Did you know there’s a critical product – one without which we’d all be dead – which Europe is actually importing more of from Russia now than before the invasion of Ukraine?
It might feel a bit pointless, given how much chat there is right now about the end of the Ukraine war, to spend a moment talking about economic sanctions and how much of a difference they actually made to the course of the war.
After all, financial markets are already beginning to price in the possibility of a peace deal between Russia and Ukraine. Wholesale gas prices – the ones which change every day in financial markets as opposed to the ones you pay at home – have fallen quite sharply in the past couple of weeks. European month-ahead gas prices are down 22% in the past fortnight alone. And – a rare piece of good news – if that persists it should eventually feed into utility bills, which are due to rise in April, mostly because they reflect where prices used to be, as opposed to where they are now.
But it’s nonetheless worth pondering sanctions, if for no other reason than they have almost certainly influenced the course of the war. When it broke out, we were told that economic sanctions would undermine Russia‘s economy, making it far harder for Vladimir Putin to wage war. We were told that Russia would suffer on at least four fronts – it would no longer be able to buy European goods, it would no longer be able to sell its products in Europe, it would face the seizure of its foreign assets and its leading figures would face penalties too.
The problem, however, is that there has been an enormous gap between the promise and the delivery on sanctions. European goods still flow in large quantities to Russia, only via the backdoor, through Caucasus and Central Asian states instead of directly. Russian oil still flows out around the world, though sanctions have arguably reduced prices somewhat.
Please use Chrome browser for a more accessible video player
9:10
Luxury cars still getting to Russia
The upshot is Russia has still been able to depend on billions of euros of revenue from Europe, with which it has been able to spend billions of euros on components sourced, indirectly, from Europe. Its ability to wage war does not seem to have been curtailed half as much as was promised back in 2022. That in turn has undoubtedly had an impact on Russia’s success on the battlefield. The eventual peace deal is, at least to some extent, a consequence of these leaky sanctions, and of Europe’s reluctance to wage economic war, as opposed to just talking about it.
A stark example is to be found when you dig deeper into what’s actually happened here. On the face of it, one area of success for sanctions is to be seen in Europe’s gas imports. Back before the conflict, around half of all the EU’s imported gas came from Russia. Today that’s down to around 20%.
More on Russia
Related Topics:
But now consider what that gas was typically used for. Much of it was used to heat peoples’ homes – and with less of it around, prices have gone sharply higher – as we are all experiencing. But the second biggest chunk of usage was in the industrial sector, where it was used to fire up factories and as a feedstock for the chemicals industry. And that brings us back to the mystery product Europe is now importing more of than before the invasion.
One of the main chemicals produced from gas is ammonia, a nitrogen-based chemical mostly used in fertilisers. Ammonia is incredibly important – without it, we wouldn’t be able to feed around half of the population. And since gas prices rose sharply, Europe has struggled to produce ammonia domestically, turning off its plants and relying instead on imports.
Which raises a question: where have most of those imports come from? Well, in the UK, which has imposed a clear ban on Russian chemical imports, they have come mostly from the US. But in Europe, they are mostly coming from Russia. Indeed, according to our analysis of European trade data, flows of nitrogen fertilisers from Russia have actually increased since the invasion of Ukraine. More specifically, in the two-year pre-pandemic period from 2018 to 2019, Europe imported 4.6 million tonnes, while the amount imported from Russia in 2023-24 was 4.9 million tonnes.
It raises a deeper concern: instead of weaning itself off Russian imports, did Europe end up shifting its dependence from one category of import (gas) to another (fertiliser)? The short answer, having looked at the trade data, is a pretty clear yes.
Something to bear in mind, next time you hear a European leader lecturing others around the world about their relations with Russia.
Shares in The Magnum Ice Cream Company (TMICC) have fallen slightly on debut after the completion of its spin-off from Unilever amid a continuing civil war with one of its best-known brands.
Shares in the Netherlands-based company are trading for the first time following the demerger.
It creates the world’s biggest ice cream company, controlling around one fifth of the global market.
