Connect with us

Energy

Bangladesh-Nepal Energy Cooperation: Harnessing the New Opportunities

Published

on

The Ukraine war has shown the world the urgency of enabling alternative sources of energy. There are major powers in the western part of the world that are suffering heavily due to the global energy crisis. Bangladesh is not an exception. The country has a high degree of resilience in the energy sector. But the current global instability in the energy market has also facilitated the crisis to Bangladesh. Here Bangladesh is in search of newer opportunities and Nepal can be a handy option. The newly appointed Nepalese Ambassador to Dhaka urged to make cooperation in the energy sector with Bangladesh. He expressed his views with the prime minister of Bangladesh.

The relationship regarding energy cooperation between the two states has gained a structure over the past few years. With the ratification of an energy cooperation agreement to regulate investment, development, and trade in hydroelectricity between the two nations in August 2018, the bilateral relationship between Bangladesh and Nepal gained fresh momentum. By 2040, Bangladesh would import up to 9,000 MW of hydropower from Nepal according to this agreement. A Joint Working Group (JWG) to enhance collaboration and a Joint Steering Committee (JSC) to assess the JWG’s progress were also established by the agreement. The two committees’ tasks include holding frequent meetings and accelerating the agreement’s implementation. The JWG has held numerous rounds of deliberations, while the JSC has held two meetings. Even there was talk for a tripartite agreement that includes India going on to give the cooperation an effective momentum.

However,with an average GDP growth rate of 7.5% over the past ten years, Bangladesh has established itself as one of the world’s fastest-growing economies. The goal of becoming a high-income nation by 2041 should be paired with ongoing energy production to meet the rising demand from the infrastructural and industrial sectors. Bangladesh is rushing to import energy from other nations to replace the scenario where non-renewable natural gas accounts for 75% of its overall fuel use, in order to slow the declining gas reserve. There are quite a few options to deal with but having a historic connection and taking into account the distance and feasibility, Bangladesh-Nepal energy cooperation can be a handy alternative for Bangladesh in the near future to deal with the growing energy consumption market. The write-up will put shed on the shared energy sectors and the potential of it. These cooperative actions will bring some positive ramifications for Bangladesh.

Message for the Cooperation

The ambassador of Nepal to Bangladesh Ghanshyam Bhandari met the Prime Minister of Bangladesh Sheikh Hasina and assumed that Nepal will  provide 40–50 MW of electricity to Bangladesh, and the supply will increase further when the construction of a mega power project. The ambassador claimed that a mega power project is currently being implemented in his nation. Ihsanul quoted the ambassador as saying, once the project is finished, Nepal will be able to sell more electricity to Bangladesh.

Sectors of Cooperation

Newer Ports for Newer Connections and Newer Use

Meanwhile, Bangladesh is ready to purchase 500 MW of the 900 MW Upper Karnali hydropower project’s electricity. Since Banglabandha Land Port is closer to Burimari Port, Bhandari also stated that his nation is interested in exploiting it for trade.

Inclusion of India in the Bilateral Forum to Strengthen the Sustainability

Bangladesh has asked its neighbor India to sign a trilateral agreement so that it can import hydroelectricity from Nepal at a far lower cost. According to representatives of the Bangladesh Power Development Board and the Power Division, Bangladesh will first be able to acquire 50MW of hydroelectricity from Nepal if the deal is signed (BPDB). According to The Kathmandu Post, citing Energy Secretary Sushil Chandra Tiwari, Nepal too has submitted a second letter to the Indian authorities on the same matter as a collaborative effort. Besides, the Nepal Electricity Authority and the Bangladesh Power Development Board consented to recommend a trilateral power trade agreement from India’s NTPC Vidyut Vyapar Nigam Ltd (NVVN) at the beginning of August of this year in order to allow the export of 40 to 50 megawatts of power generated in Nepal to Bangladesh. Since India is located between Nepal and Bangladesh and the two nations do not share borders, India’s help will be essential to facilitating the exchange of electricity between them.

