Russia exploits medical exemptions to bypass sanctions, Lithuania says
According to Grigaite-Daugirde, Lithuanian customs authorities blocked 28,854 goods in 2024 that were allegedly destined for Russia and Belarus "under the guise of medical exemption."
Many of the flagged shipments contained parts for motor vehicles, refrigerators, copiers, and microelectronics — all of which can have military applications.
"We have witnessed parts for motor vehicles, refrigerators, copying machines, and other types of microelectronics being exported directly to Russia, claiming that these are bound for medical use," she said.
Under current EU rules, medical exemptions are automatically granted, leaving customs authorities to investigate the shipments retroactively. Lithuania has called for reforms allowing exporters to apply for exemptions before shipments are approved.
"Leaving automatic exemptions from sanctions for medical goods is like closing a door but leaving a keyhole," Grigaite-Daugirde said. "Russia definitely finds a way to pass."
As Moscow shifts to a wartime economy and seeks Western-made technology for its arms production, its efforts to circumvent sanctions have grown "desperate," she added.
Lithuania, a key EU and NATO member bordering both Belarus and Russia's heavily militarized Kaliningrad exclave, has taken a hardline stance on enforcement and regularly pushes for tougher sanctions within the bloc.
Read also: Why can't the West match Russia's ammunition production?
We've been working hard to bring you independent, locally-sourced news from Ukraine. Consider supporting the Kyiv Independent.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
The Hill
21 minutes ago
- The Hill
The numbers in Trump's EU trade deal are a joke
President Trump announced a trade deal with the European Union last month, proclaiming a 'generational modernization of the transatlantic alliance' that will 'provide Americans with unprecedented levels of market access' and is 'yet another agreement that positions the United States as the world's preeminent destination for investment, innovation, and advanced manufacturing.' The EU has been criticized heavily for folding to Trump. However, after many years of studying, practicing and teaching negotiations, I am not nearly so critical of the European strategy. Negotiating with Trump inevitably leads to three possible tactics: ignoring, retaliating or capitulating. Everyone goes for one or more of these tactics. But most have ended up at the last one, capitulating. The U.K. (like Columbia University, and perhaps soon Harvard) was much derided when it pioneered the capitulation strategy in May. But it is not necessarily a bad strategy when confronted by Trump. Alan Beattie of the Financial Times perceptively notes that 'Trump likes deals that aren't worth the handshake they're written on.' 'Roll with the punch,' he suggests, 'get the lowest baseline tariff you can, offer him some concessions with good optics but low impact, talk up the importance of the deal for the benefit of his ego and hope he moves on.' And so the EU has done. The U.S.-EU trade 'agreement' is apocryphal. Others have called it delusional. It is both — and thus important to understand. First, some context. In 2015, roughly the end of the Bretton Woods era for trade, the average weighted U.S. tariff against all goods was about 1.7 percent. Against EU goods it was 1.47 percent, versus 1.35 percent on U.S. goods into the EU. America currently imports more than $605 billion a year in goods from the EU. Trump's 'biggest deal ever made,' with a few exceptions, 'reduces' tariffs to 15 percent (steel and aluminum remain at 50 percent). However, it is not technically a deal. It is filled with numerous ' commitments ' such as 'work to address' and 'intend to work together,' or 'intend to address' and, curiously, 'take complementary actions to address.' This is the type of language used in a preliminary phase of a framework agreement, which would be the precursor to a serious trade negotiation. The White House is claiming that, first, that the EU will invest $600 billion directly in the U.S. during Trump's term (three times the rate it has invested in the past). This is, if not delusional, at least fantastical. The second concrete claim by the White House is that 'the EU will double down on America as the Energy Superpower by purchasing $750 billion of U.S. energy exports through 2028.' As Clyde Russell shows clearly in Reuters, these numbers simply do not make sense. But then, they need not. They serve their performative purpose well enough. Chalk up a specious victory and move on. Consider that in 2024, the EU imported 573 million barrels of crude oil from the U.S., which is valued currently at about $40.1 billion. The EU imported U.S. liquified natural gas in 2024 worth about $21.78 billion and bought about $2.67 billion in U.S. coal. So EU energy imports (at $64.55 billion) are about 26 percent of the $250 billion the EU is supposed to spend on American energy each year under the framework agreement. If the EU reaches the $250 billion a year goal, U.S. imports would account for 85 percent of its total spending on those energy commodities. While this appears to be a plus for U.S. producers, it would massively disrupt global energy markets (not to mention violate many long-term supply contracts). But more startling, it would exceed total current U.S. exports. Putting together the value of U.S. exports for all three energy commodities totals $165.8 billion, Russell calculates, 'meaning that even if the EU bought the entire volume it would still fall well short of the $250 billion.' Including nuclear adds a few billion dollars at best. Expanding to refined products, such as diesel? Perhaps another $10 billion. So the EU's commitment to buy $250 billion worth of American energy is entirely unrealistic and unachievable. 