While I see the response by Putin to international sanctions as predictable and retaliatory, like a schoolyard bully, they also appear to be more emotional and symbolic than they are likely to be effective. Banning exports is a symbolic statement, but not likely to have major lasting positive outcomes for Russia.
It may be true that stopping export of some raw materials [aluminum and phosphates] may cause a rise in some prices as other nations adjust to alternative supplies. [None of the raw materials banned are available exclusively from Russia.] But to keep Russians working, those materials need to be sold to somebody. And the list of allies needing and able to buy such goods is shrinking daily. Most of Russia's manufactured and finished goods are exported to Russian puppets like Belarus. So other nations are not really going to be “punished” by this “shoot yourself in the foot” strategy. Moreover, manufacturing of such exports keeps a lot of Russians employed. So curtailing exports hurts Russian economy. At the same time, previous buyers of such goods will find other suppliers they deem more reliable. As for consumer goods companies like Starbucks and McDonald's, their model is light on investment in land and buildings, while heavier on disposable goods and service workers. Their withdrawal will mean loss of many Russian worker jobs. And nationalizing "goodwill" assets will be a pyrrhic victory for Putin.
Finally, Russian threats to nationalize assets of foreign companies that withdraw because of the invasion of Ukraine are likely to have longer term negative effects. Initially, those companies will have to balance economic losses because of continuing business with Russia with the value of investments in Russia. [Real risk of boycotts based upon public reaction.] Mid-range effects will be the loss of jobs in Russia from withdrawal of international companies. The greater long term effect will be that international companies will have to think very hard about even attempting to re-enter Russia. Caterpillar can build tractors in Mexico, Poland, and other nations with lower long term risk. Certainly, that is the case as long as Putin is in control of Russia. Major capital investment tends to be risk averse, and Putin is anything but “stable.” For every manufacturing plant Putin nationalizes, the corporations should simultaneously announce expedited plans to build and maintain alternative plants and supply lines in other nations. The obvious message to Putin is that his move will have long lasting consequences.
At the same time, Russia's ban on exports, even if Putin claims it to be temporary, will have effects at least as long as memories of the brutal and genocidal attack on Ukraine is remembered. [Parallels are already circulating about similarities of Nazi invasion of Poland.] The practical result is opening of new opportunities for other nations and economies to enter the gap created by Putin and to establish long term and lower risk business relationships that attract capital investment. China is already pushing influence via "investment" as a strategy in Africa and elsewhere, as the Chinese economy expands globally. So, while Putin sees China as his "friend," it is likely that Xi is smiling and encouraging moves like this "export ban" because it give China a welcome advantage. Contrary to his egoistic perception, Putin is definitely not "the smartest guy in the room."
For the EU, NATO, and Western nations, the response should be to continue to pressure their allied international businesses to withdraw from Russia, and citizens should reinforce that strategy with consumer boycotts of companies that maintain ties with Russia. Those companies will attract goodwill for their corporate conscience position. That goodwill will later be rewarded by average Russians, if the companies are able to re-enter Russia, or to business investments in other nations if Russia becomes a closed door.
See: https://www.bbc.com/news/business-60689279
No comments:
Post a Comment