MIL-OSI Analysis: Gaza and Ukraine are both waiting for action

Source: The Conversation – UK – By Jonathan Este, Senior International Affairs Editor, Associate Editor

For the past few weeks the headlines about Gaza have focused on the hundreds of people who have been killed while queueing for food. The aid distribution system put in place in May, backed by the US and Israel and run by the Gaza Humanitarian Foundation, has proved to be chaotic and allegedly resulted in violence, with both Israel Defense Forces personnel and armed Palestinian gangs blamed for killing about 1,000 people in the two months the new system has been operating.

Now the headlines are focusing on the growing number of people dying of starvation.

Harrowing reports from the Gaza Strip report almost daily on the children dying of malnutrition in hospitals and clinics that simply don’t have the food to keep them alive. Writing in the Guardian this week, a British volunteer surgeon working in one of Gaza’s hospitals, Nick Maynard, described patients who “deteriorate and die, not from their injuries, but because they are too malnourished to survive surgery”.

The UK and 27 other countries this week has condemned the “drip feeding of aid and the inhumane killing of civilians” who are trying to get food and water. And yet, writes Simon Mabon, still the world’s leaders look on: “Most are apparently content to condemn – but little action has been taken.”

Mabon, a professor of international relations at Lancaster University, quotes the latest report from the IPC, which monitors food security in conflict situations. It estimates that 500,000 people in Gaza are considered to be facing “catastrophe”, while a further 1.1 million fall into the “emergency” risk category. Both categories anticipate a steadily rising death rate among civilians in Gaza.

So how can Israel’s allies apply pressure on Benjamin Netanyahu’s government to bring an end to the violence and allow Palestinian civilians access to the food, water and medical supplies they so desperately need?

Mabon canvasses a range of options. First of all, countries that have yet to recognise the state of Palestine can do so. It’s nonsense, Madon believes, to talk of a two-state solution – as the UK government does – when you haven’t actually recognised the second state in the equation.

Then they could stop selling arms to Israel. Many countries already have. But the US still issues export licenses for some weapons that are sold to Israel.

There are a plethora of other things world leaders could do to pressure Israel. Mabon recommends having a look at what the world did to isolate South Africa during the apartheid years, measures which eventually helped bring about meaningful change there.

As for Netanyahu, the Israeli prime minister is reported to be considering an early election. In previous months this looked like a move freighted with jeopardy. An election loss brought on by a disenchanted electorate, heartbroken at the hostage situation and exhausted by the conflict, would probably mean having to face the charges of corruption which have hung over him for more than five years.

But recent polls have suggested a bump in popularity following his 12-day campaign against Iran. Netanyahu is nothing if not a clever political manipulator. But Brian Brivati, a professor of contemporary history and human rights at Kingston University, believes that to have a chance of winning, the prime minister will need to fight a campaign on three narratives of his government’s success: securing the release of the hostages, defeating Hamas and delivering regional security. “It is a tall order,” Brivati concludes.

Anyone following the situation in Gaza over the past 18 months will have encountered Francesca Albanese, the UN’s special rapporteur for Palestine’s occupied territories. For three years she has monitored the human rights situation in Gaza and the West Bank, delivering trenchant criticism of Israel’s conduct and those who, by their inaction – and sometimes contrivance – have enabled it.

Earlier this months, the US government imposed sanctions on Albanese, because – as US secretary of state Marco Rubio insisted – she has engaged with the International Criminal Court (also subject to US sanctions) “in efforts to investigate, arrest, detain, or prosecute nationals of the United States or Israel”. Also she has written “threatening letters to dozens of entities worldwide, including major American companies”.

Alvina Hoffman, an expert in diplomatic affairs and human rights at SOAS, University of London, explains what a special rapporteur does and why their work is so valuable in the defence of human rights.

Dispatches from Ukraine

To Istanbul, where delegations from Russia and Ukraine met yesterday for their third round of face-to-face talks. All 40 minutes of them. There was another agreement of prisoner swaps and the two sides decided to set up some working groups to look into various political, military and humanitarian issues – but online rather in person.

The brevity of the talks came as no surprise to Stefan Wolff. Wolff, an expert in international security at the University of Birmingham who has provided commentary for The Conversation throughout the conflict in Ukraine, points out that both sides remain wedded to their maximalist war aims. For Russia, this is for Ukraine to accept Russia’s annexation of Crimea and four provinces of eastern Ukraine, a ban on Ukraine’s membership of Nato and a much reduced military capacity. For Ukraine, it is getting their territory back and Russian acceptance of their national sovereignty, meaning it gets to determine for itself what alliances it seeks.

Donald Trump has told Vladimir Putin that, if there’s no ceasefire in 50 days, he’ll apply harsh secondary sanctions on the countries buying Russian oil and that he plans to supply Ukraine with American weapons (via Nato’s European member states, that is). Wolff believes both sides will now play the waiting game. They will calculate their next move after September 2, when the 50 days run out, and when they know more about what the US president plans to do.

Volodymyr Zelensky, meanwhile, faces pressure from his own people. There have been days of protest at his decision to bring two formerly independent anti-corruption organisations under the direct control of the government. He argues that this was necessary to prevent Russian infiltration, while critics are saying that the Ukrainian president has launched a power grab designed to prevent independent investigation of alleged corruption against people close to him.

Jenny Mathers says these protests, which involve people from all political shades, including people who have fought in the defence of Ukraine since 2022, some with visible injuries, represents a fracture of the “informal agreement between the government and society to show a united front to the world while the war continues”.

Ukrainians protest after Zelensky signs law clamping down on anticorruption agencies.

It’s not as if Zelensky is in clear and present danger of losing his job. His party holds a majority of seats in the Ukrainian parliament, so he governs without having to depend on coalition partners. And the country’s constitution prohibits the holding of elections in wartime – whatever Putin, who regularly insists that Zelensky is an illegitimate leader because he is governing past his term limit, might think. Plus his approval rating sits at 65%.

Zelensky has been quick to soften his stance on this. Mathers says that political corruption is a very sore point in Ukraine, where there was decades of it until the Maidan protests of 2013-14 unseated the pro-Russian president Viktor Yanukovych. As she writes here, “the ‘Revolution of Dignity’ that rejected Yanukovych’s leadership and his policies was also a resounding demonstration of the strength of Ukraine’s civil society and its determination to hold its elected officials to account. Zelensky would be rash not to heed that.

