17

Many European countries and the EU itself have imposed economic sanctions on Russia over its invasion of Ukraine. However, according to this Guardian article citing this study, European nations are also still paying Russia almost three hundred million dollars a day to buy fossil fuels:

Vladimir Putin’s war in Ukraine is being bolstered by $285m (£217m) in oil payments made every day by European countries, new analysis by the Transport & Environment (T&E) thinktank has found.

What's the point of blocking some Russian banks from SWIFT or impounding the assets of people linked to the Russian government if, at the same time, the very same states are giving that same government hundreds of millions of dollars a day?

I have seen various claims that the sanctions are crippling Russia's economy, but how much difference does it really make if it is still also receiving these significant sums of money?

terdon
  • 1,009
  • 1
  • 10
  • 18
  • 1
    From this question I would have expected a number of how much EU has paid to Russia before the war. Without this number, it's impossible to judge if the remaining payments really render the sanctions useless. – NoDataDumpNoContribution Mar 13 '22 at 15:06
  • 3
    Does this answer your question? What's the point of banning a few 'selected Russian banks' from SWIFT? – the gods from engineering Mar 13 '22 at 15:10
  • @Trilarion yes, a good answer would include that value. – terdon Mar 13 '22 at 15:20
  • 2
    @Fizz that doesn't seem relevant at all. My question is specifically about the fact that European countries are sanctioning with one hand and buying with the other and whether this renders the sanctions nothing more than theater. – terdon Mar 13 '22 at 15:22
  • I think already the question could include it. After all the question wants to motivate why it's interesting. Do you maybe want to know how effective the sanctions are, because at least a small effect they should have. – NoDataDumpNoContribution Mar 13 '22 at 16:40
  • @Trilarion if I knew it, I would include it but I don't, so I am asking. – terdon Mar 13 '22 at 17:27
  • Why does a question that asks for the effect/efficiency of the sanctions - and especially in the context of the still ongoing gas purchases - need that many downvotes? Sanctions will take time to work, assuming they work - historically the record is rather spotty and asking essentially what's going on and how can we judge if they are having an effect seems on topic. If are you pro-sanction and you can articulate clearly what supports the case for having, then answer the question. If you are pro but can't articulate an answer, then maybe it's not that bad a question. Anti? DV away – Italian Philosophers 4 Monica Mar 13 '22 at 20:14
  • @ItalianPhilosophers4Monica for what it's worth, I am neither for nor anti (but of the two, more for), I am just trying to understand if there's any point to them or if they're just political theater. This isn't a veiled attempt at propaganda for either side, but if I were to take a side, it would be against war. Any war. – terdon Mar 13 '22 at 20:41
  • related https://politics.stackexchange.com/questions/71376/is-there-any-meaningful-purpose-in-stopping-selling-consumer-goods-to-russia – Italian Philosophers 4 Monica Mar 13 '22 at 21:16

8 Answers8

26

Germany has pressed for making exceptions to the SWIFT ban, so they could keep buying energy. On the short term, it's not easy to find a replacement, specially for the gas.

Germany has, due to political mistakes in the past, become heavily dependent on Russian energy. A former German chancellor is working as a lobbyist for Russian Gazprom. Angela Merkel also contributed to this situation setting a deadline for closure of atomic reactors.

During the years, political discussion in Germany against this situation always ended with German advocates parroting "This is an economic project, not a political one." Now it's too late to think strategically.

Are the sanctions causing significant damage? yes they are, if you consider companies like Airbus, Boeing and all ancillary services related to air transport, like insurance, maintenance, spare parts. Russia is heavily reliant on air transport, due to its sheer size. And although they can keep flying Western aircraft at home, its international routes are blocked. China is also not willing to provide parts, since it does not want to damage its relationship with the West.

The same is the case with logistic companies like FedEx or UPS.

And there also all sorts of assets being frozen across the EU: Russian central bank money, mansions, yachts.

Do non-essential life style services and products like McDonald's, Starbucks and so on cause any damage? Rather small, a little bit unemployment and making people aware that something big is going on.

same states are giving that same government hundreds of millions of dollars a day

Nitpick: They are not 'giving' them, they are buying gas, oil and coal. Not having energy could cause more damage on some EU countries than Russia. The US did not rely heavily on Russian energy, so they could cut the plug.

