Asian LNG prices to rise because of Ukraine – Bloomberg
RT | January 2, 2025
The cessation of natural gas flows from Russia to European consumers following Kiev’s decision to stop transit via Ukrainian territory is expected to boost competition for alternatives between Europe and Asia, increasing prices for liquified natural gas (LNG), Bloomberg reported on Thursday, citing an energy expert.
Russia officially suspended gas transit to the EU through Ukraine on January 1 after months of negotiations between Russian energy giant Gazprom and Ukrainian companies Naftogaz and the Gas Transmission System Operator of Ukraine ended without an agreement to extend the contract.
“This is going to further tighten the LNG market,” Scott Darling, a managing director at Haitong International Securities, told Bloomberg. “Supply, particularly for LNG, is tight, and we see more upside risk to spot LNG prices this year and next.”
While the stoppage was expected after months of political wrangling, European consumers still have to replace around 5% of their gas and may rely more heavily on storage, the news outlet noted, adding that the gas repository had recently fallen below average levels for the current time of year.
In anticipation of the reduction of supply, prices for natural gas surged with Europe’s gas benchmark ending the year up more than 50%, Bloomberg reported, emphasizing that the growth hadn’t yet been reflected in the cost of the normally more-expensive LNG.
Ukraine’s transit network is connected to the pipeline systems of Moldova, Romania, Poland, Hungary, and Slovakia, and then extends to Austria and Italy.
Slovakia is seen as one of the countries hardest-hit by the latest halt, as the nation covers nearly 60% of its demand with Russian supplies running through Ukraine. Moldova could also be significantly impacted by the drastic move, as the former Soviet republic generates much of its electricity at a power station fueled by Russian gas.
Russia is still able to provide European consumers with gas supplies through the TurkStream pipeline, as well as to send shipments by the sea in the form of LNG.
TurkStream runs from Russia to Türkiye via the Black Sea, and then continues to the border with EU member state Greece. It has two lines, one for the Turkish domestic market and the other for central European customers including Hungary and Serbia.
Polish FM slammed for celebrating gas cutoff
RT | January 1, 2025
Polish Foreign Minister Radoslaw Sikorski has celebrated Ukraine’s decision to halt the flow of Russian gas to the EU as a victory for the West, despite the cutoff leading to higher prices and shortages in some countries.
Russia stopped gas transit through Ukraine early on Wednesday morning, after Kiev refused to extend an agreement under which it collected transit fees to move the gas through its own pipeline network and into Moldova, Romania, Poland, Hungary, and Slovakia, and then on to Austria and Italy.
Sikorski took to X to celebrate. “[Russian President Vladimir] Putin spent billions building Nordstream to circumvent Ukraine and blackmail Eastern Europe with the threat of cutting off gas supplies,” he wrote, referring to two pipelines that linked Russia with Germany until they were destroyed in an act of sabotage in 2022.
“Today Ukraine cut off his ability to export gas direct to the EU,” Sikorski continued, hailing the decision as “another victory after the enlargement of NATO by Finland and Sweden.”
Kiev’s decision caused EU gas prices to spike to €50 per megawatt hour, a figure unseen since October 2023. Slovakia, which relied heavily on Russian gas imports via Ukraine, will be severely affected, as will EU candidate state Moldova, which used Russian gas to generate much of its electricity.
Sikorski should be “locked up in a mental institution” for “celebrating cutting Europe off gas in the middle of winter,” wrote journalist Thomas Fazi responding to Sikorski’s post.
“Russia was clearly trying to blackmail Europe by supplying even more gas to them. Thankfully, Ukraine heroically ‘saved’ Europe by cutting off the gas,” another commenter wrote. “The absurdity of this logic is mind-blowing.”
“People like Sikorski who want to destroy European economies by cutting them off from global resources and markets should not be allowed to live in Europe,” another comment read. “Go to the USA where your loyalties lie.”
Sikorski was similarly ridiculed back in 2022, when he responded to the destruction of the Nord Stream pipelines by posting – and then deleting – an image of the blast site along with the caption: “Thank you, USA.” While German investigators have reportedly settled on the theory that the pipelines were destroyed by Ukrainian saboteurs, American journalist Seymour Hersh maintains that they were blown up by the CIA and US Navy.
The head of Russia’s Foreign Intelligence Service (SVR), Sergey Naryshkin, has blamed “professional saboteurs from the Anglo-American security services,” referring to the US and UK.
Slovak PM slams ‘irrational’ EU
RT | December 30, 2024
Slovak Prime Minister Robert Fico has sent an open letter to European Council President Antonio Costa and European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen, urging immediate action to address Ukraine’s imminent halt of natural gas transit through its territory to the EU.
A transit agreement between Russia and Ukraine is set to expire on December 31. Kiev has refused to extend it, citing the conflict with Moscow.
In a letter posted on Facebook on Sunday, Fico accused Kiev of failing to consider the potential impact its decision will have on the EU economy. Brussels’ acceptance of the situation is “absolutely irrational and wrong,” he stressed.
Gas transit through Ukraine accounts for only 3.5% of EU consumption, the letter states, citing an analysis carried out by Slovakia’s main gas supplier and trader, SPP. Despite the modest share, any halt would disrupt the market, raising gas prices by roughly 30%, the document claims. Such a price spike would translate to an additional annual cost of € 40-50 billion for European households and infrastructure, Fico argued.
“It is in the interest of all EU citizens that European efforts to support Ukraine should be carried out rationally, and not in the form of self-destructive and extremely damaging gestures,” the Slovak prime minister noted. Kiev’s decision will lead to “reciprocal measures,” he warned.
Fico also said Russia “will easily place such a small volume of gas in other markets,” thus mitigating its losses.
The situation requires urgent attention from EU institutions and member states to mitigate risks of supply shortages, he added.
Landlocked Slovakia’s position within Europe’s energy network makes it highly susceptible to disruptions in natural gas supply. The country is reliant on Russia for around 85% of its gas demand, primarily through pipelines transiting Ukraine.
Fico has repeatedly voiced concerns regarding EU energy policy. He has consistently advocated for pragmatic approaches to energy security, often clashing with Brussels on its approach to the Ukraine conflict, namely the issue of military support to Kiev and the issue of economic sanctions against Russia.
European Union leaders have repeatedly expressed confidence in the bloc’s ability to manage without Russian gas, accusing Moscow of using energy as a geopolitical weapon.
The European Commission and Council have yet to issue formal responses to the Slovak leader’s letter.
Major Winners and Losers of Halting Russian Gas Transit Through Ukraine
By Ekaterina Blinova – Sputnik – 29.12.2024
As the Ukraine gas transit contract with Russia is set to end, Ukraine’s largest private energy company DTEK received its first delivery of liquefied natural gas (LNG) from the US on December 27.
Winners
US LNG producers:
- The halting of Russia’s gas deliveries through Ukraine will increase the US share and reduce competition in the EU market.