He also knows it’s important for him to present a squeaky clean image to his supporters in the west. So while the protests may not present an immediate threat to his own position, he knows that unless he acts to root out corruption in Ukraine, it’ll be a threat to the future of the country itself.

But ethicist Marcel Vondermassen from the University of Tübingen believes another recent decision by the Ukrainian government is storing up trouble for the future. Ukraine has recently announced its decision to pull out of the Ottawa convention, the treaty that forbids the use of anti-personnel landmines.

In doing so, he’s following the example of Finland, Poland, Lithuania and Estonia which have all also quite the treaty in recent months for fear of Russian aggression.

But as Vondermassen points out, landmines don’t usually switch themselves off when a conflict ends and people are still being killed an maimed in former conflict zones around the world. Often it is farmers at work or children at play who are the victims. If other ways to protect countries from aggression aren’t pursued, as he puts it, in future decades we’ll still be “counting thousands of child casualties … from the landmines laid in the 2020s”.

Thailand-Cambodia: centuries-old dispute flares again

A dispute between the two south-east Asian countries that has been simmering since May flared into life yesterday when five Thai soldiers patrolling the border region were injured after stepping on a landmine – the second such incident in the past week. Both countries have sealed their border and there have been tit-for-tat ambassadorial expulsions.

Cambodia fired rockets and artillery into Thailand, killing 12 civilians. Thailand in turn has launched airstrikes against Cambodia. Both countries are blaming the other for starting it.

Petra Alderman, an expert in south-east Asian politics from London School of Economics and Political Science, traces the origins of this row, which go back to the colonial era in the 19th and early 20th centuries.

World Affairs Briefing from The Conversation UK is available as a weekly email newsletter. Click here to get updates directly in your inbox.

– ref. Gaza and Ukraine are both waiting for action – https://theconversation.com/gaza-and-ukraine-are-both-waiting-for-action-261894

MIL OSI Analysis –

July 25, 2025

MIL-OSI Russia: At least 33 people were injured in an airstrike on the Ukrainian city of Kharkov

Translation. Region: Russian Federal

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

An important disclaimer is at the bottom of this article.

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

KYIV, July 24 (Xinhua) — At least 33 people, including three children, were injured in a Russian airstrike on Thursday in Kharkiv, Ukraine’s second-largest city in the northeast of the country, the Ukrainian Interior Ministry said on Telegram.

According to Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky, the Russian army dropped two aerial bombs on Kharkiv, one of which fell near a residential building, and the second on the territory of a civilian enterprise, which led to a fire.

Rescuers, police and doctors are working at the sites of the strikes. –0–

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

.

MIL OSI Russia News –

July 25, 2025

India-UK relations enter new era with landmark deals on trade, tech and security

Source: Government of India

Source: Government of India (4)

Prime Minister Narendra Modi held wide-ranging talks with UK Prime Minister Keir Starmer during his official visit to the United Kingdom from July 23-24. The meeting, held at the British Prime Minister’s country residence, Chequers in Buckinghamshire.

The two leaders held a one-on-one meeting followed by delegation-level talks, covering the full spectrum of bilateral cooperation.

During the talks, the two sides welcomed the signing of the historic India-UK Comprehensive Economic and Trade Agreement (CETA). The agreement is expected to boost trade, investment, economic collaboration, and job creation in both countries, taking the strategic partnership to a new level.

In a key development, the two countries also agreed to negotiate a Double Contribution Convention, which will support professionals and service industries by reducing operational costs and promoting competitiveness. Prime Minister Modi also proposed deeper cooperation between India’s GIFT City-India’s first international financial services centre-and the UK’s financial ecosystem.

The two leaders adopted the India-UK Vision 2035, a roadmap for the next decade that aims to enhance cooperation in the areas of economy, technology, innovation, research, education, defence, climate action, health, and people-to-people ties.

The finalisation of a Defence Industrial Roadmap was also welcomed. It aims to promote joint design, development, and production of defence products for domestic use and global markets. Both leaders expressed satisfaction with the growing defence partnership and regular engagement between the armed forces.

Underlining the importance of emerging technologies, the Prime Ministers agreed to accelerate the implementation of the Technology and Security Initiative (TSI). The TSI, which completed one year, focuses on areas such as telecom, critical minerals, AI, biotechnology, semiconductors, health technology, advanced materials, and quantum research.

In the education sector, the leaders hailed the growing collaboration under India’s New Education Policy (NEP). Notably, Southampton University became the first foreign university to open a campus in India, in Gurugram, on June 16. Several other UK universities are expected to follow suit.

The two Prime Ministers also acknowledged the significant contribution of the Indian diaspora in the UK across various fields, calling them a “living bridge” between the two countries.

Prime Minister Modi thanked Prime Minister Starmer for his support and solidarity following the Pahalgam terror attack. Both leaders reiterated their commitment to combat terrorism and agreed to intensify bilateral cooperation to counter extremism and radicalisation. PM Modi also sought the UK’s assistance in bringing economic offenders and fugitives to justice.

The leaders also exchanged views on key regional and global developments, including in the Indo-Pacific, West Asia, and the Russia-Ukraine conflict.

Prime Minister Modi extended an invitation to Prime Minister Starmer to visit India at a mutually convenient time and thanked him for the warm hospitality.

The following documents were signed/adopted by the two sides during the visit:

● Comprehensive Economic and Trade Agreement [CETA]

● India-UK Vision 2035

● Defence Industrial Roadmap

● Statement on Technology and Security Initiative

● MoU between Central Bureau of Investigation, India and National Crime Agency of UK

July 25, 2025

MIL-OSI Submissions: Ukrainian protests: Zelensky faces biggest threat to his presidency since taking power

Source: The Conversation – UK – By Jennifer Mathers, Senior Lecturer in International Politics, Aberystwyth University

Protests have erupted in Kyiv and other Ukrainian cities against a new law that threatens the independence of Ukraine’s anti-corruption institutions. The legislation was hastily passed on July 22 by parliament and signed by the Ukrainian president, Volodymyr Zelensky, that same day.

It places Ukraine’s national anti-corruption bureau and its special anti-corruption prosecutor’s office under the direct control of the prosecutor general, one of Zelensky’s appointed officials. Zelensky has argued that the measure was necessary to address Russian infiltration of anti-corruption bodies.

