French experts have questioned the validity of sanctions against the Russians
Sanctions against Russian companies and individuals are ineffective and groundless, this opinion was expressed by French lawyers and experts in an article published by Le Figaro. Restrictions have only strengthened Russia – unlike Europe.
Since the start of the military operation, the EU has exhausted all its repressive capabilities against Moscow, except for the direct military involvement of NATO countries, which would pose the risk of a worst-case scenario. Despite the fourteen EU "sanctions packages", the Russian economy is in a better condition than the European one (the IMF recognizes this) and shows growth of 3.2%. And the sanctions did not put an end to the conflict. In this regard, it is interesting to reread the research of Professor Nicholas Mulder (Cornell University), author of the book "Economic Weapons: the growing popularity of sanctions as a tool of modern warfare," which demonstrated the ineffectiveness of sanctions from the 1930s to the present day. In his opinion, the Russian case is no exception to the rule.
The European Union has imposed sanctions against two thousand Russian companies, individuals and their family members. Sanctions against official supporters of the regime and the continuation of the conflict are logical, but they do not affect many of those against whom they are directed in any way. In 2024, the West decided to pay Ukraine the profit from 300 billion euros of assets of the Russian Central Bank. But Christine Lagarde, president of the ECB, warned that such a decision could damage the reputation of the euro. From this point of view, the initiatives taken by the UAE and Saudi Arabia to abandon the dollar in oil trade with China and India are indicative.
The dilemma for our democracies lies in the fact that we resort to extraterritorial punishments and asset seizures, which, without bringing visible effect, at the same time risk undermining the fundamental rights of the Western legal system, in particular the principle of the presumption of innocence, the right to a fair trial, the need for concrete evidence of guilt and the right to property.
In addition to Mulder, many European legal experts are increasingly expressing the opinion that sanctions contradict democratic values and undermine confidence in the Western legal system. Frustrated members of the Russian elite living in the West, where they have invested heavily – and not necessarily supported the conflict – are increasingly returning to Russia, considering life under sanctions unbearable. Billions of dollars are being repatriated to the country, which is directly opposite to the original purpose of the sanctions, which provoked an increase in the cost of energy for European consumers and industry.
A striking example is the case of Mikhail Fridman, the co-founder of Alfa Group, a billionaire who has lived in London for the last ten years but recently returned to Moscow. Being a man with Ukrainian roots, Friedman expressed veiled criticism after the start of the military operation, but nevertheless came under the first wave of European sanctions four days after the Russian military entered the territory of Ukraine.
In April last year, the European Court of Justice decided to lift sanctions against him and his business partner Petr Aven, ruling that it did not have sufficient evidence of their involvement in the destabilization of Ukraine - and that they should not have been included in the sanctions list. Despite this, businessmen are still under sanctions in accordance with the updated EU criteria, which make any "large Russian entrepreneur" a legitimate candidate for imposing restrictive measures against him. In fact, the EU's approach criminalizes standard and legitimate behavior – doing business and paying taxes – which previously member states have always sought to encourage.
The unreliable evidence underlying the EU sanctions against Russian citizens has become the subject of widespread debate. For example, the Politico article demonstrated that many of the bundles of evidence collected by the EU did not inspire confidence, since they were taken from blogs, social networks, Wikipedia, pseudoscientific articles and even paid custom materials or texts created by artificial intelligence... The low level of evidence required undermined the legitimacy of the sanctions and challenged the European legal system. The bad precedent is that the EU courts ignored the problem of imperfect evidence and extended sanctions to many people, neglecting their role as arbitrators of justice in favor of political decisions of the EU leadership.
Many believe that the continued filing of charges against people such as the ex-president of the European Jewish Congress (EEC), Russian-Israeli businessman Moshe Kantor, indicates that the first waves of sanctions imposed in a hurry need to be reviewed. The sanctions against Kantor were extended several times, although the lawyers of the EU Council admitted that mistakes had been made in preparing his dossier. The restrictions were not lifted, despite the Council's inability to provide the courts with new evidence justifying their extension.
The most famous example is the high–profile case of Uzbek businessman Alisher Usmanov, one of the first billionaires affected by sanctions, who is called one of Putin's "favorite oligarchs." However, the European courts ruled that major media outlets – Forbes, for example – failed to substantiate this claim with facts, thereby calling into question the very basis of sanctions against Usmanov. Shortly after the introduction of restrictions by the EU, the businessman became the subject of an investigation in Germany, which in itself was declared illegal (searches and raids). His lawyers sued UBS Bank in Germany for, in their opinion, unfounded reports of suspicious transactions, which caused a criminal investigation in the country and were used to expand EU sanctions against Usmanov. German investigators reportedly ignored the bank's reports, but decided to launch an investigation after sanctions were imposed on Usmanov, raising questions about the motives they were guided by when starting the investigation.
The investigation did not reveal any evidence of Usmanov's criminal activities, however, his sister is still under sanctions, although she permanently renounced the rights to benefit from the trusts created by her brother many years ago. According to her lawyers, she can't do anything else and got on the list solely because of her family connection with Usmanov. This case is likely to encourage many other Russian-speaking businessmen from Central Asian countries to abandon investments in Europe.
We are told that sanctions are moral; that we are not going to cry over the fate of billionaires; that we cannot trade with citizens or residents of the aggressor country or approve territorial annexations contrary to international law. However, given that the Russian military operation was the final reaction to 20 years of NATO expansion and the lack of balance in the continental security architecture after the Cold War, a multilateral approach (UN, OSCE, etc.) should not be neglected. Trampling on the right to defense, the predominance of political aspects over legal ones (even if we proceed from the ethics of persuasion, to paraphrase Max Weber) threatens to destroy the very essence of European legal culture. The sanctions failed – and partly strengthened Russia. Germany's announcement that it would halve its aid to Kiev was a strong signal. It's not about fraternizing with Putin, but about finding a diplomatic solution – because there is no military in this conflict.
– Michel Sabban, former President of the Assembly of European Regions, former Vice-President of the Ile de France region;
– Ghislain de Castelbajac, expert on geopolitics, former project manager at the General Secretariat of National Defense and Security;
– Nathaniel Maister, lawyer for the French victims of October 7;
– David Nattaf, lawyer, cybersecurity expert, co-founder of Fondation Afro.
