Simon Jenkins doesn’t sugarcoat it in The Guardian: When it comes to sanctions, the results just aren’t there.
This is a tough pill for politicians to swallow. Sanctions seem so satisfying — they let governments flex, show they’re “doing something,” without the mess of war. Freeze assets, cut off trade, ban a few exports, and leaders get to make bold speeches about standing up to the simply labelled "bad guys".
But Jenkins says the numbers don’t back it up.
Sanctions, he points out, almost never deliver what politicians promise. Putin marched on. Iran’s regime still stands.
And then there's Cuba and North Korea - sanctioned to the hilt, but no political change.
Shifting the pain
The sad truth is that autoritarian governments usually find ways to shift most of the pain onto the ordinary people. The ruling class stays comfortable, while businesses crash, prices soar, and normal people get poorer. Sometimes, sanctions even make regimes stronger — governments use foreign pressure to whip up nationalism and blame outsiders for people’s troubles.
Jenkins calls out the “silent poor” and the middle class who suffer most. It’s often the educated, skilled professionals and entrepreneurs who leave, draining their countries of the very people who might push for reform. So instead of toppling autocrats, sanctions can gut civil society.
So why do politicians keep going back to sanctions?
I mean do we even need to ask the question?
It's either do nothing or start a war, the former is weak, the latter outrageously expensive - sanctions are an easy way to look like you're doing something, and that's politics, right there!
A further factor where big players are concenred is that they dapt fast. Russia found new buyers for energy in Asia. Iran built whole networks to dodge sanctions. China is quietly preparing for any future isolation by creating alternatives — homegrown supply chains, new payment systems. The ones who pay are ordinary people.
Plus, pushing sanctions too hard can have side effects. Countries like Russia, China, and Iran are learning to work together, partly because the West keeps coming after them economically.
Jenkins’ argument is tough because it asks us to face something we’d rather not admit: Sanctions feel good, but they usually don’t work. Governments still need a response to invasions or abuses — and military options could be disastrous, while pure diplomacy often fizzles. So sanctions stick around because they’re politically safer, not necessarily because they’re effective.
This post has been shared on Reddit by @davideownzall through the HivePosh initiative.
Well said!
!PIZZA
$PIZZA slices delivered:
@urielkinnear(4/5) tipped @revisesociology
Send $PIZZA tips in Discord via tip.cc!
So much of governing is just for show.
I assume they can still hit economies and have to be better than conflict. Of course the leaders will not really suffer and they can keep their people under control. I guess consumer boycotts have even less effect as most will not join in with those. But then money talks and maybe it can change minds in the long run.