Category: Military Intelligence

  • MIL-OSI China: Xi stresses building unified national market, promoting marine economy’s high-quality development

    Source: China State Council Information Office

    Xi stresses building unified national market, promoting marine economy’s high-quality development

    Xinhua | July 1, 2025

    Chinese President Xi Jinping on Tuesday stressed efforts to advance the building of a unified national market and promote the high-quality development of the marine economy.

    Xi, also general secretary of the Communist Party of China Central Committee and chairman of the Central Military Commission, made the remarks at a meeting of the Central Commission for Financial and Economic Affairs, which he heads. 

    MIL OSI China News

  • MIL-OSI China: Xi stresses building unified national market, promoting marine economy’s high-quality development 2025-07-01 16:27:12 Chinese President Xi Jinping on Tuesday stressed efforts to advance the building of a unified national market and promote the high-quality development of the marine economy.

    Source: People’s Republic of China – Ministry of National Defense

      BEIJING, July 1 (Xinhua) — Chinese President Xi Jinping on Tuesday stressed efforts to advance the building of a unified national market and promote the high-quality development of the marine economy.

      Xi, also general secretary of the Communist Party of China Central Committee and chairman of the Central Military Commission, made the remarks at a meeting of the Central Commission for Financial and Economic Affairs, which he heads. 

    loading…

    MIL OSI China News

  • MIL-OSI Russia: Linking Times: How Polytechnic Students Preserve the Memory of Their Ancestors’ Feats

    Translation. Region: Russian Federal

    Source: Peter the Great St Petersburg Polytechnic University – Peter the Great St Petersburg Polytechnic University –

    Activists of the military-historical club “Our Polytechnic” continue the traditions of patriotic education, actively participating in events dedicated to the memory of the Great Patriotic War. In June, students attended several festivals that became a vivid example of unity and respect for the feat of our ancestors.

    The journey into history began with a trip to Yelets, where a major military history festival was held from June 12 to 14. The program of the event included many events – from a flower-laying ceremony to a visit to the military glory museum.

    At numerous interactive exhibitions, guests were able to see authentic wartime items. The authentic Red Army camp in the Rusborg fortress was especially impressive. The children spent the night in field conditions, using real raincoats, which helped them feel the atmosphere of wartime.

    The culmination of the festival was the reconstruction of the famous battle for the Terbunsky line, which took place on July 6, 1942. More than a hundred reenactors, armored vehicles and cavalry took part in the recreation of historical events.

    The next stop on the trip was Brest, where the 13th military-historical festival “June 22 Brest Fortress” was held. For the polytechnics, this is already a traditional event – they have been participating in it for eight years. The students visited battle sites and lived in conditions close to those of that time.

    The Brest festival program included the opening ceremony of the monument to border guards at the Northern Gate of the Brest Fortress, a ceremonial march in the 1941 uniform to the sounds of a military orchestra, a theatrical performance “The Last Peaceful Day”, laying flowers at the Eternal Flame and a detailed reconstruction of the events of the beginning of the war. Military history clubs from Russia, Belarus, Latvia, Lithuania, Estonia and Poland took part in this reconstruction. A tank, an armored car, cars, motorcycles, an An-2 plane, cavalry and pyrotechnics were used. More than 10 thousand people became spectators.

    Activists of the VIC “Our Polytech” believe that such events are not just an entertaining spectacle, but an important contribution to preserving historical memory and strengthening the connection between generations. By participating in them, students try to cultivate respect for the heroic past of the country and the people in their peers.

    Please note: This information is raw content directly from the source of the information. It is exactly what the source states and does not reflect the position of MIL-OSI or its clients.

    MIL OSI Russia News

  • MIL-OSI Asia-Pac: Foreign Minister Lin hosts welcome luncheon for former Japanese Economic Security Minister and current Representative Kobayashi

    Source: Republic of China Taiwan

    Foreign Minister Lin hosts welcome luncheon for former Japanese Economic Security Minister and current Representative Kobayashi

    Date:2025-06-27
    Data Source:TAIWAN-JAPAN RELATIONS ASSOCIATION

    June 27, 2025 
    No. 223 

    Minister of Foreign Affairs Lin Chia-lung hosted a welcome luncheon on June 26 for Takayuki Kobayashi, former Japanese Minister in Charge of Economic Security and current member of the House of Representatives. They exchanged views on issues such as integrated diplomacy, response strategies for countering gray-zone tactics, and Taiwan-Japan cooperation in third countries.

    Minister Lin stated that since assuming office, he had been proactively implementing integrated diplomacy. He said that the policy combined the strengths of the public and private sectors to expand Taiwan’s international presence and promote the Diplomatic Allies Prosperity Project, which aimed to deepen substantive and mutually beneficial relations with diplomatic allies and like-minded countries. He added that Taiwan was pleased that the Japanese government had recently bolstered strategic partnerships with Palau, Paraguay, Guatemala, and other diplomatic allies of Taiwan, and thanked Japan for actively advancing cooperative relations with Taiwan’s allies. He emphasized that Taiwan and Japan faced similar regional security and economic challenges and that the two sides should enhance collaboration and joint strategic responses.

    Furthermore, he indicated that the industries of Taiwan and Japan were highly complementary and that, in the face of China’s aggressive pursuit of global high-tech industry dominance, Taiwan and Japan should work together to build non-red supply chains and boost economic resilience and industrial competitiveness to ensure that democracies steadily keep pace with technological developments worldwide.

    Representative Kobayashi stated that Taiwan and Japan had a close friendship in terms of history, the economy, and personnel exchanges. He expressed hope that the visit would increase his understanding of Taiwan. In addition, he affirmed his desire to help further Taiwan-Japan ties in the future, which would contribute to safeguarding regional peace and stability.

    Also in attendance at the luncheon were Taipei University of Marine Technology President Lu Yao-zhi, Institute for National Defense and Security Research Chief Secretariat Office Director Lin Yen-hung, and Japan-Taiwan Exchange Association Taipei Office Chief Representative Kazuyuki Katayama. The atmosphere was lively and cordial. (E)

    MIL OSI Asia Pacific News

  • MIL-OSI Europe: REPORT on the proposal for a regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council amending Regulation (EU) 2021/1057 establishing the European Social Fund + (ESF+) as regards specific measures to address strategic challenges – A10-0122/2025

    Source: European Parliament 2

    DRAFT EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT LEGISLATIVE RESOLUTION

    on the proposal for a regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council amending Regulation (EU) 2021/1057 establishing the European Social Fund + (ESF+) as regards specific measures to address strategic challenges

    (COM(2025)0164 – C10‑0064-2025 – 2025/0085(COD))

    (Ordinary legislative procedure: first reading)

    The European Parliament,

     having regard to the Commission proposal to Parliament and the Council (COM(2025)0164),

     having regard to Article 294(2) and Articles 164, 175, 177 and 322 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, pursuant to which the Commission submitted the proposal to Parliament (C10‑0064-2025),

     having regard to Article 294(3) of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,

     having regard to the budgetary assessment by the Committee on Budgets,

     having regard to Rules 60 and 58 of its Rules of Procedure,

     having regard to the opinion of the Committee on Security and Defence,

     having regard to the letter from the Committee on Regional Development,

     having regard to the report of the Committee on Employment and Social Affairs (A10-0122/2025),

    1. Adopts its position at first reading hereinafter set out;

    2. Calls on the Commission to refer the matter to Parliament again if it replaces, substantially amends or intends to substantially amend its proposal;

    3. Instructs its President to forward its position to the Council, the Commission and the national parliaments.

     

    Amendment  1

     

    Proposal for a regulation

    Recital 1

     

    Text proposed by the Commission

    Amendment

    (1) Given the major geopolitical and economic events that have reshaped some of the Union’s strategic political priorities, it is necessary to provide for possibilities for Member States to address those strategic challenges and to refocus their resources to newly emerging priorities.

    (1) Given the major geopolitical and economic events that have reshaped some of the Union’s strategic political priorities, it is necessary to provide for more structural possibilities for Member States to address those strategic challenges and the investment needs of industries and to refocus their resources to newly emerging priorities in an inclusive manner and only where those challenges have not been addressed in the current programmes, while safeguarding cohesion, creating quality jobs and preserving a level playing field in the internal market.

    Amendment  2

     

    Proposal for a regulation

    Recital 1 a (new)

     

    Text proposed by the Commission

    Amendment

     

    (1a) The ESF+ is an essential pillar of cohesion policy. The main objectives of the ESF+ are to support Member States and regions to achieve social inclusion, social cohesion, to activate the labour market and to deliver on the principles and the headline targets of the European Pillar of Social Rights by supporting investments in people and structures in the policy area of employment and social policies, which are far from met yet. ESF+ funding should support those objectives. The reprogramming of resources under the ESF+ should ensure that adjustment measures in response to strategic challenges do not undermine its social approach, but strengthen its capacity to combat inequality.

    Amendment  3

     

    Proposal for a regulation

    Recital 1 b (new)

     

    Text proposed by the Commission

    Amendment

     

    (1b) The European Court of Auditors’ adopted on 6 May 2025 the opinion on the legislative proposal forming the basis for this Regulation.

    Amendment  4

     

    Proposal for a regulation

    Recital 1 c (new)

     

    Text proposed by the Commission

    Amendment

     

    (1c) Cohesion policy is often used as an emergency response tool, which risks undermining the primary longer-term policy and objectives of cohesion policy, as underlined in the European Court of Auditors’ opinion of 6 May 2025. It is essential to ensure that any measures taken in the context of emergencies do not interfere with the objectives of cohesion policy. Member States should ensure safeguards in the regulatory framework to prevent the dismantling of the core objectives of the cohesion policy.

    Amendment  5

     

    Proposal for a regulation

    Recital 1 d (new)

     

    Text proposed by the Commission

    Amendment

     

    (1d) The Union and its Member States continue to show that they can rapidly react to geopolitical events and are willing to use sufficient financial resources towards strengthening our defence industry through different Union and national programmes, which is positive and needed for the security of the Union. It is important to strengthen our defence sector through competitiveness programmes. At the same time, it is of utmost importance to continue to invest in the social objectives of the Union through the ESF+, as social cohesion is a cornerstone of the Union’s  democratic and societal resilience which is essential in facing threats of aggression.

    Amendment  6

     

    Proposal for a regulation

    Recital 2

     

    Text proposed by the Commission

    Amendment

    (2) The White paper for European Defence – Readiness 20303 paves the way for a true European defence union, including by suggesting to Member States to heavily invest into defence and the defence industry. In that regard, the Communication from the Commission – the Union of Skills of 5 March 20254 (‘the Union of Skills Communication’) sets out actions to address skills gaps and shortages in the Union, also through the Pact for Skills Initiative referred to in that Communication, and its large-scale partnerships, including one on the defence ecosystem. Therefore, it is appropriate to include incentives for the ESF+ established by Regulation (EU) 2021/1057 of the European Parliament and of the Council5 to facilitate the development of skills in the defence industry.

    (2) It is already possible to support the development of skills in the defence industry under the ESF+ established by Regulation (EU) 2021/1057 of the European Parliament and of the Council2a, to facilitate the development of skills and training in the defence industry, while safeguarding social standards. Together with the Niinisto Report, ‘Safer Together’, the EU Preparedness Strategy, and the European Defence Industrial Strategy, the White paper for European Defence – Readiness 20303 paves the way for a true European defence union, including by suggesting to Member States to heavily invest into defence, civil defence, the defence industry, dual use technologies and civil preparedness capabilities, which should be carried out together with social spending, creating employment and up- and reskilling opportunities . In that regard, the Communication from the Commission – the Union of Skills of 5 March 20254 (‘the Union of Skills Communication’) sets out actions to address skills gaps and shortages in the Union, also through the Pact for Skills Initiative referred to in that Communication, and its large-scale partnerships, including one on the defence ecosystem.

    __________________

    __________________

     

    2a Regulation (EU) 2021/1057 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 24 June 2021 establishing the European Social Fund Plus (ESF+) and repealing Regulation (EU) No 1296/2013 (OJ L 231, 30.6.2021, p. 21, ELI: http://data.europa.eu/eli/reg/2021/1057/oj).

    3 Joint White Paper for European Defence Readiness 2030, JOIN(2025) 120 final, 19.3.2025.

    3Joint White Paper for European Defence Readiness 2030, JOIN(2025) 120 final, 19.3.2025.

    4 COM (2025) 90 final

    4 COM (2025)0090

    5 Regulation (EU) 2021/1057 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 24 June 2021 establishing the European Social Fund Plus (ESF+) and repealing Regulation (EU) No 1296/2013 (OJ L 231, 30.6.2021, p. 21, ELI: http://data.europa.eu/eli/reg/2021/1057/oj).

     

    Amendment  7

     

    Proposal for a regulation

    Recital 3

     

    Text proposed by the Commission

    Amendment

    (3) It is already possible to support the adaptation of workers, entrepreneurs and enterprises to change under the ESF+. In line with the decarbonisation measures proposed by the Communication from the Commission – the Clean Industrial Deal: A joint roadmap for competitiveness and decarbonisation of 26 February 20256 and to further facilitate industrial adjustment linked to the decarbonisation of production processes and products, in the context of the objective of providing lifelong opportunities to regularly upskill and reskill people, as set out in the Union of Skills Communication, including through a newly proposed Skills Guarantee, the ESF+ should facilitate the skilling, job maintenance and job creation throughout the decarbonisation process by providing flexibilities to implementation.

    (3) It is already possible to support the adaptation of workers, entrepreneurs and enterprises to change under the ESF+. In line with the decarbonisation measures proposed by the Communication from the Commission – the Clean Industrial Deal: A joint roadmap for competitiveness and decarbonisation of 26 February 20256 and to further facilitate industrial adjustment linked to the decarbonisation of production processes and products, in the context of the objective of providing lifelong opportunities to regularly upskill and reskill people, as set out in the Union of Skills Communication, including through a newly proposed Skills Guarantee, the ESF+ should facilitate the skilling, job maintenance and quality job creation throughout the decarbonisation process by providing flexibilities to implementation. Particular consideration should be given to the specific needs and circumstances of less developed regions and rural areas, which should benefit from the green transition and to ensure their integration into the Union’s broader economic, social and environmental development. In accordance with Article 5(1),  second subparagraph, of Regulation (EU) 2021/1060, the ESF+ contributes to the specific objective of enabling regions and people to address the social, employment, economic and environmental impacts of the transition towards the Union’s 2030 targets for energy and climate and a climate-neutral economy of the Union by 2050, based on the Paris Agreement.

    __________________

    __________________

    6 COM (2025) 85 final

    6 COM (2025)0085

    Amendment  8

     

    Proposal for a regulation

    Recital 4

     

    Text proposed by the Commission

    Amendment

    (4) It is already possible, under ESF+, to support investments contributing to the objectives of the ‘Strategic Technologies for Europe Platform’ (STEP) established by Regulation (EU) 2024/795 of the European Parliament and of the Council7 which aims to strengthen the Union’s technological leadership. In order to further incentivise investments from the ESF+ in those critical fields, the possibility for Member States to receive a higher pre-financing for related programme amendments should be extended.

    (4) It is already possible, under ESF+, to support investments contributing to the objectives of the ‘Strategic Technologies for Europe Platform’ (STEP) established by Regulation (EU) 2024/795 of the European Parliament and of the Council7 which aims to strengthen the Union’s technological leadership and the development of skills. In order to further incentivise investments from the ESF+ in those critical fields, the possibility for Member States to receive a higher pre-financing for related programme amendments should be extended.

    __________________

    __________________

    7 Regulation (EU) 2024/795 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 29 February 2024 establishing the Strategic Technologies for Europe Platform (STEP), and amending Directive 2003/87/EC and Regulations (EU) 2021/1058, (EU) 2021/1056, (EU) 2021/1057, (EU) No 1303/2013, (EU) No 223/2014, (EU) 2021/1060, (EU) 2021/523, (EU) 2021/695, (EU) 2021/697 and (EU) 2021/241 (OJ L, 2024/795, 29.2.2024, ELI: http://data.europa.eu/eli/reg/2024/795/oj)

    7 Regulation (EU) 2024/795 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 29 February 2024 establishing the Strategic Technologies for Europe Platform (STEP), and amending Directive 2003/87/EC and Regulations (EU) 2021/1058, (EU) 2021/1056, (EU) 2021/1057, (EU) No 1303/2013, (EU) No 223/2014, (EU) 2021/1060, (EU) 2021/523, (EU) 2021/695, (EU) 2021/697 and (EU) 2021/241 (OJ L, 2024/795, 29.2.2024, ELI: http://data.europa.eu/eli/reg/2024/795/oj)

    Amendment  9

     

    Proposal for a regulation

    Recital 8 a (new)

     

    Text proposed by the Commission

    Amendment

     

    (8a) Skills development and the training of young talent and entrepreneurs through incentives and targeted training are essential for job creation, and institutions working on skills creation and uptake should cooperate closely to align with labour market needs. Especially, vocational education and training institutes, given their direct links to the labour market and this should be supported through the ESF+.

    Amendment  10

     

    Proposal for a regulation

    Recital 5

     

    Text proposed by the Commission

    Amendment

    (5) In order to enable Member States to carry out a meaningful reprogramming and focus resources on strategic Union priorities set out in recitals 2, 3 and 4 without causing further delays in implementation, it is appropriate to provide for further flexibilities. The mid-term review should serve as an opportunity to address emerging strategic challenges and new priorities therefore, Member States should benefit from additional time to complete the assessment of the outcome of the mid-term review and the submission of related programme amendments

    (5) In order to enable Member States to carry out a meaningful and just reprogramming without losing focus on the main objectives of the fund and focus resources on strategic Union priorities set out in recitals 2, 3 and 4 without causing further delays in implementation, it is appropriate to provide for further flexibilities. The mid-term review should serve as an opportunity to address emerging strategic social challenges and new priorities therefore, Member States should benefit from additional time to complete the assessment of the outcome of the mid-term review and the submission of related programme amendments. While aligning with new Union priorities, diverting attention to global strategic challenges should not change the primary mission of the ESF+. The cohesion policy must remain firmly rooted in its core objective: reducing regional disparities.

    Amendment  11

     

    Proposal for a regulation

    Recital 6

     

    Text proposed by the Commission

    Amendment

    (6) In order to accelerate the implementation of cohesion policy programmes and alleviate the pressure on national budgets and to inject the necessary liquidity for the implementation of key investments, an additional one-off pre-financing from the ESF+ should be paid for programmes. Because of the adverse impact of the Russian aggression in Ukraine, the pre-financing percentage should be further increased for certain programmes covering one or more NUTS2 regions bordering Russia, Belarus or Ukraine. In order to incentivise the re-programming towards key priorities in the context of the mid-term review, the additional pre-financing should only be available where a certain threshold for the reallocation of financial resources to specific crucial priorities is reached.

    (6) NUTS2 regions bordering Russia, Belarus or Ukraine are disproportionate heavily impacted by Russian war of aggression, experiencing job losses, less economic activity and social exclusion. In order to accelerate the implementation of cohesion policy programmes and alleviate the pressure on national budgets and to inject the necessary liquidity for the implementation of key investments, an additional one-off pre-financing from the ESF+ should be paid for programmes. Because of the adverse impact of the Russian aggression in Ukraine, the pre-financing percentage should be further increased for certain programmes covering one or more NUTS2 regions bordering Russia, Belarus or Ukraine, with no specific conditions to reallocate financial resources of the programme to dedicated priorities.

    Amendment  12

     

    Proposal for a regulation

    Recital 8

     

    Text proposed by the Commission

    Amendment

    (8) It should also be possible to apply a maximum co-financing rate of up to 100% to priorities in programmes covering one or more NUTS2 regions bordering Russia, Belarus or Ukraine, given the adverse impact of the Russian aggression on those regions.

    (8) It should also be possible, while taking into account the current differentiation between categories of regions, to apply a maximum co-financing rate of up to 95% to programmes covering one or more NUTS2 regions bordering Russia, Belarus or Ukraine, given the adverse impact of the Russian aggression on those regions.

    Amendment  13

     

    Proposal for a regulation

    Recital 9

     

    Text proposed by the Commission

    Amendment

    (9) Since the objectives of this Regulation, namely to address strategic challenges, refocus investments on critical new priorities and simplify and accelerate policy delivery, cannot be sufficiently achieved by the Member States but can rather be better achieved at Union level, the Union may adopt measures, in accordance with the principle of subsidiarity as set out in Article 5 of the Treaty on European Union. In accordance with the principle of proportionality as set out in that Article, this Regulation does not go beyond what is necessary in order to achieve that objective.

    (9) Since the objectives of this Regulation, namely to address strategic social challenges, refocus investments on critical new priorities and simplify and accelerate policy delivery, cannot be sufficiently achieved by the Member States but can rather be better achieved at Union level, the Union may adopt measures, in accordance with the principle of subsidiarity as set out in Article 5 of the Treaty on European Union. In accordance with the principle of proportionality as set out in that Article, this Regulation does not go beyond what is necessary in order to achieve that objective.

    Amendment  14

    Proposal for a regulation

    Recital 9 a (new)

     

    Text proposed by the Commission

    Amendment

     

    (9a) This Regulation has implications for the Union budget. Accordingly, the European Parliament’s Committee on Budgets adopted a budgetary assessment, which forms an integral part of Parliament’s mandate for negotiations.

    Amendment  15

     

    Proposal for a regulation

    Recital 11

     

    Text proposed by the Commission

    Amendment

    (11) [Given the urgent need to enable crucial investments in skills in the defence industry as well as in adaptation to change linked to decarbonisation in the context of pressing strategic geopolitical challenges, this Regulation should enter into force on the day following that of its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union,]

    (11) [Given the increased need to enable crucial investments in specific skills in the critical industries, including the defence industry, as well as in adaptation to change linked to decarbonisation in the context of pressing strategic geopolitical challenges, this Regulation should enter into force on the day following that of its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union,]

    Amendment  16

     

    Proposal for a regulation

    Article 1 – paragraph 1 – point 1

    Regulation (EU) 2021/1057

    Article 5a – paragraph 1 – subparagraph 1

     

    Text proposed by the Commission

    Amendment

    In 2026, the Commission shall pay 4,5 % of the total support from the ESF+ as set out in the decision approving the programme amendment as additional one-off pre-financing. The one-off pre-financing percentage in 2026 shall be increased to 9,5% for programmes covering one or more NUTS2 regions bordering Russia, Belarus or Ukraine, provided the programme does not cover the entire territory of the Member State. Where, in a Member State, NUTS 2 regions bordering Russia, Belarus or Ukraine are included exclusively in programmes covering the entire territory of that Member State, the increased pre-financing set out in this paragraph shall apply to those programmes.

    In 2026, the Commission shall pay 4,5 % of the total support from the ESF+ as set out in the decision approving the programme amendment as additional one-off pre-financing.

    Justification

    The minimum reprogramming threshold to be eligible to the 4,5% pre-financing should be lower as Member States should be incentivised to reprogramme to reasonable level. The one-off pre-financing for Eastern bordering regions should not be submitted to minimum reprogramming threshold taking into account the major challenges that these regions face, and the related subparagraph is moved in a new paragraph.

    Amendment  17

     

    Proposal for a regulation

    Article 1 – paragraph 1 – point 1

    Regulation (EU) 2021/1057

    Article 5a – paragraph 1 – subparagraph 2

     

    Text proposed by the Commission

    Amendment

    The additional pre-financing referred to in the first subparagraph of this paragraph shall only apply where reallocations of at least 15% of the financial resources of the programme to one or more dedicated priorities established in accordance with Articles 12a, 12c and 12d have been approved; provided that the request for a programme amendment is submitted by 31 December 2025.

