Aletho News

ΑΛΗΘΩΣ

Ukraine’s Corporate Carve-Up Collapses?

By Kit Klarenberg | Al Mayadeen | July 11, 2025 

On July 5th, Bloomberg reported that a BlackRock-administered multibillion-dollar fund for Kiev’s reconstruction, due to be unveiled at a dedicated Ukraine Recovery Conference in Rome July 10th/11th, had been placed on hold at the start of 2025 “due to a lack of interest” among institutional, private, and state financiers. As the summit looms, lack of investor enthusiasm persists, and “the project’s future is now uncertain.” It’s just the latest confirmation that the West’s long-running mission to carve up Ukraine verges on total disintegration.

BlackRock’s Ukraine Development Fund has been in the works since May 2023. It was originally envisaged as one of the most ambitious public-private finance collaborations in history, which would rival Washington’s Marshall Plan that rebuilt – and heavily indebted – Western Europe in World War II’s wake. With vast returns promised, initially investors were reportedly “ready to plow funds” into the endeavour, due to widespread optimism Kiev’s much-hyped “counteroffensive” later that year “might end the war quickly.”

In the event, the counteroffensive was an unmitigated disaster. Ukraine suffered up to 100,000 casualties, with much of its arsenal of Western-supplied armour, vehicles, and weapons obliterated, in return for recapturing just 0.25% of the territory occupied by Russia in the proxy war’s initial phases. As BlackRock vice chair Philipp Hildebrand explained, the results killed off investor exuberance, as they required “the cessation of hostilities, or at the very least a perspective for peace.” Concerns about Ukraine’s ever-reducing skilled workforce were also widespread.

Fast forward to today there is no indication of any peace deal on the horizon, Russia is rapidly advancing across multiple fronts, and the Ukrainian government estimates the country has lost around 40% of its working-age population due to the proxy war. No wonder there is zero foreign interest in investing in Kiev’s reconstruction. Quite what will remain of Ukraine when the conflict is over, and whether any financial returns can be gleaned from its ruins, are open, grave questions.

The collapse of BlackRock’s Ukraine Development Fund is not only a microcosm of the impending, inevitable defeat of Kiev and its overseas puppet masters in Donbass. It also reflects the death of the dream of breaking apart Ukraine’s industries and resources to untrammelled rape and pillage, long-held by Western corporations, oligarchs, and governments. Planning for this eventuality dates back to the country’s 1991 independence, producing concrete results following the 2014 Western-orchestrated Maidan coup, and becoming turbocharged once all-out proxy war erupted in February 2022.

‘Investment Climate’

From the start of 2013, Western corporations began moving en masse to buy up Ukraine wholesale. It was widely expected across Europe and North America Kiev would enter into an “association agreement” with the EU, facilitating privatisation, and tearing up of longstanding laws restricting foreign purchase and ownership of the country’s untold agricultural riches. The former “breadbasket of the Soviet Union” was equivalent to one-third of the EU’s total arable land, and potential profits could be voluminous.

That January, Anglo-Dutch MI6-linked energy giant Shell signed a 50-year deal with the Ukrainian government to explore and drill for natural gas via fracking in areas of Donetsk and Kharkov “believed to hold substantial natural gas.” Then, in May, notorious, now-defunct chemical giant Monsanto announced plans to invest $140 million in constructing a corn seed plant in the country’s agricultural heartlands. The company was a founding member of the US-Ukraine Business Council, established in October 1995 to “improve” Kiev’s “investment climate.”

USUBC’s treasurer was and remains David Kramer, who then-served as president of Freedom House, a National Endowment for Democracy division. NED was avowedly founded by the CIA to do publicly what the Agency historically did publicly. The Endowment and Freedom House were responsible for Ukraine’s 2004 “Orange Revolution”, which brought pro-Western puppet Viktor Yushchenko to power. He immediately implemented deeply unpopular neoliberal economic reforms, including slashing regulations and social spending. Yushchenko was voted out in 2010, securing just 5% of the vote.

Following Ukrainian President Viktor Yanukovych’s rejection of the EU association agreement in favour of a more advantageous deal offered by Russia in November 2013, mass protests – later dubbed “Maidan” – in Kiev were ignited by NED-affiliated actors, and fascist agitators. They raged until late February 2014, when Yanukovych fled the country. In the meantime, Ukraine was plunged into total chaos – yet, firms associated with USUBC weren’t deterred. Many, including major companies with representatives on the organisation’s executive committee, continued making sizeable investments in Ukraine.

Their undimmed enthusiasm may be explained by David Kramer being an alumni of Project for the New American Century, a neoconservative think tank widely credited with masterminding the Bush administration’s “War on Terror”. The organisation’s cofounder Robert Kagan is married to Victoria Nuland, at this time the State Department’s point person on Ukraine. She visited Kiev repeatedly during the Maidan “revolution”, and hand-picked Yanukovych’s replacement interim government. Nuland was thus well-placed to know USUBC member investments in Ukraine would be safe long-term.

‘Trade Opportunities’

Nuland’s fascist interim government was replaced in June 2014 by an administration led by far-right Petro Poroshenko, who stood on an explicit platform of privatising state industries. The President passed legislation enabling this in March 2016. Two years later, his government adopted sweeping laws to further facilitate the auctioning off of Kiev’s public assets and industry to foreign actors. However, a moratorium on private sale of arable land, imposed in 2001, remained in place. No matter – in August 2018, the European Court of Human Rights ruled this was illegal.

