Aletho News

ΑΛΗΘΩΣ

Belgium eyes welfare cuts to meet NATO target – minister

RT | April 16, 2025

Belgium is preparing to raise debt and cut welfare to meet NATO’s minimum military spending target, the EU country’s budget minister has said.

Vincent Van Peteghem told the Financial Times on Wednesday that Brussels recently agreed to lift its 2025 military budget to 2% of GDP through a mix of temporary cash injections, creative accounting, and structural reforms.

The planned hike in military spending could exacerbate the budget crisis as debt mounts. Recent government plans to cut social services have sparked protests, with over 100,000 people rallying in Brussels in February.

Belgium had previously planned to meet the 2% target only by 2029. Military spending currently stands at around 1.31% of GDP, or roughly €8 billion ($8.5 billion), according to Defense Minister Theo Francken.

The shift comes amid pressure from Washington and ahead of a NATO summit in June, where members are expected to consider raising the spending target to above 3% of GDP. US President Donald Trump has urged the bloc members to increase military spending to 5%, warning that countries that fail to do so may no longer be guaranteed American protection.

Higher spending on military budgets would take a toll on the EU’s welfare programs, Van Peteghem warned.

Last month, the European Commission proposed exempting military budgets from fiscal rules and offering €150 billion in loans as part of its ‘ReArm Europe’ plan, which aims to mobilize up to €800 billion through debt and tax incentives for the bloc’s military-industrial complex.

Van Peteghem said Belgium would tap both options to fund additional military spending this year.

To maintain the 2% level, the government plans to raise more debt and may privatize state-owned assets, the minister said. The remaining gap would be filled through spending cuts, including curbs on unemployment benefits, pension reforms, and tax changes.

“But of course, we will need to do more,” Van Peteghem, who also serves as deputy prime minister, said.

France has also announced plans to cut €5 billion from its budget, with some of the savings potentially redirected to military spending.

Moscow has condemned the EU’s military buildup. Kremlin spokesman Dmitry Peskov called it “a matter of deep concern,” noting that it was aimed at Russia.

April 16, 2025 Posted by | Economics, Militarism | , | Leave a comment

Slovak PM Fico urges support for Ukrainian gas transit during visit to Croatia

By Thomas Brooke | Remix News | April 16, 2025

Slovak Prime Minister Robert Fico called on Croatian Prime Minister Andrej Plenković to support the resumption of natural gas transit through Ukraine during an official visit to Zagreb on Wednesday.

Fico noted that while Slovakia’s domestic gas needs are currently being met, the country is losing out on key transit revenues due to the halted pipeline flow.

“The resumption of gas flow through Ukraine should be in the interest of the entire European Union, including Slovakia, of course,” Fico said during a joint press conference, as cited by TASR news agency. He acknowledged Croatia’s support in providing access to liquefied natural gas (LNG) via terminals on the island of Krk, but noted that the LNG option remains more expensive for Slovakia.

In January, Fico invited Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky to negotiations over the halted transit of natural gas through Ukraine. This was after Kyiv ceased the gas flow at the start of 2025 following the expiration of a contract with Russia, leaving Slovakia and other European nations scrambling to secure energy supplies.

The Slovak prime minister later accused Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky of “begging and blackmailing” European nations for financial aid after turning off the taps.

The meeting in Zagreb highlighted what Fico described as “excellent relations” between Slovakia and Croatia. He expressed gratitude for the hospitality extended to the Slovak delegation and for the warm welcome Slovak tourists receive each year in Croatia. He also acknowledged the continued support of the Slovak minority living in Croatia.

During the bilateral talks, the two leaders agreed on the need to strengthen trade ties, collaborate on illegal migration management, and jointly advocate for cohesion and agricultural policies within the EU budget.

Prime Minister Plenković noted that trade between the two countries now exceeds €1.5 billion, reflecting growing cooperation.

Fico also highlighted Croatia’s role in protecting the EU’s Schengen border, particularly its border with Bosnia and Herzegovina. He offered technical and material support to assist Croatia in this area.

While acknowledging some differences in their perspectives, both leaders reaffirmed their shared desire for an end to the war in Ukraine and a return to peace. They also discussed enhanced cooperation in the arms industry and plans for deeper cultural collaboration. Plenković announced that a bilateral cultural cooperation program for 2025-2029 would soon be signed between the countries’ respective ministries of culture.

