United States International Relations

More stories

  • 163 Shares159 Views

    in Economy

    U.S. and Allies Impose Sanctions on Russia as Biden Condemns ‘Invasion’ of Ukraine

    by

    President Biden warned President Vladimir V. Putin of Russia that more sanctions would follow if he did not withdraw his forces and engage in diplomatic efforts to resolve the crisis.WASHINGTON — The United States and its allies on Tuesday swiftly imposed economic sanctions on Russia for what President Biden denounced as the beginning of an “invasion of Ukraine,” unveiling a set of coordinated punishments as Western officials confirmed that Russian forces had begun crossing the Ukrainian border.Speaking from the White House, Mr. Biden condemned President Vladimir V. Putin of Russia and said the immediate consequences for his aggression against Ukraine included the loss of a key natural gas pipeline and cutting off global financing to two Russian banks and a handful of the country’s elites.“Who in the Lord’s name does Putin think gives him the right to declare new so-called countries on territory that belonged to his neighbors?” Mr. Biden said on Tuesday afternoon, joining a cascade of criticism from global leaders earlier in the day. “This is a flagrant violation of international law and demands a firm response from the international community.”Mr. Biden warned Mr. Putin that more sanctions would follow if the Russian leader did not withdraw his forces and engage in diplomatic efforts to resolve the crisis.But that prospect remained dim by the end of the day, as Secretary of State Antony J. Blinken canceled plans to meet with the Russian foreign minister on Thursday, saying that it does not “make sense” to hold talks while Russian forces are on the move.“To put it simply, Russia just announced that it is carving out a big chunk of Ukraine,” Mr. Biden said, adding, “He’s setting up a rationale to take more territory by force.”President Biden called Russia’s actions a “flagrant violation of international law” and unveiled tough sanctions aimed at punishing the country.Al Drago for The New York TimesThe global response began early on Tuesday, just hours after Mr. Putin recognized the self-declared separatist states in eastern Ukraine and Russian forces started rolling into their territory, according to NATO, European Union and White House officials. It was the first major deployment of Russian troops across the internationally recognized border since the current crisis began.At a news conference in Moscow, Mr. Putin said that he had not decided to send in troops “right at this moment.” But officials said the invasion started overnight, just hours before Mr. Putin’s Parliament formally granted him the authority to deploy the military abroad. Ukrainians near the territory controlled by Kremlin-backed separatists have already endured days of shelling, and as Ukrainian troops hunkered down in their trenches and civilians took shelter in basements, the country’s military said that one soldier had been killed so far and six wounded.Financial markets around the world wobbled on Tuesday in the wake of the Russian actions and the response from Western governments. In the United States, the news pushed stocks lower, leaving the S&P 500 in correction territory, more than 10 percent below its January peak. Oil prices, which had risen to nearly $100 a barrel in anticipation of a global disruption, settled at $96.84 a barrel, up 1.5 percent.Mr. Biden and his counterparts in Germany, England and other European nations described the package of global sanctions as severe. They include financial directives by the United States to deny Russia the ability to borrow money in Western markets and to block financial transactions by two banks and the families of three wealthy Russian elites.Chancellor Olaf Scholz of Germany put the Nord Stream 2 gas pipeline on hold. The $11 billion conduit from Russia to Germany — completed but not yet operational — is crucial to Moscow’s plans to increase energy sales to Europe. European Union foreign ministers and the British government approved sanctions against legislators in Moscow who voted to authorize the use of force, as well as Russian elites, companies and organizations.“It will hurt a lot,” said the E.U. foreign policy chief, Josep Borrell Fontelles.The governments of Japan, Taiwan and Singapore also issued a joint statement saying they would limit technology exports to Russia in an effort to pressure Mr. Putin with damaging restrictions on his ambitions to compete in high-tech industries.But the moves in Washington and other capitals around the world were limited in scope and fell short of the more sweeping economic warfare that some — including members of Congress and other supporters of Ukraine — have repeatedly demanded in recent weeks.Mr. Biden and his counterparts have said they must balance the need to take swift and severe action with preserving the possibility of even greater sanctions on Russia if Mr. Putin escalates the conflict by trying to seize more territory claimed by the separatists, or even the entire country — a war that could kill tens of thousands of people.“This is the beginning of a Russian invasion of Ukraine,” he said, adding that “we’ll continue to escalate sanctions if Russia escalates.”European leaders also vowed to get tougher if Mr. Putin’s forces continued to advance. Prime Minister Boris Johnson described British sanctions as just “the first tranche.”Mr. Biden’s use of the word “invasion” was significant. In the past, he had angered the Ukrainian leadership when he suggested that there might be lesser penalties for a “minor incursion.” Now that Mr. Putin has ordered forces into eastern Ukraine, Mr. Biden, in his choice of words, is making clear that there is nothing minor about the operation.Russian self-propelled howitzers being loaded onto a train car on Tuesday near Taganrog, Russia.The New York TimesBut that still leaves open the question of how to calibrate the sanctions — because so far there have been no mass casualties. Jonathan Finer, the president’s deputy national security adviser, said early Tuesday that the administration could hold back some of its promised punishments in the hopes of deterring further, far more violent aggression by Mr. Putin aimed at taking the rest of the country.“We’ve always envisioned waves of sanctions that would unfold over time in response to steps Russia actually takes, not just statements that they make,” Mr. Finer said on CNN. “We’ve always said we’re going to watch the situation on the ground and have a swift and severe response.”Crucially, it remains unclear how far Mr. Putin — who has argued that Ukraine itself is a phony country, wrongly carved away from Russia — is prepared to go. On Tuesday, he said ominously that he recognized the so-called Donetsk and Luhansk republics’ sovereignty over not only the land they control, but also the much larger portion of Ukraine that they lay claim to, home to 2.5 million people.Maps: Russia and Ukraine Edge Closer to WarRussia has built an enormous military force along Ukraine’s border that appears prepared to attack from the north, east and south.At a hastily called news conference on Tuesday, Mr. Putin demanded that Ukraine vow never to join NATO, give up the advanced weapons the West has delivered to it, recognize Russia’s annexation of Crimea and negotiate directly with the Luhansk and Donetsk separatists, who are seen in Kyiv and Western capitals as illegitimate Kremlin proxies.“The most important point is a known degree of demilitarization of Ukraine today,” Mr. Putin said. “This is the only objectively controllable factor that can be observed and reacted to.”Understand How the Ukraine Crisis DevelopedCard 1 of 7How it all began. More

  • 113 Shares179 Views

    in Economy

    Will Biden’s Sanctions Halt a Russian Invasion of Ukraine?

