News round-up, July 5, 2023
By the way of…
The meeting between Modi, Putin, and Xi on Thursday could end a long-standing narrative titled:
"I Love You, But I am Not In Love With You..."
Or, to the brilliant Milan Kundera thinking’s:
“The true essence of emotions lies not in yearning for a passionate tryst but rather in yearning for a peaceful slumber with a cherished companion...
Russia, China, and Indian leaders will hold a virtual Shanghai Cooperation Organization meeting to discuss their priorities and objectives.
For Russian President Vladimir V. Putin, it is imperative to demonstrate his authority in response to the uprising of the Wagner mercenary group and to secure international support for his ill-fated and unsuccessful military intervention in Ukraine. Putin needs the support of his fellow leaders; however, he only received —superficial displays of affection— during the previous convention. A sense of caution has accompanied China's support in bolstering Putin's position.
Consequently, Xi has already encountered strained relations with his European counterparts due to their divergent positions on issues related to Russia. In stark contrast, Xi Jinping expressed his disapproval of the United States and called for an end to hegemonic practices.
Finally, Narendra Modi, the —arising start— Prime Minister of India, will seize the opportunity to highlight India's growing influence and indirectly convey disapproval towards Pakistan. Given the strategic considerations and the imperative to counterbalance China's influence, it is likely that India will continue to participate in the Shanghai Cooperation Organization (SCO) actively.
Concerns Surrounding the Zaporiyia Nuclear Power Plant Today
Concerns have arisen regarding the current state of the Zaporiyia Nuclear Power Plant, located close to the Chernobyl disaster site. These concerns stem from deliberately damaging a vital dike that supplies water to cool down the reactor.
In her latest work, "The Ridiculous Idea of Never Seeing You Again," Rosa Montero, born on January 3, 1951, in Cuatro Caminos, the acclaimed Spanish journalist and contemporary fiction author, takes us on a profound journey that intertwines the life of Marie Curie, was born on November 7, 1867, in Warsaw, Congress Kingdom of Poland, Russian Empire and passed away on July 4, 1934, near Sallanches, France. By using the biography of the Nobel Prize, Marie Curie as a narrative thread, Montero skillfully invites us to reflect on the challenges of our time. Montero's book is challenging to categorize and opens with a striking sentence: "As I have not had children, the most important thing that has happened in my life is my death." This diary-like narrative explores the life and contributions of Marie Curie, a Polish chemist and physicist who later became a French citizen. Thanks to Curie and her husband, Pierre, we can now combat cancer, but “Curie's explanations about the dangers of radiation are unparalleled. It is crucial to remember that exposure to radium radiation can destroy malignant tissue, making it an effective treatment for halting the growth of cancerous tumors. Radium is also used as a source of neutrons in scientific experiments and in the production of radon for cancer treatment and other medical procedures. Polonium, on the other hand, is utilized in devices designed for static charge removal, special brushes used to eliminate dust that has accumulated on photographic film, and as heat sources for artificial satellites or space probes. Unfortunately, not all applications of these elements are positive, as their high radioactivity also poses a significant potential for harm. For example, when polonium is mixed with beryllium (a common element used for alloy hardening), it can cause a rapid implosion that triggers a chain reaction at the atomic level with other elements. As you may have guessed, this makes it an essential component of the atomic bomb.
Most read…
Judge Orders Biden Officials to Limit Contact With Social-Media Companies
Ruling says Biden administration policing of social media likely violated First Amendment
WSJ By Jacob Gershman, July 4, 2023 Wagner rebellion raises doubts about stability of Russia’s nuclear arsenal
The current situation in Russia has generated apprehension and unease among officials in Western countries. There is a legitimate concern that whoever assumes control over Russia's arsenal of weapons of mass destruction could pose a significant threat to global security.
The Washington Post By Robyn Dixon, July 5, 2023European Green Deal: More leaders call for 'a regulatory pause'
In the run-up to the 2024 elections, heads of state from the EU-27 are seeking to take into account the economic and social challenges posed by Russia's attack on Ukraine, including food security and the cost of living.
