Aletho News

ΑΛΗΘΩΣ

Cutting Russia ties has cost EU €1 trillion – Moscow

RT | August 4, 2025

The EU’s decision to reduce energy and trade cooperation with Moscow over the Ukraine conflict has cost the bloc more than €1 trillion ($1.15 trillion), Russian Deputy Foreign Minister Aleksandr Grushko has said.

In an interview with Izvestia on Monday, Grushko said the figure is based on various expert estimates of the economic consequences of the EU’s decision to impose unprecedented sanctions on Russia, adding that it accounts for lost profits from energy and trade cooperation.

According to Grushko, trade between the EU and Russia dropped from €417 billion ($482 billion) in 2013 to €60 billion ($69 billion) in 2023 and is now “approaching zero.” He added that Europe’s economy has subsequently taken a hit and is losing competitiveness.

“Natural gas in Europe is four to five times more expensive than in the US, and electricity is two to three times higher,” he said. “That is the price Europe has to pay for ending all economic contacts with Russia.”

In June, Russian President Vladimir Putin said that refusing Russian gas supplies had cost EU countries around €200 billion ($231 billion). In late 2024, Russian officials also estimated that total EU losses tied to sanctions against Russia had reached $1.5 trillion. Meanwhile, Moscow has said it has acquired a “certain immunity” to Western sanctions.

Grushko’s comments come after the EU agreed a trade deal with the US, which commits the bloc to purchasing large volumes of American energy – which Moscow says will come at a much steeper cost than that provided by Russia – and imposes 15% tariffs on key EU exports. Numerous EU politicians have described the agreement as lopsided and damaging to the bloc’s interests.

Commenting on the US-EU deal, Putin claimed that the EU had essentially lost its political sovereignty, and that this directly leads to losing economic independence.

The EU began imposing sanctions on Russia in 2014, following the start of the Ukraine crisis, and expanded them drastically in 2022. Measures have targeted banking, energy exports, and other industries. Moscow considers the sanctions illegal, saying they violate international trade rules and harm global economic stability.

August 4, 2025 Posted by | Economics, Russophobia | , | Leave a comment

Samuel Untermyer – the Jewish fixer who shaped modern US more than any WASP president

By Hua Bin | August 1, 2025

In my readings of Zionism’s influence over US politics, I ran across an obscure name, Samuel Untermyer, in several different historical events. This led to some additional readings and I come to the conclusion that this legal eagle of Jewish origin and ardent Zionist has shaped the 20th-century US more profoundly than any elected officials, including the Presidents. His influence extends to the world we live in today.

Untermyer was a lawyer and financier born to German Jewish immigrants in Virginia in 1858. He died in 1940. He was a graduate of Columbia Law School and a founding partner in the Wall Street law firm of Guggenheimer, Untermyer & Marshall, still around today.

One of his claims to fame was being the first lawyer in the US to earn a one-million-dollar fee on a single case. Remember he practiced law in 1920s and 30s so a million-dollar fee was real money.

Far more than being just a highly paid Wall Street lawyer, Untermyer leveraged his legal skills and insider information into a financial fortune. While serving as the attorney for the bondholders of the United States Shipbuilding Company, the largest shipbuilder in the US at the turn of the century, he exposed the company’s financial frauds and affected a reorganization.

Through a set of clever legal and financial maneuvering, Untermyer became a major shareholder of the reorganized company, renamed as Bethlehem Steel. Bethlehem Steel remained a global industrial giant for much of the 20th century. Untermyer became a financial mogul in his own right.

But Untermeyer’s real impact is far more consequential and long lasting. Through his involvement with the creation of the Federal Reserve and the financing of Cyrus Scofield, the author of the Scofield Bible, Untermyer shaped the US economic, religious, and political systems to this day. As the leader of the worldwide Jewish boycott of Germany before the war, Untermyer was crucially involved in the events leading up to WW2.

Untermyer and the creation of the Fed

Samuel Untermyer played a significant role in the creation of the Federal Reserve System, through his work as lead counsel for the congressional Pujo Committee, formed after the Panic of 1907 to investigate the Money Trust, a small number of Wall Street bankers who controlled much of the country’s financial power.

The Pujo Committee’s findings were instrumental in shaping public opinion and creating a political climate that demanded financial reform. The reform took the form of the Federal Reserve Act of 1913.

Untermyer was an active participant in drafting the legislation, laying the foundation of the US monetary system that still dominates the country’s and the world’s economic life today.

While Untermyer wasn’t one of the bankers who met in secret on Jekyll Island to draft the initial plan for the Federal Reserve, his public work with the Pujo Committee was a crucial catalyst.

His family foundation describes him as “instrumental in establishing the Federal Reserve System,” and a “leading architect of the Federal Reserve Act.”

Untermyer, Scofield Bible and Christian Zionism

Untermyer was a Zionist and he financially backed and promoted the work of Cyrus Scofield.

Cyrus Scofield was a small-time lawyer in Kansas. He was a fraud and criminal convict. He was divorced by two wives for cruelty and abandonment of his daughters.

Cyrus was jailed for forging his mother’s signature to sell her property. Later in life, Cyrus Scofield became a “born-again” Christian and hung out a shingle stating that he was a minister despite having no qualifications.

Cyrus seemed destined as a loser until he met Samuel Untermeyer.

