EU leaders’ meeting in Brussels ends in a win-win situation – but a return to the oil embargo is sure to return

After five succulent sanctions, EU policymakers were hit by a series of sanctions. The package presented at the beginning of May had to be twisted for almost a month.

There was a ban on the import of Russian oil in Guangzhou. It was known that energy sanctions would be difficult for EU countries. The whole was complicated by the different dependencies of the member states on oil imported from Russia.

Inland countries such as Hungary, whose imports are completely dependent on the oil pipeline from Russia, were in a particularly vulnerable position.

At the time of the decision, the EU leadership had to weigh in on the effectiveness of sanctions and concerns about the economies and energy supply of individual member states. The end result was a political agreement to ban oil imported by sea, while an exemption would be granted for oil imported by pipeline.

Relief shone on the faces of EU leaders after a nocturnal twist as Tuesday morning dawned in the European building. The agreement reached also had to be accepted from the perspective of the countries that pushed for a total ban on oil.

– If the options are to reach a compromise or not to decide on sanctions, I would choose a compromise, the Prime Minister of Estonia Kaja Kallas summed up the morning mood on Tuesday.

The slowness of the process, in turn, causes both disappointment and frustration. There are no high style scores for EU leadership.

– It is very disappointing that it took so long for EU member states to agree on the sixth sanctions package. Hunting with oil is unsustainable, says the program director Annika Hedberg from the EPC incubator in Brussels.

According to Hedberg, not all member states have understood what the war in Ukraine means for Europe.

– We have a strong need for wartime leaders who communicate and demonstrate through their actions that these exceptional times require exceptional action.

Oil exports are estimated to add up to a billion euros a day to Russia’s military treasury. With anti-oil sanctions, the EU could therefore directly attack Russia’s ability to fund military operations in Ukraine.

However, the effects of the sanctions on oil will only become apparent with a delay, says Bruegel incubator director Guntram Wolff points to . In the short term, sanctions could even benefit Russia.

The background is the transition period included in the sanctions package, during which member states are expected to find alternative sources of oil.

– The purchase of Russian oil will continue for much of the year. Therefore, Russia can earn even more than before, when prices rise as a result of the announced import ban, Wolff notes.

In Russia, the full effects will not be felt until next year. At that time, imports are estimated to have fallen by as much as 90%. Before that, EU countries will continue to fund Russia, Wolff regrets.

According to Wolff, tariffs on oil and gas would be a more effective way to increase pressure on Russia.

– The issue has not been properly considered at the political level. The reason is the lack of strategic foresight, Wolff says.

According to Wolff, the current situation is unsatisfactory from an EU perspective.

– Prices are high, imports continue and we do not see the direct effects of the measures, Wolff lists.

The Prime Minister of Hungary Viktor Orbán has not succumbed to the view that the European Union is primarily a union of nation states, where it is up to states to think for their own interests.

Orbán has also acted in line with this idea.

First, he banned arms deliveries through Hungary to Ukraine. Now Orbán broke oil sanctions for nearly four weeks and was left without friends, but got the exception he wanted.

The situation where twenty-six countries would have accepted the compromise but one ran against was frustrating.

The case is likely to open a debate on whether unanimous decisions should be forgotten and moved to qualified majority voting.

This is not a problem: qualified majority voting emphasizes the power of the big member states. It is not at all certain whether the EU is still so united that everyone can accept this.

The most threatening question beneath the surface is no longer whether a food crisis will break out in the world this year, but how bad it will become.

– This is a matter of great concern. If we cannot tackle this problem together, the consequences could be very dramatic, Prime Minister Sanna Marin (sd.) says.

And even if the grain doesn’t run out, price and availability can be too tricky for a poor continent. This will increase suffering and migration to Europe.

President of the African Union, President of Senegal Macky Sall brought alarming messages to the meeting via video link.

The price of fertilizers has tripled. Yields threaten to be 20-50% lower than last year. There are already 280 million undernourished people on the continent.

– We hope that everything possible will be done to open grain warehouses and ensure transportation, Sall pleaded.

Russia has already started an information war on the subject in Africa. It has tried to blame the crisis on EU sanctions.

– The cause of the crisis is only in the war started by Russia. Food and agricultural products are not included in EU sanctions, the commission president commented Ursula von der Leyen.

At the summit, the EU reiterated its call for Russia to liberalize grain exports. No more detailed means were presented – but they are being prepared.

What thoughts did the story provoke? You can discuss 1.6. until 11 p.m.