US Power Wielding - Unconventional Warfare and Financial Power

Updated October 2019

Back in December 2008, WikiLeaks released a relatively little-noted document "US Army Special Operations Forces Unconventional Warfare".  This 248-page, nine chapter publication was the September 2008 revision of the U.S. Army Field Manual 3-05.130, the keystone doctrine for Army special operations forces operations in unconventional warfare.  

This document defines unconventional warfare as:

"Operations conducted by, with or through irregular forces against a variety of state and no-state opponents."

These operations are conducted:

"...in support of a resistance movement, an insurgency, and ongoing or pending conventional military operations"

Such operations have the following common conceptual core:

"...working by, with, or through irregular surrogates in a clandestine and/or covert manner against opposing actors."

In Chapter 2, the document outlines the instruments of United States national power which help the United States to achieve its national strategic objectives.  These instruments of national power include diplomacy, information, intelligence, economic, financial, law enforcement and military.  For the purposes of this posting, let's focus on one of these instruments as follows, the Financial Instrument of National Power .  Here's how the document describes this instrument:

"The financial instrument of national power promotes the conditions for prosperity and stability in the United States and encourages prosperity and stability in the rest of the world. The Department of the Treasury (Treasury) is the primary federal agency responsible for the economic and financial prosperity and security of the United States and as such is responsible for a wide range of activities, including advising the President on economic and financial issues, promoting the President’s growth agenda, and enhancing corporate governance in financial institutions. In the international arena, the Treasury works with other federal agencies, the governments of other nations, and the international financial institutions to encourage economic growth; raise standards of living; and predict and prevent, to the extent possible, economic and financial crises."

I like that "encourages prosperity and stability in the rest of the world".  That is true, unless you happen to live in a nation which doesn't share Washington's viewpoint.  Just ask people living in one of many nations who are currently subject to one or another of Washington's long list of sanctions as shown here (current to mid-2017):

The document proceeds to note the following:

"The application of economic or financial incentives is among the most powerful ideas in the U.S. arsenal of power. Although some U.S. adversaries are irreconcilable to accommodation with U.S. interests and must be engaged in other ways, many declared or potential adversaries can be persuaded or dissuaded by economic or financial means to become declared or potential allies (or at least neutralized)…the ability of the United States government to affect the economic environment is enormous, and it has economic weapons at its disposal. Unconventional warfare planners must carefully coordinate the introduction and withholding of economic and financial assets into the Unconventional Warfare Operational Area (UWOA) with their interagency partners. For example, direct application of USAID grants to specific human groups can alter negative behaviors or cement positive affiliations. At the highest levels of diplomatic and financial interaction, the United States Government’s ability to influence international financial institutions—with corresponding effects to exchange rates, interest rates, credit availability, and money supplies—can cement multinational coalitions for unconventional warfare campaigns or dissuade adversary nation-state governments from supporting specific actors in the UWOA." (my bolds)

As you can see, the United States is willing to use financial blackmail including exchange and interest rate manipulation, credit availability and the supply of money to either persuade certain nations to join its unconventional warfare campaign or to dissuade adversarial nations from supporting the "other side" of an unconventional warfare strategy.

Here is a screen capture of page 2-8 of the document outlining how the United States can use financial incentives to manipulate other nations (ARSOF = Army Special Operations Forces and UW = Unconventional Warfare, DOS = Department of State, IC = Intelligence Community):

Note this sentence:

"Government can apply unilateral and indirect financial power through persuasive influence to international and domestic financial institutions regarding availability and terms of loans, grants, or other financial assistance to foreign state and nonstate actors."

It is also interesting to note that the document clearly states that the World Bank, International Monetary Fund, Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development and Bank for International Settlements are basically functioning as organizations that Washington can use to drive its global agenda and as yet another tool in America's quest for global hegemony.  This isn't terribly surprising in the case of the World Bank since we find the following on its website:

In addition, the Treasury Department's Office of Foreign Assets Control whose sole responsibility is as follows:

"...to administer and enforce economic and trade sanctions based on U.S. foreign policy and national security goals against targeted foreign countries and regimes, terrorists, international narcotics traffickers, those engaged in activities related to the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction and other threats the national security..."

