European steelmaker ArcelorMittal is an industrial giant, producing more of the high-strength metal than any other company except China’s state-owned Baowu Group. Its reliance on coal-fueled blast furnaces has made it a target for climate activists, who claim the Luxembourg-based manufacturer isn’t moving nearly fast enough to reduce its planet-warming pollution.
For years, advocacy groups have urged ArcelorMittal to adopt lower-carbon methods of making iron and steel. When the company sponsored the 2024 Summer Olympics in Paris, members of the Fair Steel Coalition staged a series of public actions, including projecting the message “True Champions Quit Coal” onto the side of an ArcelorMittal building in Luxembourg.
Now they’re trying a new tactic: formally documenting their frustration.
Last week, the U.K.-based nonprofit Opportunity Green filed a climate-related complaint through a process overseen by the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development — an influential group of 38 market-based democracies, including Luxembourg. The OECD sets voluntary guidelines for “responsible business conduct” for multinational enterprises within its sphere, and civil groups can raise concerns if they feel companies aren’t adhering to those standards.
In its complaint, Opportunity Green claimed that ArcelorMittal lacks “a robust, science-based climate strategy” — which the OECD guidelines call for — and is “failing to take adequate action” to reduce its emissions. ArcelorMittal, which generated $62.4 billion in revenue in 2024, produced more than 100 million metric tons of carbon dioxide equivalent that year, about the same amount as Belgium.
“The impact that [those emissions] are having on climate and people needs to be addressed,” Kirsty Mitchell, the legal manager at Opportunity Green, told Canary Media.
The climate group said it sent its complaint to the Luxembourg National Contact Point, a nonjudicial body that handles OECD grievances against firms in the tiny European country. Mitchell said Opportunity Green hopes to foster a “cooperative dialogue” with ArcelorMittal and to reach a resolution that accelerates the steelmaker’s efforts to clean up.
“ArcelorMittal, given its scale and influence, should really be driving more of that positive action, and that’s what we’re hoping to get out of this process,” she said.
Steelmaking is responsible for roughly 9% of global greenhouse gas emissions, making it one of the world’s most heavily emitting industries. Most of that pollution is the result of using coal-fueled blast furnaces that convert iron ore into iron. A separate furnace then turns the iron into steel for use in cars, ships, roads, bridges, furniture, appliances, and more.
ArcelorMittal operates 32 blast furnaces globally, and coal-based steelmaking accounts for about three-fourths of its annual production, according to the company.
The European steelmaker didn’t directly address questions about the Opportunity Green complaint in an email to Canary Media. But ArcelorMittal said that it remains “committed to decarbonizing our operations.”
The company noted that between 2018 and 2024 it invested over $3 billion in efforts to reduce emissions, including by testing carbon-capture technology, installing wind and solar projects, and using more scrap metal in electric arc furnaces. Scrap-based steelmaking now accounts for a quarter of its total production, up from 19% in 2018. And ArcelorMittal’s absolute emissions fell by almost 50% over the six-year period, though much of that drop was due to declining production and selling off steel and mining assets.
Still, ArcelorMittal acknowledged that “progress in decarbonizing has been slower than initially expected.”
In 2021, the company outlined plans to lead the steel industry in achieving net-zero carbon emissions by 2050. ArcelorMittal set a goal of reducing its emissions intensity — the amount of CO2 released per ton of steel produced — by 25% globally by 2030 and by 35% for steel made in Europe. The company also pledged $10 billion in total investment to help it reach those targets, including funding for hydrogen-based steelmaking.
ArcelorMittal planned to use green hydrogen — made from renewable energy — to produce iron at a proposed facility in Gijón, Spain. New electric arc furnaces, also powered by renewables, would then convert the clean iron and scrap metal into steel. While ArcelorMittal is moving forward with the electric furnaces, in 2024 it postponed making a final investment decision on the iron-production plant, citing economic headwinds for green steel and uncertainty around the European Union’s climate and trade policies.
“Our original plans were premised on a favourable combination of policy, technology, clean energy, and market development that have not progressed as originally foreseen,” ArcelorMittal said in the email. “We are not the only company — nor is steel the only industry — to be experiencing such challenges.”
In Mitchell’s view, ArcelorMittal shouldn’t sit back and wait for all the political and economic stars to align before committing to more ambitious climate action today. Instead, she said, the company should press ahead and help drive broader demand for green hydrogen.
“We really need near-term, deep emissions reductions” to limit global warming, Mitchell said. “And we need clear direction and transformative decisions now that create certainty, and not just acting only when everything is perfectly suited.”
The Luxembourg National Contact Point will likely review Opportunity Green’s complaint within the next three months to assess the arguments and decide whether to move it forward, Mitchell said. If ArcelorMittal opts to participate in the voluntary process, it could take anywhere from six months to a few years for the groups to reach an agreement.
“Public scrutiny and independent oversight are essential to ensure companies like ArcelorMittal deliver credible climate action,” Caroline Ashley, executive director of SteelWatch, said in a news release supporting the complaint. “The stakes are too high for further delay.”
FRANKFURT (Reuters) -For years, it was a common occurrence: Dutch bandits would drive to Germany and in the dead of night blow up ATMs, grab cash and speed back home on the Autobahn.
Now, a crackdown is bearing fruit.
ATM attacks have dropped to 115 so far this year, less than a quarter of their peak of more than one a day – 496 – in 2022, according to German police data provided to Reuters.
The spree of explosions has terrorized residents throughout Germany, where – in contrast to other countries – cash remains popular and ATMs are often built directly beneath apartments and in pedestrian zones. The damage has amounted to more than 400 million euros ($466.48 million) since 2020.
“The threat level in Germany remains high, particularly in light of the use … of extremely unstable explosives,” according to a September report by Germany’s top crime-fighters at the federal criminal police, or BKA.
Now the gangs are driving a bit further to Austria, where using cash is still widespread. Attacks in Austria have doubled this year in what the BKA told Reuters was likely “a squeezing-out effect from Germany”. Dutch police have suspected hundreds of men are responsible, working in ever-evolving groups as new recruits replace those caught.
GERMANS STILL LOVE TO USE CASH
Underscoring the shift to Austria, prosecutors said a Dutchman who stole 220,000 euros from cash machines near Frankfurt in 2023 blew up ATMs in Vienna earlier this year, getting away with 89,000 euros in booty and causing 1.5 million euros in damage.
The person was taken into custody on a European arrest warrant and is awaiting trial.
Over the years, this modern twist on the old-fashioned bank heist arose out of two distinctly German factors, investigators say.
