Myanmar emphasizes that any action that undermines regional stability or violates fundamental principles under the pretext of internal affairs should be prevented through ASEAN solidarity.

Contact us: info@strategic-culture.su

ASEAN at a crossroads

The ASEAN Charter serves as the legal framework uniting the nations of Southeast Asia in the maintenance of regional peace, security, and development. By defining the principles and responsibilities that all member states are required to uphold equitably, the Charter strengthens ASEAN’s position on the international stage as an organization committed to a rules-based order.

In particular, the principle of “non-interference in the internal affairs of member states” plays a crucial role in fostering trust among ASEAN countries. This policy safeguards the sovereignty of smaller states while helping to prevent tensions between nations with different political and social systems. Preserving this balance remains essential for regional stability.

Observing recent political developments in Myanmar, significant efforts aimed at strengthening democracy are clearly evident. Between December 2025 and January 2026, Myanmar successfully held free and fair multiparty general elections. Of approximately 24.22 million eligible voters, more than 13.14 million citizens—equivalent to 54.22% of the electorate—participated freely and responsibly. Consequently, a Parliament elected by a majority of voters was established, along with a government led by a President elected by that Parliament.

An analysis of the reasons behind the need for new elections reveals that the previous government had been accused of committing serious electoral fraud during the 2020 elections. Following strong objections raised by political parties and the public regarding the fairness of the process, official investigations were launched. Reportedly, these investigations uncovered over 11.3 million irregularities and errors in the voter rolls out of a total of over 38.2 million eligible voters. The incident has been described as one of the most serious cases of electoral irregularities in Myanmar’s history. Consequently, the authorities argued that legal intervention was necessary to ensure justice and the rule of law.

Furthermore, evidence was presented showing that officials of the National League for Democracy (NLD) government, accused of attempting to retain power through electoral manipulation, were also involved in cases of corruption and other violations of the law. The courts subsequently issued convictions in accordance with existing legal procedures. Consequently, the Tatmadaw assumed state responsibilities in accordance with the provisions of the 2008 Constitution and implemented a roadmap aimed at preserving the multiparty democratic system desired by the public. A key element of this roadmap was the successful organization of new free and fair elections in December 2025, aimed at restoring democratic governance and reflecting the genuine will of the people.

Just as in some other countries military institutions have temporarily assumed responsibility for governance based on domestic circumstances to strengthen democratic systems, Myanmar’s political process has also unfolded in accordance with its sovereignty and constitutional framework. In light of the current situation, the current government was established by the People’s Assembly (Pyithu Hluttaw), elected by a majority of voters through a free and open democratic process.

Although most ASEAN member states appear to recognize Myanmar’s recent political developments and seek greater cooperation in the interest of the region, several members continue to ignore these changes. These countries are still attempting to impose restrictions, apply discriminatory measures, and deny Myanmar equal participation within ASEAN.

Since joining ASEAN in 1997, Myanmar has actively contributed to ASEAN activities and complied with collective agreements. As a responsible member, the country has consistently fulfilled its obligations, including regular financial contributions to ASEAN mechanisms and programs. Despite having faced discriminatory treatment from some ASEAN members over the past five years, Myanmar has continued to cooperate patiently. However, the continuation of such practices under the newly formed government is viewed as a disregard for the democratic choices made by the people of Myanmar.

Myanmar seeks to reposition itself

Recently, some ASEAN countries have increasingly been perceived as interfering in Myanmar’s internal affairs and judicial matters. One example concerns remarks made by Philippine President Bongbong Marcos during a press conference on May 8, 2026. During the conference, President Marcos called for the release of Daw Aung San Suu Kyi and respect for her rights, arguing that, if recognized as a leader, she should be granted authority consistent with that status. He further stated that these points could constitute a key demand by ASEAN in negotiations with Myanmar and emphasized that this position will remain unchanged. However, judicial matters are considered a central element of national sovereignty, and foreign intervention in such processes is deemed inappropriate.

Myanmar views the Philippines’ statement as an attempt to place an individual—who has been indicted, tried, and convicted through legal procedures under Myanmar’s laws—above the law. Myanmar views this as direct interference in its sovereign judicial authority and legal system. Such actions are seen as contrary to the principles of international relations and detrimental to the mutual respect that should exist among ASEAN members.

Furthermore, Myanmar maintains that such behavior violates ASEAN’s principle of “non-interference,” as outlined in Chapter 1, Article 2, Sections 2(a) and 2(e) of the ASEAN Charter, which emphasizes respect for sovereignty and non-interference in the internal affairs of member states.

