Category: China

  • MIL-OSI Russia: Syria’s interim government has announced a new ceasefire agreement with the Druze community in As-Suwayda province.

    Translation. Region: Russian Federal

    Source: People’s Republic of China in Russian – People’s Republic of China in Russian –

    An important disclaimer is at the bottom of this article.

    Source: People’s Republic of China – State Council News

    DAMASCUS, July 16 (Xinhua) — A new ceasefire agreement was reached between Syria’s interim government and the Druze community in the southern province of As-Suwayda on Wednesday, aiming to end days of deadly clashes and return the province to full government control, Syrian authorities said.

    According to a statement by the Syrian government published by the state news agency SANA, the agreement envisages a complete ceasefire and the deployment of internal checkpoints throughout the city of As-Suwayda. The province of the same name, which has seen intense fighting since July 13, will be fully reintegrated into the Syrian state.

    The spiritual leader of Syria’s Druze community, Sheikh Youssef Jarbu, confirmed the agreement in a statement, outlining its key terms. These include an immediate halt to all military operations, the withdrawal of army units to barracks, and the establishment of a joint monitoring committee of government officials and Druze clerics to oversee the ceasefire.

    The truce followed four days of violent clashes that left at least 248 people dead, including civilians, soldiers and Bedouin tribal fighters, according to the Britain-based Syrian Observatory for Human Rights. –0–

    Please note: This information is raw content obtained directly from the source of the information. It is an accurate report of what the source claims and does not necessarily reflect the position of MIL-OSI or its clients.

    .

    MIL OSI Russia News

  • MIL-OSI Russia: Russian President V. Putin gave the go-ahead for traffic on a new section of the M-12 highway

    Translation. Region: Russian Federal

    Source: People’s Republic of China in Russian – People’s Republic of China in Russian –

    An important disclaimer is at the bottom of this article.

    Source: People’s Republic of China – State Council News

    Moscow, July 16 /Xinhua/ — Russian President Vladimir Putin on Wednesday took part via videoconference in the opening ceremony of the Dyurtyuli-Achit section of the M-12 Vostok highway.

    “Today we are opening a new section of the Dyurtyuli-Achit road, more than 275 km long. It will become an important part of the M-12 “Vostok” highway. With its commissioning, modern highways will connect St. Petersburg and Moscow with Yekaterinburg, the capital of the Urals, the leading scientific, industrial and cultural center of Russia,” the Russian leader noted.

    According to V. Putin, high-speed, seamless traffic without a single traffic light has been organized along the entire length of the highway, thanks to which travel time from Yekaterinburg to Moscow will be reduced by almost half.

    “As a result, travel by car will become more comfortable and safe, the number of passengers and cargo carried will increase. The development of domestic tourism will receive a good incentive. Natural and cultural attractions of our country will become more accessible to citizens,” the Russian president added. –0–

    Please note: This information is raw content obtained directly from the source of the information. It is an accurate report of what the source claims and does not necessarily reflect the position of MIL-OSI or its clients.

    .

    MIL OSI Russia News

  • MIL-OSI Russia: Review: BRICS officials expect media and think tank collaboration to boost Global South’s profile and power

    Translation. Region: Russian Federal

    Source: People’s Republic of China in Russian – People’s Republic of China in Russian –

    An important disclaimer is at the bottom of this article.

    Source: People’s Republic of China – State Council News

    RIO DE JANEIRO, July 15 (Xinhua) — Xinhua News Agency Director General Fu Hua met with media representatives and think tanks from Russia, Vietnam and Cuba in Rio de Janeiro, Brazil, on Tuesday.

    The parties discussed in depth issues such as deepening cooperation between the media and think tanks of the Global South and strengthening the authority and power of the Global South, reaching a consensus on advancing cooperation within the “greater BRICS” and the development of the Global South.

    Fu Hua invited representatives from various countries to participate in the BRICS Media and Think Tank Forum, noting that China has a long tradition of friendship and a positive basis for cooperation with countries such as Russia, Vietnam and Cuba.

    According to Fu Hua, in the future, Xinhua is ready to work with partners from different countries to expand areas of cooperation, update cooperation models, and establish close coordination and interaction within the framework of multilateral mechanisms.

    Xinhua will join forces with its partners to better tell the development stories of different countries and highlight examples of successful cooperation so as to make greater contributions to strengthening the international voice of the Global South and promoting a more equitable and diverse world order in the field of communications, Fu Hua added.

    First Deputy Director General of the Russian news agency TASS Mikhail Gusman said that TASS is ready to strengthen cooperation with Xinhua within the framework of multilateral mechanisms, such as the Shanghai Cooperation Organization Media and Think Tanks Summit and the BRICS Media and Think Tanks Forum, in order to jointly build a system of narratives from the position of the Global South, increasing representation and strengthening the voice of developing countries in international affairs.

    Alexey Nikolov, Director General of the Russian television channel Russia Today (RT), noted that RT values its friendly relations with Xinhua and expects to implement the consensus reached by the heads of the two states at the peak of strategic cooperation.

    According to him, RT intends to deepen exchanges and expand cooperation with Xinhua, as well as make a positive contribution to promoting the sustainable development of multilateral media mechanisms and strengthening international influence.

    Vice President of the Vietnam Academy of Social Sciences Ta Minh Tuan said he is very pleased to establish contacts with Xinhua and is willing to use the forum to institutionalize cooperation between the two sides and make it regular, make the collective voice of the Global South louder in the international arena, and give lasting impetus to the sustainable and long-term development of cooperation within the framework of the “greater BRICS”.

    Maridée Fernández López, deputy head of the Ideological Department of the Central Committee of the Communist Party of Cuba, along with the heads of several Cuban media outlets, expressed gratitude to Xinhua for its commitment to objective and fair news reporting and for its indelible contribution to spreading the true voice of Latin America.

    Cuban officials expressed their willingness to learn from Xinhua’s experience in using new technologies such as artificial intelligence and big data.

    They agreed that the extension and renewal of the news exchange and cooperation agreements between the two countries will make new contributions to promoting exchanges between Latin American and Chinese media and deepening mutual understanding between the peoples. –0–

    Please note: This information is raw content obtained directly from the source of the information. It is an accurate report of what the source claims and does not necessarily reflect the position of MIL-OSI or its clients.

    .

    MIL OSI Russia News

  • MIL-OSI USA: Sens. Budd, Justice, Hawley, Ricketts Introduce Bill to Increase Transparency of Foreign Funds Fueling Left-Wing Agitators

    US Senate News:

    Source: United States Senator Ted Budd (R-North Carolina)

    FRONT Act would require U.S. nonprofits to register under FARA if they accept funds from hostile nations

    Washington, D.C. — U.S. Senator Ted Budd (R-N.C.) led his colleagues in introducing the Foreign Registration Obligations for Nonprofit Transparency (FRONT) Act today, which would require nonprofits in the United States that receive funding from foreign principals in countries of concern, such as China, Russia, Iran, North Korea, Venezuela, and Cuba, to register under the Foreign Agents Registration Act (FARA). The bill would also require nonprofits to disclose the activities they use foreign funds to engage in to mitigate future unrest.

    “There are serious indicators recent left-wing riots, protests, and rallies resulting in violence and political unrest are funded by foreign agitators. It’s time for American nonprofit organizations to be transparent about where they are getting their funding from. No foreign country with hostile intentions should be meddling in our democratic process. I urge my colleagues to join me in supporting the FRONT Act to increase transparency and help put a stop to this,” said Senator Budd.

    “Let me just say this and be clear: foreign influence in our country’s nonprofits ends now. The FRONT Act ensures that any money coming from our adversaries, like China, will be fully disclosed. This bill is common-sense, provides much needed transparency, and I’m proud to join Senator Budd in this effort,” said Senator Justice.

    “I am concerned that U.S. non-profits are receiving foreign funding from our adversaries and countries of concern. Senator Budd’s FRONT Act hardens the United States’ ability to monitor potentially malign influence of non-profits from foreign adversaries. In order to stop adversaries such as Communist China, Russia, and Iran, we must have the tools to better understand their efforts to infiltrate our American system and influence our institutions,” said Senator Ricketts.

    Senators Jim Justice (R-W.Va.), Josh Hawley (R-Mo.), and Pete Ricketts (R-Neb.) joined Senator Budd in introducing the bill.

    Read the full bill text HERE.

    Background

    Recent civil unrest has raised alarms about possible foreign influence impacting U.S. nonprofits that organize and provide material support for protests.

    For example, when it comes to riots against ICE enforcement operations, FBI Director Kash Patel has publicly stated, “The FBI is investigating any and all monetary connections responsible for these riots.” Reports have also indicated that “[the] socialist group [which] promoted the chaotic anti-deportation protests in Los Angeles…is tied to a network of groups bankrolled by a pro-China millionaire.”

    But this is just the surface of a deeply troubling trend of foreign interference in our political processes. As former Director of National Intelligence Avril Haines claimed, “We have observed actors tied to Iran’s government posing as activists online, seeking to encourage protests, and even providing financial support to protesters,” following the October 7 attacks.

    What we’re witnessing is not isolated. Safeguarding our political system from continued foreign interference must be a top national security priority to protect the integrity of our democracy.

    MIL OSI USA News

  • MIL-OSI Russia: DPP’s separatist moves undermine Taiwan’s economy, investor confidence – State Council Taiwan Affairs Office

    Translation. Region: Russian Federal

    Source: People’s Republic of China in Russian – People’s Republic of China in Russian –

    An important disclaimer is at the bottom of this article.

    Source: People’s Republic of China – State Council News

    BEIJING, July 16 (Xinhua) — State Council Taiwan Affairs Office spokesperson Chen Binhua on Wednesday warned that the Democratic Progressive Party (DPP) administration’s continued attempts to achieve “Taiwan independence” through military buildup and collusion with external forces will inevitably undermine the island’s economic prospects and foreign investor confidence.

    Chen Binhua made the remarks at a press conference when asked to comment on recent reports that two major Japanese companies have pulled out of a well-known department store in Taiwan.

    The move is seen by the Taiwanese public as reflecting growing concerns about rising tensions in the Taiwan Strait and foreign companies “voting with their feet” due to lower expectations for the Taiwan market.

    Asked about recent reports in leading international publications including Foreign Affairs and The Economist warning of tensions in the Taiwan Strait, Chen Binhua stressed that the international community is increasingly concerned that Taiwanese President Lai Qingde’s radical approach could trigger a crisis.

    “More and more foreign experts, scholars and world-renowned periodicals have expressed concern about the situation in the Taiwan Strait,” the spokesperson said, adding that the root cause of the current complex and serious situation is the DPP authorities’ refusal to recognize the 1992 consensus embodying the one-China principle.

    He called on both sides of the Taiwan Strait to make efforts to return cross-strait relations to the right path of peaceful development. –0–

    Please note: This information is raw content obtained directly from the source of the information. It is an accurate report of what the source claims and does not necessarily reflect the position of MIL-OSI or its clients.

    .

    MIL OSI Russia News

  • MIL-OSI Russia: The victory in the war against Japanese aggression and the return of Taiwan to China deserve the memory of compatriots on both sides of the Taiwan Strait – Taiwan Affairs Office of the State Council of the People’s Republic of China

    Translation. Region: Russian Federal

    Source: People’s Republic of China in Russian – People’s Republic of China in Russian –

    An important disclaimer is at the bottom of this article.

    Source: People’s Republic of China – State Council News

    BEIJING, July 16 (Xinhua) — The victory of the Chinese People’s War of Resistance Against Japanese Aggression and the reversion of Taiwan to China after Japanese occupation in 1945 deserve to be remembered by compatriots on both sides of the Taiwan Strait, Chen Binhua, spokesperson for the Taiwan Affairs Office of the State Council, said on Wednesday.

    Chen Binhua made the statement in response to a reporter’s question regarding the Taiwanese authorities’ denigration of upcoming commemorative events in mainland China.

    2025 marks the 80th anniversary of the victory in the Chinese People’s War of Resistance Against Japanese Aggression and the World Anti-Fascist War, as well as the 80th anniversary of the return of Taiwan to China after Japanese occupation.

    The official spokesperson called the recapture of Taiwan an important achievement of the great victory in the Chinese People’s War of Resistance Against Japanese Aggression, stressing that it was made possible by the fearless struggle and sacrifices of all the Chinese people, including Taiwan compatriots.

    According to Chen Binhua, a series of commemorative events will be held to mark the anniversaries, including an exhibition of calligraphy works by generals from both sides of the Taiwan Strait from the museum’s collections scheduled for August. –0–

    Please note: This information is raw content obtained directly from the source of the information. It is an accurate report of what the source claims and does not necessarily reflect the position of MIL-OSI or its clients.

    .

    MIL OSI Russia News

  • MIL-OSI USA: Murray Slams Republicans’ Rescissions Package on Senate Floor

    US Senate News:

    Source: United States Senator for Washington State Patty Murray

    FACT SHEET: Trump’s Rescission Package Would Shutter Local Public Radio, TV Stations Across America

    FACT SHEET: Trump’s Rescission Package Would Gut Bipartisan Foreign Policy Investments

    ICYMI: Vought Refuses to Rule Out More Illegal End-Runs Around Congress & Refuses to Detail How Trump Will Execute Cuts If Rescissions Bill Passes

    ***WATCH: Senator Murray’s floor remarks***

    Washington, D.C. – Today, U.S. Senator Patty Murray (D-WA), Vice Chair of the Senate Appropriations Committee, delivered the following remarks on the Senate floor slamming Senate Republicans for moving forward with President Trump’s devastating rescissions package and continuing to urge a no vote on final passage:

    [LAUGHABLE CLAIMS OF “FISCAL RESPONSIBILITY”]

    “Two weeks ago, Republicans were jamming through the most expensive bill in the history of the country. And now, they say they are worried about the debt.

    “Two weeks ago, Republicans said four trillion bucks in tax cuts for the richest people in the world was nothing—literally. And now, they are saying a truly tiny fraction of that for rural radio is just too much.

    “So, I have to ask: Is this a joke? Are they really that bad at math?

    “First, Republicans were saying trillions in tax cuts were free. Get real.

    “And now, they are pretending to be fiscal hawks by shutting down local news, and letting epidemics go unchecked around the world.

    “Well, here’s another math lesson for my colleagues, Republicans could cut every dollar ever spent on the Corporation for Public Broadcasting since it was created—down to the last dime—and it still would not cover the cost of the bill Republicans just jammed through.

    “Republicans could actually cut every dollar we have spent on foreign aid since World War II—and that would still fall short compared to the cost of the Republican tax cuts.

