According to a report published by the Financial Times, Trump’s new team intends to ‘bankrupt’ Iran during his second presidential term. The report, citing a national security expert close to the new team, states that executive orders targeting Iran, mainly its oil exports, could be signed on the first day Trump takes office.
The so-called ‘maximum pressure campaign’ is a set of measures imposed against Iran in 2018 after Trump brazenly and illegally withdrew Washington from the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA). The agreement, signed in 2015, limited Iran’s nuclear programme in exchange for an easing of economic and financial sanctions. Trump called the agreement a ‘disaster’ only because it was signed by Democratic President Barack Obama. He allegedly stated that he was going to make sure that Iran would never receive nuclear weapons, while promising to limit Iran’s regional influence.
In other words, the world has a very dangerous precedent in the Middle East: on the one hand, Israel has completely illegally developed and put into service nuclear weapons and their means of delivery and, on the other hand, Trump is trying to limit – and, moreover, prohibit – Iran from developing peaceful nuclear energy and oppose Tehran’s relations with its neighbours. What kind of democracy is this and what exactly does Trump mean by the word ‘democracy’? This is no longer democracy, rather a medieval-type dictatorship: if I want to, I will allow it, but it is better not to allow it at all.
What was Trump’s goal previously?
Since 1979, Iran has constantly faced US sanctions. The Trump administration’s ‘maximum pressure’ campaign was not so much about inventing new limitations as about dramatically expanding the scope and viciously tightening compliance with previous or existing limitations.
Following the unabashed withdrawal of the United States from the JCPOA (an international document), Trump immediately reinstated sanctions against Iran’s energy, shipping, shipbuilding, automotive and oil sectors in accordance with a decree issued on August 6, 2018. The key difference was the aggressive implementation of so-called ‘secondary sanctions’, which punished foreign organisations for doing business with Iran, regardless of whether these transactions violated their own domestic laws. The aim was to put significant pressure on international players to comply with US sanctions. Apparently, Trump considered himself a liege lord and all others to be his vassals, the purpose of whom was to fulfill Trump’s will.
In May, 2019, the Trump administration dealt a blow to Iran’s metallurgical industry (the second largest source of export revenue) by tightening sanctions on the production of iron, steel, aluminum and copper. This included well-designed sanctions against any foreign financial institutions facilitating large transactions related to these industries. At the same time, Washington was completely uninterested in the opinions and interests of other parties involved in peaceful trade with Iran.
The third major decree issued by Trump was directed against the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC) and any organisations or individuals conducting financial transactions with it. The stated goal was to limit Iran’s production of ballistic missiles, a weapon that, according to then-US Special Representative for Iran Brian Hook, existed only in Photoshop. Nevertheless, Trump hastened to impose severe sanctions on the IRGC.
The new Biden administration that came to power, contrary to expectations, did not put an end to Trump’s policy. According to Secretary of State Anthony Blinken, all sanctions were to remain in force and hundreds more new ones were added to them. It is incomprehensible how one strong and arrogant country is trying to rule the whole world and establish its own rules of life and trade that are only beneficial to it.
Did Trump’s policy bear fruit?
“The efficacy of US sanctions against a foreign government is measured by the economic damage not caused”, said Amir Ali Abolfat, an expert on North American affairs, “and the extent to which sanctions achieve their political goals and change the behaviour of the target government”. An analysis of statistics before the start of the ‘maximum pressure’ campaign shows that, although Trump made it more difficult for Iran to earn money from exporting oil and metals, he failed to reduce them so much that a brave and persistent Iran had to change its policy.
“Iran produces strategically important goods”, Abolfat explained. “As long as there is demand, these products will find their market. Although Iran no longer sells oil to Europe, it has begun supplying it to China, as evidenced by increased sales to that country, which is resisting pressure and US hegemony. The same principle applies to the export of Iranian metals”.
There is no doubt that Trump and Biden have created great difficulties for Iran, but did they manage to achieve their goals? Absolutely not. Iran’s uranium enrichment rate has increased from 3% to 60% and its military potential has expanded significantly over the past seven years. Moreover, Tehran is successfully developing friendly ties with its neighbours and has managed to create a so-called Axis of Resistance, which successfully opposes the United States and Israel in the region.
As for domestic needs, Iran has successfully reduced its dependence on European partners and former allies (such as Korea and Japan) by finding alternative suppliers. The departure of European automakers has led to a sharp increase in Chinese car imports, making Iran a major market. In addition, Iranian engineers and experts have independently completed projects to develop gas and oil fields that previously depended on Western cooperation. This self-confidence eventually spread to other industries previously dependent on imports, such as the food industry and medicine.
Sanctions and nothing else?
Central to Trump’s policy in the Middle East from 2017 to 2021 was an unsuccessful attempt to drive a wedge between Arab countries and Iran, while simultaneously positioning Israel as a key regional security partner.
Now this approach is much less viable. Iran’s improved relations with countries, such as Saudi Arabia, and ongoing efforts to normalise ties with others, such as Egypt, undermine this strategy. In addition, the successful Hamas operation on October 7 completely dispelled all notions of Israel’s invincibility and the actions of the Israeli regime to destroy the Palestinians made the continuation of the normalisation agreements concluded within the scope of Trump’s ‘Abraham Accords’ unlikely.
