By John Q. Hosedrinker 
Germany’s chief of staff, Thorsten Frei, urges the EU to strengthen sanctions against Russia, advocating for measures such as halting gas and uranium imports and utilizing frozen Russian assets. He asserts that these impactful actions are necessary to pressure Russia, countering Putin’s perceived strategy of using time to achieve military objectives. Frei’s call follows the EU’s 17th sanctions package and reflects Chancellor Merz’s assessment of Putin’s lack of commitment to peace. Furthermore, Germany may increase military aid to Ukraine beyond the current €7 billion allocation.
Read the original article here
Germany is pushing for the European Union to significantly increase sanctions against Russia, urging a bolder approach that goes beyond its current comfort zone. This call for more robust action reflects a growing sentiment that the existing sanctions regime isn’t effectively deterring Russia’s aggression.
The argument hinges on the idea that the EU needs to take more decisive steps to pressure Russia. This isn’t simply about symbolic gestures; it demands a willingness to confront difficult choices and potentially incur short-term economic costs for long-term strategic gains. The EU’s hesitancy to fully commit to this approach is viewed as a major obstacle.
A key aspect of this call for intensified sanctions is the need for the EU to overcome internal divisions. Certain member states, driven by their own economic interests or political considerations, have been reluctant to endorse stronger measures against Russia. Overcoming this resistance is crucial to achieving a united front.
Germany’s plea for more assertive sanctions is particularly noteworthy given its own historical reliance on Russian energy. This dependence has made Germany a target of criticism for perceived reluctance to fully support tougher sanctions. However, it is acknowledged that Germany has taken significant steps to reduce its reliance on Russian energy, which represents a substantial sacrifice.
The debate extends beyond energy dependence. Questions are raised about the adequacy of military aid to Ukraine. There’s a feeling that Germany, while making some contributions, has been too slow and hesitant in providing critical military equipment, such as cruise missiles. This perceived hesitancy has undermined the EU’s overall response.
The suggestion of isolating Kaliningrad, a Russian exclave, is floated as a possible measure. However, this action carries significant risks, as it could be viewed as an act of war, potentially escalating the conflict. This highlights the complex calculations involved in deciding the appropriate level of sanctions.
The argument is also made that Germany’s past policies, particularly its extensive reliance on Russian energy, have contributed to the current predicament. This dependence has made it vulnerable to Russian pressure and has hampered its ability to take a stronger stance against Moscow. Long-standing warnings about this over-reliance, stretching back decades, are highlighted.
Some critics argue that Germany hasn’t made sufficient sacrifices compared to other countries in supporting Ukraine. However, a counter-argument is made that Germany’s efforts, particularly in weaning itself off Russian energy, are substantial and often overlooked. The long-term impacts of the actions taken are also pointed out.
Germany’s calls for tougher sanctions are seen by some as a reflection of its desire for a more unified and decisive EU response. The EU’s response is deemed unsatisfactory, largely due to internal divisions and a reluctance to make difficult choices. There’s a sense of frustration that the EU hasn’t been as decisive as necessary in countering Russia’s aggression.
Ultimately, Germany’s urging for the EU to step outside its comfort zone highlights the inherent tension between economic considerations and geopolitical strategy. While there’s acknowledgment of the significant costs associated with more assertive actions, the argument is made that the long-term consequences of inaction would be far more damaging. The need for a unified and decisive EU response remains paramount to effectively addressing the ongoing crisis.