Beyond his legal and legislative work, Untermyer was also the president of the major Zionist movement in the US at the time, the Keren Hayesod (United Israel Appeal). Together with Jacob Schiff, Untermyer hired Cyrus to re-write the King James Bible by inserting additions and interpretations.

Scofield introduced the so-called dispensationalist notes into the Bible, emphasizing the return of Christ and the restoration of Israel as central to god’s plan. His key additions to the King James Bible are 1). Jews are the Chosen; 2). Armageddon will happen in the Middle East; and the Rapture will happen in Israel.

Its commentary, particularly on Genesis 12:3 (“I will bless them that bless thee”), promoted the idea that supporting Jews (and later Israel) was a divine mandate. Cyrus died in 1921 but somehow the 1984 edition intensified these interpretations.

Published in 1909 by Oxford University Press, which is not typically in the Bible printing business, this annotated King James Bible, known as the Scofield Reference Bible, was sent to all the heads of the Evangelical Church in the US and became the #1 selling Bible in the country, to this day.

The Scofield Bible popularized dispensationalism – a theological framework that emphasizes the future return of the Jews to Israel and the restoration of a Jewish state as a key part of biblical prophecy.

Thanks to Untermyer, the Scofield Bible brought Christian Zionism to the world. The concept of “Judeo Christian values” was also conceived for the first time in history.

Untermyer, through the crook Cyrus Scofield, successfully inserted a pro-Zionist agenda into evangelical Christian theology to create Christian support for a Jewish state in the land of the Palestinians.

Today, over 100 million Americans believe in this book and they form the backbone of the support for Israel in the US.

Joseph Canfield’s The Incredible Scofield and His Book (1988) recorded how Untermyer saw Scofield’s dispensationalist theology as a tool to garner Christian support for a Jewish homeland.

The Scofield Bible (1909) predates the Balfour Declaration (1917), a key Zionist milestone. Untermyer, through his support of Scofield, helped to lay the theological groundwork for Christian Zionism.

Untermyer and the worldwide Jewish boycott of Germany in the 1930s

In 1933, shortly after Hitler’s rise to power, Untermyer founded and led the Non-Sectarian Anti-Nazi League to promote a worldwide economic boycott of German goods.

His August 1933 speech on WABC radio, published in The New York Times, declared a “holy war” against Germany, urging Jews and non-Jews to boycott German imports to pressure the Nazi regime. He referenced “600,000 souls we must save,” highlighting the Jewish exodus from Germany.

For his zeal, the British press gave him the title “Hitler’s Bitterest Foe”.

According to Benjamin Freedman, whom I wrote about in Jewish Defector Warns America (https://huabinoliver.substack.com/p/a-jewish-defector-warns-america ), Untermyer’s boycott intensified German resentment toward Jews, contributing to World War II and the German genocidal campaign.

It’s rare, maybe unprecedented, that a relatively obscure private citizen was able to exert this much influence over several defining world historical events.

Samuel Untermyer, with his instrumental role in the creation of Fed, the publication of Scofield Bible and creation of Christian Zionism, and the boycott of Germany prior to WW2, was a more powerful and long-lasting influence over the US than any elected Presidents in the 20th century.

August 1, 2025 Posted by | Economics | , | Leave a comment

‘America First’ clashes with ‘Israel First’ as Trump threatens Canada over Palestine recognition

MEMO | August 1, 2025

Donald Trump has provoked outrage among parts of his own political base after threatening to block a trade deal with Canada in retaliation for Ottawa’s decision to formally recognise the State of Palestine. The US president posted on Truth Social: “Canada has just announced that it is backing statehood for Palestine. That will make it very hard for us to make a Trade Deal with them. Oh’ Canada!!!”

Trump’s statement was widely interpreted as prioritising Israeli interests over domestic economic concerns, prompting fierce backlash from some right-wing influencers. Prominent conservative commentator Matt Walsh posted on X: “This is ridiculous. If a trade deal with Canada is beneficial to the American people then it should go forward regardless of Canada’s stance on Palestine. The benefit of the American people should be the guiding principle here.”

Walsh’s post drew thousands of responses, many supportive, but others accused him of failing to grasp America’s “special alliance” with Israel. However, critics have pointed out that it is Canada, not Israel, that is bound to the US through comprehensive economic and military treaties.

Along with the UK and France, Canada is one of Washington’s oldest and closest allies. By contrast, US-Israel ties, while historically deep, are often framed as ideologically and politically driven, bolstered by domestic lobbying pressure rather than national interest.

Observers say the incident highlights a deepening divide in US politics: on one side, a growing segment of voters who either support Palestinian rights or advocate for an “America First” foreign policy that avoids foreign entanglements; on the other, a political elite that consistently prioritises Israeli interests, often regardless of public opinion or national cost.

Despite mounting evidence of Israeli war crimes in Gaza and a global shift toward recognising Palestinian statehood, including by key Western allies, US lawmakers remain overwhelmingly aligned with Israel.

This split is becoming more pronounced as influential voices on the right, once assumed to be pro-Israel by default, now openly question the costs of that allegiance.

August 1, 2025 Posted by | Economics, Ethnic Cleansing, Racism, Zionism, Wars for Israel | , , , | Leave a comment

India scraps F-35 deal with US as Trump slaps tariffs

Al Mayadeen | August 1, 2025

The Indian government is assessing its next move following US President Donald Trump’s decision to impose a 25% tariff on Indian goods, a move that reportedly caught policymakers in New Delhi by surprise. The tariffs are scheduled to take effect on August 1.