...has a "long history of conducting economic warfare valuation to any Army Special Operations Forces unconventional warfare.".

This Army manual, leaked over a decade ago by WikiLeaks, gives us a very clear view of how Washington uses financial manipulation through its influence on the World Bank, IMF, OECD and other "global" groups to wage unconventional warfare on any nation that doesn't share its view of how the world should function and that threatens America's control of the globe.  The use of financial blackmail to bend countries to America's narrative and overthrow nations who do not succumb to America's wishes is not terribly surprising, however, it is interesting to actually see one key aspect of Washington's unconventional warfare methodology in print.

The United States Senate - Saving Syria, Punishing Syria or Both?

While it received minimal coverage in the mainstream media, on January 3, 2019, the First Session of the 116th Congress saw its first bill introduced to the floor by Senator Marco Rubio (R - FL). Given the current changing narrative on the situation regarding the withdrawal of American troops from Syria, the proposals contained in this bill are particularly pertinent.

S.1 or "Strengthening America's Security in the Middle East Act of 2019" which was cosponsored by Senators Gardner, McConnell and Blunt is described as follows:

"A Bill to make improvements to certain defense and security assistance provisions and to authorize the appropriation of funds to Israel, to reauthorize the United States-Jordan Defense Cooperation Act of 2015, and to halt the wholesale slaughter of the Syrian people, and for other purposes."

The ongoing Syria issue forms a key part of this bill, focussing on three sub issues with the first two being rather surprising given that one of the bill's headline intents is to "halt the slaughter of Syrian civilians:

Issue One - The Central Bank of Syria and its links to money laundering 

"(a) Not later than 180 days after the date of the enactment of this Act, the Secretary of the Treasury shall determine, under section 5318A of title 31, United States Code, whether reasonable grounds exist for concluding that the Central Bank of Syria is a financial institution of primary money laundering concern.

(b) Enhanced Due Diligence And Reporting Requirements.—If the Secretary of the Treasury determines under subsection (a) that reasonable grounds exist for concluding that the Central Bank of Syria is a financial institution of primary money laundering concern, the Secretary, in consultation with the Federal functional regulators (as defined in section 509 of the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act (15 U.S.C. 6809)), shall impose one or more of the special measures described in section 5318A(b) of title 31, United States Code, with respect to the Central Bank of Syria."

Issue Two - Sanctions agains foreign persons engaging in certain transactions in Syria 

"The President shall impose sanctions on foreign persons who knowingly provides significant financial, material, or technological support to, or knowingly engages in a significant transaction with

(a) (i) the Government of Syria (including any entity owned or controlled by the Government of Syria) or a senior political figure of the Government of Syria;

(ii) a foreign person that is a military contractor, mercenary, or a paramilitary force knowingly operating in a military capacity inside Syria for or on behalf of the Government of Syria, the Government of the Russian Federation, or the Government of Iran; or

(iii) a foreign person subject to sanctions pursuant to the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (50 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.) with respect to Syria or any other provision of law that imposes sanctions with respect to Syria;

(b) knowingly sells or provides significant goods, services, technology, information, or other support that significantly facilitates the maintenance or expansion of the Government of Syria's domestic production of natural gas, petroleum, or petroleum products;

(c) knowingly sells or provides aircraft or spare aircraft parts that are used for military purposes in Syria for or on behalf of the Government of Syria to any foreign person operating in an area directly or indirectly controlled by the Government of Syria or foreign forces associated with the Government of Syria;

(d) knowingly provides significant goods or services associated with the operation of aircraft that are used for military purposes in Syria for or on behalf of the Government of Syria to any foreign person operating in an area described in subparagraph (C); or

(e) knowingly, directly or indirectly, provides significant construction or engineering services to the Government of Syria."

