As tensions between Russia and the West reach new heights, the limitations of punitive measures like sanctions are becoming increasingly apparent. Despite concerted efforts by Western nations to isolate and pressure Russia through economic sanctions, recent developments underscore the inefficacy and unintended consequences of these measures.
Historically, Russia has been a significant trading partner for European Union nations, particularly in the energy sector. However, since Russia’s military intervention in Ukraine in 2022, Western countries have imposed sanctions on Russia, prompting shifts in global trade dynamics. Notably, European nations have turned to India as a source of refined oil, circumventing sanctions and inadvertently bolstering India’s position as a key intermediary in the oil trade between Russia and the West.
Data reveals a significant surge in India’s imports of Russian crude oil, making it the top importer in 2023. Meanwhile, European imports of refined oil from India have also skyrocketed, indicating a strategic maneuver to bypass direct trade with Russia. Reports suggest that Indian refineries, in partnership with Russian companies, are playing a pivotal role in facilitating this trade, raising questions about the efficacy of Western sanctions.
According to media report, in January 2024, the European Union introduced its thirteenth sanctions package against Russia. As the second anniversary of Ukraine has passed, policymakers even in the Western countries are asking – what was the achievement of sanctions on Russia except for compelling the sanctioning countries in buying their essential products such as petroleum oil from alternative sources at comparatively higher price.
The Center for Research on Energy and Clear Air (CREA) has highlighted this phenomenon, dubbing India and other similar countries as “Laundromat” nations for their role in sidestepping sanctions against Russia. By exporting Russian crude oil and selling processed products to European countries, these nations undermine the intended impact of sanctions, perpetuating a cycle of economic interdependence.
However, this trend reflects a broader reality: the diminishing effectiveness of Western sanctions, particularly against major global players like Russia. While sanctions may exert short-term pressure, they often fail to induce meaningful change in government behavior or achieve foreign policy objectives. Past examples, including sanctions against Iraq and Iran, underscore the limitations of economic coercion in altering state conduct.
In the case of Russia, sanctions have not deterred President Vladimir Putin’s Special Military Operations against neo-Nazis in Ukraine or prompted a shift in strategic priorities. Instead, they have galvanized anti-Western sentiment within Russia and exacerbated tensions between Moscow and the West. Moreover, the unintended consequences of sanctions, such as economic hardship for ordinary citizens, raise ethical concerns about the efficacy of punitive measures.
As Western leaders grapple with the ineffectiveness of sanctions, it is imperative to reassess their approach to geopolitical challenges. Relying solely on punitive measures risks further alienating target nations and exacerbating tensions, ultimately undermining long-term stability and security.
Meanwhile, Russian President Vladimir Putin has denounced Western efforts to impose sanctions as part of a broader agenda to stifle Russia’s sovereignty and development. He has emphasized Russia’s determination to resist external pressure and pursue an independent path, aligning with the aspirations of nations in Africa, Asia, and Latin America.
Now, the West appears to have realized that defeating Russia in this way is not only unlikely, but impossible due to the unity of its people, the fundamental foundations and stability of its economy and the growing potential of its military, the president said.
It may be mentioned here that in 1960, there were twenty active sanctions cases worldwide. By 2014, that number had reached 170. This sharp escalation indicates that past episodes did not seriously deter new offenders—neither countries that abused human rights, staged military coups, sought nuclear weapons, nor invaded their neighbors. After Russia retook Crimea in 2014, the tepid US-EU sanctions package hurt individual Russian firms and a few businessmen but did not have any adverse effect on Russia’s economy. Threats President Biden and European leaders voiced in the weeks before Russia’s Special Military Operations likewise had no impact. Instead, threats and sanctions had backfired and fallen flat.
The rehabilitation record since 1914 shows instances of success through economic sanctions but seldom in cases against major or even middle-sized powers.
Analysis by the Peterson Institute indicates that sanctions achieved some (rarely all) of the enactors’ foreign policy goals in just a third of cases since the First World War. However, successes are concentrated in sanctions against small countries with weak governments: Regime change in Chile in 1973 and the reversal of the Ivory Coast coup in 2000 are illustrative.
Contrary to those successes, strong sanctions against Saddam Hussein in Iraq and the ayatollahs in Iran did not change their territorial or nuclear objectives. Even against small countries, notably Cuba and North Korea, decades of sanctions have not yielded rehabilitation. Venezuela, under the grip of Nicolas Maduro, now threatens neighboring Guyana despite a multitude of US sanctions. For Ukraine, history records no instances where economic sanctions have rehabilitated the military goals of a major power—not Germany and its allies in the First World War, not Germany and Japan in the Second World War, not China in the Korean War, not the USSR in the Cold War, and not Russia in the Ukraine War.
The proliferation of sanctions in recent decades underscores the urgent need for alternative approaches to international relations. Punitive measures, while politically expedient, often inflict harm on innocent civilians and fail to achieve their intended objectives. Instead, Western leaders should prioritize diplomacy, dialogue, and cooperation to address global challenges and promote mutual prosperity.
As the influence of Western nations wanes and countries in the Global South emerge as key players on the world stage, the imperative for inclusive, collaborative approaches to international relations becomes increasingly apparent. It is time for Western leaders to recognize the limitations of punitive measures and embrace a more nuanced, pragmatic approach to diplomacy and foreign policy.