Moreover, the 900MW Upper Karnali Hydropower Project will be built in Nepal by the Indian GMR Group, which has established GMR Upper Karnali Hydropower Limited to carry out the project’s development. Bangladesh has also taken the choice to purchase 500MW of electricity from the project. In addition, Bangladesh has consented to the cooperative development of the 383MW Sunkoshi-3 Hydropower Project. In a larger vision shared by Nepal and India, Bangladesh would play a significant role in a sub-regional power market. The Baharampur-Bheramara cross-border transmission line, which connects Bangladesh and India, will be used by the nations to exchange power. The 500MW of electricity can be exchanged thanks to the transmission line, which was officially opened in 2013. Although Nepal and Bangladesh have determined that the Bheramara High Voltage Direct Current is a viable option for sending a small amount of power from Nepal to Bangladesh, it will not be a long-term solution for increasing power exports.

Lower Cost and Higher Utilization

Currently, Bangladesh’s average cost of producing one unit of electricity is Tk 10, compared to Tk 37 for diesel-based power and Tk 17 for furnace oil-based power. The BPDB is having trouble paying its debts to commercial generating companies as a result of the high cost of power, which prevents them from importing fuel to power plants. However, BPDB officials expressed confidence that Nepalese hydropower would be a less expensive option, with a price of no more than Tk5 per unit. Currently, at a cost of Tk6 per kWh, the BPDB imports 1160 MW of power from India. In the case of Bangladesh

Role Model of Bilateral Energy Cooperation?

Bangladesh and Nepal can be a role model for other smaller states in the region and in the global domain, that cooperation can ensure sustainability whatever the size of the economy is. Besides there will be some other ramifications which will harness newer opportunities. Firstly, Bangladesh can satisfy the rising demand needed to sustain its industrial expansion. In a global order with a disturbed supply chain, the initiatives can make sure the enlargement of the industrial sector. Secondly, Bangladesh can diversify the energy mix to reduce over-dependence on natural gas. The reserve of natural gas is deteriorating so the cooperation may ensure the domestic and industrial drudgeries moved on.

Thirdly, the price of production will decrease sharply due to the lower production cost. Previously, the price of energy is under pressure due to Bangladesh’s deteriorating natural gas supply and the fluctuating cost of its inputs, but experts believe Nepal will continue to deliver a steady supply of hydropower. Fourthly, as energy is a strategic good, importing it from a variety of sources will improve Bangladesh’s regional outlook by reducing its reliance on one particular entity. In this way, in addition to giving Bangladesh a cushion for energy reliability, Bangladesh would also receive some additional economic and strategic benefits from purchasing power from Nepal.

Fifthly, the economic worth of the export should also be acknowledged. The majority of Nepal’s exports are low-value agricultural and raw materials, and the country’s overall exports are not even enough to cover its imports of petroleum products. Nepal exports only 8.6% of GDP, with a massive trade deficit of 38.1% of GDP, compared to Bangladesh’s 16.6% and India’s 13.7% of GDP. Exports have been essentially flat over the past ten years, despite the government implementing several policy initiatives, such as NTIS 2016 and payment incentives based on value-addition. Sixthly, the power export serves both to reduce the growing trade deficit and to attract much-needed foreign capital to the hydroelectricity industry. Just 1600 MW of power may be exported yearly to double the export revenues, which were less than US$ 1 billion in FY 2018–19. Additionally, the export of 1600 MW will not have an impact on Nepal’s capacity to meet its domestic demand because the country has enormous hydropower potential.

Finally, Bangladesh can utilize the concept of “commodity”. Nepal’s 15th Five-Year Development Plan (2019/20-2023/24) lays out plans to turn electricity into a commodity that can be exported. In five years, Nepal intends to increase its current 1250 MW of electricity production to more than 5000 MW, making Nepal an energy surplus nation. Bangladesh, on the other hand, wants to make investments to generate, and import surplus energy from Nepal. Eighthly, regional organizations like SAARC, BBIN, and BIMSTEC can be extremely beneficial by establishing a shared energy corridor that will be extremely beneficial for the economies of all the neighboring nations. Not only are Bangladesh, India, and Nepal members of all three forums, but they also actively support the liberalization program.

