By John Q. Hosedrinker 
Following a Paris summit, European leaders unanimously rejected U.S. proposals to ease sanctions on Russia, asserting that Vladimir Putin’s actions demonstrate a continued pattern of manipulative tactics. The leaders emphasized their commitment to maintaining pressure on Russia and expressed skepticism toward any concessions that might reward Moscow’s aggression. Instead, the focus remains on compelling Russia to engage seriously in meaningful negotiations to end the conflict in Ukraine. This stance directly contradicts recent U.S. suggestions to use sanctions relief as leverage for a ceasefire.
Read the original article here
Macron’s stance that sanctions against Russia should only be lifted once “peace has clearly been established” reflects a cautious approach to resolving the conflict in Ukraine. This necessitates a far-reaching definition of “peace,” going beyond a mere ceasefire.
This sentiment highlights the deep-seated concerns about Russia’s intentions. Simply ending hostilities wouldn’t guarantee long-term stability, as the potential for renewed aggression remains a significant threat. The lifting of sanctions prematurely could be interpreted as rewarding aggression, encouraging future conflicts.
The core of the argument rests on the need for concrete actions from Russia to demonstrate a genuine commitment to peace. This transcends verbal assurances and requires tangible steps, such as the complete withdrawal of Russian troops from all Ukrainian territories occupied since the start of the conflict, including those seized in 2014.
Furthermore, accountability for actions taken during the war needs to be addressed. This includes returning children forcibly deported to Russia, releasing prisoners of war, and making reparations for the extensive damage inflicted upon Ukraine’s infrastructure and civilian population. Without these measures, lifting sanctions would be seen as an unjust and incomplete resolution.
The consequences of premature sanction relief are significant. It risks providing Russia with the financial resources to rebuild its military and potentially initiate further aggression. Essentially, lifting sanctions without addressing the root causes of the conflict would be tantamount to pre-ordering another invasion attempt, ignoring the history of Russian expansionism.
The argument emphasizes a need for a gradual approach to lifting sanctions, closely tied to Russia’s demonstrable change in behavior. Sanctions should be reduced incrementally as Russia adheres to peace agreements and begins to act like a responsible member of the international community, but not before.
Another perspective stresses the need for a fundamental cultural shift within Russia before considering any sanctions relief. This points to a deep-seated distrust of the Russian regime and its long history of authoritarianism and expansionist tendencies. The changes required to build trust would be significant and time-consuming, requiring long-term monitoring and commitment.
It is vital to emphasize that lifting sanctions should not be a bargaining chip. It should not be something offered to achieve a quick peace deal, but rather a consequence of genuine long-term peace and Russia’s commitment to abide by international norms and agreements.
Ultimately, the call for sanctions to remain in place until peace is clearly established underlines the severity of the situation. A superficial peace agreement wouldn’t suffice; concrete action and demonstrable change are required. A hasty lifting of sanctions would not only disregard the suffering caused by the war but also jeopardize lasting stability and potentially encourage further conflict. The call, therefore, reflects a commitment to justice and long-term security for Ukraine and the wider international community. Rushing this process would disregard the potential for continued conflict and the immense suffering imposed on the Ukrainian people.