Aletho News

ΑΛΗΘΩΣ

Sanctions as Self-Harm: The West’s Strategic Blind Spot in Confronting Russia

By Ricardo Martins – New Eastern Outlook – May 28, 2025

This article critically analyzes the latest EU sanctions on Russia, arguing they are strategically flawed and economically self-destructive. Drawing from past failures, it shows how the West’s punitive measures are backfiring, hurting Europe and the U.S. more than isolating Russia.

What is the New Sanctions Package About?

The EU has unveiled a new sanction package targeting Russia, predominantly focusing on the energy sector, specifically oil and diesel exports. This builds upon earlier restrictions intended to cripple Russia’s economic capacity to sustain its military operations in Ukraine. The new sanctions include tighter enforcement mechanisms on the oil price cap, restrictions on ship-to-ship transfers in international waters, and efforts to curtail Russia’s access to Western insurance and logistics networks. But like the previous measures, they raise a fundamental question: Will they work?

The Status of Past Sanctions: Buying While Punishing

Historically, sanctions against Russia have been inconsistent and riddled with loopholes. Despite strong rhetoric, Europe has continued purchasing Russian commodities under various exemptions. The EU still imports significant quantities of Russian diesel, liquefied natural gas (LNG), coal, uranium, and even agricultural products like grain and fertilizer. The result is a paradox: while aiming to isolate Russia, the West remains economically entangled with it. This undermines the moral and strategic coherence of sanctions and allows Russia to adapt and thrive despite Western pressure.

Sanctions Hit Europe More Than Russia

While sanctions are theoretically aimed at weakening Russia’s economy, the practical consequences have disproportionately hit European industries and households. Russian exports are fungible: oil, coal, and fertilizers find alternate markets in Asia, Africa, and Latin America. Meanwhile, Europe has struggled with soaring energy prices, industrial shutdowns, and declining competitiveness. Diesel shortages, energy rationing, and inflation have become the new norm, particularly in Germany, which once depended heavily on Russian inputs for its industrial base.

Russia, by contrast, has localized production, developed new markets, and implemented mercantilist strategies to reduce dependence on Western technology and finance. As one Russian analyst put it, sanctions have become “psychological warfare,” increasingly irrelevant to daily life in Russia.

Oil and Diesel: The Inflation Time Bomb

The crux of the new sanctions is oil and diesel. But can the U.S. and EU afford to forgo Russian, Venezuelan, and Iranian crude without catastrophic inflation? The answer appears to be no.

Russia exports about 7.5 million barrels of oil per day, or nearly 10% of global supply. Taking that offline—especially in conjunction with sanctioned Venezuelan and Iranian oil—would create a massive global shortfall. Western refineries, particularly in the U.S. Gulf Coast, are calibrated to process heavy sour crude like Russia’s Urals blend. Without it, refineries operate suboptimally, and gasoline prices spike.

In the U.S., diesel drives nearly all logistics trucks, trains, and ships. Removing a major global supplier like Russia tightens global supply, causing diesel prices to surge and supply chains to buckle. Already, diesel refills for trucks cost over $2,000, with potential spikes threatening food prices and consumer goods. Inflation will soar again, just as it had started to cool.

Baltic Sea Escalation: Tankers and Arrests

The geopolitical tension is intensifying. Russian oil tankers, often flagged under third countries, are now escorted by Russian naval vessels in the Baltic Sea. An incident involving an Estonian ship attempting to halt a tanker, which ended up detained in Russian waters, demonstrates the volatility of the situation. This marks a dangerous escalation, with the potential for military clashes over enforcement of maritime sanctions—an area traditionally governed by international law, not unilateral action.

Western Industrial Decline: No Shipyards, No Leverage

Sanctions enforcement is further complicated by Western logistical decline. The U.S., Britain, and France have largely lost their shipbuilding industries. Insurance and shipping markets have globalized, and London no longer dominates maritime underwriting. Russian entities are increasingly self-insuring their fleet, rendering sanctions on Western insurers irrelevant.

Furthermore, without a domestic merchant marine, the U.S. relies on foreign ships even for military logistics—a vulnerability in any prolonged conflict. Meanwhile, China and Russia continue expanding their shipping capabilities and influence over global supply routes.

The Legal Quandary: Sanctions and Sovereignty

From a legal standpoint, unilateral sanctions that attempt to compel third-party countries to comply (so-called secondary sanctions) strain the legitimacy of the “rules-based international order.” It is lawful for the West to impose its own sanctions, but not to mandate their enforcement by sovereign nations like India or Brazil. Such overreach risks global backlash and accelerates moves toward de-dollarization and alternative trade systems, such as the BRICS currency initiative.

Is the EU Addicted to Sanctions?

The EU appears increasingly reliant on sanctions as a primary foreign policy tool. Yet, their efficacy is questionable. Past sanctions have not altered Russian behavior, destabilized its economy, or improved Western leverage. Instead, they’ve fostered economic nationalism in Russia, weakened EU industries, and exposed the strategic shallowness of Brussels and Washington’s policies.

Sanctions are not a strategy; they are a tactic. And overuse risks turning them from a deterrent into a diplomatic crutch—one that Europe may not survive intact if economic pain continues to mount.

Conclusion: A Strategy of Self-Harm

Sanctions as Self-Harm: The West’s Strategic Blind Spot in Confronting Russia

In sum, the latest sanctions package is more of the same: punitive in intent, performative in practice, and counterproductive in outcome. The West, particularly Europe, will likely bear the brunt of energy shortages, inflation, and industrial decline. Meanwhile, Russia’s diversified exports, strategic alliances with China and India, and robust internal adaptation mechanisms render sanctions increasingly futile.

History has shown that attempts to isolate Russia through economic pressure are not only ineffective—they risk reinforcing the very state structures they aim to dismantle. Unless sanctions are part of a broader diplomatic and economic strategy, they will continue to hurt the sanctioning powers more than their target.

Ricardo Martins ‒PhD in Sociology, specializing in policies, European and world politics and geopolitics

May 28, 2025 Posted by | Economics, Russophobia | , , | Leave a comment

Ukraine in the EU? 5 reasons why it would crush Hungary (and Europe)

Remix News | May 28, 2025

The political elite in Brussels is increasingly trying to achieve that Ukraine’s planned EU accession takes place as soon as possible, preferably before 2030. Ursula von der Leyen, president of the European Commission, stated in early May that the accession process must be accelerated.

Von der Leyen previously stated in Kyiv that if the process continues at this pace and quality, accession could occur even earlier than 2030.

The EU often does what it wants now and simply bypasses all the old treaty rules. The EU migration pact, which basically amounts to migrant quotas, was supposed to be the type of law that passes with the unanimous consent of the member states. In other words, countries like Hungary and Poland should have had a veto. Instead, Brussels snuck it through the backdoor and passed this “pact” with a qualified majority of the EU’s interior ministers.

Something similar is bound to happen with Ukraine. They will bypass Hungary’s veto in violation of all treaty rules because they have the power — at least for the foreseeable future.

However, it is worth noting that this will not only harm Hungarians, but all of Europe. Mandiner news outlet compiled five reasons it will hit Hungary hard, but many of these reasons apply to a broad swathe of Europe’s population.

1. The wages of Hungarian workers would decrease

With Ukraine’s accession, at least 30 million Ukrainians would have the opportunity to work in any country in the European Union. This would expand the European labor market by about 7 percent. In Hungary, the average net salary is currently about three times that of Ukraine. It is clear that many people would decide that it is worth moving to neighboring Hungary, as well as other EU nations.

Ukrainian workers arriving with lower wage demands would create a competitive situation in Hungarian sectors already struggling with labor shortages (construction, hospitality, agriculture), and this could result in a real wage decrease of up to 10-20 percent.

It is the classic example of cheap labor flooding the market, which while good for owners of capital and big business, can decimate labor markets and undercut labor power.

