Russian Invasion of Ukraine (2022)

Latest story

150 Shares87 Views

New Plan to Target Russia’s Oil Revenue Brings Debate in White House

by

Treasury officials want to impose penalties on tankers that help Russian oil evade sanctions. White House aides worry that risks making gasoline more expensive.Officials in President Biden’s Treasury Department have proposed new actions aimed at crippling a fleet of aging oil tankers that are helping deliver Russian oil to buyers around the world in defiance of Western sanctions.Their effort is aimed at punishing Russia but it has stalled amid White House concerns over how it would affect energy prices ahead of the November election.In an attempt to drain Russia of money needed to continue fighting its war in Ukraine, the United States and its allies have imposed penalties and taken other novel steps to limit how much Moscow earns from selling oil abroad. But Russia has increasingly found ways around those limits, raising pressure on the Biden administration to tighten its enforcement efforts.Treasury officials want to do that, in part, by targeting a so-called shadow fleet of oil tankers that is allowing Russia to sell oil above a $60-per-barrel price cap that the United States and its allies imposed in 2022.That cap was intended to restrict Moscow’s ability to profit from its energy exports while allowing its oil to continue flowing on international markets to prevent a global price shock. But Russia has largely circumvented the cap, allowing it to reap huge profits to fund its war efforts.While Treasury officials want to knock Russian tankers out of commission, economic advisers inside the White House worry that would risk inflaming oil prices this summer and push up U.S. gasoline prices, which could hurt Mr. Biden’s re-election campaign. They have not signed off on the proposals, even as current and former Treasury officials present them with analyses suggesting the risks of a major effect on the oil market are low.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

  • 150 Shares119 Views

    in Economy

    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

  • 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

  • 163 Shares199 Views

    in Economy

    For First Time in Two Decades, U.S. Buys More From Mexico Than China

    by

    The United States bought more goods from Mexico than China in 2023 for the first time in 20 years, evidence of how much global trade patterns have shifted.In the depths of the pandemic, as global supply chains buckled and the cost of shipping a container from China soared nearly twentyfold, Marco Villarreal spied an opportunity.In 2021, Mr. Villarreal resigned as Caterpillar’s director general in Mexico and began nurturing ties with companies looking to shift manufacturing from China to Mexico. He found a client in Hisun, a Chinese producer of all-terrain vehicles, which hired Mr. Villarreal to establish a $152 million manufacturing site in Saltillo, an industrial hub in northern Mexico.Mr. Villarreal said foreign companies, particularly those seeking to sell within North America, saw Mexico as a viable alternative to China for several reasons, including the simmering trade tensions between the United States and China.“The stars are aligning for Mexico,” he said.New data released on Wednesday showed that Mexico outpaced China for the first time in 20 years to become America’s top source of official imports — a significant shift that highlights how increased tensions between Washington and Beijing are altering trade flows.The United States’ trade deficit with China narrowed significantly last year, with goods imports from the country dropping 20 percent to $427.2 billion, the data shows. American consumers and businesses turned to Mexico, Europe, South Korea, India, Canada and Vietnam for auto parts, shoes, toys and raw materials.Imports from China fell last yearU.S. imports of goods by origin

    Sources: U.S. Census Bureau; U.S. Bureau of Economic AnalysisBy The New York TimesWe 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

