EU lost 1 trillion by cutting Russia ties Moscow
The EU has suffered losses exceeding €1 trillion ($1.15 trillion) since drastically reducing energy and trade cooperation with Moscow over the Ukraine conflict, Russian Deputy Foreign Minister Aleksandr Grushko has said.
In an interview with Izvestia on Monday, Grushko said the figure is based on various expert estimates of the economic consequences of the EU's decision to impose unprecedented sanctions on Russia, adding that it accounts for lost profits from energy and trade cooperation.
According to Grushko, trade between the EU and Russia dropped from €417 billion ($482 billion) in 2013 to €60 billion ($69 billion) in 2023 and is now "approaching zero." He added that Europe's economy has subsequently taken a hit and is losing competitiveness.
"Natural gas in Europe is four to five times more expensive than in the US, and electricity is two to three times higher," he said. "That is the price Europe has to pay for ending all economic contacts with Russia."
In June, Russian President Vladimir Putin said that EU countries had lost around €200 billion ($231 billion) by refusing Russian gas supplies. In late 2024, Russian officials also estimated that total EU losses tied to sanctions against Russia had reached $1.5 trillion. Meanwhile, Moscow has said it has acquired a "certain immunity" to Western sanctions.
Grushko's comments come after the EU agreed a trade deal with the US, which commits the bloc to purchasing large volumes of American energy - which Moscow says will come at a much steeper cost than that provided by Russia - and imposes 15% tariffs on key EU exports. Numerous EU politicians have described the agreement as lopsided and damaging to the bloc's interests.
Commenting on the US-EU deal, Putin claimed that the EU had essentially lost its political sovereignty, and that this directly leads to losing economic independence.
The EU began imposing sanctions on Russia in 2014, following the start of the Ukraine crisis, and expanded them drastically in 2022. Measures have targeted banking, energy exports, and other industries. Moscow considers the sanctions illegal, saying they violate international trade rules and harm global economic stability.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Winnipeg Free Press
an hour ago
- Winnipeg Free Press
Bondi moves forward on Justice Department investigation into origins of Trump-Russia probe
WASHINGTON (AP) — Attorney General Pam Bondi has directed that the Justice Department move forward with a probe into the origins of the Trump-Russia investigation following the recent release of documents aimed at undermining the legitimacy of the inquiry that established that Moscow interfered on the Republican's behalf in the 2016 U.S. presidential election. Bondi has directed a prosecutor to present evidence to a grand jury after referrals from the Trump administration's top intelligence official, a person familiar with the matter said Monday. That person was not authorized to discuss it by name and spoke on condition of anonymity to The Associated Press. Fox News first reported the development. It was not clear which former officials might be the target of any grand jury activity, where the grand jury that might ultimately hear evidence will be located or which prosecutors — whether career employees or political appointees — might be involved in pursuing the investigation. It was also not clear what precise claims of misconduct Trump administration officials believe could form the basis of criminal charges, which a grand jury would have to sign off on for an indictment to be issued. The development is likely to heighten concerns that the Justice Department is being used to achieve political ends, given longstanding grievances over the Russia investigation voiced by President Donald Trump, who has called for the jailing of perceived political adversaries. Any criminal investigation would revisit one of the most dissected chapters of modern American political history. It is also surfacing at a time when the Trump administration is being buffeted by criticism over its handling of documents from the Jeffrey Epstein sex trafficking investigation. The investigation into Russian election interference resulted in the appointment of a special counsel, Robert Mueller, who secured multiple convictions against Trump aides and allies but did not establish proof of a criminal conspiracy between Moscow and the Trump campaign. The inquiry shadowed much of Trump's first term and he has long focused his ire on senior officials from the intelligence and law enforcement community, including former FBI Director James Comey, whom he fired in May 2017, and former CIA Director John Brennan. The Justice Department appeared to confirm an investigation into both men in an unusual statement last month but offered no details. Multiple special counsels, congressional committees and the Justice Department's own inspector general have studied and documented a multi-pronged effort by Russia to interfere in the 2016 presidential election on Trump's behalf, including through a hack-and-leak dump of Democratic emails and a covert social media operation aimed at sowing discord and swaying public opinion. But that conclusion has been aggressively challenged in recent weeks as Trump's director of national intelligence and other allies have released previously classified records that they hope will cast doubt on the extent of Russian interference and establish an Obama administration effort to falsely link Trump to Russia. In one batch of documents released last month, Tulsi Gabbard, the director of national intelligence, disclosed emails showing that senior Obama administration officials were aware in 2016 that Russians had not hacked state election systems to manipulate the votes in Trump's favor. But