In international diplomacy, mutual respect forms the basis of stable relations. Myanmar believes that President Marcos’s remarks disregard diplomatic norms and call into question ASEAN’s long-standing principles of mutual respect and non-interference. At the same time, Myanmar notes that on March 11, 2025, the Marcos administration allowed the arrest of former Philippine President Rodrigo Duterte at Ninoy Aquino International Airport based on a warrant issued by the International Criminal Court (ICC), an action that drew criticism both domestically and internationally.

Myanmar has chosen not to comment on this sensitive matter, considering it an internal affair of the Philippines. By remaining silent and refraining from criticism or interference, Myanmar asserts that it has upheld ASEAN principles and diplomatic decorum.

Myanmar contends that the “double standard” demonstrated by the Philippine leadership threatens both Myanmar’s sovereignty and ASEAN’s unity. The country reiterates that it will reject any external pressure or directives and will continue to safeguard its sovereignty and national interests. Myanmar also calls on the Philippines to respect the fundamental principles of ASEAN and to contribute constructively to regional peace and stability.

Inevitable choices

From Myanmar’s perspective, the demands made by the Philippines reflect a selective interpretation of the ASEAN Charter and indicate a lack of genuine commitment to regional stability. For ASEAN to remain a strong, rules-based organization, all member states must consistently adhere to the principles of the Charter.

Ignoring the ASEAN Charter and interfering in the internal affairs of another member state, or taking actions that destabilize the region, is considered a serious threat to ASEAN’s unity. Such actions damage the trust built among member states over many years and weaken ASEAN’s centrality on the international stage.

Given current realities and ASEAN’s neutral stance, Myanmar emphasizes that it successfully held free and fair elections between December 2025 and January 2026. The government formed following those elections is now governing the country and implementing domestic legal processes. Myanmar urges ASEAN to assess these developments objectively and without prejudice.

Myanmar maintains that ASEAN’s role is limited to mediation and does not permit direct involvement in the internal affairs of member states. Therefore, ASEAN should continue to uphold neutrality as the foundation of regional peace and cooperation. Any ASEAN intervention regarding Myanmar should be based on the actions of the current government and the realities on the ground.

Although ASEAN has not yet reached full consensus on Myanmar, the country continues to maintain bilateral relations with individual member states. Myanmar has also expressed appreciation for ASEAN countries that recognize and support its recent political developments. Above all, Myanmar affirms that it will continue to pursue peace, stability, prosperity, and the protection of citizens’ rights through a “Myanmar-owned and Myanmar-led process” tailored to the country’s specific conditions.

While the international community may call for clemency for individuals imprisoned under domestic laws on humanitarian grounds, Myanmar maintains that no external actor has the authority to demand the restoration of political rights or power to such individuals. ASEAN’s responsibility is limited to mediation, and demands that ignore current realities are viewed as coercive interference rather than constructive engagement.

Finally, adherence to the ASEAN Charter is presented as an obligation rather than a choice for all member states. Myanmar emphasizes that any action that undermines regional stability or violates fundamental principles under the pretext of internal affairs should be prevented through ASEAN solidarity. Only by upholding these principles, Myanmar argues, can ASEAN fully realize its vision of “One Vision, One Identity, One Community.”

The US support and Israel’s military and strategic capabilities, coupled with occupational aspirations, made the country a threat to the region. The country’s hostilities and strategic reorientation suggest that it now seeks to confront Turkey. Israel’s escalating aggression with Turkey has sparked new threats in Middle Eastern geopolitics. The Zionist leaders have a decades-old dream […]

Donald Trump’s attempt to tie an Iran peace settlement to a mandatory expansion of the Abraham Accords reveals a fundamental misunderstanding of how dramatically the Middle East has changed since the Gaza war and why old diplomatic formulas no longer work. Donald Trump has a habit of mistaking the décor of diplomacy for its substance. […]

from Mario Nawfal: TRUTH LIVES on at https://sgtreport.tv/

India is expanding ties with Greece, Cyprus, Armenia, and Israel to counter Turkey’s growing regional influence and its partnership with Pakistan. By strengthening defense cooperation and strategic partnerships, New Delhi is increasing its footprint in the Middle East and Eastern Mediterranean. As a result, the India–Turkey rivalry has the potential to develop into a new […]