Experts believe that the only other untested option – the military option – to which hotheads in the United States and Israel are inclined, is fraught with enormous risk. Such actions could lead to devastating consequences for the West, potentially widespread disruption of oil supplies, attacks on Western bases in the Middle East and fundamental changes to Iran’s nuclear policy. Ultimately, Washington must recognise that enormous pressure alone will not help it achieve its goals with regard to Iran. To solve the US’ problems, Iran’s problems must also be acknowledged. It is only through returning to the JCPOA and sitting at the negotiating table that the most difficult tasks in the region can be solved. Iran is ready for this and has expressed this more than once. Is the ‘peacemaker’ Trump ready for this or is he only thinking of using force?
Türkiye is currently in talks with the US to secure a sanctions waiver that would allow it to continue using Russia’s Gazprombank to pay for natural gas imports, the country’s Energy Minister Alparslan Bayraktar told reporters on Monday.
Last week, the US Treasury Department imposed restrictions on more than 50 Russian financial institutions, including Gazprombank, which is linked to the eponymous Russian gas giant, and six of its international subsidiaries. The sanctions have effectively cut off Russia’s primary bank for energy-related transactions from the SWIFT interbank messaging system, meaning it can no longer be used for dollar-based transactions.
According to Bayraktar, unless a special exemption is made, Türkiye, which imports nearly all of its gas, won’t be able to pay Moscow for natural resources. Russia currently accounts for more than 50% of the country’s pipeline imports, according to Reuters.
In his comments, Bayraktar pointed to a previous waiver granted to Ankara when Washington had sanctioned Iran in 2012. At the time, the sanctions against Tehran included a clause that allowed the US President to issue a special exemption if an oil-importing country faced “exceptional circumstances” that made it impossible to reduce Iranian oil imports. Bayraktar has argued that Türkiye now needs a similar waiver for Gazprombank in order to secure its supply of natural gas.
“These sanctions will affect Turkey. We cannot pay. If we cannot pay, we cannot buy the goods. The foreign ministry is in talks,” Bayraktar said.
The latest US sanctions have also sparked disdain among several other European buyers of Russian gas. Last week, Hungarian Foreign Minister Peter Szijjarto accused Washington of trying to undermine energy security in the Central European region by imposing restrictions on Gazprombank.
In a post on Facebook, the diplomat stated that any attempts to jeopardize energy supplies to Hungary are “considered as an offence against our sovereignty” and stressed that Budapest denounces all such attacks and has vowed to “resist the pressure and pursue our national interests.”
He added that Hungary is currently in talks with other countries, such as Bulgaria, Serbia, Azerbaijan and Slovakia in hopes of finding a solution for securing energy supplies.
Meanwhile, despite the EU announcing plans to eliminate its dependence on Russian energy, it has remained one of the world’s major importers of Russian fossil fuels while its members have purchased record volumes of liquified natural gas (LNG) from Moscow.
RFK Jr. says the second in command at Smithfield Foods in Poland offered a $1 million bribe to a state official to pass legislation to essentially shut down local hog production.
The reveal was made during a podcast with farming expert Joel Salatin. The official turned Smithfield in over the bribe attempt, but others were quick to take the bribe and pass the desired legislation.
None of this is new news. However, RFK Jr.’s alliance with Trump, not to mention being nominated to serve as secretary of health and human services in his administration, has given him a new platform to draw attention to the issues surrounding commercial farming and the food we eat.
And when I say not new, I mean, this topic has been around for a couple decades, actually more.
A 2003 article from Ecologist highlighted the issues with the way Smithfield and “fellow industrial pork producers” delivered bacon, chops and other pork products to American consumers. The article stated these entities had “driven tens of thousands of family farmers off the land, shattered rural communities, poisoned thousands of miles of US waterways, killed billions of fish, put thousands of fishermen out of work, sickened rural residents and treated hundreds of millions of farm animals with unspeakable and unnecessary cruelty.”
Pretty harsh. And then, Smithfield turned its eyes to greener pastures. Where? All the way over in Poland, fresh out of its decades-long stint under the iron fist of communist rule. What may not be known by many was the rather strong presence, i.e., high number, of family farms that survived under communism. Kennedy refers to this himself in the podcast around minute 25, “small farms that were self-sufficient farms” and that had no money for chemicals.
However, despite surviving well under communism, these family farms could never have expected the “free market” might of “private” concerns that would come knocking at their doors, or more like come to knock their doors down.
“In 1999, Smithfield began buying slaughterhouses and state farms in Poland. On July 22 this year (2003), the firm’s vice president promised Poland’s Senate agricultural committee that Smithfield will ‘modernise’ Polish agriculture and bring prosperity and jobs to rural communities,” reads the Ecologist article.
Now 25 years later, RFK Jr., is bringing to light again exactly what happened in the name of American capitalism all those years ago.
Smithfield, he tells Salatin on the podcast, had come in and bought the old Soviet slaughterhouses and was modernizing these massive facilities. The legislation that Smithfield initiated stated that you could not operate a slaughterhouse if it did not have laser-automated faucets in the bathrooms, technology that small slaughterhouses servicing local family farms would not be able to afford. In this way, as Kennedy says, “in one fell swoop,” all of Smithfield’s competitors in Poland were put out of business. Kennedy did not clarify what year this happened.
There is pretty hefty coverage of the lawsuits between environmental groups, including RFK Jr.’s Waterkeeper Alliance, and Smithfield in the U.S., alleging, for example, that the giant put small farms out of business and polluted soil. One class action suit against Smithfield that Kennedy was a part of was thrown out in 2002.
What’s crazy is that this battle reached all the way to Poland. In a letter to the Polish prime minister, dated February 2004, MP Anna Sobecka presented a brief history of Smithfield’s practices back in the U.S., including that “one of the slaughterhouse’s managers was sentenced to prison for falsifying records in the case.”
