Until recently, the sanctions on Russia levied by the United States and its allies in Europe have been largely financial in nature: refusal to honor USD requests from the Russian central bank, locking out of key Russian financial institutions from the SWIFT settlement system, and targeted freezes upon the accounts and assets of Putin and his close allies. But as Russia’s campaign of terror and destruction has intensified, with calls for harsher measures by Ukrainian President Zelenskyy, the U.S. is now actively considering a ban on Russian oil imports, a move that could further cripple Russia’s economy.
But is such a ban feasible, and how much pain would it cause the United States? And with gas prices already topping $4 a gallon for the first time since 2008, is there enough political will to allow further increases at the pump, particularly in an election year?
These are some of the questions the White House is currently weighing. As a starting point, there is current broad public support for a ban on Russian oil, with 80 percent of Americans in favor of it, according to a Reuters/Ipsos poll last Friday. The support was equally bipartisan, a rare moment of agreement in an increasingly polarized and divided America. This high support should blunt some of the early criticism of higher gas prices; after all, it’s one thing to pay more to fill your tank because you believe Joe Biden is ruining the economy and another to believe it is a small price to pay to help the Ukrainian people repel a deadly and unprovoked Russian invasion.
(Anecdotally speaking, right-wing media went on full attack mode in a way we haven’t seen in some time after actor and activist George Takei, with whom my team works, tweeted, “Americans: We can endure higher prices for food and gas if it means putting the screw to Putin. Consider it a patriotic donation in the fight for freedom over tyranny.” It seems George hit a sore spot with the right by blunting their most prized weapon to attack the Biden recovery.)
The White House appears to be preparing the way for a Russian oil ban. Secretary of State Antony Blinken said on Sunday that President Biden had convened a meeting of his National Security Council on the subject of a Russian oil import ban. And White House Press Secretary Jen Psaki said, “We are looking at ways to reduce the import of Russian oil while also making sure that we are maintaining the global supply needs out there.” In a lengthy thread on social media, Psaki laid out key points about U.S. oil independence, including the fact that the country is now a net exporter of petroleum and how the priority must be to move the U.S. away from fossil fuel dependency, which is a continuing national security risk. According to Psaki, the immediate concern is not whether the U.S. could make up the difference with its own resources or from other suppliers, but whether the move would damage already shaky commodity markets and create further inflationary pressures.
Legislations is already being fast-tracked to impose a Russian oil ban. A bipartisan measure proposed by Sens. Joe Manchin (D-WV) and Lisa Murkowski (R-AK) on Thursday proposed a ban on Russian energy imports, calling it a counter to Russia’s “weaponizing” of its energy reserves. It already has the support of eight GOP senators, just two shy of what it would need to overcome a filibuster. In the House, Speaker Nancy Pelosi has also signaled support for a ban, meaning likely House passage. It is unclear, however, where most House GOP members stand on the issue. The invasion appears to have caught many of them, particularly those who have supported the former president and his coddling of Putin, off-guard. It may prove valuable to them to show they now reject Putin and Russia completely, particularly as that relationship grows increasingly toxic.
A harder sell than a U.S. ban would be a similar ban across Western Europe, which is far more dependent on Russian energy supplies and is already facing the harrowing prospect of “stagflation,” meaning high inflation coupled with stagnant economic growth or even recession. The U.S. doesn’t want to do anything sudden on its that might imperil the economies of its allies, and so any moves likely will take place with their full knowledge and consent, even if they themselves do not impose a similar ban. Russian oil imports only account for around 3% of the U.S. oil imports, but Europe is reportedly far more dependent: An estimated 30% of its oil and 39% of its gas supplies come from Russia.
News of a possible U.S. import ban on Russian oil has already sent the spot price for a barrel of oil higher, and continued uncertainty likely will quickly push the cost of gas above levels last seen in the Great Recession of 2008. Whether Americans can stomach such rises for long—and whether they will take out their frustrations at the ballot box or instead rally behind the president in collective, shared pain— remains to be seen.
The Dems' message needs to be constant, reminding the country every chance they can that it's patriotic to support other democracies, and that our financial pain at the pump is hopefully shortening the duration of the pain the Ukrainian people have to suffer. The attention spans in this country have shortened significantly, by design of the media companies and others, so this drum must be beaten regularly to keep it fresh in our minds.
I submitted this observation in a Letter to the Editor: I shall warrant, putting paid to this latest bout of Russian expansion will require sacrifices on the order of those accepted by Americans on the home front during the Second World War, albeit absent the attendant butcher's bill. The difference being, this time round, the Fifth Columnists and the Sunshine Patriots now have the honking great pulpits afforded by our "information" society.
I'll not be surprised if it never makes it into print.