There was still one problem, though. Opinion polls consistently showed Ukrainian citizens overwhelmingly rejected privatisation, and the sale of their country’s agricultural land to overseas buyers. As luck would have it, the proxy war’s eruption, and imposition of martial law, allowed for industrial scale trampling by Volodomyr Zelensky’s government over public opinion, and political opposition. Throughout 2022, a series of laws intended to “make privatization as easy as possible for foreign investors” were passed.

In the process, close to 1,000 nationalised enterprises were offered up for overseas sale, and auctions for purchase of these entities “under simplified terms” convened. The next year, these efforts intensified, with further legislation enacted enabling “large-scale privatisation of state assets and state companies.” This was reportedly motivated by “the attractiveness” of Ukraine’s “large state assets to institutional investors.” They included an Odessa-based ammonia factory, major mining and chemical firms, one of the country’s leading power generators, and a producer of high-quality titanium products.

Encouraged by the West’s reception to these moves, in July 2024, Kiev announced a dedicated “Large-Scale Privatisation” plan, with more prized assets under the hammer. Little wonder that  two months later, a British Foreign Office briefing document acknowledged it viewed “the invasion not only as a crisis, but also as an opportunity.” London’s primary economic aid project in Ukraine is explicitly concerned with ensuring the country “adopts and implements economic reforms that create a more inclusive economy, enhancing trade opportunities with the UK.”

The previous January, the World Economic Forum’s annual congress was convened in Davos, Switzerland. The proxy war, and Kiev’s economic future loomed large on the event’s agenda. Its centrepiece was a breakout breakfast attended by political leaders and business bigwigs, where Zelensky appeared via videolink. The President thanked “giants of the international financial and investment world,” including BlackRock, Goldman Sachs, and JP Morgan, for buying up his country’s assets during wartime. He boldly promised, “everyone can become a big business by working with Ukraine.”

Subsequently, BlackRock CEO Larry Fink pledged to coordinate billions of dollars in reconstruction financing for Kiev, forecasting the country would become a “beacon of capitalism” resultantly. Meanwhile, Goldman Sachs chief David Solomon spoke with intense optimism about Kiev’s post-war future, and the gains his firm and other major Western financial institutions could reap. “There is no question that as you rebuild, there will be good economic incentives for real return and real investment,” he crowed.

Zelensky spoke at multiple events held in Davos over the five-day-long conference’s course, where pro-Kiev sentiment was reportedly “overwhelming”. The President spoke of recapturing Crimea, and demanded attendees “give us your weapons.” His audiences were invariably highly receptive. On one panel, Boris Johnson, who personally sabotaged fruitful peace talks between Kiev and Moscow in April 2022, urged that Zelensky be given “the tools he needs to finish the job.” Johnson boomed, “Give them the tanks! There’s absolutely nothing to be lost!”

In years to come, the January 2023 Davos summit may be viewed both as the high point of Ukraine’s proxy war effort, and roughly when everything began to spectacularly unravel. The desired weapons arrived in huge quantities, to no effect. Kiev’s three biggest military efforts since that year’s counteroffensive, the Krynky incursion, and Kursk “counterinvasion” – were all deeply costly cataclysms, leaving the country undermanned and ill-equipped to fend off Russian advances. Countries that supplied munitions borderline disarmed themselves in the process.

On June 10th, US Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth announced Ukraine would receive no further military aid from Washington, save for remaining shipments agreed by the Biden administration. On July 1st, even this much-reduced commitment was jettisoned, due to Pentagon concerns over artillery, air defense missiles, and precision munition stockpile shortages. Kiev is now permanently out of American weapons, and it will take years for Europe to plug the gap, if at all.

In the intervening time, Ukraine has been subject to ever-increasingly devastating Russian drone and missile attacks, and Moscow’s forces appear to be going in for the kill across the frontline. Public and political support for keeping the proxy war grinding on is waning across the West. BlackRock’s once-vaunted Ukraine Development Fund failing to drum up a single dollar for the country’s reconstruction strongly suggests international investors foresee Kiev’s post-war corpse offering them nothing to pick at.

July 11, 2025 Posted by | Economics | , , | Leave a comment

EU ‘has no money except for war’ – Hungarian official

RT | July 11, 2025

The EU is placing Ukraine’s military needs above the priorities of the bloc’s member states, Hungarian government adviser Balazs Orban has said. He accused EU leaders of always finding money for “war” but not other causes.

Leaders of EU nations are considering the creation of a new €100 billion ($117 billion) fund under the bloc’s upcoming seven-year budget to cover expenses for the Ukrainian government, Bloomberg reported this week, citing people familiar with the discussions. Budapest, however, has been a vocal critic of the bloc’s approach to the Russia-Ukraine conflict since its onset.

”Europe has run out of money – except when it comes to war. There is always 100 billion euros for that,” Orban wrote on Wednesday on social media. He warned that such an allocation of funds would likely lead to further proposals to spend EU taxpayers’ money on Ukraine.

Orban pointed to Kiev’s estimate that it would require $1 trillion over 14 years for reconstruction and modernization, a figure shared by Prime Minister Denis Shmigal during a donors conference in Rome this week.

”While Europe cannot climb out of its own economic, social and security crisis, Brussels would continue to finance the war – weapons instead of peace, new debt instead of a competitive Europe,” Orban said.

Last week, Bloomberg reported that US investment firm BlackRock had abandoned efforts to attract private investors for a Ukraine reconstruction program. The fund was expected to be launched at the Rome conference, but potential participants reportedly expressed “a lack of interest amid increased uncertainty” over the country’s future.

