OPINION: OFAC Removes Russians from Sanctions List — Trump Quietly Gives In to Moscow

The EU Extends Its Sanctions to 12 Months—a Historic First

On June 24, 2026—the very same day that OFAC quietly removed names from its SDN list—the European Union announced, for the first time in its history, the extension of its sanctions against Russia from six months to a full year. This decision, reported by RBC Ukraine, represents a longer-term and more robust European commitment to maintaining economic pressure on Moscow.

The contrast is striking. On June 24, 2026, Europe said: “Our sanctions now last for one year without interim renewal—we are committed to the long term.” ” On June 24, 2026, the United States silently stated: “We are removing seven Russians and two ships from our lists without explanation.” These two simultaneous messages paint a troubling picture of the transatlantic divergence on the issue of sanctions.

Why This Divergence Undermines the Entire Sanctions Regime

The sanctions regime against Russia functions as an interdependent system: its strength comes from consistency among partners. If the United States maintains sanctions but Europe lifts its own—or vice versa—companies and states seeking to circumvent them will immediately find legal alternatives. The value of sanctions depends on their universality among participating countries.

When OFAC removes entities from its SDN list without justification, it not only undermines its own sanctions—it undermines the entire Western regime, because it signals that U.S. resolve is not absolute. Russian companies, oligarchs, and their intermediaries watch these moves and calculate: if Washington starts removing names, perhaps applying enough pressure on this or that Western government will yield further concessions. This is the beginning of a race to the bottom.

The sanctions regime is like a dam: only as strong as its weakest link. Europe is strengthening its side. OFAC is quietly driving a wedge into its side. I’m not saying that Washington has caved to Moscow. I’m saying that its silence on these removals closely resembles what Moscow hopes for—and what Ukraine fears.

The Trump Administration and Sanctions — A Complex Relationship

The Trump administration has a complicated relationship with the sanctions regime against Russia. On the one hand, it has maintained the main sanctions against Russia—an important continuity with its predecessors. On the other hand, it has shown a tendency toward discreet adjustments, unexplained exemptions, and rhetoric that emphasizes direct bilateral relations over multilateral systems of economic pressure.

The waivers issued on June 24, 2026, fit into this pattern. They do not represent an abandonment of sanctions—but they reflect an approach in which certain specific interests or diplomatic pressures can trigger discreet exemptions. This is not a coherent policy. It is a case-by-case approach that undermines the systemic credibility of the tool.

What Ukraine’s allies think of these moves

Ukraine’s European allies—who are closely monitoring these U.S. decisions—are privately expressing concern about the shifting U.S. position. European diplomats quoted anonymously in several media outlets describe growing anxiety about the reliability of the U.S. partner as the conflict in Ukraine drags on. If Washington can quietly lift sanctions without consultation, could it also lift the main sanctions as part of a comprehensive agreement with Moscow that the Europeans would not have approved?

This question—the sovereignty of U.S. decision-making regarding sanctions against Russia—lies at the heart of European anxiety. And OFAC’s quiet moves on June 24, 2026, fuel this anxiety in a way that official statements can hardly allay.

Europe is right to be concerned. A partner’s reliability is not measured by its words—it is measured by its actions in times of pressure. And OFAC’s silent removal of names is an act that speaks volumes about U.S. resistance to Russian pressure and to the private interests that were advocating for these removals. What it reveals is not reassuring.

Norilsk Nickel and the Financing of Russia’s War Machine

Norilsk Nickel, controlled by Vladimir Potanin, is one of the world’s largest producers of nickel, palladium, and copper. These metals are essential to many industries—batteries, electronics, aerospace—and their exports generate billions of dollars in revenue for Russia each year. These revenues flow into the Russian state’s coffers and, through various mechanisms, help finance the war effort.

The fact that Vladimir Potanin’s son, Ivan Potanin, has been removed from the SDN list does not directly exempt Norilsk Nickel from sanctions—the company and his father remain, for the time being, on various lists. But it reduces the personal pressure on the family and may facilitate certain financial transactions that previously circumvented sanctions through the son’s personal assets. This is a partial but real concession to the Russian oligarchy.

Pressure from industries that want Russian nickel and palladium

One cannot understand Ivan Potanin’s removal from the SDN list without mentioning the pressure from Western industries that depend on Russian metals. Palladium, of which Russia is the world’s leading producer, is essential for the manufacture of automotive catalysts. Nickel is crucial for electric vehicle batteries. These industries have powerful lobbies in Washington, and their representatives have regularly advocated for sanctions exemptions to allow access to Russian metals.

Ivan Potanin’s quiet removal appears to be a concession to this industrial pressure—perhaps combined with more direct diplomatic pressure. This is not a coherent foreign policy decision. It is a trade policy decision disguised as a sanctions decision. And the difference is enormous.

The interests of the nickel and palladium industries versus the consistency of sanctions against Russia. It’s the old story of economic policy trumping foreign policy. I don’t blame the industries that need these metals. I blame the government for giving in without transparency, without explanation, and without consulting its allies.

Kyiv and Dealing with a Capricious American Partner

Since 2022, Kyiv has developed particular expertise in managing allies whose support is powerful but unpredictable. The Trump administration provided significant aid to Ukraine—ERAM, diplomatic support at key moments, and the maintenance of key sanctions. But it also displayed a tendency toward unilateral decisions, unannounced concessions, and a perspective that treats Ukraine more as a bargaining chip than as a cause in its own right.