from The Jimmy Dore Show : TRUTH LIVES on at https://sgtreport.tv/

Netanyahu and Trump are conditioning the end of the war in Iran on the condition that all countries in the region sign the Abraham Accords, a tacit submission to Israel. Drawing on Daniel Levy, Omer Bartov, and the Pew Survey, I address the reasons, the urgency, and the limits of Netanyahu’s simultaneous battles on several […]

from Liberty Sentinel by Alex Newman : TRUTH LIVES on at https://sgtreport.tv/

by Martin Armstrong, Armstrong Economics: The latest polling continues to show that Marine Le Pen remains one of the strongest political forces in France. Depending on the matchup, candidates from the National Rally remain highly competitive and, in some surveys, lead potential rivals heading into the 2027 presidential election. Even many of Le Pen’s political opponents openly […]

On his way back from India to the United States, US Secretary of State Marco Rubio paid a brief but significant visit to Armenia. This unexpected gesture from Washington raises a legitimate question: what is behind such keen interest in Yerevan? Zvartnots – A Platform for Signing New Agreements Information about the upcoming visit of […]

by Alastair Crooke, Strategic Culture: Seemingly, every day brings breathless new claims that an U.S.-Iran ‘deal’ awaits only a signature. As so often happens, the mediators (Pakistanis and Qataris) hope to manage both sides by telling one side that the other party is at the brink of agreement when it is not so, especially in […]

from TheFreedomArticles: TRUTH LIVES on at https://sgtreport.tv/

from ZeroHedge: The Kremlin spent much of the last week warning foreign diplomats and bystanders to evacuate Ukraine’s capital, warning that an escalation in airstrikes is imminent, in response to Ukraine’s own drone swarms sent against Moscow and other Russian sites last month – especially the Starobelsk dormitory attack. “In response to terrorist attacks by the […]

from Judge Napolitano – Judging Freedom: TRUTH LIVES on at https://sgtreport.tv/

from Alex Christoforou: TRUTH LIVES on at https://sgtreport.tv/

Eighty-nine days of total digital blackout. Six hours of reconnection. A naval facility destroyed near Jask. The metadata trap has just snapped shut on the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps.

For 88 days, Iran’s southern provinces were cut off from the digital world. Tehran openly framed the move as a shield against foreign psychological warfare operations and against potential new connected military technologies that could give the United States a decisive advantage. It was a survival strategy for the fully networked age.

On the 89th day, the fiber-optic cables linking Bandar Abbas to Chabahar were switched back on. Six hours later, a strike bearing the unmistakable signature of U.S. Central Command (CENTCOM) destroyed a naval facility suspected of housing IRGC fast-attack boats roughly 15 miles east of Jask.

“If you connect to the internet, you die.” Brutal as it sounds, the phrase now sums up the operational doctrine taking shape in this part of the world.

88 Days in Digital Darkness

To understand what happened, one first has to grasp what those three months of electronic silence meant for American intelligence capabilities. The NSA’s SIGINT collection systems — capable of absorbing terabytes of communications and geolocation signals — were effectively running blind.

The IRGC Navy, meanwhile, had reverted to Cold War-era methods: couriers, field telephones, and short encrypted burst transmissions.

For an AI-driven command-and-control system like the American JADC2 architecture, this total disconnection created an intolerable fog of war. It became impossible to target the source of a swarm of kamikaze drones when the source itself was invisible.

The Crack: A Fatal Economic Decision

The reconnection was not the result of a coordinated strategy. It stemmed from a unilateral concession by President Pezeshkian under pressure from two fronts: petrochemical magnates in southern Iran and a hyperconnected population suffering digital withdrawal.

Eighty-eight days without SWIFT transactions or market access had drained the economies of the southern provinces.

According to reports, the decision was made against the explicit advice of IRGC intelligence services, which wanted the blackout maintained indefinitely in the name of operational security for naval exercises in the Gulf of Oman.

2:14 a.m. local time. The first data packets begin moving across the Iranian network. American passive collection systems activate immediately.

Resynchronization phase. Personal phones belonging to IRGC logistics officials — believing their devices undetectable thanks to new IMEI numbers — begin checking WhatsApp, Facebook, Instagram, and TikTok.

Less than six hours later, targeting algorithms detect a constellation of geolocated signals converging on a previously inactive site near Jask. The strike is authorized.