“Smithfield Foods, the owner of the Animex Wielkopolska company it bought out, is constantly breaking the law by placing large piles of manure in nearby fields near the village of Więckowice without permits. Another such pile was recently built in Sierosław, near Więckowice. This is an expression of complete disregard for the recommendations of Polish officials,” the letter reads. The MP goes on to say that for unknown reasons, the company was still awarded the “Crystal Globe of Export Leaders” by the minister of economy, labor and social policy.
The primary concern of the letter was related to “several large piles of pigsty waste without the required permits and without the slightest safeguards” near Niepruszewickie Lake. It was then alleged that hazardous chemicals seeped into the lake and ended up causing illnesses, particularly in children, in the nearby town of Więckowice.
She adds that “Robert F. Kennedy Jr., representing American farmers, has visited Poland several times to warn against Smithfield Foods’ destructive activities. Kennedy warned that further expansion of the company could threaten to destroy Polish family farms. Kennedy’s speeches provoked a panic among Smithfield Foods management, which filed a defamation suit against the American politician in the district court in Poznań,” adding that “the documents and evidence available to the American politician clearly confirm the allegations he made against Smithfield Foods.”
This letter came after Smithfield’s subsidiary in Poland had sued Kennedy in Poznan for his remarks about the company’s practices during a debate in the Sejm, the Polish parliament, where he reportedly called it a “mafia organization” that violates environmental regulations and accused parties involved of selling out Polish small farmers and consumers for profits. The outcome of that suit is unclear. However, another suit filed against Smithfield by a group including Kennedy was dismissed by the judge, with all parties ordered to pay Smithfield’s legal fees.
What is also very clear is that the world today is an even smaller place than back then, and Smithfood’s primary challenger has now been nominated to serve in the cabinet of the U.S. president.
Today, Smithfield is a Chinese-owned company, RFK Jr. says in the abovementioned podcast, adding that China owns some 30 percent to 40 percent of the hog production in the U.S.
“We’re in a colonial model. USDA now works for China by keeping little farmers out of business and strip-mining and commoditizing our natural resources, our farmland, and everything else.”
As to why RFK Jr. brought up Poland after all these years and if he plans to do something about their operations there is unknown.
He is on a mission for consumers everywhere to know their food is safe, wholesome, and healthy. As he also told Joel Salatin, “only the worst food is reaching the American public… and it’s high cost.”
Businesses in NATO countries should prepare themselves for a “wartime scenario” and adjust their production lines and supply chains to be less vulnerable to blackmail by nations such as Russia and China, the outgoing chief of the US-led bloc’s military committee, Admiral Rob Bauer, said on Monday.
Speaking at a European Policy Center think-tank event in Brussels, he urged Western industries and businesses to implement deterrence measures.
“If we can make sure that all crucial services and goods can be delivered no matter what, then that is a key part of our deterrence,” Bauer argued.
“Businesses need to be prepared for a wartime scenario and adjust their production and distribution lines accordingly. Because while it may be the military who wins battles, it’s the economies that win wars,” the NATO official said. He mentioned China and Russia in the context of how he believes wars are waged in the economic sphere.
“We thought we had a deal with Gazprom, but we actually had a deal with [Russian President Vladimir] Putin,” he stated, apparently referring to the drop in Russian gas supplies to the EU, which took place after the escalation of the Ukraine conflict in 2022.
At the time, the EU declared that ending its reliance on Russian energy was a key priority, and many members voluntarily halted their imports, while supplies also plunged due to the sabotage of Russia’s Nord Stream pipelines.
American Pulitzer Prize-winning journalist Seymour Hersh blamed the sabotage on the CIA, alleging that the agency had carried out the attack under the direct orders of the White House – an allegation it has denied.
Bauer then extended his warning to China, claiming that Beijing could use its exports to NATO states and the infrastructure that it owns in Europe as leverage in the event of a conflict.
“We are naive if we think the [Chinese] Communist Party will never use that power. Business leaders in Europe and America need to realize that the commercial decisions they make have strategic consequences for the security of their nation,” the official claimed.
It is unclear what “wartime” Bauer is predicting in his statements.
NATO has long declared Russia to be a direct threat, and Western officials have repeatedly claimed that if Moscow is allowed to win the conflict in Ukraine, it could then attack other European countries. Russia has dismissed these claims as nonsense. Restrictions that Moscow introduced in trade with the West have largely come in response to unprecedented economic sanctions placed on the country in connection with the Ukraine conflict.
Beijing has also faced its share of trade barriers and restrictions introduced by Western states, and introduced similar measures in response. According to most experts, including many in the West, the sanctions policy has backfired on Western economies, leading to supply shortages and inflation.
Russia’s deputy foreign minister says the treaty on a comprehensive strategic partnership between his country and Iran will include cooperation in the defense and security sectors.
Speaking to Russia’s TASS news agency on Sunday, Andrei Rudenko said he would not disclose the details of the agreement that is expected to be signed in the near future.
“I would only note [that] it will meet challenges and requirements of our time and cover almost all current and promising spheres of Russian-Iranian cooperation, including defense and security,” he added.
In 2001, Tehran and Moscow signed a long-term cooperation deal, officially known as the Treaty of the Foundation of Mutual Relations and the Principles of Cooperation. It was initially set for 10 years but was extended up until 2026.
Now, the two capitals are making final arrangements for the comprehensive partnership pact, which may determine their bilateral ties in all fields for the next 20 years.
Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov has announced that his country will sign a strategic partnership agreement with Iran “in the near future.”
Rudenko emphasized that the nature of Iran-Russia interactions has notably changed over the past two decades.
“We are closely coordinating approaches with our Iranian friends and take necessary measures to strengthen peace and security” in the region, he added.
Last month, Iran’s Ambassador to Russia Kazem Jalali said the strategic partnership treaty would be signed during Iranian President Masoud Pezeshkian’s visit to Moscow. The date of this visit has yet to be decided.
Iran and Russia are both subject to illegal Western sanctions. They have over the past years deepened their relations in various fields, including military and defense, and become close allies.
Foreign government officials attending the ongoing U.N. climate change summit are advocating for de facto global climate taxes to fund green energy development in poor countries ahead of President-elect Donald Trump’s return to the White House, according to Financial Times. [emphasis, links added]
Officials from countries including France, Spain, and Kenya are pushing to plan so-called “solidarity levies” on various industries at this year’s conference so that a more developed version of the scheme can be presented at next year’s get-together in Brazil, FTreported.
The idea is to settle on a plan that would raise $100 billion or more annually to fund climate-related efforts in developing countries by imposing de facto taxes on the shipping and aviation industries, and possibly other sectors as well.
Past discussions on the issue of providing climate cash to poor nations have been fraught, and Trump — who pulled out of the U.N.’s Paris Climate Agreement in his first term and is primed to do so again — generally opposes routing money to other countries in the name of climate change, so attendees at this year’s summit are getting creative about finding sources of funding, according to FT.
Besides the shipping and aviation industries, cryptocurrency trades, fossil fuel production, plastic producers, billionaires, and financial transactions could possibly be subject to the “solidarity levies” scheme.
In fact, it is not even clear that the funding generated by the “solidarity levies” would even go directly to poor countries, as officials from some nations have suggested that the money should go to the shipping industry to help it with its decarbonization push, according to FT.
The shipping industry’s commitment to cutting emissions is putting more pressure on the aviation industry, which is itself pointing to the oil and gas industry to cough up more money.
Many major airline companies are already party to a global carbon offset pact reached in 2016, but that system is not meant to generate revenues that can then be repurposed, according to FT.
The task force assessing the “solidarity levies” concept is eyeing options for building upon duties on plane tickets already in place in 21 countries, which they think could raise as much as $164 billion annually.
Washington’s decision to blacklist Russia’s Gazprombank, a key conduit for gas purchases from Russia, is aimed at undermining energy security in the Central European region, Hungarian Foreign Minister Peter Szijjarto has claimed.
Earlier this week, the US Treasury Department imposed blocking sanctions on more than 50 Russian financial institutions, including Gazprombank, linked to the eponymous Russian gas giant, and six of its international subsidiaries.
The newly introduced restrictions effectively cut off Russia’s primary bank for energy-related transactions from the SWIFT interbank messaging system, meaning it can no longer conduct dollar-based transactions.
“Including Gazprombank to the sanctions list is a decision that deliberately puts some Central European countries in a difficult situation, and deliberately jeopardizes the security of energy supplies” to several nations in the region, Szijjarto wrote on Facebook on Friday.
The Hungarian diplomat stated that any attempts to jeopardize energy supplies to Hungary “either by imposing sanctions or by cutting off transit supplies are considered as an offence against our sovereignty.”
“We reject all the attacks of the kind against our sovereignty, resist the pressure, and pursue our national interests,” he said.
Szijjarto added that he discussed the issue of gas supplies to Hungary with the first deputy head of the Russian Energy Ministry, Pavel Sorokin, on the sidelines of the Istanbul Energy Forum, which convened in Türkiye on November 22.
“We reviewed the situation in the field of gas transportation and confirmed that we will support necessary cooperation for secure energy supplies to Hungary,” he stated.
Budapest is also discussing the situation with the energy ministers of Türkiye, Azerbaijan, Bulgaria, and Serbia, and consulting with Slovakia to find a solution for securing energy supplies, Szijjarto added.
EU nations are still purchasing record volumes of liquified natural gas (LNG) from Russia. Despite the bloc’s plans to eliminate its dependence Russian energy, it remains one of the world’s major importers of Russian fossil fuels.
In August, pipeline gas comprised the largest share of the EU’s purchases of Russian fossil fuels (54%), followed by LNG (25%), according to the Center for Research on Energy and Clean Air (CREA).
Previous episodes of this series explained NATO’s senseless expansion that threatened Russia and caused a disastrous war in Ukraine. The plot to add Ukraine to NATO failed. As Russian troops advance to occupy all of Ukraine to secure it as a close ally, nearby nations may choose to join the prospering Russian led Eurasian Economic Union. Russia may encourage Ukraine’s neighboring nations to join its economic block with a return of Ukrainian land seized by the Soviets.
The loss of Eastern Europe would be a huge setback for the Anglo-American empire as members leave NATO and the EU to trade freely with Russia and China, or join a new Hungarian led Eastern Europe economic union that does not support EU and Anglo-American sanctions nor imperial adventures in Africa and Asia. This is likely to happen if Russian troops reach Ukraine’s western border to open the door to the east. As a result, the Anglo-American empire may risk World War III and send NATO troops into Ukraine to block further Russian advancement and halt a rebellion by its vassal states.
_________________________________
“As EU Confirms Economic Punishments On China, U.S. Panics Over Impending Iran Oil Attack”; Sean Foo; YouTube; October 5, 2024; • As EU Confirms Economic Punishments O…
A ranking Iranian diplomat has strongly discouraged Western countries from resorting to pressure, intimidation, and confrontational approach against the country over its legitimate and peaceful nuclear energy activities.