According to Bloomberg, Indian officials were “shocked and disappointed” by the sudden announcement. However, the government has ruled out immediate retaliation. Instead, it is considering trade adjustments to preserve relations with the United States, India’s largest trading partner.

The Economic Times (ET) reported on Friday that Commerce Minister Piyush Goyal addressed Parliament, stating, “The implications of the recent developments are being examined.” He emphasized that the government is working with industry stakeholders and exporters to assess the impact and affirmed that India will take “all necessary steps to secure and advance our national interest.”

According to the report, India is exploring ways to reduce its trade surplus with the US by increasing imports of US goods, such as natural gas, communication equipment, and gold. However, officials made it clear that new defense purchases are not being considered.

Despite US pressure to sell its advanced F-35 fighter jets, India has rejected the offer. During Prime Minister Narendra Modi’s visit to Washington in February, Trump personally pushed for the deal, but Indian officials ultimately declined, according to the report.

New Delhi conveyed that it is not interested in off-the-shelf military acquisitions and remains committed to the Make in India initiative, which emphasizes co-development and domestic production of defense equipment. However, Bloomberg reported that the Modi government is unlikely to approve any significant new defense deals with the US in the near term.

Trump attacks India over trade, Russia links

Trump launched a sharp criticism of India’s trade policies and its longstanding ties with Russia. In a series of posts on Truth Social, he stated: “India is our friend, we have, over the years, done relatively little business with them because their tariffs are far too high, among the highest in the world, and they have the most strenuous and obnoxious non-monetary Trade Barriers of any country.”

The report mentions that he also condemned India’s defense and energy ties with Moscow, saying, “They have always bought a vast majority of their military equipment from Russia, and are Russia’s largest buyer of energy, along with China, at a time when everyone wants Russia to stop the killing in Ukraine, all things not good!”

In a later post, Trump added, “I don’t care what India does with Russia. They can take their dead economies down together, for all I care.”

Despite the rhetoric, ET argues, India is opting for strategic patience. US officials have expressed frustration over India’s negotiating posture, as Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent told CNBC that the administration is “frustrated” by the lack of progress and criticized India’s foreign policy as too aligned with Russia.

Nevertheless, diplomatic engagement continues. India is preparing to host the next Quad summit, along with the US, Japan, and Australia. Former Commerce Secretary Ajay Dua told Bloomberg TV that India must be “a little more accommodating” in trade talks, while also noting that large-scale commitments in energy or defense are unlikely in the current climate.

Defense shift and regional implications

Moreover, India’s rejection of the F-35 highlights broader challenges in its defense planning. The Tejas program, aimed at producing an indigenous fourth-generation fighter, has struggled, with only 38 aircraft delivered, 17 of which are prototypes. Limited combat capability has restricted export potential and delayed production.

While no immediate alternatives for a fifth-generation fighter exist, India is turning to France, aiming to begin domestic production of Rafale jet components by 2028. Experts also point to Russia’s Su-57 as a more likely short-term option, given India’s extensive existing military infrastructure tied to Russian systems.

As per the report, even though India has ruled out immediate retaliation, sources indicate that the government may challenge the new US tariffs, particularly on steel and automobiles, at the World Trade Organisation, depending on timing and strategic interest.

For now, New Delhi appears focused on maintaining stability while avoiding escalation. It is unwilling to enter a trade war, but also unwilling to be pressured into one-sided defense arrangements.

India’s broader objective remains clear: uphold national sovereignty while pursuing long-term economic and strategic autonomy, even amid external pressures.

August 1, 2025 Posted by | Economics | , | Leave a comment

Matson Suspends Electric Vehicle Shipments Over Battery Fire Concerns

What’s Going on With Shipping? | July 27, 2025

In this episode, Sal Mercogliano — a maritime historian at Campbell University (@campbelledu) and former merchant mariner — and Patrick Dunham from StacheD Training discussed the decision of Matson to suspend the shipment of Electric Vehicles (EVs) on board their ships from the West Coast of the United States to Hawaii and Guam.

July 28, 2025 Posted by | Economics, Video | | Leave a comment

Tehran’s new war plan: Build an anti-NATO

Russian FM Sergey Lavrov attends a meeting with foreign ministers of the Shanghai Cooperation Organization in Beijing, China. © Sputnik / Russian Foreign Ministry
By Farhad Ibragimov | RT | July 27, 2025

What if the next global security pact wasn’t forged in Brussels or Washington – but in Beijing, with Iran at the table?

This is no longer a theoretical question. At the mid-July meeting of the Shanghai Cooperation Organization (SCO) Council of Foreign Ministers in China, Iran made it clear: Tehran now views the SCO not just as a regional forum, but as a potential counterweight to NATO. In doing so, it signaled a profound strategic pivot – away from an outdated Western-dominated system and toward an emerging Eurasian order.

The summit highlighted the increasing resilience of multilateral Eurasian cooperation in the face of growing global turbulence. Russia was represented by Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov, who also met with Chinese leader Xi Jinping – an encounter that underscored the strength of the Moscow-Beijing axis. On the sidelines, Lavrov held bilateral meetings with the foreign ministers of China, Pakistan, India, and notably, Iran. His talks with Iranian Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi focused on diplomatic solutions to the nuclear issue and emphasized deepening strategic coordination.

