Here’s something else I’ll believe when I see it. I just heard Sens. Lindsey Graham and Richard Blumenthal declaring their joint support for a piece of legislation that would grant President Trump the authority (without additional Congressional supervision) to impose additional 500% tariffs on goods from China, India, and Brazil on the grounds that those counties are financing Russia’s war against Ukraine by purchasing oil and reselling it.
There are so many “ifs” in that statement that sounds to me more like a campaign promise than a policy. If Congress passes the bill… If President Trump imposes the tariffs without suspending them… If sky-high tariffs are enough to deter China, India, and Brazil from purchasing Russian oil… If removing Chinese, Indian, and Brazilian purchases of Russian oil is sufficient to bring Russia to end its aggression on Ukraine…
And, of course, if that can be done without producing a serious recession in the United States.
Frankly, I’m skeptical.
Tariffs just solve everything dont you know? Join the cult. Ask Drew what direction he has to place the prayer rug. (I am assuming towards Mar-a-Lago.)
Steve
BRICS+ comprises 55% of world economic production and 45% of world population. They trade mostly among themselves, and they have monopoly control of many substances critical to Western economies and militaries. Trump’s asinine tariffs will cause some discomfort among the BRICS+ countries, but they will wreck Western economies.
And for the record, it is the US that invaded Ukraine in 2014. Russia’s SMO is a response to American aggression against Ukraine.
The overall rationale behind tariffs has something there, but missing the point.
The American way of war from the Civil War on has been the “Anaconda strategy”; choke off the enemies industrial capacity to make war via tariffs, sanctions, and blockades while attriting the enemies forces through US industrial capacity and manpower.
The conundrum here is Russia is mostly or practically self-sufficient in its industrial base — from energy, commodities, agriculture, and military factories. So that’s why sanctions have failed so far, tariffs will likely fail, and its unlikely an anaconda strategy as US traditionally practices it will work.
Recall, oil went below $60 / barrel around April / May. That was the price goal of the European “oil cap” from a couple of years ago. Does it look like the Russian military is running on fumes?
To get to the point, to change Russia’s incentives in the war, I think you either have to damage its industrial base (which means serious attacks on the Russian homeland and all that entails), or change the manpower calculations, either proving on the battlefield that Ukraine’s army isn’t going to be attrited to destruction in the next couple of years with an important battle victory over Russia; or Ukraine is going to be augmented with substantial NATO troops fighting on the ground.
“The American way of war from the Civil War on has been the “Anaconda strategy”; choke off the enemies industrial capacity to make war via tariffs, sanctions, and blockades”
We didnt trade with Germany or Japan during WW2, North Korea in the Korean war or N Vietnam in the Vietnam war. AFAICT with pretty extensive reading on those wars tariffs weren’t part of the war effort. If anything the Smoot-Hawley tariffs probably contributed to worldwide economic collapse which contributed to the war occurring in the case of WW2.
Steve
Don’t need to bring up Smoot-Hawley; we know the US oil embargo on Japan was a proximate cause of Pearl Harbor.
Please reread; Trump isn’t proposing tariffs on US trade with Russia. Trump is talking about secondary tariffs, i.e. tariffs on US trade with 3rd countries, for 3rd countries that trade with Russia. The goal is to cut off all trade Russia conducts.
Frankly the 100% as Trump floated today or 500% as floated by the Senators is tantamount to an embargo. Lets posit we were capable of stopping all trade Russia conducts with the world. My point is cutting off trade wouldn’t stop or seriously degrade a military that is self sufficient to the degree Russia is.
I think your observation about North Korea / North Vietnam proves the point about the US strategy. The US failed to kill off all trade in those countries (North Korea with China, North Vietnam with China, or China with the Soviet Union during the Korean war), and lost those wars.