The classic analysis of economic sanctions considers that they are generally ineffective in preventing or ending a conflict.
Three types of arguments are traditionally used.
The first is historical: Russia in 2014 following the annexation of Crimea, like fascist Italy in 1935, was subject to sanctions.
This did not prevent it from entering Ukraine or Italy from invading Ethiopia.
The second is the practical argument: the measures are either too timid or too slow to be implemented.
In both cases, their impact is not sufficiently dazzling to induce a country to abandon an expansionist project.
The third argument is political: basically, even when these sanctions weaken the economy, they do not necessarily weaken the dictator.
On the contrary, the citizens of the targeted country may see their impoverishment as linked to the coalition that imposes the sanctions, which reinforces national feeling and the spirit of revenge.
Read also
Colonel Michel Goya: "In Ukraine, we must expect a Syrian-style evolution, with long and devastating urban fighting"
These three…
This article is for subscribers only.
You have 82% left to discover.
Freedom is also to go to the end of a debate.
Keep reading your article for 1€ the first month
I ENJOY IT
Already subscribed?
Login