    The additional pre-financing shall only apply where reallocations of at least 10% of financial resources of the programme from the ESF+ to one or more dedicated priorities established in accordance with Articles 12a 12c and 12d have been approved and provided that the measures supporting the dedicated priorities established in accordance with Articles 12a, 12c and 12d target smaller beneficiaries and provided that the request for a programme amendment is submitted by 31 December 2025.

     

    For the purpose of calculating the total reallocations of the financial resources of the programme from the ESF+ to one or more dedicated priorities established in accordance with Articles 12a, 12c and 12d, as referred to in the first subparagraph, the Commission shall assess the measures and take into account only the measures responding to the strategic priorities identified.

    Amendment  18

     

    Proposal for a regulation

    Article 1 – paragraph 1 – point 1

    Regulation (EU) 2021/1057

    Article 5a – paragraph 1 a (new)

     

    Text proposed by the Commission

    Amendment

     

    1a. The one-off pre-financing percentage in 2026 shall be increased to 9,5% for programmes covering one or more NUTS2 regions bordering Russia, Belarus or Ukraine, provided that the programme does not cover the entire territory of the Member State. Where, in a Member State, NUTS 2 regions bordering Russia, Belarus or Ukraine are included exclusively in programmes covering the entire territory of that Member State, the increased pre-financing set out in this paragraph shall apply to those programmes. NUTS 2 regions bordering Russia, Belarus or Ukraine require special attention and exceptional support as they are often at the frontline of potential conflicts and they are vulnerable to external threats, making it crucial to supporting their resilience in countering hybrid attacks.

     

    The pre-financing due to the Member State which results from programme amendments pursuant to reallocation to the priorities referred to in the second subparagraph of this paragraph shall be counted as payments made in 2025 for the purposes of calculating the amounts to be de-committed in accordance with Article 105 of Regulation (EU) 2021/1060, provided that the request for programme amendment was submitted in 2025.

    Amendment  19

     

    Proposal for a regulation

    Article 1 – paragraph 1 – point 1

    Regulation (EU)2021/1057

    Article 5a – paragraph 1 b (new)

     

    Text proposed by the Commission

    Amendment

     

    1b. Before disbursing payment for the pre-financing pursuant to this Article, the Commission shall assess the Union’s overall budgetary situation, in particular with respect to the principle of the sustainability of the Union budget. Where, on the basis of that assessment, the Commission identifies a risk to the Union budget arising from paying the full pre-financing amount in 2026, the Commission is empowered to adopt a delegated act in accordance with Article 37 to provide for only part of the pre-financing amount to be disbursed to the Member States in 2026, with the remaining part disbursed in 2027.

    Amendment  20

     

    Proposal for a regulation

    Article 1 – paragraph 1 – point 1

    Regulation (EU) 2021/1057

    Article 5a – paragraph 2

     

    Text proposed by the Commission

    Amendment

    (2) By way of derogation from Article 63(2) and Article 105(2) of Regulation (EU) 2021/1060, the deadline for the eligibility of expenditure, the reimbursement of costs as well as for decommitment shall be 31 December 2030. That derogation shall only apply where programme amendments reallocating at least 15% of the financial resources of the programme to one or more dedicated priorities established in accordance with Articles 12a, 12c and 12d of this Regulation in the context of the mid-term review have been approved.

    (2) By way of derogation from Article 63(2) and Article 105(2) of Regulation (EU) 2021/1060, the deadline for the eligibility of expenditure, the reimbursement of costs as well as for decommitment shall be 31 December 2030. That derogation shall only apply where programme amendments reallocating at least 10% of the ESF+ financial resources of the programme to one or more dedicated priorities established in accordance with Articles 12a, 12c and 12d of this Regulation in the context of the mid-term review have been approved.

    Justification

    The minimum reprogramming threshold to be eligible to the 4,5% pre-financing should be lower as Member States should be incentivised to reprogramme to reasonable level.

    Amendment  21

     

    Proposal for a regulation

    Article 1 – paragraph 1 – point 1

    Regulation (EU) 2021/1057

    Article 5a – paragraph 2 a (new)

     

    Text proposed by the Commission

    Amendment

     

    (2a) When amending programmes, the Member States shall include, with the close and meaningful participation of social partners, for the dedicated priorities, obligations to the beneficiaries to respect working and employment conditions under applicable Union and national law, conventions of the International Labour Organization (ILO) and collective agreements.

    Justification

    In line with Articles 33 and 169 of the Financial Regulation.

    Amendment  22

     

    Proposal for a regulation

    Article 1 – paragraph 1 – point 1

    Regulation (EU) 2021/1057

    Article 5a – paragraph 3

     

    Text proposed by the Commission

    Amendment

    (3) By way of derogation from Article 112 of Regulation (EU) 2021/1060, the maximum co-financing rate for priorities in programmes covering one or more NUTS2 regions bordering Russia, Belarus or Ukraine shall be 100 %. The higher co-financing rate shall not apply to programmes covering the entire territory of the Member State concerned, unless those regions are included only in programmes covering the entire territory of that Member State. The derogation shall only apply where reallocations of at least 15% of the financial resources of the programme to one or more dedicated priorities established in accordance with Articles 12a, 12c and 12d of this Regulation in the context of the mid-term review have been approved, provided that the programme amendment is submitted by 31 December 2025.

    (3) By way of derogation from Article 112 of Regulation (EU) 2021/1060, the maximum co-financing rate for priorities in programmes covering one or more NUTS2 regions bordering Russia, Belarus or Ukraine shall be 95 %. The higher co-financing rate shall not apply to programmes covering the entire territory of the Member State concerned, unless those regions are included only in programmes covering the entire territory of that Member State.

    Justification

    The 95% co-financing rate for Eastern bordering regions should not be submitted to minimum reprogramming threshold taking into account the major challenges that these regions face.

    Amendment  23

     

    Proposal for a regulation

    Article 1 – paragraph 1 – point 1

    Regulation (EU) 2021/1057

    Article 5a – paragraph 4

     

    Text proposed by the Commission

    Amendment

    (4) In addition to the assessment for each programme on the outcome of the mid-term review to be submitted in accordance with Article 18(2) of Regulation (EU) 2021/1060, Member States may resubmit a complementary assessment as well as related requests for programme amendments, taking into account the possibility for dedicated priorities in accordance with Articles 12a, 12c and 12d within 2 months of the entry into force of Regulation (EU) XXXX/XXXX [this Regulation]. The deadlines set out in Article 18 (3) of Regulation (EU) 2021/1060 shall apply.

    (4) In addition to the assessment for each programme on the outcome of the mid-term review to be submitted in accordance with Article 18(2) of Regulation (EU) 2021/1060, Member States may resubmit a complementary assessment as well as related requests for programme amendments, taking into account the possibility for dedicated priorities in accordance with Articles 12a 12c and 12d by 31 December 2025. The deadlines set out in Article 18 (3) of Regulation (EU) 2021/1060 shall apply.

    Justification

    Taking into account that a significant level of reprogramming is expected, Member States could need more time to provide a complementary assessment.

    Amendment  24

     

    Proposal for a regulation

    Article 1 – paragraph 1 – point 2

    Regulation (EU) 2021/1057

    Article 12a – paragraph 2 – subparagraph 1

     

    Text proposed by the Commission

    Amendment

    In addition to the pre-financing for the programme provided for in Article 90(1) and (2) of Regulation (EU) 2021/1060, where the Commission approves an amendment of a programme including one or more priorities dedicated to operations supported by the ESF+ contributing to the STEP objectives referred to in Article 2 of Regulation (EU) 2024/795, it shall make an exceptional pre-financing of 30 % on the basis of the allocation to those priorities, provided that the programme amendment is submitted to the Commission by 31 December 2025. That exceptional pre-financing shall be paid within 60 days of the adoption of the Commission decision approving the programme amendment.;

    In addition to the pre-financing for the programme provided for in Article 90(1) and (2) of Regulation (EU) 2021/1060, where the Commission approves an amendment of a programme including one or more priorities dedicated to operations supported by the ESF+ contributing to the STEP objectives referred to in Article 2 of Regulation (EU) 2024/795, it shall make an exceptional pre-financing of 30 % on the basis of the allocation to those priorities, provided that smaller beneficiaries have priority access to the funding and that the programme amendment is submitted to the Commission by 31 December 2025. That exceptional pre-financing shall be paid within 60 days of the adoption of the Commission decision approving the programme amendment;

    Amendment  25

     

    Proposal for a regulation

    Article 1 – paragraph 1 – point 3

    Regulation (EU) 2021/1057

    Article 12c – title

     

    Text proposed by the Commission

    Amendment

    Support to the defence industry

    Support to skills in civil preparedness and the defence industry

    Amendment  26

     

    Proposal for a regulation

    Article 1 – paragraph 1 – point 3

    Regulation (EU) 2021/1057

    Article 12 c – paragraph 1

     

    Text proposed by the Commission

    Amendment

    (1) Member States may decide to programme support to development of skills in the defence industry under dedicated priorities. Such dedicated priorities may support any of the specific objectives set out in Article 4(1), points (a) to (l).

    (1) Member States may decide to programme support for the development of skills in the defence industry and cyber security under dedicated priorities, prioritising dual use capabilities related to civil defence and preparedness, provided that micro, small and medium- sized enterprises have priority access to the support. Such dedicated priorities may support any of the specific objectives set out in Article 4(1), points (a) to (g).

     

    In this context, Member States may allocate resources to attract young talent and entrepreneurs, particularly to rural or less developed regions, through incentives and targeted training.

    Amendment  27

     

    Proposal for a regulation

    Article 1 – paragraph 1 – point 3

    Regulation (EU) 2021/1057

    Article 12c – paragraph 5

     

    Text proposed by the Commission

    Amendment

    (5) By way of derogation from Article 112 of Regulation (EU) 2021/1060, the maximum co-financing rate for dedicated priorities referred to in paragraph 1 of this Article shall be 100%.

    (5) By way of derogation from Article 112 of Regulation (EU) 2021/1060, the maximum co-financing rate for dedicated priorities referred to in paragraph 1 of this Article shall be increased by 10 percentage points above the co-financing rate applicable, not exceeding 100%.

    Amendment  28

     

    Proposal for a regulation

    Article 1 – paragraph 1 – point 3

    Regulation (EU) 2021/1057

    Article 12d – paragraph 1

     

    Text proposed by the Commission

    Amendment

    (1) Member States may decide to programme support aiming at skilling, up-skilling and re-skilling with a view to adaptation of workers, enterprises and entrepeneurs to change contributing to decarbonisation of production capacities under dedicated priorities. Such dedicated priorities may support any of the specific objectives set out in Article 4(1), points (a) to (l).

    (1) Member States may, after consulting the social partners at national level, decide to programme targeted support aiming at skilling, up-skilling and re-skilling and training with a view to adaptation of workers, enterprises and entrepreneurs in particular micro, small and medium-sized enterprises and the social economy to change contributing to decarbonisation of production capacities under dedicated priorities, with in the objective of maintaining competitiveness, sustainability and innovation during the green transition. Such dedicated priorities may support any of the specific objectives set out in Article 4(1), points (a) to (g).

     

    Member States may support promoting collaboration between different organisations, such as educational institutions who support skills development, provided that such measures support any of the specific objectives set out in Article(4), points (a) to (g).

     

    Resources allocated to the dedicated priority referred to in the first two subparagraphs of this paragraph shall be taken into account when ensuring compliance with the thematic concentration requirements as set out in Article 7.

    Amendment  29

     

    Proposal for a regulation

    Article 1 – paragraph 1 – point 3

    Regulation (EU) 2021/1057

    Article 12d – paragraph 5

     

    Text proposed by the Commission

    Amendment

    (5) By way of derogation from Article 112 of Regulation (EU) 2021/1060, the maximum co-financing rate for dedicated priorities referred to in paragraph 1 of this Article shall be 100%..

    (5) By way of derogation from Article 112 of Regulation (EU) 2021/1060, the maximum co-financing rate for dedicated priorities referred to in paragraph 1 of this Article shall be increased by 10 percentage points above the co-financing rate applicable, not exceeding 100%.

    Amendment  30

     

    Proposal for a regulation

    Article 1 – paragraph 1 – point 3 a (new)

    Regulation (EU) 2021/1057

    Article 12d a (new)

     

    Text proposed by the Commission

    Amendment

     

    (3a) the following article is inserted:

     

    Article 12da

     

    Guidance and administrative simplification

     

    The Commission shall publish, by … [60 days after the entry into force of Regulation (EU) XXXX/XXXX (this amending Regulation)], detailed guidelines, accompanied by a Q&A system, aiming to clarify the technical, legal and procedural implications of the measures adopted in Articles 5a, 12c and 12d. Those guidelines shall support the managing authorities in the uniform application of this Regulation, reducing the administrative burden and facilitating solutions to early doubts.

    ANNEX: ENTITIES OR PERSONS FROM WHOM THE RAPPORTEUR HAS RECEIVED INPUT

    Pursuant to Article 8 of Annex I to the Rules of Procedure, the rapporteur declares that she received input from the following entities or persons in the preparation of the report, prior to the adoption thereof in committee:

    Entity and/or person

    ETUC

    Social Platform

    Save the Children

    The list above is drawn up under the exclusive responsibility of the rapporteur.

    Where natural persons are identified in the list by their name, by their function or by both, the rapporteur declares that she has submitted to the concerned natural persons the European Parliament’s Data Protection Notice No 484 (https://www.europarl.europa.eu/data-protect/index.do), which sets out the conditions applicable to the processing of their personal data and the rights linked to that processing.

     

     

    BUDGETARY ASSESSMENT OF THE COMMITTEE ON BUDGETS (18.6.2025)

    for the Committee on Employment and Social Affairs

    on the proposal for a regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council amending Regulation (EU) 2021/1057 establishing the European Social Fund + (ESF+) as regards specific measures to address strategic challenges

    (COM(2025)0164 – C10‑0064/2025 – 2025/0085(COD))

    Rapporteur for budgetary assessment: Jean‑Marc Germain 

    The Committee on Budgets has carried out a budgetary assessment of the proposal under Rule 58 of the Rules of Procedure and has reached the following conclusions:

    The Committee on Budgets,

    A. whereas the proposal does not modify existing budgetary commitments and remains within the limits of the overall allocations for the period 2021-2027 and is therefore budgetary neutral;

    B. whereas the combined effect of exceptional one-off 30 % pre-financing and 100 % co-financing on new EU priorities, as well as additional one-off pre-financing of 4.5 % (9.5 % for NUTS 2 regions that have borders with Russia, Belarus or Ukraine) for programmes that reallocate at least 15 % of their resources to the new priorities, leads to a partial frontloading of estimated payment appropriations of EUR 500 million in 2026, followed by lower payments in 2027;

    C. whereas the extension of the eligibility period by one year – from the end of 2029 to the end of 2030 – for programmes that reallocate at least 15 % of their total allocation to new specific objectives creates payments in 2030 and changes the applicable decommitment rule for 2027 from year n+2 to year n+3;

    Conclusions of the budgetary assessment 

    1. Determines that the proposal is compatible with the MFF Regulation[1]; notes that the proposed measures are voluntary and do not involve any top-up of the initial allocation available to Member States;

    2. Notes that the proposal requires additional human resources of EUR 376 000 per year in 2025, 2026 and 2027, for two establishment plan posts; notes that the additional needs will be covered by redeployment within the Directorate-General or other Commission services; notes, however, that the overall impact of redeployments within the Commission services has reached its limit;

    3. Determines that the proposal is compatible with the Interinstitutional agreement on budgetary discipline (IIA)[2]; notes, however, that re-programming in the context of the mid-term review is considered not to alter the contribution to climate targets as set out in point 16 of the IIA; underlines that allocating resources to new objectives, including for the competitiveness, preparedness and strategic autonomy of the EU, could lead to shifting resources from interventions with a higher coefficient for calculation of support to climate change objectives to interventions with a lower coefficient, thus potentially reducing the expenditure supporting climate objectives; invites the Commission to take preventive action to counter this risk; calls on the Commission to assess the impact of the revised plans on the shares of expenditure supporting climate objectives; notes also that the ‘do no significant harm’ principle should apply to all European investments in line with the applicable legislation;

    4. Considers that the proposal is compatible with the budgetary principles laid down in the Financial Regulation[3]; notes, however, that the pre-financing paid in 2026 will be counted as payments made in 2025 for the purposes of calculating the amounts to be decommitted, in particular as regards respect for the principle of annuality;

    5. Recalls the importance of the general regime of conditionality as set out in Article 6 of the Financial Regulation; urges the Commission and the Member States to ensure compliance with the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union and to respect the Union values enshrined in Article 2 of the Treaty on European Union in the implementation of the budget;

    6. Notes that the Commission does not expect any implications for the budget for 2025 beyond the redeployment of existing human resources; expects the Commission to take into account the current proposal and the updated payment needs for the European Social Fund Plus (ESF+) in the budgetary procedure for 2026 following the actual re-programming by Member States and to keep Parliament informed in a timely manner of the progress of the mid-term review in the Member States; calls for a prudent approach to payment frontloading;

    Recommendations as regards budget implementation

    7. Notes that the proposal provides further flexibility and introduces incentives for Member States in the context of the mid-term review of cohesion policy to address strategic challenges that the EU is facing by redirecting resources to new EU priorities; underlines that cohesion policy should not be used again as a crisis response tool and maintains that this approach risks undermining its longer-term policy and investment objectives, including investments in regional development, skills, innovation and productivity; regrets that the Commission did not perform an impact assessment of the changes; acknowledges that the proposal offers a pragmatic, albeit unsatisfactory, way forward for dealing with insufficient budgetary flexibility and response capacity in the EU budget;

    8. Recalls that the ESF+ is an essential pillar of cohesion policy and its main objective is to support Member States and regions in achieving social inclusion and social cohesion, to activate the labour market and to deliver on the principles and the headline targets of the European Pillar of Social Rights by supporting investments in people and systems in the policy area of employment and social policies; highlights that the Member States should ensure safeguards in the regulatory framework to prevent the dismantling of the core objectives of cohesion policy; underlines the need to ensure that the implementation of the amended ESF+ Regulation[4] is accompanied by measures for simplification and strengthening of administrative capacities in order to drive investments in key sectors and increase the absorption rate;

    9. Underlines that the combined effect of reallocating a minimum of 15 % of resources and of lifting of the 20 % ceiling for transfer towards Strategic Technologies for Europe Platform (STEP) objectives may have a negative impact on the achievements of targets initially set in the ESF+ Regulation and could result in some initially planned actions for later years not materialising owing to a discontinuity in matching objectives with resources, while noting the need to adapt to new priorities, taking into account the recent geopolitical dynamics;

    10. Notes that payments to 2021-2027 cohesion policy programmes were of a very low level in the first years of implementation, leading to an increase in payment needs towards the later years; recalls that this actual payment cycle does not coincide with the more linear payment profile set out in the MFF Regulation[5] and that this situation results in a serious risk of exceeding payment ceilings; recalls that the gradual increase in payments towards the later part of the programming period is a feature of multiannual programmes; considers that the frontloading of payments towards 2026 could have an impact on the pressure on payments;

    11. Recalls that the STEP Regulation[6] and the RESTORE Amending Regulation of 2024 were accompanied by a frontloading of payment appropriations in the budgets for 2024 and for 2025; notes that the total amount of payment appropriations in the 2026 draft budget is very close to the payment ceiling and is concerned, in this respect, about the high level of uncertainty with regard to the volume of payment claims in 2026; highlights the difficulties in predicting the take-up of the newly introduced flexibilities and incentives and in estimating payment needs, as also underpinned by the ongoing trend of increasing inaccuracy of payment forecasts by Member States; calls on the Commission to closely monitor payment developments and provide timely information to Parliament in this regard, and to propose any remedial action to the budgetary authority if needed;

    12. Recalls that 100 % co-financing without additional resources leads to a lower total amount of financial support through the programme; insists that broadening the scope of investment must not lead to a reduction in financial support for the initial priorities of investing in employment, social services, inclusive education and skills, and of providing assistance to the most vulnerable, including children; recalls that mandatory co-financing is an important principle of cohesion policy funding;

    13. Requests that the Commission provide traceable information in the form of timely reports on transfers to ensure that the impact of the mid-term review is clearly identifiable for the budgetary authority;

    14. Calls on the Commission to maintain consistency in applying conditionality across all EU funding streams and insists that amendments in Parliament’s reading are essential to close any loophole; demands rigorous enforcement of conditionality mechanisms and explicitly rejects any reallocation of blocked cohesion policy funds if this would circumvent the rule-of-law-related requirements established in the Common Provisions Regulation[7]; underlines that rule of law conditionality is a fundamental principle that must apply to all EU funds without exception;

    15. Considers that the actual take-up of the proposal may depend on various factors, such as the effectiveness of the 15 % re-allocation threshold and the availability of more favourable funding options under other Union programmes; considers that the proposed condition of the reallocation of at least 15 % of the funds to new priorities may be too high and unsuitable for single national programmes, as it could create implementation complications; highlights the importance of preventing double financing and calls on the Member States and the Commission to ensure that support for new types of investment is in addition to support under other Union programmes, including the EDF, EDIP and SAFE;

    16. Notes that the mid-term review may reduce the amount of funds at risk of decommitment; recalls that an amount equivalent to the cumulative decommitments made on outstanding commitments since 2021 can be made available for the European Union Recovery Instrument (EURI); asks the Commission to provide further analysis of the impact of the mid-term review on the EURI instrument.

     

     

    AMENDMENT

     

    As part of its budgetary assessment, the Committee on Budgets also submits the following amendment to the proposal:

     

    Amendment  1

    Proposal for a regulation

    Recital [9] a (new)

     

    Text proposed by the Commission

    Amendment

     

    ([9]a) This Regulation has implications for the Union budget. Accordingly, the European Parliament’s Committee on Budgets adopted a budgetary assessment, which forms an integral part of Parliament’s mandate for negotiations.

     

     

    ANNEX: ENTITIES OR PERSONS
    FROM WHOM THE RAPPORTEUR FOR BUDGETARY ASSESSMENT HAS RECEIVED INPUT

    The rapporteur for budgetary assessment declares under his exclusive responsibility that he did not receive input from any entity or person to be mentioned in this Annex pursuant to Article 8 of Annex I to the Rules of Procedure.