Critics of the measure, however, believe the real purpose of the law is to give the president the power to quash ongoing investigations into alleged corruption by members of his inner circle. These include his close ally and former deputy prime minister, Oleksiy Chernyshov.

Politicians from opposition parties and civil society activists also regard the new law as an example of the president attempting to take advantage of wartime conditions to silence critics and consolidate power.

The protests have involved thousands of ordinary people. This includes veterans of the war against Russia’s invasion, some with visible war injuries such as missing limbs. Anger at the attempt to curb the independence of anticorruption bodies has broken the informal agreement between the government and Ukrainian society to show a united front to the world while the war continues.

The protests may be the most serious domestic political challenge Zelensky has faced since he was elected president in 2019.

Ukrainians protest after Zelensky signs law clamping down on anticorruption agencies.

Formally, Zelensky’s political position is secure. His Servant of the People party holds the majority of seats in parliament and governs without the constraints of coalition partners. Zelensky and his party will also not face voters anytime soon. There is a ban on holding elections during martial law, which is due to continue for the duration of the war.

Zelensky is not unpopular in Ukraine. According to a survey conducted in June by the Kyiv International Institute of Sociology, Zelensky’s personal popularity was running at 65%. This is down from the heady heights of 90% in the first few months after Russia’s 2022 invasion, but up significantly from 52% in December 2024.

However, Zelensky was quick to respond to the street protests by promising to reverse the new law. He said he would submit a new bill to parliament to restore independence to the agencies. The speed of his response reveals the sensitivity of the president – and indeed most Ukrainian politicians – to criticism on the corruption issue.

Why corruption is a big issue

Corruption is a topic that resonates strongly with Ukrainian society. Anger at the corruption of Viktor Yanukovych’s presidency fuelled the Maidan protests of 2013 and 2014, which began in response to his decision to break off negotiations with the EU and instead pursue closer political and economic ties with Russia.

The “revolution of dignity” that followed robustly rejected Yanukovych’s leadership and his policies, and ultimately saw him ousted from power. The revolution was a resounding demonstration of the strength of Ukraine’s civil society and its determination to hold its elected officials to account.

Any suggestion that Ukraine is failing to address corruption is also a matter of great concern for Ukraine’s international supporters. This is especially the case for major lenders such as the International Monetary Fund. Its willingness to disperse the large loans that help keep the Ukrainian economy functioning depends on Kyiv reaching the good governance milestones it sets.

European leaders have expressed concern at the new law and the possibility that Zelensky may be taking a backwards step when it comes to dealing with corruption.

President of the European Commission, Ursula von der Leyen, phoned Zelensky to express her strong concerns and ask for an explanation for diluting the independence of anti-corruption bodies. French and German leaders have also indicated that they intend to hold discussions with Zelensky about the issue.

Meanwhile, Russia has been quick to take advantage of the protests in Ukraine. According to intelligence from Ukraine’s ministry of defence, Moscow has already distributed doctored photographs of the protesters that show them holding pro-Russian signs. It has falsely claimed that Ukrainians are coming on to the streets to demand an immediate end to the war.

So far, there are no indications that these protests will spill over from demanding the reversal of one controversial piece of legislation into calls for a change of government. Some protesters have even been explicit in their remarks to the media that they are broadly supportive of Zelensky, but are calling on him to take action on this specific issue.

However, Zelensky cannot afford to be complacent. He needs to act quickly to keep his domestic and international supporters on side. A great deal of effort has been expended to demonstrate Ukraine’s commitment to democratic values and its suitability to join western institutions like the EU and Nato. Any hint of backsliding on anti-corruption could undermine that message.

Ukrainians continue to be remarkably united in their support for the war effort and their approval of the armed forces. But the mobilisation process is itself tainted with corruption. Ordinary citizens are reluctant to respond to the state’s call for more soldiers when it is widely known that the family members of powerful and wealthy Ukrainians are able to avoid military service and instead lead comfortable lives abroad.

Zelensky cannot afford to let dissatisfaction with corruption grow. Even if it does not threaten his hold on power today, society’s anger at corrupt practices and the inequalities they create is already damaging the war effort. Ukraine’s political leaders need to demonstrate that their commitment to democracy is as strong as that of the society that they lead.

Jennifer Mathers 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. Ukrainian protests: Zelensky faces biggest threat to his presidency since taking power – https://theconversation.com/ukrainian-protests-zelensky-faces-biggest-threat-to-his-presidency-since-taking-power-261876

MIL OSI –

July 25, 2025

MIL-OSI Analysis: Ukraine joins other Russian neighbours in quitting landmines treaty: another deadly legacy in the making

Source: The Conversation – UK – By Marcel Vondermassen, Scientific Coordinator and Deputy Executive Manager of the IZEW, University of Tübingen

Ukraine’s president, Volodymyr Zelensky, recently signed a decree to withdraw from the Ottawa convention banning the use of anti-personnel landmines. This move follows the example of Finland, Poland, Estonia and Lithuania, who all quit the treaty in recent months.

The logic behind these states withdrawing from the treaty is mostly because of the threat posed by Russia. At first glance landmines seem like a cost-effective way to deter or slow an invader. Proponents see them as a necessary evil to protect national sovereignty against the threat from a much larger conventional force deployed by an aggressive neighbour.

But this short-term thinking can be dangerous, because it doesn’t consider the long-term cost of putting explosive devices into the ground. According to the Landmine Monitor for 2024, more than 110,000 people were killed by landmines and explosive remnants of war in the past 25 years, and over 5,700 died just last year. Eight out of ten of those killed were civilians, many of whom were children.

Sign up to receive our weekly World Affairs Briefing newsletter from The Conversation UK. Every Thursday we’ll bring you expert analysis of the big stories in international relations.

Although it is cheap to lay landmines, demining is expensive and creates a financial burden for future generations. The UN estimates that it can cost between five and 100 times more to clear a mine than to lay one, depending on the circumstances.

In Angola, for example, demining efforts continue nearly 50 years after the civil war broke out and 23 years after it ended. Encouragingly, Angola has reduced the threat with help of Halo Trust, a UK-based nongovernmental organisation. In 30 years they destroyed over 123,000 landmines. But to get Angola landmine free will require about US$240 million (£177 million) in additional funding.

