EU explains absence of Russian oil embargo — RT World News

24 May, 2022 08:24

EU explains absence of Russian oil embargo

The bloc has kept buying Russian oil to deny Putin an even larger war chest, commission president claims
president of the European Commission has said that EU nations continue
to buy Russian oil, despite pledging to fully cut energy dependence on
Moscow, to prevent it from selling crude elsewhere at a steeper price.

explanation came after MSNBC host Mika Brzezinski pressured Ursula von
der Leyen on why the EU didn’t impose a full embargo, during an
interview on Monday.

Von der Leyen assured Brzezinski that the
long-term goal of the bloc was to stop buying Russian fossil fuels and
replace them with alternatives like renewables or US-supplied liquified
natural gas. She said Russian President Vladimir Putin had made a
blunder when he ordered an attack against Ukraine, since he “lost his best client, [the] Europe[an Union].”

“We will never come back,” she said.

The TV host wondered if a full embargo on oil trade with Russia would be “the most effective way to impose upon [Putin] that he has committed a strategic failure”. Von der Leyen said the EU had to find “the right balance” between hurting Putin with sanctions and not hurting itself too much in the process.

we immediately cut – as of today – off the oil, he might be able to
take the oil that he does not sell to the European Union to the world
market, where the prices will increase, and sell it for more, and fill
his war chest,” von der Leyen explained.

She acknowledged that “the rest of the world”
had to join the US and its allies in shunning Russia for the same
scenario not to work in the future. So far, a large portion of the
global economy, including big energy consumers like China and India,
refused to support anti-Russian sanctions.

The MSNBC host
suggested the EU should be thinking now about applying the same
decoupling strategy to China, suggesting Beijing may “weaponize” trade with the EU.

Von der Leyen said EU-Russia energy ties were “unique” and said “others were watching very closely whether we will win” the economic fight against Russia.

“So is the China issue a little bit down the road, but more clear now?” Brzezinski pressed on. “What
can and should the US and the EU be doing together to more effectively
manage China’s expansionist goals both economically and militarily?”

der Leyen would not commit to becoming more confrontational with China
than the EU already is, saying her bloc will oppose Beijing on human
rights, cooperate on climate change and compete economically.

launched an offensive against Ukraine in late February, following
Kiev’s failure to implement the terms of the Minsk agreements, first
signed in 2014, and Moscow’s eventual recognition of the Donbass
republics of Donetsk and Lugansk. The German- and French-brokered
protocols were designed to give the breakaway regions special status
within the Ukrainian state.

The Kremlin has since demanded that
Ukraine officially declare itself a neutral country that will never join
the US-led NATO military bloc. Kiev insists the Russian offensive was
completely unprovoked and has denied claims it was planning to retake
the two republics by force.

Western nations responded to the
crisis with a barrage of economic sanctions against Russia, which were
touted as a way to hurt its economy and by extension its military
without engaging in a direct fight against Russian troops in Ukraine. EU
members agreed on cuts of Russian coal and crude, but the
difficult-to-replace pipeline gas remains a stumbling block as the union
discusses its sixth package of sanctions.

Hunter Biden Laptop Repairman Sues Schiff, CNN, Politico, Daily Beast for Defamation | Make Them Pay | ARLIN REPORT……………….walking this path together

Donna Brazille also argues Hunter’s Laptop (that there is now new information) by bringing up January 6; WHEN THE TOPIC IS HUNTER BIDEN’S LAPTOP. (Arlin Report comment)

Daily Browse

“After fighting to reveal the truth, all I want now is for the rest of the country to know that there was a collective and orchestrated effort by social and mainstream media to block a real story, with real consequences for the nation,” Mac Isaac told theNew York Post.

It has been a year and a half since Mac Isaac closed his business after receiving death threats for providing hard drive data from the laptop abandoned by Hunter Biden to Rudy Giuliani, a lawyer at the time for President Donald Trump.

Hunter Biden Laptop Repairman Sues Schiff, CNN, Politico, Daily Beast for Defamation

View original post

Is Twitter “Burning The Evidence” By Unshackling Conservative Accounts?
Is Twitter “Burning The Evidence” By Unshackling Conservative Accounts? Authored by Steve Watson via Summit News, Conservative Twitter users have noticed a massive uptick in followers and engagement following Elon Musk’s Twitter buy, while leftists on the platform are experiencing the inverse, prompting some to wonder if the company is undoing evidence that it rigged…

Grain elevator and CHPP in Dnipropetrovsk Region hit with Russian shells

Grain elevator and CHPP in Dnipropetrovsk Region hit with Russian shells

Grain elevator and CHPP in Dnipropetrovsk Region hit with Russian shells


Last night Russian troops shelled a large
grain elevator in Marianske and Zelenodolsk Combined Heat and Power
Plant (CHPP) in Dnipropetrovsk Region.
The relevant statement was made by Dnipropetrovsk Regional Council Head Mykola Lukashuk on Telegram, an Ukrinform correspondent reports.

