Farming in Russia vs the West
RealReporter | September 22, 2025
In this collab with @countrysideacreshomestead2008 I visit a Canadian family who moved to rural Russia to start a homestead from scratch.
Why they came to Russia –
• Family of 10 Leaves Canada for ‘Economic O…
Follow me on:
Rumble – https://rumble.com/user/RealReporter 👉
X – https://x.com/Real_ReporterX 👉
Instagram – / konstantinreporter 👉
Telegram – https://t.me/RealReporter_tg 👉
TikTok – / konstantinreporter
If you’d like to support my project:
Patreon – / realreporter
PayPal – https://paypal.me/RealReporter
How Zionist Influence in New York Gave Rise to Zohran Mamdani
By Matt Wolfson | The Libertarian Institute | October 14, 2025
Coverage of Zohran Mamdani’s run for New York City mayor is focused on the outsized politics at play in the race: democratic socialism, Islam, state-owned grocers, former Governor Andrew Cuomo, until recently incumbent Mayor Eric Adams, and President Donald Trump. But this risks missing the real story in New York, which is the decades-long creation and maintenance of a financialized, factionalized city of free market distortions and middle class displacement at the hands of powerful Zionists and their allies that led to backlash and Mamdani’s rise. Rewinding Mamdani’s catapault to politcal stardom reveals that New York’s current situation—its transition from a city hospitable to the working and middle classes and genuine free exchange of goods and services to a feudal one of government-backed financiers and service workers—is in many ways the work of a little more than a dozen Zionist financiers who twisted government to their ends.
Zionism in New York was part of a shift in the city begun by establishment-connected WASPs away from government by wards and organizers and toward rule by government-connected finance. The originator was Nelson Rockefeller, John D. Rockefeller’s grandson and the governor of New York from 1959 to 1973, who floated New York City’s bills by arranging for banks like Chase Manhattan (run by his brother David) to buy bonds. These new bonds covered the old bills even though the bonds were not backed by actual assets of the city’s but by anticipated returns; e.g. “tax anticipation bonds,” “bond anticipation notes,” and “moral obligation bonds.” This meant the city borrowed from the bankers, paid a portion of the interest, and borrowed again, while having no long-term way to pay back the full amount of ever-increasing debt.
The fix to this problem created by financiers came from financiers: a consortium set up in 1975 by Nelson Rockefeller, now vice president, to “solve” the city’s $6 billion debt. The consortium operated through various vehicles with names like the Municipal Assistance Corporation and the Emergency Financial Control Board and it achieved this “fixing” in a predictably self-interested way. It cut out of influence the city’s old political power brokers—Jewish, Irish, Italian, Puerto Rican, and black politicians with connections to their communities. It then executed a bait-and-switch. It cut city funds from supporting welfare and unions in the name of small government while actually redirecting those funds to support financial development via investing in a real estate boom driven by a handful of connected players that attracted new “talent” to the city.
The main beneficiaries were rising Wall Street power brokers, the most notable ones Zionist, for whom the 1980s was a kind of heyday. The roster included Laurence and Robert Tisch, Maurice “Hank” Greenberg, Michael Steinhardt, the Bronfmans, Michael Milken, Stephen Schwarzman, and high-end retailers like Victoria Secret’s Leslie Wexner and Leonard and Ronald Lauder, the sons of Estee Lauder and heirs to her fortune. One difficulty of critiquing a cohort like this is that the conflation of “Jewish power” and New York is an old trope, in part because New York has been, since the early twentieth century, a Jewish city. So it should be emphasized that this cohort was small and highly specific. It was distinct from older generations of New York Jews—not just Jewish ward players like Abraham Beame, New York’s last mayor under its old power dispensation, but Jewish financiers like Felix Rohatyn, who played a major role in stabilizing the city’s debt in the 1970s.
Players like Beame and Rohatyn had planted their stakes firmly in America and nowhere else. Having experienced the rise of the Nazi Party in an economically cratered Germany as a childhood reality, they were committed to creating the conditions for what they hoped would be lasting social peace. Zionists, by contrast, had their eye on the military-corporate apparatus and its ties to Israel, and they were not especially concerned with the effects of their actions on the ground. They also rejected what would become the mores of the majority of Jews and especially Jews of a later generation: intermarriage, mixing, diverse assimilation. Their style was self-consciously distinctive and gloves off, and beginning in the 1980s they executed an aggressive reinvention not just of the financial markets but of New York.
Part of this reinvention was done, much as the Rockefellers’ rise to influence in New York had been done, through philanthropy, but at a much greater scale. Among these Zionist players’ direct bequests were the Steinhardt Conservatory at the Bronx Botanic Gardens, the NYU Steinhardt School of Culture, Education, and Human Development, the NYU Tisch School of the Arts, NYU Langone’s Tisch Hospital, the Tisch Galleries at the Metropolitan Museum, the Tisch Children’s Zoo in Central Park, the Leonard Lauder Galleries at the Metropolitan Museum and the Museum of Modern Art, Ronald S. Lauder’s Neue Museum, and the NYU Bronfman Center.
