Comments 12

Razones por las que no dan resultado las sanciones a Rusia

Mar 28, 2015 Andrei Kolesnikov

MOSCÚ – La actitud occidental para con Rusia se basa en la suposición de que una presión continua sobre ese país obligará al régimen del Presidente Vladimir Putin a hacer concesiones o incluso provocará su desplome. Nada podría estar más alejado de la verdad.

La suposición subyacente a la eficacia de las sanciones occidentales es la de que el profundo deterioro económico resultante de ellas volverá al público ruso, en particular la minoría selecta política y financiera, contra el Kremlin. Putin no podrá soportar la disensión en aumento de las zonas urbanas acomodadas y la incipiente clase media.

Entretanto, según esa concepción, la presión militar –en forma de un posible ayuda letal a Ucrania– inmovilizará igualmente a los rusos de a pie contra Putin. Reacios a ver morir a sus hijos en Donbas, formarán un movimiento antibélico que lo obligará a contener sus ambiciones territoriales. Presionado desde arriba y desde abajo a un tiempo, el Kremlin tendrá que cambiar de políticas y tal vez comenzar incluso a democratizarse.

To continue reading, please log in or enter your email address.

To continue reading, please log in or register now. After entering your email, you'll have access to two free articles every month. For unlimited access to Project Syndicate, subscribe now.

Featured

How Not to Fight Income Inequality

Nov 14, 2018 Ricardo Hausmann
Trump’s Diminishing Power and Rising Rage

Nov 12, 2018 Jeffrey D. Sachs
Why Freedom of Assembly Still Matters

Nov 13, 2018 Jan-Werner Mueller
Are You Buying Oil from Saudi Arabia?

Nov 12, 2018 Peter Singer
A Concert of Indo-Pacific Democracies

Nov 12, 2018 Brahma Chellaney

new comment has been posted. new comments have been posted.

0 Comments on this paragraph, 19 in all 19 Comments on this article

krzysztof pawlowski Jul 27, 2015

Mr. Kolesnikov doesn't get it. The civilized world doesn't care whether or not Russians rally around the flag over sanctions, that would only prove that sanctions are the right move and that Russia should simply be cut off from the global economy. This has been done before without any seriously ill effects. The 'militarized' Russians (what a bloody joke - so militarized they couldn't beat a poorly supplied and led British Army on their own territory) are more than welcome to start waving their flags and rally 'round Putin and his Puterasty, just as they rallied around Nikolai II back in 1904 and then again in 1914. Boy did those bouts of patriotism last, eh?
A new reply to this comment has been posted.
Mark Herlihy Jun 21, 2015

Kolesnikov mistakes the aim of the current sanctions regime. It is not, as he would have it, aimed at mobilizing mass public opinion against current Kremlin policies (that would be a useful byproduct, but not to be expected, for the reasons he gives). Rather, it is aimed principally at Putin's coterie of oligarchs and kleptocrats, who are increasingly unable to enjoy the fruits of their crimes against the Russian people. Secondarily, it is aimed at making Putin's military expansion and updating program considerably more expensive, and thus a more difficult policy choice (guns or butter?). While sansctions regimes are blunt instruments, the current regime has been somewhat successful in reaching these goals.
A new reply to this comment has been posted.
j. von Hettlingen Mar 31, 2015

Andrei Kolesnikov maintains "sanctions on Russia don't work"! It depends on what sort of impart he wants to see and how sanctions will affect Russia in general and Putin in particualr!
It's true that Putin's "regime" has not crumbled under the "continued pressure on the country". A poll in January showed that there was little political impact on Putin's popularity, as "69% of Russians supported the Kremlin’s policy in Ukraine". Influenced by state-controlled media, they "perceive Western pressure and sanctions to be aimed not at Putin and his cronies, but at Russia and its citizens". In the absence of public pressure on a change in the Kremlin's policy on Ukraine, Putin can rely on ordinary Russians' "preparedness" to bear the economic and political burden of government's mistakes - out of nationalism.
Besides Russians had had a long history of suffering and deprivation. Only since under Putin have many of them been able to enjoy higher living standards and prosperity, due to Russia's oil revenues. The middle-class and super-rich know how their parents celebrated suffering only two decades ago. Out of gratitude they pledge "fundamental loyalty to the state and the regime".
Having said that, Kolesnikov shouldn't deny that sanctions do have an impact on Russia. At least Putin has not sent Russian troops into Ukraine, something he wouldn't hesitate to do, had he benefited from it! Sanctions could still cripple Russia's economy in the long run, especially with oil prices remaining low in the months to come. Russia's foreign currency reserves are dwindling and it can't rely on foreign trade or capital markets to fill the shortfall, due to EU sanctions. For the moment Putin can’t be wished away, and he will be in charge till 2018, perhaps longer. The question is whether ordinary Russians would still be prepared to sacrifice for a bunch of corrupt cronies! Antagonism has deepened between Russia and the West. Yet Putin should bear in mind that the West may still have the last laugh!
A new reply to this comment has been posted.
John Dispatcher Mar 31, 2015