    “Republicans could even cut the amount in this first rescissions bill—every single day for a year—and it still would not equal their tax cuts to help their rich donors.

    “So, make no mistake, if Republicans choose to do Trump’s bidding, if they push through this package to rip away funding for emergency alerts and global health programs, it is not because they take the debt seriously.

    [MORE REQUESTS COMING]

    “And that will be just as true for the next package, because let’s be clear, if Republicans go along with this package, despite the fact they clearly have issues with it, and despite the fact Russ Vought has refused to answer the most basic questions—even from the Republican Chair of the Appropriations Committee—about which programs he is going to cut.

    “If all of that is not enough to give Republicans just some pause, and they let Russ Vought steamroll them through this package, don’t be surprised when he sends more cuts down the pike.

    “It could be medical research, and after school programs, maybe heating assistance, workplace safety, road maintenance. Everything is going to be on the chopping block. And all of our time here in the Senate is going to be spent on those requests.

    [SPENDING PRIORITIES]

    “And here’s the kicker—no matter how many rescissions Russ Vought sends, no matter how many rescissions Republicans roll over and let pass, they will never offset the trillions in tax cuts they just passed without blinking an eye.

    “Because you could rescind the entire FY25 spending bill—twice over—and it still would not cover the four trillion in tax cuts Republicans just showered on the richest people in this country.

    “So, however this vote goes, expect to hear more from me on this every time Republicans try to pretend we don’t have money for child care, or medical research, or other programs that our families rely on.

    “Now, M. President. I’ve said a lot about how patently absurd it is for Republicans to pretend they are passing these cuts because they care about the debt. But I do not want to lose sight of the larger issues. It’s not just that Republicans’ play acting about the debt is absurd, the bigger problem here is that these cuts would be devastating for our communities and for American interests around the globe.

    [SHUTTING DOWN LOCAL STATIONS]

    “When it comes to local news, these cuts could force local stations that people know and trust—know and trust—off the air. This isn’t just about a program or two taking a haircut. Trump wants to slash every penny of federal funding that supports over 1,500 local TV and radio stations.

    “Those stations, and those funds, reach 98% of all Americans. And they are especially crucial for serving our rural areas and Tribal communities. Dozens of these stations rely on these investments for half of their funding, some rely on it for as much as 99 percent!

    “If these cuts go through, these stations go dark. Weather forecasters communities have turned to for years, news anchors that are trusted voices, local reporters who track down answers their communities need and hold their officials to account, will be sent packing. And those stations will go silent.

    “Do we want our farmers to have good local coverage of weather, and market conditions? Do we want our tribal communities to know what is going on at the state capitol? Do we want families to have updates about the local school board, or community events?

    “Because this package of cuts throws all of that in jeopardy.

    “To say nothing of emergency alerts. These stations can be a lifeline when disaster strikes. They are a trusted source of information, and sometimes the only source people have access to.

    “When the devastating wildfires hit southern California earlier this year, public radio broadcasts let millions of people know how to stay safe. When Hurricane Helene battered North Carolina, a local public radio station was the only source of information for many people.

    “And, in fact, many stations use their towers to actually deliver emergency alerts to people’s cell phones when cell towers go down. This funding supports stations who play an integral role in many states’ emergency planning.

    “Do you think our communities should have less warning in an emergency? Do you want to leave folks back home with less information when they are in harm’s way?

    Well, I guess you vote for this bill if that’s how you feel. Want you to know, I’m a hard no.

    [SIDE DEAL TO ROB PETER TO PAY PAUL]

    “And let’s not pretend a secret deal from Trump and Vought, to reallocate $10 million dollars, is somehow a serious fix to this. It is a tiny drop in the bucket compared to the massive cuts being pushed through here. In fact, it’s less than 1% of the overall funding that this package would rip away for public broadcasting and those alerts.

    [KIDS PROGRAMMING]

    “And don’t forget, these cuts are going to impact some of our kids’ and parents’ favorite educational shows. Sesame Street, Mister Rogers’ Neighborhood, Daniel Tiger, PBS Kids has a long track record of creating shows that are beloved.  

    “Not just because they keep kids entertained, but because they are thoughtfully crafted to help them learn and grow, to stoke their curiosity, to teach them caring and empathy. Any parent will tell you that is a worthwhile investment.

    “And any parent will also warn you, if you take away shows like this that gets kids engaged and gets them thinking, take that away, then there is an avalanche of brain-rot television that’s waiting to fill that void. Content that is crafted, not to get kids thinking, but to keep them watching at all costs.

    “We have to save Sesame Street. We have to tell Trump and Vought, Big Bird is not on the chopping block in this country. And we have to send this rescissions package to Oscar’s place—AKA the trash can.

    [AMERICAN INTERESTS ABROAD]

    “And M. President, I want to talk as well about the devastating cuts this package proposes to foreign assistance. I thought America’s leadership was important to Republicans?

    “But apparently, they want to penny pinch when it comes to keeping our commitments across the world, apparently, they want to save money by letting families starve, and kids die of preventable diseases. Because that is what this package will do.

    “And this isn’t some thought exercise—we have already seen how the first round of reckless DOGE cuts are working out.

    “There’s already a growing death toll and a huge leadership void that our competitors are racing to fill, people who needed health care—but Elon Musk shut down the only clinic for miles, kids contracting diseases like HIV and Malaria—because Trump totally upended our global health response, and let’s not forget, they’re going to destroy contraceptives we’ve already purchased rather than distribute them.

    “And people are starving to death while food supplies from American companies are sitting rotting in ports. That’s another part of why America’s farmers are coming out in opposition to this bill by the way.

    “This week, 500 tons of high energy biscuits expired. Food that we already paid for. Food that was meant to save lives. And because Trump and Elon Musk blasted USAID to smithereens and couldn’t be bothered to fix the mess that they caused, this food is now going to be incinerated—even as people we promised to help watch their kids starve.

    “That is outrageous, and it is infuriating.

    “Is that what Republicans think of as world leadership? Is it leadership to Republicans when Trump fires thousands of State Department workers who keep our nation safe, and make our voice heard in the world?

    “Is it leadership to Republicans when we pull investments out of international organizations, and create a void that our adversaries like China will be all too happy to fill?

    “We already know the DOGE cuts were devastating. We know that! What I don’t know is why on earth Republicans are getting ready today to double down and codify them by passing this bill. And no—‘because Trump said so’—is not a good answer.

    “Especially when it’s clear Russ Vought is the one steering this particular ship. I’m not even sure Trump knows what a rescission is! But I’m sure Republicans know better than to think these cuts will make our nation strong.

    “I know that because we passed these investments in a bipartisan way. And because I have heard them speak out about how much they hate these cuts. You can go back and watch our hearing on this, many of our colleagues across the aisle during that hearing voiced deep concern with these cuts, that they now intend to pass today.  

    “Because we all know these investments benefit American businesses who help feed the world.

    “They help stop outbreak, they stop diseases abroad before they spread and threaten us here at home. They help promote stability and avoid chaos and conflict that can put our interests—and our servicemembers—in harm’s way.

    “They help us advance America’s interests and keep our country safe and prosperous.

    “That’s the smart thing to do. It’s the smart thing to do. And of course, it is also the right thing to do.

    “So, it’s worth saying, cutting these investments is just down right wrong.

    “We should not be voting to let children starve or die from preventable diseases. We should not be voting to go back on our word to the world.

    Saving a couple pennies is not worth losing our credibility or causing millions of needless deaths across the globe.

    “It is not even close.

    [DOESN’T NEED TO BE THIS WAY]

    “And M. President. I want to impress upon one final point. And that’s this, it did not have to be this way, and it still does not have to be this way.

    “In fact, if Republicans come to their senses, and vote this thing down, we still can go a different route. We can do what we have always done and consider bipartisan rescissions as part of our annual appropriations process. That offer has always been on the table. And it still is.
    “I’ve heard Republicans say they don’t like this package, in fact they are trying to dial it back the tiniest bit. I’ve also heard that they don’t want to spend the next several months processing these requests out here on the floor, instead of focusing on our annual funding bills—or any number of other pressing priorities.

    “So: don’t vote for it!

    “Work with us to write bills that make targeted rescissions on a bipartisan basis. You don’t work for Donald Trump. You don’t work for Russ Vought. You actually work for your constituents. You can put them first. And you can vote this package down.

    “That has some real benefits compared to going down the path of this unprecedented—unprecedented— partisan rescissions.

    “I am serious—I want my Republican colleagues to think about that. And I mean really think about it.

    “For one thing, if we do things the normal, bipartisan way, you get to assert your say as a Senator about what is getting targeted, it’s not just ‘this is what Russ Vought says—take it or leave it.’ You can actually be a part of the discussion and speak out for what is important to you.

    “For another thing: If we go the bipartisan route, you don’t have to get jammed by this deadline. 

    “Instead of rushing through cuts this week without fully getting to consider and debate them, instead of being told ‘No, you can’t change this, we don’t have time.’ We can all sit down, make thoughtful decisions, and maybe even worthwhile changes as we go.

    “And here’s an important point, if we do rescissions together through our appropriations bills, instead of just letting Trump and Russ Vought jam through whatever they want, my colleagues would actually know what in the world they are voting for.

    [NO INFORMATION ON WHAT WILL BE CUT]

    “Because let’s get one thing straight, Republicans don’t actually know what programs are going to get cut if they pass this package.

    “We don’t know! It’s one of the great outrages of this package. Russ Vought is just outright refusing to tell us what programs he is going to cut if this package passes.

    “At our hearing with him, he refused to go into detail. He stonewalled us. We asked and we asked. The Chair, the Republican Chair, even asked him about this.

    “But OMB would not tell us! The question is: What will you cut? The answer has been: Pass it, we’ll see.

    “That is why the Republicans decided to protect just a handful of programs without actually reducing the funding associated with them, because they do not know the impact.

    “So, they preserve funding for Jordan, Egypt, and a few university partnerships. What about our allies in the Indo-Pacific? What about the implementers of these programs in our states?

    “None of us should accept not having those answers. And I’m sure my colleagues were told their priorities won’t be impacted, but Director Vought cannot keep that promise given the scale of these cuts. The math simply does not add up!

    “Even if you believe we should make cuts, you should be joining us to demand we actually know what is being cut. And, if we do this the right way, the bipartisan way, we would know. Because we would be writing the bill.

    “Now, doesn’t that sound a lot better, than just passing this pandora’s box, and finding out later what got cut?

    [IMPLICATIONS FOR THE SENATE]

    “Finally, I have said this before, several times, but I want to warn my colleagues once again, if you keep going down this path you are going to further undermine our bipartisan process. 

    “We have never, never before seen bipartisan investments, slashed through a partisan rescissions package. Do not start now. Not when we are working, at this very moment, in a bipartisan way to pass our spending bills.

    “As I said earlier, bipartisanship doesn’t end with any one line being crossed, it erodes, it breaks down bit by bit, until one day there is nothing left.

    Sure, a few members may be willing to stick it out and work as hard as they can to get a result.

    “But this Senate doesn’t work off a few members—it works off consensus building. And the more bridges you burn, the fewer paths you leave to get things done.

    “So, M. President, why go down this partisan path? Why vote to spend the next many weeks considering more of these packages? And why do it for a set of cuts that are so damaging? A set of cuts, many of you have serious concerns with?

    “We are at the table right now, the Appropriations Committee, writing bipartisan spending bills. And we can and absolutely discuss bipartisan rescissions.

    “Why don’t you join us and make that work easier, instead of making that work harder by passing this bill and setting a very painful new precedent.

    “I urge my colleagues to join me in voting NO.”

    MIL OSI USA News

  • MIL-OSI Russia: Construction of a new transport and logistics complex has begun in Kazakhstan

    Translation. Region: Russian Federal

    Source: People’s Republic of China in Russian – People’s Republic of China in Russian –

    An important disclaimer is at the bottom of this article.

    Source: People’s Republic of China – State Council News

    ALMATY, July 16 (Xinhua) — Construction of a new transport and logistics complex (TLC) “Tobyl” has begun in the northern Kazakh city of Kostanay, the press service of the Kazakh Prime Minister reported on Wednesday.

    The area of the logistics complex will be 133.6 hectares, the total investment volume will be 64 billion tenge /about 121.3 million US dollars/.

    The design capacity of the TLC “Tobyl” will be up to 400 thousand TEU (twenty-foot container equivalent) per year, or over 11 million tons of cargo.

    The complex will be integrated into international transport corridors linking China, Central Asia, Turkey, Iran, Afghanistan and Europe.

    An increase in cargo turnover is expected on the Northern Kazakhstan – Southern Urals route and in the direction of China.

    Completion of construction of the TLC “Tobyl” is planned for 2027. –0–

    Please note: This information is raw content obtained directly from the source of the information. It is an accurate report of what the source claims and does not necessarily reflect the position of MIL-OSI or its clients.

    .

    MIL OSI Russia News

  • MIL-OSI Russia: Israel launches airstrikes on presidential palace area in Damascus, Syrian army headquarters partially destroyed

    Translation. Region: Russian Federal

    Source: People’s Republic of China in Russian – People’s Republic of China in Russian –

    An important disclaimer is at the bottom of this article.

    Source: People’s Republic of China – State Council News

    DAMASCUS, July 16 (Xinhua) — Israel launched intense air strikes on the presidential palace area in the Syrian capital Damascus on Wednesday, partially destroying the Syrian army’s headquarters, local media and eyewitnesses reported.

    As noted, the strikes were directed against the interim authorities of Syria due to clashes between the government army and the Druze community in the province of As-Suwayda in the south of the country.

    Israel carried out at least five airstrikes on Wednesday afternoon, mostly targeting the Syrian army’s General Command, destroying part of the building, according to local media and the Britain-based Syrian Observatory for Human Rights.

    Local television footage showed smoke rising from the headquarters in Umayyad Square in central Damascus.

    Another strike hit the area of the Syrian presidential palace, Qasr al-Shaab, sending plumes of white smoke rising over the mountain on which the palace is located.

    There have been no reports of casualties or official comments yet.

    Following the previous strike on the headquarters early Wednesday morning, Syrian state television channel Al-Ikhbariya reported that two civilians were wounded as a result of “Israeli aggression.”

    The Israeli military campaign is part of a larger effort to support the Druze community in As-Suwayda, where deadly clashes have escalated between local Druze militias, Bedouin tribes and interim government forces. –0–

    Please note: This information is raw content obtained directly from the source of the information. It is an accurate report of what the source claims and does not necessarily reflect the position of MIL-OSI or its clients.

    .