    by

    President Vladimir V. Putin has learned from earlier U.S.-led sanctions, and his allies could benefit from a more isolated Russia.WASHINGTON — When the Obama administration imposed sanctions on Russia for invading Ukraine in 2014, American officials were hopeful they would deter President Vladimir V. Putin from further aggression.Some of the officials argue today that the sanctions prevented Mr. Putin from ordering Russian forces beyond where they had halted on the Crimean Peninsula and in the eastern Donbas region. But Mr. Putin held on to Crimea. And on Monday, he ordered more troops into an insurgent-controlled area of eastern Ukraine where thousands of Russian soldiers have been operating and said the Kremlin was recognizing two enclaves as independent states.Now, President Biden, who as vice president helped oversee Ukraine policy in 2014, has to weigh what sanctions might compel Mr. Putin to halt his new offensive, which the White House has judged to be an “invasion.” The White House is taking a step-by-step approach, trying to calibrate each tranche of measures to Mr. Putin’s actions.“I’m going to begin to impose sanctions in response, far beyond the steps we and our allies and partners implemented in 2014,” Mr. Biden said on Tuesday in announcing a new set of sanctions. “And if Russia goes further with this invasion, we stand prepared to go further.”While American officials have studied the effects of sanctions imposed since 2014 and sharpened techniques, Mr. Putin has had years to make his country’s $1.5 trillion economy more insular so that parts of Russia would be shielded from tough penalties. Speaking to reporters on Friday, he boasted that his country had grown more self-sufficient in the face of “illegitimate” Western sanctions, according to Russia’s Tass news service. He added that in the future, it would be “important for us to raise the level of our economic sovereignty.”And perhaps most notably, Mr. Putin and his closest aides and partners in Moscow might not suffer much themselves from sanctions, analysts say.Mr. Putin’s decision on Monday to press ahead with the troop movement suggests that he has concluded that the costs of new sanctions are tolerable, despite U.S. talk of “massive consequences” for his country. Several of his top aides made that point in choreographed speeches to him in a meeting of his Security Council on Monday in Moscow.If Russian officials are firm in that mind-set, the Biden administration might find it has to impose the absolute harshest sanctions — ones that would inflict suffering on many ordinary citizens — or look for a noneconomic option, such as giving greater military aid to an insurgency in Ukraine. Mr. Biden has said he will not send American troops to defend Ukraine.Some of the hard-line nationalist men around Mr. Putin were already on a Treasury Department sanctions list and accept that they and their families will no longer have substantial ties to the United States or Europe for the rest of their lives, said Alexander Gabuev, the chair of the Russia in the Asia-Pacific Program at the Carnegie Moscow Center.“They are the powerful everybodies in today’s Russia,” he said. “There is a lot of posh richness. They’re totally secluded. They’re the kings, and that can be secured in Russia only.”Furthermore, because of their roles in state-owned enterprises and their business ties, they are “the very guys who are directly benefiting from the economy becoming more insulated, more detached from the outside world,” he added.They have also adopted a siege mentality rooted in an ideological belief about the United States and its sanctions policies that Mr. Putin regularly pushes. “He says, ‘It’s not because of actions I take, but it’s because we’re rising as a power, and the Americans want to punish us for standing up to hegemonism,’” Mr. Gabuev said. “I think that’s genuine. The bulk of my contacts in the government believe that.”The sanctions announced by the United States on Tuesday include penalties against three sons of senior officials close to Mr. Putin and two state-owned banks, as well as further restrictions on Russia’s ability to raise revenue by issuing sovereign debt. The costs are not expected to be felt widely in Russia — the two banks are policy institutions and do not have retail operations — but American officials could eventually announce more painful steps.That announcement followed an executive order issued by Mr. Biden on Monday night that prohibits business dealings between Americans and entities in the Russia-backed eastern enclaves in Ukraine. The Biden administration would also have the authority to impose sanctions on anyone operating in those areas, a U.S. official said.Britain announced Tuesday that it was freezing the assets of five Russian banks and imposing sanctions on three Russian billionaires and certain members of Parliament. And Germany said it was halting certification of the Nord Stream 2 natural gas pipeline that would connect to Russia.A severe economic disruption could test Mr. Putin’s control of his country. But many analysts are skeptical that the United States and its European allies will follow through with the toughest options that they have considered.Sputnik, via Associated PressOfficials from the White House, State Department and Treasury Department have spent weeks coordinating a response with European leaders and major financial institutions and say they are able to act almost immediately as Russia escalates its actions.Some experts say that if the Biden administration follows through on the most severe options that officials have suggested are possible — most notably severing the country’s top banks, including Sberbank and VTB, from transactions with non-Russian entities — Russia could suffer a financial panic that triggers a stock market crash and rapid inflation. The effects would most likely strike not only billionaire oligarchs but also middle-class and lower-income families. Russian enterprises would also be unable to receive payment for energy exports.Besides isolating Russian state-owned banks, the escalatory sanctions that U.S. officials have prepared would also cut off the ability to purchase critical technologies from American companies.If the United States imposes the harshest penalties, “there will be unexpected and unpredictable consequences for global markets,” said Maria Snegovaya, a visiting scholar at George Washington University who co-wrote an Atlantic Council paper on U.S. sanctions on Russia.Edward Fishman, a top State Department sanctions official in the Obama administration, called Mr. Biden’s action on Tuesday a modest first step intended as “a shot across the bow.”Mr. Fishman said the administration’s move against one of the two targeted banks — VEB, the country’s main development bank — was the first time the United States had fully cut off a state-owned Russian financial institution. “I interpret that as a warning that the Biden administration is prepared to cut off other major Russian banks from the U.S. financial system,” Mr. Fishman said.“Biden is giving Putin an opportunity to step away from the brink,” he added. “But he’s also signaling that, if Putin unleashes a full-scale war, the economic costs will be immense.”Sberbank is a possible target of U.S. sanctions. Some experts say that if the Biden administration imposes particularly harsh measures, Russia could suffer a financial panic.Evgenia Novozhenina/ReutersA severe economic disruption could test Mr. Putin’s control of his country. But many analysts are skeptical that the United States and its European allies will follow through with the toughest options that they have considered, as they may be discouraged by fears over collateral damage to their own economies.And no Western officials have even proposed choking the lifeblood of Russia’s economy by cutting off its lucrative energy exports. Experts say that a move against Russian energy revenues would have the biggest impact, but that it would also lead to a precarious political situation for Mr. Biden and other world leaders as oil and gas prices rise in a period of high global inflation.The Russian government has spent years trying to reconfigure its budget and finances so that it can withstand further sanctions, efforts that have been aided by high market prices for oil and gas. It has relatively low debt and relies less on loans from foreign entities than it did before 2014. Most importantly, the central bank has accumulated foreign currency reserves of $631 billion, the fourth-largest such reserve in the world.Some important Russian state-owned enterprises and private companies have actually benefited from U.S. sanctions. Kremlin policies aimed at replacing Western imports with Russian and non-Western products wind up raising the profits of those businesses. And some of Mr. Putin’s allies and their families have done well under the initiatives. One example is Dmitry Patrushev, the minister of agriculture, whose family has become wealthier from new agriculture industry policies, Mr. Gabuev said.President Xi Jinping of China, who has been strengthening his nation’s ties with Russia, could help Mr. Putin get around some of the sanctions or bolster Russia’s economy with greater energy purchases. When the two leaders met in Beijing at the start of the Winter Olympics, their governments announced a 30-year contract in which China would purchase gas through a new pipeline running across Siberia. Chinese companies might also be able to fill some of the supply chain gaps created by a stoppage in certain U.S. technology exports to Russia, though those companies are unable to replicate more advanced American products.Chinese leaders would probably be careful about having its large state-owned banks continue to do business overtly with any Russian banks that are under U.S. sanctions, but China has ways to keep some transactions hidden.“They’ve developed a lot of e-payment and digital workarounds,” said Daniel Russel, a former assistant secretary of state for East Asian and Pacific affairs and an executive at the Asia Society. “There are all kinds of fairly sophisticated barter systems they’ve been employing. Thirdly, they can hide behind a lot of black market stuff.” More

