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
Iran nuclear
Top image credit: Inspired by maps via shutterstock.com

How the US could use Iran's uranium enrichment to its own advantage

Middle East

Since mid-April, Iran and the United States held numerous rounds of nuclear negotiations that have made measured progress — until Washington abruptly stated that Iran had no right to enrich uranium. Moreover, 200 members of the U.S. Congress sent president Trump a letter opposing any deal that would allow Iran to retain uranium enrichment capability.

Iran’s Supreme Leader Ayatollah Khamenei called U.S. demands “excessive and outrageous” and “nonsense.” Since the beginning of the Iranian nuclear crisis in 2003, Tehran has drawn a clear red line: the peaceful right to enrich uranium under the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) is non-negotiable.

keep readingShow less
american military missiles
Top photo credit: Fogcatcher/Shutterstock

5 ways the military industrial complex is a killer

Latest 3

Congress is on track to finish work on the fiscal year 2025 Pentagon budget this week, and odds are that it will add $150 billion to its funding for the next few years beyond what the department even asked for. Meanwhile, President Trump has announced a goal of over $1 trillion for the Pentagon for fiscal year 2026.

With these immense sums flying out the door, it’s a good time to take a critical look at the Pentagon budget, from the rationales given to justify near record levels of spending to the impact of that spending in the real world. Here are five things you should know about the Pentagon budget and the military-industrial complex that keeps the churn going.

keep readingShow less
Sudan
Top image credit: A Sudanese army soldier stands next to a destroyed combat vehicle as Sudan's army retakes ground and some displaced residents return to ravaged capital in the state of Khartoum Sudan March 26, 2025. REUTERS/El Tayeb Siddig

Will Sudan attack the UAE?

Africa

Recent weeks events have dramatically cast the Sudanese civil war back into the international spotlight, drawing renewed scrutiny to the role of external actors, particularly the United Arab Emirates.

This shift has been driven by Sudan's accusations at the International Court of Justice (ICJ) against the UAE concerning violations of the Genocide Convention, alongside drone strikes on Port Sudan that Khartoum vociferously attributes to direct Emirati participation. Concurrently, Secretary of State Marco Rubio publicly reaffirmed the UAE's deep entanglement in the conflict at a Senate hearing last week.

From Washington, another significant and sudden development also surfaced last week: the imposition of U.S. sanctions on the Sudanese Armed Forces (SAF) for alleged chemical weapons use. This dramatic accusation was met by an immediate denial from Sudan's Ministry of Foreign Affairs, which vehemently dismissed the claims as "unfounded" and criticized the U.S. for bypassing the proper international mechanisms, specifically the Organisation for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons, despite Sudan's active membership on its Executive Council.

Despite the gravity of such an accusation, corroboration for the use of chemical agents in Sudan’s war remains conspicuously absent from public debate or reporting, save for a January 2025 New York Times article citing unnamed U.S. officials. That report itself contained a curious disclaimer: "Officials briefed on the intelligence said the information did not come from the United Arab Emirates, an American ally that is also a staunch supporter of the R.S.F."

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.