The Metadata Trap

Washington did not need to decrypt a single encrypted message. It only had to map the sudden aggregation of signals: the phone of a logistics coordinator heading to a depot, the tablet of a commander checking weather forecasts in the Gulf of Oman, the computer of a port official accessing a cargo manifest server. For JADC2, the veil had lifted. The target had become visible.

“The United States didn’t need to crack encrypted content. It simply mapped the sudden constellation of geolocated signals clustered around a known but previously inactive site. That’s the metadata trap. It’s always deadly,” according to a local source.

A Fracture at the Top of the Iranian State

The strike — reportedly carried out using a combination of carrier-based F-35Cs and a sea-launched Tomahawk missile variant — triggered an internal political crisis.

IRGC generals reportedly turned directly against the presidency, accusing it of having “opened a breach.” Pezeshkian’s advisers deny any direct causal link.

Iran announced retaliatory measures and condemned the attack as a violation of the ongoing ceasefire. An MQ-9 Reaper drone was reportedly shot down during the operation, and an F-35C is said to have come under fire.

This episode goes beyond the Iranian case alone. It sheds light on Russia’s sporadic internet shutdowns and on the ongoing overhaul of China’s Great Firewall.

In 2026, access to the electromagnetic spectrum has become both the first casualty — and the primary vector — of modern warfare. Restoring connectivity can itself become the trigger.

The United States has now established a precedent: reconnecting a hostile state to the internet is treated as a moment of exposure, one potentially warranting an immediate kinetic response.

Further reading: Strategika

The Internet: America’s Invisible Weapon of Strategic Dominance

Artificial intelligence, cyberspace, and satellite networks are redefining the art of war. In this new global battlefield, the United States maintains a strategic edge thanks to its control over the world’s digital infrastructure.

In the age of hybrid warfare and the digital battlefield, military superiority is no longer measured solely by armored divisions or nuclear arsenals. It now depends on the ability to effectively integrate artificial intelligence, space-based networks, and cyber operations into a global command architecture. In this decisive domain, the United States retains a major strategic advantage: its de facto sovereignty over the global Internet.

A Structuring Technological Dominance

The core architecture of the Internet — from undersea cables to root servers, including major digital platforms and technological standards — remains largely controlled by American actors or subject to U.S. jurisdiction. This reality gives Washington an unparalleled strategic lever, enabling it to exert decisive influence over information flows, global surveillance, and power projection capabilities in cyberspace.

At a time when warfare is becoming increasingly algorithmic, this structural dominance translates into a critical operational advantage. The power capable of merging massive datasets, space capabilities, and military AI gains an immediate upper hand over its adversaries. The United States, a pioneer in these fields, continues to hold a dominant position.

China and Russia Confront Digital Hegemony

For years, Beijing and Moscow have sought to free themselves from this strategic dependence. Alternative networks, sovereign Internet systems, independent navigation systems, national cloud infrastructures, and state control over digital infrastructure are multiplying. Yet these efforts face considerable technological, economic, regulatory, and geopolitical obstacles.

The global interoperability of the Internet, originally designed under American leadership, makes any attempt at decoupling extremely costly and inherently imperfect. Despite significant advances — particularly by China — no power has succeeded in creating a fully functional and universal alternative to the U.S.-dominated digital ecosystem.

Hybrid Warfare and “Decapitation” Operations

As long as this American sovereignty over the Internet endures, the world is likely to continue witnessing hybrid operations combining digital sanctions, information pressure campaigns, cyberattacks, and targeted actions against states considered strategically vulnerable. Some recent interventions, particularly in Latin America, have been interpreted by many observers as forms of political and economic “decapitation” operations aimed at indirectly controlling critical natural resources, especially energy resources.

This strategy fits within a broader logic of imperial survival. According to its critics, Washington is compensating for the erosion of its domestic economic model — marked by growing social polarization and structural fragilities — through an aggressive foreign policy based on technological and military projection.

A Silent Military Revolution

This American resurgence would not have been possible without a genuine revolution in military affairs. The integration of AI, autonomous drones, algorithmic intelligence gathering, and satellite networks has enabled the United States to transform past strategic setbacks into a new comparative advantage. Some analysts describe this as a “Type-T revolution,” in which technology compensates for industrial and social decline.

Toward a Fragmented Cyberspace?

The central question remains: how long can this hegemony endure? The growing number of digital conflicts, the gradual fragmentation of the Internet, and the rise of national technological sovereignties could eventually challenge the existing order. For now, however, American dominance over the world’s invisible infrastructure remains one of the fundamental pillars of its global power.

