Russia

Latest story

150 Shares119 Views

U.S. and Europe Move Closer to Using Russian Assets to Help Ukraine

by

Finance ministers from the G7 nations are hoping to finalize a plan ahead of the group’s leaders meeting next month.The United States and Europe are coalescing around a plan to use interest earned on frozen Russian central bank assets to provide Ukraine with a loan to be used for military and economic assistance, potentially providing the country with a multibillion-dollar lifeline as Russia’s war effort intensifies.Treasury Secretary Janet L. Yellen said in an interview on Sunday that several options for using $300 billion in immobilized Russian assets remained on the table. But she said the most promising idea was for Group of 7 nations to issue a loan to Ukraine that would be backed by profits and interest income that is being earned on Russian assets held in Europe.Finance ministers from the Group of 7 will be meeting in Italy later this week in hopes of finalizing a plan that they can deliver to heads of state ahead of the group’s leaders meeting next month. The urgency to find a way to deliver more financial support to Ukraine has been mounting as the country’s efforts to fend off Russia have shown signs of faltering.“I think we see considerable interest among all of our partners in a loan structure that would bring forward the stream of windfall profits,” Ms. Yellen said during her flight to Germany, where she is holding meetings ahead of the Group of 7 summit. “It would generate a significant up-front amount that would help meet needs we anticipate Ukraine is going to have both militarily and through reconstruction.”For months, Western allies have been debating how far to go in using the Russian central bank assets. The United States believes that it would be legal under international law to confiscate the money and give it to Ukraine, but several European countries, including France and Germany, have been wary about the lawfulness of such a move and the precedent that it would set.Although the United States recently passed legislation that would give the Biden administration the authority to seize and confiscate Russian assets, the desire to act in unison with Europe has largely sidelined that idea.We are having trouble retrieving the article content.Please enable JavaScript in your browser settings.Thank you for your patience while we verify access. If you are in Reader mode please exit and log into your Times account, or subscribe for all of The Times.Thank you for your patience while we verify access.Already a subscriber? Log in.Want all of The Times? Subscribe. More

More stories

  • 88 Shares189 Views

    in Economy

    Blinken’s Visit to China: What to Know

    by

    Secretary of State Antony J. Blinken is in China this week as tensions have risen over trade, security, Russia’s war on Ukraine and the Middle East crisis.Secretary of State Antony J. Blinken is meeting officials in China this week as disputes over wars, trade, technology and security are testing the two countries’ efforts to stabilize the relationship.The United States is heading into an election year in which President Biden will face intense pressure to confront China’s authoritarian government and offer new protections for American businesses and workers from low-priced Chinese imports.China is courting foreign investment to help its sluggish economy. At the same time, its leader, Xi Jinping, has been bolstering national security and expanding China’s military footprint around Taiwan and the South China Sea in ways that have alarmed its neighbors.Mr. Biden and Mr. Xi have held talks to prevent their countries’ disputes from spiraling into conflict, after relations sank to their lowest point in decades last year. But an array of challenges could make steadying the relationship difficult.Showdowns Over China’s Territory ClaimsThe United States has been pushing back against China’s increasingly assertive claims over swaths of the South China Sea and the self-governed island of Taiwan by building security alliances in Asia.That effort has prompted more concerns in Beijing that the United States is leading a campaign to encircle China and contain its rise.We are having trouble retrieving the article content.Please enable JavaScript in your browser settings.Thank you for your patience while we verify access. If you are in Reader mode please exit and log into your Times account, or subscribe for all of The Times.Thank you for your patience while we verify access.Already a subscriber? Log in.Want all of The Times? Subscribe. More

  • 150 Shares169 Views

    in Economy

    2 Years Into Russia-Ukraine War, U.S. Campaign to Isolate Putin Shows Limits

    by

    Many nations insist on not taking sides in the war in Ukraine, while China, India and Brazil are filling Russia’s coffers.The Biden administration and European allies call President Vladimir V. Putin of Russia a tyrant and a war criminal. But he enjoys a standing invitation to the halls of power in Brazil.The president of Brazil says that Ukraine and Russia are both to blame for the war that began with the Russian military’s invasion. And his nation’s purchases of Russian energy and fertilizer have soared, pumping billions of dollars into the Russian economy.The views of the president, Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva, encapsulate the global bind in which the United States and Ukraine find themselves as the war enters its third year.When Russia launched its full-scale invasion of Ukraine on Feb. 24, 2022, the Biden administration activated a diplomatic offensive that was as important as its scramble to ship weapons to the Ukrainian military. Wielding economic sanctions and calling for a collective defense of international order, the United States sought to punish Russia with economic pain and political exile. The goal was to see companies and countries cut ties with Moscow.But two years later, Mr. Putin is not nearly as isolated as U.S. officials had hoped. Russia’s inherent strength, rooted in its vast supplies of oil and natural gas, has powered a financial and political resilience that threatens to outlast Western opposition. In parts of Asia, Africa and South America, his influence is as strong as ever or even growing. And his grip on power at home appears as strong as ever.The war has undoubtedly taken a toll on Russia: It has wrecked the country’s standing with much of Europe. The International Criminal Court has issued a warrant for Mr. Putin’s arrest. The United Nations has repeatedly condemned the invasion.We are having trouble retrieving the article content.Please enable JavaScript in your browser settings.Thank you for your patience while we verify access. If you are in Reader mode please exit and log into your Times account, or subscribe for all of The Times.Thank you for your patience while we verify access.Already a subscriber? Log in.Want all of The Times? Subscribe. More