The Iranian side used the platform with purpose. Araghchi expressed his appreciation for the SCO’s solidarity amid Israeli aggression and stressed that Iran views the organization not as symbolic, but as a practical mechanism for regional unity and global positioning.

A platform that works – despite the skeptics

India’s full participation also contradicted predictions in Western circles that geopolitical tensions would paralyze the SCO. Instead, New Delhi reaffirmed its commitment to the platform. The implication is clear: unlike NATO, where unity depends on compliance with a central authority, the SCO has proven flexible enough to accommodate diverse interests while building consensus.

For Russia, the SCO remains a cornerstone of its Eurasian strategy. Moscow serves as a balancing force – linking China with South and Central Asia, and now, with an assertive Iran. Russia’s approach is pragmatic, multi-vector, and geared toward creating a new geopolitical equilibrium.

Iran’s strategic breakout

The heart of the summit was Abbas Araghchi’s speech – an assertive and legally grounded critique of Israeli and American actions. He cited Article 2, Section 4 of the UN Charter, denounced attacks on Iran’s IAEA-monitored nuclear facilities, and invoked Resolution 487 of the UN Security Council. His message: Western aggression has no legal cover, and no amount of narrative control can change that.

But beyond condemnation, Araghchi delivered a concrete roadmap to strengthen the SCO as a vehicle for collective security and sovereignty:

  • A collective security body to respond to external aggression, sabotage, and terrorism

  • A permanent coordination mechanism for documenting and countering subversive acts

  • A Center for Sanctions Resistance, to shield member economies from unilateral Western measures

  • A Shanghai Security Forum for defense and intelligence coordination

  • Enhanced cultural and media cooperation to counter cognitive and information warfare

These are not rhetorical gestures – they are blueprints for institutional transformation. Iran is operationalizing a new security doctrine built on multipolarity, mutual defense, and resistance to hybrid threats.

SCO vs. NATO: Two models, two futures

While NATO is structured around a rigid hierarchy dominated by Washington, the SCO embodies a post-hegemonic vision: sovereignty, equality, and civilizational plurality. Its member states represent over 40% of the global population, possess vast industrial capacities, and share a collective desire to break the unipolar mold.

Tehran’s bet is clear: the SCO offers not just a geopolitical shelter, but a platform for advancing a new global logic – one rooted in strategic autonomy, not dependency.

The sophistication and clarity of Araghchi’s initiatives suggest that Tehran is preparing for the long game. Behind closed doors, the summit likely featured discussions – formal and informal – about deepening SCO institutionalism, perhaps even rethinking the organization’s mandate.

Araghchi made that vision explicit: “The SCO is gradually strengthening its position on the world stage… It must adopt a more active, independent, and structured role.” That’s diplomatic code for institutional realignment.

The West responds – predictably

The Western response was immediate. Within days of Iran’s proposals, the EU imposed new sanctions on eight individuals and one Iranian organization – citing vague claims of “serious human rights violations.” Israel, by contrast, faced no new penalties.

It is geopolitical signaling. Tehran’s push to turn the SCO into an action-oriented bloc is seen in Brussels and Washington as a direct threat to the current order. The more coherent and proactive the SCO becomes, the harsher the pressure will grow.

But that pressure proves Iran’s point. The rules-based order is no longer rules-based – it is power-based. For countries like Iran, the only path to sovereignty is through multilateral defiance and integration on their own terms.

The stakes ahead

Iran is not improvising. It is positioning itself as a co-architect of a post-Western security order. Its vision for the SCO goes beyond survival – it is about shaping an international system where no single bloc can dominate through sanctions, information warfare, or coercive diplomacy.

This strategy has implications far beyond Tehran. If the SCO embraces Iran’s proposals and begins to institutionalize them, we could be witnessing the early formation of the 21st-century’s first true alternative to NATO.

The West may dismiss this as fantasy – but in Eurasia, the future is already being drafted. And this time, it’s not happening in English.

Farhad Ibragimov – lecturer at the Faculty of Economics at RUDN University, visiting lecturer at the Institute of Social Sciences of the Russian Presidential Academy of National Economy and Public Administration

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

Europe’s addiction to sanctions is terminal

By Samuel Geddes | Al Mayadeen | July 26, 2025

It has been said there are two kinds of European countries: small countries and those that have not yet realized they are small. As of mid-2025, it appears most of the continent has yet to reach this realization.

More than three years into the grinding attritional war between Russia and Ukraine, the European Union, having finally secured President Trump’s support for its maximum pressure campaign against Moscow, announced its most severe round of sanctions to date. In this 18th round, the EU expanded its blacklist of Russia’s so-called ‘shadow-fleet,’ used to export energy, to 444 vessels, denying operators access to European ports as well as insurance services. EU-member states were also prohibited from any dealings with a further 22 Russian banks, bringing the total to 44, to strangle Moscow’s financial channels to the outside world.

Alongside expanded export bans on ‘dual-use’ technologies, Brussels sanctioned entities in China, Türkiye, and 11 other countries for assisting Russia to circumvent sanctions and further lowered the price-cap on Urals crude oil, aiming to choke off the entry of Russian energy, in any form, from entering the bloc.

Besides the impressive hubris involved in declaring that Europe, as an importing region, will dictate the price it and other customers will pay for Russian energy, last weeks’ measures serve only to make permanent the long-term damage to its own economic viability, while Russia simply pivots to other buyers.

