Category: Russian Federation

  • MIL-OSI Russia: Chinese authorities have allocated an additional 140 million yuan to flood-affected provinces of Guizhou and Hunan.

    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, July 1 (Xinhua) — China’s Ministry of Finance said it has allocated an additional 140 million yuan (about 19.5 million U.S. dollars) to help flood-hit Guizhou Province in southwest China and Hunan Province in central China. Recall that 160 million yuan was allocated for the same purpose from the central disaster relief fund on June 23.

    Since mid-June, both provinces have been hit by prolonged rains that have caused severe flooding. The worst situation has developed in the Rongjiang and Congjiang areas of Qiandongnan-Miao-Dong Prefecture of Guizhou, where there has been a mass evacuation of residents and heavy damage.

    The allocated funds will go primarily to support search and rescue operations, housing affected residents and paying their living expenses during the transition period, as well as repairing damaged homes, the Finance Ministry reported. -0-

    MIL OSI Russia News

  • MIL-OSI Russia: IMF Executive Board Concludes 2025 Article IV Consultation and Completes the Eighth Review under the Extended Credit Facility with Guinea-Bissau

    Source: IMF – News in Russian

    June 30, 2025

    • The IMF Executive Board today concluded the 2025 Article IV consultation and completed the eighth review under the Extended Credit Facility (ECF) for Guinea-Bissau. The completion of the review allows for an immediate disbursement of SDR 4.73 million (about US$ 6.5 million), bringing total disbursement under the arrangement to SDR 35.04 million (about US$ 48.1 million)
    • Program performance was mixed. Seven out of nine Quantitative Performance Criteria and three out of four Structural Benchmarks for end-December 2024 were met. The continuous Structural Benchmark on debt service payments was met while the continuous Structural Benchmark on the expenditure committee (COTADO) was missed.
    • Growth is expected to reach 5.1 percent in 2025 while inflation should average 2 percent. The current account deficit is expected to narrow to 5.8 percent of GDP in 2025, reflecting better terms of trade. The authorities are committed to achieving a fiscal deficit of 3.4 percent of GDP in 2025, to put public debt on a firm downward trajectory. The economic outlook is positive but remains subject to significant domestic and external risks.

    Washington, DC: The Executive Board of the International Monetary Fund (IMF) concluded today the 2025 Article IV consultation[1] and completed the eighth review under Extended Credit Facility (ECF) arrangement for Guinea-Bissau. The three-year arrangement, approved on January 30, 2023, aims to secure debt sustainability, improve governance, and reduce corruption, while creating fiscal space to foster inclusive growth. The Executive Board granted an augmentation of access (140 percent of quota or SDR 39.76 million) on November 29, 2023. The completion of the eighth review enables the disbursement of SDR 4.73 million (about US$ 6.5 million) to help meet the country’s balance-of-payments and fiscal financing needs. This brings total disbursement under the arrangement to SDR 35.04 million (about US$ 48.1 million). The authorities have consented to the publication of the Staff Report prepared for this consultation.[2]

    Program performance was mixed. Seven out of nine Quantitative Performance Criteria and three out of four Structural Benchmarks for end-December 2024 were met. The continuous Structural Benchmark on debt service payments was met while the continuous Structural Benchmark on the expenditure committee (COTADO) was missed. In completing the eighth review, the Executive Board granted waivers for the non-observance of quantitative performance criteria based on corrective actions taken by the authorities [including the revenue and expenditure measures adopted as prior actions for the review], approved the authorities’ request for modification of performance criteria and indicative targets, and completed the financing assurance review. The Executive Board also approved the authorities’ request for the program extension until July 29, 2026, and rephasing of access to provide them with sufficient time to implement fiscal consolidation policies supported by the ECF program.

    Economic growth is projected to reach 5.1 percent in 2025, supported by strong exports and investments, while inflation is expected to decelerate and average 2 percent. The current account deficit should narrow to 5.8 percent of GDP in 2025, reflecting a significant improvement in Guinea-Bissau’s terms of trade. The authorities are committed to achieving a fiscal deficit of 3.4 percent of GDP in 2025 to put public debt on a firm downward trajectory. While the direct impact of recent global trade tensions on Guinea-Bissau is limited, the economy remains subject to significant downside risks amid a challenging socio-political climate in an election year and capacity constraints. The 2025 Article IV consultation discussions focused on policies aimed at supporting economic diversification to reduce dependency on cashew nuts, maintaining fiscal sustainability through domestic revenue mobilization, and bolstering social protection and human capital to promote inclusive growth.

    Following the Executive Board discussion, Mr. Okamura, Deputy Managing Director and Acting Chair, issued the following statement:

    “The economy of Guinea-Bissau has been resilient, supported by strong investment spending. While growth is projected to continue around its potential of 4½-5 percent over the medium term, significant challenges remain. In particular, the high export dependency on cashew nuts and the high risk of debt distress leave the country vulnerable to adverse changes in the international environment. Against this background, the authorities are focused on policies designed to diversify the economy and broaden the export base, including by supporting additional growth sectors such as mining and fishing.

    “Achieving the fiscal consolidation target for 2025 is essential to reduce public debt vulnerabilities. In this context, the authorities remain committed to containing domestic primary spending within the 2025 budget and to maintain strict control over the wage bill. This is being supported by strong expenditure controls, including by ensuring that project disbursements are thoroughly verified and discretionary spending remains within agreed allocations. Measures to boost revenue mobilization to bring tax collection closer to its potential through a combination of tax policy measures and revenue administration reforms are vital to create fiscal space to support economic development while reducing fiscal risks.

    “Good progress has been made in addressing financial sector vulnerabilities. The recent approval by the regional Banking Commission for the purchase offer for the undercapitalized bank, and the authorities’ decision to divest the government’s stake in the bank, are important steps in reducing systemic financial sector risks.

    “Boosting inclusive growth calls for implementing sustained social protection programs to protect the poor, diversifying the economy, strengthening the business environment and governance, and improving the efficiency of education and health spending. Broadening the coverage of social protection programs and mainstreaming them within government structures would help reduce poverty indicators. At the same time, progressively reducing broad-based subsidies and moving towards more targeted programs would also boost the impact of social spending.”

     

    Executive Board Assessment[3]

    Executive Directors agreed with the thrust of the staff appraisal. They welcomed the resilience of the economy and the significant progress in infrastructure development since the last Article IV consultation. Noting the mixed performance under the ECF and significant downside risks, they welcomed the strong corrective measures that have been implemented as prior actions for the eighth ECF review. They supported the authorities’ request for a six-month extension of the ECF, to help anchor the fiscal targets for the whole of 2025 and reinforce the commitment to fiscal consolidation.

    Given the high risk of debt distress, Directors underscored the critical importance of sustained fiscal consolidation and further reinforcing debt management to ensure that the debt to GDP ratio remains on a downward trajectory. They encouraged the authorities to boost revenue mobilization through tax policy and tax administration measures, thereby creating fiscal space for priority social and development spending while strengthening debt sustainability. They called for reinforcing expenditure controls and strengthening public financial management to contain the wage bill and prevent the recurrence of spending overruns. Continuing to refrain from nonconcessional borrowing while keeping further concessional borrowing within program targets remains important. Fiscal risks from the public utility company should also be addressed, including by speeding up its revenue mobilization.

    Directors welcomed the approval of the sale of the undercapitalized bank, which paves the way for the government’s disengagement. They called for a swift capitalization of the bank by its new owners to strengthen financial sector resilience.

    Directors stressed the need for sustained structural reforms to underpin macroeconomic stabilization and boost growth. They highlighted the importance of efforts to strengthen the business environment, remove market distortions, and reduce informality. Diversifying the economy, notably in sectors with potential such as fishing, mining, and traditional agriculture, remains critical for inclusive growth and reducing dependence on cashew exports. They urged the authorities to expedite steps to strengthen governance, anti-corruption, and AML/CFT standards. They called for reforms to strengthen procurement transparency and enhance the robustness of the audit function, to help improve public sector transparency and efficiency.

    Directors positively noted the authorities’ efforts to address gaps in the provision of macroeconomic data.

    It is expected that the next Article IV consultation with Guinea Bissau will be held on a 24-month cycle in accordance with the Executive Board decision on consultation cycles for members with Fund arrangements.

     

    Guinea-Bissau: Selected Economic Indicators, 2022-26

    Population (2024): 2.0 million                                      Per capita GDP (2024): US$ 1,104

    Main export product: cashew nuts                               Key export markets: India, Vietnam

     

    2022

    2023

    2024

    2025

    2026

         

    Prel.

    Proj.

    Proj.

    Output

             

    Real GPD growth (%)

    4.6

    5.2

    4.8

    5.1

    5.0

    Prices

             

    Inflation (annual average, %)

    7.9

    7.2

    3.7

    2.0

    2.0

    Central government finances

             

    Revenue and grants (% GDP)

    15.2

    13.7

    13.1

    16.1

    15.7

    Expenditure (% GDP)

    21.3

    21.9

    20.4

    19.5

    19.2

    Fiscal balance (% GDP)

    -6.1

    -8.2

    -7.3

    -3.4

    -3.5

    Public debt (% GDP)

    80.7

    79.4

    82.2

    78.5

    76.3

    Money and credit

             

    Broad money (% change)

    3.5

    -1.1

    6.2

    5.6

    5.4

    Credit to economy (% change)

    23.5

    -9.4

    -12.2

    14.4

    13.8

    Balance of payments

             

    Current account (% GDP)

    -8.6

    -8.6

    -8.2

    -5.8

    -5.0

    FDI (% GDP)

    1.2

    1.2

    1.2

    1.2

    1.2

    WAEMU reserves (US$ billions)

    25.2

    26.1

    External public debt (% GDP)

    39.0

    35.4

    34.7

    32.0

    30.9

    Exchange rate

             

    CFAF/US$ (average)

    622.4

    606.5

    606.2

    Sources: Guinea-Bissau authorities and IMF staff estimates and projections

    [1] Under Article IV of the IMF’s Articles of Agreement, the IMF holds bilateral discussions with members, usually every year. A staff team visits the country, collects economic and financial information, and discusses with officials the country’s economic developments and policies. On return to headquarters, the staff prepares a report, which forms the basis for discussion by the Executive Board.

    [2] Under the IMF’s Articles of Agreement, publication of documents that pertain to member countries is voluntary and requires the member consent. The staff report will be shortly published on the www.imf.org/guinea-bissau page.

    [3] At the conclusion of the discussion, the Managing Director, as Chairman of the Board, summarizes the views of Executive Directors, and this summary is transmitted to the country’s authorities. An explanation of any qualifiers used in summings up can be found here: http://www.IMF.org/external/np/sec/misc/qualifiers.htm.

    IMF Communications Department
    MEDIA RELATIONS

    PRESS OFFICER: Julie Ziegler

    Phone: +1 202 623-7100Email: MEDIA@IMF.org

    https://www.imf.org/en/News/Articles/2025/07/01/pr25230-guinea-bissau-2025-article-iv-and-eighth-review

    MIL OSI

    MIL OSI Russia News

  • MIL-OSI Russia: ​104th Anniversary of the Founding of the CPC

    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

    В Китае> Новости>
    Russians. Ori.org.KN | 01. 07. 2025 Font: aaa

    Russians. Ori.org.KN | 01. 07. 2025

    Keywords: 104th Anniversary of the CPC

    视频播放位置

    下载安装 flash 播放器

    Follow China.org.cn on VKontakte, Twitter and Facebook to participate in the conversation/comments.

    Source: russian.china.org.cn

    ​104th Anniversary of the Founding of the CPC 104th Anniversary of the Founding of the CPC

    MIL OSI Russia News

  • MIL-OSI Russia: IMF Executive Board Completes the Second Review under the Extended Credit Facility Arrangement for Togo

    Source: IMF – News in Russian

    June 30, 2025

    • The IMF Executive Board today completed the second review under the Extended Credit Facility (ECF) arrangement for Togo, allowing the authorities to draw about SDR 44.0 million (about US$ 60.5 million). The Executive Board approved the 42-month ECF arrangement in March 2024 and concluded the first review in December 2024.
    • Growth has remained robust, and inflation has continued to slow. The medium-term economic outlook is favorable, with sustained robust growth, but elevated risks remain.
    • Implementation of the IMF-supported program has been broadly satisfactory: the authorities met all quantitative targets at end-December 2024 except for the performance criterion on the fiscal balance, and they have met all but one structural benchmark due since the completion of the first ECF review.

    Washington, DC: The Executive Board of the International Monetary Fund (IMF) completed the second review of the Extended Credit Facility (ECF) arrangement for Togo. The Board’s decision enables the immediate disbursement of about SDR 44.0 million (about US$ 60.5 million), which will be used for budget support. The ECF-arrangement provides overall financing of SDR 293.60 million (about US$ 403.4 million) on favorable terms.

    The IMF approved the ECF arrangement in March 2024 to help the authorities address the legacies of shocks experienced since 2020, notably the COVID pandemic and the increase in global food and fuel prices. The Togolese authorities were able to lessen the impacts of these shocks on the Togolese population, but this came at the price of large fiscal deficits and a rapidly rising public debt burden. The IMF-supported government program aims to (i) make growth more inclusive while strengthening debt sustainability, and (ii) implement structural reforms to support growth and limit fiscal and financial sector risks. The IMF Executive Board completed the first ECF review in December 2024.  

    The medium-term outlook is broadly favorable, with continued robust growth. Economic growth reached an estimated 5.3 percent in 2024 and is projected at 5.2 percent in 2025 and 5.5 percent per year thereafter, according to IMF staff projections, barring major adverse shocks. Headline inflation eased to 2.6 percent in April 2025 and core inflation (which excludes the prices of energy and fresh products) fell to 1.3 percent (annual averages).

    However, the outlook is subject to high risks. In particular, insecurity from the presence of terrorist groups at the country’s northern border continues, putting pressure on spending. The authorities face challenging trade-offs between the need to achieve fiscal consolidation to lower the debt burden and the need to maintain security, enhance inclusion, and support growth.

    Implementation of the IMF-supported program has been broadly satisfactory. The authorities met all quantitative targets at end-December 2024 except for the performance criterion on the fiscal balance. A notable success has been that the authorities raised tax revenue in 2024 as planned and pushed non-tax revenue beyond expectations. At the same time, higher-than-budgeted spending pushed debt higher. The authorities also met all but one structural benchmark due since the completion of the first ECF review, thanks to public financial management and banking sector reforms.

    At the conclusion of the Executive Board’s discussion, Mr. Kenji Okamura, Deputy Managing Director, and Acting Chair, made the following statement: 

    “The authorities have implemented the IMF-supported program in an overall satisfactory manner in an environment marked by continued security challenges, tight financing conditions, and elevated global uncertainty. Among other achievements, the authorities mobilized tax revenue in line with targets, while non-tax revenue exceeded projections.

    “Nonetheless, progress on fiscal consolidation has been slower than programmed due to operations the authorities recorded below the line, resulting in faster-than-expected debt accumulation. The authorities’ efforts to address this development, in particular the publication of an innovative note on budget execution and debt accumulation, are welcome.

    “Against this background, the authorities are encouraged to redouble their efforts at fiscal consolidation while preserving growth and strengthening inclusion. The IMF approves the authorities’ request for a limited relaxation of the fiscal deficit target for 2024 and for delaying the goal of lowering the present value of debt below 55 percent of GDP by one year, to 2027. These modifications appropriately balance the need to respond to security threats against the need to strengthen debt sustainability. 

    “Further, the authorities are encouraged to continue efforts to enhance revenue while making taxation more efficient, supported by a timely elaboration of a medium-term revenue mobilization strategy. Reforms to improve the efficiency of spending and strengthen the effectiveness of the social safety net, including phasing out fuel subsidies, will also be important. Further, it will be important to strengthen electricity and water provision, including raising tariffs to ensure cost recovery in combination with measures to protect the most vulnerable.

    “The IMF welcomes the authorities’ efforts to reduce financial sector and fiscal risks by recapitalizing the remaining state-owned bank, which have boosted the bank’s compliance with regulatory norms. Further efforts will be needed to address the remaining breaches of regulatory norms and to restructure the bank’s operations to ensure its stability and profitability.

    “Finally, efforts to strengthen governance will be critical for nurturing the business environment and supporting sustainable growth. The authorities’ commitment to publishing the planned Governance Diagnostic Assessment is very welcome. The authorities should also align asset and income declarations regime with international standards.”

