EU Moves to Tighten Visa Rules for Russian Citizens Amid Security Concerns

Economic

Summary:

The European Union is preparing new visa guidelines aimed at restricting Schengen access for Russian nationals, citing mounting security concerns and pressure from border countries...

A Strategic Visa Shift Reflecting Geopolitical Tensions

The European Union is preparing to implement updated visa guidelines that would further restrict the issuance of Schengen visas to Russian citizens. This initiative, expected to be formally introduced by the end of 2025, is the result of persistent lobbying from eastern EU member states bordering Russia, including Poland, the Baltic states, and Finland. These countries have long urged Brussels to adopt a unified, tougher stance on cross-border mobility in light of the continuing Russian military actions in Ukraine.

The upcoming guidelines are not legally binding but will provide shared recommendations for tightening visa criteria across the bloc. The move aims to align the divergent national policies that currently exist, where some EU countries have almost completely halted issuing visas to Russians, while others such as France, Spain, Italy, and Hungary still maintain a more lenient approach.

A Gradual Escalation Since 2022

This latest measure builds upon a broader trajectory of EU sanctions and mobility restrictions that began in 2022 when the bloc suspended its visa facilitation agreement with Moscow in response to Russia’s full-scale invasion of Ukraine. The suspension made it more expensive and bureaucratically complex for Russians to obtain Schengen visas. However, because visa policy remains a national competence, a bloc-wide ban was never enacted.

According to Politico, which cited an EU Commission official, the new guidelines aim to address the “fragmentation” in the current system and strengthen internal cohesion on external security matters.

Visa Spike Triggers New Concerns

Despite earlier restrictions, over 600,000 Schengen visas were granted to Russian citizens in 2024 an increase of more than 80,000 compared to 2023. This rise has raised alarms within Brussels and is reportedly influencing deliberations over the EU’s 19th sanctions package. The proposed measures are expected to include not only tighter visa controls but also sanctions against Russia’s so-called “shadow fleet” transporting oil, a ban on reinsurance for Russian oil tankers, and further restrictions on major Russian energy firms such as Rosneft and Lukoil.

While the European Commission cannot enforce an outright visa ban, the political consensus is clearly shifting toward greater uniformity and restriction.

Balancing Security and Human Rights

The prospective visa clampdown has drawn criticism from Russian dissidents in exile and international human rights advocates. Yulia Navalnaya, widow of the late opposition leader Alexei Navalny, sent a letter to EU foreign policy chief Kaja Kallas urging the bloc not to weaponize tourist visas. She emphasized the need to distinguish between Kremlin elites and ordinary Russian citizens, arguing that collective punishment would only alienate potential allies within Russian civil society.

Navalnaya proposed that the EU shift its focus toward restricting access for Russian oligarchs, intelligence officials, and direct Kremlin supporters, rather than implementing sweeping limitations that affect all applicants indiscriminately.

Heightened Diplomatic Surveillance

In parallel with these visa reforms, Czech Foreign Minister Jan Lipavský has revived a separate initiative to restrict the travel of Russian diplomats within the EU. The proposal seeks to confine Russian diplomatic personnel to the countries in which they are posted, in an effort to curb espionage and foreign interference.

These discussions occur against the backdrop of continued military confrontation in Ukraine and growing intelligence fears across the EU. For frontline states like Latvia and Estonia, visa controls are not just bureaucratic levers they are instruments of national security.

The EU’s plan to tighten visa issuance for Russian citizens underscores the bloc’s evolving strategy to intensify pressure on Moscow while fortifying internal defenses against espionage and influence campaigns. Although the proposed guidelines will not carry legal force, they mark a significant step toward policy convergence within the EU. Nonetheless, this approach has sparked a debate between those advocating for hardline containment and those warning against indiscriminate restrictions that may undermine democratic values and alienate reform-minded Russians. As the war grinds on, the EU faces the challenge of aligning strategic imperatives with moral clarity.