Seeking recourse to the above measures “does not amount to adoption of a sustainable and credible course, and [application of such methods] will eventually hit a dead end,” Mohsen Naziri Asl, Iran’s permanent representative at the United Nations office in Vienna, said on Friday.
“The Islamic Republic is [rather] prepared for joining positive interaction through dialog and constructive cooperation towards potential achievement of a sustainable solution [to standing issues].”
The remarks came after the Board of Governors of the UN’s nuclear watchdog, the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), adopted an anti-Iranian resolution based on a proposal that had been forwarded by the UK, France, and Germany. The resolution reiterated the trio and their allies’ accusations against the Islamic Republic of insufficient cooperation with the IAEA.
In chorus with the United States and others, the threesome European states have been taking numerous similar measures against Iran in line with the accusations that run counter to the standing status of the country and the agency’s cooperation, which has even increased in frequency and quality over the past years.
The ongoing confrontational approach on the part of the West comes, while it was the US that broke off its internationally-endorsed commitments to Iran by unilaterally and illegally leaving a 2015 nuclear agreement between the Islamic Republic and world countries and returning the sanctions that the deal had lifted.
The European trio, which were likewise signatories to the deal, meanwhile, failed to return Washington to the accord, despite their repeated insistence that they would do so.
Naziri considered the US’s illegal withdrawal from the deal to be the principal reason behind the deal’s current unfavorable status, noting that Washington “has not stopped short of taking any measure to destroy the deal.”
He also reminded the European parties of their refusal to live up to their commitments under the accord.
The official also pointed to the retaliatory measures that Iran has been taking in response to the US’s withdrawal, and the European countries’ and the IAEA’s confrontational attitude, which, most recently, saw the country activating its advanced centrifuges.
He cited Iranian President Masoud Pezeshkian and Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi’s repeated statements, during which the officials asserted that the Islamic Republic would walk back its legal remedial steps if the American sanctions were effectively and verifiably annulled and the nuclear deal’s other parties returned to performing their contractual duties.
Naziri, therefore, advised the European sides “not to repeat their unsuccessful courses of action of the past.”
Separately, he strongly condemned the European countries’ recent sanctions against the Iranian national carrier and shipping company, considering the bans to be in violation of the nuclear deal’s “spirit and text.”
“We consider these [economic] measures to be in contradiction with the commitments that could serve as the foundation of any future interaction.”
The official also denounced the European trio for ignoring their duty towards lifting the sanctions that they have illegally imposed over Iran’s missile program, which they have to lift under their commitment to the nuclear deal’s sunset clauses.
“One must stress that, in line with an announcement that has been made by the UN Secretariat, Iran’s missile program will no longer be subject to the restrictions that have been imposed by the UN Security Council.”
Naziri again asserted that the Islamic Republic was ready for positive interaction as long as the other parties to the nuclear deal proved their political will and commitment to the accord by not tying negotiations that address the agreement’s potential revival to irrelevant issues.
The latest round of US sanctions against Russian financial institutions, which specifically target Gazprombank, is an attempt to block Russia’s gas supplies to the EU, Kremlin spokesman Dmitry Peskov stated on Friday. The lender is Russia’s primary bank for energy-related transactions.
Peskov warned that Moscow would respond to restrictions with countermeasures, though he did not specify what they would entail.
The Kremlin spokesman’s remarks follow an announcement by the US Office of Foreign Assets Control (OFAC) on Thursday, which said Gazprombank and six of its international subsidiaries had been added to its sanctions blacklist. Gazprombank had already been sanctioned by the UK and Canada shortly after the escalation of the Ukraine conflict in 2022. However, the US had previously avoided placing restrictions on the lender as it was used by EU states to pay for Russian gas.
When asked whether the Kremlin viewed sanctions on Gazprombank as an attempt to jeopardize supplies of Russian gas to Europe, and whether Moscow planned any response, Peskov replied: “The answer is ‘Yes’ to both questions.”
He noted that Russian authorities were already working on ways to alleviate the problems that the new restrictions could cause Russia and its foreign gas buyers.
“Of course, we’ll find options. It is impossible to introduce completely blocking measures against a country like Russia. It may take some time, but a solution will still be found,” Peskov said.
The new measures mean Gazprombank can no longer carry out transactions that involve the dollar-based financial system. Gazprombank earlier said that sanctions would not affect its operations within Russia, but warned that its UnionPay cards may stop working outside the country.
Apart from Gazprombank, the new US restrictions also targeted more than 50 small-to-medium Russian lenders, some 40 securities registrars, and 15 financial officials.
After the escalation of the Ukraine conflict in 2022, the EU declared the elimination of its reliance on Russian energy to be its top priority. Many member states, including Poland, Bulgaria, Finland, the Netherlands, and Denmark, voluntarily halted their imports. However, several EU nations, including Austria, Hungary, Slovakia, the Czech Republic, and Italy continue to rely on Russian gas to meet their energy needs, and have not stopped buying the commodity despite pressure from peers within the bloc.
Moscow has slammed Western sanctions as illegal, and noted that they keep backfiring on the countries that impose them. Russia has also been gradually moving away from the dollar in trade, switching to transactions using national currencies with most of its international partners.
The newly imposed US sanctions against Russia’s Gazprombank are expected to send energy costs surging in parts of Europe, Finam Financial Group analyst Aleksandr Potavin told TASS on Friday. The risk of secondary restrictions will force buyers of Russian oil and gas to seek new payment tools, he predicted.
