As a Tuesday deadline pressed upon the European Union, the bloc's fragile unanimity cracked under the weight of competing national interests, forcing a compromise that most member states privately opposed: two Russian billionaires, Alisher Usmanov and Mikhail Fridman, were quietly removed from the sanctions list so that nearly 3,000 others could remain on it. France and Luxembourg, each pursuing distinct national calculations, wielded the veto power that EU consensus demands, turning a collective instrument of accountability into a bargaining chip. The episode reveals a deeper tension at the h
EU delists Russian oligarchs in 'difficult compromise' as sanctions deadline passes
Each name represents a reason why this war started
Mark
Why did France and Luxembourg suddenly demand these delistings? It seems like it came out of nowhere.
Mimi
France tied Usmanov's removal to national security—the reporting suggests it was connected to a prisoner exchange involving French nationals and Azerbaijan. Luxembourg's case with Fridman is more straightforward: he's suing them for $16 billion over frozen assets. Both countries had leverage because sanctions require unanimity.
Luke
But we should be careful here. The prisoner exchange connection is reported but not confirmed directly by France. And we don't know if the lawsuit threat actually drove Luxembourg's decision or if that's just the obvious explanation.
Mark
So they essentially held the entire sanctions regime hostage to get what they wanted?
Mimi
That's one way to read it. They blocked renewal unless their demands were met. Most other EU countries found it unacceptable—they saw it as a precedent that would let any member state weaken sanctions for its own interests.
Luke
Though it's worth noting that very few countries actually wanted the delistings. The reporting is clear on that. This wasn't a coalition; it was two countries with veto power.
Mark
And Latvia almost made it worse?
Mimi
Yes. Latvia announced an objection at the last minute, which would have killed the entire renewal. But they eventually agreed to abstain, which allowed the compromise to pass.
Luke
The timing is interesting—Latvia has elections on October 3rd. The reporting doesn't explain why the election mattered to their position, just that they announced the objection while facing one.
Mark
What does Ukraine actually lose here?
Mimi
Two oligarchs come off the list. But more broadly, Ukraine sees it as proof that sanctions can be negotiated away if you have the right leverage. That undermines the credibility of the whole system.
Luke
The EU is adding 1,600 new designations next month, so it's not like sanctions are being abandoned. But you're right that the precedent is the real damage.
O Pulso
- A Tuesday deadline to renew sanctions on nearly 3,000 Russian individuals and entities became a hostage situation when France and Luxembourg threatened to block the entire package unless two billionaires were removed.
- France's demand to delist Usmanov — reportedly tied to a prisoner exchange involving French nationals and Azerbaijan — blindsided allies and exposed how national security calculations can quietly hollow out collective policy.
- Latvia nearly collapsed the compromise entirely, with its prime minister ordering emergency talks hours before the vote, only for his government to ultimately abstain rather than block the deal.
- Ukraine condemned the outcome as shameful and unjustifiable, warning that Moscow was already celebrating the delistings as proof that European unity on sanctions can be bought or bargained away.
- EU officials are promising roughly 1,600 new designations next month, but the tortuous path to renewing existing sanctions raises serious doubts about whether the bloc can sustain — let alone expand — pressure on Russia.
As a Tuesday deadline pressed upon the European Union, the bloc's fragile unanimity cracked under the weight of competing national interests, forcing a compromise that most member states privately opposed: two Russian billionaires, Alisher Usmanov and Mikhail Fridman, were quietly removed from the sanctions list so that nearly 3,000 others could remain on it. France and Luxembourg, each pursuing distinct national calculations, wielded the veto power that EU consensus demands, turning a collective instrument of accountability into a bargaining chip. The episode reveals a deeper tension at the heart of the Western response to Russia's war — that the architecture of solidarity is only as strong as the quietest defection within it.
The European Union arrived at a Tuesday deadline with a sanctions regime covering nearly 3,000 Russian individuals and entities — and no clean way forward. France had unexpectedly demanded the removal of billionaire Alisher Usmanov on national security grounds, reportedly connected to a prisoner exchange involving French nationals and Azerbaijan. Luxembourg followed with a parallel demand for Mikhail Fridman, a Russian-Israeli magnate pursuing a €16 billion lawsuit against the Grand Duchy over frozen assets. Because EU sanctions require unanimous approval, either country held effective veto power over the entire renewal. Most member states opposed the delistings but faced an unpalatable choice: accept the exemptions or watch the broader sanctions framework lapse.
