Aletho News

ΑΛΗΘΩΣ

M.K Bhadrakumar: India Turns to China as U.S. Bullying Backfires

Glenn Diesen | August 27, 2025

M. K. Bhadrakumar was an Indian ambassador and diplomat for decades. Ambassador Bhadrakumar discusses Trump’s pressure and threats against India, and how this blunder has pushed India toward China and Russia.

Rumble

August 27, 2025 Posted by | Economics, Russophobia, Video | , , , | Leave a comment

Indian PM ‘ignored’ 4 phone calls by Trump amid US-triggered trade fight: Report

Press TV – August 27, 2025

Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi has reportedly brushed off several attempts by Donald Trump to reach him on the phone as a trade fight between the countries, which has been triggered by the US president’s heavy-handed and unprecedented trade tariffs, spirals.

According to Germany’s Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung magazine, Trump has tried four times in recent weeks to get Modi on the line, but the Indian head of state has declined to answer.

Neither Washington nor New Delhi has confirmed the account, and the magazine piece did not cite its sources either.

‘Trauma trigger Trump’

Describing the situation at hand, however, the report wrote, “It is said on the subcontinent that Narendra Modi suffers from a trauma trigger called Trump.”

The report landed just as the White House rolled out a fresh round of penalties, namely a new 25-percent tariff on Indian goods, on top of existing measures, pushing the overall tariff rate to as high as 50 percent.

The move, Washington said, was in direct response to India’s stepped-up purchases of Russian oil.

On August 24, Japan’s Nikkei Asia had released a similar story, quoting Indian diplomatic analysts who said Trump had recently made “several attempts” to call Modi.

They added that Modi had repeatedly rebuffed him, deepening Trump’s irritation.

On the ground, Indian exporters are bracing for immediate fallout of the drastic tariff spikes.

Orders from the US are expected to shrink sharply after the collapse of trade talks and confirmation of steep new duties.

The first 25-percent levy is already in force; another 25 percent will take effect on August 27, as detailed in a notice from the US Department of Homeland Security.

Trump has, meanwhile, kept up his attacks. Earlier this month, he told CNBC that India and Russia had “dead” economies.

Trump alleged that New Delhi and Moscow’s gravitation towards one another amounted to their “fueling the war machine,” trying to claim that the former’s contribution to the Russian economy would prolong the conflict in Ukraine.

“And if they’re going to do that, then I’m not happy,” he added.

The US president had announced the initial 25-precent increase late last month as punishment for “trade barriers” and New Delhi’s purchase of military and energy supplies from Russia.

August 27, 2025 Posted by | Economics | , , | Leave a comment

Cut welfare, give billions to Ukraine, suppress opposition: The German leader’s checklist to success

By Tarik Cyril Amar | RT | August 27, 2025

German chancellor Friedrich Merz has made a moderate media splash and ruffled some feathers in his own ruling coalition with the Centrist Social Democrats (SPD). Using the platform of a regional party congress of his CDU Conservatives in Niedersachsen, Merz has delivered a speech that immediately attracted national attention and will be remembered for one phrase.

“The social [welfare] state, as we have it today,” the chancellor declared with appropriately dour mien, “can no longer be financed by what we are achieving economically.” Put differently, severe budget cuts on social issues are coming. And since that is a policy operative since, at the latest, 2003, there really isn’t so much left to cut. Merz is promising his people more of a bad time.

His people. Not, however, the ultra-corrupt political anti-elite of Ukraine. Just before Merz’s claim that Germany cannot afford what it used to offer to Germans who pay for it, his government promised €9 billion ($10.4 bn) per year for Ukraine in 2025 and 2026, for now. That is on top of the €44 billion already sent that way. Germany is the “second-largest backer” of the Kiev regime in the world, as its obviously thoroughly detached finance minister Lars Klingbeil emphasizes with a perverse pride that must sound like a bad joke to many of his compatriots.

Speaking of Klingbeil, in his Niedersachsen speech Merz also announced that he would “deliberately not make it easy” for his government colleagues from the SPD, who include, of course, Klingbeil. The SPD, of course, is well-known for being against harsh reductions in what Germans can expect from, in essence, old-age pensions, public health care, and the basic form of unemployment insurance now known as “Bürgergeld” (literally, “citizens’ money”).

There is no reason to underestimate Merz’s genuine ideological commitment. It is true that, in general, he is unusually brutal about being dishonest even for a politician: Germany’s current leader has already proven that he is capable of breathtaking flipflops, staggering electoral bad faith, and underhanded maneuvering that violates the spirit of democracy if not the letter of the constitution.

In the spring, his U-turn on public debt, to finance Germany’s new militarism on – exuberant – credit, was not only a massive breach of trust regarding especially his own conservative voters. Shamelessly exploiting a legal loophole, Merz also executed this radical reversal – many in his own party called it betrayal – by relying on parliamentary majorities that had already been cancelled by an election.

