The Error Is Not Canceled, But Postponed

• Petro Oleshchuk
• 21.04.2026, 12:37

Why even a one-month extension of the oil indulgence for Russia is not justified.

So, despite preliminary statements, the U.S. did not move to a tougher sanctions regime against Russia, but instead extended for another month the sanctions relief that allows a number of countries to buy Russian oil by sea until May 16, 2026.

The main problem with this decision lies in the very logic of the temporary easing of restrictions. It was taken amid an energy shock caused by the conflict over Iran and disruptions in the Strait of Hormuz region. To stabilize global prices, Washington first introduced a 30-day exemption and then extended it for another month.

But this measure demonstrates the vulnerability of the sanctions pressure strategy. In an unstable global market, Russia has an opportunity to reposition itself not as an aggressor, but as an "unwanted but necessary" supplier of raw materials. This creates favorable conditions for the Kremlin: rising oil prices increase revenues, and any relaxations give additional room for maneuver.

This approach undermines the idea of "partial easing of sanctions". Russia's oil industry remains a key source of funding for the budget and military spending, so any export easing, even short-term, actually maintains the regime's stability.

With this background, Ukraine's actions are particularly noteworthy, as it is striking at Russia's oil infrastructure - terminals, pipelines and refining facilities. These attacks are aimed at physical limitation of export opportunities, which directly reduces the resource base of the war.

A contradiction arises: on the one hand, military strikes destroy the logistics of Russian oil exports, on the other hand, temporary economic relief keeps the market able to continue transactions. This reduces the overall effect of pressure.

Additional importance is also attached to the political signal. The extension of the exemption came shortly after the announcement that there would be no more such easing. Such a reversal may be perceived as a sign that the sanctions policy depends on the situation and can be adjusted if energy risks grow.

As a result, the one-month postponement does not look like a strategic decision, but an attempt to stabilize prices in the short term while preserving long-term risks. At the same time, the effectiveness of pressure could be higher if the sanctions policy is synchronized with the strikes on infrastructure, which are already being made on the ground.

Petr Oleshchuk, Doctor of Political Science, professor at Taras Shevchenko National University, specially for Charter97.org.