Norway Main Beneficiary of Ukraine War

When Russian President Vladimir Putin gave the order to invade Ukraine in February 2022, he surely did not expect that one of Russia’s neighbors would be the main beneficiary of his war. Yet as Russian hydrocarbon exports to Europe cratered in the wake of the invasion, Norway emerged as the continent’s largest supplier.

Owing to the steep increase in gas and oil prices that followed the outbreak of the war, Norway ultimately enjoyed a massive financial windfall. In 2022 and 2023, it reaped nearly US$111 billion in additional revenue from gas exports, according to recent estimates from the finance ministry.

A question arises, why Norway was allocated a little more than US$3.1 billion for support to Ukraine in its 2025 budget?

Combined with what it contributed in 2024, Norway’s support for Ukraine amounts to less than 5 percent of its two-year war windfall. For comparison, Germany, Europe’s largest single contributor, provided US$16.3 billion in military, financial, and humanitarian support for Ukraine from January 2022 until the end of October 2024, and the United States has contributed US$92 billion. But while Norway’s two-year windfall is larger than the US and German contributions combined, Norway’s support for Ukraine as a share of GDP, at 0.7 percent, ranks only ninth in Europe, far behind Denmark (2 percent) and Estonia (2.2 percent).

Not only does Norway have the capacity to be making far more of a difference to the outcome of the war and the subsequent civilian reconstruction; it has an obvious moral obligation to do so. Given that its excess revenues are a direct consequence of Russia’s war, surely a greater share of them should go to those fighting and dying on the front lines to keep their country free.

Instead, Norway’s government has effectively decided to be a war profiteer, clinging greedily to its lucky gains. To their credit, opposition parties have proposed higher levels of support for Ukraine, ultimately pushing up the sum that the government initially proposed. No party, however, has come anywhere close to suggesting a transfer of the total war windfall to Ukraine.

The Norwegian government’s position is puzzling, given that Norway shares a border with Russia and has long relied on its allies’ support for its defense. Its own national security would be jeopardized if Russia wins the war or is militarily emboldened by a peace agreement skewed in its favor.

Moreover, it is not as though Norway would be immiserated by transferring its war windfall to Ukraine. This windfall represents about 6 percent of its sovereign wealth fund, the world’s largest, with assets valued at US$1.7 trillion—or US$308,000 for every Norwegian.

True, Norway channels all government revenue from oil and gas production to its sovereign wealth fund, and no more than 3 percent of the value of the fund can be drawn down and transferred to the government budget each year. This rule helps limit the effects on inflation and the exchange rate, and ensures that the fund exists in perpetuity.

But as a macroeconomic and national savings instrument, the drawdown rule was not designed with wartime demands in mind. It therefore should not be seen as an obstacle for a larger transfer to Ukraine. Since such a transfer would not enter the Norwegian economy, it would have no domestic inflationary or other macroeconomic implications. (With the 2025 budget largely set, it would need to be an extrabudgetary measure justified by the wartime circumstances.)

This is not the first time that Norway’s hoarding of its war windfall has been an issue. But it is the first time that we have been given an official estimate of the windfall’s value.

The finance ministry has assigned a number to natural-gas export revenues in excess of what they would have been had gas prices remained around their five-year pre-invasion average. Although such counterfactuals will always be subject to uncertainty and debate, the official estimate is the closest we will get to a value for Norway’s war windfall.

In fact, the actual number is probably much higher, as the estimate does not include excess revenues resulting from higher oil prices following the invasion.

With Europeans wringing their hands about the implications of Donald Trump’s return to power, Norway’s government and parliament should transfer the windfall to Ukraine in the form of military and financial support. Norway has a powerful national-security interest in doing the right thing.

 

Trump can’t take Panama Canal on his own

Teddy Roosevelt once declared the Panama Canal “one of the feats to which the people of this republic will look back with the highest pride.” More than a century later, Donald Trump is threatening to take back the waterway for the same republic.

The president-elect is decrying increased fees Panama has imposed to use the waterway linking the Atlantic and Pacific oceans. He says if things don’t change after he takes office next month, “We will demand that the Panama Canal be returned to the United States of America, in full, quickly and without question.”

Trump has long threatened allies with punitive action in hopes of winning concessions. But experts in both countries are clear, unless he goes to war with Panama, Trump can’t reassert control over a canal the US agreed to cede in the 1970s.

What is the canal?

It is a man-made waterway that uses a series of locks and reservoirs over 51 miles (82 kilometers) to cut through the middle of Panama and connect the Atlantic and Pacific. It spares ships having to go an additional roughly 7,000 miles (more than 11,000 kilometers) to sail around Cape Horn at South America’s southern tip.

