Gas prices spike amid fears of Middle East supply shock
RT | March 2, 2026
Gas markets around the world were rattled on Monday, with benchmark European natural gas prices rising sharply and broader energy markets on edge after Middle East tensions increased the risk to supplies via the critical Strait of Hormuz.
European benchmark gas futures surged by around 50% – their biggest single day move since March 2022 – after LNG tankers largely stopped transiting the Strait of Hormuz, the narrow waterway between Iran and Oman that carries about a fifth of global oil and gas shipments, over the weekend.
The spike was compounded by a drone strike on QatarEnergy’s major LNG complex at Ras Laffan, which forced production to be halted.
Crude markets also rallied, with Brent futures climbing to multi-month highs as the escalation further constrained energy flows from the region.
Across the Gulf, other energy sites have also been hit or temporarily shut, with producers suspending parts of their operations as a precaution. Saudi Arabia has reportedly paused activity at its Ras Tanura refinery following the attacks. With pipeline alternatives limited and shipping routes through the area stalling, traders are now pricing in the risk that supply lines could remain disrupted for an extended period.
Analysts warn that the turmoil could amount to the most serious shock to gas markets since the 2022 energy crisis. The EU is seen as particularly exposed. The bloc has already faced repeated jumps in energy costs since it scaled back Russian oil and gas imports following the escalation of the Ukraine conflict. Moving away from relatively cheap Russian pipeline gas has forced the bloc to lean more heavily on LNG deliveries, especially from the US. Now, with the heating season ending but storage sites less full than usual, the region requires substantial LNG imports over the summer to rebuild inventories ahead of next winter.
The rally comes as US President Donald Trump has indicated that military operations against Iran could continue for several weeks, while a number of major maritime insurers are preparing to stop covering war risks for ships entering the Persian Gulf.
Military strikes launched by the US and Israel against Iran on Saturday have shown no sign of easing. The intense attacks have reportedly killed Iranian Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei and other senior officials, including the head of the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps, while Tehran has responded with airstrikes against Israel and several Gulf states hosting US military assets. In a further sign of regional escalation, Lebanon’s Hezbollah has entered the fray with cross‑border attacks on Israeli military positions, prompting retaliatory airstrikes on the group’s infrastructure and command sites.
Analysts, including Goldman Sachs, estimate that a month‑long halt to shipping through the Strait of Hormuz could send European gas prices up by as much as 130% from current levels, putting renewed pressure on households and industry.
Kirill Dmitriev, Russia’s presidential envoy and head of the country’s sovereign wealth fund, argued that the latest price jump highlights the cost of Europe’s decision to move away from Russian fuel. In a social‑media post, he said EU gas prices “could more than double soon” and claimed that the bloc’s “strategic blunder of avoiding cheap and reliable Russian gas is backfiring.”
Forget Oil: Natural Gas Prices Are About to Go Through the Roof If Hormuz Isn’t Reopened Soon
Sputnik – 01.03.2026
“Gas prices may rise, because approximately 20% of the world’s LNG transits through the Strait of Hormuz, including all of Qatar’s production,” Igor Yushkov, a top Russian energy expert, told Sputnik, commenting on the Persian Gulf crisis.
“Qatar is one of the largest producers of LNG in the world, second only to Australia and the US. If there’s a shortage of LNG on the global market…the exchange price could easily exceed $1k or even 1.5k. We’ve seen similar prices in Europe even without such a shortage. So the price could skyrocket.”
According to Yushkov, “everything will depend on how long the tension in the Strait of Hormuz lasts,” including not only Iran’s readiness to reopen it, but gas producers’ willingness to resume transit.
“In any case, we will see higher shipping costs, higher insurance costs for ships,” with the situation “further exacerbated” by the fact that the Northern Hemisphere is still in the heating season, with Europe’s underground gas storage facilities being gradually depleted.
“Even though Qatar gas physically goes primarily to Asian markets, the exchange price will rise everywhere,” same as oil, Yushkov clarified. Qatar itself also has no alternative to Hormuz. “Therefore, if it is unable to export LNG, Qatar will simply have to stop production.”
Message to China
The current crisis is also “a major wake-up call for China,” with the US demonstrating its readiness to flout international law, Yushkov says.
“China is being shown that anything coming from the south is unsafe. Passage through the Strait of Hormuz may be interrupted today as part of the current conflict, but tomorrow the Americans could close it off to Qatari LNG supplies to the Chinese market.”
“Or they could close the Strait of Malacca, through which all the hydrocarbons going to China from Africa and the entire Middle East flow. Therefore, this is a signal to China that anything coming from the north is much safer, and much more difficult to shut down,” the observer summed up.
Hormuz Strait: Iran’s Strategic Trump Card for Forcing Enemies to the Negotiating Table
Sputnik – 01.03.2026
Iran is in an “existential confrontation” with the US and Israel, and restricting access to the Hormuz Strait – entry point to the oil-rich Persian Gulf region, is one of the “most powerful strategic cards” it holds, says Dr. Ali Mamouri, a former strategic communication advisor to Iraq’s prime minister.