- The latest US LNG delivery amounts to 100 million cubic meters of gas (1 TWh of energy, or 3,530,000 MMBtu), bought by D.Trading, DTEK’s pan-European trading subsidiary. The shipment arrived at Greek LNG terminals such as Revithoussa, where it will be “re-gasified” and distributed “through EU and Ukrainian gas networks,” according to DTEK. One network, the Vertical Corridor, will transmit US LNG deliveries between Greece, Bulgaria, Romania, Hungary, Slovakia, Moldova, and Ukraine.
- LNG from the US for Europe is at least 30-40% more expensive than pipeline gas from Russia.
- In December 2022, the US became the world’s leading exporter of LNG amid Europe’s energy crisis and the sabotage attack on Russia’s Nord Stream pipelines.
Losers
- Ukraine: Ukraine will lose almost $1 billion annually from Russian gas transit fees. Additionally, Ukraine is likely to pay more for US LNG coming through the Revithoussa LNG terminal than for Russian pipeline gas, which used to come in the form of a “virtual reverse.”
- Hungary, Austria, and Slovakia which have long relied on Russian gas transit through Ukraine, will face challenges. Being landlocked, access to LNG delivered to marine terminals is costly and difficult. Long-term contracts with Russia’s Gazprom allowed them to buy natural gas considerably cheaper than EU gas spot prices. For instance, Austria had been receiving Russian gas at a price almost three times cheaper than EU spot prices in 2022, according to Reuters.
- European Union: After sliding to $11.79/MMBtu in October, European gas prices rose to almost $15/MMBtu on November 22. On December 27, benchmark futures rose further by 5% on the news of halted Russian gas transit through Ukraine. Stopping the supply of Russian gas through Ukraine will cost Europe around $125 billion in total losses in 2025-2026, according to Slovak Prime Minister Robert Fico.
After NATO’s Romanian Coup, Where Next?
By Kit Klarenberg | Global Delinquents | December 29, 2024
On December 6th, Romania’s constitutional court made an extraordinary decision to inexplicably overturn first round results of the country’s November 24th presidential election. Conveniently, the ruling was made mere days before a runoff that, according to polls, would’ve seen upstart outsider Calin Georgescu win via landslide. In the process, citizens of all NATO member states were provided with a particularly pitiless, real-time crash course on what could now happen in their own countries, should the ‘wrong’ candidates be elected fair and square.
Georgescu’s stunning victory in the first round caught Romania’s political elite and their Western sponsors off guard, while leaving him the most popular political figure in the country. Campaigning on a traditionalist, nationalist platform, he extolled views some might consider unsavoury, but also advocated nationalisation, and state investment in local industry. Perhaps predictably, the Western media has universally smeared him as “far-right”, “pro-Putin” and a “conspiracy theorist”, among other now-familiar sobriquets commonly levelled at political dissidents.
Georgescu’s greatest crime is to determinedly oppose continued Romanian involvement in and backing for the Ukraine proxy war. As Kiev’s Black Sea-facing neighbour, Bucharest has offered significant financial, material and political succour since February 2022, all along running the risk of getting caught in the crossfire. But in interviews with Western news outlets, Georgescu boldly proclaimed any and all “military or political support” would be reduced to “zero” under his watch:
“I have to take care of my people. I don’t want to involve my people… Everything stops. I have to take care just about my people. We have a lot of problems ourselves.”
No official reason has been given for Romania’s constitutional court voiding November’s vote, despite days earlier signing off on the results. Nonetheless, in the intervening time, Bucharest’s security apparatus released declassified reports intimating – without making direct accusations or providing any evidence whatsoever – Georgescu’s victory may have resulted from a wide-ranging, Moscow-sponsored influence campaign, delivered via TikTok. Details provided instead pointed to a rather mundane – albeit successful – social media marketing effort.
The plot further thickened in late December, when it was revealed the TikTok campaign that purportedly boosted Georgescu was in fact financed by Romania’s National Liberal party. This backing helped propel the hitherto obscure candidate to national prominence, the objective potentially being to harm the National Liberal party’s arch nemesis Social Democrats. No evidence of Muscovite funding, let alone support, for Georgescu has ever emerged. Nonetheless, despite these disclosures, the narrative of Russian destabilisation catapulting him into power has since been invincibly minted.
NATO’s grand and ever-expanding military base in Romania
Bucharest’s sprawling territory is home to multiple US missile facilities, and a giant NATO military base, scheduled to soon be greatly expanded, explicitly in service of decisively changing the region’s “balance of power” in the West’s favour. Meanwhile, Romanian presidents wield significant clout in domestic and international affairs. They dictate foreign policy, serve as commander-in-chief of the armed forces, and appoint prime ministers. All of which points to a far more likely rationale for the presidential election’s abrogation than “Russian meddling”.
‘Without Hope’
On December 10th, the BBC published a striking report on how Romanians were “stunned by the eleventh-hour cancellation of their presidential election.” The British state broadcaster was at pains throughout to justify the vote’s unprecedented, despotic annulment as proper, reasonably motivated by a “massive” and “aggressive” malign meddling campaign on TikTok – whether of Russian origin or not – improperly skewing the result. However, the BBC evidently had little choice but to admit Georgescu was enormously, and organically, popular.
For example, NATO veteran Mircea Geoana, Bucharest’s former foreign affairs minister who ran for president in November and finished sixth, was quoted as saying “Romania dodged a bullet” and “came very close” to an all-out coup. “If Moscow can do this in Romania, which is profoundly anti-Russian, it means they can do it anywhere,” he ominously cautioned. Still, Geoana conceded there was “a whole cocktail of grievances in our society,” and it would be “hugely mistaken to believe” Georgescu’s success “was just because of Russia.”
The BBC acknowledged immense “fatigue” with Romania’s doggedly pro-Western political establishment widely abounds among the local population, who harbour an ever-growing number of completely legitimate grievances, entirely unaddressed in the mainstream. By contrast, the British state broadcaster recorded, Georgescu not only spoke openly and passionately about these manifold problems, but offered tangible solutions for tackling them. And a great many average citizens “liked what he said.” Several Georgescu supporters were duly quoted in the article, issuing effusive praise. One evangelised:
“He’s like a preacher, with a Bible in his hand, and I thought he spoke only the truth… He talks about rights and dignity. Romanians go to other countries for work, but we have so many resources here. Wood, grain – and our soil is very rich. Why should we be vagrants in Italy?”
The BBC further noted Georgescu’s “pledge to Make Romania Great Again helped him perform particularly strongly among the vast Romanian diaspora.” Given Bucharest’s mass depopulation in recent years, significantly assisted by EU membership, this is hardly surprising. “Many who left because life was so tough are now getting by abroad rather than prospering,” the British state broadcaster observed. Meanwhile, in Bucharest, costs of basic goods are “climbing at the fastest rate in Europe.” An expat supporter of Georgescu forcefully declared:
“He’s corrupt? He’s with Putin? No, he’s not. He’s with the people. With Romania. Georgescu is a patriot. He wants peace, not war, and we want that too. Someone wants something good for his country and they won’t allow him to do that… Maybe he’ll be in prison in months and for what? For nothing… We feel lost right now, without hope.”
