By John Q. Hosedrinker 
In his evening address, Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy urged international partners, including the US, Europe, the G7, and the G20, to cease finding excuses for not imposing sanctions on Russia, specifically targeting the energy trade. Zelenskyy emphasized the necessity of pressuring Russia in all jurisdictions and expressed hope for “strong steps” from the United States, including robust sanctions and tariff policies. He also revealed Ukraine’s plan to intensify “deep strikes” on Russian territory, highlighting that the funding and strategies for this action are already in place.
Read the original article here
Zelenskyy urges partners to “stop looking for excuses” for not imposing sanctions on Russia, and it’s hard not to feel the frustration boiling over. It’s clear that Ukraine has been buying time, sacrificing lives, essentially serving as a buffer for Europe. The sentiment is that the momentum initially gained seems to have been squandered, that the urgency hasn’t translated into concrete action swiftly enough. It’s like some lessons are being stubbornly unlearned.
The focus, of course, lands squarely on those hesitant partners. The unspoken implication is: Stop the delays, stop the justifications, and take decisive action. And, let’s be real, who are we talking about? It’s a global situation and there is more to it than meets the eye.
One critical sanction that’s often brought up is the immediate cessation of European oil purchases from Russia. The argument being that this single action would inflict a significant blow to Russia’s financial lifeline, drastically curtailing their ability to fund the war effort. The delay in taking this action fuels the feeling that the allies are not as supportive as they could be.
The specter of potential excuses is a persistent worry, particularly in certain corners. The concern is that some figures might actively search for reasons not to act, whether out of political considerations, economic concerns, or even, let’s say, personal affiliations. One particular individual has been suggested as an opponent.
The reference to Trump’s potential reaction underscores the precariousness of international partnerships. The worry is that rather than offering unwavering support, the response could be characterized by criticism and a halt to aid. This fear highlights the instability that can arise when leaders prioritize personal gain over global solidarity.
The continued trade with Russia, the reluctance to send sufficient weapons and ammunition, is also cited as a core issue. The argument is that these actions, or rather the lack thereof, demonstrate a lack of commitment to defending Ukraine. It’s not enough to talk; decisive action is what’s needed.
The complex web of oil dependence highlights the challenges. As Ukraine’s allies seek to wean themselves off Russian oil, the question is: Where do they turn? And, more importantly, where do *those* countries source their oil from? This exposes the intricate and often interconnected nature of global energy markets and the potential for hidden dependencies.
The decline in European reliance on Russian oil and natural gas is a point of encouragement. The EU has seen a significant drop in its reliance on Russian oil, now down to a mere 2%, from a previous high of 29%. Natural gas has also decreased, from 40-45% to about 15%.
The United States has been seen as an unreliable partner in the past few years. The US has received constant support from its allies, but many feel that it hasn’t been consistent in its backing.
Finally, the question of corruption within these “partners” comes into play. The implication is that corruption leads to compromised leaders who, in turn, are less likely to stand up to Putin. They may be more willing to overlook actions that could be beneficial for Russia. Ultimately, the call is for decisive action and a clear rejection of any excuses.