Latest news with #US-sized
The Independent
13-04-2025
- Business
- The Independent
Ukraine-Russia war latest: Trump ‘demands control' of pipeline in Ukraine carrying Russian gas
The US is demanding control of a key pipeline in Ukraine used to send Russian gas to Europe, according to reports, while Kyiv negotiates a minerals deal with the Donald Trump administration. Prospects for a breakthrough in the deal between Washington and Kyiv are scant given the 'antagonistic' atmosphere of the talks, a source told Reuters following last week's meeting. The US has demanded that its International Development Finance Corporation take control of a natural gas pipeline running from the town of Sudzha in western Russia to the Ukrainian city of Uzhhorod. Senior economist Volodymyr Landa told The Guardian Washington's bullying 'colonial-type' demands had little chance of being accepted by Kyiv. Meanwhile, Mr Trump said on Saturday that talks to end the war in Ukraine might be going well, adding that there was a time when you had to put up or shut up. His envoy Steve Witkoff met Vladimir Putin in St Petersburg for four hours to discuss a 'Ukrainian settlement' on Friday. Ukraine can nearly produce full range of weapons it needs, says Zelensky aide Ukraine can nearly supply its armed forces with the full range of military equipment if requires, an adviser to Volodymyr Zelensky has said. In remarks reported by the Kyiv Independent, Oleksandr Kamyshin told a briefing marking Ukraine's Gunsmith Day, in which it was said that Ukraine had developed a total of 324 types of weapons domestically between 2022 and 2024: 'Today, according to various estimates, 30 per cent to 40 per cent of what our troops use on the front lines is made in Ukraine. 'It's not only about war — it's about our economy. As of last year, defence manufacturing made up a significant share of our GDP. After our victory, I'm confident we'll be exporting Ukrainian-made weapons to the world.' Andy Gregory12 April 2025 11:15 Opinion | It'll take more than a 'reassurance force' to fill the US-sized hole Our associate editor Sean O'Grady writes: There's a terrible sense of poignancy – if not doom – around all the meetings of the 'coalition of the willing', impressive as the grandiloquent words, the formidable roll call of nations and the glittering array of military uniforms might be. To be brutally frank, and with the best will in the world, these capable, dedicated ministers and generals may be wasting their time. The problem is American resistance to the whole idea. The danger is that if Vladimir Putin doesn't like the COTW reassurance force – and everything suggests that he hates it – and obstructs Donald Trump's peace deal, then Trump will agree. The best Putin will accept so far is a conventional UN peacekeeping force, ie the kind of thing that so recently proved useless and was humiliated by Israel in Lebanon. No Nato members, under any flag, will be allowed in. If nothing is agreed, Putin will carry on, likely with Trump's acquiescence – because it seems to me that Trump is basically a coward. It'll take more than a 'reassurance force' to fill the US-sized hole in Brussels As members of the 'coalition of the willing' gather at Nato's Brussels headquarters today, it won't just be about achieving peace in Ukraine and guaranteeing European security, writes Sean O'Grady. It will be a question of how – and if – they can sway Donald Trump and the White House to provide even the most tokenistic 'backstop' Andy Gregory12 April 2025 11:46 Russia accuses Ukraine of attacking its energy infrastructure five times in past 24 hours Russia's defence ministry has claimed that Ukraine had carried out five attacks on Russian energy infrastructure over the past day, in an alleged violation of a US-brokered moratorium on such strikes. Ukraine and Russia agreed to pause strikes on each other's energy facilities last month, but both sides have repeatedly accused each other of breaking the moratorium. It was not possible to verify Russia's claims, and Moscow has repeatedly made false claims about Ukrainian attacks since its full-scale invasion of Ukraine in 2022. Andy Gregory12 April 2025 11:52 Turkey and Russia's top diplomats discuss Ukraine ceasefire efforts, source says Russia's foreign minister Sergei Lavrov and his Turkish counterpart Hakan Fidan have discussed efforts to secure a ceasefire in the Ukraine war, a Turkish diplomatic source has told Reuters. The pair also discussed energy cooperation issues and bilateral relations during a meeting on the sidelines of the Antalya Diplomacy Forum in southern Turkey, the source said. Andy Gregory12 April 2025 12:13 Trump's envoy 'tells him quickest way to end war is for Ukraine to cede four regions to Russia' Shortly after dining with a Russian negotiator in Washington last week, Donald Trump's envoy to Moscow is reported to have told the US president that the quickest way to end the war would be to support a strategy handing Vladimir Putin the four Ukrainian regions he sought to illegally annex seven months into