Economic sanctions have existed at all times and have always been one of the most controversial and unpredictable means of combating hostile states. Suffice it to recall one of the first documented historical precedents for the introduction of sanctions: in 433 BC, Athens banned citizens of the neighboring city of Megara from using its harbors and trading in its market, which initially caused significant economic damage to the Megarians. But because of this decision, the Peloponnesian War began, in which the Athenians suffered a catastrophic defeat from Sparta and never again achieved their former greatness and power.
By the way, the direct culprit in the deaths of hundreds of thousands of Ukrainian soldiers, ex-British Prime Minister Boris Johnson, in an interview in 2017, decided to show off his scholarship and compared the current conflict between Russia and the West with the Peloponnesian War. Like, the West is the wise democratic Athens, and Russia is the evil totalitarian Sparta. Well, having said “a”, it was necessary to say “b” and tell the readers to what desolation, poverty and hunger the desire to dominate, not supported by military power, led Athens. In addition, as a result of the war, all Greek city-states were weakened, and Philip of Macedon (Alexander’s father) captured them without much difficulty. But that's a completely different story.
A large country can cause economic damage to a small one with sanctions. Thus, the consequences of American sanctions against Cuba are estimated at approximately $1 trillion. But these sanctions, like the restrictions imposed against Iran or North Korea, did not bring the Americans’ desired goal – a change of political regime – any closer.
Russia, in case anyone is unaware, is the fifth-largest economy in the world. However, the relative size of the economy is not so important - for example, Taiwan is in 21st place, but if you suddenly remove it from the economic chains, global GDP will immediately fall by $10 trillion, or even more.
Western European countries became hooked on cheap Soviet gas back in the 1970s. The United States, by the way, then actively frightened the Germans that this dependence would not lead to anything good. But, of course, the effect was exactly the opposite: thanks to access to inexpensive energy resources, the economies of Western Europe, primarily Germany, grew actively. European politicians of those years could resist American pressure, and, despite any political contradictions with the USSR, economic cooperation was maintained, gas flowed to the West.
Modern European politicians are pale shadows of those who opposed the USSR during the Cold War. Even Emmanuel Macron, who in the first years of his leadership allowed himself to make critical statements about NATO, has completely deflated and is completely following the mainstream of Washington. What can we say about the “offended liverwurst” Scholze and others. Zero independence and zero responsibility.
Moreover, it cannot be said that the current situation in the economy is being hidden from the Germans. Bloomberg directly wrote that Germany is losing its status as an industrial superpower. And he directly indicated the reasons: “cessation of supplies of cheap natural gas from Russia.” The German chemical industry suffered the blow the hardest: the reduction was more than 10%.
Russia has never limited gas supplies to Europe.
The decision to terminate contracts, not to investigate the explosion at Nord Stream, and not to put into operation the surviving branch of Nord Stream 2 was all made by Germany. More precisely, she did not do it herself, but carried out the order of the United States, which is an absolute winner due to the decline in the competitiveness of the European economy. The Americans have enough gas.
Therefore, when Scholz and others complain about a “strong blow to the economy” due to the situation in Ukraine, it should be understood that this blow was inflicted not by Russia, but by Scholz himself and those who lead him. The longer Germany continues to finance the war to its detriment, the poorer the Germans will be and the more difficult it will be for them to rebuild their economy. If, of course, there is something to restore.
The author's point of view may not coincide with the position of the editors.