Latest news with #Soviet-made
Reuters
6 days ago
- Business
- Reuters
Bulgaria secures Citi to help finance nuclear expansion at Kozloduy site
July 16 (Reuters) - Bulgaria has secured a partnership with U.S. bank Citi (C.N), opens new tab to finance the construction of nuclear power units at Kozloduy NPP, marking the country's largest energy project in decades, its energy ministry said on Wednesday. Energy Minister Zhecho Stankov held final talks in New York with Citi's leadership, agreeing on financing for units 7 and 8 at the Bulgarian nuclear site that will use Westinghouse's AP1000 technology. "The agreement with Citi is an essential step for the successful implementation of the government's priority energy project, ensuring energy independence and long-term stability," Stankov said during the meeting with Stephanie von Friedeburg, Citi's Global Director of Public Sector Banking. For Citi, serving as exclusive coordinator and arranger of export credit, the deal represents its largest nuclear financing project in Central and Eastern Europe, according to the ministry statement. It did not specify the exact amount of financing agreed and Citi was not immediately available for comment to Reuters. Kozloduy is Bulgaria's only nuclear power plant and dates back to the 1970s. It has two 1,000 megawatts Soviet-made reactors in operation. Four others were closed by 2007. Under the expansion plans, unit 7 would be ready by 2033 and unit 8 would follow at a later stage. South Korea's Hyundai Engineering & Construction ( opens new tab received parliamentary approval in Bulgaria in February to advance discussions on building two nuclear reactors with a combined capacity of 2,300 MW.
Canada News.Net
6 days ago
- Politics
- Canada News.Net
Zelensky withdraws Ukraine from landmark anti-mine treaty
Kiev has been actively using the banned munitions in Donbass despite being a signatory of the convention Ukraine officially suspended its participation in the Anti-Personnel Mine Ban Convention on Tuesday. The respective bill was passed by the country's parliament and signed into law by Vladimir Zelensky. The landmark agreement, also known as the Ottawa Treaty, bans the use, production, stockpiling, and transfer of anti-personnel landmines. Ukraine joined the treaty in 1999 and ratified it in 2005. In announcing the decision, Zelensky claimed that it was necessary to withdraw from the convention to reach "at least parity" with Russia. Russia, as well as the United States, China, and several other countries, had never been a signatory to the treaty. Kiev has never been fully compliant with the Ottawa Treaty, as it failed to destroy the vast stockpiles of anti-personnel mines that it inherited after the collapse of the Soviet Union. Ukrainian forces have been actively using the banned munitions since the early stages of the conflict in Donbass, which erupted in the aftermath of the 2014 Maidan coup. Ukrainian troops have often been seen deploying various anti-personnel mines, including Soviet-made MON-family directional mines, as well as the notorious scatterable PFM-1 'petal' mines. The latter munitions, which are deployed through multiple rocket launcher-fired projectiles, have been repeatedly shot into densely populated civilian areas. According to the Ottawa Treaty, a party to the agreement is allowed to withdraw from it "six months after the receipt of the instrument of withdrawal by the Depositary," i.e. the UN Secretary-General. If the country is engaged in an armed conflict when this period ends, the withdrawal will not take effect until hostilities cease. Ukraine's withdrawal from the treaty, first announced by Zelensky on June 29, has been criticized by human rights groups. The use of anti-personnel mines only inflicts more casualties "over the short and long term," Mary Wareham, deputy director of the Crisis, Conflict and Arms Division at Human Rights Watch, told the Kyiv Independent. "Given that Ukraine is in the midst of a war, this is a symbolic move aimed at giving Ukraine political cover to flagrantly violate long-standing prohibitions on developing, producing, and using anti-personnel mines," she stressed.