The US International Trade Administration says the canal saves American business interests “considerable time and fuel costs” and enables faster delivery of goods, which is “particularly significant for time sensitive cargoes, perishable goods, and industries with just-in-time supply chains.”

Who built it?

An effort to establish a canal through Panama led by Ferdinand de Lesseps, who built Egypt’s Suez Canal, began in 1880 but progressed little over nine years before going bankrupt.

Malaria, yellow fever and other tropical diseases devastated a workforce already struggling with especially dangerous terrain and harsh working conditions in the jungle, eventually costing more than 20,000 lives, by some estimates.

Panama was then a province of Colombia, which refused to ratify a subsequent 1901 treaty licensing US interests to build the canal. Roosevelt responded by dispatching US warships to Panama’s Atlantic and Pacific coasts. The US also prewrote a constitution that would be ready after Panamanian independence, giving American forces “the right to intervene in any part of Panama, to re-establish public peace and constitutional order.”

In part because Colombian troops were unable to traverse harsh jungles, Panama declared an effectively bloodless independence within hours in November 1903. It soon signed a treaty allowing a US-led team to begin construction.

Some 5,600 workers died later during the US-led construction project, according to one study.

Why doesn’t the US control the canal anymore?

The waterway opened in 1914, but almost immediately some Panamanians began questioning the validity of US control, leading to what became known in the country as the “generational struggle” to take it over.

The US abrogated its right to intervene in Panama in the 1930s. By the 1970s, with its administrative costs sharply increasing, Washington spent years negotiating with Panama to cede control of the waterway.

The Carter administration worked with the government of Omar Torrijos. The two sides eventually decided that their best chance for ratification was to submit two treaties to the US Senate, the “Permanent Neutrality Treaty” and the “Panama Canal Treaty.”

The first, which continues in perpetuity, gives the US the right to act to ensure the canal remains open and secure. The second stated that the US would turn over the canal to Panama on December 31, 1999, and was terminated then.

Both were signed in 1977 and ratified the following year. The agreements held even after 1989, when President George H.W. Bush invaded Panama to remove Panamanian leader Manuel Noriega.

In the late 1970s, as the handover treaties were being discussed and ratified, polls found that about half of Americans opposed the decision to cede canal control to Panama. However, by the time ownership actually changed in 1999, public opinion had shifted, with about half of Americans in favor.

What’s happened since then?

Administration of the canal has been more efficient under Panama than during the US era, with traffic increasing 17% between fiscal years 1999 and 2004. Panama’s voters approved a 2006 referendum authorizing a major expansion of the canal to accommodate larger modern cargo ships. The expansion took until 2016 and cost more than US$5.2 billion.

Panamanian President José Raúl Mulino said in a video Sunday, “Every square meter of the canal belongs to Panama and will continue to.” He added that, while his country’s people are divided on some key issues, when it comes to our canal, and our sovereignty, we will all unite under our Panamanian flag.

Shipping prices have increased because of droughts last year affecting the canal locks, forcing Panama to drastically cut shipping traffic through the canal and raise rates to use it. Though the rains have mostly returned, Panama says future fee increases might be necessary as it undertakes improvements to accommodate modern shipping needs.

Mulino said fees to use the canal are “not set on a whim.”

Jorge Luis Quijano, who served as the waterway’s administrator from 2014 to 2019, said all canal users are subject to the same fees, though they vary by ship size and other factors.

“I can accept that the canal’s customers may complain about any price increase,” Quijano said. “But that does not give them reason to consider taking it back.”

Why has Trump raised this?

The president-elect says the US is getting “ripped off” and “I’m not going to stand for it.”

“It was given to Panama and to the people of Panama, but it has provisions — you’ve got to treat us fairly. And they haven’t treated us fairly,” Trump said of the 1977 treaty that he said “foolishly” gave the canal away.

The neutrality treaty does give the US the right to act if the canal’s operation is threatened due to military conflict — but not to reassert control.

“There’s no clause of any kind in the neutrality agreement that allows for the taking back of the canal,” Quijano said. “Legally, there’s no way, under normal circumstances, to recover territory that was used previously.”

Trump, meanwhile, hasn’t said how he might make good on his threat.

“There’s very little wiggle room, absent a second US invasion of Panama, to retake control of the Panama Canal in practical terms,” said Benjamin Gedan, director of the Latin America Program at the Woodrow Wilson International Center for Scholars in Washington.

Gedan said Trump’s stance is especially baffling given that Mulino is a pro-business conservative who has “made lots of other overtures to show that he would prefer a special relationship with the United States.” He also noted that Panama in recent years has moved closer to China, meaning the US has strategic reasons to keep its relationship with the Central American nation friendly.

