作者： admin

LONDON – In an unannounced policy shift aimed at insulating British households from skyrocketing living costs driven by the closure of the Strait of Hormuz, the British government has relaxed key sanctions targeting Russian crude oil, official documents confirm. A new trade authorization that went into force Wednesday explicitly allows imports of Russian-origin oil that has been processed into jet fuel and diesel in third-party countries including India and Turkey, a carve-out not permitted under the original sanctions regime implemented after Russia’s 2022 full-scale invasion of Ukraine.

The policy change comes amid a global energy market upheaval triggered by Iran’s closure of the Strait of Hormuz, a critical maritime chokepoint that typically carries roughly 20% of the world’s daily oil supplies. The closure, which followed the escalation of U.S.-Israeli military action against Iran, has sent global fuel prices into a sharp upward spiral and stoked widespread fears of imminent jet fuel shortages across Europe, including the U.K.

U.K. Treasury officials have framed the adjustment as a narrow, temporary measure. “These changes are for a time limited period and on a very specific issue,” said Treasury minister Dan Tomlinson, emphasizing that the government’s broader commitment to harsh sanctions on Moscow remains unchanged. Britain has positioned itself as one of Ukraine’s most steadfast military and political allies since the 2022 invasion, and the government continues to assert that its Russia sanctions are among the strictest enforced by any Western economy.

But the move has already drawn sharp criticism from cross-party political figures, who warn it will undermine the global pressure campaign to weaken Russia’s war economy. Emily Thornberry, chair of Parliament’s Foreign Affairs Committee, argued that the reversal would leave Ukrainians feeling betrayed. “Ukraine’s allies should keep squeezing Russia’s oil industry, because it is absolutely crippling their economy,” Thornberry said.

The U.K.’s policy shift aligns with a similar easing of sanctions by the United States, which earlier this week extended a 30-day sanctions exemption that allows U.S. entities to facilitate purchases of Russian oil cargoes already en route by sea. The coordination between the two countries on easing comes even as Western powers publicly reaffirm their commitment to maintaining pressure on Russia. On Tuesday, finance ministers from the Group of Seven wealthy nations, which includes both the U.S. and the U.K., released a joint statement reaffirming “our unwavering commitment to continue to impose severe costs on Russia in response to its continued aggression against Ukraine.”

The dual messaging – public commitments to harsh sanctions paired with quiet adjustments to soften energy trade rules – underscores the growing tension Western governments face between sustaining their campaign against Russia and avoiding domestic political backlash from surging energy costs for consumers.

Against a backdrop of soaring fuel prices and growing global energy supply uncertainty triggered by tensions in the Strait of Hormuz, the UK government has rolled back a set of strict sanctions targeting Russian crude refined into diesel and jet fuel in third-party nations. The temporary waiver, which took effect on Wednesday, also rolls back some restrictions on the maritime transportation of Russian liquefied natural gas (LNG), marking a sharp shift from the UK’s long-standing stance as a leader of international economic pressure on Moscow over its full-scale invasion of Ukraine.

The policy adjustment comes just one day after the UK joined a G7 statement reaffirming its unwavering commitment to imposing severe economic costs on Russia, and just months after London announced plans to fully ban imports of Russian-origin refined oil products processed in third countries. The revised sanctions framework will remain in place indefinitely, with periodic reviews to adjust or revoke the waiver as needed. The temporary LNG transportation licence, by contrast, is time-limited, expiring on January 1 next year.

Officials frame the move as a targeted, necessary adjustment to protect domestic energy security amid growing supply disruptions tied to the Israel-Iran conflict that has choked the critical Strait of Hormuz shipping lane. “This small and specific change is designed to protect the security of supply for foundational goods that our economy depends on, like jet fuel,” Treasury minister Dan Tomlinson told BBC Breakfast. “We remain fully committed to supporting Ukraine, but we have to make sensible decisions for British families struggling with the cost of living crisis.”

The change will effectively reopen UK markets to jet fuel refined in major processing hubs like India and Turkey, both of which import large volumes of Russian crude for refining. Supply disruptions have sent global jet fuel prices soaring: prices more than doubled immediately after the outbreak of the latest Middle East conflict, and remain 50 percent higher than pre-crisis levels. Domestically, UK petrol prices hit a new post-2022 war high of 158.52 pence per litre for unleaded fuel as of Monday, according to motoring organisation the RAC, and multiple international airlines have been forced to cancel flights and raise ticket prices to offset sky-high jet fuel costs.

But the policy shift has drawn fierce criticism from across the political spectrum and from international allies. Opposition foreign affairs committee chair Dame Emily Thornberry said Ukrainian officials had expressed deep disappointment with the move overnight, noting that Ukraine has long looked to the UK as one of its most steadfast allies. “Just because other countries are making the wrong choice does not mean we have to follow them,” Thornberry said, pushing back on the argument that the UK was aligning with existing policy changes from the US and Spain. Even senior Conservative leader Kemi Badenoch condemned the move, pointing out that “after 18 months of standing up to Putin, the government has quietly issued a licence allowing imports of Russian refined oil” – a contradiction, she argued, after the recent parliamentary vote against new domestic North Sea oil and gas drilling that leaves the UK importing Russian energy instead of producing it at home.

