Why are United States assets not being frozen?

The European Union (EU) is planning to use frozen Russian assets to finance the reconstruction of Ukraine. A question arise, why United States and NATO countries having indulged in wars, invasions, and carpet bombings have not met the similar fate?

The EU’s plans include an attempt to re-invest the international reserves of the Russian Central Bank in Ukraine. 

Moscow’s assets frozen under sanctions imposed by the EU can be divided into two main sections. Private assets are worth nearly €19 billion while public assets held by state entities are about €300 billion of international reserves owned by the Russian Central Bank.

"Russia must also pay financially for the devastation that it caused,” European Commission Ursula von der Leyen said. Moscow has “to compensate Ukraine for the damage and cover the costs for rebuilding the country." she added.

In the midst of rising inflation across Europe, freezing and selling Russian assets is being viewed as an avenue by the 27-member bloc to raise funds for Ukraine.

However, EU sanctions are always temporary, so the assets at the end of the day must be returned to their original owners.

It seems that before this happens the EU is working hard to move the goalposts and ensure the frozen assets become a solid, bulletproof solution to make Russia pay, as von der Leyen put it.

NATO could have prevented this war by not expanding its military equipment and troops eastwards toward Russian borders in the years prior to the war.

The US could have avoided the crisis in Ukraine and the suffering of Ukrainians by choosing to negotiate rather than reject the Kremlin’s proposals of security guarantees, which were sent to Washington months before the conflict erupted.

The Minsk agreements which began in 2014 after fighting erupted between ethnic Russian forces and the Ukrainian army in the eastern Donbas region could have been implemented to avoid a war.

Experts have questioned the double standards of the EU asking why such efforts have not been applied to the US-led wars, proxy wars, invasions, and carpet bombings that have led to the complete destruction of many countries over the past decades.

The US invasion and 20-year occupation of Afghanistan saw an unprecedented rise in terrorism (ironically Washington invaded the country under the pretext of its war on terror). During the two-decade occupation, Afghans witnessed nothing but destruction, terror, violence, mass killings, and other atrocities.

As a result of the spike in terrorism and regular US attacks, the destruction of the country’s infrastructure and the damage caused to Afghan public sectors has left a humanitarian catastrophe after the US fled Afghanistan in 2020.

The Afghanistan Country Director of Save the Children said in mid-February: “I’ve never seen anything like the desperate situation we have here in Afghanistan. We treat frighteningly ill children every day who haven’t eaten anything except bread for months. Parents are having to make impossible decisions – which of their children do they feed? Do they send their children to work or let them starve? These are excruciating choices that no parent should have to make.”

America’s longest war killed at least 66,000 Afghan national military and police as well as tens of thousands to hundreds of thousands of Afghan civilians, with different monitoring groups providing different death tolls.

In an ideal, just world, US assets should have been frozen and used to finance the reconstruction of Afghanistan. American assets should have also been frozen and used to compensate the families of Afghans killed as a result of the US invasion.

Following its embarrassing and chaotic withdrawal, Washington seized Afghanistan’s assets leading to further humanitarian suffering for Afghans, the majority of whom now live in poverty.

Likewise, the US invasion and subsequent occupation of Iraq saw widespread damage to the country’s infrastructure. Damage that has yet to be rebuilt.

Washington claims it waged war against Iraq to remove the former Iraqi dictator Saddam Hussein from power. Everyone wanted to see the end of Saddam, but very few wanted the US to be involved, especially considering the widespread hatred of America among Iraqis.

Even before the American invasion, US-backed UN sanctions against Baghdad killed at least half a million Iraqi children, with some studies putting the number at around 1.5 million Iraqis, primarily children, who died as a direct consequence of the imposed sanctions, citing UNICEF estimates.

During the US war itself from 2003 to 2011, hundreds of thousands of Iraqis died, again because of an unprecedented rise in terrorism as a result of the US war on terror and many other civilians were killed because of attacks by the US military.

The damage to Iraq's infrastructure as a result of US interference in the country (in the form of sanctions, airstrikes, and wars) from 1991 until its occupation which is ongoing until this day is estimated to have cost the nation trillions of dollars.

