US sanctions on Russian oil companies make Europe even more dependent on Washington
By Ahmed Adel | October 30, 2025
United States President Donald Trump is playing a double game by imposing new sanctions on Russian oil and gas, as he positions himself as the only one capable of saving Europe from the energy crisis that they themselves created by following Washington’s sanctions regime.
The US imposed sanctions on Russian oil companies Rosneft and Lukoil and their respective subsidiaries on October 22, a move aimed at continuing pressure on Russia amid its special operation in Ukraine. The measure, however, had serious side effects for countries allied with Washington, especially Germany.
Berlin began a frantic race against time to exempt Rosneft subsidiaries in the country that have been under German state administration since 2022, including refineries, an action denounced as illegal by the Russian controlling group. Germany argued to the Trump administration that Rosneft’s German subsidiaries are independent of the Russian parent company.
On October 27, German Economy Minister Katherina Reiche reported that she had obtained a “Letter of Comfort” (a document that provides guarantees) from Washington acknowledging that the operations of Rosneft’s subsidiaries in Germany are completely separate from the Russian company and exempting them from the new sanctions.
“The US has confirmed in writing that the assets in Germany are completely separate from Russia,” Reiche emphasized.
This case once again exposes the energy crisis affecting Europe, which depends on imported gas and oil for power generation and has entered an economic crisis since suspending Russian supplies of these resources and aligning itself with the White House’s sanctions policy. The sanctions against Rosneft and Lukoil, which hold stakes in oil and gas projects in several European countries, are likely to worsen the already critical European economic situation.
A potential closure of Rosneft and Lukoil subsidiaries in Europe will further increase energy prices on the continent, which are already impacted by the replacement of Russian gas with American gas and by high winter demand. The heating of homes, the energy used by industries, and the increased costs of these processes will lead to an inflationary crisis in European prices, in a situation that is already not very favorable to these countries.
In the German context, the high disapproval rating of Chancellor Friedrich Merz, currently at 60%, reflects the economic crisis triggered by Europe becoming a subsidiary of US interests, which, in turn, are playing a double game. By sanctioning Russia and exacerbating the crisis in Europe, Europeans are forced to turn to the Americans. The US becomes the only possible savior of Europe within this crisis scenario that they themselves created.
By replacing Russia, which supplied these fuels at relatively low cost via long-range pipelines from Russia to Central Europe, there is now a much more expensive, much more inefficient form of supply via ships.
Furthermore, shifting energy dependence from Russia to the US leaves Europe vulnerable to market whims, since Russian contracts came with prearranged prices, while American imports are priced at market rates. And in recent days, with these sanctions, prices there have risen by 5% to 6% in a single week. The Europeans are facing a rather critical situation, and this crisis should not be considered only in the short term. It is likely to extend over the coming years and decades if this distancing from Russia is not reversed.
Although it has granted exemptions to Rosneft’s subsidiaries under German control, Germany is not among the White House’s concerns. Trump understands that the multipolarization of the international system is already a reality and is now seeking to regain Washington’s lost power. To this end, unlike past US leaders, he has abandoned Europe. Trump even thinks that Europeans should organize themselves and a European bloc leadership should emerge, because the US will no longer play that role.
The Germans are being seriously affected by embarking on the complete delirium of believing that Russian President Vladimir Putin has a project to conquer Western Europe. This led Germany to join the US sanctions and to abandon the purchase of petroleum products from Russia. Many German companies could not handle the energy price hikes and went bankrupt, while the strongest ones moved to the US. As a result, the German economy sank, with a very high unemployment rate and deindustrialization.
Even in the face of economic deterioration, Europeans remain determined to confront Russia because, at this point, they have no way to retreat, having created a mystique that Ukraine would be Russia’s first obstacle to a supposed plan of military expansion on the continent. Due to this ludicrous belief, Europe spent enormously, exhausted its weapons stockpile, followed Washington in this, and now finds itself alone, watching Trump negotiate directly with Putin, in which the latest US sanctions package is a part of.
Ahmed Adel is a Cairo-based geopolitics and political economy researcher.
Francesca Albanese names over 60 states complicit in Gaza genocide
The Cradle | October 29, 2025
The UN special rapporteur for the occupied Palestinian territories, Francesca Albanese, told the General Assembly on 28 October that 63 countries, including key western and Arab states, have fueled or were complicit in “Israel’s genocidal machinery” in Gaza.
Speaking remotely from the Desmond and Leah Tutu Legacy Foundation in Cape Town, Albanese presented her 24-page report, ‘Gaza Genocide: A Collective Crime,’ which she said documents how states armed, financed, and politically protected Tel Aviv as Gaza’s population was “bombed, starved, and erased” for over two years.
Her findings place the US at the center of Israel’s war economy, accounting for two-thirds of its weapons imports and providing diplomatic cover through seven UN Security Council vetoes.
The report cited Germany, Britain, and a number of other European powers for continuing arms transfers “even as evidence of genocide mounted,” and condemned the EU for sanctioning Russia over the war in Ukraine while remaining Israel’s top trading partner.
Albanese accused global powers of having “harmed, founded, and shielded Israel’s militarized apartheid,” allowing its settler-colonial project “to metastasize into genocide – the ultimate crime against the indigenous people of Palestine.”
She said the genocide was enabled through “diplomatic protection in international fora meant to preserve peace,” military cooperation that “fed the genocidal machinery,” and the “unchallenged weaponization of aid.”
The report also identified complicity among Arab states, including the UAE, Egypt, Bahrain, and Morocco, which normalized ties with Tel Aviv.
Egypt, she noted, maintained “significant security and economic relations with Israel, including energy cooperation and the closing of the Rafah crossing,” tightening the siege on Gaza’s last humanitarian route.
Albanese warned that the international system now stands “on a knife-edge between the collapse of the rule of law and hope for renewal,” urging states to suspend all military and trade agreements with Tel Aviv and build “a living framework of rights and dignity, not for the few, but for the many.”
