Aletho News

ΑΛΗΘΩΣ

US, EU Reportedly Lose Track of $200 Billion in ‘Frozen’ Russian Funds

Samizdat – 06.12.2022

Western countries froze a huge chunk of the Russian Central Bank’s emergency reserve cushion in February in a bid to punish Moscow for its military operation in Ukraine. Officials in Washington and Brussels have since vacillated as to whether these funds can be seized outright and given to Kiev as “reparations.”

The United States and its European allies are having trouble actually locating two thirds or more of the Russian assets they froze earlier this year “because they do not know where exactly they are,” Charles Lichfield, a senior finance expert at the Atlantic Council, has indicated.

Speaking to Estonian media, Lichfield, the deputy director of the Washington-based think tank’s GeoEconomics Center, and expert on Russia’s central banking system, said Western countries actually seized closer to $80-$100 billion, not $300 billion, as has been widely reported.

Lichfield explained that the “freeze” on Russian assets obligated foreign banks not to allow for their transfer back to Russia, on penalty of losing their ability to transact in dollars and euros. However, some Asian and African banks may not have felt the need to respond to requests for information from Western authorities regarding transactions involving Russia, he said.

The US Treasury triumphantly announced in June that Washington and its allies had blocked or frozen some $300 billion in Russian state assets, plus $30 billion worth of assets of sanctioned individuals, including Russian tycoons.

Last week, European Commission chief Ursula von der Leyen proposed creating a special structure to manage the assets and “invest them.”

However, EU officials specified to media that Brussels couldn’t simply seize the Russian assets to use them in Ukraine because the bloc adheres to the principle of state immunity.

In the US, officials have expressed similar hesitation. Last month, lawmakers proposed a provision in the 2023 National Defense Authorization Act bill to allow for the transfer Russian assets to Ukraine, but the idea was met with opposition amid fears that the idea had not been “fully litigated.”

Russian officials have slammed the asset freeze as a form of “theft.”

The West’s actions have also prompted Chinese regulators and banks to brainstorm ways to keep their own assets stashed abroad safe if the US and its allies move against them in the way they have against Russia.

Russia’s frozen assets were previously estimated to constitute close to half of the country’s $640 billion reserve cushion. According to the Central Bank’s year-end report for 2021, the largest portion of its foreign currency and gold was stored in China (16.8 percent), followed by France (9.9 percent), Japan (9.3 percent), the United States (6.4 percent) Britain (5.1 percent), Canada (2.7 percent) and Australia (2.5 percent), with more than 51 percent thus located in states which have slapped sanctions on Moscow.

December 6, 2022 Posted by | Russophobia | , | 5 Comments

Russian oil shipments to Europe dwindling

RT | December 6, 2022

Deliveries of Russian seaborne oil to Europe have dropped more than fivefold since the start of Moscow’s military operation in Ukraine, Bloomberg reported on Monday citing vessel tracking data.

According to the report, the shipments plunged to an average of 309,000 barrels per day in the four weeks to December 5. This is less than a fifth of their volume in the four weeks to February 25, an average of 1.58 million barrels a day. Deliveries in the final week to November 25 dropped by 34%.

Analysts expect those figures to slide further after an EU embargo and the Western coalition’s $60 price cap on Russian seaborne barrels are in full swing. Both measures came into force on Monday, but have a transition period during which some deliveries are still possible.

Over the past months, Moscow has stepped up efforts to redirect supplies elsewhere. So far, shipments have been mostly diverted to China, India, and Türkiye, which emerged as the largest buyers of Russian oil.

According to vessel tracking data, the volume of crude on tankers destined for the three countries, along with those that have not yet supplied their port of destination but typically end up in either India or China, stood at an average of 2.45 million barrels a day over the past four weeks. That is more than three times as much as the volumes shipped there in the four weeks immediately prior to the start of the Ukraine conflict.

Total Russian crude export volumes increased by 94,000 barrels a day to 2.99 million in the week before the new restrictions kicked in. Shipments to Bulgaria, which has secured an exemption from the embargo and is now Russia’s only remaining EU seaborne oil market, were unchanged at 125,000 barrels a day. It is unclear, however, whether further deliveries to the country will be affected by Russia’s response to the sanctions. Moscow repeatedly warned that it will stop selling crude to countries that support the price cap, and warned on Monday that it may even cut production in retaliation.

Russia’s overall oil output has grown 2.2% to 488 million tons in the 11 months between January and November 2022, according to Deputy Prime Minister Alexander Novak, who spoke to reporters on Tuesday.

