Analysis
How Russia’s sanction-proofing failed
“How could our government have been so stupid?” one Russian acquaintance of mine wondered, after the West imposed sweeping sanctions that froze around $300 billion of the Russian government’s foreign exchange reserves held in Western banks.
Over the past few weeks, the US, EU, UK, Japan, and other allies have hit Russia with a package of restrictions targeting its access to foreign financing and technology. Russia’s currency has plummeted, inflation is rising, living standards are slumping, and many factories across the country have stopped work due to shortages in components. Russia now faces the deepest economic crisis since post-Soviet collapse in the Nineties — a downturn so severe that it may eventually threaten Vladimir Putin’s hold on power.
Only one month ago, analysts were focused not on Russia’s vulnerability to sanctions but its supposed “sanctions-proofing” strength. The Russian government has dealt with Western sanctions for decades, from the technological restrictions the West imposed on the USSR to the most recent restrictions on oil drilling technology and access to capital markets imposed after Russia’s first attack on Ukraine in 2014. However, the strength of the latest came as a surprise to Russia’s leaders. They thought they had taken adequate steps to defend their economy and that Western leaders would be too worried about domestic prosperity to risk tough measures. Neither assumption proved correct — and now Russia is paying the price.
Like many adversaries of the United States, from North Korea to Iran to Venezuela, Russia sees American sanctions as a fact of life. Almost every year over the past decade, the US has slapped on a new set of sanctions, sometimes unilaterally, sometimes in conjunction with allies in Europe. Some have been linked to domestic human rights violations, such as those implemented under the Magnitsky Act, named after a Russian lawyer who died under suspicious conditions in jail after uncovering a government-linked fraud. Some have been sparked by Russian meddling in American elections. Others were motivated by Russia’s use of a nerve agent in an attempted assassination in the UK. As Putin said just before announcing his decision to attack Ukraine: “They will never think twice before coming up with or just fabricating a pretext for yet another sanction attack … their one and only goal is to hold back the development of Russia.”
From the moment Putin announced that Russia was beginning a “special military operation” to “denazify” Ukraine, more sanctions were inevitable. The Biden administration had threatened “devastating” sanctions, though after endured many rounds of not-very-tough Western sanctions, most Russian leaders thought America was bluffing. The fact that European leaders were divided about sanctions — and that Germany, Europe’s most important player, was putting the finishing touches on a new Russian gas pipeline — led the Russians to believe that the West wasn’t ready for full-scale economic warfare. The Kremlin, therefore, began the war expecting measures that were costly but survivable. In a public meeting right before the invasion, Prime Minister Mikhail Mishustin briefed Putin that “we have thoroughly reviewed these risks” and that “we have been preparing for months”.
In fact, Russia had been preparing for years, knowing that sanctions were always a risk. America’s sanctions campaign against Iran, which cut off its ability to export oil, was a worrisome precedent — though Russia was a far more important oil producer than the Islamic Republic. The 2014 sanctions against Russia, meanwhile, showed that when the US, UK, and EU joined forces, they could sever Russian firms from financial markets in ways that no other country — not even China — could equal.
In response, Russia developed a five-pronged strategy to steel its economy. The first step was to build up a substantial war chest of foreign exchange reserves, including major currencies (Euro, sterling, dollar, yen, and renminbi) and over $100 billion worth of gold. These reserves, equivalent to over twice the value of goods Russia imports in a typical year, were supposed to give Russia financial flexibility in case the West tried imposing restrictions on its ability to export goods and earn foreign currency abroad.
The second prong in Russia’s “sanctions-proofing” strategy was to reduce its use of the US dollar, the currency in which most commodities — and thus most of Russia’s exports — are priced. Russia managed to substantially reduce the scope of dollars in its foreign trade, largely by shifting its trade with China to Euros. The Kremlin also cut dollar holdings in its foreign currency reserves, choosing to hold more of other currencies, including renminbi, instead.
Third, Russia tried developing internal payments systems in case it was severed from Western-dominated platforms. Many purchases in Russia are made using Visa or Mastercard, which are subject to US sanctions legislation. Most international banking transactions are mediated by SWIFT, a Belgium-based organisation subject to EU sanctions. Russia has rolled out a domestic card payment system, called Mir, and an interbank payment system modeled on SWIFT, trying to prepare itself for a potential future without access to these Western platforms.
The fourth strategy was to intensify economic cooperation with China. The more China’s economy grew, and the more ties that Russia had with it, the more Russian leaders felt secure. The Kremlin knew it could rely on China to vociferously object to any Western sanctions that were applied extraterritorially to Chinese firms.
