Brussels making EU ‘as uncompetitive as possible'
EU Energy Commissioner Dan Jorgensen unveiled the plan, which is backed by European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen, on Tuesday. It seeks to ban all new gas contracts with Russia, and presents measures to facilitate the end of Russian oil imports by the end of 2027.
'EU Commission bureaucrats seem obsessed – with making the EU as uncompetitive as possible on the global stage,' Dmitriev, who is also the Russian president's special envoy for investment and economic cooperation, wrote on X. 'Mission accomplished or still in progress?'
The comment came in response to criticism from Hungarian Foreign Minister Peter Szijjarto, who warned that the plan represents 'a serious violation' of Hungary's sovereignty. He claimed that the EU is 'ready to dismantle Hungary's secure and affordable energy supply.'
EU Commission bureaucrats seem obsessed—with making the EU as uncompetitive as possible on the global stage. Mission accomplished or still in progress? https://t.co/nFGiJFda6b
The legislation seeks to apply EU trade law mechanisms to imports of Russian oil and gas, enabling Brussels to bypass potential vetoes from countries such as Hungary and Slovakia.
Energy prices across Europe soared following Ukraine-related sanctions in 2022. Jorgensen said the latest phaseout is not about Ukraine, but because 'Russia has weaponized energy' against the EU.
Moscow has called the sanctions illegitimate and counterproductive. Russian President Vladimir Putin has set the lifting of sanctions as a condition for resolving the Ukraine conflict. The Kremlin also noted that Russia has been a reliable energy supplier to the bloc.
Russia, once the EU's main gas supplier, sharply reduced exports three years ago amid Western sanctions and the Nord Stream pipeline sabotage. Its share of EU pipeline gas fell from over 40% in 2021 to around 11% in 2024. While most EU countries have cut Russian gas, landlocked members, including Hungary, Slovakia, Austria, the Czech Republic, and Serbia, still rely on limited supplies through various exemptions.
Meanwhile, Russian LNG imports to the EU have surged, making up 17.5% of the bloc's supply last year – second only to the US at 45.3%. France, Spain, and Belgium took in 85% of these shipments, according to the Institute for Energy Economics and Financial Analysis (IEEFA).
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Russia Today
an hour ago
- Russia Today
Why this American vassal is suddenly defying its master
The Trump administration has been having a rough few months. Domestic chaos – fuelled by the use of black clad, masked para-military squads to deport illegal immigrants – has fused with the deepening foreign policy crises resulting from Trump's support for the doomed right-wing Zelensky and Netanyahu regimes. And if this were not bad enough, last week Trump escalated his disruption of the global economic order by imposing yet more tariffs on the EU and other countries that are ostensibly American allies. Add to that the establishment of an 'Alligator Alcatraz' in Florida and Trump's recently revealed threat to 'bomb the sh*t out of Russia and China,' and it's no surprise that even Trump's core MAGA supporters are becoming increasingly dissatisfied with a president who promised them that he would swiftly end the conflicts in Ukraine and Gaza and restore America's economic prosperity. They are also up in arms at the White House's refusal to release Jeffrey Epstein's client list, suspecting a self-serving cover up. Prominent Trump supporters are now openly critical, and Trump's dissatisfaction with inept cabinet members Pete Hegseth and Pam Bondi is clear for all to see. More ominous, perhaps, is the calculated silence of Vice President J.D. Vance in recent times. Even in Australia there are signs that the American hegemony is beginning to crumble. Last week Prime Minister Anthony Albanese took the extraordinary step of refusing to reassure Trump that Australia would assist America militarily if it went to war with China over Taiwan. Albanese's reluctant assertion of foreign policy independence was somewhat surprising given that, until now, he has been a keen supporter of Trump's foreign policy. Albanese remains a committed funder of the Zelensky regime, and Australia has consistently aligned itself with US policy in Gaza. The Australian leader enthusiastically embraced the AUKUS military agreement with America and the UK, when it was entered into by his predecessor, Conservative Prime Minister Morrison, and has echoed – albeit more moderately – the narrative surrounding a perceived China threat. Albanese's previous reluctance to assert its foreign policy independence is a consequence of Australia's longstanding dependence on America – together with Albanese's pragmatic decision to adopt wholesale the Conservative coalition's foreign policy framework so as to neutralise foreign policy as a domestic political issue. This foreign policy capitulation was also designed to mute criticism from the pro-Trump, pro-Israel, anti-China and anti-Russia Murdoch