By John Q. Hosedrinker 
Despite the recent adoption of the EU’s 17th sanctions package against Russia, French Minister Jean-Noël Barrot advocates for a more impactful approach. He stressed the need for further, coordinated sanctions with the U.S., potentially including significant tariffs on countries importing Russian oil, to cripple the Russian economy. Barrot highlighted Russia’s ability to circumvent existing sanctions, emphasizing the necessity of a more comprehensive strategy. This intensified pressure, he argued, is crucial to compelling Vladimir Putin to cease hostilities in Ukraine. Future discussions with U.S. Senator Lindsey Graham regarding a proposed sanctions bill are planned.
Read the original article here
France’s recent declaration that it’s “high time to strangle the Russian economy” following the adoption of the 17th EU sanctions package highlights a growing frustration with the slow pace and perceived ineffectiveness of previous measures. The sentiment reflects a widespread belief that far more decisive action was needed much earlier, ideally immediately following the invasion of Ukraine. Many believe that a failure to swiftly and completely cripple the Russian economy has prolonged the conflict and resulted in unnecessary suffering.
The argument that the current sanctions are insufficient echoes across various comments. The idea that a gradual approach, incrementally tightening the economic screws, has yielded inadequate results is a common thread. Many suggest that a much more aggressive approach, akin to a complete economic blockade, would have been far more effective in deterring Russian aggression. The comparison of the current sanctions to mere “virtue signaling” underscores the disappointment with the perceived lack of tangible impact.
The suggestion that cutting Russia off completely from the global banking system and imposing exorbitant corporate taxes would have been sufficient to end the war quickly is a recurring theme. This highlights a belief that Russia primarily responds to pressure and that decisive economic action would have made a far greater impact than the incremental sanctions adopted so far. This view emphasizes the need for decisive action, rather than the drawn-out strategy currently employed.
The criticism extends to the continued trade loopholes. The fact that some European nations have continued to indirectly trade with Russia through third parties, such as India and Kazakhstan, fuels the skepticism regarding the seriousness of sanctions enforcement. This undermines the impact of the existing measures and reinforces the need for stricter regulations and enforcement to prevent circumvention. The perception that certain loopholes are being deliberately left open to protect national economic interests contributes to the sense of frustration and a belief that genuine commitment to strangling the Russian economy is lacking.
The comparison to nuclear weapons, although hyperbolic, conveys the depth of frustration with the slow pace of sanctions. The suggestion that sanctions are being implemented gradually to allow the EU economy to adapt is countered by the argument that the cost of inaction, measured in human lives, vastly outweighs the economic adjustments needed to impose a complete blockade. The argument against gradual sanctions emphasizes that the cost of delay has been far greater than any economic adjustments required for a more immediate and decisive response.
The criticism also focuses on the lack of impact of the sanctions, pointing to the continued functioning of the Russian economy and the apparent indifference of many countries outside of Europe to the sanctions regime. The belief that the sanctions are largely ineffective and are more a tool for political maneuvering than for achieving concrete results is widely expressed. The list detailing the small number of countries joining the sanctions illustrates this point, with many countries openly continuing to trade with Russia despite the EU’s efforts.
Several commenters highlight the failure of previous sanctions packages to deter Russian aggression. The argument that these past failures should have led to a more drastic and immediate response, rather than yet another incrementally stricter package, underlines the overall sentiment of frustration. The recurring mention of the need for “swords, not words” emphasizes the desire for forceful action rather than symbolic gestures.
In conclusion, the intense criticism surrounding the 17th EU sanctions package reflects a deep-seated frustration with the perceived inadequacy of the current strategy. Many believe that a far more aggressive and comprehensive approach, implemented much earlier, would have yielded far better results, potentially preventing much of the conflict and suffering. The perceived slow pace and loopholes in the current system continue to fuel criticism and underscore a widely held view that decisive action is needed to effectively address the situation.