Finally, Russia counted on the West’s energy dependence to limit any willingness to apply economic pressure. The fact that the Germans were afraid of even mentioning the Nord Stream II pipeline demonstrated timidity that emboldened the Kremlin. However, though Germans were uniquely supine in their energy relations with Russia, they weren’t alone in their dependence. America liked to condemn Germany over Nord Stream II, but American politicians were and are highly sensitive to gasoline prices. Restrictions on Russian oil exports were, therefore, guaranteed to be a matter of acute domestic political concern, because such a move would drive up gasoline prices worldwide. The Kremlin assumed this was a price Western leaders would be unwilling to pay.
When Russian forces rolled into Ukraine, however, the West was jolted out of complacency. Though US and UK intelligence had been warning for several months that Russia was ready to invade, most people — and most Western European leaders — simply didn’t believe it. Images of Ukrainian cities aflame left them shocked. So it was Europe that led the drive during the first week of war for tougher economic sanctions, culminating in an almost unprecedented freeze on Russia’s central bank reserves.
This was a level of sanctions escalation that Russian policymakers had never seriously contemplated. On its own, the move — grabbing control of around $300 billion worth of Russian foreign exchange reserves stashed in Western financial institutions — constituted the biggest bank heist in world history. The fact that these moves were multilateral meant that “de-dollarising” didn’t matter. The Euro, pound, and yen were no more accessible to the Kremlin. And it didn’t matter what payments system was used, Russian or otherwise, if a substantial chunk of the world economy simply refused to transact with you.
The Chinese — supposed allies in “sanctions-proofing” — were no less shocked than the Russians by this display of financial firepower. China has already announced that it is cutting off certain Russian industries under special sanctions, such as aviation. China’s banks, meanwhile, continue to undertake some non-sanctioned transactions with Russia, but according to reports they are broadly following the West’s lead. The Moscow–Beijing entente is more a marriage of convenience than a sanctions-busting partnership.
The only part of Russia’s sanctions-proofing plan that is proving somewhat effective is the bet that Western leaders can’t stomach a full energy cut off. The US and UK have announced bans on importing Russian energy, but this only has a minor impact. The EU has announced plans to cut Russian energy imports to zero — but only after several years. The move that would really hit Russia would be to block all its energy exports, via an Iran-style regime that severed its ability to sell to third parties such as India and China. This would dramatically escalate pressure on Russia. It would also push oil prices far higher.
For now, therefore, energy remains the one major loophole in the sanctions regime. Nevertheless, the Russian state faces a deep economic crisis. The ruble has slumped and prices are rising. Unemployment is set to spike as factory closures cause industrial bankruptcies. Living standards will fall far behind inflation, which will accelerate over the coming months. Foreign companies of all types, from BP to McDonald’s, are fleeing.
“I understand that rising prices are seriously hitting people’s incomes,” Putin admitted in a speech on Wednesday. What he didn’t say is that he has neither a plan nor any resources, to deal with this. On the battlefields of Ukraine, Russian forces have demonstrated incompetent organization and a horrible command of logistics. Despite much talk of “sanctions-proofing”, the Kremlin’s efforts to protect itself from economic warfare have been just as inept — and, for Russia, disastrous.
Via UH
Analysis
Unraveling the Political Turmoil: The Call for Change in Israel – Analysis of Netanyahu’s Leadership Amidst International Pressure”
Table of Contents
Introduction:
In recent times, the political landscape in Israel has been tumultuous, with growing international pressure on Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu to step down. This article delves into the complexities surrounding this situation, examining the implications of America’s stance, the criticisms faced by Netanyahu, and the potential risks and opportunities associated with his exit.
America’s Push for Change:
The rift between Israel and America has widened, particularly concerning Israel’s handling of civilian provisions in Gaza. Key figures like Chuck Schumer and Joe Biden have openly criticized Netanyahu, calling for early elections. Explore the significance of America’s influence on Israeli politics and the implications of their support for a leadership change.
Netanyahu’s Leadership Under Scrutiny:
Analyze the accusations leveled against Binyamin Netanyahu, focusing on his alleged tolerance of civilian casualties in Gaza and its impact on global perceptions of Israel. Examine how these criticisms have affected his standing both domestically and internationally.
The Dangers of Transition:
Discuss the potential risks involved in Netanyahu’s departure, considering factors such as political instability, security concerns, and the implications for Israel’s foreign relations. Evaluate the challenges that may arise during a leadership transition and how they could impact the country’s future.