To stay updated on all economic events of today, please check out our Economic calendar

Risk Warnings and Disclaimers

You understand and acknowledge that there is a high degree of risk involved in trading. Following any strategies or investment methods may lead to potential losses. The content on the site is provided by our contributors and analysts for information purposes only. You are solely responsible for determining whether any trading assets, securities, strategy, or any other product is suitable for investing based on your own investment objectives and financial situation.

Add to Favorites

Gerik

Economic

Commodity

China's Role in Reshaping the Global Energy Landscape

A new report from the UK-based energy think tank Ember reveals a pivotal shift in the global energy narrative: the beginning of a decline in fossil fuel use within the next five years, largely catalyzed by China’s aggressive investment in renewable technologies. China’s massive scale in producing solar panels, wind turbines, and batteries has not only transformed its own energy infrastructure but also made renewable energy more accessible and cost-effective for the rest of the world.

For over a century, the global economy has been driven by fossil fuels coal, oil, and gas propelling industrialization and GDP growth. However, the scale and speed of China’s renewable energy push are upending this dependence. The report highlights that China’s dominance in clean technology production has driven down costs by 60% to 90% since 2010, disrupting traditional energy markets and accelerating decarbonization.

In 2024 alone, over 90% of new solar and wind projects globally produced electricity cheaper than any fossil fuel source. This dramatic shift was once seen as unrealistic until China poured billions of dollars into subsidizing and scaling up clean tech industries.

Dual Role: Carbon Emitter and Clean Energy Driver

The analysis presents a nuanced picture. China remains the world’s largest consumer of coal and is responsible for more greenhouse gas emissions than the US and Europe combined. Yet, in the past year, 84% of China’s additional electricity demand was met with solar and wind energy, allowing the country to reduce its fossil fuel use by 2% despite rising electricity needs.

Clean energy now contributes nearly $2 trillion to the Chinese economy equivalent to 10% of national GDP and comparable to the entire economy of Australia. This sector is growing three times faster than China's overall economic expansion. While these trends serve China's national interests energy security and economic modernization they also deliver global climate benefits by making renewables affordable and scalable.

The Global Ripple Effect

Ember’s report documents how China’s clean energy exports have empowered other countries, particularly in the Global South, to bypass the traditional fossil fuel pathway. Mexico, Bangladesh, and Malaysia have surpassed the United States in the share of renewables used in daily applications such as heating, cooling, and transportation.

Across Africa, imports of Chinese solar panels surged 60% in just one year, with 20 countries reaching record import levels. The affordability and availability of these technologies are changing the energy narrative in regions previously constrained by high fossil fuel costs and limited infrastructure.

Market Disruption and Geopolitical Concerns

Currently, Chinese companies supply 80% of the world’s solar panels and 60% of wind turbines, leaving Western firms especially in the US struggling to match their scale. This overwhelming market share has drawn concern in some countries, where geopolitical tensions have fueled hesitancy over reliance on Chinese technology.

While the affordability of Chinese renewables is unmatched, dependency on a single source raises questions about technological sovereignty and strategic risk. Bloomberg notes that the pathway to net-zero emissions is complicated by such geopolitical frictions, as well as domestic opposition to energy transitions in countries like the US and cost-related concerns in others.

China's Coal as a Backup, Not a Foundation

Despite building dozens of new coal power plants, China is shifting their function. Rather than operating them continuously, these plants are now viewed as peak-load backup systems. Clean energy especially solar and wind is steadily replacing coal as the foundation of the national grid.

Professor Yuan Jiahai from North China Electric Power University likens this transition to installing a "spare wheel." Coal, once the primary driver, now plays a stabilizing role during demand surges, while renewables take the lead in daily power generation. This signals a fundamental restructuring of energy supply and demand, reducing fossil fuel reliance without compromising grid resilience.