    MIL OSI Russia News

  • MIL-OSI Russia: Kazakhstan introduces criminal liability for droppering and forced marriage

    Translation. Region: Russian Federal

    Source: People’s Republic of China in Russian – People’s Republic of China in Russian –

    An important disclaimer is at the bottom of this article.

    Source: People’s Republic of China – State Council News

    Almaty, July 16 (Xinhua) — Kazakhstan has introduced criminal liability for droppering and forced marriage, the press service of the President of Kazakhstan reported on Wednesday.

    The President of Kazakhstan Kassym-Jomart Tokayev signed the law “On Amendments and Supplements to Certain Legislative Acts on Issues of Optimization of Criminal Legislation of Kazakhstan.”

    The new law establishes criminal liability for droppering – “the illegal provision, transfer and acquisition of access to a bank account, payment instrument or identification tool, as well as the illegal implementation of payments and money transfers.”

    In addition, criminal liability is introduced for forced marriage.

    In addition, lawyers are given the right to submit to the court a defense document, a document that is the opposite of the indictment. –0–

    Please note: This information is raw content obtained directly from the source of the information. It is an accurate report of what the source claims and does not necessarily reflect the position of MIL-OSI or its clients.

    .

    MIL OSI Russia News

  • MIL-OSI Russia: Presidents of Belarus and Indonesia held talks in Minsk

    Translation. Region: Russian Federal

    Source: People’s Republic of China in Russian – People’s Republic of China in Russian –

    An important disclaimer is at the bottom of this article.

    Source: People’s Republic of China – State Council News

    MINSK, July 16 (Xinhua) — Belarusian President Alexander Lukashenko and Indonesian President Prabowo Subianto held talks in Minsk on Tuesday, the press service of the Belarusian head of state reported on the same day.

    The presidents met in an informal setting. During the talks, which lasted about three hours, the leaders of the two countries discussed a wide range of topics. “I am ready to discuss with you all the issues that may be on the agenda of our relations,” A. Lukashenko noted.

    In turn, the Indonesian leader thanked the Belarusian president for the reception and expressed hope to meet in Indonesia in the near future. –0–

    Please note: This information is raw content obtained directly from the source of the information. It is an accurate report of what the source claims and does not necessarily reflect the position of MIL-OSI or its clients.

    .

    MIL OSI Russia News

  • MIL-OSI Russia: Belarus’ GDP grew by 2.1 percent in the first half of 2025 — Belstat

    Translation. Region: Russian Federal

    Source: People’s Republic of China in Russian – People’s Republic of China in Russian –

    An important disclaimer is at the bottom of this article.

    Source: People’s Republic of China – State Council News

    MINSK, July 16 (Xinhua) — Belarus’ gross domestic product grew by 2.1 percent in the first half of 2025, the Belarusian National Statistical Committee (Belstat) said on Wednesday.

    The country’s GDP for the first six months in current prices amounted to 129.4 billion Belarusian rubles /about 44 billion US dollars/, or in comparable prices – 102.1 percent compared to the same period in 2024.

    The GDP deflator index in the first half of the year compared to the same period last year was 111.9 percent. –0–

    Please note: This information is raw content obtained directly from the source of the information. It is an accurate report of what the source claims and does not necessarily reflect the position of MIL-OSI or its clients.

    .

    MIL OSI Russia News

  • MIL-OSI Canada: Support for the Canadian Steel Sector

    Source: Government of Canada News

    This move comes in response to both U.S. tariffs on steel and global steel overproduction, which are pushing foreign exporters to find new places to sell their steel—including Canada. Strengthening these import limits will help prevent the Canadian market from being overwhelmed with cheap steel, while still making sure Canadian businesses that rely on steel can continue to get the supply they need.

    Canada is among the countries most affected by global steel tariffs. It is one of the world’s largest per capita importers of steel. Canadian steel producers are highly trade exposed, exporting just over 50 per cent of their annual production in 2024, during which over 90 per cent went to the U.S. Our steel industry is a cornerstone of the national economy—critical to building infrastructure, supporting advanced manufacturing, and securing our future prosperity. Canada is proud of our highly skilled steelworkers and the strong, resilient industry they power. However, rising trade pressures and market disruptions demand a clear and proactive response. The government is taking decisive steps to protect, stabilize, and pivot our steel sector. Canada needs steel to build Canada strong – homes, bridges, transit, and the clean economy of tomorrow—and the government is committed to ensuring our industry is ready to meet that demand.

    Tariff rate quotas

    Tariff rate quotas (TRQs) allow a certain amount of steel to come in at a reduced tariff or tariff-free. After that limit is reached, higher tariffs apply. The government is strengthening the TRQs for steel products implemented on June 27, 2025.

    This move comes in response to both U.S. tariffs on steel and global steel overproduction, which are pushing foreign exporters to find new places to sell their steel—including Canada. Strengthening these import limits will help prevent the Canadian market from being overwhelmed with cheap steel, while still making sure Canadian businesses that rely on steel can continue to get the supply they need.

    • Effective August 1, 2025, the TRQs will be extended to countries that have a free trade agreement in force with Canada, with the exception of the United States and Mexico. This will result in a 50 per cent surtax being applied on steel imports above 100 per cent of 2024 levels.
    • For those countries that do not have a free trade agreement with Canada, the quota for tariff-free imports will be reduced to 50 per cent of 2024 levels. A 50 per cent surtax will be applied on steel imports exceeding this threshold.
    • The government will consult with industry to finalize adjustments to other design elements of the tariff rate quotas.

    Melt and Pour Tariffs

    A 25 per cent surtax will also be applied on imports from all countries other than the U.S. that contain steel melted and poured in China. This will increase transparency in the domestic supply chains and help prevent circumvention of Canada’s trade measures. The product scope of the surtax would align with the existing China Surtax Order on steel. This measure will be implemented before the end of July.

    Strategic Innovation Fund

    The government will provide up to $1 billion to the Strategic Innovation Fund to support the steel industry’s transition toward new lines of business and to strengthen domestic supply chains. This investment will help the sector pivot to emerging opportunities, modernize production capabilities, and better serve the Canadian market. By fostering innovation and adaptability, this funding will build a more resilient, competitive, and sustainable steel industry for the future. Funding will be provided to support the competitiveness of Canada’s steel companies by:

    • Enhancing competitiveness of domestic steel companies to serve the domestic market;
    • Supporting the production of steel products not currently produced in Canada;
    • Supporting the production of steel products needed by strategic sectors such as defence; and,
    • Anchoring the presence of steel companies that are, or would become, commercially viable in a sustained tariff environment.

    Labour Market Development Agreements

    The government is investing $70 million over three years for steel workers via Labour Market Development Agreements with provinces and territories.

    • Supports will be developed in partnership with workers, employers and provinces and territories to retrain and upskill up to 10,000 steel workers.
    • Funding will support access to targeted training, reskilling financial-related supports, and job retention programs to ensure workers can continue contributing to a resilient and competitive steel sector and in-demand jobs.
    • These measures will benefit mid-career, long-tenured steel workers affected by U.S. tariffs and global market shifts.

    Regional Tariff Response Initiative

    In March 2025, the Government of Canada announced funding to Canada’s regional development agencies so they could better support businesses impacted by U.S. tariffs. Up to $150 million of the $450 million Regional Tariff Response Initiative (RTRI) will be targeted to SME projects in the steel sector. The RTRI will be launched very shortly and more details will be available for potential applicants at that time.

    Large Enterprise Tariff Loan Facility

    In March 2025, the government announced the creation of Large Enterprise Tariff Loan (LETL), a new $10 billion financing facility to support Canadian companies affected by actual or potential tariffs and countermeasures.

    The Large Enterprise Tariff Loan facility terms will be revised to enable the Canada Enterprise Emergency Funding Corporation to provide targeted support the steel industry. These changes include:

    • Reducing the proposed initial interest rate from CORRA + 400 basis points to CORRA + 200 basis points
    • Reducing the minimum annual revenue criterion from $300 million to $150 million,
    • Reducing the minimum loan size criterion from $60 million to $30 million,
    • Extending the loan maturity from 5 years to 7 years,
    • Enabling the Canada Enterprise Emergency Funding Corporation to hold equity in companies,
    • Requiring companies prioritize worker retention.

    Procurement

    Through changes to federal procurement processes, companies contracting with the government will be required, where possible, to source steel from Canadian companies. Companies will only be granted a Ministerial exemption if they attest in writing that no Canadian steel producer could or wants to produce the steel required. Alternatively, companies will be required to provide proof that the requirement would raise the cost to unstainable levels or delay critical equipment required by the Government for defence, national security or other key sectors.

    Pivot to Grow

    Launched in winter 2025, Pivot to Grow is a $500 million fund administered by the Business Development Bank of Canada (BDC) and seeks to help small and medium-sized enterprises transition to new markets and increase productivity.

    The BDC will provide more flexible repayment terms through its Pivot to Grow fund, with the financing to provide liquidity support to eligible steel Small and Medium-sized Enterprises (SMEs) facing liquidity concerns. Further details will be available from BDC shortly.

    MIL OSI Canada News

  • MIL-OSI USA: Warner & Kaine Slam Republican Rescissions Bill Cutting National Security Funding and Making Americans less Safe

    US Senate News:

    Source: United States Senator for Commonwealth of Virginia Mark R Warner
    WASHINGTON — Today, U.S. Sens. Mark R. Warner and Tim Kaine, a member of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, slammed the Republican rescissions package that cancels $8.3 billion in federal funding previously appropriated by a bipartisan majority in Congress for national security programs:
    “If Republicans move forward with these massive cuts to the State Department, USAID, and other key agencies and programs, the world will become more unpredictable and unstable, which puts Americans at risk. Experts estimate that 14 million people will die, humanitarian crises will worsen, horrific diseases will spread, our Afghan partners will be faced with increased uncertainty about their futures, and China will become even more emboldened as Beijing continues to fill the leadership void left by the U.S.’s retreat. Destroying USAID and canceling critical U.S. national security programs, without any coherent strategy or rationale for doing so, sets us back when it comes to addressing the many national security challenges that we are facing. Any of our colleagues who care about the security of our great nation should vote against this rescissions package.”
    The U.S. Constitution grants Congress the authority to approve and appropriate federal dollars. While a sitting president can propose the cancelation of appropriated funding, only Congress has the authority to revoke it, and must do so by passing a rescissions bill. The Republican rescissions package will be voted on in the Senate this week.
    The legislation cuts previously appropriated State Department and USAID funding, including for global health programs that keep Americans safe from diseases and faith-based organizations that do essential work in the U.S. and abroad. It also eliminates funding for Afghan refugee programs, United Nations peacekeeping operations, the U.S. Institute for Peace, the Inter-American Foundation, and the African Development Foundation. These cuts will impact thousands of Virginia’s federal employees and contractors who carry out important refugee and development work. A recent study found that if the current cuts to USAID continue through 2030, 14 million people could die.

    MIL OSI USA News

  • MIL-OSI USA: Bacon and Colleagues Introduce Bipartisan Legislation to Protect U.S. Farmland from Foreign Ownership

    Source: United States House of Representatives – Congressman Don Bacon (2nd District of Nebraska)

    Bipartisan Legislation Closes Critical Gaps in Foreign Agricultural Land Ownership Tracking

    Washington – Recently, Rep. Don Bacon (R-NE-02) along with Reps. Mark Alford (R-MO-04), Michael Bost (R-IL-12), Salud Carbajal (D-CA-24), Henry Cuellar (D-TX-28), Brad Finstad (R-MN-01), Ashley Hinson (R-IA-02), Chrissy Houlahan (D-PA-06), Dan Newhouse (R-WA-04), and Jimmy Panetta (D-CA-19) introduced bipartisan legislation, H.R. 4362, the AFIDA Improvements Act of 2025, to address concerns about foreign farmland ownership.

    The AFIDA Improvements Act codifies recommendations published by the GAO to amend the Agricultural Foreign Investment Disclosure Act (AFIDA) to ensure there is timely and detailed data sharing of foreign investments in agricultural land transactions, better oversight and validation of information, and a better way to help identify those foreign entities who do not file notification they have purchased land in the United States. This legislation will help the United States better track and combat the CCP trying to buy up farmland. 

    The full text of H.R. 4362 the AFIDA Improvements Act of 2025 can be found here.

    “The AFIDA Improvements Act is a bipartisan path to address the national security concerns stemming from the growing purchases of farmland by the Chinese Communist Party. This legislation, among other things, will ensure there is timely and detailed data sharing of foreign investments in agricultural land, better reviewing and validating of information, and identify those foreign entities who do not file notification they have purchased land in the United States,” said Rep. Bacon. “Having actual processes in place will strengthen the security of our nation in the event nefarious foreign agents, such as the CCP, try to purchase agricultural lands within our nation. These lands must be protected as they are essential to feeding our country and other parts of the world, feeding livestock, fueling vehicles, and other uses.”

    “Purchases of American farmland by foreign adversaries are a grave national security risk that has gone on for too long,” said Rep. Alford. “The Trump Administration and House Republicans have made confronting this threat a top priority. The AFIDA Improvements Act will provide the necessary data reporting and transparency for land transactions to help the government weed out unscrupulous land deals. This bill is a critical part of protecting U.S. farmland and should be included in any larger package to address this egregious problem.”

    “We cannot allow foreign adversaries to quietly buy up America’s farmland and threaten our food supply and national security,” said Rep. Bost. “I’m proud to help lead the reintroduction of the AFIDA Improvements Act to shine a light on these shady land grabs, strengthen reporting requirements, and close loopholes that allow foreign entities to fly under the radar. If we don’t act now, we risk selling out our future one acre at a time.”

    “By modernizing AFIDA, we’re taking meaningful steps to safeguard our national security and ensure American farmland stays in American hands,” said Rep. Cuellar. “With Texas leading the nation in foreign-held agricultural land, these reforms are especially urgent for my home state. Our farmers and rural communities deserve transparency and accountability to prevent foreign adversaries from quietly buying up the land that feeds our country.”

    “Food security is national security, and Americans deserve to know how and to what extent foreign investment in American farmland, especially by our adversaries like China, poses a risk to our family farms and food supply,” said Rep. Finstad. “As a fourth-generation farmer, I believe it is critical that American farmland be owned by American farmers and I’m proud to join Rep. Bacon in introducing the Agricultural Foreign Investment Disclosure Act, which will help us prevent foreign entity ownership.”

    “This legislation is a bipartisan, commonsense fix to a growing threat,” said Rep. Houlahan. “Adopting these recommendations from the non-partisan GAO is a step forward in protecting America’s military installations, farmers, and food security. I want to thank my colleagues from both sides of the aisle for advancing this important legislation.”