The Hill
25-06-2025
- Politics
- The Hill
The Korean War started 75 years ago and is still going
At dawn on June 25, 1950 — 75 years ago today — soldiers of the communist Korean People's Army crossed the 38th parallel in a coordinated strike south into the non-communist Republic of Korea. Behind a rolling barrage of artillery, the Korean People's Army, with Soviet-made tanks and aircraft, advanced quickly. The Republic of Korea's Army, unprepared and poorly equipped, suffered heavy losses. Within three days, the North Koreans occupied the South Korean capital, Seoul, and President Syngman Rhee — a protean, brutal autocrat — made a temporary capital in Busan on the south coast. The Korean War has never formally ended. Although an armistice was signed on July 27, 1953, the conflict remains legally paused, and no peace treaty has ever been agreed to. The Democratic People's Republic of Korea and the Republic of Korea remain separated, north from south, by a 160-mile demilitarized zone that is patrolled by 2 million soldiers. The U.S. had not expected a war in Korea. The division of the country into a Soviet-sponsored north and an American-backed south was a temporary post-World War II measure, pending reunification. When the Republic of Korea was established in 1948 and began forming its own military, President Harry Truman created a U.S. Military Advisory Group to train and support Rhee's forces. The U.S. military presence was withdrawn in 1949, leaving only 200 to 300 advisers. Secretary of State Dean Acheson outlined U.S. policy in Asia in his 'Perimeter Speech' in January 1950, but his perimeter did not include Korea. A CIA memorandum the same month described a North Korean invasion as 'unlikely.' Then the invasion happened. It was immediately condemned by the U.N. Security Council. Washington could not allow South Korea to fall to communism, as a non-hostile Korea was essential for the security of Japan, the lynchpin of American policy in the region. Gen. Douglas MacArthur was placed in charge of the United Nations Command — still in existence today — to defend South Korea. By the beginning of 1951, there were 498,000 United Nations ground troops in Korea, half of them American. The active conflict phase of the war lasted for three years, with the loss of 35,000 American lives. Today, U.S. Forces Korea numbers around 28,500. Truman never referred to the conflict as a war but rather a 'police action' under U.N. command. Yet Korea is the ultimate 'forever war,' the lack of a formal treaty rather than an armistice making it easily America's longest conflict. It also prefigured some features of modern warfare, not least in in Ukraine. The very messiness of definition and outcome in Korea has contemporary resonance, given the difficulty of imagining what a settlement between Ukraine and Russia might look like today. It was also a war conducted at several levels: the acknowledged protagonists were the American-led U.N. coalition on one side against North Korea and (after October 1950) China on the other, but the Soviet Union supplied equipment, aircraft and pilots to North Korea. As with Ukraine, Western nations were unprepared and ill-equipped to fight in Korea after drawing a huge peace dividend from the end of World War II five years earlier. Between 1945 and 1947, the U.S. armed forces reduced its personnel by nearly 90 percent, the U.K. by 85 percent. As America adapted to a defensive posture, much intellectual and administrative energy was consumed by the closer integration of the armed services in the National Security Act of 1947. In a similar way, Western nations have rapidly depleted their peacetime inventories of arms and ammunition in supplying Ukraine. The conflict has also forced the U.S. and its allies to reexamine organization, strategy, tactics and doctrine at a breathless pace. The specter of nuclear weapons hung over the Korean War. At a press conference in November 1950, Truman, pressed on potential use of the atomic bomb, said 'there has always been active consideration of its use.' He denied that it required the authorization of the U.N., insisting 'the military commander in the field will have charge of the use of the weapons, as he always has.' A press release issued later that day tried to downplay, but not rule out, this prospect. 'Consideration of the use of any weapon is always implicit in the very possession of that weapon,' it read. 'However, it should be emphasized, that, by law, only the President can authorize the use of the atom bomb, and no such authorization has been given.' MacArthur asked for discretion as commander in the field to use nuclear weapons, then submitted a list of targets for which he would need 34 atomic bombs. His request was denied, but not as a matter of policy. The Joint Chiefs of Staff would consider the nuclear option again after MacArthur was relieved in April 1951. America had only lost its nuclear monopoly in 1949, when the Soviet Union detonated its first fission bomb, but by 1951 it maintained a massive numerical advantage over the U.S.S.R. There was still a lively debate about whether the atomic bomb was a weapon like any other, albeit vastly more powerful, or a fearful class apart. Vladimir Putin has several times during the war in Ukraine attempted to use his strategic and tactical nuclear weapons as a threat and deterrent. Seventy-five years on, we are all still playing an unknown game, as nuclear weapons have never been used since August 1945. No one knows — nor can know — where the limits are or what the consequences might be. Despite 35,000 American dead, the Korean War is often dubbed 'the forgotten war.' That may stem from its lack of genuine conclusion and the absence of a clear narrative. But if history does not repeat itself, it can often rhyme, and Korea has sometimes found its counterpart in Ukraine. Seventy-five years after the Korean War began, that alone is worth pause for reflection. Eliot Wilson is a freelance writer on politics and international affairs and the co-founder of Pivot Point Group. He was senior official in the U.K. House of Commons from 2005 to 2016, including serving as a clerk of the Defence Committee and secretary of the U.K. delegation to the NATO Parliamentary Assembly.
