Serbia seeks fifth US sanctions waiver for Russian-owned oil firm NIS, minister says
NIS has so far secured a fourth reprieve, which is due to expire on July 29, putting Serbia in a precarious position as it tries to balance its energy security against geopolitical pressures.
"Negotiations are quite tough, because we are in an unenviable situation between two great powers, Russia and America," Djedovic Handanovic said in a live broadcast on Serbia's state RTS TV.
NIS, majority-owned by Russia's Gazprom Neft and Gazprom, operates Serbia's only oil refinery covering much of its needs, and sanctions could jeopardise its crude supply. The facility has an annual capacity of 4.8 million tons.
The U.S. Treasury's Office of Foreign Assets Control initially placed sanctions on Russia's oil sector on January 10, and gave Gazprom Neft 45 days to exit ownership of NIS.
The U.S. Department of the Treasury did not immediately respond to a request for comment on the talks.
"We will be striving with all available means to continue the dialogue with both sides ... to protect our position," she said.
On February 26, Gazprom Neft transferred a stake of around 5.15% in NIS to Gazprom in an attempt to ward off sanctions.
Gazprom Neft now owns 44.85% of NIS, while Gazprom has 11.3%. The Serbian government owns 29.87%, with the remaining shares held by small shareholders.
NIS imports about 80% of its oil needs through Croatia's pipeline operator Janaf. The remainder is covered by its own crude oil production in Serbia.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
21 minutes ago
- Yahoo
European and Iranian diplomats meet in Istanbul as return of sanctions looms over nuclear deadlock
ISTANBUL (AP) — Talks between Iranian and European diplomats in Istanbul ended Friday with the sides agreeing to meet again to seek to unpick the deadlock over Tehran's nuclear program. Representatives from Britain, France and Germany, known as the E3 nations, gathered at the Iranian Consulate building for the first talks since Iran's 12-day war with Israel in June, which involved U.S. bombers striking nuclear-related facilities. The talks, which ended after four hours, centered on the possibility of reimposing sanctions on Iran that were lifted in 2015 in exchange for Iran accepting restrictions and monitoring of its nuclear program. Iranian negotiator, Deputy Foreign Minister Kazem Gharibabadi, said that the 'serious, frank and detailed' meeting focused on the nuclear issue and the status of sanctions while agreeing to further discussions. Snapback mechanism The E3 nations had earlier warned that sanctions could return under a process known as the 'snapback' mechanism, which allows one of the Western parties to reimpose U.N. sanctions if Tehran doesn't comply with its requirements. 'Both sides came to the meeting with specific ideas,' Gharibabadi said in a social media post. 'It was agreed that consultations on this matter will continue.' As the talks were ongoing, Iran's Foreign Ministry spokesman, Esmail Baghaei, said that he hoped that the meeting would see the E3 nations reassess their 'previous unconstructive attitude.' European leaders have said sanctions will resume by the end of August, if there is no progress on containing Iran's nuclear program. The snapback mechanism 'remains on the table," a European diplomat said on condition of anonymity because of the sensitivity of the talks, 'A possible delay in triggering snapback has been floated to the Iranians on the condition that there is credible diplomatic engagement by Iran, that they resume full cooperation with the IAEA (International Atomic Energy Agency), and that they address concerns about their highly-enriched uranium stockpile,' the diplomat said prior to Friday's negotiations. Rebuilding trust Tehran, meanwhile, has said that Washington, which withdrew from the 2015 deal during the first term of U.S. President Donald Trump, needs to rebuild faith in its role in negotiations. Gharibabadi previously said that Iran's engagement was dependent on 'several key principles' that included 'rebuilding Iran's trust — as Iran has absolutely no trust in the United States.' In a social media post on Thursday, he also said that the talks shouldn't be used 'as a platform for hidden agendas such as military action.' Gharibabadi insisted that Iran's right to enrich uranium 'in line with its legitimate needs' be respected, and sanctions removed. Iran has repeatedly threatened to leave the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty, which commits it to refrain from developing nuclear weapons, if sanctions return. Europe's role Friday's talks were held at the deputy ministerial level, with Iran sending Gharibabadi and a fellow deputy foreign minister, Majid Takht-e Ravanchi. A similar meeting was held in Istanbul in May. The identity of the E3 representatives weren't immediately clear, but the European Union's deputy foreign policy commissioner was thought to be attending. The U.K., France and Germany were signatories to the 2015 deal, alongside the U.S., Russia and China. When Washington withdrew in 2018, Trump insisted the agreement wasn't tough enough. Under the original deal, neither Russia nor China can veto reimposed sanctions. Since the Israeli and U.S. strikes on Iran, which saw American B-52 bombers hit three nuclear sites, Iranian Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi has accused the E3 of hypocrisy, saying that they failed to uphold their obligations while supporting Israel's attacks. Uncertainty ahead Against the backdrop of the conflict, in which Iran responded with missile attacks on Israel and a strike on a U.S. base in Qatar, the road ahead remains uncertain. While European officials have said they want to avoid further conflict and are open to a negotiated solution, they have warned that time is running out. Tehran maintains that it's open to diplomacy, though it recently suspended cooperation with the IAEA. A central concern for Western powers was highlighted when the IAEA reported in May that Iran's stockpile of uranium enriched to 60% — just below weapons-grade level — had grown to more than 400 kilograms (nearly 900 pounds). In an interview with Al Jazeera that aired Wednesday, Iranian President Masoud Pezeshkian said that Iran is prepared for another war and reiterated that its nuclear program will continue within the framework of international law, while adding that the country had no intention of pursuing nuclear weapons. A spokesman for Iran's Atomic Energy Organization said Thursday that the country's nuclear industry would 'grow back and thrive again' after the recent attacks by Israel and the U.S. ___ Stephanie Liechtenstein reported from Vienna. Nasser Karimi and Amir Vahdat contributed to this report from Tehran, Iran. ___ The Associated Press receives support for nuclear security coverage from the Carnegie Corporation of New York and Outrider Foundation. The AP is solely responsible for all content. ___ Additional AP coverage of the nuclear landscape: Andrew Wilks And Stephanie Liechtenstein, The Associated Press Sign in to access your portfolio