Her presentation provoked an outburst from Israel’s envoy Danny Danon, who called her a “wicked witch.”
Frascnesca fired back, saying, “If the worst thing you can accuse me of is witchcraft, I’ll take it. But if I had the power to make spells, I would use it to stop your crimes once and for all and to ensure those responsible end up behind bars.”
Human rights experts described the report as the UN’s most damning indictment yet of Israel’s ongoing genocide in Gaza.
Albanese had previously been sanctioned by the US in July, after releasing a report that exposed western corporations profiting from Israel’s genocide in Gaza.
The 27-page report, ‘From Economy of Occupation to Economy of Genocide,’ named over 60 companies, including Lockheed Martin, Caterpillar, Microsoft, Palantir, and Hyundai, for aiding and profiting from Israel’s settlements and military operations, and called for their prosecution at the International Criminal Court (ICC).
US Secretary of State Marco Rubio accused Albanese of waging a “campaign of political and economic warfare against the United States and Israel,” announcing the sanctions as part of Washington’s effort to counter what he called “lawfare.”
The move drew sharp condemnation from UN officials and rights groups, who warned that it threatened global accountability mechanisms.
Germany entering a ‘dramatic’ economic situation
By Lucas Leiroz | October 29, 2025
European experts themselves are beginning to acknowledge the worrying situation of the German economy – and consequently of the entire European economy, considering Berlin’s key role as a European industrial center. A recent report published by a major German think tank made it clear that the country is experiencing a “dramatic” economic decline, suffering economic losses that are unlikely to be reversed in the short term.
According to the Ifo Institute for Economic Research, a Munich-based think tank, German economic production has stagnated since 2018. Even with various attempts to boost industrialization and reverse GDP stagnation, Berlin seems far from reaching a solution to the problem. Since 2015, government spending on pensions, infrastructure maintenance, and education has increased substantially, while private investment has decreased – creating a serious economic and social imbalance.
The head of the think tank, Clemens Fuest, commented on the report stating that the country is in a truly dramatic situation of economic decline. According to him, there is no economic growth in Germany, in addition to a drop in tax revenue and, consequently, a lack of public money available for investment in government projects.
“Germany has been in economic decline for years. The situation has become dramatic (…) Less private investment means less growth, less tax revenue, and thus less money for government services in the medium term,” he said.
Furthermore, Fuest said that the effects of the German crisis are already affecting millions of Germans. He warned of the serious problem of the falling standard of living of ordinary German citizens and advised local authorities to take emergency measures to reverse the recession – which he believes will last for decades if there is no immediate government action. Fuest suggests a “comprehensive reform” plan to be implemented within a maximum of six months. He believes that only in this way will it be possible to prevent the crisis from having even more serious effects.
Among the reforms suggested by Fuest as part of this plan are changes to pension policy and a reduction in state bureaucracy for small and medium-sized enterprises. He says that it is necessary to reduce “green” bureaucracy, eliminating the need for documentation on CO2 emissions for small and medium-sized entrepreneurs interested in investing in the country. Fuest estimates that removing these environmental rules would generate economic gains for the country of at least 146 billion euros (equivalent to 170 billion dollars) per year.
However, Fuest and the think tank failed to comment on the deep roots of the current crisis. Although Germany has not grown since 2018, the core of the German economic issue is the suicidal sanctions policy adopted by the country since 2022. The stagnation the country experienced before the Russian special military operation in Ukraine was mainly due to a deliberate policy of industrial contraction imposed by the green lobby to make Germany comply with environmental guidelines and CO2 emission targets. However, since 2022 the country’s situation has been different.
By imposing sanctions against Russian energy, Germany lost its main source of strategic commodities. Without a safe, abundant, and cheap source of gas and oil, it is impossible for Germany to implement any relevant reindustrialization project. If previously the reduction of industrial activity was a voluntary action to meet specific environmental goals, now deindustrialization is an inevitable consequence of the energy instability affecting the country.
Added to this is the fact that Germany, also motivated by “green” paranoia, has eliminated its own nuclear program. In practice, Germany is currently experiencing an unprecedented energy crisis, the consequences of which affect not only industry and businesses, but also ordinary citizens, who are paying high prices for gas supplies. Without lifting the anti-Russian sanctions, Germany will hardly be able to emerge from this crisis – and consequently will not have the necessary conditions to implement fruitful economic reforms.
However, the German government does not seem interested in reversing its anti-Russian policies. On the contrary, Berlin is increasingly deepening its Russophobic paranoia. Moreover, the German state is spending more and more money on anti-Russian projects, both in terms of sending weapons to Ukraine and in internal militarization initiatives. It is worth remembering that Berlin recently offered to pay the salaries of American soldiers stationed at US bases on German territory, which shows how the country is willing to worsen its own economic condition just to keep NATO’s military plans in Europe active.
The biggest challenge for Germany today is its own belligerent and anti-Russian political choice. Only by reversing the Russophobic mentality of the German government will it be possible to save the country’s economy.
Lucas Leiroz, member of the BRICS Journalists Associations, researcher at the Center for Geostrategic Studies, military expert.
You can follow Lucas on X (formerly Twitter) and Telegram.
The Russian Regret
By Israel Shamir • Unz Review • October 29, 2025
The Russians are disappointed with Trump’s policy towards Russia. They have long given up hoping to partner with the US in building a just world order, and they are now giving up the hope that they might be treated fairly. The last person in Russia (if not in the world) still hoping to get along with Mr Trump is President Putin.
