Read the daily news to learn English

Putin calls European leaders ‘little pigs’ and says Russia will achieve Ukraine goals by diplomacy or force - as it happened

in Madrid Meanwhile, Spain’s socialist prime minister, Pedro Sánchez, has criticised EU plans to water down its 2035 ban on the sale of new petrol or diesel cars, describing them as a “historic mistake” that risks threatening competitiveness and undermining efforts to mitigate the effects of the climate emergency. Under current legislation, manufacturers were obliged to ensure that 100% of production of cars and vans had zero emissions from 2035. The European Commission has now proposed reducing this to 90%, enabling the continued manufacture of a portion of plug-in hybrid electric cars, or even combustion engines beyond 2035. Speaking in Madrid on Wednesday to promote his proposed state pact to address the climate emergency, Sánchez hit out at the plans, saying: “What was approved in the European parliament yesterday was a historic error for Europe because competitiveness … is guaranteed by sustainability and not by weakening our climate commitments and our support for sustainability.” He added: “Climate is the board on which all the other games are played. There’s no progress, no growth and no health of the climate becomes a risk factor.” Spain is one of the European countries on the frontline of the climate emergency, having suffered deadly floods last year as well as summer after summer of wildfires. Measures in the pact include funds to prepare for, and rebuild after, climate-related disasters, improvements to firefighting capacity, a plan to increase water resilience in the face of floods and droughts, and initiatives to fight rural depopulation and thus help keep the land clear of combustible material. Sánchez said the raft of initiatives – which will be put before parliament – was designed to act as “a shield for Spain” and to protect its people and its economy. “The climate emergency won’t wait,” he said. “[And] history will not forgive a lack of action. What’s in play here is the future of this who will come next. Let’s do it together before it’s too late.”

Population growth is as concerning as overconsumption | Letter

George Monbiot labels anyone raising concerns about ongoing global human population, currently growing by 70 million per year, as “obsessives” (The facts are stark: Europe must open the door to migrants, or face its own extinction, 12 December). Deploying familiar tropes and the loaded phrase “population control” (not used by the organisations or institutions working on the issue), he insinuates that anyone raising population concern is at best hypocritical, at worst racist, by blaming “poorer Black and Brown people in the global south” while ignoring excessive individual consumption in rich, developed countries like the UK. His crusade to scare off any liberal, progressive person from daring to posit that growth in population as well as consumption might be an issue sinks to new lows when he claims that only “mass murder on an unprecedented scale” could slow and stabilise population growth. The two key drivers of climate change, as highlighted by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, are economic and population growth: “Globally, Gross Domestic Product (GDP) per capita and population growth remained the strongest drivers of CO2 emissions from fossil fuel combustion in the last decade.” Providing the hundreds of millions of women worldwide who currently lack agency over their bodies with safe family planning is not “mass murder” but enabling choice and rights. By dismissing these ecological facts and gender injustices, Monbiot is falling into step with the xenophobic, extractive capitalists and nationalists he claims to deplore. Robin Maynard Executive director, Population Matters, 2016-23

Belgian politicians and finance bosses targeted by Russian intelligence over seized assets

