EU agrees on 18th sanctions package on Russia – DW – 07/18/2025
The 27 member states of the European Union on Friday agreed upon an 18th round of sanctions on Russia over its full-scale invasion of Ukraine.
Slovakia had been holding up the decision, citing concerns over its gas imports. But Slovakian Prime Minister Robert Fico relented, saying he had instructed representatives to approve the measures.
Fico said that persisting would be "counterproductive" for Slovakia's interests as an EU member.
"The EU just approved one of its strongest sanctions packages against Russia to date," EU foreign policy chief Kaja Kallas said.
"Each sanction weakens Russia's ability to wage war. The message is clear: Europe will not back down in its support for Ukraine. The EU will keep raising the pressure until Russia ends its war."
German Chancellor Friedrich Merz also welcomed the package, saying in a post on X: It's good that we in the EU have now agreed on the 18th sanctions package against Russia."
"It targets banks, energy, and the military industry. This weakens Russia's ability to continue financing the war against Ukraine."
Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy also welcomed the sanctions.
"This decision is essential and timely, especially now, as a response to the fact that Russia has intensified the brutality of the strikes on our cities and villages," he said on social media.
The sanctions package targets Moscow's financial and energy sectors and comes after Russian President Vladimir Putin's refused to agree to an unconditional ceasefire.
The EU has agreed to lower the price cap on Russian oil exported to third countries to 15% below market value. This is meant to reduce Russia's income by banning shipping and insurance companies that let Russia sell above the cap.
The cap was originally a G7 initiative, but the US is not party to the EU's new sanctions. EU officials have admitted this weakens their impact.
Brussels has issued several rounds of sanctions on Russia since Putin launched Moscow's full-scale invasion of Ukraine in February 2022.
More than 2,400 officials and "entities" have been hit with asset freezes and travel bans.
But each round of sanctions is getting harder to agree upon, as measures targeting Russia begin to hit the economies of the 27 member states.
In May, the block targeted almost 200 ships in Russia's sanction-busting shadow fleet of tankers. Friday's measures added another 100 ships to that list.
To view this video please enable JavaScript, and consider upgrading to a web browser that supports HTML5 video
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
DW
4 hours ago
- DW
New EU sanctions on Russia 'unprecedented' – DW – 07/18/2025
The EU will impose a moving price cap on Russian oil, among other measures, in a bid to shrink Russia's economy. The bloc hopes the latest sanctions package will urge Russia toward a ceasefire with Ukraine. The European Union has adopted a new set of sanctions against Russia in the hopes of restricting its ability to wage war in Ukraine. The EU Commission President Ursula von der Leyen said the bloc was "striking at the heart of Russia's war machine," and will keep up the pressure on Russia until a ceasefire is agreed. The EU sanctioned Russia's energy, banking and military sectors in a slew of measures that France's top diplomat hailed as "unprecedented." To view this video please enable JavaScript, and consider upgrading to a web browser that supports HTML5 video The EU has set a dynamic price cap on Russian oil — at 15% below the average market value — from $60 [€51.49] to $47.6 [€40.85]. The bloc has banned all future transactions via both Nord Stream pipelines and introduced an import ban on refined petroleum products made from Russian crude oil and processed in a third country. It has banned 22 more Russian banks and more than a hundred non-EU shipping vessels that comprise a part of Russia's so-called shadow fleet, tankers that operate outside of standard international maritime regulations. More than two dozen entities have been subjected to tighter export restrictions over supplying Russia with dual-use technologies that serve civilian but also military purposes. At least seven of these are Chinese, three are from Hong Kong and four based in Turkey. The sanctions have effectively "killed" the Nord Stream pipelines, said Ben McWilliams, an affiliate fellow in the field of energy and climate policy with the Brussels-based Bruegel think tank. Nord Stream pipelines run from Russia to Germany via the Baltic Sea. McWilliams said that a series of underwater explosions had damaged the pipelines back in September 2022 and yet there were discussions around the possibility of reviving them in Germany. These sanctions make that much harder, he added. "This is a very important clause. Anybody could have imported [oil] from Nord Stream, there was nothing to stop them," he told DW. "But now there is a ban, which means in any future scenario, whatever the politics of the day looks like, a decision to lift the ban would have to be taken at the Union level," with all member states in agreement. "The ban on imports