Ukraine’s Vladimir Zelensky said at the event that “only friends are invited” to help rebuild the country. He reiterated his call to confiscate Russian state assets frozen by Western nations and transfer them to Kiev.

Moscow has warned that such actions would constitute international theft. EU members have voiced concern that expropriating Russian assets could significantly erode global confidence in their financial systems. As an alternative, Ukraine’s backers have been imposing a “windfall tax” on profits from the immobilized Russian funds and channeling the money to Kiev – an approach Moscow has described as another form of criminality.

Hungary has accused the EU leadership of inflicting major economic harm on member states through sanctions on Russia, and of wasting resources on a war effort that it argues cannot deliver a military victory over Moscow.

July 11, 2025 Posted by | Economics, Militarism, Russophobia | , | Leave a comment

EU sanctions ‘destroying’ Europe – Slovak MEP

Lucas Leiroz | July 11, 2025

More and more people are admitting that it is impossible for Europe to continue maintaining its anti-Russian sanctions in the long term. Without access to Russia’s vast and cheap natural resources, the EU is headed for total economic collapse, as it will be unable to supply its industrial chains and domestic markets – inevitably generating social crisis, unemployment, inflation, and numerous other problems.

This assessment is echoed by Slovak MEP Milan Uhrik. In a recent speech to the European Parliament, he severely criticized European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen’s hostile stance toward Russia. Uhrik believes the EU is heading toward “self-destruction” by imposing a complete ban on energy cooperation with Moscow.

Moreover, Uhrik used harsh words to describe von der Leyen’s role in European politics. Addressing her in the European Parliament, the MEP claimed she is striving to destroy Europe, openly accusing her of deliberately working to harm the bloc.

“[Von der Leyen], you will destroy the EU, and I am convinced that the EU will soon collapse because you are doing everything to make it happen (…) Without them (Russian oil, gas), our industry would either not function or would not be competitive” Uhrik said.

Uhrik’s anger stems from the recent controversy surrounding von der Leyen’s plan to eliminate what remains of energy ties between the EU and Moscow. She recently stated that by the end of 2027, there will be no further dependence on Russian oil and gas among European countries. To achieve this, she plans to accelerate the “energy transition” process. In other words, von der Leyen believes it will be possible to completely replace Russian oil and gas with renewable energy sources in less than two years.

Von der Leyen’s plans are utterly utopian. Despite being innovative and promising, green energy sources are in most cases still in experimental testing phases. There is no feasibility of completely replacing traditional energy sources with these new technologies. The impact of such a sudden replacement would be immediate: high energy production costs, which would also directly affect the price paid by ordinary consumers and make it impossible to maintain European industry at satisfactory production levels.

However, there’s something much worse in von der Leyen’s plan. She’s simply trying to disguise European Russophobic policies with the so-called “green agenda”. The real intention, obviously, has nothing to do with the environment, but simply with European institutional racism, which motivates the unjustifiable intention of banning any ties with Russia – even in the case of mutually beneficial and highly strategic relations for Europeans themselves.

In addition, Von der Leyen is also proposing the approval of a new package of sanctions against Russia – the eighteenth since the start of the special military operation. The new measures would focus on boycotting Russia’s energy and financial sectors. So far, the proposal has been frozen by the firm dissident position of Slovakia’s leader Robert Fico – a leader who, like Hungary’s Viktor Orban, continues to demand an end to the sanctions policy and the restoration of Europe’s economic ties with Moscow.

Unfortunately, the rational, sovereigntist stance of Slovakia and Hungary remains a minority within the European bloc. Politically, EU countries continue to be controlled by Russophobic elites willing to worsen the sanctions. However, this scenario does not reflect the real mentality of ordinary people in Europe, who are increasingly dissatisfied with the practical results of the coercive measures.

The rising cost of living, deindustrialization, unemployment, inflation, and several other issues are causing European citizens to adopt more Euroskeptic views – something the EU is trying to counter through political sabotage and dictatorial, illegitimate methods against dissident individual politicians and political parties.

Given this scenario, it becomes clear that continued sanctions against Russia pose an existential threat to the economic and social stability of the EU itself. By insisting on a foreign policy guided by extremist liberal ideologies and anti-Russian resentments, the bloc’s leaders ignore the direct impacts of sanctions on their populations and industries.

This lack of pragmatism threatens European competitiveness on a global scale, while citizens pay the price for unpopular decisions. Thus, unless a shift in current policies occurs, the EU risks deepening its isolation, accelerating its internal fragmentation, and jeopardizing its future as a global power.

Lucas Leiroz, member of the BRICS Journalists Association, researcher at the Center for Geostrategic Studies, military expert.

You can follow Lucas on X (formerly Twitter) and Telegram.

July 11, 2025 Posted by | Economics, Malthusian Ideology, Phony Scarcity, Russophobia | , | Leave a comment

Riyadh realigns: Tehran over Tel Aviv

The Cradle | July 8, 2025

The recent confrontation between Iran and Israel marked a decisive shift in regional power equations, particularly in the Persian Gulf. Iran’s direct and calibrated military response – executed through the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC) – exposed the strategic vulnerabilities of Tel Aviv and forced Gulf capitals, chiefly Riyadh, to reassess long-standing assumptions about regional security.

