Perfect Storm by Thane Gustafson: A thorough study of the use and abuse of sanctions on Russia, and what could happen next
Author
:
Thane Gustafson
ISBN-13
:
9780197795682
Publisher
:
Oxford University Press
Guideline Price
:
£22.99
The first time I saw Apple Pay in use was in 2016 in a cafe in Krasnoyarsk, where teenage Siberians were simply holding up their iPhones to pay for coffee and pastries. Very impressed, I downloaded the Apple Pay app when I returned to Dublin and went to use it in an upmarket Grafton Street store. 'I don't know what that is,' said the baffled assistant. It was some time before we in Ireland caught up on the tech-savvy young Russians.
Then things went into reverse. After
Russia invaded Ukraine
in February 2022, Apple Pay, Google Pay, PayPal, Zoom and other western online transaction and communication companies withdrew their services from
Russia
as a 'hurricane' of sanctions was imposed, mainly by the United States, the UK and the European Union. Cafe-goers and shoppers had to revert to credit cards and cash. No longer could Russian-issued Visa and Mastercard cards be used for international payments or at stores and ATMs outside Russia.
The Russian financial system had been fully integrated into the world of global telecommunications and international money: now, because of the war, the rouble is no longer fully convertible in global markets and global financial services such as Swift, essential for international financial transactions, have been withdrawn.
Hundreds of western companies that supplied Russia have pulled out, including
McDonald's
, which created a sensation when its first store opened in Moscow on January 1st, 1990, (I was in the queue) and Starbucks, Carlsberg, Danone, Unilever and Ikea.
READ MORE
Today, however, Russia is rolling out its own Bluetooth-based contactless payment system, and city stores are well stocked with Apple products, and are even taking orders for Apple's new Vision Pro goggles, which will not be launched in the UK or Ireland until later this year.
Initial fears among Russian consumers – that being turned into a pariah nation would mean their favourite western products in the supermarkets would all disappear – have long since been dispelled. Hundreds of western companies have stayed, including
Mars
, which makes Snicker bars – so popular that the conversion of people to western tastes is sometimes referred to as the Sneakerisation of Russia. McDonald's restaurants are still everywhere, under new management and rebranded as Vkusno i tochka, 'Tasty and that's it'.
As sanctions piled up, a documentary made in
Iran
by popular YouTube host Alexey Pivovarov went viral: it showed Tehran stores bustling with sanctioned products and locally made imitations. It assured Russians that western sanctions could be busted, despite being on a scale never attempted before against so large a country, and one so integrated into the world.
From the start, sanctioned products have flowed into Russia. Consumer items are relabelled and rerouted through intermediary countries such as China, India, Turkey and Georgia. Traders in this grey market use shell companies and pay in
cryptocurrencies
to bypass financial controls.
The EU's sanctions envoy,
David O'Sullivan
, described by the author as 'one of Ireland's most respected statesmen', spends much of his time travelling to the Middle East, Central Asia and East Asia to ensure as far as possible that sanctions are implemented. In December, O'Sullivan
told Jack Power of The Irish Times
how a sanctioned item 'goes from a factory in Europe to somewhere relatively innocent, then ends up [elsewhere] in our neighbourhood, and maybe the Gulf, then maybe Asia and finally maybe Russia.'
Gustafson, a professor of government at Georgetown University, ventures that it is perhaps no coincidence to find 'a phalanx of Irish nationals' in FISMA, the EU's lead department for financial regulation, including Mairead McGuinness, who until last year was EU commissioner for financial stability, financial services and the capital markets union. He maintains this is partly because of the vigorous development of the financial industry in Ireland and the favourable tax regime of which Russian companies and banks took advantage before the invasion of Ukraine. Dublin had become a hub for borrowing by Russian entities through so-called 'special purpose vehicles'. After February 2022, the Russian banks and firms abruptly vanished, leaving the lenders with a raft of non-performing loans.
Ireland-based aircraft leasing companies, which provide more than 60 per cent of the aircraft flying around the world, also suffered 'immediate and massive losses'. Sanctions required western lessors to terminate leases with Russian airlines, and by mid-2023 some $10 billion in leased aircraft was tied up in Russia. Some have since been bought out, but hundreds remain in limbo.