While Angola aims to be landmine-free within a few years, the current scale of contamination in Ukraine will pose a deadly hazard to civilians for generations, as Sarah Njeri – a landmines expert at SOAS, University of London, wrote in 2023.

Looking through the prism of peace

What Europe needs today is better analysis and more public awareness of the current crisis and its long-term effects. This is a tricky task, especially for the media, because the violence is “asynchronous”. This means that mines can be laid years before anyone is harmed by them. It’s important to have open and honest conversations in public so that both politicians and the public have something clear and trustworthy to rely on when making these fateful decisions.

This means accepting that the concerns of the Baltic nations, Poland and Finland are valid. Their actions are a response the threat posed by Russia and the uncertainty surrounding America’s future role on the world stage. But there’s also an opportunity. Nobody in these countries takes the decision to use landmines lightly. This means, that if their European allies can provide credible security guarantees, these countries might change their plans.

Nevertheless, the Peace Report 2025, compiled by four leading German peace research institutes, highlights that this way of thinking remains rooted in a military mindset. The planned increase in military budgets among Nato countries should be complemented by greater investment in diplomacy, peace research and peace building.

The Peace Report lists nine recommendations for a more peaceful world, which are not pacifist. They recognise the need to close the gaps in European defence capabilities – but this is not enough. To create a peaceful Europe the legitimate security interests of all sides need to be considered. This includes Russia. At the same time, the report emphasises the need to strengthen, not weaken, the rules-based order. Abandoning the Ottawa treaty will further weaken that order.

Withdrawing from the landmine treaty is not just a military calculation, and it affects more than just eastern European countries. It’s an issue that presents a real challenge to Europe as a whole. Laying mines would litter future farmland and forests with an indiscriminate threat that recognises no ceasefire and cannot distinguish friend from enemy, combatant from civilian or adult from child.

If we don’t learn from the past, future reports will still be counting thousands of child casualties, but from the landmines laid in the 2020s.

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

Marcel Vondermassen 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. Ukraine joins other Russian neighbours in quitting landmines treaty: another deadly legacy in the making – https://theconversation.com/ukraine-joins-other-russian-neighbours-in-quitting-landmines-treaty-another-deadly-legacy-in-the-making-261684

MIL OSI Analysis –

July 25, 2025

MIL-OSI: ING completes acquisition of Van Lanschot Kempen stake

Source: GlobeNewswire (MIL-OSI)

ING completes acquisition of Van Lanschot Kempen stake

ING announced today that it has completed the acquisition of a 17.6% stake in Van Lanschot Kempen N.V., bringing the total interest in the company to 20.3%. The agreement to acquire the stake from Reggeborgh Groep B.V. was announced on 3 March 2025.

Under the terms of the agreement, ING directly acquired a stake of 7.2% in March 2025, bringing its stake in Van Lanschot Kempen to 9.9%. After receiving regulatory approval, the remaining 10.4% was transferred, bringing ING’s stake to 20.3%. The transaction has a minimal impact on ING’s CET1 ratio.

Note for editors
For further information on ING, please visit www.ing.com. Frequent news updates can be found in the Newsroom. Photos of ING operations, buildings and its executives are available for download at Flickr.

ING PROFILE
ING is a global financial institution with a strong European base, offering banking services through its operating company ING Bank. The purpose of ING Bank is: empowering people to stay a step ahead in life and in business. ING Bank’s more than 60,000 employees offer retail and wholesale banking services to customers in over 100 countries.

ING Group shares are listed on the exchanges of Amsterdam (INGA NA, INGA.AS), Brussels and on the New York Stock Exchange (ADRs: ING US, ING.N).

ING aims to put sustainability at the heart of what we do. Our policies and actions are assessed by independent research and ratings providers, which give updates on them annually. ING’s ESG rating by MSCI was reconfirmed by MSCI as ‘AA’ in August 2024 for the fifth year. As of June 2025, in Sustainalytics’ view, ING’s management of ESG material risk is ‘Strong’ with an ESG risk rating of 18.0 (low risk). ING Group shares are also included in major sustainability and ESG index products of leading providers. Here are some examples: Euronext, STOXX, Morningstar and FTSE Russell. Society is transitioning to a low-carbon economy. So are our clients, and so is ING. We finance a lot of sustainable activities, but we still finance more that’s not. Follow our progress on ing.com/climate.

IMPORTANT LEGAL INFORMATION
Elements of this press release contain or may contain information about ING Groep N.V. and/ or ING Bank N.V. within the meaning of Article 7(1) to (4) of EU Regulation No 596/2014 (‘Market Abuse Regulation’).

ING Group’s annual accounts are prepared in accordance with International Financial Reporting Standards as adopted by the European Union (‘IFRS- EU’). In preparing the financial information in this document, except as described otherwise, the same accounting principles are applied as in the 2024 ING Group consolidated annual accounts. All figures in this document are unaudited. Small differences are possible in the tables due to rounding.