     

    PROCEDURE – COMMITTEE ASKED FOR BUDGETARY ASSESSMENT

    Title

    Amending Regulation (EU) 2021/1057 establishing the European Social Fund + (ESF+) as regards specific measures to address strategic challenges

    References

    COM(2025)0164 – C10-0064/2025 – 2025/0085(COD)

    Committee(s) responsible

    EMPL

     

     

     

    Budgetary assessment by

     Date announced in plenary

    BUDG

    5.5.2025

    Rapporteur for budgetary assessment

     Date appointed

    Jean-Marc Germain

    12.5.2025

    Discussed in committee

    5.6.2025

     

     

     

    Date adopted

    16.6.2025

     

     

     

    Result of final vote

    +:

    –:

    0:

    24

    6

    3

    Members present for the final vote

    Georgios Aftias, Rasmus Andresen, Tomasz Buczek, Jens Geier, Thomas Geisel, Jean-Marc Germain, Sandra Gómez López, Andrzej Halicki, Alexander Jungbluth, Giuseppe Lupo, Ignazio Roberto Marino, Siegfried Mureşan, Jana Nagyová, Fernando Navarrete Rojas, Matjaž Nemec, Danuše Nerudová, Ruggero Razza, Karlo Ressler, Bogdan Rzońca, Hélder Sousa Silva, Joachim Streit, Carla Tavares, Nils Ušakovs, Lucia Yar, Auke Zijlstra

    Substitutes present for the final vote

    Pablo Arias Echeverría, Roman Haider, Céline Imart, Rasmus Nordqvist, Jacek Protas, Annamária Vicsek

    Members under Rule 216(7) present for the final vote

    Benoit Cassart, Andi Cristea

     

     

    FINAL VOTE BY ROLL CALL
    IN COMMITTEE ASKED FOR BUDGETARY ASSESSMENT

    24

    +

    PPE

    Georgios Aftias, Pablo Arias Echeverría, Andrzej Halicki, Céline Imart, Siegfried Mureşan, Fernando Navarrete Rojas, Danuše Nerudová, Jacek Protas, Karlo Ressler, Hélder Sousa Silva

    Renew

    Benoit Cassart, Joachim Streit, Lucia Yar

    S&D

    Andi Cristea, Jens Geier, Jean-Marc Germain, Sandra Gómez López, Giuseppe Lupo, Matjaž Nemec, Carla Tavares, Nils Ušakovs

    Verts/ALE

    Rasmus Andresen, Ignazio Roberto Marino, Rasmus Nordqvist

     

    6

    ESN

    Alexander Jungbluth

    NI

    Thomas Geisel

    PfE

    Tomasz Buczek, Roman Haider, Annamária Vicsek, Auke Zijlstra

     

    3

    0

    ECR

    Ruggero Razza, Bogdan Rzońca

    PfE

    Jana Nagyová

     

    Key to symbols:

    + : in favour

     : against

    0 : abstention

     

     

    OPINION OF THE COMMITTEE ON SECURITY AND DEFENCE (17.6.2025)

    for the Committee on Employment and Social Affairs

    on the proposal for a regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council on Amending Regulation (EU) 2021/1057 establishing the European Social Fund + (ESF+) as regards specific measures to address strategic challenges

    ((COM(2025)0164 – C10‑0064/2025 – (2025/0085(COD))

    Rapporteur for opinion: Urmas Paet

     

     

     

    AMENDMENTS

    The Committee on Security and Defence submits the following to the Committee on Employment and Social Affairs, as the committee responsible:

    Amendment  1

    Proposal for a regulation

    Recital 2

     

    Text proposed by the Commission

    Amendment

    (2) The White paper for European Defence – Readiness 20303 paves the way for a true European defence union, including by suggesting to Member States to heavily invest into defence and the defence industry. In that regard, the Communication from the Commission – the Union of Skills of 5 March 20254 (‘the Union of Skills Communication’) sets out actions to address skills gaps and shortages in the Union, also through the Pact for Skills Initiative referred to in that Communication, and its large-scale partnerships, including one on the defence ecosystem. Therefore, it is appropriate to include incentives for the ESF+ established by Regulation (EU) 2021/1057 of the European Parliament and of the Council5 to facilitate the development of skills in the defence industry.

    (2) The White paper for European Defence – Readiness 2030 of 19 March 2025 paves the way for a true European defence union, including by suggesting to Member States to heavily invest into defence and the defence industry. Investment in defence and security-related skills covering dual use and transferable skills contributes not only to European defence resilience but also to territorial cohesion. In that regard, the Communication from the Commission – the Union of Skills of 5 March 20254 (‘the Union of Skills Communication’) sets out actions to address skills gaps and shortages in the Union, also through the Pact for Skills Initiative referred to in that Communication, and its large-scale partnerships, including one on the defence ecosystem. Furthermore, lifelong learning programmes and initiatives should promote continuous development and adaptation to emerging technologies and defence needs. Moreover, in the European Defence Industrial Strategy of 5 March 2024, the Commission set the priority of the full integration of defence and security as a strategic objective of relevant Union funding and programmes, including ESF+. Therefore, it is appropriate to include incentives for the ESF+ established by Regulation (EU) 2021/1057 of the European Parliament and of the Council5 to facilitate the development of skills in the European defence industry, in particular to address skills gaps and shortages directly related to the ability to address the critical capability gaps set out in the White paper. Defence industry should be understood as the industries producing defence products, their respective supply chains, and industries which develop and produce dual-use goods.

    __________________

    __________________

    3 Joint White Paper for European Defence Readiness 2030, JOIN(2025) 120 final, 19.3.2025.

     

    4 COM (2025) 90 final

    4 COM (2025) 90 final

    5 Regulation (EU) 2021/1057 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 24 June 2021 establishing the European Social Fund Plus (ESF+) and repealing Regulation (EU) No 1296/2013 (OJ L 231, 30.6.2021, p. 21, ELI: http://data.europa.eu/eli/reg/2021/1057/oj).

    5 Regulation (EU) 2021/1057 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 24 June 2021 establishing the European Social Fund Plus (ESF+) and repealing Regulation (EU) No 1296/2013 (OJ L 231, 30.6.2021, p. 21, ELI: http://data.europa.eu/eli/reg/2021/1057/oj).

    Amendment  2

    Proposal for a regulation

    Recital 2 a (new)

     

    Text proposed by the Commission

    Amendment

     

    (2a) In accordance with Article 7 of Regulation (EU) 2021/1057 , Member States should promote synergies and avoid duplications between actions arising for dedicated priorities referred to in Article 12c and actions resulting from other Union programmes that benefit the defence industry.

    Amendment  3

    Proposal for a regulation

    Article 1 – paragraph 1 – point 1

    Regulation (EU) 2021/1057

    Article 5a – paragraph 1 – subparagraph 1

     

    Text proposed by the Commission

    Amendment

    In 2026, the Commission shall pay 4,5 % of the total support from the ESF+ as set out in the decision approving the programme amendment as additional one-off pre-financing. The one-off pre-financing percentage in 2026 shall be increased to 9,5% for programmes covering one or more NUTS2 regions bordering Russia, Belarus or Ukraine, provided the programme does not cover the entire territory of the Member State. Where, in a Member State, NUTS 2 regions bordering Russia, Belarus or Ukraine are included exclusively in programmes covering the entire territory of that Member State, the increased pre-financing set out in this paragraph shall apply to those programmes.

    In 2026, the Commission shall pay 4,5 % of the total support from the ESF+ as set out in the decision approving the programme amendment as additional one-off pre-financing. The one-off pre-financing percentage in 2026 shall be increased to 9,5% for programmes covering one or more NUTS2 regions bordering Russia, Belarus or Ukraine, provided the programme does not cover the entire territory of the Member State. Where, in a Member State, NUTS 2 regions bordering Russia, Belarus or Ukraine are included exclusively in programmes covering the entire territory of that Member State, the increased pre-financing set out in this paragraph shall apply to those programmes. NUTS 2 regions bordering Russia, Belarus or Ukraine require special attention and exceptional support as they are often at the frontline of potential conflicts and they are vulnerable to external threats, making it crucial to support their resilience in countering hybrid attacks, breaches of the Union’s external borders, terrorist activities and war.

    Amendment  4

    Proposal for a regulation

    Article 1 – paragraph 1 – point 1

    Regulation (EU) 2021/1057

    Article 5a – paragraph 1 – subparagraph 2

     

    Text proposed by the Commission

    Amendment

    The additional pre-financing referred to in the first subparagraph of this paragraph shall only apply where reallocations of at least 15% of the financial resources of the programme to one or more dedicated priorities established in accordance with Articles 12a, 12c and 12d have been approved; provided that the request for a programme amendment is submitted by 31 December 2025.

    The additional pre-financing referred to in the first subparagraph of this paragraph shall only apply where reallocations of at least 5% of the financial resources of the programme to one or more dedicated priorities established in accordance with Articles 12a, 12c and 12d have been approved; provided that the request for a programme amendment is submitted by 31 December 2025.

    Amendment  5

    Proposal for a regulation

    Article 1 – paragraph 1 – point 1

    Regulation (EU) 2021/1057

    Article 5a – paragraph 2

     

    Text proposed by the Commission

    Amendment

    (2) By way of derogation from Article 63(2) and Article 105(2) of Regulation (EU) 2021/1060, the deadline for the eligibility of expenditure, the reimbursement of costs as well as for decommitment shall be 31 December 2030. That derogation shall only apply where programme amendments reallocating at least 15% of the financial resources of the programme to one or more dedicated priorities established in accordance with Articles 12a, 12c and 12d of this Regulation in the context of the mid-term review have been approved.

    (2) By way of derogation from Article 63(2) and Article 105(2) of Regulation (EU) 2021/1060, the deadline for the eligibility of expenditure, the reimbursement of costs as well as for decommitment shall be 31 December 2030. That derogation shall only apply where programme amendments reallocating at least 5% of the financial resources of the programme to one or more dedicated priorities established in accordance with Articles 12a, 12c and 12d of this Regulation in the context of the mid-term review have been approved.

    Amendment  6

    Proposal for a regulation

    Article 1 – paragraph 1 – point 1

    Regulation (EU) 2021/1057

    Article 5a – paragraph 2a (new)

     

    Text proposed by the Commission

    Amendment

     

    (2a) The Member States shall work closely with social partners, when reprogramming, and respect working and employment conditions  under applicable ILO conventions, Union and national law and collective agreements.

    Amendment  7

    Proposal for a regulation

    Article 1 – paragraph 1 – point 1

    Regulation (EU) 2021/1057

    Article 5a – paragraph 3

     

    Text proposed by the Commission

    Amendment

    (3) By way of derogation from Article 112 of Regulation (EU) 2021/1060, the maximum co-financing rate for priorities in programmes covering one or more NUTS2 regions bordering Russia, Belarus or Ukraine shall be 100 %. The higher co-financing rate shall not apply to programmes covering the entire territory of the Member State concerned, unless those regions are included only in programmes covering the entire territory of that Member State. The derogation shall only apply where reallocations of at least 15% of the financial resources of the programme to one or more dedicated priorities established in accordance with Articles 12a, 12c and 12d of this Regulation in the context of the mid-term review have been approved, provided that the programme amendment is submitted by 31 December 2025.

    (3) By way of derogation from Article 112 of Regulation (EU) 2021/1060, the maximum co-financing rate for priorities in programmes covering one or more NUTS2 regions bordering Russia, Belarus or Ukraine shall be 100 %. The higher co-financing rate shall not apply to programmes covering the entire territory of the Member State concerned, unless those regions are included only in programmes covering the entire territory of that Member State. The derogation shall only apply where reallocations of at least 5% of the financial resources of the programme to one or more dedicated priorities established in accordance with Articles 12a, 12c and 12d of this Regulation in the context of the mid-term review have been approved, provided that the programme amendment is submitted by 31 December 2025.

    Amendment  8

    Proposal for a regulation

    Article 1 – paragraph 1 – point 3

    Regulation (EU) 2021/1057

    Article 12c – title

     

    Text proposed by the Commission

    Amendment

    Support to the defence industry

    Support European defence industry and cybersecurity

    Amendment  9

    Proposal for a regulation

    Article 1 – paragraph 1 – point 3

    Regulation (EU) 2021/1057

    Article 12c – paragraph 1

     

    Text proposed by the Commission

    Amendment

    (1) Member States may decide to programme support to development of skills in the defence industry under dedicated priorities. Such dedicated priorities may support any of the specific objectives set out in Article 4(1), points (a) to (l).

    (1) Member States may decide to programme support to development of skills in the defence industry and related cybersecurity, as well as in skills related to civil defence and preparedness under dedicated priorities to meet urgent needs. Such dedicated priorities may support any of the specific objectives set out in Article 4(1), points (a) to (l). This support may include actions that promote the recognition of skills acquired during military service and facilitate their conversion into qualifications recognised on the civilian labour market.

    Amendment  10

    Proposal for a regulation

    Article 1 – paragraph 1 – point 3

    Regulation (EU) 2021/1057

    Article 12c – paragraph 3 – subparagraph 1

     

    Text proposed by the Commission

    Amendment

    In addition to the yearly pre-financing for the programme provided for in Article 90(1) and (2) of Regulation (EU) 2021/1060, the Commission shall pay 30% of the allocation to the dedicated priorities referred to in paragraph 1 of this Article as set out in the decision approving the programme amendment as exceptional one-off pre-financing.

    In addition to the yearly pre-financing for the programme provided for in Article 90(1) and (2) of Regulation (EU) 2021/1060, the Commission shall pay 35% of the allocation to the dedicated priorities referred to in paragraph 1 of this Article as set out in the decision approving the programme amendment as exceptional one-off pre-financing.

    Amendment  11

    Proposal for a regulation

    Article 1 – paragraph 1 – point 3

    Regulation (EU) 2021/1057

    Article 12c – paragraph 5a (new)

     

    Text proposed by the Commission

    Amendment

     

    (5a) When allocating funds to dedicated priorities pursuant to paragraph 1, Member States shall ensure that those funds contribute to the Member States’ ability to address critical capability gaps set out in the White Paper for European Defence – Readiness 2030.

     

    ANNEX: ENTITIES OR PERSONS
    FROM WHOM THE RAPPORTEUR HAS RECEIVED INPUT

    The rapporteur for the opinion declares under his exclusive responsibility that he did not receive input from any entity or person to be mentioned in this Annex pursuant to Article 8 of Annex I to the Rules of Procedure.

    PROCEDURE – COMMITTEE ASKED FOR OPINION

    Title

    Amending Regulation (EU) 2021/1057 establishing the European Social Fund + (ESF+) as regards specific measures to address strategic challenges

    References

    COM(2025)0164 – C10-0064/2025 – 2025/0085(COD)

    Committee(s) responsible

    EMPL

     

     

     

    Opinion by

     Date announced in plenary

    SEDE

    5.5.2025

    Rapporteur for the opinion

     Date appointed

    Urmas Paet

    14.5.2025

    Discussed in committee

    3.6.2025

     

     

     

    Date adopted

    16.6.2025

     

     

     

    Result of final vote

    +:

    –:

    0:

    31

    8

    4

    Members present for the final vote

    Petras Auštrevičius, Wouter Beke, Marc Botenga, Tobias Cremer, Salvatore De Meo, Özlem Demirel, Elio Di Rupo, Michał Dworczyk, Alberico Gambino, Niclas Herbst, Costas Mavrides, Vangelis Meimarakis, Ana Catarina Mendes, Sven Mikser, Hans Neuhoff, Andrey Novakov, Kostas Papadakis, Nicolás Pascual de la Parte, Reinis Pozņaks, Marjan Šarec, Mārtiņš Staķis, Marie-Agnes Strack-Zimmermann, Michał Szczerba, Riho Terras, Pierre-Romain Thionnet, Mihai Tudose, Reinier Van Lanschot, Roberto Vannacci, Michael von der Schulenburg, Alexandr Vondra, Lucia Yar

    Substitutes present for the final vote

    José Cepeda, Bart Groothuis, Marina Mesure, Thijs Reuten, Hélder Sousa Silva, Villy Søvndal, Petra Steger, Claudiu-Richard Târziu, Matej Tonin, Marta Wcisło

    Members under Rule 216(7) present for the final vote

    Anna Bryłka, Tomasz Buczek

     

    FINAL VOTE BY ROLL CALL
    BY THE COMMITTEE ASKED FOR OPINION

    31

    +

    ECR

    Michał Dworczyk, Alberico Gambino, Reinis Pozņaks, Claudiu-Richard Târziu, Alexandr Vondra

    PPE

    Wouter Beke, Salvatore De Meo, Niclas Herbst, Vangelis Meimarakis, Andrey Novakov, Nicolás Pascual de la Parte, Hélder Sousa Silva, Michał Szczerba, Riho Terras, Matej Tonin, Marta Wcisło

    PfE

    Pierre-Romain Thionnet

    Renew

    Petras Auštrevičius, Bart Groothuis, Marjan Šarec, Marie-Agnes Strack-Zimmermann, Lucia Yar

    S&D

    José Cepeda, Tobias Cremer, Elio Di Rupo, Costas Mavrides, Ana Catarina Mendes, Sven Mikser, Thijs Reuten, Mihai Tudose

    Verts/ALE

    Mārtiņš Staķis

     

    8

    ESN

    Hans Neuhoff

    NI

    Kostas Papadakis, Michael von der Schulenburg

    PfE

    Petra Steger, Roberto Vannacci

    The Left

    Marc Botenga, Özlem Demirel, Marina Mesure

     

    4

    0

    PfE

    Anna Bryłka, Tomasz Buczek

    Verts/ALE

    Villy Søvndal, Reinier Van Lanschot

     

    Key to symbols:

    + : in favour

     : against

    0 : abstention

    LETTER OF THE COMMITTEE ON REGIONAL DEVELOPMENT (25.6.2025)

    Ms Li Andersson

    Chair

    Committee on Employment and Social Affairs

    BRUSSELS

    Subject: Opinion on Amending Regulation (EU) 2021/1057 establishing the European Social Fund + (ESF+) as regards specific measures to address strategic challenges (2025/0085(COD)COM(2025)0164 – C10-0064/2025)

     

     

    Dear Ms Andersson,

     

    Under the procedure referred to above, the Committee on Regional Development was asked to submit an opinion to your Committee.

     

    At its meeting of 9 April 2025, REGI committee decided to send the opinion in the form of a letter. It discussed the matter at its meeting of 13 May 2025 and adopted the opinion at its meeting of 25 June 2025[8].

     

    The Committee on Regional Development:

     

    1. Underlines the crucial role that cohesion policy and sectoral programmes, in spite of the fact that they are not crisis management instruments, have repeatedly and efficiently played in helping regions to respond effectively to emergencies and asymmetric shocks such as the COVID-19 crisis, Brexit, the energy crisis and the refugee crisis caused by Russia’s invasion of Ukraine, as well as natural disasters;

     

    2. Is aware of the rapidly evolving economic, societal, environmental and geopolitical context, as well as the housing crisis, and shares the need for more flexibility in assessing the extent to which cohesion policy programmes can help respond to these changes; nevertheless is of the firm opinion that the capacity to offer flexible responses to unpredictable challenges should not come at the expense of the clear long-term strategic focus and objectives of cohesion policy, in accordance with Article 174 TFEU;

     

    3. Reiterates that ESF+ stands as positive example of EU solidarity and that its main objective is to support Member States and regions to achieve social inclusion, social cohesion, to activate the labour market and to deliver on the principles and the headline targets of the European Pillar of Social Rights that are far from met yet; stresses that the reprogramming of resources under the ESF+ should ensure that adjustment measures in response to strategic challenges do not undermine its social approach, but strengthen its capacity to combat inequality;

     

    4. Underlines the fact that cohesion policy shall first and foremost ensure social cohesion, not defence spending; nonetheless acknowledges that flexibility of the policy from the point of view of the beneficiaries is a key point, and stresses the need to provide regions with greater flexibility already when programming the funding, in order to cater for their particular needs and specificities, particularly border regions; furthermore acknowledges that investment in defence capabilities through the development of skills and training, while safeguarding social standards, is already possible under the ESF+ established by Regulation (EU) 2021/1057;

     

    5. Acknowledges that investment in defence capabilities and in adaptation linked to decarbonisation makes a key contribution to the promotion of the competitiveness, preparedness and strategic autonomy of the EU, and requires having people with the right skills; in general, recognises the importance of the development of skills through lifelong learning and training models, targeted in particular at young people not in education, employment and training (NEET) and unemployed people, and targeted also at teachers, trainers, mentors, coaches, as well as entrepreneurs and researchers; encourages in this regard private sector involvement to enhance skills development and labour market integration, ensuring that ESF+ investments translate into tangible economic benefits; calls for stronger partnerships between businesses, educational institutions, and regional authorities to align training programs with labour market demands, fostering innovation and job creation;

     

    6. Stresses the strategic importance of strong external border regions for the security and resilience of the EU; welcomes the focus given by the legislative proposal to the challenges the Eastern border regions are facing since the Russian aggression against Ukraine began; supports the proposal that programmes under the Investment for jobs and growth goal, with NUTS 2 regions that have borders with Russia, Belarus or Ukraine, should benefit from the possibility of a one-off 9.5% pre-financing of the programme allocation in 2026 and a 100% Union financing;

     

    7. Reaffirms that cohesion policy and ESF+ should reach all EU regions, especially those affected by transformation processes, while keeping a focus on least developed regions and people; stresses that cohesion policy should be deepened where possible, with a view to remain the EU’s main long-term investment instrument for reducing disparities, ensuring economic, social and territorial cohesion, and stimulating regional and local sustainable growth in line with EU strategies;

     

    8. Reiterates the importance of compliance with horizontal enabling conditions, and stresses that funds suspended under Regulation 2020/2092 should not be subject to amended programmes or transfers;

     

    9. Encourages the European Commission to allow for targeted simplification measures in Member States where administrative capacity constraints may hinder full or efficient absorption of ESF+ and cohesion funds, and to provide technical assistance to local and regional authorities to ensure efficient implementation and spending; furthermore stresses the importance of simplifying the rules and procedures to limit bureaucratic burden;

     

    10. Believes that the ESF+ strengthens a pro-European identity in the entire EU and should be communicated as such and that local and regional authorities, in light of their role as both beneficiary and managing authority, as well as social partners shall be meaningfully involved in the formulation of new legislative proposals and in the revision of programmes pursuant to the mid-term review, in order to guarantee more effectiveness and coordination between the ESF+ and the broader cohesion and regional policy and its financing tools;

     

    11. Suggests laying down measures to facilitate access for Outermost Regions to flexibilities introduced by the mid-term review, such as lowering to 10% the amounts of reallocations to one or more dedicated priorities established in the second subparagraph of Art. 5a(1), and in the first subparagraph of Art. 5a(2), which are required to benefit from the additional one-off pre-financing.

     

     

    Yours sincerely,

    Dragoş BENEA

     

    ANNEX: ENTITIES OR PERSONS
    FROM WHOM THE RAPPORTEUR HAS RECEIVED INPUT

    The Chair declares under his exclusive responsibility that he did not receive input from any entity or person to be mentioned in this Annex pursuant to Article 8 of Annex I to the Rules of Procedure.