First, Germany is a wealthy nation whose residents love to use cash for purchases, meaning ATMs are aplenty. And second, Germany’s famous highway network makes for a quick getaway.
German banks have also invested more than 300 million euros in security in recent years, according to the most recent figures from Deutsche Kreditwirtschaft, an umbrella group for financial institutions, a drop in the ocean for a sector where profits collectively top 50 billion euros annually.
The measures include mechanisms that blow a thick fog when machines are tampered with or emit dyes that render bills unusable. Many banks now lock lobbies around ATMs at night.
The thefts are less sophisticated than many online scams, where law enforcement in Germany and across the globe are battling a surge.
Last week, Germany announced arrests after a years-long probe of fraudsters who – with the help of German payment providers, sham websites and fictitious companies – stole more than 300 million euros from people in 193 countries.
CASES FALL IN GERMANY, RISE IN AUSTRIA
Cases fell this year in all but three of Germany’s 16 states, according to police statistics.
The state of North Rhine-Westphalia, which borders the Netherlands, was one of the hardest hit in 2022 with 182 attacks. So far this year, they are down to just 25.
Despite the decline, collateral damage is still significant, police there pointed out, with one attack in January near Cologne causing 1.8 million euros in damage.
Police credit cooperation with Dutch investigators to locate and nab suspects. The majority of culprits have been Dutch, but some are German, French and Moldovan. Dutch police did not respond to questions from Reuters but in the past have acknowledged the trend.
Police in the state of Hesse, home to Germany’s banking capital Frankfurt, created a tool that generates a probability forecast of an ATM getting hit, based on make, location and other variables.
Last week, Germany’s parliament voted to increase prison sentences for such attacks.
In Austria, cases have risen to 29 so far this year, up from 13 in 2024, according to figures from the interior ministry, which said they first detected the Dutch gangs in 2023.
Austrians have the highest preference for paying in cash in the euro zone, a 2024 European Central Bank study found, meaning plenty of ATMs.
Police there said they are cooperating closely with the police in Germany and the Netherlands.
(Reporting by Tom Sims; Editing by Tommy Reggiori Wilkes and Andrew Cawthorne)
Luxembourg’s Justice Minister Elisabeth Margue confirmed recently that the small European country is considering the idea of introducing a state-controlled monopoly on online gambling and sports betting.
Luxembourg Considering Online Gambling Monopoly
Margue responded to questions from Luxembourg Socialist Workers’ Party (LSAP) MP Dan Biancalana, who expressed concerns about player protection and the increasing presence of gaming machines in local cafés. According to European case law, it is possible to establish such a monopoly, but the government must then ensure the protection of its citizens, Margue said. She explained that authorities are examining these issues internally with all relevant parties to determine what actions can and must be taken, and how far measures should go if the initiative proceeds.
The minister added that reforms are in progress to permit National Lottery gaming terminals in these establishments, while all other similar devices are set to be banned. At the same time, Health Minister Martine Deprez noted that Luxembourg has an agreement with the Center for Excessive Behavior and Behavioral Addictions (ZEV) to tackle problem gambling. With the number of people seeking help for addiction nearly tripling from 2020 to 2024, reaching 100, the ZEV budget has risen from EUR 220,000 (around $254,000) in 2020 to EUR 560,000 ($646,000) this year.
Should Luxembourg move forward with a monopoly, it would mark a departure from the prevailing approach in Europe. In recent years, many countries across the continent have shifted away from exclusive state control toward open licensing systems. Proponents of this shift argue that competition enhances channelization and consumer protection.
What’s the State of Online Gambling in Luxembourg?
Online gambling operators are not established in Luxembourg but are instead based in jurisdictions where such activities are legally permitted. Luxembourg residents are allowed to participate in these online casinos and play for real money, as doing so is not prohibited under national law. Winnings from these platforms can be withdrawn to a local bank account without restriction.
However, the overall gambling sector in the small European country seems quite healthy. Luxembourg’s gambling market is projected to generate around $447.8 million in revenue in 2025, according to industry estimates. Casinos and casino games are expected to account for the largest share, with a projected market volume of roughly $270 million. Average revenue per user (ARPU) is forecast to reach about $478 next year. Looking ahead, the number of users in the gambling sector is expected to climb to around one million by 2030.
Germany has floated that the United Nations could take control in Gaza once the Israel-Hamas war is over, according to a document seen by POLITICO.
However, both the Palestinians and some EU diplomats have serious doubts about the feasibility of the idea, with a senior Palestinian figure in Europe calling it “unacceptable.”
Israel has been striking the densely populated Gaza Strip in reaction to an attack by Hamas on October 7, during which the militant group killed around 1,200 Israelis. According to data from the Palestinian Authority, the Israeli strikes have killed more than 11,000 Palestinians.
Discussions are ongoing about how to allow more humanitarian aid into Gaza and how to stop the fighting. But there are also increasing discussions on scenarios for after the war.
U.S. Secretary of State Antony Blinken said last month that an “effective and revitalized Palestinian Authority” should ultimately govern Gaza but offered no indications on how to make it “effective” or overcome Israeli opposition. Israel’s Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu had stated earlier that his country would take “overall security responsibility” for Gaza “for an indefinite period.”
That is a no-go for the EU and the United States.
The EU’s top diplomat, Josep Borrell, on Monday stressed that Israel cannot stay in Gaza after the war, when he presented his vision for what happens post conflict ahead of a trip to Israel and the Palestinian territories. Healsosaid, “we believe that a Palestinian authority must return to Gaza,” stressing he meant “one Palestinian authority, not the Palestinian Authority.”
Blinken has also warned that Israel cannot reoccupy Gaza after its war with Hamas ends.
The German proposal — a two-page, nonofficial document (or non-paper in EU-speak) — is dated October 21, so before Israel’s decision to launch the second phase of its military operation against Gaza at the end of October.
Berlin, one of Israel’s staunchest allies within the EU, writes that “Israel’s goal is a goal we share: never again should Hamas be in a position to terrorize Israel and its citizens.” Yet at the same time, “it is clear that these goals are hard to achieve with military means only … Its radical ideology and agenda cannot be fought by military means.”
It floats five different scenarios about the future of the Gaza Strip, including Israeli re-occupation of Gaza, and either the Palestinian Authority (PA) or Egypt taking control.
The U.N scenario is also on the list. In Berlin’s words, the scenario means an “internationalization of Gaza under the umbrella of the United Nations (and regional partners)” with “a carefully organized transition” toward Palestinian self-administration, “ideally” through elections “and in combination with an international coalition that provides necessary security.”
The document described this scenario as one that “could offer a political perspective since neither the PA nor Egypt are willing or able to take over and a return to the status quo ante or an Israeli re-occupation are politically not desirable.”