    “With the Secretary of Agriculture now a member of CFIUS, Congress should take the next steps towards policies that strengthen the reporting of foreign land purchases. Rep. Bacon’s legislation streamlines the reporting and data sharing of foreign investments into American farmland as another safeguard against the influence of the CCP,” said Rep. Newhouse. “We must remain vigilant in the effort to keep foreign adversaries out of our backyards and give authorities the information they need to be successful.”

    “Foreign entities, especially those tied to adversarial governments like the Chinese Communist Party, buying U.S. agricultural land poses a serious threat to our food and national security,” said Rep. Panetta. “The AFIDA Improvements Act implements commonsense, bipartisan reforms to provide transparency, accountability, and tools needed to monitor these transactions. By improving oversight of foreign land purchases, we can better protect America’s farmland, our agricultural economy, and the security of our nation.”

    Last Congress, AFIDA was successfully included in the Farm Bill passed by the House Agriculture Committee. Rep. Bacon looks forward to working with the Committee this Congress to advance this critical initiative.

    ###

    MIL OSI USA News

  • MIL-OSI Submissions: Why Russia is not taking Trump’s threats seriously

    Source: The Conversation – UK – By Patrick E. Shea, Senior Lecturer in International Relations and Global Governance, University of Glasgow

    The US president, Donald Trump, recently announced that Russia had 50 days to end its war in Ukraine. Otherwise it would face comprehensive secondary sanctions targeting countries that continued trading with Moscow.

    On July 15, when describing new measures that would impose 100% tariffs on any country buying Russian exports, Trump warned: “They are very biting. They are very significant. And they are going to be very bad for the countries involved.”

    Secondary sanctions do not just target Russia directly, they threaten to cut off access to US markets for any country maintaining trade relationships with Moscow. The economic consequences would affect global supply chains, targeting major economies like China and India that have become Russia’s commercial lifelines.

    Despite the dire threats, Moscow’s stock exchange increased by 2.7% immediately following Trump’s announcement. The value of the Russian rouble also strengthened. On a global scale, oil markets appear to have relaxed, suggesting traders see no imminent risks.


    Get your news from actual experts, straight to your inbox. Sign up to our daily newsletter to receive all The Conversation UK’s latest coverage of news and research, from politics and business to the arts and sciences.


    This market reaction coincided with a nonplussed Moscow. While official statements noted that time was needed for Russia to “analyse what was said in Washington”, other statements suggested that the threats would have no effect. Former Russian president Dmitry Medvedev, for example, declared on social media that “Russia didn’t care” about Trump’s threats.

    The positive market reaction and lack of panic from Russian officials tell us more than simple scepticism about Trump’s willingness to follow through.

    If investors doubted Trump’s credibility, we would expect market indifference, not enthusiasm. Instead, the reaction suggests that financial markets expected a stronger response from the US. As Artyom Nikolayev, an analyst from Invest Era, quipped: “Trump performed below market expectations.”

    A reprieve, not a threat

    Trump’s threat isn’t just non-credible – the positive market reaction in Russia suggests it is a gift for Moscow. The 50-day ultimatum is seen not as a deadline but as a reprieve, meaning nearly two months of guaranteed inaction from the US.

    This will allow Russia more time to press its military advantages in Ukraine without facing new economic pressure. Fifty days is also a long time in American politics, where other crises will almost certainly arise to distract attention from the war.

    More importantly, Trump’s threat actively undermines more serious sanctions efforts that were gaining momentum in the US Congress. A bipartisan bill has been advancing a far more severe sanctions package, proposing secondary tariffs of up to 500% and, crucially, severely limiting the president’s ability to waive them.

    By launching his own initiative, Trump seized control of the policy agenda. Once the ultimatum was issued, US Senate majority leader John Thune announced that any vote on the tougher sanctions bill would be delayed until after the 50-day period. This effectively pauses a more credible threat facing the Kremlin.

    This episode highlights a problem for US attempts to use economic statecraft in international relations. Three factors have combined to undermine the credibility of Trump’s threats.

    First, there is Trump’s own track record. Financial markets have become so accustomed to the administration announcing severe tariffs only to delay, water down or abandon them that the jibe “Taco”, short for “Trump always chickens out”, has gained traction in financial circles.

    This reputation for failing to stick to threats means that adversaries and markets alike have learned to price in a high probability of backing down.




    Read more:
    Investors are calling Trump a chicken – here’s why that matters


    Second, the administration’s credibility is weakened by a lack of domestic political accountability. Research on democratic credibility in international relations emphasises how domestic constraints – what political scientists call “audience costs” – can paradoxically strengthen a country’s international commitments.

    When leaders know they will face political punishment from voters or a legislature for backing down from a threat, their threats gain weight. Yet the general reluctance of Congress to constrain Trump undermines this logic. This signals to adversaries that threats can be made without consequence, eroding their effectiveness.

    And third, effective economic coercion requires a robust diplomatic and bureaucratic apparatus to implement and enforce it. The systematic gutting of the State Department and the freezing of United States Agency for International Development (USAID) programmes eliminate the diplomatic infrastructure necessary for sustained economic pressure.

    Effective sanctions require careful coordination with allies, which the Trump administration has undermined. In addition, effective economic coercion requires planning and credible commitment to enforcement, all of which are impossible without a professional diplomatic corps.

    Investors and foreign governments appear to be betting that this combination of presidential inconsistency, a lack of domestic accountability, and a weakened diplomatic apparatus makes any threat more political theatre than genuine economic coercion. The rally in Russian markets was a clear signal that American economic threats are becoming less feared.

    Patrick E. Shea does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.

    ref. Why Russia is not taking Trump’s threats seriously – https://theconversation.com/why-russia-is-not-taking-trumps-threats-seriously-261296

    MIL OSI

  • MIL-OSI United Kingdom: My liberal vision for a thriving economy

    Source: Liberal Democrats UK

    Read Ed’s speech in full

    Thank you very much. It’s lovely to see you all this afternoon – as I hope to make a splash… this time, on dry land!

    I don’t know if someone planned it, or if it is just a coincidence that my speech on the economy comes a day after the Chancellor’s Mansion House speech. But I’m grateful both to the Chancellor for being my warm-up act, and to the IPPR for such a timely invitation.

    Let me start by taking you back 12 months…

    Just a few weeks after taking office, the Government quietly decided to cancel plans for a brand new “exascale” supercomputer at Edinburgh University – a supercomputer that could perform a billion billion calculations every second. 50 times more powerful than any computer in the UK. The announcement didn’t attract much attention at the time. It was rather overshadowed by Labour’s incomprehensible decision to withdraw the Winter Fuel Payment from millions of struggling pensioners. But just like Winter Fuel Payments, Ministers were forced to admit they’d made a mistake, and last month they U-turned on that decision too.

    So why am I talking to you about a supercomputer? Partly because I think that computer in Edinburgh, and other projects like it, will be essential to growing our economy over the years and decades ahead. If we are going to support Britain’s amazing tech start-ups and scale-ups… If we are going to attract investment and entrepreneurs from around the world… If we are going to be the home of the next big breakthroughs in science and medicine and artificial intelligence… Then we have to show that we are absolutely committed to investing in the digital infrastructure that those companies and researchers need.

    So I am glad that Ministers U-turned, but they cost that project a year. And we all know that in the world of scientific and technological innovation – especially when it comes to artificial intelligence – a year is an awfully long time to lose. 

    But the other reason I bring up that story is that I think it encapsulates what has gone so badly wrong in government over the past year – especially when it comes to fixing the economy. Labour came into office, opened the books, and found a terrible mess left by the Conservative Party. In this case, Conservative Ministers had announced a new £800 million supercomputer in a glittering press release full of boosterish language and self-congratulation. Just one problem: the project was completely unfunded. So, faced with the challenge of finding the money to make this crucial investment, Labour chose short-term penny-pinching instead.

    Just like when it came to Winter Fuel Payments, or bus fares, or family farms, or Personal Independence Payments, or the National Insurance hike that is hurting British businesses so badly. Mistakes made by a government with no vision for our economy, no strategy for growth. Just a desire to find some cash to keep the Treasury spreadsheet happy, no matter what.

    Now let me be clear: fiscal responsibility is essential. The Conservatives showed what happens when you let borrowing spiral out of control and don’t grow the economy.

    Borrowing more than £100 billion a year, just to pay the interest on our existing debts. More than the entire education budget. Enough to fund the whole of the National Health Service for six months. At a time when government debt is 100% of national income. So managing the public finances carefully, to bring down those borrowing costs and the national debt, and to give businesses the confidence they need to invest, is critically important.

    Yet in truth, this started before the last Conservative Government – even before the 2008 financial crisis. For decades now, Britain’s long-term fiscal future has been weakened because the big budget challenges haven’t been faced up to – by governments or oppositions. And I think a key reason for this is the way we do the Budget itself.

    The Treasury, hoarding power behind those intimidating walls on Horse Guards Road. The Chancellor, emerging every six months to make a fiscal statement, with a new set of forecasts and a scorecard of policies carefully tuned to meet her fiscal rules. And then what? No real debate.

    In theory, MPs have to approve spending for each individual department every year. It’s called the “estimates” process. In practice, it’s a sham. Last month, Parliament “approved” £1.1 trillion in government spending with just three hours of debate. That’s about £6 billion every minute. So instead of real debate and scrutiny, all we get is endless speculation about what new black hole the Chancellor will face in six months’ time, and what tweaks she will make to bring the numbers back into line. 

    Having tough fiscal rules and sticking to them is critical. But the way we scrutinise the budgets prepared to meet those rules, is nothing short of lamentable. And we need nothing less than a major overhaul of the whole system.

    I think we should look at a budget process more like the one Sweden brought in when it faced its own budget crisis in the early nineties. When its debt soared to just over 70% of GDP. Now the Swedish Parliament gets to debate the Government’s budget – and can propose alternatives and amendments – before it is finalised, and gets a proper period of scrutiny and accountability in the months that follow. And now, Sweden’s debt is down to 30% of GDP.

    It matters how a country takes its decisions on the budget. It may be less exciting, but process matters. So I think we should put more power in MPs’ hands to hold the Treasury and every Department properly to account on behalf of our constituents. Supported by a new Office of the Taxpayer, based in Parliament. That alone would rock Whitehall to its core. It would make MPs roll up their sleeves, get their hands dirty and take more responsibility. The trade-offs and choices that get hidden and ignored by Britain’s opaque system, would become stark and unavoidable. And without such a major system change like this, I fear British politics will never deliver the fiscal responsibility so desperately needed.

    But let’s remember: fiscal responsibility alone is a means to an end. Not the end in itself. And certainly no substitute for an economic vision. You won’t be surprised to hear that my economic vision is a liberal one. With free trade, investment in education, support for enterprise. And rigorous competition policy to stop bigger businesses rigging the system. But if we are to build a liberal economy, we have to start with a clear-eyed analysis of where liberal economic policies have gone wrong in recent years.

    We cannot celebrate the advances in overall prosperity without recognising that, too often, that prosperity has not been properly shared. Individuals, communities – even whole regions have been left behind. Boris Johnson’s point about the need to “level up” was right, even if the execution left a lot to be desired. People from all over the world have enriched our economy and our society – but when governments lose control of immigration, as they so clearly did under the same Boris Johnson, it can impose social and financial costs too. And sometimes comfort and complacency has led liberal economists to neglect the importance of security. Food security. Personal security. National security.

    Our new liberal economics can’t afford to repeat those mistakes. It can’t be about going back to the world as it was – before Trump, before Covid, before Brexit, before the crash. What we need is Liberal Economics 2.0. Retaining all that worked so brilliantly in version one. But recognising its errors and correcting them, too. Grasping the new realities of our changing world – from AI to climate change, to demographic trends that make the fiscal outlook even more challenging. From the need to increase defence spending to the strength of new economic superpowers like China and India. 

    The era of interdependence is over. We need cooperation, but not dependence.

    But even in this new world, some old truths remain. Some are even truer than before. Like the importance of trade.

    Trade was how Victorian Liberals overturned protectionism imposed by the Tories – to usher in a period of free trade and growth. We champion free trade because it enlarges individual freedom. As one of my predecessors as Liberal leader put it – free trade “gives the freest play to individual energy and initiative and character, and the largest liberty both to producer and consumer”. And of course, free trade brings growth and lowers the cost of living.

    That is why we opposed the Conservatives’ Brexit deal – the biggest and most destructive act of protectionism in our lifetime. It’s why Liberal Democrats have pressed for a new bespoke UK-EU Customs Union. Why we are pressing Labour to go well beyond its timid “reset” with Europe and tear down Tory trade barriers as quickly as possible. To free British businesses from reels of costly red tape and bring down prices in our shops. And why Liberal Democrats are arguing for a new economic coalition of the willing, for more free trade not just with Europe, but with Commonwealth allies, and Asian allies too.

    The anti-free trade politics of Donald Trump have to be taken on. We can’t let the tariff man’s bullying approach to trade and geopolitics succeed. We know where that ends. That’s why appeasing the White House isn’t smart. Remember, Donald Trump isn’t forever. And as ordinary Americans suffer the costs of his idiocy, the tide will turn. Let the Conservatives and Nigel Farage champion Trump. We Liberal Democrats will champion Britain, and defend free trade so hard-won by those nineteenth century Liberals. 

    The party of trade. And as Liberals, we are also the party of people. Because underpinning our vision for the economy is an understanding of what the economy really is. It isn’t just a series of abstract percentages and meaningless slogans. We understand that, when you strip everything else away, an economy is its people.

    So growing the economy means getting the right people, with the right skills, in the right jobs. That starts with a new approach to education and training – which across the UK has got narrower and narrower, when the rest of the world has got broader.

    But my local university, Kingston, is reversing that trend with its Future Skills programme. Every undergraduate – whatever they are studying – now also studies everything from creative problem solving to digital competency and artificial intelligence, from empathy to resilience, from adaptability to being enterprising. Skills they need. And skills businesses say they want. That’s the kind of education I want for all our young people. And anyone else who wants it later in life.

    And because the economy is about people, I believe that means that to get growth, to boost productivity, we need to focus far more on incentives. We need to build an incentive economy. An economy that gets the incentives right – to motivate people, to encourage people, to reward people who do their bit and play by the rules. And to stop people who break the rules.