‘Allied Solidarity’
To date, no concrete evidence directly implicating NATO powers in the invalidation of Romania’s presidential election has emerged. We do not – and may never – know what might have been said behind closed doors to members of Bucharest’s Western-bought political, judicial, security and military establishment, and by whom. But there is a clear precedent for such backroom conniving. In the final months of 1989, Communism across the Warsaw Pact, the Cold War-era constellation of Central and Eastern European Soviet satellite states.
The sole exception was Romania, then led by Nicolae Ceausescu. On December 4th that year, he privately met with then-Soviet leader Mikhail Gorbachev, to discuss the fall of longstanding Communist governments in Bulgaria, Czechoslovakia, East Germany, Hungary and Poland. Gorbachev, to all intents and purposes a Western puppet, assured Ceausescu his position was secure, he would “survive”, and they would meet again in mere weeks. That summit never came to pass though, as on December 25th, Ceausescu was executed by military firing squad.
The 1989 Romanian revolution
This followed violent mass protests across Romania. Years later, it was revealed high-ranking US officials secretly met with Gorbachev that month, imploring him to deploy the Red Army to oust Ceausescu. These entreaties were apparently rebuffed. Yet, subsequent research indicates that throughout December 1989, a profusion of KGB operatives were conducting uncertain, covert missions across the country, in coordination with Ion Iliescu, who succeeded Ceausescu. Suspicions he personally ordered the very security service crackdowns that ignited the insurrectionary anti-Ceausescu demonstrations endure to this day.
Whatever the truth of the matter, Romania’s outsized geopolitical importance to the Empire then and now couldn’t be clearer. In the weeks since Georgescu’s victory was vetoed, it has been announced that further scores of foreign NATO troops will be dispatched to Bucharest, in explicit response to “the evolution of the security situation in the Black Sea region.” Meanwhile, Romanian officials talk a big game on “allied solidarity”, and look forward to “extensive joint training exercises” over the year ahead.
Furthermore, on December 12th, the Romanian government abruptly greenlit long-mooted, highly controversial legislation providing for the country’s military and all its “weapons, military devices and ammunition” to come under total foreign control and direction at any time, without a formal state declaration of emergency, siege, or war. In other words, NATO would have unilateral power to commandeer Bucharest’s armed forces, at its behest. A useful capability indeed, as the nearby Ukraine proxy war careens towards total collapse, and overt foreign involvement is openly mulled.
The aforementioned BBC article reported that local “suspicion” about whether unseen foreign forces may have swayed “the judges’ ruling to cancel the vote” is such, “even those who feared a president Georgescu – and believe Russia was backing him – now worry about the precedent just set for Romanian democracy.” We are left to ponder where next an illiberal coup of the kind that just went down in Bucharest might be replicated, as the Empire’s surging contempt for democracy and public will becomes writ ever-larger.
Nonetheless, one might draw some solace from the fact that even those who endorsed Romania’s autocratic putsch are well-aware it was a blunt-force, short-term solution to a panoply of deeply complex, likely intractable socioeconomic and political problems. Former NATO high-ranker Mircea Geoana told the British state broadcaster that nullification of Georgescu’s victory had delivered at best transitory reprieve to Western powers, and their chosen puppets in Romania. Moreover, he feared the move could spectacularly boomerang, should elites continue to ignore citizens’ concerns:
“We bought ourselves some time. But there is real fury here. And if we don’t do something, we might have a repeat.”
McCarthyism, European style: The elite crackdown on Ukraine dissent
Experts lambasted as Kremlin mouthpieces turned out to be right
By Eldar Mamedov | Responsible Statecraft | December 12, 2024
As the war between Russia and Ukraine is framed by the ruling politicians and commentators in Europe and America as part of a purported global struggle between democracies and autocracies, the quality of democracy in the West itself has taken a hit.
The dominant voices advocating for Ukraine’s victory and Russia’s defeat, both defined in maximalist and increasingly unattainable terms, are intent on snuffing out more thoughtful and nuanced perspectives, thus depriving the public of a democratic debate on the existential questions of war and peace.
In a familiar pattern throughout the West, respected academics who correctly predicted the quagmire Ukraine and the West now find themselves in have been smeared and delegitimized as Kremlin mouthpieces, subjected to harassment, marginalization and ostracism.
The situation is particularly alarming in Europe. While the Ukraine debate in the U.S. is, to a worrying extent, shaped by pro-militarist think tanks, such as the Atlantic Council, hawkish politicians and neoconservative pundits, a countervailing movement consisting of pro-restraint voices has been growing. They include Defense Priorities, the CATO Institute, publications like The Nation on the left, and The American Conservative on the right, and academics like Stephen Walt, John Mearsheimer, and Jeffrey Sachs, among others. There is more space for alternative voices in American discourse.
In Europe, by contrast, foreign policy debates tend to simply echo the most hawkish voices inside Washington’s Beltway.
Sweden is a particularly telling illustration of that trend. After Russia’s invasion of Ukraine, the Swedish government and political class swiftly moved to join NATO. Yet, as one of the leading Swedish international relations scholars Frida Stranne told me in an interview, “No proper debate was held on the key questions, like whether Russia’s aggression against Ukraine indeed was such an immediate security threat for Sweden that it had to ditch the neutral status it enjoyed even during the Cold War?” (I can testify myself, from my work as a senior foreign policy adviser in the European Parliament in early 2022, that even some members of the then-ruling Swedish social-democratic party were aghast at the government running roughshod over alternative views on NATO).
Further, in a conversation with me, Stranne, while acknowledging that Russia’s invasion of Ukraine was “an egregious breach of international law,” pointed to U.S. policies since 2001, such as the invasion of Iraq, noting that they “have helped to undermine international legal principles and set the precedent for other countries acting ‘preemptively’ against perceived threats.”
In the same interview, she also warned that “a refusal to countenance a negotiated settlement to the war in Ukraine is leading the world perilously close to the brink of a major military conflict between NATO and Russia.”
While such points are routinely made by fairly mainstream scholars in the U.S., in Sweden they triggered a vicious campaign against Stranne and made her nearly untouchable by the media and in foreign policy circles. Leading media outlets vilified her as a U.S. hater and a “Putinist.”
Germany is another example of how enforced groupthink led to a marginalization of dissenting perspectives in political debates. What is particularly noteworthy is the speed and radicalism with which the hawks in think tanks, media, and political parties managed to redefine the debate in a country previously known for its now-defunct Ostpolitik, a policy of pragmatic engagement with the Soviet Union and later Russia.
One of Germany’s most prominent foreign policy experts, Johannes Varwick of the University Halle-Wittenberg, has long defied the trend and advocated for diplomacy. In December 2021, together with a number of high-ranking former military officers, diplomats and academics, he warned that a massive deterioration in relations with Russia could lead to war — due, in part, to the West’s refusal to take seriously Russia’s security concerns, chiefly related to the prospects of NATO’s eastward expansion.
