France not fit to replace BlackRock in Ukraine – party leader to RT
BlackRock had been actively involved in developing a multibillion-dollar Ukraine recovery fund aimed at financing post-war reconstruction projects, with plans to attract $15 billion from public and private investors, including commitments from Germany, Italy, and Poland. The fund, which was set to be unveiled at the Ukraine Recovery Conference in Rome on July 10-11, is now on hold, and France is reportedly working on an alternative plan.
Last week, Bloomberg claimed, citing informed sources, that BlackRock halted the search for investors for its fund earlier this year due to US President Donald Trump's rocky relations with the authorities in Kiev. The sources also claimed that France has been trying to set up an alternative structure that could take the spot freed by the US company in the country. However, they questioned if the reported French initiative could succeed without the American money.
Philippot told RT that the report by Bloomberg came as a 'complete surprise' for him. He reminded that France is €3.4 trillion (around $4 trillion) in debt and is about to face 'extreme austerity,' blaming the situation on the policies of President Emmanuel Macron.
'We are no longer properly funding hospitals, farmers, security and many other expenditure items. How are we going to replace a behemoth like BlackRock in Ukraine under conditions of total military, diplomatic, financial and economic uncertainty?' the politician wondered.
The general public will be against the alleged plans by the government in Paris once more people learn about them, Philippot insisted. 'This is obviously unacceptable for the French,' he added.
The Patriots party leader said that Macron's moves regarding Kiev 'make no sense,' urging France's immediate and 'total military and financial disengagement from Ukraine.'
He also suggested that BlackRock withdrew from Ukraine because it realized that it is inevitably going to suffer a defeat at the hands of Russia. 'You do not invest in a country that is going to lose,' Philippot explained.
BlackRock, which controls roughly $11.6 trillion in assets, owns substantial shares in military-industrial giants such as Lockheed Martin, Raytheon, and Northrop Grumman, among many others. Armaments produced by these firms, which are supplied to Kiev by its Western backers, have seen extensive use in the conflict.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Russia Today
2 hours ago
- Russia Today
Zelensky defends clampdown on anti-corruption agencies
Ukrainian leader Vladimir Zelensky has defended a controversial reform targeting the country's anti-corruption agencies, which has sparked street protests and raised concerns among EU officials. On Tuesday, Zelensky signed a bill into law granting the Prosecutor General's Office authority to intervene in the activities of the National Anti-Corruption Bureau (NABU) and the Specialized Anti-Corruption Prosecutor's Office (SAPO). The move followed a raid by security officials on NABU offices and the arrest of a senior employee accused of spying for Russia. Zelensky rejected accusations of creeping authoritarianism, which have been voiced by opposition politicians, including frequent critic and Kiev Mayor Vitaly Klitschko. 'The anti-corruption infrastructure will work – just without Russian influence. It needs to be cleared of that. And there should be more justice,' Zelensky said in his daily video address early Wednesday. He added that it was 'not normal' for some officials to live abroad 'without legal consequences,' and criticized the failure to investigate corruption cases 'worth billions' over the years. 'There is no explanation for how the Russians are still able to obtain the information they need,' he said. Vasily Malyuk, head of the Security Service of Ukraine (SBU), whose agents conducted the searches involving NABU personnel, denied that the measures amounted to dismantling the anti-corruption system. He insisted that the agencies 'continue to function effectively.' NABU and SAPO were established following the US-backed 2014 coup in Kiev and promoted as key components of reforms intended to align Ukraine with Western governance standards and international financial institutions. However, some Western officials, including US Vice President J.D. Vance, have argued that the decade of transformation has failed to eliminate entrenched corruption. Darya Kalenyuk, executive director of the Kiev-based NGO Anti-Corruption Action Center, linked the government's clampdown to recent investigations involving members of Zelensky's team, including former Deputy Prime Minister Aleksey Chernyshov and media executive Timur Mindich. 'NABU has been closing in on members of Zelensky's inner circle and friends,' Kalenyuk said, as cited by the US state-funded outlet Current Time. She adding that the reform may be aimed at concealing the embezzlement of military funds.