To say that sanctions on Russia don't work, one has first to determine what sort of result he'd expect to see. What does it mean that sanctions "work" or "don't work"? I've never seen in any comments whatsoever that the supreme idea behind them was to overthrow Putin or to provoke street riots. to say the least. The intension was or had to be to put a spoke into Russia's economic wheel, to make it pay the highest price possible for its misbehavior. Whatever ambiguous and even half ass those measures have been, the result is obvious. True, the crisis might have been much stronger and more acute if the sanctions hadn't been so tardigrade, but it's a different story.
A new reply to this comment has been posted.
Cesar Gonzalez Mar 31, 2015

There will be karma on the West for meddling
A new reply to this comment has been posted.
Bernhard Kopp Mar 30, 2015

Economic sanctions are mostly questionable but always mindless against a mayor power and neighbor. They are are retaliatory reflex of hillbillies, shoot first, think later.
A new reply to this comment has been posted.
John Brian Shannon Mar 30, 2015

Hi Andrei,

The fact that Vlad Putin or any Russian leader hasn't overreacted to the Western imposed sanctions, proves that Russia is in stable hands and that overreaction is unlikely in other situations.

That bodes well for Russia and for Russian leaders in my books.

Hypersensitivity in this, or other matters, would portend a different result -- and most probably negative.

And the fact that no other nations have joined the sanctions against Russia since their inception suggests there is little global support for them.

On to other matters;
Had the Crimean referendum not been so clear cut (97.1% voted to rejoin Russia) I wouldn't have supported Russia to re-admit Crimea to Russia.

Anything less than 66% (two thirds of the voting age population there) would've caused me concern, but with such overwhelming support the chances of a 'doctored referendum result' are completely non-existent.

I wish the people of the Donbass region would arrange a similar referendum.

Such examples of local political determination are really no one else's business. Should 90% or better vote to rejoin Russia, that should be the end of it. Full stop.

If it isn't the end of it, then we here in the West are using these events to browbeat Russian leadership. And that's not on.

"For the West, the demonization of Vladimir Putin is not a policy; it is an alibi for the absence of one." -- Henry Kissinger

I support the rights of people to self-determination -- either way -- whether it benefits (Russia, in this case) or not. It is a fundamental human right to be governed by your choice of government, wherever you may live in the world.

This isn't about Donbass or Crimea. It's about something orders of magnitude larger and more important.

Always 'recommended reading' on Ukraine/Western policy on Ukraine: http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/henry-kissinger-to-settle-the-ukraine-crisis-start-at-the-end/2014/03/05/46dad868-a496-11e3-8466-d34c451760b9_story.html

Best regards, JBS
A new reply to this comment has been posted.
Curtis Carpenter Mar 30, 2015

evanlarkspur writes "Even IF Crimea's "referendum" hadn't happened under the barrels of guns ... the referendum would have had no value, because the people voting lacked the authority to unilaterally determine the alignment of Crimea. It's called the rule of law."

And that is precisely why it seems appropriate, to me anyway, for the international community to examine those "rules of law" in a calm and constructive way and establish some alternatives. That might allow some future civil war to be resolved by other means. To put the case another way: If you come to hate your wife, perhaps it's better to divorce her than to murder her -- and "the law" might best serve justice by being adjusted to allow that alternative.

The argument over a people's right to self determination has raged since Wilson's 14 points. But the argument you offer against it is, it seems to me, primarily against democracy, not against self determination. And there are existence proofs of a different legal approach that does not involve tanks, high explosives and casualties in the thousands. Consider the Velvet Revolution, for example, or the recent Scots referendum on independence.

