EU agrees 18th sanctions package against Russia
European Union
has reached an agreement on an 18th sanctions package against
Russia
over its war in
Ukraine
, with a raft of measures aimed at dealing further blows to Russia's oil and energy industry.
Its latest sanctions package on Russia will lower the G7's price cap for crude oil to $47.6 per barrel, diplomats told Reuters.
'The EU just approved one of its strongest sanctions package against Russia to date,' said the EU's foreign policy chief Kaja Kallas on X.
'We will keep raising the costs, so stopping the aggression becomes the only path forward for Moscow,' added Kallas. —Reuters
READ MORE
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
RTÉ News
an hour ago
- RTÉ News
Can the West force Russia to stop its war in Ukraine?
Monday's announcement by US President Donald Trump that Russia must agree to a ceasefire in Ukraine within 50 days or face heavy sanctions was the clearest indication yet that he and his administration have lost patience with Moscow. Russian President Vladimir Putin's nice talk during their phone calls since February had amounted to "bulls**t", Mr Trump had told reporters the previous week. During five months of US-led efforts to bring about a ceasefire, Russia has continued to strike Ukrainian cities with drones and ballistic missiles, killing civilians. It was time for Mr Trump to save face and try to show that he still has some leverage over Mr Putin. His commitment this week to send 17 Patriot air defence systems and other military equipment to Ukraine, paid for by NATO countries, will help Ukraine take out more Russian cruise and ballistic missiles – the very weapons that destroy Ukrainian apartment blocks and can kill scores of civilians in a single attack. But Patriots are designed to take out heavy weapons, not smaller objects like drones. Each Patriot missile costs around $4 million. Given that Russian forces are now launching about 400 drones at Ukraine on most nights, it would be too costly and impractical to use such a defensive weapon to win a drone war. Ukraine will stick with its own drone interceptor units to shoot down Russia's Iranian-made Shahed drones. For Russia's leader and the Kremlin's power base, Mr Trump's 50-day ultimatum changes nothing. Moscow's war continues unabated. At least, that was the message stemming from senior Russian officials on Tuesday, one day after Mr Trump's comments alongside NATO chief Mark Rutte. Sergey Lavrov, Russia's foreign minister, claimed that Mr Trump was acting under pressure from other NATO countries and the European Union to help Ukraine continue fighting, now a customary Kremlin narrative. The seasoned diplomat also seemed to belittle Mr Trump's ultimatum too. "We want to understand what is behind this statement on 50 days. It used to be 24 hours, and it was 100 days. We've all been through this," said Mr Lavrov. Beyond the theatrics, he had a point. Previous ultimatums have been given by the US, only to be quickly forgotten about. Back in May, the US said it would walk away from the process if both Russia and Ukraine did not agree to a ceasefire within within a week. (Around the same time, the leaders of France, Germany, Poland and the UK issued their own 48 hour deadline for Russia to come to the negotiating table or face heavy sanctions). But Mr Putin outfoxed the Americans and the Europeans and called for direct talks with Ukraine, which Mr Trump blessed. Two sets of brief mid-level talks between Russian and Ukrainian delegations in Istanbul were a token gesture from Russia to keep the US onboard. And bar two large-scale prisoner exchanges and the return of soldiers' bodies by both sides, Russia has used the Istanbul talks as a platform to air its hardline demands for ending the war. So given the past record of lapsed ultimatums, it is little wonder that Russia has shrugged off this latest one too. "I think the Russians don't believe anything will happen after 50 days. They see the Trump court as divided on what to do," Witold Rodkiewicz, a Russia foreign policy expert at Warsaw's Centre for Eastern Studies, told RTÉ News. The 50-day deadline, he said, confirmed Russia's view that Mr Trump is "looking for ways to avoid confrontation with Moscow". Overall, the reaction from senior Russian officials to both the 50-day ultimatum and news that Kyiv would receive more Patriot batteries, was cautious and fell short of citicising Mr Trump too harshly. Mr Putin has remained silent, but sources close to the Kremlin told Reuters on Tuesday that the Russian president would continue the "special military operation" and not yield to Western pressure. However, the supply of more new Patriot batteries is a huge boost