Sanctions will include inadmissibility to the United States, revocation of current visas and the blocking of all transactions in property of the foreign person if such property is in the United States or comes into the control or possession of an American citizen.

Here are the terms under which sanctions against Syria could be suspended by the President:

"(1) The air space over Syria is no longer being utilized by the Government of Syria or the Government of the Russian Federation to target civilian populations through the use of incendiary devices, including barrel bombs, chemical weapons, and conventional arms, including air-delivered missiles and explosives.

(2) Areas besieged by the Government of Syria, the Government of the Russian Federation, the Government of Iran, or a foreign person are no longer cut off from international aid and have regular access to humanitarian assistance, freedom of travel, and medical care.

(3) The Government of Syria is releasing all political prisoners forcibly held within the prison system of the regime of Bashar al-Assad and the Government of Syria is allowing full access to the same facilities for investigations by appropriate international human rights organizations.

(4) The forces of the Government of Syria, the Government of the Russian Federation, the Government of Iran, and any foreign person are no longer engaged in deliberate targeting of medical facilities, schools, residential areas, and community gathering places, including markets, in violation of international norms.

(5) The Government of Syria is—

(a) taking steps to verifiably fulfill its commitments under the Convention on the Prohibition of the Development, Production, Stockpiling and Use of Chemical Weapons and on their Destruction, done at Geneva September 3, 1992, and entered into force April 29, 1997 (commonly known as the “Chemical Weapons Convention”), and the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons, done at Washington, London, and Moscow July 1, 1968, and entered into force March 5, 1970 ; and

(b) making tangible progress toward becoming a signatory to the Convention on the Prohibition of the Development, Production and Stockpiling of Bacteriological (Biological) and Toxin Weapons and on their Destruction, done at Washington, London, and Moscow April 10, 1972, and entered into force March 26, 1975.

(6) The Government of Syria is permitting the safe, voluntary, and dignified return of Syrians displaced by the conflict.

(7) The Government of Syria is taking verifiable steps to establish meaningful accountability for perpetrators of war crimes in Syria and justice for victims of war crimes committed by the Assad regime, including by participation in a credible and independent truth and reconciliation process."

  

As an aside, while Washington seems quite concerned that Syria verifiably fulfill its commitments under the Convention on Chemical Weapons, they seem to have forgotten this:

Israel is a standalone when it comes to ratifying the Convention on Chemical Weapons which has been signed and ratified by 193 state parties.

Now that we've seen how the Senate proposes to punish Syria, let's look at one of the headline purposes of S.1, America's role in halting the wholesale slaughter of the Syrian people.

Issue Three - Assistance for the People of Syria

"Not later than 180 days after the date of the enactment of this Act, the President shall brief the appropriate congressional committees on the strategy of the President to help facilitate the ability of humanitarian organizations to access financial services to help facilitate the safe and timely delivery of assistance to communities in need in Syria.

In preparing the strategy required by subsection (a), the President shall consider credible data already obtained by other countries and nongovernmental organizations, including organizations operating in Syria."

As you can see from this posting, the title of this bill is quite misleading.  Rather than being concerned about taking actions to protect Syrian civilians, the intentions of S.1 lean heavily toward further punishments for Syria, its economy and its steadfast leader, Bashar al Assad who, despite the best efforts of Israel and the United States, still remains firmly in control of much of Syria as you can see in the area shaded in red on this map:

Sanctions on Iran's Oil - The Unintended Consequences

With the United States putting sanctions on Iran's oil production, a move that has driven a wedge between Washington and its European allies, National Security Advisor John Bolton has weighed in yet again on Iran as shown here:

Here's a quote:

"I think the sanctions in the aggregate are already having an enormous effect on Iran. You know, when the president announced we were withdrawing from the Iran nuclear deal in May of this year, big businesses that had prospects or even some trade and investment with Iran weren’t going to wait for the sanctions actually to take effect. They’ve pulled out. They’ve cut back in many ways, and I think we’ve already seen the consequences in Iran. The rial, the currency’s declined about 70 percent since the sanctions, inflation has quadrupled, the country is in recession. You’re seeing riots and demonstrations all around the country just provoked by ordinary citizens. So I think this is going to cut into Iran’s ability to continue their nuclear program, the financed terrorism, and to engage in military activity around the Middle East, and I think we’re already seeing that."

