SOG is popular...

[Nicoleise]

Originally Posted by Biodome

What's even the official reasoning behind this, if it doesn't target Russia, but, rather, causes problems just for Crimeans alone? Or did they remove services just for fear of instability regarding the region?

You'd have to dig through a lot of really boring documents to attempt to find a reasonable answer to that question, I fear. They are sanctions though, so they are not implemented out of fear of instability, but rather as punishment.

The EU had this to say, when they extended the sanctions till July 2018 (my emphasis):

On 19 June 2017, the Council extended the restrictive measures in response to the illegal annexation of Crimea and Sevastopol by Russia until 23 June 2018.

The measures apply to EU persons and EU based companies. They are limited to the territory of Crimea and Sevastopol. The sanctions include prohibitions on:

• imports of products originating in Crimea or Sevastopol into the EU;
• investment in Crimea or Sevastopol, meaning that no Europeans nor EU-based companies can buy real estate or entities in Crimea, finance Crimean companies or supply related services;
• tourism services in Crimea or Sevastopol, in particular, European cruise ships cannot call at ports in the Crimean peninsula, except in case of emergency;
• exports of certain goods and technologies to Crimean companies or for use in Crimea in the transport, telecommunications and energy sectors and related to the prospection, exploration and production of oil, gas and mineral resources. Technical assistance, brokering, construction or engineering services related to infrastructure in these sectors must not be provided either.

As stated in the declaration by the High Representative for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy on behalf of the EU on 17 March 2017, the EU continues to condemn the illegal annexation of Crimea and Sevastopol by the Russian Federation and remains committed to fully implement its non-recognition policy.

Link: http://www.consilium.europa.eu/en/pr...nds-sanctions/

You'll probably note the complete absense of any reasoning or justification. At the bottom of the page, they placed a link reading "Is there something wrong with this page?" and I'm tempted to click it and write "IT EXPLAINS NOTHING!!!"

[Biodome]

Originally Posted by Nicoleise

You'll probably note the complete absense of any reasoning or justification. At the bottom of the page, they placed a link reading "Is there something wrong with this page?" and I'm tempted to click it and write "IT EXPLAINS NOTHING!!!"

I mean, based on how EU politics work, there must have been some sort of debate and voting on this, so I'd expect there to exist some reasoning buried beneath it all.

I've heard that Crimea is a strategically and economically important location to Russia due to the naval ports and military bases located there, so I'd speculate that these sanctions weaken the region and put a larger burden on Russia to support it. Maybe they decided that extending those sanctions to the whole of Russia might not be feasible in some way or another? I have no idea why though. Perhaps some of the information is even classified.

Foreign policy is such a complicated field, and often with little to no transparency. It's interesting to think about how the whole conflict might develop, and if there will ever be a resolution to it. It seems sort of frozen right now. I haven't even checked how the military situation is in Eastern Ukraine. International/Mainstream media doesn't report on it anymore, from what I have seen, compared to when it all began.

[Nicoleise]

Originally Posted by Biodome

I mean, based on how EU politics work, there must have been some sort of debate and voting on this, so I'd expect there to exist some reasoning buried beneath it all.

I've heard that Crimea is a strategically and economically important location to Russia due to the naval ports and military bases located there, so I'd speculate that these sanctions weaken the region and put a larger burden on Russia to support it. Maybe they decided that extending those sanctions to the whole of Russia might not be feasible in some way or another? I have no idea why though. Perhaps some of the information is even classified.

Foreign policy is such a complicated field, and often with little to no transparency. It's interesting to think about how the whole conflict might develop, and if there will ever be a resolution to it. It seems sort of frozen right now. I haven't even checked how the military situation is in Eastern Ukraine. International/Mainstream media doesn't report on it anymore, from what I have seen, compared to when it all began.

I imagine it's difficult to have an open and transparent debate about foreign policy without also making concessions. Countries doesn't like imposing sanctions, because they - in most cases - hurt themselves as much as the adversary, and because sanctions are famed for their inefficiency.

At the same time, it's important to understand that the goal of sanctions is to "win an argument" and get current conditions fulfilled. The goal isn't to defeat an adversary. For this reason, one must also take care not to cause instability in excess of what would be proportionate to the object of the dispute - or (because again; sanctions work both ways) yourself!


For these reasons, I imagine that the applied reasoning could be such as; if we impose these sanctions on the entirety of Russia, rather than "only" Crimea and Sevastopol, then...

• ...we'll be damaging our export market
• ...we will risk destabilisation of Russia
• ...we will risk destabilisation of the EU (for example, if Russia turns of the supply of gas to Europe, while Europe is technically selfsufficient in gas, the prices of gas would rise dramatically, affecting domestic and commercial heating, production and mobility)

Finally, sanctions will also have to produce a tolerable outcome for both sides. That is to say; while sanctions may be imposed, noone wishes for that to turn into a war. The Japaneese Attack on Pearl Harbor, December 7th, 1941 is a good example on the consequences of sanctions, that were (intentionally or not) too strong to "work".

Russia was already struggling with macroeconomic challenges, particularly caused by a decline in oil prices in the later 2014. The sanctions combined with the decline in oil prices essentially sent Russia into recession with a GDP growth of -2,2% in Q1 2015. When Russia responded by banning the import of "western" food, in combination with the decline of the Rouble, the prices of food rose, and essentially the inflation was worsened.

I don't think the sanctions are at all related to military strategic value. While it's true that Russia has and have had naval bases in the region, sanctions would be largely ineffective against that.

[Biodome]

Originally Posted by Nicoleise

For these reasons, I imagine that the applied reasoning could be such as; if we impose these sanctions on the entirety of Russia, rather than "only" Crimea and Sevastopol, then...

• ...we'll be damaging our export market
• ...we will risk destabilisation of Russia
• ...we will risk destabilisation of the EU (for example, if Russia turns of the supply of gas to Europe, while Europe is technically selfsufficient in gas, the prices of gas would rise dramatically, affecting domestic and commercial heating, production and mobility)

That makes sense. I agree with you that Crimean sanctions are possibly just a way for the EU to make an explicit ideological stance on the conflict, rather than something designed to force the issue. Destabilizing Russian economy does indeed seem slightly unrealistic, although I've heard from pro-Ukrainian sources that "the Russian economy is failing" and that "the current international sanctions are extremely effective, and we need more of them". Then again, you'd expect those kinds of sources to be supportive of the EU.


It's funny that we've managed to completely derail this nice thread on the .com domain, though