What's new

Russia-Ukraine War - News and Developments PART 2

Sanctions on Russia may not be working, we now know why​

European businesses and third countries are actively circumventing sanctions, providing Russia with sanctioned goods and thus helping its war effort.

  • Berit Lindeman
    Berit Lindeman
    Secretary General of the Norwegian Helsinki Committee
  • Ivar Dale
    Ivar Dale
    Norwegian Helsinki Committee's Senior Policy Adviser
Published On 5 Jun 20235 Jun 2023

On February 25, 2022, a day after Russia undertook a full-scale invasion of Ukraine, the European Union introduced unprecedented sanctions against the aggressor. The measures were intended to send a clear signal to Moscow that there would be severe consequences for its actions.

The sanctions targeted Russian President Vladimir Putin’s inner circle, as well as Russian companies and several sectors of the Russian economy. In the following months, the sanctions regime against Russia was expanded with eight more instalments, hitting its most valuable exports to Europe – oil and gas – and curbing its access to products that could be used in its war on Ukraine.
By the looks of it, the EU will continue to impose new sanctions, as Russian aggression and war crimes show no sign of abating. But despite the wide-ranging measures imposed and Brussel’s commitment to uphold them, some observers are claiming that they have failed.

The Russian economy appears more resilient than expected and the Russian military retains the capacity to destroy civilian infrastructure and military targets and terrorise the Ukrainian population. What is more, sanctioned goods are still finding their way to Russia and to the battlefield in Ukraine.

If the sanctions are not working the way they ought to, it is because we are actively undermining them. A recently released report by Norway-based risk consultancy Corisk reveals how that is done.

Its analysis of customs data from 12 EU countries, Norway, the UK, the US and Japan shows that the circumvention of export sanctions on Russia amounted to an astonishing 8 billion euros ($8.5bn) in 2022.
Of the countries studied, Germany appears to be the largest exporter of sanctioned goods to Russia; the second largest is Lithuania. The two provide half of the Western goods Moscow should not have access to.

The research reveals that European businesses, and especially German ones, use third countries to sell their products to Russia. This is apparent from the analysis of the export data for sanctioned goods, including luxury items such as jewellery and perfumes, typically enjoyed by the elites in Moscow, cutting-edge technology, like advanced semiconductors and quantum computers, machinery and transportation equipment.

In early 2022, Western exports of these goods to Russia plummeted, but to its neighbours, they skyrocketed. Nearly half of this “parallel export” is channelled through Kazakhstan and the rest is divided between Georgia, Armenia, Kyrgyzstan and others.

Importantly, the list of sanctioned products includes dual-use goods that can be used for both civilian and military purposes, such as drones, vehicles and certain chemicals.
In a war zone, mid-sized trucks are crucial for transporting supplies to the front line, which is why such vehicles were put on the sanctions list. As a result, Germany’s export to Russia of diesel trucks in this weight class dropped to zero by May 2022. However, the sales of these same trucks to Armenia increased exponentially and reached levels five times what Germany sold to Russia previously by September.
Polyamides are another dual-use product that has made its way to Russia, breaking the sanctions regime. These chemicals are used in the manufacturing of body armour, military pilot flight vests and many other military and civilian items. Until June 2022, Germany exported virtually no polyamides to Kazakhstan. After the sanctions were introduced, Kazakhstani demand for these chemicals exploded and by October it was importing 200 tonnes from German producers.

Lithuania has also been exporting sanctioned goods to Russia, but through another route –Belarus. Despite hosting the Belarusian opposition and opposing President Alexander Lukashenko’s regime in Minsk, Vilnius seems to have increased its sales of vehicles to its neighbour 10-fold between May and September last year. Given that exports to Russia have dropped to zero and Belarusian demand for cars is unlikely to have increased so dramatically, it appears these goods are going to Russia.

While Belarus is a staunch supporter of Moscow and openly backs the Russian war on Ukraine, Kazakhstan has been reluctant to take sides. President Kassym-Jomart Tokayev has called for an end to the violence in Ukraine, refused to recognise the Russian annexation of Ukrainian territory and pledged to curb sanctions circumvention on Kazakhstani territory.

His government has reportedly introduced stricter customs control of electronic goods imported to Russia and is looking into online customs monitoring to track goods crossing the border. Whether these efforts will actually curb the flow of sanctioned goods or are merely cosmetic measures remains to be seen.

Relying on Kazakhstan and other Russian neighbours to control sanctions evasion seems unrealistic. It is up to the countries that have imposed these measures to make sure they are implemented.
The EU, for its part, should establish new export regimes for dual-use goods and war-critical goods. Members of the sanctions coalition should put together investigate task forces and enforce compliance using all legal tools available. The business community itself also has to play a role; it needs to embrace a compliance culture and stop turning a blind eye to sanctions evaders.

