On Thursday, President Obama announced a new wave of economic and political sanctions against Russia, in response to the country's recent annexation of Ukraine's Crimea region. The new sanctions will target senior Russian government officials, a bank and broader sectors of the Russian economy. Additionally, Obama and other world leaders moved on Monday to suspend Russia's membership within the Group of 8 leading nations. Obama acknowledged that the sanctions could be "disruptive" to the global economy, but has stated that he does not want to do anything to "trigger an actual war with Russia." What do you think of these new, heavier sanctions?

*

Prof. Emerita Rachel McCulloch (ECON):

Along with most Americans, President Barack Obama has no wish to expand the nation's military commitments. Sanctions represent an alternative way to signal U.S. support of Ukraine's sovereignty. Yet the initial sanctions were so limited as to invite more derision than consternation in Moscow. The second round, aimed at increasing economic pressure on President Vladimir Putin's inner circle, did have some impact on Russia's financial markets, at least temporarily. Even more recently, the U.S. and six other major western nations voted to "suspend" Russia's membership in the G8. At this point the action is largely symbolic. History suggests that sanctions can be effective only when nations act in concert. The key question remains whether the European Union, which relies significantly on business with Russia, is willing to coordinate its policies with those of the U.S. For example, an embargo on Russian energy exports would likely have a greater effect than the current sanctions but would also inflict considerable pain on the EU. Moreover, a possible unintended consequence of sanctions would be to reinforce Russia's efforts to increase political and economic ties to Asia and especially China.  

Prof. Emerita Rachel McCulloch (ECON) teaches ECON 160a: "International Trade Theory."

*

Tzvi Miller '16

I believe that these new sanctions are more of a symbolic move on President Barack Obama's part than anything else, and will ultimately do little to affect Russia's policies regarding Crimea. Russia in turn recently banned Speaker John Boehner, Sen. Harry Reid and Sen. John McCain, among other government individuals, from entry into their country, so it appears that the two powers are playing a game of tag. That being said, some people play tag simply for kicks, but sometimes people play tag just to cover their true intention of wanting to run really fast at someone and hit them. I'm not going to say which version of tag is being played here, but I do want to point out that Vladimir Putin stands at 5'5", and Obama is 6'1", so I like our chances.

Tzvi Miller '16 is an International and Global Studies major.

*

Jesse Freedman '16

While I disagree with President Vladimir Putin's actions, I believe Obama should not have placed sanctions on Russia. Economically, sanctions hurt both parties because goods are no longer traded. They can also lead to trade wars, which would hurt an already fragile U.S. economy. The situation in Russia is tense and there is a possibility of war. If Russia does not change their policy then the relationship between the U.S. and Russia will become more heated. These sanctions are designed to coerce Russia into returning Crimea to Ukraine. The Petersen Institute for International Economics found that sanctions "succeed" about one-third of the time. Taking these factors into account, is it necessary for the U.S. to create this risk, which would damage the economy, potentially lead to war and only has roughly a 33 percent chance of succeeding, in return for a small piece of land in which the majority of people voted to join Russia? I believe not.

Jesse Freedman '16 is a member of Brandeis Libertarians. 

*

Connor Wahrman '17

On the whole, sanctions aren't an effective response to the Crimean crisis. Putin has overwhelming support in both Russia and Crimea, drawing upon the demonization of Ukraine's EU and NATO leanings, and the call to protect Crimea's Russian-speaking majority. Backing down at this point, then, would not only be degrading, but also foolish from President Vladimir Putin's position of strength. But given President Barack Obama's options, sanctions can be seen as a reasonable choice. The U.S. is not in a position to seek out another armed conflict, least against the major power in Eastern Europe. As such, when negotiations fail and U.N. action is made impossible by Russian veto power, sanctions become the clearest option. Putin, however, can then respond in kind, justifying the U.S. response to the violation of Ukraine's sovereignty as a threat to Crimea's self-determination. These bilateral sanctions only increase tensions and do little to change the situation.

Connor Wahrman '17 is an International and Global Studies major and writes for the Brandeis International Journal.