Kremlin Says Europe Will Feel the Recoil from Its 'Illegal' Sanctions on Russia
The Kremlin said in remarks published on Sunday that the tougher the sanctions imposed on Russia by Europe, the more painful the recoil would be for Europe's own economies as Russia had grown resistant to such "illegal" sanctions.
Russia's invasion of Ukraine in 2022 triggered a wave of Western sanctions on Russia and it is by far the most sanctioned major economy in the world.
The West said that it hoped its sanctions would force President Vladimir Putin to seek peace in Ukraine, and though the economy contracted in 2022, it grew in 2023 and 2024 at faster rates than the European Union.
The European Commission on June 10 proposed a new round of sanctions against Russia, targeting Moscow's energy revenues, its banks and its military industry, though the United States has so far refused to toughen its own sanctions.
Asked about remarks by Western European leaders including French President Emmanuel Macron that toughening sanctions would force Russia to negotiate an end to the war, the Kremlin said only logic and arguments could force Russia to negotiate.
"The more serious the package of sanctions, which, I repeat, we consider illegal, the more serious will be the recoil from a gun to the shoulder. This is a double-edged sword," Kremlin spokesman Dmitry Peskov told state television.
Peskov told state television's top Kremlin correspondent, Pavel Zarubin, that he did not doubt the EU would impose further sanctions but that Russia had built up "resistance" to such sanctions.
President Vladimir Putin said on Friday that any additional EU sanctions on Russia would simply hurt Europe more - and pointed out that Russia's economy grew at 4.3% in 2024 compared to euro zone growth of 0.9%.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Leaders
10 hours ago
- Leaders
EU Must Take Strong Response against Israel: EX-Foreign Policy Chief
The EU's former Foreign Policy Chief, Josep Borrell, stated that the bloc must take a more assertive stance against Israel that has been violating the international law in its war on Gaza, according to Arab News. In an article for Foreign Affairs magazine, Borrell stressed that the EU has a 'duty' to intervene over the humanitarian catastrophe in Gaza. Need for Joint Plan Co-authored with Kalypso Nicolaidis, the article affirmed that the EU has to make its joint plan as Europe can no longer afford to linger at the margin. 'Not only is Europe's own security at stake, but more important, European history imposes a duty on Europeans to intervene in response to Israel's violations of international law,' the article said. Last week, EU's Foreign Policy Chief, Kaja Kallas, said that it was 'very clear' Israel had violated its human rights commitments during its war on Gaza. In May, Borrell accused Israel of 'carrying out the largest ethnic-cleansing operation since the end of the Second World War.' Authors' Suggestions Both authors said that Europe's conflicting response to Gaza's humanitarian crisis can be partly explained by the hesitation of some countries such as Germany, Hungary and Austria to take action against Israel for historical reasons. They wrote that EU member states could use Article 20 of the EU's treaty to 'allow for at least nine member states to come together to utilize certain foreign policy tools not related to defense.' 'Because such an action has never been taken before, those states would have to explore what (it) … would concretely allow them to do,' the Foreign Affairs article said. The authors also stated that the bloc should act as a powerful mediator in the Middle East. 'Some EU leaders cautiously backed the International Criminal Court's investigations, while others, such as Austria and Germany, have declined to implement its arrest warrants against Israeli officials,' they wrote. Overall, the EU, as a bloc, has been 'largely relegated to the sidelines, divided internally and overshadowed in ceasefire diplomacy by the US and regional actors such as Egypt and Qatar. Shouldn't the EU also have acted as a mediator?' Related Topics: Saudi Arabia Condemns Israeli Settlers' Violence against Palestinians Israel Kills Palestinian Aid Seekers as Rights Groups Warn GHF of Legal Consequences Israel Leading Middle East to 'Total Disaster': Turkish FM Short link : Post Views: 14
Arab News
10 hours ago
- Arab News
Alliance reveals UK defense ambitions extend beyond Europe
