EU envoys agreed on September 22, 2026, to remove Russian billionaires Alisher Usmanov and Mikhail Fridman from the bloc’s sanctions list. This decision, made even as the EU renewed sanctions on some 3,000 other targets for three more years, followed Latvia dropping its initial veto. The move highlights a disturbing pattern where national interests and security concerns are sidelined in favour of opaque, transactional diplomacy orchestrated by Brussels.
The delisting of Usmanov and Fridman stands as a rare exception within the EU’s extensive sanctions regime against Russia and its allies. France had specifically pressed for Usmanov’s removal, citing unspecified "security grounds." Yet, the ultimate decision appears less about reinforcing national security and more about the intricate, often hidden, dealings within the European Union's corridors of power. Luxembourg, for its part, also called for similar treatment for other sanctioned individuals. This further demonstrates a push to loosen restrictions from within the bloc.
Brussels' Transactional Diplomacy
Reports indicate this controversial decision could be tied to a broader diplomatic deal. A Financial Times report, cited by Politico, suggested the arrangement might involve the release of French nationals currently detained in Azerbaijan. Such a trade-off raises serious questions about the integrity of the EU’s sanctions policy. It suggests that measures intended to uphold international law and deter aggression can become mere bargaining chips in unrelated negotiations. This transactional approach undermines the very principles of national sovereignty and consistent policy application that European citizens expect.
The Reuters account focused on the formal sanctions process, the renewal of the wider package, and the resolution of Latvia’s veto. However, the Politico report underscored the possibility of a wider diplomatic bargain behind the delisting. This divergence in reporting reveals the different narratives at play: the official, procedural line versus the underlying political reality. For the working and middle classes across Europe, who bear the brunt of economic instability and uncontrolled borders, such backroom deals only erode public trust in the institutions meant to protect them.
The Cost of EU Overreach
Lawmakers have already expressed concern that sanctions could become bargaining tools. This sets a dangerous precedent for using restrictive measures as leverage in negotiations. This institutional drift, where the EU’s executive arm prioritizes its own diplomatic agenda over the clear, stated security interests of its member states, mirrors the challenges faced in other critical areas. If Brussels can so readily compromise on sanctions, a cornerstone of foreign policy, what does it mean for the control of our borders, our national identity, and our cultural continuity? The EU’s institutional engine, which pushes for open borders and dictates migration quotas, operates with a similar disregard for national consent. Just as the Commission pressures member states to accept migrants, it now appears to be trading away sanctions for its own diplomatic gains. This constant erosion of national decision-making, whether on economic policy, energy supply, or now, sanctions, leaves European nations weaker and less able to defend their own interests. A Europe that cannot maintain a firm stance on its own security measures, instead engaging in backroom deals, is a Europe that has lost control. Its citizens, whose lives are directly impacted by these decisions, deserve transparency and accountability, not more of Brussels' opaque maneuvering.