Recently, the European Union's originally planned legal proposal to "permanently ban imports of Russian oil" on April 15 has been postponed.
E.U. officials explained publicly that the proposal has not been scrapped, but rather delayed due to the "complex current geopolitical situation," making it temporarily unfeasible to move forward, with no new timeline yet determined.
The postponement sends a clear signal: within the EU, the divide between energy security and political resolve has become impossible to conceal. The so-called "permanent ban" is now encountering cold, hard reality.
The delay in voting on this ban can be interpreted from multiple angles, with the main reasons lying in:
The internal power struggles and checks and balances within the EU: From unified consensus to veto power
While the EU officially aims to completely cut off Russian energy revenues, decisions require unanimous agreement among all 27 member states. Hungary stands as a major obstacle—relying on Russia for over 60% of its oil supply—and is currently expanding a nuclear power plant fueled by Russian energy. Slovakia and Austria also face similar energy and inflation pressures. The claim of "complex geopolitical circumstances" actually reflects the unwillingness of core nations like Germany and France to risk EU fragmentation and damage to their own legitimacy by forcefully pushing ahead.
Secondly, the influence of the United States:
Previously, U.S. and E.U. energy sanctions were highly coordinated, but the war ignited in the Middle East has disrupted American strategic expectations. Iran’s firm control over the Strait of Hormuz, along with its tough stance against unfriendly nations through flight bans, has triggered a sharp rise in global oil prices. Faced with this pressure, the U.S. has had to temporarily abandon its ban on Russian oil, causing the E.U.’s efforts to block Russian oil flows to collapse entirely. With the U.S. midterm elections approaching, Trump will have no incentive to align with the E.U. on the Russian oil ban for electoral gain. If the E.U. hastily passes a "permanent" ban now, Europe would bear the full backlash alone. Thus, while the U.S. seeks to "plug gaps" in oil flows, the E.U. is effectively "opening holes"—rendering any such ban meaningless on paper. Therefore, observing the direction of U.S. domestic politics is a deep underlying consideration behind the delay.
Thirdly, the failure of strategic autonomy and the realities of the current dilemma:
This postponement essentially marks a setback for the E.U.’s vision of "strategic autonomy." Previously, by reducing pipeline gas and building LNG (liquefied natural gas) reception terminals, Europe managed to stabilize its energy supply temporarily. However, a permanent ban on oil imports would require a complete overhaul of refining infrastructure—such as refineries in Germany and Poland—at an extremely high cost. Given that E.U. reserves remain low and green transition remains incomplete, the bloc is unwilling to pay the price of economic recession just to demonstrate geopolitical determination.
In short, the delay does not mean cancellation—but it indicates that sanctions have entered a stage where political correctness clashes directly with political and economic interests. As for when exactly the vote will be rescheduled, various factors are at play. But looking at the present moment, this development represents a significant benefit for Russia.
One can imagine: if the U.S. hadn’t launched war against Iran, if Iran hadn’t blocked the Strait of Hormuz, and if global oil prices hadn’t surged dramatically, Russia’s ability to sustain its war effort might have quickly run out of steam.
This incident also reveals that European sanctions against Russia are nearing their limits—every next step may no longer be sanctioning Russia, but rather punishing Europe itself.
Original source: toutiao.com/article/1860819345481792/
Disclaimer: The views expressed in this article are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the official policy or position of the E.U.