‘Israel’ faces massive economic fallout from its war on Iran
Al Mayadeen | July 4, 2025
Israeli media sounded the alarm over $14 billion in losses, a surging defense budget, and tens of thousands of compensation claims, as economic strain deepens in the aftermath of the 12-day war on Iran.
According to a report by the Israeli daily Maariv, the war has inflicted severe financial damage on the Israeli economy, with the total impact estimated at over 52 billion shekels (approximately $14 billion USD). The report noted that the war has delivered a major blow to “Israel’s” total economic activity and threatens broader budgetary stability.
“It’s no longer just about rebuilding damaged buildings, it’s about rebuilding the economy,” Maariv reported, highlighting that daily life during the war was “nearly impossible” due to constant sirens, rocket fire, destroyed infrastructure, and casualties.
Even under optimistic recovery scenarios, the paper noted that half of the damage is unlikely to be recuperated, leaving a net loss of 26 billion shekels, or 1.3% of GDP, a substantial economic blow.
Defense budget grows into a ‘bottomless pit’
The financial strain is further compounded by the ballooning costs of the Israeli occupation’s defense spending. Maariv reports that the 2025 defense budget, recently approved by the Knesset, stands at 135 billion shekels, or 21.8% of the national budget. This includes 75.7 billion shekels in debt repayments to the National Insurance Institute.
The newspaper described both the security establishment and debt servicing as “a bottomless economic pit,” given the continued war-related expenditures.
Of the allocated defense budget, 67 billion shekels had already been spent within the first five months of 2025. Now, the Israeli military is reportedly requesting an additional 55–60 billion shekels to fund recent wartime expenses, further straining fiscal resources.
Infrastructure damage, compensation soar
In parallel to military spending, the Israeli entity faces rising compensation obligations. According to Maariv, more than 36,000 compensation claims have been filed with the Property Tax Authority and the Compensation Fund at the Tax Authority, with an estimated added cost of 5 billion shekels.
The claims include:
- 3,392 for destroyed vehicles
- 3,758 for household damage
- 10,996 from evacuated settlers
- Nearly 4,000 settlers were forced to relocate to their relatives’ residential units
Thousands more claims are still being submitted, the paper added, warning that the financial toll on “Israel” is rapidly escalating and may continue to rise sharply in the coming months.
This report follows earlier findings from Calcalist, which estimated the total cost of direct damage at over 5 billion shekels (approximately $1.3 billion), though thousands of cases remain under review or are yet to be formally filed.
Israeli censorship hindering assessment of damage from Iranian strikes
“Israel” has admitted to being struck by more than 50 missiles during its 12-day war on Iran, but the full scope of the damage may never be revealed due to strict press censorship.
Such media restrictions are long-standing in “Israel”, where any content, written or visual, considered potentially harmful to the vaguely defined notion of “national security” can be legally suppressed.
Recently, the Israeli entity has further tightened its grip on wartime reporting.
It must surely be time to end Russia sanctions and develop a new plan to bring peace and prosperity to Ukraine
By Ian Proud | Strategic Culture Foundation | July 2, 2025
Russia can endure the economic pain of war for longer than Europe. On this basis, more sanctions will only ever embolden Russia to keep fighting rather than making peace. Europe should incentivize peace through sanctions relief, although I see zero chance of that happening right now.
This terrible war in Ukraine must end sooner or later. It has claimed over one million people to death or injury, mostly since February 2022, but also, in fact, since the onset of the Ukraine crisis in February 2014.
Clearly, both Russia and Ukraine need to find incentives to end the fighting. One such incentive relates to sanctions. The whole basis of sanctions against Russia is that they will impose a cost on Russia for continuing to wage war in Ukraine.
When the 18th sanctions package was proposed on 10 June, Kaja Kallas announced that ‘we do all this because sanctions work, every sanction weakens Russia’s ability to fight.’ She also said, ‘Russia has lost tens of billions in oil revenues. Its economy is shrinking, and its GDP has dropped.’
And yet, these assertions do not appear to be true.
Firstly, Russia’s economy grew by 3.6% in 2024. That compares to 0.9% growth for the Eurozone and 1.1% for the United Kingdom.
On exports, in the first four months of 2025, Russia exported $39.5 billion more goods than it imported and maintained a healthy overall current account surplus of $21.9 billion. Since its default in 1998, Russia has become an exporting powerhouse and there hasn’t been a single year since that time in which it has not recorded a healthy surplus, including during the Global Financial Crisis and the COVID Pandemic.
There is no evidence that sanctions have had any real effect on Russia’s ability to generate large surpluses of trade each year. This boosts its tax revenues and provides the scope to increase spending without significant reliance on borrowing.
