The Paradox of Sanctions: How Punishing Tyrants Ends Up Empowering Them

After Russia escalated its invasion of Ukraine by launching its newest intermediate-range ballistic missile nicknamed ‘Oreshnik’ in a missile strike on November 29^th, 2024, the United States responded with yet another wave of sanctions, tightening restrictions on Russia's financial and economic sectors. According to The Washington Post, the US currently imposes sanctions on a staggering one-third of all nations. The severity of these measures varies widely — from restricting Russian nationals' ability to use credit cards abroad to exacerbating starvation and humanitarian crises in North Korea. Yet, despite these harsh penalties, both nations have intensified their military activities, raising a pressing question: do sanctions actually work?

Sanctions are financial or diplomatic tools utilized by countries and international organizations to influence the policies of other nations. By restricting trade, freezing assets, or cutting access to global markets, sanctions aim to pressure governments to comply with international norms, resolve conflicts, or address human rights violations — all without resorting to military force. They are both a symbol of condemnation and a strategic lever in global diplomacy.

Following North Korea's advancements in the development of nuclear weapons and its severe human rights abuses, such as the presence of labor camps, suppression of dissent, and lack of fundamental freedoms for its citizens, the US introduced severe sanctions against the Asian country in early 2013. The United States outlawed exports of luxury goods and technology to North Korea, in addition to imposing severe restrictions on North Korean diplomats, along with travel bans for specific officials and entities involved in weapons development or human rights abuses. Similarly, Russia became the most sanctioned nation in the world, listing over 20,000 sanctions on its entities and individuals. Noticeably, nearly three years after Russia’s invasion of Ukraine and North Korea's increasingly frequent missile tests, sanctions have conspicuously failed to achieve their primary objective of deterring these nations from pursuing actions that undermine regional stability and violate international norms.

In many authoritarian contexts, regimes have demonstrated a capacity to absorb and adjust to the effects of sanctions with surprising agility. For instance, Russia has strategically diversified its trade partnerships, strengthening ties with nations in the Global South. Following export bans imposed by Western countries, China emerged as a major buyer of discounted Russian oil, while India significantly increased its imports of Russian energy products. Similarly, North Korea has honed sophisticated maritime smuggling networks to bypass sanctions on coal and oil exports, maintaining these critical revenue streams despite international restrictions.

Another fundamental flaw of sanctions is their disproportionate impact on ordinary citizens while leaving the elite largely unscathed. Western restrictions on North Korea's trade, fuel, and essential goods have deepened widespread poverty and exacerbated food insecurity, with nearly 75 percent of the population reportedly suffering from chronic malnutrition. Sanctions targeting agricultural inputs, such as fertilizers and machinery, have further reduced crop yields, intensifying the country's already precarious food supply. Meanwhile, North Korea's ruling elite, bolstered by state-controlled resources and illicit networks, continue to live in relative comfort, effectively insulated from the hardships imposed by these measures.

Subsequently, sanctions can often produce unintended consequences, strengthening rather than weakening authoritarian regimes. Following the onset of hostilities in Ukraine, Vladimir Putin's official approval rating surged from 69 percent to 87 percent by October 2024. Instead of destabilizing the regime, Western sanctions have been reframed by the Kremlin as part of a "broader Western campaign to weaken and humiliate Russia." This narrative taps into historical grievances and national pride, portraying Russia as a victim of foreign aggression and a staunch defender of sovereignty.

The economic hardships resulting from sanctions—such as soaring inflation and restricted access to foreign goods—are attributed not to domestic policy failures but to Western hostility. This tactic shifts blame away from the Kremlin while fostering a "rally-around-the-flag" effect, where citizens coalesce around their leaders in response to external threats.

Moreover, sanctions have provided the Kremlin with a pretext to tighten state control over the economy and society, further entrenching its power. By framing economic isolation as a patriotic cause, the regime has stifled dissent and maintained internal stability, even as sanctions continue to weigh heavily on the broader economy.

Alternatively, the US and other Western nations could adopt a more targeted approach to fostering democratization and compliance with international law by focusing on empowering civil society rather than relying solely on sanctions. A key strategy would be to support grassroots organizations, NGOs, and local leaders by providing direct funding and training to promote democracy, human rights, and social reforms from within, effectively bypassing regime control. This approach would strengthen the internal movement for individual liberties and systemic change, reducing dependence on external intervention. By empowering civil society to challenge oppressive government policies, the US and its allies could avoid exacerbating the already precarious living standards of the population.

As a matter of fact, this strategy is not without precedent. The US Agency for International Development (USAID) has successfully provided grants and technical assistance to bolster free media in countries like Belarus and Ukraine, enabling independent reporting and fostering accountability in the face of authoritarian pressures. Expanding and prioritizing such initiatives could offer a more ethical and effective alternative to sanctions, leveraging existing programs to drive meaningful reform without inflicting widespread harm on ordinary citizens.

However, as of April 2025, the recently initiated dismantling of USAID—driven by the Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE) and championed by Elon Musk—has resulted in the termination of support for civil society organizations, independent media, and pro-democracy efforts in Russia and Belarus. This abrupt withdrawal has left opposition groups without vital funding and resources.

In place of USAID, the current administration could empower international foundations and independent NGOs, such as the National Endowment for Democracy (NED), to fill the gap. These organizations are well-positioned to provide financial support, technical assistance, and institutional backing to civil society actors in restrictive environments like Russia and North Korea, without the political baggage or visibility of direct state intervention.

As a Russian national, I have witnessed firsthand the tangible consequences of sanctions: friends from Moscow arriving abroad with stacks of cash, unable to use their credit cards, and stories of pensioners struggling to afford basic necessities due to rising inflation — while those in positions of wealth and power appear largely insulated from the fallout.

These experiences illustrate a stark reality—sanctions rarely achieve their intended goals. Instead of curbing aggression or fostering compliance with international norms, they allow authoritarian regimes to adapt, evade, and even strengthen their grip on power. The elites remain insulated, while ordinary citizens bear the brunt of the economic fallout. Rather than persisting with a tool that exacerbates suffering without yielding meaningful change, the US and its allies should pivot toward empowering civil society and fostering grassroots reform.

Byline: Alexander Sokolskiy (CC’ 28) is a guest-writer for the Emerging Markets Review. He is a freshman at Columbia College majoring in Economics-Mathematics.