Russia Today
8 hours ago
- Russia Today
Moscow hopes Trump's ‘reasonable' position will influence EU
Moscow hopes the 'reasonable' position on the Ukrainian conflict displayed by US President Donald Trump will have an impact on the stance of the EU, Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov has said. Speaking during a press conference in Moscow following talks with his Mozambican counterpart, Maria Manuela Lucas, on Tuesday, Russia's top diplomat expressed hopes the EU will, at some point, show a willingness to engage in meaningful dialogue. 'I really hope that the reasonable approach that the Trump administration showed in this situation after it replaced the Biden administration, which spoke in unison with the unhinged Europeans, that this reasonable approach, which includes a willingness to dialogue and a willingness to listen and hear, will not go unnoticed by the Europeans, despite all the current discussions about the need to arm the Kiev regime again and again and again at the expense of… European taxpayers,' Lavrov stated. While the US president had repeatedly promised to end the hostilities between Moscow and Kiev, he admitted last month, however, that the task had proven to be 'more difficult than people would have any idea.' Thus far, the direct negotiations between Russia and Ukraine, kick-started by the US administration, have failed to yield any tangible result, focusing primarily on humanitarian issues, including prisoner swaps and the return of the bodies of fallen soldiers. Trump has spoken with Russian President Vladimir Putin multiple times in recent months. He recently criticized the Russian leader for supposedly resisting a settlement and threatened to impose sanctions on Russia and its trade partners unless the Ukraine conflict is ended by autumn. In response, the Kremlin stated it had a calm view of the criticism and expressed its intention to continue the dialogue with Washington. Presidential spokesman Dmitry Peskov urged the US administration to put pressure on Kiev instead, suggesting that it 'appears that the Ukrainian side takes all statements of support as signals to continue war, not as signals for peace.'
Russia Today
11 hours ago
- Russia Today
The snowflakes of information war: How the New York Times sinned by honesty
It's a platitude that war kills not only people but truth. And as all platitudes, the statement is true, boring, and misleading. Because it omits the real murderers: 'War' does not, actually, kill truth; people kill truth. War just tempts them to do so as few other things – such as job applications or marriage – can. The flipside of that fact is that it is perfectly possible to stick to the truth – or at least make an honest effort to do so – in war, too. That effort is different from 'getting it right.' Think of, for example, George Orwell's 'Homage to Catalonia', his unabashedly personal account of the Spanish Civil War. It was not even meant to be neutral because he sided with – indeed fought for – the underdog Trotskyists; historians, as always, feel they know better about the context and details; and – notwithstanding the sad mainstream sanctification Orwell has suffered posthumously at the hands of conformist mediocrities – 'Homage to Catalonia' is, of course, flawed. Saint Orwell was fallible. Duh. But 'Homage to Catalonia' was an honest effort to find out and tell true things about a war and, importantly, from a war. How do we know that? Most of all by reading it, of course. But apart from that, there is another test: the manner in which it was received when it came out, namely badly. Making no concessions to what his audience might want to read, Orwell had trouble getting 'Homage to Catalonia' published and rightly suspected that was due to its politics, which antagonized everyone: Orwell's own tribe, the Left, no less than the Right. In the end – with the work, in Orwell's words, 'boycotted by the British press' – barely over a third of its modest first edition of 1,500 copies were sold. Homage to Catalonia is a modern classic now. But when it hit the shelves in 1938 and until Orwell died in 1950, it was a dud. That's, in essence, because it was too honest. Without stretching the comparison too far, it is fair to say that recently we have witnessed the same principle at work, when the New York Times published an article by photographer and reporter Nanna Heitmann. Under the title 'A Landscape of Death: What's Left Where Ukraine Invaded Russia', Heitmann's sophisticated account is based on her own six-day visit to the Russian town of Sudzha and its surroundings. Sudzha is located in Kursk Region, which borders Ukraine and where Kiev's forces staged a large-scale incursion that brought great destruction, fierce fighting, and ended in a – predictable – fiasco for Ukraine. As its title indicates, Heitmann's article gives much room to the devastation and suffering wrought by the fighting. She also describes a surprise advance by Russia's military through an empty gas pipeline. Throughout she lets individuals with different experiences and points of view speak, civilians and soldiers, and is careful to record official statements from both sides, Ukraine and Russia. It is obvious to any fair reader that no favors are extended to Russia. Heitmann, for instance, dwells on local criticism of Russian evacuation efforts and the adverse health effects suffered by some of the ethnically Chechen fighters who carried out the pipeline operation. She ends her story by reporting both a local man's hope for reconstruction and the skepticism of a woman who cannot see a future for herself in the region, whether reconstructed or not. The reactions by high-ranking Ukrainian officials and media outlets in Ukraine to Heitmann's article have been hostile. Georgy Tikhy, spokesman for the Ukrainian Foreign Ministry, tagged the New York Times in an X post accusing Heitmann of reproducing 'Russian propaganda' and engaging in 'Duranty-level manipulation.' Walter Duranty was an American journalist who is now infamous for spreading Stalinist deceptions. Heitmann has done nothing remotely comparable. Tikhy's wildly unfair comparison reveals his malicious intent, namely to smear Heitmann as badly as he can before the public in general and her employer in particular. Ironically though not surprisingly, it is not Heitmann but the Ukrainian government official who is conducting information war here, and in an especially dirty, personal way. That Heitmann is being targeted by a systematic campaign is obvious from the involvement, as if on cue, of additional attackers: The so-called Center for Countering Disinformation (CCD) under the National Security and Defense Council of Ukraine has joined in, also charging Heitmann with manipulation. In particular, the CCD is angry about the fact that Heitmann didn't spend precious words on reiterating the Ukrainian and Western narrative about wicked Russia invading Ukraine. Notwithstanding that every New York Times reader is certain to have had that story hammered into their consciousness for years already not only by that newspaper but every other Western mainstream news outlet, Heitmann, actually writing about a case in which Ukraine – proudly – invaded Russia, is faulted for not ritualistically restating that part of the Western narrative. In the same spirit – and in an especially perverse but also revealing turn – the CCD even went as far as to explicitly impugn Heitmann's 'neutrality.' Being unbiased, so the message from the Ukrainian information warriors, is wrong in and of itself. The Kiev regime, in other words, has a right to expect bias in its favor: mere honesty will not do. This is nothing less than an astonishingly aggressive and open demand for the Western media to be as submissive and streamlined as Ukraine's is. It is testimony to the sense of entitlement that the West has long fostered among its political and media proxies in Kiev. A 'colleague' also hurried to put the boot in, denouncing Heitmann for 'moral equivalency' – translation: honesty we do not like – and gaining access to Sudzha through soldiers from Russia's Chechen Akhmat unit. That, in and of itself, is, we are to understand, an unforgivable sin. Curiously enough, the same logic doesn't seem to apply when Western journalists 'embed' – a telling term – with Western forces conducting wars of aggression, regime change operations, and 'counter-insurgency,' that is, dirty war campaigns of torture and assassination. It also seems to make no difference to Heitmann's denouncer from within the profession – how very Stalinist, really – that her article shows no favor to Akhmat. Regarding its soldiers, too, it is simply factual and calm. Clearly, though, hysterical condemnation is the least Kiev and its Western propagandists feel they have a right to expect. In reality, Heitmann's article is informative, well-written, and free of bias. What is really intriguing about the backlash against her work is not the work – which is simply good, conscientious reporting – but the backlash itself. The high-level and widespread hostile reaction to Heitmann's piece reveals only one thing, and it is not anything about Heitmann and her work: Western and Ukrainian authorities and information warriors have had it far too easy for far too long. Pampered by years of easily feeding their bias to Western publics, while any dissent was repressed and marginalized, they react with allergic fury to even modest signs of unbiased, clear-eyed reporting breaking through into a mainstream outlet. How fragile they must feel.