“Iran’s broader strategy appears to be buying time and raising the cost of the conflict, hoping to drag the United States into a prolonged and expensive confrontation that would generate domestic political pressure on President Trump to seek a ceasefire,” Mamouri told Sputnik.
“On the other side, Washington and Israel seem to be betting on internal collapse—expecting that military pressure might trigger protests, elite divisions, or defections within Iran’s security forces. So far, however, none of these internal fractures have appeared.”
“A prolonged closure” of the Hormuz Strait would have a profound impact on the global economy, Mamouri says.
“A sustained disruption would likely trigger sharp spikes in global oil prices.” Beyond that, the import-heavy economies of Gulf countries, and oil import-dependent economies of Asia and Europe could descend into crises, shipping insurance premiums would surge, global supply chains wrecked, and inflation skyrocketing, “affecting everything from fuel prices to manufacturing and food supply.”
“In this sense, a prolonged crisis in the Strait of Hormuz could trigger a domino effect across the global economy, combining energy shocks, trade disruptions and financial instability,” Mamouri stressed. “If Iran manages to maintain a sustained disruption, it could become a powerful bargaining tool to force negotiations and potentially halt the current military escalation.”
Ukraine Given $43Bln in Proceeds From Russian Assets Frozen by G7 Since 2024 – Estimates
Sputnik – 27.02.2026
The G7 nations have issued $3.8 billion in loans to Ukraine in 2026 using proceeds generated by frozen Russian state assets, bringing the total amount of loans given to Kiev since 2024 to almost $43 billion, according to calculations by Sputnik based on data from the Ukrainian Finance Ministry and national agencies.
In 2024, the G7 countries approved a $50-billion loan to Ukraine, funded by revenues from frozen Russian assets. By late February 2026, the countries had allocated $42.7 billion to Ukraine under this scheme.
The first billion was transferred to Ukraine by the United States in late 2024. Since then, Washington has not provided any new funding to Kiev from Russian asset proceeds. The other members of the G7 gave Ukraine $37.9 billion in 2025 and $3.8 billion in 2026.
Overall, the European Union has contributed $32 billion in funding to Ukraine as part of the loan secured by Russian assets. Canada has contributed $3.6 billion, while Japan and the United Kingdom have each contributed approximately $3 billion.
Ukrainian military analyst praises use of drones against ‘Russian-Hungarian-Slovak friendship’
Remix News | February 27, 2026
Ukrainian analyst Valery Savchuk spoke in a video about Ukraine’s geopolitical pressure on Hungary by shutting down the Friendship oil pipeline, calling it a correct strategy. He added that drones should also be used to strike at the “Russian-Hungarian-Slovak friendship,” writes Hirado, based on a video the analyst published.
“I personally like this Ukrainian position: the position of a serious player who uses all opportunities to achieve his goals. Blackmail? Yes, geopolitics. It’s time for us to play these games too — on the condition that this game leads to the desired result for us.”
He then went on to say that Ukraine should also use drones against the Hungarians and Slovaks. “Now we will wait for the decision of the European Union. We will wait for the effective work of our diplomats, and most importantly: We will wait for new devastating blows of our drones to this Russian-Hungarian-Slovak friendship,” he said, presumably referring to the Friendship oil pipeline.
Ukraine has been blamed for various attacks on the Friendship pipeline and Russian energy producers, including a massive wave of drone strikes in Russia territory that destroyed the Kaleykino pumping station.
Meanwhile, Parliamentary State Secretary Balázs Hidvéghi posted his own video message on the importance of a new national petition, where Hungarians can say “no” to financing the Russian-Ukrainian war, 10 years of support for Ukraine, and a rise in utility costs.
The Fidesz politician stressed that “Brussels is planning €1.5 trillion in aid for Ukraine and wants its membership by 2027. Given the events of recent days, it is especially important now for Hungarians to make their voices heard: Ukraine has not resumed oil shipments to Hungary for political reasons, while the Brussels leadership has sided with Ukraine.”
“Hungary has become the target of serious threats and pressure, and therefore it cannot remain silent now. He added that the government is calling on Hungarians to stand up against the Brussels-Ukraine-Tisza Pact and join the national petition,” he added.
The petition can be filled out until March 23, and according to estimates, the number of returned forms could exceed one million.
Von der Leyen warns Hungary: We have ways of making you talk
By Finian Cunningham | Strategic Culture Foundation | February 26, 2026
European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen arrived in Kiev this week empty-handed, and she was pissed. She had been planning to mark the fourth anniversary of the Ukraine war on February 24 with a new €90 billion loan to prop up the corrupt Kiev regime.
At the last minute, Hungary announced that it was vetoing the “Ukraine Support Loan.” So, von der Leyen, the former German defense minister and arch Russophobe, had nothing to show the puppet regime. The big anniversary occasion was an embarrassing flop. Hungary was accused of “betraying” European solidarity.
Putting a brave face on the debacle, von der Leyen made a promise, with menacing tone, about delivering the €90 bn “one way or another.” She said: “Let me be clear, we have different options, and we will use them.”