People in this area are eagerly awaiting coordinated, practical efforts. An agreement between Bangladesh and Nepal should be signed right away as the first step in fostering energy cooperation. A more comprehensive framework should be developed that includes private investment, public sector involvement, the building of transnational transmission lines, research and development and technology transfer, particularly in the renewable energy sector, as well as sector-specific training and development programs. All of these in the long term will harness the ever-emerging opportunities in the domain of Bangladesh-Nepal energy cooperation and give the two states stable energy and economy.

Energy

Analyzing China Solar Energy for Poverty Alleviation (SEPAP) Program

Published

on

photo:Xinhua

In 2014, China deployed a large-scale initiative named as Solar Energy Poverty Alleviation Program (SEPAP) to systematically alleviate poverty in poor areas including underdeveloped regions of western China. In recent years, moving the country toward technological leadership and making China the largest solar investor has been on Government’s central Agenda. While having environmental benefits associated, SEPAP is a multi-purpose project which aims to reduce poverty, promote jobs and income in rural areas, boost China’s solar market, and improve rural lives. It is noteworthy that SEPAP is a program that has harmonized the social, developmental, and industrial goals. SEPAP acquired the highest level of political endorsement after Xi Jinping pledged to eradicate poverty from China by 2020, which resulted in its ascension from the pilot program to a nationwide campaign. According to World Bank, China has lifted 800 Million people out of poverty by 2022 and contributed to the Global reduction of people living in poverty as close to three-quarters. China has become able to achieve this milestone by adopting targeted poverty alleviation strategies and by providing economic opportunities to the unprivileged people to raise their income level.

Through this initiative, China aimed to add 10GW of solar capacity by 2020, which will benefit over 2 Million people. The program targeted 35,000 poverty-stricken villages which were located in 471 counties in 16 Provinces. According to an evaluation study conducted in 2020, this program has resulted in an increase of 7%-8% in the per-capita disposable income of the county. Chinese Government investment in solar energy and using it as a strategy for poverty eradication has brought out positive results and the effects are twice as high in the subsequent two to three years, especially in Eastern China.

Three different contexts contributed to making SEPAP a priority on Government’s agenda, making a historical conjuncture. First was the political push to eradicate prolonged rural poverty in China. To combat the higher rural-urban income gap, China adopted an “industrial” approach that emphasized developing innovative industrial facilities in the unprivileged region to make them self-sufficient in the long run. The second was the significant demand for rural electrification, where former technological preferences, especially small hydropower, were no longer feasible. The third driver was the overcapacity and shrinkage of the country’s solar energy sector and the subsequent necessity to stimulate distributed solar PV installation. Before 2013, China’s solar energy sector was mostly export-oriented with a dominant share of exports in overseas markets in Europe. During 2008 Trade disputes in the EU and US combined with the financial crisis lead Chinese solar manufacturers to the brink of Collapse. So, opening the domestic market for solar consumption was launched as a rescue strategy. The officials favored the installation of the distributed, small-scale solar system that can generate energy that may be utilized locally. By 2013, China becomes the world-leading market for solar energy and by 2015, It reached a total installed capacity of more than 43.18GW. Considering the scenario, SEPAP was formulated with a strategic vision that will benefit the local people while also expanding distributed Solar PV generation and absorbing overcapacity. 

In 2014, SEPAP was launched by National Energy Administration (NEA) and State Council leading group