The author, an expert on the geopolitics of energy, is particularly interesting on the impact of sanctions on the global oil industry. An oil embargo and price cap were imposed to curtail Russia's oil revenues, though without cutting the volume of exports, as this would squeeze world oil supply and set off a spiral of higher prices.
Russia responded by acquiring a large fleet of second-hand tankers which sail under flags of convenience, and by giving mainstream tankers false flags. This scheme has several flaws, he points out: Russia's acquisition spree has caused the price of old, retired tankers to soar; many port authorities are reluctant to accept tankers without mainstream shipping insurance, which they cannot get; and flagging services are mostly outsourced to US companies.
[
Is Russia's war-driven economy approaching its 1989 moment?
Opens in new window
]
But the combination of shadow tankers and attestation fraud has helped Russia maintain pre-war levels of exports. It has also moved its oil trading business from Switzerland to the United Arab Emirates, which does not sanction Russia, and which accepts Russian refined products for export to Europe, labelled as Emirati oil.
The author's key proposition is that much of the sanctions regime is being circumvented, and the Russian economy is relatively stable, but if the sanctions are maintained and vigorously enforced, they will have increasingly severe long-term impacts on the Russian economy, causing its gradual degradation.
This is because they have increased Russia's debt, reduced transparency and created new vulnerabilities. Russian banks are finding it harder to process foreign transactions and import-export settlements; Russian companies have lost access to western credit markets and can no longer use debt to finance investments; and half of Russia's foreign exchange reserves in foreign currencies have been blocked.
[
Unfinished Empire: Russian Imperialism in Ukraine and the Near Abroad by Donnacha Ó Beacháin; and Putin's Sledgehammer by Candace Rondeaux
Opens in new window
]
Russian money-laundering through financial capitals such as London has also been severely curtailed, oligarchs' yachts have been seized or detained, and the assets of Russian banks, individuals and entities in the West have been frozen.
In the words of Alexandra Prokopenko, a former adviser at the Russian Central Bank (not a former director as described in the book), 'Putin's military adventure in Ukraine and the sanctions have not made a breach in Russia's economic fortress, but they put a time bomb under its foundations'.
Crucially, the reputation of Russia as a promising market, where foreign businesses were welcomed and risks could be managed, has been shattered. The seizure of assets of companies leaving Russia, such as Carlsberg, has only deepened the mistrust in Russia's market economy, which the author believes is already 'hobbled by a deeply corrupt state and leadership'.
Gustafson writes from the perspective of 35 years studying and travelling in Russia and the former Soviet Union. He examines the impact of the perfect storm of war and sanctions in the context of Russia's three decades of opening to the world after the fall of communism in 1991. The first saw non-Russian-speaking consultants arrive to lecture Russians on how the market worked and the subsequent madness and mayhem of the Wild East; then, after the turn of the century, disposable incomes reaching unprecedented heights as oil prices soared and society stabilised; and the third was the start of sanctions after Russia's seizure of Crimea in 2014, which has culminated in the final failure of Russia's opening to the West.
Once again Russia is isolated from the West, but unlike during the cold war, the enemy is no longer the Soviet Union but Putinism, 'a perverted blend of vengeful Russian imperialism, kleptocracy and a distorted reading of history'.
Perfect Storm is a thorough, informed study of the use and abuse of a scattershot economic weapon that falls somewhere between jaw-jaw and war-war. The author ends on an upbeat note: there could be a second reopening of Russia to the West after Putin, even if it faces a wall of mistrust, and continues to remodel itself on China, as the United States turns in upon itself. Let's hope he is right.
Conor O'Clery is former Moscow Correspondent of The Irish Times
Further Reading
Punishing Putin: Inside the global economic war to bring down Russia
by Stephanie Baker (HarperCollins, 2024): A colourful account by a Bloomberg journalist of how the United States and its allies embarked on a world-changing financial experiment, from fixing oil prices to seizing superyachts, to thwart Putin's war of aggression.
Economic War: Ukraine and the Global Conflict between Russia and the West
(Hurst, 2025) by Maximilian Hess: A close look at Russia's response to western sanctions, and the ensuing skirmishes in London's courts, on Swiss trading desks and in boardrooms in New Delhi, as pipelines, mines, loans and crypto markets were weaponised.