China’s clean energy surge represents a powerful paradox: the world’s top coal user is also its greatest catalyst for renewable adoption. By leveraging industrial scale and aggressive policy support, China has brought global clean energy closer to cost parity and accessibility. While fossil fuels are still embedded in China’s domestic energy mix, its renewable momentum is altering global trajectories, enabling emerging economies to leapfrog into a post-fossil era and accelerating the world’s march toward decarbonization regardless of political complexities.

To stay updated on all economic events of today, please check out our Economic calendar

Risk Warnings and Disclaimers

Add to Favorites

Gerik

Political

Trump Calls for Aggressive Energy Sanctions to Pressure Russia

Former U.S. President Donald Trump publicly stated that the ongoing Russia–Ukraine war could be brought to a swift conclusion if all NATO member states agreed to completely stop purchasing oil from Russia. He further suggested that imposing tariffs ranging from 50% to 100% on China should be considered, should the country persist in buying Russian oil. This proposition reflects a broader strategy of intensifying economic pressure on Moscow to undermine its capacity to finance the war.

Trump’s statements, posted on social media, emphasize his belief that NATO's current commitment to defeating Russia is not absolute. He described it as "less than 100%" and criticized some alliance members for continuing to buy Russian oil, calling the behavior "shocking" and counterproductive to the bloc’s diplomatic leverage.

Undermining the Collective Front

Trump argued that continued purchases of Russian oil by NATO members are not only weakening the alliance's negotiation stance but also providing financial resources to sustain Russia’s military operations. His comments point to a critical contradiction: while NATO aims to isolate Moscow economically, some of its own members are inadvertently fueling its economy by maintaining energy imports.

This message followed a high-level call on September 12 involving U.S. Trade Representative Jamieson Greer and Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent with G7 finance ministers. During the discussion, the United States advocated for a "unified front" to cut off what they termed the financial "lifeblood" of Russia's war machine.

Turkey, Hungary, and Slovakia Highlight Gaps in Sanctions

Data from the Centre for Research on Energy and Clean Air indicates that since 2023, Turkey a NATO member has become Russia’s third-largest oil buyer after China and India. Other NATO countries such as Hungary and Slovakia also continue to import Russian crude, further complicating efforts to coordinate a unified embargo. These cases exemplify the difficulty of reconciling national energy needs with strategic military and political goals within the alliance.

Trump's remarks coincide with recent actions by Western allies. On September 12, the UK imposed new sanctions targeting Russia’s oil trade, including a ban on 70 vessels believed to be involved in transporting Russian oil. Furthermore, the UK sanctioned 30 individuals and companies including entities based in China and Turkey accused of supplying Russia with electronics, chemicals, explosives, and weapon components.

These measures suggest that while some NATO members continue to depend on Russian energy, others are intensifying efforts to disrupt the Kremlin’s supply chains. However, the overall picture reveals inconsistency in strategy and enforcement.

A Question of Policy or Political Posturing?

Trump’s latest statements raise important questions about their practical impact. While his rhetoric may influence political discourse, it remains uncertain whether such proposals particularly the suggested tariffs on China will materialize into formal policy actions. Moreover, his position underscores the tension between geopolitical goals and energy dependencies among NATO members.

At the core of the issue lies a correlation between energy trade and the sustainability of Russia’s military operations. While causality is difficult to establish definitively, the persistence of oil revenue remains a critical enabler of Moscow’s war efforts. As such, cutting this revenue stream is seen as a potential means of pressuring Russia toward de-escalation.

Donald Trump’s call for NATO to enact a full embargo on Russian oil and penalize other countries purchasing it, particularly China, reflects a hardline strategy aimed at isolating Russia economically. His comments not only reignite debates over energy sanctions but also expose internal divisions within NATO. As the war continues, the effectiveness of such economic tools when inconsistently applied remains a pressing concern for policymakers seeking to end the conflict through financial containment.