Prime Minister Fico’s visit continues with meetings scheduled with Croatian President Zoran Milanović and the Speaker of Parliament Gordan Jandroković. He is accompanied by Slovak Foreign Minister Juraj Blanár.

April 16, 2025 Posted by | Economics | , , , | Leave a comment

Iran signs contract to convert Iraq’s flare gas into petchem feedstock

Press TV – April 14, 2025

Iran has secured a contract to convert flare gas from Iraqi oilfields into feedstock for petrochemical plants located near its border with the Arab country.

Iranian Oil Minister Mohsen Paknejad and Iraqi Deputy Prime Minister for Energy Affairs Hayyan Abdul Ghani supervised the signing of the contract on Monday in Baghdad, according to a report by the Iranian Oil Ministry’s news service Shana.

The report said that Iran’s state-run and private companies will contribute to the flare gas recovery project in the Iraqi oilfields that are located near the Iranian border.

The report quoted Paknejad as saying that Iraq is currently burning a part of the flare gas that is extracted with oil, adding that Iran will capture the gases and transport them to its Natural Gas Liquids (NGL) plants across the border to convert them to feedstock for its petrochemical plants.

He said that the contract will alleviate a shortage of NGL feedstock in western Iran where the country is racing against time to end gas flaring in its own oilfields.

Shana said Paknejad and his delegation, who arrived in Iraq earlier in the day as part of an official visit, signed other contracts with the Iraqi side led by Abdul Ghani to facilitate petroleum sector cooperation between the world’s two major oil-producing nations.

Abdul Ghani, who is also Iraq’s oil minister, said after meeting his Iranian counterpart that the Arab country needs Iran’s technical and investment support to reach self-sufficiency in petroleum products.

The contracts include the exchange of experts between Iran and Iraq and launching joint investment projects, Shana said.

During his two-day visit to Iraq, Paknejad will also meet Iraqi Prime Minister Mohammed Shia’ Al Sudani and the country’s Minister of Electricity Ziad Ali Fadel.

April 16, 2025 Posted by | Economics, Environmentalism | , | Leave a comment

What does the restoration of U.S.-Russia relations really mean?

By Lucas Leiroz | Strategic Culture Foundation | April 15, 2025

Recently, The National Interest published a call for a reconfiguration of U.S.-Russia relations, and the proposal to establish an economic partnership signals a subtle but significant shift in Washington’s strategy. After years of hybrid warfare, sanctions, and failed attempts to isolate Moscow, some sectors of the American establishment seem to finally acknowledge the obvious: the U.S. tends to gain much more from reconciliation than Russia does. And most importantly — unlike in the 1990s, Moscow is in no hurry.

Since the collapse of the Soviet Union, U.S.-Russia relations have been marked by a clear asymmetry. The 1990s and 2000s were defined by a weakened Russia attempting to integrate into the international system on Western terms. The result was a series of strategic humiliations, broken promises—such as NATO expansion—and ongoing efforts at containment. Today, that scenario is completely reversed. Moscow negotiates from a strengthened position, guided by long-term strategic interests and a clear vision of a multipolar world.

The American think tank calls for economic rapprochement do not occur in a vacuum. On the contrary, they reflect the ineffectiveness of sanctions as a tool for political change. Over the past decade, the U.S. has used sanctions as a primary foreign policy method, refining their use to target specific individuals, companies, and strategic sectors while attempting to minimize collateral damage. However, even this “surgical” approach has failed.

In Russia’s case, sanctions not only failed to alter Moscow’s stance but also reinforced its internal resilience and political cohesion. The Russian economy adapted, built alternative logistical, industrial, and financial systems, and deepened ties with powers such as China, India, and Iran. More than that, the sanctions regime stimulated the development of an independent foreign policy, consolidating Russia’s role as a pivotal power in the transition toward a multipolar order.

It is in this context that the U.S. now seeks to replace war and sanctions with other methods of deterrence and engagement—primarily economic in nature. The bet is simple: an economically integrated, cooperative, and stable Russia would better serve Washington’s strategic interests than a confrontational and self-sufficient power. On paper, Moscow could serve as a useful counterweight to China, help relieve economic and migratory pressures in Europe, and potentially shift its focus toward internal economic development instead of geopolitical challenges.

