Discussion about this post

User's avatar
Peregrine Journal's avatar

First off, thank you for this. More explainers on the toolkit (and as I've argued, theorycrafting for new tools), seems desperately needed, especially before Putin gets frustrated and starts simply trying to wipe out civilian populations with any horrifying weapons or tactics available.

https://www.ifw-kiel.de/publications/media-information/2022/with-these-sanctions-the-west-hits-russias-economy-the-hardest/

On sanctions being a double edged sword -- I was surprised to read this Kiel Institute study, which claims that the sanctions that would hurt Russia would counterintuitively result in small increases in EU GPDs, as they provide regional substitutions.

I worry this sounds like wishful thinking, but economics often has counterintuitive results. And even if their finger is on the scale, maybe it's still true Russia will feel significant pain for much more negligible costs in the EU?

Welcome your thoughts. Thanks for the post!

Expand full comment
Refined Insights's avatar

I've sometimes disagreed with some of Noah's essays, but I have to say that the quality and foresight of his writing during this crisis has been almost unmatched.

First off, it's easy now to see the staggering weaknesses of the idea of competitive advantage: yes, it will be more productive to produce what you are best at and leave everything else to other nations. But that assumes a world where what you produce will always be needed or desired. If new technology is created, and it always will be, substantial chunks of your economy can suddenly disappear. In Russia's case, this would be cheap and reliable solar and nuclear energy.

Second, efficiency is not everything. It's always a good idea to be a little inefficient for the sake of producing certain essential goods and services yourself. Critical sectors of a nation's economy should mostly be controlled by native companies, not foreigners. In the case of Western Europe, this refers to energy supply. Although there are many other examples.

To the second point, while I really like the idea of sanctions, there is no guarantee they will automatically work: Cuba was under stringent sanctions for years- nothing changed. Iran was sanctioned - nothing changed. And there's a good case that sanctions on North Korea have only made things worse.

The problem is while sanctions hurt everyone, they don't hurt everyone equally: the masses tend to bear the brunt. If leadership is unaccountable to those masses, things may hardly change.

It might even backfire if the people in charge spin it as the fault of the outsiders. This is especially the case with the Russian people who have a strong tendency to prefer dictators as leaders.

I've also heard claims that we need to Russia-proof the global economy, but I'm not sure that's a good idea either. That kind of economic hermeticism entrenches despots. Ian Bremmer's The J-Curve is wonderful on this.

What is clear, as many have already wisely pointed out, is that the rest of Europe need to scale back their energy dependency on Russia and accelerate solar power projects, because right now, Europe is ironically paying for Russia to bully parts of it into submission.

Whatever happens, it's also obvious now that you don't need to always answer military force with military force, unless of course, your sovereignty is directly threatened. There are savvier and smarter ways to assist member nations. It is to the credit of the Biden administration that they have largely pursued those ways.

Expand full comment
20 more comments...

No posts