5 ms·

This is another one of those unfortunately clickbait titled papers. What the paper actually states is: - Sanctions with economic goals have been demonstrated t

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.
nonrandomstring 5y ago
I got more or less the same from the article. Pape says the data (HSE database) is flawed and that the logic of sanctions is flawed. We've never properly evaluated their impact. And we cannot separate their effect from military actions which almost always occur simultaneously. He says that sanctions fail because there is rarely coherent international cooperation - actually that seems to be different in the present Ukraine crisis. Also that nationalism drives sanctioned countries closer together into a more dogged position. Possibly that's true in Russia. 48 pages of academic prose is too much for a Sunday morning, so my take-away is light - it's not that economic sanctions are ineffective but that we have no real understanding of how effective they are, and if so why.
- roenxi 5y ago
  I was skimming through a Wikipedia article the other day that suggests there is not much unity [0, 1]. From those two UN votes it looks like Asia is more or less neutral and will be happy to trade for Russia's energy and resources. And that is just an official UN vote, what actually happens in cynical practice will look even more opportunistic. [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:United_Nations_General_Assembly_resolution_ES-11_L.1_vote.svg https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:United_Nations_General_As... [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:International_reactions_to_the_2022_Russian_invasion_of_Ukraine.svg https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:International_reactions_t...
Simon_O_Rourke 5y ago
Well said, that article had lots of qualified statements that were not reflected in the headline. Russia is in a bad way financially, and I'm not sure what their "peace with honor" exit strategy is.
- tenpies 5y ago
  "Russia is in a bad way financially" is accurate, but from a Western perspective. Russia is obscenely rich in oil, gas, and almost every commodity. Russia is USD poor, gold reserve rich (even with the West stealing some of it), and long literally every input material that the West will need for the massive infrastructure projects it claims to want for ESG purposes. Give it six months and when massive famines tear through most of the Third World (a term that is suddenly applicable in its Cold War era meaning), Russia will not have food security issues. Gas will be obscene expensive in Europe, but cheap in Russia. All these benefits will be extended to countries that chose to continue to trade with Russia. Want food security? Here is some Russian wheat available at a reasonable price . . . or you can import some very expensive American one. To put it simply, Russia's "peace and honor" strategy is to run the timer. Let the West's self-destructive sanctions work. Destroying yourself economically over Ukraine is the definition of a luxury belief, and most of the world has no room for luxury beliefs. Whether their wheat is coming from a corrupt Ukrainian government or a corrupt Russian government makes no difference as long as it comes.
  - kristiandupont 5y ago
    I think that "run the timer" might well have been the initial strategy for the reasons you state but I think it's naïve to think that things are progressing according to that strategy. The sanctions are much harder than anyone predicted and with a country that is, unlike North Korea, tightly integrated in supply chains through the world, they are hitting Russia hard. Now, Putin may not care about that and he obviously has no problem with letting people suffer so the war might continue for a few weeks but I doubt that we will see it lasting years, simply because I think they will not have the resources.
    - 5y ago
xcambar 5y ago
Your statement about Russia and its current engagement is correct (from what I read). But the bigger point: while we wait and expect Putin to somehow fail (economically, militarily, or both), Ukrainians are dying. Edit: when I write "wait", I mean "wait while the economic sanctions have a big enough impact". I'm not suggesting that nothing is being done neither that we should (or should not) engage militarily.
- EGreg 5y ago
  Backing Putin into a corner politically isn't going to lead him to retreat. Rather than doubling down on sanctions and promising ever-more draconian measures, the Biden administration should be developing "off ramps" or ways to de-escalate the conflict by giving Putin some sort of face-saving measure to withdraw or abide by a settlement that gives maximum peace and safety to Ukraine and stability and security to Europe.
  - xcambar 5y ago
    Absolutely. As a European, I see Biden as less involved than his EU counterparts. Especially Macron and Scholz, at the moment. But I'd accept there could be a bias here :D
  - moring 5y ago
    > (...) or ways to de-escalate the conflict by giving Putin some sort of face-saving measure (...) One thing I never understood is what "face-saving" means in this context. Could somebody try to explain that? Edit: to explain the question -- to me as a political and military layman in central Europe, it seems that the most face-saving move is to return to Russia and stop the war. Anything else would be worse. So either the key point is that I'm not the audience of such a move (who then? My guess is Russian politicians, military, or civilians), or I'm seriously getting wrong how one's moves are interpreted on the geopolitical stage.
    - zardo 5y ago
      I'm not sure if 'face' is actually something that motivates Putin. But it essentially means an option he can spin as a win, or at least not a loss.
david_draco 5y ago
They hammer on effectiveness, in juxtaposition with "wars being effective" (how do you measure this, are they really resolving problems?). Yet they claim they do not want to compare. In any case, even if economic sanctions were 3x less effective, it is reasonable to choose it over war, where the omnipresence of violence and uncertainty causes massive, large-scale trauma.
- int_19h 5y ago
  The war is already happening; the question now is, who wins it.
anticristi 5y ago
Grotesque question: What is on the "war invoice" for Russia? Rockets, fighter jets and tanks were already paid for. Fuel costs zero if you are a dictatorship with petrol in your backyard. Salaries are probably just printed money. As recently as March 12th, Putin showed unwillingness to end the war. This means that either: A. He lives in an alternative reality. B. He is bluffing. C. Economic sanctions don't affect the war machine as much as we hoped for.
- kstenerud 5y ago
  Everything costs. Refining fuel, transporting fuel & munitions & personnel, paying soldiers, logistics, food, intelligence, maintenance, supply lines... it all costs - a LOT. And it's even worse doing it in a country full of people who are now hostile. Just because you're printing money doesn't change the actual real cost. If your salary can't even buy food for a day, you notice. Putin is trying to stave off inflation by keeping the markets closed and blocking capital flight, but that only gives a little bit of breathing room. Stores are running out of their pre-shock stock, and once that happens everything goes crazy. This happened because Putin trusted his FSP reports too much, underestimating just how badly they were lying to appease their superiors (you get forced to redo reports until they show at least a minimum of optimism). Putin knows they're lies from his own time there, but somehow he still vastly underestimated. Reports of 10,000 missiles turned out to actually be 1/10 of that. Fighting force readiness was grossly exaggerated. SVR also exaggerated Ukrainian desires - he actually thought that he'd be welcomed, and that any resistance would be from agents provocateurs and splinter groups (thus his 1-day estimate to complete the takeover of Ukraine). Now he's stuck, and angry, arresting members of his intelligence service and sacking military commanders when he has none to spare. This is not how the cold, calculating Putin we've all known behaves. He's rolling the dice again and again, upping the stakes and hoping for the big payoff. I suppose that's understandable since it's now his neck at stake. We do know, however, that he's not insane. He's avoided attacking NATO countries or weapons convoys, and is instead going for intimidation (like with the rocket attack 15km from the Polish border) and sieges (attacking and mining humanitarian corridors). But he's been bluffing so much now that it's lost its effectiveness. The West knows they've got him, that his military is a shambles, that no one will help him, that the oligarchs are scared, and that he's spending the country into oblivion. All they have to do is wait. The Ukrainians will fight to the death, so there's no real danger of Russia actually taking Ukraine - just provide enough weaponry and they'll hold out for as long as it takes. Russian intelligence predicts that the war can only be sustained until June. I personally believe this to be laughably optimistic.