The overall value of Russian exports has fallen from their peak in 2012 when the oil price was consistently above $100 to the barrel. But the point is, Russia also now imports significantly less than it did then, largely out of a drive to import substitution which started in 2014, meaning that its overall balance is comparable.
It is for this reason that Russia’s international reserve position has improved by around $80 billion since the war started, to $680 billion today (which includes the currently frozen assets of around $300 billion).
No sanction imposed on Russia has shifted the fundamentals of Russia’s economic model and, I believe, no sanction ever will. And yet the Europeans have been sanctioning Russia for eleven years already without recognising this.
Yes, Russia has undoubtedly endured economic pain from sanctions. Prior to the Ukraine crisis, the European Union accounted for over 40% of all Russian trade and most of that business has been progressively lost over the past eleven years. That triggered huge shifts in the structure of Russia’s economy, arguably making it more dependant on domestic investment and pivoting its trade decisively away from Europe and towards Asia.
Sanctioning individuals and companies prompted huge changes in the beneficial ownership and board membership of the largest Russian firms. This triggered a bizarre whack-a-mole policy in Europe as it tried to sanction ever changing figures on Russian company structures.
Yet, Russia’s continued strength in trade allows it to keep pumping billions into the war economy each year at a time when Ukraine constantly teeters on the brink of bankruptcy, propped up only by European donations, as I have written many times before.
Europe will never be able to tip to scales so far in favour of Ukraine that it has the economic reserves to outslug Russia, whether the war continued for one year or ten. Only a fantasist would believe that though, unfortunately, there appears no shortage of those in Brussels.
Sanctions have become an end and policy makers are now so invested in sanctions, and so lacking in ideas, that they continue despite the obvious self-harm they are causing to the European project, not only economically, but also politically and culturally.
Politicians in Central Europe are growing increasingly concerned by this direction of policy, because of which a battle is brewing about whether the EU approves the eighteenth package of sanctions against Russia, first proposed on 10 June.
Slovakia and Hungary are currently blocking the package because it would threaten their energy security. At an EU Foreign Ministers’ meeting last week, Peter Szijjarto, Hungary’s Foreign Minister accused Brussels bureaucrats of hypocrisy, claiming that further energy sanctions would ‘cripple Hungary’s energy security’ and increase domestic energy prices by 2-3 fold. Hungary remains heavily reliant on Russian gas in particular for its domestic needs. And a complete ban would have huge consequences for consumers and Hungarian industries, at least in the short-medium term as the economy transitioned.
So, while EU Ministers extended all other EU sanctions against Russia for a year, the 18th sanctions package remains in limbo. German officials appear confident that an agreement can be reached this week, one assumes, by making concessions to Slovakia and Hungary on energy imports. In typical muddling through fashion, a backroom deal will be struck.
But the real question is shouldn’t the EU abandon sanctions altogether?
Sanctions can only succeed if the sanctioning party is willing to accept a level of economic pain comparable to that inflicted on the opponent, such that the opponent decides to back down or at least moderate the actions which prompted the sanctions.
That has never looked likely to happen with Russia. It’s not only that sanctions appear to have caused more pain to European economies than to Russia, most visibly through crippling energy prices. But that Russia has never looked like it would back down in the face of sanctions, and now pressure is growing within the EU for it to back down.
And, not only has Europe had to endure the direct economic cost to itself from the sanctions it has imposed, but also to absorb the additional cost of keeping Ukraine’s economy afloat during wartime. This pressure will only grow as the USA reduces its financial commitment to the war; on current levels, Ukraine needs at least $40 billion in European funding each year just to maintain the current tempo of a war that it is losing.
As we are currently witnessing in the UK with labour Members of Parliament rebelling against planned cuts to welfare benefits, this will have political consequences in Europe too, as anti-war parties gain more support.
Russia only has to maintain its economy from a significantly stronger baseline position. It won’t experience crippling high energy prices, given its self-sufficiency. Nor will it have to reach consensus with other countries on retaliatory measures taken against Europe.
On this basis, imposing more sanctions on Russia will only embolden President Putin to keep fighting. Rather than putting Ukraine is a position of greater strengthen, they are, in fact, putting Europe in a position of ongoing decay.
There may come a theoretical point in the future in which the massive fiscal investment Russia is making to sustain the war overheats its economy to such an extent that it starts to cause unbearable economic and political pressure. But that point does not appear to have been reached, nor does it appear close to being reached anytime soon.
And, amidst all the posturing, there is no real indication that Europe has Ukraine’s best interests really at heart. Ukraine is in most respects now a failed state. While Zelensky maintains the semblance of autocratic rule, he is in fact kept on life support by the continuance of the war. Ending the war would create a moment of both huge economic and democratic opportunity, for Ukraine, but also massive risk, as a disgruntled and defeated army demobilised to find the country bereft of quality jobs and good incomes.