    In Government, Liberal Democrats focused on getting the incentives right. Introducing the pupil premium. An incentive for schools to take more of the most disadvantaged children – and focus on them. Raising the personal income tax allowance by four thousand pounds. Taking the lowest paid out of income tax. Incentivising work for everyone, but especially the less well-off. So the Liberal Democrat record shows we’ve long been the party of incentives – and so many of our big ideas today are about how we encourage people to do the right thing.

    When it comes to backing Britain’s small and growing businesses, for example. The start-ups and scale-ups. The entrepreneurs and the self-employed. They are the engines of our economy, the beating heart of local communities, but they’ve been so let down in recent years. Just remember how the Conservative Government shamefully excluded over a million self-employed people from financial support during Covid. Leaving only us – the Liberal Democrats – to stand up for them in Parliament.

    Because we prioritise growth, we have long championed the self-employed and the small business owners. For them too, it’s about government getting the incentives right. That’s why we’d abolish the unfair system of business rates and replace it with a better Commercial Landowner Levy – to increase the incentive to invest and grow. It’s why we’re opposing Labour’s misguided job tax and its unfair tax raid on family farms and other family businesses.

    It’s why I’ve proposed the idea of “Employment in a Box”, to force every Government department – especially HMRC – to come together to make the UK the easiest place in the world for a business to take on its first employees. Because we need to stop holding back small firms that want to grow, and free them – encourage them – to do so. 

    And getting the incentives right also means getting rid of the wrong incentives. So a ban on bonuses for water company CEOs who keep polluting our rivers and seas – and fines if they don’t stop – fit my vision of an incentive economy. We’ve got to stop rewarding failure.

    And, of course, we need to think totally afresh about how we incentivise more people into work. With our focus on care and carers, Liberal Democrats have argued for a special higher minimum wage for care workers – £2 an hour higher than the national minimum wage – to incentivise more people into the care sector. And for family carers – where millions have given up work to look after their loved ones, and millions more have had to reduce their hours – we have argued for an overhaul of the crazy Carer’s Allowance system. So it properly supports carers and enables them to juggle work and care – instead of penalising them for taking on more hours. Getting the incentives right.

    And that inevitably takes us to the unsustainable welfare bill – and the Government’s shambolic attempt to reform welfare. Cutting Personal Independence Payments from disabled people and their carers was indefensible and it’s right those plans were dropped. But what got lost in the Government’s desperation to make the sums add up was an important truth: we need to get more people who aren’t working into work. It’s better for their dignity. It’s better for their families. And it’s better for the economy. The problem is, the Government’s proposed solution would have made the problem worse. Taking away the very support that enables many disabled people to work at all.

    What we need to do – and what our party will always champion – is to put in place the flexibility, security and support people need in order to work. Working from home, if that’s what their condition requires. Part-time, if that’s all they can manage. Helping employers to make whatever reasonable adjustments their workers need. Again, it comes back to Liberal values. Seeing people as individuals, and treating them fairly.

    It’s what makes me so angry about the assessment process. The impenetrable forms that show no comprehension of what life is like for disabled people or their carers. The dehumanising nature of it all. Trying to turn everyone into a box to be ticked or crossed. Not an individual to be engaged with and understood. Let me give you an example. Before the pandemic, 83% of PIP assessments were done face-to-face. There were often problems with such face-to-face assessments, no doubt about it. But at least they happened. Then during lockdown, they understandably switched to being done on the phone or by video. But when the pandemic ended, Conservative Ministers chose to make that switch to phone assessments permanent. So, last year, just 5% of PIP assessments were face-to-face. I think that was a massive mistake. That Conservative policy opened the door to error, abuse and fraud. And I strongly suspect it’s one of the main reasons the welfare bill has ballooned – and why public trust in the system has been undermined. We must go back to face-to-face assessments as soon as possible – so those who need support get it, and those who don’t, don’t.

    And of course we need to invest in people’s health. Physical and mental health. To get the welfare bill down, and more people back into work. How can we rebuild the economy, when more than six million people are stuck on NHS waiting lists?  How can we grow the economy when 2.8 million people are shut out of the labour market by long-term illness? When people are waiting weeks for a GP appointment? A healthy economy needs a healthy population, and a healthy NHS. So Liberal Democrat campaigns on GPs and dentists and hospitals and social care are about giving people the healthcare they deserve, but they are also core to our economic vision too.

    And while we’re thinking about people, let me turn to the cost-of-living crisis people are facing right now, and the number one thing driving it: energy bills. With inflation rising to 3.6% last month, this needs tackling urgently. Families and pensioners are being clobbered with energy bills that are still more than £50 a month higher than they were five years ago. So many people, who were already struggling to make ends meet, having to find an extra £50 a month – just to keep the lights on, or keep their homes warm this winter.

    And businesses are suffering too. Even with the welcome extra help promised in the new Industrial Strategy, parts of British industry will continue to face some of the highest electricity prices in the OECD.

    We have to get those prices down – to boost living standards and grow our economy.

    A big part of that are the things Liberal Democrats have consistently championed… Generating far more electricity from cheap, clean, renewable sources: solar, wind, tidal, hydro-electric. Insulating people’s homes and making them more energy efficient, so they are much cheaper to heat. Things the Liberal Democrats had a great track record on in government. Things the Conservatives put into reverse after 2015. And – when it comes to home insulation especially – something I’m afraid this Labour Government simply hasn’t made enough of a priority so far.

    But there’s another part of this problem that we haven’t spoken enough about, that I want to address today. And that’s the narrative – seized upon by Nigel Farage and Kemi Badenoch – that says the reason energy bills are so high is that we’re investing too much in renewable power. And if we just stopped that investment – and relied more on oil and gas instead – bills would magically come down for everyone.

    The experience of record high gas prices in recent years shows that’s not true. And even when gas prices are softer, the long history of volatility in fossil fuel prices means it’s only a matter of time before high prices return. So we know that tying ourselves ever more to fossil fuels would only benefit foreign dictators like Vladimir Putin – which is probably why Farage is so keen on it.

    But I think we also have to be honest and admit that we have done a really bad job winning that argument. Those of us who understand how important renewable energy is for our economy – how only renewable energy can deliver permanently low and secure energy prices, today and in the future – have too readily dismissed the rantings of Farage. But refusing to engage hasn’t stopped his myths from spreading. From gaining traction in the new world of fake news.

    So we must change that. Starting with the kernel of truth that underpins the myth. People are currently paying too much for renewable energy. But not for the reasons Nigel Farage would have you believe.

    Because generating electricity from solar or wind is now significantly cheaper than gas – even when you factor in extra system costs for back-up power when the wind isn’t blowing or the sun isn’t shining. But people aren’t seeing the benefit of cheap renewable power, because wholesale electricity prices are still tied to the price of gas – Even though half of all our electricity now comes from renewables, compared to just 30% from gas. That’s because the wholesale price is set by the most expensive fuel in the mix – and in the UK, that’s almost always gas. 97% of the time in 2021, the cost of electricity was set by the price of gas.

    And what does that mean for families, pensioners and businesses? It means we’re all paying that higher gas price in our bills, even though most of the energy we’re using comes from much cheaper sources. Not only is that manifestly unfair, but it is also undermining public support for the investment we need in renewable power. When people don’t see the benefits of cheap, clean energy in their bills, we shouldn’t be surprised if they’re sceptical about building more of it.

    So we have got to break the link between gas prices and electricity costs. We have to. It’s something both the Conservative Government and now Labour have spoken about. But when it came to it, both of them put it in the “too difficult” drawer, and just left the problem to fester. So, as with social care, as with sewage, it falls to us – the Liberal Democrats – to say: it might be difficult, but we have to do it. We can’t afford not to. Not when the price is Nigel Farage.

    Now this happens to be a problem we’ve grappled with before – that I grappled with before – back when we were in government. It was part of the thinking behind the incentive mechanism we created for new renewable projects: Contracts for Difference. These contracts give energy companies the certainty they need to invest in renewables. If the wholesale price drops below the agreed strike price, the government pays them the difference.

    But crucially, they give consumers a fair deal too. If the wholesale price goes above the strike price – like they did when gas prices soared when Russia invaded Ukraine – energy companies pay back the difference, taking money off household energy bills. If all renewables were on Contracts for Difference, the electricity market would be a lot fairer and people would see the benefits of cheap renewables in their bills when gas prices are high.

    The problem is, only about 15% of renewable power is generated under Contracts for Difference. The rest is still governed by the old Renewables Obligation Certificates scheme – or ROCs – introduced by the last Labour Government all the way back in 2002 – when ministers didn’t have the foresight to realise that renewable power would get so much cheaper over the next two decades. Unlike Contracts for Difference, companies with ROCs get paid the wholesale price – in other words, the price of gas – with a subsidy on top. Subsidies paid through levies on our energy bills – costing a typical household around £90 a year. It shouldn’t be this way, and it doesn’t have to be any longer. The Government should start today a rapid process of moving all those old ROC renewable projects onto new Contracts for Difference.

    It’s an idea from academics at the UK Energy Research Centre that they call “pot zero”. And in 2022 they estimated that it could save around £15 billion a year – not only encouraging the end of those Renewable Obligation Certificate levies, but in the process cutting the typical household energy bill by more than £200. So my challenge to ministers is this. If you want to bring people’s energy bills down, if you want to tackle the cost of living, if you want to build support for renewable power – stop tinkering, stop dithering, stop deliberating. Start phasing out those unfair Renewable Obligation Certificate schemes today, by offering instead new Contracts for Difference we Liberal Democrats brought in. The incentive scheme is there. We created it. Please – use it. One simple trick to save everyone at least £200 a year.

    And there are so many ways we could do more to cut electricity bills for people and businesses. One example: why aren’t we pushing much harder for more interconnectors, cables that allow us to import electricity from Europe when it’s more expensive here, and export electrons when it’s more expensive there? Of course, Brexit was bad news for this trade – for both existing interconnectors and worse news for new projects. But one potentially big benefit for the UK rejoining the EU’s internal energy market is greater cross-border trade in power, and so lower electricity bills for consumers.

    After nearly a decade of criminally negligent energy policies under the Conservatives, that pushed up everyone’s bills, I believe the right policies now could cut energy bills in half – at least – within ten years. That should be the goal. Nothing less.

    A Liberal Democrat energy policy in service of the British people. Not a Nigel Farage energy policy in service of Vladimir Putin. So just imagine what our economy could look like, in the next decade or so.

    Energy bills slashed – easing the pressures on families and businesses. People helped into work, instead of trapped on NHS waiting lists or discarded as “inactive”. Education and training to equip people with the skills for the future.

    British start-ups and scale-ups thriving with the support they need. Entrepreneurs and the self-employed recognised for the risks they take. Trade boosted, especially with our neighbours in Europe.

    The public finances, carefully managed and properly scrutinised in Parliament. And a supercomputer or two, hopefully not putting think tanks out of business!

    An economy growing strongly, where everyone feels the benefits. An economy underpinned by our proud Liberal Democrat values. Proud British values. An economy that is truly innovative, dynamic, prosperous and fair.

    That is our vision – and I can’t wait to make it happen.

    Thank you.
     

    MIL OSI United Kingdom

  • MIL-OSI Canada: Prime Minister Carney announces new measures to protect and strengthen Canada’s steel industry

    Source: Government of Canada – Prime Minister

    Canada is one of the countries most exposed to the fundamental restructuring of the global steel industry, with substantial steel exports, high per capita use, and a disproportionately open import market. To remain competitive and grow our economy, Canada must reinforce our strength at home. Our objective is to stabilize the domestic steel market and prevent harmful trade diversion amid current tensions in global steel trade.

    Today, the Prime Minister, Mark Carney, announced a suite of targeted measures to stand behind Canada’s steel industry, protect Canadian careers, and invest in our homegrown industrial capacity to build Canada strong. Canada’s new government will:

    1. Restrict and reduce foreign steel imports entering the Canadian market
      • As stated on June 19, 2025, Canada’s new government promised to review our tariff rate quotas for non-free trade agreement (FTA) partners in 30 days. To that end, the following changes to tariff rate quotas will take effect in the coming days.
      • First, Canada will tighten the tariff rate quota levels for steel products from non-FTA countries from 100% to 50% of 2024 volumes. Above those levels, a 50% tariff will apply.
      • Second, for non-U.S. partners with which we have an FTA, Canada will introduce a tariff rate quota level for steel products at 100% of 2024 volumes and apply a 50% tariff on steel imports above those levels.
      • Existing arrangements with our CUSMA partners will remain the same, including no changes to our current trade measures with the U.S.
      • The government is reviewing its remission framework to favour the use of Canadian steel and aluminum in Canadian-made products. Canada will reassess its existing trade arrangements with respect to steel, consistent with progress made in the bilateral discussions with the U.S. and taking into account broader steel negotiations.
      • Canada will also implement additional tariffs of 25% on steel imports from all non-U.S. countries containing steel melted and poured in China before the end of July.
      • These measures will ensure Canadian steel producers are more competitive by protecting them against trade diversion resulting from a fast-changing global environment for steel, creating more resilient supply chains, and unlocking new private capital in Canadian production.
    2. Invest in Canadian steel workers and production
      • Building on the enhancements to Employment Insurance (EI) and the EI Work-sharing, the government is investing $70 million in Labour Market Development Agreements to provide training and income supports for up to 10,000 affected steel workers. Through reskilling investments and increased worker supports, we will ensure workers have the skills and support they need to meet the future needs of the industry.
      • To strengthen and ready the workforce to build a more resilient steel industry, Canada will provide $1 billion to the Strategic Innovation Fund to help steel companies advance projects that will increase their competitiveness within the domestic market, catalyze production of steel products not currently produced in Canada, and create jobs in sectors such as defence.
      • The Business Development Bank of Canada Pivot to Grow initiative is being enhanced to provide support to eligible steel small and medium-sized enterprises facing liquidity challenges.
      • The steel industry will be prioritized with $150 million as part of the government’s Regional Tariff Response Initiative through the Regional Development Agencies.
      • Finally, the Large Enterprise Tariff Loan will be updated to expand eligibility and provide lower cost financing to firms in the steel industry. These changes will include reducing the minimum annual revenue requirement from $300 million to $150 million, reducing the minimum loan size from $60 million to $30 million, extending the loan maturity from 5 to 7 years, reducing the initial interest rate, and requiring companies to prioritize worker retention.
    3. Prioritize Canadian steel to build big projects
      • As the federal government delivers on its mandate to build major, national projects and millions more homes faster, we will ensure Canadian steel and other Canadian materials are prioritized in construction. We will also change federal procurement processes to require companies contracting with the federal government to source steel from Canadian companies.