Those options would seem to include inciting regime change in Budapest. Hungary is going to the polls on April 12 for parliamentary elections. It is no secret that the European Union leadership would dearly like to see incumbent Prime Minister Viktor Orbán being turned out of office, and replaced by Péter Magyar, of the opposition Tisza party, who is more amenable to Brussels’ policy of supporting the Kiev regime in the proxy war against Russia.
Orbán’s government vetoed the €90 bn loan – 60 per cent of which is for military aid – because it accuses the Kiev regime of blocking vital oil supplies to Hungary. Slovakia has also joined Budapest in making the accusation. Both countries claim that Ukraine is using energy “blackmail” simply because they refuse to discontinue buying oil supplies from Russia, and because they are opposed to the ongoing war.
On January 27, Russian oil supplies to Hungary and Slovakia transiting Ukraine via the Drushba pipeline were suddenly stopped. The Kiev regime claims that the pipe was hit by a Russian drone.
However, Hungary’s Foreign Minister Péter Szijjártó has bluntly accused Ukraine of lying. He disputes that a Russian attack on the infrastructure even took place. It doesn’t make sense that Russia would harm its customers.
The suspicion is that the Ukrainian regime is using a purported Russian strike as a pretext to cut off the oil supply. The suspicion is deepened by the fact that the Kiev regime has refused requests by Hungary and Slovakia for their inspectors to assess the alleged technical damage. And neither is the EU leadership putting any pressure on Kiev to prove its claims of Russian sabotage.
Ukraine’s nominal president, Vladimir Zelensky, who is mired in allegations of massive fraud, financial corruption, and racketeering, has for a long time been threatening to cut off Russian oil supplies to Hungary and Slovakia. He accuses Budapest and Bratislava of supporting Russia’s war machine by buying its oil. Hungary and Slovakia say that it is their sovereign right to continue obtaining vital energy imports from Russia. The Soviet-era Drushba (“Friendship) pipeline has been supplying Europe since 1964.
The European Union has also been pressuring Hungary and Slovakia to terminate the purchase of Russian crude oil and get in line with the rest of Europe to source alternative, more expensive American energy exports.
Last year, Zelenksy delivered on his threats when the NATO-backed Kiev regime bombed sections of the Drushba pipeline in Russian territory. Those attacks temporarily disrupted supply to Hungary and Slovakia. At the time, the European Union leadership did not condemn the Ukrainian attacks. In other words, Von der Leyen and the Brussels administration were effectively siding with a non-EU member that was harming the interests of two member nations. That indifference was tantamount to greenlighting more sabotage attacks.
The Kiev regime has a record of using attacks on energy as a political weapon against Hungary and Slovakia. It is therefore logical that it has taken such practice to a new level by blocking infrastructure that it can easily control on its own territory. There is no need to bomb the Drushba pipeline in Russia, hundreds of kilometers away. The Kiev regime can handily turn off the pumps of the pipeline section running through its territory – and then blame Russia for “drone strikes”.
Hungary and Slovakia have both accused Zelensky of “slow-walking” the alleged repairs to the pipeline. Zelensky claims that the repairs can’t be carried out because Russia keeps attacking the repair crews.
The Kiev regime has a habit of lying. It has been claiming that Russia is shelling the Zaporozhye Nuclear Power Plant under its control, when in reality it is the Kiev regime that has been carrying out the attacks, which Moscow has condemned as “nuclear blackmail”. Again, the European Union has indulged Kiev’s lies by ignoring the blatant evidence.
On the energy blackmail against Hungary and Slovakia, the knock-on effect has been a growing shortage of fuel and increasing prices for energy and transport.
Hungary’s European Affairs Minister Janos Boka has accused Ukraine and the European Union of deliberately disrupting oil supply to influence the upcoming election. He said: “Ukraine has clearly been reaching for the energy weapon for political reasons, interfering in the ongoing Hungarian elections… to create uncertainty and chaos, and thereby helping the [opposition, pro-EU] Tisza party to power.”
At a closed-door summit in Brussels this week for EU foreign ministers, it was notable that Ukraine’s top diplomat, Andrii Sybiha, was afforded the extraordinary privilege of being permitted to join the conference via video link. How is it that a non-EU member is allowed to participate in a private ministerial summit?
Hungary’s Foreign Minister Péter Szijjártó reportedly complained that EU foreign policy chief, Kaja Kallas, prevented him from grilling the Ukrainian on the specific damage to the Drushba pipeline. Szijjártó said that the “mumbling response” from the Ukrainian official and his abrupt disconnection from the summit demonstrated guilty responsibility.
What the whole saga illustrates is the dictatorship that has emerged in the European Union. Countries like Hungary and Slovakia are not allowed to have independent positions on their energy trade or their opposition to the war in Ukraine.
The Kiev regime is using the disruption of vital energy supply to EU members as a form of blackmail to coerce those members into handing over tens of billions of euros to prolong a bloody conflict, a conflict that could spiral into a nuclear world war. And the EU leadership is effectively supporting this terrorist tactic against its own members to enforce subordination.