One would almost get the impression that Mr. Bolton is positively gleeful over the suffering that American-led (American-forced) sanctions have created for Iranian civilians.

When looking at the oil import waivers which have been generously granted by Washington to China, India, South Korea, Japan, Italy, Greece, Taiwan and Turkey, here's what Mr. Bolton had to say:

"The aim is to drive Iranian oil exports to zero. We're working with other countries to get alternative supplies for countries that are buying and I think that's critical over an extended period of time. 

…I think we've said for a long time, zero should mean zero. But some countries that, for the last three or four years, had been able to purchase oil from Iran needs some time to get down to zero. 

These are not permanent waivers, no way, we're going to do everything we can to squeeze Iran hard.  As the British say, to make -- to squeeze them until the Pips (ph) squeak.

...Rick Perry and the Energy department have done a fantastic job since the president pulled out of the Iran nuclear deal to talk to other countries, to get their production up, to find oil that's suitable for the refineries in countries that had been purchasing from Iran. We've ramped up our own production in America. I think we can get to a point where nobody responsible needs to buy oil from Iran." (my bolds)

Let's look at some background.  According to the U.S. Energy Information Administration, Iran has the world's fourth-largest proven reserves of oil totalling 157 billion barrels.  This is nearly 10 percent of the world's total crude oil reserves and 13 percent of OPEC's reserves.  In 2017, Iran produced nearly 4.7 million barrels of oil and other liquids per day in 2017.

Here is a map showing Iran's largest oil fields:

Iran also has 0.5 billion barrels of proved and probable oil reserves in the Caspian Sea but very little upstream activity has taken place to exploit these resources.

Here is a map showing Iran's oil infrastructure:

Here is a graphic showing how Iran's oil production has been impacted by sanctions since 2011:

Here is a graphic showing Iran's monthly crude oil and condensate exports:

Iran resumed exporting oil to Europe in 2016 following the signing and implementation of the JCPOA nuclear deal.  At that time, Croatia, France, Greece, Italy, Malta, Netherlands, Poland and Spain resumed their purchases of Iranian oil.

Lastly, here is a graphic showing the destinations for Iran's oil export in 2017:

With Donald Trump being front and centre in the withdrawal from the Iran nuclear deal, let's take a quick look at what he had to say about high global oil prices:

If we think that oil prices are high now, just think how high will they climb when millions of barrels of Iranian oil are taken off the market every day, particularly given that global oil demand keeps rising as shown here:

Let's close this posting with response by Javad Zarif, Iran's Minister of Foreign Affairs, to the imposition of the most recent sanctions by the United States:

Here's a quote:

"We have weathered difficult times in the face of 40 years of American hostility relying solely on our own resources, and today we and our partners across the globe will ensure that our people are least affected by this indiscriminate assault in the economic warfare that directly targets the Iranian people.

...the unconditional support for two clients, Saudi Arabia and Israel, blinds the U.S. to their appalling atrocities that have resulted in global indignation and engendered insecurity to us all, the U.S. itself included."

Seeing that Iran has such massive oil reserves and an oil infrastructure that has been widely undercapitalized over the past forty years, one has to wonder what Washington's real agenda is in Iran.  What exactly is the Trump Administration's end game?  As we all know, sometimes Washington's political actions result in unintended consequences; in this case, potentially creating the perfect environment for higher oil prices.  Additionally, given that Iran has remained a state outside the control of Washington for the Reagan, Bush I, Clinton, Bush II, Obama and Trump Administrations, I would suggest that without drastic actions, Iran's leadership is not leaving anytime soon. 

