Just because they have that in common doesn't equate them. Not differentiating between civilian and military personnel is a defining characteristics of neither economic sanctions nor terrorism.
Further, terrorism does distinguish between military and civilian targets. They specifically prioritize civilian targets over military ones.
For these reasons I cannot agree that economic sanctions are terrorism.

They [terrorists] specifically prioritize civilian targets over military ones. — DingoJones

Good point (if true)!

However...words fail me.

Are economic sanctions terrorism? — Agent Smith

As Putin says sanctions are (acts of) "economic war".

I'd say no. If you define "terrorism" as every act of aggression or coercion that "doesn't differentiate between civilians and military personnel," you make the term so broad as to be useless.

Defining terrorism is a recurring problem in terrorism studies, but a good place to start is with START, since the GTD is ubiquitous in the research.

For the GTD, terrorism is:

“The threatened or actual use of illegal force and violence by a non-state actor to attain a political, economic, religious, or social goal through fear, coercion, or intimidation.”

It's a useful definition in that non-state actors tend to behave fairly differently from state ones, and it breaks out the field from other areas of conflict studies.

People get hung up on the term because they tend to ascribe some moral weight to it. It's similar to the word "racism," in this way. I don't think adding extra moral weight to the word is particularly helpful though. Do you have to call every evil act terrorism? Is slavery or the Holocaust somehow less evil if they aren't terrorism?

Second, sanctions can be targeted. For example, some of the sanctions recently implemented against Russia are very targeted. They are blanket restrictions on visas for specific individuals, the freezing of the assets of specific oligarchs and Putin himself in foreign bank accounts (Switzerland notably allowed the freezing of assets), restrictions on specific individuals accessing banking services or lines of credit, etc. In the case of Russian hacking efforts against some nations, grand juries were held and warrants were issued for the arrest of individuals involved (essentially making it so that they can't travel to countries with an extradition treaty with the issuing nation).

A level up for specific individuals, you can target just specific items. For example, just weapons, or certain types of weapons.

The problem with targeted sanctions is that they are easy for people to get around, and so aren't always very effective. However, since Russia has a history of seizing oligarchs' wealth when they anger the state, they do tend to have a lot of foreign assets. Thus these tools can have a large impact.

Broad based sanctions hurt everyone. Often they hurt the poor the most. They do not have a very good track record at getting states to change their policies either, although there are some notable examples of effective sanction efforts (South African companies lobbied for an end to apartheid in earnest after sanctions cut deep enough).

Sanctions make the most sense when you're trying to erode a state's ability to wage war against another state (e.g., Iraq after the invasion of Kuwait; regime change was a goal, but the chief aim was to ensure Saddam couldn't rebuild his military). While they aren't great at forcing policy changes, particularly as respects autocratic regimes, sanctions can significantly curtail a state's ability to buy arms.

targeted sanctions — Count Timothy von Icarus

:up: Escaped my notice. Thanks! I recall reading about how the assets of Russian oligarchs and government officials were (allegedly) frozen. That's the current status, but what about how US and Europe did the same thing to Afghanistan after it reverted to Taliban control? Headlines, if memory serves, were all about starvation and disease for the Afghans as a whole, not just the Taliban.

Defining terrorism is a recurring problem in terrorism studies — Count Timothy von Icarus

Yep, missed that too. Thanks for sending me a memo!

Sanctions make the most sense when you're trying to erode a state's ability to wage war against another state. — Count Timothy von Icarus

If economic sanctions can prevent a(n) (erstwhile) superpower (Russia) from aggressive behavior, surely it's gotta work for smaller, less powerful countries, but the catch is it's never used on smaller countries - they're free to do as they please, wage war, commit atrocities, go ahead seems to be the message the US and Europe seems to be sending to them.

As Putin says sanctions are (acts of) "economic war". — 180 Proof

:up:

If economic sanctions can prevent a(n) (erstwhile) superpower (Russia) from aggressive behavior, surely it's gotta work for smaller, less powerful countries, but the catch is it's never used on smaller countries - they're free to do as they please, wage war, commit atrocities, go ahead seems to be the message the US and Europe seems to be sending to them.

Not sure how you got this. Smaller countries are often under much stricter sanctions, or a full embargo by the US and EU. Think Libya under Qaddafi, Syrian under Assad, Iran for decades, North Korea, Iraq under Saddam, Chile under Pinochet, Sudan for long periods, Cuba, etc.