Yet such views earned Varwick accusations of “serving Russian interests.” As a result, as he told me in an interview, his “ties with the political parties and ministries responsible for conducting Germany’s foreign and security policy were severed.”
Experts in neutral countries were not spared marginalization as well. Austrian Prof. Gerhard Mangott, one of the most eminent experts on Russia in the German-speaking world, pointed to a “shared responsibility” of Russia, Ukraine, and Western countries for the failure to resolve the post-2014 Ukrainian conflict peacefully. Such analysis, as Mangott told me, led to his “prompt excommunication by the German-speaking scientific community which turned quickly to political activism and became party to the war.”
The tragic irony, of course, is that these ostracized voices have proved to be correct in most respects about this war.
When, despite his warnings, the Russian invasion of Ukraine did occur, Varwick, who condemned it as illegal and unacceptable, called for further efforts to find a realistic negotiated solution to the conflict. As he told me, this should “firstly include a neutral status for Ukraine with strong security guarantees for the country. Secondly, there would be territorial changes in Ukraine that would not be recognized under international law but must be accepted as a temporary modus vivendi, and thirdly, the prospect of suspension of some sanctions in the event of a change in Russia’s behavior must be on offer.”
In March 2022, both Ukraine and Russia were close to a deal broadly along these same parameters. It did not work, because, among other reasons, the West encouraged Ukraine to believe that a military “victory” was possible. The role of then-British Prime Minister Boris Johnson in undermining the talks is now generally acknowledged. What is, however, particularly striking is that Johnson recently himself admitted that he saw the war in Ukraine as a proxy war against Russia — a claim made by Stranne and the Quincy Institute’s Trita Parsi in their 2023 book, in Swedish, “The Illusion of American Peace,” for which they were lambasted for purportedly pushing Russian narratives.
Fast forward to late 2024, and, faced with growing difficulties on the battlefield, Ukraine’s President Volodymyr Zelensky is now signaling that he could go along with some of the elements outlined by Varwick; namely, accepting some de facto territorial losses to prevent even bigger ones should the war continue.
Today, Ukraine is farther away from achieving anything remotely resembling a military victory than at any point since February 2022. Contrary to the expectations in the U.S. and EU, sanctions neither tanked Russia’s economy nor changed its policies in the ways the West sought.
In the West itself, political forces that urge negotiations to end the war are ascendant, as evidenced by the election of Donald Trump as president in the United States and the rise of anti-war parties in Germany, France and other EU countries. Public opinion surveys consistently show a preference of the majority of Europeans for a negotiated end to the war.
The reality is, irrespective of the outcome of the war in Ukraine, a modus vivendi between the West and Russia will have to be reestablished to ensure, in Varwick’s words, “their coexistence in a Cold War 2.0 without a permanent escalation.” Restoring an open democratic debate about this vital issue is long overdue.
Listening to the experts who have a proven track record of correct analysis would be a necessary first step.
Eldar Mamedov is a Brussels-based foreign policy expert.
Moldovan President Sandu Plans to Seize Transnistria Power Station – Russian Intel Service
Sputnik – 23.12.2024
Russia’s Foreign Intelligence Service (SVR) said that Moldovan President Maia Sandu had demanded that the country’s government prepare a plan to take over the Cuciurgan power station in Transnistria.
Sandu held a meeting with the Moldovan government to discuss the country’s energy security issues, the SVR said in a statement on Monday. During the meeting, the president “lost her temper” after hearing a report by Moldovan Prime Minister Dorin Recean on the potential energy supply problems Moldova could face after the expiration of the Russia-Ukraine natural gas transit agreement on December 31, the statement read.
“The president was not sobered by the reminder that the right bank of Moldova is almost entirely dependent on electricity supplies from the Cuciurgan power station in Transnistria. After ‘flying into a rage,’ the president demanded that preparations be made for a violent seizure of the power station,” the SVR said.
Sandu flatly refused to discuss the issue of Moldova’s energy supplies with the Ukrainian authorities after the gas transit agreement expired, the statement added. The president said that if Moscow did not supply Moldova with natural gas, Chisinau would “take revenge” on Transnistria, according to the SVR.
The meeting concluded with Sandu’s remarks about the need to develop a military operation plan to establish control over Transnistria and eliminate the Russian peacekeeping presence in the region, the SVR said.
Since December 2022, Moldovagaz has been sourcing natural gas from Moldovan energy utility Energocom and Gazprom. The Russian gas is supplied to Transnistria in exchange for electricity, which is used to power the rest of Moldova. Moldova’s Cuciurgan power station covers 80% of the country’s electricity needs.
Transnistria, where Russians and Ukrainians make up 60% of the population, sought to secede from Moldova even before the collapse of the Soviet Union, fearing that Moldova would join Romania amid a wave of nationalism. In 1992, after an unsuccessful attempt by Moldovan authorities to resolve the issue by force, Transnistria became a de facto territory outside Chisinau’s control.
Geopolitical auto-asphyxiation: Here’s why Germany is heading for irreversible decline
Berlin is unable or unwilling to finally abandon a pernicious groupthink that subordinates its interests to Washington’s misguided political agenda
By Tarik Cyril Amar | RT | December 22, 2024
Oops, he’s done it again: Tech mogul, richest man in the world, and also now new bestie of American President-elect Donald Trump, Elon Musk has used his massive social media clout – as owner of X and a personal account with more than 200 million followers – to post about politics. And here we don’t mean his unhelpful recent intervention in how Americans – barely – keep their rickety government contraption from stuttering to a halt for lack of cash.
Nope, this is about Germany: With regard to Europe’s Sick Man on the Spree (there is another one on the Seine, of course), in his first post Musk waltzed in, guns blazing to support the right-wing AfD (Alternative for Germany) party in the run-up to the snap elections on February 23.
Only the AfD, he pronounced with typical modesty, can “save Germany.” In a second post, a few days later, Musk reacted to a murderous attack on a German Christmas market in the city of Magdeburg. This time, he called Germany’s lame-duck Chancellor Olaf Scholz “an incompetent fool” who should resign forthwith.
Some Germans are aghast. How dare Musk, an American, intervene in our elections? Deeply unpopular German minister of health Karl Lauterbach, for instance, went almost comically Victorian with his performance of righteous ire for public display, calling Musk’s statements “undignified and highly problematic.” Shocking, shocking indeed!
Interestingly enough, most of the same Germans still have no problem with Joe Biden, also an American, having helped Ukraine blow up their vital energy infrastructure and then mightily promoting the de-industrialization of Germany and the EU as a whole by subsidizing companies which move to produce in the US. Others think it’s totally normal that German politicians, such as Michael Roth – head of the German parliament’s Foreign Affairs Committee, no less – massively interfere in the politics of, say, Georgia, not only by messing with its elections but also trying to literally instigate a coup. Judge not, lest ye be judged…
So, let’s cut out the daft pearl-clutching: I am German, and I find it very objectionable when Musk fails to post about the genocide in Gaza, instead taking the side of the Israeli perpetrators. But I could not be less concerned about him stating his opinion – it’s not more than that – about what party would be best for Germany, even thought I do not agree at all. As to calling Scholz what he actually is, go ahead Elon. There, I am even on your side.
