UniCredit presence in Russia poses sanctions risk, Italy FinMin says
He added that the Italian government had acted to defend the national interest by imposing tough conditions on UniCredit's failed bid for Banco BPM (BAMI.MI), opens new tab through so-called "golden powers" aimed at shielding key assets.
"UniCredit's Russian unit has made substantial investments in Russian sovereign debt that expose it to the risk of international sanctions," Giorgetti said during a Q&A session in parliament.
Earlier this month, UniCredit withdrew its takeover bid for smaller rival Banco BPM, blaming government intervention for scuppering the 15 billion-euro ($17 billion) deal.
Among several conditions, Italy told UniCredit it had to halt activities in Russia, except for payments to Western companies, by early 2026, to prevent savings collected by Banco BPM from benefiting Moscow's economy as it continues its war against Ukraine.
Following supervisory demands, UniCredit has sharply cut its exposure to Russia, but it needs approval from Russian authorities to leave the country.
Giorgetti mentioned sanctions adopted in stages by the European Union against Moscow since Russia invaded Ukraine in February 2022.
The sanctions have targeted Russia's energy revenues, banks, and military industry, and frozen hundreds of billions of its central bank's reserves.
Italy also backed a stance agreed by the G7 major democracies stating that firms that have helped Russia fund its war on Ukraine by doing business with the country should be excluded from profiting from Ukraine's reconstruction.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
The Sun
12 minutes ago
- The Sun
Chelsea have spent eye-watering £360MILLION on defenders in three years – but how many of them were worth it?
THE arrival of £37million Jorrel Hato takes Chelsea's spending on defenders under their new owners past a record-shattering £360m. Yet the Blues back four which lines up against Crystal Palace on the opening weekend of the new season may well include just one player who cost a fee. Marc Cucurella, who came in from Brighton three years ago in a deal worth up to £62m, is the biggest success of Chelsea 's hit-and-miss defensive recruitment. The signing of Hato is a major coup for the Blues, with Liverpool and Arsenal among the other major clubs who wanted the talented and versatile teenager. The young Dutchman is the 12th defender brought in since the consortium led by Clearlake Capital and Todd Boehly took over the club in May 2022. But Cucurella, a Euro 2024 winner with Spain, is the only member of the current Chelsea back four that you would describe as world class. And if Chelsea are to win domestic and European titles, they will need more defenders to reach that level. To be fair, Enzo Maresca 's side can already claim to be world champions. To beat a flair-filled Paris Saint-Germain side 3-0, just weeks after they had spanked Inter Milan 5-0 in the Champions League final, was an impressive achievement. The back four which started the Club World Cup final was left back Cucurella, homegrown centre backs Levi Colwill and Trevoh Chalobah, and right back Malo Gusto. The Frenchman, now 22, could end up costing Chelsea £30.7m after signing from Lyon in January 2023 and spending the rest of that season on loan back at the French club. Gusto has done a decent, sometimes very good, job at right back. He covered for the long injury-related absences of Reece James over the last two seasons and kept his place when James was employed in midfield - as he was against PSG. 8 8 But if you believe Moises Caicedo and Enzo Fernandez will start the biggest games in front of the defence, and James will mostly play as an inverted right back when he is fit, then Gusto will not be in Enzo Maresca's strongest 11. Chalobah did well after returning from half a season on loan at Crystal Palace, but could yet find himself being sold this summer. As a product of the Chelsea Academy, he would generate pure profit for financial rules purposes and there could be clubs willing to pay £40m for him. If Chalobah left, his replacement as right-sided centre back at the start of the season would almost certainly be Tosin Adarabioyo. The free transfer from Fulham last summer has carved a niche for himself off the pitch as well as on it. At just 27 he is one of the senior members of the squad, and plays an 'Uncle Tosin' role to the youngsters, enjoying a particularly close relationship with fellow Mancunian Cole Palmer. But no-one, not even Tosin himself, would claim that he is one of Europe's best defenders. If Wesley Fofana is able to put his injury hell behind him and rediscover his previous form, he could yet meet those standards and become a Chelsea stalwart for years to come. Fofana, still just 24, has made only 34 appearances for the Blues since arriving from Leicester in the summer of 2022 in a deal worth up to £75m. He is the most expensive of all Chelsea's defensive signings and that means, through no fault of his own, he has also been the biggest let down. But only just. The Blues really have had trouble finding a settled and satisfactory centre back pairing. Within weeks of the 2022 takeover, Kalidou Koulibaly became the new regime's first defensive signing. The Napoli star's £35m fee felt a little steep for a player about to turn 31, but the Senegal international was highly-rated and on the radar of other big clubs. Koulibaly failed to live up to his billing, although he could point to the chaos of playing under three different managers and a hamstring injury as decent explanations. He was offloaded after just one season to Saudi Pro League side Al-Hilal - and played for them in this year's Club World Cup. When Chelsea set a new record for winter window spending in early 2023, Benoit Badiashile 's £35m arrival from Monaco went a little under the radar in the wake of massive deals for Enzo Fernandez and Mykhailo Mudryk. The Frenchman did fine in a struggling team in the remainder of the 22/23 season, but not well enough to seal his spot. And when injury kept Badiashile out of the start of the following campaign, Colwill took his chance after returning from loan at Brighton. 