    At this transformative moment, we are shifting from reliance to resilience – using Canadian steel to protect our sovereignty, grow our industries, export our energy, and build one strong Canadian economy. It’s time to build big, build bold, and build the strongest economy in the G7 using Canadian steel.

    Quotes

    “Our steel industry will be central to Canada’s competitiveness, our security, and our prosperity. As Canada moves from reliance to resilience, Canada’s new government is taking a series of major measures to support, reinforce, and transform the industry to be more resilient in the face of profound shifts in global trade and supply chains.”

    “Our government continues to defend Canadian workers, businesses, and investments as we navigate the new trading environment. At the same time, we are actively strengthening our domestic producers through the significant additional supports announced today, enabling them to build essential infrastructure and ensure the prosperity of workers throughout this key Canadian industry.”

    “Protecting Canada’s steel industry means defending Canadian jobs, securing our economic sovereignty, and building the future right here at home. Canada’s steelworkers are critical to building a strong Canadian economy; protecting their jobs is protecting Canada’s economic future.”

    “Steel workers and their industry are vital to Canada’s economy. Canada will support workers as their jobs are threatened by tariffs. Today’s announcement will help workers access skills training and retraining tailored to the needs of the steel sector. As we build the strongest country in the G7, the message to Canadian steel workers is clear: we are with you.”

    “Canada is building faster and stronger. By prioritizing Canadian steel and other materials in our projects, we are taking important steps to prioritize Canadian suppliers, protect well-paying jobs, strengthen our supply chain, and support our industry in the face of unjustified U.S. tariffs.”

    Associated link

    MIL OSI Canada News

  • MIL-OSI USA: Luttrell Secures Key Wins as Committee Sends FY26 NDAA to House Floor

    Source:

    WASHINGTON — Congressman Morgan Luttrell (R-TX) released the following statement after the National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) for Fiscal Year 2026 was successfully voted out of the House Armed Services Committee and sent to the House floor:

    “America’s warfighters rely on Congress to provide them with the tools necessary to maintain our nation’s standing as the most lethal force in history. The FY26 NDAA ensures our military continues to combat our foreign adversaries and modernize our cybersecurity infrastructure, while providing critical support to our service members. I am pleased to see my provisions countering cyber threats, advancing hypersonics innovation, and expanding Traumatic Brain Injury (TBI) research included in this legislative package. I look forward to supporting the bill when it comes to a vote on the House floor.”

    The NDAA is annual legislation that authorizes the policies and funding levels for the Department of Defense (DoD) and other national security entities.

    Luttrell secured over 50 provisions within the NDAA, including:

    • Multiple provisions to enhance cybersecurity, artificial intelligence, and emerging technology tools for the DoD.  
    • Authorizes funding for research and clinical trials for post-traumatic stress disorder and TBI treatments.
    • Several provisions to support the training, health, and well-being of our service members.
    • Greenlights funding for increased development of hypersonics. This builds on additional funding Luttrell secured in H.R. 1, the One Big Beautiful Bill Act, and supports research and development activities in Texas.   
    • A provision to prevent the deactivation of the 1-158th Army Reserve unit in Conroe without a continuity plan for soldiers and capabilities.
    • Language to support the domestic production of critical minerals to decrease U.S. reliance on China.

    View the full markup here.

    MIL OSI USA News

  • MIL-OSI Russia: Russia to Start Mass Implementation of Digital Ruble in 2026

    Translation. Region: Russian Federal

    Source: People’s Republic of China in Russian – People’s Republic of China in Russian –

    An important disclaimer is at the bottom of this article.

    Source: People’s Republic of China – State Council News

    Moscow, July 16 /Xinhua/ — The mass introduction of the digital ruble will begin in Russia on September 1, 2026. This was reported on Tuesday by the press service of the Bank of Russia /Central Bank/.

    From now on, the largest Russian banks will have to provide customers with the opportunity to open digital wallets, as well as pay for goods and services, make transfers and carry out other transactions in digital rubles. Such transactions will become mandatory for trading companies with revenues of more than 120 million rubles, if they are serviced by the largest banks.

    From September 1, 2027, these rules will become mandatory for other banks with a universal license and their clients from among trading companies with annual revenue over 30 million rubles. Other banks and sellers with revenue from 5 million to 30 million rubles per year must implement operations with the digital ruble by September 1, 2028.

    The digital ruble is being created to become another means of payment and transfer that will not depend on bank restrictions in the form of commissions and limits. People will be able to open a digital wallet through the applications of banks connected to the digital ruble platform of the Bank of Russia. –0–

    Please note: This information is raw content obtained directly from the source of the information. It is an accurate report of what the source claims and does not necessarily reflect the position of MIL-OSI or its clients.

    .

    MIL OSI Russia News

  • MIL-OSI Russia: The Verkhovna Rada approved the resignation of the Prime Minister of Ukraine

    Translation. Region: Russian Federal

    Source: People’s Republic of China in Russian – People’s Republic of China in Russian –

    An important disclaimer is at the bottom of this article.

    Source: People’s Republic of China – State Council News

    Kyiv, July 16 /Xinhua/ — The Verkhovna Rada of Ukraine on Wednesday accepted the resignation of the country’s Prime Minister Denys Shmyhal, parliamentarian Yaroslav Zheleznyak reported on Telegram.

    The corresponding decision was supported by 261 deputies, with the required minimum being 226 votes.

    D. Shmyhal resigned the day before. Before that, Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky proposed that the First Deputy Prime Minister, Minister of Economy of the country Yulia Svyrydenko head the Ukrainian government. According to Y. Zheleznyak, the parliament will consider her candidacy on July 17.

    According to Ukrainian law, the dismissal of the prime minister entails the resignation of all members of the government. However, they will continue to exercise their powers until the newly formed cabinet begins work.

    D. Shmyhal has served as Prime Minister of Ukraine since March 4, 2020. According to media reports, he may become Minister of Defense in the new government. –0–

    Please note: This information is raw content obtained directly from the source of the information. It is an accurate report of what the source claims and does not necessarily reflect the position of MIL-OSI or its clients.

    .

    MIL OSI Russia News

  • MIL-OSI Russia: Armenian Prime Minister Does Not Rule Out Country’s Withdrawal from CSTO

    Translation. Region: Russian Federal

    Source: People’s Republic of China in Russian – People’s Republic of China in Russian –

    An important disclaimer is at the bottom of this article.

    Source: People’s Republic of China – State Council News

    Yerevan, July 16 (Xinhua) — Armenian Prime Minister Nikol Pashinyan believes that the country’s withdrawal from the Collective Security Treaty Organization (CSTO) is likely. The head of the Armenian government said this at a press conference on Wednesday.

    “Armenia’s withdrawal from the CSTO is more likely than freezing its membership in this organization,” N. Pashinyan said.

    Answering another question on the same topic, he confirmed that the problem in relations with the CSTO arose in the fall of 2022, when Armenia, during another escalation of the situation on the border with Azerbaijan, turned to its partners in this bloc for help, but did not receive support. Then, according to N. Pashinyan, the CSTO stated that the Armenian-Azerbaijani border was not defined and therefore the bloc could not provide support to Armenia.

    Since February of last year, Armenia has practically not participated in events held under the auspices of the CSTO and does not pay membership fees to this organization. –0–

    Please note: This information is raw content obtained directly from the source of the information. It is an accurate report of what the source claims and does not necessarily reflect the position of MIL-OSI or its clients.

    .

    MIL OSI Russia News

  • MIL-OSI Russia: Kremlin closely monitors situation with Western arms supplies to Ukraine – Russian presidential press secretary

    Translation. Region: Russian Federal

    Source: People’s Republic of China in Russian – People’s Republic of China in Russian –

    An important disclaimer is at the bottom of this article.

    Source: People’s Republic of China – State Council News

    Moscow, July 16 /Xinhua/ — Russia is very attentive to the issue of long-range weapons supplies to Ukraine and is monitoring the relevant reports, Russian presidential press secretary Dmitry Peskov said on Wednesday.

    “The topic is, of course, high on the news agenda. Of course, we are very closely monitoring all relevant reports,” he told reporters.

    Answering the question of how the Kremlin feels about the decision of US President Donald Trump to sell NATO weapons for further deliveries to Ukraine, D. Peskov pointed out that the US has supplied and will continue to supply weapons to Ukraine, for them “it’s business.”

    “It’s just a question of who pays for them. Now some Europeans will pay for them,” the Kremlin spokesman noted. At the same time, he drew attention to the fact that there will be disagreements among European countries on paying for weapons for Ukraine. “You heard that the French will not pay, the Czechs will not pay. That is, there will be disagreements there too, because there is so much to pay, so much money. There will be nothing left for the citizens,” the Russian president’s press secretary emphasized.

    D. Peskov noted that “the Europeans are displaying a completely unbridled militaristic attitude and are declaring their intention to spend countless amounts of money on purchasing weapons” in order to further provoke a continuation of the war. “Of course, against the backdrop of such an emotional state, bordering on inadequacy, it is very difficult to predict anything on the European continent,” he stated.

    D. Peskov also confirmed that all provisions of the Russian Federation’s nuclear doctrine, including the responsibility of nuclear countries for “inciting” non-nuclear ones, are in effect.

    In this regard, Moscow calls on all interested parties to provide assistance in continuing direct Russian-Ukrainian negotiations, the Kremlin representative emphasized.

    In the fall of 2024, an updated nuclear doctrine of Russia was adopted in connection with the emergence of new military risks. The new version, in particular, expanded the list of states against which nuclear deterrence is carried out and supplemented the list of military threats. It contains a clause stating that aggression by a non-nuclear state with the support or participation of a country possessing nuclear weapons is considered a joint attack on the Russian Federation. At the same time, the basic principle of the use of nuclear weapons remains the same: it is an extreme and forced measure to protect Russia’s sovereignty.

    On July 14, D. Trump announced that Ukraine would receive weapons from the United States, and that European countries would fully pay for them. “We are talking about military equipment worth billions of dollars, which will be purchased from the United States, transferred to NATO and very quickly put on the battlefield. Ukraine will receive it,” he explained. In particular, the American president announced the delivery of 17 Patriot air and missile defense systems to Ukraine. –0–

    Please note: This information is raw content obtained directly from the source of the information. It is an accurate report of what the source claims and does not necessarily reflect the position of MIL-OSI or its clients.

    .

    MIL OSI Russia News

  • MIL-OSI Russia: Breaking: New ceasefire agreement between Syria’s interim government and Druze leaders reached in Syria’s As-Suwayda province

    Translation. Region: Russian Federal

    Source: People’s Republic of China in Russian – People’s Republic of China in Russian –

    An important disclaimer is at the bottom of this article.

    Source: People’s Republic of China – State Council News

    DAMASCUS, July 16 (Xinhua) — A new ceasefire agreement was reached between Syria’s interim government and Druze leaders in the southern province of As-Suwayda on Wednesday, aiming to end days of deadly clashes and return the province to full government control, the Syrian government said. -0-

    Please note: This information is raw content obtained directly from the source of the information. It is an accurate report of what the source claims and does not necessarily reflect the position of MIL-OSI or its clients.

    .

    MIL OSI Russia News

  • MIL-OSI Submissions: When big sports events expand, like FIFA’s 2026 World Cup matches across North America, their climate footprint expands too

    Source: The Conversation – USA (2) – By Brian P. McCullough, Associate Professor of Sport Management, University of Michigan

    Lionel Messi celebrates with fans after Argentina won the FIFA World Cup championship in 2022 in Qatar. Michael Regan-FIFA/FIFA via Getty Images

    When the FIFA World Cup hits North America in June 2026, 48 teams and millions of soccer fans will be traveling to and from venues spread across the United States, Canada and Mexico.

    It’s a dramatic expansion – 16 more teams will be playing than in recent years, with a jump from 64 to 104 matches. The tournament is projected to bring in over US$10 billion in revenue. But the expansion will also mean a lot more travel and other activities that contribute to climate change.

    The environmental impacts of giant sporting events like the World Cup create a complex paradox for an industry grappling with its future in a warming world.

    A sustainability conundrum

    Sports are undeniably experiencing the effects of climate change. Rising global temperatures are putting athletes’ health at risk during summer heat waves and shortening winter sports seasons. Many of the 2026 World Cup venues often see heat waves in June and early July, when the tournament is scheduled.

    There is a divide over how sports should respond.

    Some athletes are speaking out for more sustainable choices and have called on lawmakers to take steps to limit climate-warming emissions. At the same time, the sport industry is growing and facing a constant push to increase revenue. The NCAA is also considering expanding its March Madness basketball tournaments from 68 teams currently to as many as 76.

    Park Yong-woo of team Al Ain from Abu Dhabi tries to cool off during a Club World Cup match on June 26, 2025, in Washington, D.C., which was in the midst of a heat wave. Some players have raised concerns about likely high temperatures during the 2026 World Cup, with matches scheduled June 11 to July 19.
    AP Photo/Julia Demaree Nikhinson

    Estimates for the 2026 World Cup show what large tournament expansions can mean for the climate. A report from Scientists for Global Responsibility estimates that the expanded World Cup could generate over 9 million metric tons of carbon dioxide equivalent, nearly double the average of the past four World Cups.

    This massive increase – and the increase that would come if the NCAA basketball tournaments also expand – would primarily be driven by air travel as fans and players fly among event cities that are thousands of miles apart.

    A lot of money is at stake, but so is the climate

    Sports are big business, and adding more matches to events like the World Cup and NCAA tournaments will likely lead to larger media rights contracts and greater gate receipts from more fans attending the events, boosting revenues. These are powerful financial incentives.

    In the NCAA’s case, there is another reason to consider a larger tournament: The House v. NCAA settlement opened the door for college athletic departments to share revenue with athletes, which will significantly increase costs for many college programs. More teams would mean more television revenue and, crucially, more revenue to be distributed to member NCAA institutions and their athletic conferences.

    When climate promises become greenwashing

    The inherent conflict between maximizing profit through growth and minimizing environmental footprint presents a dilemma for sports.

    Several sport organizations have promised to reduce their impact on the climate, including signing up for initiatives like the United Nations Sports for Climate Action Framework.

    However, as sports tournaments and exhibition games expand, it can become increasingly hard for sports organizations to meet their climate commitments. In some cases, groups making sustainability commitments have been accused of greenwashing, suggesting the goals are more about public relations than making genuine, measurable changes.

    For example, FIFA’s early claims that it would hold a “fully carbon-neutral” World Cup in Qatar in 2022 were challenged by a group of European countries that accused soccer’s world governing body of underestimating emissions. The Swiss Fairness Commission, which monitors fairness in advertising, considered the complaints and determined that FIFA’s claims could not be substantiated.