Making sure that sanctions are not just imposed but are actually thoroughly implemented is crucial at this stage of the war. Too many Ukrainians have lost their lives in the war already and many more are headed to the battlefield to defend their country and their freedom – and by extension Europe’s. We must not fail them.
 
.
You are talking power projection not defence. Power projection is the reason the US is stationed certain places in Europe.
Europe does spend money on wellfare insted of upholding armed forces, which I think is a mistake. But the US funding and stationing forces overseas is the US funding their own interests. The US policy since WW2 has been to frown on any steps by Europe toward greater self-sufficiency in defense.
Europe is economic powerhouse and could easily become a military powerhouse if needed. But so far there has been a mutual understanding of the US to lead its european allies while trying to get Europe to raise defence contribution without diminishing US political influence.
A country like Germany is not going to spend 2-3% of GDP on defence just to follow US lead.
I can agree with that but much of these expenditures are dual purpose, yes for power projection but also allows defensive posture.
Either way I foresee america shrinking their power projection as more people shed light on all the issues in our own country.
You also hit the nail on the head why should we do it when Germany “a once power house” won’t.
I think we can all agree without the US Ukraine would have folded long ago. The time is coming for Europe to make the tough choices, security or taking care of all the entitlements they’ve created
 
.
I can agree with that but much of these expenditures are dual purpose, yes for power projection but also allows defensive posture.
Either way I foresee america shrinking their power projection as more people shed light on all the issues in our own country.
You also hit the nail on the head why should we do it when Germany “a once power house” won’t.
I think we can all agree without the US Ukraine would have folded long ago. The time is coming for Europe to make the tough choices, security or taking care of all the entitlements they’ve created
I think Europe shouldve done that a long time ago, though Im not sure the US is actually willing to give up the privileges that came with giving security guarantee for its european allies. Do you think the US would accept Europe as an equal or even dominant partner concerning security issues? I dont.
 
.
With the exception of the UK who actually go on campaign and fight people, Europeans do not want to pay for their Defence. They diss America, yet Bush, Obama and Trump all visited and called them out. Any euro defence force is stymied by lack of heavy air and sealift capability but mainly the requirement to fund it
 
.
With the exception of the UK who actually go on campaign and fight people, Europeans do not want to pay for their Defence. They diss America, yet Bush, Obama and Trump all visited and called them out. Any euro defence force is stymied by lack of heavy air and sealift capability but mainly the requirement to fund it
No country has power projection capabilities like the US. Notice how the reaction is now China is trying. Not exactly something the world is welcomming, and it will eventually lead to war. Now imagine Europe building capabilities like that plus 2-3 european countries deciding nuclear capabilities is must have.
It is easy to point fingers at the europeans, but I doubt the rest if the world really wants to see Europe take part in an arms race with Russia, China and the US.
Edit, you dont give much credit to the french. Seems to me they are ready to go alone.
 
.
I think Europe shouldve done that a long time ago, though Im not sure the US is actually willing to give up the privileges that came with giving security guarantee for its european allies. Do you think the US would accept Europe as an equal or even dominant partner concerning security issues? I dont.
Honestly I think it depends on leadership. Wouldn’t you say Trump was ready to do just that?
But yes I completely agree long overdue for Europe but with leaders like macaroni you can’t expect much.
Edit: Saw you post above so I’ll add Merkel in there, what a disaster she was and I doubt Scholz will be any better.
 
.
I disagree there.

Belarus,Ukraine and Russia are one people. They are brothers. They should be together. But both the failed economic policies and corruption of Russia and the influence of the West in Ukraine,made them want to join the EU and NATO and leave the Russian sphere. They are both to blame. Dumb policies on one side and nationalism on the other.

Brothers are killing brothers and the ones who are happy are the Freemasons.
This is a very dangerous deposition. Because if we agree they are "Brothers" and they should be together and thus give one party right to start a war to put them back "Together" then we will also need to agree that China and Taiwanese are one people, they are both Chinese, or Serb and Croats are one people, they are both Slavic, that would give them carte blanche to start war on each other, then where does this argument ends? How about Puerto Rican and Cuban? How about Spain and Portuguese? How about US and Canada?

You have a country, and then you have another, the jurisdiction is going to end within your border, your country, and if you cannot respect that, and start a war because "we are brother and we should be together", then I guess we aren't really the "same people". This is the same as countries as much as the same as any private relationship.
 
.
Over the last 50 years yes trillions. Hell ukraine is already over a trillion we’re giving 300 bil a week it’s absurd while Europe throws nickels at their own problem.

300 billion a week?

USA has given 80 billion in one year.
With it they are demolishing the “near pear” adversary russia for a meagre 10% of USA yearly defence budget…..(800 billion)
An absolute bargain for USA interests.