“Regarding Russia’s night shelling of Kryvyi Rih District: that’s how
a [grain] elevator looks, which was hit by the Russian occupation
forces. Denacificated, demilitarized elevator. Savages. They are
shelling production facilities, on which not only Ukraine’s food
security but the global food security depends,” Lukashuk wrote, posting
relevant photographs.

According to Lukashuk, Russian invaders realize that such facilities
do not pose any threat to the Russian Federation. There are neither
military vehicles nor bases, but the enemy intentionally causes terror.

A reminder that last night Russian troops shelled Dnipropetrovsk
Region’s Kryvyi Rih District and Synelnykove District with artillery
systems. One person was injured.

Facebook Wiped A Conservative Wisconsin News Page After Wrongfully Censoring It For Months – Nwo Report

Source: Jordan Boyd

‘Every American should be deeply concerned by the fact that a few unaccountable big tech companies are controlling the free flow of information.’

acebook obliterated an award-winning conservative Wisconsin news page and cut off thousands of its followers without warning this week after wrongfully censoring it for months.

The Silicon Valley giant censored Wisconsin Right Now after the popular news site posted a story from The Australian to its Facebook feed that compared a picture of the infamous “Falling Man” from 9/11 to the horrific footage of Afghans falling from planes following President Joe Biden’s disastrous U.S. withdrawal from Afghanistan.

TRENDING: The 2020 Loss — A Blessing In Disguise?

Facebook quickly hid the post and slapped it with a community standards violation for “content related to suicide or self-injury.”

WRN appealed the violation, noting that the article did not advocate for self-harm, and Facebook reversed its decision but still unpublished WRN’s page.

A message from Facebook claimed that WRN “violates Facebook Pages terms” but did not specify why. The Big Tech company claimed that WRN could appeal if the unpublishing seemed to be a mistake but the link given by Facebook’s support team is broken.

Facebook did not respond to a request for comment.

“Every American should be deeply concerned by the fact that a few unaccountable big tech companies are controlling the free flow of information in our democracy, and that the decisions they make are often arbitrary and unfair,” Jim Piwowarczyk, WRN owner and contributor, told The Federalist. “What has happened to us is a very troubling example of this, and we call on Facebook to reverse its decision.”

Even before Facebook nuked WRN’s main page, the social media company restricted the page’s ability to invite new followers to “like” the page and live-stream videos for simply reporting the news.

Even though WRN won numerous awards for its airtight coverage of the Kyle Rittenhouse trial, Facebook limited the news site’s ability to share articles about the young gunman.

“We led coverage on this case, going to the scene, interviewing witnesses a half-hour after it happened, uncovering missing ballistics evidence mentioned during the trial, and more,” Piwowarczyk explained.

Facebook still suppressed WRN’s coverage even after the media company published an analysis stating the firearm charge against Rittenhouse wouldn’t stand under Wisconsin gun laws, something the judge presiding over the case publicly ruled one day later.

“Facebook then did not remove the violations when Rittenhouse was acquitted,” Piwowarczyk said.

Facebook also enlisted the help of its fake “fact-checkers” to censor reposts about Hillary Clinton’s role in promoting the Russian collusion hoax and a meme about Rittenhouse playing video games with his judge.

“We have reported many stories the mainstream media will not, and it is highly questionable and troubling that Facebook would seek to prevent Wisconsin voters in a key battleground state (where Facebook-traced money was involved in elections) from learning all sides of the equation in the political debate and other news stories, especially as the midterm elections loom,” Piwowarczyk said.

Twitter Faces the “Nightmare” of Being Forced into Free Speech – JONATHAN TURLEY

Below is my column in the Hill on the bid of Elon Musk to buy Twitter and its implications for free speech. The increasingly alarmist arguments of the left have continued to mount. On MSNBC, Democratic strategist Danielle Moodie declared “I’m going to be honest, Elon Musk is a danger to Twitter and to freedom of speech.” In other words, more free speech is the death of free speech. She is not alone in such Orwellian takes on the Musk bid for Twitter.