When von der Leyen warns that “we have other options,” the inimical image conjured up is that of a Gestapo interrogator twirling pliers in hand.
The strategic defeat of Russia is paramount for the European Russophobic elites, even if it means gouging out the democratic rights of its own member states and endangering international peace.
Could Hungary’s fight over oil change course of Ukraine War?
By Ian Proud | Responsible Statecraft | February 26, 2026
The EU’s plan to impose its 20th package of sanctions against Russia crashed against a seemingly immovable wall of Hungarian resistance this week, when the Central Europe country used its veto to block it.
That is not necessarily the end of the matter, yet I hope it is the beginning of the end, with Europe finally choosing peace over war.
At a fraught EU Council meeting on February 23, agreement could not be reached on a new round of EU sanctions, leading the EU High Representative for Foreign Policy and Security, Kaja Kallas, to announce, “I deeply regret that we did not reach an agreement today, given that tomorrow [February 24] is the solemn anniversary of the start of this war.”
Hungarian resistance to collective decisions on Ukraine policy has been overcome before. In June 2025, Prime Minister Viktor Orban stepped out of the European Council meeting to allow a unanimous vote of those present to extend existing EU sanctions against Russia. Yet, this latest blockage is fueled by growing bad blood between Hungary and its eastern neighbour Ukraine, over the issue of oil.
It is an uncomfortable reality that Europe has continued to purchase Russian oil and gas throughout the war, in the face of President Trump’s exhortations to stop purchases. Gas imports still accounted for 12% of Europe’s total as of October 2025. And while Hungary and Slovakia are the largest importers, other western European powers such as France, the Netherlands, and Belgium, have also continued purchases. The addiction is a hard habit to break, and for largely domestic reasons.
As Gladden Pappin, the American President of the Hungarian Institute for International Affairs, has pointed out, if Hungary agreed to sanction Russian oil and gas, “Hungarian gas at the pump doubles overnight. Household energy prices triple or quadruple, and the German industry moving to Hungary immediately halts. Whatever government imposes that policy will collapse within weeks.”
While sanctioning Russia is a geopolitical tool, it has real world consequences for regular citizens across Europe. Germany has seen its economy tip into deindustrialization since the start of the war in Ukraine and the progressive cutting off of access to Russian [energy], shedding over 250,000 industrial jobs, a contraction of 4.3%, amid widespread factory closures.
Sanctions require European states voluntarily to choose economic self-harm ahead of an end to the war in Ukraine. And in Hungary and Slovakia, that is not a palatable choice, not least ahead of a hotly contested election in Hungary on April 12. Prime Minister Viktor Orban has framed the election as a choice between “war or peace.”
Four years after the war in Ukraine started, increasing numbers of Europeans are desperate for peace and not war, not just for their long-term personal security, but for the benefits to their check books.
Yet that runs counter to Ukraine, which frames the war as existential to them. So, they have pushed Europe to go tougher and faster against Russia’s economy and are doing everything they can to add further pressure. Ukraine launched drone attacks against the Druzhba pipeline network which supplies oil to Hungary and Slovakia, cutting this supply route on January 27.
It is a statement of the crazy world in which we live, that Ukraine can attack facilities that supply EU and NATO countries without opprobrium in the west. Unfortunately, out of sympathy for Ukraine’s war plight, EU member states are quick then to criticize Hungary and Slovakia for taking retaliatory action. Poland’s Foreign Minister, Radek Sikorski, labeled the Hungarian veto as “an escalation.” And yet he doesn’t have to answer to Hungarian voters.
Blocking the EU’s 20th sanctions package is one measure. Hungary and Slovakia have also blocked the promised 90 bln euro loan package for Kviv to keep the war effort going. They have also threatened to cut off supplies of gas, electricity, and diesel to Ukraine (as it no longer imports gas from Russia, Ukraine relies of supplies piped in from proximate EU countries). Ukrainian media has predictably labeled this energy blackmail. Not least given the enormous electricity and heating shortages Ukraine faces in light Russia’s campaign of strategic bombing against their energy infrastructure.
At a TV interview that I attended recently, a Ukrainian MP pointed out that she uses a local app that tells her how many hours of electricity her building will receive each day. Who in Europe would want to live in such conditions, not the least during a bitterly cold winter?
Of course, the stark brutality of the air attacks and Ukraine’s energy crisis drives Europe’s mainstream politicians to pursue more punitive actions against Russia, including economic sanctions. Yet the inescapable reality is that the EU’s 20th sanctions package amounts to more of the same — tactical scrapes at the bottom of the barrel — to bear down on Russia’s energy exports and financial services sector, together with small beer restrictions on some other goods’ exports.
The President of the European Commission, Ursula von der Leyen, claims that Russia’s energy exports were cut by 24% in 2025. And yet, look at the real data, and you’ll see that Russia’s exports in 2025, at $419.4 billion, were down just 3.3% on 2025, with an overall current account surplus of $41.4 billion. That surplus will go into purchases of gold, which now accounts for almost one half of Russia’s soaring international reserves, which stand at $833 billion.