L’article Iran: How the return of internet access triggered a U.S. strike est apparu en premier sur FrenchDailyNews.

One week after Donald Trump, Vladimir Putin is traveling to China for a 48-hour official visit aimed at strengthening the comprehensive partnership and strategic cooperation between Russia and China.

A Diplomatic Trip Rich in Geopolitical Symbolism

Putin’s visit to China, expected on Tuesday, May 19, is part of a carefully planned diplomatic strategy. The timing is no coincidence: it coincides with the 25th anniversary of the signing of the Treaty of Good-Neighborliness and Friendly Cooperation, a landmark agreement signed by the two countries in 2001.

This treaty holds major significance in Sino-Russian relations, as it marked the end of decades of mutual mistrust, border disputes, and geopolitical rivalries that characterized the Soviet era.

The timing of the visit is particularly revealing of current international dynamics. By arriving in China one week after Trump’s departure from Beijing, Putin creates a symbolic succession that deserves close analysis. This diplomatic “passing of the baton” among the world’s three major powers offers a valuable lens through which to observe today’s balance of power and each country’s positioning strategy.

Strengthening the Comprehensive Strategic Partnership Amid Global Turbulence

The official purpose of the visit is clear: to reinforce the comprehensive partnership and strategic cooperation between Russia and China.

Beyond formal statements, however, the trip carries deeper significance for both governments. Moscow is seeking to consolidate its ties with Beijing at a time when the international environment has become highly volatile.

Dmitry Peskov, spokesperson for the Russian presidency, said on Friday that the trip would be “a good opportunity to exchange views on the contacts the Chinese have had with the Americans.”

This statement clearly shows that trilateral diplomacy lies at the heart of the visit. Russia wants to understand how China is negotiating with the United States and ensure that Russian interests are not sidelined in Sino-American discussions.

An “Eternal Friendship” Tested by Geopolitical Realities

The concept of an “eternal friendship” between Russia and China, frequently reaffirmed by both powers, is a central element of their diplomatic rhetoric.

However, this visit demonstrates that both countries are actively seeking to prove the strength of their ties in the face of current global upheavals. The phrase itself is revealing: it implicitly acknowledges that the international order is going through a period of major instability.

For Xi Jinping, the meeting with Putin offers a valuable opportunity to present himself as a world leader committed to geopolitical balance and harmony.

By hosting Trump and Putin in succession, the Chinese leader positions himself as a potential mediator in global conflicts and as a guardian of international stability. This posture significantly enhances China’s prestige and influence on the world stage.

The Dynamics of a Three-Way Geopolitical Rivalry

The triangular relationship among the United States, Russia, and China now shapes global geopolitics as a whole.

Every bilateral meeting between two of these powers is closely watched by the third as an indicator of emerging alliances and growing fractures. Putin’s trip to China must therefore be understood within this three-dimensional strategic framework.

Russia, while a major regional power, remains economically secondary compared with China. As a result, Moscow must continually reaffirm the importance of its partnership with Beijing.

This relative asymmetry helps explain why Russia places such importance on diplomatic rituals and public displays of strategic friendship. Maintaining strong ties despite structural imbalances is essential to preserving international equilibrium.

Toward a New Global Geopolitical Architecture

This visit takes place during a period of profound transformation in the international order.

China’s rise, Russia’s return as a disruptive power, and shifts in American foreign policy have created an environment in which old certainties no longer apply.

Diplomatic exchanges between Beijing and Moscow are therefore strategically crucial to maintaining stability in international relations.

The strengthening of the Sino-Russian partnership is not necessarily intended to form an alliance against the United States. Rather, it aims to establish a balance of power capable of withstanding external pressures and attempts at hegemony.

In this context, strategic cooperation between Russia and China has become an essential stabilizing factor in contemporary global geopolitics.

Putin has arrived in Beijing and received the same “warm welcome” package as Trump: a red carpet, the PLA Tri-Service Honor Guard, and the jumping children…

Xi Jinping can be heard saying “hello” (“你好,” nǐ hǎo) to Putin.

Will Putin be able to achieve his 4 goals mentioned… https://t.co/OxMXG3l3Uq pic.twitter.com/TUENKMajcy

— Inconvenient Truths — Jennifer Zeng Reports (@jenniferzeng97) May 19, 2026

 

L’article Putin in China : Diplomatic Choreography in Response to Trump est apparu en premier sur FrenchDailyNews.

