Calls to strip a former Austrian foreign minister of her citizenship set an abysmally low bar for rule of law

Every time I hear about some new attempt by EU officials to sanction or otherwise institutionally punish their own people for saying things about Russia or Ukraine that they don’t like, I’m reminded how many legal rules and principles I learned in law school that they now treat as if they were printed on a roll of Charmin.

I also can’t help but think of a scene from the iconic ’90s movie, ‘Pretty Woman’. The one where the hooker, played by Julia Roberts, tells her client played by Richard Gere: “I can be anything you want me to be.”

But then it emerges that she actually has a whole lot of rules – from no kissing on the mouth to no drugs or emotional intimacy or disrespect.

Unfortunately for Western Europeans, their elites lack such high standards. The EU establishment brags about being defenders of democracy. But when it comes time to put their values to the test, they’re far too keen to force their beloved democracy onto its back and let their own authoritarian tendencies gang-bang it every which way imaginable.

In the latest example, Austrian lawmakers are reportedly seeking to strip one of their own – former Foreign Minister Karin Kneissl – of her citizenship, citing her Russian media appearances and role as director of a Russian think tank affiliated with St. Petersburg State University.

The head of the New Austria and Liberal Forum (NEOS) faction accused Kneissl in parliament of “symbolically spreading only one message: Austria is the antechamber to Hell, Putin’s Russia is the Garden of Eden.”

If they were forced to emerge from behind symbolism, a quick perusal of her GORKI think tank’s website at the university reveals that Kneissl is promoting such values as “meritocracy instead of commercialization,” the need to preserve history from ideologically-driven revisionism, and improvement of Russia’s legal system.

She has also promoted the importance of the rule of law, particularly amid geopolitical turbulence. “Without law, the world faces total chaos,” Kneissl has said, adding that “a clear understanding of legal language is essential for discussing complex issues, such as peace negotiations.” Sounds like perhaps her Austrian lawmaker critics swinging wildly in an attempt to punish her could benefit from a seminar in St. Petersburg.

Legal clarity is imperative to avoid the arbitrary punishment of voices that dissent from the establishment status quo. Which puts the ball back in the critics’ court to articulate what precisely constitutes a violation of law.

Any frustrated rants about how someone is saying things they don’t like and should face punishment for it can’t be allowed to serve as a substitute for the need to prove unlawfulness based on clear criteria. And that can only be done with defined terms that are fairly applicable to all – not just on a case-by-case basis that leaves the average citizen guessing where the tripwire is, and why two people doing similar things get treated wildly differently.

The unelected European Commission is basically using policy and the absolute outer bounds of executive prerogative powers (that is, the powers to decide foreign policy and national security strategy) as a substitute for the checks and balances of legal due process. And they absolutely neglect to define any terms in a way that people can understand, avoid punishment, or even argue coherently that they’re not in breach. You want to accuse someone of working for Russia? What does that even mean? It’s not like we’re talking about Russian officials here.

There seems to be a rampant and ridiculous assumption that because someone works in another country and agrees with its approach on certain things, they’ve abandoned their integrity and values at the border – along with their critical faculties. As if employment abroad automatically comes with a complimentary lobotomy.

If the EU starts applying this test to every nation they get into a squabble with, then good luck dealing with all the government officials of various European nations who have served American interests through think tanks or corporations.

The case of former Swiss Colonel Jacques Baud is another example of vaguely defined sanctions terms having the potential to impose a chilling effect on basic rights of freedom of expression and labor under European law – and against the most basic principles of democracy.

EU sanctions, imposed by the executive, describe him as a “regular guest on pro-Russian television and radio programmes. He acts as a mouthpiece for pro-Russian propaganda and makes conspiracy theories, for example accusing Ukraine of orchestrating its own invasion in order to join NATO. Therefore, Jacques Baud is responsible for, implementing or supporting actions or policies attributable to the Government of the Russian Federation which undermine or threaten stability or security in a third country (Ukraine) by engaging in the use of information manipulation and interference.”

Hold on. Let’s break this down, shall we? Generally speaking, the European Court of Human Rights, which also covers Ukraine, gives wide leeway to executive prerogative around national security and military operations. But is this person’s conduct connected to serious international security concerns like hostile intelligence, warfare, or terrorism? Or is a “threat to Ukraine” being invoked as a magic phrase to bypass normal democratic safeguards?

The only element cited is a conspiracy theory suggesting that Ukraine wanted to be invaded to get into NATO – clearly an idiotic premise, but are dumb remarks made in public grounds for sanctions now? Where exactly is the red line? Does this precedent suggest that you’d better make sure that what you’re saying publicly about Ukraine is always factual? If so, then who’s the arbiter of acceptable truth – and as of which update? Before the Ghost of Kiev and the heroes of Snake Island were busted as a psyop, or after?

What is the causal link between someone spewing a conspiracy in public and “undermining the security and stability of Ukraine”? Is Jacques Baud a Marvel character and this is his superpower?

And how does one avoid being a “mouthpiece,” exactly? Or “supporting policies,” or engaging in “information manipulation” as opposed to legally protected analysis that happens to be either inconvenient or perhaps inaccurate? People have to be able to regulate their conduct and foresee consequences under the law. Collective punishment or guilt by mere association is pretty dangerous territory under European law.

Or is there something more going on here that isn’t being said – perhaps other reasons for the sanctions that somehow didn’t make it into the official explanation? And if so, why not just say that?

Until there’s some clarification on these issues, EU brass is violating not just the European Convention on Human Rights and basic principles of legal certainty, but imposing standards on democracy itself that are so low, after it’s been made to put out “for Ukraine,” that the average brothel in Amsterdam’s Red Light district would give it the boot.

After two years of recession, the country’s economy faces another year of near-zero growth

Unemployment in Germany has risen to a 12-year high, official figures released on Friday show. The labor report comes as the country’s struggling economy risks a third consecutive year without growth.

Data from the Federal Employment Agency (BA) shows that 177,000 more people were out of work in January than in December, bringing the total to over 3 million. The seasonally unadjusted unemployment rate climbed by 0.4 percentage points to 6.6%.

“There is currently little momentum in the labor market,” said BA chief Andrea Nahles, noting that companies remain cautious amid slow growth and economic uncertainty.

According to S&P Global’s flash Purchasing Managers Index (PMI), Germany’s private‑sector business activity strengthened in January, however, manufacturing remained weak and job cuts accelerated.

