I think that sanctions are most useful in creating a desire on the part of another state to change policies that they otherwise want to keep. Ultimately, these are places where we feel like we have an interest, but we don't have a direct stake. It's not like the Russians have invaded western Canada or western United States, so we don't have the ability necessarily to direct force of arms and direct pressure against the Russian government for direct interference with our own affairs, but we want to try to achieve a resolution. Sanctions provide that leverage. They give you something to trade. They give you the ability to say, “If you will stop doing x, or start doing y, we will stop imposing sanctions against you.”
From this perspective, they are starting points for a conversation. They are a starting point for diplomacy that gives both sides the ability to claim something good and then back away when they have achieved at least something positive. This is where, on that Russia piece, I think it comes down to a question of what is good enough in terms of a resolution of the situation in Ukraine. That's a decision that the Ukrainian government has to make. They have to tell us when they feel comfortable, in my view, about what their situation is in eastern Ukraine and Crimea. If they said they were satisfied with the situation as is if the Russians back out of eastern Ukraine, then maybe that's a situation that we can live with, even if it's not the absolute initial objective of sanctions as they were imposed by the United States, which also dealt with Crimea and dealt with broader political issues there, too.
My point is that sanctions provide leverage to make a deal. They need to be not looked at as an absolute quid pro quo. They are a part of the diplomatic tool kit.