Follow us on social

google cta
The real fallout of economic warfare with Russia

The real fallout of economic warfare with Russia

Let there be no mistake, sanctions could have a significant negative impact on global markets and drive inflation to new heights.

Analysis | Europe
google cta
google cta

There have been plenty of factors driving stock market volatility lately, especially the unwinding of Federal Reserve assistance to the economy and the specter of lasting inflation. But in recent weeks a new one has been added — the potential for a conflict in Ukraine. Sanctions related to that conflict could have significant negative impacts on the U.S. economy and drive inflation to new heights.

This past week the prospect of a war in Ukraine drove sickening swings in the market, with losses early in the week as the United States warned of a Russian invasion on Feb 16, a recovery rally as it appeared an invasion would not happen, and then another lurch downward as the White House continues to insist an invasion is likely in the near future.

It’s not surprising that U.S. markets are hyper-responsive to events in Ukraine. The reason isn’t the violence of an invasion, but the prospect of full-scale economic warfare if Russia invades Ukraine and the fallout that will create here at home. Russia is one of the top exporters of natural resources in the world, led by its large exports of oil and gas, but also key agricultural and food-related commodities ranging from wheat to potash (a key component of fertilizers). Ukraine is also a leading exporter of wheat and corn.

The severe economic sanctions contemplated to punish Russia for an invasion, if they worked, would essentially cut Russia off from world markets. By far the most severe consequences would of course be in Russia, but the interruption in Russian and likely Ukrainian exports would also drive prices up across the world, including in the United States.  JP Morgan forecasters recently predicted that a full-scale economic offensive against Russia could “easily” drive up global oil prices by a third, from their current level of $90 a barrel to $120 or more a barrel. According to another recent analysis, a price increase to even $110 a barrel would spike U.S. inflation rates to over 10 percent due to impacts on gasoline prices, heating oil costs, and other expenses. This is before taking into account the effect on food price inflation, which would also be affected.

These effects are no secret. Last Tuesday, President Biden warned that sanctions would not be painless for the American public, and the next day Treasury Secretary Janet Yellen told Agence France Presse that there would be “global fallout” from the sanctions.

Other areas of the world would also be impacted, most prominently our allies in Europe. Russia is the EU’s largest energy supplier, and sanctions would have a significant impact on prices and growth in Europe. This means that if sanctions were put on for an extended period they could strain our European alliances, especially with Western European allies.

 A recent poll by the European Council for Foreign Relations found that majorities in Germany, France, and Italy felt that an economic downturn was too high a price to pay for taking on Russia over Ukraine, with a 38-35 majority in Germany and a 41-31 majority in France agreeing with this perspective. Their governments are far more supportive of the need for sanctions in response to Russian aggression in Ukraine, and indeed are designing potential sanctions measures themselves. But the polling demonstrates the political pressures that will come into play if these measures  lead to an economic downturn.

Inflationary effects would also impact less-developed countries, especially in Africa, where countries are currently facing record rises in food prices, driving poverty, and unrest across the continent. Commenting on potential sanctions-related price spikes, Ophelia Coutts, a consultant at Verisk Maplecroft, stated that “a combination of high food and energy prices will accentuate a cost-of-living crisis and increase the potential for civil unrest in many places, particularly in Africa and the Middle East.”

None of this means that tough sanctions aren’t an appropriate and indeed potentially necessary response if Russia violates international law by proceeding with a full-scale invasion of Ukraine. But it’s clear that these measures, while having by far their greatest impact on Russia and Russian citizens, also impose a significant cost on the world community and on U.S. consumers. Aat a time when many around the world, including in the United States, are struggling with the highest inflation rates in decades, sanctions will make the problem worse.

This underscores the importance of continuing to push for a diplomatic solution to avert a full-scale conflict in Ukraine. By putting issues on the table like NATO expansion, a forceful push to re-start the Minsk peace process in the Donbass, and mutual agreements on more restrained force deployments around Europe, such a solution may still be possible. Even if sanctions are put in place in response to Russian aggression, the costs of holding them on over time means that we should be prepared to lift them in exchange for peace. Sanctions will only be an effective incentive for positive behavior if Russia knows they can be lifted as a reward for constructive actions.


Shutterstock/m.mphoto|m.mphoto/shutterstock
google cta
Analysis | Europe
US foreign policy
Top photo credit: A political cartoon portrays the disagreement between President William McKinley and Joseph Pulitzer, who worried the U.S. was growing too large through foreign conquests and land acquisitions. (Puck magazine/Creative Commons)

What does US ‘national interest’ really mean?

Washington Politics

In foreign policy discourse, the phrase “the national interest” gets used with an almost ubiquitous frequency, which could lead one to assume it is a strongly defined and absolute term.

Most debates, particularly around changing course in diplomatic strategy or advocating for or against some kind of economic or military intervention, invoke the phrase as justification for their recommended path forward.

keep readingShow less
V-22 Osprey
Top Image Credit: VanderWolf Images/ Shutterstock
Osprey crash in Japan kills at least 1 US soldier

Military aircraft accidents are spiking

Military Industrial Complex

Military aviation accidents are spiking, driven by a perfect storm of flawed aircraft, inadequate pilot training, and over-involvement abroad.

As Sen. Elizabeth Warren’s (D- Mass.) office reported this week, the rate of severe accidents per 100,000 flight hours, was a staggering 55% higher than it was in 2020. Her office said mishaps cost the military $9.4 billion, killed 90 service members and DoD civilian employees, and destroyed 89 aircraft between 2020 to 2024. The Air Force lost 47 airmen to “preventable mishaps” in 2024 alone.

The U.S. continues to utilize aircraft with known safety issues or are otherwise prone to accidents, like the V-22 Osprey, whose gearbox and clutch failures can cause crashes. It is currently part of the ongoing military buildup near Venezuela.

Other mishap-prone aircraft include the Apache Helicopter (AH-64), which saw 4.5 times more accidents in 2024 than 2020, and the C-130 military transport aircraft, whose accident rate doubled in that same period. The MH-53E Sea Dragon helicopter was susceptible to crashes throughout its decades-long deployment, but was kept operational until early 2025.

Dan Grazier, director of the Stimson Center’s National Security Reform Program, told RS that the lack of flight crew experience is a problem. “The total number of flight hours U.S. military pilots receive has been abysmal for years. Pilots in all branches simply don't fly often enough to even maintain their flying skills, to say nothing of improving them,” he said.

To Grazier’s point, army pilots fly less these days: a September 2024 Congressional Budget Office (CBO) report found that the average manned aircraft crew flew 198 flight hours in 2023, down from 302 hours flown in 2011.

keep readingShow less
Majorie Taylor Greene
Top photo credit" Majorie Taylor Greene (Shutterstock/Consolidated News Service)

Marjorie Taylor Greene to resign: 'I refuse to be a battered wife'

Washington Politics

Republican Congresswoman Marjorie Taylor Greene of Georgia’s 14th district, who at one time was arguably the politician most associated with Donald Trump’s “MAGA” movement outside of the president himself, announced in a lengthy video Friday night that she would be retiring from Congress, with her last day being January 5.

Greene was an outspoken advocate for releasing the Epstein Files, which the Trump administration vehemently opposed until a quick reversal last week which led to the House and Senate quickly passing bills for the release which the president signed.

keep readingShow less
google cta
Want more of our stories on Google?
Click here to make us a Preferred Source.

LATEST

QIOSK

Newsletter

Subscribe now to our weekly round-up and don't miss a beat with your favorite RS contributors and reporters, as well as staff analysis, opinion, and news promoting a positive, non-partisan vision of U.S. foreign policy.