Federico
  • 6,726
  • 4
  • 36
  • 58
Quora Feans
  • 2,401
  • 1
  • 18
  • 24
  • 6
    Well yes, I didn't mean they were giving as a present. Sure, they are getting something in return but that doesn't change the basic fact that while claiming to be trying to destroy the Russian economy, Western powers are paying enormous sums into that economy. I know why they are still buying, my question is given that they are still buying,is there any actual point to the sanctions? – terdon Mar 13 '22 at 14:41
  • @terdon: notice that by any fair analysis, the West is not expecting to topple Putin through sanctions, not even to stop its war. This is just making Russia weaker, which makes sense, if we are expecting a protracted struggle against them. – Quora Feans Mar 13 '22 at 14:44
  • Again, you are assuming the answer to my question but not proving it: are the sanctions really making Russia weaker if at the same time we continue paying hundreds of millions a day in hard cash? – terdon Mar 13 '22 at 14:46
  • @terdon the hard cash goes to the gas companies, only few rich people enjoy it. Many millions still suffer from the sanctions, and see 0 from the money EU pays for the gas/energy. – Shadow Wizard Love Zelda Mar 13 '22 at 14:48
  • @terdon: updated answer. – Quora Feans Mar 13 '22 at 14:52
  • @terdon "are the sanctions really making Russia weaker" sure they do. Just because they do not apply to everything doesn't mean their effect is zero. Just ask the Russian government if they like the sanctions much. If they wouldn't hurt, the Russians probably wouldn't mind. Maybe this question wants to know a quantitative analysis of how much the sanctions hurt. But that will be really difficult. – NoDataDumpNoContribution Mar 13 '22 at 15:16
  • @terdon: While it might be a reversed scenario in this case (Where in the past case, it was a company selling to the embargoed country), it might be worth considering the history of the origin of Fanta. – Alexander The 1st Mar 13 '22 at 22:38
  • Something else which puts the sale of oil and gas into perspective, it has been suggested that this war is costing $20 billion a day: https://politpost.com/2022/03/05/how-much-is-vladimir-putins-invasion-of-ukraine-costing-the-russian-economy/ - even if this is exaggerated Russia's buying power is massively reduced, and even China appears to be honouring the sanctions. Russia will struggle to replace all of its lost hardware. – ThomasRedstone Mar 13 '22 at 23:59
  • 11
    I think (but have zero knowledge) the nitpick is actually important, but from a business angle. The EU are buying a product which costs money to produce. The $300m figure is revenue not profit, and if ruski costs are $280m then the actual $$ inflow isn't going to subsidise the sanctions much at all. – mcalex Mar 14 '22 at 05:29
  • 1
    While this answer focuses on Germany's gas situation, the question and the linked article and study are about oil payments. – Jontia Mar 14 '22 at 08:40
  • @Jontia if you read the question carefully, then you will notice that there is indeed oil mentioned, but also "fossil fuels" which is a broader term and includes gas. – Bartors Mar 14 '22 at 08:51
  • 2
    I think that is the key point here. It doesn't matter how many millions of dollars they get per day, if they cannot spend them on anything due to the sanctions. – mlk Mar 14 '22 at 10:15
  • 2
    On the point of Russia's cost of extraction, they're fairly low, with them being able to balance their budget at $25/barrel (in the past anyway, during a war, who knows): https://oilprice.com/Energy/Energy-General/Russia-Considers-Possibility-Of-25-Oil-Next-Year.html – ThomasRedstone Mar 14 '22 at 11:53
  • 1
    The difference between France and Germany in terms of energy dependence on Russia is quite stark. The French told the Greens they don’t care about nuclear risk and built up a bunch of power plants. The Germans allowed Green extremists into power and shut them down instead. Now they’re facing the music, big time. Hopefully European voters won’t flirt with extremist “environmental” ideas for at least another decade. – JonathanReez Mar 15 '22 at 17:39
  • @JonathanReez: regarding Germany I would not say you can blame the Green for the nuclear power phase-out. Angela Merkel could have reverted the plan when she was in power, but didn't. I'd say there was a broad consensus to substitute them for French nuclear power and Russian gas. But this is not related to this question. – Quora Feans Mar 15 '22 at 23:20
  • 1
    @QuoraFeans Merkel unfortunately had to bow to extremist Green politicians because they were in her coalition – JonathanReez Mar 15 '22 at 23:22
  • @JonathanReez: she took the decision immediately after Fukushima in the year 2011, she was in a coalition with the FDP, the liberal party back then. So no Greens in power, not even 'Reds' – Quora Feans Mar 15 '22 at 23:27
  • States are giving money to Russia in the sense that Russia is not giving anything of remotely close value back. Dictatorships tend to reap lots of profit from natural resources. – Reasonably Against Genocide Oct 28 '22 at 17:32
17

