Follow us on social

zelensky EU

Will EU stand in the way of Russia-Ukraine ceasefire?

European Commission official says 'unconditional withdrawal' of Russian troops would have to happen before sanctions relief

Analysis | QiOSK

The EU appears to have put a stick in the spokes of a beleaguered Black Sea ceasefire agreement between Russia and the U.S.

U.S. and Russian negotiators, after 12-hour long talks in Riyadh, coalesced on Tuesday around an expanded partial ceasefire between Russia and Ukraine covering the Black Sea and energy infrastructure. The Kremlin indicated that the deal is contingent on removal of sanctions on Rosselkhozbank, a key agricultural bank, and its reconnection to the Swift international messaging system.

This has emerged as a point of contention, with Ukraine and some Western outlets claiming that Russia foisted sanctions relief as an added condition in an ex post facto way after the initial agreement had already been negotiated. The Russians, for their part, claim that they are simply seeking a return to the framework laid out in the original Black Sea Grain Initiative, better known as the grain deal, which they understand to encompass partial sanctions relief in exchange for a cessation of hostilities between Russia and Ukraine in the Black Sea region.

Though the U.S. statement did not explicitly reference sanctions relief or restoring Rosselkhozbank’s access to SWIFT, it did say that the “United States will help restore Russia’s access to the world market for agricultural and fertilizer exports, lower maritime insurance costs, and enhance access to ports and payment systems for such transactions.”

It is difficult to imagine how this provision could be fulfilled without removing certain sanctions, or providing Russian companies with carveouts and waivers that essentially amount to sanctions relief. It is therefore not necessarily the case, pending further clarification by U.S. officials, that there is meaningful daylight between US and Russian positions on this issue.

But, whether or not Russia has indeed sprung a new set of last-minute demands on its American interlocutors, the issue may have just been rendered moot by the EU.

“The end of the Russian unprovoked and unjustified aggression in Ukraine and unconditional withdrawal of all Russian military forces from the entire territory of Ukraine would be one of the main preconditions to amend or lift sanctions,” Anitta Hipper, European Commission spokesperson for foreign affairs, told the Financial Times.

It is unclear on the level of institutional decision making whether this obviously unviable condition for sanctions relief is merely an instance of bureaucratic inertia or part of a premeditated European strategy to hinder progress on U.S.-Russia talks to end the war in Ukraine. To the extent that many of the world’s major financial institutions are tied to Europe, the EU has tools at its disposal in the short to medium term to greatly impede any partial removal of sanctions on Russia.

In the long term, it is difficult to see how the international sanctions regime on Russia can maintain its coherence and effectiveness without continued US backing. In either case, an alleged — and it is at this point merely alleged — disagreement between Russia and the U.S. over sanctions relief is a tactical issue that can be remedied in future talks.

A principled stance by the EU against lifting any sanctions pending Russia’s unconditional withdrawal from Ukraine is a much more serious issue that stands a not insignificant chance of vitiating already-delicate U.S.-Russia peace talks.


Top photo credit: Leaders of EU, Western Balkans and Ukraine's President Volodymyr Zelensky arrives to pose for a family photo in the Maximos Mansion in Athens, Greece on Aug. 21, 2023. (shutterstock/Alexandros Michailidis)
Analysis | QiOSK
Fort Bragg horrors expose dark underbelly of post-9/11 warfare
Top photo credit: Seth Harp book jacket (Viking press) US special operators/deviant art/creative commons

Fort Bragg horrors expose dark underbelly of post-9/11 warfare

Media

In 2020 and 2021, 109 U.S. soldiers died at Fort Bragg, the largest military base in the country and the central location for the key Special Operations Units in the American military.

Only four of them were on overseas deployments. The others died stateside, mostly of drug overdoses, violence, or suicide. The situation has hardly improved. It was recently revealed that another 51 soldiers died at Fort Bragg in 2023. According to U.S. government data, these represent more military fatalities than have occurred at the hands of enemy forces in any year since 2013.

keep readingShow less
Trump Netanyahu
Top image credit: President Donald Trump hosts a bilateral dinner for Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, Monday, July 7, 2025, in the Blue Room. (Official White House Photo by Daniel Torok)

The case for US Middle East retrenchment has never been clearer

Middle East

Is Israel becoming the new hegemon of the Middle East? The answer to this question is an important one.

Preventing the rise of a rival regional hegemon — a state with a preponderance of military and economic power — in Eurasia has long been a core goal of U.S. foreign policy. During the Cold War, Washington feared Soviet dominion over Europe. Today, U.S. policymakers worry that China’s increasingly capable military will crowd the United States out of Asia’s lucrative economic markets. The United States has also acted repeatedly to prevent close allies in Europe and Asia from becoming military competitors, using promises of U.S. military protection to keep them weak and dependent.

keep readingShow less
United Nations
Top image credit: lev radin / Shutterstock.com

Do we need a treaty on neutrality?

Global Crises

In an era of widespread use of economic sanctions, dual-use technology exports, and hybrid warfare, the boundary between peacetime and wartime has become increasingly blurry. Yet understandings of neutrality remain stuck in the time of trench warfare. An updated conception of neutrality, codified through an international treaty, is necessary for global security.

Neutrality in the 21st century is often whatever a country wants it to be. For some, such as the European neutrals like Switzerland and Ireland, it is compatible with non-U.N. sanctions (such as by the European Union) while for others it is not. Countries in the Global South are also more likely to take a case-by-case approach, such as choosing to not take a stance on a specific conflict and instead call for a peaceful resolution while others believe a moral position does not undermine neutrality.

keep readingShow less

LATEST

QIOSK

Newsletter

Subscribe now to our weekly round-up and don't miss a beat with your favorite RS contributors and reporters, as well as staff analysis, opinion, and news promoting a positive, non-partisan vision of U.S. foreign policy.