his full-scale invasion. Steve Witkoff, a former real estate mogul, who met with Mr Putin on Friday, was said to have made the remarks by two US officials and five people familiar with the situation, Reuters reported. Mr Witkoff has previously been unable to name all four regions to which he referred. However, Mr Trump's Ukraine envoy Keith Kellogg is claimed by two sources to have pushed back against Mr Witkoff, saying that Ukraine would never agree to completely hand over all four territories to Russia. The meeting is reported to have ended without Mr Trump making a decision to change Washington's strategy. Andy Gregory12 April 2025 12:42 Republicans called White House to complain after Trump envoy's interview on Ukraine, report says Mutiple Republican members of the US congress were so alarmed by Donald Trump's envoy Steve Witkoff's remarks about Russia's war during an interview with Tucker Carlson that they called the White House national security adviser and secretary of state Marco Rubio to complain, a source has told Reuters. During the interview last month, Mr Witkoff praised Mr Putin as 'super smart' and not 'a bad guy', while claiming the 'central issue' and 'elephant in the room' in peace negotiations is whether Ukraine can cede four regions – which he was unable to name – to Russia. According to the report, some US officials worry that Moscow is taking advantage of Mr Witkoff's – a former real estate mogul – lack of experience at the negotiating table. 'Witkoff must go, and Rubio must take his place,' Eric Levine, a major Republican donor, said in a letter sent on 26 March to a group including fellow donors to the party. Andy Gregory12 April 2025 13:10 US demands control over Ukraine pipeline carrying Russian gas - report The US has demanded control of a key pipeline in Ukraine that is used to send Russian gas to Europe, according to reports, while Kyiv negotiates a mineral deal with Donald Trump's administration. Prospects for a breakthrough in the minerals deal between Washington and Kyiv were scant given the meeting's "antagonistic" atmosphere, a source told Reuters, following last week's meeting. The US has demanded that the government's International Development Finance Corporation take control of a natural gas pipeline, which runs from the town of Sudzha in western Russia to the Ukrainian city of Uzhhorod. Senior economist Volodymyr Landa told The Guardian that Washington's bullying 'colonial-type' demands had little chance of being accepted by Kyiv. Ukrainian prime minister Volodymyr Zelensky last week said a minerals deal should be profitable for both countries and could be structured in a way that would help modernise Ukraine. The latest draft would give the US privileged access to Ukraine's mineral deposits and require Kyiv to place in a joint investment fund all income from the exploitation of natural resources by Ukrainian state and private firms. The proposed deal, however, would not provide US security guarantees to Kyiv – a top priority of Mr Zelensky – for its fight against Russian forces occupying some 20 per cent of its territory. Alisha Rahaman Sarkar13 April 2025 04:16
Yahoo
04-04-2025
- Business
- Yahoo
Markets Meltdown: Trump's Tariffs Just Shook the Global Economy--And It's Only Getting Started
The global economy just took a hard punch to the gut. China fired back with 34% tariffs on US goods and clamped down on key exports, triggering a brutal sell-off across markets. The Nasdaq (NASDAQ:QQQ) is officially in bear territorydown over 20% from its highas recession fears hit overdrive. Global exporters are right in the blast zone. President Trump? Unbothered. He took to social media saying, My policies will never change. This is a great time to get rich. Meanwhile, JPMorgan just raised the odds of a global recession to 60%. The vibe? Uncertainty. The message? Buckle up. Back in Europe, the pressure's already real. Ireland's top business group, Ibec, warned that workers could be cut to short time as early as this weekend. Fast-moving consumer goods and medical device exports are on the line, with up to 6 billion in Irish trade at risk. Pharma might be safefor nowbut insiders say that exemption is likely temporary. Irish Deputy PM Simon Harris admitted new markets like India or Canada won't fill the US-sized hole any time soon. He's calling for calm, not escalation. But with EU-US trade worth 1.6 trillion a year, this isn't a storm you just ride outit's one you need to navigate. The bigger issue? Trump's trade war might be more than a flashpointit could be the new normal. That's why Harris says it's time to accept tariffs as a working assumption. And that's exactly what markets are doing. The MSCI World Index fell into correction territory. Investors are rotating out of risk. Liquidity is tightening. If you're long on global supply chains, you're on thin ice. The fallout isn't just numbers on a chartit's real people, real jobs, real disruption. The question now isn't if there's more pain ahead. It's where it lands next. This article first appeared on GuruFocus.