Belgian politicians and senior finance executives have been subject to a campaign of intimidation orchestrated by Russian intelligence aimed at persuading the country to block the use of €185bn assets for Ukraine, according to European intelligence agencies. Security officials indicated to the Guardian that there had been deliberate targeting of key figures at Euroclear, the securities depository holding the majority of Russia’s frozen assets, and leaders of the country. EU leaders meeting in Brussels on Thursday are debating whether to approve the lending of urgently needed funds for Ukraine secured on Russian central bank assets, critical to maintain Kyiv’s war effort through 2026 and 2027. Officials believe the campaign is the responsibility of Russia’s GRU military intelligence, though there is a debate about the degree of threat. “They have been engaged in the tactics of intimidation for sure,” one European official said. Belgium is in focus because €185bn (£162bn) of the €210bn of Russia central bank assets frozen by the EU since the start of Moscow’s full-scale invasion of Ukraine is held at the Brussels-based Euroclear. On Thursday and Friday, EU leaders are meeting to decide whether to agree an initial €90bn loan secured on the immobilised Russian bank assets. Belgium has voiced concerns about the legality of the scheme and says it will only agree if it has guarantees Euroclear will be reimbursed in full if Russia successfully sues for its money. Russia has publicly warned that utilising the assets would amount to theft and its central bank said it is seeking $230bn in damages from Euroclear in a case brought in the country’s courts. But it is understood the intimidation campaign has been focused on key individuals. Threats have been directed at Valérie Urbain, the chief executive of Euroclear, and other senior executives at the financial services group. Euroclear declined to comment: “Any potential threats are treated with the utmost priority and investigated deeply, often with the support of authorities as appropriate.” An investigation earlier this month by the news site EUobserver referenced threats made to Urbain in 2024 and 2025, and that she asked for Belgian police protection. This was denied and she and other companies executives then hired first a Belgian, then a French security firm to provide bodyguards, according to the report. A profile interview of Urbain by Le Monde in November reported that she had been accompanied by a bodyguard for more than a year, though she did not comment directly on her security. In early December, Bart De Wever, Belgium’s prime minister, said in an onstage interview with La Libre newspaper: “And who believes that Putin will calmly accept the confiscation of Russian assets? Moscow has let us know that in the event of a seizure, Belgium and I personally will feel the effects for eternity.” Asked to explain these comments earlier this month, the prime minister’s office referred to previous remarks made by De Wever, describing the legal and financial risks facing western companies. At a press conference in October, De Wever had said: “Moscow has told us that if we touch the money, we would feel the consequences until eternity,” and went on to evoke Russian countermeasures, including confiscation of western money frozen in Russian banks, seizure of western companies and similar decisions from Moscow-friendly jurisdictions. The spokesperson on Wednesday declined to comment on the reported threats against Belgian government ministers or the head of Euroclear, citing safety reasons. A spokesperson for Belgium’s foreign minister, Maxime Prévot, who is also deputy prime minister and has been involved in talks on the reparations loan, said they had “no such information” about threats to him. The UK, which is believed to hold €27bn of Russia’s frozen assets, supports the move to use immobilised funds for Ukraine. Belgium has also been insisting that other countries holding Russian assets, estimated to be worth €290bn worldwide, take similar actions to show solidarity and reduce the legal risk. Keir Starmer, the UK prime minister, told the businessman Roman Abramovich to release £2.5bn of proceeds from the sale of Chelsea football club in 2022 within 90 days or face legal action. Britain wants all the money to be given to Ukrainian war victims, but the billionaire has said he also wants Russian victims to benefit. Ukrainian officials and experts acknowledge the EU loan is central to maintaining the country’s war effort for the next couple of years. Nataliia Shapoval, the head of the KSE Institute, a Kyiv based economic thinktank, said Ukraine required $50bn in external financing in 2026, but only half of which had already been committed. The economist described the need for fresh international financing as “absolutely critical”. In particular, Ukraine’s defence ministry needed predictable flows of cash to ensure that it could buy weapons at the rates needed and so its armaments industry could make capital investments for the future. Though Ukraine could get through the first quarter of the year without the additional support from the EU, “big problems would arise from quarter two and even more in the second half of the year”, with Kyiv likely forced to cut defence budgets and make difficult trade-offs with social expenditure. Ukrainian officials hope that an EU funding deal could put Russia under medium-term financial pressure. Next year, 38% of Russia’s state budget will go on funding its military, while it is expected to end this year with a budget gap of about $70bn (£52bn), according to Shapoval.

Brigitte Macron faces lawsuit after being filmed using sexist slur at Paris theatre

Brigitte Macron is facing a legal complaint from several organisations, including women’s rights groups, after she was filmed saying feminist protesters at a theatre show in Paris were “stupid bitches”. More than 300 women – specifically 343, a historically symbolic number in French feminism – this week filed the complaint against the French first lady for public insult. A video filmed last week showed Macron in discussion backstage at the Folies Bergère theatre in Paris with Ary Abittan, a French actor and comedian who was previously accused of rape. She was attending his show with her daughter and some friends. The previous night, feminist campaigners had disrupted the show, shouting: “Abittan, rapist!” Macron, 72, asked Abittan how he was feeling. When he said he was feeling scared, she referred to the protesters as “sales connes” (stupid bitches) and said if they reappeared “we’ll toss them out”. Juliette Chapelle, a lawyer for the feminist groups who brought the case, told France Inter radio: “She’s France’s first lady, her words matter.” Chapelle said Macron had appeared to be “very engaged in causes for women, but in reality we can say there’s a disconnect between her public speeches and what she really thinks”. Magistrates terminated the investigation of the 2021 rape allegation against Abittan in 2024 due to a lack of evidence to bring it to trial. That decision was confirmed on appeal in January this year. The feminist campaign group who took part in the theatre protest, Nous Toutes (All of Us), said its activists had disrupted Abittan’s show to protest against what it described as “the culture of impunity” around sexual violence in France. “I am sorry if I hurt women victims,” Macron told the media outlet Brut this week, calling the remarks that were caught on video “private” comments. But, she added: “I can’t regret them. True, I am the wife of the president of the republic, but I am above all myself. And so when I am in private, I can let myself go in a way that is not totally proper.” The feminist groups who brought the legal complaint include Les Tricoteuses Hystériques (The Hysterical Knitters), which was founded in 2024 at the time of France’s biggest rape trial in which dozens of men were convicted of raping Gisèle Pelicot, who had been drugged by her ex-husband. A defence lawyer in that case called the women outside “hysterical” and “tricoteuses” – likening them to the women who watched and knitted as the guillotine fell during the French Revolution. The number of 343 complainants references a 1971 petition for the legalisation of abortion in which 343 women said they had terminated pregnancies. Several celebrities have voiced support for the feminist campaigners insulted by Macron by adopting the insultwith the hashtag #salesconnes. The actor and director Judith Godrèche, a leading voice in France’s #MeToo movement who has filed complaints accusing two film directors of sexually assaulting her when she was a teenager, posted on social media: “Me too – I’m also a salle conne (dirty, stupid bitch) and I support all the others.”