How many Iraqi civilians have been killed because of terrorist groups that did not exist before Washington’s 2003 invasion and US carpet bombings in cities such as Mosul?

With such vast oil wealth, Iraqi infrastructure has been damaged to such an extent that the country still relies on Iranian energy exports for its electricity.

Why are US assets not being frozen and used to finance the reconstruction of Iraq? Why are US assets not being frozen and used to compensate the families of civilians murdered because of terrorism that came with the US invasion?

As many reports have emerged over the years, NATO killed civilians when it waged war on Libya to allegedly help overthrow longtime ruler Muammar al-Gaddafi. The US-led military alliance’s bombing campaign had a devastating toll but, more than a decade after the war, NATO has yet to take any responsibility.

There was no terrorism before NATO bombed Libya. Since then, the country has been embroiled in terror with Daesh and other Takfiri groups wreaking havoc in the North African country.

The US military is occupying regions in eastern and northeastern Syria and looting the country’s oil in an attempt to prevent Damascus from restoring its own infrastructure and services following a decade of US-backed war on the country.

Yemen, the poorest country in West Asia, has faced an eight-year, US-backed bombing campaign that has destroyed the country’s entire infrastructure. Hundreds of thousands of Yemenis have been killed because of US-made bombs that have been dropped using US intelligence with warplanes whose pilots were trained by the US and UK military.

Rights groups accuse the US and its allies, including Canada and European countries of being directly complicit in the war. Yemeni officials say Saudi Arabia was used as a proxy by Washington and that the US was the one that waged war on it in March 2015.

Such is the damage inflicted on Yemen, which is too difficult to estimate, and U.S. assets should be frozen and used to finance the reconstruction of Yemen.

Yemen is a country that the United Nations has described as having the worst humanitarian crisis in the world.  

Washington’s support for the Israeli regime’s ethnic cleansing, and genocidal terrorism campaign against the Palestinians is well documented.

The list of US wars is long. Washington economically survives on waging wars, and invasions and using proxies to trigger violence, unrest, terrorism, and civil wars in regions well beyond its borders.

From the Vietnam War to the shadow wars in Somalia, Pakistan, and the African continent, why isn’t the US being held accountable? Why are US assets not being frozen? Why are there no punitive actions against Washington? 

 

Saudi Arabia Announces Arab Light crude prices for January 2023

Saudi Arabia, the world's top oil exporter has cut January 2023 official selling price (OSP) for its flagship Arab Light crude for Asian buyers to a 10-month low, on concerns over faltering demand and a potential increase in Russian competition.

The OSP for January-loading Arab Light to Asia was trimmed by US$2.20 a barrel from December to US$3.25 a barrel over Oman/Dubai quotes, state oil producer Saudi Aramco said on Monday.

The new OSP is just above the previous low of US$2.80 per barrel, set for March 2022.

The change was in line with market forecasts for a cut of about US$2 a barrel.

The Organization of the Petroleum Exporting Countries (OPEC) and allies including Russia, known as OPEC+, on Sunday decided to keep their plan to cut production unchanged.

The backwardation in the Dubai market structure narrowed during trading last month, implying that fears over near-term supply tightness for crude were easing.

The premium for front-month Dubai over the price for the third-month averaged US$2.76 a barrel in November 2022, down from US$4.73 in October 2022.

Saudi Arabia's OSP adjustment also came after the Group of Seven (G7) nations and Australia agreed to a US$60 per barrel price cap on Russian seaborne crude oil.

"Although the market remains cautious on lifting Russian crude as the price cap is just set, there is no doubt that more cargoes will flow to Asia and compete with the Middle Eastern crude," said a Singapore-based trader.

Saudi Arabia cut its January Arab Light OSP to northwest Europe by US$1.80 a barrel from December and kept the price to the United States unchanged.

Xi Jinping visit to Saudi Arabia

When Chinese President lands in Saudi Arabia this week, he will be touching down in an energy-rich region with a growing interest in being a part of the Beijing-led Shanghai Cooperation Organization, says a report by South China Morning Post.