Yahoo
04-03-2025
- Business
- Yahoo
'Era of rearmament' as Europe turns on the defense spending taps
The European Union announced plans to boost defense spending amid rising security concerns on the continent. The plan follows reports that President Donald Trump has paused US military aid to Ukraine. The EU strategy includes loans and spending flexibility, but doesn't mention production capacity issues. The European Union unveiled a plan on Tuesday to boost member states' defense spending amid an "era of rearmament." The ReArm Europe plan could unlock 800 billion euros (about $840 billion) in funds, said European Commission president Ursula von der Leyen. The announcement followed reports late Monday that President Donald Trump had ordered a pause in US military aid to Ukraine after a fiery Oval Office meeting with President Volodymyr Zelenskyy. European leaders met in London on Sunday for an emergency summit on Ukraine. Many defense commentators believe it will be difficult for European states to fill the US-sized gap in military support. The EU plan focuses on ways to help member states unlock funding for defense spending, for both the "immediate" defense of Ukraine and in the long term, von der Leyen said. They include suspending the Excessive Deficit Procedure — a mechanism that normally prevents member states from going into major deficits. Low-cost loans worth 150 billion euros will be available to let governments "pool demand" and jointly purchase air and missile defense and artillery systems, missiles and ammunition drones and anti-drone systems, as well as cyber capabilities. "The question is no longer whether Europe's security is threatened in a very real way, or whether Europe should shoulder more of the responsibility for its own security," von der Leyen said. "In truth, we have long known the answers to those questions." The plans did not address the EU's defense production capacity, or the question of seizing frozen Russian assets worth more than $200 billion. Some European leaders are warming to the idea to help defend Ukraine. Read the original article on Business Insider
The National
07-02-2025
- Health
- The National
Trump's WHO exit is a chance for it to change
Why has the withdrawal of the US from the World Health Organisation caused such a shock? President Donald Trump – re-elected with a convincing popular mandate – has simply done what he promised when last in power. It is unfortunate that the WHO did not use the four intervening years between the two Trump presidencies to prepare for this eventuality. Perhaps they were complacent or they decided against openly making any contingency plans in case that sent the wrong signal. Either way, dire consequences will flow from the sudden 18 per cent funding squeeze – America's contribution to the WHO's finances. Although it will be another year before the US formally leaves the organisation, Mr Trump's recent executive order includes an immediate pause on 'the future transfer of any US government funds, support or resources' including 'US government personnel and contractors' working with the WHO. Because the WHO is halfway through its 2024-25 programming cycle, it will now have to slash its spending priorities as opposed to reorganising in an orderly manner – a process that requires difficult compromises among its 194 member states at the next World Health Assembly in May. Unsurprisingly, the mood in the WHO is downbeat. Immediate cost-cutting has frozen travel, recruitment and procurement but such measures will not be enough, given that the US-sized billion-dollar gap will not be filled by others. WHO supporters such as the UK are financially stretched and others, like Germany for example, are shifting rightwards politically. States opposed to Mr Trump's policy are wary of crossing him by rushing to replace American funding. Others are dissatisfied with the WHO for their own reasons – Argentina is leaving the organisation too. In short, the most articulate proponents of health multilateralism do not want to pay for it by making up the WHO's fiscal deficit through increased membership contributions. China's pushback against higher membership fees at a recent WHO Executive Board meeting in Geneva was noteworthy. Could private philanthropy rescue the WHO? The Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation contributed a staggering $830 million in the 2022-23 biennium, becoming the WHO's third-largest contributor. However, this outsized influence – however well-meaning – is culturally disliked by many and distorts WHO priorities. More problematic is a scenario in which the WHO turns to private companies, especially those providing health products and services. That is encouraged by some countries that are home to multibillion-dollar pharma enterprises. But this raises conflicts of interest and would undermine trust in the organisation's scientific objectivity. This is particularly worrying in our post-Covid era in which health misinformation is reaching record levels. Meanwhile, how justified is Mr Trump's criticism? His principal assertion is that the WHO cannot be trusted because it mishandled the Covid-19 pandemic by being too soft on China, where the disease started. Several other countries agree, claiming that China is reluctant to share information and allow an independent investigation into the virus's origins. The WHO privately acknowledges its earlier lack of assertiveness on the issue, but it is a secretariat with no enforcement power over the member states on whose goodwill it depends. That is why it champions a new Pandemic Accord with more teeth. Ironically, this is opposed by the US and its allies who do not want to cede authority to transnational bodies. This illustrates a fundamental ideological difference among states, between those who favour globalism alongside the supranational centralisation of some functions, and nationalistic opponents guarding their sovereignty. The WHO is caught in the middle, even as it counsels that 'no country is safe until all are safe' because diseases do not stop at borders. However, such wisdom is done no favours by the rhetoric of 'global health security'. Militarising language around health co-operation has triggered competition over access to medicines, vaccines and other technologies – including AI. This is because they are seen as ways to create healthy, strong populations and thus