The European Commission has postponed submitting its proposal to ban imports of Russian oil, originally scheduled for April 15. The Commission has not announced a new date.

On March 24, European Commission spokesperson Iltcon told reporters: “I cannot disclose the new date. But I can assure you that we remain committed to advancing this proposal.”

Iltcon stated that the relevant documents would only be submitted for review once fully prepared, meaning the timeline may be adjusted accordingly.

This is a diplomatic confirmation—on the surface reaffirming commitment, but in reality confirming that the original plan is no longer viable and that there is currently no clear timetable for advancement.

This can be interpreted from three levels:

* The spokesperson explicitly refused to reveal a new date and acknowledged that “the timing may be adjusted”—effectively an official confirmation that the previously planned March schedule has been shelved. Such phrasing—emphasizing principles while avoiding details—typically indicates internal disagreements on key issues or waiting for coordination signals from major member states.

* Emphasis on “full preparation” as risk mitigation

Iltcon stressed that documents would only be submitted “once fully prepared,” reflecting the EU’s lessons learned from past legislation rushed into submission, which triggered massive controversy. The underlying message is that this proposal carries high political sensitivity; it’s better to delay than to present a draft likely to be rejected by member states or key political factions, thereby increasing the chance of eventual passage.

* Using “commitment” to maintain political expectations

While confirming the delay, the spokesperson deliberately used “we still remain committed to advancing” to counter speculation that the proposal might have stalled or been downgraded. This serves both to reassure internal stakeholders awaiting policy signals and to project externally that the agenda remains active and unchanged, thus sustaining pressure at the negotiation table.

Overall, this statement indicates the proposal has entered a technical standstill phase just before the final push. The inability to provide a new date suggests significant coordination challenges ahead, and future attention should focus on whether new divisions have emerged among key EU actors—such as core member states or industry sectors.

Failure to pass is not out of the question.

Original source: toutiao.com/article/1860552928383040/

Disclaimer: The views expressed in this article are solely those of the author.