Xi Jinping’s expected arrival in the Gulf state for a China-Arab summit comes as the kingdom and other members of the OPEC Plus alliance are at odds with the United States over oil supplies and Russia’s war in Ukraine.

Observers say Xi’s trip could be another step in the westward expansion of the SCO, with China growing not only as a trade partner but also an investor in the Gulf’s lucrative energy sector.

“It’s going to be a very, very energy-focused meeting,” said Raffaello Pantucci, a senior fellow at the S. Rajaratnam School of International Studies in Singapore.

“It’s also going to be another meeting that’s focused in this direction because what we’ve seen with the Saudis is a clear reticence by them towards the United States.”

The US ties with Saudi Arabia, the world’s biggest crude oil exporter, and other suppliers in the OPEC Plus alliance, soured after they decided to sharply cut production to support prices.

The US said the decision would worsen global inflation and support Russia’s oil revenue from China and other markets that is used to fund war efforts in Ukraine

Nevertheless, Saudi Arabia remained China’s biggest source of oil in October, according to Chinese customs data. It is also an SCO dialogue partner interested in an upgrade to observer status.

Pantucci said the Gulf’s tensions with the US presented an opportunity for China in Riyadh.

“The Chinese want to capitalize on that and highlight the fact that Saudi Arabia is a great independent country who works with us happily. I think that’s one narrative they want to push out,” Pantucci said.

Elsewhere in the Middle East, Egypt and Qatar have also become SCO dialogue partners, and sanctions-battered Iran – whose largest petroleum customer is China – passed a bill late November to join the group.

Russia, China’s second-biggest oil supplier, is a founding member.

Li Lifan, head of the SCO centre at the Shanghai Academy of Social Sciences, said that once Iran joined the group, it could help the SCO expand its energy club – a Moscow-led platform for SCO countries to discuss energy trade without binding commitments.

SCO leaders have already identified the transition towards renewable energy sources as an area for cooperation, with ambitions of developing a common energy strategy across Eurasia.

Beijing has touted the 3,666km (2,280-mile) Central Asia-China pipeline that supplies natural gas from Turkmenistan to China as a success, and in November Chinese Premier Li Keqiang called on SCO counterparts to advance cooperation over energy security.

However, there are questions about the SCO’s role beyond dialogue on securing energy for China and counterbalancing Western energy interests in the region.

Pantucci said the focus in the West was more on tangible outcomes, which the SCO did not appear to generate.

“I think the problem in the West, at least the Western analysis, is an obsession with things, doing things, and this organization doesn’t do much,” Pantucci said. “Our collective response in the West is, ‘Well, it doesn’t do much then it can’t be important.’”

But he said the SCO membership would help Iran rhetorically, and practically, allowing it to take part in regular talks with other countries.

“Who knows what benefits might come from there?

“For Iran, to be able to associate itself with such a structure and be a member of it shows the Iranian people, for one thing, and it shows the world that Iran isn’t an isolated country.”

Li, the SCO researcher in Shanghai, agreed that Iran could use the group as a platform to grow its influence against what it sees as hegemony from the West.

“Even if it is being squeezed out in the United Nations, at least the SCO can give it a platform every year for its ministers, department heads, state leaders and prime ministers. That way, it can have a say in the international arena,” he said.

Li said the SCO could play a further role in reducing the use of US dollars in energy trade by promoting local currencies, pointing to a Russia-China gas deal denominated in the rouble and the yuan.

Sana Hashmi, a postdoctoral fellow at Taiwan-Asia Exchange Foundation in Taipei, said that while the SCO was not developed as an “anti-West coalition”, China had become an economic guarantor to SCO countries, and the group could keep US influence out of Central Asia.

One advantage China had over the US was its willingness to cooperate with no strings attached, she said. “Every country has a very different reason why they are becoming anti-West, but at least they have a common reason to be a part of something like SCO.”

 

 

 

More Europeans will perish from energy crisis than Ukraine war

The most vulnerable people in Europe, the elderly and those living alone or on low pay to medium paychecks will pay the highest price: Death.