  • 113 Shares149 Views

    in Economy

    Global Economy Is Heading Toward ‘Soft Landing,’ I.M.F. Says

    by

    The International Monetary Fund upgraded its growth forecasts and offered a more optimistic outlook for the world economy.The global economy has been battered by a pandemic, record levels of inflation, protracted wars and skyrocketing interest rates over the past four years, raising fears of a painful worldwide downturn. But fresh forecasts published on Tuesday suggest that the world has managed to defy the odds, averting the threat of a so-called hard landing.Projections from the International Monetary Fund painted a picture of economic durability — one that policymakers have been hoping to achieve while trying to manage a series of cascading crises.In its latest economic outlook, the I.M.F. projected global growth of 3.1 percent this year — the same pace as in 2023 and an upgrade from its previous forecast of 2.9 percent. Predictions of a global recession have receded, with inflation easing faster than economists anticipated. Central bankers, including the Federal Reserve, are expected to begin cutting interest rates in the coming months.“The global economy has shown remarkable resilience, and we are now in the final descent to a soft landing,” said Pierre-Olivier Gourinchas, the chief economist of the I.M.F.Policymakers who feared they would need to hit the brakes on economic growth to contain rising prices have managed to tame inflation without tipping the world into a recession. The I.M.F. expects global inflation to fall to 5.8 percent this year and 4.4 percent in 2025 from 6.8 percent in 2023. It estimates that 80 percent of the world’s economies will experience lower annual inflation this year.The brighter outlook is due largely to the strength of the U.S. economy, which grew 3.1 percent last year. That robust growth came despite the Fed’s aggressive series of rate increases, which raised borrowing costs to their highest levels in 22 years. Consumer spending in America has held strong while businesses have continued to invest. The I.M.F. now expects the U.S. economy to grow 2.1 percent this year, up from its previous prediction of 1.5 percent.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?  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 Shares189 Views

