By John Q. Hosedrinker 
On February 6th, the European Commission proposed its 20th sanctions package against Russia, aiming to further diminish the revenue streams funding its war in Ukraine. A significant component of this proposal involves a comprehensive ban on maritime services for Russian crude oil, to be coordinated with G7 partners, which would prohibit European companies from providing insurance, shipping, financing, and other essential services for the transport of Russian oil, irrespective of its price. The package also introduces measures to restrict Russia’s shadow fleet, reinforce pressure on its banking sector by sanctioning additional regional banks and crypto-related channels, and implement further export and import bans on various goods and technologies crucial for Russia’s war effort. For the first time, the EU’s anti-circumvention tool is proposed for activation to prevent sensitive products from reaching Russia through third countries.
Read the original article here
The European Union is reportedly preparing to roll out its twentieth package of sanctions against Russia, a move described as “powerful” and notably featuring a full ban on maritime services for Russian oil. This significant step aims to further tighten the economic screws on Moscow, signaling a continued commitment from the EU to penalize Russia’s actions. The core of this proposed package appears to be the prohibition of services related to the maritime transport of Russian oil, a critical component of the global energy market.
Implementing such a comprehensive ban on maritime services presents a considerable logistical and diplomatic challenge, especially when considering the intricate web of international shipping and finance. Sanctions work by forbidding sanctioned entities, in this case, Russian oil tankers, from receiving services from participating countries. This means that ports, insurance companies, and other service providers within the EU, and potentially allied nations, would be prohibited from interacting with these vessels. The effectiveness hinges on widespread adherence and the ability to enforce these restrictions on a global scale.
The sheer scale of coordinating such a policy across twenty-seven diverse member states, each with its own energy dependencies and historical relationships with Russia, is not a minor undertaking. It’s an effort to orchestrate a large-scale energy transition for numerous countries simultaneously. While the EU’s dependency on Russian gas has significantly decreased since the initial invasion of Ukraine, falling from 45% to around 12% by 2025, and Russian coal imports have been entirely banned, oil remains a more complex area. Although EU oil imports from Russia have dramatically shrunk to a mere 2%, with only a couple of countries still receiving it through specific pipelines, the complete cessation of maritime services for all Russian oil is a distinct escalation.
The idea behind banning maritime services is to choke off the revenue streams that Russia generates from its oil exports. By preventing sanctioned tankers from accessing essential services like insurance, maintenance, and docking in ports belonging to sanctioning nations, the EU aims to make it exceedingly difficult, if not impossible, for Russia to export its oil to international markets. This targets the practical logistics of shipping, which relies heavily on these supporting services. However, the practical enforcement of such a ban is where the complexity truly lies, especially when dealing with vessels operating in international waters.
Questions naturally arise about the effectiveness of this approach, particularly when past sanctions packages, numbering nineteen before this proposed one, haven’t demonstrably ended the conflict or halted Russian economic activities. The perception can be that of a slow-moving process, with some arguing that the EU’s pace, described as “turtle-like,” could ultimately undermine its own objectives. This criticism stems from the understandable desire for a swifter resolution to the conflict and a more immediate impact on Russia’s ability to fund its war effort.
The effectiveness of sanctions is also debated when observing the continued presence of Russian individuals and businesses in various global hubs. For instance, observations from Dubai suggest a significant influx of Russians, leading to speculation about the real-world impact of these sanctions. However, it’s crucial to distinguish between different jurisdictions; Dubai and the UAE are not subject to EU sanctions, and therefore, the presence of Russians there doesn’t negate the intended effects within countries adhering to the sanctions regime.
Furthermore, the argument that sanctions are not working is countered by data indicating that Russian oil and gas revenues have indeed seen a significant decline. While some Russian citizens may still be able to travel and maintain a semblance of normalcy, this doesn’t necessarily reflect the overall health of the Russian economy, which has experienced substantial hits to its primary revenue generators. The emigration of hundreds of thousands of Russians since the invasion also suggests that the sanctions and the broader geopolitical situation are having a tangible impact on the country.
The challenge of enforcing sanctions on oil tankers operating in international waters versus territorial waters is a significant one. Attacking foreign-flagged merchant vessels outside of a nation’s territorial waters is against established international maritime law. The plan, therefore, focuses on denying services and access to the global financial and logistical networks that these tankers depend on. This is distinct from direct military action, which is a far more escalatory step. The EU’s approach is to leverage economic pressure by making it prohibitively difficult for Russia to sell its oil.
It’s also important to acknowledge that replacing decades of energy reliance is not an overnight fix. The EU’s efforts to diversify its energy sources and reduce its dependence on Russian fossil fuels have been ongoing and substantial. Significant progress has been made in reducing reliance on Russian gas and coal, and while oil imports are already low, a complete ban on maritime services for any remaining Russian oil shipments is designed to be a final, decisive blow. The economic figures demonstrate that the EU is channeling considerable funds away from financing Russia and towards its own energy transition and support for Ukraine.
The notion that some EU member states might be holding up progress due to specific national interests is also a factor. Overcoming differing interests among multiple sovereign nations to achieve unified action is inherently complex. However, the overall trend indicates a strong movement towards decoupling from Russian energy. The fact that almost 50% of EU electricity now comes from renewable sources is a testament to the ongoing, albeit gradual, transformation occurring within the bloc’s energy sector.
Ultimately, this proposed twentieth sanctions package, with its emphasis on banning maritime services for Russian oil, represents a significant intensification of the EU’s economic pressure campaign. While the path to fully implementing and enforcing such measures is fraught with complexities, the intention is clear: to further isolate Russia economically and diminish its capacity to wage war. The effectiveness will, of course, be judged by its long-term impact on Russia’s economy and its ability to sustain its military operations.