However, this vision ignores a fundamental element: Russia does not simply want to return to being part of a “rules-based international order”—a phrase now synonymous with American hegemony. Moscow wants to end that paradigm. Russia’s strategic interest lies in replacing this unilateral order with a new international structure governed by treaties, pragmatism, and mutual respect between sovereign powers. This is not about returning to the “reset” of the Obama era, but about negotiating new terms for global coexistence—terms that Russia now has the power to impose.

In this scenario, rapprochement with the U.S. only interests Russia if it is based on a realistic, long-term cooperation agenda. Moscow will not accept unilateral conditions or asymmetric concessions. Its goal is clear: to consolidate multipolarity, weaken unilateral structures of domination, and establish relations based on mutual benefits. The geopolitics of force gives way to the diplomacy of interest.

If Washington truly wants a “reset,” it must accept it on the terms of a new world—not as an uncontested leader, but as one among several poles of power. Russia is willing to engage in dialogue, but not in submission. And this time, it’s not Moscow that needs the conversation most—it’s Washington.

April 15, 2025 Posted by | Economics | , | Leave a comment

AfD leader slams latest German military aid to Kiev as ‘catastrophic’

Al Mayadeen | April 11, 2025

Germany’s plan to ramp up military support for Ukraine has drawn sharp criticism from Alice Weidel, co-leader of the right-wing Alternative for Germany (AfD) party. Speaking on Friday, Weidel condemned Defense Minister Boris Pistorius’ announcement of further arms deliveries, warning that the move fuels conflict rather than advancing peace.

According to a report by RedaktionsNetzwerk Deutschland (RND), Pistorius revealed that Berlin will allocate an additional 8 billion euros ($9 billion) in military assistance to Ukraine by 2029. This comes on top of roughly 7 billion euros worth of equipment pledged for delivery in 2025. Germany has already committed nearly €44 billion in aid to Ukraine since the war began in 2022, including military, financial, and humanitarian support, making it one of Kiev’s largest backers in Europe.

Responding to the announcement on social media platform X, Weidel said: “Pistorius announces new arms deliveries to Ukraine. This makes it clear: the small coalition continues the catastrophic course of escalation carried out by the ‘traffic light’ coalition. This is explosive. We must support the US efforts to achieve a ceasefire.”

Weidel and the AfD have long opposed German military aid to Ukraine, arguing that continued arms shipments escalate tensions and jeopardize German national interests. She has also criticized sanctions on Russia, warning they disproportionately harm Germany’s economy. In her public statements, Weidel has urged Berlin to adopt a neutral foreign policy stance and support diplomatic initiatives, particularly those backed by US President Donald Trump.

Russian officials have frequently argued that Western weapon supplies prolong the war and position NATO countries as active participants in the conflict. Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov reiterated that any shipment containing arms intended for Ukraine is considered a valid military target under Russian policy.

April 12, 2025 Posted by | Economics, Militarism, Russophobia | , , | Leave a comment

Why Does Trump Want to Own Major Ukrainian Gas Pipeline?

Sputnik – 12.04.2025

Trump now wants to claim the pipeline used to transport Russian gas to Europe through Ukraine, according to a Reuters report on the April 11 US-Ukraine talks.

How could the US profit from owning the pipeline?

It’s all about the fact that the Ukrainian pipeline can be used to ship gas in reverse, says Dr. George Szamuely, a senior research fellow at The Global Policy Institute.

  • Rather than being used to pump Russian gas to European consumers, the pipe can serve to deliver American LNG to Ukrainian consumers.
  • By controlling the pipeline, the US can monopolize the Ukrainian gas market, further solidifying Washington’s hold on the country, which would become dependent on American LNG.
  • The pipeline could also be used by the US to deliver American LNG to EU countries, making them dependent on US energy resources as well.

Europe and Ukraine “brought this on themselves” by cutting off cheap Russian energy and relying on more expensive American imports, Dr. Szamuely says.

April 12, 2025 Posted by | Economics | , , | Leave a comment

Here we go again – $1 trillion for US ‘defense’

By Drago Bosnic | April 12, 2025

Remember when President Donald Trump promised to make the US military “far more powerful, but for much less money”? Remember when he pledged to end the NATO-orchestrated Ukrainian conflict in 24 hours? Well, me neither. In all seriousness, we can always say that Trump is a politician and that truth or consistency are not exactly the defining qualities of any politician.

