Russian state media are portraying sanctions imposed over Moscow’s aggression against Ukraine as unlawful, while the measures remain grounded in international law and subject to legal challenge in the EU.
The Kremlin is conducting an information campaign to cast doubt on the legitimacy of international sanctions against Russia, with Russian outlets repeating claims between 9 and 12 August 2026 that the restrictions are “illegal and unfounded”. The reports cited remarks by Vladimir Putin questioning Japan’s position and saying Tokyo had imposed sanctions on Russia under the pretext of events in Ukraine, according to RIA Novosti and Russian Channel Five.
The portrayal is false. The first international sanctions against Russia were introduced in 2014 in response to its occupation of the Autonomous Republic of Crimea and the launch of hostilities in eastern Ukraine. After the full-scale invasion of Ukraine in February 2022, the EU and its allies intensified economic and political pressure on Moscow in response to Russia’s breach of the UN Charter and Ukraine’s sovereignty, as well as war crimes against civilians.
The legal basis for the restrictions
The UN General Assembly’s resolution ES-11/1, adopted in March 2022, described Russia’s action as an act of aggression against Ukraine. Moscow’s conduct has violated core principles of international law, including those set out in the Helsinki Final Act and the UN Charter, which protect the sovereignty and territorial integrity of states.
Sanctions are a direct and proportionate consequence of specific actions by the Kremlin: the occupation of Ukrainian territory, the destruction of civilian infrastructure and the killing of civilians. The stated purpose of the restrictions is to limit the Kremlin’s ability to finance its military machine and pressure Russia to comply with the legal principles underpinning the international order.
By August 2026, the EU had adopted 21 sanctions packages since February 2022. The measures are not an arbitrary punishment imposed outside any legal framework. Decisions in the EU are subject to judicial review, and any individual or company placed on a sanctions list can challenge that decision in court.
That possibility of appeal, together with the involvement of all 27 EU member states in adopting the decisions, provides a legal safeguard against unsupported or capricious restrictions. The sanctions are based on evidence of a subject’s involvement in aggression against Ukraine, or in financing or supplying Russia’s war machine.
Economic pressure and military capacity
Under the sanctions packages, the EU has frozen about €210bn in sovereign assets belonging to Russia’s central bank. It has also prohibited seaborne imports of Russian oil and most oil products. European countries have no legal obligation to buy resources from a state using energy revenues to wage a war of conquest in Europe. Choosing not to import Russian energy, or not to export advanced technology, is a lawful political and economic decision and part of those countries’ sovereign right to choose their trading partners.
The restrictions on dual-use goods and advanced technology are intended to reduce Russia’s ability to manufacture high-precision missiles, attack drones and other weapons. They cover semiconductors, electronic components, equipment and technologies that can be used by Russia’s defence industry. Such export controls are among the instruments available to states seeking to constrain an aggressor’s capacity to continue military operations.
The wider sanctions regime has also targeted nearly 3,000 individuals and companies. More than 90 Russian banks and financial institutions, including key systemically important banks, have been disconnected from SWIFT or subjected to severe transaction restrictions. In addition, more than 670 vessels associated with Russia’s “shadow fleet” have been sanctioned because the Kremlin uses them to evade the oil price cap.
A coalition confronting Moscow’s narrative
The sanctions policy is supported by a broad coalition that includes the EU, the US, the UK, Japan, South Korea, Australia and other countries. That breadth undercuts Moscow’s attempt to present the measures as the unilateral initiative of a small group of states.
The Kremlin’s effort to describe the restrictions as unlawful therefore serves a strategic purpose: it seeks to obscure the chain of events that led to them, from the occupation of Ukrainian territory to the full-scale invasion and the continuing consequences for civilians. Abandoning sanctions in response to such actions would remove a central means of holding an aggressor to account and risk encouraging other states to believe that violations of sovereignty can be met with little more than diplomatic condemnation.
The unresolved question is whether the campaign can weaken international support for sanctions, or whether the legal procedures and the breadth of the coalition will preserve them as a sustained response to Russia’s aggression.
Should international sanctions be judged mainly by their economic impact, or by the legal and strategic principles they are intended to defend?