This would be most prevalent among lower-skilled workers, but jobs requiring secondary education would not necessarily be secure either. The proportion of Ukrainian guest workers in Hungary reached 5 percent in the agricultural and construction sectors by early 2025. Now, 30-40 percent of commuters [itinerants] working in this sector are Ukrainian citizens. After accession, this number would increase dramatically, turning into permanent commuting and settlement in Hungary and other EU nations, which would further drive down basic wages and long-term unemployment in rural regions, further increasing social tensions.

Hungary is spending a fortune on families and social programs for its population. Suddenly, financing family benefits, child-rearing benefits and the 13th month pension would also face serious difficulties, and the cost of the system would increase by 200–300 billion forints annually with Ukraine’s EU accession. This amount can only be raised in the government budget at the expense of public services, healthcare and education. According to analysts, if wages were to fall by 5-10 percent, consumption would also fall by 3-4 percent, and this could mean an additional loss of 0.5-1 percent of Hungarian GDP growth on an annual basis, the compilation highlights.

2. The rapid accession of Ukrainians could cause a new migration crisis

With Ukraine’s accession to the EU, the immigration crisis that has plagued the European Union since 2015 would reach a new level, and this would put Hungary in a very difficult situation. In its study previously published on Mandiner, the Hungarian Institute of Foreign Affairs cites data from the 2023 research of the Ukrainian Future Institute, according to which 6.5 million people have left Ukraine, which had a population of 41-44 million before the war, in recent years, and there are also 3.5 million internal refugees.

With Ukraine’s accession, at least 30 million Ukrainians would have the opportunity to work in any country in the European Union, and a good number of them would understandably leave the collapsed country in the hope of a better life.

This internal, legal migration would significantly burden the EU – and since Hungary is a neighboring country, this would also affect the Hungarian healthcare system.

In addition, illegal migration could also gain momentum. It is currently unknown where Ukraine’s borders will be after the settlement of the Russian-Ukrainian war, but a new, currently unknown and unsettled border section of several hundred – perhaps a thousand – kilometers long will certainly be created.

If the Ukrainians are admitted, this line will separate the European Union and Russia. Controlling it is a task that neither the European Border and Coast Guard Agency (FRONTEX) nor the Ukrainian authorities would be able to cope with.

New migration routes could open up from Asia, and the EU would have to deal with new waves of migration coming from the east through Ukrainian soil. More people would try to enter the EU from Central Asia and Afghanistan through the new external borders. Some of the incoming migrants would try to reach the territory of the Western member states via Hungary. If Ukraine were also allowed to join the Schengen area, migrants would be able to travel across Europe at will, easily avoiding controls.

3. It would ruin Hungarian farmers

Ukraine’s accession to the EU would significantly increase the size of the EU’s 157 million hectares of agriculture by 41 million hectares.

Ukraine would become the largest beneficiary of the Common Agricultural Policy (CAP), pocketing about a third of the total budget, thereby undercutting farmers who comply with strict EU regulations, including Hungarian producers.

A large part of the budget’s agricultural subsidies are currently distributed on a regional basis, and due to money given to Ukraine, farmers in other member states would receive less of this amount. This reallocation of agricultural subsidies would mean Hungarian farmers would also receive orders of magnitude less EU funding than before, according to calculations by the Hungarian Institute of Foreign Affairs.

With Ukraine’s accession, the Hungarian agricultural sector is expected to suffer an annual loss of 672 billion forints (€1.68 billion) due to the loss of Common Agricultural Policy (CAP) funds.

A loss of resources of this magnitude, in addition to the aforementioned competitive disadvantage, would likely destroy the entire sector and could certainly bankrupt small and medium-sized family farms, Mandiner emphasizes.

Ukraine is one of the world’s largest grain producers and exporters, with vast acreage and excellent resources, but our eastern neighbor has much looser regulations than the European Union, and labor is much cheaper, which is why their production costs are much lower. If they were to enter the EU market, farmers from other European member states would be at a huge competitive disadvantage.

If Ukraine joins the EU, it would account for 15 percent of European wheat production, 49 percent of corn production, and 20 percent of overall grain production. This dumping would result in depressed prices, and Hungarian farmers would be unable to compete with cheap, often inferior-quality Ukrainian products.

4. The European Union would also import war by admitting Ukraine

According to a study by the Hungarian Institute of Foreign Affairs, Ukraine’s accession to the EU would necessitate the introduction of new coordination mechanisms, but it is clear that the European Union is currently unable to guarantee Ukraine’s security. Realistically, Ukraine’s accession to NATO has practically zero chance, so the security guarantees of the Ukrainian state could only be resolved through bilateral agreements.

The European Union’s mutual assistance clause is very similar to NATO’s famous Article 5. If a country is attacked, it can activate it independently, i.e., without the consensus of the European Council, and in this case the other member states must come to its aid.

This means that if Ukraine were an EU member, it could activate the article, which would – at least legally – automatically make all EU member states belligerents.

This is probably what Hungarian Prime Minister Viktor Orbán meant when he said, “If the European Union admits Ukraine, it will also be admitting war.” The aforementioned article has no implementing regulations, so it would cause an unprecedented debate on its interpretation, which would lead to divisions among the member states. On the other hand, the adversary could automatically consider the European Union a belligerent party, and if this were to happen, NATO would also have to deal with the issue.

It is unprecedented in the history of the European Union for a country at war to join the community, but even if peace were to be concluded, the aftermath of a legally closed conflict would pose dangers that the Union would be unable to deal with. The Russian-Ukrainian war will almost certainly end with a peace treaty that would change Ukraine’s current internationally recognized borders.

If the European Union were to include Ukraine as a member, it would be adding a conflict zone with a constant threat of war, with the associated tasks and costs. This step would eliminate the buffer zone between the European Union and Russia, which Ukraine has so far represented, with the two directly bordering each other. This would also drastically change the security situation of the European community.

5. We would allow the Ukrainian mafia into the EU

Ukraine is one of the most corrupt countries in Europe, where organized crime was very strong even before the war, but the situation is even worse now. A lot of weapons from the arms shipments that have flowed into the country have ended up on the black market and then in the hands of criminal groups. The Ukrainian mafia will not have HR problems either.

The rehabilitation of demobilized soldiers is currently unresolved, and many of them are likely to be unemployed and traumatized, but there is one area in which they have gained serious expertise in recent years, and this is very useful knowledge if someone wants to join organized crime.

If Ukraine were to join the EU at an accelerated pace, as the European Commission envisions, this problem would also affect Hungarians. With the possibility of free movement in the European Union and the avoidance of border controls, Ukrainian organized crime groups would be able to conduct their business much more easily in the territory of other member states, and due to our geographical proximity, this would definitely be felt in Hungary.

The domestic drug situation is already very serious, and it seems to be getting worse with the spread of synthetic drugs, and the Ukrainians’ “entry into the market” would not help this, just as Hungarian society does not want clashes between expanding criminal gangs back in their everyday lives.

Of course, the state of public security would not be improved by the fact that Ukraine’s accession to the EU would certainly lead to an increase in the intensity of migration and the number of migrants residing in Hungary. This in itself carries a serious public security threat. The examples of England, Germany, Sweden and France all show that integration attempts, which are impossible in the short term anyway, almost always fail, and the number of crimes increases in direct proportion to the increase in the number of immigrants, and in many cases new organized criminal networks are created in migrant communities.

Hungary’s opposition pushes for Ukraine’s EU membership

Charles Michel, the former president of the European Council, and Manfred Weber, the president of the European People’s Party (EPP), which has the largest faction in the European Parliament, both support the EU’s push for Ukrainian membership. The party of Hungarian opposition leader Péter Magyar has also joined the EPP.

It is no coincidence that the German politician, Weber, made it clear to Magyar before the Tisza Party could join his faction that he only works with those who are pro-Ukraine, pro-Europe, and pro-rule of law, and he expects the same from Péter Magyar’s party.

The Tisza Party is apparently trying to comply with this, as in April, in line with the People’s Party line, they voted for a proposal that urges Ukraine to become an EU member, and would even provide a large amount of support (approximately €35 billion) to the war-torn country to facilitate this.