Another part of this reinvention was done through real estate, which, like Wall Street, was increasingly dominated by Zionists. Perhaps most notable among them was Lawrence D. Ackman of Ackman-Ziff, the firm which redeveloped West 34th Street, West 42nd Street, and Madison Avenue on the Upper East Side in the 1970s and 1980s and turned portions of 9th Avenue into the high-end Chelsea market in the 1990s.
So far, government had been indirectly incentivizing development; then, in the 2000s, government got directly involved. Philanthropy and real estate became direct tools of government with the mayoralty from 2002 to 2014 of Michael Bloomberg, the billionaire financial services provider and the man most connected to this class by Zionism and finance. Bloomberg’s projects pushed in one direction: using government policy and finance capital to redevelop the city to create a tourist and tech mecca. His opening gambit was re-zoning 40% of the city. He then filled those rezoned spaces with public-private projects—parks, high-rises, high-end department stores—displacing middle and working class New Yorkers and driving up rents for everyone else.
This was not a free market experiment, where the best contractor gets the development job or the philanthropic bequest. This was explicitly a project of wealthy and connected Zionists with ties to the mayor. As Leonard Lauder told it to The New York Times some years later, “When Mike Bloomberg was the mayor, he was the ultimate power broker. He would call me up on the phone and say, ‘I need this and this and this, OK?’” Hollywood Zionists who came East were mobilized too, notably the media executive Barry Diller and his wife, the designer Diane von Furstenburg, and the music producer David Geffen. So was a new generation of real estate Zionists like Steven M. Ross of Related Companies, the developer of Columbus Circle, and Gary Barnett of Extell Development Company, the son of a rabbi and former diamond trader with significant holdings in Israel. So, finally, was a new generation of Zionist financiers like the hedge fund operators Daniel Loeb and Bill Ackman, Lawrence Ackman’s son.
Development proceeded from there. Bill Ackman’s first wife Karen Herskovitz and Laurence Tisch’s niece Laurie Tisch were major backers of the public park The High Line and the High Line’s anchor building, the relocated Whitney Museum of American Art. This was Bloomberg’s pioneer re-development project: a park built on former railway lines that cut through the Lower West Side to Midtown West, from 4th to 34th Street. Barry Diller and Diane von Furstenberg provided the funds for Little Island off West 13th Street west of the High Line, which “replace[d] the dilapidated Pier 54, envisioning an extraordinary new pier combining public Park and performance space.” Stephen M. Ross, facilitated by Bloomberg and later backed by an infusion from the Saudi Public Investment Fund, developed Bloomberg’s culminating project: the mega-mall Hudson Yards on West 34th Street at the top of the High Line. Stephen Schwarzman donated $100 million to the New York Public Library. David Geffen donated $100 million to refurbish the New York Philharmonic, with the help of Leonard Lauder and Bloomberg confidante (and Zionist) Barbara Walters.
Then there was real estate. A bevy of “supertall” skyscrapers which cast shadows over the surrounding buildings and streets were developed by Gary Barnett’s Extell, among the most prolific developers in Manhattan. (The occupants of Extell’s and other supertall developments were mostly financial workers and Saudi princes, who complained when the buildings leaked from the inside and swayed in the wind.) Smaller versions of Extell’s developments appeared in Brooklyn neighborhoods, built with cheap materials and generally agreed by locals to be eyesores meant for purchase by out-of-towners. Imitators of these projects abounded, thanks to Bloomberg’s largesse via not just re-zoning but also his provision of incentives to developers and his personnel intercession to make some projects happen. During his mayoralty, seven of the twenty tallest buildings in the city were built, along with smaller towers in areas ranging from downtown Manhattan and Brooklyn to Harlem.
In all of these spaces, the natural circulation of neighborhoods, which depends on small businesses and schools and places of worship, was replaced by “excursion destinations” constructed with enormous capital investment from powerful financiers with access to government. These high rises, parks, and cultural centers and the luxury apartments surrounding them also functioned as surveillance spaces, with manicured lawns for “relaxation” flanked by buildings which were easy to watch and patrol. And they functioned as class filters, siphoning from Manhattan the middle income earners priced out by rising rents and replacing them with finance workers or wealthy foreign nationals looking for second apartment homes. These new arrivals, in turn, relied for their needs on a growing number of service workers working low-wage shifts in restaurants or at Doordash—many of them undocumented.
This finance-and-philanthropy-based surveillance-and-extraction model is quite similar to the fundamentals of the “Raze-and-Rebuild” program being pushed by prominent Zionists for Gaza: a space meant to be serviced by undocumenteds and inhabited by financiers and tourists once the “locals” are “relocated.” It is also quite similar to the cities of authoritarian regimes in West Asia and the Gulf States that rose in the 2010s. And there is past precedent for it in the developments of Paris and Berlin at the hands of authoritarian regimes of the nineteenth century—developments which immiserated the working and middle class of these cities and seeded the ground for the cycle of revolt and reaction that created fascism.
But these explicitly feudal parallels have gone almost completely unremarked on in New York, probably because Zionist financiers have also assumed positions at the helms of the city’s education system and media nexus.