Why young people are the big losers in Europe’s dysfunctional housing system

Donald Trump may rage about Europe being a multicultural hell facing “civilisational” collapse. As a proud real estate guy, however, he must be impressed by one feature of European life: the house prices, and the extent to which even progressive governments have abandoned housing to the markets. Since 2010, average sale prices in the EU have surged by close to 60%. In some countries, such as the Netherlands, house prices have doubled in a decade. Rents, meanwhile, have increased by almost 30% on average in the last 15 years. The rent average masks dramatic spikes experienced in some countries: 208% in Estonia, 177% in Lithuania, 108% in Ireland and 107% in Hungary. If property has been a lucrative bet for wealthy investors, the cost of a home is a financial ordeal for millions of people whose incomes have been outpaced. Younger Europeans are bearing the brunt, with many barely able to rent independently or with any security, let alone afford a mortgage, even when they are in work. New research by the EU agency Eurofound (European Foundation for the Improvement of Living and Working Conditions) reported extraordinary levels of housing precarity: • 30% of 25- to 34-year-olds in the EU live with their parents. (In Spain, Portugal, Ireland and Poland, the rate is almost 50%). • Young Europeans spend almost one-third of their income on housing. • Rents have inflated so much in Ireland, Poland, Portugal, Spain and Bulgaria that a worker between 18 and 34 has to spend more than 80% of their wage on a two-room flat. No wonder Jaume Collboni, the mayor of Barcelona, says housing poses a threat to the EU as big as Russia. The price of a home in his city has risen by almost 70% in the past decade. A range of factors is driving the affordability crisis, including a post-pandemic surge in construction costs. But the biggest structural issue, say experts, is “financialisation” – where homes are treated as a market asset whose value is expected to keep rising to generate profits for investors, rather than a basic human right. In a shift dating back to the 1980s, many European governments have disengaged from direct social housing provision. Home ownership has slumped, even in countries where it used to be an ingrained part of the culture. The resulting crisis is not just a downer for young people still sharing a kitchen with their “full nester” parents – it is an economic drag. Employers can’t attract workers to the fastest-growing cities because this is where housing prices have escalated most. Essential workers are being priced out, undermining public services. Ireland has had to recruit thousands of healthcare workers whose jobs often require them to be close to hospitals. “We are now completely dependent on non-EU workers in our [healthcare] professions,” Phil Ní Sheaghdha, president of the Irish Congress of Trade Unions, told a Eurofound conference in Dublin last month. “What we don’t tell them is that when they get here, they will have no place to live, or if they do, that 70% of their wages, if they are working as a nurse, is going to be spent on rent.” Housing inequality is, in some countries, feeding the success of far-right parties that peddle a narrative of zero-sum competition between migrants and locals for scarce resources. In that sense, housing has become Europe’s political timebomb, say experts. However, that risk of even more voters being drawn to the extremes is finally stirring action from the EU. On Tuesday, the European Commission unveiled its first-ever affordable housing strategy, which gives governments more leeway to subsidise affordable housing. Current rules, for example, have blocked authorities in the Netherlands from helping low-income households with housing. These are “the missing middle”, who are not poor enough to qualify for social housing yet can’t afford to buy or rent. The new EU strategy takes aim too at short-term rentals, with new EU legislation expected to be framed by the end of 2026. This could allow local authorities in areas of “housing stress” to limit rentals. The demand from Collboni and other mayors for €300bn a year in extraordinary Covid-style joint EU funds to construct affordable housing has not been taken up. Nor is there any radical move against speculation. European governments have the real power at national level. They are under mounting pressure to disrupt the “asset” model and reinvest directly in social housing on a scale not seen since after the second world war, and extend eligibility beyond just the poorest groups. The fact that the EU is stepping in shows at least an awareness of what is at stake. To receive the complete version of This Is Europe in your inbox every Wednesday, please subscribe here.