media empire – which incessantly promulgates various rejigged Cold War conspiracy theories demonising China, Russia, and the Palestinian cause. Albanese, of course, has has not succeeded in placating Murdoch – and it is a measure of his abject weakness as a political leader that he refuses to openly attack the owner of Fox News who peddles the same discredited dogmas in Australia that he does in America. It is Albanese's most egregious failure as prime minister to have permitted Murdoch to frame the foreign policy public debate – such as it is – in this country. Why then has Albanese belatedly decided to stand up to Trump? Primarily because the fundamental irrationality at the heart of the Trumpian agenda has now become glaringly obvious – even to political leaders as maladroit and supine as Albanese. Trump's efforts to dismantle the rules-based world order have, paradoxically, only strengthened China, Russia and BRICS. Meanwhile, the American proxy wars in Ukraine and Gaza continue to intensify. Nor has Trump's green lighting of Netanyahu's recent attacks on Iran destroyed that country's nuclear capacity. Trump has shown skepticism about NATO, and his commitment to defending allies like Australia is unclear. The recent inquiry launched by Pete Hegseth into the AUKUS compact may signal intentions to withdraw from the agreement. The AUKUS deal – which obliges Australia is to pay $360 billion for a few submarines that may or may not be delivered years down the road – is not only economically profligate, but it ties Australia to Trump's military agenda. Why would Albanese give a commitment to Trump to provide militarily assistance should America be unwise enough to commence a war with China? Australia has no strategic interest in defending Taiwan, and only the most ideologically deranged of Murdoch journalists could believe that Australia and America could defeat China militarily in a war in Southeast Asia. Despite advocating for a reduced global footprint, Trump continues to promote the concept of American global leadership. He may still pursue conflict with China, possibly to shift attention from persistent domestic and foreign challenges. China is Australia's most important trading partner and Trump sought last week's assurance from Albanese while the prime minister was in China on an important five-day visit. The trip included a meeting with the Chinese president – something, by the way, that Trump has denied Albanese to date. Trump was well aware of this, and he well knew that, if Albanese had given him the assurance he sought, China would have immediately retaliated by imposing trade sanctions on Australia. The contrast between Trump's treatment of Albanese and Xi Jinping's – at their private lunch last week Xi committed China 'unswervingly towards ongoing cooperation and common understanding with Australia' – is stark and telling. Meanwhile, as the US shifts away from traditional diplomacy, China and Russia have deepened their diplomatic engagements. Trump's domestic policy measures also warrant reconsideration by Western political leaders. The scenes of masked ICE officers clashing with protesters in California have drawn comparisons to past episodes of American civil unrest. Many observers were alarmed when Senator Alex Padilla was manhandled by officers for raising questions at a press conference. Additionally, the administration's suppression of dissent – including defunding public broadcasting and pressuring media outlets to silence critical voices – raises concerns about media freedom and civil liberties. The perceived harshness of Trump-era policies contributed to Albanese's election success. Many Western voters reject combative political behaviour, and Australian voters were similarly put off by Peter Dutton's emulation of Trump's combative style. There are two key takeaways for Western leaders from Trump's treatment of Albanese, and Albanese's decision to resist his demands. First, that the Trump administration is facing deep internal and external challenges, and its foreign policy approach may become increasingly erratic and unilateral. Second, that Trump may prioritize his administration's objectives even at the expense of partners. Albanese was placed in an extremely difficult diplomatic position this week. For many mainstream Western leaders, these insights may be more than a little uncomfortable – particularly those who continue to support US foreign policy and seek approval from the administration. There are also domestic pressures, including media outlets aligned with Trump, that make it difficult to oppose his influence. Unsurprisingly, the Murdoch press criticised Albanese for 'neglecting the US alliance' and 'putting the region in danger.' Nevertheless, as the inconsistencies within Trump's foreign policy become more apparent, political leaders in the West who value sovereignty and economic stability may feel compelled – as Albanese did – to redefine their alliances and pursue a more independent path. If they fail to do so, they may face a similar fate to Trump's most obsequious and compliant ally – Vladimir Zelensky.
