Blog Post

AEIdeas

President-elect Donald Trump’s choices for top national security positions suggest he intends a broad shakeup of US foreign policy. One of the first action items could be abandoning US and EU sanctions implemented on Russia following Vladimir Putin’s 2014 seizure of Crimea and invasion of Ukraine. Trump said he would “look into” it. His pick for Secretary of State, ExxonMobil CEO Rex Tillerson, opposes sanctions in general. And National Security Advisor Mike Flynn has called for the US and Russia to “combine” national security strategies.

The immediate concern is what message that would send. Does Trump accept Putin’s illegal seizure of Crimea? Will he recognize the Russian protectorates in Donetsk and Luhansk taken from Ukraine? Does he know and care that Russia is currently supporting extremist political parties in Europe, engaging in dozens of reckless military air and sea maneuvers across the continent, and launching cyber-attacks against its neighbors and now, possibly, against the US? If the answer is no, then the days of US support for sanctions are numbered.

Sanctions are not a strategy unto themselves. But in the face of an increasingly shaky EU and antagonistic Russia, they are a critical statement recognizing common values – and threats.

But are sanctions really an effective response to Putin’s revisionist foreign policy? After all, sanctions alone will not fundamentally change the regime’s behavior. Nor are they even a “Russia policy” on their own –- they are an inadequate stand-in for one. But even this stand-in is a message to US allies that Washington sees, understands, and condemns Russian action. Sanctions against Russia are not just about Russia. They are also an essential element of Europe’s response to wide-ranging challenges to unity and security.

The continent is reeling from anti-EU referenda and bracing for critical elections in France and Germany. To regularly punish Russian attacks on sovereignty and democracy is an important – and increasingly necessary – act of unity on the Continent. In requiring regular unanimous re-approval, the EU’s sanctions are an exercise in European consensus, requiring US leadership and engagement. Sanctions are not a strategy unto themselves. But in the face of an increasingly shaky EU and antagonistic Russia, they are a critical statement recognizing common values – and threats.

Finally, lifting the sanctions is neither low-risk nor de-escalatory. To do so would condone Putin’s foreign policy and worldview that perceived national interest and spurious territorial claims supersede international treaties and norms. It risks alienating nearly every European ally and disregards the democratic foundation of the Continent. Furthermore, this move would not reduce tensions, but rather send a clear message: the price of violating those long-standing treaties and norms by invading a country unprovoked is just a couple of years of sanctions. Putin has willingly paid that price before.

The US needs a broader response to Russian aggression than just sanctions, but that should be an additive process that reflects the importance of our European partnerships and our views of the international order as a whole. If Trump does indeed want the US to be respected, he cannot reward Putin’s behavior abroad by lifting the sanctions.