the market valuations of Russian companies (they're not trading, but we know that impact is going to be enormous), and the Russian ruble. These things cause real tangible pain to Russian citizens and their government. Their ability to conduct a military campaign is going to be severely limited by the lack of available inputs and capital as well, in a mechanical way. These sanctions may not get Russia to change its course, but they will significantly impede their ability to operate.
- thriftwy 5y ago
  The sentiment is that "these companies are using our friendly disposition to try and force us do things for them in a pathetic fashion, by throwing a fit".
  - paganel 5y ago
    All that attitude does is that it puts the potential neutrals in Russia on Putin's side, after all the West is the side that has taken Coca Cola and bank credits and Big Macs out of their reach, why should they side with the Russians that approve of those people? at the limit they're traitors. The West will learn about the futility of all this pretty soon, but I doubt they'll change course, it's too late now, it will mean showing that "Putin has won".
    - watwut 5y ago
      Who are potential neutral? Why would those be useful to anyone? Russians by large stand by Putin or think Ukraine deserve it. That is with or without sanctions. Sanctions don't have potential to make Russians more passive or less likely to protest, because that society haven't done that for years. Putin cracked down on internal opposition years ago. That included murders of Russians. This is not the first war Russia is in either. And not much opposition was visible whole time.
tootahe45 5y ago
Unrelated to post, but does anyone know of a text-to-speech app that would allow me to listen to this or any other long text article in audio format?
NoPie 5y ago
They don't work but in this case it may have some effect. Cubans moan about US embargo and how unfair it is to them and how it only makes their lives harder while the elite doesn't care. And yet most Cubans clearly know that it is their socialistic government that is against them and not the west. In Russia the situation is that most people actually support Putin and his insane policies including the war. There is a minority which actually understands what is going on but it is not enough. The sanctions and economic hardships may help for others to come to their senses that when the whole world condemns this war with the exception of North Korea and Syria, then their must be something wrong with their leader and not the world.
- manojlds 5y ago
  > In Russia the situation is that most people actually support Putin How do you know this?
  - NoPie 5y ago
    There are many polls evidencing this. Also by personal contacts with Russians.
    - oleg_antonyan 5y ago
      Take those polls with a grain of salt: 1) they are all conducted by government or affiliates, independent ones are extinct 2) in danger people tend to stick with the power 3) you can get in trouble for saying anything against the regime, even in polls
      - NoPie 5y ago
        Of course, when you have a law that forbids saying it is a war in Ukraine, you have to take everything people say with a grain of salt. But it is still quite unequivocal that most people support Putin even if it is due to their lack of information. Here is more detailed explanation: https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/how-the-war-in-ukraine-might-change-putins-popularity-among-russians/ https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/how-the-war-in-ukraine-... I am surprised that you find this idea so unbelievable. I have many Russian friends and a lot of them are supporting Putin when talking in person. It is not about them not being able to speak against but very active being pro-Putin.
shmerl 5y ago
Oh, they work, alright. Depends on how severe things are.
- barry-cotter 5y ago
  I know. I mean, look at Iran and North Korea. Clear success.
  - shmerl 5y ago
    Good enough in containing them, sure. Now imagine not containing them. Iran especially is desperate to remove sanctions on oil trade, so they could pump more money into their military campaigns.
kstenerud 5y ago
This is another one of those unfortunately clickbait titled papers. What the paper actually states is: - Sanctions with economic goals have been demonstrated to work fairly well. - Sanctions alone with political goals are only demonstrated to work in a minority of studied cases. Sanctions combined with military action tend to perform better, but then you end up with problems teasing out causal effects. - Sanctions can be mitigated by whipping up nationalistic fervor, substitution via other avenues, and shifting the burden to disenfranchised groups. - The current research on this is crap quality. The breadth and scale of the current sanctions against Russia (far bigger and more comprehensive than any in history) will make substitution harder. As well, Russia is engaged in a very expensive war that is quickly depleting her coffers due to wastage, poor training, bad coordination, and low morale. With scores of Western countries actively supplying billions in arms to Ukraine, that does not bode well.
- trutic 5y ago
  Substitution won't be so hard if only Western nations impose sanctions. You will see countries like China stepping in, and becoming an intermediary. Nobody dares imposing sanctions on them though, so they won't be as effective.
  - kstenerud 5y ago
    Chinese companies are already shying away because they don't want to be sanctioned themselves. China is not self-sufficient enough that it can actively thumb its nose at American sanctions. There are specific institutions in China for bypassing sanctions, but they are a small minority and must be kept separate to avoid cross-contamination. This minimizes their utility. Also, Chinese support of Russia has cooled after this embarassing fiasco. China is more interested in not getting Russian dirt on them atm, since they have a housing and building crisis to manage, as well as a half-finished cultural revolution and self-sufficiency push that makes them more vulnerable for the moment. Now is not a good time for this shit.