Parallel to the drafting of the latest sanctions salvo, the EU’s two largest members, Germany and France, alongside the UK, also pursued a maximum hostility campaign against another crucial energy exporter. Rather than condemning the 12-day war launched against Iran by “Israel”, European leaders, German Chancellor Merz in particular, chose to give the game away entirely, announcing their support for Israeli aggression because it was doing their “dirty work” (undermining the Islamic Republic) for them.

Upon the beginning of a ceasefire, the French and British foreign ministers, as if taunting Tehran after its nuclear facilities and scientists had been attacked, threatened to initiate the “snapback” mechanism of the defunct nuclear agreement, the JCPOA, if Tehran retaliated. The “snapback” mechanism would enable any of the signatory countries in the JCPOA to unilaterally trigger the reimposition of UN sanctions against Iran, which had been lifted under its terms post-2015. As the JCPOA itself will expire by October, the window for European states to trigger the snapback is closing.

Talks between Iran and the E3 were announced this week to take place in Istanbul over exactly this issue. Given Europe’s enthusiasm for compensating for its shrinking global clout with economic warfare, as well as pursuing American [Israeli] geopolitical goals ahead of its own, the likelihood of all three states foregoing the chance to “punish” Tehran for adhering to the agreement they signed on to seems a fading possibility.

If Europe ultimately follows through on its snapback threat, it will in a matter of months have destroyed any possible rapprochement with two states who could realistically have helped it out of its self-inflicted economic blood-loss. While no doubt damaging to both Moscow and Tehran, it will have solidified in the minds of both the necessity of forming economic routes and institutions outside the control of Western states.

The International North-South Economic Corridor, connecting Russia to the Indian Ocean via Iran, is the most prominent example of such cooperation. Since its effective launch in 2022 at the onset of operations in Ukraine, cargo traffic in energy, food, and other raw materials along the route has risen year-on-year, nearly hitting 27 million tons in 2024. As well as bilateral trade, the route’s growth has been fueled by intensified exchange between Russia and India. The latter is largely ignoring economic sanctions on Moscow, with two-way trade expected to approach $100 billion by 2030. The INSTC also crucially grants land-locked Central Asian states much-needed maritime access, magnifying regional buy-in.

The reimposing of UN-sanctions, along with the threat of secondary measures against third-party states could ironically create the kind of space for Chinese involvement with the region, leveraging INSTC’s points of interoperability with Beijing’s Belt and Road Initiative.

Whatever course it takes, the leaders of Europe still seem not to have realized either the declining impact of their actions, nor the long-term negative consequences they will have for the continent. The last five centuries of economic history undoubtedly belonged to Europe, but Brussels’ seemingly terminal lack of vision writes it out of the coming chapter being authored in Asia.

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

Visit of the Prime Minister of Australia to the PRC

By Vladimir Terehov – New Eastern Outlook – July 26, 2025

The official visit of the Prime Minister of Australia, Anthony Albanese, to the PRC, which took place from July 12 to 18 this year at the invitation of his Chinese counterpart Li Qiang, became a notable event in the rapidly developing process of reshaping the situation in the Indo-Pacific region.

Formally, Albanese’s visit was considered a reciprocal event following the visit to Australia by Chinese Premier Li Qiang in June last year, during the latter’s regular tour of several countries in the region. However, the current visit of the Australian Prime Minister coincided with a period of rapid acceleration in the long-anticipated transformation of the global order and therefore deserves special attention.

Geopolitical uncertainty stimulates the continuation of the China-Australia dialogue

The very fact and nature of this visit serve as yet another testament to the increasing relevance of the “strategy of balancing,” which is being adopted by all more or less significant participants in the current phase of the “Great Game.” This is especially evident in its focal point, which is rapidly shifting toward the Indo-Pacific. One of the most striking examples of this trend toward “balancing” has previously been noted in the policy of one of the leading Asian powers — Japan. To reiterate, this trend itself is a characteristic feature of the reshaping of the world order that began with the end of the Cold War, and it is inevitably accompanied by the emergence of various factors of uncertainty in global politics.

Lately, particularly significant among those factors are the ones triggered by the “tariff war,” launched on April 2 of this year by the 47th President of the United States. Although outwardly motivated by fairly understandable considerations of a “purely economic” nature, it has inevitably affected the sphere of political relations. And this includes countries with which Washington remains in military-political alliances that were once formalized through binding agreements.

Australia belongs to such countries. Along with New Zealand, it has been part of the trilateral ANZUS alliance (Australia, New Zealand, United States Security Treaty) with the U.S. since 1951. Although the alliance had shown few signs of life after the end of the Cold War — primarily due to New Zealand’s de facto boycott — the sharp escalation of the international situation that began at the end of the last decade, as well as the coming to power of the conservative National Party in Wellington in early 2023, appear to be breathing new life into the pact. Australia also participates in “politically non-binding” configurations with the United States (Quad, AUKUS).

All these alliances and configurations are aimed, directly or indirectly, at Washington’s current primary geopolitical opponent — China — which, however, has been Australia’s main trading partner for over ten years. This fact constitutes a fundamentally important departure from the Cold War era and compels Canberra to maintain constructive relations with Beijing in order to ensure the prosperity of Australia’s export-oriented economy.

