By John Q. Hosedrinker 
The EU is considering an 18th sanctions package against Russia, including disconnecting over 20 banks from SWIFT, lowering the G7 oil price cap to ~$45 per barrel, and banning the Nord Stream pipelines. These measures, alongside approximately €2.5 billion in new trade restrictions, aim to further cripple Russia’s economy and limit its access to Western technology. While requiring unanimous approval from all 27 member states, the package reflects continued EU resolve despite previous criticism of insufficiently strong sanctions. The proposals are currently under review by the European Commission.
Read the original article here
The European Union is reportedly considering a significant escalation of sanctions against Russia, focusing on the removal of over 20 Russian banks from the SWIFT international payment system and a ban on the Nord Stream pipelines. This news comes as a surprise to many, given the ongoing war in Ukraine and the expectation that such measures would have been implemented much sooner. The protracted deliberation, characterized by words like “mulling” and “pondering,” underscores a frustrating delay in what many perceive as a necessary step to further isolate Russia economically.
The sheer length of time this decision has taken is alarming. Why haven’t these sanctions been implemented already? The question echoes the sentiment of many observers who feel the EU’s response to the war has been too slow and indecisive. The ongoing conflict continues to inflict immense suffering, and each day of inaction feels like a betrayal of Ukraine and a missed opportunity to cripple Russia’s war machine. The argument that swift action was taken earlier is refuted by the fact that a significant number of Russian banks still retain access to SWIFT, a critical component of the global financial system.
Concerns are being raised about the potential repercussions of excluding so many Russian banks from SWIFT. Some argue that such a move could accelerate the development of alternative payment systems, potentially weakening SWIFT’s dominance and benefiting countries less aligned with Western interests. The counterargument highlights that Russia’s access to SWIFT is already heavily restricted; the current proposal only represents a significant reduction in Russia’s financial leverage.
The timing of these potential sanctions is also striking, with reports of Donald Trump’s announcement of significant tariffs on Europe emerging simultaneously. While potentially coincidental, the timing raises eyebrows and invites speculation about the complex interplay of geopolitical forces at work. There’s also a prevalent belief that existing sanctions, even if seemingly extensive, have proven insufficient to significantly curtail Russia’s aggression. This points toward a need for more comprehensive and effective enforcement measures, rather than relying on piecemeal sanctions that are frequently evaded or circumvented.
Another significant concern lies in the continued operation of some European businesses with Russia, even despite the ongoing sanctions. The case of Kontron, an Austrian company, operating with Russian entities through intermediaries in countries not subject to sanctions, highlights the challenges in effectively enforcing these measures. The reality is that greed often overshadows ethical considerations, creating loopholes and undermining the intended impact of sanctions.
The use of cryptocurrency networks as an alternative to SWIFT for circumventing sanctions has also been raised. While such alternatives exist, it remains unclear to what extent they can effectively replace the scale and reach of the SWIFT system. Additionally, the potential for increased cyberattacks against SWIFT if more Russian banks are excluded is another significant concern. This highlights the complexities and potential risks involved in such a drastic measure.
Furthermore, the idea that the EU has been reluctant to fully exclude Russian banks from SWIFT to maintain access to Russian energy resources is another contributing factor. This highlights the difficult economic realities facing Europe and the potential challenges involved in balancing strategic interests with the moral imperative of supporting Ukraine. But the prolonged deliberation has already resulted in much suffering, leading some to question whether the benefits of preserving access to energy resources outweigh the costs of further enabling Russia’s war effort.
In conclusion, the EU’s consideration of further sanctions against Russia, including the removal of more banks from SWIFT and a ban on Nord Stream, is a complex and multifaceted issue. While many see this as a necessary step to further isolate Russia and cripple its war machine, others raise valid concerns about potential unintended consequences and the effectiveness of sanctions in general. The prolonged deliberation underscores the difficulties in balancing strategic interests, economic realities, and the moral imperative to end the war in Ukraine. The continued suffering as these decisions are “mulled over” only serves to emphasize the urgency of decisive action.