Forbes
23 minutes ago
- Forbes
Trump's AI Race Vs. China's Leaks: Why Containment Could Backfire
WASHINGTON, DC - JULY 23: Michael Kratsios, U.S. President Donald Trump and David O. Sacks speak ... More onstage at the All-In and Hill & Valley Forum "Winning The AI Race" at Andrew W. Mellon Auditorium on July 23, 2025 in Washington, DC. (Photo byfor Hill & Valley Forum) "AI is the new geopolitical lever"—this was the framing used in recent Washington briefings, where insiders described America's AI strategy as doing "two things fast, one thing slow—deliberately." The fast elements include granting FAST-41 fast-track permitting status to every data center above 100 MW, slashing timelines from years to months, and imposing stepped-up disclosure rules on shipments of advanced chips like the B200, H100, and H200 to list end-users in detail. The slow part is a deliberate study on "compute choke-points," due in December 2025, to determine whether to cap Chinese access to American cloud capacity. As these insiders noted, "We have the best technology, and we want to share it"—but only under an America First approach of techno-nationalism that ensures global infrastructure depends on U.S. foundations while restricting adversaries. On January 20, 2025—while inaugural crowds were still finding their seats—DeepSeek released R1. No Silicon Valley fanfare, just a GitHub drop and iOS icon that became America's most-downloaded free app within 48 hours. Five months later, as the White House unveiled its AI Action Plan on July 23, Alibaba-backed Moonshot dropped Kimi K2 days before, claiming 100x cost advantages over Western models. Coincidence? Hardly. It's Beijing projecting parity, if not superiority, precisely when Washington asserts dominance. The message: We can build frontier AI with whatever silicon you fail to contain. At its heart, the U.S. strategy stands on three legs: Promote American technology globally, Protect it from adversaries, and pursue Techno-Nationalism. The revelation of over $1 billion in Nvidia B200/H100 chips reaching China through Singapore-Ho Chi Minh City shell networks exposes this as wishful thinking. Here's the paradox: Failed containment doesn't just weaken "Protect"—it actively accelerates Chinese capabilities. Export controls create what analysts call "innovation incentives in captivity"—spurring Beijing to develop cheaper, more energy-efficient alternatives. DeepSeek's claim of training R1 for $6 million versus GPT-4's $100 million isn't just cost efficiency—it's containment blowback. U.S. insiders emphasize that what has historically slowed China wasn't lack of technology but the Chinese Communist Party's ideological conformity, requiring models to pass rigorous alignment with official doctrine. Yet even with these self-imposed limits, Beijing's efficiency gains show how U.S. restrictions can backfire, pushing adversaries to innovate around ideological and technical barriers. AI policy is energy policy. While Western democracies debate environmental reviews and grid reliability, authoritarian systems can rapidly direct energy flows to computing infrastructure. Wood Mackenzie's projection of 15-20% annual U.S. electricity demand growth from AI through 2030 isn't just a technical constraint—it's a strategic vulnerability. The U.S. response—expedited FAST-41 permitting for >100 MW data centers—assumes regulatory streamlining can match centralized resource allocation. It can't. Regulation isn't necessarily the enemy here; it's the necessary guardrail against social, political and industrial infrastructure that could collapse under its own power demands. Recent Washington briefings highlight growing concerns about Gulf-based corporate partnerships with U.S. AI projects serving as potential infiltration vectors. While specifics remain under wraps, the pattern involves sophisticated state actors using third-party relationships to access American technological developments—extending beyond chip smuggling to strategic information gathering. The Biden-era export controls and AI safeguards, such as Executive Order 14110, faltered due to structural bottlenecks that delayed infrastructure buildouts and allowed adversaries like China to gain ground through persistent evasion. This erosion is accelerating under Trump's deregulatory push, which has revoked those "burdensome government requirements" to prioritize speed. The result creates a feedback loop: domestic acceleration exposes enforcement gaps, which in turn necessitate more aggressive deregulation to maintain competitive advantages. Trump's approach represents the essential path forward to contain China, even if imperfect, as it addresses these foundational weaknesses head-on. We're witnessing the emergence of parallel AI ecosystems: U.S. resource-intensive models versus Chinese efficiency-driven alternatives. Rather than a single dominant technological stack, we may see competing approaches based on cost, performance, and regulatory philosophy. The question facing American strategists transcends tactical adjustments: Should U.S. strategy be defined by speed or security? Every month shaved off U.S. permitting may be offset by continued Chinese access to cutting-edge silicon through gray markets. Every export control may be accelerating the very multipolarity Washington seeks to prevent. In the end, the AI race isn't static—the course shifts quicker than anyone can sprint.
