The Sanctions Dilemma


A common refrain in Europe and the United States these days is that sanctions are a “means to an end” – namely, use economic and financial pressures to contain and, even reverse Russia’s annexation of Crimea. There is a considerable challenge, however. By potentially also pushing Western Europe back into recession, stepped-up sanctions could also be an end in themselves. All of which makes the decision-making process more complex and uncertain at an important geo-political time.

Western leaders are, as U.S. President Barack Obama said in Brussels yesterday, united in their determination to use sanctions to isolate Russia and impose costs for its annexation of Crimea. And as Jose Manuel Barroso, the President of the European Commission added at his joint appearance with President Obama yesterday, Russia must face the consequences for “unacceptable” actions and behavior.

Western leaders have also warned that any additional territorial incursions by Russia would trigger “deeper” economic and financial sanctions.

This all makes sense. American and western European leaders are loathe to allow Russia to redefine the map of Eastern Europe, especially unilaterally. But they are not in position to use military force to counter what constitutes, as pointed out by the Financial Times last week, “the first annexation of another European country’s territory since the second world war.”

Leaders are also right to postulate that deeper sanctions can have quite an economic and financial impact on Russia. Depending on how far they wish to go, they can disrupt cross-border trade, payments and settlements – all of which would lower living standards in Russia by pushing the economy into recession, fueling inflation, hiking borrowing costs and limiting access to credit.

Already the Russian economy is under some pressure, though due less to the sanctions already imposed by the West and more to the private sector’s own endogenous behavior. Specifically, as acknowledged this morning by the Economy Minister, the country is experiencing an “investment pause,” a growth slowdown and large capital outflows “nearing” $100 billion.

Yet Western European support for imposing deeper sanctions is far from universal or unambiguously enthusiastic. Why? Because of the potential for notable collateral damage.

Around 40% of Russia’s trade is with Western Europe. Even if Russia fails to retaliate by itself imposing counter-sanctions – an unrealistic assumption – its weaker economy would quickly translate into lower sales by Western European companies to the world’s eighth largest economy, as well as less certain input supplies from there.

Under the more likely assumption of Russian sanction retaliation, Western Europe could face a material threat of disruptions in important energy supplies. The region as a whole cannot re-orient quickly its energy networks and dependence; and certainly cannot do so without considerable cost. And some countries are very heavily exposed indeed.

Yes, deeper sanctions would hurt Russia … but likely at a considerable cost for Western Europe too. Indeed, under most scenarios, a back-and-forth escalation in sanctions would push both Eastern and Western Europe into recession.

Realizing this, Russia is comfortable playing the brinkmanship game despite the West’s stepped-up threats. For their part, Western leaders cannot ease pressures on Russia, particularly given what has already occurred and the additional massing of troops on Ukraine’s eastern and southern borders.

All this speaks to two competing realities. On the one hand, it is the economic self-interest of both Russia and Western Europe to allow proper diplomacy to avoid the escalation of a situation reminiscent of classic Cold War confrontations. On the other hand, there seems to be no immediate practical way of decisively diffusing this modern day Cold War crisis, let alone resolve it durably.

Mohamed A. El-Erian is the former CEO and co-CIO of PIMCO. He serves on the International Executive Committee of Allianz and is chief economic advisor to the Board of Management, Chair of President Obama’s Global Development Council, and author of the NYT/WSJ bestseller “When Markets Collide.” Follow him on Twitter: @elerianm.

Photo: Russia's Vladimir Putin (Michael Klimentyev/AFP via Getty Images).

Chris Williams

Broadcast Media Professional

9 年

I guess that would affect the Country not the military becouse the military will still have wepons

回复
G Uzonwa

Biz Adviser at Neth Associates ltd

10 年

I am unsure if the world needed this kind of economic politics now. Lets hope it does not escalate and drag us back to recession. The big powers must find the balance between listening to one another and resolving issues amicably to avoid holding the whole world to ransom.

回复
Bruce Salmon

CORRECTION and RESOLVE

10 年

The intent of Sanctions is to make government comply But it only cause damage and death to innocent citizens The intent of an Act of terror is to make a government comply but it only cause damage and death to innocent citizens which one of these do you support for government compliance

回复
Shou Shui Yu

Myself at Independent Vocational

10 年

Mr, Terrance Van Gemert , human right is the human's right alright? Human right does not for some conspirators and some greedy governments or some secret organizations 's "HUMAN RIGHT". USE HUMAN RIGHT TO OVERTHROW OTHER GOVERNMENTS AND KILLING OTHER COUNTRY'S PEOPLE IS NOT HUMAN RIGHT. Mr Terrance Van Gemert, please tell me, everything happened in Libya, Iraq, Syria,Egypt, etc .. Is that human right ? Who use the human right to killing people for their purpose?

回复

I think international policies should have a look to 1970′s USA President Nixon policy to make China a member in world′s global production & trade. Results have shown that a friend in side comes in for more as a front contender..

回复

要查看或添加评论,请登录

社区洞察

其他会员也浏览了