Refinery Fires Help EU Topple Pro-Peace Governments to Wage War on Russia
Sputnik – 23.10.2025
While it is too early to tell who exactly is responsible for the recent fires at the refineries in Hungary and Romania as investigations are still ongoing, figuring out who benefits from them is easier, Endre Simó, the president of the Hungarian Community for Peace, tells Sputnik.
According to Simo, it is “those who want to gain a market with their own products by displacing cheaper Russian products.”
“Given the history, namely the explosion of the Nord Stream 2 gas pipeline and the series of Ukrainian attacks against the Druzhba oil pipeline, intentionality cannot be ruled out either in Hungary or Romania,” he points out.
He further notes that the main victim of these incidents is Serbia which, due to its only significant refinery being targeted by US sanctions, is forced to rely heavily on the now-damaged MOL’s refinery in Százhalombatta.
Thus, the refinery fires are also a boon to those seeking to overthrow the pro-peace government of Viktor Orban in Hungary and Alexandar Vucic in Serbia, and using “impermissible means” to meddle in Hungary and Serbia’s internal affairs “in order to bring opposition forces that serve the Brussels policy to power.”
Refinery Fires in Europe Are Part of EU Crusade Against Russian Oil and Gas
Sputnik – 23.10.2025
The timing of the recent incidents at the oil refineries in Hungary and Romania is very suspicious in light of the threats from Poland, Dr. George Szamuely, senior research fellow at The Global Policy Institute, tells Sputnik.
When Polish Foreign Minister Sikorsky openly justifies the Nord Stream bombing and then tries intimidating Hungary into giving up Russian oil, and then suddenly the refineries are ablaze – that’s one hell of a coincidence.
The refinery fires were definitely a part of a broader campaign to cut off the flow of Russian energy to Europe, Szamulely notes – a campaign that ends up hurting the EU members but fails to affect Russia.
“These measures that the EU is adopting are measures directed towards hurting EU member states, forcing them into line,” he explains.
Only the Russophobic EU bureaucrats like Ursula von der Leyen and Kaja Kallas benefit from this disruption of energy supply chains, and they are eager to “punish anybody at all who is not on board with their program.”
The incidents in Hungary and Romania convey a simple message: “if you are going to keep importing your fossil fuels from Russia, look at the sort of things that can happen, all sorts of explosions, fires, sabotage.”
Volkswagen faces chip crisis after Chinese factory seized by EU state – Bild
RT | October 23, 2025
Germany’s largest carmaker, Volkswagen, could stop production at a key plant due to a shortage of semiconductors caused by the seizure of a Chinese-owned chipmaker by the Netherlands, Bild has reported, citing anonymous sources.
The Dutch government took control of the Nexperia factory in Nijmegen late last month, citing intellectual property and security concerns. The New York Times reported last week after reviewing documents from an Amsterdam court that the move had been made following pressure from US officials. Nexperia’s parent company, Wingtech, was blacklisted by Washington in 2024 as part of an ongoing trade war with China.
Beijing responded in early October by banning Nexperia from exporting finished chips from China, which are widely used in the electronic control units of VW vehicles.
Bild reported on Wednesday that Volkswagen – which also owns the Skoda, Seat, Audi, Porsche, Lamborghini, and Bentley brands – does not currently appear to have an alternative to Nexperia chips.
Sources in the company told the paper that due to the lack of semiconductors it plans to stop production at its plant in Wolfsburg from next Wednesday. Volkswagen Golf models will be affected first, followed by other vehicles, they said.
If the situation does not improve, work could also be halted at Volkswagen’s facilities in Emden, Hanover, Zwickau, and elsewhere, a person familiar with the matter said.
According to the report, the carmaker has started talks with the German authorities about a state-backed reduced working hours scheme for tens of thousands of its employees.
Bild warned that the chip crisis could also impact other carmakers in the country. Representatives for BMW and Mercedes told the paper that they were analyzing the situation. The German automobile industry has already been suffering due to high energy costs as a result of EU sanctions on Russia over the Ukraine conflict and increased US tariffs.
A spokesman for Volkswagen’s Zwickau plant told AFP that the report by Bild was “incorrect.” However, according to an internal letter seen by the media, the company acknowledged that “impact on production cannot be ruled out in the short term” due to a semiconductor shortage.
Lufthansa announces 100+ route cuts
RT | October 20, 2025
Rising German aviation taxes and fees will force national flag carrier Lufthansa to cut about 100 domestic flights from its forthcoming summer schedule, the company’s chief executive, Carsten Spohr has said.
Government-imposed costs for airlines in Germany have roughly doubled over the past six years, he explained.