    Togo: Selected Economic and Financial Indicators, 2023–27

     

    2023

    2024

    2025

    2026

    2027

     

    Estimates

    Projections

    Real GDP

    5.6

    5.3

    5.2

    5.5

    5.5

    Real GDP per capita

    3.1

    2.8

    2.7

    3.0

    3.0

    GDP deflator

    2.9

    2.2

    2.0

    2.0

    2.0

    Consumer price index (annual average)

    5.3

    2.9

    2.3

    2.0

    2.0

    GDP (CFAF billions)

    5,507

    5,927

    6,360

    6,843

    7,364

    Exchange rate CFAF/US$ (annual average level)

    606

    Real effective exchange rate (appreciation = –)

    -8.2

    Terms of trade (deterioration = –)

    2.5

    -0.4

    -0.3

    0.9

    0.6

     

    Monetary survey

     

    Net foreign assets

    2.0

    1.3

    3.6

    2.4

    2.3

    Net credit to government

    1.2

    8.6

    2.6

    -1.3

    -0.1

    Credit to nongovernment sector

    2.9

    3.6

    1.4

    7.4

    7.0

    Broad money (M2)

    6.5

    8.5

    7.3

    7.6

    7.6

    Velocity (GDP/end-of-period M2)

    2.0

    2.0

    2.0

    2.0

    2.0

     

    Investment and savings

     

    Gross domestic investment

    28.0

    26.8

    25.6

    24.4

    25.3

    Government

    11.5

    10.1

    8.5

    7.1

    7.8

    Nongovernment

    16.5

    16.7

    17.1

    17.3

    17.5

    Gross national savings

    24.0

    23.7

    23.2

    23.0

    24.3

    Government

    4.8

    2.7

    4.6

    4.1

    4.8

    Nongovernment

    19.2

    20.9

    18.7

    18.8

    19.5

     

    Government budget

             

    Total revenue and grants

    19.8

    19.0

    18.8

    18.5

    19.0

    Revenue

    16.8

    17.0

    16.6

    17.1

    17.6

    Tax revenue

    14.8

    14.9

    15.4

    15.9

    16.4

    Expenditure and net lending

    26.6

    26.4

    22.7

    21.5

    22.0

    Expenditure and net lending (excl. banking sector operations)

    26.6

    25.4

    22.3

    21.5

    22.0

    Primary balance (commitment basis, incl. grants)

    -3.9

    -4.5

    -1.2

    -0.2

    -0.4

    Overall balance (commitment basis, incl. grants, excl. banking sector operations)

    -6.7

    -6.4

    -3.5

    -3.0

    -3.0

    Overall balance (commitment basis, incl. grants)

    -6.7

    -7.4

    -3.9

    -3.0

    -3.0

    Primary balance (cash basis, incl. grants)

    -3.9

    -4.5

    -1.2

    -0.2

    -0.4

    Overall balance (cash basis, incl. grants, excl. banking sector operations)

    -6.7

    -6.4

    -3.5

    -3.0

    -3.0

    Overall balance (cash basis, incl. grants)

    -6.7

    -7.4

    -3.9

    -3.0

    -3.0

     

    External sector

             

    Current account balance

    -4.0

    -3.2

    -2.3

    -1.4

    -1.0

    Exports (goods and services)

    26.3

    25.5

    25.5

    25.5

    25.7

    Imports (goods and services)

    -37.8

    -35.9

    -34.3

    -32.8

    -32.5

    External public debt1

    26.3

    30.4

    32.8

    32.1

    32.7

    External public debt service (percent of exports)1

    7.7

    10.0

    14.8

    15.0

    8.1

    Domestic public debt2

    42.3

    41.7

    37.5

    36.6

    34.3

    Total public debt3

    68.6

    72.1

    70.2

    68.7

    66.9

    Total public debt (excluding SOEs)4

    67.3

    71.2

    69.6

    68.2

    66.6

    Present value of total public debt3

    62.3

    63.2

    60.0

    57.0

    54.0

    Sources: Togolese authorities and IMF staff estimates and projections.

     

    1 Includes state-owned enterprise external debt.

    2 Includes domestic arrears and state-owned enterprise domestic debt.

    3 Includes domestic arrears and state-owned enterprise debt.

    4 Includes domestic arrears.

    IMF Communications Department
    MEDIA RELATIONS

    PRESS OFFICER: Kwabena Akuamoah-Boateng

    Phone: +1 202 623-7100Email: MEDIA@IMF.org

    https://www.imf.org/en/News/Articles/2025/06/30/pr25229-togo-imf-completes-the-second-review-under-the-ecf-arrangement-for-togo

    MIL OSI

    MIL OSI Russia News

  • MIL-OSI Submissions: New special tribunal for Ukraine will pave the way for holding Russian leaders to account for the invasion

    Source: The Conversation – UK – By Andrew Forde, Assistant Professor – European Human Rights Law, Dublin City University

    A special tribunal has been established by the international human rights organisation the Council of Europe (CoE) and the Ukrainian government to try crimes of aggression against Ukraine which could be used to hold Vladimir Putin and others to account for the February 2022 invasion and war crimes committed since.

    The Ukrainian president, Volodymyr Zelensky, signed an agreement with CoE secretary general, Alain Berset, on June 25, setting up the special tribunal. Subject to it securing the necessary political backing and budget the tribunal will be established within the framework of the CoE (which is not part of the European Union.

    Work on the first phase of the court could progress in 2026. In his speech to the Council of Europe parliamentary assembly in Strasbourg, Zelensky was cautious in his optimism but stressed that the agreement was “just the beginning”.

    “It will take strong political and legal cooperation to make sure every Russian war criminal faces justice – including Putin,” he said. He knows, through years of hard experience as he travelled the world seeking help from Ukraine’s allies, that political support can be fleeting.

    A new Nuremberg?

    Inspired by ad hoc courts established after major conflicts such as the Nuremberg tribunal after the second world war or, more recently the International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia (ICTY)
    in the 1990s, the Ukraine has been established with the aim of holding to account the perpetrators of the first full-scale armed conflict in Europe in the 21st century.

    The prohibition against the crime of aggression is a basic principle of international law, and a key part of the UN charter.

    In principle, the crime of aggression should be prosecuted by the International Criminal Court (ICC). But as Russia is not a party to the Rome Statute which underpins the court, that option was ruled out. Similarly, Russia’s veto on the UN security council meant that it would be impossible in practice to practically set up a court under the mandate of the UN – as the ICTY was in 1993.

    The Ukraine special tribunal, which was developed by a Core Group, made up of states plus the EU and the Council of Europe, seeks to fill an obvious accountability gap. If the illegal invasion is left unpunished, it would set a dangerous precedent.

    Such impunity would embolden Russia and inspire others with revanchist ambitions, undermining an already shaky international order. The US, which was instrumental in setting up the Core Group under the presidency of Joe Biden, withdrew in March 2025 when Donald Trump took office.

    The statute of the special tribunal sets out that the court will be based on Ukrainian law and will have a strong link to the country’s legal system. Ukraine’s prosecutor-general will play a key role in the proceedings, referring evidence for further investigation by the tribunal. But it will be internationally funded with international judges and prosecutors, and strong cooperation with the International Criminal Court. It is likely to be based in the Hague – although this has yet to be confirmed.

    The need for accountability for the illegal invasion of Ukraine was stressed in a resolution of the UN general assembly in February 2023 as the war headed into its second year. The resolution, which calls for “appropriate, fair and independent investigations and prosecutions at the national or international level” to “ensure justice for all victims and the prevention of future crimes” was approved by an overwhelming majority of 141 states. Any country in the world can join this core group to support its establishment.

    Holding leaders accountable

    Unlike previous international courts, the caseload is likely to be extremely narrow. There are likely to be dozens of charges rather than hundreds or thousands, which is perhaps reassuring in terms of managing costs.

    The tribunal will focus on those “most responsible” including the so-called “troika”: the president Vladimir Putin, prime minister Mikhail Mishustin and the minister for foreign affairs Sergey Lavrov. Charges may also be levelled against the leadership of Belarus and North Korea for their role in aiding, abetting and actively participating in the war of aggression. But don’t expect Kim Jong-un or Alexander Lukashenko in the dock anytime soon.

    The Court has opted for a novel approach to a longstanding customary rule by noting that heads of state are not functionally immune from prosecution. But it adds that indictments won’t be confirmed until such time as the suspect is no longer in office.

    Trials can take place in absentia if the accused fails to attend and all reasonable steps taken to apprehend them have failed. But, like the ICC, the court will still rely on states to apprehend and physically transfer indicted individuals in due course. This will inevitably limit the chances of seeing any of the key individuals actually in a court, something that has also dogged the ICC.

    The fact that a tribunal has now been set up is a major development in international criminal justice. But it is now in a sort of purgatory, existing and not existing at the same time. To become operational, another treaty known as an enlarged partial agreement must be signed by interested states. This will have to be ratified by many national parliaments, depending on their constitutions. This process could take years.

    But simply by creating the framework for the tribunal, the Council of Europe has demonstrated its commitment to ensuring accountability. In a further development, the European Court of Human Rights delivers its long-awaited judgment in the case of Ukraine and the Netherlands v Russia on July 9.

    This concerns “complaints about the conflict in eastern Ukraine involving pro-Russian separatists which began in 2014, including the downing of Malaysia Airlines flight MH17, and the Russian military operations in Ukraine since 2022”. The judgement will add further momentum to these accountability efforts.

    Symbolic as it may seem, this week’s agreement creates a real opportunity for the international community to send a message that impunity for international aggression is intolerable – not just for the victims, but for all who believe in the rule of law.

    Andrew Forde is affiliated with Dublin City University (Assistant Professor, European Human Rights Law). He is also, separately, affiliated with the Irish Human Rights and Equality Commission (Commissioner).

    ref. New special tribunal for Ukraine will pave the way for holding Russian leaders to account for the invasion – https://theconversation.com/new-special-tribunal-for-ukraine-will-pave-the-way-for-holding-russian-leaders-to-account-for-the-invasion-260022

    MIL OSI

  • MIL-OSI Submissions: Will the fragile ceasefire between Iran and Israel hold? One factor could be crucial to it sticking

    Source: The Conversation – Global Perspectives – By Ali Mamouri, Research Fellow, Middle East Studies, Deakin University

    Amir Levy/Getty Images

    After 12 days of war, US President Donald Trump announced a ceasefire between Israel and Iran that would bring to an end the most dramatic, direct conflict between the two nations in decades.

    Israel and Iran both agreed to adhere to the ceasefire, though they said they would respond with force to any breach.

    If the ceasefire holds – a big if – the key question will be whether this signals the start of lasting peace, or merely a brief pause before renewed conflict.

    As contemporary war studies show, peace tends to endure under one of two conditions: either the total defeat of one side, or the establishment of mutual deterrence. This means both parties refrain from aggression because the expected costs of retaliation far outweigh any potential gains.

    What did each side gain?

    The war has marked a turning point for Israel in its decades-long confrontation with Iran. For the first time, Israel successfully brought a prolonged battle to Iranian soil, shifting the conflict from confrontations with Iranian-backed proxy militant groups to direct strikes on Iran itself.

    This was made possible largely due to Israel’s success over the past two years in weakening Iran’s regional proxy network, particularly Hezbollah in Lebanon and Shiite militias in Syria.

    Over the past two weeks, Israel has inflicted significant damage on Iran’s military and scientific elite, killing several high-ranking commanders and nuclear scientists. The civilian toll was also high.

    Additionally, Israel achieved a major strategic objective by pulling the United States directly into the conflict. In coordination with Israel, the US launched strikes on three of Iran’s primary nuclear facilities: Fordow, Natanz and Isfahan.

    Despite these gains, Israel has not accomplished all of its stated goals. Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu had voiced support for regime change, urging Iranians to rise up against Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei’s government, but the senior leadership in Iran remains intact.

    Additionally, Israel has not fully eliminated Iran’s missile program. (Iran continued striking to the last minute before the ceasefire.) And Tehran did not acquiesce to Trump’s pre-war demand to end uranium enrichment.

    Although Iran was caught off-guard by Israel’s attacks — particularly as it was engaged in nuclear negotiations with the US — it responded by launching hundreds of missiles towards Israel.

    While many were intercepted, a significant number penetrated Israeli air defences, causing widespread destruction in major cities, dozens of fatalities and hundreds of injuries.

    Iran has demonstrated its capacity to strike back, though Israel has succeeded in destroying many of its air defence systems, some ballistic missile assets (including missile launchers) and multiple energy facilities.

    Since the beginning of the assault, Iranian officials have repeatedly called for a halt to resume negotiations. Under such intense pressure, Iran has realised it would not benefit from a prolonged war of attrition with Israel — especially as both nations face mounting costs and the risk of depleting their military stockpiles if the war continues.

    As theories of victory suggest, success in war is defined not only by the damage inflicted, but by achieving core strategic goals and weakening the enemy’s will and capacity to resist.

    While Israel claims to have achieved the bulk of its objectives, the extent of the damage to Iran’s nuclear program is not fully known, nor is its capacity to continue enriching uranium.

    Both sides could remain locked in a volatile standoff over Iran’s nuclear program, with the conflict potentially reigniting whenever either side perceives a strategic opportunity.

    Sticking point over Iran’s nuclear program

    Iran faces even greater challenges when it emerges from the war. With a heavy toll on its leadership and nuclear infrastructure, Tehran will likely prioritise rebuilding its deterrence capability.

    That includes acquiring new advanced air defence systems — potentially from China — and restoring key components of its missile and nuclear programs. (Some experts say Iran has not used some of its most powerful missiles to maintain this deterrence.)

    Iranian officials have claimed they safeguarded more than 400 kilograms of 60% enriched uranium before the attacks. This stockpile could theoretically be converted into nine to ten nuclear warheads if further enriched to 90%.

    Trump declared Iran’s nuclear capacity had been “totally obliterated”, whereas Rafael Grossi, the United Nations’ nuclear watchdog chief, said damage to Iran’s facilities was “very significant”.

    However, analysts have argued Iran will still have a depth of technical knowledge accumulated over decades. Depending on the extent of the damage to its underground facilities, Iran could be capable of restoring and even accelerating its program in a relatively short time frame.

    And the chances of reviving negotiations on Iran’s nuclear program appear slimmer than ever.

    What might future deterrence look like?

    The war has fundamentally reshaped how both Iran and Israel perceive deterrence — and how they plan to secure it going forward.

    For Iran, the conflict has reinforced the belief that its survival is at stake. With regime change openly discussed during the war, Iran’s leaders appear more convinced than ever that true deterrence requires two key pillars: nuclear weapons capability, and deeper strategic alignment with China and Russia.

    As a result, Iran is expected to move rapidly to restore and advance its nuclear program, potentially moving towards actual weaponisation — a step it had long avoided, officially.

    At the same time, Tehran is likely to accelerate military and economic cooperation with Beijing and Moscow to hedge against isolation. Iranian Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi emphasised this close engagement with Russia during a visit to Moscow this week, particularly on nuclear matters.

    Israel, meanwhile, sees deterrence as requiring constant vigilance and a credible threat of overwhelming retaliation. In the absence of diplomatic breakthroughs, Israel may adopt a policy of immediate preemptive strikes on Iranian facilities or leadership figures if it detects any new escalation — particularly related to Iran’s nuclear program.

    In this context, the current ceasefire already appears fragile. Without comprehensive negotiations that address the core issues — namely, Iran’s nuclear capabilities — the pause in hostilities may prove temporary.

    Mutual deterrence may prevent a more protracted war for now, but the balance remains precarious and could collapse with little warning.

    Ali Mamouri 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. Will the fragile ceasefire between Iran and Israel hold? One factor could be crucial to it sticking – https://theconversation.com/will-the-fragile-ceasefire-between-iran-and-israel-hold-one-factor-could-be-crucial-to-it-sticking-259669

    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 Russia: China Resolutely Opposes Forced Shutdown of Hikvision’s Business in Canada – China’s Ministry of Commerce

    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) — China expresses strong dissatisfaction and firmly opposes the Canadian government’s order to stop Chinese company Hikvision’s operations in Canada, a spokesman for China’s Ministry of Commerce said Monday.

    China noted that the Canadian side forcibly stopped Hikvision’s operations in the country and prohibited Canadian government agencies from purchasing and using Hikvision products under the pretext of protecting “national security,” the official said.

    According to him, the so-called national security review undertaken by the Canadian side lacked transparency and yielded uncertain results. The representative of the Chinese agency called it a typical example of the generalization of the concept of national security.

    “The actions of the Canadian side not only undermine the legitimate rights and interests of Chinese enterprises, but also negatively affect the confidence of companies from both countries in cooperation, and harm normal trade and economic relations between China and Canada,” the official representative emphasized.

    China, he continued, urges Canada to immediately correct its wrong actions, stop politicizing economic and trade issues and generalizing the concept of national security, and ensure an open, fair, just and non-discriminatory environment for enterprises from all countries, including China, to invest and do business in Canada.

    The Chinese side will take all necessary measures to resolutely protect the legitimate rights and interests of Chinese enterprises, added the official representative of the Ministry of Commerce of the People’s Republic of China. –0–

    MIL OSI Russia 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 Russia: Mainland China criticizes Taiwan leader’s separatist rhetoric

    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) — State Council Taiwan Affairs Office spokesperson Zhu Fenglian on Monday slammed Taiwan leader Lai Qingde’s recent remarks over the weekend as a further escalation of provocations aimed at achieving “Taiwan independence” and seriously damaging cross-Strait relations.

    In response to a journalist’s question, Zhu Fenglian pointed out that in his speeches, Lai Qingde inflated the topic of “continental threat,” propagated the thesis of “Taiwan independence,” distorted the legal framework and historical facts, ignoring the prevailing public opinion on the island.

    Zhu Fenglian noted that Lai Qingde’s misinterpretation of UN General Assembly Resolution 2758, a political document embodying the one-China principle, and attempts to sever the historical and legal ties between the two sides of the Taiwan Strait once again expose his fear of and resistance to closer exchanges between compatriots from both sides.

    “The return of Taiwan to China after Japanese occupation is a fundamental element of the international order established after World War II and the result of the joint efforts of compatriots from both sides of the strait to safeguard national dignity. Those who act against the common interests of the Chinese nation are doomed to failure, and attempts to challenge China’s sovereignty and territorial integrity at the expense of ‘Taiwan independence’ will only lead to a dead end,” the official representative stated.

    Reiterating that people on both sides of the strait share the common aspiration of peace, development, exchanges and cooperation, Zhu Fenglian said the mainland is committed to advancing the peaceful and integrated development of the two sides.

    She called on compatriots in Taiwan to see through the hypocrisy and political manipulation of the Democratic Progressive Party administration and work hand in hand with compatriots on the mainland to achieve national reunification and rejuvenation. –0–

    MIL OSI Russia News

  • MIL-OSI United Nations: Organization for Security and Co-operation’s Role in Strengthening Democracy ‘Essential’, Secretary-General Tells Parliamentary Assembly

    Source: United Nations General Assembly and Security Council

    Following is the text of UN Secretary-General António Guterres’ video message for the Organization for Security and Co-operation in Europe (OSCE) Parliamentary Assembly in Porto, Portugal today:

    Dear Parliamentarians, it is a privilege to address this OSCE Parliamentary Assembly as you meet in the beautiful city of Porto.

    You gather as our world faces great and grave challenges — from raging conflicts, to rising inequalities, to the out-of-control climate crisis.