Washington Post
26 minutes ago
- Washington Post
Russia rules out Putin-Zelensky meeting until end of peace talks
The Kremlin on Friday ruled out any meeting between Russian President Vladimir Putin and Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky before the last stage in signing a peace deal, definitively rebuffing the Ukrainian leader's calls for a meeting and describing the two sides' positions as 'diametrically opposed.' The statement appears to effectively preclude any kind of top-level meeting in the near future and casts doubt on further progress in the peace talks within the 50-day deadline given by President Donald Trump for a peace deal to be reached before the United States imposes new sanctions on Russia. Kremlin spokesman Dmitry Peskov indicated that any meeting between the two leaders could only take place after a draft settlement was reached, a direct rejection of Zelensky's call on Thursday for a meeting with Putin to move the stalled peace process forward. In comments to journalists on Thursday, released Friday, Zelensky said negotiating an end to the war 'probably begins with a meeting of leaders. It won't work any other way with them.' 'We need an agenda for such a meeting — a meeting at the level of leaders,' he said. Peskov rejected the proposal on Friday. 'A summit meeting can and should put an end to the settlement and formalize the modalities and agreements that are to be worked out in the course of expert work,' he said. 'It is impossible to do the opposite. Is it possible to complete such a complex process in 30 days? Obviously, it is unlikely.' A key difference in negotiations has been Trump's demand for an immediate ceasefire which Ukraine has accepted and Moscow has rejected. The Ukrainian side, which is under intense Russian pressure on the battlefield, has called for the ceasefire to pave the way for peace talks. Putin remains confident that his forces can advance and eventually force Ukraine's capitulation, and is determined to fight on until Kyiv accepts Moscow's conditions, insisting that talks take place without a ceasefire. Peskov, who has repeatedly ruled out a meeting of leaders before a draft settlement is agreed, said Russia's position on this was well-known. He said the two sides' positions were 'diametrically opposed, and it is unlikely that they can be reconciled overnight. This will require very complex diplomatic work.' On Thursday he showed pessimism about the peace talks, saying that Russia 'did not expect a breakthrough,' which was 'hardly possible.' In June, Putin said that he was willing to meet Zelensky, but only 'if it will be some kind of final stage, so as not to sit there and endlessly divide something, but to put an end to it.' A meeting between Russian and Ukrainian officials on Wednesday lasted just 40 minutes, a sign that the sides remain far apart and have so far failed to agree even on the basic parameters of the talks, let alone haggling in detail about Moscow's conditions to halt its attacks. The main achievement of talks so far has been prisoner exchanges, with agreement on Wednesday for the exchange of 1,200 more prisoners in the near future. So far Russia has stuck to its maximalist demands that would strip Ukraine of its ability to defend itself and keep it out of NATO, as Putin presses ahead with his project to force Kyiv's capitulation and turn Ukraine into a client state like Belarus. Russia is also seeking to add a new layer to the peace negotiations that could possibly bog down talks into multiple complex processes. The head of Russia's delegation at the talks, Vladimir Medinsky, said after Wednesday's meeting that Russia proposed three new working groups on political, military and humanitarian issues, raising the possibility that while prisoner exchanges could advance, political and military issues could remain stalemated. After rejecting the ceasefire earlier, Russia demanded that both sides draft memorandums on the parameters of the talks, which would then have to be reconciled — effectively stalling the process. Deputy Russian Foreign Minister Mikhail Galuzin told Izvestia newspaper that Russia expected that there would be more talks but these would not be easy. In May, Zelensky unsuccessfully pressed Putin to fly to Istanbul to meet him for talks on a ceasefire.
