Connect with us

Business

EU Plan to Use Frozen Russian Assets for Ukraine Spurs Market Concerns, But Analysts Expect Limited Impact

Published

on

The European Union’s proposal to use frozen Russian state assets to help finance Ukraine’s long-term needs is drawing warnings about potential pressure on government borrowing costs. Despite these concerns, analysts say the impact on European debt markets is likely to be modest.

Brussels has been searching for a durable funding mechanism for Kyiv as the war enters its fourth year. The leading option under discussion is a €140 billion “reparation loan” backed by immobilised Russian central-bank assets held primarily by Euroclear, the Belgium-based clearing giant. The plan would rely on proceeds generated from those assets rather than seizing them outright.

Euroclear chief executive Valérie Urbain recently cautioned in a letter, reported by the Financial Times, that the proposal could increase risk perceptions among international investors. She warned that this might widen sovereign bond spreads and raise borrowing costs across EU member states. The concern centres on whether investors interpret the plan as a step toward confiscation, which is barred under international law. Any loss of confidence in Europe as a safe custodian of foreign reserves could push yields higher.

Yet several economists told Euronews Business that the risk is limited. Robert Timper, chief strategist on the Global Fixed Income Strategy team at BCA Research, said market reaction is expected to be minimal. He noted that the more significant shock occurred in February 2022 when the EU froze Russian central-bank assets days after the invasion of Ukraine. That move created only a brief shift in bond markets. “What ultimately is done with these assets should have a much smaller effect,” he said.

See also  Spain Employment Hits Record as Social Security Enrolment Tops 22 Million

Nicolas Véron, senior fellow at the Brussels-based think tank Bruegel, echoed that view, recalling that the initial freeze demonstrated Europe’s willingness to restrict access to assets under extraordinary circumstances — yet global markets remained stable. Analysts at Capital Economics said fears of mass withdrawals by foreign central banks are overstated, arguing that many have limited alternatives for investing in liquid, high-grade assets outside Western systems.

The loan’s structure is still being refined. According to Capital Economics, Euroclear would invest cash balances held on behalf of the Russian Central Bank into a long-dated, zero-coupon EU bond. The proceeds would be lent to Ukraine, while Euroclear’s liability to Moscow would remain unchanged. The Commission argues this preserves legal protections because the assets themselves would not be seized.

The plan faces political and diplomatic risks. Russia is expected to denounce the move as illegal, raising the likelihood of retaliation or legal claims. Several Western firms have already faced difficulties exiting the Russian market due to restrictive policies imposed by Moscow. Belgium’s Prime Minister Bart De Wever has demanded strong guarantees to shield Euroclear from losses or reprisals.

European Commissioner Valdis Dombrovskis has defended the plan, saying it could provide significant support for Ukraine without placing major new fiscal burdens on EU governments. The proposal is expected to be finalised by year-end, with potential disbursements starting in early 2026 pending national approvals.

Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy has urged the EU to move quickly, saying Kyiv needs the funds at the start of 2026. The €140 billion package represents nearly 80% of Ukraine’s GDP last year and about 0.8% of the EU’s GDP.

See also  Expert Tips on Building a Solid UK Pension Plan Amid Rising Costs

While political agreement remains the final obstacle, officials warn that failure to secure financing could weaken Ukraine at a critical stage of the war and increase security risks for Europe.

Business

Iran Conflict Sparks Global Fertiliser Crunch, Raising Fears for Food Security

Published

on

The war involving Iran and the continued blockade of the Strait of Hormuz are beginning to ripple through global agriculture, with rising fertiliser costs threatening food production and pushing farmers under increasing financial strain.

A new World Bank report warns that soaring energy prices and disrupted trade routes have created a severe fertiliser squeeze, driving affordability for farmers to its lowest level in four years. The crisis is being fuelled largely by a sharp rise in natural gas prices, a key ingredient in the production of nitrogen-based fertilisers.

Because fertiliser production is closely tied to energy markets, any spike in gas prices quickly translates into higher costs for farmers. That dynamic is now raising concerns about the impact on future harvests, particularly in regions already facing economic and food security challenges.

European agriculture ministers are reportedly discussing emergency measures to shield farmers from escalating costs and to protect grain production for next year. While Europe is not currently facing an immediate supply shortage, industry groups say the pressure on farm finances is intensifying.

A spokesperson for Fertilisers Europe said the continent remains relatively well supplied, thanks to strong domestic production and high import levels in recent months. Europe typically meets around 70% of its fertiliser demand through its own output.

However, the organisation warned that farmers are operating on increasingly narrow margins. It called for targeted support from European Union institutions while also ensuring that assistance does not undermine the competitiveness of the region’s fertiliser industry.

The situation is more severe outside Europe. According to the UN Food and Agriculture Organization, shipping disruptions through the Strait of Hormuz have caused significant fertiliser shortages across Asia, the Middle East and parts of Africa.

See also  Ukrainian Women Lead Europe in Entrepreneurial Ambitions, New Study Finds

Countries including India, Bangladesh, Sri Lanka, Egypt, Sudan and several nations in sub-Saharan Africa are facing rising costs, reduced availability and growing risks to food security.

Analysts warn that if farmers cut fertiliser use to save money, crop yields could fall sharply in the next planting season. Research from the International Food Policy Research Institute suggests that reduced application rates would likely lower global grain production and tighten food supplies.

The FAO’s Food Price Index has already begun to rise, reflecting mounting concerns over input costs and supply disruptions. Higher transport expenses and logistical challenges linked to the conflict are expected to place additional upward pressure on food prices in the months ahead.

For many developing economies already struggling with inflation, the impact could be especially severe. Policymakers may face difficult choices as they seek to balance economic stability with food affordability.

