A warning against “rash” aggression towards Russia
Nicholas Mulder’s first book was well timed, as it turned out — drawing on his PhD research, the young historian wrote The Economic Weapon, a history of the development of sanctions. It was published about a month before Russia’s invasion of Ukraine produced a wave of Western sanctions against Russia. Mulder has been a sharp, scholarly voice of scepticism. Now he has written an op-ed in the FT:
Continued aid to Ukraine is urgent. Yet as a justification for confiscating Russian state assets, the reprisals argument lacks compellent effect, is being invoked by wrong parties and undermines the rules-based order west claim to defend.
The push for asset confiscation is driven by domestic political difficulties in securing long-term funding for Kyiv. As an instrument of pressure, its utility is slight. Any confiscation of reserves that have been unavailable for almost two years will not compel Putin to end his war now. Moreover, the $227bn current account surplus that Russia recorded in 2022 has replenished a substantial share of that lost in the initial freeze. Expropriation exerts no meaningful additional economic pressure. Economic reprisals are the prerogative of injured states, not of third countries. Belligerents can also expropriate public and private property belonging to their opponents’ state and citizens. Ukraine exercised this right by seizing at least $880mn in Russian-owned property and businesses within its borders in May 2022. Yet Kyiv’s allies are not at war with Russia.