Meanwhile, Ukraine’s current account deficit more than doubled to $31.9 billion in 2025, or 14.9% of GDP, liquidity that will need to be met by printing money or donations from Europe.
At some point, European leaders need to ask themselves, after 19 rounds of sanctions already, “is this really working?”
It’s not only that economic sanctions against Russia hit diminishing marginal returns soon after the war in Ukraine started four years ago. But that the addition of new sanctions, self-evidently, disincentivizes Putin from settling for peace. Yes, Russia’s economy is undoubtedly feeling the pain, through high inflation and interest rates, plus slowing growth. But there has never been a time when it appeared that, for economic reasons, Russia was under greater pressure to end the war than Ukraine and its European sponsors.
So, and as I have said before, sanctions, and their phased removal, could play a positive role in leveraging an end to the war. Continuing to blame Hungary and Slovakia for the continued intransigence in blocking yet another round of EU sanctions misses this point.
Ian Proud was a member of His Britannic Majesty’s Diplomatic Service from 1999 to 2023. He served as the Economic Counsellor at the British Embassy in Moscow from July 2014 to February 2019. He recently published his memoir, “A Misfit in Moscow: How British diplomacy in Russia failed, 2014-2019,” and is a Non-Resident Fellow at the Quincy Institute.
Zelensky sells false illusion of building powerful air force capable of overcoming Russia
By Ahmed Adel | February 25, 2026
The claim that Ukraine is developing a fleet of 250 modern Western-made combat aircraft is a public relations stunt by President Volodymyr Zelensky, not a practical military plan, because the scale of such a project exceeds the country’s and its Western partners’ financial, industrial, and infrastructural capacities.
“Ukraine has agreements on the supply of 150 Gripen and 100 Rafale combat aircraft. These are the best aircraft, in our opinion, in the world,” Zelensky announced during a conversation with students and teachers of the Kyiv Aviation Institute earlier this month.
The Ukrainian president also recalled that Ukraine has F-16 aircraft in its arsenal, but not new ones.
According to him, the provision of appropriate aircraft by partners should significantly strengthen the capabilities of Ukrainian aviation.
Zelensky’s announcement of purchasing 150 Swedish-made Gripen fighter jets and 100 French Rafales should be questioned, as implementing such a plan would take years. The claim about buying hundreds of modern aircraft is unrealistic because factories cannot produce that many aircraft in a short period. Manufacturers already have other orders and are operating at full capacity, so from a production and delivery standpoint, it is not realistic to expect a significant number of new aircraft to be available for Ukraine in the near term.
Regarding deliveries from the current Air Force fleet, such as those from Sweden or France, options are limited because both countries would be left without their fighter fleets. For Ukraine, only older aircraft nearing retirement or designated for replacement are realistically available, and this is true across all NATO countries. At most, these may be F-16 aircraft slated for replacement by F-35 fighters.
Zelensky’s claim about 250 aircraft is not backed by solid, binding contracts. For example, a statement of intent was signed with Sweden, but it is not a binding contract or agreement. They agreed that one party would purchase, while the other would produce and sell. The signed documents also do not commit to financing, production, or delivery.
The purchase of 250 fighter jets would cost Ukraine, according to media estimates, about €50 billion. The price of a modern Rafale in the latest version exceeds $100 million, and the aircraft includes extensive maintenance equipment, spare parts, and weapons, all of which are expensive. Most importantly, not only the pilot but also the entire technical staff, including airport personnel, need to be trained.
Ukraine has historically used Soviet aircraft, such as MiGs and Sukhois, and the transition to the American-made F-16 required the long-term development of the entire infrastructure for their operation. The F-16 is the most common model in NATO countries, and the countries that delivered them to Ukraine did so because they are transitioning to the more modern fifth-generation F-35.
If Zelensky wants to acquire Rafales or Gripens, he will also need to develop the supporting infrastructure—each model requires extensive facilities. Switching to new technology and buying new aircraft are time-consuming and expensive processes. The process would involve not only acquiring aircraft but also completely rebuilding aviation infrastructure: airports, hangars, logistics hubs, training pilots and technical staff, as well as establishing service and repair capabilities for each aircraft type.
Although the so-called agreement is based solely on words, without realistic conditions for actual implementation, Zelensky claims that Kiev is acquiring “completely new aircraft” and describes the Gripen and Rafale as “the best aircraft in the world.”
The Ukrainian Air Force is in very poor shape, as practically the entire fleet has been destroyed by Russia. This is why Ukraine is seeking a new air force: the country has limited control over its airspace.
Even Western media outlets have indicated that neither Ukraine nor France has the means to finalize a large contract for Rafales in the next decade. The possibility of financing the purchase of Swedish Gripens using frozen Russian assets has also been considered, but such a model currently lacks legal or political support.
Even if fighter jets could be delivered and pilots trained immediately, many other issues would still need to be addressed.