    - spacemanmatt 5y ago
      > China is more interested in not getting Russian dirt on them atm I have always gotten the feeling that China collectively recognizes a paper tiger when they are politically engaged with one. My big lesson here is, Russians drank the domestic kool-aid, up to and including Putin.
IMSAI8080 5y ago
The author states they do not compare sanctions against military action. The author is assessing if sanctions achieved the goal of the sanctions. I think a way to think about sanctions is applying a tax to a country. It's not that the country won't find some way to evade the sanctions to achieve their goals but the cost of doing so is higher than it would have been otherwise. You might say sanctions fail against North Korea because they still import things. But when you look at all the crazy schemes they come up with to evade the sanctions, those have a cost to implement. For example they do mid ocean oil transfers from one ship to another. First you have to find a company willing to do that, then occasionally they get caught and the oil is returned to the origin country. Doing that must cost extra compared with just buying oil by regular methods.
bennyp101 5y ago
Is the point not to make it very clear to the general public that what is happening is bad? Like, in the current scenario, it might not be very well known what the truth is, so by enforcing sanctions it gets brought into the public eye - and even if you still believe what the government says, it must at least make you stop and wonder /why/ the rest of the world has suddenly stopped doing business with your country. At the very least it causes dissent in the populace, which is a very powerful tool
- deleted 5y ago
  [deleted]
KVFinn 5y ago
From the intro to this paper: "I do not address whether sanctions are an effective substitute for war." But isn't substituting for war the whole purpose of sanctions? Sanctions are a nonmilitary response to a military action. What is the alternative way for the world to respond to the invasion of Ukraine? The first goal of sanctions is to diminish the capability of the Russian economy to sustain a military invasion. The second goal is to be a chip at the negotiation table. Releasing sanctions can traded for a withdrawal, creating an incentive to end the invasion.
- derbOac 5y ago
  I think one of the reasons this situation is different, at least in modern experience, is because the sanctions are such a clear case of having hands tied. It's fairly obvious that if Russia were nonnuclear, this would have largely been over weeks ago, with the Russian military obliterated. Russia had its military piled up in one spot, has been engaging in unacceptable aggression, to the point of there being legitimate widespread war crimes, and there's a clear legitimate security threat to Europe. In any other case, NATO would have responded harshly and proactively and obliterated the Russian military almost completely. But they feel they can't due to nuclear risk, rightly or wrongly. So there's this huge dissonance, of something clearly morally disgusting, and a security threat, and something they're more than capable of addressing, but can't due to nuclear threat. This is really different from most sanctions in recent history, where the sanctions have been over something more distal, further away, maybe less morally repugnant, and/or not such a clear security risk to the NATO region, and/or where military action would be less justified or decisive. Kasparov has raised some important points in all of this, which is if the concern is really MAD, why would any military action by Russia against any other country, including a NATO country, be responded to differently by NATO? I think this, in turn, raises another function of sanctions which maybe hasn't been discussed yet, which is deterrence. Maybe the sanctions aren't enough to get Russia out of Ukraine, maybe they're not enough to remove Putin from power, but maybe they'd be enough to keep him from thinking about invading Finland or Estonia while his military is slowly being ground to dust in Ukraine, the spectre of conflict with Japan has been reignited, etc etc etc. For what it's worth, the West (and world) needs to make this more than about Russia. There has to be a way to respond to human rights and fundamental security violations without being hamstrung by the threat of loss of humankind.
karmasimida 5y ago
But it worked quite well so far. Now it is told to any other countries that if you plan to go with aggression to threaten the core interests of the west, better be prepared to the consequences of a complete cut from Western economy as whole. That is a pretty good example that Russia is setting. And it will have long lasting effect.
- brabel 5y ago
  > Now it is told to any other countries that if you plan to go with aggression to threaten the core interests of the west, better be prepared to the consequences of a complete cut from Western economy as whole. Can you see how that can't be very good for the West? Being seen as a bully who will force its way on others will just cause everyone else to stay the hell away from you if they can help it (admitedly, most can't help it - but China is already a viable alternative to parts of the world, and will just continue to grow its influence and it may seem like a more attractive partner who, at least so far, never tries to impose its ideology on anyone else).
  - karmasimida 5y ago