At the hands of Laurence Tisch’s daughter-in-law Merryl Tisch, as Chair of the Board of Regents (in charge of education in New York state) she and her allies Andrew Cuomo and Michael Bloomberg put a focus on standardized testing in the name of “merit.” This functioned to place “high achieving” outer borough students into private or “special” schools in Manhattan rather than giving outer borough schools the resources to help these students represent their communities. At the hands of the longtime presidents of New York University and Columbia, the city’s two most powerful universities have expanded their footprints off the real estate boom and muted critiques of the crony corporatism behind it. Successive Zionist executives and op-ed editors of The New York Times and Conde Nast, which is owned since the 1980s by the Zionist Newhouse Family and publishes Vogue and Vanity Fair and The New Yorker, media coverage of New York has celebrated expansion, “modernization,” modernizers, and the celebrities and fashion innovations these shifts bring to the city. So has CBS News, owned by first the Tisches in the 1980s and 1990s and then the Redstones, another Zionist family, from the 1990s to the 2020s. Despite the quiet admonitions of older players like Felix Rohaytn against the dangers of this insularity, the fantasy of empire management has turned New York into something closer to nineteenth century Europe than anything Americans might recognize.
This project only continues faster today. Zionists like New York Times columnists Thomas Friedman and Ezra Klein are backing the “Abundance Agenda,” a spate of policies to fast-track building permits in urban areas across the nation to combat housing scarcity, which will accrue to the benefit of governmentally connected developers and financiers able to manage large-scale projects. Academics from MIT, the site of lavish donations from New York Zionist financiers like Jeffrey Epstein and Stephen Schwarzman, have been calling for New York to become a “leisure city” catering to tourists and younger workers in the finance industry.
Of course, just as there is backlash to colonization abroad, there is backlash to it at home. In the 1980s and 1990s, the backlash came in the form of crime, boycotts, and riots, and protests from leftwing activists and the leadership of black and Hispanic communities whose influence had waned after the 1970s. In the 2010s, these marginalized figures received a new infusion of outside energy from political progressives who had built up their power in universities and the arts using state grants, in effect commandeering parts of the institutions Zionists had funded to enhance their own control. These players brought media sophistication and an ideological agenda to the on-the-ground communal left which had been rudderless. Meantime, the on-the-ground left brought to the table a close connection to the communities at the stick end of Zionists’ policies. The realization of the success of this synthesis was the mayoralty of the progressive Bill De Blasio, who within three months of beginning his first term was publicly criticized by allies of Zionist philanthropists for failing to give them the attention they felt they were due.
Then, in the 2020s, came De Blasio’s successor, Zohran Mamdani, a more effective progressive (as De Blasio freely admits) on every level. Where De Blasio talked about a “tale of two cities” and universal Pre-K, Mamdani talked, over and over and in original ways, about affordability, and took direct aim at the enemies of affordability in New York, finance, and Zionism. Historically, as I have reported elsewhere, socialism and its ideological cousin redistributionism have occurred in America after long periods when finance twisted around the state and distorted its functions. At a certain point in these processes, Americans respond to a program pushing for government money to flow not toward financial firms or weapons contractors but directly to them. Indeed, Mamdani’s victory speech when he won the primary, which emphasized returning the city to serve the interests of the working people who make New York run, was an emblem of exactly what New Yorkers appear to be looking for.
Bill Ackman, Dan Loeb, and other members of the club of Zionist financial elites have sounded the alarm of creeping socialism since Mamdani’s victory, but they have not blamed themselves for creating the distortive conditions that led to it. In fact, they’ve done the opposite. They’ve turned to a characteristically Zionist—which is to say colonialist—solution to rising discontent. This is a solution which they’ve slowly been developing since the 1990s and which had its antecedents or parallels in nineteenth century Europe and the twenty-first century Middle East: techno-military law enforcement to control “restive populations.” As I will show in a coming report, if Andrew Cuomo wins on November 4, the militarist play being run by Zionists will continue without any meaningful check, since Cuomo is both a close Zionist ally and not known for his concern for civil liberties. If Mamdani wins, there may be checks on this militarism, but these checks will not be absolute. Instead, some measure of militarized law enforcement will coexist with socialist government expansion. Together, these could lead New York on a path toward government control across sectors: security, economy, politics, society.
First Minister says Scotland must seek independence amid UK decline
Al Mayadeen | October 13, 2025
Scottish First Minister John Swinney declared on Monday that “now is the time” for Scotland to become independent, arguing that Westminster’s decades of failed policies have led to national decline and stagnation.
Speaking at the Scottish National Party (SNP) annual conference, Swinney described independence as a “fresh start” for Scotland, offering hope and ambition in contrast to what he called “decline, decay, and despair” under the UK government.
“Independence offers Scotland a fresh start. This is a moment of decision. We all face a choice: decline, decay, and despair with a Westminster government or hope, optimism and ambition with a Scottish self-government,” Swinney said. “Now is the time for Scotland to become independent.”
10 Downing Street ‘working against Scotland’
The SNP leader accused the government in London of “working against Scotland,” pointing to high inflation, declining living standards, and long-term economic stagnation as “the culmination of decades of failed Thatcherite policies.”
Swinney also pledged to block any attempt by UK Prime Minister Keir Starmer to introduce a digital ID system in Scotland, adding that his government would redirect energy revenues to combat poverty and support social welfare programs.
The remarks come amid renewed debate over Scotland’s constitutional future. In June, Prime Minister Starmer reiterated that he would not permit another Scottish independence referendum during his premiership.