    Trust is breaking down.  But you are standing up for something different.  By encouraging dialogue between Parliaments, you have helped strengthen democracy, advance cooperation and promote comprehensive security.

    Your leadership in observing elections has helped make them fairer and more trustworthy.  And your efforts played a critical role in inspiring important initiatives such as the OSCE Representative on Freedom of the Media.

    Fifty years after the Helsinki Accords, the principles of the OSCE are more important than ever.

    As the world’s largest regional security organization, you face rising security threats, especially with the Russian invasion of Ukraine.

    Your role in protecting human rights, strengthening democracy and promoting sustainable development is essential.

    We at the United Nations look forward to continuing that critical work together to guide the region and our world towards a more peaceful future.

    Thank you.

    MIL OSI United Nations News

  • MIL-Evening Report: Trump’s worldview is causing a global shift of alliances – what does this mean for nations in the middle?

    Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Dilnoza Ubaydullaeva, Lecturer in Government – National Security College, Australian National University

    Since US President Donald Trump took office this year, one theme has come up time and again: his rule is a threat to the US-led international order.

    As the US political scientist John Mearsheimer famously argued, the liberal international order

    was destined to fail from the start, as it contained the seeds of its own destruction.

    This perspective has gained traction in recent years. And now, Trump’s actions have caused many to question whether a new world order is emerging.

    Trump has expressed a desire for a new international order defined by multiple spheres of influence — one in which powers like the US, China and Russia each exert dominance over distinct regions.

    This vision aligns with the idea of a “multipolar” world, where no single state holds overarching global dominance. Instead, influence is distributed among several great powers, each maintaining its own regional sphere.

    This architecture contrasts sharply with earlier periods – the bipolar world of the Cold War, dominated by the US and the Soviet Union; and the unipolar period that followed, dominated by the US.

    What does this mean for the world order moving forward?

    Shifting US spheres of influence

    We’ve seen this shift taking place in recent months. For example, Trump has backed away from his pledge to end the war between Russia and Ukraine and now appears to be leaving it to the main protagonists, and Europe, to find a solution.

    Europe, which once largely spoke in a unified voice with the US, is also showing signs of policy-making which is more independent. Rather than framing its actions as protecting “Western democratic principles”, Europe is increasingly focused on defining its own security interests.

    In the Middle East, the US will likely maintain its sphere of influence. It will continue its unequivocal support for Israel under Trump.

    Amid shifting global alliances, the Trump administration will continue to support Israel, led by Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu.
    noamgalai/Shutterstock

    The US will also involve itself in the region’s politics when its interests are at stake, as we witnessed in its recent strikes on Iranian nuclear facilities.

    This, along with increasing economic ties between the US and Gulf states, suggests US allies in the region will remain the dominant voices shaping regional dynamics, particularly now with Iran weakened.

    Yet it’s clear Trump is reshaping US dynamics in the region by signaling a desire for reduced military and political involvement, and criticising the nation building efforts of previous administrations.

    The Trump administration now appears to want to maintain its sphere of influence primarily through strong economic ties.

    Russia and China poles emerging elsewhere

    Meanwhile, other poles are emerging in the Global South. Russia and China have deepened their cooperation, positioning themselves as defenders against what they frame as Western hegemonic bullying.

    Trump’s trade policies and sanctions against many nations in the Global South have fuelled narratives (spread by China and Russia) that the US does not consistently adhere to the rules it imposes on others.

    Trump’s decision to slash funding to USAID has also opened the door to China, in particular, to become the main development partner for nations in Africa and other parts of the world.

    And on the security front, Russia has become more involved in many African and Middle Eastern countries, which have become less trustful and reliant on Western powers.

    Russian President Vladimir Putin and Chinese leader Xi Xinping see opportunities to spread their influence in the Global South.
    plavi011/Shutterstock

    In the Indo-Pacific, much attention has been given to the rise of China and its increasingly assertive posture. Many of Washington’s traditional allies are nervous about its continued engagement in the region and ability to counter China’s rise.

    Chinese leader Xi Jinping has sought to take advantage of the current environment, embarking on a Vietnam, Malaysia and Cambodia push earlier this year. But many nations continue to be wary of China’s increasing influence, in particular the Philippines, which has clashed with China over the South China Sea.

    Strategic hedging

    Not all countries, however, are aligning themselves neatly with one pole or another.

    For small states caught between great powers, navigating this multipolar environment is both a risk and an opportunity.

    Ukraine is a case in point. As a sovereign state, Ukraine should have the freedom to decide its own alignments. Yet, it finds itself ensnared in great power politics, with devastating consequences.

    Other small states are playing a different game — pivoting from one power to another based on their immediate interests.

    Slovakia, for instance, is both a NATO and EU member, yet its leader, Robert Fico, attended Russia’s Victory Day Parade in May and told President Vladimir Putin he wanted to maintain “normal relations” with Russia.

    Then there is Central Asia, which is the centre of a renewed “great game,” with Russia, China and Europe vying for influence and economic partnerships.

    Yet if any Central Asian countries were to be invaded by Putin, would other powers intervene? It’s a difficult question to answer. Major powers are reluctant to engage in direct conflict unless their core interests or borders are directly threatened.

    As a result, Central Asian states are hedging their bets, seeking to maintain relations with multiple poles, despite their conflicting agendas.

    A future defined by regional power blocs?

    While it is still early to draw definitive conclusions, the events of the past few months underscore a growing trend. Smaller countries are expressing solidarity with one power, but pragmatic cooperation with another, when it suits their national interests.

    For this reason, regional power blocs seem to be of increasing interest to countries in the Global South.

    For instance, the China-led Shanghai Cooperation Organisation has become a stronger and larger grouping of nations across Eurasia in recent years.

    Trump’s focus on making “America Great Again,” has taken the load off the US carrying liberal order leadership. A multipolar world may not be the end of the liberal international order, but it may be a reshaped version of liberal governance.

    How “liberal” it can be will likely depend on what each regional power, or pole, will make of it.

    Dilnoza Ubaydullaeva 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. Trump’s worldview is causing a global shift of alliances – what does this mean for nations in the middle? – https://theconversation.com/trumps-worldview-is-causing-a-global-shift-of-alliances-what-does-this-mean-for-nations-in-the-middle-257113

    MIL OSI AnalysisEveningReport.nz

  • MIL-Evening Report: Trump’s worldview is causing a global shift of alliances – what does this mean for nations in the middle?

    Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Dilnoza Ubaydullaeva, Lecturer in Government – National Security College, Australian National University

    Since US President Donald Trump took office this year, one theme has come up time and again: his rule is a threat to the US-led international order.

    As the US political scientist John Mearsheimer famously argued, the liberal international order

    was destined to fail from the start, as it contained the seeds of its own destruction.

    This perspective has gained traction in recent years. And now, Trump’s actions have caused many to question whether a new world order is emerging.

    Trump has expressed a desire for a new international order defined by multiple spheres of influence — one in which powers like the US, China and Russia each exert dominance over distinct regions.

    This vision aligns with the idea of a “multipolar” world, where no single state holds overarching global dominance. Instead, influence is distributed among several great powers, each maintaining its own regional sphere.

    This architecture contrasts sharply with earlier periods – the bipolar world of the Cold War, dominated by the US and the Soviet Union; and the unipolar period that followed, dominated by the US.

    What does this mean for the world order moving forward?

    Shifting US spheres of influence

    We’ve seen this shift taking place in recent months. For example, Trump has backed away from his pledge to end the war between Russia and Ukraine and now appears to be leaving it to the main protagonists, and Europe, to find a solution.

    Europe, which once largely spoke in a unified voice with the US, is also showing signs of policy-making which is more independent. Rather than framing its actions as protecting “Western democratic principles”, Europe is increasingly focused on defining its own security interests.

    In the Middle East, the US will likely maintain its sphere of influence. It will continue its unequivocal support for Israel under Trump.

    Amid shifting global alliances, the Trump administration will continue to support Israel, led by Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu.
    noamgalai/Shutterstock

    The US will also involve itself in the region’s politics when its interests are at stake, as we witnessed in its recent strikes on Iranian nuclear facilities.

    This, along with increasing economic ties between the US and Gulf states, suggests US allies in the region will remain the dominant voices shaping regional dynamics, particularly now with Iran weakened.

    Yet it’s clear Trump is reshaping US dynamics in the region by signaling a desire for reduced military and political involvement, and criticising the nation building efforts of previous administrations.

    The Trump administration now appears to want to maintain its sphere of influence primarily through strong economic ties.

    Russia and China poles emerging elsewhere

    Meanwhile, other poles are emerging in the Global South. Russia and China have deepened their cooperation, positioning themselves as defenders against what they frame as Western hegemonic bullying.

    Trump’s trade policies and sanctions against many nations in the Global South have fuelled narratives (spread by China and Russia) that the US does not consistently adhere to the rules it imposes on others.

    Trump’s decision to slash funding to USAID has also opened the door to China, in particular, to become the main development partner for nations in Africa and other parts of the world.

    And on the security front, Russia has become more involved in many African and Middle Eastern countries, which have become less trustful and reliant on Western powers.

    Russian President Vladimir Putin and Chinese leader Xi Xinping see opportunities to spread their influence in the Global South.
    plavi011/Shutterstock

    In the Indo-Pacific, much attention has been given to the rise of China and its increasingly assertive posture. Many of Washington’s traditional allies are nervous about its continued engagement in the region and ability to counter China’s rise.

    Chinese leader Xi Jinping has sought to take advantage of the current environment, embarking on a Vietnam, Malaysia and Cambodia push earlier this year. But many nations continue to be wary of China’s increasing influence, in particular the Philippines, which has clashed with China over the South China Sea.

    Strategic hedging

    Not all countries, however, are aligning themselves neatly with one pole or another.

    For small states caught between great powers, navigating this multipolar environment is both a risk and an opportunity.

    Ukraine is a case in point. As a sovereign state, Ukraine should have the freedom to decide its own alignments. Yet, it finds itself ensnared in great power politics, with devastating consequences.

    Other small states are playing a different game — pivoting from one power to another based on their immediate interests.

    Slovakia, for instance, is both a NATO and EU member, yet its leader, Robert Fico, attended Russia’s Victory Day Parade in May and told President Vladimir Putin he wanted to maintain “normal relations” with Russia.

    Then there is Central Asia, which is the centre of a renewed “great game,” with Russia, China and Europe vying for influence and economic partnerships.

    Yet if any Central Asian countries were to be invaded by Putin, would other powers intervene? It’s a difficult question to answer. Major powers are reluctant to engage in direct conflict unless their core interests or borders are directly threatened.

    As a result, Central Asian states are hedging their bets, seeking to maintain relations with multiple poles, despite their conflicting agendas.

    A future defined by regional power blocs?

    While it is still early to draw definitive conclusions, the events of the past few months underscore a growing trend. Smaller countries are expressing solidarity with one power, but pragmatic cooperation with another, when it suits their national interests.

    For this reason, regional power blocs seem to be of increasing interest to countries in the Global South.

    For instance, the China-led Shanghai Cooperation Organisation has become a stronger and larger grouping of nations across Eurasia in recent years.

    Trump’s focus on making “America Great Again,” has taken the load off the US carrying liberal order leadership. A multipolar world may not be the end of the liberal international order, but it may be a reshaped version of liberal governance.

    How “liberal” it can be will likely depend on what each regional power, or pole, will make of it.

    Dilnoza Ubaydullaeva 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. Trump’s worldview is causing a global shift of alliances – what does this mean for nations in the middle? – https://theconversation.com/trumps-worldview-is-causing-a-global-shift-of-alliances-what-does-this-mean-for-nations-in-the-middle-257113

    MIL OSI AnalysisEveningReport.nz

  • MIL-OSI Russia: IMF Executive Board Concludes the 2025 Article IV Consultation with the Republic of Serbia and Completes the First Review Under the Policy Coordination Instrument

    Source: IMF – News in Russian

    June 30, 2025

    • Serbia’s prudent macroeconomic policies have supported economic resilience in an uncertain global environment. After a brief slowdown in early 2025, growth is expected to reaccelerate in 2026 and 2027.
    • The authorities are maintaining fiscal discipline and implementing macro-critical structural reforms under the Policy Coordination Instrument, having completed the first review. While Serbia faces domestic and external uncertainties, it has built strong buffers to withstand potential shocks.
    • Reinvigorating reforms to improve the business environment and governance would help sustain Serbia’s strong growth over the medium term.

    Washington, DC: The Executive Board of the International Monetary Fund (IMF) concluded the 2025 Article IV Consultation with the Republic of Serbia and completed the first review of Serbia’s performance under the Policy Coordination Instrument (PCI).[1] The authorities have consented to the publication of the Staff Report prepared for the consultation and the review.[2]

    Serbia’s macroeconomic performance remains resilient amid a challenging global environment. IMF staff projects real GDP growth at 3 percent in 2025, rising to 4 percent in 2026 and 4.5 percent in 2027. Headline inflation has returned to National Bank of Serbia’s target band (3 percent +/-1.5 percentage points), driven by declining energy prices and moderating core inflation. The monetary policy stance is appropriately restrictive.

    Despite increased public investment, the fiscal deficit remains under control due to strong revenue performance and prudent management of current spending. While the current account deficit has widened, reflecting higher imports supporting the public investment drive and weak external demand, international reserves remain ample.

    Fiscal structural reforms are progressing, including in further strengthening public financial management and public investment management. Energy sector reforms are also advancing but more remains to be done to ensure financial sustainability and operational efficiency in state-owned energy enterprises. Reinvigorating reforms to strengthen the business environment and improve governance is important for supporting Serbia’s growth rates over the medium term.

    Downside risks to the outlook are elevated. A global slowdown and further geoeconomic fragmentation could weigh on exports and foreign direct investment. Domestically, heightened political tensions could erode consumer and investor confidence. But Serbia is well-positioned to manage potential shocks— international reserves and government deposits are high, public debt is declining, and banks are well-capitalized and liquid.

    At the conclusion of the Board discussion on the Republic of Serbia, Ms. Gita Gopinath, First Deputy Managing Director, made the following statement:

    “Serbia’s prudent macroeconomic policies and strong engagement with the IMF have delivered impressive results. Growth has been resilient, and fiscal and external buffers have strengthened. Reflecting these accomplishments, Serbia received its first-ever investment grade sovereign rating in 2024. Under the Policy Coordination Instrument (PCI), the Serbian authorities have continued their commitment to sound economic policies and structural reforms.

    “In light of easing inflation and heightened domestic and external challenges, the planned fiscal expansion focused on growth-enhancing investment, can help cushion the near-term slowdown while boosting medium-term growth. Fiscal policy anchored to the deficit target, which safeguards hard-earned fiscal credibility and contains pressures on current spending, is critical. As the current investment cycle winds down, gradual fiscal consolidation is needed to rebuild buffers against external shocks. Advancing fiscal structural reforms remains essential, particularly to strengthen public financial management, enhance governance and transparency in public investment management, and address emerging fiscal risks.

    “A restrictive monetary policy stance remains appropriate until disinflation is firmly sustained. While banks have been resilient and systemic risks remain contained, financial intermediation would benefit from additional improvements in regulatory and supervisory frameworks, including by closer alignment with EU standards. Continued progress on strengthening AML/CFT is also important.

    “Further energy reforms remain crucial for securing sustainable and stable energy supplies. Increases in grid fees and electricity tariffs would improve cost recovery and the financial strength of energy state-owned enterprises and allow for investment in a more diversified and less carbon-intensive energy mix.

    “Serbia faces medium-term challenges including from population aging. Enhancing productivity will be critical to sustaining income convergence with advanced economies. This will require structural and governance reforms to attract higher value-added FDI and domestic private investment to support growth. Improving the business environment will require measures to enhance commercial judicial frameworks, foster innovation, and strengthen governance.”

     

    Executive Board Assessment[3]

    Executive Directors agreed with the thrust of the staff appraisal. They commended Serbia’s prudent macroeconomic policies and strong commitment to reforms and welcomed the satisfactory performance under the Policy Coordination Instrument. Noting the heightened domestic and external risks to the outlook, Directors emphasized the importance of sustaining fiscal discipline, rebuilding buffers to shocks, and increasing productivity to support more sustainable growth.

    Directors underscored that a fiscal deficit of 3.0 percent of GDP or lower would allow for priority investment spending, while preserving hard won credibility. They recognized the authorities’ commitment to adhere to the wage and pension special fiscal rules, which should help to keep public debt firmly on a downward path and support investor confidence. Directors welcomed the focus on ensuring transparent, accountable, and efficient government operations. Measures to improve public financial and investment management and fiscal risk management will help to maintain fiscal discipline, while ensuring the delivery of quality public investment. Directors also underscored the need to strengthen tax administration capacity. They welcomed the authorities’ commitment to addressing domestic arrears and preventing the accumulation of new arrears.

    Directors agreed on the need to maintain a monetary policy tightening bias to achieve sustained disinflation. While noting that the banking sector has been resilient and systemic risks remain contained, Directors stressed the need for continued efforts to enhance regulatory and supervisory frameworks, including through closer alignment with EU standards. Continued efforts to strengthen AML/CFT frameworks are also important.

    Directors highlighted that energy sector reforms remain essential to secure sustainable and stable energy supplies and support decarbonization. Accordingly, they welcomed the authorities’ commitment to strengthen the financial viability of energy state owned enterprises and support investment in a more diversified energy mix. In this regard, ensuring cost recovery through increased household electricity tariffs is important.

    Directors agreed that ambitious structural and governance reforms are critical to achieving strong and sustainable medium term growth. Noting the impact of the aging population, Directors stressed the need to enhance employment opportunities for women and youth and to ensure better matching of skills with evolving labor market demands. They also supported intensified efforts to improve the business environment, including by enhancing commercial judicial frameworks, fostering innovation, and improving governance. Continued efforts to reduce corruption are important.

    It is expected that the next Article IV consultation with the Republic of Serbia will be held on the 24-month cycle.

    Serbia:  Selected Economic and Social Indicators, 2024–27

    2024

    2025

    2026

    2027

    Est.