The Saudi-led recalibration did not emerge in isolation. Years of cumulative political, military, and diplomatic failures under the umbrella of US-Israeli tutelage have pushed Persian Gulf states to seek more viable, non-confrontational security arrangements. What we are witnessing is the slow dismantling of obsolete alliances and the opening of pragmatic, interest-driven channels with Tehran.

Iran’s war strategy resets Gulf expectations

Tehran’s handling of the latest military clash – with its reliance on precision strikes, regional alliances, and calibrated escalation – demonstrated a new level of deterrence. Using its regional networks, missile bases, and sophisticated drones, Tehran managed the confrontation very carefully, avoiding being drawn into all-out war, but at the same time sending clear messages to the enemy about its ability to deter and expand engagement if necessary.

The message to the Gulf was clear: Iran is neither isolated nor vulnerable. It is capable of shaping outcomes across multiple fronts without falling into full-scale war.

Speaking to The Cradle, a well-informed Arab diplomat says:

“This war was a turning point in the Saudi thinking. Riyadh now understands Iran is a mature military power, immune to coercion. Traditional pressure no longer works. Saudi security now depends on direct engagement with Iran – not on Israel, and certainly not under the receding American security umbrella.”

At the heart of Saudi discontent lies Tel Aviv’s escalating aggression against the Palestinians and its outright dismissal of Arab peace initiatives, including the Riyadh-led 2002 Arab Peace Initiative. Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s intransigence – particularly the aggressive expansion of settlements in Jerusalem and the occupied West Bank – has alarmed the Saudis.

These provocations not only sabotage diplomatic efforts but strike at the kingdom’s pan-Islamic legitimacy, forcing a reassessment of Israel’s utility as a strategic partner. As the diplomatic source notes:

“This Israeli political stalemate pushes Saudi Arabia to reconsider its regional bets and view Iran as a regional power factor that cannot be ignored.”

Riyadh turns to Tehran: containment over confrontation

Behind closed doors, Saudi Arabia is advancing a strategy of “positive containment” with Iran. This marks a clear departure from the era of proxy wars and ideological hostility. Riyadh is no longer seeking confrontation – it is seeking coordination, particularly on issues of regional security and energy.

Diplomatic sources inform The Cradle that the reopening of embassies and stepped-up security coordination are not mere side effects of Chinese mediation. They reflect a deeper Saudi conviction: that normalization with Israel yields no meaningful security dividends, especially after Tel Aviv’s exposed vulnerabilities in the last war.

Riyadh’s new path also signals its growing appetite for regional solutions away from Washington – a position increasingly shared by other Persian Gulf states.

For its part, the Islamic Republic is moving swiftly to convert military leverage into political capital. Beyond showcasing its missile and drone capabilities, Iran is now actively courting Arab states of the Persian Gulf with proposals for economic cooperation, regional integration, and the construction of an indigenous security architecture.

Informed sources reveal to The Cradle that Iran is pursuing comprehensive engagement with Saudi Arabia, the UAE, Qatar, and Oman. This includes economic partnerships and alignment on key regional files, from Yemen to Syria and Iraq.

Tehran’s position is consistent with its long-stated view: The Persian Gulf’s security must be decided by its littoral states and peoples – not by foreign agendas.

A new Gulf alliance is taking shape

This is no longer a Saudi story alone. The UAE is expanding economic cooperation with Tehran, while maintaining open security channels. Qatar sustains a solid diplomatic line with Iran, using its credibility to broker key regional talks. Oman remains the region’s trusted bridge and discreet mediator.

An Arab diplomat briefed on recent developments tells The Cradle :

“Upcoming Gulf–Iran meetings will address navigation in the Strait of Hormuz, energy coordination, and broader regional files. There is consensus building that understanding with Iran [will] open the door to a more stable phase in the Gulf.”

Amid these realignments, Israel finds itself regionally sidelined – its project to forge an anti-Iran axis has crumbled. The US-brokered Abraham Accords – once trumpeted as a strategic triumph – now elicit little more than polite disinterest across the Gulf, with even existing Arab signatories walking back their engagement.

Riyadh’s political elite now openly question the utility of normalization. As Tel Aviv continues its war on Gaza, Gulf populations grow more vocal and Saudi leaders more cautious.

The Saudi position is unspoken but unmistakable: Tel Aviv can no longer guarantee security, nor can it be viewed as the gatekeeper to regional stability any longer.

Pragmatism trumps ideology

This Saudi–Iranian thaw is not ideological – it is hard-nosed realpolitik. As another senior Arab diplomat tells The Cradle :

“Riyadh is discarding illusions. Dialogue with neighbors – not alliance with Washington and Tel Aviv – is now the route to safeguarding Saudi interests. This is now about facts, not old loyalties. Iran is now a fixed component of the Gulf’s security equation.”

The binary of “Gulf versus Iran” is fading. The last war accelerated a trend long in motion: the collapse of Pax Americana and the emergence of multipolar regionalism. The Gulf is charting a new course – one less beholden to US-Israeli diktats.

Today, Saudi Arabia sees Tehran not as a threat to be neutralized, but as a power to be engaged. Regional security frameworks are being built from within. Israel, meanwhile, despite its many pontifications about a Tel Aviv-led, Arab-aligned “Middle East,” is struggling to stay relevant.

If these dynamics hold, we are on the cusp of a historic transition – one that may finally allow the Persian Gulf to define its own security and sovereignty, on its own terms.

This is not an ideal future. But it is a strategic upgrade from decades of subservience. Saudi Arabia is turning toward Iran – not out of love, but out of logic.