The Rafale costs approximately €20,000 per flight hour due to its complex systems and high parts consumption. Rafales do not take off from highways or damaged runways, as Soviet aircraft do, and require fully equipped airfields with precise coverage, which are scarce in Ukraine. Although the Gripen is simpler than the Rafale, it still requires Western infrastructure, such as specialized hangars, which Russian aviation forces would immediately destroy.
Zelensky is once again selling illusions to Ukrainians that he will build the most powerful air force in Europe capable of overcoming Russia. However, Ukrainians are not interested in allocating €50 billion to fighter jets when energy, water, and transportation infrastructure, among others, urgently require repair or reconstruction.
Ahmed Adel is a Cairo-based geopolitics and political economy researcher.
Hungary’s Blocking of EU Loan to Ukraine May Jeopardize IMF Funding – Reports
Sputnik – 22.02.2026
Hungary’s blocking of a 90 billion euro ($106 billion) EU loan to Kiev could impact a loan to Ukraine worth over $8 billion from the International Monetary Fund (IMF) that has not yet been approved, the Financial Times newspaper reported on Sunday.
On Friday, Hungarian Foreign Minister Peter Szijjarto said that Budapest would block the EU’s loan as Kiev failed to restore oil transit via the Druzhba pipeline. On Saturday, Hungarian Prime Minister Viktor Orban said that Budapest, following Bratislava, was weighing cuts to electricity supplies to Ukraine.
According to the report, the IMF loan depends on plugging Ukraine’s anticipated budget shortfall, which was slated for closure by April using EU funds.
“Without that [EU and IMF] support, Ukraine’s economy would most likely collapse,” Maksym Samoiliuk, an economist at the Kiev-based Centre for Economic Strategy, was quoted as saying by Financial Times.
On December 19, 2025, a summit in Brussels concluded with the EU temporarily abandoning plans to seize Russian state assets and instead agreeing to extend a 90 billion euro loan to Ukraine from the EU budget. Hungary, Slovakia and the Czech Republic refused to take on responsibility for the loan.
On November 26, 2025, the IMF said it had reached a preliminary expert-level agreement on a new Extended Fund Facility arrangement for Ukraine worth approximately $8.2 billion.
Why the US-Israeli alliance will lose against Iran
By Robert Inlakesh | Al Mayadeen | February 21, 2026
While it is impossible to predict precisely what the war on the Islamic Republic of Iran and its regional allies will result in, the winnability of the regional conflict is clear. The only thing driving this attack is sheer Israeli arrogance, as there is no conceivable situation where all out regional war delivers anything short of uncontrollable chaos.
Why is an all out regional war unwinnable? Although there are various reasons as to why this is the case, it suffices to say that the US and Israelis have no way of controlling its outcomes, in addition to this, they simply do not possess the military industrial capacity to wage such a war for a long period of time.
Now, when this argument is made, it is not done from an idealistic point of view. Therefore, it is important to preface this piece on the fact that there is a clear Israeli-US superiority in terms of technology and the kinds of weapons they possess. Nobody disputes this. There is also clear superiority in the field of their intelligence agencies.
So, let us first assume that the United States and the Zionist entity manage to score all of their desired tactical victories. Working on this assumption will then definitively prove the injudicious nature of the endeavour.
Therefore, under the best case scenario for the Zionist coalition, perhaps they succeed in conducting another decapitation strike on the Iranian military leadership, manage to penetrate and destroy some missile bases, nuclear facilities, while gutting the Islamic Republic’s air defences. These are very likely goals that they will seek to achieve.
Let’s also work under the assumption that they manage to put Tehran on the backfoot for at least a week, due to the intensity of their air campaign, making it difficult for the Islamic Revolution Guards Corps (IRGC) to fire large bursts of ballistic missiles at a single time. Then, after achieving air dominance, strikes on essential infrastructure begin, including cultural sites, government buildings, the media, but also the likes of oil facilities, agricultural areas and water systems.
On top of all of this, assume hybrid warfare tactics will be ongoing. Militant groups, especially those focused along the Iranian periphery, will start major offensive operations, working in conjunction with foreign intelligence agents and operatives on the ground, similar to what we witnessed during the 12-day War in June of 2025.
Note that the much debated potential goal of assassinating Ayatollah Seyyed Ali Khamenei is not included above. Although many have speculated that the strategy could very well hindge upon this, it guarantees a war with no predictable end, no escalation ladder and will likely trigger calls for global Jihad.
An inevitable US-Israeli defeat
Giving the Zionist coalition the best possible conditions and achievements as a result of their opening offensive, this strategy will quickly begin to run into major issues.
As we saw last June, decapitation strikes against the Iranian leadership do not work at crippling the government and its military, they are simply replaced by another line of leadership, who implement a whole series of pre-planned counter attack strategies.
The Israelis wrongfully believed that their success during the initial attack on Iran last year was going to yield major results, even attempting to utilise their asset in the United States, the son of the deposed Iranian dictator, to call for a revolt. Not only did no such action take place, as Iranians outside of the diaspora do not support this clear Zionist puppet, but the very opposite occurred as the population rallied behind the flag.