Certain of the statements contained herein are not historical facts, including, without limitation, certain statements made of future expectations and other forward-looking statements that are based on management’s current views and assumptions and involve known and unknown risks and uncertainties that could cause actual results, performance or events to diﬀer materially from those expressed or implied in such statements. Actual results, performance or events may diﬀer materially from those in such statements due to a number of factors, including, without limitation: (1) changes in general economic conditions and customer behaviour, in particular economic conditions in ING’s core markets, including changes affecting currency exchange rates and the regional and global economic impact of the invasion of Russia into Ukraine and related international response measures (2) changes affecting interest rate levels (3) any default of a major market participant and related market disruption (4) changes in performance of financial markets, including in Europe and developing markets (5) fiscal uncertainty in Europe and the United States (6) discontinuation of or changes in ‘benchmark’ indices (7) inflation and deflation in our principal markets (8) changes in conditions in the credit and capital markets generally, including changes in borrower and counterparty creditworthiness (9) failures of banks falling under the scope of state compensation schemes (10) non- compliance with or changes in laws and regulations, including those concerning financial services, financial economic crimes and tax laws, and the interpretation and application thereof (11) geopolitical risks, political instabilities and policies and actions of governmental and regulatory authorities, including in connection with the invasion of Russia into Ukraine and the related international response measures (12) legal and regulatory risks in certain countries with less developed legal and regulatory frameworks (13) prudential supervision and regulations, including in relation to stress tests and regulatory restrictions on dividends and distributions (also among members of the group) (14) ING’s ability to meet minimum capital and other prudential regulatory requirements (15) changes in regulation of US commodities and derivatives businesses of ING and its customers (16) application of bank recovery and resolution regimes, including write down and conversion powers in relation to our securities (17) outcome of current and future litigation, enforcement proceedings, investigations or other regulatory actions, including claims by customers or stakeholders who feel misled or treated unfairly, and other conduct issues (18) changes in tax laws and regulations and risks of non-compliance or investigation in connection with tax laws, including FATCA (19) operational and IT risks, such as system disruptions or failures, breaches of security, cyber-attacks, human error, changes in operational practices or inadequate controls including in respect of third parties with which we do business and including any risks as a result of incomplete, inaccurate, or otherwise flawed outputs from the algorithms and data sets utilized in artificial intelligence (20) risks and challenges related to cybercrime including the eﬀects of cyberattacks and changes in legislation and regulation related to cybersecurity and data privacy, including such risks and challenges as a consequence of the use of emerging technologies, such as advanced forms of artificial intelligence and quantum computing (21) changes in general competitive factors, including ability to increase or maintain market share (22) inability to protect our intellectual property and infringement claims by third parties (23) inability of counterparties to meet financial obligations or ability to enforce rights against such counterparties (24) changes in credit ratings (25) business, operational, regulatory, reputation, transition and other risks and challenges in connection with climate change, diversity, equity and inclusion and other ESG-related matters, including data gathering and reporting and also including managing the conflicting laws and requirements of governments, regulators and authorities with respect to these topics (26) inability to attract and retain key personnel (27) future liabilities under defined benefit retirement plans (28) failure to manage business risks, including in connection with use of models, use of derivatives, or maintaining appropriate policies and guidelines (29) changes in capital and credit markets, including interbank funding, as well as customer deposits, which provide the liquidity and capital required to fund our operations, and (30) the other risks and uncertainties detailed in the most recent annual report of ING Groep N.V. (including the Risk Factors contained therein) and ING’s more recent disclosures, including press releases, which are available on www.ING.com.

This document may contain ESG-related material that has been prepared by ING on the basis of publicly available information, internally developed data and other third-party sources believed to be reliable. ING has not sought to independently verify information obtained from public and third-party sources and makes no representations or warranties as to accuracy, completeness, reasonableness or reliability of such information.

Materiality, as used in the context of ESG, is distinct from, and should not be confused with, such term as defined in the Market Abuse Regulation or as defined for Securities and Exchange Commission (‘SEC’) reporting purposes. Any issues identified as material for purposes of ESG in this document are therefore not necessarily material as defined in the Market Abuse Regulation or for SEC reporting purposes. In addition, there is currently no single, globally recognized set of accepted definitions in assessing whether activities are “green” or “sustainable.” Without limiting any of the statements contained herein, we make no representation or warranty as to whether any of our securities constitutes a green or sustainable security or conforms to present or future investor expectations or objectives for green or sustainable investing. For information on characteristics of a security, use of proceeds, a description of applicable project(s) and/or any other relevant information, please reference the offering documents for such security.

This document may contain inactive textual addresses to internet websites operated by us and third parties. Reference to such websites is made for information purposes only, and information found at such websites is not incorporated by reference into this document. ING does not make any representation or warranty with respect to the accuracy or completeness of, or take any responsibility for, any information found at any websites operated by third parties. ING specifically disclaims any liability with respect to any information found at websites operated by third parties. ING cannot guarantee that websites operated by third parties remain available following the publication of this document, or that any information found at such websites will not change following the filing of this document. Many of those factors are beyond ING’s control.

Any forward-looking statements made by or on behalf of ING speak only as of the date they are made, and ING assumes no obligation to publicly update or revise any forward-looking statements, whether as a result of new information or for any other reason.

This document does not constitute an oﬀer to sell, or a solicitation of an oﬀer to purchase, any securities in the United States or any other jurisdiction.

Attachment

PR VLK completion – 20250724

The MIL Network –

July 25, 2025

MIL-OSI United Kingdom: PM call with President Zelenskyy of Ukraine: 24 July 2025

Source: United Kingdom – Executive Government & Departments

Press release

PM call with President Zelenskyy of Ukraine: 24 July 2025

Prime Minister Keir Starmer spoke to the President of Ukraine Volodymyr Zelenskyy today.

The Prime Minister spoke to the President of Ukraine Volodymyr Zelenskyy today.

The President began by thanking the Prime Minister for the UK’s continued support for Ukraine, including the sanctions announced earlier this week targeting Russia’s energy revenues, which play a vital part in stopping Putin’s war machine. They agreed international partners must continue to ramp up the pressure on Russia.

The Prime Minister underlined the UK’s unwavering support for Ukraine, and the leaders agreed on the importance of the role of independent anti-corruption institutions at the heart of Ukraine’s democracy.

Both leaders underscored that Putin must come to the negotiation table and agree an unconditional ceasefire to see a just and lasting peace in Ukraine.

They agreed to keep in touch.

Published 24 July 2025

MIL OSI United Kingdom –

July 25, 2025

MIL-OSI United Kingdom: Joint Statement on the Invocation of the OSCE Moscow Mechanism

Source: United Kingdom – Executive Government & Departments

Speech

Joint Statement on the Invocation of the OSCE Moscow Mechanism

UK and 40 other countries invoke the Moscow Mechanism to address ill treatment of prisoners of war by the Russian Federation

Thank you, Chair.   I will deliver an abridged version of this statement this afternoon. The full statement will be circulated in writing and I request that it be attached to the Journal of the Day.

I am delivering this statement on behalf of the following participating States: Albania, Andorra, Austria, Belgium, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Bulgaria, Canada, Croatia, Cyprus, Czechia, Denmark, Estonia, Finland, France, Georgia, Germany, Greece, Iceland, Ireland, Italy, Latvia, Liechtenstein, Lithuania, Luxembourg, Malta, Moldova, Monaco, Montenegro, Netherlands, North Macedonia, Norway, Poland, Portugal, Romania, San Marino, Slovakia, Slovenia, Spain, Sweden, Switzerland and the United Kingdom.