July 8, 2025 Posted by | Economics, Militarism | , , , , , , , , | Leave a comment

US must rebuild trust for diplomacy to resume, says Iran’s FM

Iranian Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi
Press TV – July 8, 2025

Iran’s foreign minister has issued a call for the United States to revive diplomacy following a breakdown in indirect talks, warning that further engagement will only be possible if Washington demonstrates a genuine commitment to a fair resolution.

“Iran remains interested in diplomacy, but we have good reason to have doubts about further dialogue,” Abbas Araghchi wrote in an article published by the Financial Times. “If there is a desire to resolve this amicably, the US should show genuine readiness for an equitable accord.”

The foreign minister referred to his five rounds of talks with US special envoy Steve Witkoff, saying that the two sides had made progress in those meetings.

According to Araghchi, discussions covered sensitive issues, including Iran’s uranium enrichment program and a potential end to US sanctions, with proposals from both sides and mediation by Oman.

The talks, he suggested, could have laid the foundation for an economic partnership potentially worth trillions, offering Iran development opportunities while addressing US President Donald Trump’s ambitions to revive struggling US industries.

But, Araghchi said, hopes for a breakthrough were shattered when Israel launched an unprovoked assault on Iran just 48 hours before a planned sixth round of talks in a move to derail diplomatic progress.

“Israel prefers conflict over resolution,” he wrote, arguing that the bombardment was not about stopping Iran from developing nuclear weapons but about sabotaging dialogue.

Araghchi reaffirmed that Iran remains committed to the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) and operates under UN monitoring.

He warned that while Iran seeks to prevent a wider regional war, its restraint should not be mistaken for weakness.

“We will defeat any future attack on our people,” he said, cautioning that Iran would reveal its true defensive capabilities if provoked again.

Araghchi placed the blame for the collapse of the talks on “an ostensible ally of America” and on Washington for its “fateful decision” to join in the strikes, thereby violating international law and the NPT framework.

While noting recent messages from US intermediaries suggesting a possible return to the table, Araghchi questioned whether Tehran could trust any future American overtures, citing the US withdrawal from the 2015 nuclear deal and Iran’s experience of being attacked during active negotiations.

“Negotiations held under the shadow of war are inherently unstable, and dialogue pursued amid threats is never genuine,” he wrote.

Still, Araghchi stopped short of closing the door entirely.

Iran, he insisted, remains interested in diplomacy, but only if it is based on mutual respect and free from external sabotage.

The top diplomat warned that Washington’s continued alignment with Israel risks dragging the US into another costly and avoidable conflict in the region.

“The American people deserve to know that their country is being pushed towards a wholly avoidable and unwarranted war by a foreign regime that does not share their interests,” Araghchi wrote, in reference to Israeli influence in Washington.

He ended with a stark choice for the United States: “Will the US finally choose diplomacy? Or will it remain ensnared in someone else’s war?”

July 8, 2025 Posted by | Economics, Wars for Israel | , , , , | Leave a comment

EU Seeks to Plug Ukraine’s $19Bln Budget Gap in 2026

Sputnik – 08.07.2025

The European Union is urgently exploring options to cover Ukraine’s $19 billion budget deficit in 2026, including by using frozen Russian state assets, as US support for Kiev continues to decline and a ceasefire remains out of reach, the media reported on Tuesday, citing sources familiar with the matter.

A senior European official involved in discussions with Kiev told the newspaper that many who anticipated a ceasefire agreement in 2025 had to reassess costs, acknowledging a financing “hole” despite efforts to minimize it.

The European Commission has been forced to adjust Ukraine-related spending 2025. A European diplomat told the newspaper that the EU intends to ensure that Kiev’s needs are covered before winter, especially given uncertainty over renewed US support for Kiev.

The commission is reviewing a G7 proposal to provide military aid to Ukraine via bilateral grants, recorded as “off-budget external transfer” but counted toward national defense spending targets.

Another option involves leveraging the existing $50-billion G7 loan scheme, funded by proceeds generated by frozen Russian assets. Additionally, countries are exploring reinvesting Russian assets into riskier categories to maximize returns.

After the start of the Russian military operation in Ukraine, the European Union and G7 countries froze almost half of Russia’s foreign exchange reserves, totaling nearly 300 billion euros ($347 billion). More than 200 billion euros are in the EU, mainly in the accounts of Euroclear, a Brussels-based clearing house.

The Russian Foreign Ministry has repeatedly condemned the freezing of Russia’s central bank money in Europe as theft. Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov said that Moscow could respond by withholding assets held in Russia by Western countries.

July 8, 2025 Posted by | Economics, Militarism | , , , | Leave a comment

Iran’s oil production at records not seen since 1978: Report

Press TV – July 5, 2025

Iran has reached a record in oil production that has not been seen in the country since 1978, when Mohammad Reza Pahlavi, the last Shah of Iran, was still in power, according to a recent report.

The report published on Thursday by Bloomberg said that Iran had produced about 4.3 million barrels per day (bpd) of crude plus another 725,000 bpd of other liquids in 2024.

The report cited figures from the UK Energy Institute and its Statistical Review of World Energy, which was published last month.

It said that an oil production of nearly 5.1 million bpd has not been seen in Iran since the last year of Shah’s reign when the oil industry in the country was still receiving huge investment and technology from Western companies.

However, it admitted that Iran has achieved a remarkable feat by raising its oil output to record levels at a time of increased American pressure.