    in Economy

    U.S. and Europe Eye Russian Assets to Aid Ukraine as Funding Dries Up

    by

    Despite legal reservations, policymakers are weighing the consequences of using $300 billion in Russian assets to help Kyiv’s war effort.The Biden administration is quietly signaling new support for seizing more than $300 billion in Russian central bank assets stashed in Western nations, and has begun urgent discussions with allies about using the funds to aid Ukraine’s war effort at a moment when financial support is waning, according to senior American and European officials.Until recently, Treasury Secretary Janet L. Yellen had argued that without action by Congress, seizing the funds was “not something that is legally permissible in the United States.” There has also been concern among some top American officials that nations around the world would hesitate to keep their funds at the New York Federal Reserve, or in dollars, if the United States established a precedent for seizing the money.But the administration, in coordination with the Group of 7 industrial nations, has begun taking another look at whether it can use its existing authorities or if it should seek congressional action to use the funds. Support for such legislation has been building in Congress, giving the Biden administration optimism that it could be granted the necessary authority.The talks among finance ministers, central bankers, diplomats and lawyers have intensified in recent weeks, officials said, with the Biden administration pressing Britain, France, Germany, Italy, Canada and Japan to come up with a strategy by Feb. 24, the second anniversary of the invasion.The more than $300 billion of Russian assets under discussion have already been out of Moscow’s control for more than a year. After the invasion of Ukraine, the United States, along with Europe and Japan, used sanctions to freeze the assets, denying Russia access to its international reserves.But seizing the assets would take matters a significant step further and require careful legal consideration.President Biden has not yet signed off on the strategy, and many of the details remain under heated discussion. Policymakers must determine if the money will be channeled directly to Ukraine or used to its benefit in other ways.They are also discussing what kinds of guardrails might be associated with the funds, such as whether the money could be used only for reconstruction and budgetary purposes to support Ukraine’s economy, or whether — like the funds Congress is debating — it could be spent directly on the military effort.The discussions have taken on greater urgency since Congress failed to reach a deal to provide military aid before the end of the year. On Tuesday, lawmakers abandoned a last-ditch effort amid a stalemate over Republican demands that any aid be tied to a crackdown on migration across the U.S. border with Mexico.The Financial Times reported earlier that the Biden administration had come around to the view that seizing Russia’s assets was viable under international law.A senior administration official said this week that even if Congress ultimately reached a deal to pay for more arms for Ukraine and aid to its government, eroding support for the war effort among Republicans and Ukraine’s increasingly precarious military position made it clear that an alternative source of funding was desperately needed.American officials have said that current funding for the Ukrainians is nearly exhausted, and they are scrambling to find ways to provide artillery rounds and air defenses for the country. With Europe’s own promise of fresh funds also stuck, a variety of new ideas are being debated about how to use the Russian assets, either dipping into them directly, using them to guarantee loans or using the interest income they earn to help Ukraine.“This amount of money that we’re talking about here is simply game-changing,” said Philip Zelikow, a State Department official in both Bush administrations and a senior fellow at Stanford University’s Hoover Institution. “The fight over this money which is occurring is actually in some ways the essential campaign of the war.”Seizing such a large sum of money from another sovereign nation would be without precedent, and such an action could have unpredictable legal ramifications and economic consequences. It would almost certainly lead to lawsuits and retaliation from Russia.Ukraine’s president, Volodymyr Zelensky, referred to the discussions in a video address to his country last week, saying that “the issue of frozen assets was one of the very important decisions addressed” during his recent talks in Washington. He seemed to suggest that the funds should be directed to arms purchases, adding, “The assets of the terrorist state and its affiliates should be used to support Ukraine, to protect lives and people from Russian terror.”In a sign that some European countries are ready to move forward with confiscating Russian assets, German prosecutors this week seized about $790 million from the Frankfurt bank account of a Russian financial firm that was under E.U. sanctions.The Biden administration has said little in public about the negotiations. At the State Department on Tuesday, Matthew Miller, a spokesman, said: “It’s something that we have looked at. There remains sort of operational questions about that, and legal questions.” He said he did not have more information.Very little of the Russian assets, perhaps $5 billion or so by some estimates, are in the hands of U.S. institutions. But a significant chunk of Russia’s foreign reserves are held in U.S. dollars, both in the United States and in Europe. The United States has the power to police transactions involving its currency and use its sanctions to immobilize dollar-denominated assets.President Volodymyr Zelensky of Ukraine at the Capitol this month. A Biden administration