Russia's Hybrid Warfare Against Europe: A Growing Threat

Political

Summary:

Russia's ongoing "hybrid warfare" against Europe has raised alarms, as a series of disruptive incidents have intensified over the past few years....

European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen emphasized the seriousness of these incidents, stating that they are not random but part of a deliberate campaign by Russia to weaken and divide the European Union (EU). The incidents, ranging from cyberattacks to drone incursions and military airspace violations, are seen as part of Russia's broader strategy to destabilize European security.

What Is Hybrid Warfare?

Hybrid warfare refers to a strategy that blends conventional military tactics with irregular methods designed to disrupt, distract, and undermine an adversary without directly engaging in open combat. It often involves covert actions such as cyberattacks, disinformation campaigns, sabotage, and military incursions. These actions are typically deniable, complicating efforts to attribute them directly to the state responsible.

In recent weeks, Europe has witnessed a series of hybrid warfare incidents, including military incursions by Russian jets into NATO airspace, drone attacks on critical sites in various EU countries, and cyberattacks targeting vital infrastructure like undersea cables, airports, and logistics hubs. These actions have caused disruptions in air travel, closed down ports, and raised concerns about the security of vital communications networks.

Despite widespread suspicion that Russia is behind many of these attacks, Moscow has repeatedly denied responsibility. This pattern of deniability is characteristic of hybrid warfare, where attacks are designed to avoid direct attribution, making it harder for the EU to respond decisively.

Impact on Europe’s Security and Response

The frequency and intensity of these hybrid warfare tactics have increased significantly since Russia's full-scale invasion of Ukraine in 2022. A report by geopolitical intelligence firm Dragonfly documented 219 incidents of suspected Russian hybrid warfare since 2014, with 86% of these occurring after the invasion, particularly in countries that have been strong supporters of Ukraine, such as the Baltic states, Poland, and Finland.

In response to these ongoing threats, Europe is taking steps to strengthen its defenses. NATO members have committed to increasing defense spending, and the EU has begun developing new security initiatives, such as the "Eastern Flank Watch" project, which aims to create a network of drones to protect against airspace violations. However, some initiatives, like the drone wall, face resistance, particularly from Germany’s defense ministry.

Europe's Strategic Approach

European leaders are adamant that while they do not want a direct conflict with Russia, they must protect themselves from further destabilization. Luxembourg's Prime Minister Luc Frieden described Russia as a "permanent threat to European security," emphasizing that the EU needs to be prepared for the possibility of continued hybrid attacks.

While the EU seeks to deter Russia from further provocation, there is a clear recognition that the threat is ongoing and evolving. Europe's response must adapt to these changing tactics, ensuring both defense readiness and the resilience of critical infrastructure against future attacks.

Russia’s hybrid warfare strategy is a sophisticated, multi-faceted approach that exploits vulnerabilities in European security. By using a combination of military incursions, cyberattacks, and subversive tactics, Russia aims to destabilize European unity and influence the geopolitical landscape in its favor. As hybrid threats continue to evolve, Europe must remain vigilant and responsive, strengthening its defense capabilities and ensuring that it can withstand such destabilizing actions without escalating into full-scale conflict.

Source: CNBC

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

After winning her party leadership race, Takaichi emphasized the need for the government to take the lead on both fiscal and monetary policies, a sentiment that echoes the economic policies of her mentor, former Prime Minister Shinzo Abe.

A Push for Government-Controlled Monetary Policy

Takaichi's statements on fiscal responsibility and the role of the BOJ are already causing unease. She stressed that the BOJ should consider the most appropriate measures based on government guidance, reigniting memories of Abe’s aggressive economic stimulus during his tenure. Takaichi's rhetoric suggests that she may seek to exert more influence on the central bank, which could potentially affect its autonomy.

This has raised alarms among experts, including former BOJ board members, who warn that Takaichi’s approach could lead to excessive political pressure on the BOJ, particularly when it comes to rate hikes. Some analysts believe this could be a threat to the credibility of Japan's monetary policy, particularly as inflationary pressures rise.

The Strained Relationship Between Government and BOJ

Since the BOJ’s independence was codified in 1998, it has been shielded from direct political intervention, although this has not prevented the government from exerting influence through informal channels. Notably, during Abe’s era, the government directly influenced BOJ decisions, particularly under then-Governor Haruhiko Kuroda, who was handpicked by Abe to push aggressive monetary easing policies. While Japan's central bank retains nominal independence, the government's ability to select BOJ leaders and members of the board means that it can still shape the bank’s policy direction.