Apparently, the majority of their supporters expect this from Péter Magyar’s party: in the Voice of the Nation poll, the majority of Tisza respondents support Ukraine’s accession to the EU (58.18 percent yes, 41.82 percent no).

Manfred Weber stated in relation to Ukraine’s EU accession that Ukrainians have the same right to belong to the European Union as we Hungarians.

The Hungarian government, on the other hand, takes the position that accelerating Ukraine’s EU accession would have a catastrophic impact on Hungary and the surrounding countries, as in addition to the fact that there is currently a war in the country and the process itself would cost an incredible amount of money, this step would bring serious long-term negative changes in many areas of life, affecting the lives of European people.

May 28, 2025 Posted by | Civil Liberties, Economics | , , | Leave a comment

German Chancellor Merz threatens to cut EU funding for Hungary and Slovakia

By Thomas Brooke | Remix News | May 27, 2025

German Chancellor Friedrich Merz has warned that the European Union could withhold even greater funds from Hungary and Slovakia if they refuse to adhere to the values imposed upon member states by Brussels.

Speaking at the WDR Europaforum on Monday, Merz said, “Member states that violate the rule of law can face infringement procedures, and there is always the possibility of withdrawing European funds. If necessary, we will take care of it.”

“We cannot allow the decisions of the entire EU to depend on a small minority,” he added, in a thinly veiled attack on the nationalist-led governments in Bratislava and Budapest. Both countries have already seen parts of their EU funding frozen over legal and political disputes with Brussels.

His remarks come as Hungary faces renewed criticism over a bill targeting foreign-funded NGOs and media, while Slovakia, under Prime Minister Robert Fico, has raised alarm in Brussels following his recent visit to Moscow and long-held opposition to further European intervention in the Russo-Ukrainian conflict.

Following the trip, Brussels ramped up pressure on Slovakia with the arrival of a delegation of Members of the European Parliament from the Committee on Budgetary Control (CONT), led by Czech MEP Tomáš Zdechovský, to investigate alleged misuse of European subsidies.

Slovak Interior Minister Matúš Šutaj Eštok has dismissed the delegation’s visit as a politically motivated “punitive expedition” orchestrated by Brussels, accusing Eurocrats of defamation. “A carefully selected group is coming here with the aim of presenting Slovakia in Brussels as a black hole on the map of Europe,” he claimed.

Skepticism over Brussels’ approach to the war in Ukraine has been a point of contention in Hungary and Slovakia for the duration of the conflict, and Merz expressed his intention to advocate for punitive measures against the two member states should they seek to block European support to Kyiv.

“We will not be able to avoid this conflict with Hungary and Slovakia if we continue on this course,” Merz said.

Last month, Hungarian Prime Minister Viktor Orbán accused Brussels of conspiring with his country’s political opposition to bring about a change in government, remarks made after Hungarian left-wing MEP Kinga Kollár acknowledged the devastating effect that the withholding of EU funds for Hungary has caused, caveating her remarks by stating that “the deteriorating standard of living has actually strengthened the opposition and I am very positive about the ’26 elections.”

“They agreed to destroy the Hungarian economy, the Hungarian healthcare system, and to destroy the living standards of Hungarians, in order to help the Tisza party come to power,” Orbán said of the European Commission.

In response to Merz’s remarks, Hungarian Economy Minister Márton Nagy said on Monday that Budapest should reconsider its overdependence on trade with Berlin.

May 27, 2025 Posted by | Economics, Russophobia | , , | Leave a comment

Russia could restrict return of Western brands – Izvestia

RT | May 27, 2025

The Russian parliament is set to pass a law that would regulate the right of foreign companies to reclaim assets sold during their exit from the country, Izvestia reported on Tuesday. The draft has reportedly been approved by the Finance Ministry and will be considered by the State Duma in its second and third readings simultaneously.

Numerous US, European, and Asian companies pulled out of Russia due to supply problems caused by unprecedented sanctions imposed on Moscow by the West after the escalation of the Ukraine conflict in 2022. Other firms left due to the risk of facing secondary sanctions or public relations pressure.

The bill, reviewed by Izvestia, allows Russian authorities or current owners to reject asset buybacks under certain conditions. Grounds for refusal include the foreign seller being from a country that has imposed sanctions on Russia, the repurchase price being below market value, or if more than two years have elapsed since the original deal with the Russian owner fulfilling obligations to employees and creditors.

The Russian authorities may also block asset buybacks if a company operates in sectors deemed vital to the country’s socio-economic stability, including defense or finance, the outlet said. In such cases, asset repurchase would require presidential approval.

According to Izvestia, the new measures will be voted on in June and could affect at least 18 foreign companies with buyback options, including Renault and McDonald’s. The draft law also reportedly stipulates that foreign businesses denied repurchase could be eligible for compensation, the amount of which would be determined by the government. However, if former owners failed to fulfill obligations before their exit, compensation could be reduced by court decision.

In March, Russian President Vladimir Putin ordered the government to draft regulations for Western firms seeking to return to the country’s market, which would prioritize the adequate protection of local businesses.

Following the exodus of foreign firms, the Russian market has largely adapted by promoting domestic and Chinese brands, making re-entry more challenging for Western companies. In sectors such as automotive and fashion, local alternatives have filled the void left by departing Western firms.

Putin said on Monday that foreign tech firms that continue operating in Russia while acting against the country should be “squeezed out.”

“They are trying to squeeze us, so we must respond in kind,” Putin said in response to a question about possible measures against companies such as Zoom and Microsoft. The president added that Russia had not expelled any companies and had instead created favorable conditions for their operations.

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

Iran draws red line as Europe threatens nuclear ‘snapback’

As indirect US–Iran nuclear talks inch forward, Europe’s fear of marginalization prompts a risky diplomatic maneuver in Istanbul.

By Vali Kaleji | The Cradle | May 26, 2025

In the backdrop of indirect nuclear negotiations between Tehran and Washington, Iranian Deputy Foreign Ministers Majid Takht-Ravanchi and Kazem Gharibabadi met with their European counterparts from France, Germany, and Britain – the so-called E3 of the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA) – on 16 May in Istanbul.

The meeting, held at Iran’s Consulate General and hosted by Turkiye, brought together EU Deputy Secretary-General for Political Affairs Enrique Mora and his colleague Olof Skoog, alongside Turkish Deputy Foreign Minister Abdullah Celik. The discussions focused on the future of the 2015 nuclear agreement, the status of indirect Iran–US negotiations, and collective efforts to avert further escalation through diplomacy.

Although three earlier rounds of consultations between Tehran and the E3 occurred on 29 November 2024, 13 January, and 24 February 2025, the Istanbul session marked a pivotal moment: the first engagement since the revival of the Iran–US indirect dialogue.

Europe cut out of nuclear talks

Crucially, the EU, much like in the Ukraine peace process, found itself bypassed by Washington. This diplomatic exclusion has intensified Brussels’s urgency to reclaim relevance within the nuclear negotiations framework, apparently even if this means acting as spoiler.

At the heart of the Istanbul summit lies the snapback mechanism – an instrument embedded in the JCPOA allowing any signatory to reimpose all UN sanctions that existed before the 2015 agreement. The clause, originally intended as a safeguard, now threatens to become a geopolitical cudgel.

With the JCPOA’s expiration looming in October 2025, Tehran fears that the E3 may invoke the mechanism as early as this summer, citing Iran’s alleged enrichment beyond 60 percent and its growing stockpile of enriched uranium.

French Foreign Minister Jean-Noel Barrot minced no words during a 28 April address to the UN Security Council, stating that if European security interests are compromised, France “will not hesitate for a single second to reapply all the sanctions that were lifted 10 years ago.” His statement, which reverberated through diplomatic circles, was widely interpreted in Tehran as a stark ultimatum.

Iran’s permanent representative to the UN responded forcefully, accusing France of hypocrisy and warning that Paris’s own breaches of the agreement render any activation of the snapback legally indefensible.