“Without a reduction in location costs, further cuts will be unavoidable,” Spohr said. “This involves around 100 domestic flights per week, which could be eliminated again next summer.”
Higher taxes and fees on economy ticket costs are accelerating a shift in the airline’s passenger mix towards first, business, and premium economy cabins.
The complaints from Lufthansa echo long-standing grievances from airline executives about Germany’s aviation cost base, which they argue hinders competitiveness.
Last month Lufthansa also announced plans to cut 4,000 administrative jobs by 2030, with the majority of the cuts taking place in Germany.
In the face of strikes, delayed aircraft deliveries, and underperformance at its mainline business, Lufthansa has been forced to slash its financial guidance twice in the last year and has missed medium-term margin targets set in 2021.
The German aviation industry association (BDL) has warned that the country’s viability as a global hub is in crisis, citing state-imposed costs since 2019. Airlines are now avoiding Germany, BDL Chairman Jens Bischof stated in August, with the number of aircraft stationed in the country by European point-to-point carriers falling from 190 to 130.
BDL estimates that the financial burden on the industry will rise by €1.1 billion ($1.2 billion) in 2025 to €4.4 billion, which will result in the loss of 10,000 jobs and €4 billion ($4.3 billion) in annual economic value.
Turkey prepares its historic turn: from NATO sentinel to Eurasian protagonist
By Lucas Leiroz | Strategic Culture Foundation | October 19, 2025
For decades, Turkey was considered a pillar of NATO’s eastern flank — a key piece on the chessboard of containing Russia. Since joining the alliance in 1952, the country has played a dual role: on one hand, a strategic partner of the West; on the other, a regional power with ambitions of its own. This balance was always unstable — and now, it is beginning to undergo substantial change.
What was once whispered behind closed doors is now being openly voiced by central figures in Turkish politics. In September 2025, an unexpected statement from the leader of the Nationalist Movement Party (MHP), Devlet Bahçeli, sent shockwaves through Ankara and beyond: he openly proposed the formation of a strategic alliance between Turkey, Russia, and China, directly opposing what he called the “US-Israel evil coalition.”
Though shocking to some Western observers, this proposal did not emerge in a vacuum. According to analyst Farhad Ibragimov, Bahçeli’s remarks mark “the deepest ideological shift in Turkish nationalism since the Cold War.” A nationalism traditionally aligned with the West now appears skeptical — if not openly antagonistic — to the Washington-led structure.
It is important to note that Bahçeli is not alone in this shift. The idea is echoed with enthusiasm by other sectors of Turkish political life, such as Doğu Perinçek, leader of the Patriotic Party. For him, this reorientation is neither a tactical maneuver nor a veiled threat to NATO — it is, rather, a “civilizational project.” In his words, it is a historic decision: either Turkey remains a satellite of the Atlantic powers, or it fully integrates into the Eurasian civilization, alongside Russia, China, and Iran.
In this context, the suggested alliance should not be seen merely as a military or diplomatic pact, but as an attempt to redefine Turkey’s role in the 21st century. The proposal carries an implicit — and at times explicit — critique of the decadent, domineering, and unsustainable liberal world order.
President Recep Tayyip Erdoğan’s position has been more ambiguous. He stated he was “not fully familiar” with Bahçeli’s idea, but added: “Whatever is good, let it happen.” This phrase summarizes Erdoğan’s strategy in recent years: keeping the country in a bargaining position, flirting with Moscow and Beijing while still participating in Western institutions. However, there are signs that even this balancing act may be giving way to more definitive choices.
The growing instability in the Middle East, the erosion of European institutions, and constant pressure from the U.S. have pushed Turkey toward a new posture. As Perinçek aptly put it, “this is not a choice, but a necessity.” Remaining within the Atlantic system, in his view, offers no guarantees of sovereignty, economic development, or territorial security.
Although short-term technical obstacles remain, Turkey’s path toward Eurasian integration is not only viable — it is necessary. The country’s economic dependence on the West, inherited from decades of participation in the liberal-globalist architecture, is not a fixed destiny — but a chain that must be broken. Remaining in NATO, far from providing security, leaves Ankara a passive target of American strategy. In contrast, a strategic alliance with Moscow, Beijing, and Tehran — while demanding structural adjustments — offers something the Atlantic has never guaranteed: full sovereignty, mutual respect, and active participation in building a new international order based on multipolarity.