If the Eurocrats in Brussels put all of their energies and resources into ending the war as soon as possible and helping Ukraine to emerge and rebuild in the best possible way, they might just about be able to stave of a much bigger catastrophe for that country. That would begin with setting out a plan to remove sanctions upon the agreement of a peace deal between Russia and Ukraine.
Right now, though, I see zero chance of that happening.
NATO Must Come to Agreement With Russia to Avoid New Arms Race – Orban
Sputnik – 30.06.2025
NATO will have to come to an agreement with Russia in order to avoid a new arms race, Hungarian Prime Minister Viktor Orban said on Monday.
“Sooner or later, NATO… will have to negotiate with Russia on how much we will spend on military spending, because otherwise the sky will be the limit. So we need to avoid an arms race. We need to strengthen, but we must avoid an arms race. And it will not work out otherwise, except for us, the West, to come to an agreement with Russia,” Orban told the media.
There is a majority of states forming in NATO that believes that any conflict between the alliance and Russia will lead to a third world war and must be avoided, Orban added.
A Big Beautiful Bill for the Military-Industrial Complex
By Ron Paul | June 30, 2025
The US Senate worked through the weekend on the “Big Beautiful Bill.” The goal was to pass it quickly to ensure the House will then pass it and send it to President Trump’s desk before the July 4th holiday.
However, disagreements among Republican Senators over reductions in spending on programs including Medicaid and food stamps as well as language in the bill eliminating “clean energy” tax credits were preventing Senate Republican leadership from getting enough votes to pass the bill.
Also, some Republicans disagree with other Republicans in both the House and Senate on increasing the state and local tax (SALT) deduction. Many conservatives see this income tax deduction as encouraging states to maintain high taxes to fund big governments.
One item in the BBB that few Republicans are objecting to is the bill’s increase in military spending. The House version of the BBB added 150 billion dollars to the Pentagon’s already bloated budget. The Senate bill gave the military-industrial complex 156 billion dollars.
Increasing military spending contradicts President Trump’s promise to stop wasting money on endless wars that have nothing to do with ensuring the security of the American people.
Some of the BBB’s military spending will be used to put troops on the border. I support strengthening border security. However, I do not support using the military for domestic law enforcement, which includes enforcing immigration laws. Soldiers are trained to view people as potential enemies, not as innocent civilians to be protected. Introducing this mindset into domestic law enforcement will lead to abuses of liberty.
Increasing spending on militarism while cutting spending on programs that help low-income Americans is bad politics and bad policy. Polls show that the majority of Americans, including many Republicans, do not support overseas intervention.
The growing opposition to our hyper-interventionist foreign policy is easy to understand. The US has engaged in numerous military actions in many countries including Iraq, Afghanistan, and Syria since the beginning of the 21st century. The American people pay for this militarism in several ways. One is the “inflation tax” imposed by the Federal Reserve in order to monetize the debt incurred by the US government for endless wars. President Trump has turned his back on his antiwar supporters by bombing Iran and by increasing military spending to over a trillion dollars.
The Republican insistence on increasing military spending is the main reason Congress cannot cut taxes without increasing the debt, making cuts in domestic welfare programs, or both. If the Republicans want to be the Make America Great Again party, they need to embrace a true America First foreign policy. This means no more regime change wars or US taxpayer supported “color revolutions.” Instead, America should return to the Founders’ vision of a country that, in the words of John Quincy Adams, does not go “abroad in search of monsters to destroy” and instead is “the well-wisher to the freedom and independence of all” while “the champion and vindicator only of her own.”
A return to a noninterventionist foreign policy is the only way we will be able to begin to pay down the national debt and restore a government that adheres to the constitutional limits on its powers and respects all the people’s rights all the time.
NATO’s defense spending surge may cause its collapse: Lavrov
Al Mayadeen | June 30, 2025
NATO’s surge in defense spending will only damage the alliance and push it toward collapse, Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov warned, calling for greater pragmatism in its approach, as he addressed reporters following the Collective Security Treaty Organization’s Council of Foreign Ministers meeting.
“He can probably see – since he is such a wise sage – that the disastrous increase in spending of NATO countries will also lead to the collapse of this organization,” Lavrov said, responding to Polish Foreign Minister Radoslaw Sikorski’s claim that Russia’s military build-up would lead to its downfall.
“Meanwhile, Russia – as President [Vladimir Putin] said the other day in Minsk after the Supreme Eurasian Economic Council meeting – plans to reduce its military spending and be guided by common sense, rather than imaginary threats, as NATO member states do, including Sikorski,” Lavrov pointed out.