8 8 8 Meanwhile the unfortunate Fofana had suffered the second major knee injury of his short Chelsea career in the summer of 2023. Within weeks, the Blues had gone back to Monaco to bring in Axel Disasi for another £38m. The France international was a first choice under Mauricio Pochettino for much of the 2023/4 season. But new boss Maresca did not fancy Disasi, and he was sent on loan to Aston Villa for the second half of last season. The signing of Hato, 19, fits Chelsea's current transfer philosophy of signing the best young players and trying to turn them into superstars. If they fail, they can usually be sold on for a profit, as is likely to be the case with Renato Veiga. The versatile Portuguese was signed only last summer, did well enough to earn a loan to Juventus for the second half of the season and could find himself joining Atletico Madrid for a chunky fee. In addition to Veiga, Chelsea signed two teenage defenders last summer in centre back Aaron Anselmino and left back Caleb Wiley. The latter has now returned to Watford for a second season on loan, while Anselmino may well also leave on a temporary deal after recovering from injury. Mamadou Sarr, 19, is likely to be loaned back to Strasbourg after the Blues paid £12m to their sister club. Hato is also 19 but at a fee of £37m, he will surely need to deliver for Chelsea this season. The Blues will probably ease him in, perhaps initially as cover for left back Cucurella. In the longer term, Hato should end up challenging Colwill for that left-sided centre back slot or forming a partnership with the England international. And finally, after spending more on defenders than any club, Chelsea could end up with a world-class back four to show for it. 8
The Guardian
12 minutes ago
- The Guardian
The Guardian view on an EU army: leadership and unity remain elusive
The Spanish prime minister, Pedro Sánchez, called for the creation of a European army earlier this year, suggesting that, this time, the continent might finally be serious. Defence budgets are rising. Threats are mounting. The US is distracted. Surely now is the moment. Except, of course, it isn't. For all the political soundbites that rattle sabres with increasing confidence, Europe is probably no closer to fielding a unified military force than it was when the French rejected the European Defence Community in 1954. The problem is not one of capacity. Europe, including the UK, collectively boasts about 1.5m active military personnel, and some of the world's most successful defence firms. The problem, as ever, is politics. Or more precisely: who leads? Germany, claiming a Zeitenwende (turning point), and asking the EU to exempt military investment from budget rules, might be the frontrunner. Poland is spending more as a share of GDP than anyone. The French would like to think they would be at the front of any queue. But their Gaullist, unilateral instincts run deep. Italy has industrial knowhow but lacks the economic heft. Post-Brexit, the UK is building bridges with the EU's military powers but it still sees itself as Nato's keystone. And the Baltic states? They want no European project that might scare off Washington. Even defining a European army is difficult. Would it be a single force under the EU flag, combining the 27 national armed forces of the EU members into one common force? Or something looser, to keep Irish and Austrian neutrality intact? Could it be a smaller European intervention force? Or a joint effort by regional groupings in a new hat? The short answer is no one can agree on anything but disagreement. Squabbling might not be the best response to an increasingly assertive, hawkish and unpredictable Russian giant. Moscow's full-scale invasion of Ukraine made territorial defence a pressing concern. Suddenly, Europe remembered why armies exist. Brussels pins its hopes of an industrial renaissance on a five-year rearmament plan that is meant to reduce reliance on US contractors. European firms like Rheinmetall and MBDA are scaling up, but the economies of scale found in the US military industrial complex elude the continent. Everyone wants to protect their local champion. No wonder the bloc has appointed a commissioner for defence whose role is about overseeing the companies making drones, shells and missiles – not the armed forces per se. A Gallup poll in 45 countries last year showed deep ambivalence toward war among Europeans. Four of the five least willing to fight were in the EU – including Spain, Germany, and Italy, where only 14% said they'd take up arms. Even in frontline states like Poland and Lithuania, fewer than half were willing to fight. This pacifist mood reflects an EU integration designed to make war between member states unthinkable. The irony is that the European army is seen as a symbol of independence from the US – while quietly relying on American satellites, command structures and munitions. Many European countries have upped defence spending, but they are not ready to go it alone. An integrated force would demand pooled sovereignty, unified command and a level of political consensus that don't currently exist. That may change. But for now, Europe continues to depend on Washington's capricious leadership – even as it dreams of 'strategic autonomy'.