Risk Warnings and Disclaimers

Add to Favorites

Gerik

Economic

Decline In Cambodia’s Imports From Thailand Signals Strained Trade Ties

According to the General Department of Customs and Excise (GDCE) of Cambodia, the total value of Cambodian imports from Thailand in August 2025 fell sharply to approximately $213 million, representing a year-on-year contraction of 29.1% from the $301 million recorded in August 2024. Cambodian exports to Thailand also dropped significantly by 36.2% to only $46 million in the same month, underscoring the mutual impact of deteriorating trade conditions between the two neighboring countries.

The month-to-month comparison does offer a slightly less pessimistic view. Compared to July 2025, when Cambodia imported only $166 million worth of goods and exported just over $40 million to Thailand, the August figures show mild recovery. However, these short-term fluctuations are overshadowed by broader systemic issues.

Border Conflicts and Political Friction Undermining Trade

The continuous trade downturn is strongly correlated with heightened political friction and cross-border instability. Thailand's unilateral decision to shut down its border with Cambodia due to ongoing conflict has directly contributed to the shrinking trade volume. While the causal connection is evident, the broader consequence is a disruption of routine supply chains and a weakening of investor and trader confidence in bilateral logistics.

The trade imbalance remains notable: in the January–August 2025 period, Cambodia exported goods worth over $534 million to Thailand, whereas imports from Thailand reached $2.1 billion. This disparity, while not new, has become more structurally significant as Cambodia becomes increasingly reliant on Thai goods while losing competitive edge in exports.

Broader Trade Picture Shows Resilience

Despite the bilateral slowdown with Thailand, Cambodia’s overall trade performance in the first eight months of 2025 remained positive. GDCE data reveals total trade volume reached $42.15 billion, increasing 15.5% year-on-year. Export performance was also robust, with a 14.8% increase totaling $20.18 billion. These figures suggest that while the Cambodia–Thailand trade corridor is faltering, Cambodia has been able to diversify its external trade portfolio.

The United States remained Cambodia’s largest export destination, with shipments valued at $8.3 billion, up 23.2% from the same period in 2024. Vietnam followed with $2.7 billion (up 11.5%), while China and Japan both exceeded the $1 billion mark. Spain also emerged as a substantial market, absorbing over $770 million worth of goods.

Export Structure Remains Dominated By Manufacturing and Agriculture

Cambodia’s exports continue to be led by labor-intensive sectors such as garments, footwear, travel products, and leather goods, alongside rising contributions from furniture, rubber, and agricultural products. Machinery and electrical equipment have also started gaining traction. This sectoral composition has supported overall export growth, although political and logistical vulnerabilities continue to pose a structural risk, particularly in regional trade corridors such as that with Thailand.

The significant decline in trade between Cambodia and Thailand in August 2025 marks more than a short-term fluctuation. It reflects escalating geopolitical tensions that have disrupted one of Cambodia’s key trade relationships. While Cambodia’s broader trade performance remains resilient due to strong links with the US, Vietnam, and other partners, restoring stability along the Thai border is critical to sustaining long-term regional trade growth. The data underscores a clear causal link between border closures and trade declines, reinforcing the need for diplomatic and logistical resolution to safeguard economic continuity.

To stay updated on all economic events of today, please check out our Economic calendar

Risk Warnings and Disclaimers

Add to Favorites

Gerik

Economic

A Crisis Like No Other: Global Synchronization in Economic Shutdowns

The COVID-19 pandemic marked the first economic crisis in modern history where nearly every country on the planet 197 in total was forced to deploy support measures simultaneously. According to the World Health Organization, the virus claimed 1.8 million lives and infected over 80 million people globally in its first year, affecting even the remote continent of Antarctica.

Unlike previous crises driven by financial system weaknesses, the COVID-19 downturn was sparked by a deliberate shutdown of economic activity to protect public health. The root cause was not overleveraging or debt accumulation, but rather a health emergency that compelled governments to halt production, consumption, and trade. This triggered a severe and sudden disruption to both demand and supply chains, shaking the global economy at its core.

