The goal is super obvious, but you pulled in time travel because you couldn't wrap your brain around anything except your immediate European interests. Punitive sanctions are intended to be a deterrent towards Russia interfering in US elections again. The intent is that they will realize interfering in US elections won't actually help lift previous sanctions and alleviate their economic troubles, so they have to look into reforming themselves to find another way towards prosperity.
Okay, so let's go with 1. is: Russia stops interfering in US elections. That's a good goal, let's work with it.
But you still don't have a 2. It's just not there. You're not explaining to me why placing wide-ranging sanctions is going to deter Russia from interfering with future elections.
I've bolded what I think you're trying to set out as the causal mechanism.
You seem to think:
1. Russia was interfering in the US elections because it believed that it could get the US to lift prior sanctions.
2. If we disabuse Russia of this belief, then they won't have a reason to interfere in US elections.
3. Therefore by doubling down on sanctions, we can prevent further interference.
This is... completely misunderstanding the situation we have at hand. Russia didn't interfere with the US because it wanted the US to lift prior sanctions because, well, that makes no sense. If you play the statistical game, most Russian interferences in most worlds still weren't enough to get Trump elected. Nobody could have predicted that - not even Russia. And if Russia had failed and Clinton had been elected
in the face of Russian interference, that's hardly going to get sanctions lifted. It probably makes them worse. And even in the worlds where their unlikely gamble succeeded and Trump gets elected (e.g. this world), Trump can't just ignore Congress on these matters - as we've literally just seen.
So, why did Russia interfere? Because there are no 'Russsian' interests. There are only Putin interests (and the small coterie of people around Putin). The greatest threat to Putin's position is America's success. Suppose that the people of America were happy and content, that democracy was flourishing, that the two parties talked respectfully with one another and treated each as equals, that there was consistent growth in GDP and quality of life. Meanwhile, suppose Russia continued as it currently does. If you're Russian, you're going to start thinking: why can't we have some of what America has? and you're going to start thinking: this democracy stuff is great! And that's when Putin's position becomes less secure.
Putin interfering in the US elections is about securing his position. If he can divide the US, if he can make the US parties' turn on one another, if he can create legislative gridlock and help drag on the quality of life of the average American citizen, then it becomes much easier for the Kremlin's propaganda arm to spin: hey, look, the US sucks, you need a strong-man like Putin to prevent Western indecision and turmoil - because now there's a tiny kernel of truth to it.
So your explanation of why sanctions will work is just wrong. They're not going to do what you want them to do.
In fact, even worse, they strengthen Putin's position, since they make America the antagonist. Putin can point at America and say - look, they're ruining your lives. They're making your bread more expensive, making your company fail. I can deal with that. They make the American model
less appealing - why do you want to be like the country that is determinedly screwing you over? So in fact: sanctions make the Putin regime stronger. They entrench it. To a certain extent, Putin actively enjoys sanctions - the post-Crimean sanctions caused a sharp spike in his approval ratings.
So again: not only do sanctions not work, they make things worse at achieving the very policy goal (non-interference in elections) that you wanted to achieve.
This, incidentally, is why I was talking about Maduro as an example. Maduro's position is significantly more tenuous than Putin's, which is why I'm saying he has more sanction exposure - his popular support is lower than Putin's, and he is closer to the knife's edge. If sanctions had any affect on weakening someone's position, you'd expect them to be especially effective against Maduro, whereas Putin might shrug them off even if they did have a positive effect to the point it could be difficult to notice. But that's not the case. Much like Putin, Maduro enjoys sanctions.
They are a bad policy.
If they were economically rational, they would stop mucking around with other countries and focus on themselves. Of course we both know that this is not an ideal world. But since you make a lot of arguments based on economic rationality, I don't think you can argue against this either.
You're thinking that 'Russia' makes decisions. 'Russia' doesn't make decisions. Putin does. Putin is already incredibly wealthy. It makes very little difference to him how well the Russian economy does. What's in Putin's economic interests is the stability of Putin's power - how well he can guard the vast wealth and influence he already has.
As I have argued above, sanctions actually
help him do this. So if you're framing this as 'how will people respond under rational economic interests', that's a point in my favour, not yours.
What you are proposing is a terrible policy.
You made a flippant response to me first, so I don't think you should suddenly put yourself on a high horse and consider yourself the victim.
This is a lie, but I'll let it pass.
As an aside, I've not even mentioned the impact that this has on the European Union, and EU-US relations, which is an incredibly significant topic you've not even considered once - because I don't even have to. This policy is bad without that, and the fact you're damaging the US' closest ally is just another cherry on top of a giant cake of shit.