More than a geopolitical alignment, the proposals of Bahçeli and Perinçek carry a profound civilizational dimension. By drawing closer to Russia, China, and Iran, Turkey is not merely seeking strategic partners but also reconnecting with the historical and cultural space of Turkic populations within those countries — from the Arctic-Siberian frontiers in Sakha to the Uyghur Autonomous Region of Xinjiang and Iranian Azerbaijan. This reconnection creates fertile ground for a broader alliance that could also involve the Central Asian republics — Kazakhstan, Uzbekistan, Turkmenistan, Kyrgyzstan — and Mongolia itself. This is, therefore, not just a political axis, but an identity-based one, capable of forming a cohesive civilizational bloc with shared roots and converging interests in the face of the moral and structural decline of the liberal West.
The trend is clear: a significant part of Turkey’s political and military elite no longer believes the country’s future lies in Brussels or Washington. Instead, they look to the heart of Eurasia — where emerging powers are gradually drawing the contours of a new multipolar world.
At this moment, Turkey seems to be standing in front of a mirror: it can continue acting as a peripheral extension of Western will, or it can take a more independent course. The statements from Bahçeli and Perinçek may be just the beginning of a turn that, if consolidated, will shift the geopolitical balance of the region for decades to come.
Poland’s president signs new zero income tax law for parents with two children
By Emily Mangiaracina | LifeSiteNews | October 17, 2025
WARSAW, Poland — Poland’s president has signed into law the cancellation of personal income tax for parents who are raising two or more children, in an effort to support and encourage families and boost the economy.
The newly enacted bill removes the income tax obligation for families earning up to 140,000 zloty (€32,973, or $38,486) a year. The average Polish family is expected to keep in pocket an extra 1,000 zloty (€235 or $274) per month as a result of the tax break.
Polish president Karol Nawrocki, who was sworn into office in August, presented the bill before it was approved by Parliament as a means to financially help families as well as encourage a sustainable birth rate in a country suffering, like most others, from birth rate decline.
“Financial resources must be found for Polish families,” said Nawrocki while presenting the bill. He highlighted the fact that Poland is suffering from a birth rate crisis. Last year, the number of births in Poland fell to a new low. Poland’s birth rate is one of the lowest in the world, at 1.1 by 2024, far below replacement rate. Only eight countries have a birth rate lower than Poland’s according to the Population Reference Bureau.
Public consultations about the law before its passage found that the tax break is very popular among Poles. About 76 percent of respondents said the law was “definitely needed,” and only 16 percent were strongly opposed to the bill, EuroNews reported.
Demography experts such as data analyst Stephen Shaw, the creator of the documentary “Birthgap,” are skeptical about whether economic incentives can reverse the trend of population decline. He has noted that even the Roman Empire, in its later stages, enacted policies aimed at increasing birth rates, including taxing the childless.
According to Shaw, “No society in history has been known to come out of” the “spiral” of population decline.
In his film “Birthgap,” he has documented how declining birth rates in the U.S. and around the world are being driven by an “explosion” in childlessness as opposed to smaller family sizes.
Qatar warns EU sustainability law could end its LNG exports to Europe
The Cradle | October 17, 2025
Qatar’s Minister of Energy, Saad al-Kaabi, said on 16 October that Doha would be unable to continue supplying liquefied natural gas (LNG) to Europe if the EU fails to revise its corporate sustainability rules.
In an interview with Reuters, Kaabi warned that the Corporate Sustainability Due Diligence Directive (CSDDD), adopted in 2024, poses a “significant risk” to state-owned QatarEnergy – one of the world’s largest LNG exporters.
The regulation requires major companies operating within the bloc to identify and address human rights and environmental violations in their supply chains or face fines.
Kaabi, who also serves as QatarEnergy’s chief executive, said his concern centers on potential penalties of up to five percent of a company’s total global revenue for failing to meet the EU’s climate-transition requirements under the Paris Agreement.
He said such exposure could make it impossible for QatarEnergy to justify doing business in Europe.
“QatarEnergy will not be able to justify doing business in the EU, be it in LNG or other products, due to the significant risk it would be exposed to due to the overreaching nature of the proposed regulations, which will ultimately harm the European end consumers,” Kaabi told Reuters.
Qatar currently supplies between 12 and 14 percent of Europe’s LNG needs under long-term contracts, including with Shell in the UK.
Kaabi said Doha has been attempting for nearly a year to “constructively engage with the key players at both the European Commission and every EU Member State” on the directive, but has received no reply.
Reuters confirmed that the European Commission did not immediately respond to its request for comment.
Earlier this week, the European Parliament’s legal committee supported efforts to soften the law following pushback from corporations, but Kaabi said the amendments “did not address key concerns.”
He urged Brussels to make further changes or risk discouraging investment and weakening the bloc’s competitiveness.
“Europe must decide if it wants to continue to attract investment into the bloc by further changing CSDDD, or risk undermining efforts to strengthen its competitiveness and prevent economic deterioration,” he said.