On the other hand, the Messianic Complex among many Trumpists is certainly concerning, as there’s little questioning of Trump’s policies. He’s most definitely a very polarizing figure. The vast majority of people are either his staunch supporters or have TDS (Trump derangement syndrome). This prevents a more objective view of his performance, both at home and abroad.

Namely, Trump is exposed to numerous interest groups, many of which have very diverging views on how America should be. The old Deep State sees him as the greatest threat to “Pax Americana” and wants him out at all costs (including through physical removal), while other interest groups think extreme measures are unnecessary and that simply influencing Trump’s decision-making is more than enough.

The latter seem to be leading the charge, while the remnants of the previous administration are engaged in largely pointless protests. However, despite superficial enmity between them, there’s a quite solid continuity in many policies of the two administrations. This is particularly true when it comes to foreign policy and financing the US military.

In the case of the former, the Biden administration’s crawling economic warfare against the European Union (primarily through the destruction of its trade with Russia while the US continued to buy critical commodities from Moscow and even resell them to Europe) has been augmented by Trump’s trade wars.

In the case of the latter, there’s a robust continuity with virtually every US administration in the last 35 years (at the very least). Namely, the consistent increase in American military spending is a clear indicator that the same people are making the final decision on this issue, regardless of who’s in power. The Trump administration’s latest announcement regarding the US “defense” budget effectively proves this is precisely the case.

Namely, on April 7, President Trump and his Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth revealed that the Pentagon will get its first $1 trillion. Interestingly, what should’ve been breaking news was sidelined by global panic regarding the impact of new tariffs. In his usual manner of using superlatives, Trump said that “nobody’s seen anything like it”, adding that “we have to build our military, and we’re very cost-conscious, but the military is something we have to build, and we have to be strong”. It’s certainly commendable to see a government exercise “cost-consciousness”, with Trump employing Musk’s DOGE to be “the ultimate auditing organization”. However, giving a trillion dollars to the unaudited US military sounds like anything but frugality.

On paper, the administration has been adamant about cutting excess government spending, so this move doesn’t make much sense (unless all the auditing was designed to help find the money for the Pentagon). The logical conclusion is that Trump is exposed to the influence of the Military Industrial Complex (MIC) just as much as any other president.

Hegseth was certainly happy with the arrangement, as evidenced by his announcement on Twitter/X where he thanked Trump and presented the development as something “fantastic for everyone”. It would be interesting to see what American taxpayers think about the fact that their money will be invested in more death and destruction instead of restoring America’s crumbling infrastructure.

As previously mentioned, the first official $1 trillion for the US military was only a matter of time, as the troubled Biden administration announced it two years ago, when it pledged to double the Pentagon’s budget. The latest increase is in line with this plan, as the actual US DoD spending has been well over $1 trillion for years (many of its expenses are distributed to other departments). In addition, the Biden administration’s 2025 National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) was officially $895 billion, so the latest increase is nothing out of the ordinary and is in line with regular spikes in military spending with every US government in recent history. This certainly breaks the Trump administration’s attempts to present itself as “anti-establishment”.

In addition, the move can only exacerbate America’s debt crisis, particularly after it reached $35 trillion last year and is expected to go over $40 trillion next year. Experts are warning that the latest increase in military spending will likely add at least another trillion to the already rapidly growing debt and that budget cuts are yet to affect the Pentagon, adding that the US military “does precisely nothing to defend the USA” and that it “exclusively interferes in other countries”.

And indeed, Trump’s reshuffling at the Pentagon was largely political and never affected its financing. Worse yet, he also supports continued US aggression in the Middle East, where a war with Iran is looming. In addition, the new Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff wants to expand the US nuclear sharing policy.

Drago Bosnic is an independent geopolitical and military analyst. He is a Research Associate of the Centre for Research on Globalization (CRG).

April 12, 2025 Posted by | Economics, Militarism | | Leave a comment

Steve Witkoff’s Iran mission holds seamless possibilities

By M. K. BHADRAKUMAR | Indian Punchline | April 11, 2025

The rubric of the US-Iranian talks slated for Saturday in Muscat turned into a vanity fair of sorts — whether the talks should be called ‘indirect’ or ‘direct’. The US President Donald Trump sought direct talks and claimed that Iranians conveyed through back channel that they had no objection to it. Furthermore, Trump disclosed that indirect talks already started. While maintaining publicly that the talks will be ‘indirect’, Iranians didn’t call out Trump. 