The Russia Sanctions
by Christine Abely (Cambridge University Press, 2023): An expert on sanctions law examines how sanctions on Russia affect, in novel ways, global trading patterns, the world financial system and foreign policy. Makes the case that sanctions should be maintained, strengthened, and better enforced.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
RTÉ News
3 hours ago
- RTÉ News
Default Line: How being the easy option is worth billions to some firms
We probably all like to think of ourselves as being savvy, critical thinkers with a good eye for a deal. But humans are also generally inclined to choose the path of least resistance - we favour inertia and the status quo. And that's especially true of small, day-to-day things that might not be all that important, and that we'd rather not have to devote a huge amount of mental space to. At the same time, while we all recognise that having choice is a good thing, we're also nowadays all to familiar with how overwhelming having too much choice can be. There's always too many great TV shows and films that are just a click away; too many radio shows and audiobooks and podcasts and songs to listen to. And often we end up going back to something we've watched or listen to a hundred times, purely to avoid having to make a decision on something new. And so, if we're presented with an easy option, we are inclined to go with that. Especially if it's something that involves one click, and saves us from having to think about a decision – especially in an area where we might be entirely confident. Yes – a lot of companies make a lot of money from the power of the default. Some of that can be in very direct ways – like how existing customers get worse deals than new ones. But others can be less direct. A good example of that is Apple's Safari web browser. It is the default on all Apple devices and, while users can download an alternative, most don't. For many years Safari had a relatively tiny userbase – but the popularity of the iPhone – and the fact that it's the default option on there too – means it is now the second most popular browser in the world. But the power of the default goes beyond that. As users of Safari will know, the address bar also doubles as a search box, and when you use that it defaults to Google for the result. Again, users can change their search engine away from the default option – and select an alternative like Duck Duck Go or Bing. It only takes a few clicks in the Settings app, but most people just don't bother. And so, they default to Google, which is hugely valuable to the ad giant. To the extent that they give Apple a cut of the revenue they make from ads they serve through these Apple-device searches. That deal has been in place in one form or another since 2002, and until recently the details were kept well hidden from the public. But a competition case in the US last year finally blew the whole thing wide open – and it revealed that Google had paid Apple $20 billion in 2022 for its privileged position. That's how valuable being the default option was to them. Has this kind of deal attracted any criticism? Yes – for a start rivals like Microsoft have argued that Apple effectively plays king-maker in the search market through this deal. After all, the iPhone has such a big user base so it's argued that any company that is the default search option would immediately become a huge player in the global search market. And so it's in Google's interests, as the dominant player, to stop this from happening. But regulators have taken an interest in this arrangement too. The details of the Google-Apple deal came to light in a US competition case that was focusing in on the ways Google maintains its dominance of the likes of search – and uses that to boost the popularity of its other services. And these kinds of arrangements have been in the sights of European regulators for years too. There have been multiple cases that looked at Google's use of its search engine in the promotion of other services it operates – like shopping and maps. Because there have been multiple studies to show that most people searching for information will inevitably take the first option given to them. Not many of us get passed the first two or three results, few get to the bottom of the page – and the vast majority of us don't click on to the second page. So if you're offering a rival service to Google - but if their offering is at the top of every relevant search result, you're immediately at a huge disadvantage. In a similar vein, Google has also been fined more than €4 billion for how it has used its Android mobile operating system to benefit its other products – including its web browser, Chrome – which is now far and away the most popular in the world. Google is appealing that case at the moment. And something that has echoes to how both Google's and Apple's browsers have benefitted from the success of their own operating systems is an EU case from 15 years ago, relating to Microsoft and its Internet Explorer. As people may remember, that was the default web browser on Windows back when the internet was really taking off and, given that most people had Windows computers, it tended to be the one people used. That's despite the fact that there were alternatives available – many of which were more feature-laden and often more secure than Microsoft's browser. Eventually, in late 2009, Europe forced Microsoft to give people a choice of browsers when they were first setting up their computers – and that opened the door to the likes of Firefox, Opera and Chrome, to gain market share. How does the power of default affect the TV? Anyone who has bought a TV in the past five or even 10 years has almost certainly seen how important the default is – because on their remote, alongside the normal numbers and volume and settings buttons – is likely to be at least one (but more likely multiple) app launcher buttons. It's almost a guarantee that one of them is for Netflix – but they might also have a button to bring them straight to Amazon Prime, Disney Plus, or YouTube – or possibly some other service. And this is hugely important to these providers, because it first and foremost acts as a constant advert. Every time a user looks at their remote, they see the branding. But