Trump’s Strongman Persona Inevitably Results in Lies and War
By Prof. Glenn Diesen | October 17, 2025
Trump’s claim that Prime Minister Modi had promised to end the purchase of Russian oil was obviously false; in fact, there was apparently no phone call between the two leaders at all. Such fabrications, portraying world leaders as deferential to him and as praising his greatness, constitute a recurring pattern—one that parallels his militaristic approach to peace.
As the president of a declining hegemon, Trump is convinced that the weakness of his predecessors was the source of decline. Trump has therefore concluded that projecting strength can reverse the erosion of American power. In constructing himself as the ultimate strongman—allegedly respected by all—he positions himself as the sole saviour of the US. The image of a powerful, decisive and respected leader capable of restoring US dominance also functions domestically to consolidate political support and project stability during the country’s uneasy transition from a unipolar to a multipolar international order. The American public is seemingly prepared to look the other way or justify the dishonesty and moral disgressions as the price worth paying for a return to greatness.
The central problem with the strongman image is that it sustains unrealistic expectations of reviving US primacy rather than adapting to the realities of a multipolar world. The outcome is a pattern of deception and conflict that ultimately undermines, rather than strengthens, the United States.
When the strongman cannot coerce his counterparts into subservience, the only recourse is retreat into fantasy. In this imagined world, other leaders allegedly regret their decisions of not falling into line, tremble as Trump wags his finger, shower him with compliments, offer tribute to the United States, and in Trump’s own words, line up to “kiss my ass.” Within the Trumpian bubble of superpower cosplay, these scenes of deference are celebrated as signs of a return to greatness, yet in the real world, American credibility declines and decadence deepens. As the gap between fantasy and reality widens, Trump becomes increasingly reckless. Case in point, the threats against India to sever ties with Russia and India backfired spectacularly as Prime Minister Modi instead went to China to cement India’s relations with Russia, China and the SCO.
Great powers and independent states cannot simply fall in line, for doing so would predictably lead to their destruction or subjugation. The ultimate aim of an aspiring hegemon is not to reconcile differences in pursuit of peaceful coexistence, but to defeat rival powers and capture independent states. The objective of the economic confrontation with China is not to renegotiate trade agreements, but to undermine China’s technological capacity and contain it militarily to restore US primacy. The purpose of the proxy war against Russia is not peace in terms of finding a new peaceful status quo, rather it is to use Ukrainians and increasingly Europeans to bleed and weaken Russia until it can no longer sustain great-power status. Similarly, the goal of the confrontation with Iran is not to reach a new nuclear accord—Tehran has already accepted such terms in the past—but to achieve Iran’s capitulation and disarmament by linking the nuclear issue to restrictions on missiles and regional alliances. Any power that concedes even marginally to US pressure ultimately finds itself in a weaker and more vulnerable position—one that the aspiring hegemon will inevitably exploit. Any peace agreements are therefore temporary at best, as an opportunity to regroup.
India presents an intriguing case, as it is not an adversarial power. Its commitment to non-alignment makes strong relations with the United States desirable, yet the very same non-alignment necessitates strategic diversification to reduce excessive reliance on Washington. Should India be persuaded to sever ties with other major powers such as China and Russia, it risks becoming too dependent on the United States and absorbed into a bloc-based geopolitical system. Subordination to a declining empire would be perilous, as the United States would predictably use India as a frontline against China, and simultaneously demand economic tribute and cannibalise Indian industries in pursuit of renewed dominance. In essence, India must avoid becoming another Europe.
The strongman act is most effective with weaker and dependent states—such as those in Europe—that are willing to subordinate themselves entirely in order to preserve American commitment to the continent. European states lack the economic capacity, security autonomy, and political imagination to envision a multipolar world in which the United States wields less influence and holds other priorities than a close partnership with Europe. Consequently, European leaders appear willing to sacrifice core national interests to preserve the unity of the “Political West” for a little while longer. In private, they may express disdain for Trump; in public, they pay tribute to “daddy” and line up diligently in front of his desk to receive praise or ridicule. Yet this subservience is inherently temporary: leaders who disregard fundamental national interests are, in time, swept aside by the very forces they seek to suppress.
The strongman does not create any durable peace the underlying problems are never addressed. The mantra of “peace through strength” can be translated into peace through escalation, with the assumption that the opponent will come to the table and submit to US demands. However, rival great powers that have nowhere to retreat will respond to escalation with reciprocation. The delusions of the strongman in the declining hegemony will therefore inevitably trigger major wars.
