The optics of the Russian Ukraine conflict

A lot of people seem to have differing opinions on the harshness and validity of the sanctions, imposed by the West and EU on Russians, in terms of whether they will achieve the desired effect(s). Here is my $0.02 on the topic --

The answer depends, to a certain extent, on what we mean by "desired effect(s)". If crippling the regime or powers-that-be of a nation is the immediate goal, then it usually takes a long time before the reverberations of the aforesaid sanctions have any impact on a despotic leader. Autocratic leaders and dictators are perhaps, somewhat counterintuitively, most immune to sanctions. This is because they are not answerable to the populace they rule over, and have access to resources many times more than the damage that could ever be espoused through sanctions. We have seen this time and again that the people hardest hit by the sanctions, or a radical policy in general, are the everyday folks who have to wait in queues waiting (or rather hoping) to take money out from their accounts, those waiting to get their daily ration of milk, bread, and other essentials, and those waiting to get on a bus, plane, or any other vehicle, seeking to escape from a disastrous situation. The leaders and the oligarchs, on the other hand, have access to so many comforts and so much opulence that it would probably take many a year before their coffers run out. And in this case, the supposed effect of the sanctions against Putin is softened even more by the fact that he has been reported to be the richest person in the world.

On the other hand, if sanctions are imposed with the aim of dismantling the lives of ordinary citizens and making their conditions austere to the point that they rebel against their own government, then yes, the sanctions do partially achieve their "desired effect". Because let's face it, the only Russians who are disproportionately suffering as a result of these imposed sanctions are those who have nothing to do with the war. Everyday people, like you and me, have seen their savings disappear overnight, businesses have shut down due to bankruptcy, people are unclear about the economic outlook, the Russian currency is at a record low, interest rates have skyrocketed, all compounded by the increasing isolation from the global community. However, how many ordinary citizens would truly "rebel" against a leader who has ruled their country for over 20 years and who is genuinely popular in their country, at a time when they are worried about their own survival in the midst of a recession, is anybody's guess. Similarly, would an autocratic (almost dictatorial) leader, an ex-KGB spy no less, be truly moved by the plight of his own to retreat from Ukraine? In a way, Russians would probably feel like they are stuck between a rock and a hard place -- the message seems to be "You're damned if you do, you're damned if you don't"!

Why then, despite the known inefficacy of the sanctions and their relative impotence in achieving the goals outlined, are sanctions imposed on nations? I believe that part of it has to do with optics. It is more important to be "seen" to be doing something, no matter how ineffectual the measures -- and since getting involved in a war with Russia is not a feasible option for the West, nor has it been for a long time for a multitude of reasons, the sanctions are the next best thing. And wars are primarily won or lost by way of the perceived optics. Sometimes, it is more important to be perceived as taking action than actually taking the appropriate action. Should our goals be defined by optics or should it be the other way around?

#sanctions #goals #optics #effectiveness #RussiaUkraineconflict