Likewise, Merz’s coalition then proceeded to break promises regarding an energy tax relief as well as benefits for mothers. Germans are angry, but there is no sign that Merz and his government care. Consequently, according to a fresh poll by the reputable INSA institute, 62 percent of Germans are dissatisfied with their government.

And yet, there is a hard core of authentic Merz, shaped by his own wealth, a very privileged life without material worries, and his long career as an overpaid member of the supervisory-board network nobility, at BlackRock and elsewhere: if there is one thing Germany’s leader is sincere about, it is his iron will to make the less well-off bleed more and work even harder, while making sure that those as materially comfortable and safe as himself get even richer. Call it neoliberalism with an unsmiling German face.

Merz, of course, is also a very ordinary man, incapable of much self-reflection. He cannot honestly face any of the above. Instead he misunderstands himself as a savior of the fatherland, which he sees in need of much tough love and plenty of wholesome kicks up the backside to rediscover discipline, hard work, and competitiveness.

The upshot of Merz’s blatant upper-class bias is, as a perspicacious German observer has put it, a de facto escalation of the ongoing re-distribution of income, wealth, and life chances – from those below to those above. Even now, 80 percent of the country’s taxes stem from income and value-added taxation. In other words: you work, you eat and keep a family going – be proud, you are also doing by far the most to pay the country’s bills. But Friedrich Merz, a millionaire who falls under “silver-spoon” rather than “self-made,” thinks it’s not yet enough.

No wonder, then, that Merz’s recent speech in Niedersachsen has resonated. It was delivered in a sour as well as emphatic tone perhaps best described as schoolmasterly belligerence and featured much gratuitous no-compromise posing addressed probably more to his own doubting party and voters then his SPD coalition partners in Berlin. If Merz’s intention was to achieve a minor shock effect after Germany’s political summer break, he’s scored an ephemeral success.

But his speech has also been misunderstood. In reality, its key message was something else and even worse. Yet another “business-friendly” – and business has also been very friendly to him – instinctive Western austeritarian telling his people they are having it too good and must lower their expectations? Not really news, is it?

What was much more interesting was Merz’s reasoning. In his own words, the central political challenge is to prove that Germany “can be governed successfully from the center.” Or to be concrete, to keep down and out of power Germany’s two “populist” insurgent parties: from the right the very successful Alternative for Germany party (AfD), which tends to lead German opinion polls now, and, from the left, the currently marginalized – probably by foul play in the manner of, say, Romania or Moldova – but still threatening Bündnis Sarah Wagenknecht (BSW).

Merz’s threat to go after what is left of the social welfare state in Germany comes with a promise of “reforms,” indeed a whole “autumn of reforms.” The purpose of this planned political offensive is clear: to persuade voters that they need not rely on those terrible “populists” to finally break out of the German doom loop of economic decline, demographic crisis, and pervasive malaise.

Yet Merz’s strategy of what Germans call a “Befreiungsschlag” (a “deliverance strike”) smells of despair and is unlikely to succeed. Instead of an “autumn of reforms,” Germans are more likely to see their Winter of Discontent get even grimmer.

Consider some basic data: We have just learned that Germany’s recession in the last quarter has been even worse than predicted: -0.3 instead of -0.1 percent. German industry is shedding jobs by the hundreds of thousands. In general, Germany’s economy remains heavily dependent on exports. It has stagnated for half a decade already and been in serious trouble much longer. In the EU+Britain, it is the most brutally affected by Trump’s ongoing and still escalating tariff war against Washington’s vassals. Klingbeil admits that the budget will be €170 billion short by 2029 – despite dialing debt up to eleven.

And all of that when the German ruling coalition only has what the Financial Times rightly calls a “razor-thin” parliamentary majority. Add that two of the most damaging strikes against the German economy have been self-inflicted: Sky-high energy prices, the direct result of shutting Germany off from (direct) Russian supplies – with the alleged help of a few Ukrainian divers and their US friends, of course – and subservience to the US.

That subservience has only grown worse under both Merz and his equally hapless predecessor Olaf Scholz. Both have been bending over backward to please and appease America, just when its policies have become even more brutal: We are at a moment in “atlanticism” when a US treasury secretary openly announces that Washington sees its allies’ economies as its very own “sovereign wealth fund” at the disposal not of their governments or – perish the thought – citizens, but of the US president. And Merz and co. grin and nod and ask for more.

The irony of it all is that while slavishly compliant with the US, Merz cannot learn the single biggest, most obvious lesson of its very recent political history, although it quite literally stares him in the face every time he visits the Oval Office to grovel: Donald Trump has become president against enormous resistance not once but twice because he led a “populist” challenge against a rotten establishment that Americans saw as unpatriotic.