Once we dispense with the huffy-puffy theatrics, what is really at stake here? And why would it even matter so much to some Germans what Musk has to say about their politics?
It’s not complicated: Musk has hit a very sore spot. And the name of that very sore spot is Germany. Yes, all of it, or at least, everything that has to do with its tanking economy and, frankly, delusional politics. Here’s how:
On December 16, German Chancellor Olaf Scholz lost a confidence vote in the German parliament. That was no surprise but the plan from the beginning. Or to be precise, since November 6, when the former governing coalition of Greens, Free Democrat market liberals, and Scholz’s own Social Democrats imploded with a nasty bang. After that, the no-confidence vote – even if it came with some predictable yet pretty fake drama and backbiting – was merely a formality on the way to snap elections, scheduled for February 23.
On the face of it, the above may look like a minor politics-as-usual hiccup: Sometimes coalitions don’t work out and a country needs new elections to – hopefully – start over with a new government. In postwar Germany (the Cold War Western version and the post-unification one together), this procedure – based on article 68 of the constitution – is not unprecedented; it has been used 5 times before.
But this is not that sort of case. Rather, the snap elections are only one small symptom of a much deeper, all-pervasive malaise: By regularly reading the news about Germany, you could easily come to feel that Europe’s former economic locomotive and political first-among-not-so-equals is now a very unhappy country, economically in severe, persistent decline and politically – to put it kindly – badly disoriented. And you would be right. Except things are even worse, and I write that, let me remind you, as a German.
For what’s really gloomy – indeed, quite literally hopeless – about the current German doom is that no one with even a remote chance at political power in Berlin is prepared to honestly face the root causes of the country’s misery. Germany is not merely in a mess; it also has a dysfunctional non-elite that is in total denial about how to fix that mess. But before we get to that elephant in the misery room that almost all German politicians fail to acknowledge, with stereotypical thoroughness, let’s look at the wasteland their failure has made.
Take a few highlights. There are 84 million Germans. According to a major research institute in the country, a quarter of them have found out that their income is insufficient to make ends meet. In a similar vein, another new study based on official government data pays special attention to the cost of having a roof, any roof, over your head. It has just found that 17.5 million Germans are living in poverty. That is 5.4 million more than previously assumed. The reason they had escaped the traditional statistics is that the cost of their abodes had simply not been factored in. Once you, realistically, do so, a whopping 20 percent of Germans fall under the official definition of “poor.”
No wonder then that ever more Germans need soup kitchens – in German “Tafeln” – to simply have enough to eat. Indeed, demand for housing has grown so much that they even have to ration the food they are doling out.
More and more Germans have to abandon their pets because they simply can’t afford them anymore: cats and dogs are becoming a “luxury item,” and keep people in a “poverty trap.” Germany’s business mood, meanwhile, is “slumping,” according to Bloomberg.
We could go on, but the picture should be clear enough: Germans may be a little on the “Angst” side in terms of temperament, but this time, they are really in trouble. How did that happen to the industrial powerhouse and export champion? The core of the problem is, of course, the economy. It takes not a grain of alarmism – ask Bloomberg again – to observe that its very future is in danger: It is “ravaged” by an energy crisis; Chinese competitors squeeze it, while Chinese markets are being lost; and then there is US President-elect Donald Trump and his threats of brutal tariffs. And all of that on top of persistent stagnation entering its fifth year.
Indeed, for two years already the German economy has simply “flatlined,” and business is (not) looking forward to yet another year of no growth. Germany, a long report has just summed it up, is “reaching a point of no return,” on a “path of decline that threatens to become irreversible.”
Here is the crux: The mainstream parties now contesting the snap elections recognize that the situation is dire. How could they not without being laughed out of the room? They all offer suggestions, as you would expect, for what to do about it. Let’s set aside that such suggestions look a little silly when coming from the parties that made up the last government coalition. Why didn’t they implement their ideas then, after all?
Let’s just note that everything is rather predictable: The Social Democrats stress public spending and infrastructure and make unfounded promises to protect ordinary Germans from social decline, as if that process were not well underway already.
The mainstream Conservatives (CDU-CSU) emphasize lower taxes, budget cuts, less bureaucracy and red tape, and the magic powers of the market to unleash new growth. The market liberals from the Free Democrats do the same, just more extremely. And the Greens promise everything somehow, and then some, while making no sense at all. Everything as usual, in other words.
And yet, none of the above even dare name the one key issue that a new government could resolve quickly and that would have a decisive and fast impact on the German economy: namely the cause of that energy crisis that has hit crucial “energy-intensive” sectors the hardest but is, of course, affecting every single business and all the households, that is, consumers, one way or the other. The reason for that odd blindness is purely political, because that cause is very easy to identify. It’s the “structural blow” of “the loss of cheap Russian energy,” as even Bloomberg acknowledges.
It is true: Germany has an abundance of problems, some long predating the war in and over Ukraine: demography, under-digitalization, the infamous “debt brake,” a public debt limit so primitively designed it makes reasonable deficits impossible, and so on. And yet, the politically produced and self-imposed (Russia did not cut off the cheap energy, the West did, including via violent sabotage as in the Nord Stream attacks) energy crisis is decisive.
Imagine Germany, if you wish, as a past-their-prime, somewhat out-of-shape middle-class type. In principle, there is no reason such a person cannot rebuild by pursuing a healthy diet and decent exercise. Except, of course, you also cut off their oxygen supply by strangling them.
The added irony: Germany – with plenty of help from its big brother “ally” America and its dependent sponger Ukraine – is strangling itself. Auto-asphyxiation is, of course, a well-known and potentially lethal perversion, but usually it’s associated with aging rock stars in lonely hotel rooms. Seeing a whole country do it is peculiar.
In the current German party system, only two parties show signs of being willing to address this core issue instead of avoiding it: The far-right/right-wing AfD under Alice Weidel and the left-conservative BSW under Sarah Wagenknecht. What do they have in common apart from that? Nothing. Except, they both won’t be able to influence German government policy, at least not soon, and not after the February elections. The AfD is, actually, the second-strongest political party after the CDU-CSU Conservatives, according to current polls. Think what you will about Musk’s political tastes (absolutely not mine), but it’s a fact that he has spoken up for a party that almost a fifth of German voters prefer.
However, the mainstream parties swear that they will not allow it into a governing coalition. The BSW is doing reasonably well for a newcomer but may even be struggling to clear the five-percent barrier to gain seats in the new parliament, and it is certainly far from gathering the amount of votes that would make it indispensable for coalition building.