     

     

    PROCEDURE – COMMITTEE RESPONSIBLE

    Title

    Amending Regulation (EU) 2021/1057 establishing the European Social Fund + (ESF+) as regards specific measures to address strategic challenges

    References

    COM(2025)0164 – C10-0064/2025 – 2025/0085(COD)

    Date submitted to Parliament

    2.4.2025

     

     

     

    Committee(s) responsible

     Date announced in plenary

    EMPL

    5.5.2025

     

     

     

    Committees asked for opinions

     Date announced in plenary

    SEDE

    5.5.2025

    BUDG

    5.5.2025

    ITRE

    5.5.2025

    REGI

    5.5.2025

    Not delivering opinions

     Date of decision

    ITRE

    9.4.2025

     

     

     

    Rapporteurs

     Date appointed

    Marit Maij

    8.5.2025

     

     

     

    Simplified procedure – date of decision

    5.5.2025

    Budgetary assessment

     Date of budgetary assessment

    BUDG

    16.6.2025

     

     

     

    Discussed in committee

    13.5.2025

     

     

     

    Date adopted

    25.6.2025

     

     

     

    Result of final vote

    +:

    –:

    0:

    32

    15

    11

    Members present for the final vote

    Maravillas Abadía Jover, Grégory Allione, Marc Angel, Pascal Arimont, Konstantinos Arvanitis, Nikola Bartůšek, Gabriele Bischoff, Vilija Blinkevičiūtė, Rachel Blom, Andrzej Buła, David Casa, Estelle Ceulemans, Leila Chaibi, Per Clausen, Henrik Dahl, Johan Danielsson, Marie Dauchy, Mélanie Disdier, Elena Donazzan, Gheorghe Falcă, Chiara Gemma, Niels Geuking, Isilda Gomes, Alicia Homs Ginel, Sérgio Humberto, Katrin Langensiepen, Miriam Lexmann, Marit Maij, Marlena Maląg, Jagna Marczułajtis-Walczak, Idoia Mendia, Maria Ohisalo, Branislav Ondruš, Aodhán Ó Ríordáin, Nicola Procaccini, Dennis Radtke, Nela Riehl, Liesbet Sommen, Villy Søvndal, Pál Szekeres, Georgiana Teodorescu, Jana Toom, Raffaele Topo, Francesco Torselli, Brigitte van den Berg, Marie-Pierre Vedrenne, Marianne Vind, Mariateresa Vivaldini, Petar Volgin, Jan-Peter Warnke, Séverine Werbrouck

    Substitutes present for the final vote

    Regina Doherty, Rosa Estaràs Ferragut, Kathleen Funchion, Rudi Kennes, Hristo Petrov

    Members under Rule 216(7) present for the final vote

    Mireia Borrás Pabón, Paulo Do Nascimento Cabral

    Date tabled

    30.6.2025

     

    FINAL VOTE BY ROLL CALL BY THE COMMITTEE RESPONSIBLE

    32

    +

    ECR

    Georgiana Teodorescu

    PPE

    Maravillas Abadía Jover, Pascal Arimont, Andrzej Buła, David Casa, Henrik Dahl, Regina Doherty, Paulo Do Nascimento Cabral, Rosa Estaràs Ferragut, Gheorghe Falcă, Niels Geuking, Sérgio Humberto, Jagna Marczułajtis-Walczak, Dennis Radtke, Liesbet Sommen

    Renew

    Grégory Allione, Hristo Petrov, Jana Toom, Brigitte van den Berg, Marie-Pierre Vedrenne

    S&D

    Marc Angel, Gabriele Bischoff, Vilija Blinkevičiūtė, Estelle Ceulemans, Johan Danielsson, Isilda Gomes, Alicia Homs Ginel, Marit Maij, Idoia Mendia, Aodhán Ó Ríordáin, Raffaele Topo, Marianne Vind

     

    15

    ESN

    Petar Volgin

    NI

    Branislav Ondruš, Jan-Peter Warnke

    PfE

    Nikola Bartůšek, Rachel Blom, Mireia Borrás Pabón, Marie Dauchy, Mélanie Disdier, Pál Szekeres, Séverine Werbrouck

    The Left

    Konstantinos Arvanitis, Leila Chaibi, Per Clausen, Kathleen Funchion, Rudi Kennes

     

    11

    0

    ECR

    Elena Donazzan, Chiara Gemma, Marlena Maląg, Nicola Procaccini, Francesco Torselli, Mariateresa Vivaldini

    PPE

    Miriam Lexmann

    Verts/ALE

    Katrin Langensiepen, Maria Ohisalo, Nela Riehl, Villy Søvndal

     

    Key to symbols:

    + : in favour

     : against

    0 : abstention

     

     

    MIL OSI Europe News

  • EAM Jaishankar gives firsthand account on Trump’s claims on ceasefire

    Source: Government of India

    Source: Government of India (4)

    External Affairs Minister S. Jaishankar on Monday clarified India’s stand and response on U.S. President Donald Trump’s claim that he used trade to force India and Pakistan to agree to a ceasefire during the escalation following India’s Operation Sindoor in May.

    Speaking at a fireside chat with Newsweek CEO Dev Pragad, Jaishankar recounted the sequence of events, asserting that there was no linkage between trade negotiations and ceasefire talks. “I can tell you that I was in the room when U.S. Vice President J.D. Vance spoke to Prime Minister Modi on the night of May 9, saying that the Pakistanis would launch a very massive assault on India,” he said.

    He emphasized that no trade-related leverage was discussed during that call. “We did not accept certain things, and the Prime Minister was impervious to what the Pakistanis were threatening to do,” Jaishankar noted. “On the contrary, he (PM Modi) indicated that there would be a response from us.”

    Jaishankar confirmed that Pakistan did indeed launch a massive attack that night, to which India responded swiftly. The following morning, U.S. Secretary of State Marco Rubio contacted him to inform that Pakistan was ready to talk. Later that day, Pakistan’s Director General of Military Operations, Major General Kashif Abdullah, directly contacted his Indian counterpart, Lieutenant General Rajiv Ghai, to request a ceasefire.

    “I can only share what I personally experienced,” Jaishankar stated.

    (With inputs from IANS)

  • MIL-OSI Economics: Danish households buy European stocks

    Source: Danmarks Nationalbank

    Investments in defense stocks are significant

    Defense stocks account for 32 per cent of Danish households’ total purchases of European stocks in the first five months of 2025. At the top of the list are Rheinmetall and Saab. In May, for the first time, Rheinmetall became the European stock in which Danish households have the largest investment. This is primarily driven by price increases and, to a lesser extent, new purchases. Although Danish households have sold American stocks and bought European ones in 2025, American stocks still make up 29 per cent of the total stock portfolio as of May. In comparison, European stocks account for 16 per cent, Danish stocks 48 per cent, and other listed stocks 7 per cent.

    MIL OSI Economics

  • MIL-OSI Economics: Danish households buy European stocks

    Source: Danmarks Nationalbank

    Investments in defense stocks are significant

    Defense stocks account for 32 per cent of Danish households’ total purchases of European stocks in the first five months of 2025. At the top of the list are Rheinmetall and Saab. In May, for the first time, Rheinmetall became the European stock in which Danish households have the largest investment. This is primarily driven by price increases and, to a lesser extent, new purchases. Although Danish households have sold American stocks and bought European ones in 2025, American stocks still make up 29 per cent of the total stock portfolio as of May. In comparison, European stocks account for 16 per cent, Danish stocks 48 per cent, and other listed stocks 7 per cent.

    MIL OSI Economics

  • MIL-OSI Security: Koa Moana 25 U.S. Marines and Sailors Lifesaving Kits Empowering Palau in Time for Pacific Mini Games

    Source: United States INDO PACIFIC COMMAND

    KOROR, Palau – On June 25, 2025, U.S. Marines and Sailors with Koa Moana 25 delivered 100 first aid kits to the Belau National Hospital in Palau. Koa Moana is a recurring exercise that fosters partnerships with Compact of Free Association nations like the Republic of Palau and the Federated States of Micronesia through medical aid, engineering, and security cooperation.

    MIL Security OSI

  • MIL-OSI Security: 3/12 Executes HIMARS Dry-Fire Training at Camp Fuji

    Source: United States INDO PACIFIC COMMAND

    CAMP FUJI, Japan – U.S. Marines with 3d Battalion, 12th Marine Regiment, 3d Marine Division conducted High Mobility Artillery Rocket System (HIMARS) dry-fire training at Combined Arms Training Center (CATC) Camp Fuji from June 11-13, 2025. This training represents a significant enhancement of Camp Fuji’s capability to support long-range fires and reflects our commitment to maintaining readiness and deterrence in the Indo-Pacific alongside our Japanese partners.

    MIL Security OSI

  • MIL-OSI USA: TODAY: Governor Newsom to sign historic bills to create more housing and infrastructure – faster than ever before

    Source: US State of California Governor

    Jun 30, 2025

    SACRAMENTO COUNTY — Governor Gavin Newsom will be joined by Senate President pro Tempore Mike McGuire, Assembly Speaker Robert Rivas, other legislative leaders, and advocates to sign a landmark budget bill package that cuts red tape, fast-tracks housing and infrastructure, and improves affordability for all Californians.

    WHEN: Monday, June 30, at approximately 6:45 p.m.

    LIVESTREAM:  Governor’s Twitter page, Governor’s Facebook page, and the Governor’s YouTube page. This event will also be available to TV stations on the LiveU Matrix under “California Governor.”

    NOTE: This in-person press event will be open to credentialed media only. Media interested in attending must RSVP by clicking here no later than 6:35 p.m., June 30. Location information will be provided upon confirmation.

    Recent news

    News What you need to know: As President Trump’s illegal militarization of Los Angeles continues to hamstring crucial firefighting resources in California, new reporting indicates top military officials are asking the Secretary of Defense to return troops to…

    News What you need to know: Governor Newsom is issuing an extension to his executive order making it easier for survivors of the LA firestorms to retain temporary shelter. The order helps continue to boost temporary housing supply by extending the amount of time…

    News What you need to know: Californians are urged to practice common sense and safety when using fireworks to celebrate this Fourth of July. People who resort to using illegal fireworks will be held accountable. SACRAMENTO – With Fourth of July celebrations set to go…

    MIL OSI USA News

  • MIL-OSI China: China Coast Guard patrols waters around Huangyan Dao 2025-07-01 09:00:06 The China Coast Guard (CCG) on Monday conducted law enforcement patrols in the territorial waters off China’s Huangyan Dao and surrounding areas.

    Source: People’s Republic of China – Ministry of National Defense

      BEIJING, June 30 (Xinhua) — The China Coast Guard (CCG) on Monday conducted law enforcement patrols in the territorial waters off China’s Huangyan Dao and surrounding areas.

      In a statement, the CCG said it has been continuously intensifying law enforcement patrols in the territorial waters off Huangyan Dao and surrounding areas in June, carrying out tracking and monitoring, verbal warnings, interception and expulsion operations in accordance with laws and regulations.

      The moves aimed to strengthen the management and control of relevant maritime areas, and firmly safeguard China’s territorial sovereignty and maritime rights and interests, the CCG said. 

    loading…

    MIL OSI China News

  • MIL-OSI China: China’s two carrier strike groups return to homeports 2025-07-01 08:52:55 China’s two carrier strike groups have recently returned to their home ports after a series of training operations and exercises in the Western Pacific, according to the People’s Liberation Army Navy.

    Source: People’s Republic of China – Ministry of National Defense

      The carrier groups of the Liaoning and Shandong conduct far-sea combat training in recent days. The photo shows the groups carrying out an at-sea replenishment. [Photo by Wang Jian / for China Daily]

      China’s two carrier strike groups have recently returned to their home ports after a series of training operations and exercises in the Western Pacific, according to the People’s Liberation Army Navy.

      The Navy said in a news release on Monday afternoon that the two strike groups, led by the CNS Liaoning and CNS Shandong aircraft carriers, carried out “realistic and systemic” combat training and cooperated with other PLA branches to conduct mock battles.

      Units involved in the exercises performed early-warning, reconnaissance, air and missile defense, fighter deployments, assaults against sea targets and other maneuvers, the release said.

      During the dual-carrier mission, the strike groups explored and verified their tactics and also honed their crews’ skills, effectively improving the flotillas’ combat capabilities, it stated.

      According to the Navy, during the training session, the Chinese vessels had several encounters with foreign warships and aircraft that conducted close-in reconnaissance and surveillance. The groups maintained high alert and were always ready to respond to possible threats. They mobilized carrier-based fighters to establish security perimeters, handling various scenarios professionally and effectively.

      The exercise was the second time that both of the Navy’s carrier strike groups participated in an operation together. The first time was in October, when they conducted a joint combat exercise in the South China Sea.

      Senior Captain Wang Xuemeng, a spokesman for the Navy, said on June 10 in Beijing that the strike groups’ operations were “a part of routine training arrangements set by our annual work plan, and is intended for improving our units’ ability to fulfill their duties. It is in line with the international law and common practice by other navies, and is not targeted at any specific nation or objective”.

      Currently, the Navy operates two aircraft carriers — the CNS Liaoning and the CNS Shandong. Both have a standard displacement of around 50,000 metric tons and a conventional propulsion system, and they use a ski jump system to launch their J-15 fighter jets.

      The country has built a third aircraft carrier — the CNS Fujian, which is the largest and mightiest warship any Asian nation has ever built. It is also the world’s largest non-American aircraft carrier.

      Carrier-based fighter jets take off during far-sea combat training recently conducted by the Chinese navy’s Liaoning and Shandong carrier groups. [Photo by Wang Yuanlin / for China Daily]

    loading…

    MIL OSI China News

  • MIL-OSI China: China’s aircraft carrier formations return after completing far-sea training 2025-07-01 08:51:30 China’s naval formations of two aircraft carriers, Liaoning and Shandong, have completed their far-sea combat-oriented training and safely returned to their home ports, according to the Chinese navy on Monday.

    Source: People’s Republic of China – Ministry of National Defense

    This photo shows a fighter jet taking off from an aircraft carrier. China’s naval formations of two aircraft carriers, Liaoning and Shandong, have completed their far-sea combat-oriented training and safely returned to their home ports, according to the Chinese navy on Monday. (Photo by Wang Yuanlin/Xinhua)

    BEIJING, June 30 (Xinhua) — China’s naval formations of two aircraft carriers, Liaoning and Shandong, have completed their far-sea combat-oriented training and safely returned to their home ports, according to the Chinese navy on Monday.

    The training was conducted in a well-coordinated and systematic manner as the two naval formations advanced into the Western Pacific, collaborated with relevant military forces, and completed a variety of exercises under combat conditions, such as those related to reconnaissance and early warning, counterstrike, maritime assault, air defense, and the day-and-night tactical flight of carrier-based aircraft.

    The training has yielded a series of research achievements for relevant military subjects and significantly boosted the systemic combat capabilities of China’s aircraft carrier formations, following previous dual-carrier drills conducted jointly by the two naval formations last year.

    During the training, certain foreign warships and aircraft repeatedly conducted up-close reconnaissance maneuvers, tracking, and surveillance. The Chinese naval formations maintained high vigilance and responsiveness to combat scenarios, organized multiple flights of carrier-based aircraft, and handled the situation professionally and soundly.

    According to the Chinese navy, as a routine arrangement per its annual plan, the training has effectively tested the joint training results of relevant forces and enhanced their capability to safeguard the country’s sovereignty, security and development interests. 

    This photo shows a fighter jet taking off from an aircraft carrier. China’s naval formations of two aircraft carriers, Liaoning and Shandong, have completed their far-sea combat-oriented training and safely returned to their home ports, according to the Chinese navy on Monday. (Photo by Wang Jian/Xinhua)

    This photo shows the formation conducting replenishment-at-sea. China’s naval formations of two aircraft carriers, Liaoning and Shandong, have completed their far-sea combat-oriented training and safely returned to their home ports, according to the Chinese navy on Monday. (Photo by Wang Jian/Xinhua)

    This photo shows Yan’an missile destroyer. China’s naval formations of two aircraft carriers, Liaoning and Shandong, have completed their far-sea combat-oriented training and safely returned to their home ports, according to the Chinese navy on Monday. (Photo by Wang Jian/Xinhua)

    This photo shows fighter jets on Chinese aircraft carrier Shandong. China’s naval formations of two aircraft carriers, Liaoning and Shandong, have completed their far-sea combat-oriented training and safely returned to their home ports, according to the Chinese navy on Monday. (Photo by Wang Jian/Xinhua)

    This photo shows fighter jets preparing to take off from an aircraft carrier. China’s naval formations of two aircraft carriers, Liaoning and Shandong, have completed their far-sea combat-oriented training and safely returned to their home ports, according to the Chinese navy on Monday. (Photo by Hu Xiushuai/Xinhua)

    This photo shows a fighter jet taking off from an aircraft carrier. China’s naval formations of two aircraft carriers, Liaoning and Shandong, have completed their far-sea combat-oriented training and safely returned to their home ports, according to the Chinese navy on Monday. (Photo by Wang Yuanlin/Xinhua)

    This photo shows fighter jets on Chinese aircraft carrier Shandong. China’s naval formations of two aircraft carriers, Liaoning and Shandong, have completed their far-sea combat-oriented training and safely returned to their home ports, according to the Chinese navy on Monday. (Photo by Hu Xiushuai/Xinhua)

    This photo shows a fighter jet preparing to take off from an aircraft carrier. China’s naval formations of two aircraft carriers, Liaoning and Shandong, have completed their far-sea combat-oriented training and safely returned to their home ports, according to the Chinese navy on Monday. (Photo by Hu Xiushuai/Xinhua)

    This photo shows Yuncheng missile frigate. China’s naval formations of two aircraft carriers, Liaoning and Shandong, have completed their far-sea combat-oriented training and safely returned to their home ports, according to the Chinese navy on Monday. (Photo by Wang Jian/Xinhua)

    This photo shows a fighter jet landing on an aircraft carrier. China’s naval formations of two aircraft carriers, Liaoning and Shandong, have completed their far-sea combat-oriented training and safely returned to their home ports, according to the Chinese navy on Monday. (Photo by Wang Yuanlin/Xinhua)

    MIL OSI China News

  • MIL-OSI USA: Reminder: Maine Congressional Delegation Accepting Military Academy Nomination Applications

    US Senate News:

    Source: United States Senator for Maine Angus King

    Washington, D.C. – U.S. Senators Susan Collins and Angus King, Jr., and U.S. Representatives Chellie Pingree and Jared Golden announced that they are accepting nomination applications from Maine high school students for appointments to the United States service academies operated by the Army, Navy, Air Force, and Merchant Marine. No nomination is required to apply to the United States Coast Guard Academy.

    Students should apply for a nomination in the spring and summer of their junior year. Senators Collins and King and Representatives Pingree and Golden began accepting nomination applications as of May 15, 2025, from students for admission to the academies in the summer of 2026.

    For more information please contact:

    Senator Susan Collins

    Contact: Karen Staples

    207-784-6969

    collins.senate.gov

    Senator Angus King, Jr.

    Contact: Katie Fellows

    207-352-5216

    king.senate.gov

    Representative Chellie Pingree

    Contact: Dorian Cole

    207-774-5019

    pingree.house.gov

    Representative Jared Golden

    Contact: Kim Rohn

    207-249-7400

    golden.house.gov

    MIL OSI USA News

  • MIL-OSI Submissions: Threatening diversity, threatening growth: the business effects of Trump’s anti-DEI and anti-trans agendas

    Source: The Conversation – France – By Matteo Winkler, Professeur associé en droit et fiscalité, HEC Paris Business School

    Recent months have seen a dramatic shift in US policies on diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI). These changes carry deep economic consequences. President Donald Trump’s executive orders aim to ban DEI initiatives in federal agencies and contractors, and private companies have felt pressure to weaken or drop their DEI programmes. Trump has framed what was once a corporate safeguard against discrimination as “illegal and immoral”, marking a stark reversal in legal and business norms. Federal judges have blocked some of Trump’s orders, or elements of them, and some legal processes are ongoing.

    Transgender rights have become a lightning rod in this shifting landscape. The barrage of federal directives seeks to challenge – or outright eliminate – protections in areas ranging from health care to education to the military. Beyond the immediate harm to trans individuals, these policies pose threats to multinational companies that have long defended inclusive workplace values. Their leaders must now navigate a cultural minefield where staying silent risks public backlash, while openly supporting trans employees can invite legal and political complications. The business repercussions of this moral issue could affect everything from brand reputation to talent retention.


    A weekly e-mail in English featuring expertise from scholars and researchers. It provides an introduction to the diversity of research coming out of the continent and considers some of the key issues facing European countries. Get the newsletter!

    The economic imperative of DEI initiatives

    There is a growing ensemble of research suggesting that DEI policies are not just nice-to-have but a corporate imperative. This year, the World Economic Forum reported that organizations that include DEI in their core business strategies improve performance, innovation and employee satisfaction. These findings are in line with other studies, which have consistently demonstrated that inclusive workplaces not only attract top talent but perform better financially and have higher returns on assets and net income.

    With regard to people identifying as LGBTI+, a 2024 report by the Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development highlighted that inclusive policies enable LGBTI+ individuals to achieve their full employment and productivity potential, benefiting both their well-being and society at large. Moreover, according to Open for Business, a think tank whose mission is making a case for LGBTQ+ inclusion in private and public settings, companies with “larger LGBTQ+ workforce benefit from diverse perspectives but also foster environments where innovation and productivity thrive”. It has also been found that human rights violations against LGBTI+ people diminish economic output at the micro level, suggesting that inclusive societies are more likely to experience robust economic growth.




    À lire aussi :
    Business schools are facing challenges to their diversity commitments. They must reinforce them to train leaders effectively


    Research has also shown that trans-inclusive business practices have long been associated with innovation, employee satisfaction and market competitiveness. Companies that provide gender-neutral bathroom access, introduce the inclusive use of pronouns and support employees’ gender transitions have been proven to foster relational authenticity in the workplace.

    Discrimination and exclusion, by contrast, not only harm individuals but also impede economic growth by limiting the available talent pool and reducing overall productivity. In September 2024, the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) reported that “laws and policies designed to restrict or prevent access or supports for transgender and nonbinary people” endanger LGBTQ+ individuals and their allies, leading to increased fear, lack of safety and a rise in anti-LGBTQ+ violence. More generally, these laws and policies can also deter businesses from investing in regions perceived as discriminatory. Also in September, the Movement Advancement Project identified that the lack of legal protection against discrimination contributes to economic instability for LGBTQ+ families, which can lead to wage gaps, job insecurity and reduced access to benefits, ultimately contributing to reduced consumer spending and lower economic participation.

    Language targeting trans rights and visibility

    Despite the benefits of DEI initiatives, the current US administration has sought to enact several policies aimed at dismantling them, resulting in organizations, both public and private, to suspend funding for DEI and outreach programmes. In Trump’s executive orders, anything – policy, programme or initiative – related to or benefitting trans people in access to healthcare, academic research, scientific inquiry, school policies, personal safety, participation in sports, and military service is now rejected as “gender ideology extremism”.

    Targeting sports, education and the military is functional to an ideological battle aimed at erasing spaces where trans people are most vulnerable. These spaces are also formative arenas in shaping national identity and the public perception of DEI initiatives. When they become politicized, they can also affect how businesses frame their values, manage risks and engage with their different stakeholders.




    À lire aussi :
    Anti-DEI guidance from Trump administration misinterprets the law and guts educators’ free speech rights


    The anti-trans executive orders begin by redefining the term “sex” for interpretations of federal law. According to the text of “Defending Women from Gender Ideology Extremism and Restoring Biological Truth to Federal Government”, a person is either male or female, which is determined by their reproductive cells at conception – a definition in which biology takes precedence over individual rights and legal protections. “Keeping Men Out of Women’s Sports” weaponizes this “biological truth” by threatening to cut off federal funds to schools that allow trans athletes to participate in them. “Prioritizing Military Excellence and Readiness” equates being transgender with medical or physical incapacity despite no evidence suggesting that trans service members negatively impact military readiness. “Ending Radical Indoctrination in K-12 Schooling” seeks to prevent schools from teaching about gender identity, which would strip trans youth of critical support systems. And “Protecting Children from Chemical and Surgical Mutilation” describes gender-affirming healthcare as “destructive”.

    The ripple effects of this anti-trans rhetoric extend into the private sector, compelling businesses to reevaluate their DEI strategies in fear of backlash or scrutiny. Even before the last US presidential election, companies such as Ford, Harley-Davidson and Lowe’s withdrew their participation in the Corporate Equality Index, a national benchmarking tool on corporate policies and practices related to LGBTQ+ workplace equality. In the wake of Trump’s anti-DEI and anti-trans orders, organizers of various Pride events in the US and Canada learned that some corporations, including longtime sponsors, had decided not to fund them. And according to the New York Times, some companies erased language and terms related to DEI from annual reports filed this year, including Dow Chemical, whose reference to LGBTQ+ employee resource groups disappeared from its public documents.

    Navigating between inclusive values and anti-DEI pressure

    Three patterns seem to be emerging on how companies are navigating the tension between values that are inclusive of LGBTI+ people and the growing pressure to scrub DEI commitments within the US context. For the moment, these patterns do not reflect formalized strategies but adaptive responses to an environment that has grown in complexity in a very short time. Some corporate actions reflect deliberate strategy aimed at protecting global consistency, while others appear more reactive, shaped by local market pressures.

    The first pattern involves establishing a sort of internal firewall between US and international operations. Banco Santander provides a clear example of this approach. Thus far, it has maintained global DEI commitments such as tying executive bonuses to increased gender equality in leadership. This group stated that such targets would not be applied to countries where governmental policies target DEI. In this pattern, DEI programmes are maintained abroad but are dismantled in the US to minimize political exposure in the latter.

    The second approach, observed at accounting firm Deloitte, is a cultural split between US operations and those overseas: while entities under the same global brand may still share data, practices, or strategic frameworks internally, they now adopt publicly distinct positions on DEI. Deloitte UK has remained vocal on its DEI commitments, highlighting the cultural and political fault lines that multinationals must now navigate.