The Director of National Intelligence is reigniting the debate over risky research conducted outside U.S. territory, accusing the Biden administration of having concealed the true extent of American involvement.

Director of National Intelligence Tulsi Gabbard has announced the launch of a large-scale investigation covering more than 120 biological laboratories operating in approximately thirty countries and receiving U.S. government funding. More than forty of these sites are located in Ukraine. The initiative, led by the Office of the Director of National Intelligence (ODNI), is part of the Trump administration’s broader effort to overhaul research practices related to gain-of-function studies involving dangerous pathogens.

Serious Accusations Against the Previous Administration

In her official statement, Gabbard sharply criticized officials from the Biden administration as well as former senior health officials, including Dr. Anthony Fauci. She accuses them of having deliberately downplayed — or even concealed — the true scope of U.S. involvement in overseas research on high-risk pathogens.
“The COVID-19 pandemic revealed the catastrophic global impact that research on dangerous pathogens conducted in biological laboratories can have,” said Tulsi Gabbard, Director of National Intelligence.
Under the new directive, intelligence agencies are tasked with reviewing all laboratories in question: what pathogens are being studied, what experiments are being conducted, and whether this work poses a threat to public or national security.

Ukraine at the Center of Tensions

The investigation also reignites the controversy surrounding Ukrainian biological laboratories. During the Russian invasion in 2022, the Biden administration had denied the existence of any American installations in Ukraine — until Victoria Nuland, a senior State Department official, acknowledged in congressional testimony the existence of biological research sites, whose contents U.S. authorities feared could fall into Russian hands.
According to U.S. authorities, some of these laboratories were originally funded under the Pentagon’s Cooperative Threat Reduction program, established after the Cold War to prevent the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction.

A Murky Financial Record

The Pentagon’s oversight body had previously determined that more than $1.4 billion had been committed abroad for gain-of-function-type research between 2014 and 2023. It also acknowledged its inability to fully account for all experiments conducted on potentially enhanced pandemic pathogens.
The National Institutes of Health (NIH) had separately concluded that research conducted at the Wuhan Institute of Virology between 2014 and 2021 had violated the terms of its grants, having increased the infectivity of bat coronaviruses by up to 10,000 times — while formally denying any direct link to the origin of the pandemic.

The Pentagon’s Response

“The previous administration funded dangerous gain-of-function research and foreign biological laboratories with American taxpayer money, then deliberately hid it from the American people. The era of lies and betrayal is over,” added Pete Hegseth, Secretary of Defense.
Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth expressed his full support for the initiative, aligning himself with the rhetoric of rupture championed by the Trump administration since the beginning of its term. President Trump had also previously signed an executive order banning federal funding for gain-of-function research in countries deemed insufficiently regulated, such as China and Iran.

Sources: ODNI (Office of the Director of National Intelligence), Pentagon, congressional hearing transcripts.Sonnet 4.6Adaptatif

Ukraine : The Pentagon’s biological laboratories exist

L’article Biological Laboratories: Investigation into 120 Sites Funded by Washington est apparu en premier sur FrenchDailyNews.

Just as the European Commission was polishing up its new plan to ban all supplies of Russian gas disaster struck and at the worst possible moment.

By Robert Harneis

The Ban was announced to take effect in stages up to November 1st 2027. After that no more Russian gas and then as a result of the US Israeli attack on Iran, Teheran closed the straits of Hormuz and Qatar declared ‘force majeure and its inability to fulfill gas contracts. One fifth of global LNG gas passes through the straits. This comes as France and Germany have critically low levels of gas in storage – 21% and 20% respectively.

Record imports

Europe imported a record 142 billion cubic meters of LNG in 2025, a 28% increase from the previous year. US supplied 55% of Europe’s LNG imports last month, while Russia contributed just over 25%, In January, the EU’s monthly LNG imports from Russia hit a record high of 2.3bcm, up more than 10% y/y and nearly a fifth of all LNG imports.
President Putin chose this moment to observe that maybe it would be better if Russia stopped supplies to Europe immediately and got on with finding other more reliable trading partners as soon as possible.

