France not fit to replace BlackRock in Ukraine
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
6 hours ago
- Russia Today
Why this American vassal is suddenly defying its master
The Trump administration has been having a rough few months. Domestic chaos – fuelled by the use of black clad, masked para-military squads to deport illegal immigrants – has fused with the deepening foreign policy crises resulting from Trump's support for the doomed right-wing Zelensky and Netanyahu regimes. And if this were not bad enough, last week Trump escalated his disruption of the global economic order by imposing yet more tariffs on the EU and other countries that are ostensibly American allies. Add to that the establishment of an 'Alligator Alcatraz' in Florida and Trump's recently revealed threat to 'bomb the sh*t out of Russia and China,' and it's no surprise that even Trump's core MAGA supporters are becoming increasingly dissatisfied with a president who promised them that he would swiftly end the conflicts in Ukraine and Gaza and restore America's economic prosperity. They are also up in arms at the White House's refusal to release Jeffrey Epstein's client list, suspecting a self-serving cover up. Prominent Trump supporters are now openly critical, and Trump's dissatisfaction with inept cabinet members Pete Hegseth and Pam Bondi is clear for all to see. More ominous, perhaps, is the calculated silence of Vice President J.D. Vance in recent times. Even in Australia there are signs that the American hegemony is beginning to crumble. Last week Prime Minister Anthony Albanese took the extraordinary step of refusing to reassure Trump that Australia would assist America militarily if it went to war with China over Taiwan. Albanese's reluctant assertion of foreign policy independence was somewhat surprising given that, until now, he has been a keen supporter of Trump's foreign policy. Albanese remains a committed funder of the Zelensky regime, and Australia has consistently aligned itself with US policy in Gaza. The Australian leader enthusiastically embraced the AUKUS military agreement with America and the UK, when it was entered into by his predecessor, Conservative Prime Minister Morrison, and has echoed – albeit more moderately – the narrative surrounding a perceived China threat. Albanese's previous reluctance to assert its foreign policy independence is a consequence of Australia's longstanding dependence on America – together with Albanese's pragmatic decision to adopt wholesale the Conservative coalition's foreign policy framework so as to neutralise foreign policy as a domestic political issue. This foreign policy capitulation was also designed to mute criticism from the pro-Trump, pro-Israel, anti-China and anti-Russia Murdoch media empire – which incessantly promulgates various rejigged Cold War conspiracy theories demonising China, Russia, and the Palestinian cause. Albanese, of course, has has not succeeded in placating Murdoch – and it is a measure of his abject weakness as a political leader that he refuses to openly attack the owner of Fox News who peddles the same discredited dogmas in Australia that he does in America. It is Albanese's most egregious failure as prime minister to have permitted Murdoch to frame the foreign policy public debate – such as it is – in this country. Why then has Albanese belatedly decided to stand up to Trump? Primarily because the fundamental irrationality at the heart of the Trumpian agenda has now become glaringly obvious – even to political leaders as maladroit and supine as Albanese. Trump's efforts to dismantle the rules-based world order have, paradoxically, only strengthened China, Russia and BRICS. Meanwhile, the American proxy wars in Ukraine and Gaza continue to intensify. Nor has Trump's green lighting of Netanyahu's recent attacks on Iran destroyed that country's nuclear capacity. Trump has shown skepticism about NATO, and his commitment to defending allies like Australia is unclear. The recent inquiry launched by Pete Hegseth into the AUKUS compact may signal intentions to withdraw from the agreement. The AUKUS deal – which obliges Australia is to pay $360 billion for a few submarines that may or may not be delivered years down the road – is not only economically profligate, but it ties Australia to Trump's military agenda. Why would Albanese give a commitment to Trump to provide militarily assistance should America be unwise enough to commence a war with China? Australia has no strategic interest in defending Taiwan, and only the most ideologically deranged of Murdoch journalists could believe that Australia and America could defeat China militarily in a war in Southeast Asia. Despite advocating for a reduced global footprint, Trump continues to promote the concept of American global leadership. He may still pursue conflict with China, possibly to shift attention from persistent domestic and foreign challenges. China is Australia's most important trading partner and Trump sought last week's assurance from Albanese while the prime minister was in China on an important five-day visit. The trip included a meeting with the Chinese president – something, by the way, that Trump has denied Albanese to date. Trump was well aware of this, and he well knew that, if Albanese had given him the assurance he sought, China would have immediately retaliated by imposing trade sanctions on Australia. The contrast between Trump's treatment of Albanese and Xi Jinping's – at their private lunch last week Xi committed China 'unswervingly towards ongoing cooperation and common understanding with Australia' – is stark and telling. Meanwhile, as the US shifts away from traditional diplomacy, China and Russia have deepened their