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.

nonrandomstring 5y ago

I got more or less the same from the article. Pape says the data (HSE database) is flawed and that the logic of sanctions is flawed. We've never properly evaluated their impact. And we cannot separate their effect from military actions which almost always occur simultaneously. He says that sanctions fail because there is rarely coherent international cooperation - actually that seems to be different in the present Ukraine crisis. Also that nationalism drives sanctioned countries closer together into a more dogged position. Possibly that's true in Russia. 48 pages of academic prose is too much for a Sunday morning, so my take-away is light - it's not that economic sanctions are ineffective but that we have no real understanding of how effective they are, and if so why.

roenxi 5y ago
I was skimming through a Wikipedia article the other day that suggests there is not much unity [0, 1]. From those two UN votes it looks like Asia is more or less neutral and will be happy to trade for Russia's energy and resources. And that is just an official UN vote, what actually happens in cynical practice will look even more opportunistic. [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:United_Nations_General_Assembly_resolution_ES-11_L.1_vote.svg https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:United_Nations_General_As... [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:International_reactions_to_the_2022_Russian_invasion_of_Ukraine.svg https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:International_reactions_t...

Simon_O_Rourke 5y ago

Well said, that article had lots of qualified statements that were not reflected in the headline. Russia is in a bad way financially, and I'm not sure what their "peace with honor" exit strategy is.

tenpies 5y ago
"Russia is in a bad way financially" is accurate, but from a Western perspective. Russia is obscenely rich in oil, gas, and almost every commodity. Russia is USD poor, gold reserve rich (even with the West stealing some of it), and long literally every input material that the West will need for the massive infrastructure projects it claims to want for ESG purposes. Give it six months and when massive famines tear through most of the Third World (a term that is suddenly applicable in its Cold War era meaning), Russia will not have food security issues. Gas will be obscene expensive in Europe, but cheap in Russia. All these benefits will be extended to countries that chose to continue to trade with Russia. Want food security? Here is some Russian wheat available at a reasonable price . . . or you can import some very expensive American one. To put it simply, Russia's "peace and honor" strategy is to run the timer. Let the West's self-destructive sanctions work. Destroying yourself economically over Ukraine is the definition of a luxury belief, and most of the world has no room for luxury beliefs. Whether their wheat is coming from a corrupt Ukrainian government or a corrupt Russian government makes no difference as long as it comes.
- kristiandupont 5y ago
  I think that "run the timer" might well have been the initial strategy for the reasons you state but I think it's naïve to think that things are progressing according to that strategy. The sanctions are much harder than anyone predicted and with a country that is, unlike North Korea, tightly integrated in supply chains through the world, they are hitting Russia hard. Now, Putin may not care about that and he obviously has no problem with letting people suffer so the war might continue for a few weeks but I doubt that we will see it lasting years, simply because I think they will not have the resources.
  - 5y ago