One can understand him. There is a great need for geopolitical and geo-economic cooperation between the US and Russia, both in resolving the Ukrainian crisis (taking into account Russia’s interests) and in interacting throughout the Arctic, Caribbean, Africa and all the other global ‘hot spots’. That would be international cooperation, not American Hegemony, as many US politicians prefer. The US should step away from the abyss of nuclear war, while this is still possible. Last week, the Russians carried out nuclear exercises, of a magnitude never done previously. The exercises involved Russia’s full nuclear triad—land-based, sea-based, and airborne assets, according to the statement reported by Russia’s state RIA news agency on Telegram. During the exercise, a Yars intercontinental ballistic missile (ICBM) was launched from the Plesetsk Cosmodrome and Tu-95MS strategic bombers conducted air-launched cruise missile strikes, the Kremlin said. A strategic submarine cruiser launched a ballistic missile from the Barents Sea. And then there was the launch of Burevestnik, a brand-new cruise missile with nuclear reactor onboard, that can fly anywhere for as long as it takes. The Pentagon has revealed that they are worried about these new developments, and have asked the Russians to show them how they make their new devices, the Burevestnik and Poseidon. It is good that President Putin prefers peace, not war.
However, President Putin is not a free agent. There is a strong demand in Russian politics for a nuclear response to Western provocations, not stopping at the Western border of the Ukraine, but going all the way west. For the present, Putin prevails, but it’s likely to change if the US continues its drift toward war and sanctions. And the US invasion of Venezuela is likely to be met with force. The Russian soldiers of Wagner PDC are supposedly already there.
Such sentiments were recently expressed by Sergey Karaganov (a prominent political scientist and honorary representative of The Council on Foreign and Defence Policy) on TVC television, quoted by a PolitNavigator correspondent:
“Europeans – we are dealing with insane morons, excuse me, these are unpleasant words. Well, brutalised morons. They really are morons – the current generation of degenerate European elites, who have also ceased to fear God… and have lost their fear of death.
This is an animal instinct that needs to be restored; they have nothing else left, because they have no intellectual function, no sense of homeland, no sense of gender or love. Of course, I am exaggerating; there are wonderful people there. But that’s how it is [those who are in the governing circle] — they are the scum of humanity.
There is no leader there yet, figuratively speaking, no ‘Hitler’. But, in principle, they are moving towards this. And they are driving their peoples to slaughter. We must stop this movement – in order to save ourselves and these peoples, by the way. Maybe something will come of them someday, although they are degrading very quickly.
They are now being targeted for a massive confrontation with Russia. By the way, we underestimate this, because total propaganda is turning masses of Europeans into potential cannon fodder.
So, we must save them, and at the same time save the world. This is our historical task, but we must realise this historical task. Moreover, we have no other option. Either we destroy ourselves, then destroy the world, or we win and save humanity.
The program’s host Dmitry Kulikov noted that historically, ‘we act best when we understand that we have no other option.’ This feeling permeates Russian political circles. They more and more often repeat Putin’s words from 2018: We shall go to heaven, and they will just croak.
This is indeed regretful, for Putin and Trump have in common real enemies, namely the leaders of Britain, France, Germany, the European Union and the ultra-liberal stateless intelligentsia. Can it be that a grown man, a US President, falls for flattery of the cheapest kind delivered by the likes of Keith Starmer, Macron, Friedrich Merz et al? Doesn’t he understand that they despise him? What do they want? Do Fritz (German Chancellor Friedrich Merz) and Ursula have good memories of the free Russian soup the Germans were fed by the Russian soldiers in 1945, and perhaps they dream of tasting it again? Does Starmer hope to distract his voters so that they might forget his support for Gaza Genocide and Israeli football hooligans? Does Macron think it better to send Frenchmen to die in the Ukraine so they won’t join the Yellow Vests? Does Swedish Ulf Kristersson think that it’s better to keep up the venerable tradition of hosting the Russian occupation force at least once in a century? Which of these plans fit into Trump’s vision?
We may ask – why would President Trump lift a finger to help Vladimir Zelensky, the man who supported the Democratic Party candidate during the US presidential election and played a role in launching the impeachment proceedings against Donald Trump?
In case Trump forgot, the Russian envoy Dmitriev reminded the American public (in his interview with journalist Lara Logan) that Zelensky campaigned in support of Kamala Harris, who represented the Democratic Party in the 2024 election and was Trump’s main rival. ‘Let’s not forget that,’ he added. Dmitriev then noted that Zelensky was one of the factors that influenced the initiation of the first impeachment process against the then US president.
The investigation that preceded the impeachment of US President Donald Trump began on 24 September 2019 at the initiative of US House Speaker Nancy Pelosi. The impeachment was sparked by a statement by an anonymous informant (probably Zelensky himself) who claimed that in July 2019, Trump pressured Vladimir Zelensky for personal political gain. According to the anonymous report, Trump demanded that Kiev investigate the activities of Hunter Biden, the son of former Vice President Joe Biden, in exchange for providing Ukraine with financial and military aid.
After these allegations surfaced, the White House was forced to publish a memorandum containing a transcript of the telephone conversation between Trump and Zelensky. The document showed that Trump did indeed ask the Ukrainian president to ‘look into’ the matter concerning the Biden family. At the same time, a week before the aforementioned conversation, Trump had ordered the suspension of military aid to Ukraine. Representatives of the Democratic Party viewed this decision as a possible attempt to put pressure on Kiev in order to achieve an investigation that would be beneficial to Trump. The president himself was forced to publicly deny these allegations.
On 31 October 2019, the US House of Representatives approved a resolution to formally begin impeachment proceedings. On the 18th of December, the final debates took place, during which two articles of impeachment against Trump were put to a vote: abuse of power and obstruction of a congressional investigation. Both articles were approved, resulting in the president’s impeachment, making him the third head of state in US history to be subject to such a decision by the House of Representatives.
On 15 January 2020, a vote was held to send the indictment to the Senate, where the articles of impeachment were sent the following day. After reviewing the case, on 5 February 2020, the Senate acquitted Donald Trump on both counts. And now Trump wants to help the man who saddled him with that mess?
