Despite European sanctions, Russia’s energy exports are projected to generate €233 billion in 2025, with over €20 billion stemming from EU purchases. This surpasses the EU’s planned military aid to Ukraine. Continued EU energy imports, totaling approximately €2 billion monthly, significantly bolster Russia’s military capabilities. This highlights the limited effectiveness of sanctions in curbing Russia’s war effort.
Following a phone call between President Trump and Vladimir Putin, Russia was expected to deliver a peace memorandum outlining ceasefire conditions. However, this document remains outstanding, prompting Trump to consider new sanctions against Moscow. While options for additional sanctions exist, Trump’s ultimate decision remains uncertain, as he previously expressed concerns that such actions could hinder peace talks. Simultaneously, bipartisan support in the US Congress is mounting for stricter sanctions on Russia, fueled by recent attacks in Ukraine.
In response to escalating Russian aggression in Ukraine, including a record-breaking drone assault, former President Trump is considering imposing new sanctions. While details remain unclear, these sanctions may not involve further banking restrictions and could be coupled with a potential abandonment of peace efforts should negotiations fail. Trump’s previous reluctance to sanction Russia stemmed from concerns about impacting future business opportunities. However, his recent condemnation of Putin and consideration of sanctions suggest a shift in his approach.
In response to a proposal to restrict remaining Western companies in Russia, President Putin advocated for aggressive retaliatory measures, calling for these companies to be “strangled” due to perceived Western attempts to cripple the Russian economy. This follows the departure or scaling back of numerous Western firms after the invasion of Ukraine. Putin’s directive targets companies still using Western software, reflecting a hardening stance against foreign businesses. While Russia has seized assets from some companies and employed harsh rhetoric, it concurrently explores potential pathways for re-engagement with Western firms in the future.
Following the passage of Trump’s budget bill, he unexpectedly launched a scathing attack on Vladimir Putin, calling him “absolutely crazy” for the ongoing war in Ukraine. This outburst, seemingly fueled by wounded pride and contradicted by Trump’s previous statements praising Putin’s supposed desire for peace, reveals a potential shift in his stance. French President Macron suggests Trump now realizes Putin’s insincerity regarding peace negotiations, while bipartisan support in the U.S. Senate for new sanctions against Russia indicates a growing concern over Trump’s potential inaction. The situation highlights the conflict between Trump’s rhetoric and actions, and the uncertainty surrounding future U.S. involvement in the conflict.
Three new sanction packages targeting Russian individuals and entities supporting the war against Ukraine have been enacted by Ukrainian President Zelensky. These measures focus on those involved in terrorism financing, sanctions evasion, and propaganda dissemination, as well as members of Russian criminal organizations aligned with Putin. The sanctions also include several specific individuals, such as Oleksandr Bohuslayev and Ihor Mosiychuk, for their alleged roles in fraud and pro-Russian activities respectively. These actions are coordinated with international partners, including the European Union, to further isolate Russia.
In response to Russia’s widespread airstrikes on Ukrainian civilians, Keith Kellogg, President Trump’s special envoy to Ukraine, condemned the attacks as a blatant violation of the 1977 Geneva Peace Protocols. Kellogg highlighted the horrific targeting of innocent women and children, emphasizing the urgent need for an immediate ceasefire. This condemnation contrasts with Representative Don Bacon’s proposed response of escalating military aid and sanctions against Russia. President Zelenskyy has also called for increased international pressure on the Kremlin.
Despite criticizing European leaders for their delayed response to Russia’s actions, the author acknowledges President Trump’s prescient warnings regarding European defense spending and energy dependence on Russia, dating back to 2016. While acknowledging the likelihood of US withdrawal from Ukraine, the author suggests that increased European unity and leveraging relationships with major trading partners like China, India, and Iran, could yield significant results through sanctions. This coordinated approach could create substantial leverage, even without US participation, and requires greater cooperation between the UK and Europe. Ultimately, the author believes a unified European response to the crisis holds potential, despite the current grim outlook.
Following Russia’s largest aerial assault on Ukraine, President Zelenskyy criticized the international community’s silence, urging stronger sanctions against Russia. The attack, involving hundreds of drones and missiles, resulted in civilian casualties and underscored the ongoing conflict. While a prisoner exchange occurred, efforts towards a ceasefire remain stalled, hampered by differing approaches from the US and European allies. Despite new EU and UK sanctions targeting Russia’s oil exports, the US administration’s position on further sanctions remains uncertain.
The EU is considering an 18th sanctions package against Russia, including disconnecting over 20 banks from SWIFT, lowering the G7 oil price cap to ~$45 per barrel, and banning the Nord Stream pipelines. These measures, alongside approximately €2.5 billion in new trade restrictions, aim to further cripple Russia’s economy and limit its access to Western technology. While requiring unanimous approval from all 27 member states, the package reflects continued EU resolve despite previous criticism of insufficiently strong sanctions. The proposals are currently under review by the European Commission.
John Q. Hosedrinker