Scotland last voted on independence in 2014, when 55% of voters chose to remain in the United Kingdom. However, Swinney and the SNP argue that shifting political dynamics, economic challenges, and a desire for self-determination have made independence once again a central issue in Scottish politics.
Iran, Russia, Azerbaijan reach major agreement on cargo transit
Press TV – October 13, 2025
Iran, Russia, and Azerbaijan have agreed to significantly increase the volume of cargo that passes through their territories from the Baltic Sea and the Barents Sea to the Persian Gulf.
Iran’s Minister of Road and Urban Development Farzaneh Sadegh said on Monday that Tehran, Moscow, and Baku had agreed to set a target of 15 million metric tons (mt) for annual cargo transit via their territories.
Sadegh made the remarks after a trilateral meeting in Baku, where he discussed transport, energy, and customs issues with Azerbaijan’s Deputy Prime Minister Shahin Mustafayev and Russian Deputy Prime Minister Alexey Overchuk.
Sadegh said the three countries had also agreed to streamline and modernize their customs operations to help increase the volume of cargo transit via their territories.
She said that Iran and Russia had accelerated works on the construction of a key railroad link in northern Iran that would significantly boost transit volumes via the International North–South Transport Corridor (INSTC).
Sadegh said that the Russian contractor of the Rasht-Astara railroad will be able to start work on the project after March 2026, when Iran finishes land purchases and other preparations for the construction of the 160-kilometer rail link.
Russia’s Overchuk also hailed the agreements reached during the trilateral meeting in Baku, saying that Iran, Russia, and Azerbaijan have been seeking to create a common commodity market with barrier-free logistics that could cover transit from the Barents and Baltic Seas to the Persian Gulf.
Overchuk told Russia’s Tass news agency that increased transit via the INSTC would lead to more economic welfare for the people of the three countries, adding that the project would entail major benefits for producers, exporters, and importers.
The Netherlands nationalizes Сhinese-owned tech company
RT | October 13, 2025
The Dutch government has taken control of a Chinese-owned chipmaker based in the Netherlands, citing risk to the EU’s economic and technological security. The firm called the move “excessive,” saying it complied with all relevant laws and regulations.
The Netherlands Economy Ministry revealed late on Sunday that it had invoked a never-before-used emergency law to take control of manufacturer Nexperia, owned by China’s Wingtech Technology.
Once part of Dutch electronics group Philips, Nexperia specializes in the high-volume production of chips used in the automotive, consumer electronics, and other industries.
Amsterdam said it wanted to prevent a situation in which Nexperia’s chips could “become unavailable in an emergency” which “could pose a risk to Dutch and European economic security.”
The Dutch government called the move “highly exceptional,” citing “recent and acute signals of serious governance shortcomings and actions” within the company.
Wingtech shares tumbled 10% in Shanghai on Monday, forcing a halt in trading after hitting the daily limit.
The tech firm decried the Dutch government’s move as “excessive intervention driven by geopolitical bias, rather than a fact-based risk assessment,” according to a now-deleted WeChat post, which was archived by the Chinese policy blog Pekingnology. Wingtech said it would take actions to protect its rights and would seek government support.
The company later said in a filing to the Shanghai Stock Exchange that its control over Nexperia would be temporarily restricted due to the Dutch order and court rulings affecting decision-making and operational efficiency.
The Dutch takeover of Nexperia comes at a time of escalating global trade tensions. Over the past year, China and the EU have clashed over what the bloc claims is Beijing’s dumping of certain key goods and its industrial overproduction. China has accused the EU of protectionism.
Last week, China tightened its restrictions on the export of rare earth elements and magnets, a step that could further hurt the EU’s struggling auto industry.
No ground for negotiations with E3 anymore: Iran FM
Al Mayadeen | October 11, 2025
Tehran no longer sees a basis for nuclear talks with the E3 countries, Iranian Foreign Minister Abbas Araqchi stated on Saturday evening, adding that the country is not seeking it either.
Speaking to the Iranian state TV, Araghchi revealed that Washington had asked to hold direct talks with Tehran on the sidelines of the UN meetings, a message conveyed by US envoy Steve Witkoff. Iran, according to Araghchi, expressed readiness to engage, but only on the condition that representatives from the E3 countries and the IAEA Director, Rafael Grossi, be present, which the latter refused.
In this context, the top Iranian diplomat revealed that “the United States has always sought to integrate regional issues into nuclear negotiations, but we have never allowed that,” describing Washington’s positions as “constantly changing”.
Iran’s interests are red line
Regarding Tehran’s red lines, Araghchi confirmed that the interests of the Iranian people are paramount, emphasizing that while Iran will never give up its right to enrich uranium, it is willing to provide the international community with assurances, if need be, about the peaceful nature of its nuclear program.
He further criticized Europe, stating it has demonstrated a lack of independence, and indicated that Iran remains open to studying any new, fair plan from Washington as long as it respects the interests of the Iranian people, expressing a willingness to engage in dialogue.
On the topic of the Cairo Agreement, Araghchi stated, “It is currently frozen, and our cooperation with the Agency is only conducted within the framework of the Iranian parliament’s law and through the Supreme National Security Council.”