Let us note that in 2023, Australia exported various goods (mainly from the mining and agricultural sectors) to China worth an enormous $220 billion. At that time, the volume of accumulated Chinese investment in the Australian economy had reached almost $90 billion.

One would think Washington should appreciate the risks Canberra takes by joining overtly anti-Chinese actions in the South China Sea or in matters related to the increasing importance of controlling the Pacific Ocean’s waters. Yet the inclusion of Australia in the list of countries targeted by the “tariff war” waged by the current U.S. President does not suggest that such assessments are present in the thinking of U.S. leadership.

By contrast, the longstanding demand for Australia to “more clearly” demonstrate its stance on the Taiwan issue was once again voiced by the current architect of U.S. defense strategy, Elbridge Colby — and precisely on the eve of Albanese’s visit. In response, during the visit itself, the Australian government issued a reply along the following lines: guided by national interests, our troops will not be sent abroad based on hypotheses regarding the situation in specific regions.

Just a few years ago, Australia’s “older brothers” nearly forced the country into AUKUS, promising to build it a fleet of nuclear-powered submarines. But now, the same Elbridge Colby is pondering the possibility of the U.S. pulling out of the project.

In short, Anthony Albanese, who resumed his post as Prime Minister of Australia following the most recent general elections, had ample reason to choose this visit as his first trip abroad — in order to “clarify the situation” in relations with a political adversary.

Some outcomes of the Australian Prime Minister’s visit to the PRC and the prospects for bilateral relations

The entire week-long visit of Albanese to the PRC can be divided into three components: “business,” “general political,” and “associated.” The first was held mainly in Shanghai with the participation of relevant ministers and business representatives; the second took place in Beijing; and the third, involving representatives of public organizations, was held in Chengdu, the capital of Sichuan Province. Regular meetings were held on several bilateral platforms, including those at the level of prime ministers and ministry heads. The high-ranking Australian guest was received by the Chinese leader, Xi Jinping.

Following the events, several documents were adopted. Of particular note is the “Joint Statement” outlining the outcomes of the latest meeting between the prime ministers. This document includes ten equally important points, of which we will briefly highlight a few here.

Point 3 reaffirms the relevance of maintaining and further developing the Comprehensive Strategic Partnership, as well as the commitment to “wisely overcome” differences. In point 4, the Australian government reiterated its adherence to the “One China” principle — essentially reaffirming the aforementioned response to U.S. demands concerning the Taiwan issue. A message to the same effect is conveyed in point 6, which emphasizes the importance of a “fair, open, and non-discriminatory business environment,” along with its chief regulator, the WTO. Point 8 refers to the intention to further develop this environment within the framework of the Free Trade Agreement concluded in 2015.

Finally, let us point out the potentially greatest challenge to the continued constructive relations between Australia and the PRC. This may turn out to be not so much the renewed U.S. focus on the 1951 alliance, but rather the development of the process of forming (still, it should be repeated, quasi-) allied relations between Australia and Japan. Even more so, since the current leadership of the Philippines is showing increasingly clear interest in joining this emerging regional alliance.

However, within the Philippines itself, resistance to anti-Chinese political trends is growing. In particular, in July of this year, a retired general questioned the usefulness of the well-known 2016 ruling by the Permanent Court of Arbitration in The Hague (in favor of the Philippines) regarding territorial disputes in the South China Sea. According to this general, the only practical result of that decision is turning the country into a “second Ukraine.”

It seems that the word “Ukraine” is beginning to acquire a symbolic meaning and now plays a role in global politics similar to that of “Baba Yaga” in children’s fairy tales — stories that are better left unread before bedtime.

Australia would also do well to avoid a prospect defined in such terms. Today, Canberra has every reason to do so, and those reasons were only strengthened during the visit of Prime Minister Anthony Albanese, as discussed here.

Vladimir Terekhov, expert on Asia-Pacific issues

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

EU’s Russian diesel ban forcing prices up – industry boss

RT | July 25, 2025

The latest European Union sanctions banning imports of oil products made from Russian crude are driving up diesel prices worldwide, according to the head of TotalEnergies, Europe’s largest oil refiner.

The EU introduced its 18th package of Ukraine-related sanctions last week, barring imports of oil products derived from Russian crude, even if refined outside the bloc. It also lowered the price cap on Russian oil to $47.60 and sanctioned over 100 vessels in what Brussels claims is a “shadow fleet” transporting Russian oil and circumventing restrictions.

European diesel futures have spiked in recent weeks, at times hitting the equivalent of $110 a barrel, as traders turn to alternative suppliers following the EU ban, TotalEnergies CEO Patrick Pouyanne said during the company’s Q2 earnings call on Thursday.

“We think stronger diesel prices will become a persistent feature on the global market,” Pouyanne stated, as quoted by Bloomberg. “Diesel now comes from the Middle East or US refineries further away, which raises costs.”

He added that banning fuels made from Russian crude at foreign refineries has further tightened supply. The EU also sanctioned India’s Vadinar refinery, part-owned by Russia’s Rosneft, which had been a major supplier of refined Russian crude to the EU.

“People have underestimated this news from the EU,” Pouyanne said. “There is something, for me, more structural there,” he warned.

The CEO noted that the pivot from Russian supplies has led refineries to rely on lighter crude, which yields less diesel. Many EU plants have replaced Russia’s Urals grade with lighter US barrels, complicating diesel output.