Another Unintended Consequence of America's Anti-Russia Sanctions - Oil Imports

With Russiagate and its accompanying sanctions consuming the media's attention, there is one aspect of Russian-American trade relations that gets almost no attention from America's mainstream media.  In this posting, I will outline the background to America's connection to the Russian oil business and the potential repercussions that face American oil refiners.  I apologize in advance for the length of this posting but I want to supply my readers with all of the background necessary to make an educated appraisal of Washington's current and future approach to sanctions against Russia.

According to the U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA), the United States imports the following monthly volume of crude oil and petroleum products from Russia:

In May 2018, the latest month for which data is available, the United States imported 15.201 million barrels of crude oil and petroleum products from Russia, the highest monthly volume since October 2016 but well below the record volume of 25.083 million barrels back in May 2009.  The daily imported volume in May 2018 works out to 490,035 barrels per day, a relatively small part of the 10.22 million barrels of oil per day imported in May 2018, most of which was sourced from OPEC nations as shown on this table:

For completeness sake, here is a graph showing the totally monthly American imports of crude oil and associated products going back to 1981:

Despite America's increasing reliance on its domestic reserves of non-conventional oil, it is interesting to note that the U.S. economy still relies on over 300 million barrels of oil per month to "grease the wheels of the free market".

Let's look at a bit of background regarding Russia's oil reserves.  According to the EIA, in 2016, Russia was the world's largest producer of crude oil and the third largest producer of petroleum and other liquids after Saudi Arabia and the United States with average daily production of 11.2 million BOPD.  

Here is a graphic showing Russia's daily production and consumption of petroleum and other liquids going. back to 2007:

Despite U.S. sanctions on Russia's oil industry which include limiting Russian oil companies access to American capital markets and restrictions on sharing technology that would support Russia's deep water, Arctic offshore and shale projects anywhere in the world, Russia has still been able to maintain its production levels and may indeed help Russia in the future should oil prices rise to levels last seen before 2014.

Despite sanctions, Russia was able to export more than 5 million BOPD in 2016 with the following countries/regions as destinations:

Most of Russia's oil reserves and production being located in Western Siberia (located in eastern Russia) and, as a result, there is a significant investment in oil infrastructure transporting oil to the Pacific Ocean as shown on this map:

In 2016, the Kozmino port exported 594,000 BOPD, the De Kastri port exported 230,000 BOPD and the Prigorodnoye port exported 180,000 BOPD.

With that information in mind, let's look at the potential impact on the United States.  For those of us who have a background in the oil industry, we know that different oils have different physical characteristics.  Here's what the EIA has to say about differences in crude oil properties:

"The physical characteristics of crude oil determine how refineries process it. In simple terms, crude oils are classified by density and sulphur content. Less dense (lighter) crude oils generally have a higher share of light hydrocarbons. Refineries can produce high-value products such as gasoline, diesel fuel, and jet fuel from light crude oil with simple distillation. When refineries use simple distillation on denser (heavier) crude oils, it produces low value products. Heavy crude oils require additional, more expensive processing to produce high-value products. Some crude oils also have a high sulphur content, which is an undesirable characteristic in both processing and product quality."

Here is a graphic showing how widely variable the density and sulphur content of selected crude oils are from different regions of the world:

Each refinery is designed to use crude oils with different properties or a range of properties.  The EIA tracks the quality of crude oil imports that are processed in all refineries in the United States and API gravity varies from 11 degrees API (heavy oil) to 47.9 degrees API and sulphur content varies from 0 percent to 6.5 percent.