Market Shock Amid an Overheated Pre-Pandemic Cycle

Before the pandemic, stock markets especially in the United States were riding high on more than a decade of ultra-low interest rates following the 2008 global financial crisis. Cheap borrowing had pushed equity valuations to record highs. When COVID-19 struck, markets plummeted. The Dow Jones Industrial Average recorded nine of its ten largest single-day losses during the early months of the pandemic, making this one of the most volatile periods in financial history.

The causal link between the shutdown and market panic was direct. Unlike debt-driven crashes where economic indicators degrade gradually, the COVID shock was instantaneous, reflecting the fragility of markets built on sustained liquidity but not prepared for total economic immobilization.

Rapid and Coordinated Policy Response: Fiscal and Monetary Firepower

Central banks worldwide activated an extensive range of emergency measures rate cuts, asset purchases, and liquidity injections. But monetary policy alone could not stabilize the situation. For the first time in decades, fiscal policy took center stage.

By March 2020, massive fiscal stimulus packages were announced across major economies. The International Monetary Fund tracked interventions across all 197 countries, covering everything from direct cash transfers to job retention schemes, business bailouts, and credit support programs. Governments moved with unusual speed and magnitude, recognizing the scale of systemic risk.

U.S. and China Lead the Response with Divergent Strategies

In the United States, the response came in the form of the CARES Act, enacted on March 27, 2020. It was the largest stimulus package in American history, deploying $2 trillion in federal funds to support households, businesses, and financial markets. For comparison, the stimulus passed during the 2008 crisis was just $800 billion. Americans received stimulus checks starting April 11, though political symbolism slowed distribution, as then-President Donald Trump insisted on printing his name on the checks.

China took a slightly different route. It announced a 3.75 trillion yuan ($574 billion) spending plan focused on pandemic relief and an additional 100 billion yuan ($15 billion) for infrastructure upgrades. Notably, China also made the unprecedented move of not setting a GDP growth target for 2020 the first time since the country’s founding in 1949. This decision reflected the uncertainty and volatility surrounding the pandemic’s economic fallout.

Long-Term Lessons from a Global Economic Stress Test

The pandemic has revealed the strengths and limitations of global economic governance. First, it showed that fiscal policy can be deployed swiftly and at scale when political consensus exists. Second, it underscored the necessity for cross-sector coordination between monetary and fiscal bodies, public health systems, and international institutions.

A key lesson lies in the divergence between public health imperatives and economic continuity. Governments learned that long-term economic stability may require short-term economic sacrifice, and that protecting lives could ultimately protect livelihoods. This is a shift in policy philosophy, emphasizing human capital as a foundation for economic recovery.

Moreover, the pandemic has redefined the concept of “crisis contagion.” No country was immune, and interdependence once viewed as purely beneficial became a vulnerability. Supply chain disruptions, energy shortages, and vaccine nationalism exposed the limits of globalization and sparked debates about resilience, local production, and strategic autonomy.

A Crisis That Rewrote Economic Orthodoxy

COVID-19 was not just a health crisis; it was a stress test for the global economic system. It challenged long-held assumptions about fiscal prudence, government intervention, and the pace of market correction. The synchronized global response both in policy and in market reactions highlighted how interconnected the world has become, and how fragile that system can be under external shocks.

The crisis did not eliminate global inequalities or institutional weaknesses, but it provided a blueprint for crisis response in the 21st century. As the world looks toward future shocks whether from climate, geopolitical conflict, or future pandemics the economic lessons of COVID-19 remain urgent and invaluable.

To stay updated on all economic events of today, please check out our Economic calendar

Risk Warnings and Disclaimers

Add to Favorites

Gerik

Economic

Stocks

The Paradox of Growth Amidst Weakness

U.S. equity markets are defying traditional economic logic. In recent months, economic signals have grown increasingly bleak rising unemployment, shrinking consumer confidence, mounting federal deficits, and inflation that remains stubbornly high. Yet, stock indices such as the S&P 500 have surged more than 12% year-to-date, brushing up against all-time highs.