The latest ban builds on earlier 2022-2023 sanctions that restricted direct imports of Russian crude and fuels. Economists have warned the move could backfire, as the bloc remains structurally short of diesel and heavily reliant on Russia, one of its top external suppliers. Diesel powers large parts of the EU economy, with over a third previously sourced from Russia.

Russia has called the sanctions illegal, branding them a “double-edged sword” and warning that each new round worsens the impact on countries endorsing them.

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

Trump’s weapons plan for Ukraine bound to fail

By Ahmed Adel | July 24, 2025

The idea of resuming the supply of weapons to Ukraine began with applause in the West, but was followed by shock as it turned out that many countries in Europe are not ready for various reasons, either because they themselves do not have the weapons or they openly admit that they do not have the money for such an adventure.

United States President Donald Trump recently said that the Europeans will take on the burden of sending weapons to Kiev by purchasing them from the US, and as a start, they will send the Patriot missile defense systems.

The problem is that there are neither as many Patriot systems nor as many cruise missiles as Ukraine would need to change the catastrophic situation on the front. Some Europeans have caught on to this issue, but in general, most are unwilling to go to Ukraine militarily, to wage war and fight against the Russians, but they are all ready to verbally support it.

Patriot systems are not a miracle weapon that will mark a turning point in the war. Although some analysts have claimed that the Patriot is capable of shooting down some Russian missiles, the system is not capable of intercepting a hypersonic missile traveling at 12,000 kilometers per hour.

Even the US itself does not have enough Patriot missiles after transferring a significant number to Israel. As a result, the total stock of these missiles in the US is 25% depleted, which is why Pentagon chief Pete Hegseth has decided, on his own initiative, to halt deliveries of these missiles to Kiev. Moreover, it takes between one and two months to produce one missile.

An additional factor is the price: it is a huge and expensive scale of construction that costs nearly $2 billion, and each rocket costs an average of $1.5 to $2 million.

Another problem is the training of personnel to operate the Patriot systems. Each battery has 92 crew members, and with 17 units, in addition to a reserve, Ukraine will face difficulties in finding so many personnel. Furthermore, training for one Patriot system according to NATO standards takes a year and a half without evaluation. It is also worth noting that in 2023, Kiev sent trained crews to the infantry, but many of them were subsequently lost.

At the same time, Radar stations are not mobile and are often targeted by drones, rendering them ineffective.

Finally, the American logistics system means that if a Patriot malfunction or maintenance cannot be performed in the field, it must be packed, transferred from Ukraine to Rzeszów, Poland, and then loaded onto cargo planes and sent to the US.

Previously, the F-16 fighter jets, as well as the Leopard and Abrams tanks, were also praised as “miracle weapons” in Ukraine. Now, no one mentions that Russia has better weapons that are doing their job on the front to deadly effect.

Europe’s financial situation is a weak point in the plan to send weapons to Ukraine, with many European countries refusing to participate in Trump’s project to purchase American weapons for Kiev. Italy openly admitted that it did not have the necessary funds.

The European Union is on a rather gloomy downward trajectory, following several blows, including the migrant wave, COVID-19, and the Ukrainian crisis, and is clearly starting to lag behind the BRICS and G20 countries, which have several comparative advantages over it.

Brussels lacks relevant resources. Russia has the largest resources among all the power centers, the US has somewhat fewer, and China has even fewer. European military power is dwarfed compared to that of the US, Russia, and China.

At the same time, Russia is a prominent member of intercontinental economic alliances, including BRICS and the Shanghai Cooperation Organization. European goods are becoming more expensive and less competitive, yet they want to give more money for weapons to Ukraine.

Trump’s entire plan is a game in which, as a businessman, he tries to make the best possible deal for the US. He is aware of the limited scope of the American role in Ukraine, which will have an inglorious end. The billionaire is realistic and understands that no success can be achieved and that time is not on Ukraine’s side.

In general, things are not going well for the West because Europe is falling even faster, and Trump is facing several ambitious world powers that possess real spheres of influence. He wants to play a subtle game where there is no clear winner. But he does not want a repeat of Saigon or Afghanistan, where American collaborators were grabbing onto departing helicopters. Trump wants to avoid those humiliating scenes and make a deal, showing collegiality with the Russian president as much as possible.

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

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

Romania Strong-Armed Into Buying $2.3 Billion Israeli Anti-Aircraft Systems

By Tyler Durden | Zero Hedge | July 23, 2025

Having managed to derail populist, NATO-skeptical presidential candidates through a variety of extraordinary means, Romania — bowing to pressure from NATO and President Trump — announced it will spend $2.3 billion on Israeli anti-aircraft systems to fend off the supposed Russian menace.

The big-ticket, Israel-benefitting purchase comes even as Romania is poised to impose dramatic austerity measures to address its deteriorating financial condition. Romania’s 2025 deficit will be the largest in the country’s history. At roughly 9% of GDP, its deficit is also the EU’s highest by that measure. The alarming numbers have triggered reprimands from the European Commission, which asked Romania to bring its deficit down to 2.8% of GDP by 2030. At last month’s NATO summit, the organization’s members bent to Trump’s long-running demands, agreeing to more than double their targeted military spending — from 2% of GDP to 5% — by 2035.