The Guardian
41 minutes ago
- The Guardian
Like Clement Attlee, Keir Starmer must rise to the occasion
Martin Kettle rightly says Aneurin Bevan is the one politician other than Clement Attlee whom Labour leaders regularly invoke (Critics say Starmer is no Attlee – and they're right. Labour must look to the future, not the past, 31 July). Keir Starmer has drawn on Harold Wilson for inspiration, but more pertinent to Kettle's argument is David Lammy claiming a role model in Ernest Bevin. Made minister of labour in 1940 and foreign secretary in 1945, Ernie Bevin dominated the decade. Bevin sought a continued US military presence in Europe but had no illusions about the 'special relationship'. The 1956 Suez crisis was a calamitous reality check, confirming the White House's prioritising of US self-interest above any presumed obligation to an ally, however close. Larry Elliott's pessimism over Trump's trade deal with Europe is understandable (This trade deal is the EU's Suez moment – its subservience to Trump is on show for all to see, 31 July), but the EU can take heart from how France responded to the United States torpedoing its joint effort with the UK to regain control of the Suez canal: a renewed commitment to pan-European economic collaboration saw the swift confirmation of a six-nation common market, and a determination that French foreign policy would never again be subject to transatlantic pressure saw the Fourth and then the Fifth Republic develop its own advanced weaponry, both conventional and nuclear. Had Attlee, not Eden, been prime minister in 1956, we can be certain that he would never have sanctioned collusion with France and Israel to invade Egypt, and then repeatedly denied having done so. Attlee's greatest quality wasn't succinctness – it was SmithEmeritus professor of modern history, University of Southampton I do not feel Martin Kettle is entirely fair or correct to say that Clement Attlee, on becoming prime minister, 'pulled Britain out of India as fast as he could'. Attlee had been closely involved in India for more than 20 years, going back to the Simon commission, which had been established in 1927, specifically to consider the possibility of Indian independence and self-rule. As an MP and a member of the commission, Attlee visited India several times before the war (no mean feat in those days), understood the issues and knew the leaders of the political parties and factions. He did not underestimate the problems that independence might bring (although certainly not the violence and bloodshed), noting that partition would 'necessarily leave minorities in both states' but emphasising that his Labour government was 'in earnest in seeking to implement the promises made by Britain'. Eighty years on, another Labour prime minister now faces similar challenges over Palestine. I am sure Keir Starmer, like his distinguished predecessor, will rise to the EvansFormer chair of the south Asia delegation, European parliament Martin Kettle's interesting article on Clement Attlee referred to his wife driving him to Buckingham Palace to meet King George VI on his historic 1945 victory over Churchill. Mrs Attlee was apparently a notoriously bad driver. My late father told me Mrs Attlee once collided with his car when driving the prime minister on a foggy night in London. Fortunately, no one was ArnfieldVancouver, Canada Have an opinion on anything you've read in the Guardian today? Please email us your letter and it will be considered for publication in our letters section.