Opportunities for Change:
Highlight the opportunities that a change in leadership could bring to Israel, including potential shifts in policies, diplomatic relations, and public perception. Explore how a new leader could navigate the current challenges facing the nation and work towards rebuilding international support.
Conclusion:
In conclusion, the call for Binyamin Netanyahu to step down reflects a critical juncture in Israeli politics, with far-reaching implications for both domestic governance and international relations. As the pressure mounts for change, it remains to be seen how Israel will navigate this period of uncertainty and what lies ahead for its leadership and people.
The conflict between Israel and Palestine has been ongoing for decades, with numerous attempts at peace negotiations and ceasefires failing to bring lasting resolution. In recent years, the situation in Gaza has escalated, with Israel being accused of committing war crimes and genocide against the Palestinian people. Despite the efforts of the United Nations (UN) to address these allegations, Israel has continued its military operations in the region, leading to the loss of countless lives and the displacement of thousands of civilians.
The failure of the UN to contain Israel’s actions in Gaza has raised questions about the organization’s effectiveness in dealing with conflicts and protecting civilian populations. While the UN has condemned Israel’s actions and called for an end to the violence, it has been unable to enforce its resolutions or hold Israel accountable for its actions. This has led to criticism from many quarters, with some accusing the UN of being biased in favour of Israel and failing to fulfil its mandate to protect human rights.
Despite the challenges, there are still opportunities for the UN to play a more effective role in addressing the conflict in Gaza and holding Israel accountable for its actions. By working with regional partners and engaging in diplomatic efforts, the UN can help to de-escalate tensions and promote a peaceful resolution to the conflict. However, this will require a concerted effort from all parties involved and a willingness to put aside political differences in the interest of the greater good.
Table of Contents
Key Takeaways
- The conflict between Israel and Palestine has escalated in recent years, with Israel being accused of committing war crimes and genocide against the Palestinian people.
- The UN has been criticized for its failure to contain Israel’s actions in Gaza and enforce its resolutions.
- Despite the challenges, there are still opportunities for the UN to play a more effective role in addressing the conflict in Gaza and promoting a peaceful resolution.
Historical Context of the Israel-Gaza Conflict
Roots of the Conflict
The Israel-Gaza conflict has its roots in the displacement of Palestinians from their homes during the creation of the state of Israel in 1948. This displacement, also known as the Nakba, resulted in the loss of homes, land, and livelihoods for over 700,000 Palestinians. Since then, the conflict has been characterized by a series of wars, military operations, and violent clashes between Israel and the Palestinian territories of Gaza and the West Bank.
The conflict escalated in 2007 when the militant group Hamas seized control of Gaza, leading to a blockade by Israel that has severely restricted the movement of people and goods in and out of the territory. The blockade has had a devastating impact on the economy and infrastructure of Gaza, which is one of the most densely populated areas in the world.
UN Interventions and Resolutions
The United Nations has played a significant role in attempting to resolve the Israel-Gaza conflict, but its efforts have been largely unsuccessful. In 1947, the UN partitioned Palestine into two states, one Jewish and one Arab, but the plan was rejected by the Arab states and led to the first Arab-Israeli war.
Since then, the UN has passed numerous resolutions condemning Israeli actions in the occupied territories and calling for an end to the conflict. However, these resolutions have been largely ignored by Israel and have not led to any significant change on the ground.
In recent years, the UN has attempted to broker a ceasefire between Israel and Hamas, but these efforts have also been unsuccessful. The UN has also called for an end to the blockade of Gaza, but Israel has refused to lift the restrictions.
Overall, the failure of the UN to contain Israel from committing war crimes and genocide in Gaza has been a major source of frustration and disappointment for those seeking a peaceful resolution to the conflict.
Analysis of UN Efforts to Address War Crimes Allegations
The United Nations (UN) has made several attempts to address war crimes allegations against Israel in Gaza. This section analyzes the UN’s efforts and highlights the challenges in international law enforcement.
UN Fact-Finding Missions in Gaza
The UN has conducted several fact-finding missions in Gaza to investigate allegations of war crimes and genocide committed by Israel. In 2009, the UN established the Goldstone Commission to investigate the 2008-2009 Gaza conflict. The commission found evidence of war crimes and crimes against humanity committed by both Israel and Hamas. However, Israel refused to cooperate with the commission, and the report was later retracted by its author, Richard Goldstone.
In 2014, the UN established another commission to investigate the 2014 Gaza conflict. The commission found evidence of war crimes and crimes against humanity committed by Israel and Hamas. However, Israel again refused to cooperate with the commission, and the report was met with strong opposition from Israel and its allies.