    The third approach is a retraction of DEI altogether. Target offers a striking example. In 2023, under increased political and consumer pressure, the company rolled back some of its LGBTQ+ inclusion efforts by reducing the number of Pride-related items for sale. In 2025, four days after Trump’s inauguration, Target announced it would “end its three-year DEI goals”, cease reporting to the Corporate Equality Index and “end a program focused on carrying more products from Black- or minority-owned businesses”, as reported by CNBC. The moves resulted in considerable public criticism, and more notably, coincided with a marked drop in foot traffic – “nearly 5 million fewer visits” over a four-week period – revealing reputational and financial risks associated with the abandoning of DEI policies. By contrast, bulk retailer Costco, which said three days after the inauguration that its shareholders voted against a proposal seen as unfriendly to the company’s DEI programmes, “saw nearly 7.7 million more visits” during that same stretch.




    À lire aussi :
    A boycott campaign fuels tension between Black shoppers and Black-owned brands – evoking the long struggle for ‘consumer citizenship’


    In light of the evidence, it is clear that undermining DEI initiatives poses substantial risks – not just to human dignity, but to economic competitiveness. Businesses and policymakers must recognize that DEI is not merely a social or ethical imperative but a core strategy for growth and innovation. By fostering environments where all individuals can thrive, we unlock the full potential of our workforce and ensure sustainable economic growth.

    Conversely, discriminatory policies contribute to social instability, brain drain and economic stagnation. In the United States, the rollback of DEI initiatives and the marginalization of transgender individuals threaten to erode the nation’s ability to uphold human rights and maintain business competitiveness. History demonstrates that exclusionary policies ultimately harm societies rather than strengthen them. The question remains whether the US can afford to sacrifice social stability and economic growth in pursuit of ideological battles. The evidence suggests that it cannot.

    Matteo Winkler is a member of the Open for Business Academic Committee. He has received funding from the HEC Foundation.

    Marcelle Laliberté is a member of Women in Aerospace Europe and HEC We&Men, and a contributor to the UN`s High Advisory Board on Governing AI for Humanity.

    ref. Threatening diversity, threatening growth: the business effects of Trump’s anti-DEI and anti-trans agendas – https://theconversation.com/threatening-diversity-threatening-growth-the-business-effects-of-trumps-anti-dei-and-anti-trans-agendas-255040

    MIL OSI

  • MIL-OSI Submissions: Japanese prime minister’s abrupt no-show at NATO summit reveals a strained alliance with the US

    Source: The Conversation – Global Perspectives – By Craig Mark, Adjunct Lecturer, Faculty of Economics, Hosei University

    Japanese Prime Minister Shigeru Ishiba has sent a clear signal to the Trump administration: the Japan–US relationship is in a dire state.

    After saying just days ago he would be attending this week’s NATO summit at The Hague, Ishiba abruptly pulled out at the last minute.

    He joins two other leaders from the Indo-Pacific region, Australian Prime Minister Anthony Albanese and South Korean President Lee Jae-myung, in skipping the summit.

    The Japanese media reported Ishiba cancelled the trip because a bilateral meeting with US President Donald Trump was unlikely, as was a meeting of the Indo-Pacific Four (IP4) NATO partners (Australia, New Zealand, South Korea and Japan).

    Japan will still be represented by Foreign Minister Takeshi Iwaya, showing its desire to strengthen its security relationship with NATO.

    However, Ishiba’s no-show reveals how Japan views its relationship with the Trump administration, following the severe tariffs Washington imposed on Japan and Trump’s mixed messages on the countries’ decades-long military alliance.

    Tariffs and diplomatic disagreements

    Trump’s tariff policy is at the core of the divide between the US and Japan.

    Ishiba attempted to get relations with the Trump administration off to a good start. He was the second world leader to visit Trump at the White House, after Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu.

    However, Trump’s “Liberation Day” tariffs imposed a punitive rate of 25% on Japanese cars and 24% on all other Japanese imports. They are already having an adverse impact on Japan’s economy: exports of automobiles to the US dropped in May by 25% compared to a year ago.

    Six rounds of negotiations have made little progress, as Ishiba’s government insists on full tariff exemptions.

    Japan has been under pressure from the Trump administration to increase its defence spending, as well. According to the Financial Times, Tokyo cancelled a summit between US and Japanese defence and foreign ministers over the demand. (A Japanese official denied the report.)

    Japan also did not offer its full support to the US bombings of Iran’s nuclear facilities earlier this week. The foreign minister instead said Japan “understands” the US’s determination to prevent Iran from acquiring nuclear weapons.

    Japan has traditionally had fairly good relations with Iran, often acting as an indirect bridge with the West. Former Prime Minister Shinzo Abe even made a visit there in 2019.

    Japan also remains heavily dependent on oil from the Middle East. It would have been adversely affected if the Strait of Hormuz had been blocked, as Iran was threatening to do.

    Unlike the response from the UK and Australia, which both supported the strikes, the Ishiba government prioritised its commitment to upholding international law and the rules-based global order. In doing so, Japan seeks to deny China, Russia and North Korea any leeway to similarly erode global norms on the use of force and territorial aggression.

    Strategic dilemma of the Japan–US military alliance

    In addition, Japan is facing the same dilemma as other American allies – how to manage relations with the “America first” Trump administration, which has made the US an unreliable ally.

    Earlier this year, Trump criticised the decades-old security alliance between the US and Japan, calling it “one-sided”.

    “If we’re ever attacked, they don’t have to do a thing to protect us,” he said of Japan.

    Lower-level security cooperation is ongoing between the two allies and their regional partners. The US, Japanese and Philippine Coast Guards conducted drills in Japanese waters this week. The US military may also assist with upgrading Japan’s counterstrike missile capabilities.

    But Japan is still likely to continue expanding its security ties with partners beyond the US, such as NATO, the European Union, India, the Philippines, Vietnam and other ASEAN members, while maintaining its fragile rapprochement with South Korea.

    Australia is now arguably Japan’s most reliable security partner. Canberra is considering buying Japan’s Mogami-class frigates for the Royal Australian Navy. And if the AUKUS agreement with the US and UK collapses, Japanese submarines could be a replacement.

    Ishiba under domestic political pressure

    There are also intensifying domestic political pressures on Ishiba to hold firm against Trump, who is deeply unpopular among the Japanese public.

    After replacing former prime minister Fumio Kishida as leader of the Liberal Democratic Party (LDP) last September, the party lost its majority in the lower house of parliament in snap elections. This made it dependent on minor parties for legislative support.

    Ishiba’s minority government has struggled ever since with poor opinion polling. There has been widespread discontent with inflation, the high cost of living and stagnant wages, the legacy of LDP political scandals, and ever-worsening geopolitical uncertainty.

    On Sunday, the party suffered its worst-ever result in elections for the Tokyo Metropolitan Assembly, winning its lowest number of seats.

    The party could face a similar drubbing in the election for half of the upper house of the Diet (Japan’s parliament) on July 20. Ishiba has pledged to maintain the LDP’s majority in the house with its junior coalition partner Komeito. But if the government falls into minority status in both houses, Ishiba will face heavy pressure to step down.

    Craig Mark 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. Japanese prime minister’s abrupt no-show at NATO summit reveals a strained alliance with the US – https://theconversation.com/japanese-prime-ministers-abrupt-no-show-at-nato-summit-reveals-a-strained-alliance-with-the-us-259694

    MIL OSI

  • MIL-OSI USA: Department of Defense agrees: it’s time for Trump’s militarization of Los Angeles to end

    Source: US State of California Governor

    Jun 30, 2025

    What you need to know: As President Trump’s illegal militarization of Los Angeles continues to hamstring crucial firefighting resources in California, new reporting indicates top military officials are asking the Secretary of Defense to return troops to firefighting operations as Governor Newsom has urged.

    SACRAMENTO – According to new reporting by the Associated Press, the top military commander overseeing troops illegally deployed to Los Angeles is asking Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth to return 200 of those troops to firefighting operations – echoing Governor Gavin Newsom’s continued pleas. 

    With fires popping up across the state and red flag conditions in the forecast, the California National Guard’s (CalGuard) critical firefighting crews – known as Task Force Rattlesnake – are operating at just 40% capacity. Eight of 14 teams have been diverted to Los Angeles as part of President Trump’s illegal – and highly inefficient – federalization of the Guard. 

    We’re glad to see the top military commander overseeing Trump’s illegal militarization of Los Angeles agree: it’s time to pull back National Guard troops and get them back to their critical firefighting duties. President Trump: listen to your military leaders, and stop the political theater.

    Governor Gavin Newsom

    Joint Task Force Rattlesnake is made up of over 300 California National Guard (CalGuard) members, who work at the direction of CAL FIRE to help fight and prevent fires. The President’s illegal federalization of the Guard has already impacted firefighting efforts, leaving CAL FIRE to step in to fill the gaps left by the Guard’s understaffing. 

    The National Guard impact is on top of the Trump administration’s dangerous cuts to the U.S. Forest Service, which also threatens the safety of communities across the state. The U.S. Forest Service has lost 10% of all positions and 25% of positions outside of direct wildfire response – both of which are likely to impact wildfire response this year. 

    President Trump’s unlawful deployment has also slashed California’s National Guard fentanyl and drug interdiction force by 32% — undermining public safety and weakening border fentanyl seizure operations.

    California’s unprecedented wildfire readiness 

    Despite the strain caused by President Trump, California stands ready to protect communities. As part of the state’s ongoing investment in wildfire resilience and emergency response, CAL FIRE has significantly expanded its workforce over the past five years by adding an average of 1,800 full-time and 600 seasonal positions annually – nearly double that from the previous administration. Over the next four years and beyond, CAL FIRE will be hiring thousands of additional firefighters, natural resource professionals, and support personnel to meet the state’s growing demands.

    This builds on consecutive years of intensive and focused work by California to confront the severe ongoing risk of catastrophic wildfires, and Governor Newsom’s emergency proclamation signed in March to fast-track forest and vegetation management projects throughout the state. Additionally, to bolster the state’s ability to respond to fires, Governor Newsom recently announced that the state’s second C-130 Hercules airtanker is ready for firefighting operations, adding to the largest aerial firefighting fleet in the world. 

    New, bold moves to streamline state-level regulatory processes builds long-term efforts already underway in California to increase wildfire response and forest management in the face of a hotter, drier climate. A full list of California’s progress on wildfire resilience is available here.

    Recent news

    News What you need to know: Governor Newsom is issuing an extension to his executive order making it easier for survivors of the LA firestorms to retain temporary shelter. The order helps continue to boost temporary housing supply by extending the amount of time…

    News What you need to know: Californians are urged to practice common sense and safety when using fireworks to celebrate this Fourth of July. People who resort to using illegal fireworks will be held accountable. SACRAMENTO – With Fourth of July celebrations set to go…

    News ✅ CUMPLIDO: Reducción de impuestos para jubilados militares ✅ CUMPLIDO: Pre-kinder universal para todos ✅ CUMPLIDO: Ampliación de programas antes y después de clases y cursos de verano ✅ CUMPLIDO: Alimentación escolar gratuita para todos los niños ✅ CUMPLIDO:…

    MIL OSI USA News

  • MIL-OSI Russia: Naval squadrons led by Chinese aircraft carriers return to ports after completing deep-sea training /more details/

    Translation. Region: Russian Federal

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

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

    BEIJING, June 30 (Xinhua) — The Chinese People’s Liberation Army Navy (PLA Navy) naval squadrons led by the aircraft carriers Liaoning and Shandong have safely returned to their home ports after completing combat-style training on the high seas, the PLA Navy said Monday.

    The training was conducted in a coordinated and systematic manner. Two aircraft carrier formations deployed to the western Pacific Ocean, interacted with the relevant branches of the armed forces, and carried out a number of tasks simulating real combat operations, such as reconnaissance and early detection, counterattack, naval assault, air defense, and day and night tactical flights of carrier-based aircraft.

    The current exercise has produced a series of research results in relevant areas of military affairs and greatly enhanced the systemic combat potential of China’s aircraft carrier formations. It is a continuation of the previous two-carrier high-sea exercise conducted jointly by the two naval formations last year.

    It is noted that during the training, individual foreign warships and aircraft repeatedly carried out close reconnaissance, escort and surveillance maneuvers. The Chinese naval units maintained heightened vigilance and combat readiness for immediate response, organized numerous carrier-based aircraft sorties, and professionally and confidently dealt with the situation that arose.

    The PLA Navy said that these exercises, conducted in accordance with the annual plan, have effectively tested the results of joint training of relevant troops and enhanced their capacity to protect the country’s sovereignty, security and development interests. –0–

    MIL OSI Russia News

  • MIL-OSI USA News: Fact Sheet: President Trump Is Delivering Historic Permitting Wins Across the Federal Government

    Source: US Whitehouse

    ACCOMPLISHING PERMITTING REFORM IN RECORD TIME:  Today, President Donald J. Trump delivered on his promise to fix a broken permitting system, ensuring that burdensome Federal environmental reviews cannot be weaponized to stall the growth of the American economy or halt energy infrastructure construction.

    • The White House, through the Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ), coordinated a historic effort to dramatically reduce the burdens of National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) compliance across the Federal government so that America can get back to building again.
    • In consultation with CEQ, the Department of Agriculture, the Department of Commerce (including the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration), the Department of the Interior, the Department of Energy, the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, the Department of Transportation, the Department of Defense, and the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers updated their respective NEPA implementing procedures to  simplify this overly burdensome process and ensure efficient and timely environmental reviews.
    • These historic reforms:
      • Implement deadlines and page limits on environmental reviews required under recent amendments to NEPA, in order to expedite infrastructure development and reduce costs.
      • Provide clarification that NEPA does not apply to every action that a Federal agency takes, but only to Federal actions where the agency has sufficient control and discretion to take environmental effects into account.
      • Ensure simple and expeditious processes to create categorical exclusions (CEs), adopt other agencies’ CEs to minimize repetitive NEPA analyses, and focus their attention on actions with truly significant environmental effects.

    CUTTING UNNECESSARY RED TAPE: All three branches of the Federal government have recently directed reforms to the NEPA process: President Trump, in his Unleashing American Energy Executive Order; the United States Congress, in its BUILDER Act amendments as part of the 2023 Fiscal Responsibility Act; and the United States Supreme Court in its recent landmark decision in Seven County Infrastructure Coalition v. Eagle County.

    • NEPA directs all agencies to maintain their own, agency-level NEPA implementing procedures.
    • Most of those procedures had not been modernized to reflect any of the recent reforms. Some agencies were still using outdated NEPA regulations from the 1980s.
    • Under President Trump’s leadership, the endless cycle of regulatory back-and-forth and excessive environmental reviews that produced little benefit for the American people has come to a halt.
    • Federal agencies are cutting unnecessary layers of bureaucracy in record time by implementing the unmistakable direction from all three branches of the Federal government. 

    BUILDING ON PAST SUCCESS: The Trump Administration has taken decisive action to reform, modernize, and expedite the Federal environmental review, eliminating unnecessary delays that are holding back the growth of secure and reliable infrastructure projects across the Nation.

    • On January 20, 2025, President Trump signed the Executive Order, Unleashing American Energy, which called for unleashing American energy dominance through efficient permitting.
      • The E.O. directed CEQ to provide guidance on implementing NEPA to expedite and simplify the permitting process – and propose rescinding CEQ’s regulations.
      • CEQ responded to President Trump’s direction by rescinding its NEPA regulations, creating a clear path for agencies to expeditiously reform their own NEPA procedures and allow America to build again.
      • President Trump’s action to restore CEQ to its core statutory mission of coordinating and consulting, providing guidance to Federal agencies as they revise their NEPA procedures, will ensure timely reviews and consistency across agencies and enable CEQ to coordinate this monumental deregulatory effort.

    MIL OSI USA News

  • MIL-OSI USA: Alford, Gonzales Introduce Bill to Create Military Campaign Service Medal for Service Members Who Supported Operation Midnight Hammer

    Source: United States House of Representatives – Representative Mark Alford (Missouri 4th District)

    Today, Congressmen Mark Alford (MO-04) and Tony Gonzales (TX-23) introduced the Iranian Campaign Medal Act. This legislation authorizes the Secretary of Defense to establish and award a United States military decoration to service members who served in direct support of Operation Midnight Hammer.

     “As the Congressman representing Whiteman Air Force Base, I’m proud to co-lead this bill recognizing our airmen’s contributions to Operation Midnight Hammer,” said Congressman Alford. “It was not just the pilots—it was also the maintenance, planning, operational, and support personnel whose unparalleled coordination made this mission a resounding success. The Iranian Campaign was the ultimate testament to President Trump’s peace through strength agenda.”

    “During my 20 years of military service, including multiple campaigns in the Middle East, I served side by side with the finest troops in the world. No matter what the mission is, American servicemembers always rise to the challenge, and Operation Midnight Hammer in Iran is no exception. There is no other military in the world that could have executed a precision strike on nuclear sites with such excellence, and the men and women who made it happen deserve full recognition for their efforts. I’m especially proud that the airmen involved received training at our military installations in San Antonio, which highlights yet again the importance of Military City, U.S.A.,” said Congressman Tony Gonzales. “The Iranian Campaign Medal Act will authorize the Department of Defense to establish a military service medal for our troops deployed to Iran under President Trump’s decisive leadership.”

    Read the text of the legislation here.

    U.S. Representatives Sam Graves (R-MO), Pat Fallon (R-TX), August Pfluger (R-TX), Zach Nunn (R-IA), Claudia Tenney (R-NY), Frank Lucas (R-OK), Mike Simpson (R-ID), Anna Paulina Luna (R-FL), Mike Lawler (R-NY), Juan Ciscomani (R-AZ), and Rob Bresnahan (R-PA) supported Congressmen Alford and Gonzales’ legislation as original co-sponsors.

    Background:

    On June 22, 2025, President Trump authorized a precision strike at three Iranian nuclear sites to prevent a nuclear-armed Iran. Executed by 14 American pilots flying seven B-2 bombers out of Whiteman AFB, and supported by over 125 U.S. aircraft, including dozens of aerial refueling tankers, a guided missile submarine, and approximately 75 precision-guided munitions, the strike successfully targeted critical Iranian nuclear infrastructure at Natanz, Fordow, and Isfahan. In keeping with longstanding tradition, Congress has the authority to establish a commemorative service medal to honor service members for their contributions to military operations.

    The Iranian Campaign Medal Act authorizes the creation and award of a United States military decoration to service members who served in Iran in direct support of Operation Midnight Hammer, as well as any additional operations or periods the Secretary of Defense may designate.

    ###

    MIL OSI USA News

  • MIL-OSI USA News: Providing for the Revocation of Syria Sanctions

    Source: US Whitehouse

    By the authority vested in me as President by the Constitution and the laws of the United States of America, including the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (50 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.), the National Emergencies Act (50 U.S.C. 1601 et seq.) (NEA), the Syria Accountability and Lebanese Sovereignty Restoration Act of 2003 (Public Law 108-175) (Syria Accountability Act), the Chemical and Biological Weapons Control and Warfare Elimination Act of 1991 (Public Law 102-182, title III) (CBW Act), the Caesar Syria Civilian Protection Act of 2019, as amended (22 U.S.C. 8791 note) (Caesar Act), the Illicit Captagon Trafficking Suppression Act of 2023 (Public Law 118-50, div. P), and section 301 of title 3, United States Code, it is hereby ordered:

    Section 1.  Background.  The United States is committed to supporting a Syria that is stable, unified, and at peace with itself and its neighbors.  A united Syria that does not offer a safe haven for terrorist organizations and ensures the security of its religious and ethnic minorities will support regional security and prosperity.  The Secretary of State and the Secretary of the Treasury have taken initial steps towards this goal through the issuance on May 23, 2025, of General License 25 and a waiver of sanctions under the Caesar Act. 

    Sec2.  Policy.  It is the policy of the United States to recognize that circumstances that gave rise to the actions taken in the Executive Orders described in section 3(a) of this order, related to the policies and actions of the former regime of Bashar al-Assad, have been transformed by developments over the past 6 months, including the positive actions taken by the new Syrian government under President Ahmed al-Sharaa.  This order supports United States national security and foreign policy goals by directing additional actions, including the removal of sanctions on Syria, the issuance of waivers that permit the relaxation of export controls and other restrictions on Syria, and other actions to be taken by the Secretary of State, the Secretary of the Treasury, and the Secretary of Commerce, as well as by other executive departments and agencies (agencies) of the United States, without providing relief to ISIS or other terrorist organizations, human rights abusers, those linked to chemical weapons or proliferation-related activities, or other persons that threaten the peace, security, or stability of the United States, Syria, and its neighbors. 

    Sec3.  Revocation of Syria Sanctions.  (a)  Effective July 1, 2025, I hereby terminate the national emergency declared in Executive Order 13338 of May 11, 2004 (Blocking Property of Certain Persons and Prohibiting the Export of Certain Goods to Syria), and revoke that order, as well as Executive Order 13399 of April 25, 2006 (Blocking Property of Additional Persons in Connection With the National Emergency With Respect to Syria), Executive Order 13460 of February 13, 2008 (Blocking Property of Additional Persons in Connection With the National Emergency With Respect to Syria), Executive Order 13572 of April 29, 2011 (Blocking Property of Certain Persons with Respect to Human Rights Abuses in Syria), Executive Order 13573 of May 18, 2011 (Blocking Property of Senior Officials of the Government of Syria), and Executive Order 13582 of August 17, 2011 (Blocking Property of the Government of Syria and Prohibiting Certain Transactions with Respect to Syria).
         (b)  Pursuant to section 202(a) of the NEA (50 U.S.C. 1622(a)), termination of the national emergency declared in Executive Order 13338, as modified in scope and relied upon for additional steps taken in Executive Order 13399, Executive Order 13460, Executive Order 13572, Executive Order 13573, and Executive Order 13582 shall not affect any action taken or pending proceeding not finally concluded or determined as of July 1, 2025, any action or proceeding based on any act committed prior to July 1, 2025, or any rights or duties that matured or penalties that were incurred prior to July 1, 2025.