The Print
18-06-2025
- Politics
- The Print
Iran and Israel are fighting their demons, not a war. They are prisoners of their nightmares
This week, Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu has made clear he is hoping to provoke regime change in Iran. This strategy isn't born out of madness. While the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA)'s assessments suggest Iran's uranium enrichment programme has been hit hard, hardened facilities like Fordow and Isfahan seem to have escaped damage. Few experts believe Israel will be able to permanently halt a future Iranian push for a nuclear bomb through military means alone. Five times, the mad faith of Iran's revolutionary soldiers almost overran the armed forces of Iraq: Each time, Iraq hit back at its enemy's cities with Soviet-made combat jets, artillery, and SCUD missiles. The so-called War of the Cities would claim some 12,240 lives, historian Egle Murauskaite has estimated. The war itself claimed well over 10,00,000 lives. Each carried his death with him: a symbolic funeral shroud and a headband wrapped around his head proclaiming the greatness of Allah, as well as a plastic key slung around his neck, which promised him entry to paradise. The soldiers of the Iranian Basij militia, some as young as 12, marched towards the Iraqi lines. Some blew up on anti-personnel mines in their path, others fell to gunfire or poison gas, and still others died by electrocution from the live wires that had been laid through the ditches. The bodies would later be bulldozed into a single mass grave . The poet Qaisar Aminpour, a child of Iran's revolution, wrote of the War of the Cities: 'I said to myself that the deformed lines of my poem Are no better than the houses in the town. Let my poem, like the people's clay houses be shattered, ruined, soaked in blood.' Each missile falling on Tel Aviv and Tehran is driven by primal fears: Israel's fears of annihilation by a theocratic regime which has often made genocidal threats, and Iran's experience of the slaughter of a generation, which the West enabled and encouraged. This is not a war of strategic ends, but one shaped by nightmares. Also read: Israel crushed Ayatollah's regime, but stopping Iran's nuke programme will need total overthrow The shadow of the bomb The facts show this war isn't about an imminent nuclear threat. Iran, the IAEA knows, conducted several experiments on bomb-components before 2003, at secret facilities in Turquzabad, Lavizan-Shian, Varmin, and Marivan. Even though the work ended, that knowledge remains, and the country also has upwards of 400 kilograms of uranium. Tulsi Gabbard, the United States' Director of National Intelligence, said in March that Iran was not building a nuclear weapon, and most experts believe it would take at least two years to produce one. Israel's calculation, clearly, has little to do with these timelines. Instead, it believes circumstances allow it to crack open the clerical regime. From 2023, a conjunction of interests—as well as Russia's growing preoccupation with the war in Ukraine—enabled Israel to work with Turkey to dismember Bashar al-Asad's military regime. That meant Iran could no longer supply Hezbollah, its proxy in Lebanon. Iran was thus at its weakest position in decades. Tehran had long known it was operating from a position of military weakness. The country's doddering Air Force operated aircraft purchased before 1979, and Russia was no longer in a position to supply it with modern equipment. From 2005—sensitive to sanctions issues, but also the concerns of Saudi Arabia—China discontinued military supplies, providing ballistic missile components, but not combat aircraft or modern air-defence systems. In essence, Tehran was left with one weapon in its arsenal: The missiles it had hoarded since the War of the Cities, threatening its enemies with the carnage it was once subjected to. Air defence, though, has dramatically improved in the last two decades, making the threat less fearsome than it once was. Except, that is, if one of those incoming missiles is mounted with a nuclear bomb—and that's a prospect Israel hopes it will never have to confront. To make sure, though, Israel has to do more than bomb Iran's nuclear plants: The Ayatollahs will have to be overthrown, once and for all. Also read: No country can stop Israel-Iran war now. For Netanyahu & Khamenei, it's a zero-sum game Is a coup possible? There is a curious feature of Iran, which marks it out from its region. Each of its neighbours and near-neighbours—consider Pakistan, Iraq, Qatar, Afghanistan, Turkey, and Egypt—has suffered a military coup d'etat since the 1979 revolution. The Shah of Iran, Mohammad Reza Pahlavi, maintained tight control of his commanders, binding their career prospects to his patronage, and encouraging them to undermine each other. Likewise, the Islamic regime used networks of clerics to tightly bind its armed forces