By John Q. Hosedrinker 
Following the EU Foreign Affairs Council meeting, Lithuanian Foreign Minister Kęstutis Budrys urged immediate commencement of work on the 18th EU sanctions package against Russia. This package should target Russia’s most vulnerable sectors, including energy, finance, and the defense industry, to counteract Putin’s delaying tactics. Budrys stressed the need for swift action, emphasizing that the previous sanctions package is already outdated and decisive measures are necessary to maintain credibility. The 18th package may include targeting banks from non-EU countries supporting Russia’s military. This follows discussions between Ukrainian President Zelenskyy and European Commission President von der Leyen regarding further restrictions on Moscow.
Read the original article here
Lithuania is urging the European Union to significantly strengthen its sanctions against Russia, arguing that the current measures are insufficient and failing to achieve their intended goal. The core of Lithuania’s plea centers on the need for sanctions that genuinely inflict economic pain on Russia, forcing a recalibration of its aggressive foreign policy. This requires a far more decisive approach than the gradual phase-outs currently planned.
The proposed solution involves targeting Russia’s energy sector with immediate and complete embargoes on oil, natural gas (including LNG), and nuclear fuel. Lithuania highlights the absurdity of phasing out Russian gas purchases over several years, questioning the message this sends to Ukraine and the world. A prolonged timeline merely prolongs Russia’s access to crucial revenue streams fueling its war effort, undermining the credibility of EU sanctions. Instead, an immediate halt to all energy imports is advocated as the necessary step to cripple Russia’s ability to wage war.
Furthermore, Lithuania emphasizes the critical need to eliminate the loopholes that allow sanctioned goods to circumvent restrictions through third-party countries. This requires a concerted effort to monitor and enforce sanctions rigorously, preventing the flow of goods to and from Russia via alternative routes. The failure to adequately address this issue weakens the effectiveness of the overall sanctions regime. There is a clear need for robust enforcement mechanisms to counteract such evasion tactics.
The ongoing economic consequences of the current sanctions strategy are also a major concern. Lithuania points out that the slow and phased approach is inadvertently empowering anti-EU political forces within Europe. These parties, often linked to Russia, are gaining traction by capitalizing on the economic hardship created by rising energy prices, fueled by the continued reliance on Russian energy. The longer the EU hesitates, the stronger these anti-EU factions become. This, in turn, risks undermining the support for Ukraine and weakening the resolve to maintain sanctions against Russia.
The potential ramifications of this internal political shift are stark: the rise to power of parties sympathetic to Russia, potentially leading to a reversal of sanctions, a reduction in aid to Ukraine, and ultimately a significant geopolitical setback for the EU. The gradual approach, therefore, runs the risk of creating a self-defeating cycle where the intended outcome – weakening Russia – is undermined by the unintended consequence – bolstering anti-EU forces within the EU itself. A quicker, more decisive action is deemed necessary to prevent this scenario.
The argument against a more drastic approach often revolves around the economic hardship it would inflict upon European citizens. However, Lithuania argues that the current, protracted strategy has its own severe economic costs, including the bolstering of anti-EU parties and the implicit weakening of support for Ukraine. While a rapid and complete halt to energy imports would undoubtedly cause economic disruption, it would also send a clear signal of the EU’s resolve, potentially deterring further aggression and bringing about a faster end to the conflict. The current measured approach is viewed as a costly delay tactic that achieves neither effective sanctions nor economic stability.
In conclusion, Lithuania’s urgent call for stronger sanctions is rooted in a profound concern that the current strategy is not only ineffective but also counterproductive. A more decisive approach, while carrying economic risks, offers the potential to severely cripple Russia’s war machine, prevent the rise of pro-Russian political forces within the EU, and ultimately contribute to a more stable and secure European future. The status quo is deemed unacceptable, highlighting the need for a fundamental shift towards a more robust and impactful sanctions regime. The cost of inaction, Lithuania argues, far outweighs the cost of immediate, decisive action.