Russia’s invasion of Ukraine has brought about an unprecedented international response, both in terms of speed and magnitude. We have already written about the background for the conflict, in which we can find reasons for why the reaction from the west has been so forceful, but apart from understanding that America and her allies are not entirely without responsibility for the conflict and certainly have a huge geo-political stake in it, it is also pertinent to consider if their reaction to it is moral and likely to work as intended, and whether the inevitable unintended consequences of their strategy are acceptable.
The core of the west’s response is the severe sanctions placed on Russia: ban on oil and gas imports, substantial curbs on many other products, targeting of significant individuals with travel restrictions and asset freezes (including those of Russia’s central bank), exclusion from SWIFT (the international bank messaging system), and bans on Russian aircrafts entering western airspaces. On top of this, many major corporations like Nike, IKEA, Shell, McDonald’s, and HSBC, who in these “stakeholder capitalism” times are always under pressure to act on socio-political issues, have ceased doing business in Russia, at least temporarily.
The desired effect is to impact the Russian economy and turn ordinary people and the political class against the war. But destroying Russia’s economy hurts not just the political elites, but all Russians, including those who already live on very modest means or even in outright poverty. Many Russians with no responsibility for the war have already lost their jobs and their income and many more will, shop shelves are empty and the free-falling Rubel will cause the few imports that are still allowed to be unaffordable for anyone but the wealthy. By design, the work of sanctions is done via the suffering of masses of people which is expected to force a change of heart in those at the top. But, as we have seen in for example Cuba, which has been subject to a tough American embargo for six decades, sanctions don’t always foster rapid political change. In the meantime, ordinary people bear the brunt of the misery brought about by the lack of international trade.
The specific sanctions against Russian officials and the so-called oligarchs, the exclusive class of super rich and influential businessmen, are perhaps less likely to result in imminent human suffering but are no less dystopian. Without any due process, governments across the western world have moved against individuals to impound and confiscate their assets, but it is not at all obvious that the oligarchs have committed a crime in the countries where they are being punished, and they certainly haven’t been convicted of any. This is an egregious violation of property rights and not something we should accept, just because we may not like the people who are being targeted.
There is no doubt that, as the sanctions bite, and especially if Russia cannot put a swift end to the war, Mr Putin will face increasing problems at home. But the ultimate consequence, a coup to overthrow him, is very far from certain to be in the west’s interest: ousting Putin could lead to significant political instability and a power vacuum in one of the world’s major nuclear powers. And whoever replaces Mr Putin is of course not at all guaranteed to more friendly to the west or any less geo-politically ambitious.
Russia has retaliated with sanctions of her own, banning the sales of some goods and agricultural products. Agriculture in particular is an important Russian export, and the trade war could result in significant troubles in world food markets. Trade wars have no winners. The sanctions, especially those on gas and oil, have instantly contributed to the already sky-rocketing price inflation in the western hemisphere, and for some countries, Germany being a case in point, the long-term consequences of ceasing energy trade with Russia will be significant.
Another thing worth considering are the potential consequences for peace in Europe. “When goods don’t cross borders, armies will,” said the libertarian philosopher Frederic Bastiat, and undoubtedly, one of the boons of economic globalisation is how an interdependent global economy has made war more costly. Ukraine is proof that it hasn’t provided a guarantee of peace, but isolating Russia is unlikely to improve the stability of Europe, regardless of whether the war spills over into outright military conflict with the west. Then there is China, who stands to gain, both economically and politically, as Russia turns her attention towards the east. Bolstering Chinese influence is definitely not in the interest of the west.
All in all, the sanctions may produce the desired result and force Mr Putin to accept a negotiated retreat from Ukraine at terms deeply unfavourable to Russia. But they are equally likely to result in a prolonged conflict or even bring about further destabilisation of the region and further afield, including the risk of widescale military conflict and even nuclear war. In the meantime, what they are guaranteed to bring in spades is human suffering – to Russia in particular, but to the wider worlds as well.
It is, by the way, also not at all clear how the other main aspect of the west’s move againts Russia, supplying Ukraine with weapons, is going to facilitate a fast end to the conflict or reduce human suffering: it may only result in delaying the inevitable Russian victory, but a prolonged war means more misery, death, and destruction. It is obvious that the west is hoping that protracted fighting against a western-supplied Ukrainian army will bring Putin to the negotiating table and also deter him from further military adventures in for example Georgia or the Baltics. But that is far from guaranteed to work.
Russia’s invasion of Ukraine is a criminal endeavour but fighting one wrong with another is no solution. It is obvious why sanctions are attractive to politicians who feel under pressure to act but can’t intervene militarily because of the enormous consequences that may have. But sanctions far from guaranteed to work and they have many unintended consequences. And, more importantly, they are morally wrong, restricting free trade and punishing people who have no responsibility for the war and no means of influencing it.