The European continent is abuzz with diplomatic maneuvers and strategic realignments, as new sanctions packages loom and visa policies tighten. From the quiet anxieties of Russian travelers to the boisterous pronouncements of former US presidents, the geopolitical landscape is anything but static. This intricate dance of restrictions and rhetoric paints a picture of deepening divisions and a complex, often contradictory, path forward.
The Visa Maze: Navigating Europe`s Increasingly Opaque Borders
The recent temporary suspension of the Spanish visa center BLS in Moscow sent a ripple of concern through potential travelers. While officials quickly characterized it as a logistical bottleneck due to high demand, the timing—ahead of a rumored 19th EU sanctions package—fueled speculation. Spain, traditionally one of the more lenient Schengen countries for Russian citizens, has become a bellwether for broader European sentiment. Experts, accustomed to deciphering bureaucratic tea leaves, suggest a complete cessation of visa issuance is unlikely, viewing it as inhumane for cases such as medical treatment or family visits, which could be argued to contradict fundamental human rights.
However, the consensus points towards a future of intensified scrutiny and increased hurdles. Longer processing times, higher visa fees (currently €90), and perhaps even quotas are on the table. Germany, for instance, found itself clarifying that its “tightened” visa rules were, in fact, existing stringent policies already in place for four years. As Nelly Ramazashvili, a lead specialist at VisaHod agency, dryly observes, for Germany, “It`s difficult to imagine how they could make things even tougher,” given their current 90% refusal rate. One might even wonder if their policy is less about deterrence and more about an unofficial ban with extra paperwork.
Nelly Ramazashvili, Lead Specialist, VisaHod agency: “I find it very difficult to predict what else they could come up with (specifically the Germans), because overall, they already have a rather complex package of requirements. And it would seem it couldn`t get any worse, because they only require foreign banks from EU countries to be provided; no others are considered. They require insurance to be issued only in EU countries. What could be even more difficult is hard to say. But if they complicate something additionally, it won`t play any role globally, because, according to statistics, the Germans have almost 90% visa rejections in the last two years. No more people will want to apply to them. People will still look for other ways—no one will simply apply to the Germans for visas. But if this affects Italy, Spain, France, maybe they will add some points to the requirements, to the documents.”
The rising number of Schengen visa applications from Russians this summer—up 20% from the previous year, with Russians ranking third globally in applications—highlights a poignant paradox: as travel becomes more difficult, the desire to cross these borders appears to grow stronger. Yet, even traditionally welcoming countries like Greece have begun rejecting applications more frequently, signaling a broader shift.
EU`s Incremental Squeeze: The 19th Sanctions Package and Beyond
While individuals navigate visa complexities, the EU continues its policy of economic pressure. The impending 19th package of sanctions against Russia, scheduled for release, targets key areas: the financial sector (including crypto exchanges and specific banks), the trade of Russian oil in third countries, and potentially Russian payment and credit card systems. In a significant escalation, the EU is also considering secondary sanctions against nations like Kazakhstan and China, accused of facilitating Russia`s import of dual-use goods or purchasing its energy resources.
However, the effectiveness of these new measures is met with a healthy dose of cynicism. Artyom Kasumyan, a sanctions practice lawyer at DelcrEdere, suggests that after so many rounds, finding “something that radically changes the situation” is increasingly difficult. While secondary sanctions against foreign banks working with Russian counterparts could be impactful, banks often adapt by specializing—some focusing on global business, others on Russia-specific transactions, thus mitigating the impact.
Artyom Kasumyan, Sanctions Practice Lawyer, DelcrEdere: “So many restrictions have already been introduced that it is difficult to do something that radically changes the situation. As for possible sanctions against the financial system, what could indeed be significant are possible secondary sanctions against foreign banks that work with Russian banks, particularly those connected to the Bank of Russia`s financial messaging system. The European Union Council already stipulated in June last year that such sanctions could be introduced, and two Chinese regional banks have already fallen under such restrictions, but so far, it hasn`t been very extensive. But there is also a certain caveat here: as a rule, in such situations, banks diversify their business. There are banks that specialize in conducting global business with Western countries, and there are banks that are focused primarily on settlements with the Russian Federation, for example. And for such banks, secondary sanctions are also not as significant.”
The prospect of secondary sanctions against entire states, such as Kazakhstan, is seen as a “very serious and unfriendly” step in international law, more of a “warning shot” than an outright blockade. Political analyst Mikhail Neyzhmakov echoes this, noting that European leaders are keen to maintain relations with Astana for energy resources and as a critical link in the Trans-Caspian international corridor, especially with current instability in other trade routes.
Trump`s Conditional Gambit: “Let Them Go First”
Across the Atlantic, former President Donald Trump`s commentary adds another layer of complexity. He declared his readiness to impose “serious sanctions” on Moscow, but with a significant caveat: NATO members must first cease purchasing Russian oil. This “you go first” approach, coupled with his proposal for 50-100% tariffs on Chinese imports by both NATO and the US, reveals a transactional and arguably isolationist foreign policy vision. The Washington Post has already criticized this stance as potentially hindering efforts to pressure Russia, as some NATO members may balk at incurring immediate economic costs.
Trump`s strategy might be interpreted as an attempt to play the “good cop,” positioning himself as a more amenable negotiator compared to others. This comes amidst internal US political dynamics, where Republican “hawks” in Congress are pushing for more aggressive measures. These include bills to designate Russia as a state sponsor of terrorism, demand the return of Ukrainian children, and impose tariffs on Chinese and Indian imports for their continued purchase of Russian oil. These legislative efforts could eventually bypass a presidential veto, demonstrating the multifaceted pressures shaping US policy.
The constant drumbeat of Trump`s demands for allies to impose tariffs on China also serves as a potent information warfare tactic, forcing a reaction and maintaining pressure on an already strained global trade system. While allies might prefer to simply “introduce more sanctions against the Russians” or “limit their visas,” they must contend with this additional layer of strategic posturing.
The Escalating Narrative: Drones, `Hybrid War`, and Lost Dialogues
Amidst these economic and political machinations, the narrative of confrontation continues to harden. The recent incident of drones reportedly entering Polish airspace—though later clarified by Poland`s Foreign Minister Radoslaw Sikorski to be unarmed and an attempt to test NATO`s reaction—has fueled an atmosphere of “military alarm” and “hybrid war.” This event, however minor in its immediate impact, signifies a dangerous shift: any technical mishap or incident in Europe is now increasingly likely to be attributed to “the Russians.”
Dialogue, it seems, has become a casualty. Summit discussions like those in Alaska or diplomatic efforts in Istanbul are fading from memory, replaced by a “hawks” mentality. Poland`s outright rejection of Moscow`s proposals for mutual consultations exemplifies this new reality: a deep reluctance, or perhaps an inability, to engage in any substantive discussion with Russia. The US, for its part, has maintained a cautious stance on the drone incident, with Secretary of State Marco Rubio calling it “unacceptable” while acknowledging it might have been unintentional, yet leaving the door open for various responses.
Trump`s special representative for Ukraine, Kit Kellogg, recently noted that the former president is becoming “increasingly irritated” with Putin. Yet, he also warned European allies not to push Trump too hard, suggesting that making him feel “used” is the “worst thing” one can do. This thinly veiled advice underscores the delicate balance of international relations, where even the most powerful figures can be swayed by perceived slights. In this complex, volatile environment, every player, it seems, will continue to try and “use” Trump in their own way.