Office of Poverty Alleviation and Development (CPAD) as two joint policies. A first policy designed two alternatives for policy implementation. Installing rooftop Solar PV systems for low-income families formerly registered with CPAD was the initial option. The other policy alternative was to build Solar Power Station on the non-arable lands near the counties and villages. Using a robust financial model described in policy guidelines, the SEPAP was funded by both Government subsidies and corporate donations as a part of their corporate social responsibility initiatives. The second joint policy includes detailed guidelines for developing pilot SEPAP Projects in six provinces which included 30 counties. The provinces targeted were relatively underdeveloped while having abundant solar resources. Provincial Governments were involved to carry out the implementation process which include collecting comprehensive data on the poor household, energy supply and consumption, and quality of grid connection for each county. After the approval of plans from central governments, they were executed by the county’s government via an open bidding process. Provincial Governments’ poverty alleviation funds and policy banks’ preferential loans were utilized for the financial support of the pilot project of the Program. To ensure accountability and transparency in projects, monitoring and evaluation teams were designed by NEA and CPAD to maintain a check and balance on program activities and construction maintenance. To raise poor household income through this project, the profits gained from the sale of solar power were distributed fully among residents after Tax deductions. The policy goal also guaranteed 3000RMB of annual income per household for more than 20 years. The program created a win-win situation by alleviating the poor from poverty while absorbing China’s overcapacity of solar energy at the same time. 

China’s ambitious plan to align poverty alleviation goals with the expansion of renewable energy has some serious practical concerns associated with it. Analyzing the program leads to significant gaps in policy design and implementation. The program faced severe budgeting and financial problems because of a lack of appropriate arrangements and no detailed financial mechanism was developed for post-construction maintenance of the projects. Only the central government endorsement was not enough to tackle these challenges but consistent support from the banking and bureaucratic sector was the pre-requisite for program implementation. Moreover, proper financial incentives were also required to encourage the solar companies to take lead in the construction of projects. Another challenge associated with the project was the complication in the governance structure where energy regulators took the lead rather than development officials. Misallocation of expertise affected the priorities in agenda setting of the program i.e. energy regulators based on their expertise, advocated the expansion of industrial capacity rather than looking out for poverty and development issues in the local context. Moreover, the time frame designed for the assessment of pilot projects was not enough for the critical evaluation of the success and failure of the project before its transition toward a national program. 

Even though it’s a commendable approach, the combination of renewable energy technology with poverty reduction needs to be further examined through rigorous empirical studies both in China and in other developing nations. Future studies on how to integrate industrial strategies with development priorities and what governance institutions or structures might best serve these many policy goals can provide great insight into various policy alternatives that would be beneficial in the long run as well. 

Continue Reading

Energy

USA-KSA Energy War and Global Energy Crisis

Published

on

In this photo released by Saudi Press Agency (SPA), Saudi Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman, right, greets President Joe Biden, with a fist bump after his arrival in Jeddah, Saudi Arabia, Friday, July 15, 2022. (Saudi Press Agency via AP)

The response of the USA to OPEC and its partner’s plan to reduce output by two million barrels per day was strong enough to suggest an uptick in hostilities with oil producers, particularly Saudi Arabia. Despite the fact that the decision was well anticipated, Washington saw it as a strong indication from its Gulf allies that they are not likely to comply with USA’s requests to continue oil production. In fact, it has started a war between the two major oil powers to make a serious impact on the energy regime. Hence the tug of war has an impact on the global energy domain since these two are the principal role player in the energy regime.

However, prior to the 2020 election, current US President Joe Biden urged to charge Saudi prince Mohammed bin Salman for the Jamal Khashoggi issue. The Trump era was quite friendly with the Saudi government. So, to confront Donald Trump Biden used the anti – Saudi stance in the 2020 election. Even the US government published a report on the issue after Biden was elected as the president. But the Ukraine war changed the landscape of global politics by introducing the energy crisis. To maintain a balanced price inside the USA, the Biden administration requested the KSA to put a bridle on the price. But despite having kept the USA’s urge the OPEC plus decided to hold the production of 2-million-barrel oil per day. It will help to move the price upward since the downward price of oil was alarming for the OPEC members. The rising oil price can determine the interim election in the USA. Hence the US responded strongly. But the KSA maintained its position. However, here the action of the two big powers in terms of energy will facilitate another round of energy crisis in the global market. The following portions will discuss the issue and what ramifications it will bring.