it also makes people far more likely to use those services, because it's just one button push away. - which is far more attractive than even having to go into the menu and move up or down to find the right app. It's considerably more attractive than having to switch over to a separate set-top-box and connect to a service that way. And, again, this is seen as something worth spending money on. Roku, which sells streaming sticks and boxes, charges $1 per button, per remote – and it tends to have four services on each remote – so that's $4 extra it earns per device. Now that might not sound like a huge amount – but when you think that Roku's streaming stick retails at €50-60 – then an few euro on their margin is going to be very welcome. And when you multiply that across tens or hundreds of thousands of devices, and it suddenly becomes a lot of money. And of course Roku are a relatively small player in all of this – big TV makers like Samsung, Sony and LG would operate at a much bigger scale, and be far more attractive to streamers because they don't require the user connecting a separate box. As a result the big streaming apps would have relationships with all of those companies, because they'd be well aware of just how important it is to make sure they're as accessible to users as possible. No doubt this is controversial too, though... Absolutely – not least with some consumers, who don't like having these buttons clogging up their remote. That's especially true if there's a service there that they don't use – in that case a dedicated button is a total waste of space. But, like with search engines and browsers, smaller providers have argued that these TV-streamer relationship effectively blocks them from being able to compete on a level playing field. And European regulators have had an initial look at these relationships between to see if they're distorting competition. One of the big fears in Europe is that deals to give major apps prime position will just add to the pressure on national services. And as people become more and more reliant on apps rather than a programme guide for their TV consumption, those that aren't on the remote or who haven't paid for a prominent position will become less visible. Two years ago the BBC floated the idea that manufacturers should be required to have an iPlayer button on UK remotes for this very reason. There has also been a significant amount of debate in France about what's dubbed a 'Button Law' - that would require French services get a spot on a remote. And there is something of a precent here, because cable and satellite providers Sky and Virgin already agree to list Irish stations first in their electronic programming guide. This is done to ensure local channels get good visibility – without having to pay for it. So extending that kind of requirement to the list of apps – and even the remote - could make sense as our viewing habits shift towards on-demand services. The challenge, though, would be where you draw the line. In Ireland, for example, it's almost certain that RTÉ would love to have a Player button on every TV remote. But Virgin Media would too, as would TG4. If they all got their wish that would be three buttons taken up on a each remote – which manufacturers would argue is limiting their options to add others. Or it could lead to even more complicated remote controls than we already have. Can our love of default cost us money too? Absolutely. Us favouring the default tends to boil down to us choosing the easiest option – and on a day-to-day basis that ends up with us sticking with the same companies and providers, rather than doing the often small amount of work required to find a cheaper option. We all know that you need to shop around for the best deal, but it turns out we're not very good at putting that into practice. In fact surveys have shown that we in Ireland are particularly bad at switching for a better deal – though we've probably gotten a little bit better at it in recent years, especially in reaction to the cost-of-living crisis. But even with that experience, we do it a lot less than we should – and hardly ever in really important areas. A survey published by the Competition and Consumer Protection Commission in late 2023 found that nearly 80% of consumers here had never switched banks, for example. And because we tend to default to our bank when we're getting out a loan, or getting a credit card, or a mortgage – maybe even our car and home insurance - we can often overlook a better deal being offered by others. And that means we're costing ourselves real money. A survey earlier this year by mortgage broker said that the gap between the highest and lowest mortgage rates would work out at a more-than €7,000 difference in real terms for the average mortgage. That's in one year. So if you get a mortgage with your bank just because it's easier than setting up an account with another provider, you could be costing yourself tens, maybe even hundreds of thousands of euro over the loan's lifetime. And this all could be based on a decision you made when you started your first part time job as a teenager – or whichever bank was offering the flashiest freebies during Freshers Week. We're a little bit better at switching when it comes to utilities but even there we could do a lot better. A survey by the Commission for Regulation of Utilities last year found that just 12% of electricity customers and 14% of gas customers had switched in the past year. And utilities tend attract new customers with a decent discount on their main rate if you sign up for a year; but once that term is up you default onto the higher, standard rate. So if you don't switch – or at the very least get in touch with them and ask for their best deal – every year, you're almost certainly paying more than you should. And the CRU reckoned that dual fuel customers saved up to €2,000 in a year by switching – but the vast majority just didn't bother, and they lost money as a result. TV and broadband providers also tend to lure new customers in with special discounts, and quietly remove them once the term of the deal is over. That means that customers who are not contacting their providers – or taking their business elsewhere – are likely losing out on thousands of euro of savings each year.