Here’s the final irony: Germany’s fundamental problem is not actually economic. The economy is in catastrophic shape, make no mistake. But the reason for that is political and even intellectual and moral: The inability or unwillingness to finally abandon a pernicious group think that subordinates obvious and vital German interests to the misguided political agenda of, ultimately, Washington and does not allow for what is obviously needed urgently: re-establishing and repairing a rational relationship with Russia.
Tarik Cyril Amar is a historian from Germany working at Koç University, Istanbul, on Russia, Ukraine, and Eastern Europe, the history of World War II, the cultural Cold War, and the politics of memory.
Pro-Western party funded anti-NATO candidate in EU state – media
RT | December 22, 2024
Allegations that Russia was behind a Romanian social media campaign that helped independent presidential candidate Calin Georgescu win a first round vote, and which contributed to the country’s constitutional court canceling the entire election, are false, an investigation has found.
Georgescu’s campaign was not funded by Russia but in fact by the pro-Western National Liberal Party (PNL), the media outlet Snoop has reported, citing the probe’s findings.
A critic of NATO and the EU and a staunch opponent of sending aid to Ukraine, Georgescu topped the first-round vote in Romania with 22.94%, beating other liberal leftist and democrat candidates.
Romania’s Constitutional Court promptly annulled the election ahead of the second-round vote, citing intelligence documents alleging ‘irregularities’ in Georgescu’s performance.
The documents claimed Georgescu’s candidacy was improperly promoted online, including on TikTok, by paid influencers and extremist right-wing groups, and that his campaign may have benefited from Russian interference – an allegation that Moscow has denied as “absolutely groundless.”
According to Snoop, Romania’s tax authorities analyzed financial flows and discovered that the campaign that promoted Georgescu on TikTok was in fact paid for by the PNL and run by Kensington Communication, a company which provides political marketing services, as well as online campaigns.
The briefs delivered to influencers were aimed at promoting “a responsible attitude and a mature choice” among Romanians that would help the country continue its “democratic path,” wrote Snoop.
Influencers were reportedly given a script to describe the qualities of a future president without giving a name. Some of them however left comments below the videos, providing Georgescu’s name.
“It is a shock to everyone that the public money that taxpayers had provided to the PNL was used to promote another candidate,” one expert involved in the investigation told the publication.
Kensington Communication has issued a statement alleging that its campaign had been “hijacked” or “cloned” and said it would file a criminal complaint.
The leak came on Friday, a day before the expiration of Romanian President Klaus Iohannis’ term, and just days before the supreme court is scheduled to hear the case initiated by Georgescu. Iohannis himself had earlier refused to leave office, citing the country’s legislation.
Georgescu, who was labelled “pro-Russian” by his critics, filed a lawsuit with the supreme court to challenge the annulment of the election results. The candidate’s lawyer described the situation as “a flagrant violation of the constitution” and “a coup d’état.” The first hearing is scheduled for December 23.
How the Captive Media Divides Us
By Thomas Eddlem | The Libertarian Institute | December 19, 2024
Most political differences in America today aren’t a result of moral differences, or even policy opinions. Rather, they are generated by divergent media consumption. There’s a huge difference between those whose news comes primarily from the corporate Big Five (CBS-Viacom, ABC-Disney, NBC-Universal, Fox-NewsCorp, and CNN-TimeWarner) and that handful of midsize legacy publications like PBS, The New York Times and Washington Post, than from those who get their news from independent media.
While the independent media can be inaccurate, it’s often when they contradict themselves. On the other hand, when the Big Five and its satellites are inaccurate, it’s typically in union, as a bloc, and always in defense of the Washington establishment.
I could detail one hundred of these blatant lies spun by the unified, corporate media over the past two decades, but for purposes of brevity let’s take a quick look at just ten widely reported lies in three sentences or less (and I’ll include extra links to news stories with the same false take, to total five sources for each story), refuted by primary sources or recanted by these same establishment media organs.
- Lie #1: Wearing cloth masks helps prevent COVID. “Public health messages should target audiences not wearing cloth face coverings and reinforce positive attitudes, perceived norms, personal agency, and physical and health benefits of obtaining and wearing cloth face coverings consistently and correctly,” the CDC inveighed on July 17, 2020, even though the same report acknowledged “widespread use of cloth face coverings has not been studied among the U.S. population.” The captive media dutifully lectured the public (1, 2, 3, 4, 5) about the alleged benefits of cloth masks in preventing COVID, even though the CDC had just re-published a meta-study of all nineteen public scientific studies of mass masking in May 2020 which concluded there was no scientific benefit for mass public cloth masking. And a giant study by Yale and Stanford researchers in Bangladesh in 2021 confirmed the earlier research, finding a very small benefit in wearing surgical masks “but see no statistically significant effect for cloth masks.”
- Lie #2: Donald Trump is a Russian spy. “A New Report Adds Evidence That Trump Was a Russian Asset,” a Slate.com headline blared in 2021, adding in the subtitle, “He helped Putin manipulate the U.S. election in 2020, as he did in 2016” (2, 3, 4, 5). But the reality is that the Durham Report of the special prosecutor concluded on May 12, 2023 that “neither U.S. law enforcement nor the Intelligence Community appears to have possessed any actual evidence of collusion in their holdings at the commencement of the Crossfire Hurricane investigation” and found the entire affair was devoid of evidence and had been a joint operation between the Hillary Clinton presidential campaign and friendly senior FBI officials, spread by a compliant media.
- Lie #3: COVID vaccines have no serious side effects. “No serious safety concerns were found in the clinical trials of the vaccines that have been authorized for use in the United States,” FactCheck.org claimed on March 4, 2021 (2, 3, 4, 5), but within months the same “fact-checker” site had amended its claim to include deadly reactions in the Johnson & Johnson vaccine (later pulled from the market for these reasons) and several serious side effects including myocarditis from the Moderna and Pfizer vaccines. Likewise, the CDC has now published a long list of side effects, including myocarditis, pericarditis, Guillain-Barré syndrome, thrombosis with thrombocytopenia syndrome, and anaphylaxis.
- Lie #4: Russia put bounties on American soldiers in Afghanistan. “American intelligence officials have concluded that a Russian military intelligence unit secretly offered bounties to Taliban-linked militants for killing coalition forces in Afghanistan—including targeting American troops,” New York Times reporter Charlie Savage claimed on June 26, 2020, in the heat of the election campaign, adding that President Trump “has yet to authorize any step” to counter it (2, 3, 4, 5). But, after the election, even NBC News admitted the whole story was fake from the beginning, as did other establishment-controlled outlets that echoed Biden administration admissions of the lack of proof for the highly politicized claim.
- Lie #5: Hunter Biden’s laptop was Russian disinformation. “More than 50 former senior intelligence officials have signed on to a letter,” Politico claimed of the Hunter Biden laptop story in October 2020, “outlining their belief that the recent disclosure of emails allegedly belonging to Joe Biden’s son ‘has all the classic earmarks of a Russian information operation’” (2, 3, 4, 5). But the reality is the FBI testified under oath that the laptop story, which was suppressed on Facebook, Twitter and other social media before the election, was legitimate all along. And a congressional investigation revealed the “Russian disinformation” story was a result of the Joe Biden presidential campaign colluding with senior CIA officials.