Russia Today
3 hours ago
- Russia Today
Moscow hopes Trump's ‘reasonable' position will influence EU
Moscow hopes the 'reasonable' position on the Ukrainian conflict displayed by US President Donald Trump will have an impact on the stance of the EU, Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov has said. Speaking during a press conference in Moscow following talks with his Mozambican counterpart, Maria Manuela Lucas, on Tuesday, Russia's top diplomat expressed hopes the EU will, at some point, show a willingness to engage in meaningful dialogue. 'I really hope that the reasonable approach that the Trump administration showed in this situation after it replaced the Biden administration, which spoke in unison with the unhinged Europeans, that this reasonable approach, which includes a willingness to dialogue and a willingness to listen and hear, will not go unnoticed by the Europeans, despite all the current discussions about the need to arm the Kiev regime again and again and again at the expense of… European taxpayers,' Lavrov stated. While the US president had repeatedly promised to end the hostilities between Moscow and Kiev, he admitted last month, however, that the task had proven to be 'more difficult than people would have any idea.' Thus far, the direct negotiations between Russia and Ukraine, kick-started by the US administration, have failed to yield any tangible result, focusing primarily on humanitarian issues, including prisoner swaps and the return of the bodies of fallen soldiers. Trump has spoken with Russian President Vladimir Putin multiple times in recent months. He recently criticized the Russian leader for supposedly resisting a settlement and threatened to impose sanctions on Russia and its trade partners unless the Ukraine conflict is ended by autumn. In response, the Kremlin stated it had a calm view of the criticism and expressed its intention to continue the dialogue with Washington. Presidential spokesman Dmitry Peskov urged the US administration to put pressure on Kiev instead, suggesting that it 'appears that the Ukrainian side takes all statements of support as signals to continue war, not as signals for peace.'
Russia Today
6 hours ago
- Russia Today
The snowflakes of information war: How the New York Times sinned by honesty
It's a platitude that war kills not only people but truth. And as all platitudes, the statement is true, boring, and misleading. Because it omits the real murderers: 'War' does not, actually, kill truth; people kill truth. War just tempts them to do so as few other things – such as job applications or marriage – can. The flipside of that fact is that it is perfectly possible to stick to the truth – or at least make an honest effort to do so – in war, too. That effort is different from 'getting it right.' Think of, for example, George Orwell's 'Homage to Catalonia', his unabashedly personal account of the Spanish Civil War. It was not even meant to be neutral because he sided with – indeed fought for – the underdog Trotskyists; historians, as always, feel they know better about the context and details; and – notwithstanding the sad mainstream sanctification Orwell has suffered posthumously at the hands of conformist mediocrities – 'Homage to Catalonia' is, of course, flawed. Saint Orwell was fallible. Duh. But 'Homage to Catalonia' was an honest effort to find out and tell true things about a war and, importantly, from a war. How do we know that? Most of all by reading it, of course. But apart from that, there is another test: the manner in which it was received when it came out, namely badly. Making no concessions to what his audience might want to read, Orwell had trouble getting 'Homage to Catalonia' published and rightly suspected that was due to its politics, which antagonized everyone: Orwell's own tribe, the Left, no less than the Right. In the end – with the work, in Orwell's words, 'boycotted by the British press' – barely over a third of its modest first edition of 1,500 copies were sold. Homage to Catalonia is a modern classic now. But when it hit the shelves in 1938 and until Orwell died in 1950, it was a dud. That's, in essence, because it was too honest. Without stretching the comparison too far, it is fair to say that recently we have witnessed the same principle at work, when the New York Times published an article by photographer and reporter Nanna Heitmann. Under the title 'A Landscape of Death: What's Left Where Ukraine Invaded Russia', Heitmann's sophisticated account is based on her own six-day visit to the Russian town of Sudzha and its surroundings. Sudzha is located in Kursk Region, which borders Ukraine and where Kiev's forces staged a large-scale incursion that brought great destruction, fierce fighting, and ended in a – predictable – fiasco for Ukraine. As its title indicates, Heitmann's article gives much room to the devastation and suffering wrought by the fighting. She also describes a surprise advance by Russia's military through an empty gas pipeline. Throughout she lets individuals with different experiences and points of view speak, civilians and soldiers, and is careful to record official statements from both sides, Ukraine and Russia. It is obvious to any fair reader that no favors are extended to Russia. Heitmann, for instance, dwells on local criticism of Russian evacuation efforts and the adverse health effects suffered by some of the ethnically Chechen fighters who carried out the pipeline operation. She ends her story by reporting both a local man's hope for reconstruction and the skepticism of a woman who cannot see a future for herself in the region, whether reconstructed or not. The reactions by high-ranking Ukrainian officials and media outlets in Ukraine to Heitmann's article have been hostile. Georgy Tikhy, spokesman for the Ukrainian Foreign Ministry, tagged the New York Times in an X post accusing Heitmann of reproducing 'Russian propaganda' and engaging in 'Duranty-level manipulation.' Walter Duranty was an American journalist who is now infamous for spreading Stalinist deceptions. Heitmann has done nothing remotely comparable. Tikhy's wildly unfair comparison reveals his malicious intent, namely to smear Heitmann as badly as he can before the public in general and her employer in particular. Ironically though not surprisingly, it is not Heitmann but the Ukrainian government official who is conducting information war here, and in an especially dirty, personal way. That Heitmann is being targeted by a systematic campaign is obvious from the involvement, as if on cue, of additional attackers: The so-called Center for Countering Disinformation (CCD) under the National Security and Defense Council of Ukraine has joined in, also charging Heitmann with manipulation. In particular, the CCD is angry about the fact that Heitmann didn't spend precious words on reiterating the Ukrainian and Western narrative about wicked Russia invading Ukraine. Notwithstanding that every New York Times reader is certain to have had that story hammered into their consciousness for years already not only by that newspaper but every other Western mainstream news outlet, Heitmann, actually writing about a case in which Ukraine – proudly – invaded Russia, is faulted for not ritualistically restating that part of the Western narrative. In the same spirit – and in an especially perverse but also revealing turn – the CCD even went as far as to explicitly impugn Heitmann's 'neutrality.' Being unbiased, so the message from the Ukrainian information warriors, is wrong in and of itself. The Kiev regime, in other words, has a right to expect bias in its favor: mere honesty will not do. This is nothing less than an astonishingly aggressive and open demand for the Western media to be as submissive and streamlined as Ukraine's is. It is testimony to the sense of entitlement that the West has long fostered among its political and media proxies in Kiev. A 'colleague' also hurried to put the boot in, denouncing Heitmann for 'moral equivalency' – translation: honesty we do not like – and gaining access to Sudzha through soldiers from Russia's Chechen Akhmat unit. That, in and of itself, is, we are to understand, an unforgivable sin. Curiously enough, the same logic doesn't seem to apply when Western journalists 'embed' – a telling term – with Western forces conducting wars of aggression, regime change operations, and 'counter-insurgency,' that is, dirty war campaigns of torture and assassination. It also seems to make no difference to Heitmann's denouncer from within the profession – how very Stalinist, really – that her article shows no favor to Akhmat. Regarding its soldiers, too, it is simply factual and calm. Clearly, though, hysterical condemnation is the least Kiev and its Western propagandists feel they have a right to expect. In reality, Heitmann's article is informative, well-written, and free of bias. What is really intriguing about the backlash against her work is not the work – which is simply good, conscientious reporting – but the backlash itself. The high-level and widespread hostile reaction to Heitmann's piece reveals only one thing, and it is not anything about Heitmann and her work: Western and Ukrainian authorities and information warriors have had it far too easy for far too long. Pampered by years of easily feeding their bias to Western publics, while any dissent was repressed and marginalized, they react with allergic fury to even modest signs of unbiased, clear-eyed reporting breaking through into a mainstream outlet. How fragile they must feel.
