The global oil crisis is the reason for sanctions against Russia

The dizzying escalation of energy prices, following the closure of the Strait of Hormuz, is forcing Western powers to revise positions that they had nevertheless affirmed with apparently irreducible firmness. THE petrole Russian, now refined by third countries such as India or Turkey, is using new channels to reach European and American markets. This development marks a strategic turning point in the architecture of economic sanctions erected against Moscow since the invasion of Ukraine – and questions, with renewed acuteness, the capacity of the West to maintain lasting cohesion in the face of the pressure of economic realities.

Last Wednesday, The United Kingdom has officially authorized the import of diesel and kerosene refined from Russian oil by third countries. This decision, with immediate effect and for an indefinite period, constitutes a major relaxation of the sanctions regime in force since October 2024. According to information published by Reuters and The Guardian, the measure surprised several allied capitals by its scope and suddenness.

The global oil crisis forces the West to ease its sanctions against Moscow

Since the invasion of Ukraine in February 2022, the European Union and its allies have deployed an arsenal of sanctions intended to dry up Moscow’s energy revenues. The eighth European sanctions package, adopted in October 2022, gradually banned imports of Russian crude oil, before the embargo on refined petroleum products was extended in February 2023.

The United Kingdom strengthened these provisions last October by specifically banning the import of diesel and aviation fuel refined from petrole Russian, including when refining was carried out in third countries. This clause aimed to condemn the “Indian breach” through which Moscow continued to flow its hydrocarbons to Western markets. At the same time, the price capping mechanism – set at $60 per barrel for Russian crude – should theoretically constrain the Kremlin’s revenues while preserving global supplies.

Analysis of the British about-face and its strategic implications

London’s decision reflects a partial capitulation in the face of an economic reality that has become untenable. According to Reuters, a barrel of Brent was trading at around $110 a barrel on Tuesday, close to its recent highs, reflecting concerns raised by supply disruptions linked to the Strait of Hormuz. This outbreak is hitting the British aviation sector with particular brutality, where fuel can represent up to a quarter of operating costs. Several companies operating from the United Kingdom have already canceled flights and raised their prices in response to the surge in kerosene.

On a strategic level, the scope of this decision goes far beyond the economic sphere. By authorizing imports of products refined from Russian crude, London symbolically breaks with the principle of solidarity which constituted one of the pillars of the Western response to Russian aggression. In doing so, the United Kingdom is sending an ambiguous signal to its allies – and potentially encouraging for Moscow – at a time when peace negotiations are struggling to make progress. The BBC emphasizes that this about-face comes precisely as kyiv requested increased economic pressure on Russia.

The British exemption is nevertheless accompanied by framework conditions: importing companies are subject to a strict obligation to keep detailed records; the system will be subject to periodic reviews, with the possibility of amendment or revocation; finally, the measure is limited to products refined in third countries, excluding any direct import from Russia. At the same time, London granted a temporary license covering the maritime transport of liquefied natural gas from the Russian Sakhalin-2 and Yamal projects, valid until January 1, 2027.

From a broader geopolitical point of view, this decision weakens the credibility of the West as a united bloc. It risks encouraging other states – in particular those whose economies are more exposed to energy shocks – to invoke “national needs” to in turn derogate from the sanctions regime, thus inaugurating a dynamic of difficult erosion to stop. The comparison with Donald Trump’s suspension of a strike against Iran at the request of the Gulf countries illustrates how energy geopolitics continues to reshape the military and diplomatic postures of the great powers.

Specific constraints weighing on the European Union

Unlike London, Brussels cannot take a similar path without encountering considerable legal and political obstacles. The European Commissioner for the Economy, Valdis Dombrovskis, explicitly condemned on Tuesday Washington’s extension of its exemptions on Russian oil, judging that “this is not the time to ease the pressure on Russia.”

This European firmness comes from deep structural constraints. The community’s institutional architecture requires the unanimity of the twenty-seven member states to amend the sanctions regime – a unanimity that is all the more improbable given that the Baltic countries and Poland are consistently opposed to any concession towards Moscow. Moreover, if the European Union has spectacularly reduced its dependence on Russian hydrocarbons – gas imports having fallen from 40% to less than 8% of the total – Hungary and Slovakia retain specific exemptions on crude oil transported by pipeline, testifying to internal fractures that Moscow is not unaware of.

The geopolitical implications of sanctions crumbling

The Western relaxation of restrictions on Russian oil takes place in an exceptionally dense geopolitical context. The effective closure of the Strait of Hormuz – through which 20% of the petrole world – has generated a structural shortage which is forcing importing countries to urgently diversify their sources of supply. This situation mechanically benefits Russia, whose oil revenues are recovering despite sanctions, and strengthens Moscow’s negotiating power in any future diplomatic framework.

Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky vehemently denounced these successive relaxations, recalling that “every dollar paid for the petrole Russian money for war.” This warning highlights the growing – and perhaps irreducible – tension between the immediate economic imperatives of democracies and their long-term geopolitical objectives. It joins the concerns of analysts who observe that the rise in fuel prices is already generating social tensions in Europe.

Prospects for the evolution of the energy sanction regime

The apparent crumbling of Western cohesion on energy sanctions opens up several scenarios. In the short term, the persistence of tensions in the Middle East could force other capitals to align themselves with the British example, further weakening an already cracked building. The emergence of sophisticated bypass circuits – with India now refining large volumes of Russian crude for re-export to Europe – eloquently illustrates the structural limits of unilateral sanctions in a globalized and deeply interconnected market.

This development raises fundamental questions about the effectiveness of economic instruments in the conduct of contemporary conflicts. If the sanctions have undeniably weighed down the Russian war effort, their capacity to influence the Kremlin’s decisions remains to be demonstrated, given the remarkable adaptability of international commercial circuits. The challenge for Western chancelleries is now to preserve a perilous balance between economic pressure on Moscow and the stability of energy markets – in a world where the geopolitics of petrole once again becomes, with unexpected vigor, one of the determining factors of international relations.