    Sec4.  Accountability for the Former Regime of Bashar al‑Assad.  I find that additional steps must be taken to ensure meaningful accountability for perpetrators of war crimes, human rights violations and abuses, and the proliferation of narcotics trafficking networks in and in relation to Syria during the former regime of Bashar al-Assad and by those associated with it.  Perpetrators of such actions threaten to undermine peace, security, and stability in the region, and thereby constitute an unusual and extraordinary threat to the national security and foreign policy of the United States.
         (a)  I hereby expand the scope of the national emergency declared in Executive Order 13894 of October 14, 2019 (Blocking Property and Suspending Entry of Certain Persons Contributing to the Situation in Syria), as amended in and relied on for additional steps taken in Executive Order 14142 of January 15, 2025 (Taking Additional Steps With Respect to the Situation in Syria), to deal with that threat, and accordingly further amend Executive Order 13894 by:
            (i)   striking section 1(a) and inserting, in lieu thereof, the following:
         “Section 1.  (a)  All property and interests in property that are in the United States, that hereafter come within the United States, or that are or hereafter come within the possession or control of any United States person of the following persons are blocked and may not be transferred, paid, exported, withdrawn, or otherwise dealt in: 
            (i)  any person determined by the Secretary of the Treasury, in consultation with the Secretary of State:
              (A)  to be responsible for or complicit in, or to have directly or indirectly engaged in, or attempted to engage in, any of the following in or in relation to Syria:
                 (1)  actions or policies that further threaten the peace, security, stability, or territorial integrity of Syria; or
                 (2)  the commission of serious human rights abuse;
              (B)  to be a former government official of the former regime of Bashar al-Assad or a person who acted for or on behalf of such an official;
              (C)  to have engaged in, or attempted to engage in, activities or transactions that have materially contributed to, or pose a significant risk of materially contributing to, the illicit production and international illicit proliferation of captagon;
              (D)  to be responsible for or complicit in, to have directly or indirectly engaged in, or to be responsible for ordering, controlling, or otherwise directing, instances in which a United States national ((i) as defined in 8 U.S.C. 1101(a)(22) or 8 U.S.C. 1408, or (ii) a lawful permanent resident with significant ties to the United States) went missing in Syria during the former regime of Bashar al-Assad; 
              (E)  to have materially assisted, sponsored, or provided financial, material, or technological support for, or goods or services to or in support of: 
                 (1)  the former regime of Bashar al-Assad; 
                 (2)  any activity described in subsections (a)(i)(A)–(a)(i)(D) of this section; or 
                 (3)  any person whose property and interests in property are blocked pursuant to this order; 
              (F)  to be owned or controlled by, or to have acted or purported to act for or on behalf of, directly or indirectly, any person whose property and interests in property are blocked pursuant to this order; or
              (G)  to be an adult family member of a person designated under subsections (a)(i)(A)–(a)(i)(D) of this section.”; and
            (ii)  striking section 2(a) and inserting, in lieu thereof, the following:  
         “Sec. 2.  (a)  The Secretary of State, in consultation with the Secretary of the Treasury and other officials of the United States Government as appropriate, is hereby authorized to impose on a foreign person any of the sanctions described in subsections (b) and (c) of this section, upon determining that the person, on or after the date of this order: 
            (i)    is responsible for or complicit in, has directly or indirectly engaged in, or attempted to engage in, or financed the obstruction, disruption, or prevention of efforts to promote a Syria that is stable, unified, and at peace with itself and its neighbors, including:
              (A)  the convening and conduct of a credible and inclusive Syrian-led constitutional process;
              (B)  the preparation for and conduct of supervised elections, pursuant to the new constitution, that are free and fair and to the highest international standards of transparency and accountability; or
              (C)  the development of a Syrian government that is representative and reflects the will of the Syrian people;
            (ii)   is an adult family member of a person designated under subsection (a)(i) of this section; or
            (iii)  is responsible for or complicit in, or has directly or indirectly engaged in, or attempted to engage in, the expropriation of property, including real property, for personal gain or political purposes in Syria.”
         (b)  I additionally amend Executive Order 13606 of April 22, 2012 (Blocking the Property and Suspending Entry into the United States of Certain Persons With Respect to Grave Human Rights Abuses by the Governments of Iran and Syria Via Information Technology), by removing the following text from the preamble:  “Executive Order 13338 of May 11, 2004, as modified in scope and relied upon for additional steps in subsequent Executive Orders” and replacing it with:  “Executive Order 13894 of October 14, 2019, and relied upon for additional steps and further amended in subsequent Executive Orders.”

    Sec5.  Caesar Act.  The Secretary of State, in consultation with the Secretary of the Treasury, shall examine whether the criteria set forth in section 7431(a) of the Caesar Act have been met, and on the basis of that examination may, pursuant to the Presidential Memorandum of March 31, 2020 (Delegation of Certain Functions and Authorities Under the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2020), suspend in whole or in part the imposition of sanctions otherwise required under the Caesar Act.  If the Secretary of State determines to suspend in whole or in part the imposition of such sanctions, the Secretary of State, in consultation with the Secretary of the Treasury, shall provide the briefing to the appropriate congressional committees required by section 7431(b) of the Caesar Act within 30 days of such determination.  Further, the Secretary of State, in consultation with the Secretary of the Treasury, shall continue to review the situation in Syria, and if the Secretary of State, in consultation with the Secretary of the Treasury, determines that the criteria set forth in section 7431(a) are no longer met, the Secretary of State shall reimpose sanctions. 

    Sec6.  Syria Accountability Act.  I hereby determine pursuant to section 5(b) of the Syria Accountability Act that it is in the national security interest of the United States to waive the application of subsection (a)(1), with respect to items on the Commerce Control List (supp. No. 1 to 15 C.F.R. part 774) only, and subsection (a)(2)(A) of the Syria Accountability Act only.  The Secretary of State shall submit to the appropriate congressional committees the report required under section 5(b) of that Act.

    Sec7.  CBW Act.  (a)  Pursuant to section 307(d)(1)(B) of the CBW Act, I hereby determine and certify that there has been a fundamental change in the leadership and policies of the Government of the Syrian Arab Republic.  Accordingly, I hereby waive the following sanctions imposed on Syria for the prior use of chemical weapons under the former regime of Bashar al-Assad:
            (i) the restriction on foreign assistance under section 307(a)(1) of the CBW Act;
            (ii)   the restriction on United States Government credit, credit guarantees, or other financial assistance under section 307(a)(4) of the CBW Act;
            (iii)  the restrictions on the export of national security-sensitive goods and technology under section 307(a)(5) of the CBW Act and on all other goods and technology under section 307(b)(2)(C) of the CBW Act; and
            (iv)   the restriction on United States banks from making any loan or providing any credit to the Government of Syria under section 307(b)(2)(B) of the CBW Act.
         (b)  The Secretary of State shall transmit this waiver determination and report as required by sections 307(d)(1)(B) and (d)(2) of the CBW Act to the appropriate congressional committees.  This waiver shall be effective 20 days after it has been so transmitted.

    Sec8.  Counterterrorism Designations.  (a)  The Secretary of State, in consultation with the Secretary of the Treasury and the Attorney General, shall take all appropriate action with respect to the designation of al-Nusrah Front, also known as Hay’at Tahrir al-Sham and other aliases, as a Foreign Terrorist Organization under 8 U.S.C. 1189 and as a Specially Designated Global Terrorist under 50 U.S.C. 1702 and Executive Order 13224, as well as the designation of Abu Muhammad al Jawlani, commonly known as Ahmed al-Sharaa, as a Specially Designated Global Terrorist.
         (b)  The Secretary of State shall take all appropriate action to review the designation of Syria as a State Sponsor of Terrorism consistent with section 1754(c) of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2019 (Public Law 115-232; 50 U.S.C. 4813(c)), section 40 of the Arms Export Control Act (Public Law 90-629, as amended; 22 U.S.C. 2780), and section 620A of the Foreign Assistance Act of 1961 (Public Law 87-195, as amended; 22 U.S.C. 2371).

    Sec9.  United Nations.  The Secretary of State shall take appropriate steps to advance United States policy objectives at the United Nations to support a Syria that is stable and at peace and to support Syrian efforts to counter terrorism and comply with its responsibilities and obligations concerning weapons of mass destruction, including chemical and biological weapons.  The Secretary of State is further directed to explore avenues at the United Nations to provide sanctions relief in support of these objectives.

    Sec10.  Implementation.  The Secretary of State, the Secretary of the Treasury, and the Secretary of Commerce, as appropriate, are hereby authorized to take such actions, including adopting rules and regulations, as may be necessary to implement this order.  The Secretary of State, the Secretary of the Treasury, and the Secretary of Commerce may, consistent with applicable law, redelegate any of these functions within their respective agencies.  The Secretary of State, in consultation with the Secretary of the Treasury, the Secretary of Commerce, and the Secretary of Transportation, as appropriate, is authorized to exercise the functions and authorities conferred upon the President in section 5 of the Syria Accountability Act and to redelegate these functions and authorities consistent with applicable law.  All agencies of the United States shall take all appropriate measures within their authority to implement this order, consistent with applicable law.

    Sec11.  General Provisions.  (a)  Nothing in this order shall be construed to impair or otherwise affect:
            (i)   the authority granted by law to an executive department or agency, or the head thereof; or
            (ii)  the functions of the Director of the Office of Management and Budget relating to budgetary, administrative, or legislative proposals.
         (b)  This order shall be implemented consistent with applicable law and subject to the availability of appropriations.
         (c)  This order is not intended to, and does not, create any right or benefit, substantive or procedural, enforceable at law or in equity by any party against the United States, its departments, agencies, or entities, its officers, employees, or agents, or any other person.
         (d)  The costs for publication of this order shall be borne by the Department of State.

                            DONALD J. TRUMP

    THE WHITE HOUSE,
    June 30, 2025.

    MIL OSI USA News

  • MIL-OSI USA News: National Security Presidential Memorandum/NSPM-5

    Source: US Whitehouse

    MEMORANDUM FOR THE VICE PRESIDENT

    THE SECRETARY OF STATE

    THE SECRETARY OF THE TREASURY

    THE SECRETARY OF DEFENSE

    THE ATTORNEY GENERAL

    THE SECRETARY OF THE INTERIOR

    THE SECRETARY OF AGRICULTURE

    THE SECRETARY OF COMMERCE

    THE SECRETARY OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES

    THE SECRETARY OF TRANSPORTATION

    THE SECRETARY OF HOMELAND SECURITY

    THE DIRECTOR OF NATIONAL INTELLIGENCE

    THE DIRECTOR OF THE CENTRAL INTELLIGENCE

        AGENCY

    THE CHAIRMAN OF THE JOINT CHIEFS OF STAFF

    THE ASSISTANT TO THE PRESIDENT AND CHIEF OF

       STAFF

    THE DIRECTOR OF THE OFFICE OF MANAGEMENT AND

       BUDGET

    THE ASSISTANT TO THE PRESIDENT FOR NATIONAL

       SECURITY AFFAIRS

    THE ASSISTANT TO THE PRESIDENT AND HOMELAND

        SECURITY ADVISOR

    THE COUNSEL TO THE PRESIDENT

    THE ASSISTANT TO THE PRESIDENT FOR ECONOMIC

        POLICY

    THE UNITED STATES TRADE REPRESENTATIVE

    THE DIRECTOR OF THE OFFICE OF SCIENCE AND

       TECHNOLOGY POLICY

    THE REPRESENTATIVE OF THE UNITED STATES OF

       AMERICA TO THE UNITED NATIONS

    THE ADMINISTRATOR OF THE SMALL BUSINESS

       ADMINISTRATION

    THE ADMINISTRATOR OF THE UNITED STATES AGENCY FOR

       INTERNATIONAL DEVELOPMENT

    THE DIRECTOR OF THE OFFICE OF PERSONNEL

       MANAGEMENT

    SUBJECT:       Reissuance of and Amendments to National Security Presidential Memorandum 5 on Strengthening the Policy of the United States Toward Cuba

    Section 1.  Purpose.  The United States recognizes the need for more freedom and democracy, improved respect for human rights, and increased free enterprise in Cuba.  The Cuban people have long suffered under a Communist regime that suppresses their legitimate aspirations for freedom and prosperity and fails to respect their essential human dignity.

    My Administration’s policy will be guided by the national security and foreign policy interests of the United States, as well as solidarity with the Cuban people.  I will seek to promote a stable, prosperous, and free country for the Cuban people.  To that end, we must channel funds toward the Cuban people and away from a regime that has failed to meet the most basic requirements of a free and just society.

    In Cuba, dissidents and peaceful protesters are arbitrarily detained and held in terrible prison conditions.  Violence and intimidation against dissidents occur with impunity.  Families of political prisoners are retaliated against for peacefully protesting the improper confinement of their loved ones.  Worshippers are harassed, and free association by civil society organizations is blocked.  The right to speak freely, including through access to the internet, is denied, and there is no free press.  The United States condemns these abuses.

    The initial actions set forth in this memorandum, including restricting certain financial transactions and travel, encourage the Cuban government to address these abuses.  My Administration will continue to evaluate its policies so as to improve human rights, encourage the rule of law, foster free markets and free enterprise, and promote democracy in Cuba.

    Sec. 2.  Policy.  It shall be the policy of the executive branch to:

    (a)  End economic practices that disproportionately benefit the Cuban government or its military, intelligence, or security agencies or personnel at the expense of the Cuban people.

    (b)  Ensure adherence to the statutory ban on tourism to Cuba.

    (c)  Support the economic embargo of Cuba described in section 4(7) of the Cuban Liberty and Democratic Solidarity (LIBERTAD) Act of 1996 (the embargo), including by opposing measures that call for an end to the embargo at the United Nations and other international forums and through regular reporting on whether the conditions of a transition government exist in Cuba.

    (d)  Amplify efforts to support the Cuban people through the expansion of internet services, free press, free enterprise, free association, and lawful travel.

    (e)  Not reinstate the “Wet Foot, Dry Foot” policy, which encouraged untold thousands of Cuban nationals to risk their lives to travel unlawfully to the United States.

    (f)  Ensure that engagement between the United States and Cuba advances the interests of the United States and the Cuban people.  These interests include:  advancing Cuban human rights; encouraging the growth of a Cuban private sector independent of government control; enforcing final orders of removal against Cuban nationals in the United States; protecting the national security and public health and safety of the United States, including through proper engagement on criminal cases and working to ensure the return of fugitives from American justice living in Cuba or being harbored by the Cuban government; supporting United States agriculture and protecting plant and animal health; advancing the understanding of the United States regarding scientific and environmental challenges; and facilitating safe civil aviation.

    Sec. 3.  Implementation.  The heads of executive departments and agencies (agencies) shall begin to implement the policy set forth in section 2 of this memorandum as follows:

    (a)  Within 30 days of the date of this memorandum, the Secretary of the Treasury and the Secretary of Commerce, as appropriate and in coordination with the Secretary of State and the Secretary of Transportation, shall initiate a process to adjust current regulations regarding transactions with Cuba.

    (i)    As part of the regulatory changes described in this subsection, the Secretary of State shall identify any entities or subentities, as appropriate, that are under the control of, or act for or on behalf of, or for the benefit of, the Cuban military, intelligence, or security services or personnel (such as Grupo de Administracion Empresarial S.A. (GAESA), its affiliates, subsidiaries, and successors), and publish a list of those identified entities and subentities with which direct or indirect financial transactions would disproportionately benefit such services or personnel at the expense of the Cuban people or private enterprise in Cuba.

    (ii)   Except as provided in subsection (a)(iii) of this section, the regulatory changes described in this subsection shall prohibit direct or indirect financial transactions with those entities or subentities on the list published pursuant to subsection (a)(i) of this section.

    (iii)  The regulatory changes described in this subsection shall not prohibit transactions that the Secretary of the Treasury or the Secretary of Commerce, in coordination with the Secretary of State, determines are consistent with the policy set forth in section 2 of this memorandum and:

    (A)  concern Federal Government operations, including Naval Station Guantanamo Bay and the United States mission in Havana;

    (B)  support programs to build democracy in Cuba;

    (C)  concern air and sea operations that support permissible travel, cargo, or trade;

    (D)  support the acquisition of visas for permissible travel;

    (E)  support the expansion of direct telecommunications and internet access for the Cuban people;

    (F)  support the sale of agricultural commodities, medicines, and medical devices sold to Cuba consistent with the Trade Sanctions Reform and Export Enhancement Act of 2000 (22 U.S.C. 7201 et seq.) and the Cuban Democracy Act of 2002 (22 U.S.C. 6001 et seq.);

    (G)  relate to sending, processing, or receiving authorized remittances;

    (H)  otherwise further the national security or foreign policy interests of the United States; or

    (I)  are required by law.

    (b)  Within 30 days of the date of this memorandum, the Secretary of the Treasury, in coordination with the Secretary of State, shall initiate a process to adjust current regulations to ensure adherence to the statutory ban on tourism to Cuba.

    (i)    The amended regulations shall require that educational travel be for legitimate educational purposes.  Except for educational travel that was permitted by regulation in effect on January 27, 2011, all educational travel shall be under the auspices of an organization subject to the jurisdiction of the United States, and all such travelers must be accompanied by a representative of the sponsoring organization.

    (ii)   The regulations shall further require that those traveling for the permissible purposes of non academic education or to provide support for the Cuban people:

    (A)  engage in a full-time schedule of activities that enhance contact with the Cuban people, support civil society in Cuba, or promote the Cuban people’s independence from Cuban authorities; and

    (B)  meaningfully interact with individuals in Cuba.

    (iii)  The regulations shall continue to provide that every person engaging in travel to Cuba shall keep full and accurate records of all transactions related to authorized travel, regardless of whether they were effected pursuant to license or otherwise, and such records shall be available for examination by the Department of the Treasury for at least 5 years after the date they occur.

    (iv)   The Secretary of State, the Secretary of the Treasury, the Secretary of Commerce, and the Secretary of Transportation shall review their respective agencies’ enforcement of all categories of permissible travel within 90 days of the date the regulations described in this subsection are finalized to ensure such enforcement accords with the policies outlined in section 2 of this memorandum.

    (c)  The Secretary of the Treasury shall regularly audit travel to Cuba to ensure that travelers are complying with relevant statutes and regulations.  The Secretary of the Treasury shall request that the Inspector General of the Department of the Treasury inspect the actions taken by the Department of the Treasury to implement this audit requirement.  The Inspector General of the Department of the Treasury shall provide a report to the President, through the Secretary of the Treasury, summarizing the results of that inspection within 180 days of the adjustment of current regulations described in subsection (b) of this section and annually thereafter.

    (d)  The Secretary of the Treasury shall adjust the Department of the Treasury’s current regulation defining the term “prohibited officials of the Government of Cuba” so that, for purposes of title 31, part 515 of the Code of Federal Regulations, it includes Ministers and Vice-Ministers; members of the Council of State and the Council of Ministers; members and employees of the National Assembly of People’s Power; members of any provincial assembly; local sector chiefs of the Committees for the Defense of the Revolution; Director Generals and sub-Director Generals and higher of all Cuban ministries and state agencies; employees of the Ministry of the Interior (MININT); employees of the Ministry of Defense (MINFAR); secretaries and first secretaries of the Confederation of Labor of Cuba (CTC) and its component unions; chief editors, editors, and deputy editors of Cuban state-run media organizations and programs, including newspapers, television, and radio; and members and employees of the Supreme Court (Tribuno Supremo Nacional).

    (e)  The Secretary of State and the Representative of the United States of America to the United Nations shall oppose efforts at the United Nations or (with respect to the Secretary of State) any other international forum to lift the embargo until a transition government in Cuba, as described in section 205 of the LIBERTAD Act, exists.

    (f)  The Secretary of State, in coordination with the Attorney General, shall provide a report to the President assessing whether and to what degree the Cuban government has satisfied the requirements of a transition government as described in section 205(a) of the LIBERTAD Act, taking into account the additional factors listed in section 205(b) of that Act.  This report shall include a review of human rights abuses committed against the Cuban people, such as unlawful detentions, arbitrary arrests, and inhumane treatment.

    (g)  The Attorney General shall, within 90 days of the date of this memorandum, issue a report to the President on issues related to fugitives from American justice living in Cuba or being harbored by the Cuban government.

    (h)  The Secretary of State and the Administrator of the United States Agency for International Development shall review all democracy development programs of the Federal Government in Cuba to ensure that they align with the criteria set forth in section 109(a) of the LIBERTAD Act.

    (i)  The Secretary of State shall convene a task force, composed of relevant agencies, including the Office of Cuba Broadcasting, and appropriate non-governmental organizations and private-sector entities, to examine the technological challenges and opportunities for expanding internet access in Cuba, including through Federal Government support of programs and activities that encourage freedom of expression through independent media and internet freedom so that the Cuban people can enjoy the free and unregulated flow of information.

    (j)  The Secretary of State and the Secretary of Homeland Security shall continue to discourage dangerous, unlawful migration that puts Cuban and American lives at risk.  The Secretary of Defense shall continue to provide support, as necessary, to the Department of State and the Department of Homeland Security in carrying out duties regarding interdiction of migrants.

    (k)  The Secretary of State, in coordination with the Secretary of the Treasury, the Secretary of Defense, the Attorney General, the Secretary of Commerce, and the Secretary of Homeland Security, shall annually report to the President regarding the engagement of the United States with Cuba to ensure that engagement is advancing the interests of the United States.

    (l)  All activities conducted pursuant to subsections (a) through (k) of this section shall be carried out in a manner that furthers the interests of the United States, including by appropriately protecting sensitive sources, methods, and operations of the Federal Government.

    Sec. 4.  Earlier Presidential Actions.  (a)  This memorandum amends sections 1 and 3 of National Security Presidential Memorandum 5 of June 16, 2017 (Strengthening the Policy of the United States Toward Cuba) (NSPM-5), and reissues NSPM-5 in its entirety.  It does not otherwise amend the text or timelines reflected in the original NSPM-5 and is not intended to direct agencies to repeat actions already implemented under that NSPM.

    (b)  This memorandum supersedes and replaces both National Security Presidential Directive 52 of June 28, 2007 (U.S. Policy toward Cuba), and Presidential Policy Directive 43 of October 14, 2016 (United States-Cuba Normalization).

    (c)  This memorandum does not affect either Executive Order 12807 of May 24, 1992 (Interdiction of Illegal Aliens), or Executive Order 13276 of November 15, 2002 (Delegation of Responsibilities Concerning Undocumented Aliens Interdicted or Intercepted in the Caribbean Region).

    Sec. 5.  General Provisions.  (a)  Nothing in this memorandum shall be construed to impair or otherwise affect:

    (i)  the authority granted by law to an executive department or agency, or the head thereof; or

    (ii)  the functions of the Director of the Office of Management and Budget relating to budgetary, administrative, or legislative proposals.

    (b)  This memorandum shall be implemented consistent with applicable law and subject to the availability of appropriations.

    (c)  This memorandum is not intended to, and does not, create any right or benefit, substantive or procedural, enforceable at law or in equity by any party against the United States, its departments, agencies, or entities, its officers, employees, or agents, or any other person.

    (d)  The Secretary of State is hereby authorized and directed to publish this memorandum in the Federal Register.

    DONALD J. TRUMP

    MIL OSI USA News

  • MIL-OSI USA: Congresswoman Bice Supports Military Construction and Veterans Affairs Appropriations Act

    Source: United States House of Representatives – Congresswoman Stephanie Bice (OK-05)

    Washington, D.C.– Today, the U.S. House of Representatives voted on their first appropriations bill, H.R. 3944, the Military Construction, Veterans Affairs, and Related Agencies Appropriations Act. This legislation includes $452.64 billion for the U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs and $18 billion for military construction and family housing, an increase over FY25 funding levels. This is the first of the twelve appropriations bills to be considered on the House floor and the Appropriations committee continues working to pass the remaining bills out of committee for floor consideration

    Congresswoman Bice issued the following statement:
    “Under the leadership of Chairman Cole, the House passed the Military Construction, Veterans Affairs, and Related Agencies Appropriations Act. As a member of this subcommittee, I am focused on fully funding veterans’ health care, benefits, and programs and supporting our military families. This bill also reflects the priorities of the Trump Administration by protecting the Second Amendment rights of veterans and preventing funding for DEI initiatives and gender affirming care. I look forward to continuing the appropriations process and working to responsibly fund the federal government.”
     

    MIL OSI USA News

  • MIL-OSI USA: CISA and Partners Urge Critical Infrastructure to Stay Vigilant in the Current Geopolitical Environment

    News In Brief – Source: US Computer Emergency Readiness Team

    Today, CISA, in collaboration with the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI), the Department of Defense Cyber Crime Center (DC3), and the National Security Agency (NSA), released a Fact Sheet urging organizations to remain vigilant against potential targeted cyber operations by Iranian state-sponsored or affiliated threat actors. 

    Over the past several months, there has been increasing activity from hacktivists and Iranian government-affiliated actors, which is expected to escalate due to recent events. These cyber actors often exploit targets of opportunity based on the use of unpatched or outdated software with known Common Vulnerabilities and Exposures or the use of default or common passwords on internet-connected accounts and devices.

    At this time, we have not seen indications of a coordinated campaign of malicious cyber activity in the U.S. that can be attributed to Iran. However, CISA, FBI, DC3, and NSA strongly urge critical infrastructure asset owners and operators to implement the mitigations recommended in the joint Fact Sheet, which include: 

    • Identifying and disconnecting operational technology and industrial control systems devices from the public internet,
    • Protecting devices and accounts with strong, unique passwords,
    • Applying the latest software patches, and
    • Implementing phishing-resistant multifactor authentication for access to OT networks.