Iranian Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi echoed this stance in an op-ed for Le Point, characterizing the Istanbul discussions as “a fragile but promising beginning” while cautioning that “time is running out.” He wrote:

“The decisions we make now will shape Iran–Europe relations in ways that go far beyond this agreement. Iran is prepared to move forward – we hope Europe is, too.”

Following the talks, Gharibabadi wrote on X: “We exchanged views and discussed the latest state of play on nuclear & sanctions lifting indirect negotiations. Iran and the E3 are determined to sustain and make best use of diplomacy. We will meet again, as appropriate, to continue our dialogue.”

British envoy Christian Turner echoed this sentiment, affirming the shared commitment to maintaining open channels of communication.

‘Trigger Plus’

Yet not all assessments of the Istanbul summit were diplomatic. Tehran-based daily Farhikhtegan, aligned with Iran’s conservative establishment, described the session as tense and combative.

According to its report, the E3 tabled severe threats, including a proposal for what they termed “trigger plus” – an augmentation of the original snapback mechanism that would allow preemptive punitive measures without requiring technical justification.

Iranian officials, the newspaper reported, dismissed this demand as not only illegal and baseless but also presented in an “inappropriate” tone. The Iranian side reiterated that while they remain open to EU participation in broader nuclear negotiations, any activation of the snapback mechanism would trigger an immediate Iranian withdrawal from the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT).

Mohammad Ghaderi, former editor-in-chief of Nour News – a media outlet close to Iran’s Supreme National Security Council – summarized the stance bluntly on social media:

“In the tense talks with Iran on Friday, [the E3] while requesting to participate in Iran–US talks, made non-technical & illegal requests, calling it trigger plus. But Iran’s response: Emphasizing the activation of the Trigger Mechanism will lead to Iran’s withdrawal from the NPT.”

The Iranian Foreign Ministry, in characteristic fashion, neither confirmed nor denied these reports, opting for strategic ambiguity to maintain leverage over multiple negotiation tracks.

The October deadline: Strategic implications 

As the October 2025 expiration date draws closer, Iran has accelerated efforts to engage the remaining members of the 4+1 framework – China, Russia, France, Britain, and Germany. Trilateral meetings with Moscow and Beijing have underscored Tehran’s strategy of building a multilateral diplomatic buffer against US-European pressure.

However, the snapback clause remains the most potent lever in the E3’s arsenal. According to Article 36 of the JCPOA, any signatory can escalate a compliance dispute to the UN Security Council. Once initiated, this process does not require a vote or consensus, meaning that Russian and Chinese vetoes are nullified.

Should the snapback be triggered, all seven UN Security Council sanctions previously lifted would automatically be reinstated – a scenario with grave consequences for Iran’s economy and its broader regional strategy.

Analysts suggest the E3 may push for this mechanism’s activation as early as July or August, thereby maximizing diplomatic pressure while allowing time to shape global opinion. If that happens, Tehran’s recourse to NPT withdrawal – a threat repeatedly made since 2019 – would likely materialize.

Deputy Foreign Minister Kazem Gharibabadi reinforced this red line in response to a recent International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) resolution: “If Europe implements snapback, our answer is to withdraw from the NPT.”  As Araghchi, writing again in Le Point, stated unequivocally:

“Iran has officially warned all JCPOA signatories that abuse of the snapback mechanism will lead to consequences – not only the end of Europe’s role in the agreement but also an escalation of tensions that could become irreversible.”

Europe’s desperation for relevance 

Europe’s insistence on asserting itself in the JCPOA talks stems from its declining influence across global affairs. From the Ukraine war to the Persian Gulf, the EU has been reduced to a secondary actor. In the Iran file, this marginalization is especially stark.

While Washington and Tehran inch closer to a bilateral formula, Brussels finds itself largely ignored. Nosratollah Tajik, a former Iranian diplomat, argues:

“Europe’s main concern is that Iran and the United States will reach a bilateral agreement without considering European interests. Many of the Middle East [West Asian] crises spill over into Europe.”

The lack of a coordinated EU Iran policy only compounds this anxiety. Theo Nencini, an Iran expert at Sciences Po Grenoble and Paris Catholic University, concurs:

“The E3 countries have not yet managed to define a coherent and relevant ‘Iran policy.’ From Trump 1.0 to Biden, they have always been accustomed to flatly following American positions.”

Nencini believes that unexpected US–Iran direct talks caught Europeans off guard, prompting them to scramble to get involved in the negotiation process despite the fact that “they have always maintained a very strict attitude towards Iran.”

Diplomacy or detonation?

The Istanbul talks, despite their challenges, represent one of the few remaining diplomatic lifelines between Tehran and the E3.

Should these efforts collapse, the consequences would be profound: Iran could withdraw from the NPT, revise its nuclear doctrine, and prompt potential military escalation involving the US and Israel.

Such a scenario would spell the total disintegration of the JCPOA framework and shatter the fragile architecture of non-proliferation diplomacy built over the past two decades.

With less than five months to avert this trajectory, the onus lies on both parties to preserve what little remains of mutual trust. Yet the margin for error continues to shrink by the day.

May 26, 2025 Posted by | Economics, Progressive Hypocrite, Wars for Israel | , , , , , | 1 Comment

Iran, China launch new commercial railway bypassing US sanctions

The Cradle | May 26, 2025

A new commercial rail route connecting China to Iran has officially launched with the arrival of the first cargo train from the eastern Chinese city of Xian at the Aprin dry port near Tehran.

Aprin’s CEO highlighted the port’s strategic role in lowering transport costs and reducing reliance on coastal freight hubs.

Railway infrastructure connecting Iran and China allows freight trains to travel from Shanghai to Tehran in 15 days, compared to 30 days via the maritime route.

On 12 May, railway officials from Iran, China, Kazakhstan, Uzbekistan, Turkmenistan, and Turkiye met in Tehran to advance a transcontinental rail network linking Asia to Europe, Tasnim News Agency reported on 25 May.

The six nations agreed on competitive tariffs and operational standards to streamline regional rail services and boost trade connectivity.

China and Iran have expanded trade and economic relations in recent years, as Tehran seeks to bypass US economic sanctions seeking to strangle its economy and oil exports.

The rail line between the two countries enables Iranian oil exports to China and allows Chinese goods to reach Europe without US naval interference.

In 2018, Iranian Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei stated that Iran should look to the east rather than the west. Since that time, China has become Iran’s largest oil purchaser, while Beijing has been able to supply Tehran with virtually all its needed manufactured goods, including electronics such as computers and cell phones.

The following year, Iran joined China’s “One Belt One Road” (BRI) initiative – President Xi Jinping’s hallmark strategic foreign policy initiative, seeking to recreate the economic ties that existed between ancient China and ancient Persia along the “Silk Road” dating back to the third century BCE.

China and Iran signed a historic 25-year economic cooperation agreement in 2021, reportedly worth $400 billion in trade.

In 2023, China’s growing relations with Iran helped it mediate a Saudi–Iranian rapprochement, which led to the resumption of diplomatic relations that had been cut in 2016.

May 26, 2025 Posted by | Economics, Wars for Israel | , , | 1 Comment

Washington’s “Golden Dome” – Multi-Trillion Tax Dollar Heist at Best, Dangerous Provocation at Worst

By Brian Berletic – New Eastern Outlook – May 25, 2025

US President Donald Trump has announced his administration has chosen the architecture for the proposed Golden Dome missile defense system, claiming it will cost $175 billion and be operational in “less than three years” with a “success rate close to 100%.”

During President Trump’s announcement on May 21, 2025, it was claimed the Golden Dome will consist of technology deployed across land, sea, and space capable of intercepting hypersonic, ballistic, and advanced cruise missiles, “even if they are launched from other sides of the world and even if they are launched from space.” 

Former-US President Ronald Reagan’s “Star Wars” program (also known as the Strategic Defense Initiative) was repeatedly cited during the announcement. That program sought to use space-based weapons to void the doctrine of “mutually assured destruction” allowing the US to conduct a nuclear or non-nuclear first strike on another nation and avoid what had otherwise been an inevitable nuclear retaliation that would destroy both nations in the process.