Again, with that background, let's look at recent developments.  According to Resource Works, the Nordtulip oil tanker departed from the port of Vladivostok in eastern Russia on June 22, 2018 and arrived at Anacortes terminal located in the state of Washington on July 31, 2018, carrying an estimated 600,000 to 650,000 barrels of oil.  Anacortes is the site of two refineries; one owned by Shell and the other by Andeavor.  Interestingly, despite the rise of America's presence at the global oil producer's "head table", the Pacific Northwest is a region relatively starved of oil given the decline in production from Alaska and the lack of pipelines to the lower 48 oil producing states.  Keeping in mind the information regarding refineries and the specific feedstocks that they require, one can see how these two refineries in "hydrocarbon isolated" regions of the United States could be at risk if oil supplies were reduced, a scenario that would cause pain for consumers in the region.

The key to this vulnerability is the imposition of yet another round of anti-Russia sanctions by Washington.  According to a 1991 law, given that the U.S. State Department has notified Congress that Russia used chemical and/or biological weapons during the March 2018 poisoning of four people in the United Kingdom, this determination triggers a set of mandatory sanctions which, in their second round, could include cutting the importation of "petroleum or any petroleum product".  It is this aspect of the anti-Russia sanctions that could have a significant and unanticipated negative consequences on American consumers in the Pacific Northwest and other regions where refineries rely on Russian crude oil.

In a rather unexpected turn of events, according to Reuters, the American oil industry is not particularly fond of the current anti-Russia sanctions.  The oil industry is lobbying against tighter sanctions with Exxon Mobil being among the most vociferous anti-sanctions lobbyists.  The American oil industry claims that U.S.-led sanctions unfairly penalize U.S. oil companies while allowing foreign energy companies like BP and Royal Dutch Shell to operate in the world's largest hydrocarbon "playground".

As we can see from this posting, as is typical in Washington, there are a wide range of unanticipated consequences from its diplomatic actions.  While Russia's oil imports are not a substantial part of America's overall energy needs at this point in time, the fact that much of America's current surge in oil production is from reservoirs with an extremely high production decline rate could mean that in the coming years, American consumers may be more reliant on Russian oil imports than anticipated.

The Impact of Anti-Russia Sanctions on Russians

Washington's current weapon of choice in dealing with Russia is the imposition of economic sanctions.  While we often hear the word "sanctions" tossed around, what is the point of sanctioning a government or a nation?  We will start this posting by looking at a definition of sanctions and the reasons for their use followed by an examination of a poll of Russians, looking at their feelings about the impact of American-led sanctions against their nation. 

Economic sanctions are defined as a withdrawal of customary trade and financial relations and are viewed as a middle course of action when compared to diplomacy and all out war.  Sanctions take two forms:

1.) Comprehensive sanctions which affect all commercial activity with a nation, for example, the United States and its decades-long embargo of Cuba.  These sanctions affect the entire civilian population of the sanctioned nation.  It would also include the current sanctions on Iran, Sudan and Syria.

2.) Targeted or smart sanctions which target certain businesses, groups or individuals within a nation, sparing the civilian population from the impact of the sanctions.

Sanctions can take the form of asset freezes, arms embargo, foreign aid reductions, trade restrictions, capital restraints and travel bans.

Why do governments choose to use sanctions?  Economic sanctions are imposed to punish, coerce, deter or shame other governments/entities/states into changing behaviours that are deemed to violate international behavioural norms.  Economic sanctions have been used to achieve foreign policy goals like promoting human rights, promoting democracy, weapons nonproliferation, counterterrorism,  counternarcotics and to resolve geopolitical conflicts.  All that said, economic sanctions are used as a stick to prod the citizens of the targeted nation to be miserable enough that they will choose to put pressure on their government to change its behaviour. 