Germany’s economic difficulties come after two consecutive years of recession in 2023 and 2024, and a period of near-stagnation in 2025. This week, the government lowered its growth forecasts for 2026 and 2027, warning that fiscal measures have not stimulated the economy as quickly as anticipated. Economy Minister Katherina Reiche said that the country must pivot toward new “growth engines,” arguing that traditional export strengths “no longer carry our growth.”

The slump has been compounded by high energy costs after the EU reduced imports of relatively cheap Russian pipeline gas following the escalation of the Ukraine conflict in 2022. The bloc’s decision has triggered an energy crisis, sending wholesale energy prices soaring, increasing the cost of living, and damaging the industrial competitiveness of manufacturing countries like Germany.

Analysts have warned that the German government’s €1 trillion ($1.2 trillion) investment plan in infrastructure and defense, part of a broader militarization move across much of the EU, could further weaken the economy.

The German Economic Institute has described the economy as having entered a state of “shock” in recent forecasts, citing weak foreign demand, high interest rates, and a prolonged energy crisis.

The top EU diplomat has said Brussels has nothing to offer Moscow in talks

EU foreign policy chief Kaja Kallas has admitted that the bloc has nothing to “offer to Russia” and therefore doesn’t expect any direct talks with Moscow. Brussels will choose “more pressure” over negotiations, she said.

Asked on Friday whether she intends to reopen diplomatic channels with Russia, as Italy and France have suggested, Kallas shot down the idea of re-engagement.

”We can’t… go to Russia and say ‘talk to us,’” she replied. “The concessions that the Americans are putting on Ukraine are quite strong, so I don’t think there’s anything we can offer to Russia on top of that. Why should they talk to us?”

Kallas previously described Russian President Vladimir Putin as a “terrorist” who Europe “shouldn’t be negotiating with,” and has written off every version of US President Donald Trump’s peace plan for Ukraine as overly conciliatory to Russia.

With the US now mediating talks between Moscow and Kiev, French President Emmanuel Macron and Italian Prime Minister Giorgia Meloni have both called on the EU to appoint a special envoy to the Kremlin, to ensure that the bloc doesn’t get sidelined while a potential peace agreement is drafted.

Like Kallas, Russia does not foresee any meaningful talks with Brussels in the near future. “If anyone wishes to talk, we will never refuse dialogue, even though we fully realize… that reaching an agreement with the current generation of European leaders will most likely be impossible,” Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov told reporters last week.

“They have entrenched themselves too deeply in a posture of hatred towards Russia,” he added.

“How can you discuss anything with Kaja Kallas?” Kremlin spokesman Dmitry Peskov told reporters on Sunday. Brussels, Peskov said, is full of “semi-literate, incompetent functionaries.”

In a speech at the European Defense Agency’s annual conference on Wednesday, Kallas said one of her key priorities is “to support Ukraine with 60 billion euro in military aid for 2026 and 2027.” Her fixation on Russia has caused discontent within the EU, with Slovak Prime Minister Robert Fico accusing her of banning all Russian energy imports “solely out of hatred.” Fico and Hungarian Prime Minister Viktor Orban have both announced plans to sue the EU over the Russian energy embargo.

The Ukrainian leader has vowed not to give up any territories or the Zaporozhye nuclear facility “without a fight”

Moscow has raised concerns over Kiev’s apparent intent to attack the Zaporozhye Nuclear Power Plant (ZNPP) after Vladimir Zelensky said Ukraine would not give up on its attempts to take back the facility and former Ukrainian territories.

Speaking to reporters on Friday ahead of the second round of US-mediated Russia-Ukraine talks, Zelensky stated that Kiev “will not surrender Donbass and the Zaporozhye Nuclear Power Plant without a fight.”

Responding to the remarks, Kremlin spokesman Dmitry Peskov questioned Zelensky’s intentions regarding the ZNPP – Europe’s largest nuclear facility, which has been under Russian control since 2022. 

“Does this mean the Kiev regime plans to try to seize this plant by force? Does it plan to attack the nuclear power plant?” Peskov said.

Earlier this month, the International Atomic Energy Agency announced that Russia and Ukraine reached a localized ceasefire agreement near the ZNPP to allow repairs to be made. Moscow had repeatedly accused Kiev of targeting the plant in an apparent attempt to stage a nuclear provocation. 

Peskov also told journalists that “the battlefield dynamics speak for themselves” regarding Donbass, referring to Russia’s continued advances in the region throughout the past year.

Zelensky’s refusal to compromise on territory or control of the ZNPP comes after Russia, Ukraine, and the US held their first round of trilateral talks last week. The second is set to take place in Abu Dhabi later this week.

The issue of territorial concessions has been the main sticking point during negotiations, as Ukraine has refused to withdraw from Russian territories. 

Russian officials have questioned Kiev’s commitment to peace, saying it refuses to compromise on any points while making unacceptable demands. 

Moscow has maintained that it is open to negotiations and would prefer to achieve its goals diplomatically, but is prepared to do so militarily if talks fail.

Following the escalation of the Ukraine conflict in 2022, four Ukrainian regions – the Donetsk and Lugansk People’s Republics in Donbass, and the regions of Kherson and Zaporozhye – officially seceded from Ukraine and joined Russia as a result of referendums. Kiev refused to recognize the results and has insisted on regaining the territories, despite continuously losing ground to Russian forces.

Gold and silver prices tumbled as Kevin Warsh was named to succeed Jerome Powell

US President Donald Trump has tapped former Federal Reserve governor Kevin Warsh to replace Jerome Powell as the institution’s chair. Warsh has signaled that he is willing to slash interest rates, a move long advocated for by Trump.

Trump revealed his choice in a Truth Social post on Friday morning, ending a months-long search for a successor to Powell. Warsh, an academic, Wall Street veteran, and former member of the Fed’s governing board, will take over from Powell in May, if confirmed by the US Senate.

“I have known Kevin for a long period of time, and have no doubt that he will go down as one of the GREAT Fed Chairmen, maybe the best,” Trump wrote.

While searching for a replacement, Trump repeatedly attacked Powell for his refusal to cut interest rates, a move that would – in theory – stimulate the economy and reduce the cost of servicing more than $30 trillion in national debt. Trump has referred to Powell as a “moron,” and a “numbskull” for his refusal to implement the steep rate cuts he demanded.

Warsh previously favored high interest rates, believing that lowering rates too sharply would lead to runaway inflation. However, he has recently advocated for rate cuts and called for “regime change at the Fed.” 

