What after Russian gas supply to Europe ends?

According to Reuters, Russian gas supplies sent via Ukraine to Europe for more than 40 years are scheduled to end on January 01, 2025 after Ukraine's Naftogaz refused to renew its latest five-year transit deal with Russia's Gazprom.

Despite the war between the two countries, Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskiy on December 19, 2024 said Kyiv might consider allowing the transit of Russian gas if payments to Moscow were withheld until the fighting ends.

Russian President Vladimir Putin a week later said there was no time left this year to sign a new deal.

Here is what we know about options for when Russian gas transit via Ukraine stops.

HOW BIG ARE THE VOLUMES?

Russia's supply to Europe has fallen dramatically in the wake of Moscow's invasion of Ukraine in February 2022 which spurred the European Union (EU) to cut its dependence on Russian gas.

Moscow spent half a century building its European gas market share, which at its peak stood at about 35% but has fallen to about 8%.

As of December 01, 2024 the EU received less than 14 billion cubic metres (bcm) of gas from Russia via Ukraine, down from 65 bcm/ year when the latest five-year contract began in 2020.

The European Commission has said that volume can be fully replaced by liquefied natural gas and non-Russian pipeline imports.

Moscow has lost market share to rivals such as Norway, the United States and Qatar.

Russia could earn around US$5 billion on sales via Ukraine this year based on an average Russian government gas price forecast of US$339 per 1,000 cubic metres, Reuters calculations show.

Ukraine earns between US$800 million and US$ one billion in transit fees per year.

EU gas prices rallied in 2022 to record highs after the loss of Russian supplies. With supplies set to end, EU officials and traders say a repeat of that rally is unlikely given the now modest volumes involved and the small number of customers remaining.

WHO IS AFFECTED?

The Ukraine route serves Austria and Slovakia. Austria received most of its gas via Ukraine, while Slovakia takes around 3 bcm from Gazprom per year, about two-thirds of its needs.

Gazprom halted supply to Austria's OMV in mid-November 2024 over a contractual dispute but volumes held steady via the route as other buyers stepped in.

Slovakia has said the loss of Russian supply would not hit its consumption and that it has diversified supply contracts. Its main gas buyer SPP has contracts for non-Russian supply with BP, Eni, ExxonMobil, RWE and Shell.

WHAT OPTIONS DO BUYERS HAVE?

Most other Russian gas routes to Europe are shut including Yamal-Europe via Belarus and Nord Stream under the Baltic Sea.

One option is the TurkStream pipeline to Turkey under the Black Sea, Bulgaria, Serbia or Hungary. However, capacity is limited.

Slovakia's gas supply could come from Hungary, roughly a third from Austria and the remainder from the Czech Republic and Poland, according to Austrian energy regulator E-Control.

Austria should not face disruptions as it has prepared for the switch in supply, its regulator has said.

The Czech Republic is likely to tap more supply from Germany pipelines taking advantage of an exemption from a German domestic gas levy from January 01, 2025.

The Czech Republic has said it is ready to provide Slovakia with gas transit and storage capacities.

Russia supplies Moldova with about 2 bcm of gas per year. It is piped via Ukraine to the breakaway region of Transdniestria where it is used to generate cheap power that is sold to government-controlled parts of Moldova.

Gazprom said it plans to suspend supply on January 01, 2025 citing unpaid bills.

Moldovan Prime Minister Dorin Recean has condemned the decision but said the country has diversified sources of supply. The country plans measures to reduce consumption by at least a third from January 01, 2025.

As for Ukraine, its security of supply will not be impacted as it does not use Russian transit gas, the European Commission said.

WHERE DOES THE GAS COME FROM?

The Soviet-era Urengoy-Pomary-Uzhgorod pipeline carries gas from Siberia via the town of Sudzha - which is now under control of Ukrainian military forces - in Russia's Kursk region.

It flows through Ukraine to Slovakia where the pipeline splits into branches going to the Czech Republic and Austria.

 

 

Foreign fighters given senior posts in Syria

According to the Saudi Gazette, the new Syrian authorities are reported to have given some foreign Islamist fighters senior official posts in the country's armed forces. The army is being reorganized by Hayat Tahrir al-Sham (HTS), the militant group that is now effectively in charge of the country following the overthrow of former President Bashar al-Assad earlier this month.

There's been no confirmation by the new leadership of the move, but it seems likely to raise concern inside and outside Syria over the role such foreign militants may play in the country's future.

It comes amid reports that Syria's new de-facto leader, Ahmed al-Sharaa, has held separate meetings with representatives of the Kurds and Christians in the country – two communities that are most concerned about the potential agenda of the new authorities.

Several Syrian sources have deduced that out of almost 50 new military roles that have been announced, at least six have gone to foreigners.