Araghchi addressed the prospect of renewed war with “Israel”, disclosing that, following an exchange between Russian President Vladimir Putin and Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu several days ago, Russian officials subsequently informed the Iranian ambassador in Moscow that Netanyahu has no interest in returning to a state of war with Iran.
Gaza ceasefire solely a Palestinian Resistance matter
Iranian Foreign Minister Araghchi addressed the ceasefire agreement in Gaza, denying that any discussions had taken place with Steve Witkoff concerning it, while affirming Iran’s support for any plan that would halt what he described as Israeli crimes.
Araghchi said Trump shared his view on Iran’s statement about the Gaza deal, but no messages were exchanged with Washington, adding that only the Palestinian Resistance and people can decide on a ceasefire, and no one else.
He stressed that “Israel” is not trustworthy, citing past experiences like Lebanon, which is clear proof that the entity does not honor its commitments, based on which Iran raised its concerns and issued the necessary warnings. He added that while Washington has made positive promises regarding the Gaza deal, there are doubts about its seriousness in fulfilling them, as these promises are constantly shifting.
Araghchi also noted that most foreign ministers in the region are skeptical about the future of the subsequent phases of the Gaza agreement.
On the issue of the normalization agreements, Iran’s FM noted that “these deals intrinsically constitute a sinister plan to deprive the Palestinian people of their rights,” adding that Iran’s position on such agreements is clear: “it will never join them.”
Regarding the trade war imposed by Washington, Araghchi stated that Iran would reciprocate in kind if its commercial ships were obstructed in any way under the pretext of sanctions, affirming that escalating tensions is not in anyone’s interest.
The silent collapse of the United States
By Lucas Leiroz | Strategic Culture Foundation | October 11, 2025
While Washington insists on presenting itself as the bastion of the “liberal world order,” the very foundations of the American state are showing clear signs of collapse. The internal reality of the United States today is marked by an insurmountable fiscal abyss, chronic political polarization, and an alarming inability to maintain even the most basic national security systems. The recent escalation of public debt, combined with the imminent breakdown of nuclear monitoring infrastructure, reveals that American hegemony is not just in decline — it is on the verge of functional collapse.
According to data from the U.S. Treasury, the gross national debt surpassed $37.5 trillion in 2025 — the highest level in the country’s history — exceeding 120% of its GDP. What is most alarming is the speed of this growth: in just the last 12 months, the debt increased by more than $2 trillion — without any emergency context such as war or a global pandemic. It is an unsustainable trajectory, typical of failed states, yet it is happening at the heart of the Western financial system.
At the same time, budget cuts imposed by Congress itself — deadlocked in endless partisan disputes — have directly jeopardized the security of the American nuclear arsenal. The National Nuclear Security Administration (NNSA), responsible for overseeing and maintaining the country’s atomic warheads, publicly admitted that its funds would only guarantee operations for “a few more days.” Once this period expired, a shutdown process for monitoring systems began — something unthinkable for any minimally functional power.
How can a country that spends hundreds of billions of dollars annually to fund wars in foreign territories — such as Ukraine and the occupied Palestine — be unable to finance the security of its own nuclear arsenal? The answer is simple: the United States is no longer a rational country, but a decaying “empire” driven by corporate lobbies, military-industrial interests, and a political elite entirely disconnected from national reality.
The current Republican administration tries to blame the Democratic opposition for the budget paralysis, while the Democrats sabotage any attempt at agreement in order to politically undermine the government. This argument is partially valid, but it also exposes the weakness of the Republicans themselves, who fail to counter the Democratic sabotage. This bipartisan theater is not only dysfunctional — it is suicidal. The U.S. is at the mercy of its own internal disorder, becoming a threat not only to itself but to the entire world, given the sensitive nature of the nuclear systems involved.
Thousands of NNSA employees and contractors have already been affected by shutdowns and funding freezes. Although the government claims that “critical operations” will continue, there are no guarantees or transparency about what exactly remains functional. A mistake, maintenance failure, or even a delayed response to an incident could have catastrophic consequences — including radioactive leaks or accidental detonation.
Meanwhile, countries like Russia and China continue to strengthen their energy sovereignty, defense systems, and institutional stability. The multipolar approach being built by these nations — particularly within the expanded BRICS+ framework — demonstrates strategic maturity and responsibility toward global order, in stark contrast to what is observed in Washington.
America’s decline is not expressed solely through numbers or economic graphs. It is visible in the inability to protect its own population, maintain basic infrastructure, or prevent political games from eroding the state’s structural integrity. When even the nuclear arsenal — supposedly the ultimate red line — is left vulnerable to budget cuts, the message is clear: the U.S. is no longer capable of leading the world.
The collapse on the horizon will not be merely economic. It will be institutional, military, and geopolitical. And in the face of this scenario, the world must begin looking to other — multiple, stable, sovereign, and genuinely peace-oriented — leaderships to guarantee global security.
US sanctions Serbian oil major over Russia ties
RT | October 10, 2025
US sanctions on Serbia’s Russian-majority-owned oil company, NIS, have been activated, prompting neighboring Croatia to halt crude deliveries and raising the risk of a shutdown at Serbia’s only refinery.
Washington had granted Belgrade several temporary exemptions from restrictions imposed in January on NIS (Petroleum Industry of Serbia), in which Russia’s Gazprom and Gazprom Neft hold a majority stake. The most recent waiver, issued on October 1, was valid for only one week.