Panama is also a US partner on stopping illegal immigration from South America — perhaps Trump’s biggest policy priority.

“If you’re going to pick a fight with Panama on an issue,” Gedan said, “you could not find a worse one than the canal.”

Courtesy: Associated Press

United States and Britain proxies of Israel

For months we have been saying that United States has become an Israeli proxy. Topping of Assad’s regime in Syria was not possible without the connivance of the world’s largest war monger. It is also on record that the US and British forces have been waging regular strikes on Yemen in response to Yemeni attacks on Israeli, US and British ships transiting the Red Sea and the Gulf of Aden.

Reportedly, the US carried out fresh attacks in the Yemeni capital just hours after an Ansarullah hypersonic missile landed in Tel Aviv. Reports indicate an explosion in Sanaa, accompanied by intensive warplane activity in the skies.

The US attacks came hours after Yemen struck Tel Aviv, Israel’s commercial hub, with a supersonic missile that left 16 people wounded. It was the second attack by Yemen in a matter of few days.

A statement from US Central Command (CENTCOM) claimed the targets hit by American forces included a missile storage site and a “command-and-control facility.” CENTCOM also claimed to have intercepted several Yemeni drones and an anti-ship cruise missile over the Red Sea. 

The Sanaa government has accused the United States of two hostile airstrikes, which targeted the Attan district in an “act of aggression” against civilians. 

Yemeni forces have also conducted attacks deep inside Israel, targeting the port city of Eilat and Tel Aviv in support of Gaza. 

Israeli media was quick to highlight that the occupying regime played no role in the latest US aggression on Yemen. 

Experts point out this may have been an indirect message to Yemen in the hope of avoiding another hypersonic missile being launched from the Arab state in the direction of Tel Aviv. 

Some Israeli analysts have concluded that airstrikes on Yemen will not deter the Sanaa government from its ongoing military support front for Gaza. 

Israeli authorities have confirmed on more than one occasion that the Israeli military is unable to intercept Yemeni hypersonic missiles that have prompted many residents to evacuate their homes in the early hours.

According to the Walla Hebrew site, “Israeli officials must quickly disclose the reasons behind the repeated failures to intercept Yemeni missiles to the Israeli public.”

Following the latest attacks on Yemen, the Sanaa government’s Foreign Minister, Jamal Ahmed Ali Amer, stated, “Any country that supports the Israeli entity in its aggression against Yemen will become complicit and bear the consequences of its decision.”

The Sanaa Minister of Information, Hashim Sharaf al-Din, also said, “It is clear that the Americans have not learned from their mistakes and will continue to reap humiliation at the hands of us Yemenis.”

On February 25, the US and Britain launched six airstrikes on the Attan district. On March 22, the two countries also launched four airstrikes on the same area.

The new aggression on the capital aims to pressure Yemeni forces to cease their operations against Israeli targets. 

The Yemeni Armed Forces confirmed on Sunday that their operations will not stop until the aggression on Gaza ends and the siege is lifted.

CENTCOM confirmed that two navy pilots
were forced to eject “over the Red Sea early on December 22 after their plane was downed in what appears to be a friendly fire incident.” 

Yemeni officials have indicated there may be more to the story than what the Americans are saying in public, without directly claiming responsibility for shooting down the fighter jet. 

A member of Yemen's Supreme Political Council, Mohammed Ali al-Houthi, stated that the US Central Command will not disclose the truth about the downing of the American warplane.

He added, “What the United States is doing may be a tactic to prevent further collapse in the morale of its soldiers.”

At the same time, he affirmed that the terrorist actions against Yemen will not stop support operations for Gaza.

 

Iran faces dire energy crisis

According to a Saturday New York Times (NYT) report, Iran is facing a dire energy crisis, forcing schools, colleges, governmental offices, and shopping malls to operate at a reduced capacity. 

The report cited multiple reasons for the situation, including the sanctions imposed on Iran and an Israeli strike on the Islamic Republic.

According to the NYT, citing an official from the country's Petroleum Ministry and Hamid Hosseini, a member of the Chamber of Commerce’s energy committee, a covert Israeli attack last February, which struck two gas pipes belonging to the Islamic Republic, forced the country to use its emergency gas reserves.

Now, Iran reportedly faces a deficit of some 350 million cubic meters a day, with demands surging with the onset of winter.   

“We are facing very dire imbalances in gas, electricity, energy, water, money, and environment,” Iranian President Masoud Pezeshkian said in a televised speech earlier in December, according to the NYT.

Hosseini told the NYT that the country was attempting to “contain the damage because this is like a ‘powder keg’ that can explode and create unrest across the country.”  

Chief of the Islamic Republic's Coordination Council of Industries Mehdi Bostanchi labeled the situation "catastrophic," according to the NYT. 

