Joseph Cruz said:Even those initial sanctions triggered by the situation in Crimea back in 2014 should have, by now, resulted in a total collapse of the Russian economy and sparked a Maidan-style uprising in Moscow. But if all those sanctions haven't yielded results up to this point, can we really expect any new measures to carry significantly more weight?
Sanctions aren't a silver bullet or some kind of magic wand.
They do work, though. The real question is whether they work enough.
It’s a paradox: they actually tend to hit harder in autocratic regimes. Since power is held by a tiny circle of people, they don't necessarily need to worry about public opinion. It's much easier for them to maintain their own lifestyle while the rest of the country suffers economic damage.
Look at South Korea—despite all the pressure, they kept developing nukes. Iran hasn't collapsed either. Both have felt the sting of sanctions, even if they manage to bypass them through gray markets involving China and others.
That said, Russia has a much larger economy and was far more integrated into the West than the others, regardless of how much that changed in recent years.
But that’s a double-edged sword; it means the West ends up hurting its own economy too.
At the end of the day, it's a tool for pressure. A total collapse isn't guaranteed, though there is a chance that economic strain could force a different faction of leadership to step in against Putin, or weaken the military's budget. Even then, it's hard to say how much the state can squeeze its citizens versus the military, or how long they can keep exporting weapons to countries that can navigate the sanction systems.
If sanctions stay in place long enough, and if the West doesn't start pulling them back due to their own economic interests, they will eventually have an effect. You just have to view them as one tool in the toolbox, rather than a standalone solution.