London Is Still Bent on Influencing India’s Independent Policy Trajectory
By Anvar Azimov – New Eastern Outlook – October 16, 2025
British Prime Minister Keir Starmer visited India to promote previously reached trade agreements; however, the negotiations have laid bare the extremely limited reach of London’s influence on New Delhi.
During the latest UK-India summit held on October 8-9 in Mumbai, London once again made an unsuccessful bid to affect New Delhi’s course regarding Russia, to secure its support for the Euro-Atlanticists’ plans for settling the Ukrainian conflict and for continuing anti-Russian sanctions policy.
Nevertheless, the two countries managed to make progress in expanding cooperation in trade, investments, defense, and security.
The official visit of the UK Prime Minister Keir Starmer to India aimed at cementing the agreements reached during the stay of the head of the Indian government, Narendra Modi, in London this July, and, first and foremost, at signing a far-reaching free trade agreement. The pact would open vast prospects for achieving the ambitious goal set by the parties to increase trade turnover by 2030 from the current $35 billion to $120 billion.
Starmer Urged Modi to Stop Purchasing Russian Oil
Simultaneously, the British guest made another attempt to talk New Delhi into abandoning substantial purchases of Russian energy resources, which currently account for up to 40 percent of India’s oil imports. Furthermore, the trade turnover between India and Russia, taking into account petroleum product supplies, has reached an unprecedented $70 billion, a fact that London and the West as a whole are also seriously apprehensive about. However, despite these British exertions, Prime Minister N. Modi made it clear that this matter is no exception to the rule; hence, here, India would also be guided by its own national and economic interests.
Nor has New Delhi veered from the path of distancing itself from anti-Russian Western sanctions, prioritising, once again, independent national interests. The Ukrainian conflict hasn’t evaded such a fate either, with Starmer failing to pull India completely to his side. While being committed to a peaceful settlement of the situation around Ukraine, India rejects anti-Russian rhetoric on the issue and maintains a measured, balanced stance. Even London’s various assurances of support for New Delhi’s aspirations to gain a permanent seat in an expanded UN Security Council did not spur India to alter its principled neutral position in the current struggle between the West and Russia.
Success evaded the British leader on this anti-Russian front, but he cancelled out his failure on the track of bilateral relations by means of signing a series of agreements in various fields, including defense, security, technology, trade, and education. Notably, the parties managed to conclude a military deal worth approximately $470 million for the supply of light multipurpose missiles to the Indian army. They also agreed on setting up a regional centre of excellence in maritime security and on developing marine electronic engines for Indian naval ships.
Further progress in trade, economic, and investment areas was also outlined. It is indicative that Starmer was accompanied by a representative delegation from the British business community (over 120 people), including heads of companies such as Rolls-Royce, British Telecom, Diageo, the London Stock Exchange, and British Airways. Within the framework of the joint forum held, the representatives signed commercial contracts.
India Dictates the Terms
All in all, British companies have invested about $40 billion in the Indian economy, and New Delhi traditionally remains one of London’s key trade and investment partners. And what further contributes to such a situation is the signed free trade agreement, which added up to a significant reduction in tariffs on a wide range of goods, and expanded market access for companies and Indian labour migrants.
In a nutshell, the latest meeting of the two countries’ leaders concluded with new agreements on enhancing multifaceted cooperation and increasing trade turnover to $120 billion by 2030. At the same time, Starmer was clearly frustrated that even his attempts to prompt India to weaken its ties with Russia ended up a failure, which once again confirms New Delhi’s determination to stick to its own guns on its foreign policy, providing for the development of partnerships with both the West and the East and drawing on the national interests of this major, now global, power.
Anvar Azimov, diplomat and political scientist, Ambassador Extraordinary and Plenipotentiary, Candidate of Historical Sciences, Senior Research Fellow at Eurasian Studies Institute of MGIMO University of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of Russia
Von der Leyen issues ultimatum to EU aspirant
European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen. © Getty Images / Amir Hamzagic; Anadolu
RT | October 15, 2025
Serbia will not be able to join the EU unless it aligns fully with the bloc’s foreign policy, including adopting all sanctions against Russia, European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen has said.
Serbia, which applied to join the EU in 2009 and received candidate status in 2012, remains one of the few European states that has refused to impose any restrictions on Moscow. Belgrade has cited its historic ties with Russia and continues to rely on energy supplies from the country.
Speaking alongside Serbian President Aleksandar Vucic at a press conference in Belgrade on Wednesday, von der Leyen stated that Belgrade must “take concrete steps” toward membership and demonstrate “a greater level of alignment” with EU positions, including on sanctions.
She added that Serbia’s current level of alignment with EU foreign policy stands at 61%, but that “more is needed,” insisting Brussels wants to see Belgrade act as a “reliable partner.”