  • 113 Shares149 Views

    in Economy

    Russia’s Moves in Ukraine Unsettle Energy Companies and Prices

    by

    Oil and gas prices are up, and Western energy giants with operations and investments in Russia could find it harder to keep doing business there.Russia’s recognition of two breakaway regions in eastern Ukraine could threaten important investments of Western oil giants and further drive up global energy prices in the next few weeks.Since the closing days of the Cold War, Russia’s energy-based economy has become entwined with Europe’s. European energy companies like BP, TotalEnergies and Shell have major operations and investments in Russia. Though expansion of those holdings was largely halted after Russia’s 2014 annexation of Crimea, they remain important profit centers and could now be at risk.Seeking to isolate President Vladimir V. Putin of Russia, President Biden and the European Union imposed new sanctions on the Russian government and the country’s political and business elite on Tuesday. The measures do not directly target the energy industry. That’s why oil and gas prices settled only modestly higher on Tuesday afternoon in New York.But analysts said the energy industry could still be hurt if the crisis dragged on, particularly if Mr. Putin decided to send troops into the rest of Ukraine or sought to take control of the capital, Kyiv. Such aggressive action would most likely force Mr. Biden and other Western leaders to ratchet up their response.European leaders are already taking aim at some Russian energy exports. Chancellor Olaf Scholz said on Tuesday that Germany would halt certification of the Nord Stream 2 pipeline, which is supposed to deliver Russian gas. The decision will not have an immediate impact on European energy supplies because the pipeline is not yet operating. But Russian gas shipments through Ukraine could be halted, especially if Mr. Putin’s troops push farther into Ukraine or if he cuts off gas to Europe in retaliation for Western sanctions.Russia supplies one out of every 10 barrels of oil used around the world. After Western officials said Russian troops had entered eastern Ukrainian regions held by separatists, oil prices quickly jumped early Tuesday to nearly $100 a barrel, their highest level in more than seven years, before moderating.Energy experts say oil prices could easily rise another $20 a barrel if Mr. Putin seeks to occupy more or all of Ukraine. Such an outcome would also cause huge problems for Western oil companies that do business in Russia.“In that environment, the legal and reputational risk faced by Western energy companies operating in Russia will rise sharply,” said Robert McNally, who was an energy adviser to President George W. Bush and is now president of the Rapidan Energy Group, a consulting firm. “For oil markets, this means slower supply growth and even tighter global balances and higher prices in the coming years.”TotalEnergies, which is based near Paris, owns nearly 20 percent of Novatek, Russia’s largest liquefied natural gas company, and Shell has a strategic alliance with Gazprom, Russia’s natural gas monopoly.The Salym oil field, which Shell operates jointly with Gazprom in western Siberia.Alexander Zemlianichenko Jr./BloombergThe Western oil company most involved in Russia is BP, which owns nearly 20 percent of Rosneft, the state-controlled energy company managed by Igor Sechin, who is widely considered a close Putin ally and adviser. BP’s chief executive, Bernard Looney, and its former chief executive Bob Dudley sit on Rosneft’s board with Mr. Sechin and Alexander Novak, Russia’s deputy prime minister.Rosneft contributed $2.4 billion in profits and $600 million in dividends to BP in 2021, and has a secondary listing on the London Stock Exchange. About a third of BP’s oil production, or 1.1 million barrels a day, came from Russia last year.BP executives have so far expressed calm. “We have been there over 30 years and our job is to focus on our business, and that is what we are doing,” Mr. Looney said in a recent conference call with analysts. “If something comes down the road, then obviously we will deal with it as it comes.”Most oil companies have been reporting bumper profits because of rising oil and gas prices. European firms are using some of their profits to invest more in wind, solar, hydrogen and other forms of cleaner energy. But the current crisis could be a major distraction, if not worse.Doing business in Russia has always been complicated, especially as Mr. Putin reasserted state control over energy, squeezing private investors.Shell was forced to give up control of its premier Russian liquefied natural gas project on Sakhalin Island, in eastern Russia, to Gazprom in 2006. Shell retains a modest stake in the facility, and it appears to want to keep the door open to more business in Russia. Along with four other European companies, it helped finance the estimated $11 billion Nord Stream 2 pipeline to Germany.TotalEnergies has continued investing in a $27 billion natural gas complex in the Yamal Peninsula, in the Arctic, that Novatek controls. The project sidestepped earlier Western sanctions by obtaining financing from Chinese banks. It began producing gas for European and Asian customers in 2017.Share prices of BP and Total closed on Tuesday down more than 2 percent, and Shell was down about 1 percent.Prospects for Western oil companies seeking to do business in Russia were once far brighter. Exxon Mobil, Italy’s ENI and other foreign oil companies teamed up with Rosneft in 2012 and 2013 to explore Arctic oil and gas fields.BP owns nearly 20 percent of Rosneft, which operates this refinery in Novokuibyshevsk, Russia.Andrey Rudakov/BloombergBut U.S. and European Union sanctions imposed after Russia’s seizure of Crimea forced many Western companies to stop expanding in Russia in part by limiting access to financing and technology for deepwater exploration.Exxon formally abandoned exploration ventures with Rosneft in 2018, and took a $200 million after-tax loss.Understand How the Ukraine Crisis DevelopedCard 1 of 7How it all began. More

