Eighteen months have transpired since Russia initiated a full-fledged invasion of Ukraine. The human toll has been staggering—military casualties numbering in the hundreds of thousands on both sides, civilian deaths likely reaching similar numbers, and countless others enduring emotional and property losses, displacement, and unemployment. The strategic deadlock resulting from Ukraine’s counter-offensive, along with the likelihood of the conflict settling into a protracted phase, necessitates a more dispassionate, analytical evaluation of interim outcomes and the mistakes made not only in the theater of war but also in the arenas of economic and political confrontation between Putin’s regime and the West.
Unquestionably, the sole axiom that enjoys universal assent among the Western coalition, key international organizations, and even the Russian democratic opposition is the 21st-century norm that no state initiating an unprovoked military incursion into a neighbor should succeed. Putin’s objectives remain nebulous and subject to change, yet it’s clear that any reversion to the pre-1991 internationally recognized borders would signify a Russian defeat.
This perspective forms the basis for evaluating the efficacy of both military and non-military strategies employed against Putin’s regime.
Ukraine’s resilience and the extent of military and financial support it has garnered are unparalleled. However, the strategies of non-military pressure executed to compel Russia’s withdrawal appear inadequately conceptualized and ineffective. This inefficacy has been the principal subject of debate over the past year, causing divisions not just among nations and corporations, but within Russia’s anti-war factions, the opposition, and even among Ukrainian political figures.
Sanctions have been the epicenter of these debates. Encompassing not just punitive actions against Russian corporations and officials but also affecting ordinary Russian citizens post-February 24, 2022, these measures impinge on civil liberties. Yet sanctions, inherently non-judicial, cannot be deemed punitive actions in their essence. Their stated objective is to exert multifaceted pressures on Russia to expedite the cessation of hostilities, either by inducing Russian concessions or by crippling its economy to the point of military defeat. Thus, the rationality and efficacy of the sanctions regime must be assessed critically, devoid of ideological or ethical embellishments.
Instead, as proponents of non-military countermeasures against Putin’s regime, we advocate for a more logical and pragmatic recalibration of sanctions. We believe such a shift could yield more tangible outcomes, expedite the cessation of Russian occupation in Ukraine, and ultimately contribute to the dismantling of Russia’s dictatorial regime.
The authors of this report wish to unambiguously condemn the war in Ukraine, instigated by Russia without any form of valid justification. We are united in our desire for the prompt and complete liberation of Ukrainian territories currently under Russian occupation. Moreover, we fully endorse the notion that Russia must eventually provide appropriate reparations to Ukraine for the extensive damage caused.
However, it’s crucial to understand that the war is more a symptom than the disease itself. We believe that the true origin and underlying cause of this war can be traced back to Russia’s internal problems.
Specifically, the conflict in Ukraine is an outcome of the current Russian government’s attempt to entrench a totalitarian and unbridled form of governance. In essence, Ukraine is yet another victim of what we see as Russia’s internal occupation by a self- serving cohort of security service functionaries.
From this standpoint, our support for Ukraine’s sovereignty and territorial integrity is intrinsically linked with our broader discussion about the internal dynamics of Russia and how international diplomatic and economic pressures can play a role in it.
It should be noted that the authors of this report do not affiliate themselves with any singular political faction, nor do we subscribe to a single ideological platform. We retain the right to divergent opinions on a host of issues, including the various topics discussed in this report. Despite these differences, we are united in our belief that the necessity for open dialogue on the effectiveness of various measures aimed at countering the Putin regime has never been more critical than it is today.
There’s a complex array of terminology used when referring to measures applied to states, corporations, and individuals, complicating a comprehensive assessment.
The term “sanctions” is commonly used in public discourse but is rarely found in official documents. In political parlance, “sanctions” often refer to actions against a state aimed at forcing compliance with or penalizing breaches of international law. This term is notably employed in the context of measures against Russia.
Conventionally, “sanctions” have been associated with actions taken by the UN Security Council under Chapter VII of the UN Charter. These sanctions carry the weight of international law, are binding on all UN member states, and differ from unilateral measures taken by individual states or entities like the European Union. However, the UN’s approach to sanctions has evolved over time, extending to measures against specific individuals and organizations.
While UN sanctions offer a degree of uniformity and legal certainty, unilateral sanctions are frequently employed by states and international organizations. These sanctions, based on alleged violations of international law, are not extraterritorial in nature and are binding only on the states that impose them. Nonetheless, third countries sometimes align with these unilateral measures, often due to the threat of secondary sanctions.
It should be noted that these unilateral sanctions have generated considerable opposition. Many UN member states, for instance, have voted against the imposition of unilateral economic measures that have not been approved by relevant UN bodies. Russia, supported by nations like China, argues against the legitimacy of unilateral sanctions, even though Russia itself employs such measures, not always in retaliation and often without clear justification.
These measures are not punitive but aim to cease and prevent the recurrence of a specific breach, and they must be reversible and proportionate to the offense. Moreover, while states can bear responsibility for actions by individuals, the reverse is not automatically true. This dichotomy creates a complex landscape for the imposition of sanctions against individuals.
Sanctions against Russia are not arbitrary actions by individual states but are grounded in the condemnation by the UN General Assembly and the majority of states for Russia’s aggressive actions against Ukraine. Despite potential questions regarding human rights compliance and proportionality, there is little doubt that these measures generally align with international law, given Russia’s actions in contravention of international humanitarian norms.