Vucic has repeatedly said that Serbia will not impose sanctions on Russia under any circumstances, calling his country’s stance “independent and sovereign.” However, Belgrade’s refusal to comply has drawn increasing pressure from both Brussels and Washington.
Last week, the US activated sanctions against the Petroleum Industry of Serbia (NIS), a major oil company partly owned by Russia’s Gazprom Neft, prompting Croatia to suspend crude deliveries. Vucic has warned that the measures could force Serbia’s only oil refinery to shut down by November, threatening the country’s gasoline and jet fuel supply.
At the same time, Serbia has been shaken by a wave of violent anti-government protests over the past year, which Belgrade claims are being fueled by Western influence in an effort to destabilize the government.
Russia’s Foreign Intelligence Service (SVR) has alleged that the EU is attempting to orchestrate a “Serbian Maidan” and install a pro-Brussels administration.
Budapest has voiced similar concerns, claiming that Brussels seeks to “overthrow” the governments of Hungary, Slovakia, and Serbia for maintaining ties with Moscow and refusing to abandon Russian energy.
Why western sanctions have failed and become self-defeating
Or are sanctions an end in themselves?
By Ian Proud | Strategic Culture Foundation | October 15, 2025
I recently participated in a debate in London about the effectiveness of sanctions as a tool of foreign policy. I argued that they have proven ineffective as a tool of foreign policy, and kept my remarks focussed on Russia, which is the most sanctioned country on the planet, with over 20,000 sanctions imposed so far.
For good or ill, I argued that sanctions were ineffective from a position of having [personally] authorised around half of the UK sanctions against Russia after war broke out in 2022. I take no great pride in that, but that was my job at the time and I eventually left my career as a British diplomat in 2023, largely out of a sense that UK foreign policy was failing in Ukraine.
Nevertheless, it worries me that so few people appear focused on what we in the UK want the sanctions to achieve, to the point where they have become an end in themselves. Yet, look at the legislation, specifically the Russia Sanctions Regulations of 2019, and the [alleged] purpose is quiet clear:
Encourage Russia to cease actions destablising Ukraine or undermining or threatening the sovereignty or independence of Ukraine.
More than eleven years since the onset of the Ukraine crisis and not far from four years since war broke out, the UK and its allies have manifestly failed to deliver upon that goal.
We have been through eleven years of gradually ramping up sanctions against Russia only to see Russia increase its resistance, and then to launch its so-called Special Military Operation in 2022.
Sanctions did not prevent that. One might argue that they helped to precipitate it.
Ukraine is bankrupt, its cities broken, its energy infrastructure once again subject to nightly bombardment as the winter approaches and people wonder whether they’ll be able to heat their homes.
Sanctions are not preventing this.
Yet at the debate, my opponents somehow advanced the argument that sanctions remain an effective tool of foreign policy, from the comfort of a grand hall, two thousand miles away from the frontline, even further from responsibility, and completely detached from reality.
In my mind, there are two clear reasons why sanctions policy has failed.
Firstly, because even if people in the west consider them to be justified, the Russian State considers them to be unjust.
Ever since the Minsk II peace deal was subordinated to sanctions in March 2015, President Putin has become increasingly convinced that western nations would sanction Russia come what May.
And that has proved to be the case.
Every time an inevitable new package of sanctions is imposed by the UK, Europe or others, it also convinces ordinary Russian people that this is true.
People in the west might hate Putin, but he is far more popular in Russia than Keir Starmer is in Britain, or than Friedrich Merz is in Berlin, or than Emmanuel Macron is in France.
So the idea that sanctions undermine support in Russia for President Putin is deeply misguided.
Likewise, sanctioning British-based Russian billionaires who took their assets out of Russia might play well in the Financial Times but is a meaningless gesture; these figures have no real power in Russia.
The idea that if we sanction Roman Abramovich he might some how rise up and try to unseat Putin together with other oligarchs is a fantasy.
The Russian oligarch Oleg Tinkoff who took to Instagram after the war started to criticise the Russian army, was forced to sell his eponymous bank and yet the UK still sanctioned him.
Why would any wealthy Russian on that basis stand up against President Putin on the west’s behalf only to get sanctioned by us anyway?
Yet, we have sanctioned 2000 individuals and entities, banning them from travel to the UK, even though 92% of them never had [visited] before the war started. These, I’m afraid, are empty gestures.
Sanctions will not stop the war.
And the longer they go on, more Ukrainians will die.
Despite Russia having done everything to adjust to sanctions since 2014, commentators in the west nevertheless try to tell you that, well, maybe we should have imposed more sanctions at the start for a bigger effect.
But on my second point, that denies the political reality of how sanctions are imposed.
