By John Q. Hosedrinker 
Following a meeting with US Senator Marco Rubio, French Foreign Minister Jean-Noel Barrot announced the EU’s preparation of a 17th round of sanctions against Russia, directly blaming Vladimir Putin for obstructing peace in Ukraine. This action coordinates with a US sanctions initiative, and follows a newly signed US-Ukraine agreement on critical minerals, signaling a shift towards economic cooperation alongside continued military aid. Barrot emphasized the need for de-escalation of US tariffs and highlighted the importance of European strategic autonomy within NATO.
Read the original article here
The European Union is preparing a new package of sanctions against Russia in response to the ongoing war in Ukraine. This comes amidst ongoing debate about the efficacy of existing sanctions and the potential for further measures to pressure the Russian government. A complete halt to Russian oil imports, while desirable to many, is acknowledged as potentially impractical given current realities.
The question of whether existing sanctions have been fully utilized is a valid one. There’s a feeling among some that more decisive action is needed, given that the conflict continues. The sentiment is that sustained pressure is crucial, drawing parallels to historical examples—though the accuracy of those parallels is contested, as some historical interpretations are challenged.
The forthcoming 17th package of EU sanctions is being coordinated with the United States, signaling a concerted international effort to ratchet up pressure. This coordinated approach aims for both synchronized timing and substantive alignment, highlighting the growing international consensus on the need for more stringent measures.
Even if complete trade cessation isn’t achievable, there are still avenues for applying sanctions. Secondary sanctions and tariffs targeting countries that continue to trade with Russia are examples of creative strategies that could be deployed. These secondary measures aim to indirectly pressure Russia by limiting its access to global markets and financial systems. The effectiveness of this approach, however, remains a point of contention.
The existing sanctions, some argue, have not been as effective as hoped, highlighting the continuous flow of EU spending on Russian oil and gas, which even appears to be increasing. This discrepancy between stated aims and actual outcomes underscores the need for a more comprehensive and rigorously enforced sanctions regime. The debate about the historical impact of sanctions is also ongoing. Some claim that past sanctions have been successful in bringing about regime change, citing instances where pressure forced concessions. Others disagree, suggesting that sanctions have limited effectiveness and often cause significant collateral damage without achieving desired results. The effectiveness of sanctions is also frequently dependent on several factors, including the intensity and duration of the sanctions, as well as the political and economic context in which they are applied.
The claim that past sanctions against the Soviet Union led to its collapse is specifically challenged, with evidence highlighting that the Berlin Airlift, often cited in support of this assertion, actually demonstrated the limits of blockade tactics. The counter-blockade, it is argued, was ultimately unsuccessful, which undermines the initial assertion. Furthermore, historical accounts suggest a more nuanced picture of the Soviet Union’s economic situation at the time, one which doesn’t lend itself to a simple narrative of collapse due to sanctions.
Another challenge lies in sustaining the level of Ukrainian resistance, and the issue of potential resource depletion is acknowledged. The suggestion is that continued financial and military support from the West is vital to ensure the ongoing strength of Ukraine’s defense. This is underscored by the Ukrainian economy’s resilience, which is based on Western currency financial aid, rather than reliance on energy exports.
The long-term strategic implications of the conflict are also considered. The potential for Russia’s economic implosion is seen as a realistic outcome, yet the risk of collateral damage and regional instability, potentially involving nuclear weapons, is duly noted. This necessitates a cautious approach, prioritizing not just containment of Russia, but also the securing of nuclear weapons within the region.
In short, the EU’s preparation of new sanctions reflects an evolving strategy to pressure Russia. While the effectiveness of previous measures is debated, the need for a more robust and coordinated approach is undeniable. The ongoing assessment of Russia’s economic vulnerabilities, alongside considerations of the geopolitical implications, suggests that the situation is complex and that significant challenges lie ahead. The hopeful sentiment is tempered by a realistic acknowledgment of the significant hurdles that remain.