But Berlin also warned that “this scenario would require significant investment of political capital and financing as well as an international coalition to engage on security issues alongside the U.N.”
U.S. Secretary of State Antony Blinken said last month that an “effective and revitalized Palestinian Authority” should ultimately govern Gaza but offered no indications on how to make it “effective” or overcome Israeli opposition | Andrew Caballero-Reynolds/AFP via Getty Images
The document says that “the EU should take over a pro-active role in shaping this [the post-war] discussion” and it ends by emphasizing that the situation in the Gaza Strip “can only be sustainably stabilized through a relaunch of the Middle East Peace Process.”
European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen echoed the U.N.idea in her speech last week to EU ambassadors, saying that after the conflict the world has to ensure Gaza is no longer a safe haven for terrorists. To ensure that, von der Leyen said “different ideas are being discussed on how this can be ensured, including an international peace force under U.N. mandate.”
But several diplomats — granted, like others in this article, anonymity to discuss the sensitive subject — said that theGerman suggestion didn’t go far enough. It came in the very early stages of the conflict, it was not circulated among all member countries and was not intended to be discussed by foreign ministers.
When German Foreign Minister Annalena Baerbock stated Berlin’s line more recently, she said that “Gaza must not be occupied, but ideally be placed under international protection” without explicitly mentioning a U.N. role.
One EU diplomat described the document as “stillborn.”
Palestinian no-go
The German suggestion has angered Palestinian officials, already unhappy at EU statements that don’t mention a cease-fire in Gaza.
When German Foreign Minister Annalena Baerbock stated Berlin’s line more recently, she said that “Gaza must not be occupied, but ideally be placed under international protection” without explicitly mentioning a U.N. role | Sean Gallup/Getty Images
That feeling extends across Muslim countries. The Organisation of Islamic Cooperation (OIC) — which has 57 Muslim countries as members — held a press conference in Brussels on Monday morning, at the same time as EU foreign ministers were meeting, to argue that they don’t want to talk about the future of the Gaza Strip as long as there’s no cease-fire.
The 27 EU member countries have agreed on a call for “humanitarian corridors and pauses” but there’s no unanimity on a cease-fire, which is being pushed by Spain but objected to by the likes of Germany and Austria for several reasons, including that it could put Israel and Hamas on the same level, as the former is a country and the latter classed as a terrorist organization by the bloc.
For Abdalrahim Alfarra, the head of the Palestinian Mission to the EU, Belgium and Luxembourg, the U.N taking control of Gaza would be “unacceptable.”
He told POLITICO that a U.N role in providing international protection at the borders — like the blue helmets in the south of Lebanon — to protect the frontier between two future countries, Israel and Palestine, is “what we need.”
The problem with the German document is that it doesn’t talk about U.N protection at the borders but rather about U.N “control of Gaza,” he said.
Alfarra said that the Palestinian Authority has not been consulted about the document and also criticized it for not mentioning any form of cease-fire before addressing the future of the region.
“They didn’t talk about how we’re going to protect the men and women now. Right away: the future of Gaza,” he said.
VIENNA — No one does victimhood quite like Austria.
Over the past century, the Central European country has presented itself to the outside world as an innocent bystander on an island of gemütlichkeit, doing what it can to get by in a treacherous global environment.
“Austria was always apolitical,” insists Herr Karl, the archetypal Austrian opportunist, brought to life in 1961 by Helmut Qualtinger, the country’s greatest satirist. “We were never political people.”
Recalling Austria’s collaboration with the Nazis, Herr Karl, a portly stockist who speaks in a working-class Viennese dialect, was full of self pity: “We scraped a bit of cash together — we had to make a living…How we struggled to survive!”
Russia’s war on Ukraine offers a bitter reminder that Austria remains a country of Herr Karls, playing all sides, professing devotion to Western ideals, even as they quietly look for ways to continue to profit from the country’s friendly relations with Moscow.
The most glaring example of this hypocrisy is Austria’s continued reliance on Russian natural gas, which accounts for about 55 percent of the country’s overall consumption. Though that’s down from 80 percent at the beginning of 2022, Austria, in contrast to most other EU countries, remains dependent on Russia.
Confront an Austrian government official with this fact and you’ll be met with a lengthy whinge over how the country, one of the world’s richest, is struggling to cope with the economic crosswinds triggered by the war. That will be followed by a litany of examples of how a host of other EU countries is guilty of much more egregious behavior vis a vis Moscow.
The unspoken, if inevitable, conclusion: the real victim here is Austria.
The myth of Austrian victimhood has long been a leitmotif of the country’s bilious tabloids, which serve readers regular helpings of all the ways in which the outside world, especially Brussels and Washington, undermines them.
Outside supervision
Earlier this month, the EU’s representative in Austria, Martin Selmayr, ended up in the sights of the tabloids — and the government — for uttering the inconvenient truth that the millions Vienna pays to Russia for gas every month amounted to “blood money.”
“He’s acting like a colonial army officer,” fumed Andreas Mölzer, a right-wing commentator for the Kronen Zeitung, Austria’s best-selling tabloid, noting with delight that both of Selmayr’s grandfathers were German generals in the war.
A few weeks before his “blood money” remarks, Selmayr told a Vienna newspaper that “the European army is NATO” | Patrick Seeger/EPA
“The Eurocrats have this attitude that they can just tell Austrians what to do,” Mölzer concluded.
Yet if Austria’s history since the collapse of the Habsburg empire in 1918 has shown anything, it’s that the country needs outside supervision. Left to their own devices, Austrians’ worst instincts take hold.
One needn’t look further than 1938 to understand the implications. But there’s no shortage of other examples: voters’ enthusiastic support for former United Nations Secretary-General Kurt Waldheim as president in 1986, despite credible evidence that he had lied about his wartime service as an intelligence officer for the Nazis; the state’s foot-dragging on paying reparations to slave laborers used by Austrian companies during the war; the resistance to return valuable artworks looted from Jews by the Nazis to their rightful owners.
Not that Austrians learn from their mistakes. To this day, Austrians rarely heed the better angels of their nature unless the outside world forces them to, either by shaming them into submission or brute force.
That said, the West is almost as much to blame for Austria’s moral shortcomings as the Austrians themselves.
The Magna Carta for Austria’s cult of victimhood can be found in the so-called Moscow Declarations of 1943, in which the allied powers declared the country “the first free country to fall a victim to Hitlerite aggression.” Though the text also stresses that Austria bears a responsibility — “which she cannot evade” — for collaborating with the Nazis, the Austrians latched onto the “victim” label after the war and didn’t look back.