While the combined economies of NATO are 27 times bigger than Russia, 32 states cannot coordinate policy quickly enough to take decisive action.
This results in waging war by committee.
Imagine, if you will, a chessboard with President Putin staring across at a team of thirty-two people on the other side, squabbling loudly among themselves for months on end before deciding not to make the best move.
If you believe that Europe is about to become a rapid decision-making body now at a time when its member states are increasingly turning to nationalist political parties who resent the war policy in Brussels, then my message to you is, good luck waiting for that.
Europe has now been debating for over a year whether to expropriate 200 billion in Russian assets housed in Belgium.
Yet that has not been agreed precisely because the Belgian government has blocked it consistently out of a not illegitimate fear that it will shred that’s country’s reputation among international investors at a time when new financial architecture is being constructed in the developing world.
Meanwhile, Russia’s foreign exchange reserves have continued to grow and now stand at over $700 billion for the first time. So even at this late stage if Europe chose to expropriate the assets, Russia could live without them.
Rather than being forced to the negotiating table – the complete fantasy that proponents of this hair-brained idea would tell you – Russia would be so enraged by what it sees as theft that it would keep on fighting.
And more Ukrainians would die.
President Putin is not hemmed in by the need to consult, and western indecision gives him time to adapt.
Since 2014, Russia’s economy has reoriented away from its dependence on the west, precisely to limit the impact of sanctions.
When war broke out in 2022, Russia had been adapting to sanctions for 8 years already.
Even though the scale was unprecedented, Russia had already prepared itself for the onslaught when it happened and has adapted better.
In 2022, with everyone crowing about the crashing rouble, Russia pulled in its biggest ever current account surplus of over $230 billion which, by the way, is bigger than Ukraine’s whole economy.
Despite cutting off gas supplies and bearing down on shadow tankers, Russia to this day continues to pull in hefty trade surpluses each year. It has not been in deficit since 1998.
Lots of people argued that if we had gone all in 2014, then that might have made a difference. But believe we, that was debated in Europe, and no one could agree to it.
And I wonder whether, had it been agreed, Europe would simply have faced the political and economic turmoil which is currently going on now, ten years earlier.
So let’s stop talking about what ifs.
The ugly truth is that sanctions have become an end in themselves. They are not a strategy, but a fig leaf covering the embarrassing fact that the west does not have a strategy.
They are a weak alternative to war or peace that serve no purpose other than to prolong the war in Ukraine.
Western nations have shown themselves unwilling to contemplate diplomacy. Talking to Putin is dismissed as a prize that will take him out of international isolation; even though he only appears isolated by western nations. Yet diplomacy isn’t about talking to your friends, despite the never ending round of backslapping summits our leaders attend. Diplomacy is about talking to the people with whom you most disagree. We have refused to talk to Russia and continue to avoid diplomacy at all costs to this day.
Neither do we want war, Britain’s army today has 73,000 soldiers, 2,000 fewer than 2 years ago. Russia has 600,000 troops in Ukraine, apparently. We couldn’t even agree to send 10,000 troops as part of a so-called reassurance force although, to be honest, that idea didn’t reassure me at all.
Russia is outstripping us in the production of munitions, tanks and naval warships. And it has 6,000 nuclear warheads.
So I’m glad we don’t want war either.
But as we continue to pursue ever diminishing packages of sanctions, Ukraine will remain stuck in the middle, devastated and depopulated, as Europe deindustrialises and falls into the embrace of nationalism at an accelerating rate.
Meanwhile, despite obvious headwinds, Russia’s economy appears in better shape than ours. It would be impossible to claim that there had been no economic impacts on the Russian economy from sanctions. Yet with economic links to the West now all but destroyed, sanctions relief is less important to Russia than it is to Europe.
In Budapest recently I got talking to a member of the House of Lords and former Diplomatic Service colleague who is a close friend of Boris Johnson. During his speech he remarked that sanctions on Russia have had no impact at all.
Later over drinks we discussed this and he agreed with the arguments that I have put forward today. But then he paused, and said ‘ah, but you just can’t say that in Britain though’.
It’s time to wake up and realise the terrible mess we have got ourselves into through sanctions. Sanctions have failed to the great detriment of Ukraine. It’s time, finally, to get back to diplomacy.
NATO must buy more US arms for Ukraine – Pentagon chief
RT | October 15, 2025
European NATO members should purchase more American-made weapons to sustain Ukraine’s war effort against Russia, US War Secretary Pete Hegseth said on Wednesday ahead of a meeting of the bloc’s defense ministers.
