There are people who know things, and there are people who will say them. Simon Papuashvili, Program Director of the International Partnership for Human Rights (IPHR), is rare in being both.
The Brussels-based NGO documents killings, torture, and abductions through open-source investigations — and in 2016, their evidence contributed to the International Court of Justice proceedings against Russia over crimes in occupied Crimea.
Which is why, when I spotted him at B4Ukraine, a conference on strengthening sanctions against Russia, I wanted to talk to him.
What strikes you first is that he doesn't convey urgency. He is calm, with the occasional trace of a smile that suggests he has already thought through whatever you're about to ask. What he says, however, is not calm at all. He is one of the few voices willing to state it plainly: Europe has adopted sanction after sanction against Russia, and then, quietly, looked the other way on enforcement.
Can you tell what works better, kinetic or economic sanctions?
Well, I think they're both important, and they should be seen as complementary rather than one or the other.
If you look at the Russian state budget, a large part of its revenue comes from the sale of fossil fuels. Still, four years after the full-scale war, a big chunk of the fossil fuels that Russia sells are being bought by the European states. We're talking about hundreds of billions of euros that go directly into the Russian state budget.
Taking this into consideration, the most effective sanction would be to basically say no to buying Russian oil and gas. That will have a direct, immediate impact on the war and Russia's ability to continue it.
Is Russia's gas and oil biggest part of Russian budget?
Well, the most conservative estimate is 30%, and even if we stick to that, 30% of income is a lot, you know. Russia has still been able to operate a shadow fleet, beside Europeans continue to buy oil and gas.
"The price cap on oil and gas, mostly on oil, has not been effectively enforced. There are things that can be done in this regard," Papuashvili said.
What has worked with sanctions and what hasn't, and how can we tell?
The sanctions' impact has been limited, and this is partly because we have a big problem with enforcement.
This problem is partly due to the fact that sanctions are not far-reaching and come very slowly and painfully. Also, it's because Europeans and Americans, Ukraine's allies, don't have, and haven't been put in place, proper institutions that are well-resourced to ensure that the sanctions in place are effectively enforced.
"So you can adopt as many sanctions as you want, but if you don't enforce them, there's no point. We have a big problem with enforcement, or the lack of enforcement," the human rights lawyer explained.
Experts say that Russia's overall goals — Ukraine and Europe's destruction — will not change, even if its economy declines
To gauge the war, you need resources. War is expensive, and you can't conduct a war if you don't have money. It’s very simple.
The Russians are used to living in harsh conditions, and they probably still have room to go in terms of how bad it can get.
"But if the government of Russia does not have money to produce drones, missiles, military equipment, and pay the soldiers, they just will not be able to sustain this. Full stop," he stressed.
Trending Now
It's not just about worsening economic conditions. Generally speaking, it's about financing actual military combat operations.
We can see that Hungary demanded that Russian gas be delivered to Europe through Druzhba pipeline, despite many years of genocide…
I do hope that, in the medium to long term, this Hungarian government and other European nations disengage from dependence on Russian fossil fuels and build infrastructure for renewable energy that can make this possible.
Saying no to Russian fossil fuels cannot possibly happen overnight; it doesn't matter how much Ukraine wants this. It takes some time. But what is clear is that we're like four years in the full-scale war, and if the European nations, including Hungary, had wanted to do that, they could have done a lot.
Hungary and its former prime minister, Orban, did not want to do that. Hopefully, this will change now that they have the new government.
However, it’s clear that Peter Magyar would have likely avoided implementing unpopular decisions amid the election campaign. As it could have had a negative impact on the Hungarian economy, leading to him losing elections and, in the future, to Fidesz returning to power.
So maybe problem is talking to society and explaining why prices are rising?
Absolutely, yeah. Finland has been doing a great job in this regard. They take this whole-society approach, with drastic policy measures, including saying no to Russian fossil fuels. They spend a great deal of time, energy, and resources explaining to society why they do this, why it will be painful, and why they have to endure this pain.
They run information campaigns, produce explainers that are shared on social media, have dedicated TV programs, and people write articles in the news to explain this.
What do Western governments believe about how this war ends? How? Do they have strategy?
Unfortunately, they don't. I don't see that, especially in Europe. The US is a particular case right now.
"The Europeans don't seem to have a vision for how to end this war. That's a big problem," Papuashvili noted.
I really believe that if they wanted to end the war, they have the power to do so. If they say, "In one year, we want the Russian economy to be in tatters, and we want Russian troops to be out of all temporarily occupied territories of Ukraine, and we want Ukraine to join the EU", this is possible. But they are not doing it. They're not doing it because of…
… because they feel comfortable with what is going on right now? “Ukraine fights, but Russia doesn't lose?
Unfortunately, it is so.
