By John Q. Hosedrinker 
The EU implemented its seventeenth sanctions package against Russia on May 20th, targeting nearly 200 vessels within Russia’s shadow fleet and addressing hybrid threats and human rights violations. This action follows previous announcements regarding increased pressure on Russia, including potential sanctions against supporting financial institutions. Work has already begun on an eighteenth package, potentially targeting banks outside the EU that aid Russia’s military. The EU’s stance remains firm: escalated Russian aggression will be met with progressively stronger countermeasures.
Read the original article here
The EU has approved its 17th package of sanctions against Russia. This announcement, however, has been met with a range of reactions, from cautious optimism to outright skepticism. Some believe that this latest package, like its predecessors, will ultimately prove ineffective in curbing Russia’s aggression. The sheer number of sanctions packages – seventeen and counting – fuels the perception that this approach is failing to achieve its desired outcome.
There’s a sense of weariness and even frustration among those who feel the sanctions aren’t working. The question of their efficacy is paramount, with many questioning whether any meaningful impact has been made or if they are merely symbolic gestures. The suggestion of more sanctions being required to change the situation is a frequent sentiment, hinting at a lack of confidence in the current strategy.
The debate extends beyond the sanctions themselves. There are calls for more drastic measures, such as a complete embargo on Russian goods and even the deployment of ground troops. Some argue that the EU’s response has been too slow and insufficient, highlighting the lack of military aid provided in the past and present. The perceived inaction by the US in the eyes of some Europeans is generating significant resentment.
Concerns about the economic implications are also prominent. The reliance on Russian energy resources, particularly natural gas, has been flagged as a major weakness in the EU’s approach. There are accusations of the EU inadvertently funding the conflict through continued energy imports. The economic consequences of sanctions are examined through the contrasting forecasts for the Israeli and Euro area economies, with Israel’s growth projected to significantly outpace that of the Euro area, even despite its own military mobilization.
Another aspect of the discussion revolves around the treatment of Russian citizens. Proposals range from requiring public declarations against the war for entry into the EU to allowing entry only for ordinary citizens, while barring oligarchs. The issue of family reunification also arises, with some suggesting that separating families is a justifiable consequence of Russia’s actions while others emphasize the human cost of such measures and the implications for those seeking refuge or connection with family members in Europe. The suggestion of targeted restrictions on Russian travel and immigration is widely debated, with concerns raised about the potential for these measures to be both impractical and ineffective.
In essence, the 17th sanctions package is viewed not merely as a singular event, but as a symptom of a broader, ongoing struggle with various stakeholders expressing considerable doubt over the overall strategy’s success. There are criticisms not only of the sanctions’ efficacy but also about the perceived lack of a stronger, more unified and decisive response from the EU, especially when weighed against the perceived need for military intervention and the criticism levelled at the US’s role in the conflict. The arguments for and against tighter sanctions and more dramatic measures are clearly laid out in the discussions surrounding the 17th package, leaving a pervasive sense of uncertainty about what future actions will be taken and whether they will prove to be more effective. The continued reliance on sanctions as a primary tool, despite the lack of decisive results, points to a challenge in finding effective and impactful solutions, prompting calls for radical shifts in strategy. The perception that the EU is not bearing sufficient weight in addressing the conflict is frequently highlighted.
The conversation is also marked by a sense of frustration at the perceived inaction and contrasting economic trajectories between Israel and the Eurozone. This perceived disparity fuels the argument that the EU’s economic approach is not as effective as it could or should be, particularly when considering alternative economic models. The overall picture is one of heightened tensions, deep-seated concerns, and widespread uncertainty about the future course of action.