One of the key drivers of the UK Strategic Defense Review released earlier this month is the military threat from Russia, especially following its invasion of Ukraine. However, London's focus extends well beyond Europe, including to the Asia-Pacific region with the new AUKUS alliance. One of the key announcements in the defense review is that the UK will build up to a dozen new submarines within the new AUKUS alliance with Australia and the US. This highlights the importance of the new alliance to London — it is perceived by some senior UK policymakers as potentially the most significant development since the 1958 Mutual Defense Agreement, with the US given the future potential to develop and deliver cutting-edge capabilities, and help revitalize the UK defense industrial base. Yet, AUKUS may be about to hit a US political iceberg. The Trump team announced, only days after the UK defense review, that it has launched an AUKUS probe led by the Pentagon. Both the UK and Australian governments have declared optimism that Trump officials will, ultimately, 'green light' next steps with the nascent alliance, which was created in 2021 under the Biden administration. Moreover, at the G7 last week, US President Donald Trump gave credence to this. Speaking with UK Prime Minister Keir Starmer, Trump said that London, Canberra, and Washington are 'very long-time partners and allies and friends.' AUKUS may be about to hit a US political iceberg Andrew Hammond Yet, uncertainty still remains — potential cancelation, or revising the terms of AUKUS, which may cause delay, are plausible. This is not least because US Defense Undersecretary for Policy Elbridge Colby, who is heading the US review, last year criticized the submarine element of the agreement, asserting that for the US 'it would be crazy to have fewer SSNs (nuclear-powered attack submarines) in the right place and time.' What Colby, who admits to being 'skeptical' about AUKUS, refers to here is the first pillar of the deal, which is centered around providing Australia with SSNs. Currently, Australia only has diesel-electric submarines, and one ultimate goal of AUKUS is for a fleet of new SSNs to be developed by London and Canberra utilizing UK design blueprints with US technology to spur military interoperability between the three. In the interim, existing US and UK SSNs will rotate to Australia while a new nuclear submarine base is being built in Perth that is scheduled to be operational by around 2027. Canberra also plans to buy at least three, and possibly up to five, second-hand so-called Virginia-class SSNs from the US from 2032. Under the terms of the AUKUS deal, Australia has already begun paying the US. This includes around $500 million given to Washington in February, which is a down payment of a bigger $2 billion in 2025. Colby's comments from last year indicate that the lens he will use for the AUKUS review is whether the deal undermines the ability of the US defense industry to meet the nation's military needs. Part of the wider context here is production delays for the Virginia-class submarines, and cost overruns of billions of dollars. These supply challenges are one reason Colby has queried AUKUS, especially given potential future war scenarios in which Washington might need more submarines, fast. It is not just Trump, but also other key figures, such as US Ambassador to the UK Warren Stephens, who have indicated support for AUKUS. Last month, Stephens said Washington is 'proud to stand alongside Britain and Australia, two of our closest allies, as we deepen our collaboration to respond to a changing world.' However, the submarine supply challenge is not the only one that may complicate the deal. In addition, US and UK export controls on sensitive technologies between the three nations has slowed work to develop next generation technologies in wider, so-called pillar-two areas, including development of hypersonic missiles and quantum computing. In this context, outright cancelation of AUKUS by the Trump team is an option that cannot be ruled out. Such an outcome would frustrate not only the UK, but also Australia, which terminated a deal to buy diesel-powered submarines from France when it signed up to the alliance in 2021. Scott Morrison, prime minister at the time, took a big diplomatic hit from this. A wider range of nations may also be keen to join Andrew Hammond However, cancelation appears the least likely option. What may be more likely is a revision of the deal's wider terms so these are more weighted in favor of Washington. For instance, the Trump team could seek to pressure Australia to boost its military spending, which is around 2 percent of gross domestic product, with an intent to raise this to about 2.4 percent by 2033-2034. While this 2 percent figure is higher than some countries in the NATO alliance, it is much less than the US, while the UK has committed to reaching 2.5 percent of GDP by 2027. If the AUKUS alliance does survive, there are a wider range of nations that may also be keen to join as full or associate members in coming years. This includes New Zealand, Canada, Japan, and South Korea. Take the example of Canada, which two former UK prime ministers, Boris Johnson and Liz Truss, have previously backed for AUKUS membership 'to strengthen the West's collective defenses.' Johnson has even said that Canada is the 'most obvious next candidate,' and previous prime minister Justin Trudeau said that he held 'excellent conversations' with London, Washington, and Canberra over joining the alliance. Taken together, if Trump does not scrap AUKUS, the project could assume significant new momentum. While expansion of the alliance is unlikely in the immediate term, collaboration with a range of Western allies in the Asia-Pacific and Americas is possible into the 2030s.
