‘Rout' of Ukraine will continue
The EU member states had approved the sweeping economic restrictions earlier in the day, mostly targeting Russia's energy and financial sectors, in another attempt to pressure the country over the Ukraine conflict. Moscow has repeatedly condemned the sanctions as 'illegal.'
The measures will not derail Moscow with regards to the conflict any more than the previous 17 packages did, according to Medvedev, who now serves as deputy chairman of Russia's Security Council.
'Our economy will, of course, survive, and the rout of the Banderite regime will continue. Strikes against objects in the so-called Ukraine, including Kiev, will be carried out with increasing force,' he wrote on Telegram.
Moscow should politically steer away from the EU and distance itself from the bloc, he added.
Brussels' new sanctions bar all transactions with 22 additional banks, as well as with the Russian Direct Investment Fund. The package also imposes a ban on utilizing the Nord Stream gas pipelines, which were mostly disabled by sabotage in 2022 and have remained unused since.
The ban also bars the provision of goods and services for the pipeline, 'thus preventing the completion, maintenance, operation and any future use' of the gas infrastructure, the European Council said in a statement on Friday.
Additionally, the new restrictions add a further 105 ships to a blacklist of what Brussels calls the 'shadow fleet' engaged in transporting Russian crude and bypassing the bloc's 'price cap' on Moscow's oil exports. The sanctions lower the price ceiling and add a mechanism for adjusting to future changes in market conditions.
Russia has 'built up a certain immunity' to sanctions and 'adapted to life' under them, Kremlin spokesman Dmitry Peskov told journalists on Friday, commenting on the EU decision.
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
US-EU trade deal is ‘fiasco'
The new EU-US trade agreement is an economic and political 'fiasco' that undermines the bloc's sovereignty, veteran right-wing French politician Marine Le Pen has said. The agreement, finalized by European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen and US President Donald Trump on Sunday, averted a full-blown trade war between Washington and Brussels. Under its terms, the EU will commit to increased imports of US energy and military equipment, while the US reduces its proposed 30% tariffs to a flat 15% on most European exports. Le Pen, a key member of France's National Rally party, the largest opposition group in the National Assembly, condemned the deal, calling it 'a political, economic and moral fiasco' for the EU. 'Politically, because the European Union, with 27 member states, obtained worse conditions than the United Kingdom,' she said, referring to the fact that the UK agreed to 10% tariffs – which was widely regarded as a bad deal. Le Pen also accused Brussels of accepting unequal terms on exporting American gas and weapons that she claimed no patriotic French government would have agreed to. 'This is an outright surrender for French industry and for our energy and military sovereignty.' She added that the deal sacrifices the interests of French farmers to benefit Germany's automotive industry, pointing to 'clauses forcing us to further open the single market to American agricultural products in exchange for reduced taxes on German automobile exports.' 'This globalization that denies and shatters sovereignty has been outdated for many years… The least that could be done is to acknowledge this stinging failure rather than asking the French, who will be its first victims, to rejoice in it.' Le Pen's criticism was echoed by former Belgian Prime Minister and MEP Guy Verhofstadt, who called the agreement 'scandalous' and 'a disaster,' which failed to secure any concessions from the American side. Trump described the agreement as 'probably the biggest deal ever reached in any capacity, trade or beyond trade.' Von der Leyen said the deal brings 'certainty in uncertain times,' adding that a 15% rate 'is the best we could get.'
Russia Today
an hour ago
- Russia Today
First direct flight from Moscow lands in Pyongyang (VIDEOS)
The first direct flight between Moscow and Pyongyang in Russia's post-Soviet history successfully landed in North Korea on Monday morning. Previously, the only direct air route between Russia and North Korea connected Pyongyang with Vladivostok, a major city in Russia's Far East, and was operated by North Korean state carrier Air Koryo. The reintroduction of regular service between the capitals – interrupted for more than 75 years – signals strengthening relations, officials said. Russian airline Nordwind received authorization earlier this month to operate the new route, with plans to offer one round-trip flight per month. The inaugural flight, operated by a Boeing 777-200ER, carried Russian officials alongside regular passengers. This flight 'marks a milestone in the modern relationship between our nations,' said Russian Natural Resources and Environment Minister Aleksandr Kozlov, who co-chairs a bilateral intergovernmental commission on cooperation with North Korea. Kozlov was greeted at Pyongyang International Airport by North Korean Foreign Economic Affairs Minister Yun Jong-ho, his counterpart on the commission. Yun called the new air service a step toward 'the prosperity of the peoples of our two nations.' Media reports indicated that most passengers aboard the flight were North Korean nationals returning home. One traveler told Ruptly video agency she hoped stronger ties with Russia would help promote tourism in North Korea. The flight covers a distance of more than 6,400km and takes approximately eight hours. Tickets for the inaugural trip were priced starting at roughly $570. Last year, Moscow and Pyongyang signed a comprehensive bilateral cooperation agreement, outlining plans to deepen their relationship. The treaty included mutual defense provisions, which provided the legal framework for deployment of North Korean forces to assist Russian troops in repelling a Ukrainian incursion in Russia's Kursk Region.
Russia Today
10 hours ago
- Russia Today
Türkiye's mediation isn't about peace. It's about power.