Takaichi’s stance could challenge the delicate balance between the government’s fiscal agenda and the BOJ’s independence. Former BOJ officials have warned that her approach could lead to interference in key decisions, such as rate hikes or stimulus measures, which could further destabilize the country’s financial system.

Political and Economic Constraints

Despite her bold stance on monetary policy, Takaichi faces significant constraints. Unlike the Abe era, her political position is weaker, as the Liberal Democratic Party (LDP) now operates in a minority coalition, which could limit her ability to push through her economic agenda. Additionally, the LDP's internal divisions particularly with figures like former finance minister Taro Aso, who favors fiscal restraint could act as a counterbalance to Takaichi’s more radical economic views.

Furthermore, Japan’s economic situation has shifted significantly from the days of Abenomics, with inflation now exceeding 2% for over three years. The weak yen, a result of continued monetary easing, has prompted rising living costs, which have become a political issue for Takaichi. Delaying necessary rate hikes to avoid harming economic growth could exacerbate the yen’s decline and worsen inflation, making it increasingly difficult for Takaichi to justify her stance without facing political backlash.

Market Reactions and the Yen's Decline

Takaichi’s comments have already had a tangible impact on the yen, which has dropped to an eight-month low against the dollar. This has prompted concerns among market participants and even verbal interventions from Japanese authorities. A further decline in the yen, coupled with rising inflation, could undermine Takaichi’s approval ratings and harm her political prospects, especially if the public perceives her as failing to address rising living costs.

Takaichi’s push to reassert government control over monetary policy presents a significant challenge to the BOJ’s independence. While her desire to stimulate growth is clear, she faces economic constraints, political opposition, and the risk of destabilizing Japan’s fragile economy. Ultimately, the balance between political influence and the BOJ’s autonomy will be a defining issue for her leadership, with market reactions and inflationary pressures likely shaping her approach to monetary policy moving forward.

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

Risk Warnings and Disclaimers

Add to Favorites

Glendon

Economic

Commodity

The U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA) has raised both its 2025 and 2026 average Brent crude oil spot price forecasts in a short term energy outlook (STEO) for the first time in 2025.

In its latest STEO, which was released on October 7, the EIA projected that the Brent crude spot price will average $68.64 per barrel in 2025 and $52.16 per barrel in 2026. The EIA predicted in its October STEO that the Brent spot price will come in at $62.05 per barrel in the fourth quarter of this year, $51.97 per barrel in the first quarter of 2026, $51.67 per barrel in the second quarter, $52.00 per barrel in the third quarter, and $53.00 per barrel in the fourth quarter.

The EIA projected that the Brent spot price would average $67.80 per barrel in 2025 and $51.43 per barrel in 2026 in its September STEO, $67.22 per barrel in 2025 and $51.43 per barrel in 2026 in its August STEO, $68.89 per barrel in 2025 and $58.48 per barrel in 2026 in its July STEO, $65.97 per barrel in 2025 and $59.24 per barrel in 2026 in its June STEO, $65.85 per barrel in 2025 and $59.24 per barrel in 2026 in its May STEO, $67.87 per barrel in 2025 and $61.48 per barrel in 2026 in its April STEO, $74.22 per barrel in 2025 and $68.47 per barrel in 2026 in its March STEO, $74.50 per barrel in 2025 and $66.46 per barrel in 2026 in its February STEO, and $74.31 per barrel in 2025 and $66.46 per barrel in 2026 in its January STEO.

“Brent crude oil spot prices averaged $68 per barrel in September, unchanged from the average in August,” the EIA noted in its October STEO.

“We forecast that growing global oil supply and the transition away from peak summer seasonal demand will lead to significant growth in global oil inventories over the forecast, causing crude oil prices to fall in the coming months,” the EIA warned.

“We forecast that oil prices will fall to an average of $62 per barrel in the fourth quarter of 2025 (4Q25) and $52 per barrel in the first half of 2026 (1H26). We expect inventory builds will average 2.6 million barrels per day (b/d) in 4Q25 and will remain elevated through 2026, putting significant downward pressure on oil prices,” the EIA continued.

“Global oil prices have remained stable in recent months despite global oil inventory builds - which we estimate as the difference between global oil supply and demand - averaging an estimated 1.9 million barrels per day from May through September,” the EIA went on to note in its STEO.

Several factors have likely offset strong growth in supply to keep prices relatively stable, the EIA stated in its latest STEO.

“One likely factor is China’s additions to its oil stockpiles,” the EIA said.

“China does not report data on its oil inventories. However, based on imports, exports, refining data, and oil inventory data from third-party and official sources, we assess that China has accumulated significant oil inventories this year,” it added.