official said that even if Congress ultimately reached a deal to send more aid to Ukraine, an alternative source of funding was still desperately needed.Kent Nishimura for The New York TimesThe bulk of the Russian deposits are believed to be in Europe, including in Switzerland and Belgium, which are not part of the Group of 7. As a result, diplomatic negotiations are underway over how to gain access to those funds, some of which are held in euros and other currencies.American officials were surprised that President Vladimir V. Putin did not repatriate the funds before the Ukraine invasion. But in interviews over the past year, they have speculated that Mr. Putin did not believe the funds would be seized, because they were left untouched after his invasion and annexation of Crimea in 2014. And bringing the funds home to Russia would have been another tipoff that an invasion was imminent, at a time Mr. Putin was vigorously denying American and British charges that he was preparing for military action.One Group of 7 official said the coalition had been considering a variety of options for how to use Russia’s assets, with the goal of putting forward a unified proposal around the second anniversary of the war, when many top officials will be gathering in Germany for the Munich Security Conference. The first debates have focused on what would be permissible under international law and under each nation’s domestic laws, as they consider Russia’s likely legal responses and retaliatory measures.Earlier in the year, American officials said they thought the frozen assets could be used as leverage to help force Russia to the negotiating table for a cease-fire; presumably, in return, Moscow would be given access to some of its assets. But Russia has shown no interest in such negotiations, and now officials argue that beginning to use the funds may push Moscow to move to the negotiating table.Among the options that Western countries have discussed are seizing the assets directly and transferring them to Ukraine, using interest earned and other profits from the assets that are held in European financial institutions to Ukraine’s benefit or using the assets as collateral for loans to Ukraine.Daleep Singh, a former top Biden administration official, suggested in an interview this year that the immobilized reserves should be placed into an escrow account that Ukraine’s Ministry of Finance could have access to and be used as collateral for new bonds that Ukraine would issue.If Ukraine can successfully repay the debt — over a period of 10 to 30 years — then Russia could potentially have its frozen assets back.“If they can’t repay, my hunch is that Russia probably has something to do with that,” said Mr. Singh, who is now the chief global economist at PGIM Fixed Income. “And so in that way, Russia has a stake in Ukraine’s emergence as a sovereign independent economy and country.”Settling on a solid legal rationale has been one of the biggest challenges for policymakers as they decide how to proceed.Proponents of seizing Russia’s assets, such as Mr. Zelikow and former Treasury Secretary Lawrence Summers, have argued that nations that hold Russian assets are entitled to cancel their obligations to Russia and apply those assets to what Russia owes for its breach of international law under the so-called international law of state countermeasures. They note that after Iraq’s invasion of Kuwait in 1990, $50 billion of Iraqi funds were seized and transferred through the United Nations to compensate victims in Iraq and other countries.Robert B. Zoellick, the former World Bank president, has been making the case to Group of 7 finance ministers that as long as they act in unison, seizing Russian assets would not have an impact on their currencies or the status of the dollar. He suggested that other countries were unlikely to rush to put their money into another currency, such as China’s renminbi.“With reserve currencies, it’s always a question of what your alternatives are,” said Mr. Zoellick, who was also a Treasury and State Department official.One of the obstacles in the United States for seizing Russian assets has been the view within the Biden administration that being able to lawfully do so would require an act of Congress. At a news conference in Germany last year, Ms. Yellen highlighted that concern.“While we’re beginning to look at this, it would not be legal now, in the United States, for the government to seize those statutes,” Ms. Yellen said. “It’s not something that is legally permissible in the United States.”Since then, however, Ms. Yellen has become more open to the idea of seizing Russia’s assets to aid Ukraine.Factions of Congress have previously tried to attach provisions to the annual defense bill to allow the Justice Department to seize Russian assets belonging to officials under sanction and funnel the proceeds from the sale of those assets to Ukraine to help pay for weapons. But the efforts have faltered amid concerns that the proposals were not thoroughly vetted.With Ukraine running low on funds and ammunition, the debate about how to provide more aid could shift from a legal question to a moral question.“One can understand the precedential point made by those who do not believe the assets should be seized,” said Mark Sobel, a former longtime Treasury Department official who is now the U.S. chairman of the Official Monetary and Financial Institutions Forum. “Given skirmishes and wars in many spots, one could easily argue such a precedent could get out of hand.”However, Mr. Sobel argued that the barbarity of Russia’s actions justified using its assets to compensate Ukraine.“In my mind, humanity dictates that those factors outweigh the argument that seizing the assets would be unprecedented simply because Russia’s heinous and unfathomable behavior must be strongly punished,” he said.Eric Schmitt More