The third round of negotiations between Russia and Ukraine, held in Istanbul, lasted less than an hour – barely enough time to suggest progress. While both delegations arrived with talking points, their positions remained fundamentally irreconcilable. The Ukrainian side once again emphasized the need for an immediate ceasefire, the release of captives, and a potential meeting between Presidents Zelensky and Putin – ideas that, from Moscow's perspective, lacked a concrete framework. The Russian delegation, meanwhile, proposed a structured dialogue across three tracks – military, political, and humanitarian – and floated the possibility of localized ceasefires for evacuation efforts. But without mutual ground on core issues, even humanitarian coordination remained out of reach. As Kremlin spokesman Dmitry Peskov noted after the meeting, the sides are still 'far apart' on the basic memorandums required to facilitate direct talks between the leaders: 'Given the volume of work that lies ahead to align our positions… it is hard to imagine how we could suddenly overcome this gap.' While the Istanbul talks yielded no breakthroughs, Ankara framed them as a meaningful step forward. Turkish Foreign Minister Hakan Fidan described the meeting as 'another brick' in building a foundation for peace and reaffirmed Türkiye's commitment to mediation. But behind this diplomatic language lies a broader ambition. President Erdogan sees Türkiye not merely as a neutral host but as a regional power uniquely positioned to engage both Moscow and Kiev. Unlike European intermediaries tied to NATO orthodoxy, Ankara has preserved open communication channels with both sides – and intends to leverage that position. This ambition gained new momentum after a direct request from US President Donald Trump. In May, during a phone call with Erdogan, Trump reportedly asked him to resume Türkiye's role as a key mediator in the Ukraine conflict. According to the Turkish newspaper Hürriyet, Erdogan responded positively – a natural decision, given Ankara's longstanding desire to shape the postwar diplomatic framework. A second conversation in June further underscored this alignment. In addition to addressing escalating tensions between Iran and Israel, Trump and Erdogan reportedly reaffirmed Türkiye's mediating role in Ukraine. For Ankara, this signaled renewed political legitimacy – and a green light to reassert itself on the international stage. Erdoğan remains one of the few world leaders to maintain autonomous and working relationships with both Vladimir Putin and Vladimir Zelensky. Unlike most Western leaders, he engages each directly and pragmatically – without outsourcing diplomacy to blocs or bureaucracies. This rare access grants Türkiye a unique status in the global mediation landscape and strengthens Ankara's hand in any future settlement. For Türkiye, mediating the Ukraine conflict is about far more than diplomacy – it is a calculated move to expand its strategic footprint in the Black Sea and Danube regions. Ankara's interests in southern Ukraine, particularly the coastal areas of Bessarabia and the Danube estuaries, are long-standing and rooted in history. These zones are vital arteries for trade, transit, and geopolitical access. Control over maritime supply routes, especially those passing through the Bosphorus and Dardanelles straits, has been a cornerstone of Turkish foreign policy for decades. Amid the ongoing crisis in Ukraine, these routes have acquired even greater importance – linking grain exports, energy flows, and military logistics across multiple theaters. Türkiye's participation in the negotiation process is therefore not just a diplomatic gesture but a matter of national interest. To remain outside the process would mean allowing other powers to redraw the regional map without Ankara at the table. At the same time, Türkiye's posture remains deliberately ambiguous. Officially, Ankara supports Ukraine's territorial integrity and has not objected to its NATO aspirations. Yet President Erdoğan continues to cultivate open lines of communication with Moscow. This dual-track strategy allows Türkiye to project loyalty to the West while reminding Russia – and Washington – that it cannot be excluded from any future settlement. This approach is not without cost. Ankara's refusal to take part in Western sanctions against Russia has drawn criticism from Europe, particularly Berlin, Paris, and Brussels. However, Erdoğan appears to be shifting focus from multilateral alignment to pragmatic bilateralism. With the Trump administration treating Türkiye as a key partner in stabilizing Eurasia, Ankara has little incentive to follow the EU's lead – or to subordinate its strategic agenda to European bureaucracy. For Ankara, the outcome of the third round of talks was less about immediate results and more about preserving its relevance. By publicly assessing the meeting as a positive step, Türkiye signaled that it intends to remain not just a host – but an architect – of whatever post-conflict order may emerge. Both Hakan Fidan and President Erdoğan have repeatedly stated their willingness to resume hosting direct negotiations. In February, during talks in Ankara with Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov, Fidan reaffirmed Türkiye's commitment to mediation and emphasized that Türkiye remains available as a venue for continued dialogue. This ongoing diplomatic contact reflects Moscow's recognition of Ankara's pragmatic stance – despite Türkiye being a NATO member state. The failure of the West to enforce the original grain deal, and Russia's subsequent withdrawal from it, initially weakened Türkiye's position as a neutral intermediary. But Trump's return to the White House has shifted the equation. Backed by Washington, Ankara now has the political capital to relaunch its mediating role under new geopolitical conditions. In this context, Türkiye's 'positive evaluation' of the talks takes on deeper meaning. It's not about what was achieved – but about who gets to stay in the room when the time finally comes for real negotiations. So far, no alternative platform has emerged. And in the long game of regional influence, presence is power.