On Thursday, the US Treasury Department introduced blocking sanctions against more than 50 Russian lenders, including Gazprombank and six of its international subsidiaries. The new penalties effectively cut one of Russia’s largest banks off from the SWIFT interbank messaging system, meaning it can no longer carry out transactions that involve the dollar-based financial system. Gazprombank’s assets in the US have also been frozen.
“Due to the new sanctions against Gazprombank, foreign buyers of Russian gas and oil will be faced with the need to look for alternative payment routes that are likely to complicate the entire process, increase risks, and make the payment procedure more expensive,” Potavin said.
He specified that European buyers could use accounts in other banks or pay for energy supplies via other world currencies as an alternative.
“The new sanctions will lead to an increase in prices for Russian hydrocarbons in Europe, and supply disruptions can’t be ruled out as well, since all this creates new risks for foreign companies working with Russia,” he explained.
According to Alexander Frolov, expert at the InfoTek energy news center, the latest restrictions won’t have a direct impact on buyers of Russian gas who previously agreed to adopt the “gas for rubles” scheme to pay for their energy purchases. They will only apply to individuals and legal entities subject to US jurisdiction, he said, as quoted by TASS.
The analyst admitted, however, that companies using rubles for Russian energy supplies are at risk of secondary sanctions, “so gas buyers from Europe will turn to the US Treasury for clarification.”
Supplies of Russian pipeline gas to Europe have substantially declined due to Ukraine-related restrictions and the sabotage of the Nord Stream pipelines, although EU nations are still importing record volumes of LNG from the sanctions-hit state. Despite the bloc’s vows to drop purchases of Russian energy, it remains one of the world’s major buyers of Russian fossil fuels. In August, pipeline gas comprised the largest share of the EU’s purchases of Russia’s fossil fuels (54%), followed by LNG (25%), according to the Centre for Research on Energy and Clean Air (CREA).
Following its crushing defeat in the 2024 election, the Democratic Party might finally face its day of reckoning. The party markets itself as the champion of the working class and a bulwark against the party of the plutocrats. But this has been a lie for at least three decades.
The Democratic Party has partnered with Wall Street donors since at least the 1990s. Under President Bill Clinton, the party overturned Glass Steagall and other New Deal programs that had effectively restrained Wall Street greed for 60 years. It also sold out American workers with so-called trade deals that freed their bosses to ship American jobs overseas. It ended welfare “as we know it” and passed draconian crime bills that destroyed mostly black and brown communities, sending mothers and fathers to prison for decades in the name of a cruel and senseless war on drugs.
Into the 21st century, the Democrats continued pushing the lie that they were fighting for working people. After September 11, 2001, the party put up a token resistance to the Bush/Cheney regime of illegal regime-change wars, black sites, indefinite detention and torture. All the while, it continued soliciting campaign contributions from the arms dealers profiting from Bush’s wars.
In 2008, the party found a Black face to carry on its Wall Street-friendly agenda. Gullible Americans, myself included, were taken in by Barack Obama’s promises to end “dumb wars” and to institute a single payer healthcare system. We ignored the red flags, like the fact that Obama’s campaign broke records in pocketing Wall Street donations. It was later revealed by Wikileaks that nearly every member of Obama’s cabinet had been selected by the giant Wall Street bank Citigroup.
It didn’t take long for President Obama to crush our hopes that he was a different kind of Democrat. One of his first acts as president was to funnel trillions of dollars to the big banks that, newly freed by Clinton from FDR-era regulations, had embarked on an orgy of unbridled greed, swindling millions of Americans out of their homes and retirement savings with a scheme to sell worthless mortgage-backed securities.
Adding insult to injury, Obama saw to it that the bailed-out bank executives faced no criminal prosecutions and received their year-end bonuses. In their place, the Obama Justice Department brought federal mortgage fraud charges against thousands of poor people — I represented a half dozen of these folks — who had signed their names to the phony mortgage loans that the Wall Street bankers encouraged, packaged and sold to pension funds and other unwitting investors.
The pipe dream that Obama would be an anti-war president was also quickly dispatched. During his two terms, Obama ushered in a new era of continuous war, envisioned by George Orwell and favored by Wall Street. Obama expanded Bush’s bombing campaigns into Libya, Pakistan, Yemen, Syria and Somalia. Today’s Democratic Party is indistinguishable from the Republicans in its ties to war profiteers and trillion-dollar Pentagon budgets.
Obama also effectively ended the Democrats’ promise to fight for a true national health care system in which all Americans would be able to go to the doctor when sick without fear of bankrupting their families. In its place, Obama pushed through a health care plan developed in right-wing think tanks, that guaranteed profits (and taxpayer subsidies) for the private insurance industry and did little to contain costs.
By 2012, Glen Ford of the Black Agenda Report was describing the Democratic Party as the “more effective evil” for using its reputation as protector of the working class to neutralize effective opposition and push through right-wing policies that the Republicans could not get passed.
In 2016, the Democrats received a wake-up call when their chosen successor to Obama lost the White House to a crude-talking New York City real estate developer and game show host with no prior political experience. But with the help of its partners in corporate media, the party managed to limp along for another eight years, first by telling the American people that President Trump was an agent of Russia, and then by claiming that Trump was Hitler who was planning concentration camps and firing squads for his political enemies.