If you look at the effect of the sanctions in Russia they seem to be quite effective inspite of the ongoing payments for gas. First 300m US$ per day comes to 110 billion $ per year, which corresponds to 6.4% of the Russian nominal GDP (1710 billion $ in 2021 according to wikipedia).

Now it is hard to quantify right now how big the economic damage of the sanctions is but one reference point is that the exchange rate of the ruble to $ fell by about 25% since the war started. So even if the Russian GDP stays constant in rubles, it lost about 400 billion US$. The Russian GDP is not staying constant, it is in freefall and no matter how you measure it, the effect will be much bigger than 6 or 7% of GDP.

Of course the Russian economy would crash even harder if there was a stop to the gas deliveries but the sanctions are already quite effective as they are.

Edit: It seems I didn't check carefully enough when looking for the currency exchange rate. Trade is somewhat suspended and not all exchanges still have accurate quotes. It seems that the ruble fell by more than 40%, from around 1.3 $ per 100 rubles to around 0.75 $ per 100 rubles as of March 13th 2022.

Vorbis
  • 145
  • 4
quarague
  • 8,496
  • 2
  • 17
  • 43
  • 1
    Thanks for putting the single number in the question into context. I fully agree although it's kind of crazy that the EU is paying Russia and sending weapons to Ukraine at the same time. Only doing one of the two, if they can, sounds not efficient. – NoDataDumpNoContribution Mar 13 '22 at 15:19
  • 2
    @Trilarion: they did the same during the cold war. Sent weapons to Afghanistan, but kept buying Russian oil and gas. I think Germany didn't send anything, but France sent MILAN ATGMs. Given the terrain, most attacks were top attacks, with devastating consequences for soviet armor. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Lh-Qg6eHCH0 – the gods from engineering Mar 13 '22 at 18:56
  • 2
    Further indicators that sanctions are working besides the ruble plummeting 40% so far: the Moscow Stock Exchange is closed for more than 2 weeks and they have doubled the interest rate to 20%, they have limited both the amount of foreign currency that can sent abroad and the amount of foreign currency you can withdraw from your bank account. – Quora Feans Mar 14 '22 at 01:46
  • The article isn't about gas. It focuses on oil, which accounted for double the payments last year. – Jontia Mar 14 '22 at 08:44
14

It's generally impossible to economically sanction a country trading with you without also hurting yourself to some degree. But the keyword here is "some". How much that is depends on several factors like how easy it is to replace the imports from said country or how much money you were making exporting there, compared to your overall economy.

The reason why the US could sanction Russia oil & gas exports but the EU can't do it is the relative size of those imports. Well, the EU announced a plan to stop those imports by 2027, which is probably too long to make a difference in the war, but it will probably make a difference in containing Putin's money making in the long term. The Soviet Union took decades to fall to the combination of internal mismanagement and external containment.