What action is Trump taking against Venezuela’s oil industry?

Donald Trump has intensified pressure on Venezuela’s president, Nicolas Maduro, and his government in a major escalation aimed at the country’s main source of income: the oil industry. The White House called for a blockade on all Venezuelan oil exports one week after the US seized an oil tanker off the the country’s coast in what Maduro called “an act of international piracy”. The move adds to a growing US military presence in the region, which is estimated to now be the largest there since the US invaded Panama in 1989. What has Trump announced? Trump posted on his Truth Social platform late on Tuesday that he was ordering a “total and complete blockade” of all oil tankers that are under sanctions entering and leaving Venezuela, although it remains unclear how Trump would impose the embargo. One option would be to turn to the US Coast Guard to seize vessels carrying Venezuelan crude, as he did last week. Washington has already moved thousands of troops and nearly a dozen warships, including an aircraft carrier, to the region. Trump wrote that Venezuela was “completely surrounded by the largest Armada ever assembled in the History of South America”, warning that it would “only get bigger” and “be like nothing they have ever seen before”. Why is Trump taking aim at Venezuela? Trump has used social media to publicly accuse Maduro’s government of using “stolen” oil to “finance themselves, Drug Terrorism, Human Trafficking, Murder, and Kidnapping”. The White House has repeatedly accused the country of facilitating the drug trade. The US military has killed at least 90 people since September in strikes on boats in the Pacific and Caribbean that Washington claims were carrying illegal narcotics to the US. However, the Trump administration has provided no public evidence that these vessels were carrying fentanyl, which is mainly produced in Mexico, or cocaine, which is typically produced in neighbouring Colombia and shipped to the US via various routes. Trump has also made unsubstantiated claims that Maduro is “emptying his prisons and insane asylums” and “forcing” inmates to migrate to the US. Close to 8 million Venezuelans are estimated to have fled the country’s economic crisis and repression since 2013 and Maduro was sworn in for a third term of office in January after an election widely viewed as fraudulent. Maduro has strongly denied all these accusations and in turn has accused the US of using its “war on drugs” as an excuse to topple his government and lay claim to the country’s oil. How important is Venezuela to global oil supplies? Venezuela is home to the world’s largest oil reserves but produces about 0.8% of the world’s output because of struggles in the wider economy and its state-owned oil company. It exports about 900,000 barrels of oil a day, mostly to buyers in China, a fraction of the almost 22m barrels of oil produced by the US. Still, oil is the main source of foreign revenue, with profits from the sector financing more than half of the government’s budget. Market analysts at Goldman Sachs said the loss of Venezuelan crude exports owing to Trump’s blockade could cause the market to tighten slightly in the short-term, which would lead to higher prices. But in the longer-term, a political upheaval that would allow for an influx of western oil companies into the country could mean an increase in oil exports and greater supplies in the market. How has this affected the global market? The blockade prompted a sharp rise in the international oil price as traders factored in the growing possibility of disruption to global supplies. The price of Brent crude shot up by 1.5% to reach almost $60 a barrel on Wednesday afternoon, after the price fell below $60 a barrel for the first time since 2021 earlier this week. Wednesday’s jump put an end to the steady slide in the global oil markets throughout the month as political leaders inched towards a peace deal between Russia and Ukraine that could lead to the full return of Russian oil barrels to the market.

What is the row about the EU using frozen Russian assets to support Ukraine?