“Because China’s inventory builds have been strategic in nature, they have potentially acted as a source of demand, limiting downward price pressures more than our estimated balances would otherwise suggest,” it noted.

The EIA stated in its October STEO that it is also possible that global oil demand was higher over the summer than it currently estimates.

“The lag in actual oil demand data, particularly outside of the OECD, means that our estimates for global demand for 2Q25 and 3Q25 are still a mix of model results and initial data observations for much of the world,” the EIA highlighted in the STEO.

The EIA went on to note in the STEO that inventory builds in its forecast are significant even with its expectation that OPEC+ will produce below its targets in the coming months.

“Along with strong production growth among non-OPEC countries, the forecast increase in global oil inventories is based on the OPEC+ announcements to increase the group’s oil production,” the EIA said in the STEO.

“OPEC+ began increasing production in April 2025, and for much of this year, the group’s production has been close to its targets. Last month, the group increased production targets through October 2025, but there is uncertainty regarding some members’ ability to reach the targets given near-term limits on spare capacity,” it added.

“We completed modeling and analysis for this forecast before the October 5 OPEC+ announcement that the group would increase production targets for November 2025,” it continued.

The EIA revealed in its October STEO that it forecasts that global oil inventories will increase by an average of 2.1 million barrels per day in 2026, “compared with an average annual increase of 1.9 million barrels per day this year”.

“Inventory builds will be highest in 1Q26, averaging more than 2.7 million barrels per day. Strong inventory builds could fill commercial storage options on land, which would prompt market participants to seek other, more expensive options for storing crude oil, such as floating storage,” it added.

“As a result, some of the crude oil price declines will likely reflect the higher marginal cost of storage. We forecast that inventory builds will moderate later in 2026 due to a combination of higher global oil demand and slightly lower oil production growth, both in response to lower oil prices,” the EIA continued.

The EIA warned in its latest STEO that the pace at which China continues to purchase oil to fill inventory is a key uncertainty in its forecast.

“If China’s builds continue at the pace estimated in recent months, crude oil prices could be higher than in our forecast,” the EIA pointed out.

“However, a slowdown in China’s purchases of oil slated for inventory would likely put downward pressure on oil prices as more oil begins to show up in visible oil inventory data,” it added.

The EIA also warned in its October STEO that other factors also contribute to significant uncertainty in its price forecast.

“Although we do not forecast any major supply disruptions, risks to oil supply remain,” the EIA highlighted in the STEO.

“In addition, ongoing trade negotiations and legal challenges related to tariffs between the United States and its trading partners could affect economic and oil demand growth, with implications for oil prices,” it added.

“Lastly, given the expectations of significant oversupply beginning later this year, OPEC+ could revisit its plans for increased production, easing downward pressure on oil prices,” it continued.

Source: Rigzone

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

Risk Warnings and Disclaimers

Add to Favorites

Gerik

Economic

The new regulations, outlined by the Ministry of Commerce, require foreign companies to obtain special approval to export items containing even trace amounts of rare earth elements sourced from China. Additionally, China will impose new permitting requirements for the export of technologies related to rare earths mining, smelting, recycling, and magnet-making.

Strengthening Control Over Rare Earths

China controls approximately 70% of the world’s rare earths mining and nearly 90% of global processing, making it a dominant player in the industry. Rare earths are essential in manufacturing a wide range of products, from military equipment and consumer electronics to automobiles and energy-efficient technologies.

The new regulations aim to "better safeguard national security," particularly by restricting the use of rare earths and related technologies in sensitive military fields. The Ministry of Commerce also cited concerns about rare earths being diverted for military uses by foreign entities, which it claims had caused "significant damage" to China's security.

Geopolitical Tensions and Trade Leverage

The timing of these controls, just weeks before a highly anticipated meeting between U.S. President Donald Trump and Chinese President Xi Jinping, is seen as a strategic move by Beijing.

Rare earths are expected to be a key point of negotiation between the two leaders during the upcoming summit at the Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation (APEC) forum in South Korea. While China has imposed similar curbs in the past, this move represents a further escalation in its efforts to use its dominance in rare earths as a bargaining chip in trade talks with Washington.

Impact on Global Supply Chains

The expansion of these export restrictions raises concerns over the potential for shortages of critical materials for manufacturers in the U.S. and globally. As the U.S. has heavily relied on Chinese rare earths for its technology and defense sectors, any disruption to this supply chain could impact industries such as electronics, automotive manufacturing, and military technologies.