Thanks to the Council on Foreign Relations, here is an interesting graphic showing the global sanctions regimes in 2016:

Here is a graphic showing the U.S. sanctions programs currently in place showing how long some of them have been in existence:

Since the focus of this posting is on the sanctions against Russia, let's look at the document from the Office of Foreign Assets Control (OFAC) which outlines the U.S. Treasury Department's Russia sanctions program:

Just in case you missed it, here are the penalties for violating the Executive Orders behind the Russia sanctions program:

"Civil monetary penalties of up to the greater of $250,000 or twice the amount of the underlying transaction may be imposed administratively against any person who violates, attempts to violate, conspires to violate, or causes a violation of E.O. 13660, E.O. 13661, E.O. 13662, E.O. 13685, or the Regulations. Upon conviction, criminal penalties of up to $1,000,000, imprisonment for up to 20 years, or both, may be imposed on any person who willfully commits or attempts to commit, or willfully conspires to commit, or aids or abets in the commission of a violation of E.O. 13660, E.O. 13661, E.O. 13662, E.O. 13685, or the Regulations." (my bold)

With this background, let's look at the impact of the current American-led sanctions against Russia for its moves in Ukraine and alleged interference in the 2016 U.S. presidential election from the viewpoint of Russians as outlined in a recent poll from Russia's VCIOM.

When the Russian respondents were asked if they personally had interest in news related to sanctions, VCIOM got the following responses:

Likely yes - 57 percent

Likely no - 41 percent

When asked what kind of impact the sanctions had on Russia's economy, here are the responses:

Likely positive impact - significant - 15 percent

Likely positive impact - insignificant - 19 percent

Likely negative impact - insignificant - 11 percent

Likely negative impact - significant - 19 percent

No impact - 20 percent

Don't know - 16 percent

When asked what positive impacts have been felt by the Russian economy thanks to the imposition of sanctions, VCIOM got the following responses:

Economic development - 50 percent

Import substitution - 20 percent

Revival throughout the whole country - 4 percent

Development of military - industrial complex - 4 percent

New jobs - 2 percent

Development of small- and medium-sized businesses - 2 percent

Support for domestic manufacturers - 2 percent

New technologies/innovations - 2 percent

National cohesion/patriotism - 2 percent

Other - 11 percent

When asked what negative impacts have been felt by the Russian economy thanks to the imposition of sanctions, VCIOM got the following responses:

Price/tax increases - 22 percent

Economic recession - 9 percent

Fewer foreign goods - 7 percent

Worsening relationship with the West - 5 percent

Dollar exchange rate increase - 5 percent

Fall in income - 5 percent

Deterioration in quality of life of ordinary citizens - 3 percent

Rise in gasoline prices - 3 percent

Problems leaving Russia. 3 percent

One of the most important questions asked was whether the sanctions have had any impact on the families of the respondents:

Significant positive impact - 1 percent

Insignificant positive impact - 1 percent

Insignificant negative impact - 12 percent

Significant negative impact - 12 percent

No impact whatsoever - 67 percent

When asked if Russia should not pay attention to sanctions and conduct its foreign policy as before, 73 percent of respondents said yes compared to only 17 percent of respondents that felt that Russia should be willing to make concessions in order to get sanctions lifted.

Lastly, when asked if Western sanctions were harmful or beneficial to Russia, here were the responses:

Harmful to Russia - 32 percent

Beneficial to Russia - 50 percent

When asked if Western sanctions were harmful or beneficial to the nations that imposed them, here were the responses:

Harmful to the imposing nations - 78 percent

Beneficial to the imposing nations - 7 percent

With the imbalance in reportage in the Western/American media when it comes to Russia, we rarely hear what Russians think about the key issues that are impacting their lives in this time of anti-Putin/anti-Russia sanctions and how they feel about their new geopolitical reality.  The poll by VCIOM shows us that the current sanctions have been rather unsuccessful in changing Russians' opinions toward their political leadership and their actions in Ukraine and during the 2016 American election.  In any case, the four year-old sanctions have done absolutely nothing to produce the hoped for result of getting Russia to totally remove itself from the "Ukraine issue" or to get it to promise that it will never again interfere with an American election....allegedly, at least.