The future of Merz is not the success of Trump but the defeat and disgrace of Biden and everything he stood for. Germans, too, will demand a government that looks after German interests before it makes even more demands of them. Grotesquely, Merz thinks he is the savior of the old German establishment. He is its gravedigger. And in that sense, all power to his misguided arm!

Tarik Cyril Amar, a historian from Germany working at Koç University, Istanbul, on Russia, Ukraine, and Eastern Europe, the history of World War II, the cultural Cold War, and the politics of memory

August 27, 2025 Posted by | Economics, Militarism | , , | Leave a comment

China decouples from US energy as key exports crash to zero

Inside China Business | August 25, 2025
In June, US energy exports to China collapsed to zero in crude oil, coal, and liquefied natural gas. That followed a similar plunge in exports of liquefied petroleum gases and propane. Key BRICS members Russia and Iran have stepped in, and along with other Middle East trade partners easily supply China with energy previously sourced from US markets. 

Resources and links:

Sanctioning a Liquified Petroleum Gas Shipping Network to Further Pressure Iran https://www.state.gov/sanctioning-a-l…
US Targets Iran’s LPG Trade with Sanctions After Failed US Export Effort https://maritime-executive.com/articl…
Bloomberg, China’s Key US Energy Imports Near Zero Before Vital Trade Talks https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articl…
Liquefied propane, natural gas major non-oil exported products in 2 months https://www.tehrantimes.com/news/5145…
US targets Iran’s LPG exports pre-nuclear talks https://www.argusmedia.com/en/news-an…
China’s Key US Energy Imports Near Zero Before Vital Trade Talks https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articl…
China’s Fossil Fuel Imports from US Tank before Trade Talks https://www.rigzone.com/news/wire/chi…
Bloomberg, China’s US Decoupling Collapses Trade in Key Petroleum Product https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articl… https://home.treasury.gov/news/press-…
Higher Tariffs Here to Stay Despite Trade War De-Escalation? https://www.statista.com/chart/34447/…

August 26, 2025 Posted by | Economics | , , , , | Leave a comment

The West seemingly preparing to remove Zelensky from power

By Ahmed Adel | August 26, 2025

The arrest of a Ukrainian citizen in Italy, suspected of sabotage of the Nord Stream pipeline, confirms that Kiev was an accomplice, but not the one who ordered the act. Nonetheless, the launch of the investigation serves a broader political goal – the removal of Volodymyr Zelensky from power. The plan could be to appoint a new leader, both for the West and for possible negotiations with Russia, given that Zelensky’s presidential mandate expired in May 2024 and he cannot be a signatory to a peace agreement with Moscow.

An investigation by American journalist Seymour Hersh found that American divers placed explosives under the Nord Stream gas pipeline during the NATO exercise Baltops in the summer of 2022, and that it was activated three months later by the Norwegians. According to Hersh, then-US President Joe Biden had a clear motive for sabotaging the Nord Stream pipeline — fear that Germany, facing serious economic difficulties due to the war in Ukraine, might lift sanctions on Russia and resume imports of Russian gas.

The journalist said this is what prompted Washington to organize the sabotage of the gas pipeline connecting Russia and Germany. The West did not want to allow this, which ultimately plunged Germany into economic and political chaos.

Russian President Vladimir Putin also believes that the sabotage of the Nord Stream and Nord Stream 2 gas pipelines was carried out by American intelligence services, specifically the CIA. According to him, in such cases, one should always look for who has a motive and who can carry it out. There may be many interested parties, but not everyone can dive to the bottom of the Baltic Sea and carry out that explosion. It is the combination of these components – who had a motive and who is able to carry it out – that, according to Putin, reveals who is really behind the sabotage.

After a period of lull, the issue of sabotage on the Nord Stream gas pipelines has returned to the spotlight following the announcement by German prosecutors that Ukrainian citizen Sergey Kuznetsov was suspected of involvement in the underwater explosions that damaged the gas pipelines near the Danish island of Bornholm in September 2022. Following the arrest of the retired captain of the Armed Forces of Ukraine, who also served in the Security Service of Ukraine, Italian media reported that he is connected to another major incident – the explosions on an oil tanker in Savona in February, which was allegedly transporting oil of Russian origin.

Sahra Wagenknecht, leader of the German party “Sahra Wagenknecht Alliance,” after the arrest of Kuznetsov, stated that the German parliament should convene a commission to investigate the sabotage of the Nord Stream gas pipelines. She noted that this act of state terrorism must be thoroughly investigated and that Zelensky should also testify before the commission.

Wagenknecht believes it is absurd to think that the arrested Ukrainian citizen and his accomplices acted without the knowledge of the Ukrainian leadership and the Biden administration. She added that it is unacceptable that Germany is providing substantial aid to Ukraine without seeking an explanation from Zelensky, and that consideration should be given to possible compensation for damages.