In the decades that followed, the country relied on its stunning natural beauty and faded imperial charm to transform its international image into that of an alpine Shangri-La, a snow-globe filled with prancing Lipizzaners and jolly folk enjoying Wiener schnitzel and Sachertorte.
Convenient excuse
A key element of that gauzy fantasy was the country’s neutrality, imposed on it in 1955 by the Soviet Union as a condition for ending Austria’s postwar allied occupation. At the time, Austrians viewed neutrality as a necessary evil towards regaining full sovereignty.
During the course of the Cold War, however, neutrality took on an almost religious quality. In the popular imagination, it was neutrality, coupled with Austrians’ deft handling of Soviet leaders, that allowed the country to escape the fate of its Warsaw Pact neighbors (while also doing business with the Eastern Bloc).
Today, Austrian neutrality is little more than a convenient excuse to avoid responsibility.
Austria’s center-right-led government insists that on Ukraine it is only neutral in terms of military action, not on political principle. In other words, it won’t send weapons to Kyiv, but it does support the EU’s sanctions and allows arms shipments destined for Ukraine to pass through Austrian territory.
Andreas Babler took over as leader of the Social Democrats in June AND has a long history of opposing not just NATO, but Austrian participation in any EU defense initiatives | Helmut Fohringer/APA/AFP via Getty Images
In the Austrian population as a whole, decades of fetishizing neutrality has left many convinced that it’s their birthright not to take sides. Most are blissfully unaware of the EU’s mutual defense clause, under which member states agree to come to one another’s aid in the event of “armed aggression.”
That mentality explains why Austria’s political parties — with the notable exception of the liberal Neos — refuse to touch, or even debate, the country’s neutrality and its security implications.
In March, just as Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy began an address via video to Austria’s parliament, Freedom Party MPs placed signs stamped with “Neutrality” and “Peace” on their desks before standing up in unison and leaving the chamber.
The far right wasn’t alone in its disapproval of Zelenskyy. More than half of the Social Democratic MPs also boycotted the event to avoid upsetting Russia.
Geographic good fortune
Andreas Babler, who took over as leader of the Social Democrats in June, has a long history of opposing not just NATO, but Austrian participation in any EU defense initiatives.
In 2020, he characterized the EU as “the most aggressive military alliance that has ever existed,” adding that it “was worse than NATO.”
It’s an extraordinary assertion given that NATO is the only thing that kept the Soviet Union from swallowing Austria during the Cold War. The defense alliance, which Austrian leaders briefly entertained joining in the 1990s, remains the linchpin of the country’s security for a simple reason: Austria’s only non-NATO neighbor is Switzerland.
Austria’s neutrality and geographic good fortune have led it to spend next to nothing on defense. Last year, for example, spending fell to just 0.8 percent of GDP from 0.9 percent, putting it near the bottom of the EU league table with the likes of Luxembourg, Ireland and Malta.
A few years ago, the country’s defense minister even proposed doing away with “national defense” altogether so that the army could concentrate on challenges such as natural disaster relief and combatting cyber threats. The idea was ultimately rejected, but that it was proposed at all — by the person who oversees the military no less — illustrates how seriously Austria takes its security needs.
Over the past year, the government has pledged to increase defense spending, yet those plans are still well below what the country would be obligated to pay were it in NATO.
Put simply, Austria is freeloading on its neighbors and the United States and will continue to do so until it’s pressured to change course.
Reality check
That’s why it needs more straight talk from people like Selmayr, not less.
A few weeks before his “blood money” remarks, the diplomat told a Vienna newspaper that “the European army is NATO,” noting that the accession of Sweden and Finland to the alliance would leave only Austria and a few small island states outside the tent.
Austria’s neutrality and geographic good fortune have led it to spend next to nothing on defense | Joe Klamar/AFP via Getty Images
The reality check dashed Austria’s hope that it could avoid paying its share for EU defense by waiting for Brussels to create its own force.
Even so, rhetoric alone is not going to convince Austria to shift course. Nearly 80 percent of Austrians support neutrality because it’s so comfortable. The EU and the U.S. need to make it uncomfortable.
At the moment, most Austrians only see the upsides to neutrality; yet that’s only because the West has refused to impose any costs on the country for freeriding. That needs to change.
Critics of a more aggressive approach towards Vienna argue that it will only harden the population’s resolve to sustain neutrality and bolster the far right. That may be true in the short term, but the history of foreign pressure on Austria, especially from Washington — be it the isolation it faced during the Waldheim affair or the push to compensate slave laborers from the war — shows that the interventions ultimately work.
If forced to choose between remaining in the Western fold or facing isolation, Austrians will always chose the former.
Though almost no Austrian security officials will say so publicly, few have any illusions about the necessity of a sea change. More than one-third acknowledge that the country’s neutrality is no longer credible, according to a study published this month by the Austrian Institute for European and Security Policy. A further third say the country’s participation in the EU’s common foreign and security policy has a “strong influence” on the credibility of its neutrality claim (presumably not in a good way).
And nearly 60 percent say the country needs to improve its interoperability with NATO in order to fight alongside its EU allies in the event of an armed conflict.
The problem is that no one is forcing them.
If Austria’s partners continue to avoid a confrontation, the country is likely to continue its slide towards Orbánism.
The Freedom Party, which wants to suspend EU aid for Ukraine and lift sanctions against Russia, leads the polls by a widening margin with just a year until the next national election. With neighboring Slovakia on a similar trajectory, Russian President Vladimir Putin may soon have a major foothold in the heart of the EU.
So far, the EU and Washington have been silent on the Freedom Party’s worrying rise, counting on Austrians to snap out of it.
Barring foreign pressure, they won’t. Why would they? With its populist prescriptions and beer hall rhetoric, the Freedom Party encourages Austrians to see themselves as what they most want to be: victims.
Or as Herr Karl famously put it: “Nothing that they accused us of was true.”
As the United States and its European allies work to make sense of last weekend’s chaos in the Kremlin, they’re urging Kyiv to seize a “window” of opportunity that could help its counteroffensive push through Russian positions.
The forming response: Transatlantic allies are hoping, largely by keeping silent, to de-escalate the immediate political crisis while quietly pushing Ukraine to strike a devastating blow against Russia on the battlefield. It’s best to hit an enemy while it’s down, and Kyiv would be hard-pressed to find a more wounded Russia, militarily and politically, than it is right now.
In public, American and European leaders stressed that they are preparing for any outcome, as it still remained unclear where the mercenary rebellion would ultimately lead. Wagner Group chief Yevgeny Prigozhin, who led the revolt, resurfaced on Monday, claiming he had merely wanted to protest, not topple the Russian government — while simultaneously insisting his paramilitary force would remain operational.