Challenges in International Law Enforcement
One of the major challenges in international law enforcement is the lack of enforcement mechanisms. The UN has no authority to enforce its decisions, and the International Criminal Court (ICC) can only prosecute individuals, not states. This means that even if the UN or the ICC finds evidence of war crimes or genocide committed by Israel, they cannot compel Israel to comply with their decisions.
Another challenge is the politicization of international law. Israel and its allies have accused the UN and the ICC of bias against Israel, and have used their political influence to undermine the credibility of these institutions. This has made it difficult for the UN and the ICC to conduct impartial investigations and prosecute war crimes and genocide.
In conclusion, the UN has made several attempts to address war crimes allegations against Israel in Gaza but has faced significant challenges in international law enforcement. The lack of enforcement mechanisms and the politicization of international law have made it difficult for the UN and the ICC to prosecute war crimes and genocide.
The Way Forward
Proposed Strategies for Conflict Resolution
The first step towards resolving the conflict between Israel and Gaza is to establish a ceasefire agreement that is respected by both parties. The UN Security Council should take a more active role in mediating this agreement and ensure that it is implemented effectively. The ceasefire should be monitored by a neutral third party to ensure that both sides adhere to the terms of the agreement.
Another proposed strategy is to engage in diplomatic efforts to bring both sides to the negotiating table. The UN should work with regional powers such as Egypt, Jordan, and Saudi Arabia to facilitate these talks. The negotiations should focus on addressing the root causes of the conflict, including the status of Jerusalem, the right of return for Palestinian refugees, and the establishment of a Palestinian state.
Strengthening International Accountability Mechanisms
The UN should also take steps to strengthen international accountability mechanisms to hold Israel accountable for its actions in Gaza. This could include the establishment of an independent commission of inquiry to investigate allegations of war crimes and genocide committed by Israel in Gaza. The commission should be given the power to subpoena witnesses and collect evidence to ensure a thorough investigation.
In addition, the UN should consider imposing economic sanctions on Israel to pressure it to comply with international law. The UN General Assembly should also consider referring the situation in Gaza to the International Criminal Court (ICC) for investigation and prosecution of war crimes and genocide.
Overall, the international community should take a more active role in resolving the conflict between Israel and Gaza. The UN should work to establish a lasting ceasefire agreement and engage in diplomatic efforts to address the root causes of the conflict. Additionally, the UN should strengthen international accountability mechanisms to hold Israel accountable for its actions in Gaza. By taking these steps, the international community can work towards lasting peace in the region.
Frequently Asked Questions
What measures has the UN taken to address allegations of war crimes in Gaza?
The UN has established several fact-finding missions to investigate allegations of war crimes committed by Israel in Gaza. However, these missions have been criticized for their lack of effectiveness due to Israel’s refusal to cooperate with them. Additionally, the UN has passed several resolutions condemning Israel’s actions in Gaza, but these have largely been ignored by Israel.
How has the International Court of Justice responded to the situation in Gaza?
The International Court of Justice has issued several advisory opinions regarding the Israel-Palestine conflict, but it has not taken any concrete action to hold Israel accountable for its actions in Gaza. This is largely because Israel is not a party to the court’s jurisdiction.
What are the limitations of the UN in enforcing resolutions against member states?
The UN has limited enforcement mechanisms when it comes to member states that violate its resolutions. The UN can impose economic sanctions, but these are often ineffective and can harm innocent civilians. The UN can also authorize military action, but this is a last resort and requires the approval of the UN Security Council.
What role does the UN Security Council play in the Israel-Palestine conflict?
The UN Security Council has the power to impose sanctions and authorize military action, but its effectiveness is limited by the fact that the United States, a close ally of Israel, has veto power. This has often resulted in the Security Council being unable to pass resolutions that are critical of Israel.
How many resolutions concerning Israel and Palestine has the UN passed, and what has been their impact?
The UN has passed numerous resolutions concerning Israel and Palestine, but their impact has been limited due to Israel’s refusal to comply with them. Many of these resolutions have been critical of Israel’s actions in Gaza and have called for an end to the occupation of Palestinian territories, but they have largely been ignored by Israel.
What are the proposed steps for the UN to improve its effectiveness in conflict resolution in the Israel-Palestine situation?
Proposed steps for the UN to improve its effectiveness in conflict resolution in the Israel-Palestine situation include increasing pressure on Israel to comply with UN resolutions, improving the effectiveness of fact-finding missions, and finding ways to hold Israel accountable for its actions in Gaza. Additionally, the UN could work with other international organizations to develop a comprehensive peace plan for the region.