New markets for Russia

““Other markets are opening now,” Putin said in an interview with state TV. “Maybe it’s better for us to end supplies to the European market right now? To go to those markets that are opening now and get a foothold there.”
At least half of Russia’s LNG exports already go to Europe but now without the Qatari supplies, the demand in Asia will spike and, Russia should be able to redirect all those exports to markets in Asia without difficulty.
Putin met Hungarian foreign minister Peter Szijjarto at the Kremlin on March 5 and said that Moscow intends to maintain supplies to what he described as reliable partners within Europe. Russia “remains ready to deliver energy resources to those who want to work with us,” he said, referring to Hungary and Slovakia as continuing customers.

To the highest bidder

He twisted the knife further reminding Brussels “there are customers who are ready to buy this natural gas at a higher price. In this case, this results from the developments in the Middle East and the closing of the Strait of Hormuz, and so on. Once you have these premium buyers on the market, this means, and I really believe that this is the case, that some suppliers who have been serving the European market for quite some time now, for example, the United States and US companies, will definitely switch to the highest bidder. This is quite natural.” He said.

Dictature du réel, les livraisons de gaz liquéfié russe vers la France ont augmenté de 41 % en 2023. Avec le retrait du gaz nord américain, la Russie pourrait devenir le premier exportateur de GLN vers la France. C’est aussi bien que par #nordstream2 mais c’est quatre fois plus… pic.twitter.com/G9Mla5LKYy

— Stratpol (@stratpol_site) February 11, 2024

 

L’article Putin has the last laugh est apparu en premier sur FrenchDailyNews.

The United Kingdom government has denied Moscow’s claim that the UK and France have been secretly working on providing Ukraine with a nuclear weapon. The French government has issued a denial through its Moscow Embassy.

By Robert Harneis

Russia’s foreign intelligence service, SVR, has publicly claimed that the UK and France are “actively working” on providing Ukraine with a nuclear weapon, or a radioactive makeshift “dirty bomb”. The claim has been referred to by President Putin and his spokesman Dimitry Peskov.
The UK Prime Minister’s official spokesman claimed in a statement; “This is a clear attempt by Vladimir Putin to distract from his heinous actions in Ukraine… There is no truth to this.”

Illegal transfer of components

The intervention by President Putin indicates that the Russians take the claim seriously. Russia’s Foreign Intelligence Service state that Britain and France are actively working to resolve the issue of providing Ukraine with nuclear weapons and their delivery systems. “This involves the covert transfer of European components, equipment, and technologies in this area. One option being considered is the French TN75 small-size warhead from the M51.1 submarine-launched ballistic missile,” the statement reads.
According to the SVR, British and French elites believe that Kyiv would be able to secure more favorable terms for ending the fighting if it possessed a nuclear bomb or at least a so-called dirty bomb. “The British and French recognize that their plans constitute a gross violation of international law,” the statement continues.

A flagrant violation of international law

If true, this would be a serious breach of the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons (NPT). London and Paris allegedly risk undermining the global non-proliferation system. “Consequently, Westerners are focusing their efforts on making Kyiv’s acquisition of nuclear weapons appear to be the result of Ukrainian development,” the SVR wrote in their statement.
Putin’s press secretary, Peskov, called information about the possible transfer of a nuclear bomb to Kyiv extremely important and dangerous for the non-proliferation regime. “This is a flagrant violation of all norms and principles, and relevant acts of international law,” he emphasized. Meanwhile, Vladimir Putin’s aide, Yuri Ushakov, told the Vesti news service that Moscow intends to inform Washington of the possible transfer of nuclear weapons to Kyiv from London or Paris.

Clichés

According to the official Russian government news agency Tass, Deputy Speaker Konstantin Kosachev, of the Russia Federation Council, has commented that the statements issued by the French and British embassies denying plans to arm Ukraine with nuclear weapons appear to be nothing more than rehearsed clichés, lacking depth or credibility, according to Federation Council.
Kosachev criticized these responses, stating, ‘The comments from the relevant press services – particularly, in France, not even from the government ministries but solely from the embassy here in Moscow – are simply pre-cooked clichés that add no real value. They deny the findings of the Russian Foreign Intelligence Service.” He further pointed out that these statements fail to confirm that the involved countries are adhering to their obligations under the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons.

France’s awkward position

Britain has no independent nuclear weapons and depends entirely on US supply and consent for use. France is in a more embarrassing position as it has full control of its nuclear arsenal. The idea that Washington knew nothing about any of this – if it is true – is far-fetched. But it seems at the moment it suits Moscow to appear believe it.

L’article An Anglo-French plot to arm Ukraine with a nuclear weapon? est apparu en premier sur FrenchDailyNews.