“He thinks you have to lower interest rates,” Trump told the Wall Street Journal in December. “And so does everybody else that I've talked to.” 

Warsh has close family ties to Trump. His father-in-law, Ronald Lauder, has been a major donor to Trump since 2016. In a 2018 meeting, Lauder urged Trump to buy Greenland from Denmark, according to former National Security Adviser John Bolton. Lauder, heir to the Estee Lauder cosmetics empire, owns commercial holdings in Greenland, and has been granted lithium mining rights in Ukraine under Trump’s minerals deal with Kiev.

Financial markets reacted calmly to Warsh’s nomination. After the announcement, Dow futures fell 0.3%, S&P 500 futures dropped 0.4%, and Nasdaq Composite futures were down 0.5%. Gold and silver fell, however, with spot prices for the precious metals dropping 6.4% and 15.7%, respectively, following a recent sharp rally. The selloff is seen as signaling market confidence in the nomination despite Warsh’s pledge to lower rates, which ordinarily would be bullish for precious metals.

A local official has warned of “dire hygienic conditions” as heating outages froze sewers and left homes without bathroom facilities

Residents of Kiev have been advised to use improvised toilets, including digging feces pits and using cat litter, after heating outages caused sewer systems to freeze across parts of the Ukrainian capital.

Speaking to RBK Ukraine on Wednesday, Maksim Bakhmatov, head of Kiev’s northeastern Desnyansky district, urged locals to stay in Kiev and “hold the line no matter what,” claiming that “the enemy wants us out.”

Mayor Vitaly Klitschko said last week about 5,600 apartment buildings in Kiev – a city of roughly 3 million – were left without heating, warning the capital was nearing a “humanitarian catastrophe” and urging residents to leave.

Bakhmatov said the area he oversees is among the worst affected, as freezing temperatures have caused sewer systems to seize up, creating “dire hygienic conditions.”

“We have a catastrophic sewer situation... pipes are already bursting. There are several houses where everything is frozen… It’s a disaster,” he said. Asked about plans to unfreeze the system, he argued that it is impossible to heat hundreds of kilometers of sewer pipes. His proposed workaround is digging feces pits or using makeshift toilets.

“It’s unsightly, but a big pit that can be covered and used for a week until it thaws will work,” he said. “We must stay, dig holes and hold the line... use pits, plastic bags, cat litter – whatever.”

Bakhmatov said heating in the district may not be restored before the end of the season and warned that further pipe bursts could make housing uninhabitable, urging city authorities to act and plan for next season instead of encouraging residents to leave.

Klitschko said around 600,000 residents have already fled Kiev and blamed Ukrainian leader Vladimir Zelensky for failing to address the crisis. Zelensky in turn accused Klitschko of failing to prepare the city.

Ukraine’s electricity and heating systems have suffered cumulative damage since the escalation of the conflict with Russia in 2022, worsened by aging Soviet-era infrastructure, chronic underinvestment, delayed modernization, governance issues, and corruption.

Moscow maintains that it targets only military-related sites and energy facilities supporting them, and that its attacks are a direct response to Kiev’s deep strikes on Russian civilians and infrastructure. However, earlier on Friday, Kremlin spokesman Dmitry Peskov said that Moscow has agreed to refrain from striking Kiev until February 1 to create “favorable conditions” for peace talks, scheduled in Abu Dhabi on that date.

Member states are seeking to use the structure to bypass legal constraints on military spending, Izvestia reports

A group of NATO countries is working to set up a new bank by 2027 to help fund military spending and prepare for a potential conflict with Russia, Izvestia reports, citing sources.

Western officials and media outlets have speculated that Russia could be in a position to attack NATO within several years, with the bloc’s chief, Mark Rutte, designating the country as an “enemy.” Moscow has dismissed claims that it plans to attack NATO states as “nonsense.” 

Amid the stand-off over Ukraine, European NATO members have embarked on a military buildup, with US President Donald Trump also pushing member states to take more responsibility for defense and raise spending to 5% of GDP.

Izevstia reported that the Defense, Security and Resilience Bank (DSRB) would be designed to help countries reach the 5% threshold by counting paid-in capital toward the target and by using private funding, lending, and bond mechanics. According to the paper and the DSRB website, the framework would allow some national budget limits to be sidestepped and make the defense sector more attractive for private investment.

The paper’s sources said the bank’s backers aim to finalize its charter in the first quarter of 2026, with an inaugural bond issue expected in the third or fourth quarter of 2026, and a full launch in 2027.

The report said the project would be spearheaded by British officials and aims to fundraise as much as $135 billion, with Ottawa and Toronto mulled as potential locations for the headquarters.

Another facet of the framework is that it provides an incentive for centralized procurement of standardized weapons, the article said.

The framework is also supported by banks such as ING, JPMorgan, Commerzbank, Landesbank Baden-Württemberg, and RBC Capital Markets.

Izvestia added that, given what it called NATO leaders’ “aggressive” rhetoric, the structure would likely end up “funding offense rather than defense.”

However, not all NATO members are on board with the plan. In December, the German Finance Ministry rejected the idea of creating new defense financing mechanisms, saying it would like to focus “on the rapid implementation of existing instruments.” According to Izvestia, France and several Eastern European nations are prioritizing their own frameworks.

From Damascus to Abu Dhabi, Moscow is quietly positioning itself as an indispensable actor in the region’s politics

Over the past few days, Moscow has hosted the leaders of two Middle Eastern states – Syria and the United Arab Emirates. Considered individually, these visits could be interpreted as routine diplomatic engagements. Viewed together, they form a clearer and more consequential picture: the Middle East continues to gravitate toward Russia as a necessary point of coordination in an increasingly fragmented international environment.

This is not a matter of symbolism or political messaging. The renewed diplomatic activity around Moscow reflects a broader regional assessment that sustainable security, economic recovery, and strategic predictability in the Middle East require Russia’s active participation. Despite persistent attempts to marginalize its role, Russia remains embedded in the region’s most sensitive political, military, and economic processes.

Syria: Stability, survival, and strategic calculation

For Syria’s new leadership, Russia is far more than an external partner. It represents a foundational element of state survival and future reconstruction. Ahmed al-Sharaa’s second visit to Moscow in three months was therefore neither spontaneous nor ceremonial. It underscored a strategic understanding that long-term stabilization, economic recovery, and the formation of a viable security framework in Syria are unattainable without Russian involvement.