Le Monde By Virginie Malingre, yesterday (Paris)Saudi Arabia says new oil cuts show teamwork with Russia is strong
Russia and Saudi Arabia maintain robust oil cooperation within the OPEC+ alliance. It is comforting to know that the alliance is willing to take any necessary actions to support the market, as Saudi Energy Minister Prince Abdulaziz bin Salman mentioned.
Reuters By Ahmad Ghaddar, Alex Lawler and Shadia Nasralla, Editing by Germán & co, July 5, 2023
At the COA Spring Gala 2023, Andrés Gluski, the CEO & President of AES and Chairman of the Americas Society/Council of the Americas, presented President Lacalle Pou with the prestigious Gold Insigne. This award was given in recognition of President Lacalle Pou's outstanding leadership in successfully transforming Uruguay into a prominent technology and innovation hub, all while upholding a thriving democracy and robust economy.
The case tests the limits on government scrutiny of social-media content on sites like Twitter, Facebook and YouTube. PHOTO ILLUSTRATION: MATT CARDYJudge Orders Biden Officials to Limit Contact With Social-Media Companies
Ruling says Biden administration policing of social media likely violated First Amendment
WSJ By Jacob Gershman, July 4, 2023 A federal judge issued a broad preliminary injunction limiting the federal government from communicating with social-media companies about online content, ruling that Biden administration officials’ policing of social-media posts likely violated the First Amendment.
In a 155-page ruling issued Tuesday, U.S. District Judge Terry Doughty of Louisiana barred White House officials and multiple federal agencies from contacting social-media companies with the purpose of suppressing political views and other speech normally protected from government censorship.
The judge’s injunction came in a lawsuit led by the Republican attorneys general of Missouri and Louisiana who alleged that the Biden administration fostered a sprawling “federal censorship enterprise” in its effort to stamp out what it viewed as rampant disinformation circulating on social media.
The government, the lawsuit claimed, pressured social-media platforms to scrub away disfavored views about Covid-19 health policies, the origins of the pandemic, the Hunter Biden laptop story, election security and other divisive topics.
A spokesman for the Justice Department declined to comment on the ruling. In a brief previously filed with the court, the department denied the plaintiffs’ allegations and said that the federal government took necessary and responsible actions to deal with a pandemic and foreign attempts at election interference.
The case is among the most potentially consequential First Amendment battles pending in the courts, testing the limits on government scrutiny of social-media content on Twitter, Facebook, YouTube and other major platforms.
Never before has a federal judge set such sweeping limits on how the federal government may communicate with online platforms, according to lawyers involved in the case.
Some legal scholars have been skeptical that the government can be held responsible for content-moderation decisions ultimately made by private companies or that courts could intervene without chilling legitimate government speech about controversial matters of public interest.
The Justice Department is likely to appeal the injunction.
The judge’s Independence Day order is likely to intensify conservative criticisms about internet censorship and the debate over the government’s role in encouraging platforms to remove content that it considers to be misinformation, malicious content or harmful to public health.
“[T]he evidence produced thus far depicts an almost dystopian scenario,” wrote Doughty, an appointee of former President Donald Trump, in his ruling. “During the COVID-19 pandemic, a period perhaps best characterized by widespread doubt and uncertainty, the United States Government seems to have assumed a role similar to an Orwellian ‘Ministry of Truth.’”
The judge said the plaintiffs “have presented substantial evidence in support of their claims that they were the victims of a far-reaching and widespread censorship campaign” that he said almost exclusively targeted conservative views.
Missouri v. Biden, as the case is called, is among dozens of so-called censorship-by-proxy lawsuits challenging account suspensions, content removals and other suppression of social-media posts on First Amendment grounds.
The plaintiffs have argued that White House and other government officials bullied social-media companies into suppressing views disliked by the administration—including criticism of mask mandates and objections to Covid-19 vaccination for children—with veiled threats of new regulatory liabilities and antitrust enforcement.
Other courts have rejected similar claims, including in a lawsuit Trump brought against Twitter when it banned him after the Jan. 6, 2021, attack on the Capitol. Twitter’s new owner, Elon Musk, reinstated Trump, but after a federal court threw out Trump’s lawsuit due to in part an absence of evidence that Twitter had banned him at the government’s behest.