Strong Stance of the KSA

Suhail Al-Mazrouei, the energy minister for the Emiratis, stated to reporters following the Vienna summit that OPEC took action to assure that producers would continue to invest in new oil supply. “They have their own stories, too, in Europe,” he continued, “and in Russia. We cannot support either this nation or that nation. Moreover, Prince Abdulaziz bin Salman, Saudi Arabia’s energy minister, ruled out whatever political purpose and impliedly rejected the notion that the resolution entailed any hostility toward the US or other purchasers, claiming it was not done in defense of Russia. These portray that the KSA is not showing its intent in a hostile manner rather it wants to deal the tension through diplomatic channel.

NOPEC: Reappearing on the Set

The No Oil Producing or Exporting Cartels (NOPEC) bill will allow the U.S. attorney general to sue OPEC or its members, such as Saudi Arabia, in federal court. Other producers like Russia, which works with OPEC in wider group known as OPEC+ to withhold output, could also be sued.

The decision to reduce oil production, however, has already caused President Joe Biden to express his “disappointment,” adding that he would be exploring at “alternatives” to increase inventories. Hence, National Security Advisor Jake Sullivan and Director of the National Economic Council Brian Deese, two senior officials, issued a joint statement urging the White House to rethink its position and support the so-called NOPEC bill, which would hold the oil-producing cartel legally responsible for any price collusion.

Releasing Strategic Reserve: Not an Optimistic Option

The Biden administration’s alternative choice is to increase the amount of oil that is released from the strategic reserve, which is currently at its lowest levels since 1984. A previously stated release of tens of millions of barrels had no effect on the market, but further releases could lead to a supply surplus that would support further OPEC production cutbacks.

The Russia Factor

Washington commentators spouted accusations of Saudi Arabia “siding with Russia” after the OPEC+ announcement of relatively small production cuts. In a statement, the Saudi foreign minister revealed that the U.S. asked OPEC+ to delay announcing its production cut by a month and said that he rejects such “dictates” from Washington.

Moreover, according to OPEC, the decision is simply technical and for maintaining market stability. However, the US administration was enraged because Alexander Novak, the deputy prime minister of Russia and minister of energy, was present at the OPEC+ summit in Vienna. According to sources at OPEC, the US attempted to exert pressure on Austria to forbid his attendance, but OPEC+ members vowed to relocate the organization’s headquarters from there if its integrity was not upheld.

According to analysts, rising oil prices prior to a price cap would be advantageous for Russia, the largest non-OPEC producer. At least the discount starts at a higher price level if Russia is forced to sell oil below market value. Early in the year, high oil prices somewhat offset the sales Russia lost as Western consumers avoided its supplies. Additionally, the nation has been successful in redirecting almost two thirds of its traditional Western sales to buyers in nations like India.

However, as oil prices and sales volumes dropped, Moscow’s revenue from oil decreased from $21 billion in June to $19 billion in July to $17.7 billion in August, according to the International Energy Agency. The price limitations would further undermine a significant source of income since oil and gas revenues account for one-third of Russia’s federal budget.

Ramifications: “Weaponization of Oil”

The world will experience a surge in demand for oil. Besides, the global politics will divide into two separate blocs, though already the polarization is vivid enough. There are other ramifications of the war.

Firstly, The Biden administration plans to “re-evaluate” America’s eight-decade-old alliance with Saudi Arabia because of last week’s OPEC+ decision to cut oil production. But the White House posturing looks like a bid to distract from the effects at home of Washington’s failure to pursue a successful transition to clean energy.

Immediately following the OPEC+ decision, Roger Diwan, an analyst with S&P Global Commodity Insight, claimed in a note that the cuts represented a “weaponization of oil” and that the meeting’s timing and location were an intentional signal: The deputy prime minister of Russia, who is subject to US sanctions, was present to discuss limiting the oil supply as winter approaches and Russia has already militarized its gas deliveries to Europe. The confrontational course taken by Saudi Arabia will increase the price risk for oil.

