The Great Sanctions Schism
European political turbulence constrains the region’s ability to coordinate or project a unified sanctions strategy, producing regulatory gaps that compliance teams must navigate alone.
By James Appleyard, Group Head of Sanctions Transformation & Business Engagement at SEB
My hot takes for 2026? A capricious Trump administration loses patience with ongoing Russia-Ukraine peace talks, the by-product being an increased divergence in US, EU and UK approaches to sanctions policy in this corner of the world. This matter will be compounded by the cratering poll ratings of Europe’s key political leaders (yep - it’s not looking good for Messrs Macron, Merz and Starmer in 2026), which will further strain Transatlantic policy alignment and crimp the bandwidth on this side of the pond to simply hold it all together. It’s plausible that the US also forges its own more hawkish path on the likes of China and Venezuela in the new year, which again reinforces this policy divergence narrative.
Other key geographies for financial institutions and corporates to grapple with include Syria – there’s no cookie-cutter approach to reintegrating the country back into the global economy, and organizations have differing risk appetites. On Iran, for me it’s largely as you were in 2026 – I see little if any change to the West’s “maximum pressure” approach. Last prediction: it’ll be a big year for authorities globally who will be keen to bag the scalps of actors caught circumventing sanctions regulations in the last 2-3 years. Possibly we could see some headline-grabbing enforcement actions in the coming weeks/months, which could make for uncomfortable reading in certain capitals.
