By John Q. Hosedrinker 
As part of a broader effort to counter Russia’s ongoing conflict, the European Commission has announced its 21st sanctions package. This new set of measures aims to address rising global energy prices and further isolate Russia by freezing its energy import pricing mechanism until the end of 2026 and expanding efforts to target third countries supporting Russia’s war. The package also introduces significant restrictions on the financial sector, energy, and drone production, including a ban on crypto-asset services linked to sanctions evasion. Furthermore, new import bans on Russian fish and sanctions against individuals and the Russian shadow fleet are proposed, with some measures expected to be formally adopted in June and July.
Read the original article here
The European Union has announced its 21st package of sanctions against Russia, a move that includes a proposed entry ban for Russian soldiers. This development has sparked considerable discussion, with many questioning why such a ban wasn’t implemented much earlier in the conflict.
While it might seem like an obvious step, there was a strategic rationale behind not imposing a blanket entry ban on all Russian soldiers for most of the war. The initial thinking was to leave a small window open for soldiers who might have been disillusioned with the war and wished to desert. The idea was that each deserter represented one less combatant for Russia, a sort of passive pressure point.
However, the broader strategic landscape appears to have shifted. With an increased focus on potential negotiations, the EU seems to be prioritizing exerting maximum pressure on Russia as a state, rather than maintaining exceptions for individual soldiers. This suggests a conscious policy evolution rather than an oversight, especially considering the substantial amount of time that has passed since the full-scale invasion.
The call to extend bans to individuals who publicly support the war, or those who financially and voluntarily support the Russian military, is also gaining traction. The sentiment is that if these individuals are not directly participating in combat, they still bear responsibility for their complicity and endorsement of the ongoing conflict. It’s a sentiment rooted in the frustration of seeing Russian citizens, potentially including those involved in or supportive of the war, being able to travel freely to the EU.
There’s a palpable sense of disbelief and impatience regarding the speed of these measures. Many observers express amazement that Russian citizens, and particularly those who are actively involved in the war, have been able to travel to the EU at all. The perceived slowness in implementing what some consider to be obvious security measures leads to a feeling of exasperation, with a sarcastic tone often used to highlight the extended timeline.
The proposal for an entry ban on soldiers, while finally on the table, is met with a significant amount of “about time” sentiment. The core of this reaction is the fundamental question of why individuals who are actively engaged in trying to harm and invade another country would ever be granted entry into nations that value peace and security. The absurdity of allowing potential aggressors holiday access while they are actively involved in violence is a recurring theme.
The effectiveness of sanctions in general is also being questioned, with 20 previous packages not having demonstrably halted Russia’s actions. This leads to a cynical outlook on whether the 21st package, or any subsequent ones, will truly achieve their intended goals. The question of whether past sanctions have had a meaningful impact on Russia’s behavior is a prominent one, driving the desire for more comprehensive measures, including potentially a broader ban on all Russian citizens.
The current approach is often described as half-hearted, with a lack of full commitment to decisive action across all aspects of the response. The complexity of identifying and banning individuals who are soldiers, without a clear and accessible public registry of military personnel, is a significant logistical challenge that is being pointed out. The idea of a simple “yes or no” question at the border is seen as largely ineffective and prone to deception, leading to increased bureaucracy without guaranteed results.
Furthermore, there’s a sentiment that the EU is sanctioning soldiers while potentially allowing officials and their families, who may not be on the front lines but benefit from the regime, to continue their travel. This perceived inconsistency fuels the argument for a blanket ban on all Russian citizens. The call is for a decisive and unified stance, rather than incremental measures that are seen as falling short of what is necessary.
The idea of completely embargoing Russian goods and people, and for nations to demonstrate more spine, is a common refrain. The lack of more robust action is often viewed as a sign of weakness or indecision. The discussion also touches upon the potential for a complete ban on all Russian citizens, with some arguing that they view the EU as an unfriendly entity anyway, making such a ban a logical step.
The question of how the EU will practically enforce an entry ban on soldiers is a significant one. Without a publicly accessible database of every soldier’s name, it’s unclear how this will be verified. The concern is that this will lead to bureaucratic hurdles and potentially ineffective implementation, turning it into another symbolic gesture rather than a truly impactful measure.
The continued allowance of Russian tourists, some of whom might be soldiers on leave, while Ukraine faces ongoing aggression is considered absurd. The idea that individuals actively involved in warfare could be enjoying European vacations is met with incredulity. This highlights a disconnect between the stated values of the EU and its practical implementation of sanctions and border controls.
There’s a strong push for more immediate and decisive action. The sentiment is that these significant sanctions packages should have been implemented on day one of the invasion. The current approach, with its perceived delays and limitations, leads to frustration and a sense of the EU not taking the war as seriously as it could.
The discussion also veers into broader geopolitical issues, with some questioning why other nations’ actions, such as Israel’s, are not subject to similar scrutiny or sanctions. This highlights a desire for a more globally consistent approach to international aggression. The hope is that this 21st package, or perhaps a future one, will finally bring about a decisive shift in the EU’s approach, bringing them closer to a point where peace can be restored and Ukraine can be whole again. The ongoing reliance on Russian energy sources, even while imposing sanctions, is also pointed out as a significant contradiction.