  • 125 Shares99 Views

    in Economy

    Red Sea Shipping Halt Is Latest Risk to Global Economy

    by

    Next year could see increasing volatility as persistent military conflicts and economic uncertainty influence voting in national elections across the globe.The attacks on crucial shipping traffic in the Red Sea straits by a determined band of militants in Yemen — a spillover from the Israeli-Hamas war in Gaza — is injecting a new dose of instability into a world economy already struggling with mounting geopolitical tensions.The risk of escalating conflict in the Middle East is the latest in a string of unpredictable crises, including the Covid-19 pandemic and the war in Ukraine, that have landed like swipes of a bear claw on the global economy, smacking it off course and leaving scars.As if that weren’t enough, more volatility lies ahead in the form of a wave of national elections whose repercussions could be deep and long. More than two billion people in roughly 50 countries, including India, Indonesia, Mexico, South Africa, the United States and the 27 nations of the European Parliament, will head to the polls. Altogether, participants in 2024’s elections olympiad account for 60 percent of the world’s economic output.In robust democracies, elections are taking place as mistrust in government is rising, electorates are bitterly divided and there is a profound and abiding anxiety over economic prospects.A ship crossing the Suez Canal toward the Red Sea. Attacks on the Red Sea have pushed up freight and insurance rates.Mohamed Hossam/EPA, via ShutterstockA billboard promoting presidential elections in Russia, which will take place in March.Dmitri Lovetsky/Associated PressEven in countries where elections are neither free nor fair, leaders are sensitive to the economy’s health. President Vladimir V. Putin’s decision this fall to require exporters to convert foreign currency into rubles was probably done with an eye on propping up the ruble and tamping down prices in the run-up to Russia’s presidential elections in March.The winners will determine crucial policy decisions affecting factory subsidies, tax breaks, technology transfers, the development of artificial intelligence, regulatory controls, trade barriers, investments, debt relief and the energy transition.A rash of electoral victories that carry angry populists into power could push governments toward tighter control of trade, foreign investment and immigration. Such policies, said Diane Coyle, a professor of public policy at the University of Cambridge, could tip the global economy into “a very different world than the one that we have been used to.”In many places, skepticism about globalization has been fueled by stagnant incomes, declining standards of living and growing inequality. Nonetheless, Ms. Coyle said, “a world of shrinking trade is a world of shrinking income.”And that raises the possibility of a “vicious cycle,” because the election of right-wing nationalists is likely to further weaken global growth and bruise economic fortunes, she warned.A campaign rally for former President Donald J. Trump in New Hampshire in December.Doug Mills/The New York TimesA line of migrants on their way to a Border Patrol processing center at the U.S.-Mexico border. Immigration will be a hot topic in upcoming elections.Rebecca Noble for The New York TimesMany economists have compared recent economic events to those of the 1970s, but the decade that Ms. Coyle said came to mind was the 1930s, when political upheavals and financial imbalances “played out into populism and declining trade and then extreme politics.”The biggest election next year is in India. Currently the world’s fastest-growing economy, it is jockeying to compete with China as the world’s manufacturing hub. Taiwan’s presidential election in January has the potential to ratchet up tensions between the United States and China. In Mexico, the vote will affect the government’s approach to energy and foreign investment. And a new president in Indonesia could shift policies on critical minerals like nickel.The U.S. presidential election, of course, will be the most significant by far for the world economy. The approaching contest is already affecting decision-making. Last week, Washington and Brussels agreed to suspend tariffs on European steel and aluminum and