Within 15 hours, the Iranians not only managed to get their air defences back online, but captured the initiative and began launching huge volleys of ballistic missiles into the heart of Tel Aviv. As the conflict evolved, a few important developments occurred: the Israeli air defences began to buckle – with the draining of anti-air munitions – while their agents on the ground carried out most of the attacks, something that is key to note.
While it is clear that the US will bring in greater firepower than the Israelis can muster, an air force is still run by human operators who get tired and operate equipment that needs to be serviced. Iran will very easily be able to launch drones waves constantly at US and Zionist positions, and even if their ability to launch large salvos of missiles is constrained during the first week of the conflict, eventually the opportunity will present itself.
If the Iranian State has not crumbled and civil war has not erupted within this time, then the US and Israelis will then be subjected to wave after wave of counterattacks. Inevitably, this means that airbases will be struck, equipment will be lost, and with fewer assets, this means less ability to keep up the pace of their offensive.
Bear in mind that warhawks employed by Washington and Tel Aviv based pro-war think tanks, who claim that the Iranian State is crumbling at least once a year, are far detached from reality. Take the latest round of foreign backed riots for example, the Western corporate media invented an alternate reality in order to sell the idea that Iran was falling, yet the entire ordeal was more or less over in two days.
It is clear to any learned observer, that without a significant ground element, toppling the Iranian government is impossible. Which then leads to the obvious next question: What if major militant offensives occur inside Iranian territory?
Answering this in depth would take time and a more nimble military mind. Yet, again assuming some level of success on the behalf of separatist militias and al-Qaeda linked Takfiri groups, even if they were to seize territory, Iran is a massive country that allows for mistakes. None of these groups compare and can stand up to the Iranian army and IRGC, nor do they likely possess any considerable advanced capabilities.
What this means is that even if they manage to see some level of initial success, the much larger, well trained, motivated and well equipped Iranian armed forces will eventually crush these insurgents. The only real threat is some kind of mass civilian mobilisation that will deal a blow to the Iranian economy, for which there is no indication this will happen, especially as the nation is suffering through a bloody war of aggression against it.
Then come the attacks on missile bases and nuclear sites. Even if some of these attacks are successful, they won’t destroy all of Iran’s capabilities, and as we saw in June of last year, the US attacks on the nuclear facilities don’t appear to have stopped the nuclear program. If it were that easy to simply take out Iran’s capabilities, it would have been done long ago. The Israelis tried last year and failed. If anything, on the nuclear issue, such a war could end up leading to Tehran actually reversing course on its stance against developing the bomb.
Even with full US-Israeli air superiority, the remaining air defences of Iran will at some point come back online, but even in the event that 100% of their anti-air capabilities are gone, their power is in their offensive, not defensive capabilities.
Once this initial period of assumed US-Israeli offensive dominance is over, Iran can easily block the flow of oil from the Persian Gulf, inflict large casualty events on US and Israeli targets, while taking out assets. It is impossible to predict which strikes will be the most effective, however, it is clear that everything will become a target. So expect a big hit on the global oil market, resulting in an economic crisis.
If Iran simply keeps up a pace of fire against the Israelis, the likes of which we saw during the 12-day War, then they only have a matter of weeks before their air defences also become useless.
This is all without factoring in Iran’s various allies, which may enter at any level of intensity at any point in this conflict. There’s Ansar Allah, which has the capability of striking the Israelis, but also assets throughout the Persian Gulf. If Hezbollah manages to wage a considerable ground war, the Israelis have proven in the past to be the weakest in this arena.
The Iraqi Popular Mobilisation Units (PMU/PMF, Hashd al-Shaabi) are around 250,000 men strong, alongside Saraya Awliya al-Dam, who can use their own capabilities to not only target the US, but the Israelis also. So far, since October 7, 2023, we have not seen a true demonstration of their power. Another factor which is not often discussed, but is also very important, is the role of the Palestinian resistance, who are more likely to wait for the right opportunity, but can also pose a major ground challenge to the Israelis from Gaza.
None of this considers the other elements that could come into play, such as the roles played by regional nations, armed groups we may not have previously heard of, the likes of the Fatemiyoun of Afghanistan and Zainabiyoun of Pakistan, or the general populations throughout the region and what we could see in the event that chaos erupts. Governments could be overthrown, the civilian populations of Jordan and Egypt could become active and out of control. There is also the possibility that some groups in Syria could seize the opportunity to attack the Israelis.
In the event that such a war occurs, the longer it goes on, the more chaotic and unpredictable it becomes. A situation will be totally out of the US’s control, especially as the only means of combating this regional explosion is through the air. As we witnessed with the US campaign against Yemen, airstrikes alone change very little. Even in Gaza, the armed resistance groups fought for over 2 years with no supply chain, and by the admissions of the US and Israelis, their fighting force is still roughly the same size.