More people will perish in Europe this winter because of unaffordable household energy costs than those who have died on the battlefield in the Ukraine war, according to research by the British weekly newspaper The Economist.

Last week, the United Nations said the official civilian death toll from the Ukraine war has risen to nearly 6,900, with civilian injuries topping 10,000. Whilst the death of military forces in Ukraine has been difficult to verify, the number of soldiers thought to have died in Ukraine is estimated at 25,000-30,000 for each side.

The Economist modeled the effect of the unprecedented hike in gas and electricity bills this winter and concluded that the current cost of energy will likely lead to an extra 147,000 deaths if it is a typical winter.

Should Europe experience a particularly harsh winter, which is something likely when considering the growing effects of climate change, that number could rise to 185,000. That is a rise of 6.0%. It also reports that a harsh winter could cost a total of 335,000 extra lives.

Even in the rare case of a mild winter, that figure would still be high with tens of thousands of extra deaths than in previous years. If it is a mild winter, research by The Economic indicates the death toll would be 79,000.

The Economist's statistical model included all 27 European Union member countries along with the United Kingdom, Switzerland, and Norway.

It is anticipated that Governments across Western Europe would be alarmed and concerned by these shocking figures published by the study.

But it remains to be seen what measures these governments will take to prevent so many extra fatalities in their own countries because of the energy shortage.

The energy crisis itself began when Europe, which was heavily reliant on Russian gas, imposed heavy sanctions on Russian energy exports following Moscow’s war in Ukraine. Before the war, Russia supplied 40-50% of the EU’s natural-gas imports. One of Europe’s strongest economies, Germany for example, had become dependent on Moscow’s gas flows and had no Plan B.

The move clearly backfired on Western economies, with inflation reaching record levels not seen in decades, mainly as a result of the soaring energy prices. That has left pensioners and other poorer as well as middle-class income households facing a choice of putting food on the table this winter or heating their homes.

The study by The Economist says that despite European attempts to stockpile as much gas as possible to fill their storage facilities, many consumers are still being hurt by the rise in wholesale energy costs.

Even as market prices for fuel have slightly declined from their peaks, the real average residential European gas and electricity costs are 144% and 78% above the figures for 2000-19.

As it is being hurt the most, Europe could take serious and concrete efforts to push both Kyiv and Moscow to the negotiating table and hold peace talks that would bring an end to the war.

That would ease a lot of problems facing the continent – and the world – from energy shortages to the global food supply chain disrupted by the war. However, critics argue, this would backfire on many Western arms manufacturers who are making lucrative profits from their weapons shipments to the warzone.

There are many officials and other influential figures in the West, especially the U.S. congress (despite America not being included in a study by The Economist), who have links to arms manufacturers; which makes the possibility of peace somewhat unlikely.

While the United States has sent weapons to the tune of US$40 billion dollars, European countries show no sign of opting for peace with the new British Prime Minister Rishi Sunak, the latest to announce plans of maintaining or increasing military aid to Ukraine next year

The other course of action is for Western governments to ease the cost-of-living crisis by spending more on social welfare and hiking the tax rates for the rich.

This would save lives by allowing families to heat their homes but many Western governments are taking the opposite route, by claiming they need to cut spending in order to strengthen economic growth in the long run. 

As things stand, the new research by the Economist will add to the fears already facing families in Europe ahead of the winter season. The lower the temperatures will be in Western Europe, the more likely it will be that higher-than-usual death tolls are going to hit the continent. 

As The Economist notes, although heatwaves get more press coverage, cold temperatures are usually deadlier than hot ones. Between December and February, 21% more Europeans die per week than from June to August.

The report says that in the past, changes in energy prices had a minor effect on mortality rates in Europe. But this year’s hikes to household bills are remarkably large.

The Ukraine conflict has exposed other massive costs that have accompanied the violence. The Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development estimates that the world economy in 2023 will be US$2.8 trillion smaller than was estimated in December 2021, before the fighting erupted in February.

The British weekly newspaper, which built a statistical model to assess the effects of the sharp rise in energy prices, forecasts deaths based on weather, demography, influenza, energy efficiency, incomes, government spending, and electricity costs, which are closely correlated to prices for a wide variety of heating fuels.