Secondly, a shift in the gulf’s policy domain will be experienced. Some in the US perceived the decision as a failure of Biden’s Gulf policy because it was taken just over two months after Biden’s meeting with Saudi Crown Prince Mohamed bin Salman in Jeddah. The ruling Democratic Party was anxious about the Congressional midterm elections in addition to the conflict in Ukraine and the economic sanctions against Russia. With opinion surveys indicating that Republicans might win majorities in both the House and the Senate, high gas prices at the pump only worsen their already bleak prospects.

Thirdly, Saudi Arabia’s energy minister cautioned in a deliberate response to the American response that US-led plans for a price ceiling on Russian shipments are fanning the uncertainty that prompted OPEC+ to its largest output cut in two years. The perception that the next two months would be “a period of uncertainty” is increased by “the lack of details and the lack of clarity” regarding how the price ceiling will be put into place. People have no idea how the market or the participants would respond.

Fourthly, according to some Gulf sources, the “strategic alliance” between the US and Gulf nations will prevent the situation from turning into a full-blown energy crisis. They even assert that everything will “cool off” following the midterm elections later this month.

Sixthly, the USA will search for alternative sources in the African region for maintaining supply-chain of oil and gas. The visit of Biden to the African states was a sign of newer sources to ensure the security of commodities like oil.

Finally, the energy war is empowering the movement for renewable energies facilitated by the USA inside and outside the USA. The initial election mandate for the US president was to enable more renewable energy sources.

Moreover, higher oil prices will unavoidably exacerbate the inflation problem that central banks around the world are trying to solve, and they will affect the decision to raise interest rates even further to slow down the economy. That might increase the price of gasoline globally and intensify an energy crisis in Europe and the rest of the world that is mostly related to Russian reductions in natural gas supplies used for heating, electricity, and manufacturing.

In the end, it is a reality for the developing and underdeveloped nations, that they will suffer the most. Reserve shortage, high inflation, high food price, and a prolonged energy crisis are what they might expect from the situation.

Continue Reading

Energy

Russia-Turkey: Gas partnership as an answer to Western sanctions

Published

on

In early November, the European Union extended for the umpteenth time its sanctions against Turkey for another year for Ankara’s allegedly illegal exploration of gas fields off the coast of Cyprus.

The EU is understandably obliged to protect the interests of its member nations, in this case, of Greece and Cyprus, but I believe that this latest move by Brussels should be viewed in a broader context. The issues of extraction, transportation and supply of natural gas have already acquired a distinct political dimension in the world.

“We could move the lost volume of transit through the Nord Streams along the bottom of the Baltic Sea to the Black Sea region … by creating the largest gas hub for Europe in Turkey, if, of course, our partners are interested in this,” Russia’s President Vladimir Putin said, when addressing the plenary session of the Russian Energy Week International Forum. His Turkish counterpart enthusiastically accepted the offer.

Notably, the “gas” issue has more than just economic or political significance for Turkey. It has also become a sort of a metaphysical symbol of its success in the international arena. Ankara has long outlined its goal of becoming a major transportation hub, and if possible, the seller of natural gas to Europe, and is working hard to make this happen. Right now, there are seven main gas pipelines running through Turkish territory, four operational LNG terminals, and the country’s own gas fields in the Black Sea that are being actively developed by Turkey, which plans to put the first of these gas fields into operation within a month.

Not everyone believes the Turkish reports about the “huge reserves” of natural gas in the country’s territorial waters, though. Some skeptics even joke that Gazprom will lay a pipe to these fields, and BOTAŞ (the Turkish analogue of Gazprom) will simply latch onto it.

Meanwhile, in an interview with TRT Haber, Turkish Minister of Energy and Natural Resources, Fatih Donmez, said that “in the event of an increase in demand, Russian gas alone may not be enough.” Therefore, Ankara is currently in talks with other suppliers of pipeline and liquefied natural gas in the Middle East, North Africa, Central Asia and even Southeast Asia – about half a dozen in all. Given this vast geography, the logistics of supplies will be fairly complicated though, but Ankara’s plans to hold a conference with potential gas suppliers for the proposed hub early next year proves the seriousness of its intentions.

