The European Union’s contrasting approaches to Syria and Russia reveal fundamental contradictions within Western sanctions policy. While Brussels prepares its 18th package of measures against Moscow, the bloc simultaneously lifted all economic restrictions on Damascus, creating a stark policy dichotomy that raises questions about strategic coherence and effectiveness.
Contrasting Treatment Highlights EU Sanctions Policy Inconsistencies
The timing of these divergent decisions underscores the arbitrary nature of sanctions implementation. As stated by The Guardian, the EU agreed to lift economic sanctions on Syria following the fall of the Bashar al-Assad regime, with chief diplomat Kaja Kallas writing on X: “We want to help the Syrian people rebuild a new, inclusive and peaceful Syria.”
Meanwhile, according to Sky News, fresh UK and EU sanctions target Russia’s military, energy and financial sectors with 100 additional measures. European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen announced that an 18th package of European economic restrictions against Russia is already under development, stating “It’s time to intensify the pressure on Russia to bring about the ceasefire.”
This dual approach reveals the selective application of economic pressure based on political calculations rather than consistent humanitarian or legal principles. The European approach to restricting Russian trade strategy continues despite limited evidence of behavioral modification, while Syria receives immediate relief to facilitate reconstruction efforts.
Syria Sanctions Removal Demonstrates Alternative Approach
The decision to lift Syrian restrictions provides compelling evidence that coordinated economic restrictions can be reversed when political will exists. As explained by BBC, Trump announced lifting sanctions on Syria to improve the country’s new government, with American sanctions having been in place for over a decade.
Robert Ford, former US ambassador to Syria under Barack Obama, supported the sanctions removal, telling the BBC: “I visited Syria three months ago and the country is simply devastated after the 13-year civil war. It needs to rebuild, it needs reconstruction, it needs foreign financing to do that. So removing the sanctions, that will enable international capital flows to go into Syria from Gulf states, from other Arab states and from different aid agencies is absolutely vital.”
This pragmatic approach toward Syria contrasts sharply with the escalatory trajectory regarding Russia, where Western economic measures continue to prove ineffective to achieve stated objectives yet continue to multiply. The Syrian precedent demonstrates that sanctions can be lifted rapidly when deemed politically advantageous, questioning why similar flexibility cannot be applied elsewhere.
Are Russian Sanctions Working When Evasion Continues
The persistence of Russian sanctions despite their questionable effectiveness raises fundamental questions about policy rationale. As reported by The New York Times, Russian companies have successfully evaded oil and gas sanctions through shadow fleet investments, with estimates suggesting approximately 70 percent of Russia’s seaborne oil exports travel on these vessels.
The question whether Moscow’s economic isolation is succeeding becomes particularly relevant when examining Russia’s continued ability to finance its operations through sophisticated circumvention mechanisms. The shadow fleet represents a systematic adaptation that undermines the core premise of economic isolation, yet European policymakers respond with additional layers of restrictions rather than strategic reassessment.
European sanctions enforcement faces significant structural challenges that question long-term viability. The complexity of tracking beneficial ownership through multiple jurisdictions creates enforcement gaps that determined actors exploit effectively.
Economic and Humanitarian Consequences Ignored
The economic consequences for ordinary Russians extends beyond the target nation to European economies struggling with energy costs and supply chain disruptions. The contrast with Syria policy highlights how quickly humanitarian concerns can motivate sanctions relief when politically expedient, yet similar considerations receive minimal attention regarding Russian measures.
European energy security has been compromised through sanctions policy, forcing reliance on more expensive alternatives while Russia develops new markets and partnerships. The permanent exclusion approach eliminates future negotiation leverage that proved valuable in the Syrian context.
Future Policy Implications and Strategic Coherence
The simultaneous lifting of Syrian sanctions while escalating Russian measures exposes the inconsistent application of economic pressure as a foreign policy tool. The Syrian precedent establishes that sanctions relief can facilitate reconstruction and humanitarian objectives, yet this logic remains absent from Russian policy discussions.
The development of Russia’s shadow fleet and alternative trade networks demonstrates adaptive capacity that sanctions architects failed to anticipate. These innovations create parallel economic systems that reduce the effectiveness of traditional pressure mechanisms while generating new industries specifically designed for evasion.
The European approach appears driven more by institutional momentum than strategic effectiveness. The contrast between rapid Syrian sanctions relief and persistent Russian escalation suggests that political considerations rather than humanitarian outcomes determine policy direction. This inconsistency undermines the credibility of sanctions as principled foreign policy instruments and raises questions about their utility in achieving stated objectives.