By John Q. Hosedrinker 
The United States imposed sanctions on Gazprombank, the last major Russian bank not previously sanctioned, citing its role in facilitating Russia’s military operations, including equipment purchases and soldier payments. These sanctions target Gazprombank and six subsidiaries, significantly limiting its access to global finance. While the US previously avoided sanctioning the bank to maintain European gas supplies, this decision reflects a shift in energy dynamics and aims to further degrade Russia’s war machine. The sanctions also target over 50 other Russian banks and 15 officials, and warn against participation in Russia’s alternative financial messaging system.
Read the original article here
The US is ramping up sanctions by targeting the last major Russian bank not yet blacklisted, a move many believe is long overdue. The fact that this action is happening now, after considerable time and numerous escalations by Russia, raises questions about the overall effectiveness and strategy of the sanctions regime.
This delay in fully sanctioning Russia’s financial system seems puzzling. One might reasonably ask why this hadn’t been done much earlier, especially considering Russia’s continued aggressive actions and disregard for international norms. The recent deployment of a potentially nuclear-capable missile, even without a payload, underscores the gravity of the situation and further highlights the need for decisive action. The question of what constitutes a sufficient trigger for comprehensive sanctions remains.
The slow, incremental approach to sanctions has been criticized as ineffective. Some argue that the gradual implementation gives Russia ample time to adapt, circumvent restrictions, and find alternative trade partners. This strategy allows Russia to adjust its economy, undermining the intended impact of the sanctions. This contrasts sharply with the idea of a swift, comprehensive economic blockade designed to inflict maximum immediate pain and force a more rapid change in behavior.
The rationale behind a gradual sanctions approach rests on the idea of maintaining leverage and preventing premature escalation. By retaining options for further escalation, the argument goes, the West maintains a degree of control and can potentially de-escalate the situation while encouraging Russia to change course. The concern, however, is that this incremental approach, while possibly reducing immediate risks, might not be sufficient to deter Russia’s aggression and may ultimately prove a less effective means to achieve strategic goals.
Conversely, proponents of a more forceful, immediate approach point to the potential for a sharper, more decisive impact on the Russian economy. A sudden, complete cutoff of access to the international financial system could potentially accelerate Russia’s economic collapse and force a more rapid change in its behavior. This “shock and awe” approach, while inherently riskier in terms of immediate consequences, might be more effective in achieving long-term strategic goals. It could also have the advantage of creating greater immediate pressure for Russia to cease its aggression.
The effectiveness of sanctions is further debated. While they undoubtedly have a negative impact on the Russian consumer and economy, their ability to truly change the strategic calculations of the Russian leadership remains questionable. The argument that sanctions are primarily for “optics,” serving as a symbolic gesture rather than a truly effective tool, is a persistent criticism. Even with considerable economic hardship, Russia has shown a remarkable capacity to adapt and withstand the pressure.
Adding to the complexity of the issue is the significant debt held by the United States. The scale of US debt might reasonably raise concerns about the country’s financial capacity to sustain a prolonged sanctions regime or even implement a more comprehensive one without encountering major domestic economic repercussions. This might further influence the cautious approach to escalating sanctions.
Underlying the debate over the timing and scope of sanctions is the question of how to deal with a regime that seems unmoved by economic pressure and views such pressure as a sign of weakness. Some argue that only a much more forceful and rapid response will ultimately be effective in changing Russia’s behavior. However, that approach carries inherent risks, particularly the potential for unintended consequences that might destabilize the region or cause a more extreme escalation by Russia.
In conclusion, the decision to finally target the last major unsanctioned Russian bank represents a significant escalation but also raises fundamental questions about the overall sanctions strategy. The prolonged and incremental approach taken to date has been criticized for its perceived ineffectiveness, prompting a reassessment of whether a more forceful, swift response might have been more fruitful. The situation highlights the complex interplay between economic pressure, geopolitical considerations, and the inherent challenges of dealing with an adversary that seems impervious to conventional forms of influence. The long-term impact of this latest escalation remains to be seen, but the debate over its effectiveness and the broader strategy employed reflects ongoing uncertainty about how to respond most effectively to Russia’s ongoing aggression.