on American whiskey and motorcycles until after the election.The deal enables President Biden to appear to take a tough stance on trade deals as he battles for votes. Former President Donald J. Trump, the likely Republican candidate, has championed protectionist trade policies and proposed slapping a 10 percent tariff on all goods coming into the United States — a combative move that would inevitably lead other countries to retaliate.Mr. Trump, who has echoed authoritarian leaders, has also indicated that he would step back from America’s partnership with Europe, withdraw support for Ukraine and pursue a more confrontational stance toward China.Workers on a car assembly line in Hefei, China. Beijing has provided enormous incentives for electric vehicles.Qilai Shen for The New York TimesA shipyard in India, which is jockeying to compete with China as the world’s largest manufacturing hub.Atul Loke for The New York Times“The outcome of the elections could lead to far-reaching shifts in domestic and foreign policy issues, including on climate change, regulations and global alliances,” the consulting firm EY-Parthenon concluded in a recent report.Next year’s global economic outlook so far is mixed. Growth in most corners of the world remains slow, and dozens of developing countries are in danger of defaulting on their sovereign debts. On the positive side of the ledger, the rapid fall in inflation is nudging central bankers to reduce interest rates or at least halt their rise. Reduced borrowing costs are generally a spur to investment and home buying.As the world continues to fracture into uneasy alliances and rival blocs, security concerns are likely to loom even larger in economic decisions than they have so far.China, India and Turkey stepped up to buy Russian oil, gas and coal after Europe sharply reduced its purchases in the wake of Moscow’s invasion of Ukraine. At the same time, tensions between China and the United States spurred Washington to respond to years of strong-handed industrial support from Beijing by providing enormous incentives for electric vehicles, semiconductors and other items deemed essential for national security.A protest in Yemen on Friday against the operation to safeguard trade and protect ships in the Red Sea.Osamah Yahya/EPA, via ShutterstockThe drone and missile attacks in the Red Sea by Iranian-backed Houthi militia are a further sign of increasing fragmentation.In the last couple of months, there has been a rise in smaller players like Yemen, Hamas, Azerbaijan and Venezuela that are seeking to change the status quo, said Courtney Rickert McCaffrey, a geopolitical analyst at EY-Parthenon and an author of the recent report.“Even if these conflicts are smaller, they can still affect global supply chains in unexpected ways,” she said. “Geopolitical power is becoming more dispersed,” and that increases volatility.The Houthi assaults on vessels from around the world in the Bab-el-Mandeb strait — the aptly named Gate of Grief — on the southern end of the Red Sea have pushed up freight and insurance rates and oil prices while diverting marine traffic to a much longer and costlier route around Africa.Last week, the United States said it would expand a military coalition to ensure the safety of ships passing through this commercial pathway, through which 12 percent of global trade passes. It is the biggest rerouting of worldwide trade since Russia’s invasion of Ukraine in February 2022.Claus Vistesen, chief eurozone economist at Pantheon Macroeconomics, said the impact of the attacks had so far been limited. “From an economic perspective, we’re not seeing huge increase in oil and gas prices,” Mr. Vistesen said, although he acknowledged that the Red Sea assaults were the “most obvious near-term flashpoint.”Uncertainty does have a dampening effect on the economy, though. Businesses tend to adopt a wait-and-see attitude when it comes to investment, expansions and hiring.“Continuing volatility in geopolitical and geoeconomic relations between major economies is the biggest concern for chief risk officers in both the public and private sectors,” a midyear survey by the World Economic Forum found.With persistent military conflicts, increasing bouts of extreme weather and a slew of major elections ahead, it’s likely that 2024 will bring more of the same. More