Accordingly, Trump nominated his trusted aide and longstanding friend Steve Witkoff to represent him at the talks. Tehran reciprocated with Abbas Araqchi, a veteran nuclear negotiator and brilliant diplomat, and currently the foreign minister. 

Trump noted with satisfaction that Tehran has fielded a negotiator at the highest possible level. Interestingly, Trump made the announcement on the talks from the Oval Office in the presence of Israeli prime minister Benjamin Netanyahu.

Such hyper activism on the optics may create a surreal impression. After all, there is also a military build-up going on in the US base in Diego Garcia, including B-52 heavy bombers with a range of 10000 kms. But the Russian assessment is that the US’ mobilisation of military assets falls way short of the level of force strength required to start a war with Iran. 

The presence of Araqchi and Witkoff at the talks in Muscat underscores that both sides are approaching the talks in all seriousness conscious of the real risk of a dangerous escalation of the present precarious situation around the Iran nuclear issue if concrete progress is not achieved in the negotiations by mid-2025.  

The clock starts ticking for the E3 (France, Germany, and Britain) to move to restore the UN Security Council sanctions on Iran by invoking the JCPOA’s veto-proof ‘snapback’ mechanism for which the cutoff date is the month of October. Snapback also restores Security Council ban on uranium enrichment, further reactor development, and ballistic missile activities. 

Tehran has warned that if the UN sanctions are restored, it may withdraw from the NPT in response and if that happens, it is no longer obligated to retain IAEA safeguards. But there is a gestation period of 3 months before Iran’s exit from NPT gets formalised.  

Enter Russia. According to the 1992 nuclear cooperation agreement between Moscow and Tehran, “nuclear material, equipment, special non-nuclear-material, and related technology” as well as nuclear materials produced by the result of transferred technology “shall be under the International Atomic Energy Agency safeguards” during their “entire period” of stay in Iran. 

The agreement further stipulates that these materials “shall be used only for declared purposes that are not connected with activities of manufacturing nuclear explosive devices” and “shall not be used to carry out activities in the field of nuclear fuel cycle” that are not under IAEA safeguards. 

Suffice to say, at the very least, Iran’s nuclear cooperation agreement with Russia may obligate Tehran to retain some IAEA presence. Russia’s economic interests in nuclear cooperation with Iran will also play a part. Besides, the recent Russian-Iranian treaty on strategic cooperation explicitly affirms Tehran’s commitment to nuclear non-proliferation. Russia also tends to prioritise a constructive engagement of the US in its foreign policies and its moderating influence on Iran lest it goes the North Korean way will be a significant factor in the US-Iranian negotiations. The situation around Iran has already figured more than once in the recent US-Russia exchanges since February including at the highest level between Trump and Russian President Vladimir Putin. 

During this week, against the backdrop of the talks in Muscat, President Masoud Pezeshkian made certain significant remarks. It is entirely conceivable that he was speaking for Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei. 

First, Pezeshkian said Khamenei is “not opposed to US entities investing capital” in the Iranian economy. Succinctly put, this is a radical departure from Iran’s traditional stance. 

Second, Pezeshkian said, “We are open to dialogue, but with dignity and pride, we will not compromise on our achievements and we will not make deals (on them).” In effect, Pezeshkian has notified that any suggestions that the only acceptable deal with Iran must include complete dismantlement of the country’s nuclear program will be a non-starter. 

Third, Pezeshkian not only reiterated Iran’s rejection of nuclear weapons but stated its willingness to be subject to robust safeguards. As he put it, “We are not looking for an atomic bomb. Who is setting policy above the Leader of the Islamic Revolution who has officially announced that we are not looking for a nuclear bomb? Check it a thousand times. You can verify a thousand times that we don’t have atomic bombs, but we need nuclear science and nuclear energy.” 

Fourth, Pezeshkian also had a message of sorts for Israel. He said, “We are not looking for war, but we will stand strong against any aggression with the knowledge and power that our scientists have created. The more they harm us, the more powerful we will become, and the stronger we will stand against any threat they pose to us.” 

Taken together, these remarks by Pezeshkian would give a fair idea of what the contours of a possible settlement of the nuclear issue could be as the talks proceed. 