In the past, China’s control over rare earth exports has been a significant point of tension between the two countries, especially after the U.S. imposed tariffs on Chinese imports. Despite concerns over supply disruptions, China had approved some rare earth export permits earlier this year and accelerated its approval processes to mitigate the impact on global markets.

As the two largest economies in the world prepare for high-stakes negotiations, rare earths are likely to remain a critical issue in the broader trade dispute. Both sides seek more stability, but as geopolitical maneuvers and trade tactics continue, it remains to be seen how these new curbs will shape the negotiations and global markets in the coming months.

Source: Reuters

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

Risk Warnings and Disclaimers

Add to Favorites

Olivia Brooks

Cryptocurrency

BTC dipped below a key support level Thursday, pulling the broader crypto market down as the US dollar gained strength ahead of Federal Reserve Chair Jerome Powell’s speech.

The leading cryptocurrency fell over 1% $121,500, reversing Wednesday’s spike and penetrating the 200-hour simple moving average, CoinDesk data show. Other major tokens such as BNB and ETH dropped over 3%. The CoinDesk 20 Index fell 1% to 4,155 points.

The decline followed another strong day of inflows into the U.S.-listed spot ETFs, which collectively pulled in $426 million on Wednesday, according to data source SoSoValue. This extends the streaks of robust daily inflows seen over the past week.

The dollar index, which tracks the greenback’s value against major fiat currencies, rose to 99.10, the highest since Aug. 1, denting the appeal of dollar-denominated assets like bitcoin and gold. The yellow metal saw a brief drop to $4,000 per ounce. before bouncing back above $4,030 per ounce.

Fed’s Powell is scheduled to speak at the Community Bank Conference in Washington at 12:30 GMT. Traders will look for cues on the monetary policy outlook against the backdrop of the U.S. government shutdown that has paused fresh economic data releases such as inflation and jobs, which the central bank takes into account while setting interest rates.

The minutes of the Federal Reserve September meeting released Wednesday also expressed concerns over the shutdown. “Should the shutdown not end by the FOMC’s Oct. 28-29 meeting, policymakers essentially will be flying blind on key economic metrics,””the committee members noted,

Minutes showed caution over inflation

Minutes revealed that while policymakers were united in their view that rates should be cut, they disagreed on how aggressively rate cuts should proceed and were worried about sticky inflation.

“Most judged that it likely would be appropriate to ease policy further over the remainder of this year,” according to minutes of the Federal Open Market Committee’s Sept. 16-17 meeting. “A majority of participants emphasized upside risks to their outlooks for inflation.”

Participants voted 11-1 to lower the federal funds rate by 25 basis points, bringing the target range down to around 4%. At the same, a majority of 19 officials anticipated at least two more rate cuts this year, while seven foresaw no further reductions. The dot plot published last month showed a slight majority favoring two more rate reductions this year which would take the benchmark rate to 3.50-3.75%.

Discussions focused heavily on a weakening labor market and early signs that inflation could reaccelerate. Still, the committee was generally aligned in its view that President Donald Trump’s trade tariffs would not be a lasting source of inflation.

Source: CoinDesk

Risk Warnings and Disclaimers

Add to Favorites

Gerik

Economic

The minutes from the Federal Open Market Committee (FOMC) meeting on September 16-17, released Wednesday, showed that while most members supported another quarter-point rate reduction at that time, some expressed ongoing concern about inflation risks, leading to disagreements on how aggressive the central bank should be.

Rate Cuts and Inflation Concerns

At the meeting, the Fed decided to lower rates by 0.25%, marking the first reduction of 2025. Most officials supported the move due to increased risks to employment, but the minutes revealed notable concern about inflation, which continues to remain above the Fed’s 2% target. Some members suggested that maintaining rates at current levels or making smaller cuts could be more appropriate to avoid fueling inflation expectations, especially if inflation does not decrease as anticipated.

Stephen Miran, the newest Fed governor, pushed for a more aggressive 0.5% rate cut, highlighting the differing opinions within the Fed on how to balance the economy's competing needs. Despite the differing views, there was a consensus that more rate cuts were likely for the remainder of the year, with a median expectation of two additional reductions.

Labor Market and Inflation Uncertainty

While some members saw a slowdown in job gains, they did not believe the labor market was deteriorating sharply. The slowdown in job growth was attributed to a combination of decreased worker demand and supply. Still, concerns about inflation remained prominent, with some Fed members noting that higher inflation could persist longer than expected, particularly with ongoing trade tensions and tariff risks.

