I see this idea being bandied about that roughly goes if sanctions don't prevent Putin from going into Ukraine then what's the point? This is attempting to draw a staight line from X sanction to Y action. There are multiple problems with the line of thinking. Let's unpack 1/n
1. Sanctions can be used simply to make something more difficult or cut of customers. As a simple example, why should the United States consumer being funding Russian petro-state when it can produce that same gas domestically. Yes, Russia can sell that gas elsewhere 2/
But why should the US be funding in this case Russia when they are so stridently anti US and or attacking? 2. Can be used to stimulate shifts away from one producer to another. China has opened up its markets to Russia but sanctions can stimulate growth from other producers 3/n
3. It can be used as a method of punishment for egregious behavior. (I must stress egregious not simply because they are Canadian) 4. It can be used to raise pressure on the foreign state 5. It can be used as a means of non-military pressure 5. Here is arguably the key point 4/n
As a DIRECT input that X sanction causes desired Y output from another state, let's be honest they have a pretty poor track record BUT as a tool of economic state craft they are vital in being able to bring pressure because (and this is the good part) 5/n
If you remove economic disincentives from state led measures of pressure, you are pretty much left only with military pressure and or disincentives which are much much riskier. In other words, remove these types of tools and you have nothing. These remain vital
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