Moscow has repeatedly stated that Western arms shipments cannot change the balance of power on the battlefield, arguing that Ukraine’s chronic manpower shortage, fueled by mass draft avoidance and desertion, undermines any material advantage.
Speaking alongside NATO Secretary General Mark Rutte, Hegseth praised the Prioritized Ukraine Requirements List (PURL) initiative and said the European members must spend more funds through it.
“Our expectation today is that more countries donate even more, that they purchase even more to provide for Ukraine,” Hegseth said. Rutte noted there was “firepower coming out of our defense industry” to bolster Ukrainian forces.
US President Donald Trump recently claimed that with European funding for American weapons, Ukraine could still achieve its territorial goals – a reversal of his earlier assessment that the county had “no cards” to play. Trump is expected to soon announce whether the US will approve deliveries of long-range Tomahawk cruise missiles to Kiev, a move Moscow has warned would mark a serious escalation but would not significantly alter the frontline situation.
The Russian government has accused European backers of Kiev of prolonging the conflict at the expense of Ukrainian lives, arguing that the former are unwilling to admit the failure of their strategy.
Meanwhile, European NATO members continue to bear the economic fallout of their sanctions policy against Russia. Having rejected affordable Russian energy, many EU economies have faced surging production costs and widespread industrial bankruptcies, while the US has benefited from increased investment inflows and higher sales of liquefied natural gas to Europe.
Featured Video
Iran spent $1 million to wipe out $30 billion in data center plans, and take down Amazon in the ME
or go to
Aletho News Archives – Video-Images
From the Archives
Clash of Civilization, Iran Part II
By Jamal Kanj – Intifada-Palestine.com – January 14, 2011
Israel’s survival kit is: perpetuate conflict, insecurity to rationalize collective hate and finally playing victim.
Devoid of conflict, Israel implodes internally; without hate, Zionism loses its justification; and playing eternal victim to continue blackmailing the West. Absence of this holy trinity, Israel ceases to exist. … continue
Blog Roll
Aletho News- China Rejects Outside Pressure on Trade Ties After New US Russia Sanctions Bill
- Houthis Keep Advancing as the Red Sea Crisis Deepens
- Iran spent $1 million to wipe out $30 billion in data center plans, and take down Amazon in the ME
- Zionist billionaire pressure to silence Macklemore sparks exodus from Ed Sheeran tour
- House Votes to End Iran War for Third Time
- North Korea Slams US Plan for ‘AUKUS 2.0’ with South Korea and Japan
- Prolonging US-Iran Conflict Not Meeting Interests of Int’l Community – China’s Wang Yi
- EU bans former Zelensky aide from parliament
- NATO-backed Kosovo separatist ‘responsible for war crimes’
- US destroying international space law
- If Americans Knew
- Palestinian-American Journalist Naqaa Hamed Detained by Israeli Forces After Settlers Targeted Her
- U.S. Makes, Israel Takes: The Real Story of U.S.-Israeli Military Cooperation
- Night raids rise in Palestine
- Tucker Carlson interviews Norman Finkelstein about Gaza
- Groups urge Americans to support Van Hollen legislation on Israel’s killing of Americans & Palestinians
- Trump administration plans to send 40,000 tons of bombs to Israel: report
- Sanctions Target Iran’s Government, But Kill Hospitalized 23-Year-Old Woman
- An alternative view on the book “Israel’s Lobby: America in the Grip of a Foreign Power”
- Ed Sheeran’s band Beoga, other opening acts quit tour after Macklemore was dropped over his pro-Palestinian comments
- The assassination attempt on President Trump in Butler and the various Israeli connections to it
- No Tricks Zone
- New Study: ‘Global Drought Shows No Detectable Recent Acceleration Under Climate Warming’
- Economic Masterminds: German Socialists Suggest Taxing Productivity Gains Stemming From Using AI
- The South China Sea Has Not Been Cooperating With The Climate Change Narrative
- Energy Crisis: Germany Enters Heating Season With Historically Low Gas Reserve Fill Levels
- New Study: The Antarctic Ice Sheet Gained Mass From 2020-2024 Due To Staggering Snow And Ice Accumulation
- Study: Ocean Heating Rates From Thousands Of Years Ago ‘Dwarf’ Modern Ocean Heating Rates
- Climate Extremists Target, Attack Large-Scale Power Grid Infrastructure In Germany!
- New Study: Antarctic Ice Melt Has Contributed Less Than 1 Centimeter To Sea Level Rise In The Last 30 Years
- Fear Of Debate: Alarmist German Climate Scientist Calls On Mainstream Media To Discredit Skeptic Voices
- End-Of-August Arctic Sea Ice Extent Hasn’t Fallen In 20 Years, Official Data Show!
Aletho News 