And make no mistake, this is not 2014. The sanctions against Russia today rival those imposed on the Soviet Union: Moscow stock market still closed, ordinary Russian citizens cannot exchange their currency for USD/EUR, numerous Western companies departing threaten to leave tens of thousands of unemployed. Russia will probably have to resort to nationalization or receivership (they talked about this "external management"). All of which makes their economy more Soviet-like.

the gods from engineering
  • 158,594
  • 27
  • 390
  • 806
10

Sanctions are Effective

We don't need to ask analysts or economists. We just need to observe Russia itself:

  • Russia admits that sanctions have frozen about half of total foreign reserves (which was the war chest Putin was counting on to fund this little adventure)
  • Russian consumers expressed their confidence in the ruble by making a run on the banks
  • Russians expressed anger and panic over the departure of Western brands
  • Russia has threatened to nationalize said brands
  • Russia has threatened to abandon astronauts on the ISS
  • Most significantly, Russia has called the sanctions equivalent to a declaration of war

If this isn't convincing evidence of the effectiveness of sanctions, I guess you would just have to go visit in person to assess the situation.

Lawnmower Man
  • 3,755
  • 11
  • 23
6

The effect of the sanctions is not limited to loss of sale revenues. In fact the loss of revenue is the least important (but not unimportant) component of the sanctions.

But let's look at both the effect of the loss of sales and the other (more important) effects.

Reduced fungibility of commodities.

Restricting Russia's ability to sell commodities in an open market gives a bargaining advantage to the buyers. Which means Russia will (for example) be forced to sell oil to China at a price which is lower than it would have gotten on the free market. The less buyers there are, the less optimal an asking price you can name for what you sell.

Restricting Russia's ability to buy goods and services will mean inability to buy some products altogether and being forced to pay for other products at a much higher rate. If you can only ask for $90 for oil that everyone else gets $100 for, then you still have $90. But if you are forced to pay for everything you buy in dollars twice as much, then your $100 worth of oil only give you $90/2=$45 worth of purchasing power.

Net effect, or multiplier effect.

Most of modern production relies on standardized parts. There is virtually no country that can produce top-of-the-line products from raw materials. Not having access to some components sets back production. This includes all production lines, including the military ones.

Production is only as advanced as the least advanced components available for it. Denying Russia the ability to purchase most advanced components and equipment either significantly reduces Russia's ability to develop and manufacture advanced weapons systems or it makes such manufacturing extremely expensive. This is not limited to just electronics. It's also involves advanced metal alloys, advanced chemical manufacturing, etc.

As a hypothetical example, imagine having a design for an advanced fighter jet which requires specialized chemicals for its paint and specialized metal alloys for its wings. Even if there are experts in Russia who could understand the manufacturing process of producing such alloys and chemicals, it would take building new factories for those experts' expertise to become useful. And building of the factories could quickly run into similar problems, too. Because most equipment construction processes assume access to more materials than maybe available during a sanctions regime.

But you don't need to think of processes as advanced as weapons manufacturing. Imagine a candy factory which gets its candy wrappers from a 3rd country. If the candy wrappers are no longer available, the candy cannot be shipped, so it cannot be produced. Can a different wrappers manufacturer be used? Sure, when everything is replaceable. But what if it isn't anymore? Most likely, the solution will be a lower-quality wrappers produced by a make-shift manufacturer (the least expensive one that can be brought on-line quickly). Will the candy sell as well as it did before? Not likely. If it could have been sold on the cheap before, it would have been.

Decreased specialization.

Most of the production gains result from increased specialization. This happens even on the individual level for people. Not having to cook everything from scratch creates more time to hone the skills used at work. Spending more time on the upkeep means spending less time on advancing. Not having access to products produced by other specialists means having to create replacement products produced by non-specialists.
For example, imagine having to repair computer power supplies when they go bad, instead of replacing them. Imagine that you have down time whenever you have the need for it to get repaired. Now imagine that the same shop that sells computers also repairs power supplies. The level of expertise of the workers, in understanding the existing components, goes up. But their ability to acquire even basic knowledge of new components is sacrificed.

This is how entire societies fall behind and quickly.

wrod
  • 9,321
  • 25
  • 64
5

The effectiveness or not of sanctions is an often debated point. For example, I was reading up on the actual impact in one of the "success stories", South Africa de-Apartheiding in 1994. Even there the story isn't crystal clear and it took years in any case.

Yes, there is possibly a bit of theater going on: "we're doing something, honest".