“It’s still too early to reach a definitive conclusion about where this is going,” U.S. President Joe Biden said Monday afternoon. “The overall outcome of this remains to be seen.”
For the moment, European officials see no greater threat to the Continent even as they watch for signs that Russian President Vladimir Putin’s two-decade hold on power might be slipping.
Western allies attribute the relative calm to how they managed Prigozhin’s 24-hour tantrum.
During the fighting, senior Biden administration figures and their European counterparts agreed on calls that they should remain “silent” and “neutral” about the mutiny, said three U.S. and European officials, who like others were granted anonymity to discuss fast-moving and sensitive deliberations.
In Monday’s meeting of top EU diplomats in Luxembourg, officials from multiple countries acted with a little-to-see-here attitude. No one wanted to give the Kremlin an opening to claim Washington and its friends were behind the Wagner Group’s targeting of senior Russian military officials.
“We made clear that we were not involved. We had nothing to do with it,” Biden said from the White House Monday, relaying the transatlantic message. However, Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov signaled on Monday that his regime would still look into the potential involvement of Western spies in the rebellion.
The broader question is how, or even if, the unprecedented moment could reverse Ukraine’s fortunes as its counteroffensive stalls.
The U.S. and some European nations have urged Ukraine for weeks to move faster and harder on the front lines. The criticism is that Kyiv has acted too cautiously, waiting for perfect weather conditions and other factors to align before striking Russia’s dug-in fortifications.
Now, with Moscow’s political and military weaknesses laid bare, there’s a “window” for Ukraine to push through the first defensive positions, a U.S. official said. Others in the U.S. and Europe assess that Russian troops might lay down their arms if Ukraine gets the upper hand while command and control problems from the Kremlin persist.
British Secretary of State for Defence Ben Wallace | Sean Gallup/Getty Images
“Russia does not appear to have the uncommitted ground forces needed to counter the multiple threats it is now facing from Ukraine, which extend over 200 kilometers [124 miles] from Bakhmut to the eastern bank of the Dnipro River,” U.K. Defense Secretary Ben Wallace said in the House of Commons Monday.
Ukrainian officials say there’s no purposeful delay on their part. Russia’s air power, minefields and bad weather have impeded Kyiv’s advances, they insist, conceding that they do wish they could move faster.
“We’re still moving forward in different parts of the front line,” Yuri Sak, an adviser to Ukrainian Defense Minister Oleksii Reznikov, said in an interview.
“Earlier it was not possible to assess the solidity of the Russian defenses,” Sak added. “Only now that we are doing active probing operations, we get a better picture. The obtained information will be factored into the next stages of our offensive operations.”
Analysts have long warned that, despite the training Ukrainian forces have received from Western militaries, it was unlikely that they would fight just like a NATO force. Kyiv is still operating with a strategy of attrition despite recent drills on combined-arms operations, maneuver warfare and longer-range precision fires.
During Monday’s gathering of top EU diplomats, Ukrainian Foreign Minister Dmytro Kuleba said now was the time to pump more artillery systems and missiles into Kyiv’s arsenal, place more sanctions on Russia and speed up the training of Ukrainian pilots on advanced fighter jets.
“Together, all these steps will allow the liberation of all Ukrainian territories,” he asserted.
In the meantime, European officials will keep an eye on Russia as they consider NATO’s own security.
“I think that nobody has yet understood what is going on in Russia — frankly I have a feeling also that the leadership in Moscow has no clue what is going on in their own country,” quipped Latvia’s Foreign Minister and President-elect Edgars Rinkēvičs in a phone interview on Monday afternoon.
“We are prepared, as we always would be, for a range of scenarios,” U.K. Prime Minister Rishi Sunak told reporters Monday.
NATO allies will continue to watch for whether Russia starts to crumble or if the autocrat atop the Kremlin can hold his nation together with spit and tape.
“The question is how Putin will now react to his public humiliation. His reaction — to save his face and reestablish his authority — may well be a further crackdown on any domestic dissent and an intensified war effort in Ukraine,” said a Central European defense official. The official added that there’s no belief Putin will reach for a nuclear option during the greatest threat to his rule in two decades.
In the meantime, an Eastern European senior diplomat said, “we will increase monitoring, possibly our national vigilance and intelligence efforts. Additional border protection measures might be feasible. We need more allied forces in place.”
Alexander Ward reported from Washington. Lili Bayer reported from Brussels. Suzanne Lynch reported from Luxembourg. Cristina Gallardo reported from London.
Alexander Ward, Lili Bayer, Suzanne Lynch and Cristina Gallardo
Bank of America, based in Charlotte, is opening a wholesale investment branch in Luxembourg.
Mammoth Charlotte-based Bank of America is expanding in Europe and coming to one of the world’s smallest but wealthiest countries — Luxembourg.
The bank has opened a branch in the capital city of the same name, Luxembourg, Bank of America said Wednesday in a news release. The landlocked country is surrounded by Belgium, France and Germany.
Customers for the wholesale investment branch are corporate, commercial and NBFIs (non-bank financial institutions), not retail clients, Bank of America spokeswoman Megan Pearson told The Charlotte Observer in an email from London.
Bank of America chose Luxembourg because it’s the second largest investment fund center in the world after the U.S. By going there the bank said it will “deepen its global cash management services to these NBFIs.”
Luxembourg also is the second wealthiest country in the world with GDP per capita, purchasing power parity of $142,490, according to Global Finance, a corporate finance magazine, behind Ireland. The U.S. ranks at No. 9 with a GDP per capita, purchasing power parity of $80,035. Purchasing power parity is the exchange rate used to compare countries with different currencies expressed in international dollars, according to the report.
“Many multi-national companies have chosen Luxembourg as a European hub for their activities,” Fernando Vicario, CEO of Bank of America Europe Designated Activity Company, said in a statement.
The Luxembourg branch will be available for setting up local bank accounts and provide in-country transaction banking products and services, according to Bank of America.
Global Transaction Services accounts for over 10% of Bank of America’s overall revenue and about a third of its deposits, according to the bank. Bank of America has operations throughout the U.S., its territories and over 35 countries.
Bank of America is expanding into the small but wealthy European country of Luxembourg. Chris Keane Bloomberg
Fun facts for Luxembourg, Charlotte and Bank of America
Population: Luxembourg 660,924 residents; Charlotte estimated 880,000 residents.
Size: Luxembourg, 2,586 square miles. It’s slightly smaller than Rhode Island. Mecklenburg County covers 546 square miles.