Most importantly, Iran seeks an economic partnership with the US and implicit in it is the unspoken readiness for political and diplomatic ties. Iran’s approach bears an uncanny resemblance to what Russia has adopted in its nascent dialogue with the Trump administration. Trump’s choice of Witkoff as the negotiator for Iran can be seen as a signal that the US is open to explore opportunities of economic cooperation with Iran as an underpinning to the normalisation process.  (By the way, the Washington Post has reported that Witkoff is willing to travel to Tehran, if invited.) Certainly, Tehran pins hopes on Witkoff  bringing new thinking into the paradigm. Do not be surprised if he travels to Tehran in the near future. 

That said, the Trump administration must appreciate that Iran lives in a tough security environment and is attempting to use its nuclear threshold status as a deterrent. Therefore, what is possible is a combination of limits and monitoring that can adequately reduce proliferation risks.          

The onus is on Witkoff to articulate behind closed doors realistic US objectives for a nuclear deal, bearing in mind that politics is the art of the possible. This involves refraining from calls for the complete dismantlement of the Iranian nuclear program, and, equally, the projection of ideas as to how Tehran will benefit from an agreement with the United States. 

When I visited Tehran last June to observe the presidential election, a topic that came up in almost all conversations and TV interviews was: What to expect from a Trump administration? What I could sense was that contrary to what Israeli media management strives to project to muddy waters, Tehran has no revenge mentality and instead senses that Trump’s priorities in a second term are not about projection of power but the regeneration of America. As a civilisational state that was never colonised through millennia, Iranian culture is highly pragmatic but it will never surrender its legitimate interests or compromise under pressure. In this respect, it is a unique country in the region. (See an outstanding policy brief by Washington-based Arms Control Association titled The Art of a New Iranian Nuclear Deal in 2025.)

Iran’s relevance to the regeneration of the American economy (MAGA) is self-evident. Apart from vast mineral resources, Iran’s human resources can give a solid underpinning to economic and technological partnership with American business and industry. An enduring nuclear deal with Iran is best achieved through an overarching relationship to reengage with Iran as a partner after over four decades. 

April 11, 2025 Posted by | Economics, Wars for Israel | , , , | Leave a comment

Green Policies, Not Trump Tariffs, Killing British Steel

By Vijay Jayaraj | RealClear World | April 4, 2025

British Steel, the U.K.’s last bastion of primary steelmaking, announced plans to shutter its two blast furnaces at Scunthorpe, effectively ending 150 years of virgin steel production in Britain. Media outlets have rushed to pin the blame on U.S. President Donald Trump’s recent 25% tariffs on steel imports.

But this narrative is a convenient distraction from a far more insidious culprit: the U.K. government’s relentless pursuit of self-destructive green policies that have crippled British manufacturing for nearly a decade.

During the Industrial Revolution, Britain’s steel industry forged the island’s ascent as a global superpower. Steel was the sinew of progress, enabling the nation to outpace rivals and cement its economic and military supremacy well into the 20th century. Once the backbone of its industrial might, steel manufacturing has been suffocated by exorbitant energy costs and uncompetitive pricing – both direct consequences of a cult’s dogma that prioritizes reducing emissions of harmless carbon dioxide over economic survival.

Having produced over 20 million metric tons annually in the 1970s, output dwindled to a paltry 4 million tons by 2024. Meanwhile, imports have surged to 68% of domestic consumption, up from 55% in 2022, as cheaper foreign steel floods the market. The government’s pledge to “rebuild” the sector rings hollow when its own policies paved the way for this collapse.

British Steel’s owner, Chinese-owned Jingye, cited “highly challenging market conditions, the imposition of tariffs, and higher environmental costs” as reasons for the Scunthorpe closure, which threatens up to 2,700 jobs and could commence as early as June.

This shutdown is not a sudden reaction to external trade pressures but rather the inevitable outcome of a self-inflicted death spiral. While China and India make cheaper, carbon-intensive steel with no apparent “climate guilt,” the U.K.’s obsession with net-zero “virtue” turns its producers into sacrificial offerings at the green altar.

Green Policies: The Silent Assassin

Let’s dispense with the pleasantries: Britain’s green policies are more a national suicide than a noble crusade. For nearly a decade, successive governments have chased emissions targets with a zeal that ignores the realities of industrial survival. The Climate Change Act of 2008 set the stage, committing the U.K. to slash carbon dioxide emissions by 80% by 2050 – a hideous impossibility that was later tightened to the holy grail of the even more stringent “net zero.”

This ambition birthed a web of regulations, taxes, and subsidies that have jacked up energy costs to levels unmatched among Britain’s peers and made steel manufacturing impossible without incurring heavy losses.