Not only that, but Trump’s policy of arming Europe and providing military aid to Ukraine is against US interests. Forcing Europe’s NATO members to increase defence spending to two per cent and then to five per cent will, in the near future, turn the EU into a military monster comparable to the Third Reich. A militarily strong EU would immediately break its economic dependence on the United States, both in terms of oil and gas and technology. And then it would begin to impose its own agenda on other countries, including America itself. Trump’s course towards the militarisation of Europe is suicidal for the future of the United States; it is feeding the crocodile that the countries of the anti-Hitler coalition seemed to have destroyed forever in 1945.
One might understand Trump’s decisions if building up a Ukrainian statelet were a winning move for the West. But it is not. It’s like feeding money to a slot machine in one of the casinos belonging to Trump’s benefactor, Sheldon Adelson. You give it money, and it gives you jolly music, noise, colourful figures move across the screen; then – nothing. Drop more money, you surely will win the next round, says the croupier. A wise man would not throw good money after bad, but a gambler would, down to his last penny. NATO’s Ukrainian morass is like a Kyiv Casino – they tell you that you are about to win big, you just have to invest another hundred billion! Billions have gone down this drain with nothing to show for it except more Miami palaces for Mr Zelensky and his friends.
The Trump’s renovation of the east wing of the White House is not just a random project – the so-called ‘Trump Ballroom’ is just a cover story for the construction of a secret bomb shelter and presidential bunker. But how long would he be able to sit there under a rain of Oreshnik and other fabulous Russian missiles? They will reach the deepest bunker and burn it out.
No, the only salvation for America is an honest alliance with Russia and the transformation of the Ukraine from Europe’s military springboard into a ‘bridge of cooperation’ between the West and the East. Thank God it is still possible.
NATO expansion has never benefited Europe. It was always a way to keep US troops on the job throughout the Cold War. NATO was deliberately expanded to keep up pressure on Russia. It always put Europe at risk, and there was never any corresponding benefit for the average European. Now, with the US about to drastically reduce its troops in Europe, the nations of Europe are on the brink of running NATO by themselves. Does Europe really want to recreate the Cold War and become a testing ground for Russia’s new cruise missiles? Are they really ready to face such an implacable enemy on their doorstep? Does Europe really want to make an enemy of a European country sitting on most of Europe’s natural resources, including its natural gas, oil, coal, palladium, aluminium and iron ore? How could this enmity benefit the average European family?
And President Trump will be remembered for Gaza Genocide that was not stopped by his 3000 years peace (lasted just two days!), for submission to the European clowns and to Bibi Netanyahu; now for leading the US into final Armageddon.
China snubs Germany’s top diplomat – media
RT | October 24, 2025
German Foreign Minister Johann Wadephul has been forced to cancel an upcoming trip to China after Beijing reportedly declined to arrange high-level meetings with him, multiple media outlets reported on Friday.
Wadephul was scheduled to depart for Beijing on Sunday to discuss China’s export restrictions on rare-earths and semiconductors, as well as the Ukraine conflict.
“The trip cannot take place at this time and will be postponed to a later date,” Politico cited a spokesperson for Germany’s Federal Foreign Office as saying. Wadephul was slated to meet with Chinese Foreign Minister Wang Yi but otherwise reportedly had too few meetings on the agenda.
According to Bild, the two diplomats will instead hold a telephone conversation soon.
The diplomatic setback comes amid escalating trade tensions between China and the EU. Over the past year, Brussels and Beijing have clashed over what the bloc calls China’s industrial overproduction, while China accuses the EU of protectionism.
Earlier this month, Beijing tightened its restrictions on the export of certain strategic minerals that have dual-use in military applications – a move that could further strain Europe’s struggling auto sector.
Germany has been particularly affected by the worsening trade climate. Bild reported on Wednesday that Volkswagen is expected to halt production at key plants next week due to a shortage of semiconductors following the Dutch government’s seizure of Chinese-owned chipmaker Nexperia. The Netherlands cited risks to the EU’s technological security, prompting Beijing to retaliate by banning exports of Nexperia chips from China. As inventories dwindle, more Volkswagen plants could face temporary shutdowns, and other automakers may also be affected, the paper said.
On Friday, German Economy Minister Katherina Reiche announced that Berlin was lodging a diplomatic protest against Beijing for blocking semiconductor shipments, citing Germany’s heavy reliance on Chinese components.
Volkswagen faces chip crisis after Chinese factory seized by EU state – Bild
RT | October 23, 2025
Germany’s largest carmaker, Volkswagen, could stop production at a key plant due to a shortage of semiconductors caused by the seizure of a Chinese-owned chipmaker by the Netherlands, Bild has reported, citing anonymous sources.
The Dutch government took control of the Nexperia factory in Nijmegen late last month, citing intellectual property and security concerns. The New York Times reported last week after reviewing documents from an Amsterdam court that the move had been made following pressure from US officials. Nexperia’s parent company, Wingtech, was blacklisted by Washington in 2024 as part of an ongoing trade war with China.
Beijing responded in early October by banning Nexperia from exporting finished chips from China, which are widely used in the electronic control units of VW vehicles.
Bild reported on Wednesday that Volkswagen – which also owns the Skoda, Seat, Audi, Porsche, Lamborghini, and Bentley brands – does not currently appear to have an alternative to Nexperia chips.
Sources in the company told the paper that due to the lack of semiconductors it plans to stop production at its plant in Wolfsburg from next Wednesday. Volkswagen Golf models will be affected first, followed by other vehicles, they said.
If the situation does not improve, work could also be halted at Volkswagen’s facilities in Emden, Hanover, Zwickau, and elsewhere, a person familiar with the matter said.
According to the report, the carmaker has started talks with the German authorities about a state-backed reduced working hours scheme for tens of thousands of its employees.
Bild warned that the chip crisis could also impact other carmakers in the country. Representatives for BMW and Mercedes told the paper that they were analyzing the situation. The German automobile industry has already been suffering due to high energy costs as a result of EU sanctions on Russia over the Ukraine conflict and increased US tariffs.
A spokesman for Volkswagen’s Zwickau plant told AFP that the report by Bild was “incorrect.” However, according to an internal letter seen by the media, the company acknowledged that “impact on production cannot be ruled out in the short term” due to a semiconductor shortage.
