Work With Us
Something important is happening in Eurasian markets, and European governments have been slow to reckon with it. Across Armenia, Georgia and Central Asia, European companies are quietly pulling back from sectors they once regarded as commercially promising, not because the law requires it, but because the effort required to stay compliant has simply become too expensive to justify.
The issue is not sanctions themselves. Most European firms understand the purpose of sanctions policy and are broadly committed to following it. The problem is that the cost of navigating them is now high enough to be shaping commercial decisions in ways that were never intended.
Over the past three years, sanctions have expanded well beyond traditional export controls into financial services, payment infrastructure, logistics, cloud platforms, software services and digital commerce. Companies are now expected to investigate in addition to their direct counterparties, the ownership structures, intermediary networks and downstream relationships that surround them. Proving that a transaction is clean is no longer a matter of checking a name against a list. It requires constructing a picture of commercial relationships several degrees removed from the original customer and doing so reliably, and repeatedly.
For large institutions with dedicated compliance functions, this is an expensive but manageable cost. For smaller firms, it can be prohibitive. And for many, the rational response has become to avoid the exposure entirely, even when the underlying activity is entirely lawful.
Consider what this looks like in practice for European banks. A financial institution providing correspondent banking services to an Armenian counterpart now faces a compliance chain that can extend far beyond that bilateral relationship. It may need to assess whether the Armenian bank serves clients with Russian connections, whether those clients have ownership links to designated individuals, and whether any downstream transaction could later be characterised as circumvention, even if no breach is occurring and none is intended.
The legal risk associated with getting that assessment wrong is real. The cost of getting it right is substantial. And in a world where there is no guidance that keeps pace with enforcement expectations, the safest commercial decision is often simply not to provide the service at all.
The consequences spread quickly. European SMEs with operations in Armenia or Georgia find payments delayed or rejected. Trade finance becomes harder to arrange. Routine commercial transactions acquire an unpredictability that erodes business confidence over time. None of this reflects any wrongdoing on the part of the businesses affected. It reflects the friction generated by a compliance environment that has become difficult to navigate even for those acting in good faith.
What makes this strategically significant is who steps in when European banks step back. Turkish, Gulf and Chinese financial institutions have shown considerably less hesitation about maintaining and expanding their correspondent relationships in the region. Correspondent banking shapes payment routes, trade finance channels and the deeper patterns of economic integration that follow from them. As European banks quietly reduce their footprint, alternative financial infrastructure becomes more embedded, and the practical influence that comes with financial connectivity shifts accordingly.
The technology sector presents a version of the same problem with an additional complication: scale. Armenia and Georgia have both developed significant technology ecosystems since 2022, partly through the relocation of Russian IT professionals and firms seeking to operate outside Russia. For European cloud providers, SaaS platforms and software firms, this should represent a genuine commercial opening. A growing regional technology hub with European commercial and political ties is precisely the kind of market where European firms ought to have a natural advantage.
Instead, many are becoming more cautious since It is difficult to understand what lies several steps downstream. A European cloud provider serving an Armenian software company may have very limited visibility over that company’s clients, ownership structure or commercial relationships. Some of those clients may include Russian businesses operating entirely within the law. Others may involve offshore structures that obscure beneficial ownership. At some point on that chain, the question of whether providing cloud infrastructure constitutes indirect support for sanctioned activity becomes genuinely difficult to answer.
Most firms cannot answer it with confidence. And a compliance system that cannot provide confidence tends to produce caution.
The result is predictable. European providers decline clients with Russian-adjacent exposure, even where no formal sanctions connection exists, because the cost of continuous monitoring and investigation outweighs the commercial return. Chinese providers, Alibaba Cloud and Huawei Cloud among them, face no comparable constraint. Russian technology firms remain deeply embedded in parts of the regional digital economy. The European withdrawal simply relocates commercial opportunity to providers less subject to European regulatory scrutiny. Over time, this builds commercial dependencies and technical ecosystems that have progressively less connection to European firms, standards or influence.
In logistics, the pressure takes a slightly different form but produces a similar outcome. Georgia, Armenia and Kyrgyzstan have become important nodes in the freight and transit networks connecting Europe, Russia and Asia, which significant for the movement of goods, as well as for the broader commercial infrastructure of payment processing, customs brokerage and supply-chain management that surrounds it.
European freight forwarders operating through these corridors are now expected to demonstrate that shipments will not ultimately reach sanctioned Russian networks, even where those shipments pass through several intermediaries before reaching their destination. In practice, that means enhanced end-user documentation, additional transaction screening and ongoing monitoring of relationships that may extend well beyond the firm’s direct customers. The EU’s activation of anti-circumvention measures targeting Kyrgyzstan in 2026, alongside investigations into vehicle exports through Georgia and Kazakhstan, made clear that regulators are prepared to treat entire trade corridors as elevated-risk environments rather than targeting only specific actors.
For smaller logistics firms and freight forwarders without large compliance functions, the burden is acute. Operations that were commercially routine have acquired a legal complexity that requires specialist resource simply to manage. Again, the natural response for these firms is to withdraw entirely from these activities.