  • 163 Shares199 Views

    in Economy

    The Debt Problem Is Enormous, and the System for Fixing It Is Broken

    by

    Economists offer alternatives to financial safeguards created when the U.S. was the pre-eminent superpower and climate change wasn’t on the agenda.Martin Guzman was a college freshman at La Universidad Nacional de La Plata, Argentina, in 2001 when a debt crisis prompted default, riots and a devastating depression. A dazed middle class suffered ruin, as the International Monetary Fund insisted that the government make misery-inducing budget cuts in exchange for a bailout.Watching Argentina unravel inspired Mr. Guzman to switch majors and study economics. Nearly two decades later, when the government was again bankrupt, it was Mr. Guzman as finance minister who negotiated with I.M.F. officials to restructure a $44 billion debt, the result of an earlier ill-conceived bailout.Today he is one of a number of prominent economists and world leaders who argue that the ambitious framework created at the end of World War II to safeguard economic growth and stability, with the I.M.F. and World Bank as its pillars, is failing in its mission.Martin Guzman, a former finance minister in Argentina, is among the economists and world leaders who argue that the framework created at the end of World War II to safeguard economic growth and stability is not working.Nathalia Angarita for The New York TimesJavier Milei, the newly elected president of Argentina, at an election event in Salta, Argentina, in October. He has described himself as an “anarcho-capitalist.”Sarah Pabst for The New York TimesThe current system “contributes to a more inequitable and unstable global economy,” said Mr. Guzman, who resigned last year after a rift within the government.The repayment that Mr. Guzman negotiated was the 22nd arrangement between Argentina and the I.M.F. Even so, the country’s economic tailspin has only increased with an annual inflation rate of more than 140 percent, growing lines at soup kitchens and a new, self-proclaimed “anarcho-capitalist” president, Javier Milei, who this week devalued the currency by 50 percent.The I.M.F. and World Bank have aroused complaints from the left and right ever since they were created. But the latest critiques pose a more profound question: Does the economic framework devised eight decades ago fit the economy that exists today, when new geopolitical conflicts collide with established economic relationships and climate change poses an imminent threat?Volunteers serving free meals in Buenos Aires. Argentina’s economy is in a tailspin, with growing lines at soup kitchens.Rodrigo Abd/Associated PressProtests in Buenos Aires in 2001. A debt crisis in Argentina led to default, riots and a devastating depression.Fabian Gredillas/Agence France-Presse — Getty ImagesThis 21st-century clash of ideas about how to fix a system created for a 20th-century world is one of the most consequential facing the global economy.The I.M.F. was set up in 1944 at a conference in Bretton Woods, N.H., to help rescue countries in financial distress, while the World Bank’s focus was reducing poverty and investing in social development. The United States was the pre-eminent economic superpower, and scores of developing nations in Africa and Asia had not yet gained independence. The foundational ideology — later known as the “Washington Consensus” — held that prosperity depended on unhindered trade, deregulation and the primacy of private investment.“Nearly 80 years later, the global financial architecture is outdated, dysfunctional and unjust,” António Guterres, secretary general of the United Nations, said this summer at a summit in Paris. “Even the most fundamental goals on hunger and poverty have gone into reverse after decades of progress.”The world today is geopolitically fragmented. More than three-quarters of the current I.M.F. and World Bank countries were not at Bretton Woods. China’s economy, in ruins at the end of World War II, is now the world’s second-largest, an engine of global growth and a crucial hub in the world’s industrial machine and supply chain. India, then still a British colony, is one of the top five economies in the world.A session of the United Nations Monetary Conference in Bretton Woods, N.H., on July 4, 1944. Delegates from 44 countries are seated at the long tables.Abe Fox/Associated Press, via Associated PressAntónio Guterres, secretary general of the United Nations, said this summer that “the global financial architecture is outdated, dysfunctional, and unjust.”Martin Divisek/EPA, via ShutterstockThe once vaunted “Washington Consensus” has fallen into disrepute, with a greater recognition of how inequality and bias against women hamper growth, as well as the need for collective action on the climate.The mismatch between institution and mission has sharpened in recent years. Pounded by the Covid-19 pandemic, spiking food and energy prices related to the war in Ukraine, and higher interest rates, low- and middle-income countries are swimming in debt and facing slow growth. The size of the global economy as well as the scope of the problems have grown immensely, but funding of the I.M.F. and World Bank has not kept pace.Resolving debt crises is also vastly more complicated now that China and legions of private creditors are involved, instead of just a handful of Western banks.The World’s Bank’s own analyses outline the extent of the economic problems. “For the poorest countries, debt has become a nearly paralyzing burden,” a report released Wednesday concluded. Countries are forced to spend money on interest payments instead of investing in public health, education and the environment.An assembly line at the electric vehicle manufacturer Nio in Hefei, China. China’s economy was in ruins at the end of World War II but is now the world’s second largest and an engine of global growth.Qilai Shen for The New York TimesGita Gopinath, first deputy managing director of the International Monetary Fund, said of the current financial system, “We have countries strategically competing with amorphous rules and without an effective referee.”Jalal Morchidi/EPA, via ShutterstockAnd that debt doesn’t account for the trillions of dollars that developing countries will need to mitigate the ravages of climate change.Then there are the tensions between the United States and China, and Russia and Europe and its allies. It is harder to resolve debt crises or finance major infrastructure without bumping up against security concerns — like when the World Bank awarded the Chinese telecommunications giant Huawei a contract that turned out to violate U.S. sanctions policy, or when China has resisted debt restructuring agreements.