Today, our delegations will send the following letter to ODIHR Director Maria Telalian, invoking the Moscow Mechanism, with the support of Ukraine, as we continue to have concerns regarding violations of international humanitarian law and international human rights law following Russia’s full-scale war of aggression against Ukraine, including with regard to ill treatment of Ukrainian Prisoners of War (POW).

Director Telalian,

With Russia’s war of aggression against Ukraine in its fourth year and as Russia’s illegal occupation of the Autonomous Republic of Crimea and the city of Sevastopol and certain areas of the Donetsk and Luhansk regions of Ukraine has entered its eleventh year, we continue to witness large scale human suffering and alarming reports of violations of international humanitarian law (IHL) and of international human rights law (IHRL), many of which may amount to the most serious international crimes.

Against the backdrop of the full-scale war of aggression against Ukraine, launched by the Russian Federation on February 24, 2022, a number of credible sources, including the Moscow Mechanism expert missions, the Office for Democratic Institutions and Human Rights, the Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights and the UN Independent International Commission of Inquiry, as well as civil society organizations, have reported that the Russian Federation has consistently violated the rights of prisoners of war (POWs) throughout their detention and at multiple detention facilities within the temporarily occupied territories of Ukraine and the Russian Federation. There have been credible reports that the extensive and routine torture and ill-treatment of Ukrainian POWs throughout their detention constitutes a continued systematic pattern of state policy and practice by the Russian Federation. Torture follows common patterns across different locations, indicating it is a coordinated, deliberate, and systematic practice.

In 2022, 2023 and 2024, 45 OSCE Delegations, following bilateral consultations with Ukraine under the Vienna (Human Dimension) Mechanism, invoked Paragraph 8 of the Moscow (Human Dimension) Mechanism. The reports of the independent missions of experts, received by OSCE participating States, confirmed our shared concerns about the impact of the Russian Federation’s invasion and acts of war, its violations and abuses of IHRL, and violations of IHL in Ukraine.

We remain particularly alarmed by the findings of the expert missions that some of the violations may amount to war crimes and crimes against humanity as well as the identification of patterns of reported violations of IHL and IHRL regarding the treatment of prisoners of war.

The prohibition against torture in international law is absolute. Parties to an armed conflict are obliged to ensure the rights of POWs as set out in the Third Geneva Convention of 1949 relative to the Treatment of Prisoners of War and Additional Protocol I to the Geneva Conventions. Prisoners of war must at all times be protected, particularly against acts of violence or intimidation and against insults and public curiosity. No physical or mental torture, nor any other form of coercion, may be inflicted on prisoners of war to secure from them information of any kind whatever. Prisoners of war who refuse to answer may not be threatened, insulted or exposed to unpleasant or disadvantageous treatment of any kin Torture and inhuman treatment of POWs are grave breaches of the Geneva Conventions, and likewise war crimes under the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court.

ODIHR’s Ukraine Monitoring Initiative has continued to identify patterns of reported IHL and IHRL violations related to the treatment of Ukrainian POWs including in their Sixth Interim Report of 13 December 2024 and their Seventh Interim Report of 15 July 2025. Interviews with survivors and witnesses attested to a continued practice of systematic torture and other IHL and IHRL violations perpetrated against Ukrainian POWs prompting serious concerns about the Russian Federation’s failure to comply with the fundamental principles that govern the treatment of POWs.

In equal measure, the OHCHR and the UN Human Rights Monitoring Mission in Ukraine (HRMMU) have reported on the systematic and widespread use of torture of Ukrainian POWs by Russian authorities. In its March 2023 report, the HRMMU documented violations of IHRL and IHL in 32 of 48 detention facilities in Russia and Russian-occupied territories of Ukraine, related to torture and other ill-treatment, dire conditions of internment including inadequate quarters, food, hygiene, and medical care, along with restricted communication, forced labor, and a lack of access of independent monitors. . Many were held incommunicado deprived of the possibility to communicate with family or the outside world. Russian authorities subjected Ukrainian POWs to unlawful prosecutions for mere participation in hostilities; using torture to extract confessions; and denying fair trials.

According to witness testimonies, there were numerous incidents whereby POWs died in captivity due to execution, torture, ill-treatment and/or inadequate medical attention as well as inhumane conditions during their captivity.

The OHCHR’s October 2024 Report on the Treatment of Prisoners of War further documented detailed and consistent accounts of torture or ill treatment in Russian Federation custody.

Survivors have described the wide-ranging methods of torture or ill-treatment of Ukrainian POWs including: severe physical beatings; electrocution (including the targeting of genitalia); excessively intense physical exercise; stress positions; dog attacks; mock executions (including simulated hangings); threats of physical violence and death; sexual violence, including rape; threats of rape and castration; threats of coerced sexual acts; and other forms of humiliation.

Since the end of August 2024, OHCHR also has recorded a significant increase in credible allegations of executions of Ukrainian servicepersons captured by Russian armed forces, involving at least 97 individuals.

The UN Independent International Commission of Inquiry on Ukraine (UN COI) stated on 23 September 2024 that it has evidence of widespread and systematic torture by Russian authorities against Ukrainian civilians and POWs in the temporarily occupied territories and in Russia. They concluded that torture follows common patterns across different locations, indicating it is a coordinated practice. In their March 2025 report, the UN COI again called on the Russian Federation to immediately end the widespread and systematic use of torture and other forms of ill-treatment committed against civilian detainees and prisoners of war

The Office of the Prosecutor General of Ukraine is investigating the reported execution of 273 Ukrainian POWs, including 208 who were reportedly executed on the battlefield and 59 in the ‘‘Olenivka’’ colony. However, the real number of those executed is likely much higher.

We are deeply concerned about the severity and frequency of these violations and abuses. We are particularly appalled by reported executions of Ukrainian POWs and Ukrainian soldiers rendered hors de combat upon their surrender and by the desecration/mutilation of bodies. We are also deeply concerned with the practice of filming and distributing images of these abhorrent incidents.

Following grave concerns over the ill-treatment of Ukrainian POWs, highlighted, inter alia, by the UN Human Rights Monitoring Mission in Ukraine, the Independent International Commission of Inquiry on Ukraine and the Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights and the OSCE, we call on all parties to the armed conflict ensure that POWs are treated in full compliance with IHL.