In the realm of financial markets, the Federal Reserve’s decisions hold significant weight, influencing investor sentiment and market dynamics. As investors eagerly await the outcome of the Fed’s policy meeting, one key question looms large: Will the Fed maintain its expectation of three rate cuts in 2024? This article delves into the implications of this crucial decision on investors and explores what to watch for during the Fed meeting.
Table of Contents
The Significance of Fed’s Rate Cut Expectations
The Federal Reserve plays a pivotal role in shaping the economic landscape through its monetary policy decisions. Expectations regarding interest rate cuts can have far-reaching effects on various asset classes, including stocks, bonds, and currencies. Investors closely monitor these expectations as they seek to position their portfolios strategically in response to potential policy shifts.
Decoding the “Dot Plot”
Central to understanding the Fed’s stance on interest rates is the “dot plot,” a visual representation of individual policymakers’ projections for future interest rates. The dot plot offers insights into the collective sentiment within the Federal Open Market Committee (FOMC) regarding the trajectory of monetary policy. Investors scrutinize this chart for clues about potential rate cuts or hikes in the coming months.
Market Reaction to Rate Cut Expectations
Anticipation of rate cuts can trigger market volatility as investors recalibrate their expectations and adjust their investment strategies accordingly. Stocks may rally on prospects of lower borrowing costs, while bond yields could fluctuate in response to shifting interest rate projections. Understanding how different asset classes react to changes in rate expectations is crucial for investors navigating uncertain market conditions.
Factors Influencing Fed’s Decision
Several factors influence the Federal Reserve’s decision-making process when it comes to adjusting interest rates. Economic indicators, inflationary pressures, employment data, and global economic conditions all play a role in shaping policymakers’ views on the appropriate stance of monetary policy. By analyzing these factors, investors can gain valuable insights into the rationale behind the Fed’s rate cut expectations.
Implications for Investors
For investors, staying informed about the Fed’s policy outlook is essential for making informed investment decisions. Whether it’s adjusting asset allocations, hedging against potential risks, or capitalizing on emerging opportunities, understanding how rate cut expectations impact different sectors of the market is key to navigating volatile market environments successfully.
What to Watch at Fed Meeting
During the upcoming Fed meeting, investors should pay close attention to not only whether the central bank holds rates steady but also how policymakers communicate their views on future rate cuts. The language used in official statements, press conferences, and economic projections can provide valuable insights into the Fed’s thinking and its implications for financial markets.
Conclusion: Navigating Uncertainty with Informed Decision-Making
As investors await the outcome of the Fed meeting and assess whether policymakers still expect three rate cuts in 2024, maintaining a balanced and informed approach is paramount. By understanding the significance of rate cut expectations, decoding the dot plot, analyzing market reactions, considering influencing factors, and staying vigilant during the Fed meeting, investors can navigate uncertainty with confidence and make sound investment choices.
From Safety to Chaos: The Deteriorating Law and Order Situation in Kashmore
World Teachers Day 2024: Teachers Are the Game Changers of the World
The Birthday of Prophet Muhammad (PBUH): His Role in Reforming Society and Promoting Human Rights
US-UK Role in Changing World Order : Speculations,Concerns and Strategies
Inflation and Job Creation: Key Voter Issues Impacting the 2024 U.S. Elections
Kamala Harris vs. Donald Trump: The Battle for the 2024 U.S. Presidential Election
Analyzing the US Justice Department’s Lawsuit Against Apple: Unpacking the Alleged Smartphone Monopoly
Unraveling the Political Turmoil: The Call for Change in Israel – Analysis of Netanyahu’s Leadership Amidst International Pressure”
UN Failure to Contain Israel: The Way Forward on War Crimes and Genocide in Gaza
-
Featured4 years agoThe Right-Wing Politics in United States & The Capitol Hill Mayhem
-
News3 years agoPrioritizing health & education most effective way to improve socio-economic status: President
-
China3 years agoCoronavirus Pandemic and Global Response
-
Canada3 years agoSocio-Economic Implications of Canadian Border Closure With U.S
-
Conflict3 years agoKashmir Lockdown, UNGA & Thereafter
-
Democracy3 years agoMissing You! SPSC
-
Democracy3 years ago
President Dr Arif Alvi Confers Civil Awards on Independence Day
-
Digital4 years agoPakistan Moves Closer to Train One Million Youth with Digital Skills