  • 75 Shares149 Views

    in Economy

    Patrick Gelsinger is Intel's True Believer

    by

    Patrick Gelsinger was 18 years old and four months into an entry-level job at Intel when he heard a pivotal sermon at a Silicon Valley church in February 1980. There, a minister quoted Jesus from the Book of Revelation.“I know your deeds, that you are neither cold nor hot. I wish you were either one or the other!” the minister said. “So, because you are lukewarm — neither hot nor cold — I am about to spit you out of my mouth.”The words jolted Mr. Gelsinger, reshaping his philosophy. He realized he had been a lukewarm believer, one who practiced his faith just once a week. He vowed never to be neither hot nor cold again.Now, at age 60, Mr. Gelsinger is hot about one thing in particular: Revitalizing Intel, a Silicon Valley icon that lost its leading position in chip manufacturing.The 120,000-person company was a household name in the 1990s, celebrated as a fount of innovation as its microprocessors became the electronic brains in the vast majority of computers. But Intel failed to place its chips into smartphones, which became the device of choice for most people. Apple and Google instead grew into the trillion-dollar emblems of Silicon Valley.Rejuvenating Intel is partly about Mr. Gelsinger’s own ambitions. As a young engineer, he once wrote down a goal of leading Intel one day. But in 2009, after spending his entire career at the company, he was forced out. A year ago, he was wooed back for a surprise second chance.His mission is also about America’s place in the world. Mr. Gelsinger wants to return the United States to a leading role in semiconductor production, reducing the country’s dependence on manufacturers in Asia and easing a global chip shortage. Intel, he believes, can spearhead the charge. If he succeeds, the impact could extend far beyond computers to just about every device with an on-off switch.The quest faces many obstacles. Steering a $200 billion company while chasing a goal of raising U.S. chip production to 30 percent globally from about 12 percent today requires tens of billions of dollars, political maneuvering with governments and years of patience.“You’re going to have to spend a lot of money and you’re going to have to spend it for a long period of time,” said Simon Segars, who recently stepped down as chief executive of Arm, a British company whose chip designs power most smartphones. “Whether governments have the stomach for that over the long term remains to be seen.”In four interviews, Mr. Gelsinger acknowledged the difficulties. But the father of four and grandfather of eight has pursued the goals with intensity.In March, he unveiled a $20 billion project to add two chip factories to Intel’s complex near Phoenix. Last month, he joined President Biden to showcase a $20 billion investment in a new chip manufacturing site near Columbus, Ohio. On Tuesday, he announced a $5.4 billion deal to buy Tower Semiconductor, which operates chip production services from factories in four countries.To drum up government support for his investments, Mr. Gelsinger has attended three virtual White House gatherings, spoken with two dozen members of Congress and four governors. He became a key ally to President Biden over a $52 billion package that would provide grants to companies willing to set up new U.S. chip factories. And in Europe, Mr. Gelsinger met with President Emmanuel Macron of France, President Mario Draghi of Italy, their counterparts in other countries, and the pope.Mr. Gelsinger with President Emmanuel Macron of France last June.Pool photo by Stephane De SakutinIt has been a tough slog. Intel’s stock has dropped as Mr. Gelsinger committed huge sums to chip manufacturing. The $52 billion funding package stalled for months in the House of Representatives, finally passing this month as part of broader legislation that must now be reconciled with a Senate version. Criticism of the chief executive from Wall Street analysts has ramped up.“Every day the job is way bigger than me,” Mr. Gelsinger said. But “it’s OK,” he added, because he believes he has help. “God, I need you showing up with me today because this job is way more than I could possibly do myself.”Faith and WorkIf his father had managed to buy a farm, Mr. Gelsinger would almost certainly have inherited it and become a farmer. That was expected in Robesonia, a borough in Pennsylvania Dutch country where he was raised and worked on his uncles’ farms.But there was no farm to inherit. So at age 16, Mr. Gelsinger passed a scholarship exam that took him to the Lincoln Technical Institute, a for-profit vocational school, where he earned an associate degree.Mr. Gelsinger tells this and other stories self-deprecatingly in a 2003 book of advice that he wrote for Christians titled “Balancing Your Family, Faith & Work,” which was expanded in 2008 and titled, “The Juggling Act: Bringing Balance to Your Faith, Family, and Work.”In 1979, he was interviewed at the technical institute by a manager from Intel. Unlike most of the other students there, Mr. Gelsinger had heard of the company. He breezed through questions related to his studies and predicted he could earn bachelor’s, master’s and Ph.D. degrees while holding down a full-time job, said Ronald Smith, the former Intel executive who conducted the interview.“He is very smart, very ambitious and arrogant,” Mr. Smith said he wrote in a summary of the conversation. “He’ll fit right in.”Mr. Gelsinger took his first plane ride to interview at Intel in California, where he started in October 1979 as a technician. He worked on improving the reliability of microprocessors while studying for a bachelor’s degree at Santa Clara University.He soon started hanging out with the engineers who designed the chips, coming up with ideas to test the chips more efficiently. In 1982, he became the fourth engineer on the team that introduced the groundbreaking 80386 microprocessor.During a 1985 presentation near the completion of the chip, Mr. Gelsinger chided Intel’s leaders Robert Noyce, Gordon Moore and Andy Grove about balky company computers that were slowing the process.A few days later, he got a surprise call from Mr. Grove. The Hungarian-born executive, then Intel’s president who later wrote the management book “Only the Paranoid Survive,” had built a culture where lower-level employees were encouraged to challenge superiors if they could back up their positions. Mr. Grove began mentoring Mr. Gelsinger, a relationship that lasted three decades.By 1986, Mr. Grove had convinced Mr. Gelsinger not to pursue a doctorate at Stanford University and instead made him, at age 24, the leader of a 100-person team designing Intel’s 80486 microprocessor. Mr. Gelsinger eventually earned eight patents, became Intel’s youngest vice president in 1992 and the first person with the title of chief technology officer in 2001.His climb up Intel’s ladder was shaped by another priority: his faith.Though raised in the mainstream United Church of Christ, Mr. Gelsinger said he didn’t really become a Christian until he attended the nondenominational church in Silicon Valley where he met Linda Fortune, who later became his wife. It was at that church in 1980 that he heard the minister quote Revelations.After Mr. Gelsinger became a born-again Christian, he wrestled privately with whether to join the clergy. In a 2019 oral history conducted by the Computer History Museum in Mountain View, Calif., he said he eventually decided to become a “workplace minister,” where “you really view yourself as working for God as your C.E.O., even though you’re working for Intel.”Intel SlipsIn the mid-2000s, Mr. Gelsinger’s footing within Intel shifted. Mr. Grove retired as board chairman in 2004. Another executive, Paul Otellini, was appointed chief executive in 2005. Mr. Gelsinger said he was a “dissonant voice” on Intel’s senior executive team.Mr. Otellini pushed him to leave, Mr. Gelsinger said. (Mr. Otellini died in 2017.) In 2009, Mr. Gelsinger accepted an offer to become president and chief operating officer of EMC, a maker of data storage gear.Departing Intel after 30 years as a company man hurt badly. “I was just so angry and emotional about the departure,” Mr. Gelsinger said.In 2012, he became chief executive of VMware, a software company that EMC controlled. He weathered challenges there, including an aborted effort to compete in cloud computing services with Amazon, but broadened the company’s business and nearly tripled revenues.During those years, Intel slipped. For decades, the company had led the industry in delivering regular factory advances that pack more processing power into chips. But delays in perfecting new production processes allowed rivals such as Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Company and Samsung Electronics to grab the lead in manufacturing technology between 2015 and 2019.Mr. Gelsinger in 2006, when he was senior vice president of Intel’s digital enterprise group, with the company’s dual core next generation chip.Justin Sullivan/Getty ImagesToday, T.S.M.C. makes chips designed by hundreds of other companies. It supplies the world with more than 90 percent of the chips made with the most advanced production technology. Because it is headquartered in Taiwan, which China has laid territorial claim to, its location has made it a political and supply chain chokepoint should conflict erupt over the island nation.Intel was also suffering from its missteps in the mobile market, which consumes billions of processors compared with the hundreds of millions sold for computers.After convincing Apple to use its chips in Macintosh computers in 2005, Intel had a chance to win a place in the iPhone, which debuted in 2007. But Mr. Otellini said in a 2013 interview in The Atlantic that he turned down the opportunity because the price that Apple was willing to pay for chips was too low to make a profit.The decision, which Mr. Otellini said he regretted, led Apple to use rival Arm technology for smartphones and, later, tablets. So did Samsung and other companies that make devices using Google’s Android software. More recently, Apple started using Arm chips in many new Macs.Mr. Otellini and his successors prioritized Intel’s profit margins while failing to take risks to move into new markets and outflank rivals, former company insiders now acknowledge. If boiled down to a book, “it could be called ‘the insufficiently paranoid don’t survive,’” said Reed Hundt, a former Federal Communications Commission chairman who served on Intel’s board from 2001 to 2020, in a nod to Mr. Grove’s “Only the Paranoid Survive.”As questions swirled about Intel’s future, Mr. Gelsinger was viewed as a possible savior. But he insisted he was committed to VMware, a point he seemed to underscore by adding a temporary tattoo with the company’s name on his arm during a 2018 conference in Las Vegas.Then, just before Thanksgiving 2020, an Intel director asked Mr. Gelsinger to join the company’s board. Mr. Gelsinger asked for permission from Michael Dell, the founder of Dell Technologies, which then controlled VMware.“I knew Intel needed some help and Pat was somebody who could help a lot, so I said ‘sure,’” Mr. Dell said.Understand the Global Chip ShortageCard 1 of 7In short supply. More