NIS confirmed Thursday that the US Treasury Department had not extended the waiver, leaving the company under full sanctions. It said it was “working to overcome the situation” and would engage with the US authorities to seek delisting.
The new sanctions have forced Croatia to stop crude supplies, pushing Serbia’s only refinery to the brink of a shutdown, President Aleksandar Vucic said on Thursday. He warned the facility, a critical supplier of gasoline and jet fuel, faces closure by November 1 unless deliveries resume.
“These are extremely severe consequences for our entire country. It’s not just about the functioning of one company,” Vucic said in a televised speech.
The sanctions effectively bar the company from purchasing crude oil or exporting refined products.
Croatian pipeline operator JANAF, the sole supplier of crude to the refinery, has already announced it will halt all business with NIS. Analysts say the company’s only recourse is for the US to reverse the sanctions or for its Russian shareholders to divest.
The impact swiftly reached consumers, as NIS notified customers that its network of some 350 stations would no longer accept American Express, Mastercard, or Visa cards.
NIS is a leading Balkan energy company with an oil refinery in Pancevo, near Belgrade, and a retail network of more than 400 filling stations. Gazprom Neft is the largest shareholder with a 44.85% stake, Gazprom holds 11.3%, and the Serbian state owns 29.87%.
Although Serbia formally seeks to join the EU, it has refused to take part in Western sanctions on Russia over the Ukraine conflict. Brussels and Washington have repeatedly pushed Belgrade to sever its energy ties with Moscow, a key historical partner.
Europe’s Nord Stream headache: Poland, Germany, and Ukraine turn on each other over arrest
By Uriel Araujo | October 11, 2025
The Nord Stream saga has taken a new twist. A Ukrainian citizen detained in Poland at Germany’s request over the 2022 pipeline sabotage has now become the center of a diplomatic storm. Ukraine’s reported pressure on Poland is straining ties with Warsaw and Berlin, reopening questions European leaders have tried to bury.
Polish authorities have resisted Germany’s extradition request for the detained Ukrainian, citing national interest and judicial independence. Polish Prime Minister Donald Tusk stated bluntly that it was “not in Poland’s interest” to hand the suspect over to Berlin — a statement that speaks volumes about the deepening mistrust within the European Union. He added that “the problem of Europe… is not that Nord Stream 2 was blown up, but that it was built.”
This is symptomatic of Europe’s broader crisis: a continent that once aspired to “strategic autonomy” now grapples with American influence, tensions over the “Ukranian Question”, and internal divisions.
The destruction of the Nord Stream 1 and 2 pipelines in September 2022 effectively ended decades of German-Russian energy cooperation, forcing Europe into costly dependence on American LNG. From that moment onward, every official narrative seemed to deflect attention away from one key question: who truly benefited?
One may recall that in August, Italian police arrested Ukrainian national Serhij K. for alleged involvement in the 2022 Nord Stream sabotage. According to Der Spiegel, he coordinated a Ukrainian team that planted explosives from the yacht “Andromeda.” The operation was reportedly approved by Ukraine’s military.
At the time, I wrote that the Nord Stream case has been a tale of confusion and cover-ups. I pointed out that a so-called “Ukrainian diver” suspect (unnamed to this very day) could be a lone scapegoat, a proxy, or just a minor operative in a much larger operation. All signs, I argued, pointed to the US as the main orchestrator, with Ukraine likely playing a supporting role on the ground.
According to Pulitzer Prize–winning investigative journalist Seymour Hersh’s sources, the CIA is behind the deed. Ukraine’s latest behind-the-scenes pressure on Poland suggests Kyiv has more to hide than to reveal. The Eastern European country has long been a key hub for CIA operations.
Indeed, one must ask: why would Ukraine intervene at all, unless it feared what an open extradition to Germany might uncover? Berlin’s prosecutors have hinted that their investigation connects the detained suspect to a wider network tied to Ukrainian intelligence. If that thread were ever pulled, it could expose not just Kyiv’s denials, but also shake the credibility of the entire Western narrative since 2022.
The Polish position is equally telling. Tusk’s refusal to comply with Germany’s request exposes the uneasy balancing act that Poland now faces. On the one hand, it remains a staunch supporter of Ukraine in its proxy war with Russia. On the other, it has domestic political reasons to resist appearing subservient to Berlin — and perhaps also to shield itself from unwanted entanglement in the Nord Stream mystery.
Poland, after all, was one of the loudest voices calling for the pipelines to be dismantled long before the explosions happened. The fact that the blasts occurred in waters close to Denmark and Sweden, yet remains unsolved three years later, is remarkable enough.
The European Union’s silence is thus deafening. While media attention focuses on minor procedural disputes, the larger strategic implications are quietly ignored. The Nord Stream sabotage was no mere act of vandalism — it was a geopolitical earthquake that permanently reshaped Europe’s energy map. By destroying the infrastructure that connected Germany to cheaper Russian gas, someone ensured Europe’s long-term dependence on transatlantic energy imports. It is worth remembering that American officials, including then President Biden himself, had publicly threatened to “end” Nord Stream 2 before the current Russo-Ukrainian conflict even began. That is too much of a coincidence.