Based on percentage GDP, USA is like the 9th donor country. Eastern europe helping relatively more…without taking account the spending on millions of ukranian refugees…if we add that then USA is probably the number 15th donor.
Without America Europe doesn’t have a defense, we saw how limited their power as a whole was in Libya I mean come on they dont even have tankers to refuel their combat jets. So yes it’s is precisely for europes defense. I’d love for us to pick up and head home let germany and the lot stand own their own 2 feet. News flash they can’t.
nonsence. America likes its bases in europe for USA control and its own power projection first and foremost.

now if america loves dumping tens of thousands of troops and bases on your soil…its understandable europe doesnt want to overspend on defence next to that.
USA can however simply set a plan to leave in x years and the industrial powerhouse germany could easily manage

Even England can’t project power from their shore, this is precisely why Americans are sick of footing the bill.
America likes to project power from UK soil….it is not going to abandon its bases…
It is also still in Iraq for instance.

America loves to spend on military..and packing up bases is also not going to reduce spending.
Btw I’m pro brexit glad it happened. Who wants elites in Vienna deciding what happens to England. More countries should follow suite, wouldn’t be surprised if Italys next
Divide and conquer.

Maybe the MAGA red states should form their own country?
 
.
No country has power projection capabilities like the US. Notice how the reaction is now China is trying. Not exactly something the world is welcomming, and it will eventually lead to war. Now imagine Europe building capabilities like that plus 2-3 european countries deciding nuclear capabilities is must have.
It is easy to point fingers at the europeans, but I doubt the rest if the world really wants to see Europe take part in an arms race with Russia, China and the US.
Edit, you dont give much credit to the french. Seems to me they are ready to go alone.
This is spot on.

Usa nags about europes defence spending but at same time sabotages pan-european projects and actively opposes independant initiatives.
It basically wants Europe to buy more USA weapons but otherwise remain subservient, divided, no real competition.

USA would get a heart attack if whole EU adopts French unified approach.
Europe would quickly rise to a near peer military power what would lead to huge friction on opposing power projection and interests.

 
.
You are talking power projection not defence. Power projection is the reason the US is stationed certain places in Europe.
Europe does spend money on wellfare insted of upholding armed forces, which I think is a mistake. But the US funding and stationing forces overseas is the US funding their own interests. The US policy since WW2 has been to frown on any steps by Europe toward greater self-sufficiency in defense.
Europe is economic powerhouse and could easily become a military powerhouse if needed. But so far there has been a mutual understanding of the US to lead its european allies while trying to get Europe to raise defence contribution without diminishing US political influence.
A country like Germany is not going to spend 2-3% of GDP on defence just to follow US lead.
Wait...You guys laughed at US (Donald Trump), remember?
 
. .
No country has power projection capabilities like the US. Notice how the reaction is now China is trying. Not exactly something the world is welcomming, and it will eventually lead to war. Now imagine Europe building capabilities like that plus 2-3 european countries deciding nuclear capabilities is must have.
It is easy to point fingers at the europeans, but I doubt the rest if the world really wants to see Europe take part in an arms race with Russia, China and the US.
Edit, you dont give much credit to the french. Seems to me they are ready to go alone.

If the EU countries that contributes military equipment and personnel to this "Grand Army of the EU" are allowed veto power on whether to send the army into an overseas battlefield, and I cannot imagine a country NOT demanding such power, then this army will be as impotent as Macron's "battlegroups."
 
.
Last edited:
.
It also supplied water to Crimea and a nuclear power plant.

So No Bueno indeed.

Good thing though that means even Russia admitted that it can't hold on to Crimea.

There's nothing worse than seeing perfectly good weapons goes unused.
Why they did it? This scorched earth war tactic is ugly. That will bite them. Russians won’t survive without waters in Crimea for a week. The destruction is massive.


1686027291779.png


 
.
Collectively, the EU/NATO does constitutes a formidable adversary to the singular Russia. But the greatest risk in any collective, or union or confederation or compact, is that all it takes is one dissent or one weakened member to put the entire collective at risk. An aggressor do not have to take on the collective but on that one weakened and/or wavering member. Germany was not economically weakened but was militarily wavering. Same can be made for other in Europe. Back in '19, Emmanuel Macron said that NATO was essentially 'brainless'. Frump may not be an intellectual in the same class as Macron, but Dump have consistently been observant enough to know when he can exploit and when he was being exploited. Objectively speaking, Clump was correct in demanding either NATO steps up or the US steps out.
Drumpf was not at all interested in Europe improving its defense.
What he was interested in was that European countries increased their spending on US arms. The evidence for this was that he was really pissed off when the idea of joint purchases of European arms was proposed.
He argued by incorrectly stating that Europeans failed to meet their committments. In this, he showed a total misunderstanding how the defense of NATO is financed.

Alternatively, he was told by his master that this was the motivation he should give to accomplish Putin’s goal of disassembling NATO leaving Russia in a much better position to overrun former Soviet states.

Now when Putin has played his card, the 2% ambition by 2024 agreed upon under Barack Obama seems to be met by almost everyone, removing the argument for Drumpf to leave NATO,. Putin might have to find another servant.
 
Last edited:
.
Back
Top Bottom