By John Q. Hosedrinker 
The EU approved its 17th sanctions package against Russia, focusing on its “shadow” oil fleet used to circumvent existing export restrictions and targeting approximately 200 tankers. The package also adds dozens of Russian officials to the sanctions list for various offenses, including cyberattacks and human rights abuses. This relatively modest package reflects the increasing difficulty in achieving EU-wide consensus on new sanctions. Further, the EU issued a stark warning of “massive sanctions” should Russia reject a proposed ceasefire in Ukraine, emphasizing the potential for significantly harsher measures in the future.
Read the original article here
The European Union is preparing to unleash its seventeenth package of sanctions against Russia, a move that reflects the ongoing conflict and the bloc’s determination to pressure the Kremlin. This package, however, is generating considerable debate, with some questioning its effectiveness and others expressing frustration with the seemingly slow pace of decisive action.
The planned sanctions aren’t solely focused on Russia. Vietnam, Serbia, and Turkey are also expected to face restrictions for allegedly aiding the Russian government, a move that highlights the EU’s broader strategy of targeting countries perceived as supporting the Kremlin’s actions. This aspect of the sanctions is particularly contentious, given the complex geopolitical relationships and economic interdependencies involved.
Concerns are being raised about the potential impact of these sanctions on the EU’s own economy. The dependence on Russian energy sources, a legacy of past foreign policy decisions, remains a significant vulnerability. Critics argue that the EU’s reliance on Russian gas limits the effectiveness of sanctions and underscores a need for a more comprehensive approach to energy independence, perhaps including a greater focus on nuclear power as a long-term solution.
The efficacy of sanctions is a central point of contention. Some observers point to the perceived weakness of previous sanction packages, arguing that they haven’t significantly deterred Russia. The question arises whether these repeated, incremental sanctions are truly achieving their intended goals, or simply serving as a symbolic gesture. There’s a growing sentiment that a more forceful and unified approach is necessary, possibly mirroring the strength of sanctions applied against Russia itself.
The inclusion of Turkey in this round of sanctions is particularly noteworthy. While Turkey is a NATO member, it maintains a complex relationship with both Russia and the EU. Sanctioning Turkey is a high-stakes gamble, given Turkey’s strategic location, its significant military capabilities, and its potential to exacerbate the refugee crisis. The EU’s decision-making process around Turkey seems to reflect a complicated balancing act, weighed down by concerns about the potential consequences of escalating tensions.
The timing of the sanctions also raises questions. The perceived gap between previous strong rhetoric promising harsher measures and the relatively modest nature of the new package is fuelling skepticism. There’s a growing feeling that the EU needs to deliver on its promises and demonstrate a clear commitment to backing up its words with effective action. The long timeline for developing this particular sanctions package – close to six months – has also contributed to these concerns.
There’s a pervasive sense of frustration amongst those who feel that the EU’s response has been too slow and insufficient. Calls for stronger measures, even military intervention, are increasingly heard, though these are frequently countered with realistic assessments of the practical limitations and potential risks associated with such dramatic actions. The debate highlights a profound division between those who believe stronger action is necessary, and those who highlight the potential dangers of escalation.
The discussion around sanctions also raises wider geopolitical considerations. The relative inaction on other international conflicts, such as the situation in Israel, is being contrasted with the focus on the war in Ukraine. Critics point to perceived double standards and inconsistencies in the EU’s foreign policy, leading to questions about the underlying motivations and priorities guiding their actions. The ongoing debate regarding these sanctions is ultimately a reflection of the deep complexity and high stakes involved in the ongoing conflict and the broader geopolitical landscape. There’s no easy solution, and finding a path that effectively addresses the challenges while mitigating the risks remains a formidable task for the EU.