December 6, 2022 Posted by | Malthusian Ideology, Phony Scarcity | | 1 Comment

Kiev preparing to boycott Russian ammonia transit

By Lucas Leiroz | December 6, 2022

According to recent reports, Ukrainian intelligence, with foreign support, is planning a provocation to prevent the resumption of Russian ammonia transit. The aim would be to further destabilize humanitarian deals to secure fertilizer supplies and, consequently, global food security. Ammonia is an important component in the production of various types of fertilizers, which is why the instability of its supply poses considerable risks to millions of people around the planet, whose food is cultivated with Russian products.

Sources interviewed by a Russian media outlet claim that Ukrainian agents are being instructed by the UK Special Services and the Canadian military company Garda World to destroy the Russian export infrastructure of ammonia. The operation would be very similar to what happened in September with the Nord Stream pipelines. Informers allege that Kiev wants to bomb the ammonia storage facilities at the Odessa Portside Plant. Thus, the flow of ammonia through the Tolyatti-Odessa pipeline could not be resumed, generating an increase in the prices of the product.

“The provocation has been planned and is carried out under the control of the UK special services stationed in Odessa. Members of Canada’s private military company Garda World, who are responsible for security of port infrastructure in the Odessa region under the contract with the administration of Ukrainian sea ports, are also participating in the implementation of this provocation”, the source said.

Although the UN-mediated grain deal in which Russia is involved did not originally include the return of ammonia transit, negotiations in this regard were making significant progress. UN officials have expressed optimism on the matter in several recent pronouncements. According to Martin Griffiths, Under-Secretary-General for humanitarian affairs and emergency relief at the UN’s Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs (OCHA), the ammonia deal was “quite close”. Indeed, since the beginning of the special military operation Russia has shown diplomatic goodwill in negotiating humanitarian agreements, so it was possible that something was close to being achieved soon.

However, once again Western-backed Ukrainian terrorists seem to plan maneuvers which will increase tensions and instability. The sources also claim that Kiev will try to blame Russia for the attack. With this, the possible plan appears even more similar to what happened on previous occasions, such as Nord Stream, the Crimean Bridge, and the bombing in Poland. Indeed, this has become common practice on the part of Kiev and its Western supporters: using terrorism to serve their anti-Russian interests and trying to blame Moscow. As on previous occasions, if the attack in Odessa actually takes place, it is expected that there will be a huge defamatory media repercussion, with western news agencies spreading lies and distorted narratives about the incident.

In addition to defaming Russia even more, thus “justifying” the sanctions and other coercive measures, the West would also be economically interested in this type of move, since, without the resumption of Russian ammonia exports, many emerging countries would start to buy ammonia from the EU and from the UK – or start importing ammonia-based fertilizers from Canada. Obviously, Western countries would increase prices exponentially, demanding really abusive prices, given the scarcity of ammonia in the global market.

This once again shows how the West-Kiev axis seems only interested in fomenting chaos and international crisis, without any regard for pacifying the current conflict and for lessening its consequences. All forms of boycotting Russia’s international ties seem “legitimate” to Western countries, even if this endangers the food security of millions of people. Considering the importance of ammonia-based fertilizers for the cultivation of grains, if the predictions made by Russian media’s sources are confirmed, in-depth investigations will be necessary in order to punish those responsible for this crime.

It is also important to remember that the grains and fertilizers exported by Russia have been seized in Europe. Tons of food and chemical products are detained in European ports due to the sanctions, without reaching the countries of destination in Africa and Asia, where Moscow prioritizes exports for humanitarian reasons. Despite several Russian denunciations in this regard, no action has been taken by the UN, which remains silent in the face of illegal European practices that are evidently contributing to worsening food shortages around the world.

There is no way to deny the destabilizing and terrorist attitudes that NATO and its Ukrainian proxy are promoting. And international organizations need to recognize this as soon as possible.

Lucas Leiroz is a researcher in Social Sciences at the Rural Federal University of Rio de Janeiro; geopolitical consultant.

You can follow Lucas on Twitter and Telegram.

December 6, 2022 Posted by | False Flag Terrorism, Malthusian Ideology, Phony Scarcity | | 1 Comment

US Congressman Gosar Calls Washington’s Support for Kiev ‘Immoral’

Samizdat – 06.12.2022

Republican Congressman Paul Gosar, in response to the shelling of a church by Ukrainian troops in the city of Donetsk, called Washington’s support for Ukraine “immoral,” adding that the Kiev regime is “authoritarian.”