Now after the November 2024 elections in which Trump won every swing state and the popular vote, the Democratic party is finally being forced to face some uncomfortable truths. The party’s partners in the corporate media initially tried blaming the election result on the voters for being too misogynist, too racist, or too dumb to vote correctly. But there is little trust that remains in corporate media.
The party’s corporate consultants have put the blame on the party’s excessive focus on identity politics. But the issues for the Democrats run much deeper than bad messaging. The real problem is that the party takes direction from plutocrats whose interests are antagonistic to the needs of the working people it pretends to represent. Both Democrats and Republicans are financed by the same corporate interests. Thus, there is general agreement and support for policies that guarantee high rates of return on investment capital, policies like continuous war, for-profit health care, and outsourcing jobs. This leaves few issues for the parties to fight about other than abortion and identity politics.
Fifty years ago, American capitalists still relied on American workers to build everything from cars and televisions to sneakers and light bulbs. These titans of industry had to care about things such as functioning schools, decent wages, cities and public transportation. But the times have changed. Today’s plutocrats support outsourcing jobs to low-wage countries and have little concern for the condition of American workers. And while ordinary Americans want the country’s resources to be spent at home, plutocrats are heavily invested in foreign wars, and they shun diplomacy.
These contradictions could only be covered up for so long. Even with reliable partners in the corporate press, the internet has given Americans alternative sources for their news. During the last few years, in a desperate effort to keep its scheme afloat, the Democrats embraced censorship and a regime of corporate “fact checkers” to police social media and remove or punish unsanctioned speech. In so doing, the party abandoned the last of its core principles: standing up for free speech and the right to dissent.
Many Democrats argue that they had to go after Wall Street money to compete with the Republicans. In 2016, Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer explained the strategy: “For every blue-collar Democrat we lose in western Pennsylvania we will pick up two moderate Republicans in the suburbs in Philadelphia, and you can repeat that in Ohio and Illinois and Wisconsin.” But for this plan to work, the party still needed an actual message to take to the voters.
Forbes Magazine reports that during the 2024 presidential race, Kamala Harris’s campaign raised a billion dollars while Trump’s campaign raised $388 million. Harris’s substantial edge in fundraising allowed her to flood the airwaves with commercials. But she had nothing of substance to say to voters.
The Atlantic Magazine reports that early in her campaign, Harris gained ground by attacking Trump as a stooge of corporate interests—and touted herself as a relentless scourge of Big Business. But then, suddenly, Harris abandoned her attacks on big business at the urging of her brother-in-law, Tony West, Uber’s chief legal officer.
Many Democrats, especially in swing states, opposed the Biden Administration’s unfailing support for Israel’s genocidal campaign in Gaza, which has killed more than 43,000 Palestinians and displaced nearly all of its 2.3 million residents. Harris could have gained the support of many of these voters by promising to stop arming Israel during the genocide. But her Party’s donors wouldn’t allow her to even hint at such a change in policy. Two days before the election, while campaigning in the swing state of Michigan, Harris stated, “I will do everything in my power to end the war in Gaza.” But as Ali Abunimah of the Electronic Intifada pointed out on election night, this promise carried no weight because Harris had also promised that she would never do the one thing within her power to stop the slaughter: cut off the flow of bombs to Israel.
After decades of malfeasance and deception, it has become evident that the corporate Democratic Party cannot serve as the lone opposition party to the corporate Republicans. The American people need a viable political party that represents the interests of ordinary working people.
A true workers party will not raise as much money as the corporate Democrats. But it will have an honest message with the potential to appeal to large numbers of Americans. Further, a political party that actually represents workers will press for reforms that begin to even the playing field between the haves and the have nots.
For example, one the most effective ways plutocrats game the political system is by flooding campaign contributions to the lawmakers who sit on the key committees that oversee their businesses. Members of Congress covet these committee chairs because they guarantee high fundraising numbers. Lawmakers who sit on the House Financial Services Committee have jurisdiction over banks and insurance companies and are targeted by those firms with campaign contributions. Lawmakers who sit on the Armed Services and Appropriations Committees provide funding for lucrative government contracts and are flooded with war industry cash.
These practices are corrupt and deprive American citizens of their right to be governed by representatives free from conflicts of interest. A judge who has received political contributions from a litigant must be removed from the case. Similarly, the most important functions of government, such as determining tax and how our tax revenue will be spent, should be performed by lawmakers who have not been bribed.
In 2017, the Center for American Progress, a think tank aligned with the Democratic Party, proposed a “Committee Contribution Ban” for Congress. It asserted: “Congress should enact a law to make it unlawful for members of Congress to accept campaign contributions from entities that fall within the jurisdiction of their committees.” Unsurprisingly, this proposal never reached the floor of Congress, that I could find.
Some states have enacted similar conflict of interest rules. And Congress could certainly pass such a law, if it chose. Of course, this will never happen as long as we are ruled by two corporate parties that benefit from the corruption. But if we had a political party that represented ordinary people, countless opportunities for positive change would soon emerge.
Leonard C. Goodman is a Chicago criminal defense lawyer and has been an Adjunct Professor of Law at DePaul University.
The federal government is assuming greater Chinese involvement in the Ukraine war. On the sidelines of an EU meeting in Brussels, Foreign Minister Annalena Baerbock spoke of “Chinese drone support” for Russia and demanded: “This must and will have consequences.”
The European Union’s Foreign Service had previously confirmed that indications are currently being examined that China produces drones for Russia. An EU official said: “We have received reports from intelligence sources about the existence of a factory in China that produces drones that are supplied to Russia and used in the war against Ukraine.”