    Alessandro Bastoni, of Inter Milan and Italy’s national team, prepares to board a flight from Milan to Rome with his team.
    Mattia Ozbot-Inter/Inter via Getty Images

    Aviation is often the biggest driver of emissions. A study that colleagues and I conducted on the NCAA men’s basketball tournament found about 80% of its emissions were connected to travel. And that was after the NCAA began using the pod system, which is designed to keep teams closer to home for the first and second rounds.

    Finding practical solutions

    Some academics, observing the rising emissions trend, have called for radical solutions like the end of commercialized sports or drastically limiting who can attend sporting events, with a focus on fans from the region.

    These solutions are frankly not practical, in my view, nor do they align with other positive developments. The growing popularity of women’s sports shows the challenge in limiting sports events – more games expands participation but adds to the industry’s overall footprint.

    Further compounding the challenges of reducing environmental impact is the amount of fan travel, which is outside the direct control of the sports organization or event organizers.

    Many fans will follow their teams long distances, especially for mega-events like the World Cup or the NCAA tournament. During the men’s World Cup in Russia in 2018, more than 840,000 fans traveled from other countries. The top countries by number of fans, after Russia, were China, the U.S., Mexico and Argentina.

    There is an argument that distributed sporting events like March Madness or the World Cup can be better in some ways for local environments because they don’t overwhelm a single city. However, merely spreading the impact does not necessarily reduce it, particularly when considering the effects on climate change.

    How fans can cut their environmental footprint

    Sport organizations and event planners can take steps to be more sustainable and also encourage more sustainable choices among fans. Fans can reduce their environmental impact in a variety of ways. For example:

    • Avoid taking airplanes for shorter distances, such as between FIFA venues in Philadelphia, New York and Boston, and carpool or take Amtrak instead. Planes can be more efficient for long distances, but air travel is still a major contributing factor to emissions.

    • While in a host city, use mass transit or rent electric vehicles or bicycles for local travel.

    • Consider sustainable accommodations, such as short-term rentals that might have a smaller environmental footprint than a hotel. Or stay at a certified green hotel that makes an effort to be more efficient in its use of water and energy.

    • Engage in sustainable pregame and postgame activities, such as choosing local, sustainable food options, and minimize waste.

    • You can also pay to offset carbon emissions for attending different sporting events, much like concertgoers do when they attend musical festivals. While critics question offsets’ true environmental benefit, they do represent people’s growing awareness of their environmental footprint.

    Through all these options, it’s clear that sports face a significant challenge in addressing their environmental impacts and encouraging fans to be more sustainable, while simultaneously trying to meet ambitious business and environmental targets.

    In my view, a sustainable path forward will require strategic, yet genuine, commitment by the sports industry and its fans, and a willingness to prioritize long-term planetary health alongside economic gains – balancing the sport and sustainability.

    Brian P. McCullough does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organization that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.

    ref. When big sports events expand, like FIFA’s 2026 World Cup matches across North America, their climate footprint expands too – https://theconversation.com/when-big-sports-events-expand-like-fifas-2026-world-cup-matches-across-north-america-their-climate-footprint-expands-too-259437

    MIL OSI

  • MIL-OSI USA: Deluzio Fights Price Gouging, Secures Wins for Western PA in Annual Defense Bill

    Source: US Congressman Chris Deluzio (PA)

    WASHINGTON, D.C. – Last night, Congressman Chris Deluzio (PA-17) with colleagues on the powerful House Armed Services Committee, marked up the 2026 National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA)—the large, annual defense bill that creates the policies related to our armed services and other national security-related efforts. Congressman Deluzio voted for the measure, which passed out of committee by a vote of 55-2.

    “The United States faces tremendous strategic challenges across the globe, including the war in Ukraine, intensifying competition with Communist China, and instability in the Middle East. All this activity is stressing the highly consolidated defense industrial base,” said Congressman Deluzio. “For too long, our government has neglected America’s manufacturing competitiveness and power. We need stronger accountability, transparency, and competition in government contracting to beef up our defense industrial base and to protect public money. While not a perfect bill, the 2026 NDAA takes on many of these important issues and more, and that’s why I voted yes last night.”  

    Specifically, the NDAA included Congressman Deluzio’s amendment to fight defense industry price gouging by requiring defense contractors to report when their products under sole source contracts increase by more than 25% of the price specified in the contract bid, over 25% more than the price of the product the preceding year, or by 50% more than the government paid for the product at any time over the last five years.   

    During the NDAA markup, Congressman Deluzio successfully secured several important wins, including some that will specifically benefit the people and economy of Western Pennsylvania. 

    This legislation: 

    • Implements an assessment and evaluation of the use of inland waterways for national defense purposes, and an assessment of vulnerabilities in our Marine Transportation Systems and associated infrastructure.
    • Authorizes an additional two and a half million dollars in funding to improve long range precision fires technology. This kind of research is ongoing at Western Pennsylvania institutions like the University of Pittsburgh.
    • Requires a new report about the technology and disposal methods of Per-and Polyfluoroalkyl Substances (PFAS). This is important because the Defense Department has previously considered incinerating PFAS “forever chemicals” in East Liverpool, Ohio—just across the border from Pennsylvania’s 17th District.
    • This year’s NDAA also includes the text of Congressman Deluzio’s bill, the Depot Investment Reform Act. This bill strengthens federal investment in military depots, including those in Pennsylvania, like the Letterkenny and Tobyhanna Army Depots.   

    Congressman Deluzio secured additional national priorities in this defense bill. This legislation:

    • Strengthens the “right to repair,” requiring contractors to give access to tools, parts, and information for major weapon systems so that our military and servicemembers can repair their own equipment.
    • Adjusts annual reporting on the U.S. Navy’s shipyard modernization efforts at the four public shipyards to include efforts related to the incorporation of digital hardware, software, and cloud storage.
    • Extends the number of days that national guardsmen can be activated by a governor of a state to respond to an emergency like a natural disaster from 3 to 14 days, with possible extensions of 7 and up to 46 days.
    • Requires a report on the Department of Defense’s efforts to incorporate artificial intelligence data centers on Department of Defense land. This report will analyze the risks, benefits, impacts, and footprint of those facilities.
    • Requires the Department of Defense to identify shortfalls and propose solutions for shortfalls of critical minerals and other materials in the National Defense Stockpile. This will better inform the United States’ current readiness and preparedness for any future conflict.
    • Fights consolidation in the defense industry by requiring the Government Accountability Office (GAO) to investigate impacts of mergers and acquisitions on the defense industrial base and competition in the defense industry.
    • Requires that contractors who are negotiating sole-source contracts with the government provide timely and critical pricing data to the government. This will assist the military in getting the best deal for our servicemembers and will steward good use of American public dollars.
    • Requires the Department of Defense to assess the current competitive environment for contracts under $10 million. This will help the military and Congress assess whether recent policy changes have been effective in uplifting small businesses and growing the defense industrial base. 

    A full summary of the Fiscal Year 2026 NDAA as prepared by Democratic committee staff can be found here

    The NDAA now goes to the House Floor for a vote, and the final bill will be negotiated with the Senate. 

    ###

    MIL OSI USA News

  • MIL-OSI Asia-Pac: ‘Handling of security case smeared’

    Source: Hong Kong Information Services

    The Hong Kong Special Administrative Region Government today said it strongly condemned organisations in the US and other Western countries for slandering and smearing the Hong Kong SAR Government for its handling, in accordance with the law, of the case of Lai Chee-ying and related custodial arrangements.

     

    In a press statement, the Government said such slanders had fully exposed the malicious and despicable intentions of anti-China organisations and media to undermine the rule of law in Hong Kong.

     

    The Government highlighted that it has emphasised time and again that as legal proceedings involving Lai Chee-ying are ongoing, it is inappropriate for anyone to comment on the case in an attempt to interfere with the court’s exercise of independent judicial power and to pervert the course of justice.

     

    It said foreign organisations have nevertheless continued to distort the truth, discredit Hong Kong’s judicial system and trials, and make false and misleading statements about the treatment provided to Lai Chee-ying during his custody, in an attempt to glorify criminal behaviour and exert pressure on Hong Kong’s courts.

     

    In addition, it stressed that while Lai Chee-ying’s legal representative has clarified that he has received suitable treatment and care in prison, foreign organisations have turned a blind eye to this in order to carry out malicious political manoeuvres and pursue ulterior motives.

     

    The Hong Kong SAR Government stressed that it opposes all such actions.

     

    Separately, the Correctional Services Department said that it handles matters relating to Lai Chee-ying no differently from those regarding any other persons-in-custody.

     

    It also reiterated that Lai Chee-ying’s removal from association from other persons-in-custody has been in accordance his own request and was approved by the department after considering all relevant factors in accordance with the law.

     

    The department remarked that remarks by organisations from the US and other Western countries regarding Lai Chee-ying’s solitary confinement therefore deliberately twist the facts, reflecting a malicious intention to smear and attack the Hong Kong SAR Government.

     

    The Government also stressed that all cases in Hong Kong, including Lai Chee-ying’s case, are handled strictly on the basis of evidence and in accordance with the law. It said the Department of Justice controls criminal prosecutions, free from any interference and that all defendants in Hong Kong receive a fair trial under the safeguards of the Basic Law and the Hong Kong Bill of Rights.

    MIL OSI Asia Pacific News

  • MIL-OSI Submissions: What makes ‘great powers’ great? And how will they adapt to a multipolar world?

    Source: The Conversation – Global Perspectives – By Andrew Latham, Professor of Political Science, Macalester College

    When greats clash! In this case, in the 1974 film ‘Godzilla vs. Mechagodzilla.’ FilmPublicityArchive/United Archives via Getty Images

    Many column inches have been dedicated to dissecting the “great power rivalry” currently playing out between China and the U.S.

    But what makes a power “great” in the realm of international relations?

    Unlike other states, great powers possess a capacity to shape not only their immediate surroundings but the global order itself – defining the rules, norms and structures that govern international politics. Historically, they have been seen as the architects of world systems, exercising influence far beyond their neighborhoods.

    The notion of great powers came about to distinguish between the most and least powerful states. The concept gained currency after the 1648 Peace of Westphalia and the Congress of Vienna in 1815 – events in Europe that helped establish the notion of sovereign states and the international laws governing them.

    Whereas the great powers of the previous eras – for example, the Roman Empire – sought to expand their territory at almost every turn and relied on military power to do so, the modern great power utilizes a complex tapestry of diplomatic pressure, economic leverage and the assertions of international law. The order emerging out of Westphalia enshrined the principles of national sovereignty and territorial integrity, which allowed these powers to pursue a balance of power as codified by the Congress of Vienna based on negotiation as opposed to domination.

    This transformation represented a momentous development in world politics: At least some portion of the legitimacy of a state’s control was now realized through its relationships and capacity to keep the peace, rather than resting solely on its ability to use force.

    From great to ‘super’

    Using their material capabilities – economic strength, military might and political influence – great powers have been able to project power across multiple regions and dictate the terms of international order.

    In the 19th-century Concert of Europe, the great powers – Britain, France, Austria, Prussia and Russia – collectively managed European politics, balancing power to maintain stability. Their influence extended globally through imperial expansion, trade and the establishment of norms that reflected their priorities.

    During the 20th century, the Cold War brought a stark distinction between great powers and other states. The U.S. and the Soviet Union, as the era’s two “superpowers,” dominated the international system, shaping it through a rivalry that encompassed military alliances, ideological competition and economic systems. Great powers in this context were not merely powerful states but the central actors defining the structure of global politics.

    Toward a multipolar world

    The post-Cold War period briefly ushered in a unipolar moment, with the U.S. as the sole great power capable of shaping the international system on a global scale.

    This era was marked by the expansion of liberal internationalism, economic globalization and U.S.-led-and-constructed multilateralism.

    However, the emergence of new centers of power, particularly China and to a lesser extent Russia, has brought the unipolar era to a close, ushering in a multipolar world where the distinctive nature of great powers is once again reshaped.

    In this system, great powers are states with the material capabilities and strategic ambition to influence the global order as a whole.

    And here they differ from regional powers, whose influence is largely confined to specific areas. Nations such as Turkey, India, Australia, Brazil and Japan are influential within their neighborhoods. But they lack the global reach of the U.S. or China to fundamentally alter the international system.

    Instead, the roles of these regional powers is often defined by stabilizing their regions, addressing local challenges or acting as intermediaries in great power competition.

    Challenging greatness

    Yet the multipolar world presents unique challenges for today’s great powers. The diffusion of power means that no single great power can dominate the system as the U.S. did in the post-Cold War unipolar era.

    Instead, today’s great powers must navigate complex dynamics, balancing competition with cooperation. For instance, the rivalry between Washington and Beijing is now a defining feature of global politics, spanning trade, technology, military strategy and ideological influence. Meanwhile, Russia’s efforts to maintain its great power status have resulted in more assertive, though regionally focused, actions that nonetheless have global implications.

    Great powers must also contend with the constraints of interdependence. The interconnected nature of the global economy, the proliferation of advanced technologies and the rise of transnational challenges such as climate change and pandemics limit the ability of any one great power to unilaterally dictate outcomes. This reality forces great powers to prioritize their core interests while finding ways to manage global issues through cooperation, even amid intense competition.

    As the world continues to adjust to multiple centers of power, the defining feature of great powers remains an unmatched capacity to project influence globally and define the parameters of the international order.

    Whether through competition, cooperation or conflict, the actions of great powers will, I believe, continue to shape the trajectory of the global system, making their distinctiveness as central players in international relations more relevant than ever.

    This article is part of a series explaining foreign policy terms commonly used but rarely explained.

    Andrew Latham does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organization that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.

    ref. What makes ‘great powers’ great? And how will they adapt to a multipolar world? – https://theconversation.com/what-makes-great-powers-great-and-how-will-they-adapt-to-a-multipolar-world-260969

    MIL OSI

  • MIL-OSI Submissions: China’s insertion into India-Pakistan waters dispute adds a further ripple in South Asia

    Source: The Conversation – Global Perspectives – By Pintu Kumar Mahla, Research Associate at the Water Resources Research Institute, University of Arizona

    Indian Border Security Force soldiers patrol near the line of control in Kashmir. Nitin Kanotra/Hindustan Times via Getty Images

    With the future of a crucial water-sharing treaty between India and Pakistan up in the air, one outside party is looking on with keen interest: China.

    For 65 years, the Indus Waters Treaty has seen the two South Asian rivals share access and use of the Indus Basin, a vast area covered by the Indus River and its tributaries that also stretches into Afghanistan and China.

