The nuclear industry isn't interested in listening to the argument that it's funding an international lawbreaker. Sokolski said: "it's gunning not just for continued cheap Russian uranium imports but for congressional appropriations and subsides to build new uranium enrichment plants and small "advanced" reactors that would burn the fuel these plants would produce. Their demand gives greediness a bad name. On one hand, industry is demanding that U.S. taxpayers' foot the bill to ensure their nuclear fuel independence. On the other hand, they are pleading that our government continue to buy cheap Russian uranium even though it funds a criminal Russian nuclear enterprise."
The above issues bring the larger issue of economics to the fore. Perhaps some nationalist economic thinking, which might be called geoeconomics, could be used for internationalist ends, or to enforce the idea of international law.
Those countries that are serious about punishing Putin's warmongering should become economically independent of his rogue state. There should be a block of democratic countries that work to make the things we are purchasing off Russia. This would be far more effective than more military spending. One of the primary challenges is the power that the military-industrial complex must steer the debate away from geoeconomics and toward more military spending.
Jason Sibert is the Lead Writer for the Peace Economy
(Note: You can view every article as one long page if you sign up as an Advocate Member, or higher).