    > Being seen as a bully who will force its way on others Russia starts the war. They are the textbook bullies who forced their way on others, and worse through violence. In this case, the West are given a cause to act extreme. China will have alternatives of its own anyway, regardless. Other countries can choose hedge the risk of too integrated with the Western economy, but do they really trust China that much? It is indeed a question to be answered.
    - brabel 5y ago
      > They are the textbook bullies Russia is being a bully, not doubt... but what doubt is there that the West is responding by using textbook bully tactics as a response? If your point is that, at least the West is not using violence, then I totally agree. It's much less problematic to be an economic bully than a violent one.
    - macinjosh 5y ago
xiaodai 5y ago
Writes Putin
laichzeit0 5y ago
The sanctions against Russia are not just economic. They’re also being sanctioned from all sporting events, football, gymnastics, ice skating, Formula 1. How do you “substitute” that?
- int_19h 5y ago
  Like so: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spartakiad https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spartakiad
IncRnd 5y ago
This is a paper from 25 years ago that interprets a study that happened 37 to 32 years ago. That study used sanctions data from 1914 to 1990, which are 108 to 32 years ago. I'm not sure this paper is valid in any way for today.
ComradePhil 5y ago
I don't know how useful or interesting it is to know what has happened a handful of times it has been done before. Each instance is complex and unique and the same history is available to everyone involved... so it is very likely that things will be different in significant ways every time. What is happening now is rather easy to see. The US is claiming that these are designed to hinder Russian oligarchs in the long term. They're not designed to take effect in months or years. The problem with that is the Russian people will be impacted immediately and as unemployment and poverty grows, the Russian people will be more dependent on the government for everything much more so than they already are. This just gives them a very large population (145 million) on their side with not much to lose... which will put Europe in immense danger... which means good business for the American weapons industry, the puppetmasters of Biden.
lifeplusplus 5y ago
Won't sanctions allow local competitors, new Instagram, to take over?
- mannerheim 5y ago
  Only if they can find enough engineers. Supposedly, many Russians are so desperate to leave, that a ticket to Tbilisi costs thousands of dollars. They're fleeing to Armenia, Azerbaijan, Kazakhstan, Uzbekistan, Kyrgyzstan... Things must be grim indeed if Kazakhstan looks like a step up from staying in Russia.
skoczko 5y ago
The discussion about effectiveness of sanctions is made pointless by the fact that they are, next to sending arms, the only way the West can respond to Russian aggression. A military response is out of the question for obvious reasons. And sanction will work -- the reason the Soviet Union and the Eastern bloc collapsed is economic. People seem to forget that e.g what made workers go on a country-wide strike in the 80s Poland and eventually led to the downfall of communism in that country was not the notorious lack of freedom and media censorship but empty wallets. The situation here may be similar and the process can be long, possibly decades. I think what makes the situation worse for Russians is the fact that economic ties with the West are so much stronger compared to the 1950s. The Russian middle-class from big cities will be hit the hardest -- losing their good paying IT and finance jobs and facing a huge downgrade in the quality of life or facing emigration. It's true that the sanctions will have less effect on blue-collars or people from smaller town and villages, likely the main source of support for Putin and also the main audience for the state propaganda. But, I'd argue that the middle-class city dwellers are more influential and less prone to the propaganda. Oligarchs are another group key to influencing Russian politics and that's harder to reason about. On one hand losing one's yachts and houses on Cote d'Azur is a blow to the status. On the other hand their wealth comes from exploiting commodities and sanctions are unlikely to target that. On the contrary: in the short term the current situation is likely to be beneficial. If there's a silver lining for the EU, it might be accelerating the process of Green transformation. Even if the war ends tomorrow, I can't see there being any support for retaining existing level of dependence on Russian oil and gas. That ship has sailed. Countries that will remain dependent on Russian fossil fuels, e.g Hungary, have visibly strong autocratic tendencies and will be increasingly ostracised in the EU, possibly eventually leaving it.
EugeneOZ 5y ago
We can see some effect of the sanctions right now, and it's significant. But they didn't stop the war yet, unfortunately. Corruption in the russian army is a bigger stopper than sanctions right now. Maybe sanctions will help to overthrow Putin in 3-7 years, but how expensive this waiting might be for Ukraine? Even if it will take just 1 year - this war created an enormous amount of suffering in 2 weeks, it's difficult even to think about the possible damage from 1 year of the war. What helps much, much more than sanctions: unmanned aircraft units, Bayraktars. Turkey (a NATO country) helped Ukraine, and I wonder why other countries can not send (without the soldiers) some unmanned aircraft units or F35? They create a really HUGE effect. If you are reading this and you are a citizen of some western country, please consider asking your representatives, if they can start a discussion about sending such help to Ukraine.