One proposed solution was a shift to electric arc furnaces, which recycle scrap steel rather than producing it from raw materials with more carbon-intensive blast furnaces. However British Steel’s Chinese owner reportedly sought a $1.3 billion subsidy to fund the $2.6 billion change.

In addition, the U.K.’s industrial electricity prices are approximately 40% higher than France’s and about four times more than those of the U.S. For energy-guzzling steelmakers, such price differentials – a product of “green” energy choices – are a death sentence.

Adding to the pain of British Steel is the U.K. Emissions Trading Scheme that adds costs to the company’s emissions of carbon dioxide, a penalty largely evaded by Chinese and Indian rivals.

The world’s steel leader, China produces more than 1 billion metric tons annually – exceeding the U.K.’s total output over the past 47 years. India follows closely, churning out the metal at prices Britain can’t match.

The steel industries of China and India are fueled by cheap coal and minimal constraints on carbon dioxide emissions. Neither faces the punitive energy costs or emissions taxes that hobble British Steel. While the U.K. levies up to $103 on each ton of carbon dioxide emitted, China charges its manufacturers but a fraction of that. India has no national charge at all. The result? British Steel, saddled with green compliance costs, is priced out of the global market.

China and India didn’t need to lift a finger as Westminster policymakers chased a utopian vision that delivered industrial ruin. The media can spin its tariff tales, but the truth is plainer: Britain’s steel industry was slowly bled dry by a government too enamored with green dogma to see the carnage it wrought.

The demise of British Steel serves as a stark warning to manufacturing giants in Western Europe and the U.S. Trading cost-effectiveness for climate compliance is a Faustian bargain to be resisted by corporate executives and lobbyists.

Vijay Jayaraj is a Science and Research Associate at the CO2 Coalition, Fairfax, Virginia. He holds an M.S. in environmental sciences from the University of East Anglia and a postgraduate degree in energy management from Robert Gordon University, both in the U.K., and a bachelor’s in engineering from Anna University, India.

April 6, 2025 Posted by | Economics, Malthusian Ideology, Phony Scarcity | | Leave a comment

Top Russian official visits US to discuss improving bilateral ties

Al Mayadeen | April 3, 2025

Russia’s top economic negotiator visited Washington on Thursday for talks on improving ties, in the highest-level Kremlin trip to the US since the war in Ukraine started in 2022.

Kirill Dmitriev, head of Russia’s sovereign wealth fund, said he was meeting with Trump administration officials in Washington but gave no details, while US media reported that Dmitriev arrived on Wednesday and is expected to meet Trump’s special envoy to the Middle East Steve Witkoff, at the White House.

“The dialogue between Russia and the United States, which is crucial for the entire world, was completely destroyed under the Biden administration,” Dmitriev wrote on his telegram channel, adding, “Restoring dialogue is not an easy process, and it’s gradual. But every meeting, every frank conversation allows us to move forward.”

Dmitriev, a sanctioned former Goldman Sachs banker and Stanford graduate, could visit after temporary restrictions were lifted. Having previously participated in February talks with Trump officials in Saudi Arabia, he has been instrumental in US-Russia rapprochement efforts.

The White House has not commented on the visit, while the Kremlin stated that details would be shared only after the meetings conclude. Although Dmitriev has not revealed the discussion topics, his visit follows Trump’s criticism of the slow progress in Ukraine ceasefire negotiations.

The United States and Russia reached a diplomatic row, with Trump expressing his annoyance at the Russian President Vladimir Putin for rejecting an unconditional ceasefire, and conditioned a US-proposal for a truce in the Black Sea to the lifting of certain sanctions.

Economic coercion under the guise of diplomacy

Russia announced on March 25 that a US-mediated deal to suspend military operations in the Black Sea would only take effect if certain sanctions, particularly those targeting its state-owned agricultural bank, were lifted.

Amid rising tensions, President Trump has threatened to escalate pressure—not through diplomacy, but via punitive economic measures. In a recent interview with NBC News, Trump said he would impose secondary tariffs of up to 50% on all Russian oil exports if he concludes that Moscow is not cooperating on a peace deal.

“If Russia and I are unable to make a deal on stopping the bloodshed in Ukraine… I am going to put secondary tariffs on oil, on all oil coming out of Russia,” he said, warning that countries or companies buying Russian oil could also face US penalties.

