By John Q. Hosedrinker 
The Biden administration is exploring stricter sanctions on Russia’s oil industry to further cripple its war effort, a move previously resisted due to potential energy price increases. These new measures, currently under development, could involve limitations on certain Russian oil exports. This shift in strategy comes amidst falling global oil prices and concerns about a potential Trump administration pursuing a swift resolution to the conflict in Ukraine, potentially unfavorable to the country. The administration is now willing to risk higher energy costs to counter these threats.
Read the original article here
The looming return of Donald Trump to power is fueling a renewed push for aggressive sanctions against Russia. The prevailing sentiment is that now is the time to maximize pressure on Vladimir Putin before a potential shift in U.S. foreign policy could undermine current efforts. There’s a sense of urgency, a feeling that the window of opportunity to significantly weaken Russia economically is closing fast.
The argument for immediate action centers around the idea that delaying further sanctions only benefits Putin. The belief is that any easing of pressure, particularly with a Trump administration potentially more sympathetic to Russian interests, would embolden Putin and significantly reduce the impact of existing sanctions. The current sanctions regime, while having demonstrable effects on the Russian economy, is seen as far from its full potential.
Critics argue the current sanctions are ineffective, easily circumvented, and lack the bite needed to truly cripple Russia’s war machine. They feel existing measures are too little, too late, and that a more comprehensive and aggressive approach is necessary to truly hurt Russia. This approach includes not just financial sanctions, but also exploring the expansion of existing sanctions to target additional sectors of the Russian economy and actively work to disrupt smuggling networks that help Russia circumvent current restrictions.
The potential for collateral damage, particularly in Europe, is acknowledged. However, this risk is seen as outweighed by the urgent need to weaken Putin before Trump assumes office. The fear is that a Trump presidency might significantly lessen sanctions or even reverse them entirely, rewarding Putin’s aggression and emboldening him further. This view is fueled by concerns over Trump’s past statements and actions that have been perceived as pro-Russian.
The timing is crucial. With Trump’s potential return just a month away, there’s a recognition that any new sanctions need to be implemented quickly to have a significant impact before a possible policy shift. There’s even a suggestion that a more dramatic, last-minute action could be taken, although the specifics and feasibility of such a plan are not fully explored. The overall goal isn’t solely to inflict maximum pain, but to create uncertainty and hesitation within the Russian leadership, making them question the long-term risks of their actions.
The effect on global oil prices is also a major factor. While increased sanctions on Russian oil will likely drive up global oil prices, the cost is deemed acceptable given the broader goal of weakening Russia. The argument suggests that the financial hit to the U.S. from higher oil prices is a price worth paying to weaken Putin and limit Russian influence globally. The impact isn’t solely about the direct effects of Russian oil on the American market, but the global impact that reduced supply would have.
The belief that the U.S. should act aggressively isn’t solely driven by strategic concerns. There’s also a palpable sense of frustration with the perceived softness of the current response. Some see a lack of resolve, a willingness to prioritize short-term economic gains over long-term strategic goals. The desire for a stronger response draws parallels to the unified national effort during the Cold War, suggesting a current lack of unity and resolve on issues of national security and global stability.
While the potential effectiveness and consequences of further sanctions are debated, the overall sentiment strongly favors immediate action. This urgency stems from the perceived threat of a Trump administration potentially reversing progress and allowing Russia to recover from the economic damage inflicted by existing sanctions. The potential for a more pro-Russian foreign policy under a Trump administration is seen as a critical factor driving this call to action, prompting a sense of urgency to maximize pressure on Putin before any potential policy shift could occur. The perceived risk of inaction and the benefits of decisive action before a potential change in the political climate are seen as overwhelmingly favoring immediate and decisive action.