EU Split Over How Ukraine Should Spend €140 Billion From Frozen Russian Assets
Sputnik – 23.10.2025
A number of EU countries advocate that Ukraine use the potential 140 billion euros ($162 billion) loan from frozen Russian assets exclusively to purchase European weapons, while other member states support giving Kiev full freedom in spending the funds, including on arms from the United States, an American newspaper reported.
France, along with Germany and Italy, is pushing to channel the funds into the EU’s own defense industry rather than toward US arms suppliers, the report said. At the same time, countries such as the Netherlands and the Nordic and Baltic states argue that Ukraine should be free to decide how to spend the loan, even on US-made weapons.
Despite this, pressure from France and Germany has led summit drafts to emphasize strengthening Europe’s defense industry, while critics argue that this stance is hypocritical, the newspaper reported.
“If the aim is to keep Ukraine in the fight, you need to keep the criteria open,” an unnamed senior EU diplomat was quoted as saying.
On Thursday, EU leaders are expected to instruct the European Commission at their meeting in Brussels to present a legal proposal outlining the loan.
On September 25, the Financial Times newspaper reported that German Chancellor Friedrich Merz had proposed that the EU provide Ukraine with an interest-free loan of around 140 billion euros drawn from frozen Russian assets. Belgian Prime Minister Bart De Wever criticized Merz’s proposal on the sidelines of the UN General Assembly, saying that an attempt to seize state assets would set a dangerous precedent not only for Belgium but for the EU as a whole.
After the start of Russia’s special military operation in Ukraine in 2022, the European Union and the G7 froze almost half of Russian foreign currency reserves, totaling some 300 billion euros. About 200 billion euros are held in European accounts, mainly by Belgium’s Euroclear, one of the world’s largest clearing houses.
The Russian Foreign Ministry has repeatedly condemned the freezing of Russia’s central bank money in Europe as theft. Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov said that Moscow could respond by withholding assets held in Russia by Western countries.
‘Welcome to the war casino’: veteran German politician ridicules conscription plans
RT | October 21, 2025
Veteran German politician Sahra Wagenknecht has condemned Berlin’s plans to boost its army through a lottery-based recruitment system, ridiculing what she described as the government’s obsession with an imagined war against Russia.
German lawmakers have been debating ways to strengthen the Bundeswehr as Chancellor Friedrich Merz has called to turn it into the “strongest conventional army” in Europe. The government aims to expand the country’s armed forces by around 80,000 servicemen. Some have proposed activating a lottery-based selection system if not enough people volunteer. Continued shortfalls could trigger the return of compulsory conscription, which has been suspended since 2011.
In a TikTok post on Tuesday, Wagenknecht, who previously served as a member of the European Parliament and sat in the Bundestag from 2009 until earlier this year, mocked the lottery idea.
“Welcome to the war casino where the stakes are your life,” she said, going on to criticize the Merz government’s rhetoric that Germany is partly “at war” with Russia and its calls for an army “ready for battle, that prevails, that wins.”
“I have to be honest, this is all just too much to handle. Maybe someone should explain to our great chancellor that Russia is a nuclear power and a war with a nuclear power will not be decided by the number of soldiers,” she said.
She further stressed that the hysteria over a supposed Russian offensive was absurd given that NATO has three times more soldiers than Russia. “With these power dynamics, is Putin supposed to roll over us if we don’t conscript 80,000 young people for military service? They really want to sell us for fools,” Wagenknecht said.
Russia has consistently denied any hostile intent toward NATO or EU members and has described Western alarm over an impending war as baseless propaganda. Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov has accused European governments of pursuing dangerous militarization and claimed Berlin is “slipping into a Fourth Reich” through its rearmament drive.
Germany on the Geopolitical Stage of the Global South: Between Media Image and Real Capacities
By Ramiz Khodzhatov – New Eastern Outlook – October 21, 2025
The attempts of Friedrich Merz’s government to “relaunch” Germany’s role as a global political actor in the Global South without revising its conceptual foundations risk leaving the country stranded on the margins of international diplomacy – caught between formal participation and substantive isolation.
The Gaza Summit and the New Security Architecture
On October 13, 2025, under the auspices of President Abdel Fattah al-Sisi, a peace summit on Gaza took place in Sharm el-Sheikh, Egypt. The event, co-chaired by U.S. President Donald Trump, gathered representatives from over twenty nations to observe and validate the signing of the first phase of the American initiative for conflict resolution. Egypt and the United States, alongside Qatar and Turkey, acted as the principal mediators of the emerging architecture of multilateral diplomacy. Serving both as brokers of the ceasefire and as the de jure guarantors of the “Declaration on Lasting Peace and Prosperity,” they oversaw a framework that encompassed bilateral agreements on the release of hostages and prisoners, coordination of humanitarian aid, and a detailed roadmap for demilitarization and post-conflict reconstruction of Gaza’s infrastructure.
A wave of criticism followed the paradoxical absence of the conflict’s key parties, the Israeli cabinet and Hamas. At the same time, attention focused on the participation of several unorthodox players in the Middle Eastern geopolitical arena, notably the United Kingdom, France, and Germany. The German presence drew disproportionate attention due to an evident dissonance between its media portrayal and its actual diplomatic standing. Chancellor Friedrich Merz, standing to the side of the main participants, appeared frozen in an uneasy, almost constrained posture, smiling politely yet refraining from engaging any of the leaders. The image quickly spread through German and international media, sparking debate. This scene became emblematic of Berlin’s uncertain role within the emerging security architecture. The question arises: what position does Germany seek to claim, and why, despite shifting geopolitical realities and the lessons of history, it risks remaining a “paper player,” bereft of real influence or credibility across the Global South and the Middle East?