If things don’t go their way very quickly, then the Zionist coalition is going to get battered, and not even nuclear weapons will get them out of it. Therefore, [if] the US and Israelis, as long as we again grant them another assumption, that they are somewhat sane, choose to go to war, they will have to try and establish an escalation ladder, devising a real exit strategy.
The question becomes whether the Iranians and their allies allow them to exit the fight. An all out war will be bloody, it will claim an enormous amount of civilian lives, and it will also inflict considerable damage on civilian infrastructure. Truly, the effects of such a war are not desired by anyone in the region, yet the Iranian-led Axis of Resistance have long prepared their capabilities in order to combat what appears to have been inevitable.
Another thing to be mentioned here is that the US government, under the Trump administration, is totally captured by the Zionist entity. For all the reasons noted above, no previous administrations have dared escalate to this extent. If it were easy to launch a regime change operation against Iran, it would have been carried out many years ago.
However, a Zionist stooge is occupying the White House, a narcissistic man whose already low cognitive abilities are clearly declining. He is a President that an FBI report concluded had been compromised by the Mossad, but even if that report isn’t to be taken seriously, his whole campaign was bankrolled by Zionist donors, and his administration is an embarrassing collection of Zionist war hawks. If there was ever any US administration that was foolish enough to launch such a war, it is that of Donald Trump.
Travelers Take a Pass on Visiting America
By Adam Dick | Peace and Prosperity Blog | February 20, 2026
Donald Trump, who started his second term as United States president a little over a year ago, likes to talk about how he is making America great again. But, for foreigners planning their trips abroad, it appears Trump has played a significant role in reducing their perception that America is great — at least as a travel destination.
Ceylan Yeğinsu reported Thursday at the New York Times that America stood alone among major destinations in having a drop in foreign visitors last year. She wrote:
Last year, as tourism grew worldwide, the United States was the only major destination to see a decline in foreign visitors, recording a 6 percent drop, according to the World Travel and Tourism Council, an industry group. January saw a continued decline in inbound visitors, down 4.8 percent from January 2025.
Why is America the loser in attracting foreign visitors? Yeğinsu points to several initiatives of Trump as contributing to the development, including current and planned Trump policies directly making traveling to America more burdensome:
The Trump administration has made it significantly harder for some travelers to enter the United States, barring visitors from more than a dozen countries and introducing a $250 ‘visa integrity fee‘ for nonimmigrant tourist and business visas designed to discourage visitors from overstaying. Visitors are also facing more rigorous vetting at the border, with increased searches of electronic devices, some resulting in detentions and denied entry. Citizens of countries who just need an electronic authorization to visit the United States may soon be required to provide up to five years of social media history to enter; that could result in a loss of up to $15.7 billion in visitor spending, according to the World Travel and Tourism Council.
Typical of Trump’s “make America great again” braggadocio, in July the president declared in a “Made in America Week” proclamation:
Together, we are rebuilding our Nation with American heart, hands, and grit. We are bringing back a culture of boldness and creativity that will empower the next generation of innovators, unleash the full strength of the American spirit, and ensure our economy, our culture, and our way of life remain the envy of the world. Above all, under my leadership, we are proudly building, inventing, and creating in the United States of America once again.
“Envy of the world” or not, America is moving further from being the travel destination of choice of the world, and Trump appears to be largely to blame for that.
EU members divided on 20th Russia sanctions package – media
RT | February 20, 2026
EU ambassadors reportedly failed to reach an agreement on a 20th sanctions package against Russia during a meeting on Friday, Reuters has reported, citing diplomatic sources.
The proposed measures, which Brussels said it hopes to finalize by the fourth anniversary of the Ukraine conflict’s escalation on Monday, face opposition from several member states over key provisions.
The main sticking point is a proposed full ban on maritime services for Russian oil tankers which would scrap the existing price cap system, prohibiting all EU companies from providing insurance, banking, shipping, or port access to any vessel carrying Russian crude.
Greece and Malta, two countries with powerful maritime industries, have reportedly emerged as the main opponents of the new restriction, warning that a unilateral EU ban without full G7 backing would cripple their economies and push shipping business toward competitors in India and China.
They have also opposed possible restrictions on the port of Karimun in Indonesia. Italy and Hungary have been reluctant to support sanctions against the port of Kulevi in Georgia. Madrid and Rome have objected to placing sanctions on one of Cuba’s banks.
Furthermore, Hungary and Slovakia have placed a “general reserve” on the entire package, leveraging their veto power to secure assurances over Russian oil supplies via the damaged Druzhba pipeline which have been halted since January.
Reuters reported that EU diplomats could reconvene over the weekend to discuss the proposed sanctions again, ahead of Monday’s Foreign Affairs Council meeting, where ministers hope to formally adopt the package.
Moscow has repeatedly denounced the EU’s sanctions as illegitimate and counterproductive, saying that they have had little effect on Russia’s economy, while decimating Europe’s.
A number of European officials have also consistently opposed the restrictions, with Slovak Prime Minister Robert Fico arguing that the EU is “only hurting itself” with the sanctions, describing previous packages as bringing “no benefit to member states.”
