Follow us on social

Putin

Russia sanctions are stone cold leverage. Let's use it.

The key to ending the war lies in lifting the punishing embargoes — in phases

Analysis | Europe

In a co-authored paper from April 2024, Keith Kellogg, President-elect Trump’s Ukraine envoy, said “the United States and its allies would pledge to only fully lift sanctions against Russia and normalize relations after it signs a peace agreement acceptable to Ukraine.”

With Trump’s inauguration just around the corner, there has been increased talk of whether and how sanctions against Russia might be removed.

However, saying the complete lifting of sanctions against Russia after any Trump-brokered peace agreement is as unrealistic as arguing that no sanctions should be removed.

Detailed thinking is needed on how future sanctions relief for Russia might be phased in as part of a longer-term peace plan for Ukraine. That should include realistic and achievable milestones for Russian compliance to avoid the trap of the failed Minsk II agreement.

Any U.S.-brokered future ceasefire in Ukraine may end the fighting but it won’t represent a just peace without a longer-term strategy. Nor will it represent a normalization of relations.

Even if there is decisive agreement on whether, or not, Ukraine has a NATO future, wider negotiations on a host of challenging issues will continue over many years. The list includes the legal status of occupied territories, war reparations, the repatriation of Ukrainian children and protection of minority languages.

On this basis, it would be premature to lift all sanctions against Russia immediately with these matters unresolved. Some issues may never be resolved to the complete satisfaction of both parties. We therefore need to be realistic about what to demand of Russia in any peace following a war in which it was not defeated.

Because it also seems clear that negotiations to end the fighting will stall unless Vladimir Putin knows there is a realistic prospect of some sanctions relief. And he will be wary of any draft peace agreement that de facto makes sanctions permanent. That would repeat the same mistakes that made the Minsk II agreement fail.

The European Council decision in March 2015 to align its sanctions regime to the implementation of the Minsk II agreement, effectively set European sanctions in stone. The UK, which with U.S. backing had pressed for this Minsk “conditionality,” applied a narrow interpretation by which any sanctions relief would be linked to “Russia’s complete implementation of Minsk II.

But that was unrealistic. It’s not only that Minsk II would have taken years to deliver even with a fair wind. The agreement contained obligations on the government of Ukraine to offer devolution and special status in the Donbas. These obligations faced widespread domestic resistance in Ukraine.

Sanctions against Russia were locked in on the basis of an obligation which it was not in Petro Poroshenko's or Volodymyr Zelensky’s political interests to push through. Zelensky’s brief attempt to consider devolution in 2019 quickly failed. Dmytro Kuleba, then Ukraine’s foreign minister, effectively killed Minsk II shortly before war broke out in February 2022 by declaring that the Donbas would never have special status.

Making Russia sanctions hostage to Ukrainian decisions won’t work this time.

Putin clearly wants sanctions lifted as part of any future peace deal. But I doubt he expects to achieve that. However, offering no incentives will encourage him to keep fighting.

And although the Russian economy is overheating from the colossal injection of government war spending, it is more resilient than Ukraine’s economy, with low debt, respectable growth, and still considerable reserves. Ukraine is hugely indebted and kept afloat by Western aid, which accounts for almost half of government spending.

So, while he can’t fight forever, Putin can choose to stall. And European states know the financial burden of an already unaffordable war will increasingly fall on them with Trump in the Oval Office.

That’s why a growing number of Central European states will push harder for sanctions removal. Slovakia’s sentiment has stiffened since the ending of gas transit and the direct economic impact it will suffer. Presidents Roberto Fico and Viktor Orban may find themselves in good company with Herbert Kickl, Austria’s putative new far right chancellor.

EU sanctions have held for almost 11 years because the economic and political costs of breaking consensus was always higher than the economic cost of holding firm.That calculus has shifted decisively in Central Europe.

So, we need more granular thinking on what sanctions relief means in the wide gulf between the status quo and no sanctions at all. Russia is subject to more than 20,000 sanctions that extend into the political, social and cultural realm as well as the economic sphere.

