By John Q. Hosedrinker 
During the Ukraine Recovery Conference, President Volodymyr Zelenskyy emphasized the crucial role of strong sanctions in compelling Russia to negotiate a genuine ceasefire, not just engage in superficial exchanges. He highlighted the immense financial burden of the war on Russia, estimating Putin’s spending to reach $300 billion next year, which sanctions could curtail. Zelenskyy acknowledged the importance of prisoner exchanges but stressed Russia’s lack of genuine desire to end the conflict, citing the high salaries of Russian contract soldiers. He also expressed appreciation for Donald Trump’s apparent recognition of Russia’s unwillingness to stop the war and underscored the need for Ukraine to strengthen its military through contract service.
Read the original article here
Zelenskyy calls for strong sanctions against Russia, and it’s hard not to agree, especially when you consider the potential financial implications and the ongoing human cost of the war. The need for a more robust approach to sanctions is glaring. It seems like the initial response to the invasion was, to put it mildly, hesitant. It’s almost as if there was a reluctance to fully commit to either a strong response or no response at all. The current situation, with reports of Russia potentially spending a staggering $300 billion on the war in 2026, highlights the urgency of the situation. How can Russia possibly sustain such a massive expenditure?
The sheer scale of the potential spending is alarming. This enormous sum, rumored to be $300 billion, would undoubtedly exacerbate the existing strain on the Russian economy. It brings into sharp focus the question of how sustainable this level of financial commitment is, especially given the economic hardships faced by ordinary Russians. This raises significant doubts about the long-term viability of Putin’s war effort, at least from a purely financial perspective. If the West could effectively cut off the cash flow, wouldn’t that, by extension, shorten the war?
It’s been three years, and the war continues to drain Russia’s resources. Reports indicate the continuous loss of personnel, equipment, and ammunition, which translates into considerable financial drain. While it is tempting to ask, “Does Putin even care about sanctions?” the core issue is how the Western nations are actually implementing these sanctions. It’s almost like disciplining a toddler.
The claim that Russia might spend $300 billion on war in 2026 paints a concerning picture. The implication is that Russia is gearing up for a prolonged conflict, possibly even intensifying its efforts. This raises critical questions about the West’s response. Are existing sanctions strong enough? Are loopholes being exploited? The West needs to be better, and to be fully committed to implementing these sanctions.
The idea that the sanctions haven’t been impactful makes little sense. Three years ago we put sanctions in place and the response was a failure, allowing Russia to find other means of generating revenue. The strategy of gradually increasing sanctions, as compliance isn’t achieved, may not be fully effective. It exposes the double-edged sword of not going all-in with sanctions from the start, and possibly causing disruptions in our own supply chains.
The shortcomings in US foreign policy over the past two decades are apparent. Perhaps a stricter enforcement of existing sanctions would yield better results. The goal must be to adapt. We sanction Russia by ceasing the purchase of oil. They find workarounds through intermediaries. We sanction the intermediaries. The response needs to be robust and adaptable. There is a great deal of information online about how other countries are dealing with Russia and its sanctions.
The population of Russia, while under media control, still shares responsibility for the war. Therefore, it is important to consider the role of the Russian population while at the same time supplying Ukraine with the means to defend itself. It is worth pointing out that the lack of sanctions has likely emboldened the Russian position.
There is a wide disparity in how the West has approached this, with countries such as Hungary and others, seemingly working against any meaningful sanctions. This is coupled with the US not fully implementing sanctions in the past. Sanctions are effective but they do take time to take effect. It is worth considering the potential long term impacts on GDP, quality of life, and stock market performance, when compared to countries that have not been sanctioned.
Russia’s position in international trade is questionable. Russia is a “cheap gas station” that has little impact on the US economy. The US is actually working towards enforcing the sanctions, as is evidenced by some of the cases currently underway. The EU has also implemented sanctions in a slow and cautious manner. These actions could be seen as contributing to the war’s prolonged duration, and therefore, the continued loss of life.
The need for strong action is obvious. Ukraine needs everything it needs to degrade Russia’s capacity to continue building and launching drones. This should also include a complete and total boycott of all Russian goods. It is essential to fully cut off Russia from as many markets as possible. Russia’s economy will likely struggle for quite some time.
When talking about the impact of sanctions, it’s critical to differentiate between the grand scheme and the specifics. While $3 billion in imports might seem like a small number in a large economy, it still means Russia is making money from the uranium ores, and those ores are cheaper than their competition.