By John Q. Hosedrinker 
The U.S. Treasury announced sanctions on Russia’s two largest oil companies, Rosneft and Lukoil, on October 22, in an effort to pressure Moscow into agreeing to a ceasefire. These are the first new sanctions imposed by President Trump against Russia since taking office. The measures come after the cancellation of planned diplomatic talks between the U.S. and Russia and are meant to address Russia’s continued attacks on Ukraine. The sanctions also target the companies’ subsidiaries, and engaging in transactions with these entities could result in secondary sanctions.
Read the original article here
In Trump first, US sanctions Russia’s oil giants Rosneft and Lukoil after White House cancels Putin meeting, and the immediate reaction seems to be a mix of surprise, skepticism, and cynicism. It’s almost as if the news itself is being viewed through a lens of past experiences and a deep-seated distrust. The initial sentiment appears to suggest that these sanctions are a carefully orchestrated show, a way to appear tough without actually taking meaningful action. The feeling is that this might be a temporary measure, a performance for the cameras, and that the real game is being played elsewhere.
The prevailing view seems to be that President Trump isn’t necessarily the driving force behind these sanctions. The suspicion is that advisors, the “Russia hawks” as they are referred to, are the ones pushing the agenda. There’s a strong belief that the President will ultimately cave under pressure, perhaps even reverse the decision, as the historical data does not support tough action. The phrase “TACO,” a mocking term, seems to capture this sentiment of anticipated reversals and flip-flopping.
Another significant concern is the potential ineffectiveness of the sanctions themselves. Even if they were to remain in place, the impact might be limited due to China and India’s continued purchase of Russian oil. The feeling is that the sanctions are more about optics than actual economic impact. The perception is that the US, under this administration, has a history of making moves that seem strong on the surface but are ultimately weak in practice, leading to a loss of credibility.
Furthermore, there’s a strong undercurrent of political maneuvering. Some suspect that the sanctions are a response to a need to appease certain groups or appear to be acting decisively. The cancellation of the meeting with Putin is seen as a key trigger. But, if the sanctions were designed to send a message, it’s unclear how seriously those messages will be taken. There is even the suggestion of a potential personal motivation—the President being motivated by a chance to be nominated for the Nobel Peace Prize.
Adding to the complexity, the fact that the enforcement division of the Trump administration was allegedly gutted is a cause for suspicion. This raises questions about whether the sanctions will be genuinely enforced or if they will be toothless. Also, many believe that a more pragmatic focus should be on resolving the conflict, instead of prolonging it. The emphasis is on the idea that the US should adopt a consistent stance that prioritizes the national interest.
It’s clear that the announcement of sanctions is not being taken at face value. Instead, it’s being met with a healthy dose of skepticism and a sense that the situation is more complex than it appears. The possibility of reversals, external influence, and limited impact all contribute to this wary perspective. The narrative centers around a perception of inconsistent policies and potential weakness, as well as concern that the United States is more likely to engage in grandstanding than delivering on its promises.