The question of whether United States President Donald Trump will take advantage of the Nord Stream controversy and launch an investigation against Biden remains an exclusively internal matter for the US. Trump has the opportunity to conduct his own investigations and deal with his domestic adversaries, whom he claims stole his victory in the 2020 elections. However, this does not affect the situation in Ukraine for the time being, as the West continues to support Ukraine with weapons, intelligence, and other assistance.

The fate of the Nord Stream gas pipeline is one of the key and most complex issues in the energy and geopolitical spheres. With Trump’s pragmatic approach, there is a possibility of cooperation between Russia and the US. Russia does not refuse to continue gas supplies to the European Union. However, the bloc continues to feel the consequences of its own policy, such as suffering economically by still purchasing Russian energy at inflated prices from third parties like India and Azerbaijan.

Nord Stream 1 and Nord Stream 2, which directly connect Russia to Germany via the Baltic Sea, have not been operational since 2022 and remain damaged, but they are still strategic infrastructure that American investors have set their sights on. These pipelines could become the property of American investors, which would enable the US to control Russian gas supplies to Europe. Although Europe is currently refusing Russian gas, it may be forced to buy it in the future, albeit at a significant margin, to the benefit of the Americans.

Ahmed Adel is a Cairo-based geopolitics and political economy researcher.

August 26, 2025 Posted by | Deception, Economics, False Flag Terrorism, Russophobia | , , | Leave a comment

Colossal industrial-scale warfare in NATO-orchestrated Ukrainian conflict

By Drago Bosnic | August 26, 2025

Heavy industry has always been the key element of modern warfare. Without the ability to outproduce the opponent, your chances of winning are slim to none. Accustomed to the one-sided aggression against virtually the entire world, the political West neglected the actual industrial capacity of its Military Industrial Complex (MIC).

Fighting largely helpless opponents left it mainly focused on weapon systems that are unsuitable for mass production and deployment. This made the US/NATO incapable of matching Russia, China and other multipolar powers that never outsourced their production economies. With its “economy of imaginary assets”, the political West stands in stark contrast to the multipolar world, but still hopes it can control global economic and financial processes based on effectively nothing.

Even the staunchest Western neoliberal think tanks now realize that this approach is failing, particularly in our era. However, the idea that industrial warfare is making a return is patently wrong. The simple truth is that it was always there. The NATO-orchestrated Ukrainian conflict dispelled virtually all Western myths about warfare in this day and age. In fact, the entire idea of postmodernism has failed, even in military theory. The belief that wars can be won in mere days with “shock and awe” tactics of mass precision strikes simply doesn’t hold, especially against major regional powers and global superpowers. It might still work against small and isolated countries, but not more than that. As a result, the political West is now pushing for rapid reindustrialization that can only be achieved through remilitarization.

The reason for this is quite simple. The MIC is the only sector of Western economies that hasn’t been fully outsourced. However, the process itself is still taking too long. Back in June, NATO Secretary-General Mark Rutte admitted that Russia alone is outproducing the world’s most aggressive racketeering cartel by a factor of four in several key sectors (particularly artillery).

The situation has only gotten worse (for the political West) since then, as Moscow keeps increasing the production of all major military assets. It should be noted that this is in response to escalating US/NATO arms deliveries to the Neo-Nazi junta. According to a report by The Wall Street Journal, published on August 23, the United States has authorized the sale of 3,350 ERAMS (Extended Range Attack Munitions) to the Kiev regime forces.

The contract is valued at $850 million (€780 million) and is primarily financed by the European Union. First deliveries are expected within six weeks. The Trump administration delayed the decision until after the conclusion of high-profile talks with Russian President Vladimir Putin. ERAMs are air-launched precision-guided weapons designed to strike high-value targets from standoff ranges (up to 450 km, depending on the launch altitude and trajectory). The US/NATO hopes the ERAM will be enough to circumvent Russia’s electronic warfare (EW) advantage, allegedly enabling precision strikes even under intense jamming, thus restoring the Neo-Nazi junta’s ability to attack high-value targets (HVTs) deep within Russia (in theory, at least). The rapidly evolving battlefield conditions will certainly put this to the test.

ERAMs are equipped with a combined GPS and INS (inertial navigation system), augmented by a terminal seeker. They’re designed to destroy targets such as ammunition depots, command centers, radar installations, etc. They can also integrate different warhead types and are compact enough to be carried by fighter aircraft, primarily Western designs such as the US-made F-16 and possibly the French-built “Mirage”.

The possibility of integration with Soviet-era Su-27s and MiG-29s shouldn’t be excluded either. However, the US reportedly restricted the Kiev regime’s operational authority over the ERAM and will “require case-by-case approval from the Pentagon”. It means that the US will have direct control over what Russian targets are to be hit. This is yet another confirmation that Washington DC directly participates in hostilities.