Courts have thrown out other lawsuits by censored medical activists, independent journalists and conservative commentators for failing to show that the social-media companies were doing the government’s bidding.
The Missouri v. Biden lawsuit has cast a wider net than other cases, with the states asserting an interest in protecting the speech rights of their citizens.
Doughty also permitted the plaintiffs at an unusually early stage in the case to gather additional evidence, such as email communications between White House officials and social-media companies, and to depose high-ranking government officials including Dr. Anthony Fauci, former director of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases.
The judge referred to numerous email exchanges between White House officials and platform executives. In one email to Google employees from April 2021, the White House’s then-director of digital strategy, Rob Flaherty, charged that YouTube was “funneling” people into vaccine hesitancy. “This is a concern that is shared at the highest (and I mean highest) levels of the WH,” he wrote.
The Missouri v. Biden lawsuit alleges the Federal Bureau of Investigation, the State Department’s Global Engagement Center and the Department of Homeland Security’s Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency colluded with social-media platforms “in hundreds of meetings about misinformation” and systematically flagged “huge quantities of First Amendment-protected speech to platforms for censorship.”
Other plaintiffs in the suit include epidemiologists who are authors of the Great Barrington Declaration, an October 2020 open letter critical of Covid-19 government lockdown policies and school closures. They allege that Fauci helped lead a campaign to discredit the declaration and suppress it on social media.
“What a way to celebrate Independence Day,” Missouri Attorney General Andrew Bailey tweeted in response to Tuesday’s ruling. In an earlier interview, Bailey described the case as the “most important First Amendment lawsuit in a generation.”
The Justice Department, representing the government defendants, filed a brief nearly 300 pages long denying the allegations, including that any of the content moderation decisions at issue were the result of government pressure.
“The record in this case shows that the Federal Government promoted necessary and responsible actions to protect public health, safety, and security when confronted by a deadly pandemic and hostile foreign assaults on critical election infrastructure,” the department said.
The department also warned that the proposed injunction sought by the plaintiffs “would significantly hinder the Federal Government’s ability to combat foreign malign influence campaigns, prosecute crimes, protect the national security, and provide accurate information to the public on matters of grave public concern such as healthcare and election integrity.”
Doughty wrote that his order isn’t a blanket ban on government communication with social media. He said agencies could inform platforms about postings involving criminal activity, national security and public-safety threats or content intending to mislead voters about voting requirements and procedures.
Nothing in his order, he wrote, prevents federal agencies from ”exercising permissible public government speech promoting government policies or views on matters of public concern.”
…”We proudly announce that several AES companies have been certified as Great Places to Work, including AES El Salvador, AES Dominicana, AES México, AES Panamá, and AES Puerto Rico. AES Servicios América ranked 3rd in the Great Place to Work for Women Argentina 2023. We're committed to providing an inclusive and empowering work environment for all, and our employees are our most valuable asset. Let's collaborate for a brighter, cleaner, and more sustainable future.
Ricardo Manuel Falú
Senior Vice President, Chief Strategy and Commercial Officer and President, New Energy Technologies SBU
A view of the Kremlin in Moscow. (Sergei Ilnitsky/EPA-EFE/Shutterstock) / Editing by Germán & CoWagner rebellion raises doubts about stability of Russia’s nuclear arsenal
The current situation in Russia has generated apprehension and unease among officials in Western countries. There is a legitimate concern that whoever assumes control over Russia's arsenal of weapons of mass destruction could pose a significant threat to global security.
The Washington Post By Robyn Dixon, July 5, 2023The rebellion in Russia by Wagner mercenaries confronted Western officials with one of their gravest fears: the possibility of political chaos and instability in the country with the world’s largest nuclear arsenal.
Anxiety over who might gain control of Russia’s weapons of mass destruction has long tempered Western hopes that President Vladimir Putin might be ousted from power. But months of nuclear posturing by Putin and other senior Russian officials, and a new debate among Moscow analysts on using a nuclear weapon on a NATO country, have raised doubts about whether Putin really provides the stability necessary to avoid an atomic Armageddon — or if he is the risk they should fear most.