for Ukraine's defences and its troops in the field. Ukrainian officials had asked for at least 10 new Patriot batteries to combat Russian missile attacks. They will now receive up to 17, which would bring their total number of Patriot systems to 25. That kind of defensive weaponry will make it harder for Russian heavy missiles to hit their targets. Deliveries of the first German-owned Patriot systems are expected to happen quickly according to NATO's top military commander Alexus Grynkewich. But employing Patriots is a short-term, defensive measure that does not remove Russia's ability to launch aerial attacks on Ukrainian cities. Mr Trump this week ruled out sending long-range missiles to Kyiv, which would enable Ukraine to destroy military targets in Russian-occupied Ukraine and Russia itself from where missiles are launched. Taking out those sites directly would be a more conventional approach to stopping Russia's missile attacks. Last November, the Biden administration (during its final weeks in office) approved such a move leading to heightened tensions between Washington and Russia. Mr Trump wants to avoid that kind of hostile relationship with Moscow. It also seems unlikely that the spectre of new EU sanctions will force Russia to agree to a ceasefire. Whereas the US has given Russia 50 days to stop fighting before introducing hard-hitting sanctions, yesterday the EU introduced its toughest sanctions package against Russia since the start of the war. The new sanctions will lower the existing $60 per barrel price cap on Russian oil exports to $47.60. They will also ban more than 100 ships from Russia's so-called 'shadow fleet' - vessels that carry exported Russian oil - from docking at ports across the EU. Reuters reported that sanctions will also be placed on a Russian-owned oil refinery in India and two Chinese banks, which will frustrate Russia's oil trade with the two countries. Mr Zelensky hailed the sanctions as "'essential and timely". However, like its response to the Trump ultimatum, the Kremlin has appeared unfazed by these new economic penalties. Former Russian president and nationalist firebrand Dmitry Medvedev said yesterday that Russia would withstand the bloc's new sanctions and that Russian forces would intensify their attacks on what he called "so-called Ukraine". It was a reminder that European sanctions alone are unlikely to force Russia's leadership to end its three and a half year war. To even come remotely close to achieving that goal, the US would need to follow through on its ultimatum to impose 100% tariffs on countries that trade with Russia. A more drastic measure could come in the form of a bipartisan US Senate bill that Republican senator Lindsey Graham has been working on for months. The Sanctioning Russia Act of 2025 now has the support of 85 senators and, if passed through Congress, would enable the US president to impose 500% tariffs on countries that buy Russian oil and gas exports. Mr Graham told CBS News this week that the act would give Mr Trump a "sledgehammer" to end the war. Many other experts believe that economic penalties alone will not force Russia to halt its war. "The only solution to end this war is the defeat of the Russian army on the battlefield," said Mr Rodkiewicz. Yet, Monday's statements in the White House did not bring about a change in Russia's ground offensive. Russia's defence ministry this week claimed its forces captured another handful of settlements along the frontline, including the southern Zaporizhzhia region. Moscow's air war on Ukraine has also continued as usual. In the early hours of Wednesday morning, Russia fired 400 drones at Ukrainian regions in the east, south and centre of the country, but only one ballistic missile. Later that day, Russian forces dropped a 500kg bomb on a shopping district in the town of Dobropillia in Donetsk region, killing two people and injuring 27. The attack took place at 5pm when the area was busy with shoppers. Russia's ministry of defence regularly reports that Ukraine launches drone attacks on targets inside Russia, but such strikes are generally smaller in scale compared to Moscow's massive drone assaults on Ukrainian regions. Russia maintains that it is ready for more direct talks with Ukraine, while Ukrainian foreign minister Andrii Sybiha indicated this week that Kyiv is also prepared for more talks. But Moscow's hardline demands to end the fighting remain the same, meaning that any third round of talks in Istanbul will be brief and limited to more prisoner exchanges. Mr Trump's 50-day deadline looks likely go down to the wire and Russia is more than willing to test the his administration's resolve to implement its threatened tariffs.