“Developing its vast condensate and natural-gas liquids riches without foreign help wasn’t easy,” said the report by Javier Blas as he insisted that domestic companies, including those run by Iran’s elite military force the IRGC, have contributed to the country’s efforts over the past decade to develop its energy sector.

Iran has reported consistent rises in its oil production and exports since 2021, just two years after US President Donald Trump enforced a harsh regime of sanctions on buyers of Iranian oil during his first term in office.

Estimates suggest Iran’s oil exports, which mostly go to private buyers in China, have well exceeded 2.4 million bpd in recent months.

Bloomberg’s report said Iran’s rising oil exports and the revenues it generate would be key to the country’s reconstruction efforts after a recent Israeli aggression.

It also reiterated that Israel’s 12-day aggression against Iran, which ended on June 24, had failed to affect Iran’s massive oil industry and its daily operations.

July 5, 2025 Posted by | Economics | | Leave a comment

‘Israel’ faces massive economic fallout from its war on Iran

Al Mayadeen | July 4, 2025

Israeli media sounded the alarm over $14 billion in losses, a surging defense budget, and tens of thousands of compensation claims, as economic strain deepens in the aftermath of the 12-day war on Iran.

According to a report by the Israeli daily Maariv, the war has inflicted severe financial damage on the Israeli economy, with the total impact estimated at over 52 billion shekels (approximately $14 billion USD). The report noted that the war has delivered a major blow to “Israel’s” total economic activity and threatens broader budgetary stability.

“It’s no longer just about rebuilding damaged buildings, it’s about rebuilding the economy,” Maariv reported, highlighting that daily life during the war was “nearly impossible” due to constant sirens, rocket fire, destroyed infrastructure, and casualties.

Even under optimistic recovery scenarios, the paper noted that half of the damage is unlikely to be recuperated, leaving a net loss of 26 billion shekels, or 1.3% of GDP, a substantial economic blow.

Defense budget grows into a ‘bottomless pit’

The financial strain is further compounded by the ballooning costs of the Israeli occupation’s defense spending. Maariv reports that the 2025 defense budget, recently approved by the Knesset, stands at 135 billion shekels, or 21.8% of the national budget. This includes 75.7 billion shekels in debt repayments to the National Insurance Institute.

The newspaper described both the security establishment and debt servicing as “a bottomless economic pit,” given the continued war-related expenditures.

Of the allocated defense budget, 67 billion shekels had already been spent within the first five months of 2025. Now, the Israeli military is reportedly requesting an additional 55–60 billion shekels to fund recent wartime expenses, further straining fiscal resources.

Infrastructure damage, compensation soar

In parallel to military spending, the Israeli entity faces rising compensation obligations. According to Maariv, more than 36,000 compensation claims have been filed with the Property Tax Authority and the Compensation Fund at the Tax Authority, with an estimated added cost of 5 billion shekels.

The claims include:

  • 3,392 for destroyed vehicles
  • 3,758 for household damage
  • 10,996 from evacuated settlers
  • Nearly 4,000 settlers were forced to relocate to their relatives’ residential units

Thousands more claims are still being submitted, the paper added, warning that the financial toll on “Israel” is rapidly escalating and may continue to rise sharply in the coming months.

This report follows earlier findings from Calcalist, which estimated the total cost of direct damage at over 5 billion shekels (approximately $1.3 billion), though thousands of cases remain under review or are yet to be formally filed.

Israeli censorship hindering assessment of damage from Iranian strikes

“Israel” has admitted to being struck by more than 50 missiles during its 12-day war on Iran, but the full scope of the damage may never be revealed due to strict press censorship.

Such media restrictions are long-standing in “Israel”, where any content, written or visual, considered potentially harmful to the vaguely defined notion of “national security” can be legally suppressed.

Recently, the Israeli entity has further tightened its grip on wartime reporting.

July 4, 2025 Posted by | Economics, Militarism | , , , | Leave a comment

It must surely be time to end Russia sanctions and develop a new plan to bring peace and prosperity to Ukraine

By Ian Proud | Strategic Culture Foundation | July 2, 2025

Russia can endure the economic pain of war for longer than Europe. On this basis, more sanctions will only ever embolden Russia to keep fighting rather than making peace. Europe should incentivize peace through sanctions relief, although I see zero chance of that happening right now.

This terrible war in Ukraine must end sooner or later. It has claimed over one million people to death or injury, mostly since February 2022, but also, in fact, since the onset of the Ukraine crisis in February 2014.

Clearly, both Russia and Ukraine need to find incentives to end the fighting. One such incentive relates to sanctions. The whole basis of sanctions against Russia is that they will impose a cost on Russia for continuing to wage war in Ukraine.

When the 18th sanctions package was proposed on 10 June, Kaja Kallas announced that ‘we do all this because sanctions work, every sanction weakens Russia’s ability to fight.’ She also said, ‘Russia has lost tens of billions in oil revenues. Its economy is shrinking, and its GDP has dropped.’

And yet, these assertions do not appear to be true.

Firstly, Russia’s economy grew by 3.6% in 2024. That compares to 0.9% growth for the Eurozone and 1.1% for the United Kingdom.

On exports, in the first four months of 2025, Russia exported $39.5 billion more goods than it imported and maintained a healthy overall current account surplus of $21.9 billion. Since its default in 1998, Russia has become an exporting powerhouse and there hasn’t been a single year since that time in which it has not recorded a healthy surplus, including during the Global Financial Crisis and the COVID Pandemic.