Age: Luxembourg was founded in 963, making it 1,060 years old. It was established a century before the Battle of Hastings that led to the Norman conquest of England. Charlotte was founded in December 1768, some 254 years ago and a little over six years before the Revolutionary War started.
Labor force: Luxembourg, excluding foreign workers, has 334,000 workers. Bank of America has about 218,000 employees, including over 18,000 in the Charlotte region.
Airports: Luxembourg has two airports, one of which is paved. Pre-pandemic, Luxembourg Airport had passenger traffic in 2018 of 2.1 million. Charlotte-Douglas International Airport, which also is paved, had nearly 48 million passengers last year.
Economies: Bank of America has $3.051 trillion in assets and is the second biggest bank in the U.S. by assets (behind only JPMorgan Chase) and seventh biggest in the world. Luxembourg’s GDP is $71 billion.
One more thing: The country, a constitutional monarchy, is the only grand duchy in the world. A grand duchy is a country whose official head of state is a monarch with the title of grand duke or grand duchess. The country’s current monarch is Henri, the 68-year-old Grand Duke of Luxembourg. He has ruled over the country since 2000, and reportedly had a net worth around $4 billion.
This story was originally published May 11, 2023, 6:30 AM.
Related stories from Charlotte Observer
Catherine Muccigrosso is the retail business reporter for The Charlotte Observer. An award-winning journalist, she has worked for multiple newspapers and McClatchy for more than a decade.
The EU was quick to hit Russia with sanctions after Vladimir Putin launched the invasion of Ukraine — but it took time and an escalation of measures before Moscow started to feel any real damage.
Since the war started in late February last year, November was the first month when the value of EU imports from Russia was lower than in the same month of 2021. Until then, the bloc had been sending more cash than before the conflict — every month, for nine months. More recent data is not yet available.
The main reason behind this? Energy dependency on Russia and skyrocketing energy prices. But that’s not the whole story: Some EU countries were much quicker than others to reduce trade flows with Moscow — and some were still increasing them at the end of last year.
Here is a full breakdown of how the war has changed EU trade with Russia, in figures and charts:
BERLIN — On a balmy September evening last year, an Azeri man carrying a Russian passport crossed the border from northern Cyprus into southern Cyprus. He traveled light: a pistol, a handful of bullets and a silencer.
It was going to be the perfect hit job.
Then, just as the man was about to step into a rental car and carry out his mission — which prosecutors say was to gun down five Jewish businessmen, including an Israeli billionaire — the police surrounded him.
The failed attack was just one of at least a dozen in Europe in recent years, some successful, others not, that have involved what security officials call “soft” targets, involving murder, abduction, or both. The operations were broadly similar in conception, typically relying on local hired guns. The most significant connection, intelligence officials say, is that the attacks were commissioned by the same contractor: the Islamic Republic of Iran.
In Cyprus, authorities believe Iran, which blames Israel for a series of assassinations of nuclear specialists working on the Iranian nuclear program, was trying to signal that it could strike back where Israel least expects it.
“This is a regime that bases its rule on intimidation and violence and espouses violence as a legitimate measure,” David Barnea, the head of Israel’s Mossad intelligence agency, said in rare public remarks in September, describing what he said was a recent uptick in violent plots. “It is not spontaneous. It is planned, systematic, state terrorism — strategic terrorism.”
He left out one important detail: It’s working.
That success has come in large part because Europe — the staging ground for most Iranian operations in recent years — has been afraid to make Tehran pay. Since 2015, Iran has carried out about a dozen operations in Europe, killing at least three people and abducting several others, security officials say.
“The Europeans have not just been soft on the Islamic Republic, they’ve been cooperating with them, working with them, legitimizing the killers,” Masih Alinejad, the Iranian-American author and women’s rights activist said, highlighting the continuing willingness of European heads of state to meet with Iran’s leaders.
Alinejad, one of the most outspoken critics of the regime, understands better than most just how far Iran’s leadership is willing to go after narrowly escaping both a kidnapping and assassination attempt.
“If the Islamic Republic doesn’t receive any punishment, is there any reason for them to stop taking hostages or kidnapping or killing?” she said, and then answered: “No.”
Method of first resort
Assassination has been the sharpest instrument in the policy toolbox ever since Brutus and his co-conspirators stabbed Julius Caesar repeatedly. Over the millennia, it’s also proved risky, often triggering disastrous unintended consequences (see the Roman Empire after Caesar’s killing or Europe after the assassination of Archduke Franz Ferdinand in Sarajevo).
And yet, for both rogue states like Iran, Russia and North Korea, and democracies such as the United States and Israel — the attraction of solving a problem by removing it often proves irresistible.
Even so, there’s a fundamental difference between the two spheres: In the West, assassination remains a last resort (think Osama bin Laden); in authoritarian states, it’s the first (who can forget the 2017 assassination by nerve agent of Kim Jong-nam, the playboy half-brother of North Korean dictator Kim Jong-un, upon his arrival in Kuala Lumpur?). For rogue states, even if the murder plots are thwarted, the regimes still win by instilling fear in their enemies’ hearts and minds.
That helps explain the recent frequency. Over the course of a few months last year, Iran undertook a flurry of attacks from Latin America to Africa. In Colombia, police arrested two men in Bogotá on suspicion they were plotting to assassinate a group of Americans and a former Israeli intelligence officer for $100,000; a similar scene played out in Africa, as authorities in Tanzania, Ghana and Senegal arrested five men on suspicion they were planning attacks on Israeli targets, including tourists on safari; in February of this year, Turkish police disrupted an intricate Iranian plot to kill a 75-year-old Turkish-Israeli who owns a local aerospace company; and in November, authorities in Georgia said they foiled a plan hatched by Iran’s Quds Force to murder a 62-year-old Israeli-Georgian businessman in Tbilisi.
Whether such operations succeed or not, the countries behind them can be sure of one thing: They won’t be made to pay for trying. Over the years, the Russian and Iranian regimes have eliminated countless dissidents, traitors and assorted other enemies (real and perceived) on the streets of Paris, Berlin and even Washington, often in broad daylight. Others have been quietly abducted and sent home, where they faced sham trials and were then hanged for treason.
While there’s no shortage of criticism in the West in the wake of these crimes, there are rarely real consequences. That’s especially true in Europe, where leaders have looked the other way in the face of a variety of abuses in the hopes of reviving a deal to rein in Tehran’s nuclear weapons program and renewing business ties.
Unlike the U.S. and Israel, which have taken a hard line on Iran ever since the mullahs came to power in 1979, Europe has been more open to the regime. Many EU officials make no secret of their ennui with America’s hard-line stance vis-à-vis Iran.