Based on the names that have been published, they are said to include Chinese Uyghurs, a Jordanian and a Turkish national. All are said to have been given high-ranking positions as colonels or brigadier generals.

The role of foreign fighters in various armed groups during the civil war is one that stirs strong feelings in Syria.

Thousands of fighters from many different countries joined the uprising against Assad as it became an all-out armed conflict when mass protests were met with violence by the security forces.

Militants from abroad were seen as trying to impose their extremist ideology on Syria — something that Syrians from all communities are now saying they will not accept in the country's future after Assad.

Some formed their own groups and others provided the core of the Islamic State (IS) group, which took control of large regions in the east of Syria.

Opponents of HTS had long accused it of being largely made up of foreign militants — a charge Assad supporters used to try to delegitimize the group as it mounted its final, decisive offensive against the regime.

But in the years that he ran the rebel enclave in Idlib, Ahmed al-Sharaa – the leader of HTS and now Syria – had been getting rid of some of those foreign fighters in a bid to bolster his group's credentials as a nationalist rather than overtly jihadist force.

Since taking power al-Sharaa has repeatedly stressed the vision of a unified Syrian state, in which all communities must be respected and have a stake.

On Tuesday, a Syrian official said the first talks between members of the Kurdish-led Syrian Democratic Forces (SDF) and al-Sharaa since he became the most powerful man in Syria three weeks ago have now taken place and were positive.

The SDF is backed by the US and controls much of the north-east of Syria. But Turkey, which has backed al-Sharaa's group HTS, sees them as terrorists, which has raised fears of a looming confrontation.

Al-Sharaa has also met high-level members of the Christian clergy. He has stressed that he wants all communities to have a stake in Syria's future and is preparing a National Dialogue Conference to try to ensure that this process can begin.

For those who are concerned that his actions might not match his words, this apparent move to formalize the positions of some prominent foreign fighters may give them further pause for thought.

The appointments appear to have been made in order to reward those fighters – whether from Syria or elsewhere – who played a significant role in the final triumph over the regime.

For the same reason, some of the remaining foreign fighters – along with their families – now seem likely to be given Syrian citizenship.

The issue is just one of many that could complicate any successful transition to a new political and social framework in Syria.

The new authorities are putting a lot of weight on a National Dialogue Conference that is being prepared to bring together representatives from all sections of society – although no date has been set.

The hope is that the conference will set in motion the process to rebuild the institutions of the broken and divided country. 

Iran objects dam construction by Afghanistan

The spokesman of Iran’s water industry considered the unilateral exploitation of the Harirud River to be a violation of customary rights and said the effects of this unilateral action by the Afghan side will not only affect the supply of drinking water and health of several million people, but also lead to widespread damage to the downstream environment.

Issa Bozorgzadeh, said that the construction and impoundment of Pashdan dam in the Harirud border basin causes the reduction of the natural flow of the Harirud border river and the occurrence of social and environmental damages in the downstream areas, especially the problem of serious damage to the drinking water supply of the holy city of Mashhad.

Referring to the multi-dimensional economic, social and cultural ties of Mashhad and Herat, Bozorgzadeh said, “We believe that all the people who live in a watershed have the same destiny, and applying any strictness and pressure to a part of the people of the watershed will inevitably affect all the residents.”

The spokesman of the water industry further stated, “Iran has repeatedly expressed its official protest through diplomatic channels against the negative cross-border effects caused by the unilateral dam construction measures of the Afghan side in the Harirud basin and calls for joint cooperation to evaluate and reduce these effects and choose sustainable development instead of destructive development.”

He added, “We still believe that the one-sided and non-participatory exploitation of the water resources of the Harirud basin is not beneficial to any of the countries in the upstream and downstream.”

 

 

Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini

Time magazine chose Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini, the founder of the Islamic Revolution, as its Man of the Year for 1979. The magazine’s editors explained at the time that they sought to recognize the individual who "had done the most to change the news, for better or for worse."

Washington must bear in mind that Iran today, under the leadership of the Imam’s successor, Ayatollah Seyyed Ali Khamenei, is in a far more powerful position compared to the early years after the Revolution. Therefore, one can say, in Imam's words, "America can't do a damn thing" against Iran.

Without a doubt, the Islamic Revolution in Iran in 1979 was one of the most impactful events of the latter half of the 20th century. Both before and after the revolution’s victory in February of that year, the world's most prominent newspapers and magazines extensively covered the unfolding events, focusing particularly on its leader, Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini, more widely known as Imam Khomeini.

In late December 1979, Time magazine's correspondents in Iran, L. Bruce van Voorst and Roland Flamini, traveled to the holy city of Qom to interview the revolution's leader on December 29. This was just a day before the American weekly announced him as Man of the Year. The interview focused on topics such as the crimes of the Shah’s regime, the nature of the Islamic Revolution, international developments, the collapse of the bipolar world order, and the fate of the American detainees who had been held in Iran since the US Embassy takeover on November 04.