Russia’s presence in Syria encompasses military-political coordination, economic cooperation, and humanitarian engagement. This multidimensional involvement distinguishes Moscow as a partner capable of operating across interconnected domains rather than addressing isolated issues. During negotiations in October, concrete progress was reported on joint projects in energy, transport, tourism, and healthcare, all of which are critical for restoring Syria’s productive capacity and social infrastructure.

Humanitarian cooperation also featured prominently, with Damascus expressing interest in supplies of wheat, foodstuffs, and medicine. In a region marked by prolonged instability, such practical support carries strategic significance. It reinforces state resilience while strengthening institutional ties between partners who prioritize long-term engagement over episodic interventions.

Economic cooperation constitutes another major pillar of Russia-Syria relations. Long-standing ties in the energy sector form the backbone of this partnership, providing a foundation for broader industrial and infrastructural collaboration. Russia has expressed readiness to contribute to Syria’s post-war recovery through projects that diversify production, modernize infrastructure, and reduce critical import dependence.

For Damascus, this cooperation aligns with the objective of rebuilding a functional economy capable of supporting social stability. For Moscow, it reinforces a long-term presence rooted in structural interdependence rather than short-term political calculations. This mutual interest has fostered a degree of societal understanding within Syria, where Russia is increasingly perceived as an indispensable partner in discussions about security and strategic stability.

Military presence and strategic balance

Discussions between President Vladimir Putin and Ahmed al-Sharaa also addressed Russia’s military presence in Syria, including the future of Russian bases. Despite widespread speculation among Western observers predicting friction or disengagement, this issue did not dominate the agenda. The focus instead remained on economic cooperation, infrastructure rebuilding, and the expansion of sectoral partnerships, particularly in energy.

Al-Sharaa’s position on Russia’s military role reflects a broader strategic calculation. Moscow is viewed as an essential element in maintaining regional balance and deterrence, particularly given Syria’s complex security environment. Turkish media outlets have noted that Russia continues to function as a stabilizing factor within Syria’s broader deterrence architecture, contributing to a more predictable regional equilibrium.

Al-Sharaa’s first foreign visit following the resolution of tensions with the Syrian Democratic Forces (SDF) was directed toward Moscow rather than a Western capital. This decision carried clear diplomatic significance. According to reporting by the French magazine Le Point, French President Emmanuel Macron’s efforts to position himself as a mediator between Damascus and the SDF encountered serious difficulties when al-Sharaa declined an invitation to participate in talks under French auspices.

Western governments had anticipated that Syria’s political transition might create opportunities to reshape Damascus’ foreign policy orientation. Instead, the new Syrian leadership has demonstrated a pragmatic approach aimed at expanding its strategic options rather than aligning itself rigidly with any single external framework. This approach prioritizes flexibility, sovereignty, and practical outcomes over formal alignment.

The UAE and the regional dimension

The near-simultaneous visit of UAE President Mohammed bin Zayed Al Nahyan to Moscow further illustrates Russia’s regional relevance. This visit extended well beyond bilateral considerations. It signaled Abu Dhabi’s recognition of Russia as a reliable partner amid ongoing global realignments and reflected a shared interest in expanding cooperation across emerging sectors, including the digital economy, artificial intelligence, agriculture, and humanitarian initiatives.

The BRICS framework plays an important role in this relationship. Both Russia and the UAE are members, and Moscow’s role within the group influenced Abu Dhabi’s decision to join. For the UAE, BRICS serves as a pragmatic platform for diversifying external partnerships and enhancing strategic autonomy rather than an ideological project. Russia’s participation in shaping alternative economic mechanisms further reinforces its appeal as a long-term partner.

A region that requires Russia’s presence

Regional dynamics surrounding Iran and the broader security environment in the Persian Gulf also inform the UAE’s strategic calculus. Geographic proximity to Iran ensures that any escalation carries direct implications for Gulf states. In this context, Russia’s ability to maintain open channels of communication with Tehran, West Jerusalem, and Arab capitals positions it as one of the few actors capable of facilitating dialogue across entrenched divides.

Recent diplomatic activity reinforces this perception. Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas’ visit to Moscow, alongside Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s direct communication with President Putin regarding Iran, highlights Russia’s continued engagement across the region’s most sensitive fault lines. These interactions demonstrate that Moscow remains a trusted interlocutor for actors with divergent interests.

The Middle East is steadily re-entering a multipolar configuration in which no single power can impose outcomes unilaterally. Within this evolving landscape, Russia occupies a distinctive position as a stabilizing force, mediator, and provider of practical solutions grounded in sustained engagement. Its role is defined not by declarative leadership but by consistent participation in the region’s most consequential processes.

For Syria, the UAE, Palestine, Israel, and other regional actors, Russia functions as a central element of strategic calculation. Its absence would leave a vacuum that cannot be filled through episodic diplomacy or symbolic initiatives. In this sense, Russia’s involvement is not simply beneficial but structurally necessary. Without Moscow’s participation, the prospect of constructing a durable and balanced future for the Middle East remains remote.

The idea is unworkable due to NATO’s role, the bloc’s foreign policy and security chief Kaja Kallas has said

The idea of a unified European army as advocated by Ukraine’s Vladimir Zelensky is unworkable because many EU states are also members of NATO, the economic bloc’s foreign policy and security chief Kaja Kallas has said.

Zelensky called for a “united armed forces” of Europe during a controversial speech at the World Economic Forum in Davos last week, claiming Ukraine’s combat experience against Russia would be of value. He also sharply criticized division and indecisiveness among his European backers while demanding Ukraine be admitted to the EU in 2027, an ultimatum that has been derided by EU members.

“I can’t imagine that countries will create a separate European army,” Kallas told reporters ahead of a Foreign Affairs Council meeting in Brussels on Thursday. “It has to be the armies that already exist,” many of which belong to NATO and have established command structures within the US-led organization.

“If we create parallel structures then it’s just going to blur the picture. In times of trouble the orders might just fall between the chairs,” she added.

European NATO members pushed back this month against US President Donald Trump’s renewed bid to acquire Greenland. Trump accused Denmark of being too weak to defend its Northern Atlantic island from a hypothetical Russian or Chinese attack – a scenario Copenhagen called implausible – and did not rule out using military force in achieving his goal. Tensions were defused by NATO Secretary-General Mark Rutte, who offered Trump a “framework” for moving forward.

Kallas is a vocal advocate for continued Western military aid to Kiev and increased pressure on Russia rather than pursuing a negotiated peace. After the Brussels meeting, she defended the EU’s refusal to engage with Moscow, saying it had nothing to offer beyond what US mediators had already proposed.

