EU envoys agreed on Sept. 22, 2026, to remove Russian billionaires Alisher Usmanov and Mikhail Fridman from the sanctions list after Latvia dropped its veto, even as the bloc renewed Russia-related sanctions on around 3,000 targets for three more years. The decision marks a rare exception in Europe's otherwise firm stance on maintaining economic pressure against Russia and its allies.
The Deal Behind the Delisting
France had pressed for Usmanov's removal on security grounds, while Luxembourg called for similar treatment for other sanctioned individuals. According to Politico, the decision could also be tied to a broader diplomatic deal, potentially involving the release of French nationals detained in Azerbaijan, citing a Financial Times report. That account noted concern among some lawmakers that sanctions could become bargaining tools, setting a precedent for using restrictive measures as leverage in negotiations.
The move raises uncomfortable questions about the integrity of the EU's sanctions regime. If restrictive measures can be lifted as part of diplomatic horse-trading, what message does that send about Europe's commitment to accountability for those who've enabled Russia's war machine? The delisting came as EU governments continued to manage a broad sanctions regime aimed at Russia and its allies, with the removal of the two businessmen standing out against the backdrop of renewed restrictions on thousands of other targets.
Sanctions Renewed, Questions Remain
The Reuters account focused on the formal sanctions process, the renewal of the wider package and the resolution of Latvia's veto. The bloc's decision to extend sanctions on around 3,000 targets for three more years demonstrates that Europe's economic pressure campaign remains largely intact. But the simultaneous delisting of two high-profile oligarchs complicates the narrative of unwavering resolve.
For civil society groups and transparency advocates who've long argued that Europe's sanctions enforcement has been uneven, the Usmanov and Fridman case offers fresh evidence. It's one thing to maintain sanctions when they're politically convenient. It's another to sustain them when powerful member states have reasons to make exceptions. The Politico report highlighted the possibility of a wider diplomatic bargain behind the delisting, suggesting that national interests can still override collective commitments.
Latvia's decision to drop its veto cleared the way for the removals, but the process itself reveals the fragility of consensus-based decision-making on foreign policy. When any single member state can block or unlock sanctions decisions, the EU's capacity to act decisively depends on backroom negotiations that aren't always transparent to European citizens or their elected representatives.
Why This Matters:
The delisting of Usmanov and Fridman matters not because these two individuals are uniquely important, but because of what the decision reveals about how the EU's sanctions regime actually works in practice. If sanctions can be lifted as part of diplomatic deals unrelated to the original grounds for their imposition, then the entire framework becomes less about accountability and more about leverage. That's a problem for anyone who believes Europe's foreign policy should be guided by clear principles, not just national bargaining. The broader renewal of sanctions on 3,000 targets shows the EU isn't abandoning economic pressure on Russia, but the exceptions matter as much as the rules. For European citizens who've been told that standing with Ukraine requires sacrifice and resolve, the message from this decision is mixed at best.