  • 88 Shares119 Views

    in Economy

    Biden Administration Says China Failed Trade Commitments

    by

    In a new report, the administration detailed China’s violations of promises made both to the World Trade Organization and under a 2020 trade deal with the U.S.WASHINGTON — The Biden administration criticized China in a new report released Wednesday morning for failing to uphold a wide range of trade commitments, including promises it had made when it joined the World Trade Organization in 2001 and others in a trade deal signed with the Trump administration in 2020.In its annual assessment of China’s compliance with its obligations to the W.T.O., the Office of the United States Trade Representative excoriated the Chinese government for flouting the global trade body’s rules and its transparent, market-oriented approach. Instead, China expanded its state-led approach to its economy and trade, causing serious harm to workers and businesses around the world, particularly in industries targeted by its industrial plans, Katherine Tai, the U.S. trade representative, said in a statement.“China has not moved to embrace the market-oriented principles on which the W.T.O. and its rules are based, despite the representations that it made when it joined 20 years ago,” Ms. Tai said.Katherine Tai, the United States trade representative, accused China of failing to embrace the market-oriented principles of the World Trade Organization, which it joined in 2001.Fabrice Coffrini/Agence France-Presse — Getty ImagesThe report also criticized the trade deal signed by the Trump administration, in one of the first written assessments the Biden administration has provided of China’s progress toward the terms set out in that deal.The Biden administration has said it intends to hold China to the terms of that agreement, while also calling for a different approach to trade. But it has not clarified just how assertively it would enforce a deal it has described as fundamentally flawed.The report said that the deal had failed to address the most fundamental concerns the United States has with China’s approach to trade, and that the United States had serious concerns with China’s implementation of several of its commitments. Those included pledges to purchase U.S. goods and services, as well as promised reforms related to agriculture, particularly biotechnology, and an assessment China promised to conduct on the use in swine and cattle of ractopamine, a feed additive widely used in the United States that Beijing has banned.The United States has raised concerns about China’s progress during regular meetings between officials at various levels of government, the report said.Data released this month showed that China fell far short of satisfying commitments it had made in the trade deal signed with the Trump administration to purchase an additional $200 billion of goods and services by the end of last year. The Biden administration said its patience with China was wearing thin, but it has not yet clarified what action, if any, it would take in response.The report echoed many of the criticisms of China issued under the prior administration, including spelling out the World Trade Organization’s shortcomings in disciplining China’s trade violations and calling for measures to take on China outside the organization.But the report also appeared to take issue with the Trump administration’s attempt to decouple from China, arguing that the United States needed to invest in American workers and infrastructure to compete with China in an integrated global economy.“We cannot build a wall between the United States and China and assume that it will address the problems posed by China,” the report said.Beyond efforts at the World Trade Organization, the United States was pursuing several strategies to hold China to account, the report said. They included bilateral dialogues with China, including over its progress toward the commitments of the 2020 trade deal; cooperation with allies like Japan and Europe; and efforts to repurpose and expand domestic trade tools, like using tariffs to encourage companies to reduce their carbon emissions.“It is also apparent that existing trade tools need to be strengthened, and new trade tools need to be forged,” the report said. “China pursues unfair policies and practices that were not contemplated when many of the U.S. trade statutes were drafted decades ago, and we are therefore exploring ways in which to update our trade tools to counter them.” More

  • 150 Shares109 Views

    in Economy

    Why Are Oil Prices So High and Will They Stay That Way?

    by

    HOUSTON — Oil prices are increasing, again, casting a shadow over the economy, driving up inflation and eroding consumer confidence.Crude prices rose more than 15 percent in January alone, with the global benchmark price crossing $90 a barrel for the first time in more than seven years, as fears of a Russian invasion of Ukraine grew.Though the summer driving season is still months away, the average price for regular gasoline is fast approaching $3.40 a gallon, roughly a dollar higher than it was a year ago, according to AAA.The Biden administration said in November that it would release 50 million barrels of oil from the nation’s strategic reserves to relieve the pressure on consumers, but the move hasn’t made much of a difference.Many energy analysts predict that oil could soon touch $100 a barrel, even as electric cars become more popular and the coronavirus pandemic persists. Exxon Mobil and other oil companies that only a year ago were considered endangered dinosaurs by some Wall Street analysts are thriving, raking in their biggest profits in years.Why are oil prices suddenly so high?The pandemic depressed energy prices in 2020, even sending the U.S. benchmark oil price below zero for the first time ever. But prices have snapped back faster and more than many analysts had expected in large part because supply has not kept up with demand.Oil prices are at their highest point since 2014.Price of a barrel of Brent crude, the global benchmark, and West Texas Intermediate, the U.S. standard

    Source: FactSetBy The New York TimesWestern oil companies, partly under pressure from investors and environmental activists, are drilling fewer wells than they did before the pandemic to restrain the increase in supply. Industry executives say they are trying not to make the same mistake they made in the past when they pumped too much oil when prices were high, leading to a collapse in prices.Elsewhere, in countries like Ecuador, Kazakhstan and Libya, natural disasters and political turbulence have curbed output in recent months.Understand Russia’s Relationship With the WestThe tension between the regions is growing and Russian President Vladimir Putin is increasingly willing to take geopolitical risks and assert his demands.Competing for Influence: For months, the threat of confrontation has been growing in a stretch of Europe from the Baltic Sea to the Black Sea. Threat of Invasion: As the Russian military builds its presence near Ukraine, Western nations are seeking to avert a worsening of the situation.Energy Politics: Europe is a huge customer of Russia’s fossil fuels. The rising tensions in Ukraine are driving fears of a midwinter cutoff.Migrant Crisis: As people gathered on the eastern border of the European Union, Russia’s uneasy alliance with Belarus triggered additional friction.Militarizing Society: With a “youth army” and initiatives promoting patriotism, the Russian government is pushing the idea that a fight might be coming.“Unplanned outages have flipped what was thought to be a pivot towards surplus into a deep production gap,” said Louise Dickson, an oil markets analyst at Rystad Energy, a research and consulting firm.On the demand side, much of the world is learning to cope with the pandemic and people are eager to shop and make other trips. Wary of coming in contact with an infectious virus, many are choosing to drive rather than taking public transportation.But the most immediate and critical factor is geopolitical.A potential Russian invasion of Ukraine has “the oil market on edge,” said Ben Cahill, a senior fellow at the Center for Strategic and International Studies in Washington. “In a tight market, any significant disruptions could send prices well above $100 per barrel,” Mr. Cahill wrote in a report this week.Russia produces 10 million barrels of oil a day, or roughly one of every 10 barrels used around the world on any given day. Americans would not be directly hurt in a significant way if Russian exports stopped, because the country sends only about 700,000 barrels a day to the United States. That relatively modest amount could easily be replaced with oil from Canada and other countries.A Russian invasion of Ukraine could interrupt oil and gas shipments, which would increase prices further.Brendan Hoffman for The New York TimesBut any interruption of Russian shipments that transit through Ukraine, or the sabotage of other pipelines in northern Europe, would cripple much of the continent and distort the global energy supply chain. That’s because, traders say, the rest of the world does not have the spare capacity to replace Russian oil.Even if Russian oil shipments are not interrupted, the United States and its allies could impose sanctions or export controls on Russian companies, limiting their access to equipment, which could gradually reduce production in that country.In addition, interruptions of Russian natural gas exports to Europe could force some utilities to produce more electricity by burning oil rather than gas. That would raise demand and prices worldwide.What can the United States and its allies do if Russian production is disrupted?The United States, Japan, European countries and even China could release more crude from their strategic reserves. Such moves could help, especially if a crisis is short-lived. But the reserves would not be nearly enough if Russian oil supplies were interrupted for months or years.Western oil companies that have pledged not to produce too much oil would most likely change their approach if Russia was unable or unwilling to supply as much oil as it did. They would have big financial incentives — from a surging oil price — to drill more wells. That said, it would take those businesses months to ramp up production.What is OPEC doing?President Biden has been urging the Organization of the Petroleum Exporting Countries to pump more oil, but several members have been falling short of their monthly production quotas, and some may not have the capacity to quickly increase output. OPEC members and their allies, Russia among them, are meeting on Wednesday, and will probably agree to continue gradually increasing production.In addition, if Russian supplies are suddenly reduced, Washington will most likely put pressure on Saudi Arabia to raise production independently of the cartel. Analysts think that the kingdom has several million barrels of spare capacity that it could tap in a crisis.What impact would higher oil prices have on the U.S. economy?A big jump in oil prices would push gasoline prices even higher, and that would hurt consumers. Working-class and rural Americans would be hurt the most because they tend to drive more. They also drive older, less fuel-efficient vehicles. And energy costs tend to represent a larger percentage of their incomes, so price increases hit them harder than more affluent people or city dwellers who have access to trains and buses.Rising oil and gas prices would pinch consumers, especially the less affluent and rural residents.Jim Lo Scalzo/EPA, via ShutterstockBut the direct economic impact on the nation would be more modest than in previous decades because the United States produces more and imports less oil since drilling in shale fields exploded around 2010 because of hydraulic fracturing. The United States is now a net exporter of fossil fuels, and the economies of several states, particularly Texas and Louisiana, could benefit from higher prices.What would it take for oil prices to fall?Oil prices go up and down in cycles, and there are several reasons prices could fall in the next few months. The pandemic is far from over, and China has shut down several cities to stop the spread of the virus, slowing its economy and demand for energy. Russia and the West could reach an agreement — formal or tacit — that forestalls a full-scale invasion of Ukraine.And the United States and its allies could restore a 2015 nuclear agreement with Iran that former President Donald J. Trump abandoned. Such a deal would allow Iran to sell oil much more easily than now. Analysts think the country could export a million or more barrels daily if the nuclear deal is revived.Ultimately, high prices could depress demand for oil enough that prices begin to come down. One of the main financial incentives for buying electric cars, for example, is that electricity tends to be cheaper per mile than gasoline. Sales of electric cars are growing fast in Europe and China and increasingly also in the United States. More

  • 113 Shares129 Views

    in Economy

    What a Disconnect From Swift Would Mean for Russia

    by

    A Belgian financial messaging service is once again at the center of an international sanctions fight.WASHINGTON — President Biden has pledged that if Russia invades Ukraine it will face “severe economic consequences,” with the United States likely to unleash a blistering package of sanctions that would effectively cut the Russian economy off from much of the global financial system.The United States has become increasingly reliant on sanctions in the last decade as a way to address diplomatic problems, but directing such tools at an economy the size of Russia’s would come with little precedent. The Biden administration has said that all options remain on the table, suggesting that it could impose an array of sanctions on Russian financial institutions and new restrictions on the exports of American products. But the biggest question among sanctions experts when it comes to inflicting economic pain on Russia is the fate of a critical financial conduit: Swift.In sanctions circles, a move by the United States and its European allies to cut Russia off from Swift has been characterized as a nuclear option. However, doing so is not as simple as it sounds and could yield unintended consequences because of Russia’s size and position in the world economy.“The Russian economy is a different beast,” said Adam M. Smith, who served as a senior sanctions official in the Obama administration’s Treasury Department. “It is twice the size of any economy the U.S. has ever sanctioned.”A Treasury Department spokeswoman said the Biden administration was assessing potential “spillovers” from any sanctions it imposes on Russia and exploring ways to reduce any unintended negative effects. Last week, Biden administration officials met with representatives from U.S. banks to discuss the risks and potential market impacts of sanctions on Russia, including the possible ramifications of cutting off Swift access for entities that had been hit with sanctions.Understand Russia’s Relationship With the WestThe tension between the regions is growing and Russian President Vladimir Putin is increasingly willing to take geopolitical risks and assert his demands.Competing for Influence: For months, the threat of confrontation has been growing in a stretch of Europe from the Baltic Sea to the Black Sea. Threat of Invasion: As the Russian military builds its presence near Ukraine, Western nations are seeking to avert a worsening of the situation.Energy Politics: Europe is a huge customer of Russia’s fossil fuels. The rising tensions in Ukraine are driving fears of a midwinter cutoff.Migrant Crisis: As people gathered on the eastern border of the European Union, Russia’s uneasy alliance with Belarus triggered additional friction.Militarizing Society: With a “youth army” and initiatives promoting patriotism, the Russian government is pushing the idea that a fight might be coming.What is Swift?Officially the Society for Worldwide Interbank Financial Telecommunications, Swift is a Belgian messaging service that connects more than 11,000 financial institutions as they transfer money around the world. It does not actually hold or transfer funds, but allows banks and other financial firms to alert one another of transactions that are about to take place.Swift is a global cooperative of financial institutions that is based in Belgium. It started in 1973 when 239 banks from 15 countries came together to figure out how to best handle cross-border payments.Despite its best efforts to be an apolitical cog in the international financial system, Swift has at times found itself embroiled in diplomatic disputes.Can Russia be booted from Swift?There have been continuing discussions between the United States and its allies in Europe over whether to block Russia’s access to Swift. However, the Biden administration could take that step unilaterally.If the United States decided to levy sanctions on Russian banks, it could then say that Swift was in violation of those sanctions by continuing to let those banks use its system. The Defending Ukraine Sovereignty Act of 2022, which Senate Democrats unveiled this month, would authorize sanctions on providers of specialized financial messaging services, such as Swift, but the Biden administration could also impose such sanctions without the approval of Congress.Cutting a country’s access to Swift is not without precedent.In 2012, Swift expelled as many as 30 Iranian financial institutions, including its central bank, in order to comply with European Union sanctions that were enacted in response to Iran’s disputed nuclear energy program. Services were reconnected after the 2015 nuclear deal, and then cut again in 2018 after the Trump administration withdrew from the pact and resumed sanctions.How would Russia respond to being removed?Russia has faced such threats before. In 2014, when Russia invaded and annexed Crimea, there were calls in Europe to exclude Russia from Swift. Dmitri A. Medvedev, then Russia’s prime minister, said at the time that such a move would be a “declaration of war.” According to the Carnegie Moscow Center, Russian forecasts at the time projected that being cut off from Swift would shrink the country’s gross domestic product by 5 percent.Last week, Nikolay Zhuravlev, the vice speaker of Russia’s Federation Council, told the government-run news agency TASS that removing Russia from Swift would also have economic consequences for European countries, which he said would not be able to receive imports of Russian oil, gas and metals as a result of Russia’s being unable to receive foreign currency.Mr. Smith, the former Treasury official, said the United States and Europe might look for ways to exempt certain Russian sectors, such as energy, from sanctions. However, moves to cut off Russia’s economy could have unintended consequences, such as Moscow retaliating, that could rattle global markets.“They are not without their own cards to play,” he said.A switch to Swift alternativesThe threat of being cut off from Swift might not be as dire as it was in the past.Several countries including Russia have developed their own financial messaging systems that, while less sophisticated than Swift, could allow Russian financial firms to maintain communications with the world. Russia began developing its system in 2014 amid threats of escalating sanctions from the United States.Mr. Medvedev, who is now the deputy chairman of the Security Council of Russia, said last week that the new system was functional and that financial flows would be able to continue within Russia if the country was cut off from Swift. He acknowledged that international financial transfers could be complicated if that happened.“Yes, they will be more difficult, it is obvious, but it won’t be a catastrophe,” Mr. Medvedev said.Some experts on Russia sanctions agree that Western officials are overplaying the potential effects of disconnecting Russia from Swift.“Cutting Russia off from Swift — it won’t be as painful for Russia as Western officials envision,” said Maria Snegovaya, a visiting scholar at George Washington University and a co-author of an Atlantic Council report on U.S. sanctions on Russia.Edward Wong More