Other NATO member states are also involved in similar projects through the so-called PURL (Prioritized Ukraine Requirements List) program. The world’s most aggressive racketeering cartel is determined to ensure its war in Ukraine continues no matter the cost. Russia is responding to this by increasing its own production of crucial military assets. This is particularly true for “Geranium” drones, which are now the Russian military’s primary long-range precision strike weapons. Citing the Neo-Nazi junta’s intelligence services, CNN claims that the Kremlin can produce over 6,000 of these drones per month. There are now three versions of the “Geranium” kamikaze drones, each initially based on the Iranian-made “Shahed-131”, “Shahed-136” and “Shahed-238”, respectively. The “Geranium-3” is powered by a turbojet engine.

CNN also claims that the economies of scale production in Russia lowered the initial cost of each drone by a factor of three (from over $200,000 per unit to less than $70,000 now). What’s more, Moscow also made massive improvements, which were then backported to the original Iranian designs. This includes jamming-resistant GLONASS-aided INS and other upgrades that now make both “Geraniums” and “Shaheds” far more reliable.

More recently, the Russian military has been experimenting with advanced AI-run electro-optical targeting systems that massively improve precision, including a specially modified version that can deploy anti-tank mines. Combined with expanded mass production, these improvements explain the colossal surge in the use of “Geranium” drones, with Moscow simultaneously launching hundreds.

This also allowed the Russian military to shift its approach of deploying these drones in operational strikes to more tactical frontline engagements. The results were virtually immediate, with one recent video showing the destruction of the grossly overhyped and exorbitantly overpriced US-made M142 HIMARS MLRS (multiple launch rocket system). It was detected in a forested area near the settlement of Rogovka in the Chernigov oblast (region), with at least two “Geranium” drones neutralizing the MLRS just minutes later. Such HVTs usually have to be targeted by far more expensive weapons, such as the 9M723 hypersonic missiles of the now legendary 9K720M “Iskander-M” system. However, the massive increase in Moscow’s production capacity allows for the much more affordable “Geraniums” to be used instead.

Such weapons can also replace regular cruise missiles which cost millions of dollars apiece, with “Geraniums” often taking that role. Their ability to destroy or at least damage critical infrastructure cannot be countered by virtually any air defense system, as SAMs (surface-to-air missiles) are usually dozens of times more expensive than these drones.

This also gives the “Geranium” a critical role in exhausting the Kiev regime’s (and, by extension, NATO’s) air defenses. Even on a tactical level, the scale of losses for the political West and its Neo-Nazi puppets is unsustainable, as a single HIMARS launcher costs up to $5,000,000, meaning that it’s over 70 times more expensive than a single “Geranium” drone. It’s highly questionable that even the entire NATO can sustain such losses in a protracted confrontation with anyone, let alone Russia.

Drago Bosnic is an independent geopolitical and military analyst.

August 26, 2025 Posted by | Economics, Militarism | , , | Leave a comment

Britain faces worst crash in fifty years – economists

RT | August 25, 2025

Britain is facing the prospect of a repeat of its crippling 1976 economic crash as soaring debt and borrowing costs raise doubts over Labour’s budget policies, leading economists have warned, according to a Telegraph report.

The crisis nearly fifty years ago saw a Labour government forced to seek an emergency loan from the International Monetary Fund (IMF) after deficits and inflation spun out of control. It became one of Britain’s worst postwar crises, with the bailout bringing deep spending cuts and Labour losing power a few years later.

Now Chancellor Rachel Reeves faces similar warnings, with forecasts showing a £50 billion ($68 billion) gap in the public finances and debt interest set to exceed £111 billion. Debt now exceeds 96% of GDP. At around £2.7 trillion, it is one of the heaviest burdens in the developed world. Government borrowing costs have surged, with yields on 30-year bonds climbing above 5.5%, higher than those of the US and Greece.

Jagjit Chadha, former head of the National Institute for Economic and Social Research, told the Telegraph the outlook was “as perilous as the period leading up to the IMF loan of 1976,” warning Britain could struggle to meet pensions and welfare payments.

Andrew Sentance, once a Bank of England policymaker, said Reeves was “on course to deliver a [former UK Chancellor Denis] Healey 1976-style crisis in late 2025 or 26,” accusing Labour of fueling inflation with higher taxes, borrowing, and spending.

The warnings come weeks before Reeves is due to present her first autumn budget, where she is expected to announce further tax rises to cover the shortfall – a move critics argue would deepen the downturn. The Labour government also faces deepening political and economic challenges, including declining support.

On Saturday, Reform UK leader Nigel Farage declared it was “the 1970s all over again,” while Conservative leader Kemi Badenoch described soaring borrowing costs as the price of Labour’s “economic mismanagement.”

London has pledged to raise military spending to 2.5% of GDP by 2027, aligning with NATO commitments. Britain remains one of Ukraine’s most ardent supporters, delivering billions in military and financial aid – further squeezing already stretched public finances.

August 26, 2025 Posted by | Economics, Militarism | , | Leave a comment

Green Energy Wall Coming Into Focus In New York?

