Strangely enough, but most experts, without any critical thinking, believe that anti-Russian sanctions pursue exactly the stated goals. This is partly true.
So, following the example of Iran, the sanctions are trying to sway the internal situation in Russia. For example, it was expected that a ban on the supply of Russian goods would cause discontent among farmers (a restriction on the export of the same wheat from Russia) or a ban on the international activities of some corporations (sanctions against Gazprom, VTB, etc., or the termination of supplies of equipment to the country) would cause discontent business.
In short, one of the goals of the sanctions is to reduce the living standards of a certain part of the country's population, that is, to stimulate protest moods in society or, simply speaking, “rocking the boat”. On this point, you can cite many examples, for example, in the Crimea, such services as eBay or Steam do not work, all this causes some discontent among people.
In addition to all this, experts note that there is another task - the struggle for spheres of influence and the weakening of Russia as a player in the European region. Here are some examples - the creation of problems with the construction of South Stream, the freezing of economic relations in order to slow down industrial growth, or another step - the termination of joint projects to develop or create something new, here is an example of Renault, which stopped the joint development of a military infantry vehicle.
Another expected way to weaken Russia is to deprive her allies. There are a lot of examples - this is the destruction of Yugoslavia, and what happened with Georgia and Ukraine, and what is happening today in Belarus.
Also, in fulfilling the task of weakening Russia as a player in the European region, it was necessary to deprive it of some leverage. For example, Russia was deprived of its right to vote in PACE or the EU-Russia summit was canceled. Completely stopped all military cooperation with Russia.
As stated above, most experts believe that it is precisely these goals that are pursued by anti-Russian sanctions, but this is not quite so.
Anti-Russian sanctions have become a formal reason for the reforms that have been prepared for a long time in Europe.
The steps, which we will discuss later, could not be taken spontaneously, and the way they are implemented suggests that the true, if not the main, goal of the sanctions was not Russia at all.
It is necessary to stipulate that the “goal” in our understanding is the outcome of the global program, and the task is a tactical need of the moment, and if the duration of the “momentary need” for geopolitics and geo-economics is measured by two, three to five years, then the achievement of the “goal” is measured by decades .
The goals and objectives of anti-Russian sanctions can be divided into several groups in accordance with the main actors - the United States, NATO, the European Union. The goals and objectives of these groups may overlap, complement each other or be independent.
Let's start with the block НАТО, one of the main goals of which is own reinforcement.
NATO was created to protect its members from any threat and collective resistance to their opponents. At the time of the creation, the military (and ideological) threat was the Soviet Union, today geopolitical and geo-economic (but, of course, not military in the direct sense of this understanding), the threat is China and Russia.
It is necessary to take into account that there are only a few geopolitical and geo-economic interests of the NATO member countries of 28, and therefore, NATO, in the sense of achieving the “goals”, realizes the interests of only a few major players.
So, in order to strengthen the NATO bloc, it was necessary to take several steps that were implemented under the guise of anti-Russian sanctions and the most informationally inflated military threat.
First, NATO’s military budget has been increased. So, 17 February 2017, each of the countries participating in the bloc increased its military budget to 2% of its GDP. But only an increase in the military budget is not enough to strengthen the bloc, and therefore a second step was taken - an increase in the NATO contingent in Europe.
As part of the task of increasing the number of troops in Europe, additional contingents of NATO troops appeared in Poland and the Baltic states. But any sensible person understands that several battalions deployed to Poland and the Baltic states are clearly not enough not only for effective, but even for any, even just a demonstrative, rebuff of Russia, and then the question arises: why are they needed then?
The answer is painfully simple and obvious: the task of these battalions is not at all protection from an external enemy, their task is to ensure police presence, including in demographically problematic territories.
So, the European summit in Rome recently ended, and it was decided that the one who pays the most in the EU piggy bank has more rights. Many countries were outraged (for example, Poland), but did not take any concrete action. It is possible that the above-mentioned NATO troops in Poland played a significant role here.
Also, this contingent can help preserve the previous course of other countries, which are gradually beginning to understand that anti-Russian sanctions are unprofitable, first of all, to themselves.
But, besides increasing the contingent and budget, NATO needs new members who can add, if not funding, then manpower, well, plus full control over the European region will not harm anyone. For example, NATO has come up with the status of the “Participant of the Accelerated Dialogue”, which includes Ukraine and Georgia, and the “Membership Action Plan”, including Montenegro, Macedonia, Bosnia and Herzegovina.