From “Feminist Foreign Policy” to the Merz Plan
To understand Germany’s current trajectory, one must revisit the recent phase of its foreign policy. Under Chancellor Scholz and Foreign Minister Annalena Baerbock, diplomacy was anchored in the doctrine of so-called “feminist foreign policy,” framed as a flagship direction of global engagement. Yet in practice, this approach revealed its conceptual inadequacy. Its normative and universalist foundations clashed with the political cultures and socio-cultural frameworks of the Global South. Gender and humanitarian rhetoric, imported indiscriminately into conflict zones, failed to take root, particularly when juxtaposed with Western double standards evident in the humanitarian catastrophe of Gaza.
Another blow to Berlin’s image came from its insistence on the “green agenda” as an alternative to traditional energy models. Amid a domestic energy crisis, this stance not only weakened Germany’s position in international negotiations but also eroded its reputation as a reliable and autonomous economic actor. To many states of the Global South, German initiatives in climate and energy diplomacy appeared declarative and unsupported by functional mechanisms.
Against this backdrop, Russia’s advocacy of “multipolarity” gained increasing traction, widely perceived as an attractive alternative to the neo-colonial logic of the West. Moscow succeeded in institutionalizing this discourse through frameworks such as BRICS, which evolved into both an economic and symbolic vehicle of a new international subjectivity. Germany and its European partners failed to propose an equivalent model, thereby cementing their peripheral status in dialogue with the Global South.
The Old–New Architecture of Irrelevance
Despite its declining relevance, Berlin continues to undertake institutional steps aimed at restoring its international agency. Notable measures include expanding humanitarian assistance, covering medical support and the establishment of temporary camps for displaced persons—participating in prospective Palestinian self-governance structures, co-organizing an international conference on Gaza’s reconstruction, and devising instruments for monitoring and coordinating humanitarian aid. Germany aspires to act not merely as a donor but as a mediator, presenting itself simultaneously as a humanitarian and political broker.
However, these ambitions collide with structural constraints. Key mechanisms for monitoring, hostage exchange, and aid distribution depend on the consent of regional actors who, tellingly, were absent from the summit. Germany’s declarative and instrumental efforts to secure influence falter against the realities of local political culture, where situational alliances, pragmatism, and realpolitik shape diplomacy far more than normative idealism. Berlin still relies on a logic of moral universalism inherited from previous decades, cloaked in new labels and narratives yet perpetuating the same disconnect between ambition and capability.
This pattern mirrors the systemic flaws observed during Baerbock’s “feminist foreign policy.” The persistent refusal to engage with regional geopolitical realities produces a gap between Germany’s ambitions and its actual leverage. The now-famous image from Sharm el-Sheikh thus becomes a visual metaphor for deeper structural dysfunction: the fragmentation of the Western course, wherein the American line retains strategic dominance while Europe’s voice fades amid inconsistency and moral self-contradiction.
The declarative support for Israel expressed by the Merz cabinet within the Middle East peace process has triggered a crisis of trust toward Germany as a would-be neutral actor. Rooted in the concept of Staatsräson and the moral logic of historical atonement, this stance increasingly contradicts the disposition of public opinion. Recent YouGov data reveal that 62% of Germans consider Israel’s actions in Gaza an act of genocide, a view shared across party lines, including 60% of supporters of Merz’s CDU/CSU bloc. Over two-thirds of the population now hold a negative view of Israel, while sympathizers account for only 19%. Support for Palestinian recognition has climbed to 44%. This gap between domestic consensus and foreign policy undermines the legitimacy of Germany’s global agency and weakens its credibility as an impartial mediator.
Internationally, the erosion of trust is even more pronounced. Since 2023, Germany has increasingly been seen across the Global South and the Middle East as a partisan ally that has abandoned neutrality for rigid pro-Israeli alignment. Decisions such as boosting arms supplies to Tel Aviv and abstaining from U.N. ceasefire resolutions are widely interpreted in Arab and African contexts as emblematic of Western double standards. Meanwhile, as several EU states, including Spain, Ireland, and Norway, have recognized Palestine, Germany finds itself isolated even within Europe. This loss of trust is quantifiable: Arab Barometer surveys show Germany’s favorable rating in the Middle East has plunged from 70% to 35% over just two years.
The position intended to affirm moral leadership has, paradoxically, curtailed Berlin’s diplomatic efficacy. Bereft of real leverage, Germany remains a participant without presence – a formally engaged yet substantively excluded actor on the geopolitical stage of the Global South.
Friedrich Merz’s attempt to “reboot” German foreign policy reveals a structural impasse: institutional innovations without conceptual transformation cannot yield genuine agency. Without a fundamental rethinking of its diplomatic worldview, Germany risks remaining on the periphery of international affairs, caught between symbolic involvement and strategic irrelevance. The image from Sharm el-Sheikh may thus endure as more than a fleeting moment of awkwardness, it embodies Berlin’s broader crisis of orientation in an increasingly multipolar world.
Ramiz Khodzhatov – political scientist, international observer, expert in geopolitics, international security and Russian-German relations
Lufthansa announces 100+ route cuts
RT | October 20, 2025
Rising German aviation taxes and fees will force national flag carrier Lufthansa to cut about 100 domestic flights from its forthcoming summer schedule, the company’s chief executive, Carsten Spohr has said.
Government-imposed costs for airlines in Germany have roughly doubled over the past six years, he explained.
“Without a reduction in location costs, further cuts will be unavoidable,” Spohr said. “This involves around 100 domestic flights per week, which could be eliminated again next summer.”
Higher taxes and fees on economy ticket costs are accelerating a shift in the airline’s passenger mix towards first, business, and premium economy cabins.
The complaints from Lufthansa echo long-standing grievances from airline executives about Germany’s aviation cost base, which they argue hinders competitiveness.
Last month Lufthansa also announced plans to cut 4,000 administrative jobs by 2030, with the majority of the cuts taking place in Germany.
In the face of strikes, delayed aircraft deliveries, and underperformance at its mainline business, Lufthansa has been forced to slash its financial guidance twice in the last year and has missed medium-term margin targets set in 2021.