NATO approves defense spending hike to 5%
Following the NATO Summit held in The Hague on June 24-25, the alliance’s member states have agreed to increase defense spending to 5% of GDP, as outlined in the adopted communique, with plans to allocate at least 3.5% of GDP by 2035 based on NATO’s agreed definition of military spending.
An allocation of 1.5% of GDP will be dedicated to safeguarding critical infrastructure and networks, enhancing civil preparedness and resilience, fostering innovation, and bolstering the defense industrial base.
Eager to claim credit, Trump hailed the agreement by all 32 NATO member states to work toward spending five percent of GDP on defense, calling it “a great victory for everybody.”
During closed-door discussions, diplomats revealed that Trump stressed the importance of US leadership while pushing allies to direct their expanded defense budgets toward purchasing American-made weaponry.
With NATO leaders unanimously praising the agreement as “historic,” Belgian Prime Minister Bart De Wever observed that Europe’s “long break from history” had ended, emphasizing the continent’s urgent need to assume full responsibility for its defense amid escalating geopolitical tensions.
Hungary blocks EU accession talks with Ukraine
RT | June 27, 2025
Hungary has vetoed a joint EU statement on Ukraine at the bloc’s Foreign Affairs Council in Brussels, effectively blocking Kiev’s accession talks, according to a communique published on Thursday on the European Council’s website.
The statement, which urged the council to open membership negotiations with Ukraine, was “firmly supported by 26 heads of state” out of 27 EU members, the document read. As unanimous approval is required, talks cannot begin until Hungary reverses its stance. The communique noted that the council will revisit the issue at its next meeting in October.
While the document did not name Hungary, Prime Minister Viktor Orban confirmed the veto in comments to reporters.
“We stopped Ukraine’s EU accession with the votes of Voks2025, and I needed it, because I was almost swept away by the public anger when I announced that Hungary would not agree to start negotiations with Ukraine,” Orban said, referencing the national referendum which concluded on June 20. More than 2 million Hungarians, or 95% of voters, rejected Ukraine’s EU bid, according to the prime minister.
“I had to remind [the council] that the most important criterion [for accession] is that there is in fact a country,” he said. “There must be a defined identity, borders, a population, a territory, and in the case of Ukraine, none of these apply.”
Ukraine made EU accession a national priority in 2019, formally applying in 2022 shortly after the escalation of its conflict with Russia. The EU granted Kiev candidate status later that year and set a 2030 target for membership.
While Brussels supports the move, critics argue that Ukraine’s institutions and economy are unprepared, and the cost would strain the bloc. Budapest opposes EU membership for Ukraine, warning it could escalate tensions with Russia and burden EU taxpayers with decades of military aid. Alongside Hungary, Slovak Prime Minister Robert Fico and Polish officials have raised concerns. A recent IBRiS poll shows only 35% of Poles support Ukraine’s EU bid, down from 85% in 2022.
Moscow strongly opposes Ukraine joining NATO, but had previously taken a neutral stance on its EU ambitions, with Kremlin spokesman Dmitry Peskov saying in March that Ukraine has the “sovereign right” to join if the bloc remains focused on economics. However, with Brussels ramping up defense spending, Russian officials have recently grown critical. Peskov earlier this week called EU militarization “rabid,” while former President Dmitry Medvedev said the bloc has become “no less of a threat” to Russia than NATO.
“This is a politicized, globalist, and fiercely Russophobic organization,” Medvedev wrote on Telegram on Wednesday. “Thus, the so-called ‘Ukraine in the EU’ is a danger to our country.”
A Worrisome Pledge to Substantially Increase US ‘Defense’ Spending
By Adam Dick | Peace and Prosperity Blog | June 26, 2025
Big news out of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) meeting this week is member governments agreeing to a declaration stating they each “commit to invest 5 percent of GDP annually on core defence requirements as well as defence-and security-related spending by 2035 to ensure our individual and collective obligations.”
“Defence” is used, largely outside America, as an alternative spelling of “defense.”
Most the focus in media coverage of this development is on the increased spending that will be required to meet this goal by nations other than the US that was the primary pusher of the move. But, it should also be noted that the US government will have to direct much more spending to “defense” to meet the goal as well.
A NATO chart of member governments’ spending levels as of 2024 puts the US at 3.4 percent of GDP (gross domestic product) on this type of spending. That means meeting the goal would require that such spending gobble up roughly half again as much of GDP within the next ten years.
In April, I wrote about how it would be disastrous if the US government achieved this increased spending goal that was then being promoted by Secretary of State Marco Rubio. You can read that post here.