Time described Imam Khomeini as "an old man of 79" who lived in “his modest home in the holy city of Qom,” a leader who had shaken the world.

“One thing is certain: the world will not again look quite the way it did before February 01, 1979, the day on which Imam Khomeini flew back to a tumultuous welcome in Tehran after 15 years in exile,” the magazine wrote.

He was the second Iranian political figure to be named Man of the Year by Time, following democratically elected Prime Minister Mohammad Mossadegh, who was ousted in a US-led coup in 1953.

Imam Khomeini challenged the established world order and the two superpowers with his unwavering positions. Time’s editors likely portrayed a sullen-looking Imam Khomeini due to their disapproval of the American detainees being held in Tehran. The revolutionary leader had thrown his support behind the students who had stormed the US Embassy, which they dubbed the “Den of Espionage.”

In the interview, when asked about the American detainees’ release, Imam Khomeini replied, “We want to prove to the world that superpowers can be defeated by the power of faith. We will stand against America with all our might. We fear no power.”

“The revolution that he led to triumph threatens to upset the world balance of power more than any other political event," the Time article concluded.

"It wasn't just its Islamic aspect. Non-Muslim nations, too, were likely to be drawn to the spectacle of a rebellion aimed at expelling all foreign influence," the article stated.

The American magazine further cautioned about the Iranian leader's inspiring ideas, noting that their influence would spread from the Indian subcontinent to Turkey and southward through the Arabian Peninsula to the Horn of Africa. "Most significantly," it warned, "the revolution that transformed Iran into an Islamic republic, with the Quran as its supreme law, was undermining the stability of the Middle East. This region supplies more than half of the Western world's imported oil and sits at the strategic crossroads of superpower competition."

Time praised Imam Khomeini for leading the revolution that overthrew the Shah regime, explaining that "as America's surrogate policeman of the Persian Gulf, the US had given the Shah its full support. President Richard Nixon and Secretary of State Henry Kissinger allowed him to purchase all the modern weapons he desired.”

Time went on to acknowledge that "Even after the revolution had begun, US officials remained convinced that 'there is no alternative to the Shah.'"

Regarding Imam Khomeini’s undeniable influence within Iran, the weekly wrote, "When he called for strikes, his followers shut down banks, the postal service, factories, food stores, and most importantly, the oil wells, bringing the country close to paralysis."

The article also attributed the rise of the Islamic movement led by Imam Khomeini to Western colonialism.

"Muslims have bitter memories of over a century of Western colonialism, which kept most Islamic countries in subjugation until a generation ago. They tend to see US support for Israel as a continuation of this imperialist tradition."

Time further stated in the lengthy article that the late founder of the Islamic Revolution inspired Muslims in countries like Libya, India, and Bangladesh to stage anti-American demonstrations.

The piece continued, noting that Muslims in Islamabad, the capital of Pakistan, burned the US embassy and killed two US servicemen.

 "In Saudi Arabia, possessor of the world's largest oil reserves, the vulnerability of the royal family became starkly apparent when a group of 200 to 300 well-armed raiders seized the Sacred Mosque in Mecca, the holiest of all Islamic shrines, which is under the protection of King Khalid.”

Time described the Iranian revolution as the first major international “crisis” that was not an East-West conflict.

The American magazine further cautioned against the appeal of Imam Khomeini’s Islamic Revolution to non-Muslim nations in the East. It argued that the Iranian Revolution called into question the viability of modernization and industrialization theories promoted by the West to avert anti-American uprisings. The Iranians, the article suggested, demonstrated that culture was a significant factor. It urged action to "keep future Third World revolutions from taking an anti-American turn."

“The Iranian revolution has also had a dramatic impact on Western economies. 1979 was the year the world economy moved from an era of recurrent oil surpluses into an age of chronic shortages,” Time’s article also stated. “If there had been no revolution in Iran… 1979 would have been a normal year.”

The article also urged for addressing the Palestine issue, stating, "The extent to which the Palestinian problem has inflamed passions, even among Arabs who consider themselves pro-US, is not at all understood by Americans."

Courtesy: Tehran Times

Jimmy Carter a hawk or a dove

As Americans mourn the death of former president Jimmy Carter, the disastrous impacts of his legacy, particularly in the Middle East are thrust into the limelight. Carter died at the age of 100 on Sunday, forty-four years after he left the White House. His tenure as the 39th US president began with his inauguration on January 20, 1977, and ended on January 20, 1981.

Undoubtedly, the ongoing Israeli genocide in Gaza and its brutal crimes in the West Bank, Lebanon and beyond are rooted in the policies pursued by Carter. Carter played a key role in aiding and abetting the Israeli apartheid regime by brokering a seemingly peace deal between Egypt and Israel in 1978. 