61 points by monort 5y ago

The scale of today's sanctions against Russia is unprecedented. I don't think this study applies here in the slightest. We (the West) can't just invade Russia and enforce peace that way. Political, economical and cultural isolation is the next best thing we have. I fully support sanctions against them.

mongol 5y ago
Yes the sanctions against Russia feels almost nuclear in comparison to what we have seen kn the past. But still they can be tuned up higher, so I think they are not yet in nuclear territory
blihp 5y ago
I agree that the scope and scale of these sanctions are beyond anything I think we've seen before. However, I don't think that invalidates the question 'how effective are they really?' Let's not fool ourselves into thinking they will act as a short-term deterrent as current events are showing. Sure, they may very well cripple and/or even lead to the collapse of Putin's regime given enough time. (i.e. likely years or more) That's not much help to Ukraine in the time frame they have to operate in.
- verve_rat 5y ago
  No, they might not help Ukraine, but they might stop the next one from happening.
  - blihp 5y ago
    Not likely as long as Russia has at least one major trading partner (i.e. China) who can redirect critical goods to them. If all major trading partners cut them off, then possibly.
  - ReptileMan 5y ago
    Doubt it. The US will never get punishment for Iraq and Afghanistan so the precedent of we go to war because we really want to will stay. The lesson will be - be better prepared.
    - verve_rat 5y ago
      For anyone with a brain watching the lesson will be: you get to invade other countries when you have enough friends, or at least, not enough opposition. Which has been the case since countries started being a thing.
- mannerheim 5y ago
  It would certainly help Ukraine if Russia is deprived of the parts and material it needs to maintain equipment. E.g., Russian airlines will soon be in dire straits as sanctions are cutting off their access to vital replacement parts; sanctions could have a similar effect for Russia's air force.
- sofixa 5y ago
  The Russian economy might very well implode soon ( weeks to months), and the rapid disappearance of many brands and types of products from the Russian market is probably highly unpopular with the population. If they're forced to send in reservists ( which isn't out of the question seeing how the initial Russian advance is stalled on basically all fronts), that will only add to the growing resentment. There's historical precedent for forced conscripts to turn around and fight against the authority conscripting them ( French Revolution, Russian Revolutions and Civil War).
  - 29athrowaway 5y ago
    Venezuela and Cuba have had sanctions for decades.
    - gassius 5y ago
      No. Venezuela had 'sanctions' starting on 2016, last year of Obama presidency. The scope of those sanctions is very limited to SOME individuals either in the Government and some business associates. There is no general embargo. And while the political scenario seems to no have changed very much, at least on the name and faces, the sanctions are the clear starting point on a big economic change that happened on 2018, where the economy opened up and was unofficially dollarized, probably by those who were not longer able to easily extract those dollars and euros into the US and EU (and fiscal paradises)like they were use to do. In this case, the sanctions had improved millions of lives and I guess that is good enough
    - sofixa 5y ago
      Not to the same extent they haven't, and even if that were not the case, there's a big difference - Russia was a developed-ish country. People have Internet everywhere, mobile phones, computers, gadgets, Netflix, Spotify, etc. Lots of heavy industry relying on imported machinery. Lots of exports. Cuba, North Korea didn't have any of those. Venezuela and Iran only share the export-reliant economy bit. If the goal is to make the population turn on Putin's regime, sanctions are more likely to work here than ever before.
- tpm 5y ago
  They will cripple russian industry (already some factories stopped production) including parts of military production, which in itself means they are at least somewhat effective.
indemnity 5y ago
If anything, the sanctions are not enough. Bite the bullet, cut off all their energy exports. Putin stooges and apologists like to bring up European winter and industry. Whatever, Europe survived without Russian gas, there are substitutes even if they cost more Bringing Russia to her knees is worth the price.
int_19h 5y ago
You don't need to invade Russia to enforce peace. You just need to start targeting anything that crosses into Ukraine.