If direct cooperation between China and Russia in the field of military equipment is confirmed, sanctions could be imposed. According to diplomats, drone production is a joint project between Russia, China and Iran.
Lithuania’s Foreign Minister Gabrielius Landsbergis demanded that the EU react decisively. Europe should not show weakness because it is afraid of the Chinese reaction, said Landsbergis, referring to Europe’s dependence on raw materials from the People’s Republic.
Finland’s Foreign Minister Elina Valtonen said there could be no “business as usual” in trade with China if Beijing was compromising Europe’s security. A very anti-Chinese sentiment is clearly evident in all of these statements.
China rejects the allegations. With regard to arms exports, China has always taken a responsible stance and has never provided the parties to the conflict with lethal weapons, said a Chinese Foreign Office spokesman. China strictly controls drones for military purposes and those that can be used for civil and military purposes in accordance with the law.
However, this German advance against China must be clearly seen in the context of the current economic war. China is currently a major competitor against the German automotive industry. The fact that the German Foreign Minister in particular is demanding consequences is very interesting.
In this context, consequences mean that sanctions are required. Will such sanctions perhaps also affect the import of Chinese cars? Since the German automotive industry is currently in a major crisis, politicians must of course react.
The high energy prices in particular make it impossible for Germany to remain competitive against Chinese production. The EU and the USA are currently trying to compensate for the difference in production costs with punitive tariffs on the import of Chinese cars.
However, since an even larger difference is now foreseeable due to Europe’s difficult economic situation, these punitive tariffs can only be viewed as a first step. The only way to protect the internal market for cars in the long term would be to stop imports of cars from China.
However, such a situation can only be achieved with sanctions. The current discussion is clearly heading in this direction, but the question is whether the actors in European politics are prepared to follow this path to the end.
Maybe people are just speculating about a warning against China. But in this context, politicians in Europe are too short-sighted. It can be assumed that China is adequately prepared for any economic punitive measures from Europe.
In contrast to companies in Europe, China has been much more successful in finding new markets. For example, due to European sanctions, Russia is quickly becoming a large market for many Chinese companies. This is particularly evident in the automotive industry.
The current discussion about the unproven delivery of drones to Russia is an attempt to take the next step in the economic war against China. And as is usually the case with decisions in European politics, this can immediately become a shot in the foot.
This reality is clearly visible in the example of the sanctions against Russia, as we can analyze it based on the state of German industry. Furthermore, attempting to defend one’s own market with punitive tariffs and sanctions is a sign of weakness.
German politicians have managed to bring the growth of the German economy to a standstill and forecasts even speak of a negative development. The German automobile industry will be overtaken by Chinese cars and this trend will most likely not change in the next few years.
After the next federal election, a new government in Germany must take care of repairing the damage caused to the German economy. The time of the German “economic miracle” from the 1950s, which made Germany a top location for the automobile industry, is over. This reality must be understood by those responsible. The attempts to punish China for its success show that there are currently no other strategies to save the German automotive industry.
Patrick Poppel is an expert at the Center for Geostrategic Studies (Belgrade).
By James W. Carden | The Realist Review | June 14, 2026
Joe Biden’s presidency may ultimately come to be seen as a cautionary tale. Here was a president who showed little interest in entertaining arguments that might have contradicted his most deeply held assumptions.[1] And there were precious few within the upper ranks of the administration who might have attempted to do so, after all, only policy hands and political operatives who had come up through the ranks of the Clinton and Obama administrations or had longstanding ties to the citadels of the foreign policy community were invited into the fold. … continue
This site is provided as a research and reference tool. Although we make every reasonable effort to ensure that the information and data provided at this site are useful, accurate, and current, we cannot guarantee that the information and data provided here will be error-free. By using this site, you assume all responsibility for and risk arising from your use of and reliance upon the contents of this site.
This site and the information available through it do not, and are not intended to constitute legal advice. Should you require legal advice, you should consult your own attorney.
Nothing within this site or linked to by this site constitutes investment advice or medical advice.
Materials accessible from or added to this site by third parties, such as comments posted, are strictly the responsibility of the third party who added such materials or made them accessible and we neither endorse nor undertake to control, monitor, edit or assume responsibility for any such third-party material.
The posting of stories, commentaries, reports, documents and links (embedded or otherwise) on this site does not in any way, shape or form, implied or otherwise, necessarily express or suggest endorsement or support of any of such posted material or parts therein.
The word “alleged” is deemed to occur before the word “fraud.” Since the rule of law still applies. To peasants, at least.
Fair Use
This site contains copyrighted material the use of which has not always been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. We are making such material available in our efforts to advance understanding of environmental, political, human rights, economic, democracy, scientific, and social justice issues, etc. We believe this constitutes a ‘fair use’ of any such copyrighted material as provided for in section 107 of the US Copyright Law. In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, the material on this site is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes. For more info go to: http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/107.shtml. If you wish to use copyrighted material from this site for purposes of your own that go beyond ‘fair use’, you must obtain permission from the copyright owner.
DMCA Contact
This is information for anyone that wishes to challenge our “fair use” of copyrighted material.
If you are a legal copyright holder or a designated agent for such and you believe that content residing on or accessible through our website infringes a copyright and falls outside the boundaries of “Fair Use”, please send a notice of infringement by contacting atheonews@gmail.com.
We will respond and take necessary action immediately.
If notice is given of an alleged copyright violation we will act expeditiously to remove or disable access to the material(s) in question.
All 3rd party material posted on this website is copyright the respective owners / authors. Aletho News makes no claim of copyright on such material.
Aletho News 