Connect with us

Business

Italian Companies Paid Over €1 Billion in Taxes to Russia Since 2022, Report Finds

Published

on

Italian companies have paid more than €1 billion in taxes to Russia since the start of Moscow’s full-scale invasion of Ukraine in 2022, with roughly half of that amount directed toward funding the Kremlin’s military operations, according to new research by the Kyiv School of Economics (KSE).

The findings, released as part of KSE’s Leave Russia project, show that Italian businesses have continued to operate and pay taxes in Russia despite ongoing EU sanctions. The project, which tracks foreign companies still active in the Russian market, aims to highlight how multinational corporations are indirectly supporting the war through continued engagement.

According to Andrii Onopriienko, head of the initiative, Italian firms contribute around €346 million annually in taxes to the Russian government — totaling approximately €1.037 billion since the invasion began. “Around half of this amount has been directed toward military spending,” he said.

Italian firms still present in Russia

Data from the Leave Russia database indicates that 146 Italian companies are still operating in Russia. Around 30 have announced intentions to withdraw, while about 70 continue to maintain a legal or commercial presence. The rest remain engaged in exports to the country.

Among those still active are major consumer brands such as Ferrero, Barilla, and Calzedonia. Energy companies Enel and Eni, along with fashion house Moncler, have since exited the Russian market.

While Italy is one of the European countries with a high number of businesses still operating in Russia, Germany tops the list with 459 companies, followed by the United Kingdom with more than 290 and the United States with 810.

See also  Iconic ‘American’ Products Made in Europe Face Tariffs Under Trump’s Trade Push

Trade continues through loopholes

Experts say many firms continue to operate in what they describe as a “grey zone” — using third countries to re-export goods to Russia. Carolina Stefano, a professor of Russian politics at Luiss University in Rome, said that even companies that have officially withdrawn may still find their products reaching Russian consumers through indirect routes.

“Some companies left the market but continue selling through intermediaries,” Stefano said. “These products reach Russia at higher costs due to added import fees and taxes, yet they still contribute to trade.”

She added that not all goods are covered under EU sanctions, allowing companies to legally maintain certain operations. “In some cases, the Kremlin has imposed new restrictions to make it more expensive for foreign firms to leave the market,” she noted.

Russia’s economy increasingly militarized

According to the Carnegie Russia Eurasia Center, military expenditure now makes up about 8% of Russia’s GDP, double the pre-war level, and accounts for 40% of the federal budget.

Former Russian Central Bank official Alexandra Prokopenko said this shift toward a wartime economy is damaging long-term growth prospects. “It will be very difficult for Russia to transition from a war economy back to a civilian one,” she wrote.

Despite political and public pressure in Europe, many Italian firms remain tied to Russia through complex financial and supply chains — a reality that continues to benefit Moscow’s war effort two years into its invasion of Ukraine.

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  Trump Signals Possible Temporary Tariff Relief for Auto Industry Amid Supply Chain Pressures

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  World Economic Forum: Leaders Urge Europe to Rethink Strategies Amid Global Challenges

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  Trump Signals Possible Temporary Tariff Relief for Auto Industry Amid Supply Chain Pressures

“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