Thread by @samagreene

I'm seeing a good deal of ire and snark about UK sanctions, and while I'm usually up for a good deal of ire and snark, I'm not sure it's entirely deserved in this case.

If you missed it, here it is, targeting the assets and operations of key banks and billionaires.

bbc.com/news/uk-politi…

Yes, it feels like small beans, compared to what the EU and the US are doing. But then the UK _is_ small beans compared to the EU and the US, which can, if they want, entirely upend the Russian economy. London can't.

And yes, the structure of the sanctions give the targets the opportunity to divest, rather than losing their assets altogether. But absent proof that the assets were ill-gained sufficient to convince a court, effective confiscation was never really on the cards.

But don't underestimate the impact of kicking these people -- and others like them -- out of of London.

For one thing, the assets these people hold are significant, and divesting from them -- if they are even able to do so at short notice -- will turn into a fire sale. The sums they stand to lose are enormous.

Second, those assets are worth more than what it says on paper. They are fungible and can be leveraged in ways that assets held in Russia cannot. They thus unlock wealth in many ways far greater than what they actually contain.

Moreover, oligarchs flock to London not because they like the weather or the food, but because there are very few other cities that offer assets that are both reliable stores of massive value, and which are also reasonably liquid. There aren't many other places they can go.

So, _if_ implemented consistently and broadly, and _if_ the gov't pays serious attention to beneficial ownership, this can hit much harder than it looks at first glance. (Admittedly, those are big 'ifs'.)