By implementing this project, Ankara expects both to receive relatively inexpensive gas and also payment and even commissions for the sale of Russian fuel to the European market. And of course, Turkey would not be Turkey if, just days following President Putin’s abovementioned  statement, the country’s Treasury and Finance Minister, Nureddin Nebati, did not reiterate its request for a discount on Russian gas and for a deferral of payments for its supplies.

Meanwhile, Hungary and Serbia continue to buy Russian gas, while the European Commission has officially banned its purchases – politics in the West today prevails over the economy. At the same time, many countries are willing to purchase Russian gas, but subject to the observance of “sanction propriety,” and the proposed hub where gas from different suppliers will inevitably be mixed, will help observe this “propriety.”

As for Turkey’s relations with Western allies, both the US and the EU have repeatedly and persistently invited the Turkish leaders to join the anti-Russian sanctions, which is something Ankara has so far carefully avoided.

Almost a week after Putin and Erdogan agreed to set up this hub, US Assistant Secretary for Terrorist Financing and Financial Crimes Elizabeth Rosenberg visited Ankara and Istanbul to discuss “a range of topics, including the sanctions and export controls imposed on Russia by a broad coalition of over 30 countries, energy security, anti-money laundering policy, and countering the financing of terrorism. These meetings affirmed the importance of close partnership between the United States and Turkey in addressing the risks caused by sanctions evasion and other illicit financial activities,” the US Treasury Department said.

Starting from June, US Deputy Treasury Secretary Wally Adeyemo and European Commissioner for Financial Services, Financial Stability and Capital Markets Union Mairead McGuinness traveled to Turkey with approximately the same agenda.

At the same time, Washington and, at its suggestion, Brussels are ramping up economic pressure on Ankara, above all on its banking sector. As a result, Turkish banks were forced to refuse to service Russia’s Mir cards, periodically returning payments in dollars and euros to Russian payers, even if they go via correspondent, almost entirely Western banks. There is always a way out though, and work is now underway to resume accepting Russian bankcards, and payments are easily made in rubles. Such transactions are not tracked by financial regulators in the United States and Europe.

As for Ankara itself, it has its own means of counteracting this. Europe has fresh memories of Recep Tayyip Erdogan once opening the “gate” for hundreds of thousands of Asian and African migrants, and due to the “obstinacy” of the Turkish leader, NATO is still unable to take in Sweden and Finland.

Turkey, like probably no other country in the world, is interested in maintain sustainable economic ties with Russia. Therefore, it is safe to assume that it will continue to resist pressure brought to bear by the Western allies, even if at times it comes under their “friendly fire.”

From our partner International Affairs

Continue Reading

Publications

Latest

South Asia4 hours ago

How does ‘1997 CHT peace accord’ pave the pay of ‘Peace and prosperity’ in Bangladesh’s CHT?

To put an end to the brutal confrontations between the government troops and the tribes and hillsmen of the Chittagong...

Europe6 hours ago

Strong will to enhance bilateral relations between Serbia and Pakistan

Although the Republic of Serbia and the Islamic Republic of Pakistan are two sovereigns, independent states, with different cultures, religions,...

Tech News8 hours ago

Airports and harbours prepare to slash emissions as the greening of transport accelerates

By Michael Allan If the European Union is to meet its net-zero targets and become a climate-neutral economy by 2050, the...

World News10 hours ago

Americans are outraged: US has given about $54B of assistance to Ukraine. The EU only 16B

On a broadcast of the Fox Business Network’s “Kennedy,” Rep. Tom McClintock (R-CA) said he will not continue to support...

Energy News12 hours ago

Quiet panic: “We don’t know how oil market is going to function after a certain date”

“How will the market react to the attempts by politicians to rig supply and price?” asks “The Financial Times” in...

Religion13 hours ago

Pakistan On Its Way to Promote Interfaith Harmony

People from various cultural, racial, and religious backgrounds live in Pakistan.  96.28 percent of the country consists of a Muslim...

Middle East15 hours ago

The challenges lie ahead Ankara’s decision to normalize relations with Cairo and Damascus

Although Egypt and Syria are at the bottom of the list of states with which Turkey intends to reconcile, the...

Trending