to its ideological project, much like militaries in the Soviet Union, China and Vietnam, political scientists Rebecca Cann and Constantin Danapolous write. Lessons were learned from the errors of the Shah, who lavished favour on his élite of 50,000 troops, leaving a resentful rank-and-file of 120,000 conscripts who defected to the new regime. Iran's regular army, of some 220,000 conscripts, are relegated to low-grade roles guarding the border. The regime's core military functions are vested with the Islamic Revolution Guard Corps, some 100,000 strong. Like Pakistan's Army, the IRGC is tied to the regime by financial interests, which run across construction, the oil and gas sector, and even Iran's financial, banking, and telecommunications. As scholars Hesam Forozan and Afshin Shahi have written, efforts by reform-minded leaders like President Mohammad Khatami were undone by the IRGC's commanders, who threatened to use force unless liberalisation was rolled back. Khatami's successor, President Hasan Rouhani, failed to touch the IRGC's economic interests, despite his promises to end nepotism and corruption. The IRGC has consolidated its hold, putting up former members for election in key positions. Israel's assassination campaign in Iran, named Operation Rising Lion, has targeted these key pillars of the establishment: Iran's Chief of General Staff, Mohammad Hossein Afshordi aka Mohammad Bagheri, worked his way up after joining revolutionary forces as a 20-year-old in 1980; IRGC's Aerospace Force commander Brigadier General Amir Ali Hajizadeh fought in the Iraq war at 19. Easing out these top leaders, though, isn't the same as creating an alternative. The large-scale protests by youth seeking greater cultural and social freedoms in 2023 demonstrated there was a depth of resentment against the regime's sclerotic theocratic ideology. Yet, it also demonstrated the absence of any organised force to push it. Forces like the Mujahideen-e-Khalq, the country's largest dissident group, provide cadre and operatives to Mossad, but have no political legitimacy or base within Iran. Also read:Iran-Israel conflict: Decades of covert operations and proxy warfare to current confrontation The missed off-ramp Iran's existential paranoia, and American blindness, led it to miss the chance to emerge as a prosperous state at the heart of the Middle East. Following 9/11, Tehran reached out through Switzerland, offering cooperation against Al-Qaeda. The positive momentum, though, was shattered by President George Bush, who infamously named Iran as part of an Axis of Evil. The threat of regime change—disastrously exercised in Iraq, with Netanyahu promising removing Saddam Husain would have 'positive reverberations'—pushed Iran into a corner. Iran agreed to end enriching uranium in the 2015 deal, brokered by President Barack Obama. The deal was killed-off by President Donald Trump, though, in 2018. Iran could have given up its uranium enrichment programme after the deal collapsed, and worked with European powers and Saudi Arabia to bring about its reintegration into the international system. The regime, however, decided to hold out for more—with consequences that have proved catastrophic. For its part, Israel needs to consider the disasters that could lie ahead. Iran now has good reason to move rapidly towards producing a nuclear weapon, to secure regime survival. The regime might well be stopped through war, but a chaotic and dysfunctional Iran will give space to organisations like al-Qaeda and the Islamic State. This, without doubt, will have dangerous consequences in Israel's near-neighbourhood, including Syria, Egypt and Lebanon. Leaders awake to the abyss that lies ahead are needed—but there are no signs of any, not in Tehran or Tel Aviv, nor in Washington. Praveen Swami is contributing editor at ThePrint. His X handle is @praveenswami. Views are personal. (Edited by Prashant)
France 24
11-06-2025
- Politics
- France 24
New Russian bomber spotted in Mali as Wagner Group leaves the country
The Wagner Group, a paramilitary organisation founded in 2014 by Yevgeny Prigozhin, a close associate of Russian President Vladimir Putin at the time, has been supporting the Malian Armed Forces (FAMA) in their fight against jihadists in the Sahel region since 2022. However, a short-lived rebellion by the group against the Russian government in June 2023, followed by Prigozhin's death in a plane crash two months later, sealed the mercenaries' estrangement from the Putin administration. The same year, the Russian Ministry of Defence established another paramilitary group, known as the Africa Corps (or Russian Expeditionary Corps). The group is recruiting for missions abroad and is expected to take over from Wagner Group in Mali. On June 6, the Wagner Group announced on its Telegram account channel the completion of its "main mission" in Mali. The group boasted of having "eliminated thousands of