    PCI Request

    Proj.

    PCI Request

    Proj.

    PCI Request

    Proj.

    Output

    Real GDP growth (%)

    3.8

    4.2

    3.0

    4.2

    4.0

    4.5

    4.5

     

     

     

    Employment

     

     

     

    Unemployment rate (labor force survey) (%)

    8.6

    8.5

    8.5

    8.4

    8.4

    8.3

    8.3

     

     

     

    Prices

     

     

     

    Inflation (%), end of period

    4.3

    3.4

    3.3

    3.3

    3.2

    3.2

    3.2

     

     

     

    General Government Finances

     

     

     

    Revenue (% GDP)

    40.9

    41.2

    40.9

    40.9

    40.4

    40.9

    40.1

    Expenditure (% GDP)

    42.9

    44.2

    43.9

    43.9

    43.4

    43.9

    43.1

    Fiscal balance (% GDP)

    -2.0

    -3.0

    -3.0

    -3.0

    -3.0

    -3.0

    -3.0

    Public debt (% GDP)

    47.5

    47.7

    46.8

    46.9

    46.5

    46.4

    46.4

     

     

     

    Money and Credit

     

     

     

    Broad money, eop (% change)

    13.6

    8.0

    7.8

    7.8

    8.0

    8.3

    8.8

    Credit to the private sector, eop (% change) 1/

    8.5

    7.9

    9.3

    5.7

    9.6

    9.2

    10.5

     

     

     

    Balance of Payments

     

     

     

    Current account (% GDP)

    -4.7

    -5.1

    -5.4

    -5.2

    -5.6

    -5.5

    -4.5

    FDI (% GDP)

    5.6

    5.1

    4.4

    4.8

    4.8

    4.7

    4.4

    Reserves (months of prospective imports)

    7.3

    6.6

    7.0

    6.3

    6.5

    5.9

    6.5

    External debt (% GDP)

    61.9

    60.3

    61.3

    58.7

    59.3

    55.9

    54.8

     

     

     

    Exchange Rate

     

     

     

    REER (% change)

    2.3

     

     

     Sources: Serbian authorities and IMF staff estimates.

     1/ Calculated at a constant exchange rate to exclude the valuation effects. 

    [1] Under Article IV of the IMF’s Articles of Agreement, the IMF holds bilateral discussions with members, usually every year. A staff team visits the country, collects economic and financial information, and discusses with officials the country’s economic developments and policies. On return to headquarters, the staff prepares a report, which forms the basis for discussion by the Executive Board.

    [2] Under the IMF’s Articles of Agreement, publication of documents that pertain to member countries is voluntary and requires the member consent. The staff report will be shortly published on the www.imf.org/Serbia page.

    [3] At the conclusion of the discussion, the Managing Director, as Chairman of the Board, summarizes the views of Executive Directors, and this summary is transmitted to the country’s authorities. An explanation of any qualifiers used in summings up can be found here: http://www.IMF.org/external/np/sec/misc/qualifiers.htm.

    IMF Communications Department
    MEDIA RELATIONS

    PRESS OFFICER: Camila Perez

    Phone: +1 202 623-7100Email: MEDIA@IMF.org

    https://www.imf.org/en/News/Articles/2025/06/30/pr-25228-serbia-imf-concludes-2025-art-iv-consult-completes-1st-rev-policy-coor-instrument

    MIL OSI

    MIL OSI Russia News

  • MIL-OSI: Ellomay Capital Reports Results for the Three Months Ended March 31, 2025

    Source: GlobeNewswire (MIL-OSI)

    TEL-AVIV, Israel, June 30, 2025 (GLOBE NEWSWIRE) — Ellomay Capital Ltd. (NYSE American; TASE: ELLO) (“Ellomay” or the “Company”), a renewable energy and power generator and developer of renewable energy and power projects in Europe, USA and Israel, today reported its unaudited interim consolidated financial results for the three month period ended March 31, 2025.

    Financial Highlights

    • Total assets as of March 31, 2025 amounted to approximately €721.2 million, compared to total assets as of December 31, 2024 of approximately €677.3 million.
    • Revenues for the three months ended March 31, 2025 were approximately €8.9 million, compared to revenues of approximately €8.2 million for the three months ended March 31, 2024.
    • Profit for the three months ended March 31, 2025 was approximately €6.8 million, compared to loss of approximately €4.9 million for the three months ended March 31, 2024.
    • EBITDA for the three months ended March 31, 2025 was approximately €2.9 million, compared to EBITDA of approximately €1.6 million for the three months ended March 31, 2024. See below under “Use of Non-IFRS Financial Measures” for additional disclosure concerning EBITDA.

    Financial Overview for the Three Months Ended March 31, 2025

    • Revenues were approximately €8.9 million for the three months ended March 31, 2025, compared to approximately €8.2 million for the three months ended March 31, 2024. The increase in revenues mainly results from revenues generated from our 19.8 MW and 18.1 MW Italian solar facilities that were connected to the grid in February-May 2024 and in January 2025, respectively.
    • Operating expenses were approximately €4.6 million for the three months ended March 31, 2025, compared to approximately €4.6 million for the three months ended March 31, 2024. Depreciation and amortization expenses were approximately €4.2 million for the three months ended March 31, 2025, compared to approximately €4.1 million for the three months ended March 31, 2024.
    • Project development costs were approximately €1 million for the three months ended March 31, 2025, compared to approximately €1.4 million for the three months ended March 31, 2024. The decrease in project development costs is mainly due to projects that reached “ready to build” status, which results in the commencement of the capitalization of expenses related to such projects into fixed assets.
    • General and administrative expenses were approximately €1.7 million for the three months ended March 31, 2025, compared to approximately €1.6 million for the three months ended March 31, 2024.
    • The Company’s share of profits of equity accounted investee, after elimination of intercompany transactions, was approximately €1.2 million for the three months ended March 31, 2025, compared to approximately €1.3 million for the three months ended March 31, 2024.
    • Other income was approximately €0.2 million for the three months ended March 31, 2025, compared to €0 for the three months ended March 31, 2024. The income during the three months ended March 31, 2025 was recognized based on insurance compensation in connection with the fire near the Talasol and Ellomay Solar facilities in Spain in July 2024 due to loss of income in 2025.
    • Financing income, net, were approximately €7.2 million for the three months ended March 31, 2025, compared to financing expenses of approximately €3.3 million for the three months ended March 31, 2024. The change in financing expenses, net, was mainly attributable to higher income resulting from exchange rate differences that amounted to approximately €10.7 million for the three months ended March 31, 2025, compared to loss from exchange rate differences of approximately €0.6 million for the three months ended March 31, 2024, an aggregate change of approximately €11.3 million. The exchange rate differences were mainly recorded in connection with the New Israeli Shekel (“NIS”) cash and cash equivalents and the Company’s NIS denominated debentures and were caused by the 5.9% devaluation of the NIS against the euro during the three months ended March 31, 2025, compared to a revaluation of 0.8% during the three months ended March 31, 2024. The increase in financing income for the three months ended March 31, 2025 was partially offset by an increase in financing expenses of approximately €0.9 million in connection with derivatives and warrants for the three months ended March 31, 2025, compared to the three months ended March 31, 2024.
    • Tax benefit was approximately €0.9 million for the three months ended March 31, 2025, compared to tax benefit of approximately €0.8 million for the three months ended March 31, 2024.
    • Loss from discontinued operation (net of tax) was €0 for the three months ended March 31, 2025, compared to a loss from discontinued operation (net of tax) of approximately €0.3 million for the three months ended March 31, 2024.
    • Profit for the three months ended March 31, 2025 was approximately €6.8 million, compared to loss of approximately €4.9 million for the three months ended March 31, 2024.
    • Total other comprehensive loss was approximately €4.9 million for the three months ended March 31, 2025, compared to total other comprehensive income of approximately €12 million in the three months ended March 31, 2024. The change in total other comprehensive income (loss) is primarily as the result of foreign currency translation adjustments due to the change in the NIS/euro exchange rate and by changes in fair value of cash flow hedges, including a material decrease in the fair value of the liability resulting from the financial power swap that covers approximately 80% of the output of the Talasol solar plant (the “Talasol PPA”). The Talasol PPA experienced a high volatility due to the substantial change in electricity prices in Europe. In accordance with hedge accounting standards, the changes in the Talasol PPA’s fair value are recorded in the Company’s shareholders’ equity through a hedging reserve and not through the accumulated deficit/retained earnings. The changes do not impact the Company’s consolidated net profit/loss or the Company’s consolidated cash flows.
    • Total comprehensive income was approximately €1.9 million for the three months ended March 31, 2025, compared to total comprehensive income of approximately €7.1 million for the three months ended March 31, 2024.
    • EBITDA was approximately €2.9 million for the three months ended March 31, 2025, compared to approximately €1.6 million for the three months ended March 31, 2024.
    • Net cash from operating activities was approximately €0.3 million for the three months ended March 31, 2025, compared to approximately €1.2 million for the three months ended March 31, 2024.
    • On February 16, 2025, the Company issued in an Israeli public offering an aggregate principal amount of NIS 214,479,000 of newly issued Series G Debentures, due December 31, 2032. The net proceeds of the offering, net of related expenses such as consultancy fee and commissions, were approximately NIS 211.7 million (approximately €56.7 million as of the issuance date).

    CEO Review for the First Quarter of 2025

    In the first quarter, the Company’s revenues amounted to €8.9 million, an increase of approximately 9% in revenues compared to the corresponding quarter last year. These revenues do not include the Company’s share of Dorad’s revenues. The Company presented an increase of approximately 81% in EBITDA compared to the corresponding quarter last year (€2.9 million compared to €1.6 million in the corresponding quarter last year). The Company’s first quarter is a winter quarter and is characterized by low production and revenues compared to the other quarters of the year.

    In the first half of 2025, the Company recorded significant progress in the start of construction and connection to the grid of new projects, which are expected to contribute to revenue growth in the near future.

    In Italy – Financing agreements were signed for solar projects with a total capacity of 198 MW (of which 38 MW are already connected to the electricity grid), and a transaction was signed and consummated with Clal Insurance to enter as a partner (49%) in the aforementioned 198 MW. Construction work on 160 MW has begun and construction is progressing as planned. The remainder of the portfolio held by the Company (100%) is approximately 264 MW solar, of which 124 MW have received construction permits and the rest are expected to receive permits in the near future. These 264 MW are scheduled to begin construction in the last quarter of 2026.

    In the US – The Company is advancing additional solar projects with a capacity of approximately 50 MW (beyond the existing portfolio (49 MW) which has completed construction), which are expected to begin construction during 2025. The intention is that these projects will be able to enjoy the full tax benefit currently in effect. The addition of battery storage to each of the projects is also under planning.

    In the Netherlands – the Company received, after March 31, 2025, a license to increase production at the GGG facility by 64%. Licenses to increase production at the two additional facilities are in advanced stages. The new regulation for the obligation to blend green gas with fossil gas will commence according to the law in January 2027 (a delay of one year), but the targets for the first year have increased. Agreements have been signed for the sale of green certificates issued under the new regulation at a price of approximately €1 per certificate. The blending obligation is expected to significantly increase the profitability of operations in the Netherlands at current production capacity. The expected increase in production capacity from 16 million cubic meters of gas per year to around 24 million cubic meters of gas per year is expected to add significantly beyond that.

    In Israel – the Company is in negotiations with the Israeli Electricity Authority for compensation for delays and war damage to the Manara project. Ellomay Luzon (50% owned) provided a notice of exercise of its right of first refusal on the Zorlu-Phoenix transaction for the sale of Dorad’s shares. Ellomay Luzon and another shareholder exercised their right of first refusal with respect to all of the shares offered (15% of Dorad’s shares), and, subject to the timely fulfillment of the conditions to closing, Ellomay Luzon and the other shareholder are expected to share these shares in equal parts.

    In Spain – The Company’s development activity in Spain focuses on battery storage, due to the high volatility in electricity prices in Spain, which stems from an excess of renewable energy during the transition seasons and causes damage to the stability of the grid. In the Company’s assessment, the solution is a significant increase in storage capacity, which is currently at very low levels in Spain. Regulation in Spain is also starting to move in this direction.

    Use of Non-IFRS Financial Measures

    EBITDA is a non-IFRS measure and is defined as earnings before financial expenses, net, taxes, depreciation and amortization. The Company presents this measure in order to enhance the understanding of the Company’s operating performance and to enable comparability between periods. While the Company considers EBITDA to be an important measure of comparative operating performance, EBITDA should not be considered in isolation or as a substitute for net income or other statement of operations or cash flow data prepared in accordance with IFRS as a measure of profitability or liquidity. EBITDA does not take into account the Company’s commitments, including capital expenditures and restricted cash and, accordingly, is not necessarily indicative of amounts that may be available for discretionary uses. Not all companies calculate EBITDA in the same manner, and the measure as presented may not be comparable to similarly-titled measure presented by other companies. The Company’s EBITDA may not be indicative of the Company’s historic operating results; nor is it meant to be predictive of potential future results. The Company uses this measure internally as performance measure and believes that when this measure is combined with IFRS measure it add useful information concerning the Company’s operating performance. A reconciliation between results on an IFRS and non-IFRS basis is provided on page 17 of this press release.

    About Ellomay Capital Ltd.

    Ellomay is an Israeli based company whose shares are registered with the NYSE American and with the Tel Aviv Stock Exchange under the trading symbol “ELLO”. Since 2009, Ellomay focuses its business in the renewable energy and power sectors in Europe, USA and Israel.

    To date, Ellomay has evaluated numerous opportunities and invested significant funds in the renewable, clean energy and natural resources industries in Israel, Italy, Spain, the Netherlands and Texas, USA, including:

    • Approximately 335.9 MW of operating solar power plants in Spain (including a 300 MW solar plant in owned by Talasol, which is 51% owned by the Company) and 51% of approximately 38 MW of operating solar power plants in Italy;
    • 9.375% indirect interest in Dorad Energy Ltd., which owns and operates one of Israel’s largest private power plants with production capacity of approximately 850MW, representing about 6%-8% of Israel’s total current electricity consumption;
    • Groen Gas Goor B.V., Groen Gas Oude-Tonge B.V. and Groen Gas Gelderland B.V., project companies operating anaerobic digestion plants in the Netherlands, with a green gas production capacity of approximately 3 million, 3.8 million and 9.5 million Nm3 per year, respectively;
    • 83.333% of Ellomay Pumped Storage (2014) Ltd., which is involved in a project to construct a 156 MW pumped storage hydro power plant in the Manara Cliff, Israel;
    • 51% of solar projects in Italy with an aggregate capacity of 160 MW that commenced construction processes;
    • Solar projects in Italy with an aggregate capacity of 134 MW that have reached “ready to build” status; and
    • Solar projects in the Dallas Metropolitan area, Texas, USA with an aggregate capacity of approximately 27 MW that are connected to the grid and additional 22 MW that are awaiting connection to the grid.

    For more information about Ellomay, visit http://www.ellomay.com.

    Information Relating to Forward-Looking Statements

    This press release contains forward-looking statements that involve substantial risks and uncertainties, including statements that are based on the current expectations and assumptions of the Company’s management. All statements, other than statements of historical facts, included in this press release regarding the Company’s plans and objectives, expectations and assumptions of management are forward-looking statements. The use of certain words, including the words “estimate,” “project,” “intend,” “expect,” “believe” and similar expressions are intended to identify forward-looking statements within the meaning of the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995. The Company may not actually achieve the plans, intentions or expectations disclosed in the forward-looking statements and you should not place undue reliance on the Company’s forward-looking statements. Various important factors could cause actual results or events to differ materially from those that may be expressed or implied by the Company’s forward-looking statements, including changes in electricity prices and demand, regulatory changes increases in interest rates and inflation, changes in the supply and prices of resources required for the operation of the Company’s facilities (such as waste and natural gas) and in the price of oil, the impact of the war and hostilities in Israel and Gaza and between Israel and Iran, the impact of the continued military conflict between Russia and Ukraine, technical and other disruptions in the operations or construction of the power plants owned by the Company, inability to obtain the financing required for the development and construction of projects, inability to advance the expansion of Dorad, increases in interest rates and inflation, changes in exchange rates, delays in development, construction, or commencement of operation of the projects under development, failure to obtain permits – whether within the set time frame or at all, climate change, and general market, political and economic conditions in the countries in which the Company operates, including Israel, Spain, Italy and the United States. and general market, political and economic conditions in the countries in which the Company operates, including Israel, Spain, Italy and the United States. These and other risks and uncertainties associated with the Company’s business are described in greater detail in the filings the Company makes from time to time with Securities and Exchange Commission, including its Annual Report on Form 20-F. The forward-looking statements are made as of this date and the Company does not undertake any obligation to update any forward-looking statements, whether as a result of new information, future events or otherwise.