By Francis Menton | Manhattan Contrarian | August 17, 2025

It was back in 2021 that I started to ask which country or U.S. state would be the first to hit the “Green Energy Wall.” It has long been obvious to anyone who looks at the situation that the fantasy of a fully de-carbonized energy system, with everything run on electricity generated by intermittent wind and sun, could never happen.

But what would be the limiting condition that would put a stop to the madness? Would it be confronting the absurd costs of grid-scale battery storage? Or perhaps a string of blackouts caused by insufficient backup of the wind and solar generation?

Here in New York, we are starting to see some push back from politicians on the fantasy green energy transition, but the source may be the last thing you would have predicted. The immediate issue is the cost of upgrading local delivery infrastructure to transmit sufficient electricity for the imagined future of electrified buildings and vehicles.

Supposedly, under a statute known as the Climate Leadership and Community Protection Act of 2019, we are faced with a 2030 deadline to get some 70% of our electricity from “renewables.” Currently the percent of our electricity that we get from these “renewables” is around 44%, and almost half of that comes from the gigantic waterfall known as Niagara Falls. Without another Niagara Falls on the horizon, theoretically we should be building vast fields of wind turbines and solar panels to meet the statutory mandates; but that effort has stalled out, and the costs of wind and solar generation, and of backup to make the grid run all the time, have barely started to show up in consumer bills. Nor have various big new long-distance transmission projects yet come into consumer bills.

But meanwhile, the big utilities have come forward with large demands for rate increases. So why the need for big rate increases if not from new generators or long-distance transmission? The answer is that the rate increases mainly relate to the portion of the consumer bills referred to as the “delivery” charge, as opposed to the charge for generation. The utilities seek funds to add delivery infrastructure like substations, transformers, and cables to deliver vastly increased amounts of electricity for things like vehicle charging stations (for both cars and trucks) and for the electrification of building heat.

In upstate New York, a utility called National Grid has been petitioning the regulator for a large electricity rate increase, mostly to support these kinds of upgrades to the delivery infrastructure. The service territory of National Grid in upstate New York covers the region between about Syracuse and Albany, and from there North to the Canadian border. After prolonged negotiations, the regulator (Public Service Commission) and National Grid entered into a “settlement” a few days ago on August 14. Here is the PSC release describing the settlement. Basically, the PSC congratulates itself on beating back a much larger rate increase originally sought by National Grid. (The headline is “PSC Dramatically Reduces National Grid’s Rate Request.”). But if you read on you find that they still agreed to a very large increase. The release makes clear that most of the increase relates to the delivery infrastructure:

National Grid had sought a base delivery increase of $509.6 million (25.5 percent delivery or 10.4 percent total revenue) and $156.5 million (29.7 percent delivery or 15.7 percent total revenue) for electric and gas, respectively for one year. Instead, the Commission adopted a joint proposal establishing levelized increases, on a percentage basis, to the company’s electric revenues of $167.3 million in the first year, $297.4 million in the second year, and $243.4 million in the third year.

Basically, they spread NG’s requested increase out over three years; but it still comes to almost a 30% jump on the delivery side by the time it all kicks in.

Governor Hochul then issued a release expressing extreme displeasure:

While I appreciate that the New York Public Service Commission worked to significantly lower the outrageously high initial rate proposals, it’s still not enough. I have been crystal clear that utilities must make ratepayer affordability the priority.

Well, Governor Hochul, good luck trying to blame the utility, but you are the one with all the electric vehicle mandates and incentives and subsidies, thus calling on the utility to provide all this new infrastructure. In all likelihood few will ever buy the electric vehicles, and nobody will ever generate the extra electricity from wind and sun, and thus this infrastructure will mostly be wasted. But can the utility just refuse to make itself ready to meet your ridiculous mandate?

And meanwhile down here in New York City, our utility Con Edison is requesting almost as large a rate increase, again focused on the delivery portion of the bill, and on local infrastructure upgrades necessary to support increased electricity demand. In the City, the increased demand is anticipated to come both from electric vehicles (per the state mandates) and from building electrification (based on a City building electrification mandate known as Local Law 97). It is likely that the result of the Con Edison rate proceeding will be a settlement agreement comparable to what occurred in the National Grid case a few days ago.

I am an intervenor in this Con Edison rate case, and in recent days I have actually been personally participating — in a minor way — in the settlement negotiations. My co-intervenors and I are objecting to any rate increases based on adding infrastructure to support building and vehicle electrification unless and until the additional electricity generation capacity has been built to support these mandates. (There is no chance that this additional capacity, supposedly wind and solar generators, will actually be built.)

