> America has blacklisted big Russian financial institutions, preventing its own banks from dealing with them, and imposed strict export controls. These measures are much narrower in scope than disconnecting Russia from SWIFT, but they cut more deeply.
Is that true? It sounds counter-intuitive to me, someone who uses SWIFT payments a lot but isn't at all an economist or super into foreign policy, that the US blacklisting a few big Russian banking institutions would cut deeper than the immediate and total removal from the larger payment network. But if that is indeed the case, why not both? The answer the article gives for that is "it would hurt the West's investments/position with respect to China" which, yes, makes sense, but is that pain worth it? A few decades of land wars across the European continent would do that too, right?
Is that true? It sounds counter-intuitive to me, someone who uses SWIFT payments a lot but isn't at all an economist or super into foreign policy, that the US blacklisting a few big Russian banking institutions would cut deeper than the immediate and total removal from the larger payment network. But if that is indeed the case, why not both? The answer the article gives for that is "it would hurt the West's investments/position with respect to China" which, yes, makes sense, but is that pain worth it? A few decades of land wars across the European continent would do that too, right?