President Barack Obama's administration never alleged that votes were tampered with and instead detailed other forms of election interference and foreign influence. A new outcry surfaced last week when Sen. Chuck Grassley, the Republican chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee, released a set of documents that FBI Director Kash Patel claimed on social media proved that the 'Clinton campaign plotted to frame President Trump and fabricate the Russia collusion hoax.' The documents were part of a classified annex of a report issued in 2023 by John Durham, the special counsel who was appointed during the first Trump administration to hunt for any government misconduct during the Russia investigation. Durham did identify significant flaws in the investigation but uncovered no bombshells to disprove the existence of Russian election interference. His sprawling probe produced three criminal cases; two resulted in acquittals and the third was a guilty plea from a little-known FBI lawyer to a charge of making a false statement. Republicans seized on a July 27, 2016, email in Durham's newly declassified annex that purported to say that Hillary Clinton, then the Democratic candidate for president, had approved a plan during the heat of the campaign to link Trump with Russia. But the purported author of the email, a senior official at a philanthropic organization founded by billionaire investor George Soros, told Durham's team he had never sent the email and the alleged recipient said she never called receiving it. Durham's own report took pain to note that investigators had not corroborated the communications as authentic and said the best assessment was that the message was 'a composites of several emails' the Russians had obtained from hacking — raising the likelihood of Russian disinformation. The FBI's Russia investigation was opened on July 31, 2016, following a tip that a Trump campaign adviser, George Papadopoulos, had told a Russian diplomat that Russia was in possession of dirt on Clinton.
Global News
an hour ago
- Global News
Rwanda reaches deal with U.S. to take upto 250 migrants, Reuters reports
The United States and Rwanda have agreed for the African country to potentially accept hundreds of migrants deported from the U.S., the spokesperson for the Rwandan government and an official told Reuters, as President Donald Trump's administration takes a hardline approach toward immigration. The agreement, under which Rwanda would accept up to 250 migrants, was signed by U.S. and Rwandan officials in Kigali in June, said the Rwandan official, speaking on condition of anonymity, adding that Washington had already sent an initial list of 10 people to be vetted. 'Rwanda has agreed with the United States to accept up to 250 migrants, in part because nearly every Rwandan family has experienced the hardships of displacement, and our societal values are founded on reintegration and rehabilitation,' said the spokesperson for the Rwandan government, Yolande Makolo. 'Under the agreement, Rwanda has the ability to approve each individual proposed for resettlement. Those approved will be provided with workforce training, healthcare, and accommodation support to jumpstart their lives in Rwanda, giving them the opportunity to contribute to one of the fastest-growing economies in the world over the last decade.' Story continues below advertisement The White House and State Department had no immediate comment. The Department of Homeland Security referred questions to the State Department. Get daily National news Get the day's top news, political, economic, and current affairs headlines, delivered to your inbox once a day. Sign up for daily National newsletter Sign Up By providing your email address, you have read and agree to Global News' Terms and Conditions and Privacy Policy President Donald Trump aims to deport millions of immigrants in the U.S. illegally and his administration has sought to ramp up removals to third countries, including sending convicted criminals to South Sudan and Eswatini, formerly known as Swaziland. 2:36 Venezuela releases 10 jailed Americans in prisoner swap with El Salvador Rwanda has in recent years positioned itself as a destination country for migrants that Western countries would like to remove, despite concerns by rights groups that Kigali does not respect some of the most fundamental human rights. In May, the foreign minister said Rwanda was in the early stages of talks to receive immigrants deported from the United States. The Trump administration argues that third-country deportations help swiftly remove some migrants, including those with criminal convictions. Immigration hardliners see third-country removals as a way to deal with offenders who cannot easily be deported and could pose a threat to the public. Story continues below advertisement Opponents have criticized the deportations as dangerous and cruel, since people could be sent to countries where they could face violence, have no ties and do not speak the language. The Trump administration has pressed countries to take migrants. It deported more than 200 Venezuelans accused of being gang members to El Salvador in March, where they were jailed until they were released in a prisoner swap last month. The Supreme Court in June allowed the Trump administration to deport migrants to third countries without giving them a chance to show they could be harmed. But the legality of the removals is being contested in a federal lawsuit in Boston, a case that could potentially wind its way back to the conservative-leaning high court. Rwanda signed an agreement with Britain in 2022 to take in thousands of asylum seekers, a deal that was scrapped last year by then newly-elected Prime Minister Keir Starmer. No one was sent to Rwanda under the plan because of years of legal challenges.