  • 125 Shares149 Views

    in Economy

    U.S. Sanctions Aimed at Russia Could Take a Wide Toll

    by

    The boldest measures that President Biden is threatening to deter an invasion of Ukraine could roil the entire Russian economy — but also those of other nations.WASHINGTON — The most punishing sanctions that U.S. officials have threatened to impose on Russia could cause severe inflation, a stock market crash and other forms of financial panic that would inflict pain on its people — from billionaires to government officials to middle-class families.U.S. officials vow to unleash searing economic measures if Russia invades Ukraine, including sanctions on its largest banks and financial institutions, in ways that would inevitably affect daily life in Russia.But the strategy comes with political and economic risks. No nation has ever tried to enact broad sanctions against such large financial institutions and on an economy the size of Russia’s. And the “swift and severe” response that U.S. officials have promised could roil major economies, particularly those in Europe, and even threaten the stability of the global financial system, analysts say.Some analysts also warn of a potential escalatory spiral. Russia might retaliate against an economic gut punch by cutting off natural gas shipments to Europe or by mounting cyberattacks against American and European infrastructure.The pain caused by the sanctions could foment popular anger against Russia’s president, Vladimir V. Putin. But history shows that the country does not capitulate easily, and resilience is an important part of its national identity. U.S. officials are also sensitive to the notion that they could be viewed as punishing the Russian people — a perception that might fuel anti-Americanism and Mr. Putin’s narrative that his country is being persecuted by the West.From Cuba to North Korea to Iran, U.S. sanctions have a mixed record at best of forcing a change in behavior. And while the Biden administration and its European allies are trying to deter Mr. Putin with tough talk, some experts question whether they would follow through on the most drastic economic measures if Russian troops breached the border and moved toward Kyiv, Ukraine’s capital.President Biden has said he will not send American troops to defend Ukraine. Instead, U.S. officials are trying to devise a sanctions response that would land a damaging blow against Russia while limiting the economic shock waves around the world — including in the United States. Officials say that for now, the Biden administration does not plan to target Russia’s enormous oil and gas export industry; doing so could drive up gasoline prices for Americans already grappling with inflation and create a schism with European allies.But many experts on sanctions believe that the boldest sanctions against Russia’s financial industry, if enacted, could take a meaningful toll.“If the Biden administration follows through on its threat to sanction major Russian banks, that will reverberate across the entire Russian economy,” said Edward Fishman, who served as the top official for Russia and Europe in the State Department’s Office of Economic Sanctions Policy and Implementation during the Obama administration. “It will definitely affect everyday Russians.”Mr. Fishman added: “How are you going to change Putin’s calculus? By creating domestic disturbances. People will be unhappy: ‘Look what you did — all of a sudden my bank account is a fraction of what it was? Thanks, Putin.’”Understand Russia’s Relationship With the WestThe tension between the regions is growing and Russian President Vladimir Putin is increasingly willing to take geopolitical risks and assert his demands.Competing for Influence: For months, the threat of confrontation has been growing in a stretch of Europe from the Baltic Sea to the Black Sea. Threat of Invasion: As the Russian military builds its presence near Ukraine, Western nations are seeking to avert a worsening of the situation.Energy Politics: Europe is a huge customer of Russia’s fossil fuels. The rising tensions in Ukraine are driving fears of a midwinter cutoff.Migrant Crisis: As people gathered on the eastern border of the European Union, Russia’s uneasy alliance with Belarus triggered additional friction.Militarizing Society: With a “youth army” and initiatives promoting patriotism, the Russian government is pushing the idea that a fight might be coming.Sanctions imposed after Mr. Putin annexed Ukraine’s Crimean Peninsula in 2014 and gave military support to an insurgency in the country’s east created a modest drag on Russia’s economy. Those penalties and later ones took a surgical approach, heavily targeting Mr. Putin’s circle of elites as well as officials and institutions involved in aggression against Ukraine, in part to avoid making ordinary Russians suffer.U.S. officials say the impact of sanctions now would be categorically different.Washington is looking to take a sledgehammer to pillars of Russia’s financial system. The new sanctions that American officials are preparing would cut off foreign lending, sales of sovereign bonds, technologies for critical industries and the assets of elite citizens close to Mr. Putin.Previous sanctions heavily targeted Mr. Putin’s circle of elites as well as officials and institutions involved in aggression against Ukraine, in part to avoid making ordinary Russians suffer.Alexander Zemlianichenko/Associated PressBut the real damage to Russia’s $1.5 trillion economy would come from hitting the biggest state banks as well as the government’s Russian Direct Investment Fund, which has prominent Western executives on its advisory board. The Treasury Department would draw from its experience targeting Iranian banks under President Donald J. Trump, though Iran’s banks are much smaller and less integrated into the global economy than Russian banks.Once the department puts the Russian banks on what officials call its “game over” sanctions list, known as the S.D.N. list, foreign entities around the world would stop doing business with the banks, which would have a big effect on Russian companies.The United States would also enact sanctions to cut lending to Russia by foreign creditors by potentially $100 billion or more, according to Anders Aslund, an economist and an author of an Atlantic Council report on U.S. sanctions on Russia. Though Russia has taken steps since 2014 to rely less on foreign debt for expenses, such a loss could still devalue the ruble, shake the stock market and freeze bond trading, Mr. Aslund added.His report estimated that the 2014 sanctions reduced Russia’s annual economic growth by up to 3 percent, and new sanctions could bite much harder.For an average Russian, the harshest U.S. measures could mean higher prices for food and clothing, or, more dramatically, they could cause pensions and savings accounts to be severely devalued by a crash in the ruble or Russian markets.“It would be a disaster, a nightmare for the domestic financial market,” said Sergey Aleksashenko, a former first deputy chairman of the Central Bank of Russia and former chairman of Merrill Lynch Russia. He noted that the ruble had already fallen more than 10 percent from its October value against the dollar, amid increasing talk of Western sanctions.In a sign of the growing seriousness, officials from the National Security Council have been talking with executives from some of Wall Street’s largest banks, including Goldman Sachs, Citigroup, JPMorgan Chase and Bank of America, about the stability of the global financial system in the wake of potential sanctions.The European Central Bank has also warned bank lenders to Russia about risks if the United States imposes sanctions and has asked about the sizes of their loans.For now, though, American officials are not considering any immediate sanctions on the foundation of Russia’s economy: its oil and gas exports.​​European nations rely on natural gas from Russia, and several U.S. allies, notably Germany, prefer that Washington refrain from disrupting the Russian energy industry. Analysts say sanctions that limit Russia’s ability to export oil and gas would be by far the most powerful weapon against the Russian economy, and perhaps the most effective economic deterrent against an invasion of Ukraine, but they would also cause pain in Europe and the United States.“At some point, the West will have to sacrifice a little bit of its well-being if the goal is to deter Putin,” said Maria Snegovaya, a visiting scholar at George Washington University and an author of the Atlantic Council report.“U.S. inflation further constrains the administration’s actions,” she added. “Inflation is already unprecedented for the last 30 years. Any action against Russia that is dramatic will lead to changes in oil and gas prices.”Understand the Escalating Tensions Over UkraineCard 1 of 5A brewing conflict. More