Specifically, because mutually assured destruction was seen as a better deterrence against a first strike by one nuclear-armed nation against another, along with concerns over costs, technological limitations, and then-existing arms control treaties like the Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty (ABM), the initiative was never fully realized.

Granting the US Impunity to Attack, Not “Defend” Itself

US Space Force General Michael Guetlein, picked to lead the Golden Dome project and present during its announcement, would claim:

As you’re aware, our adversaries have become very capable and very intent on holding the homeland at risk. While we have been focused on keeping the peace overseas, our adversaries have been quickly modernizing their nuclear forces, building out ballistic missiles capable of hosting multiple warheads, building out hypersonic missiles capable of attacking the United States within an hour and traveling at 6,000 mph, building cruise missiles that can navigate around our radar and our defenses and building submarines that can sneak up on our shores and worse yet, building space weapons. It is time that we change that equation and start doubling down on the protection of the homeland.

Yet what General Guetlein calls “keeping the peace overseas,” is in reality the United States encroaching along the borders and shores of nations like Russia, Iran, China, and North Korea.

This includes the stationing of not only missile defense systems like Patriot, THAAD, and the Aegis Ashore system in close proximity to these nations in violation of the ABM treaty the US has since abandoned, but also first-strike offensive weapons like the Typhon missile launcher capable of firing both Standard SM-6 anti-air missiles, but also ground-launched Tomahawk cruise missiles previously prohibited under the INF treaty the US has also since abandoned.

For example, the US has positioned THAAD systems in both the Middle East and Asia, and its Typhon missile system is currently stationed in the Philippines with additional units on the way, specifically aimed at China.

Beyond the global-spanning military footprint of the United States, Washington is also preparing for or already directing multiple proxy wars against these nations.

The conflict in Ukraine was entirely engineered by the United States, beginning with Kiev’s political capture in 2014, the training and arming of Ukraine’s military, and the capture, reorganization, and direction of Ukraine’s intelligence agencies by the US Central Intelligence Agency.

The US has been waging war and proxy war against Iran for decades, including invading and occupying Afghanistan and Iraq right on its borders, invading and overthrowing the government of Iran’s ally Syria, the waging of war on Yemen-based Ansar Allah – also an Iranian ally. The US also maintains constant financial, political, and military support for Israel, which has repeatedly attacked Iran and its allies.

And despite officially recognizing Taiwan as part of “One China,” the United States has continued supporting separatist political parties administering Taipei, is arming local military forces, and is even stationing US troops on the island province itself.

All of this has forced Russia, Iran, China, and other nations to respond by bolstering military spending, increasing research and development into missile technology, and the creation of credible deterrents against decades-spanning US aggression and proxy war along and even within their borders.

While the Trump administration depicts the Golden Dome as necessary to “forever end the missile threat to the American homeland,” it is instead being built to enable the US to forever threaten other nations around the globe with its missiles.

Dubious Claims About Golden Dome’s “Near 100%” Success 

At one point during the Golden Dome’s announcement, US President Trump would claim:

I will tell you an adversary told me, a very big adversary, told me the most brilliant people in the world are in Silicon Valley. He said, “we cannot duplicate them. We can’t.”

He also claimed:

We have things that nobody else can have. You see what we’ve done helping Israel. You probably wouldn’t have in Israel. They launched probably 500 missiles all together and I think one half of a missile got through and that was only falling to the ground as scrap metal.

Except none of this is true.

If President Trump is referring to the 2024 Iranian retaliatory strike on Israel, up to 200 missiles were fired, with dozens if not scores of them circumventing Israeli missile defenses and striking targets, including dozens striking and damaging Israel’s Nevatim Airbase alone, according to NPR.

No air or missile defense system has a “success rate close to 100%.” 

While any particular system may have a “success rate close to 100%” intercepting individual targets, retaliatory strikes are planned specifically to include a large enough number of missiles, drones, and other projectiles to saturate a defense system’s ability to intercept them all during a single attack. This means that while many incoming targets will be intercepted, many others will not, and critical targets will inevitably be struck and destroyed.

Regarding the state of US missile defense technology, unless President Trump is referring to undisclosed innovations, nothing the US currently is known to possess in terms of air and missile defense systems consists of “things that nobody else can have.”

And while in the past Silicon Valley drove unparalleled advances in technology contributing to a decisive military advantage for the US, the gap has since drastically closed and in some instances is widening in favor of nations like Russia and China.

The conflict in Ukraine, for example, has demonstrated glaring Russian advantages in several key areas that void the entire premise the Golden Dome is predicated on. Russia has demonstrated that it is capable of producing both larger quantities of ballistic and cruise missiles as well as layered integrated air defense systems and at a fraction of the cost the US and its European partners spend on arms and ammunition production.

Russia’s advantage is so great, it prompted the first-ever US National Defense Industrial Strategy in 2022.

The paper admitted the US (and the rest of the collective West) suffers from a bloated, inefficient military industrial base incapable of meeting the demands of the type of large-scale, high-intensity, protracted warfare taking place in Ukraine and likely to take place in future conflicts with either Russia or China.

As previously reported, the paper lays out a multitude of problems plaguing the US military industrial base including a lack of surge capacity, an inadequate workforce, overdependence on offshore downstream suppliers, as well as insufficient “demand signals” to motivate private industry partners to produce what’s needed, in the quantities needed, when it is needed.

In fact, the majority of the problems identified by the report involved private industry and its unwillingness to meet national security requirements because they were not profitable.

Nations like Russia and China do not rely on private industry partners for national defense programs. Much of the industrial power researching, developing, and mass-producing arms and ammunition in these countries takes place within state-owned enterprises. Because national defense is the chief priority of these enterprises, money is invested whether it is profitable or not.

This is what allows Russian and Chinese industry to maintain huge workforces, facilities, and tooling even when production is reduced, while private industry in the West would slash all three to maximize profitability. The first model allows a nation to surge the production of arms and ammunition on short notice – the other requires strong enough “demand signals” to justify the time-consuming process of building up the levels of all three – a process that can take years.

None of the problems described regarding the US military industrial base have been addressed since the National Defense Industrial Strategy was published in 2022. Corporations like Lockheed, Raytheon, L3Harris, and newer companies like Anduril slated to play a role in the proposed Golden Dome system continue to pursue a strictly for-profit model that will create the same disparity in quantity and quality seen playing out on and over the battlefield in Ukraine.

This leaves the likelihood the Golden Dome – like all other modern US military programs – will fall far short of stated expectations because of the fraud, waste, and abuse that defines US military industrial production.

The ultimate irony is that while the Golden Dome is sold to the public as “protecting” America, vast sums of public money that could actually improve the lives of Americans at home through infrastructure, education, and healthcare, will instead be siphoned off by demonstrably incompetent and corrupt arms manufacturers, all in an attempt to enhance Washington’s ability to menace the rest of the world with greater impunity – not protect the US at home.

The rest of the world will predictably react to the Golden Dome by creating their own means to defend themselves and retaliate against the US if attacked, making Americans not only less safe, but in the process of building the Golden Dome, less prosperous.

Brian Berletic is a Bangkok-based geopolitical researcher and writer.

May 25, 2025 Posted by | Corruption, Economics, Militarism | , , | Leave a comment

Indian Mass Delusion Syndrome on Full Display

What leads people to celebrate defeat as victory?

By Hua Bin | May 24, 2025

Since I wrote “the DeepSeek moment of modern air combat”, more details have come out about the battlefield outcome from the May 7 and 8 Pakistan India clash.

In addition to the 3 Rafales, 1 Su-30, 1 Mig-29 and 1 Heron UAV covered in my essay, Pakistan also shot down an Indian French-made Mirage 2000. Pakistan Air Force destroyed 2 batteries of the Russia-made S400 air defense system (the command center and one radar unit) with China-made CM400akg hypersonic land-attack missiles launched from JF-17, a fighter jet produced jointly with China.