xcambar 5y ago

Your statement about Russia and its current engagement is correct (from what I read). But the bigger point: while we wait and expect Putin to somehow fail (economically, militarily, or both), Ukrainians are dying. Edit: when I write "wait", I mean "wait while the economic sanctions have a big enough impact". I'm not suggesting that nothing is being done neither that we should (or should not) engage militarily.

EGreg 5y ago
Backing Putin into a corner politically isn't going to lead him to retreat. Rather than doubling down on sanctions and promising ever-more draconian measures, the Biden administration should be developing "off ramps" or ways to de-escalate the conflict by giving Putin some sort of face-saving measure to withdraw or abide by a settlement that gives maximum peace and safety to Ukraine and stability and security to Europe.
- xcambar 5y ago
  Absolutely. As a European, I see Biden as less involved than his EU counterparts. Especially Macron and Scholz, at the moment. But I'd accept there could be a bias here :D
- moring 5y ago
  > (...) or ways to de-escalate the conflict by giving Putin some sort of face-saving measure (...) One thing I never understood is what "face-saving" means in this context. Could somebody try to explain that? Edit: to explain the question -- to me as a political and military layman in central Europe, it seems that the most face-saving move is to return to Russia and stop the war. Anything else would be worse. So either the key point is that I'm not the audience of such a move (who then? My guess is Russian politicians, military, or civilians), or I'm seriously getting wrong how one's moves are interpreted on the geopolitical stage.
  - zardo 5y ago
    I'm not sure if 'face' is actually something that motivates Putin. But it essentially means an option he can spin as a win, or at least not a loss.

david_draco 5y ago

They hammer on effectiveness, in juxtaposition with "wars being effective" (how do you measure this, are they really resolving problems?). Yet they claim they do not want to compare. In any case, even if economic sanctions were 3x less effective, it is reasonable to choose it over war, where the omnipresence of violence and uncertainty causes massive, large-scale trauma.

int_19h 5y ago
The war is already happening; the question now is, who wins it.

anticristi 5y ago

Grotesque question: What is on the "war invoice" for Russia? Rockets, fighter jets and tanks were already paid for. Fuel costs zero if you are a dictatorship with petrol in your backyard. Salaries are probably just printed money. As recently as March 12th, Putin showed unwillingness to end the war. This means that either: A. He lives in an alternative reality. B. He is bluffing. C. Economic sanctions don't affect the war machine as much as we hoped for.

kstenerud 5y ago
Everything costs. Refining fuel, transporting fuel & munitions & personnel, paying soldiers, logistics, food, intelligence, maintenance, supply lines... it all costs - a LOT. And it's even worse doing it in a country full of people who are now hostile. Just because you're printing money doesn't change the actual real cost. If your salary can't even buy food for a day, you notice. Putin is trying to stave off inflation by keeping the markets closed and blocking capital flight, but that only gives a little bit of breathing room. Stores are running out of their pre-shock stock, and once that happens everything goes crazy. This happened because Putin trusted his FSP reports too much, underestimating just how badly they were lying to appease their superiors (you get forced to redo reports until they show at least a minimum of optimism). Putin knows they're lies from his own time there, but somehow he still vastly underestimated. Reports of 10,000 missiles turned out to actually be 1/10 of that. Fighting force readiness was grossly exaggerated. SVR also exaggerated Ukrainian desires - he actually thought that he'd be welcomed, and that any resistance would be from agents provocateurs and splinter groups (thus his 1-day estimate to complete the takeover of Ukraine). Now he's stuck, and angry, arresting members of his intelligence service and sacking military commanders when he has none to spare. This is not how the cold, calculating Putin we've all known behaves. He's rolling the dice again and again, upping the stakes and hoping for the big payoff. I suppose that's understandable since it's now his neck at stake. We do know, however, that he's not insane. He's avoided attacking NATO countries or weapons convoys, and is instead going for intimidation (like with the rocket attack 15km from the Polish border) and sieges (attacking and mining humanitarian corridors). But he's been bluffing so much now that it's lost its effectiveness. The West knows they've got him, that his military is a shambles, that no one will help him, that the oligarchs are scared, and that he's spending the country into oblivion. All they have to do is wait. The Ukrainians will fight to the death, so there's no real danger of Russia actually taking Ukraine - just provide enough weaponry and they'll hold out for as long as it takes. Russian intelligence predicts that the war can only be sustained until June. I personally believe this to be laughably optimistic.