We recall that OSCE participating States have committed themselves to respect IHL, including the Third Geneva Convention relative to the Treatment of Prisoners of War of 1949, bearing in mind that the willful killing, torture, inhuman treatment, causing great suffering, or serious injury to body or health of persons protected under the Geneva Conventions, including prisoners of war, constitutes a war crime. No prisoner of war may be subjected to physical mutilation or to medical or scientific experiments of any kind which are not justified by the medical, dental or hospital treatment of the prisoner concerned and carried out in his interest. Likewise, prisoners of war must at all times be protected, particularly against acts of violence or intimidation and against insults and public curiosity.

We also recall that the prohibition of torture is a peremptory norm of international law without territorial limitation, which applies at all times and in all places. Measures of reprisal against POWs are prohibited.

We call on the Russia Federation to end the torture and ill-treatment of all detainees and ensure adequate conditions of detention including the provision of basic needs such as food, water, clothing, and medical care. We further call for providing timely and accurate information on detainees’ whereabouts and legal status, and for granting international humanitarian organizations, like the International Committee of the Red Cross, unfettered access to such persons.

Gravely concerned by the continuing impacts of Russia’s ongoing aggression against Ukraine, and gravely concerned by credible allegations of the torture, ill-treatment and executions of Ukrainian POWs, and soldiers hors de combat, the delegations of Albania, Andorra, Austria, Belgium, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Bulgaria, Canada, Croatia, Cyprus, Czechia, Denmark, Estonia, Finland, France, Georgia, Germany, Greece, Iceland, Ireland, Italy, Latvia, Liechtenstein, Lithuania, Luxembourg, Malta, Moldova, Monaco, Montenegro, Netherlands, North Macedonia, Norway, Poland, Portugal, Romania, San Marino, Slovakia, Slovenia, Spain, Sweden, Switzerland and the United Kingdom, following bilateral consultations with Ukraine under the Vienna Mechanism, invoke the Moscow (Human Dimension) Mechanism under Paragraph 8 of that document.

We request that ODIHR inquire of Ukraine whether it would invite a mission of experts to build upon previous findings, and:

To establish the facts and circumstances surrounding possible contraventions of relevant OSCE commitments; violations and abuses of human rights; and violations of IHL, including possible cases of war crimes and crimes against humanity, related to the treatment of Ukrainian POWs by the Russian Federation ;

To collect, consolidate, and analyse this information including to determine if there is a pattern of widespread and systematic torture, ill-treatment and execution of Ukrainian POWs and soldiers hors de combat and/or at detention facilities by the Russian Federation in the temporarily occupied territories and in Russia and

To offer recommendations on relevant accountability mechanisms.

We also invite ODIHR to provide any relevant information or documentation derived from any new expert mission to other appropriate accountability mechanisms, including the UN Human Rights Monitoring Mission in Ukraine or the Independent International Commission of Inquiry on Ukraine, as well as national, regional, or international courts or tribunals that have, or may in future have, jurisdiction.

Thank you for your attention.

Published 24 July 2025

MIL OSI United Kingdom –

July 25, 2025

MIL-Evening Report: Keep fighting for a nuclear-free Pacific, Helen Clark warns Greenpeace over global storm clouds

Asia Pacific Report

Former New Zealand prime minister Helen Clark warned activists and campaigners in a speech on the deck of the Greenpeace environmental flagship Rainbow Warrior III last night to be wary of global “storm clouds” and the renewed existential threat of nuclear weapons.

Speaking on her reflections on four decades after the bombing of the original Rainbow Warrior on 10 July 1985, she said that New Zealand had a lot to be proud of but the world was now in a “precarious” state.

Clark praised Greenpeace over its long struggle, challenging the global campaigners to keep up the fight for a nuclear-free Pacific.

“For New Zealand, having been proudly nuclear-free since the mid-1980s, life has got a lot more complicated for us as well, and I have done a lot of campaigning against New Zealand signing up to any aspect of the AUKUS arrangement because it seems to me that being associated with any agreement that supplies nuclear ship technology to Australia is more or less encouraging the development of nuclear threats in the South Pacific,” she said.

“While I am not suggesting that Australians are about to put nuclear weapons on them, we know that others do. This is not the Pacific that we want.

“It is not the Pacific that we fought for going back all those years.

“So we need to be very concerned about these storm clouds gathering.”

Lessons for humanity
Clark was prime minister 1999-2008 and served as a minister in David Lange’s Labour government that passed New Zealand’s nuclear-free legislation in 1987 – two years after the Rainbow Warrior bombing by French secret agents.

She was also head of the United Nations Development Programme (UNDP) in 2009-2017.

“When you think 40 years on, humanity might have learned some lessons. But it seems we have to repeat the lessons over and over again, or we will be dragged on the path of re-engagement with those who use nuclear weapons as their ultimate defence,” Clark told the Greenpeace activists, crew and guests.

“Forty years on, we look back with a lot of pride, actually, at how New Zealand responded to the bombing of the Rainbow Warrior. We stood up with the passage of the nuclear-free legislation in 1987, we stood up with a lot of things.

“All of this is under threat; the international scene now is quite precarious with respect to nuclear weapons. This is an existential threat.”

[embedded content]
Nuclear-free Pacific reflections with Helen Clark Video: Greenpeace

In response to Tahitian researcher and advocate Ena Manuireva who spoke earlier about the legacy of a health crisis as a result of 30 years of French nuclear tests at Moruroa and Fangataufa, she recalled her own thoughts.

“It reminds us of why we were so motivated to fight for a nuclear-free Pacific because we remember the history of what happened in French Polynesia, in the Marshall Islands, in the South Australian desert, at Maralinga, to the New Zealand servicemen who were sent up in the navy ships, the Rotoiti and the Pukaki, in the late 1950s, to stand on deck while the British exploded their bombs [at Christmas Island in what is today Kiribati].

“These poor guys were still seeking compensation when I was PM with the illnesses you [Ena] described in French Polynesia.

Former NZ prime minister Helen Clark . . . “I remember one of the slogans in the 1970s and 1980s was ‘if it is so safe, test them in France’.” Image: Asia Pacific Report

Testing ground for ‘others’
“So the Pacific was a testing ground for ‘others’ far away and I remember one of the slogans in the 1970s and 1980s was ‘if it is so safe, test them in France’. Right? It wasn’t so safe.

“Mind you, they regarded French Polynesia as France.