Since this is the first truly high-tech large scale air combat in the 21st century and the first beyond-visual-range (BVR) air war, military experts and commentators are studying the battle in minute detail. I plan to write another short piece on the tech behind the Pakistan victory soon.

However, another aspect of the war has come to the forefront immediately after the war. That is the mass delusion indulged by the Indian government and press about the conflict. Rather than acknowledging its setback and reviewing its strategy, tactics and battlefield lessons, the Indians are trying to mask their defeat through outright fabrications and lies on a massive scale. It is going so far as to claim the clash an unqualified victory.

Indian government, its TV media (400+ channels), and social media are filled with made-up battlefield successes, destruction in Pakistan, and superiority of the Indian military. The wild claims include –

– No Indian aircrafts were lost and no damage to S400 (though wreckage of a Rafale jet was filmed with its tail number and two burial ceremonies were held for Indian soldiers operating S400 systems. Indian report said they were shot during border skirmishes, which defies any common sense)

– Indian air force shot down 8 Pakistan F-16 jets and 4 JF-17 fighters (no US-made F-16 even took off during the conflict as the US forbid Pakistan to use F-16 in conflicts with India)

– Karachi, the largest port city in Pakistan, was firebombed by Indian navy and one third of the city was destroyed (the footage shown on Indian TVs was later fact-checked to be Israeli’s bombing campaigns in Palestine)

– A coup d’etat happened in Pakistan and the army chief was arrested

– A retired Indian air force marshal claims the Chinese air force cannot use the China-made weapons as well as Pakistan so India has nothing to worry about a conflict with China

Right after the air war, the Indian government called in diplomatic staff from 70+ countries to announce its heroic victories; Modi went on a tour of the frontline and announced a 10-day national celebration. The Indian military was tasked to go on a national tour to share their battlefield successes with patriotic citizens.

When American and French officials confirmed some of the battlefield losses suffered by India, the Indian media, led by the famous BJP promoter and TV personality Palki Sharma, went into a frenzied attack on the inferiorities of US and European weaponry. They bombasted Trump for claiming to broach a ceasefire between the two belligerents. Their argument is India would have dealt an even bigger defeat to Pakistan without the ceasefire meddling.

To this day, most Indians are under the delusion that the Indian military has dealt Pakistan a deathly blow and emerged totally victorious and unscathed.

While shrill and high octane “news” reporting is par for the course in India, and BJP, under Modi, has long shaped and exploited wide-spread jingoistic Hindu nationalist fervour, the Bollywood-like mass delusion is over the top and probably without a parallel in military history.

It is interesting to explore what lies behind such mass hysteria that is completely divorced from reality and what this means for India and its population.

A quick AI search tells you the medical or psychological term for “self-fooling” is self-deception.

Self-deception refers to the process of misleading oneself to accept as true or valid what is false or invalid. It involves cognitive biases, denial, or rationalization to maintain certain beliefs or avoid uncomfortable truths.

While not a formal medical diagnosis, self-deception is studied in psychology and psychiatry as part of defense mechanisms (e.g., denial or repression) that protect the ego from anxiety or distress.

I think this perfectly captures the psychological reasons behind the wildly delusional Indian national mood and character.

Since BJP took power, Modi and his cronies have intentionally fostered a ultra-nationalistic narrative about India’s greatness and Hindu superiority.

– India has launched unprecedented repressions of Muslims and deprived the Kashmir region (a Muslim majority region) its long-held autonomous status.

– India has embraced the fantasy to replace China as the world’s manufacturing center and top economic growth engine by opportunistically aligning with the US and the west. At the same time, it is exploring the Russia-Ukraine war to enrich itself by selling Russian oil at inflated price to the west.

– India has boasted its economy has surpassed UK and France and will join the US and China in no time as the largest economies in the world while it is still behind Japan and Germany. To inflate its GDP, India has changed its GDP accounting method twice in the last 10 years and started to count cow dung as part of GDP as agricultural inputs. Grok estimates Indian GDP calculation included the value of cow dung and other manure at $4.7 billion in 2023.

– India has attempted to bolster its military by purchasing a hodge podge suite of brand-name weaponries from France, Russia, the US and Israel. India spent 7.8 billion Euros in 2015 to purchase 36 Rafale fighters, or 220 million Euros per jet, making it the most expensive fighter jet ever sold by that time. There was so much corruption by Modi’s cronies in the deal that Wikipedia has an entire entry dedicated to the controversy. Even after the corruption case was exposed, India decided to double down and spent anther $7.4 billion to buy 26 Rafale jets for its navy just this past April. That is a staggering price tag of $285 million per Rafale, a new world record.

This Pakistan India air war was initially intended by India to show off its new found muscle until it has its ass handed back by Pakistan.

Similarly, the Modi regime announced with big fanfare its Make In India campaign in 2015 to replace China as the world’s manufacturing powerhouse. It targeted manufacturing to reach 25% GDP by 2025. Instead, Indian manufacturing GDP was 13% by 2024, down from 17% in 2010. In contrast, according to CSIS, value-added industrial output accounted for nearly 40% China’s GDP (vs. 18% in the US). Given China’s GDP is 5 times of India, that means China’s manufacturing GDP alone is 2 times as big as India’s total GDP or 16 times India’s manufacturing output.

Another interesting statistic – in Paris 2024 Olympics, India won a grand total of 6 medals – 1 silver and 5 bronze, ranking 71st among the 84 countries with medal count. This is India’s third best medal haul after 2020 and 2012, according to Wikipedia. The world’s most populous country ranks between Lithuania (70th, population 2.8 million) and Moldova (72nd population 2.4 million). India’s Gold medal haul (0) was lower than Hong Kong (2). The US and China (ex. Hong Kong) each won 40 Gold medals, and 126 and 91 total medals respectively.

This wild gap between India’s self-perception (or should we say self-delusion) as a great power and the cold reality of its economic and social backwardness is the reason behind the mass delusion.

It’s a sad combination of inferiority complex and unfounded sense of grandeur.

There was a famous character called Ah Q in an early 20th century literature work in China. Ah Q is a loser but cannot accept his lowly station in life. So he goes around telling himself he is better than the other people around him, often saying “I was beaten by my bastard son” after losing a fight. In the end, he was framed for a robbery and sentenced to death. When he was signing his death warrant by drawing a circle (since he couldn’t write), he was more upset about the circle not drawn perfectly than the death sentence.

Indians didn’t succeed in copying China’s economic success. Instead, the Indians have fully adopted Ah Q’s delusional “spiritual victory” method of coping with failures and humiliations.

The Indian celebration of their imagined success perfectly reflects Ah Q’s delusional defiance when he tried to sing a heroic song on the road to his execution. He couldn’t sing with his wobbly voice at that point, instead weakly uttered a phrase commonly used by criminals before execution, ”In another 20 years, I shall be another stout young fellow”.

The Indian media obsession with spectacles mirror Ah Q’s morbid disappointment at the crowd at his execution – they were bored because he didn’t sing properly and lamented that he was shot instead of beheaded, denying them the “entertainment” of a decapitation .

India’s celebration of its defeat at the hand of Pakistan encapsulates Ah Q’s entire existence – a blend of farce and tragedy, where self-deception persists until the bullet ends his life.

On a higher level, the dishonest propaganda by the Indian government and media is an information war against its own population. Few foreigners believe the Indian official narrative. The Indian government and media has completely lost any credibility at this point. So the real target of the disinformation campaign is the Indian population itself.

A nation without basic intellectual honesty and suffering from cognitive dissonance will not rise. Instead it will be the butt of jokes by late night comedians.

In the so-called “largest democracy in the world” where the rule is one Rupiah one vote, Modi is resorting to the lowest level of “democratic” playbook – keep the population dumb and get their votes through lies.

May 24, 2025 Posted by | Economics, Militarism | , , | Leave a comment

Europe must bear consequences of forcing return of UN sanctions against Iran: FM

Iran’s Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi
Press TV – May 21, 2025

Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi has cautioned the US’s European allies in a 2015 nuclear agreement with Iran against invoking the so-called “snapback mechanism” to re-impose the United Nations sanctions against the Islamic Republic.