    For much of that history, there has been widespread praise for the agreement as a successful demonstration of cooperation between adversarial states over a key shared resource. But experts have noted the treaty has long held the potential for conflict. Drafters failed to factor in the effects of climate change, and the Himalayan glaciers that feed the rivers are now melting at record rates, ultimately putting at risk the long-term sustainability of water supply. Meanwhile, the ongoing conflict over Kashmir, where much of the basin is situated, puts cooperation at risk.

    With treaty on ice, China steps in

    That latest provocation threatening the treaty was a terrorist attack in the Indian union territory of Jammu and Kashmir on April 22, 2025. In response to that attack, which India blamed on Pakistan and precipitated a four-day confrontation, New Delhi temporarily suspended the treaty.

    But even before that attack, India and Pakistan had been locked in negotiation over the future of the treaty – the status of which has been in the hands of international arbitrators since 2016. In the latest development, on June 27, 2025, the Permanent Court of Arbitration issued a supplementary award in favor of Pakistan, arguing that India’s holding of the treaty in abeyance did not affect its jurisdiction over the case. Moreover, the treaty does not allow for either party to unilaterally suspend the treaty, the ruling suggested.

    Amid the wrangling over the treaty’s future, Pakistan has turned to China for diplomatic and strategic support. Such support was evident during the conflict that took place following April’s terrorist attack, during which Pakistan employed Chinese-made fighter jets and other military equipment against its neighbor.

    Meanwhile, in an apparent move to counter India’s suspension of the treaty, China and Pakistan have ramped up construction of a major dam project that would provide water supply and electricity to parts of Pakistan.

    So, why is China getting involved? In part, it reflects the strong relationship between Pakistan and China, developed over six decades.

    But as an expert in hydro politics, I believe Beijing’s involvement raises concerns: China is not a neutral observer in the dispute. Rather, Beijing has long harbored a desire to increase its influence in the region and to counter an India long seen as a rival. Given the at-times fraught relationship between China and India – the two countries went to war in 1962 and continue to engage in sporadic border skirmishes – there are concerns in New Delhi that Beijing may respond by disrupting the flow of rivers in its territory that feed into India.

    In short, any intervention by Beijing over the Indus Waters Treaty risks stirring up regional tensions.

    Wrangling over waters

    The Indus Waters Treaty has already endured three armed conflicts between Pakistan and India, and until recently it served as an exemplar of how to forge a successful bilateral agreement between two rival neighbors.


    Riccardo Pravettoni, CC BY-SA

    Under the initial terms of the treaty, which each country signed in 1960, India was granted control over three eastern rivers the countries share – Ravi, Beas and Satluj – with an average annual flow of 40.4 billion cubic meters. Meanwhile, Pakistan was given access to almost 167.2 billion cubic meters of water from the western rivers – Indus, Jhelum and Chenab.

    In India, the relatively smaller distribution has long been the source of contention, with many believing the treaty’s terms are overly generous to Pakistan. India’s initial demand was for 25% of the Indus waters.

    For Pakistan, the terms of the division of the Indus Waters Treaty are painful because they concretized unresolved land disputes tied to the partition of India in 1947. In particular, the division of the rivers is framed within the broader political context of Kashmir. The three major rivers – Indus, Jhelum and Chenab – flow through Indian-administered Jammu and Kashmir before entering the Pakistan-controlled western part of the Kashmir region.

    But the instability of the Kashmir region – disputes around the Line of Control separating the Indian- and Pakistan-controlled areas are common – underscores Pakistan’s water vulnerability.

    Nearly 65% of Pakistanis live in the Indus Basin region, compared with 14% for India. It is therefore not surprising that Pakistan has warned that any attempt to cut off the water supply, as India has threatened, would be considered an act of war.

    It also helps to explain Pakistan’s desire to develop hydropower on the rivers it controls. One-fifth of Pakistan’s electricity comes from hydropower, and nearly 21 hydroelectric power plants are located in the Indus Basin region.

    Since Pakistan’s economy relies heavily on agriculture and the water needed to maintain agricultural land, the fate of the Indus Waters Treaty is of the utmost importance to Pakistan’s leaders.

    Such conditions have driven Islamabad to be a willing partner with China in a bid to shore up its water supply.

    China provides technical expertise and financial support to Pakistan for numerous hydropower projects in Pakistan, including the Diamer Bhasha Dam and Kohala Hydropower Project. These projects play a significant role in addressing Pakistan’s energy requirements and have been a key aspect of the transboundary water relationship between the two nations.

    Using water as a weapon?

    With it’s rivalry with India and its desire to simultaneously work with Pakistan on numerous issues, China increasingly sees itself as a stakeholder in the Indus Waters Treaty, too. Chinese media narratives have framed India as the aggressor in the dispute, warning of the danger of using “water as a weapon” and noting that the source of the Indus River lies in China’s Western Tibet region.

    Doing so fits Beijing’ s greater strategic presence in South Asian politics. After the terrorist attack, China Foreign Minister Wang Yi reaffirmed China’s support for Pakistan, showcasing the relationship as an “all-weather strategic” partnership and referring to Pakistan as an “ironclad friend.”

    And in response to India’s suspension of the treaty, China announced it was to accelerate work on the significant Mohmand hydropower project on the tributary of the Indus River in Pakistan.

    Construction at the Mohmand Dam.
    Pakistan Water and Power Development Authority

    Chinese investment in Pakistan’s hydropower sector presents substantial opportunities for both countries in regards to energy security and promoting economic growth.

    The Indus cascade project under the China-Pakistan Economic Corridor initiative, for example, promises to provide cumulative hydropower generation capacity of around 22,000 megawatts. Yet the fact that project broke ground in Gilgit-Baltistan, a disputed area in Pakistan-controlled Kashmir, underscores the delicacy of the situation.

    Beijing’s backing of Pakistan is largely motivated by a mix of economic and geopolitical interests, particularly in legitimizing the China-Pakistan Economic Corridor. But it comes at the cost of stirring up regional tensions.

    As such, the alignment of Chinese and Pakistani interests in developing hydro projects can pose a further challenge to the stability of South Asia’s water-sharing agreements, especially in the Indus Basin. Recently, the chief minister of the Indian state of Arunachal Pradesh, which borders China, warned that Beijing’s hydro projects in the Western Tibet region amount to a ticking “water bomb.”

    To diffuse such tensions – and to get the Indus Waters Treaty back on track – it behooves India, China and Pakistan to engage in diplomacy and dialogue. Such engagement is, I believe, essential in addressing the ongoing water-related challenges in South Asia.

    Pintu Kumar Mahla is affiliated with the Water Resources Research Center, the University of Arizona. He is also a member of the International Association of Water Law (AIDA).

    Pintu Kumar Mahla has not received funding related to this article.

    ref. China’s insertion into India-Pakistan waters dispute adds a further ripple in South Asia – https://theconversation.com/chinas-insertion-into-india-pakistan-waters-dispute-adds-a-further-ripple-in-south-asia-258891

    MIL OSI

  • MIL-OSI Submissions: Europe is stuck in a bystander role over Iran’s nuclear program after US, Israeli bombs establish facts on the ground

    Source: The Conversation – Global Perspectives – By Garret Martin, Hurst Senior Professorial Lecturer, Co-Director Transatlantic Policy Center, American University School of International Service

    Iran Foreign Minister Hossein Amirabdollahian, right, attends a news conference with EU foreign affairs representative Josep Borrell in Tehran on June 25, 2022. Atta KenareAFP via Getty Images

    The U.S. bombing of three Iranian nuclear facilities on June 22, 2025, sent shock waves around the world. It marked a dramatic reversal for the Trump administration, which had just initiated negotiations with Tehran over its nuclear program. Dispensing with diplomacy, the U.S. opted for the first time for direct military involvement in the then-ongoing Israeli-Iranian conflict.

    European governments have long pushed for a diplomatic solution to Tehran’s nuclear ambitions. Yet, the reaction in the capitals of Europe to the U.S. bombing of the nuclear facilities was surprisingly subdued.

    European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen noted Israel’s “right to defend itself and protect its people.” German Chancellor Friedrich Merz was equally supportive, arguing that “this is dirty work that Israel is doing for all of us.” And a joint statement by the E3 – France, the U.K. and Germany – tacitly justified the U.S. bombing as necessary to prevent the possibility of Iran developing nuclear weapons.

    Europe’s responses to the Israeli and American strikes were noteworthy because of how little they discussed the legality of the attacks. There was no such hesitation when Russia targeted civilian nuclear energy infrastructure in Ukraine in 2022.

    But the timid reaction also underscored Europe’s bystander role, contrasting with its past approach on that topic. Iran’s nuclear program had been a key focal point of European diplomacy for years. The E3 nations initiated negotiations with Tehran back in 2003. They also helped to facilitate the signing of the 2015 Iran nuclear deal, which also included Russia, the European Union, China, the U.S. and Iran. And the Europeans sought to preserve the agreement, even after the unilateral U.S. withdrawal in 2018 during President Donald Trump’s first term.

    As a scholar of transatlantic relations and security, I believe Europe faces long odds to once again play an impactful role in strengthening the cause of nuclear nonproliferation with Iran. Indeed, contributing to a new nuclear agreement with Iran would require Europe to fix a major rift with Tehran, overcome its internal divisions over the Middle East and manage a Trump administration that seems less intent on being a reliable ally for Europe.

    Growing rift between Iran and Europe

    For European diplomats, the 2015 deal was built on very pragmatic assumptions. It only covered the nuclear dossier, as opposed to including other areas of contention such as human rights or Iran’s ballistic missile program. And it offered a clear bargain: In exchange for greater restrictions on its nuclear program, Iran could expect the lifting of some existing sanctions and a reintegration into the world economy.

    As a result, the U.S. withdrawal from the deal in 2018 posed a fundamental challenge to the status quo. Besides exiting, the Trump White House reimposed heavy secondary sanctions on Iran, which effectively forced foreign companies to choose between investing in the U.S. and Iranian markets. European efforts to mitigate the impact of these U.S. sanctions failed, thus undermining the key benefit of the deal for Iran: helping its battered economy. It also weakened Tehran’s faith in the value of Europe as a partner, as it revealed an inability to carve real independence from the U.S.

    U.S. President Donald Trump walks past French President Emmanuel Macron, center, and German Chancellor Friedrich Merz, right, in The Hague, Netherlands, on June 25, 2025.
    Christian Hartmann/AFP via Getty Images

    After 2018, relations between Europe and Iran deteriorated significantly. Evidence of Iranian state-sponsored terrorism and Iran-linked plots on European soil hardly helped. Moreover, Europeans strongly objected to Iran supplying Russia with drones in support of Moscow’s invasion of Ukraine – and later on, ballistic missiles as well. On the flip side, Iran deeply objected to European support for Israel’s war in the Gaza Strip in the aftermath of the Oct. 7, 2023, attacks.

    These deep tensions remain a significant impediment to constructive negotiations on the nuclear front. Neither side currently has much to offer to the other, nor can Europe count on any meaningful leverage to influence Iran. And Europe’s wider challenges in its Middle East policy only compound this problem.

    Internal divisions

    In 2015, Europe could present a united front on the Iranian nuclear deal in part because of its limited nature. But with the nonproliferation regime now in tatters amid Trump’s unilateral actions and the spread of war across the region, it is now far harder for European diplomats to put the genie back in the bottle. That is particularly true given the present fissures over increasingly divisive Middle East policy questions and the nature of EU diplomacy.

    Europe remains very concerned about stability in the Middle East, including how conflicts might launch new migratory waves like in 2015-16, when hundreds of thousands of Syrians fled to mainland Europe. The EU also remains very active economically in the region and is the largest funder of the Palestinian Authority. But it has been more of a “payer than player” in the region, struggling to translate economic investment into political influence.

    In part, this follows from the longer-term tendency to rely on U.S. leadership in the region, letting Washington take the lead in trying to solve the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. But it also reflects the deeper divisions between EU member nations.

    With foreign policy decisions requiring unanimity, EU members have often struggled to speak with one voice on the Middle East. Most recently, the debates over whether to suspend the economic association agreement with Israel over its actions in Gaza or whether to recognize a Palestinian state clearly underscored the existing EU internal disagreements.

    Unless Europe can develop a common approach toward the Middle East, it is hard to see it having enough regional influence to matter in future negotiations over Iran’s nuclear program. This, in turn, would also affect how it manages its crucial, but thorny, relations with the U.S.

    Europe in the shadow of Trump

    The EU was particularly proud of the 2015 nuclear deal because it represented a strong symbol of multilateral diplomacy. It brought together great powers in the spirit of bolstering the cause of nuclear nonproliferation.

    Smoke rises from a building in Tehran after the Iranian capital was targeted by Israeli airstrikes on June 23, 2025.
    Elyas/Middle East Images/AFP via Getty Images

    Ten years on, the prospects of replicating such international cooperation seem rather remote. Europe’s relations with China and Russia – two key signers of the original nuclear deal – have soured dramatically in recent years. And ties with the United States under Trump have also been particularly challenging.

    Dealing with Washington, in the context of the Iran nuclear program, presents a very sharp dilemma for Europe.

    Trying to carve a distinct path may be appealing, but it lacks credibility at this stage. Recent direct talks with Iranian negotiators produced little, and Europe is not in a position to give Iran guarantees that it would not face new strikes from Israel.

    And pursuing an independent path could easily provoke the ire of Trump, which Europeans are keen to avoid. There has already been a long list of transatlantic disputes, whether over trade, Ukraine or defense spending. European policymakers would be understandably reticent to invest time and resources in any deal that Trump could again scuttle at a moment’s notice.

    Trump, too, is scornful of what European diplomacy could achieve, declaring recently that Iran doesn’t want to talk to Europe. He has instead prioritized bilateral negotiations with Tehran. Alignment with the U.S., therefore, may not translate into any great influence. Trump’s decision to bomb Iran, after all, happened without forewarning for his allies.

    Thus, Europe will continue to pay close attention to Iran’s nuclear program. But, constrained by poor relations with Tehran and its internal divisions on the Middle East, it is unlikely that it will carve out a major role on the nuclear dossier as long as Trump is in office.

    Garret Martin receives funding from the European Union for the organization, the Transatlantic Policy Center, that he co-directs.

    ref. Europe is stuck in a bystander role over Iran’s nuclear program after US, Israeli bombs establish facts on the ground – https://theconversation.com/europe-is-stuck-in-a-bystander-role-over-irans-nuclear-program-after-us-israeli-bombs-establish-facts-on-the-ground-260740

    MIL OSI