Do sanctions against Russia work?

By: Ricardo Israel - 28/05/2023

It seems Russia has conquered Bakhmut or is about to, but the war is at a standstill. The question remains what it is for now. In the Russian failure to win the war, not only Ukraine and NATO influence, there have also been logistical problems, corruption, Wagner's conflict with the generals and military leadership, with at least 4 commanders in charge in just 15 months.

But can it be won by Ukraine? Today, it doesn't seem like it either.

It began as a war of movement to become one of positions, one that recalled the First World War, to become what Bakhmut became a symbol of, a war of destruction, reminiscent of Stalingrad.

Not even the penetration of the Russian province of Belgorod from the Ukraine marks a before or after, since for now it seems to compensate communicationally for the apparent fall of Bakhmut and, above all, that combat troops are sent to protect the borders, in preparation of the announced counteroffensive.

The line for the sum is that it is still a stagnant war and despite Bakhmut's carnage there was no change.

Nor do there seem to be new weapons that generate this possibility, so much so that today the expectations of the F16 are reduced, due to various problems that include everything from pilot preparation to answering the question of the existence of enough airports to take off and land several times a day in Ukrainian territory, since it has been reiterated that it is not desired that they do so from other countries.

Even, there is still no clarity in the statement that they would not be used in Russian territory since Crimea is for this country, which is not recognized by many countries. Will it be fought there?

And it is this territory that makes the elephant reappear in the glassware of the Russian threat to use nuclear weapons, not as a weapon of final destruction but for its tactical use, a threat that has not existed since the cold war, and that leads to a land in which there is ambiguity, more doubts than certainties.

For now, it remains a war of destruction, a type of war where Russia has marked experience, as an invader and also, Napoleon and Hitler through, as invaded.

And today, despite everything, Ukraine does not seem to have the defense against missiles that follow one after the other, including from Russia, the sea or the air, so the destruction of Ukraine is terrible, something that is moving, and whose future cost may even make it more difficult for them to enter Europe. Given the amounts, will the European Union or the voters want to pay a significant part of the bill?

Will there be a pause after Bakhmut and before the counter-offensive with Prigoshin and the Wagner group ceding their role to the Chechens and heading to wars that await them for pay in Africa and elsewhere?

If so, it seems to be an opportune moment to talk about sanctions, where new ones are announced periodically, but there has not been a public debate about their effectiveness, in the sense that since their appearance they do not seem to fulfill the initial objective of stopping the Russian war machine. , and where its growing alliance with China can enable it to fulfill a much-needed munitions supply role for both on the battlefield, and where current Russian and NATO production appears to be insufficient.

I have always thought that Chinese support for Moscow is going to be seen in today's essential munitions, more than in any weapons system, with an industrial capacity that can fulfill a role similar to that of the USA in the Second War for England as well as for the then Soviet Union.

And to remove any doubt, after the G-7 in Hiroshima and as an inverted mirror, Xi Jinping received Russian Prime Minister Mikhail Mishustin and offered Beijing's full support to "Russia's fundamental interests".

The sanctions must be reviewed, which has been necessary for years, since they did not work against Saddam or to stop the Ayatollahs from seeking the atomic bomb either.

By the way, their objective was not only the withdrawal of big brands or the closure of McDonald's, but rather that Russia did not have the capacity to carry out the war, and today, there have been specific problems, but Russia's capacity has not been stopped at any time.

On the other hand, and furthermore, as the current reality demonstrates, Russia has not succeeded in being isolated. If it has done so in the group that includes some of the largest economies such as the United States itself, Europe, Canada, Australia, Japan, but not the rest of the world, as seems to indicate not only the alliance of China, but also also India, and a good part of Latin America, the Arab world, Africa and Asia where indifference predominates, and support in some cases.

The best expression of this attitude was Lula's refusal to meet with Zelenski, where there are interests, but perhaps also sympathy for Russia, and a preference for the BRIC. By the way, Lula seems to have wasted an opportunity, marking how different the world is today from that of his previous governments.

Furthermore, oil and gas continue to be sold at a discount, to the benefit of countries like China or India, and Europe seems to have suffered mixed problems with gas and the world with food, although both have adapted and there is no crisis neither in the price nor in the supply, nor with oil.

For its part, Putin's authoritarianism continues to govern and there does not seem to be a crisis or alternative in the immediate future, perhaps a growing role for governors within the system itself, unless there is a catastrophic defeat on the battlefield, which It doesn't seem like the most likely scenario. Furthermore, given the continuity of territorial interests, from tsarism to today (including the communist period), there is no evidence that Putin's departure brings about a change in Russia's historical interests.

Russia was no longer able to achieve its goals of moving Ukraine away from NATO and, on the contrary, brought it closer to the United States and Europe, but the current situation does not seem to show that it will be defeated as a result of this failure either. Stagnation, which on other occasions (Korea in the 50s) has produced a ceasefire, but today this does not happen, since none of the combatants have lost the will to continue fighting.

The objectives of the sanctions included loss of power for Putin and that Russia would not have the resources for its invasion and they have not been achieved. The review of this reality is essential, since if today one wanted to use similar sanctions against China, the purpose would probably not be achieved, this is influenced by its immense economic power, so perhaps a "cancellation" policy would not find the same support in Western companies, given the importance of China in imports and exports.

China is a different adversary and one that has made a decision about trying to replace the United States as the world's great superpower, and in the case of sanctions, if they do not fulfill their purpose with Moscow, they will not succeed with Beijing.

Will we be witnessing how a world is generated that will be more unstable? A stagnant war, but not recognized as such by the combatants, at least points to nuclear proliferation, since the possible use of tactical atomic weapons illuminates a strategic scenario different from the assumptions of the cold war, even more so, with their deployment in a place where they had disappeared in the 90s like Belarus.

Not only because of the North Korean bombs or the Iranian one about to be achieved, if it no longer exists, but because the defeated of the second war seem not only to feel forced to abandon their pacifist convictions, but also to think about what they did until little was unthinkable, the own bomb, accessible by resources and knowledge, Russia as a detonator for Germany, and China for Japan, with an institutional architecture as obsolete as the UN itself.

In addition, in a world where military spending continues to grow, and where despite everything, many countries "including the United States and France" continue to trade goods and technology related to the nuclear sector with Russia, despite the sanctions.

This is how the very prestigious think-tank for strategic studies in the United Kingdom Rusi (Royal United Services Institute) reported that the value of Russian imports from the United States and France reached US$ 1.2 trillion in 2022 in the Harmonized System (HS) Code 284420 which includes enriched uranium” (Darya Dolzikova, Catch-235: Western Dependence on Russian Nuclear Supplies is Hard to Shake, April 12, 2023)

Something marginal, confusion or just another edge of reality, the one to which Henry Kissinger has recently alluded in The Economist and in Infobae (5/18/23)?

The truth is that I miss the great press, analytical, critical, orienting, that world example that the United States had in the past and that today, plunged into the internal confrontation of American politics, is missed.

It was vital in his triumph in the cold war, especially in his role of guidance for those who made decisions and that, in stagnant situations like the current one, it is necessary to provide the bare facts and not only personal moral judgment, since in the face of Lack of understanding may lead to wrong decisions.

An elite without the lights of the Western past seems to need it, just like me.

@israelzipper

«The opinions published herein are the sole responsibility of its author».