By John Q. Hosedrinker 
The EU announced a new, robust sanctions package against Russia, further impacting its already strained economy. This action, deemed necessary due to Russia’s continued aggression in Ukraine, aims to increase pressure for an end to the war. The sanctions, including a reduced oil price cap, were coordinated with the US and will be finalized before the end of the month. The package is expected to be swiftly adopted by EU member states ahead of a G7 summit, where the oil price cap will be further discussed.
Read the original article here
The EU has announced a new round of sanctions targeting Russia’s energy sector and banking system, aiming to further cripple the Russian economy and pressure the Kremlin to end its war in Ukraine. This latest package, while significant, has sparked debate about its effectiveness and timing. Many observers point out that its implementation comes relatively late, reducing its potential impact as a deterrent, a sentiment echoed by the observation that “I wish EU initiated this latest sanctions earlier as it will really bite into Putin’s wallet.”
The sanctions include a substantial reduction in the price cap on Russian oil, lowering it from $60 to $45 per barrel. This move aims to further restrict Russia’s revenue from its energy exports, a critical source of funding for its war effort. Coupled with this, the EU is banning the use of the Nord Stream pipelines for transporting gas between Russia and Germany, a symbolic and practically significant step given the historical reliance on these pipelines.
Further intensifying the financial pressure, the EU has added 22 more Russian banks to its SWIFT ban, effectively cutting them off from the international financial system. This builds on previous sanctions and extends a partial prohibition on Russian financial institutions to a “full transaction ban.” However, questions remain about the overall effectiveness of these measures. The incompleteness of the SWIFT ban – leaving some Russian banks still connected – is a significant point of contention. This action is seen by some as a missed opportunity to significantly disrupt Russia’s ability to move funds internationally, raising concerns about the efficacy of a strategy that seemingly allows for money to be moved to different financial institutions.
The complex nature of the global financial system and the potential unintended consequences of sanctions have been highlighted. The argument is raised that sanctions should primarily serve as a deterrent, and that their actual implementation diminishes their future effectiveness. This perspective underscores the concern that, once many sanctions are enacted, the EU’s leverage diminishes and the potential for future influence wanes, creating a kind of paradoxical situation where the most powerful actions are used first.
There’s a broader concern that the EU is only taking partial measures, leaving enough room for Russia to continue its economic activity and hindering the potential for genuinely crippling impacts. The significant amounts of oil and gas imported by China, India, and Turkey, far exceeding those of the EU, further illustrate the limitations of the EU’s sanctions in fully isolating Russia from global markets.
Data highlighting that EU imports of Russian oil and gas between January 2023 and February 2025 totaled €37,469 billion, while simultaneous financial support to Ukraine amounted to €18.7 billion, is a stark illustration of the ongoing economic entanglement between the EU and Russia. This imbalance fuels concerns that the sanctions, even in their latest iteration, may not be sufficient to achieve their intended goals.
The seemingly incremental nature of the EU’s actions – “sanction package number 18 or number 19?” – has led to widespread skepticism and frustration. There’s a sense that the EU’s response lacks decisiveness, and that the cumulative effect of these numerous, somewhat piecemeal sanctions is less impactful than a more comprehensive approach. The sentiment is pervasive that the EU is slow to react to the ongoing situation, leaving room for Russia to adapt and mitigate the economic consequences of Western sanctions.
The notion that these sanctions may not significantly impact Russia’s overall economic picture is further supported by the observation that Russia’s overall exports, although reduced, remain higher than they were during the COVID-19 pandemic. Reports of Russia closing coal mines and struggling train lines due to a lack of exports point to serious economic hardship; however, it is uncertain whether the EU’s measures are the primary drivers of these issues. The ongoing debate over the true effectiveness of these measures is further highlighted by uncertainty over Russia’s reliance on BRICS nations for economic support.
Speculation abounds about the motivations behind the EU’s continued application of sanctions. It is argued that the sanctions serve as one of the few remaining tools available to exert pressure on Russia, with the goal no longer solely to deter, but to inflict enough economic pain to force concessions in Ukraine. However, considering the scale and intensity of sanctions already implemented, achieving this outcome remains far from certain. The sentiment that “more sanctions doesn’t necessarily have the effect that you’d think” prevails. A critical consideration is that, even with complete cessation of EU imports, the overall impact on Russia’s energy exports would be minimal – around 10%. This highlights the structural limitations of the EU’s ability to singularly impact Russia’s economic situation. The complexity of the situation and the interconnected nature of global economics makes a swift resolution unlikely and adds further skepticism regarding the long-term effectiveness of the sanctions.