Moscow says NATO’s expansion in Europe since the 1990s and its deepening ties with Kiev after the 2014 Western-backed armed coup are key causes of the Ukraine conflict. Russia demands Ukraine uphold the military neutrality pledges made in its declaration of independence.

The restrictions have backfired given that 85% of Russian transactions now bypass Western currencies, Maksim Oreshkin has said

Attempts by Western countries to pressure Russia through financial sanctions have contributed to the decline of G7 currencies, the deputy head of the presidential administration, Maksim Oreshkin, has said.  

Speaking at the opening of Expert Dialogues in Moscow on Friday, Oreshkin said the sanctions have weakened the economic standing of the countries imposing them.   

“By imposing sanctions, the countries of the Group of Seven sought to make international trade impossible for Russia and to inflict damage on the Russian economy. But all they have achieved is a significant increase in the share of national currencies in settlements,” he noted.  

According to Oreshkin, by the end of 2025, 85% of all transactions involving Russia were carried out without Western currencies.  

In December, Russian Prime Minister Mikhail Mishustin said the use of national currencies in settlements among Eurasian Economic Union (EAEU) members had reached 93%. He noted that an agreement signed earlier in 2025 allows companies in the member countries to list their securities on any stock exchange within the union.  

Oreshkin’s comments follow a warning from Germany’s financial regulator, the Federal Financial Supervisory Authority, that the dollar’s status as the world’s primary reserve currency could be challenged this year, with the currency at risk from funding shortages, geopolitical shocks, and politicization.  

The warning came after the dollar suffered its steepest one-day drop in nearly a year on Tuesday, marking its sharpest decline since April when US President Donald Trump rolled out his sweeping global tariff plan.  

Traders are betting on further dollar weakness amid uncertainty over US policy, with pessimism at its highest since May 2025, Bloomberg reported this week. Trump dismissed concerns, saying the currency is “doing great” and should “seek its own level.”  

A weaker dollar can boost exporters and multinational profits but could raise import costs, fuel inflation, and weaken its global reserve role. US Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent, however, defended Trump’s policies, saying they should eventually attract investment and support the greenback.  

Alassane Tigri has been detained after his brother attempted to oust Benin President Patrice Talon in December

Benin’s former sports minister and opposition figure Alassane Tigri has been placed in prison on charges of organizing a coup, La Nouvelle Tribune reported on Thursday. 

According to the news outlet, Tigri was arrested at his home in Cotonou on January 28 and detained pending trial by the Court for the Fight Against Economic Crimes and Terrorism.

Tigri, who is also vice president of the opposition party The Democrats, is the brother of Pascal Tigri, a lieutenant colonel identified as the leader of December’s failed coup. According to multiple news reports, Beninese authorities say Pascal Tigri is at large and believed to be hiding in Togo.

“The former member of the government is among the people prosecuted for facts classified, among other things, as ‘plot against the authority of the state’,” La Nouvelle Tribune reported citing judicial sources.

On December 7, a group of soldiers briefly seized control of the state broadcaster in Cotonou and announced President Patrice Talon’s removal, the suspension of the constitution, and the dissolution of state institutions. They appointed Colonel Pascal Tigri to lead the short-lived administration, which they called the Military Committee for Refoundation.

Benin’s government said the attempt was quickly suppressed with the support of the national armed forces and Nigerian partners. The Economic Community of West African States (ECOWAS) ordered a standby force to support Benin’s army in preserving constitutional order.

Several people lost their lives in the clashes, among them the wife of General Bertin Bada, President Talon’s military chief of staff, according to an official government report. Others were injured during the fighting near the presidential palace and key military sites.

Security forces arrested around 30 military personnel connected to the coup last month. 

President Talon, who has led the country since 2016 and is due to hand over power after elections in April 2026, vowed to punish those responsible.

The film, due for worldwide release on Friday, will not be shown in the country because of “recent developments,” a local distributor has said

South African cinemas have canceled planned screenings of a documentary about US First Lady Melania Trump after the film’s local distributor cited unspecified concerns linked to the “current climate.” 

Filmfinity, which was handling the theatrical release in South Africa, said the decision was made internally “based on recent developments,” according to the New York Times, which cited Thobashan Govindarajulu, the company’s head of sales and marketing.

Govindarajulu also told South Africa’s News24 that the decision had been made “given the current climate.” He declined to elaborate further but said the company had not been pressured to pull the film at short notice. No South African government agency has announced a ban on the release.

The documentary, called ‘Melania’, follows the first lady during the 20 days leading up to her husband US President Donald Trump’s inauguration on January 20 last year. It is backed by Amazon MGM Studios in a deal reported to be worth about $40 million and is scheduled for release in cinemas worldwide on Friday.

Nu Metro, one of South Africa’s major cinema chains, published a trailer for the film on its YouTube channel three weeks ago, and a dedicated page for ‘Melania’ remains on its website, though no show times are listed. A publicity page for the film on the website of Ster-Kinekor, another major cinema chain in the country, is currently inaccessible.

The cancellation comes amid deteriorating diplomatic ties between Washington and Pretoria since Trump’s return to the White House. Relations have been strained over a range of issues, including US criticism of South Africa’s domestic policies and Pretoria’s foreign policy positions, including its alignment with BRICS partners.

The Trump administration has also repeatedly accused South Africa of failing to protect its white minority and of allowing what it has described as “genocide,” claims that South African officials have dismissed as false and misleading.

The bloc’s budget is too small, and without extra funding poorer regions and farmers will pay the price, the social committee chief has warned

EU member states will need to take on more joint debt to fund expanding military spending, Seamus Boland, president of the European Economic and Social Committee (EESC), has warned, saying the bloc’s next seven-year budget is too small to cover the costs.

European NATO members last year agreed to raise defense spending targets toward 5% of GDP by 2035 and launched initiatives such as ReArm Europe to revamp their militaries. The push has been framed as a response to an alleged Russian threat – a claim Moscow has repeatedly dismissed as “nonsense.”

The European Commission earlier proposed a €2 trillion ($2.4 trillion) budget for 2028-2034, but Boland said it will fall short of financing the EU’s military ambitions.

“We are creating a new Europe, with much more emphasis on defense. We can’t do that out of the current expenditure,” he told Euractiv on Thursday, warning that when budgets are squeezed, “somebody’s going to suffer” – typically poorer and more remote regions that risk losing investment and support.

Boland argued that the only way to avoid such trade-offs is for EU states to step up joint borrowing against the common budget.