There is no evidence that sanctions have had any real effect on Russia’s ability to generate large surpluses of trade each year. This boosts its tax revenues and provides the scope to increase spending without significant reliance on borrowing.

The overall value of Russian exports has fallen from their peak in 2012 when the oil price was consistently above $100 to the barrel. But the point is, Russia also now imports significantly less than it did then, largely out of a drive to import substitution which started in 2014, meaning that its overall balance is comparable.

It is for this reason that Russia’s international reserve position has improved by around $80 billion since the war started, to $680 billion today (which includes the currently frozen assets of around $300 billion).

No sanction imposed on Russia has shifted the fundamentals of Russia’s economic model and, I believe, no sanction ever will. And yet the Europeans have been sanctioning Russia for eleven years already without recognising this.

Yes, Russia has undoubtedly endured economic pain from sanctions. Prior to the Ukraine crisis, the European Union accounted for over 40% of all Russian trade and most of that business has been progressively lost over the past eleven years. That triggered huge shifts in the structure of Russia’s economy, arguably making it more dependant on domestic investment and pivoting its trade decisively away from Europe and towards Asia.

Sanctioning individuals and companies prompted huge changes in the beneficial ownership and board membership of the largest Russian firms. This triggered a bizarre whack-a-mole policy in Europe as it tried to sanction ever changing figures on Russian company structures.

Yet, Russia’s continued strength in trade allows it to keep pumping billions into the war economy each year at a time when Ukraine constantly teeters on the brink of bankruptcy, propped up only by European donations, as I have written many times before.

Europe will never be able to tip to scales so far in favour of Ukraine that it has the economic reserves to outslug Russia, whether the war continued for one year or ten. Only a fantasist would believe that though, unfortunately, there appears no shortage of those in Brussels.

Sanctions have become an end and policy makers are now so invested in sanctions, and so lacking in ideas, that they continue despite the obvious self-harm they are causing to the European project, not only economically, but also politically and culturally.

Politicians in Central Europe are growing increasingly concerned by this direction of policy, because of which a battle is brewing about whether the EU approves the eighteenth package of sanctions against Russia, first proposed on 10 June.

Slovakia and Hungary are currently blocking the package because it would threaten their energy security. At an EU Foreign Ministers’ meeting last week, Peter Szijjarto, Hungary’s Foreign Minister accused Brussels bureaucrats of hypocrisy, claiming that further energy sanctions would ‘cripple Hungary’s energy security’ and increase domestic energy prices by 2-3 fold. Hungary remains heavily reliant on Russian gas in particular for its domestic needs. And a complete ban would have huge consequences for consumers and Hungarian industries, at least in the short-medium term as the economy transitioned.

So, while EU Ministers extended all other EU sanctions against Russia for a year, the 18th sanctions package remains in limbo. German officials appear confident that an agreement can be reached this week, one assumes, by making concessions to Slovakia and Hungary on energy imports. In typical muddling through fashion, a backroom deal will be struck.

But the real question is shouldn’t the EU abandon sanctions altogether?

Sanctions can only succeed if the sanctioning party is willing to accept a level of economic pain comparable to that inflicted on the opponent, such that the opponent decides to back down or at least moderate the actions which prompted the sanctions.

That has never looked likely to happen with Russia. It’s not only that sanctions appear to have caused more pain to European economies than to Russia, most visibly through crippling energy prices. But that Russia has never looked like it would back down in the face of sanctions, and now pressure is growing within the EU for it to back down.

And, not only has Europe had to endure the direct economic cost to itself from the sanctions it has imposed, but also to absorb the additional cost of keeping Ukraine’s economy afloat during wartime. This pressure will only grow as the USA reduces its financial commitment to the war; on current levels, Ukraine needs at least $40 billion in European funding each year just to maintain the current tempo of a war that it is losing.

As we are currently witnessing in the UK with labour Members of Parliament rebelling against planned cuts to welfare benefits, this will have political consequences in Europe too, as anti-war parties gain more support.

Russia only has to maintain its economy from a significantly stronger baseline position. It won’t experience crippling high energy prices, given its self-sufficiency. Nor will it have to reach consensus with other countries on retaliatory measures taken against Europe.

On this basis, imposing more sanctions on Russia will only embolden President Putin to keep fighting. Rather than putting Ukraine is a position of greater strengthen, they are, in fact, putting Europe in a position of ongoing decay.

There may come a theoretical point in the future in which the massive fiscal investment Russia is making to sustain the war overheats its economy to such an extent that it starts to cause unbearable economic and political pressure. But that point does not appear to have been reached, nor does it appear close to being reached anytime soon.

And, amidst all the posturing, there is no real indication that Europe has Ukraine’s best interests really at heart. Ukraine is in most respects now a failed state. While Zelensky maintains the semblance of autocratic rule, he is in fact kept on life support by the continuance of the war. Ending the war would create a moment of both huge economic and democratic opportunity, for Ukraine, but also massive risk, as a disgruntled and defeated army demobilised to find the country bereft of quality jobs and good incomes.

If the Eurocrats in Brussels put all of their energies and resources into ending the war as soon as possible and helping Ukraine to emerge and rebuild in the best possible way, they might just about be able to stave of a much bigger catastrophe for that country. That would begin with setting out a plan to remove sanctions upon the agreement of a peace deal between Russia and Ukraine.

Right now, though, I see zero chance of that happening.