Latvia came close to unraveling the compromise entirely. On Monday night, Prime Minister Andris Kulbergs announced a last-minute objection and dispatched his foreign minister into emergency talks with Paris and Brussels. By morning, Latvia had agreed to abstain on the two delistings, allowing the deal to proceed. To sweeten the arrangement, negotiators extended the sanctions regime for 36 months rather than the usual six — framed by Ireland's EU presidency as a gain in durability, though critics noted that most countries would have preferred a longer renewal without the concessions attached.
Ukraine's reaction was immediate and unsparing. President Zelenskyy insisted that every name on the list represents a cause of the war, while Foreign Minister Sybiha called the decision shameful and warned that Moscow was treating it as evidence of European division. The concern is structural: if individual member states can negotiate exemptions when they have sufficient leverage, the sanctions regime becomes something that can be eroded from within. EU officials have pledged around 1,600 new designations targeting Russia's military industrial complex next month, but the difficulty of renewing existing measures suggests that expanding the list will be no easier than defending it.
The European Union faced a choice that no one wanted to make. With a Tuesday deadline approaching to renew its Russia sanctions regime, the bloc's 27 member states found themselves unable to move forward without a concession that most of them opposed: removing two Russian billionaires from the blacklist. Alisher Usmanov and Mikhail Fridman were delisted as part of what Ireland's EU presidency called "a difficult compromise," even though very few countries actually supported their removal. The decision left the bloc fractured and Ukraine furious.
The crisis began when France unexpectedly demanded Usmanov's removal on national security grounds—a justification later reported to relate to a prisoner exchange involving French nationals and Azerbaijan. Luxembourg followed with a similar request for Fridman, the Russian-Israeli magnate who is pursuing a $16 billion lawsuit against the Grand Duchy over frozen assets. Because EU sanctions require unanimous approval, either country could have blocked the entire renewal of restrictions on nearly 3,000 individuals and entities accused of supporting Russia's war on Ukraine. The two delistings angered many member states, which saw the move as a dangerous precedent: allowing individual countries to weaken sanctions in pursuit of their own national interests rather than collective security.
Latvia nearly derailed the compromise entirely. With parliamentary elections scheduled for October 3rd, the Latvian government announced a last-minute objection on Monday night. Prime Minister Andris Kulbergs said he could not accept the proposed deal and ordered his foreign minister into emergency talks with Paris and Brussels. Diplomats eventually reported that Latvia agreed to abstain on the two delistings, allowing the compromise to proceed.
To make the exemptions palatable, negotiators proposed extending the sanctions regime for 36 months instead of the customary six. Ireland's EU presidency framed this as a gain: longer-term certainty and durability for the sanctions framework. But the trade-off was unmistakable—two oligarchs walked free in exchange for a longer renewal period that most countries would have preferred anyway.
Ukraine's response was swift and unsparing. President Volodymyr Zelenskyy wrote on social media that every name on the sanctions list exists for a reason, and each one represents a cause of the war. Foreign Minister Andrii Sybiha called the decision "shameful and unjustifiable," adding that Moscow was celebrating the outcome as a sign of European division and impunity. The delisting sent a message that sanctions could be negotiated away if a member state had leverage—a precedent that could weaken the entire system.
The EU's sanctions blacklist remains substantial. It includes Vladimir Putin and Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov, Duma deputies, Russia's major banks, energy companies, and military industrial complex entities. Senior EU officials have promised to present roughly 1,600 new designations targeting individuals and entities in Russia's military industrial complex to foreign ministers next month. But the struggle to renew existing sanctions suggests that adding new ones will be difficult. The July agreement on the EU's 21st round of sanctions was already described as tortuous, and this latest standoff signals that the consensus required to maintain pressure on Russia is becoming harder to sustain.
Citações Notáveis
No name on the sanctions list is there by accident: each one represents a reason why this war started and continues to this day.— Volodymyr Zelenskyy, Ukrainian president
Moscow is celebrating because it got what it wanted: a sense of impunity, the humiliation of the EU, and division among Europeans.— Andrii Sybiha, Ukrainian foreign minister
Quer a matéria completa?
Leia o original em The Guardian ↗
War & Conflict