“Iran wants to wipe out Israel, nothing new about that,” the EU foreign policy chief Josep Borrell told POLITICO in 2019 when he was still Spanish foreign minister. “You have to live with it.”
History of assassinations
There’s also nothing new about Iran’s love of assassination.
Indeed, many scholars trace the word “assassin” to Hasan-i Sabbah, a 12th-century Persian missionary who founded the “Order of Assassins,” a brutal force known for quietly eliminating adversaries.
Hasan’s spirit lived on in the Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini, the hardline cleric who led Iran’s Islamic revolution and took power in 1979. One of his first victims as supreme leader was Shahriar Shafiq, a former captain in the Iranian navy and the nephew of the country’s exiled shah. He was shot twice in the head in December 1979 by a masked gunman outside his mother’s home on Rue Pergolèse in Paris’ fashionable 16th arrondissement.
In the years that followed, Iranian death squads took out members and supporters of the shah and other opponents across Europe, from France to Sweden, Germany, Switzerland and Austria. In most instances, the culprits were never caught. Not that the authorities really needed to look.
In 1989, for example, Abdul Rahman Ghassemlou, a leader of Iran’s Kurdish minority who supported autonomy for his people, was gunned down along with two associates by Iranian assassins in an apartment in Vienna.
The gunmen took refuge in the Iranian embassy. They were allowed to leave Austria after Iran’s ambassador to Vienna hinted to the government that Austrians in his country might be in danger if the killers were arrested. One of the men alleged to have participated in the Vienna operation would later become one of his country’s most prominent figures: Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, Iran’s president from 2005 until 2013.
Not even the bad publicity surrounding that case tempered the regime’s killing spree. In the years that followed, the body count only increased. Some of the murders were intentionally gruesome in order to send a clear message.
Fereydoun Farrokhzad, for example, a dissident Iranian popstar who found exile in Germany, was killed in his home in Bonn in 1992. The killers cut off his genitals, his tongue and beheaded him.
His slaying was just one of dozens in what came to be known as Iran’s “chain murders,” a decade-long killing spree in which the government targeted artists and dissidents at home and abroad. Public outcry over the murder of a trio of prominent writers in 1998, including a husband and wife, forced the regime hard-liners behind the killings to retreat. But only for a time.
Illustration by Joan Wong for POLITICO
Then, as now, the dictatorship’s rationale for such killings has been to protect itself.
“The highest priority of the Iranian regime is internal stability,” a Western intelligence source said. “The regime views its opponents inside and outside Iran as a significant threat to this stability.”
Much of that paranoia is rooted in the Islamic Republic’s own history. Before returning to Iran in 1979, Khomeini spent nearly 15 years in exile, including in Paris, an experience that etched the power of exile into the Islamic Republic’s mythology. In other words, if Khomeini managed to lead a revolution from abroad, the regime’s enemies could too.
Bargaining chips
Given Europe’s proximity to Iran, the presence of many Iranian exiles there and the often-magnanimous view of some EU governments toward Tehran, Europe is a natural staging ground for the Islamic Republic’s terror.
The regime’s intelligence service, known as MOIS, has built operational networks across the Continent trained to abduct and murder through a variety of means, Western intelligence officials say.
As anti-regime protests have erupted in Iran with increasing regularity since 2009, the pace of foreign operations aimed at eliminating those the regime accuses of stoking the unrest has increased.
While several of the smaller-scale assassinations — such as the 2015 hit in the Netherlands on Iranian exile Mohammad-Reza Kolahi — have succeeded, Tehran’s more ambitious operations have gone awry.
The most prominent example involved a 2018 plot to blow up the annual Paris meeting of the National Council of Resistance of Iran, an alliance of exile groups seeking to oust the regime. Among those attending the gathering, which attracted tens of thousands, was Rudy Giuliani, the former New York mayor and then-U.S. President Donald Trump’s lawyer.
Following a tip from American intelligence, European authorities foiled the plot, arresting six, including a Vienna-based Iranian diplomat who delivered a detonation device and bombmaking equipment to an Iranian couple tasked with carrying out an attack on the rally. Authorities observed the handover at a Pizza Hut in Luxembourg and subsequently arrested the diplomat, Assadollah Assadi, on the German autobahn as he sped back to Vienna, where he enjoyed diplomatic immunity.
Assadi was convicted on terror charges in Belgium last year and sentenced to 20 years is prison. He may not even serve two.
The diplomat’s conviction marked the first time an Iranian operative had been held accountable for his actions by a European court since the Islamic revolution. But Belgium’s courage didn’t last long.
In February, Iran arrested Belgian aid worker Olivier Vandecasteele on trumped-up espionage charges and placed him into solitary confinement at the infamous Evin prison in Tehran. Vandecasteele headed the Iran office of the Norwegian Refugee Council, an aid group.
Following reports that Vandecasteele’s health was deteriorating and tearful public pleas from his family, the Belgian government — ignoring warnings from Washington and other governments that it was inviting further kidnappings — relented and laid the groundwork for an exchange to trade Assadi for Vandecasteele. The swap could happen any day.
“Right now, French, Swedish, German, U.K., U.S., Belgian citizens, all innocents, are in Iranian prisons,” said Alinejad, the Iranian women’s rights campaigner.
“They are being used like bargaining chips,” she said. “It works.”
Amateur hour
Even so, the messiness surrounding the Assadi case might explain why most of Iran’s recent operations have been carried out by small-time criminals who usually have no idea who they’re working for. The crew in last year’s Cyprus attack, for example, included several Pakistani delivery boys. While that gives Iran plausible deniability if the perpetrators get caught, it also increases the likelihood that the operations will fail.
“It’s very amateur, but an amateur can be difficult to trace,” one intelligence official said. “They’re also dispensable. They get caught, no one cares.”
Iranian intelligence has had more success in luring dissidents away from Europe to friendly third countries where they are arrested and then sent back to Iran. That’s what happened to Ruhollah Zam, a journalist critical of the regime who had been living in Paris. The circumstances surrounding his abduction remain murky, but what is known is that someone convinced him to travel to Iraq in 2019, where he was arrested and extradited to Iran. He was convicted for agitating against the regime and hanged in December of 2020.
One could be forgiven for thinking that negotiations between Iran and world powers over renewing its dormant nuclear accord (which offered Tehran sanctions relief in return for supervision of its nuclear program) would have tamed its covert killing program. In fact, the opposite occurred.
In July of 2021, U.S. authorities exposed a plot by Iranian operatives to kidnap Alinejad from her home in Brooklyn as part of an elaborate plan that involved taking her by speedboat to a tanker in New York Harbor before spiriting her off to Venezuela, an Iranian ally, and then on to the Islamic Republic.