Here is the column:

Twitter’s board of directors gathered this week to sign what sounds like a suicide pact. It unanimously voted to swallow a “poison pill” to tank the value of the social media giant’s shares rather than allow billionaire Elon Musk to buy the company.

The move is one way to fend off hostile takeovers, but what is different in this case is the added source of the hostility: Twitter and many liberals are apoplectic over Musk’s call for free speech protections on the site.

Company boards have a fiduciary duty to do what is best for shareholders, which usually is measured in share values. Twitter has long done the opposite. It has virtually written off many conservatives — and a large portion of its prospective market — with years of arbitrary censorship of dissenting views on everything from gender identity to global warming, election fraud and the pandemic. Most recently, Twitter suspended a group, Libs of Tik Tok, for “hateful conduct.” The conduct? Reposting what liberals have said about themselves.

The company seemingly has written off free speech too. Twitter CEO Parag Agrawal was asked how Twitter would balance its efforts to combat misinformation with wanting to “protect free speech as a core value” and to respect the First Amendment. He responded dismissively that the company is “not to be bound by the First Amendment” and will regulate content as “reflective of things that we believe lead to a healthier public conversation.” Agrawal said the company would “focus less on thinking about free speech” because “speech is easy on the internet. Most people can speak. Where our role is particularly emphasized is who can be heard.”

Not surprisingly, selling censorship is not a big hit with most consumers, particularly from a communications or social media company. The actions of Twitter’s management have led to roller-coastering share values. While Twitter once reached a high of about $73 a share, it is currently around $45. (Musk was offering $54.20 a share, representing a 54 percent premium over the share price the day before he invested in the company.)

Notably, Musk will not trigger the poison pill if he stays below 15 percent ownership of the company. He could push his present stake up to 14.9 percent and then negotiate with other shareholders to take greater control.

Another problem is that Twitter long sought a private buyer under former CEO Jack Dorsey. If Musk increases his bid closer to $60, the board could face liability in putting its interests ahead of the company’s shareholders.

Putting aside the magical share number, Musk is right that the company’s potential has been constrained by its woke management. For social media companies, free speech is not only ethically but economically beneficial — because the censorship model only works if you have an effective monopoly in which customers have no other choice. That is how Henry Ford could tell customers, back when he controlled car-making, that they could have any color of Model T “as long as it’s black.”

Of course, the Model T’s color was not a critical part of the product. On the other hand, Twitter is a communications company selling censorship — and opposing free speech as a social media company is a little like Ford opposing cars.

The public could be moving beyond Twitter’s Model T philosophy, however, with many people looking for access to an open, free forum for discussions.

Censorship — or “content modification,” as used in polite company — is not value maximizing for Twitter, but it is status enhancing for executives such as Agrawal. It does not matter that consumers of his product want less censorship; the company has become captive to its executives’ agendas.

Twitter is not alone in pursuing such self-defeating values. Many in the mainstream media and many on the left have become some of the loudest advocates for corporate censorship. The Washington Post’s Max Boot, for example, declared, “For democracy to survive, we need more content moderation, not less.” MSNBC’s Katy Tur warned that reintroducing free speech values on Twitter could produce “massive, life- and globe-altering consequences for just letting people run wild on the thing.”

Columnist and former Clinton Labor Secretary Robert Reich went full Orwellian in explaining why freedom is tyranny. Reich dismissed calls for free speech and warned that censorship is “necessary to protect American democracy.” He then delivered a line that would make Big Brother blush: “That’s Musk’s dream. And Trump’s. And Putin’s. And the dream of every dictator, strongman, demagogue and modern-day robber baron on Earth. For the rest of us, it would be a brave new nightmare.”

The problem comes when you sell fear for too long and at too high a price. Recently, Rep. Madeleine Dean (D-Pa.) agreed with MSNBC analyst John Heilemann that Democrats have to “scare the crap out of [voters] and get them to come out.”

That line is not selling any better for the media than it is for social media, however. Trust in the media is at a record low, with only 7 percent expressing great trust in what is being reported. The United States ranks last in media trust among 46 nations.

Just as the public does not want social media companies to control their views, it does not want the media to shape its news. In one recent poll, “76.3% of respondents from all political affiliations said that ‘the primary focus of the mainstream media’s coverage of current events is to advance their own opinions or political agendas.’”

Thus, an outbreak of free speech could have dire consequences for many in the political-corporate-media triumvirate. For them, the greatest danger is that Musk could be right and Twitter would become a more popular, more profitable company selling a free speech product.