    Contact:
    Kalia Rubenbach (Weintraub)
    CFO
    Tel: +972 (3) 797-1111
    Email: hilai@ellomay.com

    Ellomay Capital Ltd. and its Subsidiaries
    Condensed Consolidated Statements of Financial Position
      March 31,   December 31,   March 31,
    2025   2024   2025
    Unaudited   Audited   Unaudited
    € in thousands
      Convenience Translation
    into US$ in thousands*
    Assets          
    Current assets:          
    Cash and cash equivalents 35,148   41,134   38,021
    Short term deposits 36,301     39,268
    Restricted cash 656   656   710
    Intangible asset from green certificates 195   178   211
    Trade and revenue receivables 5,911   5,393   6,394
    Other receivables 15,518   15,341   16,786
    Derivatives asset short-term 650   146   703
      94,379   62,848   102,093
    Non-current assets          
    Investment in equity accounted investee 40,107   41,324   43,385
    Advances on account of investments 547   547   592
    Fixed assets 487,100   482,747   526,914
    Right-of-use asset 41,276   34,315   44,650
    Restricted cash and deposits 15,569   17,052   16,842
    Deferred tax 8,525   9,039   9,222
    Long term receivables 13,882   13,411   15,017
    Derivatives 19,855   15,974   21,478
      626,861   614,409   678,100
               
    Total assets 721,240   677,257   780,193
               
    Liabilities and Equity          
    Current liabilities          
    Current maturities of long-term bank loans 20,761   21,316   22,458
    Current maturities of other long-term loans 5,866   5,866   6,345
    Current maturities of debentures 47,233   35,706   51,094
    Trade payables 9,928   8,856   10,738
    Other payables 8,913   10,896   9,642
    Current maturities of derivatives 40   1,875   43
    Current maturities of lease liabilities 733   714   793
    Warrants 1,740   1,446   1,882
      95,214   86,675   102,995
    Non-current liabilities          
    Long-term lease liabilities 32,673   25,324   35,344
    Long-term bank loans 242,177   245,866   261,972
    Other long-term loans 29,578   30,448   31,996
    Debentures 186,691   155,823   201,951
    Deferred tax 2,652   2,609   2,869
    Other long-term liabilities 950   939   1,028
    Derivatives 135   288   146
      494,856   461,297   535,306
    Total liabilities 590,070   547,972   638,301
               
    Equity          
    Share capital 25,613   25,613   27,707
    Share premium 86,275   86,271   93,327
    Treasury shares (1,736)   (1,736)   (1,878)
    Transaction reserve with non-controlling Interests 5,697   5,697   6,163
    Reserves 7,381   14,338   7,984
    Accumulated deficit (3,567)   (11,561)   (3,859)
    Total equity attributed to shareholders of the Company 119,663   118,622   129,444
    Non-Controlling Interest 11,507   10,663   12,448
    Total equity 131,170   129,285   141,892
    Total liabilities and equity 721,240   677,257   780,193

    * Convenience translation into US$ (exchange rate as at March 31, 2025: euro 1 = US$ 1.082)

                    

    Ellomay Capital Ltd. and its Subsidiaries
    Condensed Consolidated Interim Statements of Profit or Loss and Other Comprehensive Income (Loss)
      For the three months
    ended March 31,
    For the year
    ended
    December 31,
      For the three
    months ended
    March 31,
      2025   2024   2024   2025
      Unaudited
      Audited   Unaudited
      € in thousands (except per share data)
      Convenience Translation into US$*
    Revenues 8,860   8,243   40,467   9,584
    Operating expenses (4,627)   (4,563)   (19,803)   (5,005)
    Depreciation and amortization expenses (4,238)   (4,055)   (15,887)   (4,584)
    Gross profit (loss) (5)   (375)   4,777   (5)
                   
    Project development costs (1,045)   (1,415)   (4,101)   (1,130)
    General and administrative expenses (1,662)   (1,620)   (6,063)   (1,798)
    Share of profits of equity accounted investee 1,189   1,286   11,062   1,286
    Other income 198     3,409   214
    Operating profit (loss) (1,325)   (2,124)   9,084   (1,433)
                   
    Financing income 11,483   631   2,495   12,422
    Financing income (expenses) in connection with derivatives and warrants, net (376)   536   1,140   (407)
    Financing expenses in connection with projects finance (1,375)   (1,501)   (6,190)   (1,487)
    Financing expenses in connection with debentures (1,741)   (1,711)   (6,641)   (1,883)
    Interest expenses on minority shareholder loan (476)   (554)   (2,144)   (515)
    Other financing expenses (294)   (713)   (8,311)   (318)
    Financing income (expenses), net 7,221   (3,312)   (19,651)   7,812
    Profit (loss) before taxes on income 5,896   (5,436)   (10,567)   6,379
    Tax benefit 922   828   1,424   997
    Profit (loss) from continuing operations 6,818   (4,608)   (9,143)   7,376
    Profit (loss) from discontinued operation (net of tax)   (312)   137  
    Profit (loss) for the period 6,818   (4,920)   (9,006)   7,376
    Profit (loss) attributable to:              
    Owners of the Company 7,994   (3,613)   (6,524)   8,647
    Non-controlling interests (1,176)   (1,307)   (2,482)   (1,271)
    Profit (loss) for the period 6,818   (4,920)   (9,006)   7,376
                   
    Other comprehensive income items              
    That after initial recognition in comprehensive income were or will be transferred to profit or loss:              
    Foreign currency translation differences for foreign operations (9,538)   1,124   8,007   (10,318)
    Foreign currency translation differences for foreign operations that were recognized in profit or loss     255    
    Effective portion of change in fair value of cash flow hedges 4,264   10,461   5,631   4,613
    Net change in fair value of cash flow hedges transferred to profit or loss 337   457   (813)   365
    Total other comprehensive income (4,937)   12,042   13,080   (5,340)
                   
    Total other comprehensive income (loss) attributable to:              
    Owners of the Company (6,957)   6,656   10,039   (7,526)
    Non-controlling interests 2,020   5,386   3,041   2,186
    Total other comprehensive income (loss) (4,937)   12,042   13,080   (5,340)
    Total comprehensive income for the period 1,881   7,122   4,074   2,036
                   
    Total comprehensive income for the period attributable to:              
    Owners of the Company 1,037   3,043   3,515   1,121
    Non-controlling interests 844   4,079   559   915
    Total comprehensive income for the period 1,881   7,122   4,074   2,036
                   

    * Convenience translation into US$ (exchange rate as at March 31, 2025: euro 1 = US$ 1.082)

    Ellomay Capital Ltd. and its Subsidiaries
    Condensed Consolidated Interim Statements of Profit or Loss and Other Comprehensive Income (Loss) (cont’d)
      For the three months
    ended March 31,
    For the year
    ended
    December 31,
      For the three months
    ended March 31,
    2025   2024   2024   2025
    Unaudited
      Audited   Unaudited
    € in thousands (except per share data)
      Convenience Translation into US$*
                   
    Basic profit (loss) per share 0.62   (0.28)   (0.51)   0.67
    Diluted profit (loss) per share 0.62   (0.28)   (0.51)   0.67
                   
    Basic profit (loss) per share continuing operations 0.62   (0.31)   (0.52)   0.67
    Diluted profit (loss) per share continuing operations 0.62   (0.31)   (0.52)   0.67
                   
    Basic profit (loss) per share discontinued operation   (0.02)   0.01  
    Diluted profit (loss) per share discontinued operation   (0.02)   0.01  

    * Convenience translation into US$ (exchange rate as at March 31, 2025: euro 1 = US$ 1.082)

    Ellomay Capital Ltd. and its Subsidiaries
    Condensed Consolidated Interim Statements of Changes in Equity
              Attributable to shareholders of the Company
      Non- controlling   Total
                                    Interests   Equity
    Share capital   Share premium   Accumulated Deficit   Treasury shares   Translation reserve from
    foreign operations
      Hedging Reserve   Interests Transaction reserve with
    non-controlling Interests
      Total        
    € in thousands
                                           
    For the three months                                      
    ended March 31, 2025 (unaudited):                                      
    Balance as at January 1, 2025 25,613   86,271   (11,561)   (1,736)   8,446   5,892   5,697   118,622   10,663   129,285
    Profit for the period     7,994           7,994   (1,176)   6,818
    Other comprehensive income for the period         (9,329)   2,372     (6,957)   2,020   (4,937)
    Total comprehensive income for the period     7,994     (9,329)   2,372     1,037   844   1,881
    Transactions with owners of the Company, recognized directly in equity:                                      
    Share-based payments   4             4     4
    Balance as at March 31, 2025 25,613   86,275   (3,567)   (1,736)   (883)   8,264   5,697   119,663   11,507   131,170
                                           
    For the three months                                      
    ended March 31, 2024 (unaudited):                                      
    Balance as at January 1, 2024 25,613   86,159   (5,037)   (1,736)   385   3,914   5,697   114,995   10,104   125,099
    Loss for the period     (3,613)           (3,613)   (1,307)   (4,920)
    Other comprehensive income for the period         1,088   5,568     6,656   5,386   12,042
    Total comprehensive income (loss) for the period     (3,613)     1,088   5,568     3,043   4,079   7,122
    Transactions with owners of the Company, recognized directly in equity:                                      
    Share-based payments   30             30     30
    Balance as at March 31, 2024 25,613   86,189   (8,650)   (1,736)   1,473   9,482   5,697   118,068   14,183   132,251
    Ellomay Capital Ltd. and its Subsidiaries
    Condensed Consolidated Interim Statements of Changes in Equity (cont’d)
              Attributable to shareholders of the Company
      Non- controlling   Total
                                    Interests   Equity
    Share capital   Share premium   Accumulated Deficit   Treasury shares   Translation reserve from
    foreign operations
      Hedging Reserve   Interests Transaction reserve with
    non-controlling Interests
      Total        
    € in thousands
    For the year ended                                      
    December 31, 2024 (audited):                                      
    Balance as at January 1, 2024 25,613   86,159   (5,037)   (1,736)   385   3,914   5,697   114,995   10,104   125,099
    Loss for the year     (6,524)           (6,524)   (2,482)   (9,006)
    Other comprehensive income for the year         8,061   1,978     10,039   3,041   13,080
    Total comprehensive income (loss) for the year     (6,524)     8,061   1,978     3,515   559   4,074
    Transactions with owners of the Company, recognized directly in equity:                                      
    Share-based payments   112             112     112
    Balance as at December 31, 2024 25,613   86,271   (11,561)   (1,736)   8,446   5,892   5,697   118,622   10,663   129,285
    Ellomay Capital Ltd. and its Subsidiaries
    Condensed Consolidated Interim Statements of Changes in Equity (cont’d)
              Attributable to shareholders of the Company
      Non- controlling
    Interests
      Total
    Equity
                                         
    Share capital   Share premium   Accumulated Deficit   Treasury shares   Translation reserve from
    foreign operations
      Hedging Reserve   Interests Transaction reserve with
    non-controlling Interests
      Total        
    Convenience translation into US$ (exchange rate as at March 31, 2025: euro 1 = US$ 1.082)
    For the three months                                      
    ended March 31, 2025 (unaudited):                                      
    Balance as at January 1, 2025 27,707   93,323   (12,506)   (1,878)   9,136   6,374   6,163   128,319   11,533   139,852
    Loss for the period     8,647           8,647   (1,271)   7,376
    Other comprehensive income for the period         (10,092)   2,566     (7,526)   2,186   (5,340)
    Total comprehensive income for the period     8,647     (10,092)   2,566     1,121   915   2,036
    Transactions with owners of the Company, recognized directly in equity:                                      
    Share-based payments   4             4     4
    Balance as at March 31, 2025 27,707   93,327   (3,859)   (1,878)   (956)   8,940   6,163   129,444   12,448   141,892
    Ellomay Capital Ltd. and its Subsidiaries
    Condensed Consolidated Interim Statements of Cash Flow
      For the three months
    ended March 31,
    For the year
    ended
    December 31,
      For the three months
    ended March 31,
    2025   2024   2024   2025
    Unaudited
      Audited   Unaudited
    € in thousands
      Convenience
    Translation into US$*
    Cash flows from operating activities              
    Profit (loss) for the period 6,818   (4,920)   (9,006)   7,376
    Adjustments for:              
    Financing expenses (income), net (7,221)   3,167   19,247   (7,812)
    Loss from settlement of derivatives contract     316  
    Impairment losses on assets of disposal groups classified as held-for-sale   601   405  
    Depreciation and amortization expenses 4,238   4,084   15,935   4,584
    Share-based payment transactions 4   30   112   4
    Share of profit of equity accounted investees (1,189)   (1,286)   (11,062)   (1,286)
    Payment of interest on loan from an equity accounted investee      
    Change in trade receivables and other receivables   6,178   (2,342)   (8,824)   6,683
    Change in other assets (496)     3,770   (537)
    Change in receivables from concessions project   315   793  
    Change in trade payables 1,267   (68)   (31)   1,371
    Change in other payables (5,538)   2,796   4,455   (5,796)
    Tax benefit (922)   (805)   (1,429)   (997)
    Income taxes refund (paid)   564   623  
    Interest received 351   907   2,537   380
    Interest paid (3,408)   (1,892)   (9,873)   (3,687)
      (6,556)   6,071   16,974   (7,093)
    Net cash from operating activities 262   1,151   7,968   283
                   
    Cash flows from investing activities              
    Acquisition of fixed assets (18,550)   (9,020)   (72,922)   (20,066)
    Interest paid capitalized to fixed assets (876)     (2,515)   (948)
    Proceeds from sale of investments     9,267  
    Advances on account of investments     (163)  
    Proceeds from advances on account of investments     514  
    Investment in settlement of derivatives, net   14   (316)  
    Proceed from restricted cash, net 1,307   1,153   689   1,414
    Proceeds from investment in short-term deposits (39,132)   (28)   1,004   (42,331)
    Net cash used in investing activities (57,251)   (7,881)   (64,442)   (61,931)
                   
    Cash flows from financing activities              
    Issuance of warrants   3,735   2,449  
    Cost associated with long term loans (658)   (638)   (2,567)   (712)
    Payment of principal of lease liabilities (372)   (299)   (2,941)   (402)
    Proceeds from long-term loans 306   380   19,482   331
    Repayment of long-term loans (1,792)   (2,357)   (11,776)   (1,938)
    Repayment of debentures     (35,845)  
    Proceeds from issuance of debentures, net 56,729   36,450   74,159   61,366
    Net cash from financing activities 54,213   37,271   42,961   58,645
                   
    Effect of exchange rate fluctuations on cash and cash equivalents (3,210)   1,667   3,092   (3,472)
    Increase (decrease) in cash and cash equivalents (5,986)   32,208   (10,421)   (6,475)
    Cash and cash equivalents at the beginning of year 41,134   51,555   51,127   44,496
    Cash from disposal groups classified as held-for-sale   (1,041)   428  
    Cash and cash equivalents at the end of the period 35,148   82,722   41,134   38,021

    * Convenience translation into US$ (exchange rate as at March 31, 2025: euro 1 = US$ 1.082)

    Ellomay Capital Ltd. and its Subsidiaries
    Operating Segments
      Italy   Spain
      USA   Netherlands   Israel
      Total        
        Subsidized   28 MV                       reportable       Total
    Solar   Plants   Solar   Talasol   Solar   Biogas   Dorad   Manara   segments   Reconciliations   consolidated
    For the three months ended March 31, 2025
    € in thousands
                                               
    Revenues 945   786   406   3,246     3,477   15,061     23,921   (15,061)   8,860
    Operating expenses (435)   (105)   (84)   (1,024)   (305)   (3,206)   (11,693)     (16,851)   12,224   (4,627)
    Depreciation expenses (225)   (229)   (252)   (2,839)     (676)   (1,268)     (5,489)   1,251   (4,238)
    Gross profit (loss) 313   452   84   (617)   (305)   (405)   2,100     1,623   (1,628)   (5)
                                               
    Adjusted gross profit (loss) 313   452   84   (617)   (305)   (405)   2,100     1,623   (1,628)   (5)
    Project development costs                                         (1,045)
    General and administrative expenses                                         (1,662)
    Share of loss of equity accounted investee                                         1,189
    Other income, net                                         198
    Operating profit                                         (1,325)
    Financing income                                         11,483
    Financing income in connection                                          
    with derivatives and warrants, net                                         (376)
    Financing expenses in connection with projects finance                                         (1,375)
    Financing expenses in connection with debentures                                         (1,741)
    Interest expenses on minority shareholder loan                                         (476)
    Other financing expenses                                         (294)
    Financing expenses, net                                         7,221
    Loss before taxes on income                                         5,896
                                               
    Segment assets as at March 31, 2025 87,185   13,242   19,475   223,844   60,458   32,801   108,858   180,504   726,366   (5,126)   721,240  
    Ellomay Capital Ltd. and its Subsidiaries
    Reconciliation of Profit (Loss) to EBITDA
      For the three months
    ended March 31,
    For the year
    ended
    December 31,
      For the three months
    ended March 31,
    2025   2024   2024   2025
    € in thousands
      Convenience Translation
    into US$*
    Net profit (loss) for the period 6,818   (4,920)   (9,006)   7,376
    Financing expenses (income), net (7,221)   3,312   19,651   (7,812)
    Tax benefit (922)   (828)   (1,424)   (997)
    Depreciation and amortization expenses 4,238   4,055   15,887   4,584
    EBITDA 2,913   1,619   25,108   3,151

    * Convenience translation into US$ (exchange rate as at March 31, 2025: euro 1 = US$ 1.082)

    Ellomay Capital Ltd. and its Subsidiaries
    Information for the Company’s Debenture Holders

    Financial Covenants

    Pursuant to the Deeds of Trust governing the Company’s Series C, Series D, Series E, Series F and Series G Debentures (together, the “Debentures”), the Company is required to maintain certain financial covenants. For more information, see Items 4.A and 5.B of the Company’s Annual Report on Form 20-F submitted to the Securities and Exchange Commission on April 30, 2025, and below.

    Net Financial Debt

    As of March 31, 2025, the Company’s Net Financial Debt, (as such term is defined in the Deeds of Trust of the Company’s Debentures), was approximately €170 million (consisting of approximately €3031 million of short-term and long-term debt from banks and other interest bearing financial obligations, approximately €241.42 million in connection with (i) the Series C Debentures issuances (in July 2019, October 2020, February 2021 and October 2021), (ii) the Series D Convertible Debentures issuance (in February 2021), (iii) the Series E Secured Debentures issuance (in February 2023), (iv) the Series F Debentures issuance (in January, April, August and November 2024) and (v) the Series G Debentures issuance (in February 2025)), net of approximately €71.4 million of cash and cash equivalents, short-term deposits and marketable securities and net of approximately €3033 million of project finance and related hedging transactions of the Company’s subsidiaries).

    Discussion concerning Warning Signs

    Upon the issuance of the Company’s Debentures, the Company undertook to comply with the “hybrid model disclosure requirements” as determined by the Israeli Securities Authority and as described in the Israeli prospectuses published in connection with the public offering of the company’s Debentures. This model provides that in the event certain financial “warning signs” exist in the Company’s consolidated financial results or statements, and for as long as they exist, the Company will be subject to certain disclosure obligations towards the holders of the Company’s Debentures.