However, if we assume that the West has a vested interest, for whatever reason, in stopping Russia from taking over Ukraine, sanctions are one of the few possible levers and far from the worse.

TLDR:

Unlike lots of past sanction regimes these sanctions are brutal, were imposed very quickly and have a very wide array of participants, some of whom, like Switzerland, probably figured in the list of sanction-mitigating assets Russia could count on. Ditto the central bank's hoard of foreign currency being put offline for now.

These are sanctions, they take a long time. Expecting them to move Putin out right now is unrealistic. But I expect they will weigh heavily on Russia's future decisions and their imposition is also a message China can't ignore, after decades of fairly toothless Western sanctions in other cases.

The long term outlook for gas/oil is in a way even worse - with global warming very much on the mind of European electorates, any gas and oil Russia does not sell now they may not be able to sell later on if the sanctions run some years.

Military aid

This is being done. And it is not without escalation risk - the US took great steps to be "plausibly deniable" in Afghanistan in the 80's - this was bypassed this time.

Direct intervention

Because Russia is nuclear-armed this is a non-starter unless Russia attacks NATO first.

"Strong UN measures".

Russia has a Veto. So, no, not going to happen.

Sanctions

This is being done and make no mistake, they are pretty darn strong sanctions. Personally, I don't remember anything as ferocious and quick to be placed as sanctions in decades of following international news.

The Russian-on-the-street, whatever their government is telling them, is also being, very quickly, notified that the "special military operation" is generating a lot of push back. Not least because independent profit-seeking entities like Apple or Starbucks also jumped ship. When even "soulless beings" like an oil major (BP) are bailing, you know there's widespread revulsion.

Body bags will come, but the Kremlin has experience in suppressing their public awareness and sanctions beat them at the ethical level (Russian conscripts getting killed may be a military necessity but hardly cause of celebration).

There is also a misunderstanding how sanctions work. They are never waterproof, they inflict costs. Say you sell $100 of oil that normally cost you $60 to produce -> $40 profits. Given sanctions and time to evade them you might sell that oil at $90 (the buyer is going to ask for a discount and you have bribes to pay). But then your production inputs may also have jumped up to $70. $20 profits now, not $40.

So the West is using both of their realistic options, sanctions and military aid. The only other option is really to do nothing.

In fact the sanctions are so punitive that some say that they need to come with a clear indication of what would cause their withdrawal otherwise Russia may perceive no choice but to double down.

Italian Philosophers 4 Monica
  • 83,219
  • 11
  • 197
  • 338
  • 1
    There are other ways the "too punitive" sanctions can backfire. Russians are aware of wars Western countries started, without such condemnation. They are especially aware of another case where a separatist region was denied independence by the country it was part of, and then foreign powers attacked the country to help the separatists (Kosovo). So although the very punitive sanctions might want to create the feeling "we're guilty and we're rightly punished" they might have the opposite effect "they are hypocrites, they often did the exact same thing we are doing", increasing their resolve. – vsz Mar 14 '22 at 05:38
  • I didn't say the sanctions were too punitive. I said they were very punitive. I wouldn't drag Kosovo, Serbia into this too much. The Yugoslav war was complex and I was living in Paris at the time. It took the European powers considerable time before they accepted some parties were "more guilty" than others and act not strictly neutrally. The siege of Sarajevo and hostage-taking of UN troops were part of that learning process. By the time Kosovo rolled around (post Srebenica), Serbia had amply demonstrated that it was a country no one should be forced to live with. – Italian Philosophers 4 Monica Mar 14 '22 at 15:16
  • That the Russians never learned that about Milosevic and Karadzic's regimes is a moral indictment on them, not on supposed Western double standards. – Italian Philosophers 4 Monica Mar 14 '22 at 15:24
3

It is not true that sanctions deal the equal damage for both sides. Sanctions usually deal the bigger damage for the smaller side, when the bigger side may have more alternatives of compensating. Be it oil, a permitted aircraft route or advanced technologies - it is easier to find a replacement in the bigger part of the world. Russia is a big country but the union of all countries that are currently applying the sanctions still looks for me larger.