Arab News
10 hours ago
- Arab News
Mixed outlook for the UN on its 80th birthday
The UN celebrated its 80th birthday on Thursday. But Secretary-General Antonio Guterres used the occasion to warn that its founding charter is under assault like never before. The organization was created out of the trauma of the Second World War, with the UN Charter inked by an initial 50 states on June 26, 1945. It came into force later that year with the aim of trying to prevent future wars, while also upholding human dignity and equal rights. Guterres warned on Thursday that 'we see an all-too-familiar pattern: follow when the charter suits, ignore when it does not. The Charter of the United Nations is not optional. It is not an a la carte menu. It is the bedrock of international relations.' Of course, countries regularly accuse each other of violating the charter. In recent years, Russia and Israel have been cited by the General Assembly for violating it in Ukraine and Gaza, respectively. Earlier this month, Iran accused the US of breaching the charter with its strikes on three of its nuclear facilities. Yet, as many challenges as the world body now faces, its 80th birthday underlines that it continues to have resilience and legitimacy. This is despite growing concerns over its relevance in an increasingly contentious, fragmented world. There is still widespread recognition that global challenges can best be tackled through international, coordinated action, often led by the UN. And despite the deep decay of the post-1945 order, the remaining postwar international institutions — with the UN at their heart — continue to have major relevance almost a century after their birth. While these bodies are imperfect and in need of significant reform, they have generally enabled international prosperity and security, especially with the two most powerful countries in the world today, China and the US, both being permanent members of the Security Council. The UN's continuing relevance underlines the wisdom of the critical mass of nations that decided, at that time, to try to change the course of history by committing to work together for peace. In the decades since the signing of the charter, the world body has worked unwaveringly for peace, dialogue and cooperation to promote human rights, the rule of law and sustainable development, as well as fighting climate change. Given the overall success of the UN after three-quarters of a century, one of the many ironies of the current political era is the sea change in view of the US administration. The UN and fellow multilateral institutions such as the International Monetary Fund and World Bank were key parts of the postwar settlement championed by American presidents in the 1940s and which were subsequently cultivated on a bipartisan basis by successors of every stripe to bolster US global leadership during the Cold War and beyond. There is still widespread recognition that global challenges can best be tackled through international, coordinated action. Andrew Hammond Yet, today's administration is widely viewed to be hastening the collapse of that same postwar order. This surprises many across the world, given that the post-1945 system has generally been so beneficial for Washington in terms of both soft and hard power. President Donald Trump, unlike all his postwar predecessors in the White House, has disowned many of the US-led institutions and alliances, promising instead an 'America First' platform. On his first day back in power in January, for instance, he signed an executive order withdrawing the US from the World Health Organization. The UN is also concerned about the expected outcome of a US review of its participation in the UN and other multilateral institutions, which was ordered by Trump and is expected in August. More than 60 UN offices, agencies and operations that get money from the organization's regular operating budget are already facing job cuts of about 20 percent — part of reforms made by Guterres due to the White House's already-announced funding cuts and wider developments. But dismantlement is one thing — building something new is another. Thus far, the administration is yet to forge any comprehensive new doctrine centered on its core vision. Indeed, there has often been policy incoherence, reflecting the president's transactional style of governing. However, it is not just the vacuum caused by a lack of US leadership in the UN that is contributing to the uncertainty surrounding both it and the wider erosion of the post-Second World War settlement in the volatile, uncertain, complex and ambiguous landscape of 2025. For there is also growing geopolitical angst, as shown by the current tensions in the Middle East and Ukraine, not to mention other conflicts such as those in Sudan, eastern Congo, Haiti and Myanmar. What makes this so worrying for the UN and other proponents of international peace and security is that it comes on top of layers of previous turbulence in the international landscape. The multiple challenges now confronting the international order include the fact that Washington's relations with China are at one of their lowest points in decades. A fundamental driver of whether the UN will thrive, not just survive, in the coming years is the direction of the ties between the US and China, the two most powerful members of the UNSC. With the US exiting the WHO and cutting its funding to other UN agencies, China's influence will increase. Right now, the US-China relationship seems set for growing bilateral rivalry and what some see as a new cold war that could see international cooperation erode, including over technology and wider trade issues. Military tensions are also increasing, from the South China Sea outward. However, there may still be unexpected potential for partnership at the UN and beyond. Bilateral cooperation, possibly in the era after the Trump presidency, is most likely if stronger partnerships can be embedded on issues like climate change, as during the Barack Obama and Joe Biden years, which may enable more effective ways of resolving hard power disputes.