avereveard 5y ago

Tbh I don't care so much whether they're working or not, it's about public and private money from my country not financing war crimes that I do care about. A good chunk of euros Germany spent on Russian gas entered into the war machine killing people in Ukraine Economic isolation at least makes sure we're not paying for their bombs, and even for that goal alone they make sense. It's not about punishing, duh.

mercy_dude 5y ago
How about a large part of taxpayers money being used for buying oil and gas from Saudi? Or war in Afghanistan? Or the dire conditions of the factories where the fifth iphone upgrade was made? If you decide to wage a moral victory then at least do it at your own cost.
- verve_rat 5y ago
  So you are saying that because we don't live in a perfect world, we should all do business with the scum of the Earth? It is all or nothing? We can never start with the case at hand and maybe do better on the other ones later? That's pretty sad dude.
  - mercy_dude 5y ago
    No my point is our warmongering regime needs a reason to continue the military spending spree. In an ideal world, we don’t have any business transactions with the Middle East where our values clearly don’t match and democracy is just a mockery for dictators to legitimize. Yet last I checked US is in bed with the Saudis even with after the 9/11 attack.
    - indemnity 5y ago
      Here is your 1 rouble payment comrade
    - verve_rat 5y ago
      Yes, and that is bad. But so is Russia. We should stop dealing with both, but not trading with one is better than trading with both, right?

jdrc 5y ago

Any iranians or north Koreans here to confirm?

johnny22 5y ago
I don't think any country that hasn't ever been part of the global economy in a serious way can be a good example.
- barry-cotter 5y ago
  > The Anglo-Persian Oil Company (APOC) was a British company founded in 1909 following the discovery of a large oil field in Masjed Soleiman, Iran. The British government purchased 51% of the company in 1914,[1] gaining a controlling number of shares, effectively nationalizing the company. It was the first company to extract petroleum from Iran. In 1935 APOC was renamed the "Anglo-Iranian Oil Company" (AIOC) when Reza Shah Pahlavi formally asked foreign countries to refer to Persia by its endonym Iran. > Fate Became "British Petroleum Company", assets nationalised by the Iranian government https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anglo-Persian_Oil_Company https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anglo-Persian_Oil_Company

darawk 5y ago

A big part of the point of these sanctions is effectively communicating to the Russian people the scale of the rest of the world's disapproval of their government's actions. The Kremlin can propagandize all they like, but it's pretty tough to explain McDonald's and Coca Cola, both profit seeking companies, voluntarily choosing to withdraw operations from their country. It's a message that can cut through the propaganda and can't be ignored. The sanctions have already had a profound impact on the market valuations of Russian companies (they're not trading, but we know that impact is going to be enormous), and the Russian ruble. These things cause real tangible pain to Russian citizens and their government. Their ability to conduct a military campaign is going to be severely limited by the lack of available inputs and capital as well, in a mechanical way. These sanctions may not get Russia to change its course, but they will significantly impede their ability to operate.

thriftwy 5y ago
The sentiment is that "these companies are using our friendly disposition to try and force us do things for them in a pathetic fashion, by throwing a fit".
- paganel 5y ago
  All that attitude does is that it puts the potential neutrals in Russia on Putin's side, after all the West is the side that has taken Coca Cola and bank credits and Big Macs out of their reach, why should they side with the Russians that approve of those people? at the limit they're traitors. The West will learn about the futility of all this pretty soon, but I doubt they'll change course, it's too late now, it will mean showing that "Putin has won".
  - watwut 5y ago
    Who are potential neutral? Why would those be useful to anyone? Russians by large stand by Putin or think Ukraine deserve it. That is with or without sanctions. Sanctions don't have potential to make Russians more passive or less likely to protest, because that society haven't done that for years. Putin cracked down on internal opposition years ago. That included murders of Russians. This is not the first war Russia is in either. And not much opposition was visible whole time.

tootahe45 5y ago

Unrelated to post, but does anyone know of a text-to-speech app that would allow me to listen to this or any other long text article in audio format?