It may appear at first that sanctions against Russia do not impact the living standards inside it but actually not so. Consumer spending on apparel, footwear and accessories fell by 40%, car production dropped by 37%. Spending on required goods increased by 15%, while at the same time median salaries increased by only 7%. Hence the life is changing there, and not into the better side. Semiconductor imports have fallen by 70%.

This means, the sanctions will work, no worries, and it will be more difficult for Russia to stand than for EU and USA to keep them.

Finally, sanctions do not need to be at maximum severity right from beginning. Leaving something that still can be banned or increasing gradually over time allows additional pressure.

Stančikas
  • 21,514
  • 1
  • 52
  • 113
  • I don't see how this is answering the question. I am asking if the sanctions can make a difference while the sanctioning states are still actively paying very significant amounts of money to the sanctioned state. – terdon Mar 13 '22 at 22:32
  • Do you see them paying MORE than before to ask me this way? – Stančikas Mar 13 '22 at 22:33
  • I don't understand what you mean. I am simply pointing out that your answer is not answering the question I asked. You seem to be making an argument about how sanctions hurt both sides but the smaller side will be hurt more. I don't doubt that, but I am asking whether these sanctions are anything more than political posturing given that the sanctioning countries are pouring millions of dollars every day into the sanctioned country's economy. – terdon Mar 13 '22 at 22:36
  • I fully understand the argument, but it doesn't have to be true. "be it oil, gas or advanced technologies - it is easier to find a replacement in the bigger part of the world." Really? Oil or gas or just products that anyone can produce? I think that's the problem here. EU did not enough to find replacements for Russian oil and gas in the past. – NoDataDumpNoContribution Mar 14 '22 at 07:11
  • @ "I am asking whether these sanctions are anything more than political posturing given that the sanctioning countries are pouring millions of dollars every day into the sanctioned country's economy." And all the answers here say yes. There is more than just political posturing (after all they even hurt the countries of origin themselves). I don't want to tell you what to ask, but asking a bit more quantitative would have been more interesting in my eyes. – NoDataDumpNoContribution Mar 14 '22 at 07:14
1

The current sanctions hurt both Russia and the EU. Weaker sanctions would hurt both sides less. Stronger sanctions would hurt both sides more. The challenge, then, is to find a level of sanctions that is sustainable for the EU on the long run, yet strong enough to influence Russians.

A cynic might point out that countries which don't buy much Russian oil or gas are sanctioning it, and that countries which would get Ukrainian refugees in any case are extending a gracious, no-visa-required welcome to them.

o.m.
  • 108,520
  • 19
  • 265
  • 393
  • But that's just it: do the sanctions hurt Russia if it is still getting such significant sums from the sanctioning countries? – terdon Mar 13 '22 at 14:04
  • @terdon, they do, or Putin wouldn't have called them something akin to a declaration of war. – o.m. Mar 13 '22 at 14:04
  • 2
    @terdon I believe you don't ask correct questions. Do the current sanctions hurt Russia? Most likely, yes. Do they hurt enough to stop the war? As we see, no. Can they hurt enough to stop the war? That's a speculation but as a Russian citizen I'd say no, they can't. – ixSci Mar 13 '22 at 14:28
  • @o.m. things might not be connected. If a child punches a big guy he would probably not hurt him, but that would certainly be a "declaration of fight". The same thing here: the West seized Russian property which is straight up robbery and in my book a declaration of war. Looks like Putin has the same book. – ixSci Mar 13 '22 at 14:30
  • 3
    The cynic is wrong: the countries pushing for the strongest sanctions are those from the Eastern parts of the EU, which are also the countries most dependent on Russian gas and oil. The real reason is that these countries also have the most historical experience with Russian expansionism, and fear they will be the next on Putin's agenda after Ukraine. – Emil Jeřábek Mar 13 '22 at 14:35
  • 1
    @ixSci my question is more about the internal politics of the European countries and whether the sanctions are actually pointless as long as the European states are sanctioning with one hand and paying large sums of money with the other. As you said, in your opinion they are not enough to stop the war. – terdon Mar 13 '22 at 14:39