I just read all Zeihan's books. The only counterargument I can think of is that maybe with our interdependent world, sanctions have gotten effective enough to substitute for US military power to some extent. Zeihan himself has said China has to be reevaluating the idea of an attack on Taiwan, after seeing the sanctions and boycotts against Russia.
Sanctions haven't stopped Russia but Russia is a food and fuel exporter. Most countries are more reliant in imports for essentials. E.g. the Saudis need food imports, so maybe going to war with Iran isn't such a good idea for them, and that helps prevent the drastic Asian oil shortages Zeihan describes.
What are some good examples of when sanctions "worked"? Apartheid-era South Africa? Maybe in delaying Iran developing nuclear weapons? Are any of the following considered success stories for sanctions?
- Saddam era Iraq
- North Korea
- Cuba
- Venezuela
Apparently the U.S. has quite a list of sanctions:
If benchmark the success of sanctions as being able to direct countries towards more liberal-democratic policies, then they're a failure. If you benchmark the success of sanctions by the ability of the US to completely torpedo a geopolitical enemy's economy, then I'd say all four of those are resounding success stories.
All of these are completely non-functioning, bankrupt and incapable countries. The sanctions DO work, despite these countries being rich in resources (except NK).
Sanctions are a "one time weapon" I fear, and many many countries are now including "what if we or someone we trade with gets sanctioned by the US" as part of their contingency planning.
They've always had this kind of contingency planning, it's why Russia dabbled in onshoring chip manufacturing, and why the US keeps a tight lid on oil imports and exports, and why the US keeps automotive and aerospace manufacturing onshore.
The thing is, unless you are the US, China, or the EU, you simply can't afford to onshore most of the life-critical industries you rely on - even in theory. So you may be unhappy about what sanctions could do to you, but the only actual working solution that you have is to suck up to one of those three.
Doesnt even really work then. In Iraq it just meant a million people people/babies dying from preventable disease and the rest resenting the US for it.
It's blunt, ineffectual weapon at the best of times. Target an economy that's too strong and the sanctioner ends up hit almost as badly as the sanctionee. If we did it to China we'd probably be hit with 20-50% inflation instead of 9%.
I dont really see how US war planners can back out of the Russian sanctions though, even at 9% inflation. It would mean losing so much face to kowtow to Putin, but Ill bet theyll be far more hesitant to use it elsewhere.
It's now a calculation of whether they lose more face sticking pigheadedly to a bad decision, that the rest of world is moving on from, or losing more face by admitting they were wrong and quickly changing tactics.
Based on the fact that marijuana is still considered a schedule one drug, with no accepted medical use, at the US federal level, I'm going to put my money on pigheadedly continuing with a likely wrong strategy.
The US government is facing a rapidly accelerating legitimacy crisis due to its apparent inability to say "we were wrong".
Plus all the election fortification efforts that made this timeline happen. Trump was hated for being friendly with Putin by top Democrats but also by many in the Republican party. Mass Mail-in voting was to Trumps huge disadvantage, yet Republicans went along with it. Makes you think.
If financial sanctions get bypassed, another cheap US option is to confiscate a couple ships heading to the sanctioned country, making commercial shipping insurance difficult to get.
That would be a pretty big step though, essentially changing the US from the guarantor of the open seas to their biggest threat. So that might precipitate Zeihan's Disorder instead of preventing it.
Furthermore, after the one-time pain, assuming they survive the pain, the sanctioned nation arguably ends up stronger because they're forced to develop in-house versions of things.
I'm just waiting for China to decide they're strong enough to cut the US off. Assuming we survive the pain, that'll be an interesting day.
> Furthermore, after the one-time pain, assuming they survive the pain, the sanctioned nation arguably ends up stronger because they're forced to develop in-house versions of things.
Which is why North Korea is now a world-leader in... Oh, right. They are an impoverished Chinese vassal, that can barely even keep its own people fed.
I don't understand where all this 'Sanctions do nothing' zeitgeist is coming from. Is six-dollar a gallon gas the cause for a complete reversal on this sort of thing? If so, I'd daresay that sanctions seem pretty effective - given that their targets have to deal with a lot worse than expensive gas.
Russia's on track for an 8% reduction in GDP this year. I can't speak for everyone, but between the two options, I think I'd prefer the six-dollar gas.
List the countries that are 1. not tiny little jokes of a country and 2. not currently already under heavy sanctions that the US can sanction without harming themselves.
1. North Korea is a country of 26 million people. That's bigger than most of the countries in Europe, and is half the population of its nearest neighbour, South Korea. If the 20-million-to-40-million person range is a joke of a country, well, I've got to say, the overwhelming majority of the world's countries are that size or smaller.
The reason it's a joke of a country is precisely because of sanctions (and equivalents thereof). It didn't becomes stronger due to being cut off from foreign trade - unlike its sibling SEA nations, it failed to develop in large part because of it.
2. Without harming itself? Even one iota? There aren't any. Without harming itself disproportionately less than its harming the sanctioned country? Almost every country in the world. [1] Doubly so if it does so in lockstep with the EU.
Of course sanctions harm the country invoking them. But like going to war against a weaker country, they harm the target a lot more than they harm the issuer. Cuba, Iraq and Iran were all impoverished, compared to their peers, by sanctions. Russia's well on it's way to eating a boot, economically. The US sure seems to be getting a lot of mileage out of this 'one-use' weapon...
[1] China, Japan, Mexico, maaaaaaaaybe Canada, Taiwan, and a few countries in Europe are the only ones I can think of, where sanctions against them would hurt the US almost as much as it would hurt them.
The industry developed during sanctions is a lot like those created during times of highly protectionist policies though.
Once those walls come down, they have to compete with the rest of the world that has been innovating a lot faster. They’ll need a lot of supplemental income or all these bubble-spawned companies will die off. I think it’d be smarter to NOT try to develop everything in-house if you’re a smaller country with many imports.
Well..the Biden administration is slowly removing sanctions from Venezuala after belatedly realising that sanctioning Iran, Venezuala and Russia caused a global energy crisis. And making a diplomacy visit to the Saudis to beg them to pump more oil. Despite a harsh condemnation of the Prince just last year where he said he would never speak to him again.
Sanctions are of questionable effectiveness and tend to harm other nations more than the nation that is the target of the sanctions.
Sanctions haven't stopped Russia but Russia is a food and fuel exporter. Most countries are more reliant in imports for essentials. E.g. the Saudis need food imports, so maybe going to war with Iran isn't such a good idea for them, and that helps prevent the drastic Asian oil shortages Zeihan describes.