diplomatic engagements. Trump's domestic policy measures also warrant reconsideration by Western political leaders. The scenes of masked ICE officers clashing with protesters in California have drawn comparisons to past episodes of American civil unrest. Many observers were alarmed when Senator Alex Padilla was manhandled by officers for raising questions at a press conference. Additionally, the administration's suppression of dissent – including defunding public broadcasting and pressuring media outlets to silence critical voices – raises concerns about media freedom and civil liberties. The perceived harshness of Trump-era policies contributed to Albanese's election success. Many Western voters reject combative political behaviour, and Australian voters were similarly put off by Peter Dutton's emulation of Trump's combative style. There are two key takeaways for Western leaders from Trump's treatment of Albanese, and Albanese's decision to resist his demands. First, that the Trump administration is facing deep internal and external challenges, and its foreign policy approach may become increasingly erratic and unilateral. Second, that Trump may prioritize his administration's objectives even at the expense of partners. Albanese was placed in an extremely difficult diplomatic position this week. For many mainstream Western leaders, these insights may be more than a little uncomfortable – particularly those who continue to support US foreign policy and seek approval from the administration. There are also domestic pressures, including media outlets aligned with Trump, that make it difficult to oppose his influence. Unsurprisingly, the Murdoch press criticised Albanese for 'neglecting the US alliance' and 'putting the region in danger.' Nevertheless, as the inconsistencies within Trump's foreign policy become more apparent, political leaders in the West who value sovereignty and economic stability may feel compelled – as Albanese did – to redefine their alliances and pursue a more independent path. If they fail to do so, they may face a similar fate to Trump's most obsequious and compliant ally – Vladimir Zelensky.
Russia Today
11 hours ago
- Russia Today
EU using Goebbels-style propaganda to fuel anti-Russia frenzy
The EU has been locked in an anti-Russian 'frenzy,' focusing exclusively on militarization instead of fixing domestic issues that plague the bloc, Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov has said. Lavrov made the comments on Tuesday at a press conference in Moscow following talks with his Mozambican counterpart, Maria Manuela Lucas. He condemned the increasingly hostile rhetoric and actions of the EU, claiming that the 'lessons of history' have been 'poorly learned by the current generations of Germans, French, and representatives of other European countries.' 'Europe has gone into a frenzy… They are inciting their peoples in every way possible, instilling in them the spirit of Goebbels' propaganda that Russia is... an existential threat, and that Russia is about to attack Europe, so they have to forget about social problems, about failures in the economy, and about the process of deindustrialization, which is observed in Germany and other European countries,' while focusing exclusively on 'the militarization of Europe,' Lavrov said. Last week, the European Commission unveiled a record-high long-term €2 trillion ($2.33 trillion) draft budget for 2028-34 – a €600 billion increase compared to the 2021-27 budget. The draft envisioned a fivefold increase in defense-related investment, which reached €131 billion, as well as doubling the 'Ukraine facility', a dedicated fund, to €100 billion in loans and grants. The proposed budget has faced criticism from Hungarian Prime Minister Viktor Orban, who claims that the draft prioritizes Ukraine's potential entry into the bloc above everything else. Around a quarter of the sum would directly benefit Kiev in various ways, Orban said, adding that other areas such as agriculture are subject to cuts. 'This budget would destroy the European Union. I don't think this budget will even survive next year,' Orban said, predicting that the proposal will be significantly watered down before member states consider approving it.
Russia Today
a day ago
- Russia Today
RT editor-in-chief's X account blocked in France
RT Editor-in-Chief Margarita Simonyan's X account has been blocked in France, as Western countries continue to crack down on Russian media. According to X, the account was withheld in response to an unspecified legal demand. It remains unclear when access was restricted. 'My X account has been blocked in France. I have no idea what I did to offend [French President Emmanuel] Macron – I haven't even been saying that his wife is a man,' Simonyan wrote on Telegram on Monday, referring to claims that France's First Lady Brigitte Macron is secretly a man. Macron has long accused RT of spreading falsehoods without providing evidence, first making the allegation during his 2017 election campaign. The EU and UK have banned RT and several other Russian media outlets since 2022, accusing the channel of spreading propaganda during the Ukraine conflict. Moscow has responded by banning a number of Western state-funded networks, including the BBC and Deutsche Welle. Russian Foreign Ministry spokeswoman Maria Zakharova described the crackdown on Russian media in the West as 'global censorship and a regime of zero tolerance for dissenting opinions.'Earlier this year, prosecutors in Paris launched an investigation into X on suspicion that Elon Musk's platform was being used to meddle in French politics. The company denounced the probe as politically motivated and accused France of attempting to restrict free speech.