“The global rules-based system was not built to resolve national security-based trade conflicts,” Gita Gopinath, first deputy managing director of the I.M.F., said Monday in a speech to the International Economic Association in Colombia. “We have countries strategically competing with amorphous rules and without an effective referee.”The World Bank and I.M.F. have made changes. The fund has moderated its approach to bailouts, replacing austerity with the idea of sustainable debt. The bank this year significantly increased the share of money going to climate-related projects. But critics maintain that the fixes so far are insufficient.“The way in which they have evolved and adapted is much slower than the way the global economy evolved and adapted,” Mr. Guzman said.Argentina’s new president devalued the currency by 50 percent this week.Sarah Pabst for The New York TimesA vegetables shop in Almagro in Buenos Aires. Argentina’s economy is South America’s second largest.Anita Pouchard Serra for The New York Times‘Time to Revisit Bretton Woods’Argentina, South America’s second-largest economy, may be the global economic system’s most notorious repeat failure, but it was Barbados, a tiny island nation in the Caribbean, that can be credited with turbocharging momentum for change.Mia Mottley, the prime minister, spoke out two years ago at the climate change summit in Glasgow and then followed up with the Bridgetown Initiative, a proposal to overhaul the way rich countries help poor countries adapt to climate change and avoid crippling debt.“Yes, it is time for us to revisit Bretton Woods,” she said in a speech at last year’s climate summit in Egypt. Ms. Mottley argues that there has been a “fundamental breakdown” in a longstanding covenant between poor countries and rich ones, many of which built their wealth by exploiting former colonies. The most advanced industrialized countries also produce most of the emissions that are heating the planet and causing extreme floods, wildfires and droughts in poor countries.Mavis Owusu-Gyamfi, the executive vice president of the African Center for Economic Transformation, in Ghana, said that even recent agreements to deal with debt like the 2020 Common Framework were created without input from developing nations.“We are calling for a voice and seat at the table,” Ms. Owusu-Gyamfi said, from her office in Accra, as she discussed a $3 billion I.M.F. bailout of Ghana.Yet if the fund and bank are focused on economic issues, they are essentially political creations that reflect the power of the countries that established, finance and manage them.And those countries are reluctant to cede that power. The United States, the only member with veto power, has the largest share of votes in part because of the size of its economy and financial contributions. It does not want to see its influence shrink and others’ — particularly China’s — grow.The impasse over reapportioning votes has hampered efforts to increase funding levels, which countries across the board agree need to be increased.A vegetable market in Accra, Ghana. “We are calling for a voice and seat at the table,” said Mavis Owusu-Gyamfi, the executive vice president of the African Center for Economic Transformation in Ghana.Natalija Gormalova for The New York TimesCustomers at lunch in Buenos Aires. Mr. Guzman and others pushing for change argue that indebted countries need more grants and low-interest loans with long repayment timelines.Sarah Pabst for The New York Times‘Big Hole’ in How to Deal With DebtStill, as Mr. Guzman said, “even if there are no changes in governance, there could be changes in policies.”Emerging nations need enormous amounts of money to invest in public health, education, transport and climate resilience. But they are saddled with high borrowing costs because of the market’s often exaggerated perception of the risk they pose as borrowers.And because they are usually compelled to borrow in dollars or euros, their payments soar if the Federal Reserve and other central banks raise interest rates to combat inflation as they did in the 1980s and after the Covid pandemic.The proliferation of private lenders and variety of loan agreements have made debt negotiations impossibly complex, yet no international legal arbiter exists.Zambia defaulted on its external debt three years ago, and there is still no agreement because the I.M.F., China and bondholders are at odds.There’s a “big hole” in international governance when it comes to sovereign debt, said Paola Subacchi, an economist at the Global Policy Institute at Queen Mary University in London, because the rules don’t apply to private loans, whether from a hedge fund or China’s central bank. Often these creditors have an interest in drawing out the process to hold out for a better deal.Mr. Guzman and other economists have called for an international legal arbiter to adjudicate disputes related to sovereign debt.“Every country has adopted a bankruptcy law,” said Joseph Stiglitz, a former chief economist at the World Bank, “but internationally we don’t have one.”The United States, though, has repeatedly opposed the idea, saying it is unnecessary.Rescues, too, have proved to be problematic. Last-resort loans from the I.M.F. can end up adding to a country’s budgetary woes and undermining the economic recovery because interest rates are so high now, and borrowers must also pay hefty fees.Those like Mr. Guzman and Ms. Mottley pushing for change argue that indebted countries need significantly more grants and low-interest loans with long repayment timelines, along with a slate of other reforms.“The challenges are different today,” said Mr. Guzman. “Policies need to be better aligned with the mission.”Mia Mottley, the prime minister of Barbados, offered a proposal this year to overhaul the way rich countries help poor countries adapt to climate change and avoid crippling debt.Sean Gallup/Getty ImagesFlash flooding in Bangladesh last year. The global economic framework was devised long before climate change posed an imminent threat to poor nations.Mushfiqul Alam/NurPhoto More