After months of debate, EU leaders will decide on Thursday whether or not to use Russia’s immobilised assets to fund Ukraine in what could be a make-or-break moment for Europe. What is the plan? The EU has frozen €210bn (£184bn, $247bn) of Russian central bank assets which are mostly held at Euroclear in Brussels. As the fourth anniversary of the full-scale invasion approaches, the EU wants to use this money to generate a loan for Ukraine. Under the complex plan, the EU would borrow from Euroclear to provide Ukraine with an initial €90bn loan, about two-thirds of Kyiv’s funding needs for 2026 and 2027. The EU expects Ukraine’s other allies to provide the rest. Kyiv would only repay the money to the EU if and when Russia agreed to pay reparations for the colossal damage inflicted during the war. The EU would then repay Euroclear. Throughout the cycle, Russia would remain the legal owner of the assets. Euroclear, often described as a bank for banks, was until recently a little known part of global financial plumbing. It is now looking after €40.7tn worth of assets for its clients, who include central banks, investment banks and supranational organisations. The company has its roots in the Belgian outpost of what became the Wall Street bank JP Morgan. It does not hold any paper money, but enables the electronic exchange of cash and securities (a stock, a bond or some other instrument to raise capital). Why now? EU leaders agreed in 2024 to take the interest on Russia’s frozen sovereign wealth for Ukraine. But touching the assets is a much more controversial step. Decision-makers in Brussels, Paris and Berlin feared damaging global investor confidence in the eurozone. The calculus changed in October when Germany’s relatively new chancellor, Friedrich Merz, came out decisively in favour of a plan to use the assets without confiscation. Germany shares concerns about eurozone stability, but sees the bigger economic threat coming from Russia’s imperial ambitions. Meanwhile, Donald Trump has halted new US military aid for Ukraine. European nations, grappling with stagnant economies and public spending pressures, are not doing nearly enough to fill the gap, according to the Kiel Institut in Germany. And Ukraine is running out of money fast: Kyiv needs an estimated €136bn in 2026 and 2027 to fund its defence and keep afloat, according to the European Commission. Without new funds by spring, Ukraine risks going bankrupt, unable to pay soldiers, teachers and police. Trump’s proposals for US companies to profit from the Russian assets, including via joint projects with Russia, have also galvanised European leaders to secure them for Ukraine. What does Russia say? Vladimir Putin has said using the frozen assets to finance a loan would be akin to “theft of someone else’s property”. The Russian president and his advisers have issued dark warnings about the consequences for European economic stability and investor faith in the eurozone. The Russian Central bank has launched a $230bn claim for damages against Euroclear, which is already fighting more than 100 legal cases in Russia. Putin has signed a series of decrees, most recently in October, making it easier for the Kremlin to seize western private and state assets in Russia, in retaliation for any confiscation of assets. Why does Belgium oppose the idea? Belgium, the host of the lion’s share of the assets, has described the EU plan as “fundamentally wrong”. The Belgian government argues the plan would be seen as confiscation and that without strong EU guarantees, it could be left with multibillion euro bills if Moscow is successful in suing Euroclear and seizing Belgian property in Russia. While EU courts would not recognise a Russian court judgment, Moscow-friendly jurisdictions, such as Kazakhstan or China, could seek to enforce any claim against Belgium by seizing assets in their countries. Belgium has said it will not accept the plan unless all its concerns are met, including cast-iron guarantees from other EU countries covering 100% of any claims against Euroclear. The Belgian government also wants other countries with Russian frozen assets to use them for Ukraine, including the UK, Japan, Canada, the US, Switzerland and Norway. Is there an alternative? In theory, there is a plan B. EU member states could use unallocated funds in the EU budget as collateral for a loan for Ukraine – a tried-and-tested method of raising money, which was proposed by the European Commission this month. Belgium, backed by Italy, Bulgaria and Malta, argues this is a legally safer way to help Kyiv, leaving the Russian billions intact for Ukraine’s reconstruction. Other officials involved in the decision argue the frozen-assets plan is the only real option. Borrowing secured against the EU budget requires unanimity and Hungary’s anti-Ukraine government has already said it would veto such a move. The reparations loan, in contrast, only requires a majority agreement. In theory Belgium could be outvoted, but high-ranking EU officials have indicated they do not want to go down that road. What happens if there is no agreement? If the summit, scheduled to run on Thursday and Friday, ends with no clear plan to fund Ukraine, the EU’s credibility would be in tatters. Europe would find it even harder to sway peace talks orchestrated by a transactional US president who has already dismissed the continent’s leaders as weak. Merz issued a stark warning about the risks of failing to agree the frozen assets plan: “If we do not succeed in this, then the European Union’s ability to act will be severely damaged for years, if not longer, and we will show the world that we are incapable of standing together and acting at such a crucial moment in our history.” And if there is a deal what next? Agreement would trigger an outpouring of relief, but the difficulties would be far from over. Even if EU leaders sign off on the frozen assets idea, it would still need to be turned into law to meet Ukraine’s urgent military and civilian needs by springtime. Decisions on the immense cost of rebuilding Ukraine – $524bn, €506bn by the latest estimate – remain unclear. Any peace agreement also has to resolve the issue of Ukraine’s borders and security when Russia shows no obvious interest in ending the war.