“David Robie asked me to write the foreword to the new edition of his book, Eyes of Fire: The Last Voyage and Legacy of the Rainbow Warrior, and it brought back so many memories of those times because those of you who are my age will remember that the 1980s were the peak of the Cold War.

“We had the Reagan administration [in the US] that was actively preparing for war. It was a terrifying time. It was before the demise of the Soviet Union. And nuclear testing was just part of that big picture where people were preparing for war.

“I think that the wonderful development in New Zealand was that people knew enough to know that we didn’t want to be defended by nuclear weapons because that was not mutually assured survival — it was mutually assured destruction.”

New Zealand took a stand, Clark said, but taking that stand led to the attack on the Rainbow Warrior in Auckland harbour by French state-backed terrorism where tragically Greenpeace photographer Fernando Pereira lost his life.

“I remember I was on my way to Nairobi for a conference for women, and I was in Zimbabwe, when the news came through about the bombing of a boat in Auckland harbour.

‘Absolutely shocking’
“It was absolutely shocking, we had never experienced such a thing. I recall when I returned to New Zealand, [Prime Minister] David Lange one morning striding down to the party caucus room and telling us before it went public that it was without question that French spies had planted the bombs and the rest was history.

“It was a very tense time. Full marks to Greenpeace for keeping up the struggle for so long — long before it was a mainstream issue Greenpeace was out there in the Pacific taking on nuclear testing.

“Different times from today, but when I wrote the foreword for David’s book I noted that storm clouds were gathering again around nuclear weapons and issues. I suppose that there is so much else going on in a tragic 24 news cycle — catastrophe day in and day out in Gaza, severe technology and lethal weapons in Ukraine killing people, wherever you look there are so many conflicts.

“The international agreements that we have relied are falling into disrepair. For example, if I were in Europe I would be extremely worried about the demise of the intermediate range missile weapons pact which has now been abandoned by the Americans and the Russians.

“And that governs the deployment of medium range missiles in Europe.

“The New Start Treaty, which was a nuclear arms control treaty between what was the Soviet Union and the US expires next year. Will it be renegotiated in the current circumstances? Who knows?”

With the Non-proliferation Treaty, there are acknowledged nuclear powers who had not signed the treaty — “and those that do make very little effort to live up to the aspiration, which is to negotiate an end to nuclear weapons”.

Developments with Iran
“We have seen recently the latest developments with Iran, and for all of Iran’s many sins let us acknowledge that it is a party to the Non-Proliferation Treaty,” she said.

“It did subject itself, for the most part, to the inspections regime. Israel, which bombed it, is not a party to the treaty, and doesn’t accept inspections.

“There are so many double standards that people have long complained about the Non-Proliferation Treaty where the original five nuclear powers are deemed okay to have them, somehow, whereas there are others who don’t join at all.

“And then over the Ukraine conflict we have seen worrying threats of the use of nuclear weapons.”

Clark warned that we the use of artificial intelligence it would not be long before asking it: “How do I make a nuclear weapon?”

“It’s not so difficult to make a dirty bomb. So we should be extremely worried about all these developments.”

Then Clark spoke about the “complications” facing New Zealand.

Mangareva researcher and advocate Ena Manuireva . . . “My mum died of lung cancer and the doctors said that she was a ‘passive smoker’. My mum had not smoked for the last 65 years.” Image: Asia Pacific Report

Teariki’s message to De Gaulle
In his address, Ena Manuireva started off by quoting the late Tahitian parliamentarian John Teariki who had courageously appealed to General Charles De Gaulle in 1966 after France had already tested three nuclear devices:

“No government has ever had the honesty or the cynical frankness to admit that its nuclear tests might be dangerous. No government has ever hesitated to make other peoples — preferably small, defenceless ones — bear the burden.”

“May you, Mr President, take back your troops, your bombs, and your planes.

“Then, later, our leukemia and cancer patients would not be able to accuse you of being the cause of their illness.

“Then, our future generations would not be able to blame you for the birth of monsters and deformed children.

“Then, you would give the world an example worthy of France . . .

“Then, Polynesia, united, would be proud and happy to be French, and, as in the early days of Free France, we would all once again become your best and most loyal friends.”

‘Emotional moment’
Manuireva said that 10 days earlier, he had been on board Rainbow Warrior III for the ceremony to mark the bombing in 1985 that cost the life of Fernando Pereira – “and the lives of a lot of Mā’ohi people”.

“It was a very emotional moment for me. It reminded me of my mother and father as I am a descendant of those on Mangareva atoll who were contaminated by those nuclear tests.

“My mum died of lung cancer and the doctors said that she was a ‘passive smoker’. My mum had not smoked for the last 65 years.

“French nuclear testing started on 2 July 1966 with Aldebaran and lasted 30 years.”

He spoke about how the military “top brass fled the island” when winds start blowing towards Mangareva. “Food was ready but they didn’t stay”.

“By the time I was born in December 1967 in Mangareva, France had already exploded 9 atmospheric nuclear tests on Moruroa and Fangataufa atolls, about 400km from Mangareva.”

France’s most powerful explosion was Canopus with 2.6 megatonnes in August 1968. It was a thermonuclear hydrogen bomb — 150 times more powerful than Hiroshima.

Greenpeace Aotearoa executive director Russel Norman . . . a positive of the campaign future. Image: Asia Pacific Report

‘Poisoned gift’
Manuireva said that by France “gifting us the bomb”, Tahitians had been left “with all the ongoing consequences on the people’s health costs that the Ma’ohi Nui government is paying for”.

He described how the compensation programme was inadequate, lengthy and complicated.

Manuireva also spoke about the consequences for the environment. Both Moruroa and Fangataufa were condemned as “no go” zones and islanders had lost their lands forever.

He also noted that while France had gifted the former headquarters of the Atomic Energy Commission (CEP) as a “form of reconciliation” plans to turn it into a museum were thwarted because the building was “rife with asbestos”.

“It is a poisonous gift that will cost millions for the local government to fix.”

Greenpeace Aotearoa executive director Russel Norman spoke of the impact on the Greenpeace organisation of the French secret service bombing of their ship and also introduced the guest speakers and responded to their statements.

A Q and A session was also held to round off the stimulating evening.

A question during the open mike session on board the Rainbow Warrior. Image: Asia Pacific Report

MIL OSI Analysis – EveningReport.nz –