In that light, the current Polish-German-Ukraine triangle takes on a new meaning. It reveals the uncomfortable truth that Europe’s supposed allies are now quietly at odds. Germany apparently wants to restore a semblance of legal order by investigating the crime, while Poland wants to preserve its political leverage. Ukraine wants to avoid revelations that could alienate its Western backers. Washington in turn seems content to keep the entire affair buried under layers of confusion and selective leaks.
The deeper irony is that the Nord Stream pipelines were not merely Russian assets — they were European lifelines. Their destruction accelerated deindustrialization and skyrocketed energy prices, while American energy exporters reap the profits. The most obvious suspects remain Washington and Kyiv.
Yet European leaders cling to transatlantic loyalty. Berlin’s alignment with American policy verges on economic self-harm, while Brussels pushes “solidarity” as factories close and households struggle with high energy costs. The result is a Europe that’s strategically adrift and economically weakened — a dynamic that suits Washington.
If this Poland-Germany-Ukraine scandal deepens, it could force a reckoning. Europe will have to confront what everyone avoids: was the Nord Stream sabotage an act of war — and by whom? Until then, diplomacy remains a messy game where allies distrust each other, and truth is sidelined for convenience.
The Nord Stream affair may be remembered not just as sabotage, but as the moment Europe lost its last illusion of autonomy. It could confirm how dependent the continent has become on external powers — even in matters of justice. Politically, this could be as explosive as the pipelines blasts themselves.
Uriel Araujo, Anthropology PhD, is a social scientist specializing in ethnic and religious conflicts, with extensive research on geopolitical dynamics and cultural interactions.
Turkiye to boost US gas imports, cut reliance on Iran and Russia
The Cradle | October 9, 2025
Turkiye is moving to cover more than half of its natural gas demand by 2028 through domestic production and increased US liquefied natural gas (LNG) imports, decreasing reliance on Iran and Russia, according to analysts cited by Reuters on 8 October.
The plan follows a White House meeting on 25 September, during which US President Donald Trump urged Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdogan to curb Russian energy purchases, as part of the US push to press allies to scale back ties with both Moscow and Tehran.
Ankara’s strategy centers on expanding LNG terminals and boosting local output through the state-owned energy firm, Turkish Petroleum Corporation (TPAO).
According to Turkiye’s Energy Exchange (EPIAS), the country’s LNG terminals can now import up to 58 billion cubic meters (bcm) of gas each year, enough to meet its entire domestic demand.
Domestic production and contracted LNG imports are projected to exceed 26 bcm annually from 2028, compared with 15 bcm this year.
That would account for more than half of Turkiye’s 53 bcm gas demand, sharply reducing its need for Russian and Iranian pipeline supplies.
“Turkiye has been signalling that it will take advantage of the [global] LNG abundance,” said Sohbet Karbuz of the Paris-based Mediterranean Organisation for Energy and Climate (OMEC).
Although Russia remains Turkiye’s largest supplier, its share of the market has fallen from over 60 percent two decades ago to 37 percent in the first half of 2025.
Moscow’s long-term pipeline contracts – covering 22 bcm annually via Blue Stream and TurkStream – are nearing expiry. Iran’s 10 bcm contract ends next year, while Azerbaijan’s 9.5 bcm deals run until 2030 and 2033.
To replace these, Ankara has signed $43 billion worth of LNG agreements with US suppliers, including a 20-year deal with Mercuria in September.
Turkish Energy Minister Alparslan Bayraktar said in a recent interview that Turkiye “must source gas from all available suppliers,” which includes Russia, Iran, and Azerbaijan, but noted that US LNG offers cheaper alternatives.
Analysts believe Ankara will likely burn Russian and Iranian gas domestically while re-exporting imported LNG and its own output to Europe, where a full ban on Russian energy is expected by 2028.
Turkiye’s state energy company BOTAS has already begun small-volume exports to Hungary and Romania as part of its efforts to become a regional gas hub.
Japan’s Green Energy Failures Serve as a Warning to the US
By Yoshihiro Muronaka | The Western Journal | October 6, 2025
In August 2025, Japanese media revealed that Mitsubishi Corporation was preparing to withdraw from three offshore wind projects off the coasts of Chiba and Akita prefectures.
In 2021, Mitsubishi had won these sites with remarkably low bids of 8 to 11 cents/kilowatt-hour (kWh), hailed as proof of Japan’s corporate strength and renewable ambition.
But reality was harsh. Costs for steel, turbines, and logistics surged. The yen weakened, interest rates rose, and certification processes faced delays. By 2025, Mitsubishi had already booked over $350 million in impairment losses, with more likely if the projects continued. The retreat is not just a corporate failure; it exposes apparent self-contradictions in Japan’s energy policy.
Across the Atlantic, offshore facilities have faced similar headwinds. On the U.S. East Coast, Ørsted cancelled two large projects in New Jersey, absorbing billions in losses. BP and Equinor abandoned contracts in New York after costs rose by 40 percent beyond estimates. In some cases, companies chose to pay hefty penalties rather than commit to losing ventures.
Europe, the pioneer of offshore wind, has also stumbled. In the U.K., Vattenfall halted its Norfolk Boreas project, citing a 40 percent cost increase. Even Denmark, often celebrated as a leader, has delayed new tenders.