A year later, police disrupted what the FBI believed was an attempt to assassinate Alinejad, arresting a man with an assault rifle and more than 60 rounds of ammunition who had knocked on her door.
American authorities also say Tehran planned to avenge the assassination of General Qassem Soleimani, the head of its feared paramilitary Quds Force who was the target of a U.S. drone strike in 2020, by seeking to kill former National Security Adviser John Bolton and Mike Pompeo, the former Secretary of State, among other officials.
Through it all, neither the U.S. nor Europe gave up hope for a nuclear deal.
“From the point of view of the Iranians, this is proof that it is possible to separate and maintain a civilized discourse on the nuclear agreement with a deceptive Western appearance, on the one hand, and on the other hand, to plan terrorist acts against senior American officials and citizens,” Barnea, the Mossad chief said. “This artificial separation will continue for as long as the world allows it to.”
Kremlin’s killings
Some hope the growing outrage in Western societies over Iran’s crackdown on peaceful protestors could be the spark that convinces Europe to get tough on Iran. But Europe’s handling of its other favorite rogue actor — Russia — suggests otherwise.
Long before Russia’s annexation of Crimea, much less its all-out war against Ukraine, Moscow, similar to Iran, undertook an aggressive campaign against its enemies abroad and made little effort to hide it.
Russian police investigators stand near the body of killed Russian opposition leader and former Deputy Prime Minister Boris Nemtsov | Sasha Mordovets/Getty Images
The most prominent victim was Alexander Litvinenko. A former KGB officer like Vladimir Putin, Litvinenko had defected to the U.K., where he joined other exiles opposed to Putin. In 2006, he was poisoned in London by Russian intelligence with polonium-210, a radioactive isotope that investigators concluded was mixed into his tea. The daring operation signaled Moscow’s return to the Soviet-era practice of artful assassination.
Litvinenko died a painful death within weeks, but not before he blamed Putin for killing him, calling the Russian president “barbaric.”
“You may succeed in silencing me, but that silence comes at a price,” Litvinenko said from his deathbed.
In the end, however, the only one who really paid a price was Litvinenko. Putin continued as before and despite deep tensions in the U.K.’s relationship with Russia over the assassination, it did nothing to halt the transformation of the British capital into what has come to be known as “Londongrad,” a playground and second home for Russia’s Kremlin-backed oligarchs, who critics say use the British financial and legal systems to hide and launder their money.
Litvinenko’s killing was remarkable both for its brutality and audacity. If Putin was willing to take out an enemy on British soil with a radioactive element, what else was he capable of?
It didn’t take long to find out. In the months and years that followed, the bodies started to pile up. Critical journalists, political opponents and irksome oligarchs in the prime of life began dropping like flies.
Europe didn’t blink.
Angela Merkel, then German chancellor, visited Putin in his vacation residence in Sochi just weeks after the murders of Litvinenko and investigative journalist Anna Politkovskaya and said … nothing.
Even after there was no denying Putin’s campaign to eradicate anyone who challenged him, European leaders kept coming in the hope of deepening economic ties.
Neither the assassination of prominent Putin critic Boris Nemtsov just steps away from the Kremlin in 2015, nor the poisoning of a KGB defector and his daughter in the U.K. in 2018 and of opposition leader Alexei Navalny in 2020 with nerve agents disabused European leaders of the notion that Putin was someone they could do business with and, more importantly, control.
‘Anything can happen’
Just how comfortable Russia felt about using Europe as a killing field became clear in the summer of 2019. Around noon on a sunny August day, a Russian assassin approached Zelimkhan Khangoshvili, a Chechen with Georgian nationality, and shot him twice in the head with a 9mm pistol. The murder took place in a park located just a few hundred meters from Germany’s interior ministry and several witnesses saw the killer flee. He was nabbed within minutes as he was changing his clothes and trying to dispose of his weapon and bike in a nearby canal.
It later emerged that Khangoshvili, a Chechen fighter who had sought asylum in Germany, was on a Russian kill list. Russian authorities considered him a terrorist and accused him of participating in a 2010 attack on the Moscow subway that killed nearly 40 people.
In December of 2019, Putin denied involvement in Khangoshvili’s killing. Sort of. Sitting next to French President Emmanuel Macron, Merkel and Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy following a round of talks aimed at resolving the conflict in Ukraine, the Russian referred to him as a “very barbaric man with blood on his hands.”
“I don’t know what happened to him,” Putin said. “Those are opaque criminal structures where anything can happen.”
Early on October 19 of last year, Berlin police discovered a dead man on the sidewalk outside the Russian embassy. He was identified as Kirill Zhalo, a junior diplomat at the embassy. He was also the son of General Major Alexey Zhalo, the deputy head of a covert division in Russia’s FSB security service in Moscow that ordered Khangoshvili’s killing. Western intelligence officials believe that Kirill Zhalo, who arrived in Berlin just weeks before the hit on the Chechen, was involved in the operation and was held responsible for its exposure.
The Russian embassy called his death “a tragic accident,” suggesting he had committed suicide by jumping out of a window. Russia refused to allow German authorities to perform an autopsy (such permission is required under diplomatic protocols) and sent his body back to Moscow.
Less than two months later, the Russian hitman who killed Khangoshvili, was convicted of murder and sentenced to life in prison. Russia recently tried to negotiate his release, floating the possibility of exchanging American basketball player Brittney Griner and another U.S. citizen they have in custody. Washington rejected the idea.
The war in Ukraine offers profound lessons about the inherent risks of coddling dictators.
Though Germany, with its thirst for Russian gas, is often criticized in that regard, it was far from alone in Europe. Europe’s insistence on giving Putin the benefit of the doubt over the years in the face of his crimes convinced him that he would face few consequences in the West for his invasion of Ukraine. That’s turned out to be wrong; but who could blame the Russian leader for thinking it?
Iran presents Europe with an opportunity to learn from that history and confront Tehran before it’s too late. But there are few signs it’s prepared to really get tough. EU officials say they are “considering” following Washington’s lead and designating the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps, a vast military organization that also controls much of the Iran’s economy, as a terror organization. Last week, German Foreign Minister Annalena Baerbock spearheaded an effort at the United Nations to launch a formal investigation into Iran’s brutal crackdown against the ongoing protests in the country.
Yet even as the regime in Tehran snuffs out enemies and races to fulfil its goal of building both nuclear weapons and missiles that can reach any point on the Continent, some EU leaders appear blind to the wider context as they pursue the elusive renewal of the nuclear accord.
“It is still there,” Borrell said recently of the deal he has taken a leading role in trying to resurrect. “It has nothing to do with other issues, which certainly concern us.”