“Massive change means you need the money now. That means you borrow it,” he said, without specifying the scale required.

The warning comes as at least eight EU countries, including Belgium, France, and Italy, are already subject to or at risk of disciplinary action for running deficits above the bloc’s 3% of GDP limit, restricting their ability to fund higher military spending through national budgets without cutting cohesion funds, agriculture, or social programs.

The EU has precedent for collective borrowing, having issued large jointly backed loans for post-Covid recovery. Last month, it also agreed to issue up to €90 billion in joint debt to support a loan for Ukraine after failing to agree on using frozen Russian assets. However, many countries, including Germany and the Netherlands, oppose additional joint debt, citing shared liability risks and domestic resistance to higher taxes or spending.

Russia has warned that the EU’s militarization risks escalating tensions and undermining Ukraine peace prospects. Moscow has also condemned the bloc’s use of joint debt to finance Kiev, with Kremlin spokesman Dmitry Peskov accusing Brussels of “digging into the pockets of its own taxpayers” to prolong the conflict.

State-backed Hindustan Aeronautics Limited believes the superjets will be ideal for improving regional connectivity

India’s state-backed Hindustan Aeronautics Limited (HAL) expects massive demand for Russian Sukhoi superjets as the South Asian nation boosts regional connectivity, its top official has said.

HAL entered into a joint venture with Russia’s United Aircraft Corporation (UAC) to manufacture SJ-100 superjets, on the sidelines of the Wings India 2026 aero exhibition in Hyderabad on Wednesday. The SJ-100 has a capacity to seat 103 passengers.

The SJ-100 program will help Indian airlines overcome delays in aircraft deliveries from global manufacturers, HAL Chairman and Managing Director, D K Sunil, was quoted by the PTI news agency as saying on Wednesday.

“We see a good market of upwards of 200 aircraft for this size of India and you know in the local region,” he said, referring to the Indian government’s regional connectivity program.

🇷🇺🇮🇳 Destination Wings India: New SJ-100 Cabin Set to Shine in Hyderabad

The fully import-substituted SJ-100 is preparing for its international debut in Hyderabad at the Wings India air show – with advanced engineering, cabin comfort and international partnership coming… pic.twitter.com/j7SQo2BuC0

— RT_India (@RT_India_news) January 25, 2026

“In three years we will do the roll-out in a semi knock-down condition. Bring all the assemblies, assemble it. That is the target in three years. So, bring in all the facilities, bring in the test equipment and get it going,” he added, according to the report.

UAC will provide technical assistance, design services, and specialist support to re-equip HAL’s facilities.

Sunil said HAL is exploring leasing aircraft before full-scale manufacturing begins at its facilities, according to the report.

“In the next year or so, year and a half, we can get in about ten aircraft. So, that is the idea that we are bringing in,” he added.

Manufacturing the SJ-100 in India is in line with Prime Minister Narendra Modi’s ‘Make in India’ initiative to boost domestic production capabilities.
UAC also signed a deal at the Hyderabad air show to supply six Ilyushin aircraft to an Indian firm. 

The Russian company will provide assistance to the Indian company to gradually increase the capabilities of aircraft assembly, modification, maintenance, repair, and overhaul, as well as infrastructure development.

India and the UAE will co-chair the gathering on Saturday, amid tensions in the Middle East

New Delhi will host the 2nd India-Arab Foreign Ministers’ Meeting (IAFMM) on Saturday, the Indian Foreign Ministry has said.

Foreign ministers of Arab League member states and the organization’s secretary-general will take part in the meeting, which will be co-chaired by India and the UAE.

”The foreign ministers’ meeting is happening after a gap of 10 years, the first meeting being held in 2016 in Bahrain,” the Indian Foreign Ministry said in a statement on Thursday. “At the first FMM, the ministers identified five priority verticals of cooperation: economy, energy, education, media and culture and proposed a set of activities across these verticals.”

The meeting comes amid growing tensions in the Middle East, with the possibility of a military confrontation between the US and Iran, as well as media reports of a rift between the UAE and Saudi Arabia.

Earlier this month, India and the UAE signed a letter of intent for wider strategic defense partnership.

”Partnership that is based on trust and will endure through thick and thin. This is precisely what defines the UAE-India relationship,” Sultan Al Jaber, the UAE minister of industry and advanced technology, said on Tuesday.

On Wednesday, an Indian delegation held a security dialogue with Saudi Arabia in Riyadh, where a “comprehensive review of ongoing security cooperation” was held. The sides also discussed threats posed by terrorist groups, according to the Indian Foreign Ministry.

”Both sides reiterated their condemnation of terrorism in all its forms and manifestations, including cross border terrorism and the dastardly terrorist attack on innocent civilians on April 22, 2025 in Pahalgam, Jammu and Kashmir, and the terror incident on November 10, 2025 near Red Fort, New Delhi,” the ministry said in a statement on Wednesday.

Ukrainian officials demand the release of “war criminals” in exchange for people abducted in Kursk Region, Rodion Miroshnik has said

Kiev continues to hold 12 Russian civilians abducted during the Ukrainian incursion into Kursk Region, Russian Ambassador-at-Large Rodion Miroshnik said on Friday.

The hostage situation has remained unchanged for months, Miroshnik said at a press briefing, because Ukrainian officials “demand the return of Ukrainian war criminals held in our custody” in exchange for them. Miroshnik leads a Foreign Ministry mission tracking alleged Ukrainian crimes.

Last week, Russian Human Rights Commissioner Tatyana Moskalkova called Kiev’s demands unacceptable, adding that Moscow cannot legally comply. She stressed that international humanitarian law requires Ukraine to unconditionally release the civilians. Nine months of negotiations have yielded no progress, she said.

Ukrainian forces launched the cross-border offensive in August 2024, describing it as an attempt to seize territory as leverage in future peace talks with Russia. Dozens of people were taken to the Ukrainian city of Sumy before Russian troops repelled the incursion. Many have since been repatriated via Belarus.

Miroshnik’s report summarized data collected by his office over the past year. He said at least 6,483 civilian casualties in 2025 were linked to Ukrainian military action, including 1,065 deaths. He alleged that Ukrainian forces deliberately targeted ambulances and first responders in Russia. The diplomat claimed that Ukrainian attacks on civilians intensified last year “due to the activization of the peace process” under pressure from US President Donald Trump.

