Sam and I affirm Resolved: On balance, economic sanctions are reducing the threat Russia poses to

Western interests.

We observe that according to Penn professor Daniel McCormick, because exogenous events can occur
while sanctions are in place, to assess the efficacy of sanctions, one must compare a world with or
without sanctions, rather than compare before and after sanctions were implemented.

Our sole contention is that sanctions are essential to stopping Russia’s advance.

After Russia’s invasion of Crimea in February of 2014, the US and the EU placed sanctions on Russia,
destroying their access to capital, technology, and other goods.

These sanctions have halted Russia’s expansion in three ways.

First is by sending a signal.

Artis Pabriks writes in the New York Times: Putin calculated that he could get away with annexation
because he faced no serious consequences after his war against Georgia in 2008. They saw Western
inaction as proof they could get away with it again.

A similar risk comes with trying to appease Russia this time in the Ukraine. That’s why ____ writes, that
anything less than sanctions constitutes tacit approval and emboldens Russia, as they would see no cost
to stealing territory and destabilizing Europe.

Thus, in the long run, Iana Dreyer of the EU Institute for Security Studies writes: sanctions minimize the
risk that Russia will seek to openly destabilize other parts Ukraine, Moldova, or Georgia.

Second is by ensuring threat credibility. NATO’s Edward Christie reports that sanctions’ scope, both in
terms of number of nations covered and number of ___ that are targeted, signals credibility, resolve,
and unity, which acts as both a reassurance to our allies but also as a warning to Russia.

Third is by limiting their economic capacity.

The IMF reports that sanctions by themselves have already shrunk Russia’s economy by 1.5%, a figure
that Mark Thompson of CNN expects to rise to 9% in the near future.

As a result, according to McCormick, Russia has cut their subsidies to eastern Ukraine. As the Brookings
Institute reports, Russia is struggling to afford the territory it already has, and now certainly what Russia
cannot afford to do is win Ukraine.

Historically, Rice professor Clifton Morgan finds empirically that economic sanctions, when their effects
are severe, are successful 94% of the time.

We have already seen these effects on the ground. Dreyer observes, thanks to sanctions, the coastal city
of Mariupol was not seized by Russia when it easily could have been. There has been no attempt by
Russian forces to forge a corridor bridging mainland Russia to Crimea, let alone Odessa and Transnistria.
Moises Naim of the Atlantic reports: in the fall, pro-Russian soldiers and weapons systems were
withdrawn from Eastern Ukraine. Russia-supported separatist leaders have been stating that, for them,
the war there is over. They have lost.

Even in the long term, it is looking like the Ukraine is safer. Stanislav Secrieru of the Polish Institute for
International Affairs writes: sanctions against Russia bought invaluable time for the Ukraine to elect new
political leadership and buttress its defenses.

Moreover, Naim continues: rhetorically, the Kremlin seems to be curbing its belligerence as well. The
Russian government recently even offered to help Ukraine restructure some of its debt to Russia and
stabilize its economy.

A world without sanctions would have seen Russia bulldozing over the Ukrainian border, perhaps
pushing onwards to other countries. With sanctions, we have an effective Western response that has
blunted the conflict.

This is paramount for three reasons.

First, as Lauren Van Metre of the Institute for Peace writes, Russia’s annexation of Crimea and the
military operations in Eastern Ukraine have overturned the post-Cold War norms that have ensured
European stability for two decades. Sanctions ensure these norms.

Second, Van Metre explains, neighboring countries are recalculating their security and foreign policies
based on Russia’s aggression and the West’s response, needing a meaningful response to ensure their
trust.

Third, Keir Giles at the Chatham House writes, Ukraine’s failure deepens instability in Eastern Europe
and increases the risk of further Kremlin adventures. That is to say, if Russia sees no consequences for
its aggression, it keeps becoming aggressive. The Ukraine is just a test. Sanctions prove to Russia that
the West won’t just let them steal part of another nation.

Because anything less than sanctions is appeasement, Sam and I are incredibly proud to affirm.