The international response to Russia’s aggression has included a wide range of behavioral, symbolic, and mobility-related restrictions aimed at isolating the country on the world stage. These so-called “sanctions of inconvenience” include measures such as airspace closures, visa bans, suspension from international sporting and cultural events, and restrictions on travel and participation in global institutions.
While often dismissed as symbolic, these sanctions serve strategic communicative and psychological purposes. They are intended to signal international condemnation, cut social and diplomatic ties, and curtail soft power projection. Importantly, they also aim to disrupt elite privileges, limit global exposure for Russian officials and institutions, and exert influence on public opinion by reducing the visibility and mobility of the sanctioned state.
The impact of these sanctions, however, is ambiguous. In some cases, they may increase domestic dissatisfaction and foster pressure on the regime. In others, they risk fueling “rally-around-the-flag” effects, reinforcing nationalist narratives and externalizing blame. Their effectiveness often depends on how they are perceived domestically—whether as a sign of international unity and moral clarity, or as unjustified external aggression.
Nevertheless, these sanctions also have practical consequences. Airspace restrictions have raised the cost of travel and reshaped global flight patterns. Restrictions on international collaboration have led to brain drain, reduced access to knowledge networks, and long-term erosion of innovation capacity. In sectors like healthcare, restrictions on medical supplies have sparked ethical debates about the line between economic pressure and humanitarian harm. This section synthesizes emerging research on these “other” sanctions, assessing their reach, effectiveness, and unintended consequences.
Explore more studies and research papers on the other restrictions in the “Evidence Base” section.