The German aviation industry association (BDL) has warned that the country’s viability as a global hub is in crisis, citing state-imposed costs since 2019. Airlines are now avoiding Germany, BDL Chairman Jens Bischof stated in August, with the number of aircraft stationed in the country by European point-to-point carriers falling from 190 to 130.
BDL estimates that the financial burden on the industry will rise by €1.1 billion ($1.2 billion) in 2025 to €4.4 billion, which will result in the loss of 10,000 jobs and €4 billion ($4.3 billion) in annual economic value.
Iran confirms UN Resolution 2231 expired, condemns US, E3 violation
Al Mayadeen | October 18, 2025
In a letter addressed to the UN Secretary-General and the Presidency of the Security Council, Iranian Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi affirmed that UN Security Council Resolution 2231 has expired and fully ceased to be in effect as of today, in accordance with its explicit provisions.
He underscored that the nuclear agreement reflected the international community’s shared belief that diplomacy and multilateral engagement remain the most effective means to resolve conflicts.
Araghchi recalled that Washington initially refrained from fulfilling its commitments before withdrawing from the agreement, reimposing what he described as illegal and unilateral sanctions, and even expanding them. “These coercive measures,” he noted, “constituted a grave violation of international law and the UN Charter, causing severe disruption in the implementation of the agreement.”
In his letter, Araghchi added that the E3 failed to fulfill their obligations and instead imposed additional illegal sanctions on Iranian individuals and institutions. Despite this, he said, Iran demonstrated the utmost restraint in the face of repeated and fundamental violations, making extensive efforts to restore balance and preserve the agreement.
After a full year of Iran’s continued compliance, Araghchi explained, Iran began implementing gradual, proportionate, and reversible compensatory steps in line with its recognized rights under the deal.
‘E3’s snapback attempt lacks legal validity’
Iran’s top diplomat stated that the E3’s attempt to activate the snapback mechanism by directly resorting to the UN Security Council disregarded the dispute settlement process stipulated in the nuclear agreement, stressing that the attempt suffers from procedural flaws and lacks any legal validity or authority.
“No action taken in violation of UN Security Council Resolution 2231 can create any legal obligation upon member states,” Araghchi affirmed, emphasizing that any claim to “revive” or “reimpose” expired resolutions is null and void, lacking legal basis and producing no binding effect.
Araghchi highlighted that the Non-Aligned Movement, during its 19th Meeting of Foreign Ministers, reaffirmed in its final document that Resolution 2231 had expired on its scheduled date. He also referred to the two Security Council voting sessions held on 19 and 26 September 2025, which demonstrated the absence of consensus among Council members regarding the validity of the notification to trigger the “snapback” mechanism.
Iran warns against unauthorized UN Secretariat actions
Araghchi asserted that Resolution 2231 does not grant the Secretary-General or the UN Secretariat any authority or mandate to determine, announce, reactivate, or reinstate resolutions that have expired under operative paragraph 8.
He added that any such action would exceed the legal authority conferred by the UN Charter and contradict the purely administrative and neutral role of the Secretariat. “Any ‘notification of snapback activation’ or ‘confirmation’ issued by the Secretariat is legally void and undermines the credibility of the organization,” he wrote.
Araghchi concluded that no member state, the Secretariat, or any official may take legal action in this regard without a new and explicit resolution from the Security Council.
Earlier last week, Araghchi condemned Trump, accusing him of spreading falsehoods about Iran’s nuclear program and being misled by Israeli deception. His remarks followed an earlier statement by the Iranian Ministry of Foreign Affairs, which condemned Trump’s address at the Israeli Knesset as “irresponsible and shameful.”
In a post on X, Araghchi said it was “more than clear” that Trump had been “badly fed the fake line” that Iran’s peaceful nuclear program was on the verge of weaponization. He described this claim as a “BIG LIE”, emphasizing that even the US intelligence community had confirmed there was “zero proof” of such allegations.
“The real bully of the Middle East, Mr. President, is the same parasitic actor that has long been bullying and milking the United States,” Araghchi declared, referring to “Israel”.
Why western sanctions have failed and become self-defeating
Or are sanctions an end in themselves?
By Ian Proud | Strategic Culture Foundation | October 15, 2025
I recently participated in a debate in London about the effectiveness of sanctions as a tool of foreign policy. I argued that they have proven ineffective as a tool of foreign policy, and kept my remarks focussed on Russia, which is the most sanctioned country on the planet, with over 20,000 sanctions imposed so far.
For good or ill, I argued that sanctions were ineffective from a position of having [personally] authorised around half of the UK sanctions against Russia after war broke out in 2022. I take no great pride in that, but that was my job at the time and I eventually left my career as a British diplomat in 2023, largely out of a sense that UK foreign policy was failing in Ukraine.
Nevertheless, it worries me that so few people appear focused on what we in the UK want the sanctions to achieve, to the point where they have become an end in themselves. Yet, look at the legislation, specifically the Russia Sanctions Regulations of 2019, and the [alleged] purpose is quiet clear:
Encourage Russia to cease actions destablising Ukraine or undermining or threatening the sovereignty or independence of Ukraine.
More than eleven years since the onset of the Ukraine crisis and not far from four years since war broke out, the UK and its allies have manifestly failed to deliver upon that goal.
We have been through eleven years of gradually ramping up sanctions against Russia only to see Russia increase its resistance, and then to launch its so-called Special Military Operation in 2022.
Sanctions did not prevent that. One might argue that they helped to precipitate it.
Ukraine is bankrupt, its cities broken, its energy infrastructure once again subject to nightly bombardment as the winter approaches and people wonder whether they’ll be able to heat their homes.
Sanctions are not preventing this.
Yet at the debate, my opponents somehow advanced the argument that sanctions remain an effective tool of foreign policy, from the comfort of a grand hall, two thousand miles away from the frontline, even further from responsibility, and completely detached from reality.
In my mind, there are two clear reasons why sanctions policy has failed.