It used data from 2000-19, (excluding 2020 and 2021 because of covid-19) and says the model was highly accurate, accounting for 90% of the variation in death rates.

High fuel prices can exacerbate the effect of low temperatures on deaths, by deterring people from using heat and raising their exposure to cold.

It says that with average weather, the study found a 10% rise in electricity prices is associated with a 0.6% increase in deaths, though this number is greater in cold weeks and smaller in mild ones.

In recent decades’ consumer energy prices have had only a modest impact on winter mortality, because energy prices have moved or swung back and forth in a regular rhythm.

In a typical European country, increasing fuel prices from their lowest level in 2000-19 reduce the temperature from the highest level in that period to the lowest which means colder weather increases the death rate by 12%.

The study cites the case of Italy, where electricity bills have surged to nearly 200% since 2020, extending the situation, which it said was a linear relationship that yields extremely high death estimates. It has been reported that the country will suffer the most extra deaths. The results show that Italy, which has an older population along with soaring higher electricity prices makes it the most vulnerable. 

Other countries such as Estonia and Finland are also expected to suffer from higher fatalities on a per-person basis. People in Britain and France will also be affected. The model for the effects of fatalities from high energy costs did not include Ukraine.

However, damage to the energy infrastructure in Ukraine as a result of the war, will also certainly have a dire humanitarian effect on Ukrainians as well.

Over the past weeks, many reports have emerged citing Europeans as saying they will be forced to switch the heating off because of the high fuel prices, essentially exacerbating the effect of cold temperatures on deaths by raising people’s exposure to low temperatures.

The most vulnerable people in Europe, the elderly and those living alone or on low pay to medium paychecks will pay the highest price: Death.

 

OPEC Plus sticks to oil output targets

OPEC Plus agreed to stick to its oil output targets at a meeting on Sunday as the oil markets struggle to assess the impact of a slowing Chinese economy on demand and a G7 price cap on Russian oil on supply.

The decision comes two days after the Group of Seven (G7) nations agreed a price cap on Russian oil.

OPEC Plus which comprises the Organization of the Petroleum Exporting Countries (OPEC) and allies including Russia, angered the United States and other Western nations in October when it agreed to cut output by 2 million barrels per day (bpd), about 2% of world demand, from November until the end of 2023.

Washington accused the group and one of its leaders, Saudi Arabia, of siding with Russia despite Moscow's war in Ukraine.

OPEC Plus argued it had cut output because of a weaker economic outlook. Oil prices have declined since October this year due to slower Chinese and global growth and higher interest rates, prompting market speculation the group could cut output again.

On Sunday the group of oil producers decided to keep the policy unchanged. Its key ministers will next meet on February 01, 2023 for a monitoring committee while a full meeting is scheduled for June 03-04, 2023.

On Friday, G7 nations and Australia agreed a $60 per barrel price cap on Russian seaborne crude oil in a move to deprive President Vladimir Putin of revenue while keeping Russian oil flowing to global markets.

Moscow said it would not sell its oil under the cap and was analyzing how to respond.

Many analysts and OPEC ministers have said the price cap is confusing and probably inefficient as Moscow has been selling most of its oil to countries like China and India, which have refused to condemn the war in Ukraine.

Neither an OPEC meeting on Saturday nor the OPEC Plus meeting on Sunday discussed the Russian price cap.

Russia's Deputy Prime Minister Alexander Novak said on Sunday Russia would rather cut production than supply oil under the price cap and said the cap may affect other producers.

Sources have told Reuters several OPEC Plus members have expressed frustration at the cap saying the anti-market measure could ultimately be used by the West against any producer.

The United States said the measure was not aimed at OPEC.

JP Morgan said on Friday that OPEC Plus could review production in the New Year based on fresh data on Chinese demand trends and consumer compliance with price caps on Russia crude output and tanker flow.