Russian officials have played on the West’s nuclear fears throughout the war in an effort to undermine Western support for Ukraine and to slow weapons deliveries, a tactic that seems to have worked.
And in recent weeks the drumbeat has intensified, with some well-connected Russian strategic analysts and think tank experts openly proclaiming the “necessity” for Moscow to carry out a preemptive tactical nuclear strike on a NATO country, like Poland — to avoid defeat in the war on Ukraine and to revive Western terror of Russia’s nuclear might.
Since the Wagner rebellion, Sergei Karaganov, a former Kremlin adviser and influential Russian political scientist, has doubled down on calls for Moscow to do so. In an earlier article last month headlined, “A Difficult but Necessary Decision,” Karaganov argued the risk of a retaliatory nuclear strike on Russia, and nuclear Armageddon, “can be reduced to an absolute minimum.”
No sane American president would put the United States at risk by “sacrificing conditional Boston for conditional Poznań,” he wrote, referring to a city in Poland.
Hawkish Moscow-based military analyst, Dmitry Trenin, supported Karaganov, arguing that “an unambiguous — and no longer verbal — signal should be sent” to Washington.
“The possibility of using nuclear weapons in the current conflict should not be hidden,” he wrote in an essay, calling for the revision of Russia’s nuclear doctrine, which limits the use of nuclear weapons to cases where Russia’s existence is threatened. Both essays were published by influential Russian foreign policy think tank, the Foreign Policy Research Foundation.
Trenin lamented that Russia’s deployment of nuclear weapons in Belarus — which Putin says will be completed by year end — had caused no visible alarm in Western capitals.
Karaganov’s essays have a messianic tone that reflect Putin’s zealous view of his place in history, solving what Moscow likes to call “the Ukraine problem,” a reference to an independent, democratic nation choosing a pro-Europe path on Russian borders.
He argues nuclear weapons were invented by God to revive mankind’s fear of Armageddon, insisting, “That fear needs to be revived.” He sees Russia as “chosen by history” to destroy the “Western yoke,” and “finally free the world.”
Many Russian nuclear arms experts gasped in horror at the calls from Karaganov and Trenin. One, Ivan Timofeev, called it “extremely dangerous.”
Three experts from the Center for International Security writing in Kommersant newspaper, Alexei Arbatov, Konstantin Bogdanov and Dmitry Stefanovich, called the idea that Washington would not strike back, “highly doubtful and likely erroneous.”
Then came the specter of civil war, with Wagner mercenaries rolling in a convoy toward Moscow in the most serious political chaos since 1993 when President Boris Yeltsin ordered tanks to fire on the country’s parliament to squash a rebellion by lawmakers.
After mutiny, Kremlin looks to unwind holdings tied to Wagner mercenary boss
As the Wagner rebellion unfolded earlier this month, United States officials contacted Moscow to assure Putin that Prigozhin’s rebellion was an internal Russian matter, according to National Security Council spokesman John Kirby. That reassurance highlighted the worry among Western leaders that Putin, sensing a Western plot or fearing defeat, could take radical action.
The rebellion is over, but any drastic new shocks in the war could trigger instability in Russia. A major new defeat in the war could topple Putin, said Anatol Lieven, of the Quincy Institute for Responsible Statecraft, or it could see him escalate and resort to a tactical nuclear weapon.
If Putin faced the loss of occupied Crimea, “the chances of escalation would be extraordinarily high because he would believe it was necessary to save Crimea, but it would also be necessary to save his regime at that point,” Lieven said.
Analysts predict a major internal crackdown in Russia, to prevent any similar rebellion by any armed rogue group in future.
After seizing a military headquarters in Rostov-on-Don, Wagner fighters moved north to the city of Voronezh raising alarm about the Voronezh-45 nuclear weapons storage facility located about 130 miles further east. But even if Wagner had targeted the weapons — and there is no evidence it did — the mercenaries would not have been able to use them, analysts said.
“Can an armed group like Wagner take control of some of Russia's nuclear weapons and somehow use or detonate them? The short answer is no, it's virtually impossible,” tweeted Pavel Podvig, nuclear arms expert at the U.N. Institute for Disarmament Research, after a blue-checked Twitter conspiracy theorist spread disinformation to more than 250,000 Twitter followers that Wagner leader Yevgeniy Prigozhin had “got the nukes.”