Winnipeg Free Press
an hour ago
- Winnipeg Free Press
FACT FOCUS: Trump says he's cut drug prices by up to 1,500%. That's not possible
Days after he sent letters instructing top pharmaceutical manufacturers to use a 'most favored nation' pricing model for prescription drugs, President Donald Trump told reporters on Sunday that he had cut costs by up to 1,500%. But Trump's grandiose claim is mathematically impossible. Here's a closer look at the facts. TRUMP: 'You know, we've cut drug prices by 1,200, 1,300, 1,400, 1,500%. I don't mean 50%, I mean 14 — 1,500%.' THE FACTS: This is false. Cutting drug prices by more than 100% would theoretically mean that people are being paid to take medications. The Trump administration has taken steps to lower prescription drug prices, but experts say there's no indication costs have seen such a massive drop. Geoffrey Joyce, director of health policy at the University of Southern California's Schaeffer Center, called Trump's claim 'total fiction' made up by the Republican president. He agreed that it would amount to drug companies paying customers, rather than the other way around. 'I find it really difficult to translate those numbers into some actual estimates that patients would see at the pharmacy counter,' said Mariana Socal, an associate professor of health policy and management at Johns Hopkins University who studies the U.S. pharmaceutical market. She added that Trump's math is 'really hard to follow.' Asked what Trump was using to back up his claim, White House spokesman Kush Desai said: 'It's an objective fact that Americans are paying exponentially more for the same exact drugs as people in other developed countries pay, and it's an objective fact that no other Administration has done more to rectify this unfair burden for the American people.' The White House provided a chart of price differentials for drugs in the U.S. and comparable countries, but did not offer any other evidence. On Sunday, Trump also described cuts to drug prices as a future development, not that already happened. 'So we'll be dropping drug prices,' he said. 'It will start over the next two to three months by 1,200, 1,300 and even 1,400%.' Prices for most prescription drugs — unbranded generics are the exception — are higher in the U.S. than they are in other high-income countries. This is in large part due to the way drug prices are negotiated in the United States. Trump made his recent appeal in letters to 17 pharmaceutical manufacturers, the White House announced last week. He asked them to reduce costs in the U.S. by matching the lowest prices of prescriptions drugs in other comparably developed countries. Some drugmakers have since indicated that they are open to cutting costs. This move follows an executive order Trump signed in May setting a 30-day deadline for drugmakers to electively lower prices in the U.S. or face new limits in the future over what the government will pay. The federal government has the most power to shape the price it pays for drugs covered by Medicare and Medicaid. It's unclear what — if any — impact the Trump administration's efforts will have on millions of Americans who have private health insurance. Socal pointed out that if drug manufacturers had cut costs to the extent Trump claims, they would be shouting it from the rooftops, especially given the heat they've taken over the years for their pricing practices. Wednesdays What's next in arts, life and pop culture. 'My expectation would be that they would make announcements — public announcements — and that those announcements would come way in advance of the actual effective dates when those price cuts would come into effect,' she said. Joyce agreed that there has been no indication of a substantial cut. 'Not at all, not at all, none whatsoever,' he said. 'And let alone 1,500.' ___ Find AP Fact Checks here:
