US and allies slap more sanctions on Russia. Will they work?

The move came one day after Crimea voted to secede from Ukraine and rejoin Russia. The sanctions list approved by President Obama includes Russian government officials deemed crucial to Crimea policy.

|
Pablo Martinez Monsivais/AP
President Obama speaks about Ukraine, Monday, March 17, 2014, in the James Brady Press Briefing Room at the White House in Washington. The president imposed sanctions against Russian officials, including advisers to President Vladimir Putin, for their support of Crimea's vote to secede from Ukraine.

The US and its European allies on Monday slapped a new round of economic sanctions on Russia in an attempt to persuade President Vladimir Putin to loosen his grip on Crimea and reduce tensions in a crisis reminiscent of the bad old days of the cold war.

The new penalties are personal as much as nation-based. They target seven Russian and four rogue Ukrainian officials whom the US charges with aiding and abetting Moscow’s move into the strategic Black Sea peninsula.

“We are imposing sanctions on specific individuals responsible for undermining the sovereignty, territorial integrity, and government of Ukraine,” President Obama said. “We’re making it clear that there are consequences for their actions.”

The widely expected move came one day after Crimea voted to secede from Ukraine and rejoin Russia. US officials rejected this result, saying the referendum was encouraged and sponsored by Moscow and its passage ensured by the Russian troops now patrolling Crimean territory.

Ballots were delivered premarked in some cities and the reported vote in Sevastopol was equal to 123 percent of the port city’s population, senior administration officials said in a conference call with reporters.

“There are massive anomalies in the vote even as it was recorded,” an administration official said.

The sanctions list approved by Mr. Obama via executive order on Monday included Russian government officials deemed crucial to Crimea policy; arms trade figures; and an amorphous category called “government cronies” by an administration official.

Any assets owned by these people within reach of US financial institutions will be frozen, per US order. They’re not eligible to do business with any US firms.

Kremlin officials named include Sergei Glazyev, a conservative politician who has been advising Mr. Putin on Ukrainian matters; and Vladislav Surkov, a longtime Putin aide and all-around fixer.

The Ukrainians targeted include Sergey Aksyonov, newly declared prime minister of a putative Crimean state; and Vladimir Konstantinov, speaker of the Crimean parliament. Viktor Yanukovych, the Ukrainian president overthrown by anti-Russian protesters in February, made the list. Putin himself did not.

Will these sanctions actually sting? US officials say that they will and that they represent a major reaction to events in Ukraine, particularly when combined with previous moves to restrict the international travel of top Russian government officials.

“These are by far the most comprehensive sanctions applied to Russia since the end of the cold war – far and away so,” said a senior administration official briefing reporters.

The people on the list are indeed powerful actors in the current Crimea drama, according to some experts outside government.

“These people may not be household names in the United States or Western Europe, but they hold real power in Russia, which may not be apparent from the one-line descriptions given by the White House,” Adam Taylor writes on The Washington Post’s WorldViews foreign policy blog.

But who is not on the list may be as indicative as who is on it. The head of the Russian gas monopoly Gazprom is not on it, for instance. Other billionaire oligarchs escaped sanctions.

Nor is it clear that any of those hit with US retaliation actually have anything to retaliate against.

“None of the officials on the sanctions list are believed to have significant assets or interests in the US,” writes BuzzFeed’s Max Seddon and Rosie Gray.

Economic sanctions alone are unlikely to persuade Putin to give up Crimea, wrote Daniel Drezner, Tufts University professor of international politics, in an overview of the subject in Foreign Policy magazine earlier this month.

After all, it’s pretty hard to squeeze a nation so hard that it actually vacates territory it already occupies. That happened in the 1956 Suez Crisis, when US economic pressure got Britain, France, and Israel to pull back after seizing the Suez Canal. But at the time, the US was an economic and military colossus, relatively speaking. It was capable of setting off a run on the pound sterling that threatened grave damage to the British economy.

Seizing the US bank accounts of rich Russians is not in the same league, sanctions-wise. Plus, what does Putin care if his friends become poorer? He’s shown over years in power that he’s a tough guy who does what he wants.

But it’s still worth imposing those sanctions, according to Professor Drezner. That’s because this problem may appear again in other restive regions near to Russia. Putin should have to calculate the cost of further world sanctions against him as a price for any next invasions.

Plus, in the long run Russia needs Western markets for its natural resources. A sanctions regime is one lever the US and its allies can use to get Moscow’s attention.

“Any political settlement over the future of Ukraine will require compromise by the new Ukrainian government and its supporters in the West. Imposing sanctions now creates a bargaining chip that can be conceded in the future,” writes Drezner.

You've read  of  free articles. Subscribe to continue.
Real news can be honest, hopeful, credible, constructive.
What is the Monitor difference? Tackling the tough headlines – with humanity. Listening to sources – with respect. Seeing the story that others are missing by reporting what so often gets overlooked: the values that connect us. That’s Monitor reporting – news that changes how you see the world.

Dear Reader,

About a year ago, I happened upon this statement about the Monitor in the Harvard Business Review – under the charming heading of “do things that don’t interest you”:

“Many things that end up” being meaningful, writes social scientist Joseph Grenny, “have come from conference workshops, articles, or online videos that began as a chore and ended with an insight. My work in Kenya, for example, was heavily influenced by a Christian Science Monitor article I had forced myself to read 10 years earlier. Sometimes, we call things ‘boring’ simply because they lie outside the box we are currently in.”

If you were to come up with a punchline to a joke about the Monitor, that would probably be it. We’re seen as being global, fair, insightful, and perhaps a bit too earnest. We’re the bran muffin of journalism.

But you know what? We change lives. And I’m going to argue that we change lives precisely because we force open that too-small box that most human beings think they live in.

The Monitor is a peculiar little publication that’s hard for the world to figure out. We’re run by a church, but we’re not only for church members and we’re not about converting people. We’re known as being fair even as the world becomes as polarized as at any time since the newspaper’s founding in 1908.

We have a mission beyond circulation, we want to bridge divides. We’re about kicking down the door of thought everywhere and saying, “You are bigger and more capable than you realize. And we can prove it.”

If you’re looking for bran muffin journalism, you can subscribe to the Monitor for $15. You’ll get the Monitor Weekly magazine, the Monitor Daily email, and unlimited access to CSMonitor.com.

QR Code to US and allies slap more sanctions on Russia. Will they work?
Read this article in
https://www.csmonitor.com/USA/Politics/DC-Decoder/2014/0317/US-and-allies-slap-more-sanctions-on-Russia.-Will-they-work
QR Code to Subscription page
Start your subscription today
https://www.csmonitor.com/subscribe