    One possible “warning sign” is the existence of a working capital deficiency if the Company’s Board of Directors does not determine that the working capital deficiency is not an indication of a liquidity problem. In examining the existence of warning signs as of March 31, 2025, the Company’s Board of Directors noted the working capital deficiency as of March 31, 2025, in the amount of approximately €0.96 million. The Company’s Board of Directors reviewed the Company’s financial position, outstanding debt obligations and the Company’s existing and anticipated cash resources and uses and determined that the existence of a working capital deficiency as of March 31, 2025, does not indicate a liquidity problem. In making such determination, the Company’s Board of Directors noted the following: (i) the execution of the agreement to sell tax credits in connection with the US solar projects, which is expected to contribute approximately $19 million during the next twelve months, (ii) the Company’s positive cash flow from operating activities during 2023 and 2024, and (iii) funds received from the investment transaction with Clal Insurance Company Ltd. that was consummated in June 2025.

     

    Ellomay Capital Ltd.
    Information for the Company’s Debenture Holders (cont’d)


    Information for the Company’s Series C Debenture Holders

    The Deed of Trust governing the Company’s Series C Debentures (as amended on June 6, 2022, the “Series C Deed of Trust”), includes an undertaking by the Company to maintain certain financial covenants, whereby a breach of such financial covenants for two consecutive quarters is a cause for immediate repayment. As of March 31, 2025, the Company was in compliance with the financial covenants set forth in the Series C Deed of Trust as follows: (i) the Company’s Adjusted Shareholders’ Equity (as defined in the Series C Deed of Trust) was approximately €116.6 million, (ii) the ratio of the Company’s Net Financial Debt (as set forth above) to the Company’s CAP, Net (defined as the Company’s Adjusted Shareholders’ Equity plus the Net Financial Debt) was 59.3%, and (iii) the ratio of the Company’s Net Financial Debt to the Company’s Adjusted EBITDA,4 was 6.3.

    The following is a reconciliation between the Company’s profit and the Adjusted EBITDA (as defined in the Series C Deed of Trust) for the four-quarter period ended March 31, 2025:

        For the four-quarter period
    ended M
    arch 31, 2025
      Unaudited
      € in thousands
    Profit for the period   2,274
    Financing expenses, net   9,118
    Taxes on income   (1,641)
    Depreciation and amortization expenses   16,651
    Share-based payments   86
    Adjustment to revenues of the Talmei Yosef PV Plant due to calculation based on the fixed asset model   484
    Adjusted EBITDA as defined the Series C Deed of Trust   26,972

    The Series C Debentures were fully repaid on June 30, 2025 in accordance with their terms. 

    Ellomay Capital Ltd.
    Information for the Company’s Debenture Holders (cont’d)

    Information for the Company’s Series D Debenture Holders

    The Deed of Trust governing the Company’s Series D Debentures includes an undertaking by the Company to maintain certain financial covenants, whereby a breach of such financial covenants for the periods set forth in the Series D Deed of Trust is a cause for immediate repayment. As of March 31, 2025, the Company was in compliance with the financial covenants set forth in the Series D Deed of Trust as follows: (i) the Company’s Adjusted Shareholders’ Equity (as defined in the Series D Deed of Trust) was approximately €116.6 million, (ii) the ratio of the Company’s Net Financial Debt (as set forth above) to the Company’s CAP, Net (defined as the Company’s Adjusted Shareholders’ Equity plus the Net Financial Debt) was 59.3%, and (iii) the ratio of the Company’s Net Financial Debt to the Company’s Adjusted EBITDA5 was 6.1.

    The following is a reconciliation between the Company’s profit and the Adjusted EBITDA (as defined in the Series D Deed of Trust) for the four-quarter period ended March 31, 2025:

        For the four-quarter period
    ended M
    arch 31, 2025
      Unaudited
      € in thousands
    Loss for the period   2,274
    Financing expenses, net   9,118
    Taxes on income   (1,641)
    Depreciation and amortization expenses   16,651
    Share-based payments   86
    Adjustment to revenues of the Talmei Yosef PV Plant due to calculation based on the fixed asset model   484
    Adjustment to data relating to projects with a Commercial Operation Date during the four preceding quarters6   899
    Adjusted EBITDA as defined the Series D Deed of Trust   27,871
    Ellomay Capital Ltd.
    Information for the Company’s Debenture Holders (cont’d)


    Information for the Company’s Series E Debenture Holders

    The Deed of Trust governing the Company’s Series E Debentures includes an undertaking by the Company to maintain certain financial covenants, whereby a breach of such financial covenants for the periods set forth in the Series E Deed of Trust is a cause for immediate repayment. As of March 31, 2025, the Company was in compliance with the financial covenants set forth in the Series E Deed of Trust as follows: (i) the Company’s Adjusted Shareholders’ Equity (as defined in the Series E Deed of Trust) was approximately €116.6 million, (ii) the ratio of the Company’s Net Financial Debt (as set forth above) to the Company’s CAP, Net (defined as the Company’s Adjusted Shareholders’ Equity plus the Net Financial Debt) was 59.3%, and (iii) the ratio of the Company’s Net Financial Debt to the Company’s Adjusted EBITDA7 was 6.1.

    The following is a reconciliation between the Company’s profit and the Adjusted EBITDA (as defined in the Series E Deed of Trust) for the four-quarter period ended March 31, 2025:

        For the four-quarter period
    ended March 31, 2025
      Unaudited
      € in thousands
    Profit for the period   2,274
    Financing expenses, net   9,118
    Taxes on income   (1,641)
    Depreciation and amortization expenses   16,651
    Share-based payments   86
    Adjustment to revenues of the Talmei Yosef PV Plant due to calculation based on the fixed asset model   484
    Adjustment to data relating to projects with a Commercial Operation Date during the four preceding quarters8   899
    Adjusted EBITDA as defined the Series E Deed of Trust   27,871
         

    In connection with the undertaking included in Section 3.17.2 of Annex 6 of the Series E Deed of Trust, no circumstances occurred during the reporting period under which the rights to loans provided to Ellomay Luzon Energy Infrastructures Ltd. (formerly U. Dori Energy Infrastructures Ltd. (“Ellomay Luzon Energy”)), which were pledged to the holders of the Company’s Series E Debentures, will become subordinate to the amounts owed by Ellomay Luzon Energy to Israel Discount Bank Ltd.

    As of March 31, 2025, the value of the assets pledged to the holders of the Series E Debentures in the Company’s books (unaudited) is approximately €40.1 million (approximately NIS 161.3 million based on the exchange rate as of such date).

    Ellomay Capital Ltd. and its Subsidiaries
    Information for the Company’s Debenture Holders (cont’d)

    Information for the Company’s Series F Debenture Holders

    The Deed of Trust governing the Company’s Series F Debentures includes an undertaking by the Company to maintain certain financial covenants, whereby a breach of such financial covenants for the periods set forth in the Series F Deed of Trust is a cause for immediate repayment. As of March 31, 2025, the Company was in compliance with the financial covenants set forth in the Series F Deed of Trust as follows: (i) the Company’s Adjusted Shareholders’ Equity (as defined in the Series F Deed of Trust) was approximately €115.9 million, (ii) the ratio of the Company’s Net Financial Debt (as set forth above) to the Company’s CAP, Net (defined as the Company’s Adjusted Shareholders’ Equity plus the Net Financial Debt) was 59.4%, and (iii) the ratio of the Company’s Net Financial Debt to the Company’s Adjusted EBITDA9 was 6.1.

    The following is a reconciliation between the Company’s profit and the Adjusted EBITDA (as defined in the Series F Deed of Trust) for the four-quarter period ended March 31, 2025:

        For the four-quarter period
    ended March 31, 2025
      Unaudited
      € in thousands
    Profit for the period   2,274
    Financing expenses, net   9,118
    Taxes on income   (1,641)
    Depreciation and amortization expenses   16,651
    Share-based payments   86
    Adjustment to revenues of the Talmei Yosef PV Plant due to calculation based on the fixed asset model   484
    Adjustment to data relating to projects with a Commercial Operation Date during the four preceding quarters10   899
    Adjusted EBITDA as defined the Series F Deed of Trust   27,871
         
    Ellomay Capital Ltd. and its Subsidiaries
    Information for the Company’s Debenture Holders (cont’d)


    Information for the Company’s Series G Debenture Holders

    The Deed of Trust governing the Company’s Series G Debentures includes an undertaking by the Company to maintain certain financial covenants, whereby a breach of such financial covenants for the periods set forth in the Series G Deed of Trust is a cause for immediate repayment. As of March 31, 2025, the Company was in compliance with the financial covenants set forth in the Series G Deed of Trust as follows: (i) the Company’s Adjusted Shareholders’ Equity (as defined in the Series G Deed of Trust) was approximately €115.9 million, (ii) the ratio of the Company’s Net Financial Debt (as set forth above) to the Company’s CAP, Net (defined as the Company’s Adjusted Shareholders’ Equity plus the Net Financial Debt) was 59.4%, and (iii) the ratio of the Company’s Net Financial Debt to the Company’s Adjusted EBITDA11 was 6.1.

    The following is a reconciliation between the Company’s profit and the Adjusted EBITDA (as defined in the Series G Deed of Trust) for the four-quarter period ended March 31, 2025:

        For the four-quarter period ended March 31, 2025
      Unaudited
      € in thousands
    Profit for the period   2,274
    Financing expenses, net   9,118
    Taxes on income   (1,641)
    Depreciation and amortization expenses   16,651
    Share-based payments   86
    Adjustment to revenues of the Talmei Yosef PV Plant due to calculation based on the fixed asset model   484
    Adjustment to data relating to projects with a Commercial Operation Date during the four preceding quarters12   899
    Adjusted EBITDA as defined the Series G Deed of Trust   27,871
         

    ____________________________
    1 The amount of short-term and long-term debt from banks and other interest-bearing financial obligations provided above, includes an amount of approximately €4.5 million costs associated with such debt, which was capitalized and therefore offset from the debt amount that is recorded in the Company’s balance sheet.

    2 The amount of the debentures provided above includes an amount of approximately €6.7 million associated costs, which was capitalized and discount or premium and therefore offset from the debentures amount that is recorded in the Company’s balance sheet. This amount also includes the accrued interest as at March 31, 2025 in the amount of approximately €0.8 million.

    3 The project finance amount deducted from the calculation of Net Financial Debt includes project finance obtained from various sources, including financing entities and the minority shareholders in project companies held by the Company (provided in the form of shareholders’ loans to the project companies).

    4 The term “Adjusted EBITDA” is defined in the Series C Deed of Trust as earnings before financial expenses, net, taxes, depreciation and amortization, where the revenues from the Company’s operations, such as the Talmei Yosef solar plant, are calculated based on the fixed asset model and not based on the financial asset model (IFRIC 12), and before share-based payments. The Series C Deed of Trust provides that for purposes of the financial covenant, the Adjusted EBITDA will be calculated based on the four preceding quarters, in the aggregate. The Adjusted EBITDA is presented in this press release as part of the Company’s undertakings towards the holders of its Series C Debentures. For a general discussion of the use of non-IFRS measures, such as EBITDA and Adjusted EBITDA see above under “Use of NON-IFRS Financial Measures.”

    5 The term “Adjusted EBITDA” is defined in the Series D Deed of Trust as earnings before financial expenses, net, taxes, depreciation and amortization, where the revenues from the Company’s operations, such as the Talmei Yosef PV Plant, are calculated based on the fixed asset model and not based on the financial asset model (IFRIC 12), and before share-based payments, when the data of assets or projects whose Commercial Operation Date (as such term is defined in the Series D Deed of Trust) occurred in the four quarters that preceded the relevant date will be calculated based on Annual Gross Up (as such term is defined in the Series D Deed of Trust). The Series D Deed of Trust provides that for purposes of the financial covenant, the Adjusted EBITDA will be calculated based on the four preceding quarters, in the aggregate. The Adjusted EBITDA is presented in this press release as part of the Company’s undertakings towards the holders of its Series D Debentures. For a general discussion of the use of non-IFRS measures, such as EBITDA and Adjusted EBITDA see above under “Use of NON-IFRS Financial Measures.”

    6 The adjustment is based on the results of solar plants in Italy that were connected to the grid and commenced delivery of electricity to the grid during the year ended December 31, 2024 (two plants) and the three months ended March 31, 2025 (one plant). The Company recorded revenues and only direct expenses in connection with these solar plants from the connection to the grid and until PAC (Preliminary Acceptance Certificate – reached with respect to two of the three plants during the fourth quarter of 2024). However, for the sake of caution, the Company included the expected fixed expenses in connection with these solar plants in the calculation of the adjustment.

    7 The term “Adjusted EBITDA” is defined in the Series E Deed of Trust as earnings before financial expenses, net, taxes, depreciation and amortization, where the revenues from the Company’s operations, such as the Talmei Yosef PV Plant, are calculated based on the fixed asset model and not based on the financial asset model (IFRIC 12), and before share-based payments, when the data of assets or projects whose Commercial Operation Date (as such term is defined in the Series E Deed of Trust) occurred in the four quarters that preceded the relevant date will be calculated based on Annual Gross Up (as such term is defined in the Series E Deed of Trust). The Series E Deed of Trust provides that for purposes of the financial covenant, the Adjusted EBITDA will be calculated based on the four preceding quarters, in the aggregate. The Adjusted EBITDA is presented in this press release as part of the Company’s undertakings towards the holders of its Series E Debentures. For a general discussion of the use of non-IFRS measures, such as EBITDA and Adjusted EBITDA see above under “Use of NON-IFRS Financial Measures.”

    8 The adjustment is based on the results of solar plants in Italy that were connected to the grid and commenced delivery of electricity to the grid during the year ended December 31, 2024 (two plants) and the three months ended March 31, 2025 (one plant). The Company recorded revenues and only direct expenses in connection with these solar plants from the connection to the grid and until PAC (Preliminary Acceptance Certificate – reached with respect to two of the three plants during the fourth quarter of 2024). However, for the sake of caution, the Company included the expected fixed expenses in connection with these solar plants in the calculation of the adjustment.

    9 The term “Adjusted EBITDA” is defined in the Series F Deed of Trust as earnings before financial expenses, net, taxes, depreciation and amortization, where the revenues from the Company’s operations, such as the Talmei Yosef PV Plant, are calculated based on the fixed asset model and not based on the financial asset model (IFRIC 12), and before share-based payments, when the data of assets or projects whose Commercial Operation Date (as such term is defined in the Series F Deed of Trust) occurred in the four quarters that preceded the relevant date will be calculated based on Annual Gross Up (as such term is defined in the Series F Deed of Trust). The Series F Deed of Trust provides that for purposes of the financial covenant, the Adjusted EBITDA will be calculated based on the four preceding quarters, in the aggregate. The Adjusted EBITDA is presented in this press release as part of the Company’s undertakings towards the holders of its Series F Debentures. For a general discussion of the use of non-IFRS measures, such as EBITDA and Adjusted EBITDA see above under “Use of Non-IFRS Financial Measures.”

    10 The adjustment is based on the results of solar plants in Italy that were connected to the grid and commenced delivery of electricity to the grid during the year ended December 31, 2024 (two plants) and the three months ended March 31, 2025 (one plant). The Company recorded revenues and only direct expenses in connection with these solar plants from the connection to the grid and until PAC (Preliminary Acceptance Certificate – reached with respect to two of the three plants during the fourth quarter of 2024). However, for the sake of caution, the Company included the expected fixed expenses in connection with these solar plants in the calculation of the adjustment.

    11 The term “Adjusted EBITDA” is defined in the Series G Deed of Trust as earnings before financial expenses, net, taxes, depreciation and amortization, where the revenues from the Company’s operations, such as the Talmei Yosef PV Plant, are calculated based on the fixed asset model and not based on the financial asset model (IFRIC 12), and before share-based payments, when the data of assets or projects whose Commercial Operation Date (as such term is defined in the Series G Deed of Trust) occurred in the four quarters that preceded the relevant date will be calculated based on Annual Gross Up (as such term is defined in the Series G Deed of Trust). The Series G Deed of Trust provides that for purposes of the financial covenant, the Adjusted EBITDA will be calculated based on the four preceding quarters, in the aggregate. The Adjusted EBITDA is presented in this press release as part of the Company’s undertakings towards the holders of its Series G Debentures. For a general discussion of the use of non-IFRS measures, such as EBITDA and Adjusted EBITDA see above under “Use of Non-IFRS Financial Measures.”

    12 The adjustment is based on the results of solar plants in Italy that were connected to the grid and commenced delivery of electricity to the grid during the year ended December 31, 2024 (two plants) and the three months ended March 31, 2025 (one plant). The Company recorded revenues and only direct expenses in connection with these solar plants from the connection to the grid and until PAC (Preliminary Acceptance Certificate – reached with respect to two of the three plants during the fourth quarter of 2024). However, for the sake of caution, the Company included the expected fixed expenses in connection with these solar plants in the calculation of the adjustment.

    The MIL Network

  • MIL-OSI Russia: The Politburo of the CPC Central Committee reviewed a set of regulations on the work of the directive, advisory and coordinating bodies of the CPC Central Committee.

    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 Political Bureau of the Communist Party of China (CPC) Central Committee held a meeting on Monday to review a set of regulations on the work of the decision-making, advisory and coordinating organs of the CPC Central Committee. General Secretary of the CPC Central Committee Xi Jinping chaired the meeting.

    The meeting participants noted that the establishment of the CPC Central Committee’s decision-making, advisory and coordinating organs is an important institutional measure to strengthen the unified centralized leadership of the CPC Central Committee over key work and ensure the fulfillment of key tasks. The formulation and issuance of regulations will further standardize the establishment, definition of duties and operation of such organs. The regulations are of great significance for improving top-level planning, overall coordination, comprehensive advancement and effective implementation of key work.