At last month’s St. Petersburg economic forum, Putin said nuclear weapons would protect Russian security “in the broadest sense of the word,” but that there was “no need” to use them at present.
Pressed at the plenary session on whether he would be willing to use them, Putin joked, “What should I say? Scare the whole world? Why do we need to scare the whole world?”
But since the invasion of Ukraine Putin and top officials including deputy head of Russia’s Security Council Dmitry Medvedev and Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov have led the nuclear fearmongering. Announcing the invasion on day one, Putin warned that any country that interfered in the war would face consequences “such as you have never seen in your entire history,” in an unambiguous hint about nuclear weapons.
Ukraine says Putin is planning a nuclear disaster. These people live nearby.
Days later, he put Russian nuclear weapons into “special combat readiness.” Since then Russia has suspended participation in the New START accord and announced that nuclear weapons would be stored in Belarus. In September, Putin explicitly warned that Russia would use nuclear weapons if its territory was threatened, as he claimed to annex four Ukrainian regions.
In the latest nuclear warning, Medvedev said a nuclear apocalypse was “not just possible but quite probable” in an article in Rossiyskaya Gazeta on Sunday, because “there is no taboo” on using nuclear weapons. Medvedev claimed that the West had to accept the annihilation of Ukraine’s “Nazi” government — “if it does not want an apocalyptic end” to civilization.
Some analysts saw the debate on nuking a NATO country as an orchestrated bluff to escalate Western nuclear fears, but others saw it merely as hard-liners venting about Russia’s failings in the war.
“It’s fair to say that people in that community feel frustration about the situation, and my take is that they are thinking out loud,” Podvig said in an interview. He said that Russian officials had been “pretty consistent, that nuclear weapons could only be used to protect Russia from some kind of existential threat.”
“The weapons are there, and there are scenarios in which they can be used. However, we are, at least at this point, two steps away from this point.” If Russia began to seriously consider using nuclear weapons in Ukraine or Poland, there would first be a much sharper switch in Kremlin rhetoric, he said.
Ukraine’s top general, Valery Zaluzhny, wants shells, planes and patience
But a worrying question is what would comprise an “existential threat” to Russia in Putin’s mind, given his profound conviction that he is the state’s sole guardian and protector.
In January, the Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists moved the hands of the Doomsday Clock forward by 10 seconds to 90 seconds to midnight, largely “because of the mounting dangers of the war in Ukraine,” it said.
Artur Kacprzyk, analyst on nuclear arms at the Polish Institute of International Affairs, said the Moscow debate on striking Poland was a form of nuclear coercion designed to intimidate NATO, and it caused “concern but definitely not panic.”
“The level of this debate in Russia, and its intensity, about potential nuclear use is higher than before,” he said. “If they believe that the West will fold, that will encourage them to just increase and increase these threats.”
Days before the Wagner rebellion, President Biden said the risk of Russia using a tactical nuclear weapon against Europe was “real,” Reuters reported.
But Kirby said last week that the United States had seen “no indication that Mr. Putin is interested in moving in that direction and nor have we seen anything that would cause us to change our own deterrent posture.”
Pro-Kremlin analysts like to argue that a nuclear power “cannot lose” the war, despite a history of bogged down military misadventures by Moscow and Washington.
According to Podvig, a source of frustration for Russia was that possessing nuclear weapons was simply not a decisive factor to win the war.
“It’s not that someone does not respect Russia’s nuclear weapons,” Podvig said. “It’s that you cannot really think of a way of using them to gain any advantage. At this point, I guess the only thing that Russia gets out of its nuclear weapons is that there is no direct involvement of NATO or the United States in this war.”
Image: Germán & CoCooperate with objective and ethical thinking…
Ursula von der Leyen, formerly a minister under Angela Merkel and currently the president of the European Commission/ Editing by Germán & CoEuropean Green Deal: More leaders call for 'a regulatory pause'
In the run-up to the 2024 elections, heads of state from the EU-27 are seeking to take into account the economic and social challenges posed by Russia's attack on Ukraine, including food security and the cost of living.