    Review the joint Fact Sheet: Iranian Cyber Actors May Target Vulnerable US Networks and Entities of Interest and act now to understand the Iranian state-backed cyber threat, assess and mitigate cybersecurity weaknesses, and review and update incident response plans to strengthen your network against malicious cyber actors. 

    MIL OSI USA News

  • MIL-OSI USA: Joint Statement from CISA, FBI, DC3 and NSA on Potential Targeted Cyber Activity Against U.S. Critical Infrastructure by Iran

    News In Brief – Source: US Computer Emergency Readiness Team

    Iranian state-sponsored or affiliated threat actors are known to conduct a range of targeted cyber activity to include exploit known vulnerabilities in unpatched or outdated software, compromise internet-connected accounts and devices that use default or weak passwords and work with ransomware affiliates to encrypt, steal and leak sensitive information.

    At this time, we have not seen indications of a coordinated campaign of malicious cyber activity in the U.S. that can be attributed to Iran. However, we are urging critical infrastructure organizations to stay vigilant to Iranian-affiliated cyber actors that may target U.S. devices and networks. We strongly urge organizations to review our joint fact sheet and implement recommended actions to strengthen our collective defense against this potential cyber activity.

     The Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency (CISA), Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI), Department of Defense Cyber Crime Center (DC3) and the National Security Agency (NSA) are actively monitoring and coordinating with government, industry, and international partners to identify and share actionable intelligence and provide resources and assistance. We also strongly urge organizations report suspicious or criminal activity related to potential Iranian cyber activity.

    MIL OSI USA News

  • MIL-OSI USA: Commerce Actively Plans State Drone Replacement Program for Enhanced Security

    Source: US State of North Dakota

    The North Dakota Department of Commerce is actively planning the development of the State’s UAS (Uncrewed Aircraft Systems) Replacement Program, as authorized by Senate Bill No. 2018 during the 69th Legislative Assembly.

    While a public rollout timeline is pending, Commerce is collaborating with the Northern Plains UAS Test Site (NPUASTS) to plan logistics, technical requirements and training protocols. The program, supported by a $9 million appropriation from the Strategic Investment and Improvements Fund, will replace non-compliant drones currently in use by state agencies to align with national security standards.

    NPUASTS will help lead efforts around safe UAS disposal, shared agency access and secure operations. Commerce is required to submit a full report to Legislative Management by June 30, 2026, detailing program implementation, drone replacement numbers and training progress.

    “This program reflects North Dakota’s continued leadership in UAS innovation, while also ensuring we meet the standards outlined in the American Security Drone Act of 2023 and the National Defense Authorization Act of 2024,” said Commerce Commissioner Chris Schilken. “We’re laying a thoughtful, strategic foundation and look forward to sharing more details as plans advance.”

    For more information about the program, visit https://www.npuasts.com/drone-replacement-program. 

    MIL OSI USA News

  • MIL-OSI USA: Warner Introduces Amendment to Prioritize Aviation Safety, Honor Victims of DCA Tragedy

    US Senate News:

    Source: United States Senator for Commonwealth of Virginia Mark R Warner
    WASHINGTON – U.S. Sen. Mark R. Warner (D-VA) has filed an amendment to the GOP tax and spending ‘reconciliation’ package to ensure that any increased lease payments from the Metropolitan Washington Airports Authority (MWAA) are reinvested directly into aviation safety and security at Ronald Reagan Washington National Airport (DCA), Washington Dulles International Airport (IAD), and across the national aviation system. Warner’s amendment also protects the U.S. Department of Transportation’s (USDOT) power to negotiate long-term lease terms with MWAA, and directs the establishment of a permanent memorial honoring the victims of the January 29, 2025, mid-air collision involving American Airlines Flight 5342 and a U.S. Army Aviation Brigade helicopter over DCA.
    “There is simply no justification for raising lease payments on our region’s airports without dedicating those funds to what should be our top priority: keeping the flying public safe,” said Sen. Warner. “This amendment ensures that any additional resources from MWAA go exactly where they belong — into safety and security upgrades, nationwide aviation improvements, and a fitting memorial to those we tragically lost earlier this year.”
    Under the current lease agreement, which was negotiated with USDOT and runs through the year 2100, MWAA is required to pay the federal government a baseline of $7.5 million per year, with annual adjustments for inflation, for the use of DCA and IAD. Without public justification or analysis, the GOP reconciliation bill proposes doubling that obligation starting in 2027 and requires MWAA’s lease to be renegotiated every 10 years, in spite of the enormous complexity and number of stakeholders who are party to the lease, including USDOT, MWAA, and the governments of the District of Columbia and the Commonwealth of Virginia.
    The Warner amendment would allow the proposed lease increase to proceed but redirect the revenue to:
    Implement preliminary and final safety recommendations from the National Transportation Safety Board and U.S. Department of Transportation (USDOT) related to the January 29 crash;
    Establish and maintain a permanent memorial for the victims of the mid-air collision; and
    Undertake projects directly related to the safety and security of DCA and IAD.
    The amendment also restores USDOT’s ability to negotiate long-term leases with MWAA, a tool that had previously allowed for smart, strategic partnerships to support airport operations and infrastructure over the long term.
    “This is a commonsense step to make sure that aviation policy reflects the lessons of tragedy and the needs of the traveling public,” Sen. Warner added. “I urge my colleagues to support this amendment.”
    The amendment is co-sponsored by Sens. Tim Kaine (D-VA) and Sens. Chris Van Hollen and Angela Alsobrooks (both D-MD).

    MIL OSI USA News

  • MIL-OSI Europe: REPORT on the security of energy supply in the EU – A10-0121/2025

    Source: European Parliament

    MOTION FOR A EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT RESOLUTION

    on the security of energy supply in the EU

    (2025/2055(INI))

    The European Parliament,

     having regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, and in particular Article 194 thereof,

     having regard to Council Directive 2009/119/EC of 14 September 2009 imposing an obligation on Member States to maintain minimum stocks of crude oil and/or petroleum products[1] (Oil Stocks Directive),

     having regard to the Commission communication of 28 May 2014 entitled ‘European Energy Security Strategy’ (COM(2014)0330),

     having regard to Regulation (EU) 2017/1938 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 25 October 2017 concerning measures to safeguard the security of gas supply and repealing Regulation (EU) No 994/2010[2],

     having regard to Directive (EU) 2019/944 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 5 June 2019 on common rules for the internal market for electricity and amending Directive 2012/27/EU[3],

     having regard to Regulation (EU) 2019/943 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 5 June 2019 on the internal market for electricity[4],

     having regard to Regulation (EU) 2019/941 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 5 June 2019 on risk-preparedness in the electricity sector and repealing Directive 2005/89/EC[5],

     having regard to the Commission communication of 11 December 2019 entitled ‘The European Green Deal’ (COM(2019)0640),

     having regard to the Commission communication of 8 July 2020 entitled ‘Powering a climate-neutral economy: An EU Strategy for Energy System Integration’ (COM(2020)0299),

     having regard to Regulation (EU) 2021/1153 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 7 July 2021 establishing the Connecting Europe Facility and repealing Regulations (EU) 1316/2013 and (EU) No 283/2014[6],

     having regard to Regulation (EU) 2021/1119 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 30 June 2021 establishing the framework for achieving climate neutrality and amending Regulations (EC) No 401/2009 and (EU) 2018/1999 (‘European Climate Law’)[7],

     having regard to Regulation (EU) 2022/869 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 30 May 2022 on guidelines for trans-European energy infrastructure, amending Regulations (EC) No 715/2009, (EU) 2019/942 and (EU) 2019/943 and Directives 2009/73/EC and (EU) 2019/944, and repealing Regulation (EU) No 347/2013[8],

     having regard to the joint communication from the Commission and the High Representative of the Union for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy of 18 May 2022 entitled ‘EU external energy engagement in a changing world’ (JOIN(2022)0023),

     having regard to the Commission communication of 18 May 2022 entitled ‘REPowerEU Plan’ (COM(2022)0230),

     having regard to the Commission communication of 18 October 2022 entitled ‘Digitalising the energy system – EU action plan’ (COM(2022)0552),

     having regard to the final assessment report on the EU-NATO Task Force on the resilience of critical infrastructure, published in June 2023,

     having regard to Directive (EU) 2023/1791 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 13 September 2023 on energy efficiency and amending Regulation (EU) 2023/955 (recast)[9] (Energy Efficiency Directive),

     having regard to the Euratom Supply Agency Annual Report 2023,

     having regard to Directive (EU) 2023/2413 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 18 October 2023 amending Directive (EU) 2018/2001, Regulation (EU) 2018/1999 and Directive 98/70/EC as regards the promotion of energy from renewable sources, and repealing Council Directive (EU) 2015/652 (the Renewable Energy Directive)[10],

     having regard to Directive (EU) 2024/1788 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 13 June 2024 on common rules for the internal markets for renewable gas, natural gas and hydrogen, amending Directive (EU) 2023/1791 and repealing Directive 2009/73/EC (recast)[11],

     having regard to Regulation (EU) 2024/1789 on the internal markets for renewable gas, natural gas and hydrogen, amending Regulations (EU) No 1227/2011, (EU) 2017/1938, (EU) 2019/942 and (EU) 2022/869 and Decision (EU) 2017/684 and repealing Regulation (EC) No 715/2009 (recast)[12],

     having regard to Regulation (EU) 2024/1787 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 13 June 2024 on the reduction of methane emissions in the energy sector and amending Regulation (EU) 2019/942[13],

     having regard to Directive (EU) 2024/1711 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 13 June 2024 amending Directives (EU) 2018/2001 and (EU) 2019/944 as regards improving the Union’s electricity market design[14],

     having regard to Regulation (EU) 2024/1747 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 13 June 2024 amending Regulations (EU) 2019/942 and (EU) 2019/943 as regards improving the Union’s electricity market design (Electricity Market Design (EMD) Regulation)[15],

     having regard to its resolution of 14 November 2024 on EU actions against the Russian shadow fleets and ensuring a full enforcement of sanctions against Russia[16],

     having regard to the report by Sauli Niinistö entitled ‘Safer Together – Strengthening Europe’s Civilian and Military Preparedness and Readiness’ (Niinistö report), published on 30 October 2024,

     having regard to European Court of Auditors Special Report 09/2024 entitled ‘Security of the supply of gas in the EU’[17],

     having regard to the Commission communication of 29 January 2025 entitled ‘A Competitiveness Compass for the EU’ (COM(2025)0030),

     having regard to the joint communication from the Commission and the High Representative of the Union for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy of 21 February 2025 entitled ‘EU Action Plan on Cable Security’ (JOIN(2025)0009),

     having regard to the Commission communication of 26 February 2025 entitled ‘Action Plan for Affordable Energy’ (COM(2025)0079),

     having regard to the joint communication from the Commission and the High Representative of the Union for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy of 26 March 2025 on the European Preparedness Union Strategy (JOIN(2025)0130),

     having regard to Rule 55 of its Rules of Procedure,

     having regard to the report of the Committee on Industry, Research and Energy (A10-0121/2025),

    A. whereas energy security is a key building block of a resilient, sustainable and competitive economy; whereas reliable and affordable energy supplies are essential for economic growth, industrial productivity and societal well-being;

    B. whereas in the context of a general security crisis and the need for preparedness against defence challenges, securing energy supply constitutes a priority;

    C. whereas despite the potential for developing domestic clean and renewable energy sources, the EU imports more than 60 % of its energy, including 90 % of its gas and 97 % of its oil[18], leaving it vulnerable to potential energy supply disruptions;

    D. whereas the EU has the potential to develop renewable resources, and since the publication of the Commission’s last Energy Security Strategy in 2014, the production of home-grown renewable energy has grown substantially – wind power by 98 %, solar photovoltaic by 314 %, solar thermal by 22 % and ocean energy by 244 %; whereas, over the same period, the EU’s domestic fossil fuel production has declined, with coal production falling by 53 %, oil by 31 % and gas by 73 %;

    E. whereas with a renewable energy-dominated grid, Europe will need to secure over 100 GW of new clean firm power capacity by 2035 to ensure reliability, energy security and lower costs[19];

    F. whereas the gap between energy production and EU demand negatively affects the EU’s trade balance, with energy imports amounting to EUR 427 billion in 2024 – down from a peak of EUR 602 billion in 2022 – for coal, oil and gas[20];

    G. whereas EU nuclear production has declined by 24 % since 2014[21]; whereas a number of Member States are demonstrating their commitment to expanding nuclear energy as a pillar of their energy strategies and advancing their nuclear power projects;

    H. whereas the diversification of energy sources contributes to the EU’s open strategic autonomy, energy security and resilience against external supply disruptions;

    I. whereas applying renewable and clean domestic energy production, energy efficiency and energy saving measures across the entire value chain decreases reliance on external energy sources and enhances the security of energy supply; whereas EU energy efficiency policies have yielded structural results, with energy demand peaking in 2006 and declining by 20 % in 2023[22], highlighting energy efficiency as the most cost-effective way to reduce emissions, enhance competitiveness, make energy consumption more affordable and improve energy security;

    J. whereas Member States differ in terms of natural and geographical characteristics, energy supply, security, sources and policies;

    K. whereas the Russian Federation has for decades weaponised its supplies of oil, coal, nuclear power and gas to the EU in order to create division among Member States and, since the summer of 2021, to fuel inflation and weaken Europe’s resolve to support Ukraine in its just fight for freedom; whereas Russia’s war against Ukraine started in 2014; whereas Russia has been carrying out an illegal, unprovoked and unjustified full-scale war of aggression against Ukraine since 24 February 2022; whereas Member States agreed in the Versailles Declaration[23] to reassess how to ensure the security of their energy supplies and to phase out their dependency on Russian gas, oil and coal imports ‘as soon as possible’ by, among other means, speeding up the development of renewables and the production of their key components and accelerating the reduction of overall EU reliance on fossil fuels, taking into account national circumstances and Member States’ energy mix choices; whereas the REPowerEU plan put forward a set of actions to stop importing Russian fossil fuels by 2027 at the latest;

    L. whereas while most Russian oil and coal imports have been sanctioned, Russian gas and nuclear imports have regrettably remained outside of the EU’s sanctions regime amid concerns over security of supply;

    M. whereas the share of Russian pipeline gas, both liquefied natural gas (LNG) and pipeline, in the EU’s total energy imports significantly decreased from 45 % in 2021 to approximately 19 % in 2024; whereas EU imports of Russian fossil fuels in the third year of the invasion have surpassed the EU financial aid sent to Ukraine in the same period (EUR 18.7 billion in 2024)[24]; whereas since the beginning of the war, Russia has earned a total of EUR 206 billion in revenue from fossil fuel exports to the EU; whereas global fossil fuel exports constitute the single largest source of revenue for Russia, amounting to EUR 250 billion per year[25] – equivalent to 160 % of the Russian military budget for this year[26];

    N. whereas among the 100 reactors operating in the EU, 18 are located in five EU countries and are of Russian or Soviet-design, each with varying levels of built-in reliance on Rosatom, which poses a particular risk to European energy security; whereas in 2024, Russia met around 23 % of the EU’s total demand for uranium conversion services and 24 % for uranium enrichment services;

    O. whereas Russia has been circumventing sanctions through its shadow fleet, which transports oil to willing buyers under false flags or without flags and which poses serious environmental risks; whereas Member States have yet to implement the effective measures adopted by the Council in the 15th sanctions package against sanctions evasion through the shadow fleet;

    P. whereas in its November 2024 resolution, Parliament called for the EU and its Member States to ban all imports of Russian energy, including LNG and nuclear, to require that ships exporting LNG from Russia be banned from entering EU ports and to refrain from concluding any new agreements with Rosatom or its subsidiaries;

    Q. whereas the absence of an updated robust EU energy security strategy is adversely affecting businesses, industries and households; whereas, among other contributing factors, this has led to a sharp rise in energy poverty with nearly one in ten households (10.6 %) unable to adequately heat their homes in 2023[27], an increase from 6.9 % in 2021[28];

    R. whereas attacks against critical energy infrastructure can lead to a loss of power affecting several Member States simultaneously and substantial economic damage, undermine public security and have implications for the EU’s defence capabilities; whereas Europe’s energy sector has been inundated with cyberattacks since Russia’s invasion of Ukraine; whereas the Baltic Sea’s critical energy infrastructure is under regular attack from Russia; whereas the growing number of perimeter harassment incidents against offshore energy infrastructure poses a serious concern;

    S. whereas NATO’s role in energy security was first defined at the 2008 Bucharest Summit and has since been strengthened; whereas NATO is strengthening the security of critical infrastructure to prevent sabotage, including through the recently launched Baltic Sentry initiative; whereas NATO is supporting national authorities in enhancing their resilience against energy supply disruptions that could affect national and collective defence;

    T. whereas the integration of the Baltic states’ electricity systems into the continental European network in February 2025 was a critical step towards enhancing their energy security, as it eliminated reliance on the Russian-controlled grid, thereby reducing geopolitical vulnerabilities and strengthening the resilience of the Baltic region;

    A new vision for energy security in a changing global landscape

    1. Recalls that the European Environment Agency defines energy security as ‘the availability of energy at all times in various forms, in sufficient quantities, and at reasonable and/or affordable prices’; considers that a comprehensive approach to energy security should take into account the physical infrastructure dimension, the availability, reliability, stability and affordability of supplies and their sustainability, and should place emphasis on the geopolitical and climate dimensions;

    2. Stresses that energy security is a cross-sectoral issue that underpins the functioning of all critical sectors, making it indispensable for economic stability, public safety and national resilience; underlines that integrating energy security considerations into relevant policies and their underlying impact assessments is crucial for enhancing the coherence, consistency and overall effectiveness of EU policymaking;

    3. Emphasises that the current geopolitical situation and continued perilous energy supply dependencies underscore the need to revise the understanding of energy security and recognises that the resilience of energy systems, understood as the ability to anticipate, withstand, adapt to, and quickly recover from possible disruptions, is now a strategic imperative;

    4. Stresses that as the energy system continues to decarbonise, the share of renewables increases and electrification advances, a well-functioning and integrated energy market, energy efficiency, the integration of flexibility sources (electricity and heat storage, hydrogen, comprehensively developed and resilient infrastructure, demand response, etc.), and sufficient dispatchable capacity will be crucial to successfully manage the intermittency of renewable energy sources and unlock the full potential of the energy transition;

    5. Highlights that energy security cannot work without adequacy; notes that ‘the scarcity issues tend to shift from the peripheral areas of Europe in 2025 to the central parts of the continent by 2033’[29]; believes that capacity remuneration mechanisms play a structural role in securing dispatchable backup capacity to ensure adequacy during peak times or periods of supply shortages and in helping to incentivise the necessary investments in generating capacity that market signals, relying solely on infrequent scarcity price hours, may fail to justify; underlines the need to ensure that the mechanisms are open to different types of resources (such as demand side, energy savings, aggregation, storage units and cross-border resources) capable of providing the necessary services, such as flexibility, do not create undue market distortions or limit cross-zonal trade, and reflect compatibility with a future decarbonised electricity system, including through coherence with defined emission limits as set out in Article 22 of the EMD Regulation; recalls that remuneration for capacity mechanisms only covers their availability; stresses the urgent need to simplify and streamline their approval processes, as requested by the EMD revision, while giving due consideration to the specific problems of the electricity market in the respective Member States in the Commission’s approval process; notes the Commission report on the assessment of possibilities of streamlining and simplifying the process of applying a capacity mechanism[30] and the ongoing works on the Clean Industrial Deal State Aid Framework with concrete proposals to accelerate the approval process; notes that while the balancing market provides essential short-term services, it is not yet investment-friendly and calls therefore on the Commission to develop incentives to build the flexible assets that balancing markets urgently need;

    6. Stresses that decarbonisation should take into account the specificities of Member States and their regions, including Europe’s outermost territories and Just Transition Fund regions and their level of access to different types of clean energy sources, the needs of their industries and the vulnerability of their citizens in order to ensure a just transition that maintains energy security by creating synergies between climate ambitions, geographical and natural conditions, and social and economic realities;

    7. Notes the need for a broader approach to non-fossil flexibility and energy storage that incorporates molecules and heat; highlights the potential of district heating systems that can use thermal storage to reduce the temperature of the loop and incorporate waste heat, solar, geothermal and other renewable sources, where appropriate, using natural gas and biomass in a transition period; draws attention to the important role that the optimal use of high-efficiency cogeneration, in line with the Energy Efficiency Directive, can play in contributing to balancing the electricity grid and to the competitiveness of some industrial sectors, especially those that do not have alternative ways of producing affordable heat in their industrial processes; stresses the need to modernise and expand district heating grids to this end;

    8. Emphasises that technological neutrality plays a key role in enhancing the security of energy supply while avoiding lock-in effects and fostering sustainability, economic efficiency and a just transition; recalls the need to invest in a diverse portfolio of clean technologies that allow regions to adopt technologies best suited to their needs in a cost-effective way, making energy more affordable and accessible;

    9. Notes that the Draghi report[31] highlights that a reduction in dependency on fossil fuel imports would enhance EU competitiveness and the affordability and security of supply; notes that natural gas is currently a component of the EU’s energy security, with demand of 320 bcm in 2024, and notes the International Energy Agency (IEA) forecasts indicating a moderate demand of 260 bcm annually by 2035[32], while a REpowerEU scenario projected a possible demand reduction of 184 bcm by 2030, implying an approximate 50 % slash in natural gas demand in less than five years, compared to demand of 356 bcm in 2022; recalls Draghi’s proposal to establish a comprehensive strategy for natural gas, managing its role during the transition and securing its supply, that should guide infrastructure choices, international partnerships and legislation; notes, with concern, that inconsistent policies on natural gas have weakened the trading position of EU companies, leaving them exposed to global spot market prices and potentially creating a gap between what the EU has contractually secured and what will be imported over time;

    10. Stresses that the development of nuclear energy remains a national prerogative in the framework of EU law; notes that for the Member States that choose to have nuclear power in their energy mix, it can have an important role to play in an integrated energy system with increasing penetration of renewables; notes that a number of Member States see a need to support the development and deployment of both existing and a new generation of nuclear technologies, as well as the entire nuclear fuel cycle, that will contribute to building a competitive technological supply chain in the EU so as to ensure open strategic autonomy; stresses the importance of assessing the full cost of the entire nuclear energy life cycle, including construction, operation, security, environmental and health impacts, waste management and decommissioning; notes the existing and ongoing reliance on foreign providers, with approximately 97 % of the EU’s natural uranium supply in 2022 coming from oversea sources[33] and stresses the need to diversify  uranium and nuclear fuel supply sources and to follow the Euratom Supply Agency’s recommendation in developing reliable supply chains to meet the growing demand for nuclear and new nuclear technologies; notes, in this regard, the European Investment Bank’s recent decision to renew its support for strengthening European uranium enrichment capacities; underlines that small modular reactors (SMRs) and advanced modular reactors (AMRs) have the potential to enhance energy security by providing low-carbon power; notes, however, that the technology is not yet fully developed; welcomes the announced assessment of the possibility of streamlining licensing practices for new nuclear energy technologies such as SMRs;

    11. Recognises that renewable energy constitutes an enabler of energy autonomy and long-term security of supply; stresses that renewables are essential in delivering energy security as they already constitute the main source of home-grown energy for the EU; highlights the importance of maximising the use of existing renewable capacities, particularly by tackling the issue of curtailment, as grid congestion in the EU curtailed over 12 TWh of renewable electricity in 2023, resulting in an additional 4.2 million tons of CO₂ emissions[34]; notes that renewables have already helped to reduce EU dependence on Russian gas as they accounted for 25 % of the energy and 45 % of the electricity consumed in the EU in 2023; reaffirms the importance of sustained EU support for the development and deployment of established renewable technologies, such as solar, wind power, geothermal and heat pumps; reiterates the necessity of policy and investment support for less developed or emerging sectors in order to accelerate the deployment of renewable technologies that are the most relevant given their national and local circumstances, such as innovative geothermal technologies, biomethane, solar thermal, marine energy, tidal energy, osmotic energy and concentrated solar power; expresses concern that, without targeted support policies, some innovative technologies may fail to reach commercialisation in a timely manner, and therefore calls on the Member States to support their research, demonstration, market adoption and scale-up; calls on the Commission to present an investment plan for these renewable technologies;

