When the European Union quietly removed two Russian billionaires from its sanctions list in late September 2026, it framed the decision as a structural improvement — a longer renewal cycle to reduce political turbulence. Ukraine, fighting a war whose costs are measured in lives, read it differently: as a crack in the wall. Foreign Minister Sybiha's pledge to sanction twenty oligarchs for every one delisted is less a diplomatic maneuver than a moral arithmetic — a refusal to let the logic of compromise outpace the logic of consequence.
Ukraine to sanction 20+ Russian oligarchs after EU removes two from list
You removed two oligarchs, and we will add twenty.
Mark
Why did the EU decide to delist these two oligarchs in the first place? Was there pressure from a specific member state?
Mimi
The source doesn't name which country pushed for it, but the EU framed it as part of a broader compromise—they extended the whole sanctions regime for three years instead of renewing it every six months. That longer timeline was supposed to reduce political pressure in future negotiations.
Luke
Right, so we know the delisting happened as part of a deal, but the source doesn't actually tell us who wanted them off the list or why. That's a significant gap.
Mark
And Ukraine's response—sanctioning twenty oligarchs—is that legally binding? Can they actually enforce it?
Mimi
Sybiha said the list was already approved by Zelensky and being formalized, so yes, it should be binding Ukrainian law. But enforcement depends on whether these oligarchs have assets in Ukraine or whether other countries cooperate.
Luke
The source doesn't specify what assets are at stake or how much economic impact these sanctions would actually have. We know Ukraine is coordinating with Canada, the UK, Japan, and Australia, but we don't know if those countries will follow suit with their own sanctions.
Mark
So this is partly symbolic—a show of defiance—and partly practical pressure?
Mimi
It seems to be both. Sybiha's language was very pointed: "You removed two, we will add twenty." That's a message. But Ukraine is also working the phones with allies to keep Usmanov and Fridman isolated.
Luke
The real question is whether this actually changes anything economically, or whether it's mainly about signaling that Ukraine won't accept the EU's logic of compromise. The source doesn't give us the answer.
Mark
What happens next? Does this escalate tensions with the EU?
Mimi
The source doesn't say. It's focused on what Ukraine is doing now, not on how Brussels might respond or whether this creates friction between allies.
Il Polso
- The EU's removal of Usmanov and Fridman on September 22nd blindsided Kyiv, which had lobbied against the decision through every available channel.
- Ukraine's Foreign Minister framed the response as asymmetric escalation — twenty new oligarch sanctions for every name Brussels erases from its list.
- The EU's rationale — extending the sanctions cycle to 36 months to reduce politically fraught renewals — has instead triggered a unilateral counter-move from its closest wartime partner.
- Canada confirmed it will hold its sanctions firm, and Ukraine is actively coordinating with the UK, Japan, and Australia to close the gap left by Brussels.
- The episode exposes a deepening fracture: Western allies are navigating sanctions as a political instrument, while Ukraine experiences them as a lifeline in an active war.
When the European Union quietly removed two Russian billionaires from its sanctions list in late September 2026, it framed the decision as a structural improvement — a longer renewal cycle to reduce political turbulence. Ukraine, fighting a war whose costs are measured in lives, read it differently: as a crack in the wall. Foreign Minister Sybiha's pledge to sanction twenty oligarchs for every one delisted is less a diplomatic maneuver than a moral arithmetic — a refusal to let the logic of compromise outpace the logic of consequence.
On October 1st, Ukrainian Foreign Minister Andrii Sybiha delivered a pointed message: for every oligarch the EU removes from its sanctions list, Ukraine will add twenty to its own. The pledge came days after Brussels delisted Russian billionaires Alisher Usmanov and Mikhail Fridman on September 22nd — a decision Kyiv had worked to prevent. President Zelensky had already approved sanctions on more than twenty Russian oligarchs, and the measures were being formalized into law. Sybiha called it an "asymmetric response" — a signal that Ukraine would not allow EU compromises to soften the international isolation of Russian elites.
The EU's delisting was itself a product of negotiation. By extending its individual sanctions renewal cycle from six months to thirty-six, Brussels aimed to reduce the recurring political pressure that allowed member states to push for specific removals. The longer timeline was meant to protect the sanctions architecture — but it produced an unintended consequence, prompting Ukraine's unilateral escalation instead.
Kyiv was not moving in isolation. Canada confirmed it would maintain its own sanctions on both oligarchs, and Ukraine was coordinating with the United Kingdom, Japan, and Australia to ensure the two men remained under pressure across multiple jurisdictions. The effort reflected a deliberate strategy: preserve a multilayered sanctions architecture even where one of its pillars had given way.
The episode laid bare a tension at the heart of the Western alliance. For Brussels, the decision was a pragmatic structural fix. For Kyiv — where the war's costs are immediate and ongoing — the removal of any oligarch from any major list registers as a weakening of the economic pressure meant to constrain Moscow. Sybiha's response was Ukraine's way of insisting that the fight for isolation of Russian wealth was not subject to the same logic of compromise that governs peacetime diplomacy.
Ukraine's Foreign Minister Andrii Sybiha stood before journalists on October 1st with a message of defiance wrapped in arithmetic. The European Union had just removed two Russian billionaires—Alisher Usmanov and Mikhail Fridman—from its sanctions list on September 22nd, a move Kyiv had fought to prevent through every available channel, public and private. Sybiha's response was direct: for every oligarch the EU delisted, Ukraine would add twenty to its own sanctions regime.
The decision to sanction more than twenty Russian oligarchs had already been approved by President Volodymyr Zelensky and was in the process of being formalized into law. Sybiha characterized the move as an "asymmetric response"—a calculated calibration meant to signal that Ukraine would not allow the EU's compromise to weaken the international isolation of Russian elites. The message was unmistakable: if Brussels was stepping back, Kyiv would step forward.
The EU's delisting of Usmanov and Fridman was itself the product of negotiation and compromise. The bloc had agreed to extend its broader individual sanctions regime for thirty-six months rather than the previous six-month renewal cycle. That longer timeline was designed to reduce the frequency of politically fraught renewal negotiations, moments when individual EU member states could exert pressure to remove specific names from the list. By stretching the renewal period, Brussels hoped to insulate the sanctions architecture from recurring political pressure. Instead, it had triggered a different kind of response: Ukraine's unilateral escalation.
But Kyiv was not acting alone. Canada had already confirmed to Ukrainian officials that it had no intention of lifting its own sanctions against Usmanov and Fridman, maintaining pressure even as the EU retreated. Ukraine was simultaneously coordinating with the United Kingdom, Japan, Australia, and other partners to ensure the two oligarchs remained under sanctions in their jurisdictions as well. The effort was a deliberate attempt to preserve a multilayered sanctions architecture even as one of its pillars—the EU—had weakened.
The episode revealed a fracture in the Western alliance's approach to Russia. The EU's decision to extend sanctions for longer periods while removing specific individuals was a pragmatic choice aimed at preventing future delisting disputes. But for Ukraine, fighting an ongoing war with Russian forces, the removal of any oligarch from any major sanctions list felt like a crack in the wall of economic pressure meant to constrain Moscow's capacity to wage that war. Sybiha's twenty-to-two response was Ukraine's way of saying the fight was not over, and that Kyiv would not accept the logic of compromise when it came to isolating Russian wealth.
Citazioni salienti
We fought until the last moment, both publicly and privately, to prevent this from happening. You removed two oligarchs, and we will add twenty.— Foreign Minister Andrii Sybiha
Vuoi la storia completa?
Leggi l'originale su The Kyiv Independent ↗