Meanwhile, poor Crimea appears to me to have exchanged one kleptocracy for another, and we are all left to hope that they will sleep well in the bed that either they made for themselves, or that President Putin made for them.
A new reply to this comment has been posted.
Petey Bee Mar 29, 2015

The phrase, to deter aggression, is loaded with a contradiction and double meaning.

Proactively removing rival governments and facilitating the rise of friendly governments -- with the use of proxies, PMC's, and if necessary, direct military intervention -- this is what a powerful country is *supposed* to do, and indeed what the most powerful country has consistently done. So to accuse another country of such a thing is to give them a huge compliment in professional language, while unnecessarily raising the question of what ever did happen to the concept of international law? The answer to that is something best forgotten, bringing it up just makes one look bad. That's the second word, aggression.

The first word, deterrence, is also a contradiction. If your negotiating partner has the impression that you will do everything possible to them no matter what, and are not negotiating in good faith, then ultimatums are a bit meaningless.

I suspect this is understood on both sides, and the sanctions are not at all a negotiating tactic but just a simple way of slowing down the Russian state. In the value-neutral way of looking at international relations this is, of course, neither good nor bad, it just is.

So rather than "deter aggression", sanctions are just a tactical move to undercut a rival. And as such, they are working just fine.
- Dmitry Dorofeev Apr 3, 2015
  
  Well said, if you cut off all the BS thats being said sanctions are just the reflection of the good old Realpolitic and should be viewed as such
  A new reply to this comment has been posted.
- John Brian Shannon Mar 30, 2015
  
  HI Petey Bee,
  
  Nicely said. I couldn't agree more.
  
  One thing I will add; In the corridors of power, this is known as a 'lever' -- one that a nation can push to constrain growth (in this case), force a leadership change (very unlikely in this case, but 'worth a try' someone obviously feels), or go over the heads of elected leaders, appealing to citizens who may protest en masse to force changes in policy.
  
  However the diplomats, bureaucrats and propagandists phrase it/sell it, at the end of the day these type of sanctions are just another lever to deploy against competitor nations.
  
  Best regards, JBS
  A new reply to this comment has been posted.
A new reply to this comment has been posted.
Ivan Ivanov Mar 29, 2015

And where are clues to what would work against Russian policy? Mr Kolesnikov doesn't know. But there is no need. History is going to repeat what it once said, Russia should just be left by itself and it will agonize as the economic model is basically unsustainable even in medium term.
Of course, any outbreaks and invasions must be contained with military aid to victims.
A new reply to this comment has been posted.
George Tamas Mar 29, 2015

Mr. Kolesnikov, everything goes through stomach...always...this doesn't sound very sophisticated but it's real life....you don't believe me...look at the Transnister region right now...
Let's discuss about your ideas one year from now under the same sanctions' conditions
The soviets lost a cold war for similar reasons....not because better American weapons but because of the stomach...
- Curtis Carpenter Mar 29, 2015
  
  I suppose that we could argue that all history is, at least in part, a propaganda lesson. If what I have read of Leningrad has been propaganda, it certainly worked on me.
  A new reply to this comment has been posted.
- George Tamas Mar 29, 2015
  
  1. the 'capacity for misery and suffering are legendary'...this is, in my opinion, at least partially, a propaganda legend...such a capacity was dramatically 'enhanced' during the WW-II by the soviet commissars behind their own soldiers with an automatic rifle and order to execute whoever doesn't march ahead and by the KGB's gulags during the post-war era ...
  my opinion again: the human beings are more or less the same everywhere; in general i don't believe in arian nations...let's wait another year
  2. the other option is to provide high-tech weapons to the Ukrainians as the europeans/americans will not step in Donbas...i do think that a Russian mother with the coffin of her son in front of the house will reconsider her 'political' views...and then everything will be about reaching a 'critical mass'...(this is definitely quite sad )
  A new reply to this comment has been posted.
- Curtis Carpenter Mar 29, 2015
  
  Two points Mr. Tamas:
  1) The Russian people's capacity for misery and suffering are legendary -- so a one year time horizon may be to short by half a century of so.
  