  • 125 Shares169 Views

    in Economy

    Russia’s Economy Is Increasingly Structured Around Its War in Ukraine

    by

    The nation’s finances have proven resilient, despite punishing sanctions, giving it leeway to pump money into its military machine.“Everything needed for the front,” Russia’s finance minister declared, echoing a Soviet slogan from World War II as he talked about the government’s latest spending plans.The government still calls its invasion of Ukraine a “special military operation,” but the new budget figures make clear that the economy is increasingly being restructured around war.Nearly a third of the country’s spending next year — roughly $109 billion — will be devoted to “national defense,” the government announced late last month, redirecting money that might otherwise have flowed to health care, education, roads and other sectors. More tellingly, 6 percent of the nation’s total output is being funneled toward Russia’s war machine, more than double what it was before the invasion.Since Russia sent soldiers across the border in February 2022, its economy has had to adapt to dramatic changes with astonishing speed. The European Union, its biggest trading partner, quickly broke economic relations, upending well-established supply chains and reliable sources of income from abroad. The United States used its financial might to freeze hundreds of billions of dollars in Russian assets and cut the country off from the global financial system.Nineteen months later, the economic picture is decidedly mixed. The Russian economy has proved to be much more resilient than many Western governments assumed after imposing a punishing string of sanctions.Moscow has found other buyers for its oil. It has pumped money into the economy at a rapid pace to finance its military machine, putting almost every available worker into a job and raising the size of weekly paychecks. Total output, which the Russian Central Bank estimates may rise as much as 2.5 percent this year, could outpace the European Union and possibly even the United States.Yet that is only part of the story. As Laura Solanko, a senior adviser at the Bank of Finland Institute for Economies in Transition, said: “When a country is at war, gross domestic product is a fairly poor measure of welfare.” Producing bullets adds to a country’s growth rate without necessarily improving the quality of life.The insistent demand for foreign currency — to pay for imported goods or provide a safe investment — has also caused the value of the ruble to sink at a precipitous pace. Last week, it fell to a symbolic break point of 100 to the dollar, further fueling inflation and raising anxiety levels among consumers.Shoppers buying meat at the central market in Rostov-on-Don, Russia, in 2021. Inflation in Russia has driven up the price of meat and other products since the start of the war in Ukraine.Sergey Ponomarev for The New York TimesThe spike in government spending and borrowing has seriously stressed an already overheated economy. The central bank rapidly raised interest rates to 13 percent over the summer, as annual inflation continued to climb. Higher rates, which make it more expensive for businesses to expand and consumers to buy on credit, is likely to slow growth.Consumers are also feeling the squeeze for daily purchases. “Dairy products, especially butter, meat and even bread have gone up in price,” said Lidia Adreevna as she shopped and examined prices at an Auchan supermarket in Moscow. She blamed the central bank.“Life changes,” she offered, “nothing stays forever, not love, or happiness.”Other pensioners at the store also spoke about increases in meat and poultry prices, something almost half of Russians have noticed in the past month, according to survey data from the Moscow-based Public Opinion Foundation published Friday. Respondents also noted increases in the price of medicine and construction materials.Moscow imposed a temporary ban on diesel and gasoline exports last month in an effort to ease shortages and slow rising energy prices, but the restrictions further reduced the amount of foreign currency coming into the country.The exodus of funds is so worrying that the government has warned of reinstating controls on money leaving the country.With a presidential election scheduled in March, President Vladimir V. Putin acknowledged last month that accelerating inflation fueled by a weakened ruble was a major cause of concern. Getting a handle on price increases may discourage the government from embarking on its usual pre-election social spending.Lower standards of living can be “uncomfortable even for an authoritarian government,” said Charles Lichfield, deputy director of the Atlantic Council’s Geoeconomics Center.Since Russia imports a wide range of goods — from telephones and washing machines to cars, medicine and coffee — he said a devalued ruble makes “it more difficult for consumers to buy what they’re used to buying.”A Karachi Port Trust security guard keeping watch over the Clyde Noble, a Russian crude oil tanker berthed at the Karachi Port in Pakistan in June. Pakistan received discounted Russian crude oil as part of a new deal between Islamabad and Moscow.Rehan Khan/EPA, via ShutterstockThe United States, the European Union and countries allied with Ukraine have doggedly tried to cripple Russia with sweeping sanctions.The impact was swift and sharp in the spring of 2022. The ruble tumbled, the central bank increased rates to 20 percent to attract investors, and the government imposed strict controls on capital to keep money inside the country.But the ruble has since bounced back and interest rates come down. Russia found eager buyers elsewhere for its oil, which was selling at vastly discounted prices; liquefied natural gas; and other raw materials. More recently, Russia has become adept at evading the $60 per barrel price cap on oil imposed by the Group of 7 nations as global oil prices have once again started to rise.China is among the nations that have stepped up to buy energy and sell goods to Russia that they previously might have exchanged with European nations. Trade with China rose at an annual rate of 32 percent in the first eight months of this year. Trade with India tripled in the first half of the year, and exports from Turkey rose nearly 89 percent over the same period.Meanwhile, the war is gobbling up other parts of Russia’s budget aside from direct military spending. An additional 9.2 percent of the budget is slated for “national security,” which includes law enforcement. There is money for injured soldiers and for families of those killed in battle, and for “integrating new regions,” a reference to occupied territory in Ukraine.Sergei Guriev, a Russian economist who fled the country in 2013 and is now provost at Sciences Po in Paris, said accurately assessing the Russian economy is difficult. The existing economic models were designed before the war and based on different assumptions, and the published budget figures are incomplete.What that means for Russian households on a daily basis is harder to discern.“Overall, it’s very hard to compare quality of life before and after the war,” Mr. Guriev said. “It’s hard to know what Russians think. People are afraid.”Valerie Hopkins More