    The meeting stressed that the decision-making, advisory and coordinating organs of the CPC Central Committee should have a clear understanding of their duties and status. They should focus on planning, discussing and supervising the implementation of major tasks, and provide more effective overall leadership and coordination of key work. While fully fulfilling their coordinating duties, they should avoid taking on other people’s functions and exceeding the limits of their authority. At the same time, they should conduct in-depth studies to improve the quality and efficiency of decision-making and discussion, and propose practical and effective policies. At the same time, it is extremely important to avoid formalism and bureaucracy and achieve practical results.

    Other issues were also discussed during the meeting. –0–

    MIL OSI Russia News

  • MIL-OSI Russia: Georgia and the International Maritime Organization discussed expanding cooperation at sea

    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

    Tbilisi, June 30 (Xinhua) — Georgian Minister of Economy and Sustainable Development Mariam Kvrivishvili met with International Maritime Organization (IMO) Secretary General Arsenio Dominguez, who is visiting Georgia, in Tbilisi on Monday. The issues of introducing electronic services in Georgian ports, implementing joint projects, developing maritime education and employing seafarers were discussed during the meeting, the Georgian Ministry of Economy and Sustainable Development reported.

    M. Kvrivishvili emphasized that the maritime sector plays an important role in the country’s economy and its development is one of the priorities for the Georgian government. According to her, Georgia fulfills all obligations stipulated by the international legal instruments of the IMO and consistently maintains high standards in the field of maritime safety, training and certification of seafarers, and environmental protection.

    The parties noted the important role of maritime infrastructure in realizing Georgia’s transit potential, including in terms of further development of the Trans-Caspian International Transport Route. Particular attention was paid to the Anaklia deep-water port project, which, as M. Kvrivishvili noted, will create favorable conditions for the development of logistics services and an industrial zone in the adjacent territory.

    Georgia has been a member of the IMO since 1993. In 2015, the country underwent a voluntary audit, and in 2025, a mandatory audit. –0–

    MIL OSI Russia News

  • MIL-OSI Russia: Uzbekistan exported $17.1 million worth of tomatoes in the first five months of 2025

    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

    Tashkent, June 30 (Xinhua) — Uzbekistan exported 17.1 thousand tons of tomatoes worth $17.1 million in the first five months of this year, Uzbek media reported on Monday, citing data from the National Statistics Committee of the Republic of Uzbekistan.

    It is reported that among the countries to which the export was carried out, Russia was the main buyer, with 14 thousand tons of products sent there.

    After Russia, Kazakhstan and Kyrgyzstan were the main buyers of Uzbek tomatoes, where 1.6 thousand and 1.4 thousand tons were exported, respectively. –0–

    MIL OSI Russia News

  • MIL-OSI Economics: Christine Lagarde: Strategy assessment: lessons learned

    Source: European Central Bank

    Introductory speech by Christine Lagarde, President of the ECB, at the opening reception of the ECB Forum on Central Banking 2025 “Adapting to change: macroeconomic shifts and policy responses”

    Sintra, 30 June 2025

    As Nietzsche once observed, “it is our future that lays down the law of our today.”

    When we last reviewed our strategy four years ago, our thinking was shaped – quite naturally – by the recent past: a decade of too-low inflation, compounded by the pandemic.

    But as Nietzsche warned, there is a danger in letting the past dominate our thinking. Sometimes, it is the future – still dimly understood – that is already shaping our present.

    And soon after that review, the world changed in ways we had not foreseen.

    The reopening of our economies after the pandemic brought about major sectoral shifts. Russia’s invasion of Ukraine triggered a fundamental shift in energy markets.

    The geopolitical landscape was upended, reshaping global trade. And structural changes in labour markets became increasingly apparent – driven by demographics, technological transformation, and evolving worker preferences.

    Given all these developments, the fundamentals of our strategy have held up well – as they should, because a sound strategy must be robust to a changing environment.

    Our symmetric 2% inflation target has proven effective in anchoring expectations – even through some of the most severe and persistent shocks in recent economic history.

    And our medium-term orientation has provided essential flexibility to absorb an extremely large shock – helping to reduce the overall cost of disinflation to the economy, while still enabling a timely return of inflation to target.

    We therefore saw no need to revisit these core pillars – which is why we refer to the exercise we have just concluded as a strategy assessment rather than a review.

    The central theme of our work has been to update the framework so that monetary policy can continue to deliver price stability in the face of the new types of shocks we are confronting.

    This evening, without downplaying the other lessons learned, I would like to highlight three key conclusions that have emerged from this work.

    They concern the nature of the new environment, how we assess the risks that arise from it, and how we have adjusted our reaction function to safeguard price stability in this new world.

    The changing environment

    One word has dominated the public debate in recent weeks: uncertainty.

    And this is one of the first key conclusions from our strategy assessment: the world ahead is more uncertain – and that uncertainty is likely to make inflation more volatile.

    First, we see clear signs that supply shocks are becoming more frequent.

    Model-based analysis by ECB staff shows that, during the recent inflation surge, such shocks played a much greater role in driving inflation than they had over the previous two decades. And even today, supply-side forces continue to generate inflation risks in both directions.

    Second, we see mounting evidence that more regular supply disruptions are leading firms to adjust prices more frequently – thereby contributing to greater inflation volatility.

    This is not simply an extrapolation from the most recent shock. Rather, it reflects a structural shift in how firms operate under conditions of permanently higher uncertainty.

    Research shows that, in such an environment, firms tend to react more quickly to shocks – especially supply ones – in order to protect against potential future losses.[1] At the same time, they are more likely to adopt more flexible pricing strategies, which means prices may respond not just to major shocks, but also to smaller frictions and local disruptions.[2]

    Third, if inflation becomes more volatile, we could see non-linearities on both sides.

    In our last strategy review, we rightly focused on the non-linear dynamics that emerge in a prolonged environment of too-low inflation – where interest rates are eventually pushed to their effective lower bound. That constraint can, in turn, feed into inflation expectations and risk creating a self-fulfilling low-inflation trap. And we remain alert to the possibility of renewed downside inflation shocks.

    But recent experience has also revealed non-linearities on the upside.

    Since firms are generally quicker to raise prices than to lower them, more frequent price adjustments mean inflation can rise quickly in response to large upside shocks. If wages then adjust only gradually to these price increases – as we saw in recent years – inflation may remain above target for longer as wage growth slowly catches up. This, in turn, can raise the risk of inflation expectations de-anchoring on the upside.[3]

    Assessing the distribution of risks

    The next question that follows is: if the economic environment becomes more volatile, how can we make our economic assessment more robust?

    Large shocks can trigger feedback loops and non-linear effects that inherently give rise to a broader range of possible outcomes. In a world of higher uncertainty, it is all the more important to augment the baseline with alternative risk scenarios.

    This is why the second key conclusion of our assessment is the need for monetary policy to take into account risks and uncertainty, using a systematic but context-specific approach.

    The ECB has used both scenario and sensitivity analysis for many years – deploying internal scenarios since the global financial crisis and publishing them for the first time during the pandemic.

    But our experience in recent years has underscored the particular strength of scenario analysis in times of elevated uncertainty.

    A clear example is Russia’s invasion of Ukraine and the resulting energy price shock. In that case, scenarios provided insights that neither our baseline projections nor standard sensitivity analyses around the baseline could fully capture.

    For instance, in March 2022 – just a few weeks after the invasion – our baseline projected inflation at around 5% for that year, based on market-implied energy futures. The sensitivity analysis suggested a slightly higher figure of about 5.5%. In contrast, the Ukraine war scenario already pointed to inflation exceeding 7% – close to the final annual figure of over 8%.

    At the same time, there were moments when – in hindsight – publishing scenarios could have supported both our policymaking and our communication.

    One example was the high uncertainty in 2021 about the speed of vaccine rollout and the nature of post-pandemic reopening, including the sectoral shifts in supply and demand across goods and services sectors, both in the euro area and globally.[4]

    Scenario analysis could have helped in illustrating that the range of possible inflation outcomes was unusually wide – and reduced the risk of projecting false certainty to the public.

    This is why our updated strategy commits to ensuring that our policy decisions account not only for the most likely path of inflation and the economy, but also for the surrounding risks and uncertainty – including through the appropriate use of scenario and sensitivity analyses.

    The reaction function

    So what should our reaction function be, if we know that the road ahead is likely to be more uncertain?

    In our last strategy review, we explicitly acknowledged the risks posed by the effective lower bound. Our strategy statement called for “especially forceful or persistent” action when policy rates are close to the lower bound.

    This “asymmetric” focus was grounded in the asymmetry of policy space and the downward inflation bias it can produce. The lower bound continues to constrain monetary policy in the face of large disinflationary shocks.

    But the recent inflation surge has revealed upside non-linearities – and with them, the need for a two-sided reaction function, both in terms of forcefulness or persistence. This is the third key conclusion of our strategy assessment.

    This is not about reacting to small or temporary deviations, but about a symmetric commitment to respond to inflation dynamics that could de-anchor inflation expectations in either direction.

    When disinflationary shocks risk pushing policy rates towards the lower bound, acting forcefully early on helps minimise the time spent near that constraint. Likewise, when inflation overshoots raise the risk of a feedback loop between frequent price adjustments and staggered wage responses, forceful tightening at the outset is key to anchoring expectations.

    We began our recent policy cycle with historically large rate hikes delivered at an unprecedented pace. Our analysis shows that, had we not acted, the probability of inflation expectations de-anchoring would have exceeded 30% in 2022 and 2023.[5]

    At the same time, this policy cycle also offered new perspectives on optimal policy paths.

    One insight from our last strategy review was that, when rates are near the lower bound, persistence can substitute for forcefulness – helping to deliver the necessary policy stance with fewer side effects. Until recently, however, this concept had not been widely applied to tightening cycles.

    Typically, forceful tightening follows an inverted V-shape – with rapid rate increases followed by relatively swift cuts. But as rates move deeper into restrictive territory, the costs and side effects of further tightening also grow.

    At that point, it can become optimal to shift the focus from forcefulness to persistence – even if, in principle, there is no upper bound constraining policy space.

    Model simulations support this insight: forcefulness and persistence can act as substitutes, both capable of delivering the necessary disinflation. But persistence, in particular, can help limit the economic and financial stability costs compared with continued rate increases.

    This was borne out in our own experience. When we entered what I described as the “holding phase”, we placed greater weight on the persistence dimension.[6] This allowed the disinflation process to advance at a steady pace, while the so-called “sacrifice ratio” remained historically low compared with previous disinflation episodes.[7]

    Reflecting this experience, the Governing Council considers that its reaction function is best described as requiring “appropriately forceful or persistent monetary policy action in response to large, sustained deviations of inflation from the target in either direction.”

    To this end, all our instruments remain available in our toolkit. But the word “appropriately” is important, as it underscores that the choice of instruments, and the intensity with which we use them, must reflect proportionality.

    Conclusion

    Let me conclude.

    Our strategy assessment has been an exercise in evolution, not revolution – and in fact, many of its conclusions are already reflected in our current policy conduct.

    We responded to the recent inflation shock with initially forceful and then persistent action, aiming to steer inflation back to target as swiftly as necessary, but as painlessly as possible.

    And scenario analysis is helping us to better understand the range of risks ahead – and how best to respond to them.

    For example, our scenarios on potential US import tariffs have helped us navigate an uncertain global trade landscape, while also enabling us to communicate more clearly the two-sided risks shaping our current monetary policy stance.

    At our last monetary policy press conference in June, I described our monetary policy stance as being “in a good place”.

    Following the conclusion of this strategy assessment, I would add that our monetary policy strategy is also in a good place – strengthened by experience, and better equipped for the challenges of the future.

    To close the circle with Nietzsche: “he who has a why to live can bear almost any how.”

    Even as the world changes around us, we know our purpose. And we will do whatever is necessary to deliver on it – ensuring price stability for the people of Europe.

    MIL OSI Economics

  • MIL-OSI Russia: IMF Executive Board Completes the Eighth Review of the Extended Arrangement under the Extended Fund Facility for Ukraine

    Source: IMF – News in Russian

    June 30, 2025

    • The IMF Board today completed the Eighth Review of the Extended Arrangement under the Extended Fund Facility (EFF) for Ukraine, enabling a disbursement of about US$0.5 billion (SDR 0.37 billion) to Ukraine, which will be channeled for budget support.
    • Ukraine’s economy remains resilient, and the authorities met all end-March and continuous quantitative performance criteria, the prior action, and two structural benchmarks for the review.
    • Despite the challenges, progressing with domestic revenue mobilization, strengthening the investment climate, improving governance, and completing the debt restructuring strategy are necessary to restore fiscal and debt sustainability and support growth. The full and timely disbursement of external support during the program period remains indispensable for macroeconomic stability

    Washington, DC: The Executive Board of the International Monetary Fund (IMF) today completed the Eighth Review of the EFF, enabling the authorities to draw US$0.5 billion (SDR 0.37 billion, which will be channeled for budget support. This will bring the total disbursements under the IMF-supported program to US$10.6 billion.

    Ukraine’s 48-month EFF, with access of SDR 11.6 billion (equivalent to about US$15.5 billion, or 577 percent of quota), was approved on March 31, 2023, and forms part of an international support package totaling US$152.9 billion in the program’s baseline scenario. Ukraine’s IMF-supported program helps anchor policies that sustain fiscal, external, and macro-financial stability at a time of exceptionally high uncertainty. The EFF aims to support Ukraine’s economic recovery, enhance governance, and strengthen institutions with the aim of promoting long-term growth and investment.

    For the Eighth Review, Ukraine met all end-March and continuous quantitative performance criteria as well as the prior action to submit to the Cabinet of Ministers of Ukraine a detailed reform plan for the State Customs Service (SCS). Two structural benchmarks on tax reporting for digital platform operators and publication of the external audit of NABU were also completed. Four new benchmarks were also established, including: measures to update the single project pipeline; preparation of a prioritized roadmap for financial market infrastructure; implementation of international valuation standards; and development of legislative proposals to align securitization and bonds with international standards. The timelines of some other structural benchmarks, including the appointment of the head of the SCS, have been reset by the IMF Executive Board to allow the authorities more time to complete these important reforms. The authorities also requested a rephasing of access to IMF financing over the remainder of 2025 to better align them with Ukraine’s updated balance of payments needs, while the overall size of the program remains unchanged.   

    The 2025 growth forecast has been maintained at 2–3 percent as a smaller electricity deficit is offset by lower gas production and weaker agricultural exports. Pressures from Russia’s war will require a supplementary budget for 2025, and the medium-term fiscal path has been revised to better reflect the authorities’ policy intentions on revenue mobilization and expenditure prioritization. The National Bank of Ukraine (NBU) has maintained a tight monetary policy to respond to the still high inflation, while inflation expectations remain anchored. FX reserves remain adequate, sustained by continued sizeable external support. Overall, the outlook remains subject to exceptionally high uncertainty.

    Following the Executive Board discussion on Ukraine, Ms. Gita Gopinath, First Deputy Managing Director of the IMF, issued the following statement[1]:

    “Russia’s war continues to take a devastating social and economic toll on Ukraine. Nevertheless, macroeconomic stability has been preserved through skillful policymaking as well as substantial external support. The economy has remained resilient, but the war is weighing on the outlook, with growth tempered by labor market strains and damage to energy infrastructure. Risks to the outlook remain exceptionally high and contingency planning is key to enable appropriate policy action should risks materialize.

    “The Fund-supported program remains fully financed, with a cumulative external financing envelope of US$153 billion in the baseline scenario and US$165 billion in the downside scenario, over the 4-year program period. This includes the full utilization of the approximately US$50 billion from the G7’s Extraordinary Revenue Acceleration Loans for Ukraine (ERA) initiative. Full, timely, and predictable disbursement of external support—on terms consistent with debt sustainability—remains essential to achieving program objectives.

    “The continuing war has necessitated a Supplementary Budget for 2025. Restoring fiscal sustainability and meeting elevated priority expenditures over the medium term will require continued decisive efforts to implement the National Revenue Strategy. This includes modernization of the tax and customs services (including the timely appointment of the customs head), reduction in tax evasion, and harmonization of legislation with EU standards. These reforms, combined with improvements in public investment management frameworks, medium-term budget preparation, and fiscal risk management, are critical to underpinning growth and investment. 

    “The authorities continue working to complete their debt restructuring strategy in line with the program’s debt sustainability objectives, which is essential to create room for priority expenditures, reduce fiscal risks, and restore debt sustainability.

    “Given still elevated inflation, the tight monetary policy stance is appropriate, and the NBU should stand ready to tighten further should inflation expectations deteriorate. Greater exchange rate flexibility will help strengthen economic resilience while safeguarding reserves.

    “The financial sector remains stable, though vigilance is needed given heightened risks. Operational and governance weaknesses in the security markets regulator need to be tackled urgently. Closing gaps in Ukraine’s capital markets infrastructure will be key to attracting foreign private capital for post-war reconstruction.

    “Sustained progress in anticorruption and governance reforms remains crucial. The completed audit of the National Anti-Corruption Bureau is an important step; additional efforts are required, including amending the criminal procedures code, appointing the new head of the Economic Security Bureau, and strengthening AML/CFT frameworks.”

    Table 1. Ukraine: Selected Economic and Social Indicators, 2021–27

    2021

     

    2022

     

    2023

    2024

    2025

    2026

    2027

    Act.

    Act.

    Act.

    Proj.

    Proj.

    Proj.

    Proj.