They specifically prioritize civilian targets over military ones. — DingoJones

And what then is the target of economic sanctions?

If Europe wants to hit Putin and his comrades, why not boycotting his gas? Because the population would freeze. I wouldn't be surprised if Putin closed the pipes himself.

Not sure how you got this. Smaller countries are often under much stricter sanctions, or a full embargo by the US and EU. Think Libya under Qaddafi, Syrian under Assad, Iran for decades, North Korea, Iraq under Saddam, Chile under Pinochet, Sudan for long periods, Cuba, etc. — Count Timothy von Icarus

You're right. Again a part of (recent) history that I failed to take into account. Nevertheless, sanctions on smaller countries are usually imposed when they're a direct threat to the US or its allies, and not really because of any moral/ethical reasons. Plus, even in these cases, the damage to the economy harms the civilian population more than the armed forces; an oil embargo hurts the people, not the soldiers as the economy gets hit.

And what then is the target of economic sanctions? — EugeneW

The economic structures of a country. While its true that can effect civilians, I wouldn't say civilians are the target.

I think that's arguable.

Sanctions on forces commiting genocide in the former Yugoslavia (which did escalate to an air war) weren't really about US security directly. Neither were sanctions against the Taliban in the 1990s implemented before Osama Bin Laden began his attacks against the US. Same goes for sanctions against Sudan over Darfur. These largely were responses to humanitarian crises there.

Minor sanctions against various nations over anti-homosexual laws obviously aren't about security in any meaningful way.

Sanctions against poor countries often work better because the US and EU are often able to sanction the central government, block arms sales, etc. while still supplying humanitarian aid (as opposed to nations with more control over their borders, such as North Korea, who can block aid).

The 1990s were the peak of more "genuinely" humanitarian sanctions and peace keeping efforts. The apogee of American power was so absolute, American military power so dominant in Iraq and the Balkans, that you had interventions that wouldn't make sense through a realist international relations lens (e.g., peace keeping in Somalia, which Bush I chose to embark on after watching CNN footage of refugees).

Samantha Power is a great read if you want to understand the optimistic, internationalist, rights focused policy lens of the Clinton years.

What made Bush II so damaging was that he rejected this sort of framework for a unilateral, America-centric one. He squandered post-war good will, and developed a more aggressive NSS with counter-terrorism as a new pillar of US defense policy. He jettisoned the internationalist, norms based approach to IR used in the 90s, which his administration argued "tied America's hands."

It's naive to think policy makers aren't naive. A lot of them really do believe in optimistic, humanitarian focused defense policy, sometimes to their own detriment. For example: the US could have likely brought an end to the war in Afghanistan in 1/10th the time by supporting a Tajik and Hazara government there. As a minority, they would be reliant on US arms to keep power. US leverage could have been used to tamp down on rights abuses, enforce some secular Pashtun representation in government, and protect women's rights. Ideal? No. Democratic? No. But a hell of a lot more stable. You'd have a well funded indigenous security force that had nothing to gain by undermining itself since it would be at a disadvantage in future ethnic struggles.

Notably for that sort of realist approach, South Korea and Taiwan were brutal, corrupt military dictatorships for a long time. US leverage did help them liberalize however, and in the long run they became wealthy states with a high degree of personal freedom. Obviously, this doesn't always work (see Egypt, Iran under the Shah).

This is the big contradiction in US policy to my mind. Sometimes more idealistic policy actually leads to more violence and repression. Goals like setting up liberal democracies from scratch in Iraq and Afghanistan aren't realistic, and faliure is worse than other alternatives.

BTW, if you want to understand how the US envisages the use of different tools, the National Security Strategy is the document to read. You can see how it shifts over time, although it's largely had the same focus since Bush I.

It's complicated, huh? I'm particularly intrigued by you bringing up idealism and naïvety into the discussion. Says a lot. Speaking for myself, I really can't tell the difference between having my rouble savings of $800,000 devalue to $100,000 and being imprisoned in a labor camp for 20 years in which period I could have made $700,000. Economic sanctions on Russia, the effect it's having on the economy, is like taking the entire Russian nation and incarcerating them in an American jail for 10 - 15 years, during which period they don't get paid for the work they do. Just saying. Trying to put things into perspective, that's all. Maybe someone on the forum can do the math with genuine data and give us a true picture of the impact of US & EU sanctions on the Russian people. Signing off...