Chinese logistics providers have responded to this environment by building alternative supply chains that route around the highest-risk corridors, preserving their regional access while limiting their exposure to European enforcement expectations. Europe’s logistics presence in strategically important Eurasian corridors is diminishing because the regulatory environment has made participation too costly relative to what competitors face.
Big consultancies are responding to this challenge by developing screening tools as if the problem is a shortage of compliance tools. This is not the answer to European competitiveness.
Sanctions are not static compliance regimes. Enforcement priorities evolve rapidly. Relationships that appear low risk today may become strategically sensitive tomorrow. New sanctions packages regularly expand the scope of scrutiny, from goods to services, from direct ownership to indirect control, from designated entities to intermediary commercial relationships. That means sanctions navigation increasingly depends on contextual judgement rather than simple rules-based screening.
Kazakhstan’s National Catalogue of Goods, introduced in January 2026, offers a useful illustration of what better data infrastructure can look like. Goods imported, manufactured or sold in Kazakhstan are now required to be registered in a unified system linked to product-identification codes throughout the supply chain. Kazakhstan developed this primarily for its own purposes, better visibility over goods moving through its territory, support for tax and customs policy, and the ability to distinguish genuine domestic processing from simple transit trade. But the effect is to create exactly the kind of structured, traceable dataset that would make sanctions-related risk assessments in that market significantly more tractable. Many of the improvements that matter most for sanctions navigation can be built incrementally through investments that serve multiple policy objectives simultaneously.
Once better informational foundations are in place, analytical tools can make a real contribution. Machine learning systems are well-suited to identifying unusual transaction patterns, mapping ownership networks across large datasets and surfacing anomalies that manual review would miss. They can substantially reduce the time and cost burden of continuous monitoring.
But they cannot replace judgement. Modern sanctions regimes are too politically dynamic for that. The question of whether a particular commercial relationship creates unacceptable risk is not a binary determination that an algorithm can settle, it involves reading context, weighing probabilities and making a call that a human being has to own. Technology helps firms process a complex and changing environment more efficiently. It does not make the environment less complex or less political.
This distinction matters because it determines where policymakers should be directing their attention. The priority should not be encouraging firms to invest in better screening tools, better screening tools applied to incomplete data will still produce unreliable outputs. The priority should be improving the quality of the underlying data environment: cleaner beneficial ownership registries, more interoperable customs and trade systems, consistent use of product identification standards such as GTIN and HS codes, and greater structural visibility of intermediary commercial relationships across jurisdictions.
It is worth being clear about what is at stake. Financial services, digital infrastructure and logistics networks are not incidental commercial sectors, they are the infrastructure through which economic influence is exercised and maintained. They determine where payments flow, which platforms regional businesses rely upon, how trade routes develop and which commercial relationships become structurally embedded over time.
Armenia and Georgia are becoming regional hubs for fintech, cloud services, logistics, software development and digital payments. These are precisely the markets where Europe ought to be building long-term commercial presence, particularly as Armenia deepens its relationship with the EU and Georgia remains economically tied to Europe despite its domestic political difficulties. The opportunity is genuine. The trajectory, at present, is moving in the wrong direction.
European firms are retreating, and the space they leave is being filled by competitors operating under different, and generally less demanding, regulatory frameworks. This is not a conspiracy or a deliberate strategy on the part of those competitors. It is simply the commercial logic of a situation in which European firms face costs and uncertainties that their rivals do not.
The argument here is not for weaker sanctions. It is for a clearer-eyed acknowledgement that sanctions policy, as currently structured, is producing a side effect that was not intended and is not in Europe’s strategic interest. Enforcement expectations are being effectively outsourced to private firms without equivalent investment in the informational infrastructure that would allow those firms to meet those expectations efficiently.
European policymakers need to approach this as a competitiveness problem, not merely a compliance problem. That means identifying the specific sectors and markets where compliance ambiguity is pricing European firms out of strategically important positions, and taking deliberate steps to reduce the cost of lawful participation.
In practical terms, this requires investment in shared informational infrastructure, interoperable beneficial ownership registries, structured trade and customs data, clearer visibility of intermediary commercial relationships, and sector-specific guidance on due diligence expectations that keeps pace with enforcement realities rather than trailing behind them. It means treating the data foundations of sanctions navigation as a public-policy challenge rather than a private-sector burden.
European companies are currently expected to solve highly sophisticated geopolitical risk problems individually, repeatedly, and largely at their own expense. Larger institutions can sometimes absorb this. Many smaller firms cannot, and the aggregate effect of their withdrawal from key markets is significant. If Europe wants its sanctions policy to remain both effective and commercially sustainable over the long term, it cannot continue treating competitiveness as a secondary consideration.
The alternative, a gradual process by which European firms become systematically less capable of operating in markets where Europe claims to have growing strategic interests, is not an acceptable outcome. It means neither robust sanctions enforcement nor genuine commercial presence. Getting this right is not a matter of choosing between geopolitical principle and commercial pragmatism. It is a matter of recognising that the two objectives are only compatible if the infrastructure needed to pursue them coherently is actually built.
Work With Us