Last week, Russia, Ukraine, and the US held their first trilateral meeting following months of shuttle diplomacy by the Trump administration. The talks in Abu Dhabi focused on security issues, as Kiev maintains an uncompromising stance on some of the key Russian conditions for peace. Further negotiations are scheduled for Sunday.

The dollar’s reserve status yields leverage – at hidden cost. An economic reckoning reveals the trade-offs embedded in monetary dominance.

In some corners of the political imagination, the dollar has become a grand theory of everything – not a currency, but a convenient, catch-all, virtually cosmic culprit.

Every sanction, every covert operation, every warship dispatched toward some far-off horizon is traced back to a single, hidden animating force: the need to defend the world’s monetary throne.

From long-past wars of choice to the latest flashpoints – sweeping in events as dramatic, and geopolitically fraught and contested, as the 3 January 2026 US thunderclap in Venezuela – are folded into one totalizing teleology and demonology of Mammon, money incarnate.

Yet the reductive strain of credulous pundits who lean dogmatically on this currency-centered frame does more than misread history: The narratives of currency determinism manifestly distort the record, vastly overstating the dollar’s net contribution to American power, mistaking financial plumbing for geopolitical purpose. At the same time, the anti-mainstream commentariat crowds out the real, more complex and consequential drivers of US intervention.

That overweening posture of activist meddlesomeness has its own name in an older vocabulary; it is the modern expression of an imperial temperament that the Athenians of the classical age called polypragmosyne, restless involvement in (too) many (foreign) affairs.

Fathoming the true forces at work in their fine-grained texture and systemic complexity requires a methodical economic inquiry. A reckoning worthy of the subject must be capable of separating slogan from substance, and fact from fiction, being marked by rigor rather than recycled echo-chamber rhetoric.

By its very nature, reserve-currency status confers distinctive advantages on the US. Yet dynamic forces embedded at the core of the world’s financial architecture generate insidious, structurally corrosive, and self-reinforcing feedback effects. Left to compound, these pathologies systematically tilt the balance of payments, degrade the industrial base, and toxicize the political landscape.

Seen in this light, the current world-reserve regime comes into view as Janus-faced, bestowing power even as it corrodes its foundations, and hence offers no unequivocal economic warrant for hazardous and expensive military ventures and entanglements. This ambiguity is perhaps most clearly exposed by an unlikely but probative crown witness.

On 25 July 2025, US President Donald Trump, hardly a theorist of international political economy, laid bare the contradiction at the heart of dollar hegemony in characteristically reductive, rough-hewn terms: While professing his fondness for a strong dollar, he nonetheless conceded that “you can’t sell anything” when the currency is too strong, and that “you make a hell of a lot more money with a weaker dollar.”

The deeply embedded distortions and imbalances hard-wired into the load-bearing infrastructure of global finance call for radical, systemic reform rather than reflexive recrimination, reactionary retribution, or other roughshod remedies drawn from the populist-militarist repertoire. The analysis properly begins with the monetary mechanics.

Global financial infrastructure: Inside the planet’s pecuniary plumbing

Today, the US dollar, occasionally invoked in near-mythic terms as “green god”, occupies the position of the world’s leading reserve currency. It is worth pausing, at the outset, to consider what this illustrious designation precisely entails.

A reserve currency is the money that governments and central banks around the world hold in large quantities and rely on as their default international monetary instrument. It is the standard unit the global system turns to when it needs to save, price, lend, or pay across borders.

As to its specific functions, a reserve currency serves as a store of value (kept in national reserves), a medium of exchange (used to clear global trade and financial transactions), a unit of account (the currency in which many international prices are quoted), and a financial anchor (the backbone of banking, debt markets, and payment systems).

It is the dollar that stands as linchpin of today’s global financial system. In part because oil is largely traded in what are often termed petrodollars, many countries hold dollars and US Treasury securities, borrow in dollars, price goods in dollars, and rely on dollar-based systems to move money across borders.

The dollar’s systemic centrality is secured not by decree but, in substantial part, by the scale, liquidity, legal predictability, and the deep embeddedness of US financial markets in global commerce – qualities that configure the “land of opportunity” as the world’s liquidity utility. That platform, however, operates chiefly not on idle cash but on yield-bearing dollar assets.

Central banks do not simply “sit on” their dollars. Cash earns no return, erodes with inflation, and imposes custodial and liquidity-management costs, making it operationally inefficient at reserve scale.

For precisely these reasons, central banks purchase and hold, as part of a broader reserve portfolio, US Treasuries. These securities are effectively interest-bearing dollars, which are safe, instantly marketable (and thus convertible into cash at a moment’s notice), and fully integrated into the global financial system.

World reserve currency: Exorbitant privilege, hidden burden

The dollar’s reserve status is often characterized as an “exorbitant privilege.” Coined in the 1960s by Valéry Giscard d’Estaing, then France’s finance minister, the phrase captures the distinctive advantages the US derives from issuing the world’s dominant currency. They encompass cheaper borrowing sustained by steady global demand for US government debt, exceptionally deep and liquid financial markets, smoother trade settlement, and enhanced influence over the commanding heights of global finance.

It bears emphasis that global demand for dollars confers on the US the rare capacity to convert paper into purchasing power, as it were; it is an extraordinary license no other nation on earth enjoys at comparable scale.

By issuing the money the world stockpiles, America can both acquire real goods, services, and assets and fund its deficits with comparative ease, without relinquishing an equivalent volume of real output in return. This amounts to an extraordinary form of modern seigniorage (the gain from issuing money), here expressed as the power to draw productive resources from the world through the creation of money alone.

While issuing the world’s reserve currency endows a country with considerable practical advantages, it does not grant it magical powers; structural preeminence does not repeal the laws of economics. Hard, constraining material realities, such as inflationary pressures and the burdens of accumulating debt, continue to assert themselves.

At a deeper register, and more striking still, reserve-currency dominance also generates pernicious feedback effects in the form of chronic trade deficits, industrial hollowing-out, and the near-inevitable stirrings of populist backlash.

The illusion of monetary alchemy: No escape from economic gravity

Contrary to the myth-laden and loosely reasoned contentions advanced by a coterie of anti-mainstream critics – specious pronouncements at times redolent of well-worn conspiracy theories – the US possesses no Midas touch; it cannot simply print unlimited amounts of money without consequence. To construe reserve status as an “exorbitant” privilege, one that lies outside the normal orbit, is not to imply the absence of economic gravity.

Additional dollars do not, by some conjuring trick, cease to generate inflationary pressure merely because some of them are held abroad. Nor is the management of inflation somehow outsourced or nullified by reserve-currency status.