Market signals in these regions were clear: When economics fail, projects are scaled back or canceled. Japan, however, continues to treat offshore wind as a central pillar of its 2040 roadmap, aiming for 45 gigawatts of capacity. Why the difference?
Once designated a national project, policies in Japan are difficult to reverse. Offshore wind has been tied to three goals at once: decarbonization, energy security, and industrial revitalization. Billions in subsidies through the Green Innovation Fund are already committed, while local governments and industries expect contracts and jobs.
In effect, offshore wind has become a new type of public works project. Ports, construction companies, heavy industry, and trading houses all benefit from government support. For politicians, it delivers regional development; for bureaucrats, it provides visible progress. Under these conditions, corporate withdrawal is treated as a temporary setback and prompts no policy review.
The debate over energy costs often centers on the Levelized Cost of Electricity (LCOE), which narrowly focuses on the cost of generating a kilowatt-hour of electricity. However, this metric fails to capture the broader economic realities encapsulated by the Full Cost of Electricity (FCOE).
FCOE provides a more comprehensive assessment by incorporating additional factors such as the expense of backup power from fossil or nuclear plants to address the intermittency of renewable sources, the costs associated with grid expansion and balancing services to maintain stability, as well as subsidies, premiums, and public support schemes that often prop up certain energy technologies. Furthermore, FCOE accounts for the long-term costs of decommissioning, recycling, and environmental restoration, ensuring a more accurate reflection of the true economic and environmental impact of electricity production.
When these are included, offshore wind’s cost can be double or triple its LCOE.
Offshore wind’s LCOE is around 12 to 16 cents/kWh, but when the full cost of electricity (FCOE) is considered, it rises to 20 to 30 cents/kWh. Nuclear and gas remain much lower, at roughly 12 to 14 cents/kWh and 10 to 12 cents/kWh, respectively.
OECD studies confirm that as “renewables” such as wind and solar rise from 10 percent to 30 percent of the grid, FCOE escalates sharply. Yet Japan highlights falling LCOE while downplaying FCOE, creating an illusion of competitiveness.
Because fixed-bottom projects face difficulties, Japanese policymakers increasingly promote floating offshore wind as a unique advantage. Japan’s deep coastal waters, they argue, make floating turbines more suitable.
Globally, however, floating wind remains at the developmental stage. Norway’s Hywind Scotland and France’s Provence Grand Large provide valuable data, but their costs remain far higher than fixed-bottom projects. Commercial viability has not yet been proven. Betting on floating wind as a “game-changer” risks repeating the same error: political enthusiasm without economic grounding.
Japan’s offshore wind experience is not just about Japan. It illustrates how energy policy everywhere can drift into policy inertia, selective cost reporting, technological optimism, and entrenched interests.
The lesson is clear. Policymakers should always assess the full costs, not just partial figures. They should heed market signals and adjust policy accordingly. Most importantly, they should avoid turning energy policy reliant on unproven technology into political patronage.
Mitsubishi’s retreat shows that even giants cannot overcome flawed policy frameworks. If Japan, with its formidable industrial base, struggles to make offshore wind viable, others should pay attention.
Japan’s offshore wind setback is more than a domestic issue. It is a global reminder of the dangers of ignoring full costs and clinging to illusions. Ambitious targets and political inertia can mask reality, but economics will always reassert itself.
For policymakers worldwide, Japan’s case should not be seen as an embarrassment, but as a warning and an opportunity: Energy transitions must be guided by facts, not hopes, if they are to be sustainable.
Orban rejects Euro as EU ‘falling apart’
RT | October 6, 2025
Hungary will not adopt the euro as its currency, as the EU is “falling apart,” Hungarian Prime Minister Viktor Orban has said.
Bloc members are obliged to eventually join the Eurozone, with the exception of Denmark, which secured an opt-out. Seven of the 27 EU member states still use their national currencies.
In an interview with economic news site EconomX on Monday, Orban was asked whether he would move towards adopting the euro in Hungary.
“It will definitely not be on my agenda,” he replied.
“The European Union is in trouble, in the process of disintegration, it is currently falling apart,” he said.
Orban argued that, in light of this, he did not want to tie Hungary’s fate to the EU any further.
The Hungarian leader has been progressively more critical of the EU in recent years, clashing with its leadership over arms supplies to Ukraine, sanctions against Russia, and a shift towards militarization.
Orban has also vowed to veto Kiev’s EU bid, arguing that Ukrainian membership would destroy the bloc’s economy, and directly embroil it in a conflict with Russia.
EU leaders are increasingly pushing to fast-track Ukraine’s accession and want to finance more military aid, clearly showing that “the Brusselians want to go to war,” he wrote on X last week.
His position has led to tension with Kiev, exacerbated in recent months by Ukraine’s strikes on Russian energy facilities that supply oil to landlocked Hungary.
Kiev and certain senior figures in the EU are conspiring to influence Hungarian domestic politics to put a pro-Ukrainian government in power, Orban claimed on Saturday.
His accusation echoed a report from Russia’s Foreign Intelligence Service (SVR), published earlier this year.
European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen “is seriously studying regime change scenarios” in Hungary due to Orban’s overly “independent policy,” the spy agency claimed.
