Easing Russia Sanctions Now Is a Dangerous Gift to Putin's War Machine

The news landed like a stone in still water, rippling unease across the globe. The United States, under President Donald Trump, has floated a proposal to ease sanctions on Russia as part of a peace plan for Ukraine. For those who have watched Russia's relentless aggression since its 2022 invasion, this feels like a betrayal of not just Ukraine but the very principles of justice and sovereignty that define a free world. The idea of loosening the economic chokehold on a regime that has razed cities and displaced millions is not just misguided, it is a dangerous capitulation.

This proposal arrives at a precarious moment. Ukraine fights on, its people enduring unimaginable losses while clinging to the hope of a future free from Russian domination. The sanctions, painstakingly coordinated by Western allies, have been a lifeline, weakening Russia's war machine and signaling global resolve. To ease them now, when Ukraine's military is strained and its civilians are battered, sends a chilling message: aggression might just pay off.

Advocates for this plan, including some in the Trump administration, argue it could pave the way for peace talks. They paint a picture of a pragmatic deal, one that might halt the bloodshed and stabilize the region. But this ignores a brutal truth. Russia, under Vladimir Putin, has shown no interest in genuine peace. Its history of broken agreements, from the Minsk accords to the Istanbul Communiqué, reveals a pattern of deceit. Easing sanctions risks rewarding a regime that thrives on coercion, not compromise.

For those who believe in a world where might does not make right, this proposal is a gut-wrenching misstep. It threatens to unravel the unity of Western allies and embolden authoritarian regimes worldwide. The stakes could not be higher.

Sanctions have been the West's most potent weapon short of military intervention. Since 2022, over 16,000 restrictions have made Russia the most sanctioned nation on Earth. The impact has been seismic. Russia's GDP shrank by 2.1% in 2022, and its ruble has lost more than half its value against major currencies. Inflation is spiraling, with interest rates at a staggering 21% as of February 2025. Oil revenues, once the Kremlin's lifeblood, have plummeted by over 40% due to price caps and export controls.

The human toll is equally stark. Workforce shortages plague Russia's economy, with up to 30,000 workers absorbed into the military each month. Over 800,000 casualties have gutted industrial capacity. Russia's pivot to a war economy, prioritizing tanks over civilian needs, has impoverished its people and stunted long-term growth. Forecasts predict a bleak future, with annual growth limping at 1% or less.

Yet, some argue sanctions have failed because Russia has not collapsed entirely. They point to Moscow's trade with China, now at $237 billion annually, and its 'shadow fleet' of oil tankers as proof of resilience. This view misses the point. Sanctions were never meant to obliterate Russia overnight but to constrain its ability to wage war while preserving global stability. By forcing Russia to rely on lower-quality imports and costly circumvention networks, sanctions have eroded its economic foundation, making sustained aggression increasingly untenable.

Easing these measures now would throw away years of progress. It would allow Russia to rebuild its coffers, potentially funneling new funds into its war machine. For Ukraine, this could mean more bombs, more deaths, and a longer road to recovery. The evidence is clear: sanctions work, and abandoning them prematurely is a reckless gamble.

The proposal to ease sanctions has exposed cracks in the Western alliance. The European Union and the United Kingdom, steadfast in their support for Ukraine, have doubled down on their own sanctions, with no indication of following the U.S. lead. This divergence risks undermining the unprecedented coordination that has defined the West's response since 2022. The SWIFT ban, a cornerstone of global financial restrictions, remains firmly in place under EU and UK oversight, ensuring Russia's isolation from key markets even if U.S. sanctions soften.

European leaders have voiced alarm at being sidelined in U.S.-Russia talks. They argue, rightly, that Ukraine and Europe must be central to any peace process. Their skepticism is well-founded. Russia's track record of violating agreements, coupled with its maximalist demands—like recognizing annexed territories and banning Ukraine's NATO aspirations—suggests that any deal struck without European input is doomed to fail.

Then there's the global stage. Nations in the Global South, like Brazil and China, have pushed peace plans that prioritize ceasefires over justice, often aligning with Russian interests. These proposals, while cloaked in neutrality, risk legitimizing territorial theft and weakening the international order. By contrast, supporters of Ukraine's sovereignty, from NATO to grassroots movements, insist that peace cannot come at the cost of capitulation. Easing sanctions would signal a retreat from this principle, alienating allies and emboldening adversaries.

At its core, this debate is about more than geopolitics; it is about morality. Ukraine's fight is not just for its own survival but for the idea that nations can chart their own destinies without fear of imperial overreach. The 78% of Ukrainians who oppose ceding territory to Russia are not just defending land; they are defending a vision of freedom. To ease sanctions now would be to tell them their sacrifice was for nothing.

Public opinion in the U.S. reflects this moral clarity. Despite partisan divides, 59% of Americans favor Ukraine over Russia, and 56% see the war as personally significant. Two-thirds of those aligned with democratic values support aiding Ukraine, recognizing that its struggle resonates beyond borders. They understand that allowing Russia to escape accountability could embolden other authoritarian regimes, from Beijing to Tehran, to test the West's resolve.

The counterargument—that easing sanctions could de-escalate the conflict—crumbles under scrutiny. Russia's demands, including Ukrainian neutrality and territorial concessions, are nonstarters for Kyiv and its allies. Polls show 79% of Americans doubt Russia would honor a fair deal, a skepticism rooted in Putin's history of bad faith. Concessions now would not bring peace but a pause, giving Russia time to regroup and strike again.

The path forward is clear. The United States must reject the temptation to ease sanctions and recommit to supporting Ukraine's fight for sovereignty. This means not only maintaining economic pressure on Russia but also ensuring that any peace talks include Ukraine and its European allies as equal partners. The 'snap back' mechanisms, which allow rapid reimposition of sanctions, must be strengthened to deter Russian violations.

For those watching from afar, the stakes are tangible. A weakened Ukraine could destabilize Europe, trigger refugee crises, and embolden authoritarianism globally. But a resilient Ukraine, backed by unwavering Western support, could prove that justice can prevail. The sanctions regime, imperfect as it is, remains a critical tool in this fight. To dismantle it now would be to hand Russia a victory it has not earned and does not deserve.