Tuesday, May 26, 2026
Today's Edition

EveryNews

Stories that matter, signal over noise

Business

U.S. lifts sanctions on Belaruskali and permits transactions with Belinvestbank — why it matters for Ukraine

OFAC removed Belaruskali from the SDN list and issued a general license for Belinvestbank following the release of 250 political prisoners. We explain what this means for Belarus’s economy, what risks it creates for Ukraine, and what partners should do to prevent the measure from becoming a loophole.

Tetiana Suchkova-Ladik

By Tetiana Suchkova-Ladik

March 26, 2026 · 2 min read

U.S. lifts sanctions on Belaruskali and permits transactions with Belinvestbank — why it matters for Ukraine
Фото: Білоруськалій

What happened — in short

The U.S. Department of the Treasury's Office of Foreign Assets Control (OFAC) removed the state company Belaruskali and related entities from the SDN sanctions list, and also issued a general license permitting transactions with Belinvestbank and its subsidiaries. The official decision followed the release by Lukashenko's regime of about 250 political prisoners, the U.S. Treasury website reports.

Why this happened

Exchanging sanctions concessions for the release of political prisoners is straightforward diplomatic logic: the leverage of economic incentives is used to achieve a human-rights objective. At the same time, it is a signal from Washington that pressure mechanisms can be flexible when concrete concessions are obtained.

"This is a political signal."

— Pavlo Klimkin, Minister of Foreign Affairs of Ukraine (2014–2019)

Economic context: why potash matters

Potash fertilizers are one of Belarus's key export commodities. Belaruskali, together with Russian Uralkali and two American companies, is among the world's top four suppliers of potash. After the 2021 sanctions, Minsk redirected sales through Russia, which increased its economic dependence on the Kremlin.

Consequences for the region and for Ukraine

There are two opposing logics. On one hand, lifting sanctions may ease economic pressure on the regime and reduce its incentive to radicalize its foreign policy. On the other hand, restored revenues from potash exports and access to international banking operations give the regime resources that could be directed toward strengthening security cooperation with Russia or financing repressions.

For Ukraine this means: even a positive step (the release of prisoners) carries potential risks — from increased financial flows to deeper logistical integration of Minsk with Moscow. These risks need to be monitored promptly.

What partners and Ukraine should do

Declarations should be accompanied by control mechanisms. A minimal list of actions: transparent mechanisms to track potash export flows; financial monitoring of transactions through Belinvestbank; agreed international criteria for subsequent steps to tighten or reinstate sanctions; an independent report on the share of export revenues.

Conclusion

The OFAC decision is a tactical diplomatic victory that delivers real benefits to people (the returned political prisoners). At the same time, it opens space for the economic revival of Lukashenko's regime, which requires careful monitoring by Ukraine and its partners. The question is not whether to negotiate — but how to make trade transparent so that economic gains do not translate into geopolitical risks.

Related

Latest

Business

EU Against Google: Why the Latest Fine Could Change More Than Previous Ones

# European Regulators Target Google Again — This Time Over Digital Markets Act Violations. What's Behind the Accusations and Why It Matters Beyond the Corporation European regulators have renewed their scrutiny of Google, this time focusing on alleged violations of the Digital Markets Act. The charges underscore Brussels' increasingly aggressive stance on big tech monopolies and what officials say are anticompetitive practices. The accusations center on how Google leverages its dominance across multiple digital services — from search to advertising to mobile platforms — to disadvantage competitors. Regulators claim the company is using its market power in ways that stifle innovation and limit consumer choice. The case carries significance far beyond Google itself. It signals how the EU is attempting to enforce its landmark Digital Markets Act, legislation designed to curb the gatekeeping power of tech giants. A potential penalty could set precedent for how other large technology companies face similar scrutiny. For consumers and smaller tech firms, the outcome could reshape the digital landscape by creating more room for competition. For Google, fines and operational restrictions could fundamentally alter its business model in Europe, the world's most stringent regulatory market. The case also reflects a broader geopolitical divide, with the EU pursuing a regulatory approach that contrasts sharply with the lighter-touch oversight favored in the United States.

May 26, 2026