July 2, 2025 Posted by | Economics, Russophobia | , , | Leave a comment

NATO Must Come to Agreement With Russia to Avoid New Arms Race – Orban

Sputnik – 30.06.2025

NATO will have to come to an agreement with Russia in order to avoid a new arms race, Hungarian Prime Minister Viktor Orban said on Monday.

“Sooner or later, NATO… will have to negotiate with Russia on how much we will spend on military spending, because otherwise the sky will be the limit. So we need to avoid an arms race. We need to strengthen, but we must avoid an arms race. And it will not work out otherwise, except for us, the West, to come to an agreement with Russia,” Orban told the media.

There is a majority of states forming in NATO that believes that any conflict between the alliance and Russia will lead to a third world war and must be avoided, Orban added.

June 30, 2025 Posted by | Economics, Militarism | , | Leave a comment

A Big Beautiful Bill for the Military-Industrial Complex

By Ron Paul | June 30, 2025

The US Senate worked through the weekend on the “Big Beautiful Bill.” The goal was to pass it quickly to ensure the House will then pass it and send it to President Trump’s desk before the July 4th holiday.

However, disagreements among Republican Senators over reductions in spending on programs including Medicaid and food stamps as well as language in the bill eliminating “clean energy” tax credits were preventing Senate Republican leadership from getting enough votes to pass the bill.

Also, some Republicans disagree with other Republicans in both the House and Senate on increasing the state and local tax (SALT) deduction. Many conservatives see this income tax deduction as encouraging states to maintain high taxes to fund big governments.

One item in the BBB that few Republicans are objecting to is the bill’s increase in military spending. The House version of the BBB added 150 billion dollars to the Pentagon’s already bloated budget. The Senate bill gave the military-industrial complex 156 billion dollars.

Increasing military spending contradicts President Trump’s promise to stop wasting money on endless wars that have nothing to do with ensuring the security of the American people.

Some of the BBB’s military spending will be used to put troops on the border. I support strengthening border security. However, I do not support using the military for domestic law enforcement, which includes enforcing immigration laws. Soldiers are trained to view people as potential enemies, not as innocent civilians to be protected. Introducing this mindset into domestic law enforcement will lead to abuses of liberty.

Increasing spending on militarism while cutting spending on programs that help low-income Americans is bad politics and bad policy. Polls show that the majority of Americans, including many Republicans, do not support overseas intervention.

The growing opposition to our hyper-interventionist foreign policy is easy to understand. The US has engaged in numerous military actions in many countries including Iraq, Afghanistan, and Syria since the beginning of the 21st century. The American people pay for this militarism in several ways. One is the “inflation tax” imposed by the Federal Reserve in order to monetize the debt incurred by the US government for endless wars. President Trump has turned his back on his antiwar supporters by bombing Iran and by increasing military spending to over a trillion dollars.

The Republican insistence on increasing military spending is the main reason Congress cannot cut taxes without increasing the debt, making cuts in domestic welfare programs, or both. If the Republicans want to be the Make America Great Again party, they need to embrace a true America First foreign policy. This means no more regime change wars or US taxpayer supported “color revolutions.” Instead, America should return to the Founders’ vision of a country that, in the words of John Quincy Adams, does not go “abroad in search of monsters to destroy” and instead is “the well-wisher to the freedom and independence of all” while “the champion and vindicator only of her own.”

A return to a noninterventionist foreign policy is the only way we will be able to begin to pay down the national debt and restore a government that adheres to the constitutional limits on its powers and respects all the people’s rights all the time.

June 30, 2025 Posted by | Economics, Militarism | | Leave a comment

NATO’s defense spending surge may cause its collapse: Lavrov

Al Mayadeen | June 30, 2025

NATO’s surge in defense spending will only damage the alliance and push it toward collapse, Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov warned, calling for greater pragmatism in its approach, as he addressed reporters following the Collective Security Treaty Organization’s Council of Foreign Ministers meeting.

“He can probably see – since he is such a wise sage – that the disastrous increase in spending of NATO countries will also lead to the collapse of this organization,” Lavrov said, responding to Polish Foreign Minister Radoslaw Sikorski’s claim that Russia’s military build-up would lead to its downfall.

“Meanwhile, Russia – as President [Vladimir Putin] said the other day in Minsk after the Supreme Eurasian Economic Council meeting – plans to reduce its military spending and be guided by common sense, rather than imaginary threats, as NATO member states do, including Sikorski,” Lavrov pointed out.

NATO approves defense spending hike to 5%

Following the NATO Summit held in The Hague on June 24-25, the alliance’s member states have agreed to increase defense spending to 5% of GDP, as outlined in the adopted communique, with plans to allocate at least 3.5% of GDP by 2035 based on NATO’s agreed definition of military spending.

An allocation of 1.5% of GDP will be dedicated to safeguarding critical infrastructure and networks, enhancing civil preparedness and resilience, fostering innovation, and bolstering the defense industrial base.

Eager to claim credit, Trump hailed the agreement by all 32 NATO member states to work toward spending five percent of GDP on defense, calling it “a great victory for everybody.”

During closed-door discussions, diplomats revealed that Trump stressed the importance of US leadership while pushing allies to direct their expanded defense budgets toward purchasing American-made weaponry.

With NATO leaders unanimously praising the agreement as “historic,” Belgian Prime Minister Bart De Wever observed that Europe’s “long break from history” had ended, emphasizing the continent’s urgent need to assume full responsibility for its defense amid escalating geopolitical tensions.

June 30, 2025 Posted by | Economics, Militarism | | Leave a comment

« Previous Entries     Next Entries »