International sanctions have emerged as a key instrument of coercive diplomacy short of armed conflict. Examine their effectiveness with reference to recent EU sanctions on Israeli settlers and Russian entities.

Coercive diplomacy seeks behavioural change through cost imposition short of war. The EU's listing of extremist Israeli settler entities [1] and its layered restrictive measures on Russia show that sanctions signal and punish effectively, yet seldom coerce on their own.

Where sanctions prove effective

• Norm enforcement: asset freezes and travel bans on Amana, the Nachala movement and HaShomer Yosh give operational teeth to UNSC Resolution 2334 (2016), which called settlements a "flagrant violation" of international law [1][2]
• Attrition of war capacity: successive packages on Russian energy revenues, banking (de-SWIFTing), dual-use technology and shipping raise the material cost of aggression [4]
• Precision and reversibility: listings target individuals and entities rather than whole populations, and periodic renewal (roughly 2,600 Russia-related listings) keeps them usable as bargaining leverage [4]
• Coalition signalling: agreement among 27 states converts political disapproval into binding legal obligation

Where they fall short

• Limited behavioural change: despite twenty successive rounds against Russia the war persists [5]; in the West Bank, settlement activity has continued to accelerate [3]
• Political dilution: the EU stopped at targeted listings, declining wider trade measures — economic interest caps value-based foreign policy
• Procedural bottleneck: the unanimity rule in EU foreign policy (Article 29 TEU) allows a single member state to stall collective action for years
• Circumvention: third-country re-exports, shadow fleets and crypto channels compel repeated anti-circumvention rounds [5]

Implications for India India's principled support for a two-state solution [6] coexists with deep defence and technology ties with Israel and energy links with Russia, making secondary-sanction exposure and strategic autonomy live concerns.

Sanctions are therefore best understood as instruments of sustained pressure and norm-building rather than instant coercion. Their effectiveness rises when multilateral, rigorously enforced, and paired with credible diplomatic incentives and clear exit conditions. Used this way — within the UN Charter framework and alongside negotiation — they can narrow the space between silence and war, which is precisely the space India's balanced diplomacy occupies.