EU nation to veto new Russia sanctions – PM
RT | June 26, 2025
Slovakia will block the EU’s 18th sanctions package against Russia unless Brussels resolves its concerns over the planned phase-out of Russian energy, Prime Minister Robert Fico has announced. Although the energy measures are set to be presented as trade legislation – thus needing only a qualified majority for approval – Fico argues that they relate to sanctions and should be treated as such.
The issue stems from the European Commission’s RePowerEU plan, which aims to eliminate all Russian energy imports by 2028. The initiative is due to be discussed at the EU Foreign Affairs Council in Brussels, alongside the new sanctions package, which mostly targets Russia’s energy and financial sectors. Fico has insisted the measures against Russian energy actually fall under the bloc’s sanctions regime and should be unanimously approved. Fico said Slovakia will request a postponement of the vote and, if denied, will vote against it.
“As for tomorrow’s vote, Slovakia will not vote on the 18th sanctions package,” he stated at a parliamentary committee meeting on Thursday. “We consider it to be one package that includes RePowerEU, and we believe that unless the fundamental issues are resolved, we cannot adopt any further sanctions.”
He warned that the regulation would endanger Slovakia’s energy security and cause price hikes. He also noted that Brussels has yet to provide answers on how it would compensate for rising gas prices or handle potential arbitration with Gazprom. Fico warned that if Slovakia breaks its long-term supply contract with the Russian energy giant, it could face up to €20 billion ($23 billion) in penalties.
“Let’s take this seriously. Slovakia has gone from being a country at the beginning of the pipe to a country at the end of the pipe…There may be shortages, prices will go up… RePowerEU is harmful,” he said, calling the initiative “ideological nonsense.”
Hungary has also voiced opposition to the plan. Hungarian Foreign Minister Peter Szijjarto said Budapest and Bratislava had jointly blocked the package when it was discussed at the foreign ministers’ meeting earlier this week, warning that the proposed phase-out would “destroy Hungary’s energy security” and sharply raise utility costs. He signaled that Hungary also planned to vote against the new sanctions package.
Moscow has repeatedly condemned sanctions as illegal and self-defeating, particularly those targeting energy, noting how energy prices in the EU surged after the initial measures against Russia were imposed in 2022. Commenting on the sanctions debates, Kremlin investment envoy Kirill Dmitriev praised Slovakia and Hungary on X for “doing what Brussels won’t: fighting to keep the EU globally competitive.”
NATO To Take ‘Quantum Leap’ in Military Spending, Pledging 5% of GDP Baseline
By Connor Freeman | The Libertarian Institute | June 24, 2025
Each member of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) is expected to ink a pledge to raise military spending to 5% of GDP over the next ten years. This is more than double the current 2% goal. Responding to President Donald Trump’s demands for greater spending, member states will agree to the new baseline in the Netherlands during an alliance summit this week. On Monday, the eve before the summit, this proposal was referred to as a “quantum leap” by Secretary General Mark Rutte.
Under the compromise deal, by 2035, each member state will commit a minimum of 3.5% of their GDP to “core military needs,” along with 1.5% to be earmarked for cybersecurity, infrastructure, and other security components.
“The defense investment plan that allies will agree [to] in The Hague introduces a new baseline, five percent of GDP to be invested in defense,” Rutte told reporters.Despite alliance concerns over Madrid’s refusal to commit to the 5% spending figure, which would necessitate a military yearly budget of nearly $90 billion, Rutte emphasized Spain will not be allowed to “opt-out.” He said, “NATO does not have as an alliance opt-outs, side deals, etcetera, because we all have to chip in.”
Moreover, Rutte insists the new spending will go toward producing thousands of tanks and a five fold increase in the production of air defenses. The NATO chief declared, “Our focus is ensuring that we have all we need to deter and defend against any threat.” Rutte added the summit will see strong support for Ukraine and noted the “most significant and direct threat facing this alliance remains the Russian Federation.”
The alliance has poured hundreds of billions of dollars into a proxy war with Russia in Ukraine that has seen hundreds of thousands of casualties with Ukraine losing roughly 20% of its territory.
With the US taking the lead, by 2021, defying Russia’s core security concerns and provoking conflict, Ukraine was being treated as a de facto NATO member. Rutte’s predecessor, Jens Stoltenberg, admitted that, under his leadership in the lead up to the war, the Washington-led bloc refused to take potential membership for Kiev off the table in negotiations even though Moscow had made clear that would prevent an invasion.
The policy has not changed. “Last year in Washington, NATO allies agreed that for Ukraine there is an irreversible path of Ukraine to enter NATO. And that is still true today, and it will still be true on Thursday after this summit,” Rutte told reporters.
However, Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky reportedly will be “largely sidelined” at the summit’s main event. With Biden gone and Trump now in office, Rutte said Europe will work to cover the difference in US spending on the Ukraine war. He added that Europe and Canada have spent $40 billion on the war thus far this year. Washington is still providing Kiev with military and other aid, along with targeting intelligence.
Rutte’s comments also took aim at Tehran, the NATO chief said his “greatest fear” is Iran gaining a nuclear weapon that would give it a “stranglehold” over Israel. Iran is a signatory of the Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) and prior to Tel Aviv’s unprovoked war against the Islamic Republic, the consensus among US intelligence agencies was Tehran is not trying to build nuclear weapons. Israel – which is not a party to the NPT – has an undeclared nuclear arsenal estimated to contain as many as 300 warheads.
The US carried out an illegal act of war, bombing Iran’s internationally safeguarded nuclear energy facilities over the weekend. This is a blatant violation of the UN charter. Trump ordered the massive attack without congressional authorization as required per the US Constitution. When questioned about the legality of the strikes, Rutte proclaimed “I would not agree that [what the US did] is against international law.”
Trump is demanding a $1 trillion US military budget. While Rutte is currently focused on Moscow and fueling the Ukraine war, Pentagon chief Pete Hegseth recently boasted he is preparing the American military to defend the island of Taiwan, to “fight and win — decisively” a war with China.
EU member states block new Russia sanctions
RT | June 23, 2025
Hungary and Slovakia have blocked the European Union’s 18th sanctions package against Moscow, Hungarian Foreign Minister Peter Szijjarto has announced. The bloc’s proposal to cut Russian energy imports would deal a major blow to his country’s energy security, he explained.
Budapest has opposed EU sanctions on Russian energy since the escalation of the Ukraine conflict in 2022, saying the imports are vital to its national interests. The country has a long-term contract with Russia’s Gazprom and receives the bulk of its oil and gas from Russia. Slovakia has also voiced similar concerns.
Speaking at a press conference following a meeting of EU foreign ministers in Brussels on Monday, Szijjarto said that “we, together with Slovakia, prevented the adoption of the [18th] sanctions package today,” which would mostly have focused on Russia’s energy sector.
The diplomat clarified that Budapest and Bratislava vetoed the sanctions package because in separate trade legislation, Brussels has proposed phasing out all remaining Russian gas flows to the EU by the end of 2027. The minister argued that this would severely undermine Budapest’s energy security and lead to a sharp spike in energy costs for Hungarians.
”We are not willing to have the Hungarian people pay the price for supporting Ukraine,” Szijjarto insisted.
The EU-wide phasing-out plan that Szijjarto referred to was announced by EU Energy Commissioner Dan Jorgensen last Tuesday, with the backing of European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen.
The proposal, which is currently opposed by Hungary, Austria and Slovakia, and reportedly by Italy, is expected to be introduced as trade legislation, which under EU rules does not require unanimity among bloc members to become law, but merely the support of at least 15 of the EU’s 27 member states.
Commenting on the plan, Russian presidential envoy Kirill Dmitriev, said that “EU Commission bureaucrats seem obsessed – with making the EU as uncompetitive as possible on the global stage.”
While pipeline flows have dropped sharply since 2022, EU imports of Russian liquefied natural gas (LNG) have soared. Russia supplied 17.5% of the bloc’s LNG in 2024, trailing only the US at 45.3%, according to industry data. France, Spain, and Belgium accounted for 85% of the EU’s LNG imports from the sanctioned country, according to the Institute for Energy Economics and Financial Analysis (IEEFA).
Russia maintains that it is still a reliable energy supplier, while denouncing Western sanctions and trade restrictions targeting its exports as illegal under international law.
Miliband ‘robbing Peter to pay Paul’
By Paul Homewood | Not A Lot Of People Know That | June 23, 2025
Net Zero Watch has belittled the government’s announcement that it will cut electricity bills for large industrial users by 25%. The campaign group has pointed out that the cost of the discount has to be paid somehow. Newspaper reports suggest that industrial gas users will be footing the bill, although details are scarce.
Net Zero Watch director Andrew Montford said:
Ed Miliband is once again merely proposing to shuffle costs from one energy user to another. Robbing Peter to pay Paul is all he has to offer, because his mad fixation on decarbonisation means he will not look at the underlying problem, namely the gross inefficiency of a renewables-based grid.
And Mr Montford warned that any relief would be temporary:
This latest wheeze will bring temporary relief for sectors favoured by the Secretary of State, but at the expense of others, who can ill afford it. And in the medium term, bills will continue to rise for everyone. The country can’t afford this madness any longer.