of petroleum products from third countries if refined from Russian oil was also quite significant," he added. In alignment with this measure, the EU has sanctioned one of India's main refineries of Russian oil. "For the first time, we're designating a flag registry and the biggest Rosneft refinery in India," the EU's top diplomat Kaja Kallas posted. Jakob Kirkegaard, Senior Fellow at the Peterson Institute For International Economics [PIIE], said he suspected Russia was selling more than half of its oil exports via the shadow fleet. As Russia faces a lower price cap for its oil, he said, it may now be encouraged to sell more via the shadow fleet which allows it to escape the price cap and is harder to chase on the high seas. "Unless Baltic sea countries say we won't accept any such ship crossing through our waters, and just confiscate them," Kirkegaard said, enforcement of sanctions remains weak. But seizing ships has its own issues and could be seen as a "violation of freedom of navigation in international waters and could set a precedent," that could be misused by other countries. "Then of course there is the fear that Russia might retaliate militarily." Moreover, experts argued that banning one Indian oil refinery exporting refined petroleum products was insufficient. "The way India has been buying Russian fuel at cheaper prices I would assume many Indian refineries are refining Russian oil and exporting it to the EU," added Kirkegaard. They said once these refined petroleum products, such as diesel, arrive from India to Europe, it was impossible to trace their origin. In the wake of ongoing talks on an EU-India free Trade Agreement [FTA], Kirkegaard added, the EU would have taken New Delhi into confidence before imposing the sanction. "I don't think it is going to be such a big deal, frankly. It will probably annoy the Indians. But will it lead to some big crisis between India and the EU? I would be skeptical." To view this video please enable JavaScript, and consider upgrading to a web browser that supports HTML5 video All eyes in the EU are now on Washington. They are hoping President Trump delivers on his threat of imposing a 100% tariff on any country that is trading with Russia if there is no peace deal in 50 days, Trump's new timeline. "The EU paved the way. Now it's time for perfect storm — the US Senate to vote on that Russia sanctions bill imposing crushing burdens on Russian economy and those fueling Russia's war of aggression," Lithuanian Foreign Minister Kęstutis Budrys posted on X. No one believes thatEuropean sanctionsare enough to change Russian President Putin's war calculus and end Russian aggression in Ukraine. But they can limit Russia's ability to inflict war on others over time. "What these sanctions essentially amount to, is weakening Russia economically over the longer run," he added. "Russia is the main military threat to the EU, and that's what the EU needs, a weaker Russia."
Int'l Business Times
6 hours ago
- Int'l Business Times
What's In The EU's Two-trillion-euro Budget Bazooka?
EU members got their first chance on Friday to debate the bloc's two-trillion-euro budget bazooka, laying bare divisions among the 27 capitals over the spending plans for 2028-2034. Seeking to balance the European Union's key priorities, Brussels wants the next long-term budget to bolster the bloc's economy, support farmers and plough billions more into defence -- all while paying off its debts. The battle lines are now drawn for two years of fraught negotiations between the EU parliament and member states -- which provide the lion's share of funds along with tax-based resources and custom duties. Don't come to us for more money, EU capitals have already told the European Commission. "In a time where national budgets are under great economic pressure, the answer can't be more money and a bigger budget," Sweden's EU Minister Jessica Rosencrantz said. Here are the key parts of the spending proposals: Beyond security, the EU's biggest priority is to bolster its competitiveness and help European businesses catch up with US and Chinese rivals. The author of a seminal report last year, Mario Draghi, delivered hard truths: to see real change, the EU needs yearly investment of at least 750-800 billion euros. Without stretching that far, commission chief Ursula Von der Leyen has proposed a 451-billion-euro competitiveness fund that will focus on the clean and digital transition, health as well as defence and space. Brussels also proposed establishing a fund of up to 100 billion euros for Ukraine's reconstruction. Von der Leyen is steeled for a fight with the bloc's farmers over a proposed overhaul of the EU's massive subsidies scheme known as the common agricultural policy (CAP). At least 300 billion euros would be dedicated to support farmers in the next budget, but some funding would move to other spending columns. The sector fears this will mean less aid while France, whose farmers are some of CAP's biggest beneficiaries, accused the commission of "turning its back" on agriculture. Brussels, however, stresses the CAP will still have its own rules and earmarked financial