- Lie #6: Donald Trump said there were “good people on both sides” of a white supremacist rally. “Trump Defends White-Nationalist Protesters: ‘Some Very Fine People on Both Sides’” blared the headline in The Atlantic, adding “The president backtracked from his remarks on Charlottesville just a day earlier” (2, 3, 4, 5). Even the fact-checkers observed this claim that Trump’s “both sides” quote was false from the start, and that the “both sides” quote was about a totally different topic, though establishment organs continue to repeat the lie to this day.
- Lie #7: Donald Trump said Liz Cheney should face a firing squad. “Now he’s talking about a firing squad,” Joe Scarborough ranted on MSNBC, on November 4, 2024, “for a Republican who is long ranked as one of the most conservative Republicans in Washington, DC” (2, 3, 4, 5). But Trump did no such thing. He simply called former Congresswoman Cheney a chicken-hawk, saying she’d have a less bellicose worldview if she were on the front lines. This is why the fact-check sites quickly called out this lie, and even uber chicken-hawk Jonah Goldberg had to recant the same claim as Scarborough.
- Lie #8: Hamas decapitated dozens of babies on October 7. “Dozens of babies were reportedly found dead, including some that had been beheaded,” NBC reported, “in an Israeli kibbutz Tuesday after the terrorist organization Hamas stormed the community” (2, 3, 4, 5). The reality that emerged from the widely spread story of Israeli propaganda was that no babies were beheaded, according to a France 24 investigation that looked through the names of the victims of the terrorist attack several weeks later, though one ten-month-old baby was killed by gunshot wounds in the combat crossfire.
- Lie #9: Joe Biden is in the best shape of his life and sharp as a tack. “F you if you can’t handle the truth,” Joe Scarborough lashed out on MSNBC on March 5, 2024, “This version of Biden, intellectually, analytically, is the best Biden ever” (2, 3, 4, 5). Progressive YouTuber Matt Orfalea did a nice compilation of how official Washington dutifully recited the lines from the “sharp as a tack” talking points memos circulated by the DNC. But the reality was admitted almost universally after Biden’s disastrous June 27 debate with Donald Trump, ending talk about “cheap fakes.” CNN and the Associated Press published stories in July admitting the media ran cover for “forgetful” Biden as they tried to ramp up pressure to unceremoniously dump the winner of all the Democratic primaries that year and replace him with Kamala Harris at the Democratic National Convention in August.
- Lie #10: Internet censorship was just corporations being responsible. “Twitter permanently suspended President Donald Trump’s account on Friday,” NBC news reported January 8, 2021, citing “the risk of further incitement of violence” and not mentioning that the decision was based on extraordinary pressure from the FBI and Office of the Director of National Intelligence. The removal of the sitting president of the United States from social media and many other prominent people was widely reported as entirely a corporate decision across the establishment media spectrum (2, 3, 4, 5). But the #TwitterFiles revealed these decisions were primarily the result of government pressure and not organic corporate decisions, with the U.S. Court of Appeals ruling in Missouri v. Biden that the censored plaintiffs “presented extensive evidence of escalating threats—both public and private—by government officials aimed at social-media companies concerning their content-moderation decision.”
These lies help explain why independent media personalities like Tucker Carlson and Joe Rogan, a comedian with a microphone, regularly get more than twenty million viewers for two-hour interviews with few commercials while CNN, MSNBC, and Fox News, with their billion-dollar studios and networks, rarely crack one million viewers with their forty-four minutes of content in an hour. The American people no longer trust what I’ve come to label the “captive media,” and consume far more independent media content. The captive media can call Trump a rapist, a fascist, a threat to democracy, and, as the November election revealed, most Americans will simply no longer believe their claims.
And the #TwitterFiles reveal why the media organs pushing official lies are best labeled the “captive media” and not the mainstream media, legacy media or the corporate media. They have been captured by the U.S. intelligence agencies, often with dozens or even hundreds of “former” intelligence officers in place on-air and on staff.
The American national mental health crisis that emerged as a result of Trump’s election in 2024 was entirely one-sided; the people who raged like infants on social media and said Trump voters were horrible people were limited to those who digested nothing but captive Media outlets like CNN, NBC, MSNBC, ABC, CBS, PBS, Fox, The New York Times, The Washington Post, and the censorious Big Tech companies.
Why is it only the Democrats who are saying they can’t have Thanksgiving dinner with their family? Why didn’t Republicans have the same reaction after their loss to Joe Biden in 2020? Although many Republicans who watch Fox News did avoid Thanksgiving as a result of fear-mongering over the COVID vaccine skepticism.
Part of the answer to the question “Why just the Democrats?” is the structure of the media which political partisans consume. Democrats consume media solely within the FBI, CIA, ODNI matrix that the #TwitterFiles revealed to the public and rarely or never encounter media that contradicts the official narrative being sold. Google searches, like Facebook and most other social media, are curated by precisely the same intelligence agencies. So it’s possible for Democrats to live entirely within the captive media echo chamber (even as they earnestly believe they are getting “both sides” by listening to Republican Senator Lindsay Graham talk about Israeli babies being slaughtered on October 7 or former Republican Congresswoman Liz Cheney talk about Trump as a Putin asset) and assume that anyone with a heterodox opinion gets his information from some sketchy “dark web.” Republicans get a slightly different take with Fox News, and more importantly have trended toward relying progressively less on the captive media.
Republicans and independents hear something other than the captive media narrative.
The captive media echo chamber can occasionally be bipartisan, however. Back in 2020, in the throes of the COVID hysteria, Fox News viewers were also running around like fools with cloth masks on, viewing family members as ambulatory disease vectors, and judging those who took rational risks (or in the case of the experimental vaccine on young people who were getting myocarditis, avoided risks rationally) as bad or selfish persons.
Many Democrats are increasingly engaged in classic cult-like behavior as a result of the captive media drumbeat. “If you are going into a situation where you have family members, where you have close friends who you know have voted in ways that are against you,” Dr. Amanda Calhoun of Yale University told ABC’s The View, “it’s completely fine to not be around those people and to tell them why.” The idea that Democrats should separate themselves from family and friends because they have different political opinions has become widespread in the captive media (2, 3, 4, 5). And it’s part of the very definition of cultish behavior, which includes when “subservience to the leader or group requires members to cut ties with family and friends.”
The way to bring your friends and family out of the cult of the captive media matrix is to cut cable television out of your home, and to track the lies of the captive media and discuss them with family and friends as they’re exposed and recanted. Nobody likes being lied to.
Many of these captive media organs are engaging in a campaign against “disinformation” (as a ruse to resume government social media censorship), and this can be used to the advantage of people trying to rescue friends and family from the cult. Explaining in detail how the captive media reliably lies on behalf of the military-industrial-complex, the intelligence community and Big Pharma can bring them out as it has brought hundreds of millions of others out of the captive media matrix already.