NoPie 5y ago

They don't work but in this case it may have some effect. Cubans moan about US embargo and how unfair it is to them and how it only makes their lives harder while the elite doesn't care. And yet most Cubans clearly know that it is their socialistic government that is against them and not the west. In Russia the situation is that most people actually support Putin and his insane policies including the war. There is a minority which actually understands what is going on but it is not enough. The sanctions and economic hardships may help for others to come to their senses that when the whole world condemns this war with the exception of North Korea and Syria, then their must be something wrong with their leader and not the world.

manojlds 5y ago
> In Russia the situation is that most people actually support Putin How do you know this?
- NoPie 5y ago
  There are many polls evidencing this. Also by personal contacts with Russians.
  - oleg_antonyan 5y ago
    Take those polls with a grain of salt: 1) they are all conducted by government or affiliates, independent ones are extinct 2) in danger people tend to stick with the power 3) you can get in trouble for saying anything against the regime, even in polls
    - NoPie 5y ago
      Of course, when you have a law that forbids saying it is a war in Ukraine, you have to take everything people say with a grain of salt. But it is still quite unequivocal that most people support Putin even if it is due to their lack of information. Here is more detailed explanation: https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/how-the-war-in-ukraine-might-change-putins-popularity-among-russians/ https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/how-the-war-in-ukraine-... I am surprised that you find this idea so unbelievable. I have many Russian friends and a lot of them are supporting Putin when talking in person. It is not about them not being able to speak against but very active being pro-Putin.

shmerl 5y ago

Oh, they work, alright. Depends on how severe things are.

barry-cotter 5y ago
I know. I mean, look at Iran and North Korea. Clear success.
- shmerl 5y ago
  Good enough in containing them, sure. Now imagine not containing them. Iran especially is desperate to remove sanctions on oil trade, so they could pump more money into their military campaigns.

kstenerud 5y ago

This is another one of those unfortunately clickbait titled papers. What the paper actually states is: - Sanctions with economic goals have been demonstrated to work fairly well. - Sanctions alone with political goals are only demonstrated to work in a minority of studied cases. Sanctions combined with military action tend to perform better, but then you end up with problems teasing out causal effects. - Sanctions can be mitigated by whipping up nationalistic fervor, substitution via other avenues, and shifting the burden to disenfranchised groups. - The current research on this is crap quality. The breadth and scale of the current sanctions against Russia (far bigger and more comprehensive than any in history) will make substitution harder. As well, Russia is engaged in a very expensive war that is quickly depleting her coffers due to wastage, poor training, bad coordination, and low morale. With scores of Western countries actively supplying billions in arms to Ukraine, that does not bode well.

trutic 5y ago
Substitution won't be so hard if only Western nations impose sanctions. You will see countries like China stepping in, and becoming an intermediary. Nobody dares imposing sanctions on them though, so they won't be as effective.
- kstenerud 5y ago
  Chinese companies are already shying away because they don't want to be sanctioned themselves. China is not self-sufficient enough that it can actively thumb its nose at American sanctions. There are specific institutions in China for bypassing sanctions, but they are a small minority and must be kept separate to avoid cross-contamination. This minimizes their utility. Also, Chinese support of Russia has cooled after this embarassing fiasco. China is more interested in not getting Russian dirt on them atm, since they have a housing and building crisis to manage, as well as a half-finished cultural revolution and self-sufficiency push that makes them more vulnerable for the moment. Now is not a good time for this shit.
  - spacemanmatt 5y ago
    > China is more interested in not getting Russian dirt on them atm I have always gotten the feeling that China collectively recognizes a paper tiger when they are politically engaged with one. My big lesson here is, Russians drank the domestic kool-aid, up to and including Putin.

