The sanctions overshadow Donald Trump’s inauguration, reflecting the deep-rooted determination of America’s foreign policy establishment to keep Russia on the defensive until it backs away from its own security demands, writes Gillian Schutte.
Image: IOL
By Gillian Schutte
Donald Trump is sworn in today under the cloud of President Joe Biden’s closing salvo against Russia’s oil industry. In a final act before leaving the White House, Biden approved measures blacklisting 183 vessels—143 of which carried more than 530 million barrels of Russian crude in the last year—and imposing restrictions on energy giants such as Gazprom Neft and Surgutneftegas. Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov brands this wave of sanctions a “scorched earth” strategy, accusing Washington of deliberately undermining trade routes, destabilising global energy markets, and saddling Trump with a legacy meant to thwart any diplomatic opening.
From the Kremlin’s standpoint, these sanctions disregard the deeper security grievances driving the Ukraine conflict. Moscow has long contended that NATO’s expansion into Eastern Europe threatened its core interests, yet Western capitals brushed off requests for security guarantees. Lavrov insists the United States ignored multiple warnings, then portrayed Russia as the sole aggressor when tensions escalated. Rather than address the root issues, the Biden administration imposed tightening rounds of economic pressure in its final days, seeking to hamper Russian oil flows while sidestepping any talks on NATO’s continued push eastward.
The blacklisted vessels form a vital link in transporting Russian crude to China and India—two major customers that stepped up purchases after Europe curtailed its own imports in 2022. Energy traders warn that penalising these tankers will drive up freight costs, prompting refiners in Beijing and New Delhi to seek alternative shipments at higher prices. The same dynamic affects Europe, where governments already rely on pricier oil from the United States or the Middle East. Russian officials see this as a calculated effort to squeeze their country out of profitable markets, no matter how it burdens Washington’s allies or ordinary households worldwide.
Lavrov’s ministry points out that the measures reach beyond corporate targets by sanctioning leadership figures within Russia’s Ministry of Energy. Such direct hits, the Kremlin says, aim to stigmatise state officials as “international pariahs” and deter shipping insurers and service companies from doing business with Russia. Critics in Moscow question the sincerity of American moral rhetoric, noting the absence of similarly tough sanctions for U.S. allies embroiled in conflicts that inflict grave harm on civilian populations. They highlight the contrast with Israel, whose repeated strikes in Gaza never trigger blacklisting of carriers or other crippling financial penalties.
Trump steps into office confronting a web of policy constraints that may be impossible to unravel quickly. Rolling back Biden’s late-term sanctions likely requires congressional consent, making a swift reset with Moscow politically perilous. Bloomberg sources report that Trump’s advisers have weighed a “carrot-and-stick” approach, which might mean raising the G7 oil price cap above sixty dollars per barrel if credible peace efforts in Ukraine emerge, or tightening secondary sanctions by scrutinising tanker routes through the Danish and Turkish Straits if Moscow refuses to negotiate. Either strategy risks renewed volatility in global energy markets, which could spill over onto American drivers, European power bills, and developing nations’ economies.
Russian spokespeople cite the situation in California, where residents already coping with the aftermath of catastrophic wildfires face higher fuel prices linked partly to disruptions in seaborne crude. The Foreign Ministry accuses Washington of covertly buying Russian petroleum via intermediaries before American midterms, only to adopt a harsh anti-Russian stance once votes were tallied. Lavrov’s team frames this as hypocrisy, claiming that the White House manipulates moral outrage when convenient, while glossing over its own role in nurturing crises—whether through interference in Kyiv’s political processes or ignoring repeated calls to legally bind NATO’s scope in Eastern Europe.
Though sanctions strain Russia’s economy, Lavrov insists his country has adjusted since 2014 by boosting domestic output and substituting imports in critical sectors. Officials maintain that Russia remains a central energy supplier and that many nations cannot afford to comply fully with U.S. mandates. The Kremlin also pursues more robust ties outside the dollar-based system, hoping that alternative financial channels will lessen Washington’s ability to disrupt exports. This strategy is far from simple, but Moscow views it as essential to keeping its oil and gas trade insulated from Western political pressures.
As Europe grapples with lost pipeline supplies, manufacturers in need of stable, competitively priced fuel voice concerns over rising production costs and potential cutbacks. Such inflationary pressures exacerbate public frustration across the continent. India and China, meanwhile, stand to lose if punitive measures scare off vital tankers, hamper refineries, or curtail discounted Russian shipments. Both countries prefer diversified energy imports and will likely resist any severe crackdown, yet each must balance strategic ties with the United States against domestic economic realities.
Back in Washington, Trump confronts a Congress that widely supports penalising Russia in response to the Ukraine war. Easing sanctions could trigger accusations of appeasement, while continuing them leaves little room for diplomatic breakthroughs. From Moscow’s point of view, Biden’s final action was an intentional trap. Lavrov reiterates that Russia will not abandon its core objections—particularly regarding NATO’s movement toward Russia’s borders—simply because the U.S. has made it difficult to negotiate. By imposing measures designed to scare off global shippers, hamper Russian firms, and label high-ranking officials as targets, the outgoing president ensured that Trump’s first steps involve navigating a maze of sanctions legislation and hawkish domestic critics.
The larger question is how much leverage Washington wields through financial dominance and its ability to blacklist entire fleets. Russian authorities argue that the moral justification for these moves rings hollow, given the selective nature of U.S. punishments. They see the unchallenged bombing of Gaza, and other conflicts disregarded by America, as proof that sanctions have little to do with defending human rights and everything to do with preserving U.S. hegemony. Whether the Trump administration can balance these competing agendas—maintaining a tough stance without plunging energy markets into deeper turmoil—will define its early relationship with Moscow. For now, the sanctions overshadow Trump’s inauguration, reflecting the deep-rooted determination of America’s foreign policy establishment to keep Russia on the defensive until it backs away from its own security demands.
* Gillian Schutte is a film-maker, and a well-known social justice and race-justice activist and public intellectual. Follow Gillian on X - @GillianSchutte1 and on Facebook - Gillian Schutte.
** The views expressed do not necessarily reflect the views of IOL or Independent Media.