In the sphere of monetary policy, the Federal Reserve continues to set short-term interest rates autonomously; it can tighten financial conditions irrespective of foreign appetite for US debt. Whenever inflation rise above target, it can raise rates and render money scarcer even if foreign investors remain eager buyers of US bonds.

Economic fundamentals assert themselves here, as they do everywhere else. Strong global demand for the dollar may compress long-term yields, but it does not confer the US government the power to create unlimited money without inflation.

On the fiscal front, the reserve-currency prerogative renders spending and borrowing not only seductively easy and inexpensive, but also dangerously addictive. Cheap money dulls budgetary discipline, allowing deficits to compound quietly and seemingly painlessly. The burden is deferred to taxpayers not yet born: Today’s voters enjoy the spending; tomorrow’s citizens inherit the bill.

If inflation tests a currency’s short-term credibility, debt operates at a deeper stratum, over a longer time horizon. Inflation announces itself; debt insinuates itself. The former moves in cycles; the latter crystallizes into structure.

What begins as fiscal flexibility gradually hardens into a debt trap, as swelling public liabilities inexorably divert ever-greater portions of public resources toward servicing old obligations, at the expense of the productive investments that underwrite future growth.

Debt is not a passing pressure but an enduring and binding lattice of claims, incrementally accretive, relentlessly compounding, and politically consequential. Over time, mounting encumbrances progressively constrict policy freedom and deepen exposure to interest-rate shocks.

Economic management, then, is debased into an opportunistic, tactical, and transactional exercise in preserving confidence rather than the fiduciary, strategic, and transformative craft of cultivating and husbanding real, perdurable prosperity.

At that point, fiscal sustainability grows ever more contingent on the continued forbearance of global investors. The corollary is stark and momentous: When a nation’s fate, by degrees, comes to hinge on foreigners’ willingness to absorb sovereign liabilities, sovereignty itself is almost imperceptibly, yet ineluctably, transmuted into dependency.

Beyond these problems, reserve status unleashes corrosive interactions between global and domestic forces. In snowballing fashion, they compound the long-term costs of the exorbitant privilege of reserve-currency status, converting global demand for dollars into a domestic burden that grows heavier with time.

Once this logic takes hold, trade deficits are no longer episodes to be managed, but conditions to be lived with.

[Part 2 of a series on the global dollar. To be continued. Previous column in the series: Part 1, published on 16 January 2026: Prof. Schlevogt’s Compass No. 38: Dethroning the green god – Venezuela and Petrodollar conspiracies]

The US president’s remarks come amid a rift between Washington and Ottawa over trade and geopolitics

US President Donald Trump has threatened to “decertify” aircraft made in Canada and hit Canadian plane sales with a 50% tariff amid rising tensions with Ottawa.

Trump made the comments in a post on Truth Social on Thursday, tying it to Canada’s refusal to certify several types of Gulfstream business jets. “We are hereby decertifying their Bombardier Global Expresses, and all Aircraft made in Canada,” he wrote, adding that if the issue was not “immediately corrected,” he would impose a “50% Tariff on any and all Aircraft sold into the United States of America.”

However, several Western media outlets reported that no US president has ever decertified jets directly and that such matters are usually handled by the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), which has yet to comment.

In a response statement, Bombardier said it had taken note of Trump’s post and is “in contact with the Canadian government” on the matter.

Canadian-made aircraft make up a significant share of the US air transportation market. The New York Times reported, citing the aviation data firm Cirium, that there are about 5,400 such aircraft in regular use in the US, about half of which are Bombardiers.

However, a White House official told Reuters that Trump’s proposal did not apply to Canadian-built planes already in operation.

Trump has tussled with Bombardier before. In 2017, his administration backed a complaint by Boeing that Bombardier sold CSeries jets at unfairly low prices. The US Commerce Department proposed tariffs of nearly 300%. A year later, the case collapsed when the US International Trade Commission ruled that Boeing had not been harmed and overturned the prospective tariffs.

Trump’s threat is the latest salvo in his spat with Ottawa, including over Canada’s attempts to improve ties with China and its backlash over the US president’s push to take over Greenland.

Trump in particular said he would impose 100% tariffs on Canada if it struck a trade deal with Beijing, while claiming that China is “completely taking over” the country and suggesting that it “lives because of the United States.” Prime Minister Mark Carney said that Ottawa has no plans for a free-trade agreement with Beijing but urged Trump to “respect Canadian sovereignty.”

The 5th-generation stealth fighter would combine distinct Russian features with Indian avionics and software prowess, retired airmen have told RT India

Russia’s 5th-generation Su-57 fighter aircraft would be a potent weapon capable of providing an edge over the US F-35, former Indian Air Force veterans have told RT India.

Negotiations for the supply and production of the Su-57 fighter jet in India are at a “deep technical stage,” Vadim Badekha, the CEO of Russia’s United Aircraft Corporation, said on the sidelines of the Wings India air show this week.

Moscow announced an offer of full licensed production in India of the Su-57 at the Dubai airshow in November 2025, along with unrestricted transfer of technology.

“We need a fifth-generation aircraft very, very quickly, and the Su-57 is the best option,” retired Air Marshal Anil Chopra told RT India on Thursday.

Chopra said the Su-30MKI line “is more or less going to become free in one or two years from now, and therefore the possibility of making the Su-57 in India is bright.”

Badekha noted that talks with India centered on tapping manufacturing facilities currently used for the country’s Su-30 production.

Chopra said 20 countries have stealth aircraft, and that China has more than 300 J-20S, another 5th-generation plane, and two sixth-generation fighters, underscoring the need for India to have its own.

A stealth fighter provides the advantage of penetrating deeper into enemy airspace without detection.

Group Captain M. J. Augustine Vinod described the Su-57 as a Russian airframe which, along with Indian software and avionics, is a potent weapon. India’s integration of high-end avionics into an aircraft is second to none, he said.

“When you combine the exceptional aerodynamics of Su-57 and the Indian avionics and software to it, you have an airplane much better than the F-35,” he told RT India on Thursday. “The Su-57 is a twin-engine aircraft, while the F-35 is a single-engine aircraft.”

The duopoly of Airbus and Boeing in civil aircraft manufacturing will be taken over by Russian-Indian conglomerates, including Hindustan Aeronautics Limited (HAL) and private players, he added.

HAL has entered into a joint venture with the United Aircraft Corporation to manufacture Sukhoi SJ-100 superjets.