Firstly, because even if people in the west consider them to be justified, the Russian State considers them to be unjust.
Ever since the Minsk II peace deal was subordinated to sanctions in March 2015, President Putin has become increasingly convinced that western nations would sanction Russia come what May.
And that has proved to be the case.
Every time an inevitable new package of sanctions is imposed by the UK, Europe or others, it also convinces ordinary Russian people that this is true.
People in the west might hate Putin, but he is far more popular in Russia than Keir Starmer is in Britain, or than Friedrich Merz is in Berlin, or than Emmanuel Macron is in France.
So the idea that sanctions undermine support in Russia for President Putin is deeply misguided.
Likewise, sanctioning British-based Russian billionaires who took their assets out of Russia might play well in the Financial Times but is a meaningless gesture; these figures have no real power in Russia.
The idea that if we sanction Roman Abramovich he might some how rise up and try to unseat Putin together with other oligarchs is a fantasy.
The Russian oligarch Oleg Tinkoff who took to Instagram after the war started to criticise the Russian army, was forced to sell his eponymous bank and yet the UK still sanctioned him.
Why would any wealthy Russian on that basis stand up against President Putin on the west’s behalf only to get sanctioned by us anyway?
Yet, we have sanctioned 2000 individuals and entities, banning them from travel to the UK, even though 92% of them never had [visited] before the war started. These, I’m afraid, are empty gestures.
Sanctions will not stop the war.
And the longer they go on, more Ukrainians will die.
Despite Russia having done everything to adjust to sanctions since 2014, commentators in the west nevertheless try to tell you that, well, maybe we should have imposed more sanctions at the start for a bigger effect.
But on my second point, that denies the political reality of how sanctions are imposed.
While the combined economies of NATO are 27 times bigger than Russia, 32 states cannot coordinate policy quickly enough to take decisive action.
This results in waging war by committee.
Imagine, if you will, a chessboard with President Putin staring across at a team of thirty-two people on the other side, squabbling loudly among themselves for months on end before deciding not to make the best move.
If you believe that Europe is about to become a rapid decision-making body now at a time when its member states are increasingly turning to nationalist political parties who resent the war policy in Brussels, then my message to you is, good luck waiting for that.
Europe has now been debating for over a year whether to expropriate 200 billion in Russian assets housed in Belgium.
Yet that has not been agreed precisely because the Belgian government has blocked it consistently out of a not illegitimate fear that it will shred that’s country’s reputation among international investors at a time when new financial architecture is being constructed in the developing world.
Meanwhile, Russia’s foreign exchange reserves have continued to grow and now stand at over $700 billion for the first time. So even at this late stage if Europe chose to expropriate the assets, Russia could live without them.
Rather than being forced to the negotiating table – the complete fantasy that proponents of this hair-brained idea would tell you – Russia would be so enraged by what it sees as theft that it would keep on fighting.
And more Ukrainians would die.
President Putin is not hemmed in by the need to consult, and western indecision gives him time to adapt.
Since 2014, Russia’s economy has reoriented away from its dependence on the west, precisely to limit the impact of sanctions.
When war broke out in 2022, Russia had been adapting to sanctions for 8 years already.
Even though the scale was unprecedented, Russia had already prepared itself for the onslaught when it happened and has adapted better.
In 2022, with everyone crowing about the crashing rouble, Russia pulled in its biggest ever current account surplus of over $230 billion which, by the way, is bigger than Ukraine’s whole economy.
Despite cutting off gas supplies and bearing down on shadow tankers, Russia to this day continues to pull in hefty trade surpluses each year. It has not been in deficit since 1998.
Lots of people argued that if we had gone all in 2014, then that might have made a difference. But believe we, that was debated in Europe, and no one could agree to it.
And I wonder whether, had it been agreed, Europe would simply have faced the political and economic turmoil which is currently going on now, ten years earlier.
So let’s stop talking about what ifs.
The ugly truth is that sanctions have become an end in themselves. They are not a strategy, but a fig leaf covering the embarrassing fact that the west does not have a strategy.
They are a weak alternative to war or peace that serve no purpose other than to prolong the war in Ukraine.
Western nations have shown themselves unwilling to contemplate diplomacy. Talking to Putin is dismissed as a prize that will take him out of international isolation; even though he only appears isolated by western nations. Yet diplomacy isn’t about talking to your friends, despite the never ending round of backslapping summits our leaders attend. Diplomacy is about talking to the people with whom you most disagree. We have refused to talk to Russia and continue to avoid diplomacy at all costs to this day.
Neither do we want war, Britain’s army today has 73,000 soldiers, 2,000 fewer than 2 years ago. Russia has 600,000 troops in Ukraine, apparently. We couldn’t even agree to send 10,000 troops as part of a so-called reassurance force although, to be honest, that idea didn’t reassure me at all.
Russia is outstripping us in the production of munitions, tanks and naval warships. And it has 6,000 nuclear warheads.
So I’m glad we don’t want war either.
But as we continue to pursue ever diminishing packages of sanctions, Ukraine will remain stuck in the middle, devastated and depopulated, as Europe deindustrialises and falls into the embrace of nationalism at an accelerating rate.
Meanwhile, despite obvious headwinds, Russia’s economy appears in better shape than ours. It would be impossible to claim that there had been no economic impacts on the Russian economy from sanctions. Yet with economic links to the West now all but destroyed, sanctions relief is less important to Russia than it is to Europe.
In Budapest recently I got talking to a member of the House of Lords and former Diplomatic Service colleague who is a close friend of Boris Johnson. During his speech he remarked that sanctions on Russia have had no impact at all.
Later over drinks we discussed this and he agreed with the arguments that I have put forward today. But then he paused, and said ‘ah, but you just can’t say that in Britain though’.
It’s time to wake up and realise the terrible mess we have got ourselves into through sanctions. Sanctions have failed to the great detriment of Ukraine. It’s time, finally, to get back to diplomacy.