“Our continued support of this war in Ukraine is immoral. The deaths continue and Ukraine has become an authoritarian regime not worthy of any support. I support peace talks, not death and destruction. Not bombing churches,” Gosar tweeted.

On Monday, a Sputnik correspondent reported that the Church of Nativity of Christ in Donetsk was shelled by Ukrainian troops.

In late October, the US congressman invited Russian President Vladimir Putin and Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy for peace talks in the state of Arizona. Two weeks later, Gosar said he would continue opposing additional US aid to Ukraine.

December 6, 2022 Posted by | Civil Liberties, War Crimes | , , | 1 Comment

Climategate: 13th anniversary

By Robert Bradley Jr. | MasterResource | November 22, 2022

There is no doubt that these emails are embarrassing and a public-relations disaster for science.” – Andrew Dessler, “Climate E-Mails Cloud the Debate,” December 10, 2009.

It has been 13 years since the intellectual scandal erupted called Climategate. Each anniversary inspires recollections and regurgitation of salient quotations. These quotations speak for themselves; attempts of climate alarmists to parse the words and meaning distracts from what was said in real-time private conversations.

And the scandal got worse after the fact when, according to Paul Stephens, “virtually the entire climate science community tried to pretend that nothing was wrong.” Whitewash exonerations by the educational institutions involved and scientific organizations – were a blow to scholarship and standards as well. The standard of fair, objective, transparent research was sacrificed to a politically correct narrative about the qualitative connection between CO2 forcing and temperature (see Wiki).

Fred Pearce’s The Climate Files: The Battle for the Truth About Global Warming (2010) was a rare mainstream-of-sorts look at the scandal. Michael Mann is the bad actor, despite his I-am-the-victim take in his account, The Hockey Stick and the Climate Wars (2012).[1]

Background:

On November 19, 2009, a whistle-blower or hacker downloaded more than 1,000 documents and e-mails from the Climatic Research Unit (CRU) at East Anglia University (United Kingdom). Posted on a Russian server, these documents were soon accessed by websites around the world to trigger the exposé.

These e-mails were part of confidential communications between top climate scientists in the UK, the United States, and other nations over a 15-year period. The scientists involved had developed surface temperature data sets and promoted the “Hockey Stick” global temperature curve, as well as having wrtten/edited the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) physical-science assessment reports.

Branded “Climategate” by British columnist James Delingpole, the emails provided insight into practices that range from bad professionalism to fraudulent science. Bias, data manipulation, dodging freedom of information requests, and efforts to subvert the peer-review process were uncovered.

Some of the more salient quotations follow.

Man-Made Warming Controversy

“I know there is pressure to present a nice tidy story as regards ‘apparent unprecedented warming in a thousand years or more in the proxy data’ but in reality the situation is not quite so simple.”

—Dr. Keith Briffa, Climatic Research Unit, disclosed Climategate e-mail, Sep. 22, 1999.

“Keith’s [Briffa] series… differs in large part in exactly the opposite direction that Phil’s [Jones] does from ours. This is the problem we all picked up on (everyone in the room at IPCC was in agreement that this was a problem and a potential distraction/detraction from the reasonably consensus viewpoint we’d like to show w/ the Jones et al and Mann et al series).”

—Dr. Michael Mann, IPCC Lead Author, disclosed Climategate e-mail, Sep. 22, 1999.

“… it would be nice to try to ‘contain’ the putative ‘MWP’ [Medieval Warm Period]…”

—Dr. Michael Mann, IPCC Lead Author, disclosed Climategate e-mail, June 4, 2003

“By the way, when is Tom C [Crowley] going to formally publish his roughly 1500 year reconstruction??? It would help the cause to be able to refer to that reconstruction as confirming Mann and Jones, etc.”

—Dr. Michael Mann, IPCC Lead Author, disclosed Climategate e-mail, Aug. 3, 2004.

“I gave up on Judith Curry a while ago. I don’t know what she thinks she’s doing, but it’s not helping the cause, or her professional credibility.”

—Dr. Michael Mann, IPCC Lead Author, disclosed Climategate e-mail, May 30, 2008

“Well, I have my own article on where the heck is global warming… The fact is that we can’t account for the lack of warming at the moment and it is a travesty that we can’t.”

—Dr. Kevin Trenberth, IPCC Lead Author, disclosed Climategate e-mail, Oct. 12, 2009.

Manipulating Temperature Data

“I’ve just completed Mike’s [Mann] Nature trick of adding in the real temps to each series for the last 20 years (i.e. from 1981 onwards) and from 1961 for Keith’s [Briffa] to hide the decline.”