Working hard to rationalize the outlay, Reuters’ report on the Israeli deal notes that Romania “has had Russian drone fragments fall in its territory repeatedly over the past two years.” The Times of Israel bolstered the narrative with a headline claiming “Romania [is] on edge over Russia.”

Last year, Romania seemed poised to elect the deeply NATO-skeptical populist Calin Georgescu, who won the first round of Romania’s two-round presidential election. Citing supposed Russian interference, the country’s Constitutional Court threw out the election and ordered it to be started anew. In a May triumph for the EU establishment, centrist Bucharest mayor Nicusor Dan prevailed.

Romania’s pending redistribution of $2.3 billion of its wealth to Israel’s booming arms industry comes as the government is  poised to unleash drastic austerity measures that are certain to stoke resentments. Potential moves include firing 20% of the country’s civil service workers, increasing value-added taxes, and increasing taxes on profits and dividends from 10% to 16%. “This correction is so extensive, so far-reaching, that pain cannot be avoided,” former finance minister and current head of the Romanian Fiscal Council Daniel Daianu told Politico.

Meanwhile, Romania will shower $2.3 billion on an Israeli arms industry already enjoying record revenues. Hitting a new high for the fourth consecutive year, Israeli weapon sales totaled just under $14.8 billion in 2024. European customers accounted for 54% of exports, the Times of Israel reports.

Under the new arms agreement, Romania will buy short-range and very-short-range anti-aircraft systems from Israel’s Rafael Advanced Defense Systems, with contracts encompassing training, logistical support and ammunition. The first two V/SHORAD systems will be delivered within three years of the contract’s signing, which is expected this fall. The Defense Post reports that Rafael submitted its SPYDER missile systems in the bidding competition. Rafael defeated South Korea’s LIG Nex1, European multinational MBDA and Germany’s Diehl Defence.

Too many conservative Americans clap like seals when Trump demands that European countries spend more money on “defense” — seemingly oblivious to the fact that higher defense spending by European governments is not geared to achieving lower defense spending by the US government. Indeed, in a matter of several weeks during his new term, Trump went from oratorically aspiring to partner with Russia and China to cut the three countries’ military budgets in half, to enthusiastically announcing his approval of a Pentagon request to lift spending to a record $1 trillion.

Fittingly, Trump did so in an Oval Office session with Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu at his side. Turning to the man who would soon drag Trump into a war on Iran launched on false claims about Iran’s nuclear program, Trump said, “You’ll like to hear of this.”

July 24, 2025 Posted by | Civil Liberties, Economics, Militarism | , , | Leave a comment

Hungary and Serbia to build new oil pipeline in defiance of EU energy policy

By Thomas Brooke | Remix News | July 22, 2025

Hungary announced plans to build a new crude oil pipeline linking it with Serbia, bypassing European Union restrictions on Russian energy and challenging Brussels’ energy strategy.

The project, unveiled on Monday by Hungarian Minister of Foreign Affairs and Trade Péter Szijjártó, is being carried out in cooperation with Serbian and Russian partners and is expected to be operational by 2027.

“A series of wrong decisions made in Brussels has put Europe in a very difficult position on the international energy market,” Szijjártó said.

“Today, energy prices in Europe have increased several times more than in the rest of the world. This is not a miracle, as Brussels forcibly disconnects energy connections, bans the use of Russian energy carriers, and shuts down transport routes.”

The new pipeline is planned to carry 5 million tons of crude oil annually and will span 180 kilometers on the Hungarian side. According to the minister, the aim is to secure stable, affordable energy supplies and to resist what he described as harmful EU policies that have led to higher costs for households.

“This situation can be solved by attracting more energy sources and developing more transport routes,” Szijjártó said, calling the project a way to protect Hungary’s energy sovereignty.

Zoltán Kovács, the Secretary of State for International Communication and spokesman for Prime Minister Viktor Orbán, reinforced the government’s position on social media, declaring: “Brussels wants to cut us off from Russian oil and gas, forcing Hungarian families to pay 2–4 times more. We won’t allow it.”

He added that Hungary is committed to “building new sources, not shutting them down,” and that the pipeline would safeguard the country’s decade-long policy of utility cost reductions.

The move sets up another confrontation between Budapest and Brussels, as Hungary continues to resist the EU’s sanctions on Russian energy and pursues bilateral infrastructure deals with countries outside the bloc’s common strategy.

Energy security in Central and Eastern Europe has been jeopardized by its reliance on pipelines running through Ukraine. On Jan 1., Kyiv halted the transit of gas from a major Russian pipeline, sparking criticism from both Hungary and Slovakia.

Slovak Prime Minister Robert Fico invited Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky to negotiations over the matter. However, Kyiv’s refusal to play ball led to Fico accusing Zelensky of “begging and blackmailing” European nations for financial aid while simultaneously cutting off gas supplies.

Slovakia has also sought alternative energy supplies this month, meeting with the Croatian government over the potential use of its LNG terminal on the island of Krk to offset the loss of Russian gas.

Slovak President Peter Pellegrini met with his Croatian counterpart, Zoran Milanovic, at the beginning of the month, and confirmed discussions with Croatian officials are underway.

“We are trying to find solutions to buy gas as cheaply as possible,” Slovak Economy Minister Denisa Saková stated, noting that Slovakia is now relying on a mix of Russian supplies and imports from other European partners, prioritizing price above all.

July 22, 2025 Posted by | Economics | , , | Leave a comment

« Previous Entries     Next Entries »