Brussels further damages European industry by approving 15th sanctions package on Russia
By Ahmed Adel | December 17, 2024
The Council of the European Union announced the approval of the 15th round of sanctions against Russia on December 16. Clearly, by imposing a new package of sanctions, the EU is willing to continue destroying its own industries by persisting on a policy of economic warfare despite the boomerang effects.
“This package of sanctions is part of our response to weaken Russia’s war machine and those who are enabling this war, also including Chinese companies. It shows the unity of EU member states in our continued support to Ukraine,” said Kaja Kallas, the EU’s High Representative for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy.
“Our immediate priority is to put Ukraine in the strongest possible position. We will stand by the Ukrainian people on all fronts: humanitarian, economic, political, diplomatic and military. There can be no doubt that Ukraine will win,” she added.
The new package includes, in particular, a list of personal sanctions against 54 individuals and 30 organizations that, according to the Council’s announcement, are “responsible for actions undermining or threatening the territorial integrity, sovereignty and independence of Ukraine.”
The restrictions are intended to “address the circumvention of EU sanctions through targeting” Russia’s so-called “shadow fleet” and weaken the country’s military industry.
Specifically, 52 third-country vessels were sanctioned, which the bloc claims are involved in oil imports from Russia, the delivery of war material to this country, and/or “the transport of stolen Ukrainian grain.”
The new economic restrictions also target Russian defence companies, chemical plants, and civilian airlines. For the first time, sanctions are fully applied to several Chinese entities for cooperating with Russia.
Since the start of the special military operation in Ukraine on 24 February 2024, the EU has adopted numerous restrictive measures against Russia. According to the Castellum.AI database, more than 19,500 individual and sectoral sanctions have been triggered against Russia since the start of the military operation.
However, despite Russia becoming the most sanctioned country in the world, Russian President Vladimir Putin said at the 22nd Congress of the United Russia Party that the Russian economy continues to develop despite the unprecedented Western sanctions.
“Russia is developing, the economy is growing and this is amid sanctions, literally unprecedented in world history, against the background of gross interference and pressure on the part of the governing elites of some countries,” the president said on December 14, adding that foreign blackmail and attempts to stop Moscow will come to nothing.
“Russia is confident, it is conscious of its righteousness and its strength, and this is why all objectives set for the short and long term will certainly be met,” Putin said.
The Russian president’s comments followed the EU’s announcement on December 11 that member states had agreed to the 15th EU sanctions package against Russia. Now, even as European companies more openly express their interest in returning to the Russian market, the EU acts against the interests of citizens and the business community alike as prices escalate and the cost of living gets out of hand.
Moscow has repeatedly stated that the country will stand up to the pressure of sanctions that the West began imposing on Russia several years ago and continues to intensify because they lack the courage to admit the failure of such punitive measures.
Rising costs, driven partly by a rejection of Russian energy, are causing Europe to lose its global competitive advantage. Although Europe has maintained energy supply security, prices on the European market are now much higher than before. Some analysts predict a further rise in energy prices and the danger this poses to the European industry.
It is worth remembering that current gas prices in the European Union are almost five times higher than those in the United States. As a September report on European competitiveness points out, EU companies continue to face electricity prices between two and three times higher than the US.
A separate study by the German Chamber of Commerce and Industry (Deutsche Industrie und Handelskammer or DIHK) finds that high energy costs and a lack of reliable supplies are holding back industrial production, while “the risk of deindustrialization,” according to Siegfried Russwurm, chief executive of the industrial conglomerate Thyssenkrupp, “continues to increase.”
The energy crisis and the resulting economic recession in Europe are partly due to the EU’s refusal to accept cheap and reliable energy supplies from Russia. With these economically suicidal measures, Brussels wanted to force Moscow into capitulation. However, Russia has reoriented its export flows, particularly towards Asia.
Meanwhile, European buyers have been forced to purchase energy sources from alternative suppliers at higher prices, which obviously affected the competitiveness of European producers and hit the continent’s major economies. In effect, the anti-Russia sanctions have boomeranged, but Europe continues to insist on this economically suicidal policy.
Ahmed Adel is a Cairo-based geopolitics and political economy researcher.
Featured Video
Pediatrician shares 30 yrs of insight on vaccinating vs. not vaccinating children
or go to
Aletho News Archives – Video-Images
Book Excerpt
Biden’s Closed Circle on Russia
An excerpt from ‘The Great Betrayal’
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
Blog Roll
Aletho News- Terms of Iran-US MoU revealed: Bloomberg
- A California Pediatrician Shares 30 Years of Insight on Vaccinating vs. Not Vaccinating Children
- What Is Defensive Medicine?
- CDC Awards Pfizer $1.24 Billion for COVID Vaccines for Kids and Adults
- Historic blow to South Korea’s military intelligence agency
- Russian frigate fires warning shots in English Channel
- Radio Free Europe, the Cold War ‘Weapon’ Congress Still Funds
- UN: Israel continues to violate Lebanon airspace in defiance of Iran-US MoU
- Araghchi: Israeli occupation of Lebanese land a violation of MoU
- Hezbollah fighters confront intruding Israeli forces in southern Lebanon
- If Americans Knew
- Pro-Israel Donors Power Last-Minute Surge of Espaillat Spending
- “They Stole Our Home and Our Life”: Israel Permanently Displaces Syrians in Quneitra
- Massie Recognizes USS Liberty Attack. Here’s Why That Matters
- The blatant racism and cruelty that define Israel’s settler movement
- Israeli army ‘murdered child’ in Gaza and then dumped body on a roadside
- The Forward’s Hit Piece on Thomas Massie and USS Liberty Veterans
- Israel’s former defense minister compares settler ideology to Nazism
- The Pro-Israel Lobby’s Quiet Cash Shuffle
- Trinity Broadcasting Network (TBN) Propagandizes for Israel’s Wars
- A grim milestone: Gaza’s death toll surpasses 73,000 – Daily Update
- No Tricks Zone
- New Study: Chile’s Relative Sea Level Was 3.2 Meters Higher Than Today During The Mid-Holocene
- Beyond The Pitch: Why FIFA’s World Cup Is One Of Humanity’s Best Investments
- Climate Alarmists Now Using Natural Phenomena To Support Their Claims
- New Study: Significant CO2 Fluxes From Non-Volcanic Sources Are Largely Neglected In Carbon Budgets
- Women Climate Scientists Being Harassed, Insulted By Skeptics, Claims Berkeley Earth Researcher
- Germany’s Longterm Spring Climate Data Show “No Climate Trend”
- New Study: Solar Photovoltaic, Wind Power Fail To Meet Annual Energy Demands 62% Of The Time
- Germany’s Die Welt: “Too Much Is Too Much” … Green Energies Are Cannabalizing Each Other!
- Germany’s Ecological Holocaust… Once Fairy Tale Forests Getting Cleared For Wind Turbines
- A Grand Solar Minimum Has Arrived…Global Cooling Of At Least 1°C Is Expected By The 2030s, 2040s
Aletho News 