On the Fed’s balance sheet, officials noted that reserves were declining and would likely continue to do so, prompting careful monitoring of money market conditions. While there is speculation that the Fed may soon stop the roll-off of bonds from its portfolio, Chairman Jerome Powell stated that the current pace of bond sales remains appropriate, suggesting no immediate changes are expected in that area.

The division within the Fed suggests uncertainty about how much more the central bank will ease policy. While most officials expect further cuts, the level and pace of those cuts remain up for debate, with concerns about inflation and economic stability driving the discussion. The continued tension between supporting growth and controlling inflation will likely shape future Fed actions as 2025 progresses.

Source: Yahoo Finance

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

Risk Warnings and Disclaimers

Add to Favorites

Samantha Luan

Economic

Forex

Political

MILAN – The decarbonization of energy systems depends largely on the embrace of wind and solar energy. Fortunately, the costs of solar power are falling fast and, combined with the low-cost batteries that are now available, solar has become a competitive and reliable energy source in sunny locations. But while wind power provides more energy than solar, its usage is expanding more slowly, owing partly to opposition from politicians and local communities.

US President Donald Trump summed up the politicians’ case against wind in 2020: “It’s extremely expensive. Kills all the birds. It’s very intermittent.” But, while none of these assertions is entirely unfounded, all are vastly overstated. On cost, the International Energy Agency reports that, in areas with steady strong onshore winds, wind farms offer the lowest levelized costs of electricity generation – lower than even fossil fuels. And while wind power is intermittent, it is most consistent in winter, making it a useful complement to solar, which is strongest in summer.

As for the birds, many may well die as a result of collisions with wind-turbine blades – an estimated 250,000 per year in the United States. But one major research project found that seabirds actively avoid offshore turbines: in two years of monitoring an offshore wind farm adjacent to Trump’s golf course in Scotland, not a single bird collided with a rotor blade. In any case, if Trump and others, like Germany’s far-right Alternative für Deutschland, are truly concerned about birds, they should be up in arms about power lines, which kill an estimated 12-64 million birds in the US each year. And they should be truly horrified by tall buildings, which cause 988 million bird deaths each year, and wandering house cats, which kill up to four billion.

Local communities’ grievances appear more legitimate: a 350-foot tower with massive whirring turbine blades may well constitute a genuine nuisance for those living nearby. But opposition often remains strong even when wind farms are required to be a certain distance from inhabited areas, as is the case in many countries, with communities citing concerns like noise and lower local property values. Some dismiss these complaints as reflective of a self-centered NIMBY (“not in my backyard”) mentality, pointing out, for example, that higher-income communities are especially likely to oppose wind projects. But such accusations do nothing to resolve the fundamental conflict between the demands of local property owners and the collective interest in expanding the supply of renewable energy.

Instead, projects are often held up by protracted (and expensive) legal proceedings, which can drag on for years, as they move through various courts and await costly technical and environmental appraisals. According to one US survey, community opposition causes 14-month delays, on average, for wind projects. In many cases, just to obtain construction permits takes years – as many as nine in some European Union member states.

In 2023, the EU established guidelines to accelerate approvals of renewable projects. But the real game changer on this front has been the classification of such projects as being in the “overriding public interest.” By changing the basis for court rulings, this designation shortens legal proceedings and makes approvals more likely. But accelerated approvals might turn out to be a Pyrrhic victory, if they leave local communities feeling bulldozed or cheated.

Ultimately, litigation is an inefficient and potentially polarizing means of addressing the conflicting interests of local communities and the wider public. A quicker, cheaper (in the long run), and less divisive approach, already being used across Germany, would be to compensate local land- or homeowners for the nuisance a new wind farm represents, such as by providing them with discounted energy or giving them a share of the profits.

Legend has it that, in the late 18th century, King Frederick II of Prussia was disturbed by the clatter of a windmill near his Sanssouci palace, and demanded that it be removed. But the miller, Johann William Grävenitz, refused, threatening to take the case to the Supreme Court in Berlin. The monarch relented, in what is viewed as a triumph for the rule of law.

But that is not what happened. According to the historical record, Grävenitz complained that the newly constructed palace blocked wind from reaching his windmill, and petitioned the king for compensation. Frederick II agreed, approving and financing the construction of a new mill in the area. The real lesson of the historic mill of Sanssouci is thus not that the courts should arbitrate every clash of interests, but rather that fair compensation can lead to consent.

If Europe wants more wind, it must heed this lesson. Fast-track permits and the public-interest test may clear legal barriers to the expansion of wind-power capacity, but the best way to secure durable buy-in from local communities may well be to offer them immediate and tangible benefits – not just lofty promises of climate gains.