Primary Magnum shares, in Amsterdam, opened at €12.20 – down on the €12.80 reference price set by the EuroNext exchange, though they later settled just above that level, implying a market value of €7.9bn – just below £7bn.
The company is also listed in London and New York.
Unilever stock was down 3.1% on the FTSE 100 in the wake of the spin off.
More from Money
The demerger allows London-headquartered Unilever to concentrate on its wider stable of consumer brands, including Marmite, Dove soap and Domestos.
The decision to hive off the ice cream division, made in early 2024, gives a greater focus on a market that is tipped to grow by up to 4% each year until 2029.
Image: Ben & Jerry’s accounts for a greater volume of group revenue now under TMICC. Pic: Reuters
But it has been dogged by a long-running spat with the co-founders of Ben & Jerry’s, which now falls under the TMICC umbrella and accounts for 14% of group revenue.
Unilever bought the US brand in 2000, but the relationship has been sour since, despite the creation of an independent board at that time aimed at protecting the brand’s social mission.
The most high-profile spat came in 2021 when Ben & Jerry’s took the decision not to sell ice cream in Israeli-occupied Palestinian territories on the grounds that sales would be “inconsistent” with its values.
A series of rows have followed akin to a tug of war, with Magnum refusing repeated demands by the co-founders of Ben & Jerry’s to sell the brand back.
Please use Chrome browser for a more accessible video player
7:18
Sept: ‘Free Ben & Jerry’s’
Magnum and Unilever argue its mission has strayed beyond what was acceptable back in 2000, with the brand evolving into one-sided advocacy on polarising topics that risk reputational and business damage.
TMICC is currently trying to remove the chair of Ben & Jerry’s independent board.
It said last month that Anuradha Mittal “no longer meets the criteria” to serve after internal investigations.
An audit of the separate Ben & Jerry’s Foundation, where she is also a trustee, found deficiencies in financial controls and governance. Magnum said the charitable arm risked having funding removed unless the alleged problems were addressed.
The Reuters news agency has since reported that Ms Mittal has no plans to quit her roles, and accused Magnum of attempts to “discredit” her and undermine the authority of the independent board.
Magnum boss Peter ter Kulve said on Monday: “Today is a proud milestone for everyone associated with TMICC. We became the global leader in ice cream as part of the Unilever family. Now, as an independent listed company, we will be more agile, more focused, and more ambitious than ever.”
Commenting on the demerger, Hargreaves Lansdown equity analyst Aarin Chiekrie said: “TMICC is already free cash flow positive, and profitable in its own right. The balance sheet is in decent shape, but dividends are off the cards until 2027 as the group finds its footing as a standalone business.
“That could cause some downward pressure on the share price in the near term, as dividend-focussed investment funds that hold Unilever will be handed TMICC shares, the latter of which they may be forced to sell to abide by their investment mandate.”
Donald Trump has said he will be “involved” in the decision on whether Netflix should be allowed to buy Warner Bros, as the $72bn (£54bn) deal attracts a media industry backlash.
The US president acknowledged in remarks to reporters there “could be a problem”, acknowledging concerns over the streaming giant’s market dominance.
Crucially, he did not say where he stood on the issue.
It was revealed on Friday that Netflix, already the world’s biggest streaming service by market share, had agreed to buy Warner Bros Discovery’s TV, film studios and HBO Max streaming division.
The deal aims to complete late next year after the Discovery element of the business, mainly legacy TV channels showing cartoons, news and sport, has been spun off.
But the deal has attracted cross-party criticism on competition grounds, and there is also opposition in Hollywood.
Please use Chrome browser for a more accessible video player
3:06
Netflix agrees $72bn takeover of Warner Bros
The Writers Guild of America said: “The world’s largest streaming company swallowing one of its biggest competitors is what antitrust laws were designed to prevent.
“The outcome would eliminate jobs, push down wages, worsen conditions for all entertainment workers, raise prices for consumers, and reduce the volume and diversity of content for all viewers.”