Then Israeli Prime Minister Menachem Begin and then Egyptian president Anwar Sadat signed Camp David Accords on September 17, 1978, that led in the following year to a peace treaty between the two sides.  The agreements became known as the Camp David Accords because the negotiations took place at the US presidential retreat at Camp David, Maryland. 

The agreements were the first normalization deal between Israel and an Arab country. More than four decades on, it is crystal clear that the deals were a stab in the back of Palestinians and their cause. 

The Carter administration had painted a scenario to motivate Arab states to reduce their support for Palestine amid the Israeli occupation. He also wanted Arab leaders to consider their own interests separate from those of the Palestinians. So far, an overwhelming majority of the Arab public has not recognized Israel and remained opposed to normalizing ties with the regime.

Nonetheless, Carter’s political ploy led to the Abraham Accords. Despite rising sentiment against Israel’s atrocities against Palestinians, Donald Trump oversaw the signing of the Abraham Accords in 2020, which normalized relations between Israel and the United Arab Emirates, Bahrain as well as Morocco. Sudan joined the US-brokered deal a year later. 

The normalization deals not only failed to improve the situation of Palestinians, but also strengthened Israel's resolve to intensify its apartheid practices. With no doubts, Israel’s recent brutal war on Lebanon and the war of genocide in Gaza are the results of US-brokered normalization deals that began in the Carter era.  

Proponents of Carter, who earned the Nobel Peace Prize in 2002, characterize him as a champion of peace and democracy. However, the negative consequences of his policies on the Palestinian and Lebanese populations suggest that he may be more accurately remembered as a hawkish president rather than a dovish one. An examination of his statements regarding Iran further clarifies the debate over whether he should be classified as a hawk or a dove.

Carter served one term as president and lost his reelection bid to Ronald Reagan. His successes eclipsed at the polls by a stagnant economy and the 1979 US embassy takeover in Tehran.

In November 1979, a group of university students took over the US embassy in the Iranian capital. They believed Washington had turned its embassy into a center of espionage against the newly established Islamic Republic. Consequently, dozens of American diplomats were taken captive for 444 days.

Carter made futile attempts to secure the release of the Americans. 

On April 25, 1980, the US revealed it had attempted a military operation known as Operation Eagle Claw to rescue the release of the captives. But the operation failed and eight US servicemen were killed and several others were injured.

Carter explicitly demonstrated his enmity toward Iran in an interview 10 years ago.   

“I could have been re-elected if I had taken military action against Iran. It would have shown that I was strong and resolute and manly. ... I could have wiped Iran off the map with the weapons that we had,” he said in a 2014 interview with CNBC.

In the interview, Carter acknowledged his aspiration to entirely obliterate Iran, yet he had found himself unable to achieve this dream either through military or political means.

Courtesy: Tehran Times

 

Syrian FM to first visit Saudi Arabia

According to Saudi Gazette, Asaad Hassan Al-Shaibani, the foreign minister of Syria’s new administration, emphasized his country’s aspiration to build strategic relations with Saudi Arabia across various sectors.

In a post on the social platform X on Monday, Al-Shaibani announced that he had received an official invitation from Saudi Foreign Minister to visit the Kingdom.

“I am honored to represent my country on my first official visit to Saudi Arabia,” Al-Shaibani wrote.

Ahmed Al-Sharaa, head of Syria’s military operations administration, previously highlighted Saudi Arabia’s significant role in Syria’s future. Al-Sharaa described recent Saudi statements regarding Syria as "very positive."

He also noted the Kingdom’s substantial investment opportunities in Syria, adding, “I am proud of everything Saudi Arabia has done for Syria, and it has a major role in the country’s future.”

A high-ranking Saudi delegation, led by a Royal Court advisor, recently visited Syria and met with Al-Sharaa at the Presidential Palace.

Saudi Arabia has expressed its satisfaction with the positive developments in Syria, reiterating its commitment to the safety and stability of the Syrian people.

The Kingdom also emphasized the importance of preserving Syria’s institutions and resources while safeguarding the unity of its people.

Syria: First Female Central Bank Governor

New Syrian ruling regime has appointed Maysaa Sabrine, a former deputy governor of the Syrian central bank, as the institution’s first female governor in its more than 70-year history. Sabrine replaces Mohammed Issam Hazime, who was appointed by ousted President Bashar al-Assad in 2021.

Her appointment signals a shift in the country’s financial leadership following the dramatic political changes in Syria. A senior Syrian official confirmed Sabrine’s appointment, though she has not yet commented publicly on her new role.

This appointment comes at a critical time for Syria as the nation works to stabilize its economy and recover from years of conflict and economic challenges.

Sabrine’s extensive experience in the central bank is expected to bring continuity and expertise as Syria’s financial system faces reforms under the new administration.