The Telegraph report:
“From 2027, they will no longer have to pay the net zero levies that are normally added to their power bills, such as the renewables obligation, the feed-in-tariff and capacity market charges.
This will be paid for by financial reforms to the energy market and a raid on companies that burn natural gas, through higher carbon taxes, the Government said.”
A spokesman for the business department added that “energy market reforms” will also pay for the changes, including longer subsidy agreements with wind farms – aimed at bringing the overall cost for power down.
Higher carbon taxes will not only punish industrial gas users, many of whom don’t qualify as “large industrial users”, they will also increase the wholesale price of electricity, meaning that while large industries will be better off, the rest of us will have to pay the bill instead.
This gives the lie to Starmer’s claim that “it would not be paid for via extra charges on households”.
The claim about “energy market reforms” is just smoke and mirrors. They will have no effect on existing subsidies for renewable energy, and longer term CfDs are only being considered because nobody wants to build offshore wind farms at the prices on offer. Inevitably the next round will see much higher prices, so there will be no “savings” to divvie out.
As is now routine with this wretched Government, policies are announced which cannot be funded and are sold to the public on the basis of a lie.
It is fantasy economics, something we have seen time and again in the last year.
Electricity prices are higher because of the £20+ billion paid out every year to subsidise renewable energy and deal with the extra costs it imposes.
Until this Government gets a grip with the real problem, nothing will change, no matter what smoke and mirror tactics they employ.
Europe’s risky war on Russia’s ‘shadow fleet’
By Anatol Lieven | Responsible Statecraft | June 16, 2025
The European Union’s latest moves (as part of its 17th package of sanctions against Russia declared in May) to target much more intensively Russia’s so-called “shadow fleet” of oil tankers and other vessels illustrate the danger that, as long as the Ukraine war continues, so will the risk of an incident that will draw NATO and the EU into a direct military clash with Russia.
The EU sanctions involve bans on access to the ports, national waters and maritime economic zones of EU states. Ships that enter these waters risk seizure and confiscation. It does not appear that Washington was consulted about this decision, despite the obvious risks to the U.S.
As part of this strategy, on May 15, an Estonian patrol boat attempted to stop and inspect a tanker in the Gulf of Finland. Russia sent up a fighter jet that flew over the Estonian vessel (allegedly briefly trespassing into Estonian waters), and the Estonians backed off — this time. In January, the German navy seized a Panamanian-flagged tanker, the Eventin, in the Baltic after its engines failed and it drifted into German territorial waters.
Sweden has now announced that starting on July 1 its navy will stop, inspect and potentially seize all suspect vessels transiting its exclusive economic zone, and is deploying the Swedish air force to back up this threat. Since the combined maritime economic zones of Sweden and the three Baltic states cover the whole of the central Baltic Sea, this amounts to a virtual threat to cut off all Russian trade exiting Russia via the Baltic — which would indeed be a very serious economic blow to Moscow.
It would also threaten to cut off Russia’s exclave of Kaliningrad, which is surrounded by Poland, from access to Russia by sea.
This is the kind of action that has traditionally led to war. The Swedish assumption seems to be that the Russian navy and air force in the Baltic are now so weak — and so surrounded by NATO territory — that there is nothing Moscow can do about this. However, it is very unlikely that the Swedes would take this step unless they also believe that in the event of a clash, Washington will come to Sweden’s defense — even though the EU and Swedish decisions were made without U.S. approval and are not strictly covered by NATO’s Article 5 commitment.
And despite all the hysterical language about Russia being “at war” with NATO countries, these moves by the EU and Sweden are also based on an assumption that Russia will not in fact lose its temper and react with military force. European policymakers might however want to think about a number of things: for example, what would the U.S. do if ships carrying U.S. cargo were intercepted by foreign warships? We know perfectly well that the U.S. would blow the warships concerned out of the water and declare that it had done so in defense of the sacred rule of free navigation — in which the EU also professes to believe.
EU leaders, and admirals, should also spend some time on Russian social media, and read the incessant attacks on the Putin administration by hardliners arguing precisely that Moscow has been far too soft and restrained in its response to Western provocations, and that this restraint has encouraged the West to escalate more and more. Such hardliners (especially within the security forces) are by far the greatest internal political threat that Putin faces.
It is important to note in this regard that moves to damage Russia’s “shadow fleet” have not been restricted to sanctions. In recent months there have been a string of attacks on such vessels in the Mediterranean with limpet mines and other explosive devices — developments that have been virtually ignored by Western media.