Speaking to Saudi Arabia’s Asharq News network on Wednesday, the top diplomat emphasized that such a move would end participation by the European parties — the UK, France, and Germany — in the deal that is officially known as the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA).

He added that the trio’s potential recourse to the mechanism would lead to significant consequences and potential irreversible escalation of tensions, referring to the likelihood of strong retaliatory steps that the Islamic Republic could take in response.

Araghchi reiterated Iran’s readiness to engage in diplomacy, expressing hope that the European parties too would demonstrate determination to resolve the current impasse.

The deadlock occurred when the United States ditched the JCPOA in 2018, and returned the illegal and unilateral sanctions that the agreement had lifted.

This was followed by the European trio’s failure to return the US to the accord, as they had said would do, as well as their walking in Washington’s footsteps by returning their own sanctions.

In response to the betrayal, Iran began a number of legitimate and gradually escalating nuclear countermeasures.

“The situation we’re in is by no means Iran’s fault. It is the fault of the United States, which withdrew from the JCPOA, and the fault of the European countries that failed to compensate for the US’s withdrawal,” Araghchi added.

‘Uranium enrichment absolutely non-negotiable’

Addressing the topic of Iran’s peaceful uranium enrichment activities, the foreign minister said the activities were a principled and fundamental issue for Iran.

He emphasized that the enrichment program was a major scientific achievement developed by domestic scientists and held immense value for the Iranian people.

The official, meanwhile, paid tribute to the seven-strong Iranian nuclear scientists, who were assassinated amid their invaluable contribution to the Islamic Republic’s peaceful nuclear energy program.

According to Araghchi, the victims’ sacrifices towards advancement of the program had made the nuclear issue “absolutely non-negotiable.”

May 21, 2025 Posted by | Deception, Economics, Wars for Israel | , , , , , | Leave a comment

EU and UK impose more sanctions on Russia despite US concerns

RT | May 20, 2025

The EU and UK imposed new sanctions on Russia on Tuesday, escalating their campaign to pressure Moscow while ramping up support for Kiev.

The sanctions were announced shortly after a call between Russian President Vladimir Putin and his US counterpart, Donald Trump. Following the conversation, Trump warned that imposing additional economic restrictions on Moscow could hinder efforts to achieve peace in the Ukraine conflict.

The European Council, comprising leaders of EU member states and top officials, approved the bloc’s 17th round of sanctions, targeting what foreign policy chief Kaja Kallas called “nearly 200 shadow fleet ships.” Kallas, a vocal critic of Moscow, stated that further measures “are in the works” in Brussels.

Western officials claim that the targeted fleet enables Russia to evade G7-led efforts to enforce a price cap on its crude oil exports. In a coordinated move, the UK added 18 vessels from the same network to its sanctions list on Tuesday.

In addition, the UK imposed sanctions on the St. Petersburg Currency Exchange and Russia’s state deposit insurance agency, citing efforts to sever critical financial lifelines. Foreign Secretary David Lammy said the measures are intended to hold Putin accountable for supposedly “delaying peace efforts.”

Last week, delegations from Russia and Ukraine met for the first time since 2022, when Kiev abandoned negotiations in favor of pursuing victory on the battlefield, as advised by the then-UK Prime Minister Boris Johnson.

European backers of Ukraine initially supported Kiev’s demand for a 30-day unconditional ceasefire before resuming talks, and threatened additional sanctions if Russia refused. Zelensky later backtracked after the Trump administration supported Putin’s proposal for renewed diplomatic engagement.

Zelensky insisted, however, that Putin meet him in person in Türkiye to demonstrate his commitment to peace – an idea that the Russian president had not proposed. Ukrainian officials continue to call for expanded sanctions over what they describe as Moscow’s non-compliance with peace overtures.

The Putin-Trump call on Monday was characterized as productive by both leaders. Trump said he believes Putin is interested in ending the conflict and warned that additional economic pressure could obstruct US mediation efforts.

Putin has said Moscow and Kiev should negotiate a formal memorandum outlining a detailed path to a broader peace agreement, adding that a ceasefire could be part of the proposed road map.

May 20, 2025 Posted by | Economics, Russophobia | , | Leave a comment

Trump should not threaten new sanctions when he talks to President Putin

By Ian Proud | Strategic Culture Foundation | May 19, 2025

The U.S. side has made various signals that it might impose massive new sanctions on Russia unless the war ends soon. This would be a huge mistake that would lock in the fighting for the rest of the year and leave Europe on the hook for a massive bill and political disruption that it cannot afford. Trump should not threaten Putin with sanctions when they talk on Monday 19 May.

In the run up to the Russia-Ukraine bilateral peace talks which finally took place in Istanbul last week, both the EU and the UK imposed new sanctions on Russia. On 9 May, as Russian commemorated victory Day, Britain imposed sanctions on Russia’s shadow fleet and the EU followed suit with its 17th package of Russia sanctions on 14 May, the day before the Istanbul talks were due to start. Both the UK and EU have threatened further sanctions should Russia not agree a full and unconditional ceasefire in Ukraine and, with Zelensky, have actively urged the U.S. to follow suit, which it has not done, so far. However, the Americans have spoken increasingly about the possibility of massive new sanctions against Russia: this would be a huge mistake.

Sanctioning a country before peace talks have already started, or while they are still going on, is already a bad look. Very clearly, the Ukrainians, Europeans and British hope that new sanctions will apply such pressure on Russia that it agrees to terms that are more favourable to the Ukrainian side. I.e. that Ukraine does not have to go back to the Istanbul 1 commitment to adopt permanently neutral status. The western mainstream press has been carpet bombing their intellectually degraded readers with the latest press line that Ukraine should not have to go back to the Istanbul 1 text as a starting point for talks.

But there’s a problem. For this strategy to be effective, the sanctions have to work.

As I’ve pointed out before, sanctions against Russian energy have had limited impact, not just since 2022, but since 2014. Nothing about the glidepath of sanctions since February 2014 suggests that new sanctions will work now.

This latest round of UK and EU sanctions aimed to apply more pressure on enforcement of the G7 oil price cap of $60 which was first imposed in December 2022. Since the war started, that policy has failed.

Between 2021 and 2024, total volumes of Russian oil exported fell by just 0.2 million barrels per day, or 2.6%. After a bumper year for tax receipts in 2022 caused by Russian tumbling rouble and skyrocketing energy prices, Russia pulled in current account surpluses of $49.4bn and $62.3bn in 2023 and 2024. This was on the back of still strong goods exports of $425bn and $433bn respectively.

There are several reasons why the oil price cap didn’t work, the biggest being that Russia diverted 3 million barrels per day, around 39.5% of total oil exports to India (1.9 mbd), Türkiye (0.6 mbd) and China (0.5 mbd). Türkiye and India boosted exports of refined fuels to Europe providing a backdoor route for Russian oil to Europe. The second reason the oil price cap didn’t work is the near ten month time lag between war starting and the limit being imposed, which gave Russia space to readjust before punitive measure had been imposed. During this period, oil prices also dropped sharply from the high of $120 in the summer of 2022, to around $80 when the measure was imposed: the G7 missed the boat to impose maximum damage; this reinforces the point I make all the time that coalitions cannot act with speed and decisiveness.

Today, the Russian Urals oil price is below the $60 G7 cap meaning that any registered shipping company can transport it without penalty, which renders the British and European sanctions as pointless in any case.

Let’s be clear, western nations imposing sanctions against Russia that don’t work is not a new phenomena. As I have pointed out many times before, the vast majority (92%) of people that the UK has imposed assets freezes and travel bans upon have never held assets in the UK nor travelled here. For companies, the figure is just 23. The same, I am sure, is true of EU and U.S. sanctions, which cover largely the same cast list of characters and companies, as we all share and compare the same lists of possible designations. Financial sector sanctions prompted a massive readjustment of Russia’s financial sector. Energy and dual use sanctions drove self-sufficiency in technology production, through Rosnet, Gazprom and RosTec: i.e. these companies invested more in R&D on component production while sourcing components from alternative markets, in particular China.