    12. Notes, in particular, the potential of geothermal energy, estimated to reach 510 GW by 2035 at a capacity factor of 80-90 %; highlights the vast untapped resources in certain EU regions and calls on the Commission to deliver on Parliament’s call to support the development of geothermal energy, including through the establishment of risk mitigation instruments;

    13. Asks the IEA to conduct an analysis to assess the possibilities for using EU natural gas resources; notes that domestic EU natural gas production dropped by more than a third between 2020 and 2023 and that this decline is expected to continue with no significant near-term increase in the production of green gases, including biogas and biomethane, in the EU; notes that Draghi’s report highlights that while progressively decarbonising and moving to hydrogen and green gases in line with RED III and REPowerEU as a transitional measure, domestic natural gas production – where deemed justified by individual Member States – could also play a role in contributing to security of supply and avoiding exposure to negative geopolitical developments;

    14. Highlights that diversification is vital to mitigate the risk of supplier dominance in a changing geopolitical context; believes the EU needs to strengthen international partnerships with reliable suppliers of energy, raw materials and clean-tech components in all regions of the world, and, in particular, with European Economic Area countries;

    15. Underlines that enhancing energy security requires a holistic approach, notably through improving energy efficiency in key end-use energy sectors, such as buildings and industry, promoting energy savings, boosting investment in research and development, and ensuring meaningful citizen participation, all of which are essential to achieving a resilient, sustainable and inclusive energy system;

    16. Calls on the Commission to be mindful of future military capability and mobility needs in the development of the EU’s energy system; notes, with concern, that the EU is highly import-dependent for crude oil and petroleum products; calls on the Commission to prepare a comprehensive strategy on liquid fuels in order to ensure their readily available access for the military in a crisis situation, and to reduce dependencies on vulnerable import chains and unreliable producers, particularly thorough the development of advanced synthetic fuels (such as sustainable aviation fuels and e-fuels) in Europe;

    17. Draws attention to the Niinistö report’s recommendation on the need for further work on priority dual-use transport corridors for civilian and defence-related logistical needs, and on the expansion of fuel supply chains for the armed forces along these corridors, as well as stockpiling and strategic reserves of energy, that could be particularly useful for the regions with insufficiently developed pipeline infrastructure and fuel storage; calls, in this respect, on the Commission to review the Oil Stocks Directive in the light of recent geopolitical shifts and the military readiness needs in order to strengthen energy security and resilience against emerging military risks;

    18. Acknowledges the rapidly accelerating energy demand driven by the digital sector, particularly the substantial energy requirements of data centres and artificial intelligence systems; stresses that this trend highlights the urgent need for robust energy efficiency policies and underscores the importance of the EU proactively pursuing sustainable, forward-looking solutions to meet this growing demand while safeguarding the resilience of its energy system;

    A resilient energy infrastructure

    19. Notes that infrastructure bottlenecks impede the benefits of sector integration and aggravate the threats to energy security; underlines the importance of investing in new energy networks, including cross-border interconnectors and offshore grids, and optimising existing infrastructure to increase capacity using grid-enhancing technologies (GETs) while reducing new infrastructure needs, in order to enable the integration of renewables and other new generation facilities, close price gaps, improve the overall system efficiency and foster solidarity among the Member States in the event of an energy crisis; emphasises the need for technically sound infrastructure planning that takes into account geographical and natural characteristics while ensuring long-term viability and avoiding the creation of stranded assets;

    20. Calls on the Commission to urgently assess areas where interconnectors are insufficient so as to achieve the current 15 % interconnection target as set out in Regulation (EU) 2018/1999[35]; stresses the importance of Projects of Common Interest (PCIs) in facilitating the efficient and secure flow of electricity across Member States and regions, thereby strengthening cross-border integration and energy solidarity within the EU; acknowledges the role of the Connecting Europe Facility for Energy (CEF-E) in completing the above investments and reiterates its call for its funding to be significantly increased when proposing the next multiannual financial framework;

    21. Calls on the Member States to accelerate permitting procedures for electricity installations and networks; notes that excessively long permitting procedures could create legal uncertainty, undermining resource adequacy by delaying the implementation of critical projects – whether for repowering or revamping existing generation sites, or for developing transmission, distribution, or storage infrastructure; welcomes the positive progress made regarding provisions adopted in the latest revision of the Renewable Energy Directive and the Emergency Regulation on Permitting[36] to accelerate, streamline and simplify permit-granting procedures;

    22. Recalls that climate change continues to worsen, placing increasing stress on the energy system due to extreme weather events, such as heat waves, that lead to thermal power plant shutdowns, droughts that reduce generation output, and severe storms, floods and fires that damage electricity grids and gas pipelines; stresses that the impact of climate change on generation assets, networks and consumption patterns should be better integrated into the modelling and preparedness of energy infrastructure; emphasises the need for resilient energy system planning, incorporating climate-adaptive strategies such as advanced cooling technologies, grid flexibility, decentralised renewable generation and strengthened infrastructure protections; highlights the importance of integrating a climate-proofing plan, grounded in an initial risk-based assessment, into energy projects from the earliest stages of development;

    23. Calls on the Commission to build on Directive (EU) 2022/2557[37] on the resilience of critical entities by facilitating its full and harmonised implementation through the provision of best practices, guidance materials and methodologies, and cross-border training activities and exercises to support Member States, competent authorities and critical energy entities;

    24. Emphasises the need to invest in the protection and resilience of energy infrastructure against human-caused threats, such as military, hybrid and cyber attacks; expresses concern about recent sabotage incidents in the Baltic Sea and calls for stronger EU-level action to protect the EU’s critical energy infrastructure, including cross-border connections with non-EU countries, such as subsea pipelines and cables, offshore wind farms and interconnections, designed to support the most impacted Member States, and to complement national measures; welcomes, in this regard, the joint communication on the EU Action Plan on Cable Security;

    25. Notes that the decentralisation of the energy system, that both strengthens resilience and facilitates the energy transition, and increased diversity of sources and autonomy, reduce reliance on centralised power plants, minimise outage risks, enhance grid stability, and enable quicker recovery from disruptions; emphasises at the same time that the increased number of remote and dispersed sources of energy, energy storage and new connections require enhanced measures to ensure robust infrastructure protection;

    26. Calls on the Commission to draw on the lessons learned from the war in Ukraine, particularly the critical role of electricity interconnection, microgrids, distributed solar power, wind power and battery storage in ensuring greater resilience of the electricity grid against military attacks, including cyberattacks, drones and missiles; commends Ukraine’s sustained efforts to maintain the functionality and safety of its energy system in the face of Russia’s war of aggression, and underscores that supporting Ukraine also entails helping to safeguard the soundness of its national electrical grid;

    27. Notes, with concern, that small distributed energy resources (DERs) connected to the internet, such as inverters, are not covered by appropriate conformity assessment procedures under cybersecurity legislation, such as the Cyber Resilience Act[38], and since they can be remotely controlled and their software updated by the manufacturer, which, in many cases, are non-trusted vendors, they could give these non-trusted vendors control over EU electricity grids; urges the Commission to establish mandatory risk assessments for DERs based on the country of origin, ensuring that devices controlled from jurisdictions with potential security concerns are subject to strict oversight and localisation requirements; calls for enhanced resilience in European supply chains by promoting EU-based manufacturing of DERs and fostering alliances with trusted international partners; highlights the need for an adequate number of professionals specialised in cybersecurity and close coordination among Member States to address these vulnerabilities;

    28. Calls on energy companies that manage critical infrastructure to work closely with the EU Agency for Cybersecurity and equip themselves with the most advanced cybersecurity tools; considers that cooperation with NATO in the field of cybersecurity should be strengthened in order to counter hybrid threats to Europe’s energy security;

    29. Notes that the Member States need to do their utmost to increase their resilience, which encompasses the ability to prevent, protect against, respond to, resist, mitigate, absorb, accommodate and recover from incidents, taking into full account the interdependence of the EU energy market and the potential domino effect that infrastructure failures in one country may have across the Union; underlines, in particular, the need to strengthen the recovery aspect, which could be achieved through an efficient European repair and response mechanism and national and regional operational plans, which could serve as an important element of the EU’s deterrence strategy; notes the importance of EU solidarity in responding to potential infrastructure incidents, ensuring coordinated action and mutual support among Member States;

    30. Recalls that energy infrastructure constitutes a particularly sensitive sector in need of protection against foreign interests; urges the Member States and the Commission to address security risks associated with foreign investment in and acquisitions of energy infrastructure; expresses concern about a series of potentially sensitive foreign investments, particularly in grids; welcomes, in this regard, the ongoing revision of the Foreign Investment Screening Regulation[39] as a timely step towards adopting a stringent strategic approach to the development and oversight of European energy infrastructure;

    31. Stresses that energy security should include the supply of key clean technologies, components and critical raw materials and notes the need for their diversified sourcing; calls for increased support for the EU’s grid manufacturing industry as a strategic pillar of the energy transition, with particular emphasis on ensuring a fair and competitive regulatory environment for European manufacturers, while exploring the potential for local content requirements to strengthen energy security, supply chain resilience and industrial competitiveness; calls for an update of the Public Procurement Framework to simplify and reduce the administrative burden for grid operators to access the needed grid technologies;

    32. Emphasises the importance of integrating circularity principles into the design of critical infrastructure and equipment, and calls for increased support for their implementation, with the goal of reducing the EU’s dependence on imports of foreign raw materials and enhancing resource efficiency;

    Phase out of Russian energy supplies

    33. Highlights that the challenges posed by a lack of solidarity in the EU and by some Member States prioritising particular interests have made the whole continent aware of the dangers of dependence on an unreliable energy supplier weaponising energy exports; underlines that the lessons learned from Russia’s war of aggression against Ukraine need to be at the core of future EU actions, particularly highlighting the critical importance of a united European response in order to eliminate perilous dependencies in energy supplies;

    34. Underlines that the EU has made advances in reducing its energy dependence thanks largely to the REPowerEU plan and the 16 sanctions packages, leading to a decline in imports of Russian gas (pipeline and LNG) from 45 % of total EU gas imports in 2021 to 19 % as of 2024;

    35. Expresses deep concern that the EU still maintains its reliance on Russian gas and, moreover, has recently seen an increase, with imports rising by 18 % in 2024 and continuing to grow in 2025[40]; notes that in 2024 alone, Member States purchased an estimated EUR 7 billion worth of Russian LNG, and since Russia’s invasion of Ukraine, the EU has imported EUR 200 billion worth of Russian oil and gas – totally[41] fuelling Russia’s war machine;

    36. Welcomes the publication of a roadmap for phasing out Russian energy imports, which must pave the way for their definitive end as soon as possible;

    37. Welcomes the stepwise prohibition of Russian gas imports proposed by the Commission; stresses the need to introduce an EU-wide ban on all Russian natural gas imports by 2027 at the latest, and on new contracts and existing spot contracts by the end of 2025; insists that the Member States, including those currently benefiting from targeted derogations for Russian oil imports, should ultimately phase out these imports by 2027 at the latest; welcomes the upcoming legislative proposals in this regard and calls on the Commission to explore the use of all available transitional instruments that could lead to the end of Russian fossil fuel imports by 2027, such as the introduction of a regular quota system for Russian gas imports into the EU and the introduction of a ceiling price for Russian LNG, following an assessment of market and price impacts; calls on the Commission to provide EU companies with effective and legally sound toolkits to facilitate their efforts to get out of long-term contracts with Russian suppliers without incurring penalties;

    38. Calls on the Member States to include gas deliveries to the EU from the Yamal LNG and Arctic LNG 2 terminals in the scope of EU sanctions and the respective sanctioning of the singular fleet of ice-class LNG carriers linked to the Yamal LNG project; notes that sanctioning LNG carriers would be highly effective, as there is a limited number of ice-class LNG carriers in the world; stresses that the above actions would require adequate assessments of the legal and economic impacts on the European companies concerned and to ensure their ability to exit contracts;

    39. Commends the inclusion of the nuclear supply chain in the roadmap; notes, with concern, that Russian nuclear fuel remains present in the EU market, including through indirect supply chains, and that in 2023, 23.5 % of the uranium consumed in the EU came from Russia and 30.1 % of the uranium used in the EU’s nuclear fleet was enriched by Russia; notes that while domestic providers are ramping up capacity in their European facilities to meet increased demand, as utilities proactively move away from Russian supply, clear policy decisions are urgently required at EU and national level to address the above vulnerabilities in the nuclear supply chain; calls therefore for support for projects within the Union that contribute to greater autonomy and security of nuclear fuel supply;

    40. Expresses concern that official data does not provide a complete picture of Russian energy imports and their final destination, as relabelled Russian oil and gas continue to enter the EU market; notes with regret that this, in some cases, occurs with the acquiescence of the state actors involved;

    41. Agrees that an adequate assessment of the amount of Russian energy imports is a prerequisite for phasing out this dependence; regrets the continued whitewashing of Russian energy imports and stresses the need for greater transparency in the EU energy market; calls on the Member States to publish data on the origin of imported, exported and consumed Russian gas, and urges the application of all measures against the whitewashing of Russian energy imports; notes that relevant reporting obligations laid down under Regulation (EU) 2024/1787 on methane emissions reduction in the energy sector can contribute to achieving this goal;

    42. Welcomes the upcoming proposals for transparency, monitoring and traceability mechanisms, as the effective implementation of sanctions depends on compatible control mechanisms in all Member States; underscores the urgent need to develop a legal mechanism to ensure the transparency and traceability of natural gas originating in Russia and exported to the EU as liquefied natural gas and by pipeline, and eventually to cover oil imports; stresses that this mechanism should be extended to energy imports from other destinations in the future; considers that the mechanism would require cooperation between various services, including EU competition services, the Agency for the Cooperation of Energy Regulators (ACER) and national customs authorities; asks the Member States to consider strengthening the criminal investigation powers of national customs authorities to ensure the effectiveness of the above mechanism and introducing sufficient deterrent measures and fines, such as adequate financial penalties for sanctions evasion;

    43. Stresses the need to adopt a legal framework for diversification, requiring each Member State to prepare, in a coordinated manner and through the appropriate competent authorities, an exit plan for Russian energy sources and to support and oversee the preparation and implementation of specialised exit plans at the level of undertakings active in their respective energy sectors; considers that these plans should include domestic production and demand reduction dimensions;

    44. Strongly condemns the calls for a return to Russian energy imports as part of the peace settlement in Ukraine; firmly rejects the idea of the possible certification of the Nord Stream 2 pipeline and insists on the complete decommissioning of Nord Stream pipelines; warns against the EU falling back into dependency on an unreliable supplier and calls on the Commission and the Member States to develop safeguards against this, such as a countersignature by the Commission on any potential contracts with Russia or the mandatory use of the AggregateEU platform for this type of purchase;

    45. Recalls that energy is a fundamental necessity; emphasises that the phase out of Russian energy imports must be a collective effort, ensuring that no Member State, company or household is left behind; emphasises that Member States are not equally positioned to phase out Russian energy imports in the same manner, and therefore urges strong solidarity among them, alongside appropriate support measures from the Commission to ensure a fair and coordinated transition;

    46. Notes that, in the near-term, there is the need to replace phased out Russian energy imports with reliable non-EU sources and urges the Commission therefore to propose measures that ensure their sufficient substitution from trusted partners; stresses, however, that Russian energy supplies should not be replaced by new dependencies in supplies, and therefore that, in the long term, energy imports should be progressively reduced through effective measures to support decarbonisation, electrification and energy efficiency and savings in the sectors where it is possible and cost-efficient, as well as through the development of domestic energy production in line with the REPowerEU plan;

    47. Emphasises that energy dependence on Russia also should not be replaced by new dependencies on individual suppliers of energy technologies, components or critical raw materials;

    Revision of security of supply framework

    48. Welcomes the upcoming revision of the Security of Supply architecture including the Gas Security of Supply Regulation and the Electricity Risk Preparedness Regulation, and other relevant legislation; considers that the new EU security of supply architecture should reflect such fundamental shifts as increasing cross-sectoral integration of the energy system, the new geopolitical landscape, the profound changes in supply routes, the impact of climate change, as well as changes in the maturity of energy technologies reflected in shifts of levelised costs of energy and the opportunities this presents for the energy transition;

    49. Highlights that energy efficiency plays a critical role in enhancing the security of energy supply by reducing overall energy demand, lowering dependency on energy imports and increasing system resilience; considers that the new security of supply framework should be broadened to reflect a new way of looking at the security of energy supply, based not only on energy sources, but also on the energy efficiency first principle, energy savings, cost efficiency, as well as the ability to produce different types of energy domestically; notes that, in the near-term, the Union should concentrate on effective and solid weaning of Russian energy imports without loopholes, including through securing alternatives supplies from reliable partners and better use of existing infrastructure, while in parallel continuing to develop domestic alternatives to imported energy products, where possible; stresses, nevertheless, the imperative to develop a future-proof security of supply architecture that systematically reduces dependence on external actors, notably by advancing energy efficiency, promoting energy savings, enhancing circularity and ensuring the sustained growth of home-grown clean energy production and well-protected decentralised energy infrastructure;

    50. Emphasises the need to prioritise the resilience of energy infrastructure, drawing on the lessons learned from Russia’s war of aggression against Ukraine, the targeted attacks on its energy systems and the benefits of decentralised energy systems; considers that new energy assets should be ‘resilient by design’, including to possible military threats and extreme weather events;

    51. Stresses the need for greater cooperation among all actors on the resilience of energy infrastructure to both climate impacts and human-caused threats; insists that the protection of this infrastructure requires greater involvement of governments, including through public-private partnerships; welcomes, in this regard, the Niinistö report recommendation to engage with the private sector in institutionalising de-risking efforts, cross-sector stress tests and proactive security measures; asks the Commission to ensure that such cooperation is reflected in plans covering incident management and recovery, and is subject to regular exercises; notes that the Union’s preparedness strategy includes actions to strengthen public-private partnerships and calls on the Commission to further develop relevant specific measures for the energy sector in the review of the security of supply architecture;

    52. Notes the need to accommodate in the security of supply architecture the integration of renewable and low-carbon gases, such as biomethane and hydrogen; recalls that the Hydrogen Strategy already recognised the role that renewable and low-carbon hydrogen production can play in providing flexibility and storage in an integrated energy system with a high share of renewables; calls on the Commission to recognise the complementarities between hydrogen and electricity in the future Electrification Action Plan, in line with energy sector integration, and to set clear conditions for the ramp-up of hydrogen to contribute to the energy transition, particularly in hard-to-abate sectors;

    53. Stresses the need to include affordability risks in national risk assessments; calls for transparency on the implementation of national risk-preparedness measures to increase trust between the Member States; notes the advantages of greater coherence on protected consumer categories (consistent categories and gradation of disconnection priority for grid users) to allow coordinated consumer load-shedding plans to be defined, including plans to support vulnerable households affected by, or at risk of, energy poverty during an energy crisis;

    54. Highlights the need for a unified, resilient and strategically coordinated energy policy; emphasises that as the EU energy markets become more integrated, energy security is increasingly becoming a shared responsibility of the Member States, thus requiring solidarity and coordination in order to prevent unilateral actions that could undermine the security of the entire EU; warns that a unilateral decision by a single actor to enter into a harmful energy agreement with a non-EU country could expose the whole EU to renewed energy crises, price volatility and geopolitical pressure;

    55. Notes the need for stronger coordination between the Member States on the decommissioning of ageing generation units with cross-border impact, as well as on withdrawal from the system of generation capacity in order to ensure that alternative installations have been completed and are in operation, as this affects the availability and affordability of energy in neighbouring countries;

    56. Underlines that data-driven technologies should positively impact energy security management; recognises the importance of comprehensive energy information and data in identifying and responding to evolving energy security threats and in infrastructure planning, and calls for improved coordination in the collection of such information and data;

    57. Calls on the Commission to include in the security of supply proposal technical provisions for the standardisation and interoperability of critical components of the EU’s energy system, particularly electrical transformers, to ensure that a lack of standardisation does not hinder European solidarity;

    58. Welcomes the establishment by the European Network of Transmission System Operators for Electricity (ENTSO-E) of a new Task Force on the Security of Critical Infrastructure, aimed at analysing and proposing recommendations on the topic of security of critical infrastructure; stresses the importance of incorporating lessons learned from Ukraine’s experience, including the valuable expertise of the dedicated unit within the Ukrainian Transmission System Operator (TSO) tasked with identifying and mitigating threats to critical infrastructure; calls on the Commission to collaborate closely with ENTSO-E in delivering a comprehensive and systemic assessment of threats to the EU electricity grid, to be completed by 2026;

    °

    ° °

    59. Instructs its President to forward this resolution to the Council and the Commission.

     

    MIL OSI Europe News

  • MIL-OSI USA: Congressman Davis Holds Service Academy Dinner Honoring NC-01 Appointees

    Source: US Congressman Don Davis (NC-01)

    Rocky Mount, N.C. – On Wednesday, June 18, Congressman Don Davis (NC-01) hosted a Service Academy Dinner at his Rocky Mount district office. The event celebrated a group of exceptional young high school graduates from eastern North Carolina who received appointments to the United States Military Service Academies.

     

    [Front row, from left: Leonardo Fletcher-Fontana, and Congressman Don Davis. Back row, from left: Abel Dees, Nicholas Santiago, and Parker Stokes. Not pictured: Dylan Sawyer]

    “These young leaders represent the very best of eastern North Carolina,” said Congressman Davis. “Their drive, discipline, and desire to serve our country inspire us all. It was a true honor to recognize their hard work and celebrate this milestone with their families.”

    The dinner highlighted the achievements of each appointee and recognized the rigorous process required for nomination and acceptance into the academies. 

    Abel Dees of Nash County and Parker Stokes of Pitt County, appointed to the U.S. Military Academy at West Point, were honored for their academic excellence, high GPAs and test scores, and strong leadership in student government and athletics. Leonardo Fletcher-Fontana of Pitt County will attend the U.S. Air Force Academy. He was recognized for his JROTC leadership and dedication to mental health advocacy and community service. Nicholas Antonio Santiago of Perquimans County, appointed to the U.S. Naval Academy, was celebrated for achievements in academics, athletics, the arts, and volunteerism, including service as a part-time firefighter. Dylan Sawyer of Pitt County, also appointed to the Naval Academy, was acknowledged in absentia for academic distinction at the North Carolina School of Science and Mathematics and his involvement in STEM, leadership programs, and youth engagement.

    The evening concluded with a message of gratitude from the Congressman to the families and communities supporting these students.

    “Behind every appointee is a circle of support: parents, teachers, coaches, and mentors, who have helped them reach this point,” said Congressman Davis. “We all know these students will go on to do wonderful things in the future.” 

    Congressman Davis can nominate students to four U.S. service academies: West Point, Naval, Air Force, and Merchant Marine; the Coast Guard Academy does not require a nomination. A nomination is required but does not guarantee admission. These academies offer a full scholarship in exchange for military service after graduation.

    For more information about service academies, please contact (252) 999-7600. 

    Congressman Don Davis serves as the vice ranking member of the House Armed Services Committee and sits on the Subcommittees on Tactical Air and Land Forces and Readiness. He graduated from the U.S. Air Force Academy in 1994 and is a veteran of the U.S. Air Force.

    ###

    MIL OSI USA News