Poison pill maneuvers are often used to force a potential buyer to negotiate with the board. However, Twitter’s directors (who include Agrawal and Dorsey) have previously limited their product to advance their own political preferences. This time, federal law may force them to fulfill their fiduciary duties, even at the cost of supporting free speech. The problem for the board will occur when the “nightmare” of free speech comes in at $60 a share.

Jonathan Turley is the Shapiro Professor of Public Interest Law at George Washington University. Follow him on Twitter @JonathanTurley.

Musk Makes His Move | PA Pundits – International

By Gary Bauer ~

Unlike other American oligarchs, Musk is using his fortune to save American freedom.

Twitter is atwitter on the news that Elon Musk has made a bid to buy the entire company! This is the biggest business story of the day, but it’s really not about stock prices or business. It’s about political power, and the woke left is having a total meltdown.

As we recently reported, Musk bought a 9% stake in Twitter and was initially set to join the board of directors, but he had bigger plans in mind. Thursday morning, Musk announced that he’s offering to buy the company for $43 billion in order to take it private.

In a letter to Twitter’s CEO, Musk wrote:

“I invested in Twitter as I believe in its potential to be the platform for free speech around the globe, and I believe free speech is a societal imperative for a functioning democracy.

“However, since making my investment I now realize the company will neither thrive nor serve this societal imperative in its current form. Twitter needs to be transformed as a private company.”

This is a huge development!

The Fight For Freedom

Sadly, there is a relentless attack by the left on the freedom of speech in America at every level. University campuses, once the centers of free speech and open debate, today are centers of cancel culture, censorship and conformity.

As you know, virtually every media outlet in America is owned and operated by leftist progressives. That’s particularly true of the increasingly important social media platforms, where half of Americans get their news. But in the social media world, there is blatant censorship of conservative viewpoints.

Donald Trump is banned from Twitter and Facebook. But government officials from repressive regimes like communist China are on. The satirical site Babylon Bee has been shut down by Twitter. But the Jew-hating mullahs of Iran are still on.

The left owns social media, and it is determined to use that power to manipulate public opinion and rig elections.

What Musk has done is raise the prospect that the left’s monopoly on power could be broken. Depending on how it plays it out, this could be the biggest story in decades in the realm of politics and constitutional freedoms.

Unlike other American oligarchs who used their vast fortune to interfere in our elections, Musk is using his fortune to save American freedom.

The great irony is that the biggest counterattack in this war against free speech is coming from political liberals like Joe Rogan, Bill Maher and Dave Chappell. They are shocked that the modern progressive left has rejected long-accepted values of freedom, like free speech and free association.

For example, one liberal columnist tweeted that he is “frightened” by the thought of Musk buying Twitter, adding, “For democracy to survive, we need more content moderation, not less.”

Here’s a so-called “journalist” arguing for censorship! Not long ago, that would have been unthinkable. But it’s increasingly the norm.

Today’s progressive leftists are increasingly intolerant and totalitarian. They are the greatest threat to freedom and democracy in America today.

Biden Loves Masks

Just so you’re clear

Elon Musk’s Big Move on Twitter, by Jeffrey A. Tucker | STRAIGHT LINE LOGIC

Twitter is getting exactly what it deserves. Let’s hope this kind of First Amendment capitalism spreads to Google, Facebook, et. al. From Jeffrey A. Tucker at

As you undoubtedly have heard, Elon Musk – ever the rebel – has offered to buy the whole of Twitter for more than $43 billion. He says that the offer is final. No negotiation. If it is rejected, he will likely sell his 10% stake.

I’m personally excited about the prospect because so many of my friends have been canceled by the platform. I’ve seen the way this has affected their lives. Yes, they move on eventually but the platform has become poorer in their absence. The range of opinion is more narrow and the links to vital research materials more and more thin. Plus, many of us who remain are more careful than we should be: self-censoring.

Elon’s bid threatens this entire model, which is why right now shockwaves are shooting through the many powerful quarters. Twitter is already packed with legacy users clutching pearls and confessing how “frightened” they are.

Twitter is probably the most powerful communication tool on the planet Earth today, as instrumental in the election of Donald Trump as it was in driving the Covid narrative toward lockdowns and mandates. Its influence far outstrips its market capitalization.

As Revolver News puts it:

Twitter remains, by Elon’s own admission, the de facto public town square. Despite its severe censorship, it is still the only major digital public space where anonymous accounts can interact with celebrities, journalists and business titans (including Elon), where world leaders engage in spirited public diplomacy, and where dominant cultural and political narratives incubate and spread.

Continue reading→