According to him, the recent week's deficit could cut production in the country by 30% to 50%, costing it billions of dollars. 

“Naturally, the damages from the widespread and abrupt power outage that has lasted all week will be extremely serious for industries,” Bostanchi reportedly noted.

 

Pakistan Naval Ships Visit Bandar Abbas

The Pakistan Navy's Peace and Friendship Squadron docked at Iran's Imam Khomeini Naval Base in Bandar Abbas on Saturday, marking a significant step in enhancing educational and military cooperation between the two neighboring countries.

The fleet, comprising three warships—PNS Azmat, PNS Rasadgar, and PNS Dasht—is on a mission to strengthen the ties between Pakistan and Iran. This marks the sixth visit to the port since 2016, the most recent being in January, 2024.

The arrival of the Pakistani flotilla was celebrated with an official ceremony, attended by commanders from the Imam Khomeini Naval Region, the Pakistani political consul, and the naval attaché in Iran. 

Commodore Omid Moghadam, commander of the Surface Flotilla of the Imam Khomeini Naval Region, expressed his satisfaction with the presence of the Pakistani naval ships in Bandar Abbas. 

"These friendly interactions between the naval forces of allied nations are customary and vital for bolstering our maritime cooperation," he stated. 

Captain Omid Maghami, commander of the Surface Navy Brigade of the First Naval Area, echoed similar sentiments, emphasizing that the presence of the Pakistani warships is a testament to the deepening ties between the naval forces of the two countries. 

"Such friendly exchanges between navies enhance educational and military cooperation, as well as the exchange of maritime experiences," he noted. 

During their four-day stay in Bandar Abbas, the Pakistani naval group will have a busy agenda, including meetings with the commander of the Imam Khomeini Naval Region, paying respects at the martyrs' cemetery, and visiting cultural and social sites in the city. 

The itinerary also features friendly sports competitions between the Iranian and Pakistani naval teams, meetings with political leaders of Hormozgan province, a friendship dinner on board both Iranian and Pakistani warships, and joint military exercises in the waters of the Persian Gulf and the Strait of Hormuz. 

The recent docking of the Pakistan Navy's Peace and Friendship Fleet in Bandar Abbas underscores the commitment of both Iran and Pakistan to fostering stronger military and security ties. 

This visit builds on past agreements, such as those signed during the late President Ebrahim Raisi's 2023 visit to Pakistan, aimed at enhancing security cooperation and paving the way for future collaborations in maritime security and regional stability.

 

Yemeni missile lands in Tel Aviv

According to Reuters, the Israeli military admitted it failed to intercept a missile from Yemen early on Saturday that fell in the Tel Aviv-Jaffa area, and the ambulance service said 14 people received mild injuries.

A spokesperson for Houthis said they had hit a "military target" in the Jaffa area with a ballistic missile.

Paramedics were treating 14 people with minor shrapnel injuries and some were taken to hospital, the ambulance service said in a statement.

The Israeli police reported receiving reports of a fallen missile in a town in the Tel Aviv area.

Houthis have repeatedly fired drones and missiles towards Israel in what they describe as acts of solidarity with Palestinians in Gaza.

On Thursday, Israel launched strikes against ports and energy infrastructure in Houthi-held parts of Yemen and threatened more attacks against the Yemeni group.

 

Taming the Shrewd called Trump

It is as clear as day that the US president has incalculable powers. Despite being an elected president, he is a complete autocrat. He can take many decisions at his own without the approval of the Senate and can veto any decision of the Senate. This right is available to the president under the US Constitution.

In his first term, Donald Trump not only unilaterally withdrew from the nuclear agreement reached with Iran by the remaining superpowers, but also imposed more sanctions at his own. After Iran's protests and the superpowers' surrender, Joe Biden has also been imposing new sanctions on Iran.

After being re-elected as president in the recent elections, he has begun to hint at rare royal decrees to be issued after he takes oath on January 20, 2025.

The first decree is that the BRICS countries will not create their own currency and if they dare to make such a mistake, they will be subject to additional tariffs and will not be able to export their products to the United States.

Israel has broken the backs of Hamas, Hezbollah and Syria at the behest of the US, and today there are heavy attacks on Yemen. There is a growing fear that Iran will be the next target.

At the same time, Trump has announced to impose new tariffs on Mexican and Canadian products exported to the US.

The limit is that Trump has also announced new tariffs on his allies to undermine the European Union.

I have no qualms in saying that the continued silence of Russia and China and the criminal indifference of the oil-producing Arab countries have given the US the courage to do all this.

Remember, those countries that are silent spectators of the destruction of other countries today will have no one to shed tears over their destruction tomorrow.