Le Monde By Virginie Malingre, yesterday (Paris)For Ursula von der Leyen, the issue is complex. Formerly a minister under Angela Merkel and currently the president of the European Commission, she has made the Green Deal one of the priorities of her mandate. But she is currently facing pushback from the conservatives in her own group, the European People's Party (EPP), who are increasingly open in questioning the policy's merits. With European elections scheduled for June 2024, von der Leyen, who would need the support of her party to run for a second term, is walking on eggshells.
On Thursday, June 29, Europe's right-wing heads of state and government – Nikos Christodoulides (Cyprus), Krisjanis Karins (Latvia), Ulf Kristersson (Sweden), Kyriakos Mitsotakis (Greece), Karl Nehammer (Austria), Petteri Orpo (Finland), Andrej Plenkovic (Croatia) and Leo Varadkar (Ireland) – who met in Brussels before heading to a European Council meeting, all approved an EPP declaration calling for "a regulatory pause" at a European level, particularly on the Green Deal. The document calls on institutions to "take into account the new economic and social realities following Russia's attack" on Ukraine.
Von der Leyen, who attended the meeting as usual, did not take part in the debate. She chose to remain silent. A number of leaders, including Plenkovic, Varadkar and Karins, nevertheless stressed that, in attacking the Green Deal, they must be careful not to "weaken" the Commission president, who could enable the EPP to retain the head executive position of the EU after the European elections in June 2024.
Indeed, when it comes to environmental issues, the EPP has always avoided any direct attacks on von der Leyen, despite the fact that she has made the Green Deal a cornerstone of her efforts in Europe. Instead, the party's preferred target is Frans Timmermans, the Commission vice-president responsible for the Green Deal, who comes from the ranks of the Social Democrats. The EPP never misses an opportunity to point out that Timmermans' cabinet director is a former Greenpeace member.
Radical transformation of the EPP
Von der Leyen's entourage stressed that, as president of the Commission, she is obligated to attend EPP pre-summit meetings, but that she does not take any part in drafting the conclusions. "It's a bit hypocritical," said an EPP executive. When questioned on the subject by Le Monde, von der Leyen replied that she "of course listens to the voices of those who have to implement legislation in their companies or on their farms," adding: "My position is well known: environmental regulation and competitiveness or agriculture can go hand in hand."
In recent months, the EPP has undergone a radical transformation in the European Parliament, where the party is the leading political force. After supporting some 30 articles in von der Leyen's Green Deal – notably those designed to move the European Union towards climate neutrality by 2050 – the group is now waging a merciless war, alongside the far right, against two emblematic environmental bills: those on nature restoration and reducing pesticide use.
Manfred Weber, president of the EPP and the group's leader in the European Parliament, has argued that these bills threaten agricultural production, jeopardize food security and drive up the cost of living. Between the war in Ukraine and inflation, Weber claims that a break is urgently needed. As a member of the Christian Social Union in Bavaria (CSU), Weber adds that Germany's recession is not helping matters. The fact that the CDU-CSU is now in opposition to Berlin probably doesn't help either.
For the time being, the future of the nature restoration bill is in jeopardy, given that three parliamentary committees – environment, agriculture and fisheries – have rejected it. The fate of the bill will be sealed at the Parliament's plenary session in Strasbourg in July (or September).
Liberal leaders also express doubts
Against this backdrop, Spanish Socialist MEP César Luena questioned the president of the European Commission on June 27, asking her to take a clear stance on the issue: "[Her] political group is withdrawing from the Green Deal. She hasn't said anything yet. Ursula von der Leyen, you must react," he declared. For now, von der Leyen has not responded. Timmermans nevertheless saw fit to do so "in her name and under her supervision," on June 28, by once again lending his support to the nature restoration bill.
Until recently, only the heads of state and government of certain Eastern European countries, with their high-carbon economies, had expressed reticence. More recently, liberal leaders have also voiced their doubts.