Experts say the crisis underscores the importance of securing not only food supplies, but also the essential inputs that make food production possible. Without a stabilisation of energy markets and a restoration of normal shipping routes, the effects of the Iran conflict could linger far beyond the battlefield.

Continue Reading

Business

Oil Markets Jolt as UAE Exits OPEC Amid Strait of Hormuz Crisis

Published

on

Global oil markets were thrown into fresh turmoil this week after the United Arab Emirates formally announced its withdrawal from OPEC and the broader OPEC+ alliance, ending decades of membership and adding new uncertainty to an already fragile energy landscape.

The UAE’s departure, which takes effect on Friday, comes at a time when oil markets are already under intense strain from the ongoing conflict involving Iran and the continued blockade of the Strait of Hormuz, one of the world’s most critical energy chokepoints.

Initial market reaction was swift. Oil prices fell between 2% and 3% as traders anticipated that the UAE, freed from OPEC production quotas, could boost output and add more crude to global supplies. The prospect of increased production from one of the world’s largest exporters briefly eased fears of tight supply.

However, those losses were quickly reversed as geopolitical concerns returned to the forefront. By Wednesday, US benchmark West Texas Intermediate crude had climbed above $105 a barrel, while Brent crude rose past $112, both roughly 4% above their post-announcement lows.

The UAE’s decision follows years of friction with Saudi Arabia and other OPEC members over production limits. Abu Dhabi has invested heavily in expanding its oil capacity through the Abu Dhabi National Oil Company, aiming to raise output to five million barrels per day. Under OPEC quotas, much of that new capacity remained unused.

Analysts say the move reflects Abu Dhabi’s determination to prioritise national interests over collective production discipline.

The exit also represents a major challenge for OPEC, removing its third-largest producer and raising questions about the group’s long-term cohesion. Without the UAE, OPEC’s ability to coordinate supply and influence prices may become more complicated, especially during periods of geopolitical instability.

See also  Women in Europe Shoulder Two Hours More Unpaid Work Than Men, OECD Finds

Compounding the uncertainty is the ongoing closure of the Strait of Hormuz. The waterway, which handles a substantial share of global oil and liquefied natural gas shipments, remains blocked amid tensions between Iran and the United States.

Iran has proposed reopening the strait as part of a broader agreement that would require the lifting of the US naval blockade and an end to hostilities. President Donald Trump has described Tehran’s latest offer as improved but has not accepted the terms, insisting on a broader settlement over Iran’s nuclear programme before sanctions are eased.

Energy analysts warn that the prolonged disruption in the Gulf has already removed a significant portion of global oil supply from the market, creating one of the most serious energy shocks in decades.

Despite the uncertainty, major international oil companies have benefited from higher crude prices. Firms such as BP, Shell, Chevron and ExxonMobil are expected to see stronger cash flows as elevated prices boost revenues.

For now, traders are balancing the possibility of increased UAE production against the far greater risk posed by continued instability in the Middle East.

Continue Reading

Business

UAE’s OPEC Exit Marks New Chapter for Gulf Energy Strategy

Published

on

The United Arab Emirates is set to leave the Organization of the Petroleum Exporting Countries on May 1, a move that underscores Abu Dhabi’s growing desire for greater control over its energy policy and raises fresh questions about the future of oil market cooperation in the Gulf.

The decision follows years of frustration over OPEC production quotas, which have limited the UAE’s output despite billions of dollars invested in expanding its oil production capacity. Abu Dhabi has steadily increased its ability to pump more crude, but OPEC restrictions have prevented it from fully capitalising on those investments.

Energy analysts say the move reflects a clear strategic calculation.

“The UAE made a long-term decision years ago to expand its oil and gas production,” said Bill Farren-Price of the Oxford Institute for Energy Studies. “Having invested heavily in new capacity, it now sees little benefit in continuing to restrain output.”

The departure highlights broader tensions within OPEC and the wider OPEC+ alliance, where efforts to manage global supply have increasingly conflicted with the ambitions of members eager to boost market share. The UAE, in particular, has sought a larger production quota to better reflect its expanded capacity.

Frédéric Schneider, a senior fellow at the Middle East Council on Global Affairs, said the country’s primary motivation is straightforward: increasing exports.

“The most obvious driver is that the UAE wants to sell more oil,” he said, noting the significant gap between the country’s production potential and its current OPEC allocation.

Beyond oil production, the decision also signals a wider shift in the UAE’s regional posture. Analysts say Abu Dhabi is becoming more willing to pursue an independent course, even when that means stepping back from established regional institutions.

See also  Spain Employment Hits Record as Social Security Enrolment Tops 22 Million

“It shows the UAE is increasingly prepared to chart its own path,” Farren-Price said. “That includes relying less on groupings such as OPEC and, to some extent, the Gulf Cooperation Council.”

The move echoes Qatar’s departure from OPEC in 2019 and reflects a broader trend among Gulf states toward prioritising national economic interests over collective energy strategies.

While the UAE’s exit is unlikely to trigger an immediate rupture within the Gulf Cooperation Council, it does highlight underlying differences among member states. Regional analysts expect Gulf governments to respond cautiously, focusing on maintaining stability and preserving broader political and economic ties.

For OPEC, the departure represents another challenge as the group seeks to maintain unity and influence in an increasingly competitive global energy market. The UAE has long been one of its most significant producers, and its exit may prompt questions about how effectively the organisation can balance collective discipline with the individual ambitions of its members.

As global energy markets continue to evolve, the UAE’s decision marks a significant moment, both for OPEC and for the future of Gulf energy cooperation.

Continue Reading

Trending