In December 2024, the Russian cargo ship Ursa Major sank off Libya after an explosion in which two crewmembers were killed. The Reuters headline reporting these attacks was rather characteristic: “Three tankers damaged by blasts in Mediterranean in the last month, causes unknown, sources say.” Unknown, really? Who do we think were the likely perpetrators? Laotian special forces? Martians? And what are European governments doing to investigate these causes?
If the Russians do sink a Swedish or Estonian warship, the Trump administration will face a terribly difficult decision on how to respond to a crisis that is not of its own choosing: intervene and risk a direct war with Russia, or stand aside and ensure a deep crisis with Europe. The U.S. administration would therefore be both wise and entirely within its rights to state publicly that it does not endorse and will not help to enforce this decision.
Washington also needs — finally — to pay attention to what the rest of the world thinks about all this. The overwhelming majority of senators who are proposing to impose 500% tariffs on any country that buys Russian energy have apparently not realized that one of the two biggest countries in this category is India — now universally regarded in Washington as a vital U.S. partner in Asia. And now America’s European allies are relying on U.S. support to seize ships providing that energy to India.
The U.S. administration would also be wise to warn European countries that if this strategy leads to maritime clashes with Russia, they will have to deal with the consequences themselves. Especially given the new risk of war with Iran, the last thing Washington needs now is a new flare-up of tension with Moscow necessitating major U.S. military deployments to Europe. And the last thing the world economy needs are moves likely to lead to a still greater surge in world energy prices.
European governments and establishments seem to have lost any ability to analyze the possible wider consequences of their actions. So — not for the first time — America will have to do their thinking for them.
Anatol Lieven is Director of the Eurasia Program at the Quincy Institute for Responsible Statecraft. He was formerly a professor at Georgetown University in Qatar and in the War Studies Department of King’s College London.
Featured Video
Elijah Magnier: Yemen’s strikes are shattering Saudi Arabia’s long-term strategy
or go to
Aletho News Archives – Video-Images
From the Archives
British weapons and personnel doing much of the killing in Yemen
Press TV – June 18, 2019
A detailed report published by the Guardian newspaper has shown how Britain is massively contributing to Saudi Arabia’s devastating war on Yemen as it suggests that London is not only supplying the bombs that fall on Yemenis, but it provides the personnel and expertise that keep the war going.
The comprehensive report by Arron Merat published on Tuesday showed that Britain was doing much of the killing in Yemen as the country continues to provide Saudi Arabia with everything it needs to turn its southern impoverished neighbor into a graveyard.
“Every day Yemen is hit by British bombs – dropped by British planes that are flown by British-trained pilots and maintained and prepared inside Saudi Arabia by thousands of British contractors,” said Merat in the report. … continue
Blog Roll
Aletho News- Racist Seinfeld Dances for Joy as Bibi Unveils His New Map
- A West Bank War for Netanyahu’s Election Campaign, Could It Backfire?
- Yemen denounces European Parliament’s ‘hypocritical’ push to blacklist Ansarullah
- Qalibaf: UAE’s UN bid aims to ‘clear the runway’ for ‘Greater Israel’, whitewash genocide
- Pakistan reopens Iran border after boosting security: Report
- Why are so many Brazilians voting for Flávio Bolsonaro?
- Democrats Put Anti-Russia Agenda Ahead of American Workers
- Elijah Magnier: Yemen’s Strikes Are Shattering Saudi Arabia’s Long-Term Strategy
- Pentagon designates Chinese cultural centers national security threat
- Israel Demolishes Home Of Lebanese Journalist Whose Viral Film Exposed Pager Attack
- If Americans Knew
- An error has occurred; the feed is probably down. Try again later.
- No Tricks Zone
- Sudden Stratospheric Warming, Powerful El Niño Combination May Lead To Extreme Europe Cold, Energy Crisis!
- Two New Studies Find Thwaites Glacier Melt Cannot Be Driven By Human Activity Or A Warming Ocean
- E-Cars Reduce CO2 Emissions By Only 41% Compared To Internal Combustion Engine Vehicles
- Predictions Made By Renowned Climate Professor Over Past Decades Have Been Proven To Be Poor
- New Study Suggests Large Regions Of The Pacific Ocean Have Been Cooling For The Last 80 Years
- Germany’s Green Energy Debacle: High Energy Costs Force Kahla Porzellan to Close After 182 Years!
- New Study: 50 Years Of The Most Aggressive ‘Net Zero’ Policies Can Only Affect The Global Climate By 0.03°C
- US September “Heat” Was No Record…Many Records Set Decades Ago
- Latest European Green Energy Debacle; Portugal’s Largest Flagship Solar Park Insolvent!
- Green Energy Debacle: German Expert Professor Fritz Vahrenholt Warns Of Severe Economic And Social Consequences