Though Western sanctions have led to a reported 16% decline in shipments by Russian state-owned Sovcomflot in 2024, Moscow has adapted by working with non-Western partners and employing a fleet of independent vessels—dismissively labeled a “shadow fleet” by Western officials—to sustain its oil trade.

April 3, 2025 Posted by | Economics | , | Leave a comment

Iran can rely on its hydrocarbon resources for 100 years: NIOC

Press TV – March 30, 2025

The National Iranian Oil Company (NIOC) has said that production from hydrocarbon resources in the country will continue for the next 100 years.

In a statement issued on Sunday, the NIOC detailed its performance in the calendar year that ended on March 20, saying that Iran’s hydrocarbon resources amount to the equivalent of more than 1.2 trillion barrels of oil, adding that some 340 billion barrels of those resources are available for extraction.

The statement said that Iran can rely on those resources for the next 100 years considering the current extraction rates and technologies.

The NIOC said oil and gas production in Iran had increased to record levels in the last calendar year, adding that the amount of natural gas delivered to the Iranian pipeline grid had reached an all-time high of 870 million cubic meters (mcm) in the past winter.

It said that total gas production in Iran had increased by an average of 36 mcm per day in the second half of the calendar year to late March to reach 1,106 mcm per day.

The company said that gas production from the Iranian side of South Pars, the world’s largest gas field shared with Qatar in the Persian Gulf, had reached 716 mcm per day.

The statement also elaborated on efforts to increase oil production from several oilfields in south and southwest Iran despite sanctions targeting the exports of crude oil from the country.

The NIOC said that Iran’s baseline oil production would increase by 250,000 barrels per day (bpd) to reach 2.189 million bpd in the near future thanks to $3 billion worth of investment provided by the Central Bank of Iran.

April 2, 2025 Posted by | Economics | | Leave a comment

Saskatchewan becomes first Canadian province to fully eliminate carbon tax

Life Site News | April 1, 2025

Saskatchewan has become the first Canadian province to free itself entirely of the carbon tax.

On March 27, Saskatchewan Premier Scott Moe announced the removal of the provincial and federal carbon tax beginning April 1, boosting the province’s industry and making Saskatchewan the first carbon tax free province.

“The immediate effect is the removal of the carbon tax on your Sask Power bills, saving Saskatchewan families and small businesses hundreds of dollars a year. And in the longer term, it will reduce the cost of other consumer products that have the industrial carbon tax built right into their price,” said Moe.

Under Moe’s direction, Saskatchewan has dropped the industrial carbon tax which he says will allow Saskatchewan to thrive under a “tariff environment.”

“I would hope that all of the parties running in the federal election would agree with those objectives and allow the provinces to regulate in this area without imposing the federal backstop,” he continued.

The removal of the tax is estimated to save Saskatchewan residents up to 18 cents a liter in gas prices.

The removal of the tax will take place on April 1, the same day the consumer carbon tax will reduce to 0 percent under Prime Minister Mark Carney’s direction. Notably, Carney did not scrap the carbon tax legislation: he just reduced its current rate to zero. This means it could come back at any time.

Furthermore, while Carney has dropped the consumer carbon tax, he has previously revealed that he wishes to implement a corporation carbon tax, the effects of which many argued would trickle down to all Canadians.

The Saskatchewan Association of Rural Municipalities (SARM) celebrated Moe’s move, noting that the carbon tax was especially difficult on farmers.

“I think the carbon tax has been in place for approximately six years now coming up in April and the cost keeps going up every year,” SARM president Bill Huber said.

“It puts our farming community and our business people in rural municipalities at a competitive disadvantage, having to pay this and compete on the world stage,” he continued.

“We’ve got a carbon tax on power – and that’s going to be gone now – and propane and natural gas and we use them more and more every year, with grain drying and different things in our farming operations,” he explained.

“I know most producers that have grain drying systems have three-phase power. If they haven’t got natural gas, they have propane to fire those dryers. And that cost goes on and on at a high level, and it’s made us more noncompetitive on a world stage,” Huber decalred.

The carbon tax is wildly unpopular and blamed for the rising cost of living throughout Canada. Currently, Canadians living in provinces under the federal carbon pricing scheme pay $80 per tonne.

April 2, 2025 Posted by | Economics, Malthusian Ideology, Phony Scarcity | , | Leave a comment

« Previous Entries     Next Entries »