Energy experts have also questioned the necessity and impact of the waiver. Robin Mills, chief executive of Dubai-based energy consultancy Qamar Energy, told the BBC that the adjustment is unlikely to bring down domestic fuel prices and sends a damaging message that Western sanctions on Russia can be eroded by regional crises. “There was never any real prospect of a physical jet fuel shortage in the UK,” Mills argued. “This measure is unnecessary, it won’t lower prices, and it undermines the entire sanctions framework.”

The UK’s move follows a similar adjustment from the United States, which extended a waiver first introduced in March that allows trade in Russian oil already loaded onto vessels at sea. US officials have framed that policy as a short-term measure to keep global energy markets stable, but it has drawn widespread pushback from European allies. French President Emmanuel Macron has explicitly stated that the Strait of Hormuz tensions do not justify rolling back sanctions on Russia, while Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky has repeatedly emphasized that “every dollar paid for Russian oil is money for the war.”

UK officials have pushed back against criticism, stressing that the overall sanctions regime against Russia has actually been tightened in recent weeks. A government spokesperson noted that the UK has introduced a new wave of restrictions, including bans on Russian uranium trade and new maritime service restrictions that will progressively cut off Russian LNG from UK shipping and insurance services. “Our support for Ukraine is unwavering,” the spokesperson said. “These additional sanctions will further cut Russian revenues and degrade its ability to wage Putin’s illegal war.”

A scheduled two-day bilateral working visit by Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi to Oslo, Norway this week has ignited a heated cross-border dispute after a local journalist posed unscripted, critical questions to the Indian leader, triggering backlash from Indian social media users and official pushback from New Delhi.

The incident unfolded following a joint press appearance between Modi and his Norwegian counterpart Jonas Gahr Støre, an event where both leaders had pre-confirmed they would not field questions from reporters. As the two prime ministers exited the stage, veteran Norwegian journalist Helle Lyng called out repeatedly to Modi, asking why he refused to engage with the press and challenging him to respond to questions about alleged human rights violations in India. Modi did not offer a response to Lyng’s questions, and security personnel later intervened to stop her from asking follow-up questions as the prime minister departed.

Lyng, a political correspondent for multiple Norwegian national outlets, later shared video footage of the exchange on social platform X, alongside posts raising concerns about declining press freedom and human rights standards in India. She told BBC Hindi in a post-incident interview that she saw the questions as a core part of her professional duty, noting that Modi’s long-standing pattern of avoiding unscripted press engagement left few other opportunities to raise issues of public interest. “That’s how confrontational journalism works. You have to try to interrupt, you have to try to get the answers you are looking for,” she explained, adding that her questions were based on reporting from what she called trusted global sources including Amnesty International and Human Rights Watch.

Within hours of the incident going viral online, Lyng faced widespread harassment and trolling from Indian social media users. Many accused her of acting as a “foreign plant” or spy, framing her questions as a deliberate attempt to embarrass India on the international stage. Several prominent Indian news outlets also criticized her approach, arguing that confronting a visiting head of state in that manner violated basic standards of diplomatic respect.

The official Indian response came shortly after the exchange, when the Indian Embassy in Norway publicly responded to Lyng’s social media post inviting her to raise her questions at a scheduled evening press briefing with senior Indian diplomats. At the briefing, Lyng repeated her core question: “Why should we trust you (India)? Can you try to stop the human rights violations that goes on in your country?”

Senior Indian diplomat Sibi George flatly rejected the allegations, pushing back strongly against the framing of Lyng’s question. He emphasized that India’s constitution explicitly enshrines democratic protections, including freedoms of thought, expression, belief, and worship for all citizens. He also criticized foreign critics for relying on what he called inaccurate reports from uninformed non-governmental organizations, noting “People have no understanding of the scale of India. They read one or two reports published by some God-forsaken, ignorant NGOs and then come and ask questions. Don’t worry about it. We are proud to be a democracy; we are a democratic society for centuries.”

This incident is not an isolated case: earlier in the same European trip, two Dutch journalists raised similar questions about minority rights and press freedom in India during Modi’s visit to the Netherlands, prompting an identical rebuttal from George.

The dispute comes against a backdrop of growing international scrutiny of press freedom in India. Last month, global press freedom watchdog Reporters Without Borders released its annual World Press Freedom Index, which ranked India 157th out of 180 assessed countries. Norway, by contrast, has held the top spot on the index for multiple consecutive years, reinforcing its global reputation as a defender of aggressive independent journalism.

Modi, who has led India as prime minister since 2014, has never held a traditional solo press conference since taking office, and has rarely taken unscripted questions from journalists during domestic or international visits. This pattern has long drawn criticism from press freedom advocates, who argue it reduces transparency and accountability for the Indian government.