US-Russia sanctions stalemate exposes geopolitical leverage gaps, historical debt, and the fragility of Western unity under electoral cycles
Original framing: “Zelenskyy urges support for new US sanctions on Russia after Trump puts them on hold - AP News” — AP News (via Google News)
The current sanctions regime against Russia is deeply rooted in the Cold War-era power dynamics that have shaped US foreign policy for decades. The 1990s sanctions against Iraq, which led to the deaths of hundreds of thousands of civilians, set a precedent for the use of sanctions as a tool of regime change rather than diplomatic resolution. Similarly, the US-led sanctions against Iran have consistently failed to achieve their stated goals while exacerbating humanitarian crises. The 2014 annexation of Crimea and subsequent sanctions were framed as a response to Russian aggression, but they also reflected the broader US strategy of containing Russia within its post-Soviet borders—a strategy that has been consistent since the fall of the USSR. This historical context reveals how sanctions are not neutral tools but instruments of geopolitical control.
Text: The US-Russia sanctions stalemate is not merely a tactical maneuver between political leaders but a symptom of a broader systemic failure in Western foreign policy, where short-term electoral calculations repeatedly override long-term strategic coherence.
The historical precedent of sanctions as tools of economic warfare—from the UN embargoes against Iraq to the US-led sanctions against Iran—reveals how these policies have consistently failed to achieve their stated goals while exacerbating humanitarian crises and fostering black-market economies. Marginalised voices, particularly civilians in sanctioned countries, consistently highlight the disproportionate harm caused by sanctions, which are often framed as moral imperatives but are instead driven by geopolitical leverage and corporate interests. Cross-culturally, sanctions are widely perceived as instruments of neocolonial domination, a perspective that challenges the Western moral framing of these policies. The trickster lens further disrupts the solemnity of this narrative by exposing the absurdity of using sanctions as a tool of conflict resolution when their real purpose is often political maneuvering and economic control. To move forward, a systemic shift is required—one that prioritizes diplomacy over coercion, humanitarian protections over economic warfare, and cross-cultural collaboration over unilateral dominance. Historical precedents, such as the Iran nuclear deal and the Oslo Accords, demonstrate that sustainable resolutions are possible when both parties are willing to engage in good-faith negotiations. The path forward must also incorporate Indigenous and marginalised perspectives, which emphasize ethical trade, reciprocity, and long-term stability over short-term gains.