resources, especially direct aid to farmers. With all the focus on security and competition, there were fears the environment would be sidelined in the budget -- despite heatwaves, forest fires and flooding caused by human-caused climate change wreaking havoc across Europe in recent years. The commission said 35 percent of the overall budget -- around 650 billion euros -- would be dedicated to the climate and achieving the EU's environmental aims. Some environment groups slammed the target as vague, while the World Wildlife Fund warned it risked "defunding vital nature and climate action" if, as planned, a key environment programme is absorbed into the larger competitiveness fund. Climate think tank E3G however saw the 35-percent target as a sign of commitment to the green ambitions of the commission's previous 2019-2024 term, while insisting on the need for sufficient funds to pursue its climate goals. The EU proposes that future funding will be more closely linked to democratic values, telling member states: protect the judiciary's independence and maintain freedoms if you want money. "No EU money without the respect of rule of law," budget chief Piotr Serafin said. Hungary, which has often been the target of the EU's ire and of infringement proceedings for rule-of-law violations, was not happy. "It's a tool for political and ideological pressuring," said the country's EU minister, Janos Boka, calling the notion a "non-starter" for Budapest. The EU's eyes are not only on itself. Brussels proposed a more than 200-billion-euro fund for investments and aid abroad -- welcomed by humanitarian groups after the deep cuts to US foreign aid under President Donald Trump. This also includes the EU's efforts to protect its borders through stepped-up partnerships with countries in the Middle East and North Africa, despite criticism this can amount to throwing money at authoritarian countries with poor human rights records.
DW
6 hours ago
- DW
How far-right social media impacted Germany's highest court – DW – 07/18/2025
Researchers say a far-right social media campaign — that painted a respected law professor as extremist — caused the suspension of the election of judges to Germany's highest court. Whenever there's talk of a crisis of democracy in Germany, leading politicians proudly point to the well-established independence of the "judges from Karlsruhe" — that is, the judges who sit on the Federal Constitutional Court, which is based in the southern German city. The Federal Constitutional Court is one of the highest courts in Germany and is also seen as the "fifth organ" of the country's political system, alongside the presidency, the parliament or Bundestag, the federal government and the Bundesrat, the federal council of German states. Unlike the Federal Criminal Court, which is the highest court for civil and criminal justice, the Federal Constitutional Court's job is to ensure that Germany's Basic Law — its constitution — is upheld. It is seen as the guardian of Germans' basic rights. The Federal Constitutional Court is also the only court that can decide about banning a political party. The court's decisions are widely recognized and often offer a course correction for ruling political parties. All of this is why last week's failure to elect three new judges to the Federal Constitutional Court has been so controversial. There are 16 judges on the bench, all of whom can serve 12 years. Half of them are chosen by the Bundesrat, the council of leaders of Germany's 16 states and the other half by parliament, the Bundestag. In both cases, there must be a two-thirds majority for a judge to be successfully elected. The procedure is always highly political because the court is seen as a pillar of German democracy, a symbol of the separation of powers in the German system and a defense against any politics that work against German citizens' basic rights. Although the process has never been as emotionally heated as the selection of judges for the US' Supreme Court, there have been occasional controversies around candidates. One such instance was the 2011 candidature of lawyer Peter Müller. Müller was also a politician and had only just resigned from his post as the state prime minister of Saarland. He is also a member of the conservative Christian Democratic Union, or CDU. Obviously he was not a neutral candidate for the court — he had openly been against the immigration policies of the then-left-leaning federal government — and his application was viewed with some skepticism. Despite this, the Bundesrat voted unanimously to appoint him to the Federal Constitutional Court. Those voting for him included state prime ministers who belonged to the then-ruling, left-wing parties like the Social Democrats and the Green party. Müller left the court in 2023. As the German media outlet, Legal Tribune Online, points out, the court's mixture of opinions is exactly why it is so respected. "The Karlsruhe court thrives on its pluralistic composition," the legal specialists wrote this week. "In their collective decision-making process, the 16 judges must argue and persuade … the court's working