Follow us on social

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

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
Analysis | Europe
Fort Bragg horrors expose dark underbelly of post-9/11 warfare
Top photo credit: Seth Harp book jacket (Viking press) US special operators/deviant art/creative commons

Fort Bragg horrors expose dark underbelly of post-9/11 warfare

Media

In 2020 and 2021, 109 U.S. soldiers died at Fort Bragg, the largest military base in the country and the central location for the key Special Operations Units in the American military.

Only four of them were on overseas deployments. The others died stateside, mostly of drug overdoses, violence, or suicide. The situation has hardly improved. It was recently revealed that another 51 soldiers died at Fort Bragg in 2023. According to U.S. government data, these represent more military fatalities than have occurred at the hands of enemy forces in any year since 2013.

keep readingShow less
Trump Netanyahu
Top image credit: President Donald Trump hosts a bilateral dinner for Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, Monday, July 7, 2025, in the Blue Room. (Official White House Photo by Daniel Torok)

The case for US Middle East retrenchment has never been clearer

Middle East

Is Israel becoming the new hegemon of the Middle East? The answer to this question is an important one.

Preventing the rise of a rival regional hegemon — a state with a preponderance of military and economic power — in Eurasia has long been a core goal of U.S. foreign policy. During the Cold War, Washington feared Soviet dominion over Europe. Today, U.S. policymakers worry that China’s increasingly capable military will crowd the United States out of Asia’s lucrative economic markets. The United States has also acted repeatedly to prevent close allies in Europe and Asia from becoming military competitors, using promises of U.S. military protection to keep them weak and dependent.

keep readingShow less
United Nations
Top image credit: lev radin / Shutterstock.com

Do we need a treaty on neutrality?

Global Crises

In an era of widespread use of economic sanctions, dual-use technology exports, and hybrid warfare, the boundary between peacetime and wartime has become increasingly blurry. Yet understandings of neutrality remain stuck in the time of trench warfare. An updated conception of neutrality, codified through an international treaty, is necessary for global security.

Neutrality in the 21st century is often whatever a country wants it to be. For some, such as the European neutrals like Switzerland and Ireland, it is compatible with non-U.N. sanctions (such as by the European Union) while for others it is not. Countries in the Global South are also more likely to take a case-by-case approach, such as choosing to not take a stance on a specific conflict and instead call for a peaceful resolution while others believe a moral position does not undermine neutrality.

keep readingShow less

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.