IMSAI8080 5y ago

The author states they do not compare sanctions against military action. The author is assessing if sanctions achieved the goal of the sanctions. I think a way to think about sanctions is applying a tax to a country. It's not that the country won't find some way to evade the sanctions to achieve their goals but the cost of doing so is higher than it would have been otherwise. You might say sanctions fail against North Korea because they still import things. But when you look at all the crazy schemes they come up with to evade the sanctions, those have a cost to implement. For example they do mid ocean oil transfers from one ship to another. First you have to find a company willing to do that, then occasionally they get caught and the oil is returned to the origin country. Doing that must cost extra compared with just buying oil by regular methods.

bennyp101 5y ago

Is the point not to make it very clear to the general public that what is happening is bad? Like, in the current scenario, it might not be very well known what the truth is, so by enforcing sanctions it gets brought into the public eye - and even if you still believe what the government says, it must at least make you stop and wonder /why/ the rest of the world has suddenly stopped doing business with your country. At the very least it causes dissent in the populace, which is a very powerful tool

deleted 5y ago
[deleted]

KVFinn 5y ago

From the intro to this paper: "I do not address whether sanctions are an effective substitute for war." But isn't substituting for war the whole purpose of sanctions? Sanctions are a nonmilitary response to a military action. What is the alternative way for the world to respond to the invasion of Ukraine? The first goal of sanctions is to diminish the capability of the Russian economy to sustain a military invasion. The second goal is to be a chip at the negotiation table. Releasing sanctions can traded for a withdrawal, creating an incentive to end the invasion.

derbOac 5y ago
I think one of the reasons this situation is different, at least in modern experience, is because the sanctions are such a clear case of having hands tied. It's fairly obvious that if Russia were nonnuclear, this would have largely been over weeks ago, with the Russian military obliterated. Russia had its military piled up in one spot, has been engaging in unacceptable aggression, to the point of there being legitimate widespread war crimes, and there's a clear legitimate security threat to Europe. In any other case, NATO would have responded harshly and proactively and obliterated the Russian military almost completely. But they feel they can't due to nuclear risk, rightly or wrongly. So there's this huge dissonance, of something clearly morally disgusting, and a security threat, and something they're more than capable of addressing, but can't due to nuclear threat. This is really different from most sanctions in recent history, where the sanctions have been over something more distal, further away, maybe less morally repugnant, and/or not such a clear security risk to the NATO region, and/or where military action would be less justified or decisive. Kasparov has raised some important points in all of this, which is if the concern is really MAD, why would any military action by Russia against any other country, including a NATO country, be responded to differently by NATO? I think this, in turn, raises another function of sanctions which maybe hasn't been discussed yet, which is deterrence. Maybe the sanctions aren't enough to get Russia out of Ukraine, maybe they're not enough to remove Putin from power, but maybe they'd be enough to keep him from thinking about invading Finland or Estonia while his military is slowly being ground to dust in Ukraine, the spectre of conflict with Japan has been reignited, etc etc etc. For what it's worth, the West (and world) needs to make this more than about Russia. There has to be a way to respond to human rights and fundamental security violations without being hamstrung by the threat of loss of humankind.

karmasimida 5y ago

But it worked quite well so far. Now it is told to any other countries that if you plan to go with aggression to threaten the core interests of the west, better be prepared to the consequences of a complete cut from Western economy as whole. That is a pretty good example that Russia is setting. And it will have long lasting effect.

brabel 5y ago
> Now it is told to any other countries that if you plan to go with aggression to threaten the core interests of the west, better be prepared to the consequences of a complete cut from Western economy as whole. Can you see how that can't be very good for the West? Being seen as a bully who will force its way on others will just cause everyone else to stay the hell away from you if they can help it (admitedly, most can't help it - but China is already a viable alternative to parts of the world, and will just continue to grow its influence and it may seem like a more attractive partner who, at least so far, never tries to impose its ideology on anyone else).
- karmasimida 5y ago
  > Being seen as a bully who will force its way on others Russia starts the war. They are the textbook bullies who forced their way on others, and worse through violence. In this case, the West are given a cause to act extreme. China will have alternatives of its own anyway, regardless. Other countries can choose hedge the risk of too integrated with the Western economy, but do they really trust China that much? It is indeed a question to be answered.
  - brabel 5y ago
    > They are the textbook bullies Russia is being a bully, not doubt... but what doubt is there that the West is responding by using textbook bully tactics as a response? If your point is that, at least the West is not using violence, then I totally agree. It's much less problematic to be an economic bully than a violent one.
  - macinjosh 5y ago

xiaodai 5y ago

Writes Putin

laichzeit0 5y ago

The sanctions against Russia are not just economic. They’re also being sanctioned from all sporting events, football, gymnastics, ice skating, Formula 1. How do you “substitute” that?