Image: File pic: Reuters
Republican Senator, Roger Marshall, said in a statement: “Netflix’s attempt to buy Warner Bros would be the largest media takeover in history – and it raises serious red flags for consumers, creators, movie theaters, and local businesses alike.
“One company should not have full vertical control of the content and the distribution pipeline that delivers it. And combining two of the largest streaming platforms is a textbook horizontal Antitrust problem.
“Prices, choice, and creative freedom are at stake. Regulators need to take a hard look at this deal, and realize how harmful it would be for consumers and Western society.”
Paramount Skydance and Comcast, the parent company of Sky News, were two other bidders in the auction process that preceded the announcement.
The Reuters news agency, citing information from sources, said their bids were rejected in favour of Netflix for different reasons.
Paramount’s was seen as having funding concerns, they said, while Comcast’s was deemed not to offer so many earlier benefits.
Paramount is run by David Ellison, the son of the Oracle tech billionaire Larry Ellison, who is a close ally of Mr Trump.
The president said of the Netflix deal’s path to regulatory clearance: “I’ll be involved in that decision”.
On the likely opposition to the deal. he added: “That’s going to be for some economists to tell. But it is a big market share. There’s no question it could be a problem.”
Young people could lose their right to universal credit if they refuse to engage with help from a new scheme without good reason, the government has warned.
Almost one million will gain from plans to get them off benefits and into the workforce, according to officials.
It comes as the number of young people not in employment, education or training (NEET) has risen by more than a quarter since the COVID pandemic, with around 940,000 16 to 24-year-olds considered as NEET as of September this year, said the Office for National Statistics.
That is an increase of 195,000 in the last two years, mainly driven by increasing sickness and disability rates.
The £820m package includes funding to create 350,000 new workplace opportunities, including training and work experience, which will be offered in industries including construction, hospitality and healthcare.
Around 900,000 people on universal credit will be given a “dedicated work support session”.
That will be followed by four weeks of “intensive support” to help them find work in one of up to six “pathways”, which are: work, work experience, apprenticeships, wider training, learning, or a workplace training programme with a guaranteed interview at the end.
However, Work and Pensions Secretary Pat McFadden has warned that young people could lose some of their benefits if they refuse to engage with the scheme without good reason.
The government says these pathways will be delivered in coordination with employers, while government-backed guaranteed jobs will be provided for up to 55,000 young people from spring 2026, but only in those areas with the highest need.
However, shadow work and pensions secretary Helen Whately, from the Conservatives, said the scheme is “an admission the government has no plan for growth, no plan to create real jobs, and no way of measuring whether any of this money delivers results”.
She told Sky News the proposals are a “classic Labour approach” for tackling youth unemployment.
Please use Chrome browser for a more accessible video player
7:57
Youth jobs plan ‘the wrong answer’
“What we’ve seen today announced by the government is funding the best part of £1bn on work placements, and government-created jobs for young people. That sounds all very well,” she told Sunday Morning with Trevor Phillips.
“But the fact is, and that’s the absurdity of it is, just two weeks ago, we had a budget from the chancellor, which is expected to destroy 200,000 jobs.
“So the problem we have here is a government whose policies are destroying jobs, destroying opportunities for young people, now saying they’re going to spend taxpayers’ money on creating work placements. It’s just simply the wrong answer.”
Ms Whately also said the government needs to tackle people who are unmotivated to work at all, and agreed with Mr McFadden on taking away the right to universal credit if they refuse opportunities to work.
But she said the “main reason” young people are out of work is because “they’re moving on to sickness benefits”.
Ms Whately also pointed to the government’s diminished attempt to slash benefits earlier in the year, where planned welfare cuts were significantly scaled down after opposition from their own MPs.
The funding will also expand youth hubs to help provide advice on writing CVs or seeking training, and also provide housing and mental health support.
Some £34m from the funding will be used to launch a new “Risk of NEET indicator tool”, aimed at identifying those young people who need support before they leave education and become unemployed.
Monitoring of attendance in further education will be bolstered, and automatic enrolment in further education will also be piloted for young people without a place.