  • 138 Shares199 Views

    in Economy

    Russia’s Central Bank Raises Rates to 15 Percent to Curb Inflation

    by

    The jump, from 13 percent, would bring a long period of “tight monetary conditions” in order to ease price pressures, the bank said. Russia’s Central Bank on Friday raised its key interest rate by two percentage points to 15 percent, a bigger increase than expected as the bank said it was trying to bring down stubbornly high inflation. The central bank, which said the annual inflation rate would range from 7 to 7.5 percent this year, predicted a long period of “tight monetary conditions” in order to bring the rate down close to its target of 4 percent.Driving the price pressures is “steadily rising domestic demand,” the bank said in its statement, spurred by the Kremlin’s decision to inject more money into the economy as it fights a war in Ukraine. The surge in spending “is increasingly exceeding the capabilities to expand the production of goods and the provision of services,” the bank said.At a news conference Friday, Elvira Nabiullina, the head of the Central Bank, said that increased government spending was one of the reasons for the interest rate increase. Russia’s defense budget has more than tripled since last year’s invasion of Ukraine, and it is scheduled to reach almost a third of the government’s spending next year.Russia was largely successful at weathering the immediate storm produced by sanctions aimed at punishing it for the invasion. The restrictions greatly curtailed its lucrative trade with Western countries and largely isolated it from the global financial system.But as Russia spends vast amounts on its war machine, its industrial production and labor markets are unable to keep up with the increased demand, translating into higher inflation and high levels of borrowing.GUM, a luxury shopping mall in Moscow, in August last year.Nanna Heitmann for The New York TimesYevgeny Nadorshin, the chief economist at the PF Capital consulting company in Moscow, said the central bank’s effort to slow the economy by raising interest rates could “suffocate the country’s growth.” “We are in the moment when growth is transforming into a recession,” Mr. Nadorshin said.He pointed to Russia’s mortgage and consumer borrowing markets, which have experienced rapid expansion. “People are still tense about the economy, but they feel that in the moment, things are much better than expected,” Mr. Nadorshin said in a phone interview. “People feel that this is a short period that they must take advantage of.”But Dmitri Polevoy, an economist in Moscow, said that despite high interest rates, he doesn’t see major risks with the Russian economy.“This story is exclusively about inflation,” Mr. Polevoy said in written comments to questions posed through a messaging service. “Under the current budgetary policy and with the same external conditions,” he said, “the risk of a recession is low.”After experiencing a nosedive following the invasion of Ukraine, the Russian economy has returned to growth. The International Monetary Fund recently estimated economic output would rise 2.2 percent this year, as oil exports have largely evaded Western sanctions and found new customers in India, China and other countries.The country has also been able to import Western goods from some former Soviet republics, as well as Turkey and Gulf States. Russian businesses, including banks, have adapted too, serving needs since the departure of many Western companies. More

  • 150 Shares189 Views

    in Economy

    Biden Seeks to Tame Oil Prices if Mideast Conflict Sends Them Soaring

    by

    The president has previously drawn down the Strategic Petroleum Reserve to ease price pressures, but that could be more difficult nowBiden administration officials, worried that a growing conflict in the Middle East could send global oil prices soaring, are looking for ways to hold down American gasoline prices if such a jump occurs.Those efforts include discussions with large oil-producing nations like Saudi Arabia that are holding back supply and with American oil producers that have the ability to pump more than they already are producing, administration officials say.A senior administration official said in an interview that it was also possible that President Biden could authorize a new round of releases from the nation’s Strategic Petroleum Reserve, an emergency stockpile of crude oil that is stored in underground salt caverns near the Gulf of Mexico. Mr. Biden tapped the reserve aggressively last year after Russia’s invasion of Ukraine sent oil prices skyrocketing, leaving the amount of oil in those reserves at historically low levels.The conflict in the Middle East has not yet sent oil prices surging. A barrel of Brent crude oil was trading for about $88 on global markets on Wednesday. That was up from about $84 earlier this month, shortly before Hamas attacked Israel and rattled markets. But analysts and administration officials fear prices could rise significantly more if the conflict in Israel spreads, restricting the flow of oil out of Iran or other major producers in the region.So far, American drivers have not felt a pinch. The average price of gasoline nationally was $3.54 a gallon on Wednesday, according to AAA. That was down about 30 cents from a month ago and 25 cents from the same day last year.Administration officials are wary of the possibility that prices could again jump above $5 a gallon, a level they briefly touched in the spring of 2022. Mr. Biden took extraordinary efforts then to help bring prices down — but those steps are likely to be far less effective in the event of a new oil shock.“They succeeded last year in the second half, but this year I think they’ve kind of run out of bullets,” said Amrita Sen, director of research at Energy Aspects.In part that’s because the administration did not refill the strategic reserve more aggressively when prices were lower, Ms. Sen said. That could undercut its ability to counteract rising prices now.“They got a little overconfident that prices would stay low,” she said. “In some ways, they’ve missed the boat.”