'The smart people in the room must know this,' Russell writes, so 'why agree to what is obviously a ridiculous number?' The only answer is the obvious one, and the most troubling. Substance doesn't matter, only performance. Where businesses must operate on substance and factual reality, politicians operate increasingly on attention-gaining performance. This may explain why Trump has done so poorly in business and so well in politics (and in the businesses he is generating based on politics). So, despite substantive criticisms of the EU team, they in fact made a perfectly understandable agreement. Specifically, when only attention matters and the substance of the deal is a mere side story of the performance, one can agree to almost anything. In this case, the more fantastical the better. Why didn't EU Commission President Ursula von der Leyen promise $900 billion? Trump would be even happier and Europe even less likely to uphold the 'agreement.' Smile, suck-up, sign, shrug and move on. The real negotiation is somewhere down the road; perhaps tomorrow afternoon. Well, maybe. Trump's authority even to make such a deal is still being litigated. The one unavoidable fact is that America has abandoned the rules-based trading system it carefully built over three-quarters of a century. It is a brave new world of U.S. trade 'agreements' based on rapid-fire, plainly meaningless commitments — but what a performance! Robert A. Rogowsky is professor of trade and diplomacy at the Middlebury Institute of International Studies and adjunct professor at Georgetown University's School of Foreign Service. He is a former chief economist and director of operations at the U.S. International Trade Commission.
The Hill
21 minutes ago
- The Hill
Russia no longer bound by self-imposed freeze on intermediate-range missiles: Kremlin
Russia announced on Monday that it will no longer be bound by a self-imposed restriction on the deployment of short- and medium-range nuclear missiles, pointing to efforts by the U.S. and its allies to develop and deploy similar weapons systems in Europe and Asia. 'Since our repeated warnings in this regard have been ignored and the situation is developing along the path of the actual emplacement of the US-made ground-launched INF-range missiles in Europe and the Asia-Pacific, the Russian Foreign Ministry has to state that the conditions for maintaining a unilateral moratorium on the deployment of similar weapons have ceased to exist,' Russian Foreign Ministry said in a lengthy statement. 'The Ministry is authorized to declare that the Russian Federation no longer considers itself bound by the relevant previously adopted self-restrictions,' the ministry added. Russia imposed the moratorium after the U.S. backed out of the 1987 Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces Treaty (INF) in 2019, accusing Moscow of breaching the agreement, which barred both military powers from deploying intermediate-range missiles that have a range of between 310 to 3,400 miles. The Foreign Ministry did not say when or where Russia may deploy the weapons. 'Decisions on the specific parameters of response measures will be made by the leadership of the Russian Federation based on interagency analysis with regard to the scope of the deployment of the US and other Western ground-launched INF-range missiles, as well as to the overall evolution in the area of international security and strategic stability,' the statement said. The announcement came just days after President Trump said the U.S. military was moving two nuclear submarines closer to Russia in response to 'highly provocative statements' made by Dmitry Medvedev, the former Russian president who is the deputy chairman of Russia's Security Council. Medvedev has been highly critical of U.S. foreign policy and is known for provocative and saber-rattling threats toward Washington, but is seen as having little decision-making power in the government. Russia's move also comes after Trump shortened the deadline for Mowcow to reach a ceasefire with Ukraine and get on a path toward a potential peace agreement. Trump, who has called for the end of the war in Eastern Europe that has raged for well over nearly three-and-half years, spoke with Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky on Tuesday, exchanging assessments of the situation on the ground, going over potential sanctions against Russia and joint efforts by European nations to supply Ukraine with more weapons. 'We also discussed our bilateral defense cooperation with America. The draft agreement on drones has already been prepared by the Ukrainian side, we are ready to discuss it in detail and conclude it. One of the strongest agreements this could be,' Zelesnky said in a Tuesday post on the social media platform X. Trump's special envoy Steve Witkoff is expected to travel to Russia this week for what the president said was the Kremlin's 'last chance' to reach a peace deal before Washington's sanctions kick into place. Trump said Witkoff 'may be going' to Russia on Wednesday or Thursday.
Bloomberg
23 minutes ago
- Bloomberg
Russia's Crude Output Was Slightly Above OPEC+ Target in July
Russia's oil data show its crude output was slightly above the nation's OPEC+ target in July, according to people familiar with the matter. Crude production rose to 9.13 million barrels a day last month, the people said, asking not to be identified as the information isn't public. That's about 27,000 barrels a day above the required level for the month, including compensation cuts, and the second time this year that output slightly exceeded the nation's target, Bloomberg calculations show.