This seeming disconnect reflects not a detachment from economic reality, but a calculated response to it. Investors are reinterpreting weakening economic data as a signal for monetary easing. The Federal Reserve is widely expected to pivot toward interest rate cuts, a move that would lower borrowing costs and inject renewed liquidity into the financial system.

Monetary Policy Expectations Drive Market Optimism

Investors are betting that the deteriorating job market and softening macro data will compel the Federal Reserve to act decisively. Although inflation remains elevated at 2.9% year-on-year partly due to recent tariff hikes under President Donald Trump the market increasingly anticipates that the Fed will prioritize economic stabilization over inflation control, at least in the short term.

There is a causative relationship here. Weak labor market data reduces the likelihood of a rate hike and increases the probability of a rate cut. Investors are not simply reacting to macro weakness they are anticipating that this weakness will prompt policy action beneficial to equities, particularly in interest-rate-sensitive sectors.

Rob Haworth of U.S. Bank summarizes this sentiment, noting that the data is being interpreted not as recessionary, but as sufficiently soft to justify easing without triggering panic. The Fed, therefore, becomes the central actor in this narrative not because it has taken action, but because markets believe it will.

Sectoral Reactions and the AI Supercycle

The prospect of lower rates has already buoyed sectors heavily reliant on cheap capital. Homebuilders such as DR Horton and Lennar have posted double-digit gains in the past month. The Russell 2000 index, composed primarily of small-cap stocks sensitive to domestic interest rate shifts, has gained 5%.

However, the most powerful engine behind the rally is technology especially companies tied to artificial intelligence. The AI sector is demonstrating not just growth, but a fundamental restructuring of business models. Oracle’s shares jumped 22% after announcing a $300 billion cloud deal with OpenAI. Palantir has quadrupled in value over the past year by capitalizing on enterprise demand for AI-driven operational transformation. Meanwhile, tech giants like Microsoft, Alphabet, and Nvidia have each risen more than 50% since March.

Ross Mayfield of Baird Private Wealth Management argues that the performance of the AI sector is overshadowing broader economic weakness. The ability of these companies to “do more with less” by deploying AI to reduce labor dependence is directly increasing margins and fueling earnings.

The Risk of Overexuberance

Still, some economists warn that market sentiment may be outpacing reality. Diane Swonk of KPMG cautions that the current AI optimism could be sowing the seeds of a future bubble. Historically, every major wave of technological innovation has brought speculative excess.

This suggests a potential correlation, if not causation, between investor euphoria and price inflation in tech equities. The risk is that if the Fed does not cut rates as aggressively as expected or if earnings fail to keep pace with valuation expansion the market could face a significant correction.

Michael Farr, of Farr, Miller & Washington, points out that investors are currently pricing in as many as five rate cuts before year-end, even though the Fed has signaled only two. Any deviation from this expectation could trigger repricing, especially for already overvalued stocks.

Fragile Confidence Built on Anticipation

The sustained rise in U.S. stock prices amidst economic slowdown is not irrational it is contingent. It hinges on the belief that monetary policy will shift, that AI will continue to transform profitability, and that market resilience can outpace consumer anxiety and macro volatility.

But the gap between investor expectations and policy reality remains precarious. As long as interest rate cuts remain a forecast, not a fact, and as long as AI earnings continue to justify their hype, the rally can sustain itself. Yet, should either of these pillars falter, the market’s optimism could quickly reverse, exposing the fragility beneath its current strength.

To stay updated on all economic events of today, please check out our Economic calendar

Risk Warnings and Disclaimers

Add to Favorites

Manuel

Commodity

Political

The US will urge its allies in the Group of Seven to impose tariffs as high as 100% on China and India for their purchases of Russian oil in an effort to convince President Vladimir Putin to end his war in Ukraine.