RTÉ News
an hour ago
- RTÉ News
CAP battle starts as EU plans to overhaul farmer payments
The European Commission this week outlined long-anticipated proposals to radically overhaul the system of financial supports for the agricultural sector across the European Union. The top-line changes to the Common Agricultural Policy (CAP) would see ringfenced funding for farming cut by more than a fifth, with supports for agriculture merged with those for rural areas into a single fund. In brass tax, this would mean a fall in guaranteed CAP funding from €387 billion down to €300 billion over the course of the EU budget cycle from 2028. Around 120,000 Irish farmers receive roughly €2bn annually in CAP payments, and much of this money essentially makes a huge cohort of Irish farms viable. Given this, it was no surprise to see farming organisations here quickly coming out of the blocks to condemn the proposals. The Irish Farmers' Association (IFA) warned the move would put food security at risk, while the group representing dairy farmers, the ICMSA, said there would be immediate upward pressure on food prices. A number of Irish MEPs also came out against the plans, which the Commission argues would allow for "stronger synergies between policies", and create a more flexible, crisis-responsive budget. Now the horse-trading really gets going as member states, through the Council of Ministers, start the long process of agreeing on an approach to the proposals, before painstaking talks with the parliament in Brussels and the Commission begin. Ultimately, it could take over two years before any agreement is in place for the start of the next EU budgetary cycle in 2028. Ireland will likely play a key role in this process, as we will hold the rolling six-month EU presidency for the second half of next year. This means that what the EU Commission is proposing and what eventually ends up happening might well be very different. Based on what I've written so far, it might seem the changes suggested are largely negative, but are there any positives in there for farmers across the bloc? Well, from what the Commission has outlined, it wants to make a strong play to encourage more young farmers into the profession. And this is in response to one of the major issues threatening the future of family farms both here in Ireland and across the EU. The average age of a farmer in Ireland is pushing 60, and with high income volatility and increased regulation farming isn't seen as an attractive career path in the way it would have to previous generations. A recent Teagasc report showed farm incomes were up across the board last year, but it also highlighted severe differences in farmer earnings from one year to the next. Paired with that, the level of environmental regulations farmers have to adhere to, and biodiversity and other targets that need to be met is only rising. These are welcome moves to protect our environment but they come at a price, and add layers of complexity to the job. In an attempt to address the challenge of generational renewal, the Commission has recommended that CAP funding "should be focused on active farmers", meaning supports would be "targeted towards farmers who exercise agriculture as a principal activity". This would mean that farmers who are of pension age would no longer receive supports under CAP. In addition, the proposals would hugely increase supports for young farmers starting out, with funding for the costs of establishing a new farm potentially rising from €100,000 to €300,000. The changes would also give individual member states more autonomy when it comes to doling out funds to farmers and rural areas, and can steer money in one direction of the other based on what is deemed more necessary. This could bring a shift in the well-worn path of supports going directly to farmers in less-well-off regions, as opposed to the areas themselves getting the money. So farmers could still benefit from rural EU funding, just not directly. However, the Commission's proposals are just proposals at this stage and will need approval at various stages of the EU decision-making process if they are to become part of the EU budget. The Irish Government hasn't wasted any time in putting domestic structures in place to decide on the country's stance on all this. On Thursday, the day after the EU proposals, Minister for Agriculture Martin Heydon held the first meeting of what he calls the "CAP Consultation Committee". He called the Commission's CAP recommendations a "starting point", adding "we have been through considerable reforms before and we've managed to negotiate through them in the past and we'll do the same again". The minister's positive take might given some of the stakeholders at that CAP committee some reassurance. Ireland's response to this will be pretty much an all-inclusive one. The stakeholders gathered together by the minister include five Government departments, a host of State agencies, farmer organisations, business groups, as well as academics. IFA President Francie Gorman was giving his reaction to the Commission's CAP proposals on Wednesday's RTÉ Six-One News, in which he summed up the complexities associated with finding the right funding model for farmers. He welcomed the EU's renewed focus on bringing along more young farmers but pointed out: "If you want the next generation of farmers coming home, along with all the measures that we bring in to support young farmers, we still have to have viable farms for them to come into." Essentially, however well-intentioned it is, the idea of giving newer farmers more financial support at the expense of older ones could prove to be a misguided one if it kills off the very farms its trying to protect. Like most budget-related considerations, it will come down to finding a balance. And with the next EU budget not kicking in until 2028, at least there is sufficient time to try and get this balance right. But there's no doubt that between now and 2028, many battles will be fought as competing interests vie for pieces of a potentially smaller pie of EU funding.