At well over 20,000 sanctions imposed so far, Russia’s economy has proved remarkably robust and its key export sectors still find ways to deliver similar volumes across the world. At some point, I hope policy makers in London, Brussels and Washington will start to ask whether this policy is working. We long ago passed the point of diminishing marginal returns. I fear, however, they have their heads in the sand or, possibly another, darker, place.

So, coming back to Trump’s phone call with Putin on Monday 19 May you might ask yourself, ‘so what if he imposes a few more sanctions if they won’t work anyway?’

Putin would see the imposition of new U.S. sanctions as a complete 180, destroying any emerging trust he had in Trump or any belief in America’s stated intentions to end the war in Ukraine.

It is clear to me that further U.S. sanctions on Russia would kill stone dead any chance of a ceasefire in Ukraine at a time when Russia still has the upper hand. Russia has increased the pace of its advance since the Victory Day ceasefire and seems to be adding new blocks of red to the battle map each day. At the current rate of advance, even without a catastrophic Ukrainian collapse, it seems realistic to expect that Russia would paint out the remaining territory in Donetsk and Luhansk during the remainder of this year. In the process they would need to overcome the heavily fortified towns of Pokrovsk, Kramatorsk and Sloviansk, in what would likely be brutal and attritional battles killing many thousands more on both sides.

Moreover, dragging out the war for longer would simply add to Europe’s liability to fund Ukraine’s war effort at a time when it is only ever going to lose. Ukraine is spending over 26% of GDP on defence in 2025 and 67.5% of its budget expenditure is on defence and security, leaving a budget black hole of $42bn that has to be filled. America under Trump isn’t going to fill this hole. And, as Ukraine is cut off from international lending markets, that black hole is being filled by Europe.

There is no money for this.

Europe has neither the political capital nor the funds to maintain a losing war in Ukraine at enormous expense without massive domestic political blowback in their own countries.

Notwithstanding the possibly understandable fear among European leaders of failing and being seen to fail in Ukraine, keeping the war going is at best, a gesture in cynical self-preservation, pushing their eventual political demise further down the track.

Unfortunately, we have been here so many times before. Right back to the Minsk II agreement, Ukraine has been pushing for ever more sanctions against Russia that only ever served to ramp up resentment and exacerbate the conflict. European leaders have invested too much in Zelensky and his self-serving demands aimed primarily at staying in power. He is quickly becoming the gun that shoots European elites in the head.

If Trump really wants to be seen as a peacemaker, he should avoid doing what every other western leader before him including Sleepy Joe did and resist the temptation to impose more sanctions. Instead, he should continue to press President Putin to continue to engage with bilateral peace talks that finally recommenced in Istanbul last week. He must also tell the Eurocrats and Zelensky that they must make compromises rather than plugging the same old failed prescriptions.

May 19, 2025 Posted by | Economics, Militarism | , , , | Leave a comment

As The Federal Government Abandons The Climate Fantasy, New York Doubles Down

By Francis Menton – Manhattan Contrarian – May 13, 2025

The first 100+ days of the second Trump administration (it’s now actually 113 days) have seen a near total abandonment of the fantasy that this one country’s government can change the weather and “save the planet” by suppressing use of hydrocarbon fuels and impoverishing the people. Biden administration “climate” and energy policies amounting to thousands of pages in regulations and hundreds of billions of dollars in grants and subsidies to uneconomic energy projects have been swiftly reversed. Examples in just the past few weeks include:

And these are just examples. There are many more.

At this point, you would think that the blue states might take the hint. As a blue state, you had thought that you were embarking on an energy “transition” with the full backing and support of the federal government, complete with its vast powers and its infinite checkbook. Sure, this was going to cost trillions of dollars; but it was almost all their money, not yours. If somehow it all didn’t work out, you were not going to be the main one on the hook.

Now, all that has changed. In the blink of an eye, there is no more support to be had from the infinite deep pocket. Not only is the federal government no longer your partner and financial sugar daddy, but it is even taking steps to obstruct and hinder your efforts.

So going forward, is there any point? As a lone blue state, you don’t remotely have the resources to expunge fossil fuels from your energy system on your own. Maybe, would it be best just to lie low for a few years and wait for the next friendly administration in Washington?

Well, if you are New York, that is not how you react. Your religious fervor is such that you are now prepared to proceed totally on your own to defy the laws of physics and thermodynamics. Even as the federal government is telling New York to take a hike, here are some of the latest antics on the climate front from New York officials and climate activists:

  • The State’s 2025-26 budget just got enacted on Friday, May 9. ESG Today reported excitedly on Monday (May 12) that the budget includes “over $1 billion investment in decarbonization.” Excerpt:

    New York Governor Kathy Hochul signed the state’s 2025-2026 budget on Friday, which included more than $1 billion in climate change-focused investments, including funding to lower emissions from buildings and accelerate the rollout of electrified transportation. . . . Key climate-focused allocations in the new budget include $450 million targeting reductions in building emissions, including investments in energy-efficient retrofits and clean heating technologies like heat pumps, more than $200 million for thermal energy networks, $250 million to support electric school buses, fast-charging stations and a NYSERDA rebate program for installing EV charging stations, as well as $200 million for renewable energy expansion and grid modernization.

    Nobody is impolite enough here to mention that $1 billion is chump change in the effort to get rid of hydrocarbon fuels. If you were serious about the effort, the number would be more like $1 trillion. But don’t worry, nobody reading this stuff has sufficient numeric competency to understand that.

  • New York City Comptroller Brad Lander — who is also a candidate for Mayor in the current election cycle — fancies himself a leader in the climate movement. Lander put out a statement on April 22 (“Earth Day”) setting forth his position:

    New York City Comptroller Brad Lander decried threats from the Trump administration to dramatically roll back climate progress and stood with climate activists from New York Communities for Change, 350 NYC, and Fridays for Future to announce new actions by the Comptroller’s Office to reduce New York City’s emissions. . . . [T]o stand strong against federal rollbacks, Comptroller Lander is demanding more from the asset managers who manage funds for the New York City Employees Retirement System (NYCERS), Teachers Retirement System (TRS), and Board of Education Retirement System (BERS).

  • In a prior statement on March 26, reported in Net Zero Investor, Lander vowed that the City “will not retreat one inch” on its climate program, despite the actions of the Trump administration.

  • Our local environmental activist groups brook no dissent from climate orthodoxy. On March 31, a group of four climate activist organizations sued the State government in an effort to force faster progress on greenhouse gas reduction goals. From New York Focus, March 31:

    Four environmental and climate justice groups filed a lawsuit Monday in a state court, claiming that New York is “stonewalling necessary climate action in outright violation” of its legal obligations. By not releasing economy-wide emissions rules, the suit alleges, the state Department of Environmental Conservation, or dec, is “defying the Legislature’s clear directive” and “prolonging New Yorkers’ exposure to air pollution … especially in disadvantaged communities.” It’s the first lawsuit to charge the state with failing to enforce the core mandate of its 2019 Climate Leadership and Community Protection Act, or clcpa: eliminating nearly all of New York’s greenhouse gas emissions by 2050.

So, there is plenty of bluster from local politicians and activists. But despite that, I can’t find a word as to how they plan to meet the greenhouse gas reduction and green energy mandates of the 2019 Climate Leadership and Community Protection Act, now that all federal backing is withdrawn. As just one element, there was supposed to be 9000 MW of offshore wind built to replace on-shore fossil fuel power plants. Now the Trump administration is obstructing the offshore wind development. I haven’t been able to find a word from New York elected or energy officials on how they plan to transition the energy supply if they can’t build the offshore wind facilities.

So we move forward with our officials in a state of bluff and bluster and denial, and no plan of any kind to meet the impossible mandates of the Climate Act. We all know that this is doomed to failure, but it will likely be a couple of years before we see the failure unfold.

May 18, 2025 Posted by | Economics, Malthusian Ideology, Phony Scarcity | , | Leave a comment

« Previous Entries     Next Entries »