    Real economy (percent change, unless otherwise indicated)

    Nominal GDP (billions of Ukrainian hryvnias) 1/

    5,451

     

    5,239

     

    6,628

    7,659

    8,866

    10,192

    11,322

    Real GDP 1/

    3.4

     

    -28.8

     

    5.5

    2.9

    2-3

    4.5

    4.8

    Contributions:

                     

    Domestic demand

    12.8

     

    -19.0

     

    11.9

    3.8

    5.2

    3.4

    2.7

    Private consumption

    4.5

     

    -19.0

     

    3.0

    4.6

    2.8

    3.4

    2.7

    Public consumption

    0.1

     

    5.6

     

    3.0

    -1.5

    0.3

    -2.5

    -2.0

    Investment

    8.1

     

    -5.5

     

    5.8

    0.6

    2.1

    2.5

    2.0

    Net exports

    -9.3

     

    -9.8

     

    -6.3

    -0.8

    -3.2

    1.1

    2.1

    GDP deflator

    24.8

     

    34.9

     

    19.9

    12.3

    13.5

    10.0

    6.0

    Unemployment rate (ILO definition; period average, percent)

    9.8

     

    24.5

     

    19.1

    13.1

    11.6

    10.2

    9.4

    Consumer prices (period average)

    9.4

     

    20.2

     

    12.9

    6.5

    12.6

    7.6

    5.3

    Consumer prices (end of period)

    10.0

     

    26.6

     

    5.1

    12.0

    9.0

    7.0

    5.0

    Nominal wages (average)

    20.8

     

    1.0

     

    20.1

    23.1

    17.4

    13.7

    10.8

    Real wages (average)

    10.5

     

    -16.0

     

    6.4

    15.6

    4.2

    5.7

    5.3

    Savings (percent of GDP)

    12.5

     

    17.0

     

    12.8

    11.4

    4.4

    10.0

    18.3

    Private

    12.7

     

    30.2

     

    27.4

    23.3

    21.4

    15.9

    18.0

    Public

    -0.2

     

    -13.1

     

    -14.6

    -11.8

    -17.1

    -5.9

    0.3

    Investment (percent of GDP)

    14.5

     

    12.1

     

    18.1

    18.6

    20.9

    22.6

    23.7

    Private

    10.7

     

    9.6

     

    13.4

    13.3

    16.6

    18.3

    18.9

    Public

    3.8

     

    2.5

     

    4.7

    5.4

    4.3

    4.3

    4.9

                     

    General Government (percent of GDP)

                     

    Fiscal balance 2/

    -4.0

     

    -15.6

     

    -19.3

    -17.2

    -21.3

    -10.1

    -4.6

    Fiscal balance, excl. grants 2/

    -4.0

     

    -24.8

     

    -25.8

    -23.1

    -22.1

    -10.4

    -5.6

    External financing (net)

    2.5

     

    10.7

     

    16.2

    15.0

    24.5

    8.9

    1.7

    Domestic financing (net), of which:

    1.5

     

    5.0

     

    3.1

    0.3

    -3.1

    1.3

    2.8

    NBU

    -0.3

     

    7.3

     

    -0.2

    -0.2

    -0.1

    -0.1

    -0.1

    Commercial banks

    1.4

     

    -1.5

     

    2.5

    2.9

    2.7

    0.8

    3.4

    Public and publicly-guaranteed debt

    48.9

     

    77.7

     

    81.2

    89.7

    108.6

    110.4

    106.4

                     

    Money and credit (end of period, percent change)

                     

    Base money

    11.2

     

    19.6

     

    23.3

    7.7

    21.7

    13.1

    10.4

    Broad money

    12.0

     

    20.8

     

    23.0

    13.4

    14.4

    13.2

    10.4

    Credit to nongovernment

    8.4

     

    -3.1

     

    -0.5

    13.5

    10.6

    17.7

    18.6

                     

    Balance of payments (percent of GDP)

                     

    Current account balance

    -1.9

     

    4.9

     

    -5.3

    -7.2

    -16.5

    -12.6

    -5.4

    Foreign direct investment

    3.8

     

    0.1

     

    2.5

    1.8

    2.2

    4.0

    5.0

    Gross reserves (end of period, billions of U.S. dollars)

    30.9

     

    28.5

     

    40.5

    43.8

    53.4

    52.8

    55.6

    Months of next year’s imports of goods and services

    4.5

     

    3.8

     

    5.3

    5.1

    6.3

    6.3

    6.5

    Percent of short-term debt (remaining maturity)

    74.4

     

    83.3

     

    100.3

    130.9

    178.9

    171.5

    172.1

    Percent of the IMF composite metric (float)

    105.5

     

    110.3

     

    130.2

    125.4

    125.5

    114.0

    115.7

    Goods exports (annual volume change in percent)

    39.0

     

    -37.5

     

    -8.5

    16.8

    3.0

    14.9

    14.3

    Goods imports (annual volume change in percent)

    15.1

     

    -29.7

     

    18.5

    6.0

    19.3

    4.7

    5.5

    Goods terms of trade (percent change)

    -8.4

     

    -11.6

     

    3.6

    0.5

    1.3

    1.0

    0.4

                     

    Exchange rate

                     

    Hryvnia per U.S. dollar (end of period)

    27.3

     

    36.6

     

    38.0

    42.0

    Hryvnia per U.S. dollar (period average)

    27.3

     

    32.3

     

    36.6

    40.2

    Real effective rate (CPI-based, percent change)

    2.6

     

    3.2

     

    -6.7

    -6.5

    Memorandum items:

    Per capita GDP / Population (2017): US$2,640 / 44.8 million

    Literacy / Poverty rate (2022 est 3/): 100 percent / 25 percent perpercentpercent

    Sources: Ukrainian authorities; World Bank, World Development Indicators; and IMF staff estimates.

    1/ GDP is compiled as per SNA 2008 and excludes territories that are or were in direct combat zones and temporarily occupied by Russia (consistent with the TMU).

    2/ The general government includes the central and local governments and the social funds.

    3/ Based on World Bank estimates.

    [1] At the conclusion of the discussion, the Managing Director, as Chairman of the Board, summarizes the views of Executive Directors, and this summary is transmitted to the country’s authorities. An explanation of any qualifiers used in summing up can be found here: http://www.IMF.org/external/np/sec/misc/qualifiers.htm.

    IMF Communications Department
    MEDIA RELATIONS

    PRESS OFFICER: Camila Perez

    Phone: +1 202 623-7100Email: MEDIA@IMF.org

    https://www.imf.org/en/News/Articles/2025/06/30/pr-25227-ukraine-imf-completes-8th-rev-of-ext-arrang-under-eff

    MIL OSI

    MIL OSI Russia News

  • MIL-OSI Russia: Six New Tourist Highways Open in Xinjiang

    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

    URUMQI, June 30 (Xinhua) — Six new highways have opened to traffic in northwest China’s Xinjiang Uygur Autonomous Region, with a total investment of 10.7 billion yuan (about 1.5 billion U.S. dollars) and a total length of 965 km.

    The routes connect diverse natural landscapes, from snow-capped mountains and steppes to forests, lakes, deserts and oases, and aim to develop Xinjiang’s “fast entry, slow travel” tourism network and expand opportunities for independent car tourism, according to the regional transportation department.

    The new highways link key attractions across Xinjiang’s vast territory, where tourist sites are often relatively far apart, the department said.

    In recent years, Xinjiang has stepped up efforts to build a multi-dimensional tourism transportation network. The region has opened new civil aviation routes, launched specialized railway lines such as the Taklamakan Desert Loop, and built scenic roads for car tourism. –0–

    MIL OSI Russia News

  • MIL-OSI Russia: Givi Mikanadze appointed as new Minister of Education, Science and Youth of Georgia

    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

    TBILISI, June 30 (Xinhua) — Givi Mikanadze has been appointed Minister of Education, Science and Youth of Georgia. The new minister was introduced by Georgian Prime Minister Irakli Kobakhidze at a briefing at the Georgian government administration on Monday.

    G. Mikanadze replaced Alexander Tsuladze in the ministerial post, who announced his resignation on Monday.

    Before his appointment, G. Mikanadze was the Chairman of the Parliamentary Committee on Education, Science and Youth Affairs.

    A. Tsuladze has held the post of Minister of Education, Science and Youth since October 2024. –0–

    MIL OSI Russia News

  • MIL-OSI Russia: China to offer 10% tax break to foreign investors who reinvest dividends in Chinese companies

    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) — China’s financial, tax and trade authorities on Monday announced a 10 percent corporate income tax rebate for foreign investors on domestic direct investment financed by dividends from Chinese enterprises’ profits.

    The credit, which runs from January 1, 2025, to December 31, 2028, allows unused credit to be carried forward to a later date and allows lower rates to be applied under applicable tax treaties.

    Foreign investors may reinvest dividends in increasing the share capital of resident enterprises, establishing new resident enterprises, or acquiring shares of resident enterprises from unaffiliated parties. The industry in which the investee enterprise operates must be included in the Catalogue of Industries Encouraging Foreign Investment.

    Foreign investors may apply for a refund of the tax credit for reinvestments made between January 1, 2025 and the date of the announcement of the introduction of this benefit. –0–

    MIL OSI Russia 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 Europe: Missions – AFET ad-hoc delegation to Uruguay and Argentina – 26-28 May 2025 – 26-05-2025 – Committee on Foreign Affairs

    Source: European Parliament

    AFET ad-hoc delegation to Uruguay and Argentina © Image used under license from Adobe Stock

    A delegation of seven Members of the Committee on Foreign Affairs (AFET), led by Chair David McAllister, travelled to Uruguay and Argentina from 26 to 29 May 2025. Members engaged in high-level discussions regarding the EU-Mercosur Partnership Agreement which was concluded last December in Montevideo, Uruguay. The findings from this visit will contribute to the preparatory work for the consent procedure on the political and cooperation aspects of the Agreement, for which AFET is responsible.

    More broadly, this mission allowed to exchange views on bilateral, regional and multilateral cooperation, as well as geopolitical issues such as Russia’s war of aggression against Ukraine, the situation in the Middle East, and China’s expanding influence in Latin America.

    MIL OSI Europe News

  • MIL-OSI Europe: Missions – AFET ad-hoc delegation to the United Kingdom – 28-30 October 2024 – 28-10-2024 – Committee on Foreign Affairs

    Source: European Parliament

    European Union and UK © Image used under the license from Adobe Stock

    A seven-member strong delegation of the Committee on Foreign Affairs (AFET) travelled to the United Kingdom from 28 to 30 October 2024. This was the first official visit of the Committee abroad in this parliamentary term. The delegation discussed possibilities for strengthening of the EU-UK partnership, in particular in foreign and security affairs.

    This visit was also an opportunity to exchange views on issues of global and regional significance such as the Russia’s war of aggression against Ukraine, the situation in the Middle East and tensions in the Indo-Pacific.

    MIL OSI Europe News

  • MIL-OSI Europe: Missions – AFET ad-hoc delegation to the United Kingdom – 28-30 October 2024 – 28-10-2024 – Committee on Foreign Affairs

    Source: European Parliament

    European Union and UK © Image used under the license from Adobe Stock

    A seven-member strong delegation of the Committee on Foreign Affairs (AFET) travelled to the United Kingdom from 28 to 30 October 2024. This was the first official visit of the Committee abroad in this parliamentary term. The delegation discussed possibilities for strengthening of the EU-UK partnership, in particular in foreign and security affairs.

    This visit was also an opportunity to exchange views on issues of global and regional significance such as the Russia’s war of aggression against Ukraine, the situation in the Middle East and tensions in the Indo-Pacific.

    MIL OSI Europe News

  • MIL-OSI Europe: Written question – Unfair competition from imports of products not subject to environmental requirements or social standards – E-002444/2025

    Source: European Parliament

    Question for written answer  E-002444/2025
    to the Commission
    Rule 144
    Maria Grapini (S&D)

    The reindustrialisation of the EU is one of the objectives of the single market.

    The previous Commission introduced a reindustrialisation programme with the aim of reducing dependence on third countries.

    Despite this, European manufacturing is being eroded by imports of products from third countries that do not have the same production, quality, social and environmental standards as those imposed on European producers.

    One example is the ceramic tiles industry in Romania, Italy, France, Poland and other European countries, which is being greatly affected by imports from India.

    Prices of Indian ceramic tiles are half those of European prices, due to the use of cheaper gas from Russia and not having to pay a carbon tax on gas consumption or for Green Certificates (green taxation) for energy consumption.

    What are the Commission’s concrete proposals for action to end unfair competition from imports of products not subject to environmental requirements and social standards?

    The closure of European companies has led to the loss of jobs and sources of revenue for national budgets.

    Submitted: 17.6.2025

    Last updated: 30 June 2025

    MIL OSI Europe News

  • MIL-OSI Russia: China Coast Guard Conducts Law Enforcement Patrol in Waters Around Huangyan Island /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 China Coast Guard (CCG) on Monday conducted law enforcement patrols in the territorial waters around Huangyan Dao Island and its surrounding areas.

    In its statement, the BOC said it had continuously strengthened patrols in the territorial waters around Huangyan Dao Island and its adjacent areas in June, conducting tracking and monitoring, verbal warning, interception and expulsion operations in accordance with laws and regulations.

    As the BOC emphasized, these steps were aimed at strengthening governance and control in the relevant maritime areas, and firmly protecting China’s territorial sovereignty and maritime rights and interests. –0–

    MIL OSI Russia News

  • MIL-OSI Russia: A student of the State University of Management became the author of the best startup in Russia: the results of the All-Russian competition “Startup as a Diploma” have been announced

    Translation. Region: Russian Federal

    Source: State University of Management – Official website of the State –

    On June 27, 2025, the final of the All-Russian competition of final qualification works in the format “Startup as a Diploma” was held at the National Center “Russia”, the winner of which was a student of the State University of Management.

    The author of the best startup in Russia, a 4th-year student of the Institute of Industry Management of the State University of Management of the educational program “Small and Medium Business Management” Danila Yakovlev, has developed a glass processing technology that allows obtaining a finished product for sale – glass pebbles. The project “

    The Minister of Science and Higher Education Valery Falkov, the Deputy Minister of Science and Higher Education Olga Petrova and the Deputy Director of the Department of State Youth Policy and Educational Activities of the Ministry of Education and Science Alexander Vedekhin, as well as the First Deputy Chair of the Committee on Science and Higher Education of the State Duma Ksenia Goryacheva addressed the young entrepreneurs and guests of the event with welcoming words.

    Our student’s performance did not leave the members of the expert jury indifferent – following the results of the final pitches, Danila Yakovlev became the absolute winner of the competition and took 1st place. In addition, he received a special prize from the Moscow School of Management “Skolkovo”, a certificate for participation in the acceleration program “Academy of Innovators” and other gifts from the competition partners. The scientific director of the project Victoria Degtyareva received special gratitude.

    Only 14 finalists presented their innovative ideas to the expert jury. The podium of honor looks like this:
    1st place – startup “Innovative glass pebbles”#Proesklo “, State University of Management;
    2nd place – startup “Automated irrigation system – Control’s”, Russian State Agrarian University – MSCHA named after K.A. Timiryazeva;
    3rd place – Startup Recyclix – plastic processing, Far Eastern Federal University.

    The event brought together over 400 participants – students from different regions of Russia, experts, entrepreneurs, industry representatives, universities and government bodies. The hosts were Olga Serebryannikova, Director of the Project Office for the Development of Youth Entrepreneurship in Higher Education Institutions, and Andrey Goryachev, a finalist of the 2024 Startup as a Diploma competition. The young entrepreneurs and guests of the event were addressed with welcoming speeches by the Minister of Science and Higher Education of the Russian Federation Valery Falkov, First Deputy Chairperson of the Committee on Science and Higher Education of the State Duma of the Russian Federation Ksenia Goryacheva, Deputy Minister of Science and Higher Education of the Russian Federation Olga Petrova and Deputy Director of the Department of State Youth Policy and Educational Activities of the Ministry of Education and Science of Russia Alexander Vedekhin.

    The final became an important part of the large-scale joint work of university teams, mentors and partners in the development of youth entrepreneurship. Students and employees of the State University of Management, including his scientific supervisor, Associate Professor of the Department of Innovation Management Victoria Degtyareva, came to support Danila at the final stage of the competition. Also on the day of the final, an exhibition of the TOP-50 projects of the Startup as a Diploma competition of 2025 was held at the site of the National Center “Russia”, where one could get acquainted with another innovative development of the State University of Management – the project of the Business Incubator resident Mikhail Zorin HolterTECH (a wireless Holter designed to monitor the work of the heart), which was also highly appreciated by the experts of the competition this year.

    We asked Danila Yakovlev for details about his project.

    «

    What is unique about your product and what advantages does it provide? — The technology itself is not unique, but for some reason large businesses do not use it. Construction companies tried to make materials cheaper with this technology, but we transferred the product to another industry where people are willing to pay for beauty and comfort. In addition, we were able to significantly reduce the time and labor costs of the processing process, which allows us to save on electricity and human resources. Plus, given the integration into an existing business, our raw material cost is negative, that is, the waste generator pays us to take this glass from them. It should also be added that the production line can fit on 100 square meters, and only two operators can control it. In terms of numbers, this is a very promising project.

    What investments will be required to fully launch the project? – We have outlined several stages of investment. At the first stage, we will need 3.5 million rubles to purchase equipment to complete the first line, launch and adjust the process.

    What difficulties do you face in the process of project implementation and how do you overcome them? — The main problem today is that I have 24 hours in a day, like everyone else. I understand that all entrepreneurs are busy people. Every hour is not that expensive, but it is very valuable. Sometimes there is simply not enough time to sleep or spend time with family. In addition, unemployment in Russia is now extremely low, everyone works somewhere, but for some reason no one wants to here. Fortunately, there are young ambitious students who are eager to work not for money, but for the sake of prospects. And in general, you can’t say “problems”. There are tasks that need to be solved. And there are dreams. I invite everyone to achieve them together. We now need a warehouse manager, even a young one with no experience, we need simple warehouse employees, sales managers. We need everyone. If you want, we will accept everyone. We have a lot of ideas, we have an agreement with the State University of Management and students can do paid internships with us. I think together we can build a cool future.

    How do you see the future?

    The full interview with Danila Yakovlev will soon be available on the GUU channel on RuTube.

    We are posting Danila’s contact on Telegram for those who would like to join his project or do an internship: https://t.me/yakovleff_dan

     

    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