Our sanctions are failing and Ukraine is paying the price. But it doesn’t need to be this way.
My Times column this week featured Bill Browder. His Magnitsky awards dinner last night was a rare note of joy amidst the gloom. I also wrote about the West’s failure on sanctions in my CEPA column, where I reviewed Stephanie Baker’s new book.
Key takeaways:
A determined individual can make a big difference.
Magnitsky sanctions on individuals are a fine innovation and we have barely scratched the surface.
Western sanctions looked good on paper but were let down by poor enforcement.
My big idea is that we should target the “enablers” — people who hold Western passports and work in Western or near-Western countries as bankers, lawyers, accountants, fixers etc.
All we need to do is to say these people — we could start with a dozen — are no longer eligible for visa-free travel. So if they are British or EU citizens, they can’t go to the US on an ESTA. Instead they would have to go to the embassy and apply for a visa (just as you have to do if you want to work, study, etc). This is a mild inconvenience, but
a) fires a warning shot
b) creates a point of leverage.
At the visa interview these individuals can be told that this time they are getting a visa for a month, but next time it may be just a week. This introduces a note of uncertainty.
Furthermore, we can say that the same will apply to other employees of whatever company they work for. Again, it’s only an inconvenience. But you can imagine that their business colleagues will start putting pressure on them to dump their Russian clients.
The UK can do the same to US and European citizens. And I have been urging EU countries in the Schengen zone to do the same to Brits and Americans.
This modest bureaucratic move would puncture the climate of impunity and show that we are beginning to get serious about the Kremlin’s accomplices.
Let me know what you think of this idea. I first wrote about it two years ago and would like to push it.
Other things.
The Biden administration’s decision to allow (as always, belatedly) the use of US-donated and US-guided missiles for strikes inside Russia has provoked the usual cries from the Kremlin about escalation. (Sergei Markov told the BBC that there’d be nuclear war by Christmas).
But the truth is that no one weapons system is a game-changer. Ukraine is paying a huge, horrible price for the West’s division and indecision. It’s getting ever-harder to see an outcome where Ukraine is a strong, sovereign, defensible (and therefore investable, prosperous) and happy country.
To take one example: Crimea. Ukraine has successfully demilitarised Crimea. But it is hard to see that surviving a ceasefire deal. If the Russian navy (and coastal batteries etc) come back, they have their thumb on the Odesa sea-routes.
Another problem is readiness. Any ceasefire favours Russia. It will no longer be losing 1500-2000 soldiers a day. But it will continue generating new forces, improving its stocks and thus boosting readiness for the next war. But Ukrainian soldiers will want to go home and the population will be much less willing to bear the cost of war when the imminent existential risk abates.
I'm off to Warsaw this week for a conference. Next week Tallinn to mark the 10th anniversary of the e-residency scheme. And then Bucharest.
One other brief note: I’ve moved to Bluesky from Twitter (as I still call it). You can follow me here
https://bsky.app/profile/edwardlucas.bsky.social
Best regards, Edward