The next major sanction player will consider The European Unionwhich certainly, introducing sanctions, pursued its own internal goals.
For example, in the last three or four years, many European skeptics have appeared, who not only claim that the EU will not survive for long, but also take steps towards weakening the EU, and therefore one of the main tasks facing the EU is cohesion.
Question: what makes people better? The answer is: the so-called “theory of a besieged fortress”, which has historically existed for a very long time, and has proved its viability, for example, for the Soviet Union. It's very simple: you need to find the enemy, to fight with whom you need to unite. The result - Europe today has two such enemies: Russia and ISIS (banned in the Russian Federation).
The European Union rallied not very well, but unanimously imposed sanctions. Another task carried out in the framework of the goal of “cohesion” can be called a test of the viability of the entire EU. We are referring to the fact that migrants, sanctions against Russia, constant acts of terrorism, economic difficulties - all this tested the European Union for survivability, and so far, surprisingly, it passes these tests, proving that the EU is viable today.
Another goal of anti-Russian sanctions is to organize on their wave attempts to bring Eurocentrists to power in Europe. For example, in Austria, Germany, Holland, and now they are trying to do the same in France. In fact, this is not very successful, but it is clear that all Eurocentrists are supporters of sanctions, and they are trying to earn as many “points of popularity” as possible by reasoning about them.
The most important not only economic, but also social goal of the EU is the strategic need to get rid of Russian energy dependence. Thus, in 2014, the EU took a number of measures to freeze the construction of South Stream, also the EU did not participate in the energy summit with Russia, imposed sanctions against three Russian fuel and energy companies: Rosneft, Transneft, and Gazpromneft. Trading in bonds of these companies with a maturity of more than 30 days and participation in the organization of issues of such securities are prohibited. Also, under the pretext of Russian EU sanctions, it closed all the projects of the European Investment Bank in Russia and the European Bank for Reconstruction and Development, therefore, the funds were redirected to solving European issues.
But there is another very unusual and interesting opinion: the European Union, under the pretext of the Russian threat, is beginning to return to talking about creating a single pan-European army, and the creation of such an army will definitely swing the scales in Europe - as a counterweight to not only Russia, but also the United States.
Speaking about the example of the overlapping interests of the EU and NATO, we mention the so-called “security zones”. One of these zones in Europe was and is the Black Sea, and the return of the Crimea to Russia — for all the world geopolitical players of the cherished unsinkable aircraft carrier peninsula — sharply upset the balance of forces in this region in favor of the latter. That is why the EU and NATO impose so many sanctions specifically against the Crimea, Russian companies working in the interests of the development of the peninsula, and Crimeans.
We now turn to the main organizer of anti-Russian sanctions - USAwhich, by introducing sanctions, pursues first of all its own geopolitical and geo-economic goals, and one of the most important is to prevent the rapprochement between Germany and Russia and, if not more, the European Union and Russia. Partly, perhaps, the USA organized a coup in Ukraine in order to create equal problems for the EU and Russia, to push their heads together, and the sanctions simply formalized and fixed these problems.
By the way, in this connection it is necessary to ask and in the near future to investigate the question: to what extent is Germany in the policy of sanctions only a participant (maybe the main) of the EU? Isn't she actually playing her own game with her goals and objectives, only hiding behind the mask of the European Union?
Of course, the United States is completely satisfied with the economic difficulties that their European allies had in connection with the sanctions. By the way, it is interesting to check in which direction the trade turnovers between Russia and the USA changed during the sanctions period?
Including the same goals not only to weaken Russia, but also to prevent the EU and Russia from coming closer, an attempt is being made to bring Iranian oil products (sanctions were lifted from Iran) to the European market. Note that this was preceded by the introduction of US sanctions against leading Russian oil and gas companies, big business and some banks.
Another important goal for the United States is to fight for the market for weapons. Everyone knows that today Russian equipment and weapons are among the most sought-after in the world, and in the face of anti-Russian sanctions, US products will be able to press down Russian ones.
So, we see that any of the three major geopolitical and geo-economic players considered have had their own goals and objectives for imposing anti-Russian sanctions. The goal of weakening Russia is only presented as fundamental and main, but in reality it simply flows from the key interests of the EU, NATO and the United States.
Anti-Russian sanctions are a kind of wrapper in which the main sanction players "wrap" the implementation of their interests, and also this is a great reason for the implementation of those projects that in conditions of "peaceful coexistence" could not be realized. And the isolation of Russia, which requires a large amount of resources from it, gives the EU, NATO and the USA time to solve their own problems.