advance national interests, rather than health being a moral good in itself. The WHO cannot square this circle no matter how strongly it preaches humanitarian health values. Its passionate advocacy for health care in Gaza won both friends and foes depending on the side taken in the war. Critics argue that the WHO's outspokenness politicises and damages its work, something evident in the ritual of divisive Palestine and Taiwan debates at the annual World Health Assembly. Counter-critics say that the WHO must get more political, relying on its own research into the socio-economic determinants of health. But with the world divided over the merits of individualist and collective methods for health financing, the WHO's prescriptions to advance its flagship mission on universal health coverage are not to everyone's taste. It is in this wider context that Mr Trump has opened the Pandora's box of WHO financing. He contends that the organisation demands 'unfairly onerous payments from the United States'. But what are the facts? Although the 'outcome-based' presentation of WHO budgets is intellectually attractive, as it links funding to results, this makes for complex analysis that can lead to accusations of a lack of financial transparency. In short, the WHO's approved $6.8 billion budget for the 2024-25 biennium consists of $4.9 billion base programming for its core mandate, $1 billion for emergency operations, and $0.9 billion for polio eradication and other special programmes. But only 16 per cent of the overall budget is covered by obligatory membership contributions that total $1.1 billion. Of that, several millions may be received late – if at all – from countries in permanent arrears, such as the US itself. Assessed contributions follow a UN formula to determine a country's 'capacity to pay'. This weighs up its economic strength, population size, income per capita, debt burden and other adjustments. This complex calculation requires contentious data estimates and statistical manipulation. They set the US's biennial assessment at 22 per cent of the total base programme ($260 million) and China at 15.2 per cent ($175 million). This may be compared, for example, to India's one per cent ($12 million) and the UAE's 0.6 per cent ($7 million). The formula reflects the world that existed in the 1940s and has not kept pace with shifts in the global order because nations that have become richer resist paying more. Neither does the formula serve the WHO well because assessed contributions lag far behind what members ask the organisation to do through numerous mandates. Therefore, 80-90 per cent of WHO work relies on unpredictable voluntary contributions. This effects the consistency and quality of programming, especially when funds are earmarked for favourite projects. The US, with the world's biggest gross domestic product, is the most generous voluntary donor, giving $727 million over the 2024-25 period. This is compared to just $28 million from China, the country with the world's second-largest GDP. In comparison, fifth-ranking India provides $75 million and 28th-ranking UAE gives $65 million. Mr Trump has some justification in claiming that the global health financing burden is unfairly distributed. Bringing greater financing equity requires the WHO to step up internal efficiency reforms. Although WHO director general Dr Tedros Adhanom Ghebreyesus has made a good start, changing a large bureaucracy is slow. It is also difficult for the WHO to continue justifying locating a third of its 9,400 staff in Geneva. From their place in the world's second-most expensive city, they may duplicate or be in conflict with the work of staff in six regional and 150 country offices and other hubs. Meanwhile, although the institutional drive for gender parity and geographical diversity is admirable, there are questions of whether merit has been compromised with politically-correct appointments. The departure of the WHO's previous regional director for the Western Pacific amid accusations of bullying, and an ongoing corruption investigation relating to the director for the South-East Asia region undermine confidence in WHO governance. And, despite greater transparency around sexual misconduct scandals – as in its Congo operations – cleaning up the WHO through timely justice and accountability remains a work in progress. But there are bigger strategic issues to grasp. How should the WHO facilitate an international health system that has grown to encompass three other Geneva-based global bodies? Several UN agencies have their own health roles, the World Bank has a massive health portfolio, and there is increased activity from the International Red Cross and Red Crescent, NGOs, foundations and the private sector? Their combined health financing flows total around $65 billion annually. How can the WHO work in this context? Similarly, how should the WHO adjust to greatly increased national capabilities over past decades, with worldwide health expenditures edging towards a staggering $10 trillion annually – about 10 per cent of global aggregate GDP? The WHO remains globally useful for setting standards, co-ordination and certification, as well as validation purposes. But it is not equally indispensable to all states, as other public health institutions – such as the US, European, Chinese and African centres for disease control – could do the same. In any case, much of the WHO's specialist work is discharged not by its staff but external experts convened for specific purposes such as advising on pandemic declarations, antimicrobial resistance or optimising tuberculosis treatment, for example. Can the WHO accept that it could, therefore, reduce the scope of its interventions, even for poorer or ill-governed nations who are unnecessarily aid dependent? It implies reversing the relentless expansion of WHO activities and shrinking organisational size to one that is sustainable. That would be funded through statutory membership contributions set by a new, fairer formula. Perhaps the US may then return to the fold, even if that is not until a new incumbent arrives in the White House. Mr Trump has precipitated the WHO crisis in a regrettably disruptive manner. But this was coming anyway because business as usual was increasingly untenable. The WHO and its friends must grasp this moment for transformational change or else another crisis will be wasted.