Faced with these mixed signals, Ukraine’s most effective strategy is to diversify its support base—strengthening ties with Europe, consolidating relations with the United Kingdom, and cultivating the most committed individual EU member states—so that no single, low-profile U.S. decision can weaken the entire support network. This is exactly what Zelensky has been actively doing for months.

The European response—a signal of autonomy

The European decision on June 24, 2026, to extend its sanctions for a full year—for the first time—can be interpreted as an implicit response to signs of U.S. weakening. By increasing the duration and strength of its own sanctions, Europe is signaling that it will not follow Washington in its quiet withdrawals. Even if the United States softens its stance, Europe will maintain its own. This is an act of strategic autonomy—the very same autonomy that many European voices have been calling for for years in other areas.

This contrast—Europe tightening its grip, the United States quietly backing off—does not yet constitute a rupture. But it is a sign that Europe is developing a sanctions policy independent of Washington’s, with its own timelines and criteria. For Ukraine, this is potentially good news in the long term.

Europe is breaking free from U.S. sanctions—in the best sense of the term. Not by weakening them, but by strengthening them independently. This is the building of a mature European foreign policy. Slow, imperfect, but real. And for Ukraine, it is the best guarantee that the sanctions will hold even if Washington wavers.

What the Lack of Justification Reveals

In a functioning democracy, the lifting of significant sanctions should be accompanied by a public justification: the person in question has changed their behavior, cooperated with investigations, or ceased their harmful activities. The complete lack of justification for the removals on June 24, 2026, is in itself a message: there is no justification that can be presented. It is not because Ivan Potanin has changed his behavior that he was removed from the list. It is for other reasons—diplomatic pressure, commercial interests, undisclosed negotiations—that the U.S. government cannot or will not explain publicly.

This silence is unacceptable in a foreign policy that claims to uphold principles. And this silence deserves to be called out—by the media, by allies, by the U.S. Congress, and by all those who believe that the consistency of sanctions is a prerequisite for their effectiveness.

Ukraine in all of this—the real victim of inconsistency

The real victim of U.S. inconsistency in sanctions is Ukraine. Every time sanctions are lifted without justification, additional resources end up in the hands of oligarchs linked to the Kremlin. These resources—directly or indirectly—support a Russian economy that is financing a war. This causal chain is real, even if it is diffuse. And it comes at a cost: more Ukrainian soldiers dying on front lines that the sanctions were supposed to help reduce.

This post is a call for consistency. Not for unrealistic idealism—sanctions are political tools that can be adapted. But for transparency. For public justification. For consultation with allies. That is what a serious foreign policy demands. And that is what Ukraine deserves from its partners.

Seven names quietly removed. Seven small decisions that add up. The sanctions regime does not die from a single grand act of betrayal—it dies from a thousand small, unjustified concessions. I am writing this here so that it is recorded. So that in five years, when someone wonders how the sanctions were weakened, this post will be here as a testament.

The Role of the Press in Monitoring Sanctions

This post cannot force OFAC to justify its decisions. But it can help build public pressure for transparency. The press—especially media outlets like Euromaidan Press that have documented these removals—plays an irreplaceable role in monitoring an area of foreign policy that often operates in administrative obscurity. Without this oversight, these decisions would go completely unnoticed.

We must name names. We must document these actions. We must demand explanations. Not because all removals from the SDN list are illegitimate—some may be. But because without transparency, it is impossible to distinguish legitimate removals from politically motivated ones. And in a war involving billions of dollars and hundreds of thousands of lives, this distinction is vital.

What Washington Owes Its Allies

The United States has asked its European allies to make considerable sacrifices in maintaining sanctions against Russia—real economic sacrifices, particularly in the early years of the conflict when Russian gas still powered a large part of European industry. It is not unreasonable to expect, in return, that Washington consult with its allies before lifting sanctions and that it publicly justify its decisions. This is not anti-Americanism. It is reciprocity within an alliance that should be based on mutual trust.

If OFAC has good reasons for removing these seven Russians and these two ships from its list, it can and should explain them. And if these reasons cannot be explained publicly, perhaps the decision should be reconsidered.

Washington owes its allies the transparency it demands of them. It’s as simple as that. I have no other conclusion. This post will remain in the archives. And when this story is finally written, it will help show that someone looked, saw, and did not turn a blind eye.

The facts are clear, but questions remain

Seven Russians removed from the SDN list. Two Russian cargo ships. Two Turkish companies. June 24, 2026. No press release. No explanation. The very same day the European Union extended its own sanctions for a full year. These facts are documented by Euromaidan Press and other sources. They are real. And they deserve a response from the U.S. administration—one that it has not yet provided.

This post is a call for accountability. A modest request, made through the pages of an online article. But a genuine, documented request that will remain accessible to anyone who wants to understand how U.S. sanctions policy has evolved during the war in Ukraine.

What Ukraine Expects from Its Allies

Ukraine expects its allies to demonstrate consistency and transparency that reflect the sincerity of their support: weapons delivered with justification; sanctions maintained with explanation; and any withdrawals carried out in consultation. This consistency is the foundation of a lasting alliance—and Ukraine, which is staking its survival on this alliance, has every right to demand it. This post gives Ukraine a voice.

To the decision-makers in Washington who might be reading this: explain. Consult. Justify. That is what your allies are asking of you. And that is what Ukraine—which is fighting for the same values you claim to defend—deserves.

End of post. Short, direct, to the point. This is the appropriate format for this issue: simple facts, measured outrage, a clear demand. OFAC’s silence outrages me. I’ve said it. That’s all I can do from here—but it’s all a columnist can do, and that’s already something.

Signed, Maxime Marquette, columnist