President Donald Trump said on Friday that his patience with Putin was “running out fast” and threatened new economic sanctions. “It’ll be hitting very hard on with sanctions to banks and having to do with oil and tariffs also,” he said in an interview on Fox News.

The US will also tell the G-7 countries they should create a legal pathway to seize immobilized sovereign Russian assets and consider seizing or using the principle of those assets to fund Ukraine’s defense, according to a US proposal seen by Bloomberg. The vast majority of the about $300 billion of Moscow’s immobilized assets are in Europe.

Brent crude futures extended gains following the report, briefly touching a session high, and closed up 0.8%. The euro fell to the day’s low, while trading little changed late in the New York session Friday, at around the $1.1734.

A spokesperson from the White House didn’t immediately respond to a request for comment on the proposals.

Separately, senior US officials have floated with European counterparts the idea of gradually seizing those frozen Russia assets to increase the pressure on Moscow to enter into negotiations, according to people familiar with the matter who spoke on the condition of anonymity.

Profits generated by the assets are currently being used to provide loans to Ukraine.

Canada, which holds the presidency of the G-7, convened a meeting of the group’s finance ministers on Friday to “discuss further measures to increase pressure on Russia and limit their war machinery,” according to a statement.

Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent, in that “emergency” G-7 discussion, reiterated Trump’s call to the group that “if they are truly committed to ending the war in Ukraine, they should join the United States in imposing tariffs on countries purchasing oil from Russia,” according to a statement from the Treasury.

Bessent and US Trade Representative Jamieson Greer welcomed commitments to “explore using immobilized Russian sovereign assets to further benefit Ukraine’s defense,” the US Treasury statement also said.

The US proposal calls for 50% to 100% secondary tariffs on China and India as well as restrictive trade measures on both imports and exports to curb the flow of Russian energy and to prevent the transfer of dual-use technologies into Russia, according to the proposal.

The proposal poses a challenge given that several nations in the EU, including Hungary, have blocked more stringent sanctions targeting Russia’s energy sector. Such measures would require the backing of all member states.

Trump has told European officials he’s willing to impose sweeping new tariffs on India and China to push Putin to the negotiating table with Ukraine — but only if nations in Europe do so as well. US Urges G-7 Sanctions on Russia Oil as Trump Loses Patience_1

US Urges G-7 Sanctions on Russia Oil as Trump Loses Patience_1

Trump made the ask when he called into a meeting with senior US and European Union officials in Washington this week and said the US would be willing to mirror tariffs imposed by Europe on either country, Bloomberg reported earlier.

Trump’s suggestion comes after his deadline for Putin to hold a bilateral meeting with Ukraine’s Volodymyr Zelenskiy passed without indication that the Russian leader was genuinely interested in engaging in face-to-face peace talks. Instead, Moscow has stepped up its Ukraine bombing campaign.

Russia on Friday said negotiations with Ukraine were on “pause” despite Trump’s push following a meeting with Putin last month for direct talks between the Russian leader and Zelenskiy.

The proposal to the G-7 also seeks sanctions targeting Russia’s so-called shadow fleet of oil tankers and the networks that enable the trades to flow; the Russian oil company Rosneft PJSC; and a prohibition of insurance for maritime services.

The US will also call on its allies to sanction entities supporting Russia’s military industry; Russian regional banks; prohibit services related to artificial intelligence and financial technology in Russian Special Economic Zones, according to the proposals.

Trump has so far refrained from imposing direct sanctions on Russia, despite skating through several self-imposed deadlines and Putin’s continued reluctance to negotiate an end to the war. Trump has, however, doubled tariffs on India to 50% over its continued purchase of Russian oil.

The G-7 discussions come as the EU is working on a 19th package of sanctions, which is expected to target more Russian banks and the country’s oil trade, Bloomberg previously reported.