Western policymakers assumed that comprehensive economic restrictions would create internal pressure forcing Moscow to reconsider its Ukraine policy. Yet evidence from a recent Intelligence Squared debate suggests the opposite may be true: sanctions are not working as intended, and may actually be reinforcing the political narrative that sustains President Putin’s domestic support.
The Paradox of Economic Warfare
Ian Proud, a former British diplomat who served at the UK Embassy in Moscow from 2014 to 2019 and personally authorised approximately half of Britain’s sanctions against Russia, offered a sobering assessment during the debate. According to Proud, “Every time we impose a new round of sanctions against Russia, we simply prove in the minds of ordinary Russian people that Vladimir Vladimirovich was right all along.”
This observation highlights a fundamental miscalculation. Putin has spent 25 years constructing a narrative that the West seeks to encircle and weaken Russia. Each new sanctions package, Proud explained, validates that narrative amongst the Russian population, transforming what Western governments intend as punishment into proof of external hostility.
The Impact of Sanctions on Russia’s Political Landscape
The impact of sanctions on Russia extends beyond economic metrics to reshape domestic politics in ways Western strategists failed to anticipate. Rather than creating pressure on Putin to withdraw from Ukraine, the restrictions have enabled him to consolidate power by framing economic hardship as the cost of resisting Western aggression.
Rebecca Harding, CEO of the Centre for Economic Security, provided crucial economic context during the debate. Whilst Russia’s energy revenues declined by 19% year-on-year, as Harding noted, “Russia continues to fight its war” with no sign of strategic retreat. The disconnect between economic pressure and policy change reveals a critical gap in Western strategic thinking.
Reframing Economic Hardship
The political narrative matters more than the economic reality. Harding characterised Russia’s domestic messaging as: “If it were up to us you’d have guns and butter. But they have guns pointed at us, and you can’t get butter because the West is stopping you through sanctions.” This framing transforms economic consequences into evidence of foreign hostility rather than domestic policy failure.
Are Russian Sanctions Working? The Evidence Suggests Otherwise
The question of whether are Russian sanctions working must be measured against their stated objectives. The Russia (Sanctions) (EU Exit) Regulations 2019 explicitly aimed to encourage Russia to cease destabilising Ukraine and to avoid interfering with Ukrainian sovereignty and independence. According to Proud’s testimony, since 2022 alone, 5.9 million people have fled Ukraine, 3.7 million have been internally displaced, and 1.3 million—including children—have been killed or injured.
These statistics represent not merely policy failure but humanitarian catastrophe. Ukraine remains entirely dependent on approximately £50 billion annually in Western aid, with its energy infrastructure under sustained assault. Sanctions have not prevented any of these outcomes.
Why Sanctions on Russia Face Structural Obstacles
Understanding why sanctions on Russia have failed requires examining the asymmetry between Western decision-making and Russian resolve. Proud described the problem vividly: “Despite NATO having 27 times economically greater weight than Russia, collectively we can’t decide anything quick enough to affect decisive action. Putin sits across a chessboard looking at 32 people squabbling loudly for months on end, only to decide not to take the most optimal move.”
This structural disadvantage is compounded by what Harding identified as fundamentally different strategic cultures. Russia has been preparing for economic confrontation since at least 2017, when Moscow shifted export support measures from oil and gas to grain production. Russia now controls nearly 25% of world wheat exports, creating dependencies that complicate the sanctions coalition whilst demonstrating long-term strategic planning that Western powers failed to anticipate or match.
The Oligarch Illusion
Western strategy placed significant emphasis on sanctioning wealthy Russian businessmen, assuming they would either flee Russia or pressure Putin to change course. This assumption has proven spectacularly wrong. As Proud pointed out, “This idea that somehow if we expropriate the assets of a London-based billionaire who moved their assets to London to avoid those assets being stolen in Russia that they will rise up against Putin, I’m afraid is misguided.”
The reality is that Putin spent years systematically dismantling the political influence of Russia’s oligarch class. Wealthy businessmen who relocated assets abroad did so precisely to protect them from potential seizure by the Russian state. Western sanctions accomplished what Putin himself might have wished: the final separation of Russia’s business elite from any meaningful political power.
Implications for Future Policy
The evidence presented suggests that continuing the current sanctions trajectory without acknowledging their counterproductive effects represents a form of policy paralysis. Proud’s conclusion was unambiguous: “Sanctions are our foreign policy and our foreign policy has failed.”
This assessment demands consideration of alternatives. Diplomatic engagement, credible military deterrence, and clearly articulated conditions for sanctions relief might offer pathways forward. The absence of such alternatives leaves Western governments trapped in a cycle where each new sanctions package provides diminishing returns whilst reinforcing the very narrative that sustains Putin’s domestic position.
The fundamental challenge is that sanctions designed to weaken an adversary’s resolve have instead strengthened it. Economic pressure, when divorced from diplomatic strategy and realistic assessment of the target’s political culture, transforms into a tool that serves the adversary’s interests more effectively than one’s own. Until Western policymakers acknowledge this uncomfortable reality, EU sanctions and broader Western restrictions will continue producing outcomes opposite to their stated intentions.