Irish Times
an hour ago
- Irish Times
We need to face up to the fact that not all middle-earners are squeezed
While we have all been focusing endlessly on the latest Truth Social post from Donald Trump, the Coalition has been having backroom rows about its budget plans . Serious ones. A key document which sets the framework for the budget – the Summer Economic Statement – will be published next Tuesday. And alongside it will be the Government 's updated investment spending plans in the revised National Development Plan (NDP) . The game, in other words, is on. When you see the Independents who support the Government being filmed for the RTÉ News going to talk to senior ministers, you realise there is some good news coming and kudos to be sought for a new road or rail upgrade. But there will be tough calls, too. And it is no exaggeration to say that Tuesday will be a key moment for the Government as it signals a change of budgetary direction. The Coalition is going to go all in on State investment – energy, water and housing in particular. The catch is that to afford this, it is going to have to keep much tighter control on day-to-day spending and also end the once-off giveaways which have been a feature of the last few budgets. It will sell the message of restraint now allowing for investment for the future. Bread tomorrow is never an easy strategy to sell to voters – but that is what the Coalition is going to try to do. There will still be some extra cash in the budget for State services and welfare and – probably – a modest tax package. Talk of a 'tough budget' is nonsense – look at France where spending cuts, tax hikes and cutting two bank holidays were put on the table this week. But Irish voters have become accustomed to their budget day goodies – and there is going to be one heck of a political row when the penny drops that they are not going to feature this October. READ MORE Given the risks ahead and the State's reliance on tax payments from a few multinationals, the brakes do need to be put on. Spending has soared and Departmental targets set in the budget are regularly exceeded. Central Bank researchers estimated in June that permanent Government spending has risen by a hefty 37 per cent since 2021. Had the 'rule' to limit State spending growth to 5 per cent been adhered to, the increase would have been 16 per cent. There has simply been little culture of spending control and reinstating it is not going to be easy at a time when demands on public services are growing. Meanwhile, 'once-off payments' – repeated so often now that the term is an offence to the English language – have a serious budget price, costing more than €2 billion in the last package, which was a reduction on earlier years. The most expensive elements have been the universal payments to all households in areas like energy credits in the annual cost-of-living packages. Budget ministers Paschal Donohoe and Jack Chambers have been saying there will be no cost-of-living package this year ; for now, at least, it seems that the rest of the Cabinet are signed up to this. Ministers will spot the political dangers. Households have started to get used to the annual boost and will feel a bit less well-off. The Opposition will scream. But continuing to throw out the universal once-off payments would be a poor use of money, benefiting many for whom the cash is nice, but not necessary. Better to use what funds are available to build up permanent supports and improved services, focused on those who need them. The cost of living is high , for sure, but it is a farce to portray all households as 'hard-pressed', or everyone in the middle ground as 'squeezed'. Effective policy should help those who genuinely are – like many younger families – through better services in areas like childcare and health, rather than repeating the annual cash giveaways. [ Government 'feckless' with public money, Social Democrats claim in budget row Opens in new window ] Meanwhile, with the sums tightening considerably , the Coalition's 'solemn promise' – as Simon Harris put it – to cut the hospitality VAT rate back to 9 per cent is looking like a 'repent at leisure' moment. Even if this is restricted just to food businesses, it will cost €550 million a year. When other demands are being turned down and 'restraint' is the message , this is not going to be an easy sell for the Coalition. The all-in bet on State investment is driven by a view in Cabinet that housing, water and energy provision have all reached a crisis point – an argument being hammered home to them by big investors. Tariffs and Trump are the most discussed threat to future investment – and do indeed pose fundamental questions. But if Ireland does not put forward a plan to develop infrastructure, then investment is going to drift away, whatever happens in the White House. [ Focus in Budget 2026 has to be on transforming infrastructure, Martin says Opens in new window ] This will be mightily expensive. As well as controlling spending elsewhere, the Government will have to run down its annual budget surplus – and there are some risks here. However, it is still legally obliged – barring a downturn – to keep putting cash away in two funds designed to support future spending and investment. As well as finding the cash, the Coalition has to show it can actually deliver big projects – and more housing – an area where the previous administration performed poorly. And it needs to heed the warnings from the Central Bank and the Fiscal Council that if the State keeps pumping out cash across the board, then it will just add fuel to an economy already at full capacity, making it even harder to deliver on the infrastructure programme. Having had a stumbling and slow start, the Government is about to roll the dice for the rest of its term. Its more serious players will know that threats from across the Atlantic could damage the favourable economic position and budget outlook, and might require mid-flight adjustments in these plans. There will be some reassurance that there is €30 billion in cash and liquid assets down the back of the State couch, but also a realisation that if the trends change fundamentally this only goes so far. But sitting and doing nothing does not look like a clever strategy. Investment is the right direction for the Government to take. It will all come down to delivery. And to a bit of luck that Trump's policies, while inevitably damaging, do not upend things completely.