Rather than seeing sanctions relief as an event, we should look upon it as a process of peeling the onion. The European Union has taken almost 130 separate decisions since 2014 to impose new sanctions or to extend existing sanctions against Russia.

Most sanctions have zero impact. No less than 92% of individual UK sanctions are against persons who have never traveled to Britain or held assets here. The picture is the same for 77% of sanctioned Russian companies and is mirrored across the EU, U.S. and elsewhere.

Upon the agreement of a peace deal for Ukraine, 16,000 zero-impact Russian sanctions could be struck down in a grand gesture brokered by the U.S., EU and UK. This would offer no economic relief to Russia but give Putin something concrete to sell to his public.

Letting Russia compete once more in international sporting and cultural events such as the Olympics would offer a hugely symbolic gesture that the West was seeking to normalize relations, with no economic relief attached.

To avoid a repeat of Minsk II, the hardest-hitting “economic” sanctions would need to be included in a roadmap for the peace process with realistic milestones that it was in Russia’s power to achieve.

As part of this, Putin will want clarity on the “what and when” of unfreezing Russia’s international reserves plus a normalization over time of trading relationships, in particular with the EU.

Clearly, getting Putin and Zelensky to stand down their forces will be the biggest obstacle facing Trump after he assumes office. If we want to ensure that any short-term absence of war in Ukraine has a chance to emerge as a longer-term peace, we should consider now where sanctions relief fits within the plan.


Top photo credit: Russian President Vladimir Putin and President of Turkey Recep Tayyip Erdogan at the opening of the Natural Gas Pipeline (turkstream) in November 2018. (quetions123/shutterstock)
Analysis | Europe
Mike Waltz: Drop Ukraine draft age to 18
Top Photo: Incoming National Security Advisor Mike Waltz on ABC News on January 12, 2025

Mike Waltz: Drop Ukraine draft age to 18

QiOSK

Following a reported push from the Biden administration in late 2024, Mike Waltz - President-elect Donald Trump’s NSA pick - is now advocating publicly that Ukraine lower its draft age to 18, “Their draft age right now is 26 years old, not 18 ... They could generate hundreds of thousands of new soldiers," he told ABC This Week on Sunday.

Ukraine needs to "be all in for democracy," said Waltz. However, any push to lower the draft age is unpopular in Ukraine. Al Jazeera interviewed Ukrainians to gauge the popularity of the war, and raised the question of lowering the draft age, which had been suggested by Biden officials in December. A 20-year-old service member named Vladislav said in an interview that lowering the draft age would be a “bad idea.”

keep readingShow less
Tulsi Gabbard
Top photo credit: Former Rep. Tulsi Gabbard, President-elect Trump’s nominee to be Director of National Intelligence, is seen in Russell building on Thursday, December 12, 2024. (Tom Williams/CQ Roll Call/Sipa USA)

Tulsi Gabbard vs. the War Party

Washington Politics

Not long after Donald Trump nominated Tulsi Gabbard to serve as his director of national intelligence (DNI), close to 100 former national security officials signed a letter objecting to her appointment, accusing her of lacking experience and having “sympathy for dictators like Vladimir Putin and [Bashar al-]Assad.”

Trump has now made many controversial foreign policy nominations that stand at odds with his vows to end foreign wars and prioritize peace and domestic problems — including some who are significantly less experienced than Gabbard — yet only the former Hawaiian Congresswoman has received this level of pushback from the national security establishment so far.

keep readingShow less
AEI
Top image credit: DCStockPhotography / Shutterstock.com

AEI would print money for the Pentagon if it could

QiOSK

The American Enterprise Institute has officially entered the competition for which establishment DC think tank can come up with the most tortured argument for increasing America’s already enormous Pentagon budget.

Its angle — presented in a new report written by Elaine McCusker and Fred "Iraq Surge" Kagan — is that a Russian victory in Ukraine will require over $800 billion in additional dollars over five years for the Defense Department, whose budget is already poised to push past $1 trillion per year.

keep readingShow less

Trump transition

Latest

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.