The New York Post has a lead editorial today summarizing how the green energy madness is coming around to bite New Yorkers in their pocketbooks. Excerpt:

New York’s state Public Service Commission just OK’d big National Grid rate increases that’ll hike many upstate utility bills by $600 a year — fueling outrage Democrats will soon feel. Downstate, Con Edison is seeking an 11.4% hike to electric bills and 13.3% gas hike — largely thanks to green-energy mandates that Gov. Kathy Hochul embraced along with the rest of the party. The “climate agenda” is delivering pain we’ve long warned of, in New York and New Jersey.

If we ever get to the point of building dozens of gigawatts of wind and solar generation capacity, and enough backup and storage to make them work to support a grid, that would cause electricity rates to multiply by a factor of five or ten or more. We are a long way from that. But here we are just trying to add enough substations and transformers to support 30-50% vehicle electrification, and a comparable amount of building electrification, and it is causing politicians to start to scream. How much more of this will it take before we quit?

August 25, 2025 Posted by | Economics, Malthusian Ideology, Phony Scarcity | , | Leave a comment

EU shows ‘outdated worldview’ as von der Leyen uses China, Russia as excuse to defend trade deal with US

By Wang Qi | Global Times | August 25, 2025

European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen defended the EU’s trade deal with the US. By invoking Russia and China, she suggested that the failure to strike a deal would have been a gift to Europe’s rivals, according to media reports.

Chinese analysts have observed that von der Leyen’s remarks reveal a tendency among certain European politicians to politicize trade matters. Their emphasis on alliance with the US underscores Europe’s anxiety over American pressure, especially as Washington prioritizes its own interests and fails to treat Europe as an equal partner.

A trade war between the EU and the US would have been “celebrated” by Russia and China, von der Leyen wrote in a guest commentary for Germany’s Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung published on Sunday, per the Bloomberg report.

“Instead, we agreed on a strong, if not perfect deal,” she added, warning that retaliatory tariffs could fuel a costly trade conflict with “negative consequences for our workers, consumers, and our industry,” Bloomberg reported.

Similarly, von der Leyen wrote in an op-ed for Spain’s El Mundo on Saturday, “Imagine for a moment that the two largest democratic economies had not managed to reach an agreement and instead launched a trade war — only Moscow and Beijing would be celebrating,” the Politico reported.

Von der Leyen’s remarks came after the release of EU-US joint statement on Thursday, which confirmed that the EU will accept tariffs of 15 percent on 70 percent of its exports to the US, including cars, pharmaceuticals and semiconductors. In return, the bloc will expand market access for US agricultural goods that are not sensitive for its own market, according to media reports.

Although von der Leyen described the move as a choice for “stability and predictability over escalation and confrontation,” the controversial trade deal with the US has drawn criticism. Former director-general Pascal Lamy has warned the accord risks undermining Europe’s credibility as a defender of rules-based trade, the Politico reported

Cui Hongjian, director and professor of the Center for European Union and Regional Development Studies at Beijing Foreign Studies University, told the Global Times on Monday that von der Leyen’s comments primarily serve to justify her compromises, as the US-EU trade agreement has substantially undermined European interests.

“Ironically, when the US imposes tariffs on Europe, it prioritizes its own interests, clearly not treating Europe as an equal partner,” Cui said, “Yet, Europe is willing to endure losses in its dealings with the US to maintain ongoing cooperation, in order to counter what it perceives as a greater ‘threat’ from non-Western economies, an approach [that] blatantly politicizes trade matters.”

Cui said such actions reveal that some European politicians cling to an outdated worldview, unwilling to face the reality of the US gradually distancing itself from its traditional alliance with Europe. “Their emphasis on the alliance only underscores their anxiety over the losses and economic shocks inflicted by the US, not by China and Russia.”

The South China Morning Post said the Thursday deal did not explicitly mentioned China, however, “veiled references appeared throughout” in terms of AI chips, as EU pledged to purchase $40 billion of AI chips from the US, and that it would adopt US security standards to “avoid technology leakage to destinations of concern.”

According to Cui, China and the EU are scheduled to engage in high-level interactions in the latter half of the year, which requires fostering a constructive atmosphere, adding that China will judge Europe more by its actions than its words.

If Europe takes actions that harm China’s interests, China will undoubtedly respond with countermeasures. However, when EU politicians exploit criticism of China for political gain, it sows discord in China-EU relations and even risks creating conflict, which would in turn affect China’s relationships with individual member states. This is a situation China cannot accept as well, said the expert.

August 25, 2025 Posted by | Economics | , , | Leave a comment

‘Don’t threaten us’ – EU state to Zelensky

RT | August 25, 2025

Hungary has warned Ukraine to stop disrupting its energy supply from Russia after Kiev targeted a key pipeline delivering oil to Central Europe.

Ukrainian forces struck the Soviet-era Druzhba (Friendship) pipeline three times this month, sparking outrage in both Hungary and neighboring Slovakia. The flow through the pipeline was last halted on Friday.

