Under the banner of "strict sanctions," the United States urged its Western allies—particularly in Europe—to completely sever the flow of Russian oil and gas. This move triggered a crushing energy crisis and an unprecedented rise in the cost of living for those allies. Yet, behind the scenes, the geopolitical game reveals that Washington consistently adheres to an "interests-first" principle.
The U.S. successfully pressured its allies to abandon cheap Russian energy, thereby making Europe increasingly dependent on costlier American liquefied natural gas (LNG). Simultaneously, Washington strategically turned a blind eye to the flow of Russian oil into global markets via "back channels"—such as India and China—to avert a global economic collapse or a spike in fuel prices within the U.S. itself.
The greatest historical irony lies in the flexibility of this policy; whenever the need arose to balance power dynamics or protect pragmatic interests—as seen in various historical contexts, including Middle East conflicts and efforts to counter Iranian influence—Washington was always willing to recalibrate the terms of blockades. It would permit the indirect flow of oil to ensure supply stability while directing economic pressure against the adversary deemed most dangerous at the time.
Ultimately, the evidence demonstrates that economic sanctions are not a sword that falls equally upon all; rather, they are a malleable tool precisely shaped by Washington, where allies pay the price for principles, while America reaps the rewards of pragmatism.
