I don’t think the article successfully argues its main point. Sure, sanctions are galvanizing, but I believe it’s well understood that sanctioning a country is going to result in that country pursuing any other viable avenues to conduct their economic activities. It’s a stretch to say that the sanctions backfired. I would say it’s more accurate to write that the sanctions have resulted in profound consequences, and not all of them are good.

[+] multi_regime_enjoyer@lemmy.ml -19 points 2 weeks ago (1 children)

So what would you call profound consequences that rebounded against the USA, Europe, Australia, South Korea, and Japan, if not blowback?

[–] henfredemars@infosec.pub 2 points 2 weeks ago (1 children)

That’s a different standard. I’m not claiming that there haven’t been negative consequences, but I would hardly call the economic sanctions “backfiring.” To me, backfiring means that the action actually brought the West further away from their goal of harming Russia using nonviolent means with the sanctions.

Consider the price of oil. Having options to sell oil in more markets means you can generate more profits. Being forced into selling oil only to a smaller set of countries who are willing to purchase your product? That’s going to have economic consequences even though it does increase isolationism. I also imagine it’s quite a bit more inconvenient being an oligarch right now in the presence of sanctions.

Has there been some blowback? Sure. But I don’t think it’s backfired completely. There’s definitely been a major impact.

[–] Count042@lemmy.ml 1 points 2 weeks ago* (last edited 2 weeks ago)

Russia makes more money from the sanctions being in place from their oil sales then without the sanctions.

That is the definition of failing.

P.S. Russian oil has full reach of the market because countries that should abide by the sanctions aren't.