—Dr. Phil Jones, Director of the Climatic Research Unit, disclosed Climategate e-mail, Nov. 16, 1999.

“Also we have applied a completely artificial adjustment to the data after 1960, so they look closer to observed temperatures than the tree-ring data actually were….”

—Dr. Tim Osborn, Climatic Research Unit, disclosed Climategate e-mail, Dec. 20, 2006.

“If you look at the attached plot you will see that the land also shows the 1940s warming blip (as I’m sure you know). So, if we could reduce the ocean blip by, say 0.15 deg C, then this would be significant for the global mean—but we’d still have to explain the land blip….”

—Dr. Tom Wigley, University Corporation for Atmospheric Research, on adjusting global temperature data, disclosed Climategate e-mail to Phil Jones, Sep. 28, 2008.

“We, therefore, do not hold the original raw data but only the value-added (i.e. quality controlled and homogenized) data.”

—Climatic Research Unit web site, the world’s leading provider of global temperature data, admitting that it can’t produce the original thermometer data, 2011.

Data Suppression; Freedom of Information (FOI) Avoidance

“We have 25 or so years invested in the work. Why should I make the data available to you, when your aim is to try to find something wrong with it.”

—Dr. Phil Jones, Director of the Climate Research Unit at East Anglia University, email to Warwick Hughes, 2004.

“I’m getting hassled by a couple of people to release the CRU station temperature data. Don’t any of you three tell anybody that the UK has a Freedom of Information Act.”

—Dr. Phil Jones, Director of the Climatic Research Unit, disclosed Climategate e-mail, Feb. 21, 2005.

“Mike [Mann], can you delete any e-mails you may have had with Keith [Trenberth] re AR4? Keith will do likewise…. Can you also e-mail Gene and get him to do the same? I don’t have his e-mail address…. We will be getting Caspar to do likewise.”

—Dr. Phil Jones, Director of the Climatic Research Unit, disclosed Climategate e-mail, May 29, 2008.

“You might want to check with the IPCC Bureau. I’ve been told that IPCC is above national FOI Acts. One way to cover yourself and all those working in AR5 [the upcoming IPCC Fifth Assessment Report] would be to delete all e-mails at the end of the process. Hard to do, as not everybody will remember it.”

—Dr. Phil Jones, Director of the Climatic Research Unit, on avoiding Freedom of Information requirements, disclosed Climategate e-mail, May 12, 2009.

Subverting the Peer-Review Process

“I can’t see either of these papers being in the next IPCC report. Kevin [Trenberth] and I will keep them out somehow, even if we have to redefine what the peer-review literature is!”

—Phil Jones, Director of the Climatic Research Unit, disclosed Climategate e-mail, July 8, 2004.

Appendix: Implications

Climate scientist Judith Curry reassessed her thinking about the state of climate science in response to the scandal. “Climategate was a turning point,” she remembered, where “pronouncements from the IPCC were no longer sufficient.” Curry explained:

Institutionally, Climategate triggered the formation of the Global Warming Policy Foundation (GWPF), which has become quite influential in UK climate policy and to some extent internationally.

She added:

The skeptical climate blogosphere has thrived and expanded, largely triggered by Climategate (Climate Etc. was triggered largely by Climategate).  Whereas the ‘warm’ blogosphere for the most part has waned (notably RealClimate), with the exception of Skeptical Science.  It seems that most of the ‘action’ on the warm side has switched to twitter, whereas skeptics prefer the blogosphere.

The growth of the technical skeptical blogosphere (pioneered by Steve McIntyre) has challenged traditional notions of expertise, i.e. credentials and sanctity of journal publications, through Climate Audit’s blogospheric deconstruction of many publications, particularly related to paleo proxies.  While the technical skeptical blogosphere seems to have provided the motive for the Climategate ‘hack’, the technical skeptical blogosphere has thrived, and many of these sites are followed by the media and decision makers of various stripes.

Today, the Internet is the primary check on the excesses of the politicized UN/IPCC process. Cancel and ignore as they might, the blogosphere is driving the climate-science debate in real time against the Malthusian establishment.

————–

[1] “Words and phrases had been cherry picked from the thousands of e-mail messages, removed from their original context, and strung together in ways designed to malign me, my colleagues, and climate research itself,” Mann states on the opening page.

December 6, 2022 Posted by | Corruption, Deception, Science and Pseudo-Science, Timeless or most popular | Leave a comment