practices depend on this collaboration resulting in constitutionally sound decisions." The Federal Constitutional Court candidate at the center of the controversy, Frauke Brosius-Gersdorf, is not a politician. She is a highly respected constitutional law professor at the University of Potsdam. Brosius-Gersdorf has repeatedly dealt with difficult areas of jurisprudence, including abortion and how the Basic Law's ideals about human dignity apply to both mother and unborn child. Basically, when it comes to these tricky questions, she is doing her job, just as she is supposed to. However last Friday, her candidature for the Federal Constitutional Court appeared to fail. Germany's governing coalition — with the conservative CDU in the majority and the left-leaning Social Democrats a minority partner — withdrew the election of judges from parliamentary agenda. It had become clear that the CDU and their junior partner, the Christian Social Union, or CSU, were way too resistant to Brosius-Gersdorf. That was despite the fact that the parliamentary committee selecting the three candidates had previously expressed broad, cross-party support for Brosius-Gersdorf. For Philipp Sälhoff, head of Berlin-based political consultancy Polisphere the answer is clear. "Yes, there was a campaign," he told DW. His consultancy examined 40,000 related posts on the platform X (formerly Twitter). According to Sälhoff, all the elements one might expect to see in a targeted campaign were there. "Online petitions, calls to action, formulas for [protest] letters you can send to your member of parliament, paid-for advertising and posts, or the networking of actors on social media with one clear goal: preventing the election of this candidate," he explained. Reports in traditional media are not part of this, Sälhoff explains: "A critical political report isn't part of such a campaign, rather they're legitimate and necessary when it comes to how members of parliament vote, including on Federal Constitutional Court judges." The problem is that the campaign on social media was manipulative and became increasingly problematic as disinformation and aggressive exaggeration won over the facts, he noted. According to Polisphere's research, the agitating done by right-wing organizations like Nius were particularly notable. This online platform, founded by German billionaire Frank Gotthardt who had the intention of making it into this country's version of Fox News, was shooting at Brosius-Gersdorf from all barrels, and mostly with defamatory and false information. The law professor was described as a "left-wing radical," an extremist who would have allowed babies aborted at nine months and who was against freedom of opinion. These sort of untruths were peddled to an audience of millions and other far-right media followed suit. When it was announced that the vote on the Federal Constitutional Court judges had been called off, Nius' editor-in-chief, Julian Reichelt, celebrated. "This is a good day for us," he said. "Nobody recognized that there are now new media who won't play along with the [mainstream] political-media complex." In other words, he saw the campaign against Brosius-Gersdorf as a victory over established German media. Polisphere's Sälhoff sees reasons for concern in Reichelt's proclamation of victory. "It's not about whether these kinds of media impact opinions in Germany — they've been doing that for a while already," he explained. "But to engineer a situation like this in Germany's parliament in such a short time, where it was exposed more or less out of nowhere, and right in front of the eyes of the German and the international public — that's certainly success for them," Sälhoff said. Of course, at the same time members of parliament make decisions of their own accord. Campaigns, no matter what flavor, are part of the political scenery and they regularly drum up support, regardless of one's political persuasion. This is why CDU member and former Federal Constitutional Court judge, Peter Müller, believes the fault lies with his own party's leadership. "This is a blatant failure of leadership by the CDU/CSU," he said in an interview with German daily Süddeutsche Zeitung. "Something like this shouldn't happen." Apparently shortly before the scheduled election of the judges, CDU leader and current Chancellor Friedrich Merz and CDU parliamentary group leader Jens Spahn had signaled they expected party members to support Brosius-Gersdorf's candidacy. But apparently they were not listened to. For the time being, the vote for new Federal Constitutional Court judges has been taken off the parliament's agenda. Following that, in a long television interview with one of Germany's best known talk show hosts, Brosius-Gersdorf took on a lot of the accusations that had been made against her, saying she was neither radical nor extremist. She also tried to explain her position on various issues from a legal point of view. When asked whether she would continue to seek a spot on the bench, the 54-year-old replied that if there was any danger posed by her candidacy to the court itself, she would withdraw her nomination.