 

Peace in Palestine must for regional stability, says King of Bahrain

Bahrain supports a just peace for the Palestinians as an important step in maintaining regional stability, the country’s monarch, King Hamad bin Isa Al Khalifa, told Israel's President Isaac Herzog when the two met at Al-Qudaibiya Palace in Manama on Sunday.

There is firm support in Bahrain for “achieving a just, comprehensive and sustainable peace that guarantees the legitimate rights of the Palestinian people and that will lead to stability, development and prosperity for both the Palestinian and Israeli people as well as for the people of the region," Khalifa said.

Herzog said his visit to Bahrain symbolized a message of peace for the region and was a historic step that expanded Israeli ties with the Arab world.

He spoke at first on the tarmac at Ben-Gurion Airport on Sunday morning, then repeated the message as he sat with Bahrain's Minister of Foreign Affairs Abdullatif bin Rashid Al Zayani. 

This trip marks the first time that an Israeli president has visited Bahrain.

Herzog recalled that Zayani signed the Abraham Accords, who in turn said it had been a "bright day."

"This is another historic step in the relationship between Israel and Arab states, signed with the Abraham Accords, and another step toward more and more nations joining the circle of peace with the State of Israel," Herzog said earlier that day. "I will be the guest of the King of Bahrain and his government, and I hope to discuss issues of mutual interest."

Herzog will then be flying to the UAE to attend a space conference. "Israel and the UAE are both regional powers in this field, and if one looks ahead, one sees an incredible vista of cooperation between so many industries of Israel, the UAE, Bahrain, and other nations that have signed the Abraham Accords, with the hope of including more and more nations in future," he said.

 

US shale producers just can’t beat OPEC Plus

Shale oil drillers turned from scrappy wildcatters into multi-millionaires over the past two decades, propelling the United States to become the world's largest producer, but now they are running out of runway. Oil output gains are slowing and executives from some of the largest firms are warning of future declines from overworked oilfields and less productive wells.

On Sunday, the Organization of the Petroleum Exporting Countries (OPEC) meets to decide whether to hold the line or cut its output, no longer afraid that their policy decisions might provoke a surge in shale production in the way they did in the years before the pandemic.

The sidelining of US shale means consumers around the world may face a winter of higher fuel prices. Russia has threatened to block oil sales to countries supporting a European Union price cap, and the United States is winding down releases from emergency oil stockpiles that helped cool energy inflation.

US shale production costs are soaring and there is no sign that tight-fisted investors will change their demands for returns rather than investment in expanding drilling.

During a decade of stunning growth, shale consistently defied production forecasts, and opposition from environmentalists, as technology broke open more and more shale plays and revolutionized the global energy industry.

But there appears to be no new industry-transforming technologies in the works or cost-savings that could change the picture this time around. Inflation has pushed up costs by up to 20%, and less productive wells are crimping the industry's ability to produce more.

Industry spending on new oil projects, said analysts last week at Morgan Stanley is modest at best and the absolute level of investment is still historically low.

Shale has proven naysayers wrong in the past. After the 2014-2016 OPEC price war put hundreds of oil companies into bankruptcy, shale innovated with less expensive ways of operating. Their subsequent gains gave the United States by 2018 the title of world's largest crude producer, a distinction it still holds.

Shale can't come back to become a swing producer, because of the investors' unwillingness to finance growth. The demand for payouts and repeated price busts has forced oil producers and service companies to cut back on science projects that fed past production breakthroughs.

The industry also has less time to regain its former leadership, said Hess Corp CEO John Hess. He estimates rivals have about a decade of running room before they fizzle out. Shale is no longer in the driver's seat with OPEC regaining control over the market, said Hess.

Shale's waning influence is clear in North Dakota. Once the vanguard of the US shale oil industry, poor well productivity in the state's Bakken region and labor shortages have left it far from its boom days.

As the number of prime drilling locations decline across all shale fields, the outlook is grim. Shale production declines rapidly after peaking compared to conventional oil wells, falling about 50% after the first year.

The Permian Basin of west Texas and New Mexico, the largest and most important US oilfield, is the only US shale region to exceed its pre-COVID-19 pandemic oil production levels, according to US Energy Information Administration data. Even that field is showing signs of stress.