French President Emmanuel Macron also called for a "regulatory pause" after 2024, exasperating some of his party members. Alexander De Croo, the Belgian prime minister, followed suit: "What must be avoided (...) is overloading the boat, by adding new standards to the CO2 emission targets," particularly "in the field of biodiversity. I ask that we press the pause button, except for CO2."
In the Netherlands, Mark Rutte has not yet been quite as outspoken. But the success of the "Farmers' Party," an anti-Green Deal movement which, in March, made a real breakthrough in the regional elections, is leading him to advocate a degree of caution. With one year to go to the European elections, the subject is still a hot topic of political debate.
Seaboard: pioneers in power generation in the country…
…“More than 32 years ago, back in January 1990, Seaboard began operations as the first independent power producer (IPP) in the Dominican Republic. They became pioneers in the electricity market by way of the commercial operations of Estrella del Norte, a 40MW floating power generation plant and the first of three built for Seaboard by Wärtsilä.
Saudi Arabia's Minister of Energy Prince Abdulaziz bin Salman Al-Saud arrives for an OPEC meeting in Vienna, Austria, June 4, 2023. REUTERS/Leonhard Foeger/File Photo/ Editing by Germán & CoSaudi Arabia says new oil cuts show teamwork with Russia is strong
Russia and Saudi Arabia maintain robust oil cooperation within the OPEC+ alliance. It is comforting to know that the alliance is willing to take any necessary actions to support the market, as Saudi Energy Minister Prince Abdulaziz bin Salman mentioned.
Reuters By Ahmad Ghaddar, Alex Lawler and Shadia Nasralla, Editing by Germán & co, July 5, 2023LONDON, July 5 (Reuters) - Russia-Saudi oil cooperation is still going strong as part of the OPEC+ alliance, which will do "whatever necessary" to support the market, Saudi Energy Minister Prince Abdulaziz bin Salman told a conference on Wednesday.
OPEC+, a group comprising the Organization of the Petroleum Exporting Countries and allies including Russia which pumps around 40% of the world's crude, has been cutting oil output since November in the face of flagging prices.
Saudi Arabia and Russia, the world's biggest oil exporters, deepened oil supply cuts on Monday in an effort to send prices higher.
Yet the move only briefly lifted the market. On Wednesday, benchmark Brent futures were down more than 1% at $75.30 per barrel, lower than the $80-$100 per barrel than most OPEC nations need to balance their budgets.
OPEC says it does not have a price target and is seeking to have a balanced oil market to meet the interests of both consumers and producers.
The United States, the biggest oil producer outside OPEC+, has repeatedly called on the group to boost production to help the global economy and has criticised Saudi cooperation with Russia after Moscow's invasion of Ukraine.
But Riyadh has repeatedly rebuffed U.S. calls and Prince Abdulaziz said on Wednesday that new joint oil output cuts agreed by Russia and Saudi Arabia this week have again proven sceptics wrong.
"Part of what we have done (on Monday) with the help of our colleagues from Russia was also to mitigate the cynical side of the spectators on what is going on between Saudi and Russia on that specific matter," Prince Abdulaziz said.
"It is quite telling seeing us on Monday coming out with not only our (oil cut) extension... but also with validation from the Russian side," he told a meeting of oil industry CEOs with ministers from OPEC and allies, known as the OPEC International Seminar.
OPEC has withheld media access to reporters from Reuters, Bloomberg and the Wall Street Journal to cover the event, which was partly broadcast online.
After the end of the broadcast, Prince Abdulaziz told the seminar that OPEC+ would do "whatever necessary" to support the market, according to a source who attended the meeting.
ENOUGH FOR NOW
Additional oil cuts should be enough to help balance the oil market, United Arab Emirates' energy minister Suhail Al Mazrouei told reporters on Wednesday.
"This (the latest addition output cuts) is enough to assess the market and look at the market balance," Mazrouei told reporters.
He said the UAE would not be contributing to fresh cuts as it was already producing well below its capacity.
"There’s a bigger thing… I’m seeing a lack of investments in many countries. We will have to invite maybe newcomers to come and join the group. The more countries we have... the easier the job... to ensure that the world has enough oil in the future," Mazrouei said.
"Imagine if we had 60% of the producers or 80% of the producers... We will definitely do a better job."