At a press conference during Independence Day celebrations in Kiev on Sunday, a reporter asked Ukrainian leader Vladimir Zelensky how the attacks relate to Hungary’s opposition to Ukraine’s EU and NATO ambitions.

“We have always supported friendship with Hungary, but now the very existence of this friendship depends on Budapest’s position,” Zelensky replied with a smile, playing on the pipeline’s name.

Hungarian Foreign Minister Peter Szijjarto issued a sharp rebuke on X. “Zelensky used Ukraine’s national holiday to threaten Hungary. We firmly reject the Ukrainian President’s intimidation,” Szijjarto wrote. He described the attack on Hungary’s energy supply as “an attack on sovereignty.”

“A war to which Hungary has nothing to do with can never justify violating our sovereignty. We call on Zelensky to stop threatening Hungary and to end the reckless attacks on our energy security!” he added.

Ukrainian Foreign Minister Andrey Sibiga responded on X, writing to Szijjarto: “You don’t need to tell the Ukrainian President what to do or say, and when.” He urged Budapest to “diversify and become independent from Russia, like the rest of Europe.”

Szijjarto shot back: “Stop attacking our energy security! This is not our war!”

Unlike many EU countries, Hungary has refused to send weapons to Kiev and has heavily criticized Brussels for imposing sanctions on Moscow. The country maintains that Ukraine’s NATO membership could trigger an all-out conflict with Russia.

August 25, 2025 Posted by | Economics, War Crimes | , , , | 1 Comment

Indian FM pushes back on US pressure, stands by Russian oil imports

Press TV – August 24, 2025

Indian Foreign Minister has defended New Delhi’s continued imports of Russian oil despite US tariffs on Indian goods, saying that if others “don’t like it, don’t buy it.”

Speaking at the Economic Times World Leaders Forum (ET WLF) on Saturday, Subrahmanyam Jaishankar said there are some “red lines” in the India-US trade deal negotiations.

He underscored that amid strained relations with the US over several aspects in bilateral trade, India refuses any concession to US President Donald Trump.

“It is funny to have people who work for a pro-business American administration accusing other people of doing business,” he said.

“If you have a problem buying oil or refined products from India, do not buy it. Nobody forces you to buy it. Europe buys, America buys, so you do not like it, do not buy it,” he added.

He asserted that India’s purchase of Russian oil serves both its national interest and contributes to global market stability.

He reiterated that New Delhi would continue to make decisions independently.

The US imposed punitive tariffs on India after Trump claimed that the country’s purchase of Russian crude indirectly funded the Russia-Ukraine conflict.

Tensions in US-India trade relations extend beyond energy, with multiple rounds of negotiations for an interim trade agreement failing to produce a breakthrough.

“Where we are concerned, the red lines are primarily the interests of our farmers and, to some extent, of our small producers,” Jaishankar said.

The United States has pressed India to open its markets to American dairy, poultry, and agricultural products such as corn, soybeans, wheat, ethanol, fruits, and nuts.

But India, an agrarian economy, has resisted, particularly on genetically modified (GM) crops, which it considers harmful to human health and the environment.

Dairy remains a particularly sensitive issue as well, as millions of small and landless farmers depend on the sector for survival, especially during poor monsoons or agricultural downturns.

In a clear message to Trump, Prime Minister Narendra Modi has publicly declared that India will not compromise on the interests of farmers.

“Modi is standing like a wall against any harmful policy related to farmers, fishermen, and cattle rearers of India,” he said in his Independence Day speech.

August 24, 2025 Posted by | Economics, Russophobia | , | Leave a comment

NATO Sharpens Its War Wallet: Doubles Down On Ukraine Aid

Sputnik – 23.08.2025

Russia states that supplying arms to Ukraine hinders peace efforts and drags NATO allies into the conflict. Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov said that any shipments containing weapons for Ukraine will become a legitimate target for Russia.

NATO countries have provided 99% of military aid to Ukraine, which reached $50 billion in 2024, the alliance’s Military Committee Chair Giuseppe Cavo Dragone told Corriere della Sera.

As of January 1, 2025, the alliance had already funneled $33 billion and plans to boost funding for the Ukraine regime even more, he said.

He mentioned three packages of around $580 million each. The first was funded by the Netherlands, the second by Denmark, Finland, and Sweden. The third was paid by Germany.

While Russia and the US at their recent summit thrashed out a roadmap to achieve an end to the Ukraine conflict, the NATO hawk said they intend to continue military aid and even increase it.

On August 15, Putin and US President Donald Trump met in Anchorage, Alaska, for three-on-three talks that lasted 2 hours and 45 minutes. In addition to the presidents, Russia was represented by Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov and presidential aide Yuri Ushakov, and the US by Secretary of State Marco Rubio and Special Envoy Steve Witkoff. On August 18, Trump hosted Volodymyr Zelensky and EU leaders for talks at the White House.

August 23, 2025 Posted by | Economics, Militarism | , , , , , , | Leave a comment