    .dw-chart-subhed {
    line-height: 1;
    margin-bottom: 6px;
    font-family: nyt-franklin;
    color: #121212;
    font-size: 15px;
    font-weight: 700;
    }

    Crude oil in the strategic petroleum reserve
    Note: Levels are as of end of each week.Source: Energy Information AdministrationBy The New York TimesMr. Biden released a record 180 million barrels of oil from the strategic reserve, flooding the market with additional supply. His administration replenished just six million barrels when prices dipped this year, leaving the reserve at its lowest level since the 1980s. The Energy Department announced plans last week to continue refilling in the months ahead, but only if prices drop below $79 a barrel.Administration officials insist that tapping the reserve again remains an option. It still holds more than 350 million barrels of oil. That’s more than enough to counteract a disruption in oil markets if one occurs, energy analysts say.The U.S. economy is also less vulnerable to a price spike than in previous decades because the country has become less dependent on foreign oil. The United States produced more than 400 million barrels of oil in July, a record.

    .dw-chart-subhed {
    line-height: 1;
    margin-bottom: 6px;
    font-family: nyt-franklin;
    color: #121212;
    font-size: 15px;
    font-weight: 700;
    }

    Monthly U.S. crude oil production
    Source: Energy Information AdministrationBy The New York Times“There’s still a lot of oil in the U.S. strategic reserve, and the U.S. is not in this alone,” said Richard Newell, president and chief executive of Resources for the Future, an energy-focused think tank. He noted that other countries had their own strategic reserves.Still, with Mr. Biden already taking criticism from Republicans for depleting the stockpile, he may be reluctant to tap it again now. “There’s another arrow in the quiver, but there’s only so many arrows right now,” said Jim Burkhard, head of energy markets research for S&P Global Commodity Insights. “Could they repeat it? Yes, but then you’re left with much, much less oil.”The stakes for Mr. Biden are high. Voters often punish presidents for high gasoline prices, and the challenge is amplified for Mr. Biden because, unlike most presidents, he has leaned into his role — intervening aggressively when prices soared early last year, and then claiming credit when prices fell.Independent experts say Mr. Biden is justified in claiming some credit for the moderation in prices last year, though they say other factors — including weaker-than-expected Chinese oil demand — also played a major role.The initial jump in oil prices was driven not by an actual shortage of oil but by a fear of one: Investors worried that millions of barrels of Russian oil would be blocked from the international market, either as a result of Western sanctions or Russian retaliation.Worried that the growing conflict in the Middle East could send oil prices soaring, Biden officials are looking for ways to hold down gasoline prices.Mark Abramson for The New York TimesMr. Biden’s decision to release oil from the strategic reserve provided additional supply at a crucial moment, helping to calm markets and push prices down.Analysts worried that additional sanctions from Europe, which were set to take effect near the end of 2022, would cause a second surge in prices by knocking more Russian supply offline. The Biden administration worked to prevent that by leading an international effort to impose a price cap on Russia that allowed the country to keep exporting oil — but only at reduced prices.That effort has worked to keep Russian oil flowing to markets and avoid a supply shock. In the first half of this year, it also appeared to be denting Moscow’s oil revenues. Increasingly, Russia has found ways around the price cap, forcing administration officials to take steps this month to crack down on enforcement of the cap in hopes of reducing the price at which Russian oil is sold.There is some risk that those enforcement efforts could at least temporarily knock Russian supply off the market at a tenuous time for global oil supply. But more important for the administration, there is little chance that a similar sort of price cap could help keep supply flowing from a large oil producer that could be involved in a widening war in the Middle East — most notably, Iran.Last October, the White House announced that it would enter into contracts to buy oil for the strategic reserve when prices fell below $72 a barrel. Doing so, the administration argued, would not just replenish the reserve but encourage domestic production by guaranteeing demand for oil at a reasonable price. But the effort has gotten off to a fitful start.Rory Johnston, an oil market analyst, said that the administration had been admirably creative in its energy policy, but that its execution had been flawed. Investors, he said, have been left skeptical about the administration’s ability to execute its strategy on refiling the reserve. They are also wondering if Mr. Biden will ever be willing to risk the political hit from driving up oil prices, by buying supply and pulling it off the market to refill the reserve.“If you want to be cynical, they’re very keen to do the price downside stuff and understandably not as keen to do the things that could seen as lifting prices,” Mr. Johnston said. More