militants and their commanders who had terrorised the civilian population for years", and claimed to have "helped local patriots build a strong and disciplined army". Rumours have been circulating on pro-government accounts in Mali for several months suggesting that Su-24M jets have been delivered to the Malian army. The Su-24M is a two-seat, variable-sweep wing tactical bomber. It entered service in 1983, but has never been deployed in Mali. A Su-24M spotted in a satellite image at Bamako airport It turns out the aircraft has been in Mali since at least April 14, 2025. A satellite image taken on that day by Maxar, and provided to FRANCE 24, shows a Su-24M bomber parked on the tarmac in the military section of the Bamako airport. Its folded wings and fuselage shape make the aircraft easily recognisable. Speculation about its deployment had been rife for months, fuelled by numerous rumours (more on that below). But why is there so much interest and misinformation surrounding an old Soviet-made aircraft? This question is especially pertinent given that the Malian army already operates another Soviet-era ground-attack aircraft, the Su-25. What makes the Su-24M's arrival particularly significant, however, is that it arrives alongside a new unit of Russian paramilitary forces, the Africa Corps. The group is set to replace the Wagner Group which announced its departure on Friday, June 6. Africa Corps: Russian pilots behind the Su-24M In a May 20 social media post, the Africa Corps, a group with close ties to the Russian Ministry of Defence, published photos clearly showing the cockpit of a Su-24M. Yet, the Africa Corps does not mention Mali in its statement. The group merely states that the Su-24M jets are 'carrying out bombing strikes against camps of militants of terrorist organisations in an African country'. Africa Corps is also known to be deployed in Mali's neighbouring countries, Burkina Faso and Niger. The arrival of the aircraft coincides with an ongoing change in Russian command in Mali. Mercenaries from the Wagner Group had previously overseen operations in the northern part of the country, but the arrival of new convoys of military equipment has been documented in recent months. These convoys may also be linked to the deployment of the Africa Corps group. 'Russia wants to strike harder' Russia's deployment of Su-24M aircraft signals an intent to increase its aerial bombardment firepower and intensity, according to Red Samovar, an analyst specialising in Russian aviation: Clearly, this deployment indicates Russia wants to strike harder by deploying the Su-24M, which has a higher ammunition capacity than the Su-25 [Editor's note: which the FAMA are currently using]. Given the situation in Mali, it's highly probable Russia has deployed the Su-24M to enable more massive strikes using both unguided and guided bombs, compared to the Su-25. The Su-24M can carry up to seven tons of weaponry [unlike the Su-25, which has a four-ton capacity]. This enables a broader range of mission capabilities. The Su-24M is a tactical bomber designed in the 1970s for very low-altitude flights to penetrate enemy air defences. This deployment suggests a recycling of Russian aircraft no longer needed in Ukraine, where they've been replaced by the Su-34. These older aircraft can still be useful for several more years in less 'demanding' environments. False rumours anticipating a very real deployment For several months, images allegedly showing the Su-24 bomber in Mali have been circulating on social media. For instance, this video shared on X on April 28 by an account favourable to the Malian government, purportedly shows a Su-24 aircraft flying over Bamako. Although this video features a Su-24M aircraft, it was not filmed in Mali, but rather in Russia. The footage was published on YouTube in October 2020 on the RUplanes channel, which is dedicated to Russian military aviation. The video circulating on Malian accounts simply adds a zoom effect but uses the exact same content as the Russian source. Another video, shared on X by another account supportive of Mali's transitional authorities on May 22, also claimed to show a Su-24M aircraft in service with the Malian army. However, the video does not show a Su-24M, but rather an L-39 Albatros, an aircraft in service with the Malian air force. We cannot rule out that the images were taken in Malian airspace, but it is impossible to geolocate the video. Further images of the Sukhoi Su-24 have reportedly been captured from the vicinity of Bamako airport. Among these, a photo dated March 26 appears more credible than previous videos. According to analysts specialising in Sahelian armies, this photo is believed to be a screenshot from a TikTok video taken on the outskirts of Bamako airport. However, the low quality of the image makes it impossible to find the original video and confirm whether the Su-24M was already deployed as early as March 2025.