  • 113 Shares199 Views

    in Economy

    Russian Attack Threatens Even Alternative Routes for Ukrainian Grain

    by

    The attack on a grain hangar on the Danube River, an alternative export route that has become an economic lifeline, complicates Ukraine’s efforts to export its grain.For shipping companies looking for a way to bring Ukrainian grain to global markets, the options keep dwindling, escalating a trade crisis that is expected to add pressure on global food prices.Russia last week pulled out of an agreement that had allowed for the safe passage of vessels through the Black Sea. On Monday it threatened an alternative route for grain, attacking a grain hangar at a Ukrainian port on the Danube River that has served as a key artery for transporting goods while the Black Sea remains blockaded. “It’s opening a new front in the targeting of Ukrainian grain exports,” said Alexis Ellender, an analyst at Kpler, a commodities analytics firm, adding that the route had been considered safe because of its proximity to Romania, a NATO member.“This will potentially close off that route,” he said. It could also raise rates for shipping insurance and further cripple Ukraine’s ability to export grain.Hours after the predawn attack on the hangar at the Ukrainian port of Reni, dozens of vessels that had been bound to collect grain from Ukraine were clustered at the mouth of the Danube. More

  • 138 Shares189 Views

    in Economy

    Wheat Prices Remain High as Concern Grows About Black Sea Instability

    by

    As Black Sea-bound vessels clustered in the waters near Istanbul, wheat prices remained elevated on Thursday, up 13 percent since Monday, when Russia pulled out of a wartime agreement that had been considered critical to stabilizing global food prices.The termination of the deal, which had permitted Ukraine to safely export its grain through the Black Sea, could have significant long-term consequences for grain supplies, said Alexis Ellender, a global analyst at Kpler, a commodities analytics firm. Despite robust grain harvests from exporters including Brazil and Australia, prices could become volatile.“By not having Ukraine there as a supplier, we’re increasing the vulnerability of the global grain market to these shocks,” Mr. Ellender said. “In the short term, supplies are good, but longer term, if we get any more supply shocks, we’re more vulnerable in terms of the global market.”Another drought in Brazil, like in 2021, or a disruption to Australia’s barley and wheat crop caused by El Niño, could cause prices to soar, he said.Russian threats to attack commercial vessels heading to Ukrainian ports have stalled traffic in the area. Marine tracking data shows that ships that had been en route to the Black Sea are sitting in ports in Istanbul as they wait to see if an agreement could be hammered out.“They’re still deciding what they’re going to do,” he said. Some vessels could look to pick up shipments of grain from other parts of Europe.At the moment, a quick resolution looks unlikely. Russia bombarded the port city of Odesa with missiles and drones on Tuesday and Wednesday, after an apparent Ukrainian drone strike on a Russian bridge linking the occupied Crimean Peninsula to mainland Russia.The suspension of the deal between Russia and Ukraine also has implications for maritime insurers and shipowners, who will no longer have insurance coverage to travel to Ukrainian ports, said James Whitlam, a product director at Concirrus, a marine data and analytics platform. While the deal between Russia and Ukraine was in effect, ships were able to secure insurance coverage under a temporary agreement.“Insurance markets are now scrambling around trying to understand what exposure they have,” Mr. Whitlam said.Despite recent increases, grain prices are still lower than they were on the eve of Russia’s invasion of Ukraine in February 2022, partly because the end of the deal was expected, Mr. Ellender said. In addition, Ukrainian grain exports have recently been at reduced levels because of limited labor, with workers fighting the war, and limited fuel supplies and lost territory to Russia.Ukraine has also increased exports by truck, train and river barge.Ukraine is still likely to be able to export most of its wheat, corn, barley and sunflower seeds via alternative routes, said Rabobank, a Dutch bank, on Thursday. But this will put additional pressure on ports on the Danube River, which flows from the Black Forest in Germany to the Black Sea, and the cost of transport will become more expensive, and rail infrastructure will be at a higher risk of Russian attack, the note said.“The higher transport cost means that Ukrainian farmers may, quite possibly, reduce planted area in the future,” the note said.Ukraine is one of the leading exporters of grain and the leading global exporter of sunflower oil, and the deal had allowed Ukraine to restart the export of millions of tons of grain that dropped after the invasion.Ukraine has exported 32.9 million metric tons of grain and other agricultural products to 45 countries since the initiative began, according to United Nations data. Under the agreement, ships had been permitted to pass by Russian naval vessels that had blockaded Ukraine’s ports in the aftermath of Russia’s full-scale invasion.Soaring prices are expected to hit the poorest people in the world the hardest. Ukraine last year had supplied more than half of the World Food Program’s wheat grain sent to people in Afghanistan, Ethiopia, Kenya, Somalia, Sudan, and Yemen, according to the U.N. More