Irish Examiner
8 hours ago
- Irish Examiner
Elon Musk says he plans to sue Apple for not featuring X or Grok among top apps
Billionaire SpaceX, Tesla and X owner Elon Musk says he plans to sue Apple for not featuring X and its Grok artificial intelligence chatbot app in the top recommended apps in its App Store. Mr Musk posted the comments on X late on Monday, saying: 'Hey @Apple App Store, why do you refuse to put either X or Grok in your 'Must Have' section when X is the #1 news app in the world and Grok is #5 among all apps? Are you playing politics? What gives? Inquiring minds want to know.' Grok is owned by Mr Musk's artificial intelligence startup xAI. Mr Musk went on to say that 'Apple is behaving in a manner that makes it impossible for any AI company besides OpenAI to reach #1 in the App Store, which is an unequivocal antitrust violation. xAI will take immediate legal action'. He gave no further details. There was no immediate comment from Apple, which has faced various allegations of antitrust violations in recent years. A judge recently found that Apple violated a court injunction in an antitrust case filed by Fortnite maker Epic Games. The opening page of X is displayed on a computer and phone (Rick Rycroft/AP) Regulators of the European Union fined Apple €500m in April for breaking competition rules by preventing app makers from pointing users to cheaper options outside its App Store. Last year, the EU fined the US tech giant nearly $2bn for unfairly favouring its own music streaming service by forbidding rivals like Spotify from telling users how they could pay for cheaper subscriptions outside of iPhone apps. As of early Tuesday, the top app in Apple's App Store was TikTok, followed by Tinder, Duolingo, YouTube and Bumble. Open AI's ChatGPT was ranked 7th. Read More Elon Musk accuses Apple of unfairly favouring OpenAI on iPhone
Irish Times
10 hours ago
- Irish Times
Trump says US may provide air support to Ukraine as part of peace deal
Donald Trump said the United States may provide air support as part of a peace deal to end Russia's war in Ukraine . The US president ruled out putting US troops on the ground in Ukraine, however. Asked during a phone interview with Fox News whether he could assure listeners that the US would not put troops on the ground in Ukraine , Mr Trump replied: 'You have my assurance, and I'm president.' He did, however, say Washington may be willing to provide air support to Ukraine to backstop a deal, in what would still be a remarkable shift in his administration's policy on the conflict. READ MORE 'There'll be some form of security. It can't be Nato,' he said, ruling out Ukraine's admission to the transatlantic bloc. 'They're [Europeans are] willing to put people on the ground. We're willing to help them with things, especially, probably, if you could talk about by air,' Mr Trump said in an interview with the Fox News Fox & Friends programme. The president's latest comments come a day after he pledged security guarantees to help end the war at an extraordinary White House summit. The path to peace remains uncertain, however, as the US and allies seek to work out what military support for Ukraine might include. Nato military leaders are expected to meet on Wednesday to discuss Ukraine, with US gen Dan Caine, the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, expected to attend virtually, officials told Reuters. At least 14 people, including a family with three children, were wounded in an overnight Russian attack on Ukraine's northern region of Sumy, Ukraine's prime minister said on Wednesday. 'Russia continues to manifest its fears through acts of pure terrorism across Ukraine, once again targeting the homes of families and their sleeping children,' Yulia Svyrydenko wrote on X. Russia launched a 'massive drone strike' on the southern Ukrainian region of Odesa, injuring one person and causing a large fire at a fuel and energy facility, Ukraine's State Emergency Service said on Wednesday. Russia's Vladimir Putin has shown no sign of backing down from demands for territory, including land not under Russia's military control, after his summit with Mr Trump on Friday in Alaska. Later, in a radio interview, Mr Trump characterised his negotiating style in trying to end the war as 'probably instinct more than process'. Following Monday's meeting, Russia launched its biggest air assault in more than a month on Ukraine, with 270 drones and 10 missiles launched, the Ukrainian air force said. – Guardian