int_19h 5y ago
Like so: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spartakiad https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spartakiad

IncRnd 5y ago

This is a paper from 25 years ago that interprets a study that happened 37 to 32 years ago. That study used sanctions data from 1914 to 1990, which are 108 to 32 years ago. I'm not sure this paper is valid in any way for today.

ComradePhil 5y ago

I don't know how useful or interesting it is to know what has happened a handful of times it has been done before. Each instance is complex and unique and the same history is available to everyone involved... so it is very likely that things will be different in significant ways every time. What is happening now is rather easy to see. The US is claiming that these are designed to hinder Russian oligarchs in the long term. They're not designed to take effect in months or years. The problem with that is the Russian people will be impacted immediately and as unemployment and poverty grows, the Russian people will be more dependent on the government for everything much more so than they already are. This just gives them a very large population (145 million) on their side with not much to lose... which will put Europe in immense danger... which means good business for the American weapons industry, the puppetmasters of Biden.

lifeplusplus 5y ago

Won't sanctions allow local competitors, new Instagram, to take over?

mannerheim 5y ago
Only if they can find enough engineers. Supposedly, many Russians are so desperate to leave, that a ticket to Tbilisi costs thousands of dollars. They're fleeing to Armenia, Azerbaijan, Kazakhstan, Uzbekistan, Kyrgyzstan... Things must be grim indeed if Kazakhstan looks like a step up from staying in Russia.

skoczko 5y ago

The discussion about effectiveness of sanctions is made pointless by the fact that they are, next to sending arms, the only way the West can respond to Russian aggression. A military response is out of the question for obvious reasons. And sanction will work -- the reason the Soviet Union and the Eastern bloc collapsed is economic. People seem to forget that e.g what made workers go on a country-wide strike in the 80s Poland and eventually led to the downfall of communism in that country was not the notorious lack of freedom and media censorship but empty wallets. The situation here may be similar and the process can be long, possibly decades. I think what makes the situation worse for Russians is the fact that economic ties with the West are so much stronger compared to the 1950s. The Russian middle-class from big cities will be hit the hardest -- losing their good paying IT and finance jobs and facing a huge downgrade in the quality of life or facing emigration. It's true that the sanctions will have less effect on blue-collars or people from smaller town and villages, likely the main source of support for Putin and also the main audience for the state propaganda. But, I'd argue that the middle-class city dwellers are more influential and less prone to the propaganda. Oligarchs are another group key to influencing Russian politics and that's harder to reason about. On one hand losing one's yachts and houses on Cote d'Azur is a blow to the status. On the other hand their wealth comes from exploiting commodities and sanctions are unlikely to target that. On the contrary: in the short term the current situation is likely to be beneficial. If there's a silver lining for the EU, it might be accelerating the process of Green transformation. Even if the war ends tomorrow, I can't see there being any support for retaining existing level of dependence on Russian oil and gas. That ship has sailed. Countries that will remain dependent on Russian fossil fuels, e.g Hungary, have visibly strong autocratic tendencies and will be increasingly ostracised in the EU, possibly eventually leaving it.

EugeneOZ 5y ago

We can see some effect of the sanctions right now, and it's significant. But they didn't stop the war yet, unfortunately. Corruption in the russian army is a bigger stopper than sanctions right now. Maybe sanctions will help to overthrow Putin in 3-7 years, but how expensive this waiting might be for Ukraine? Even if it will take just 1 year - this war created an enormous amount of suffering in 2 weeks, it's difficult even to think about the possible damage from 1 year of the war. What helps much, much more than sanctions: unmanned aircraft units, Bayraktars. Turkey (a NATO country) helped Ukraine, and I wonder why other countries can not send (without the soldiers) some unmanned aircraft units or F35? They create a really HUGE effect. If you are reading this and you are a citizen of some western country, please consider asking your representatives, if they can start a discussion about sending such help to Ukraine.