  • 113 Shares199 Views

    in Economy

    Opposition Grows to U.S. Imports of ‘Laundered’ Russian Oil

    by

    Human rights groups and Ukrainian officials want the United States to stop buying Russian crude oil that has been refined into other products in third countries like IndiaUkrainian officials and human rights groups are asking the United States to close what they describe as a loophole that allows Russian crude oil that has been refined in other countries to be shipped to the United States.The Biden administration issued a ban in March last year on purchasing crude oil and other petroleum products directly from Russia, immediately after the Kremlin’s invasion of Ukraine. The European Union, which was heavily dependent on Russia for supplies of energy, banned Russian crude in December and then petroleum products in February.But both the United States and the European Union continue to buy Russian oil that has been refined in other countries into gasoline, fuel oil and other products. Countries like Turkey, the United Arab Emirates, Singapore, China and particularly India are snapping up Russian oil, which must now be sold at a reduced price under a cap imposed by the United States and Europe. These nations — which have been described as “laundromat” countries by environmental and human rights groups — then refine the oil and send it to other markets.This activity is legal: Once Russian crude oil has been “substantially transformed” by being refined in another country, it legally ceases to be Russian. The same standards have long applied to oil from other nations that are under sanctions, like Iran and Venezuela.Still, opposition to this sort of trade is growing.Oleg Ustenko, an economic adviser to the Ukrainian president, said such U.S. purchases meant “that we are indirectly supporting this insurrection, which is just not acceptable.”“I don’t know how it sounds in English, but in Ukrainian I’m calling this strategy as a cockroach strategy, meaning they are trying to find all possible loopholes, as a cockroach trying to crawl through these holes into your apartment,” he said of Russia’s oil trade. “And what you need to do, you need to close all these holes.”It’s difficult to estimate how much refined petroleum the United States is importing that originally came from Russia. But a report released Thursday by Global Witness, a London-based organization that advocates environmental and human rights, suggested that the volume was small but not insignificant.Take India, one of the biggest participants in this activity. The United States imported roughly 152 million barrels of refined petroleum products in the first five months of this year, with about 8 percent coming from India.More than 80 percent of refined oil that the United States imports from India came from a single port: Sikka, in Gujarat Province, which is home to the Jamnagar Refinery, the world’s largest refinery, according to calculations by Global Witness. And in the first five months of the year, the group estimated, 35 percent of the crude oil arriving at the port was of Russian origin.To block these flows, Global Witness proposes banning all imports from refineries that buy Russian crude oil. The group sent members to Washington last week to lobby members of Congress on the move, including in the committees overseeing energy and support for Ukraine.“Banning oil from refineries running on Russia crude is a common-sense decision for the U.S.,” said Lela Stanley, senior investigator at Global Witness.Mr. Ustenko and Ms. Stanley said such a ban was unlikely to have much impact on U.S. gas prices. But Tom Kloza, global head of energy analysis at the Oil Price Information Service, which tracks wholesale and retail prices of oil, said he believed it would have some effect.“If you remove a number of countries as potential sources for gasoline and diesel, there’s an impact in the U.S. and an impact in Europe,” he said.Mr. Kloza said that the Biden administration might be reluctant to take any step that would raise gas prices with an election approaching — and that such a ban could also prove difficult to police. He pointed to the example of Saudi Arabia, which last year had started importing Russian diesel, while also exporting more diesel from Saudi refineries to other countries.“There’s lots of ways to get around the Russian boycott,” he said.It also remains to be seen what such a ban would mean for the U.S. relationship with India, which the Biden administration regards as a key strategic partner. The Jamnagar Refinery is owned by Reliance Industry, which is in turn controlled by Mukesh Ambani, an Indian businessman. Mr. Ambani is a close partner to the Indian prime minister, Narendra Modi, and was a guest at the state dinner that the White House threw for Mr. Modi last week. More