  2) I despair at the idea that the resolution of every international dispute depends, in the end, on who can best tolerate starvation. Surely our species can do a LITTLE better than that? Or perhaps not...
  A new reply to this comment has been posted.
A new reply to this comment has been posted.
Niklas Monrad Mar 29, 2015

It is very possible that Kolesnikov's reasoning is correct, however it does not in any way begin to address the key question which is: How should Europe and the US react to Russian aggression? Or perhaps Kolesnikov thinks that either there is no aggression on the part of Putin's Russia, or that the rest of the world should simply sit back and accept the expansion of Russia's borders as a fait accompli and hope no more is to follow? Or would he suggest "negotiations" of some sort? And does he believe that Putin is likely to change his attitude and ideas of a Greater Russia?

I believe that the answer to each an every of those questions is a resounding NO. That means that we are left with only one option since we want to avoid direct war with Russia: to undermine the country's finances to such a degree, that Russia will be unable to finance further development and aggression because it is kept busy trying to repair damages to its own economy. And hope that at a certain stage even the ordinary Russian will come to see that imperial ambitions are too costly to be worth it.
- evanlarkspur evanlarkspur Mar 30, 2015
  
  "Curtis" Putinbot,
  It's hard to see that "how Crimea could change its allegiance" is some "key question" internationally. There is no question regarding how theater national borders of Ukraine could legally be changed, because it is spelled out very clearly in the Ukrainian constitution. Nothing vague about it. And this idea that there is some "right of self-determination" that pertains to the national alignment of real property, rather than the concept of people having a right to have a say in the forms of their government, is entirely cooked up by Russian propagandists like you.
  
  Some nations endorse in law the concept of "private property." Under such laws, citizens and sometimes residents or even foreigners may have title to parcels of real property, and this title gives them certain rights under law in that nation. However, numerous rights over that property are reserved for the State (like how you can use the property, if you can build on it, etc). No nation on Earth currently includes the right to determine the national alignment of that parcel as one of the rights extended under the concept of "private property." Indeed, the last nation on earth to even allow discussion of national alignment of property or territory is Russia, where you go to jail even for mentioning aloud that an area ought to be otherwise governed or aligned than it is. So this "right of self-determination" BS wafting out of the other side of the Kremlin's mouth is worse than hypocracy.
  
  The rest of Ukraine contributed over 70% of crimeas annual budget each and every year. Yes, it's true. Besides which, the People of Ukraine collectively own the resources both tangible and abstract, of Crimea. That is why they have a say in the national alignment of Crimea and the borders of their nation, and why their constitution calls for a national referendum on any change of borders.
  
  Even IF Crimea's "referendum" hadn't happened under the barrels of guns, and there had been a quorum and no threats of bodily harm in the legislative body that took actions there, the referendum would have had no value, because the people voting lacked the authority to unilaterally determine the alignment of Crimea. It's called the rule of law.
  A new reply to this comment has been posted.
- Curtis Carpenter Mar 29, 2015
  
  Couldn't it be argued though that the "key question" is really whether the territorial integrity of a nation state trumps the right of a people to self determination? Or that the key question is how, under suitable international law, a place like Crimea could legitimately change its affiliation from one state to another -- or declare its own independence outright?
  
  It seems clear that Russia has behaved very dishonorably in Ukraine, following the pattern of Germany in the Sudetenland. But in the aftermath, shouldn't the international community be asking itself under what set of rules the people in Crimea could have changed their allegiance voluntarily and l"egally?"
  A new reply to this comment has been posted.
A new reply to this comment has been posted.

http://prosyn.org/VVY2TZh/es;

Razones por las que no dan resultado las sanciones a Rusia

To continue reading, please log in or enter your email address.

Featured

How Not to Fight Income Inequality

Trump’s Diminishing Power and Rising Rage

Why Freedom of Assembly Still Matters

Are You Buying Oil from Saudi Arabia?

A Concert of Indo-Pacific Democracies

New Comment

Email this piece to a friend

Contact us

The Limits of China’s Charm Offensive

Give Italy’s Government a Chance

Europe’s New Political Battle Lines

The Dred Scott of Climate Change?

The Bank of Japan’s Stealth Tapering

Vaccinating Against Superbugs

Trump’s Protectionist Quagmire

Disaster Capitalism Comes to Puerto Rico

Cookies and Privacy

Log in/Register