Germany eyes military space spending splurge to counter ‘threats’ from Russia, China: Report
By Deng Xiaoci | Global Times | February 4, 2026
The head of German Space Command Michael Traut reportedly claimed that Germany is considering a 35 billion euro ($41 billion) military space push, including spy satellites, space planes and offensive lasers, citing so-called “threats” from Russia and China in orbit. Chinese analysts on Wednesday slammed the move as classic double standards and Cold War mentality, as it cites baseless China “threat” claims, while ignoring the fact that the US is the top driver of space militarization.
Speaking with Reuters on the sideline of a space event ahead of the Singapore Airshow, Traut claimed that the spending plan is “aimed at countering growing threats from Russia and China in orbit,” Reuters reported on Tuesday local time.
It is reported that Traut revealed that Germany will build an encrypted military constellation of more than 100 satellites, known as SATCOM Stage 4, over the next few years. He also claimed network would mirror the model used by the US Space Development Agency, which is described by the Reuters as “a Pentagon unit that deploys low-Earth-orbit satellites for communications and missile tracking.”
Chinese analysts pointed out that while turning a blind eye to the US, the main driver behind the militarization of outer space, Germany choses to hype a groundless space threat theory against China and Russia. This is a typical manifestation of deep-seated double standards and camp confrontation with Cold War mentality, analysts said.
This kind of double standard is blatantly obvious, military affairs expert Zhang Junshe told the Global Times on Wednesday. “The US is currently the country that has deployed the most military offensive assets in space. Yet now, while Germany wants to imitate the US and do the same thing, it turns around and make baseless accusations against China and Russia. This is textbook double standards, Zhang criticized.
Notably, US Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth has just expressively harped on the importance of “American space dominance,” and claimed that the US needs to “dominate the ultimate highground,” at Blue Origin rocket factory in Cape Canaveral, Florida, on US local time Monday, News Nation reported Tuesday.
Germany will channel funding into intelligence gathering satellites, sensors and systems designed to disrupt adversary spacecraft, including lasers and equipment capable of targeting ground-based infrastructure, Traut claimed in his interview with Reuters. He also pointed to so-called inspector satellites – small spacecraft capable of maneuvering close to other satellites – which he claimed Russia and China had already deployed.
Hype about the “China-Russia space threat” has become a form of political correctness among European countries. Regardless of the facts, they feel compelled to point the finger at China and Russia. As an established old-school Western power, Germany is no exception to this cliché, Song Zhongping, a military affairs expert, told the Global Times on Wednesday.
It must be emphasized that should this plan come to fruition, it would markedly heighten the intensity of the space arms race, Song noted.
Germany’s indigenous launch capabilities are woefully inadequate. If it turns to SpaceX’s Falcon 9 for these deployments, it would confirm Germany’s status as an immature and dependent space actor. Should it instead rely on foreign rocket systems, that reliance would primarily fall on the US – leaving Germany unable to shake off its profound strategic dependence on the US, Song warned.
Power outages in Russian region after Ukrainian attack – governor
RT | February 4, 2026
Ukrainian strikes have severely damaged energy infrastructure in Russia’s Belgorod Region, causing widespread power outages and disrupting heating and water supplies, Governor Vyacheslav Gladkov reported on Wednesday morning.
Emergency crews worked through the night to repair the damage following what he described as a massive attack.
According to the governor, the city of Belgorod was struck by 12 munitions and three drones, with energy facilities among the damaged targets. Drone and artillery attacks were reported across nearly a dozen other districts. In the village of Dunayka, a drone attack on a truck wounded a man, requiring hospitalization. Another civilian was injured by an FPV drone in the village of Glotovo. A volunteer fighter was also wounded in Borisovsky District.
Due to the extensive damage to the power grid, Gladkov ordered schools and vocational colleges in ten districts to switch to remote learning, with kindergartens operating in a limited capacity.
He warned residents that emergency power outages would be unavoidable during the restoration work.
On Wednesday, the governor of neighboring Bryansk Region, Aleksandr Bogomaz, reported that Ukrainian forces had also used US-made HIMARS rockets to strike residential buildings, seriously injuring a woman.
The cross-border attacks come ahead of more US-backed talks between Russia and Ukraine in Abu Dhabi. Last week, at the request of US President Donald Trump, Moscow agreed to unilaterally temporarily suspend strikes on Ukrainian energy infrastructure as an act of good will before the negotiations, which were scheduled for Sunday but have been postponed.
Trump stated that Russian President Vladimir Putin had “kept his word” and that the pause had indeed lasted for a week from Sunday to Sunday. Ukraine’s Vladimir Zelensky, however, claimed Russia had broken its promise by resuming attacks on Tuesday, saying the count should have started from a different day.
Ukraine & Europe Can’t Out Wait Russia /Alexander Mercouris & Lt Col Daniel Davis
Daniel Davis / Deep Dive – February 3, 2026
US and European forces could deploy to Ukraine under Zelensky plan – FT
RT | February 3, 2026
Kiev and its Western backers have drawn up a plan that envisages military forces from the US and European countries moving into Ukraine to fight Russian troops in the event that Moscow violates the ceasefire being demanded by Vladimir Zelensky, the Financial Times has reported, citing sources.
Russian officials, including President Vladimir Putin, have repeatedly rejected the idea of a ceasefire as a precursor to a peace deal, saying it would only be used by Kiev and its sponsors to rearm and regroup forces. Instead, Moscow has insisted that the conflict needs a permanent peace solution which addresses its root causes. Russia has also categorically ruled out the deployment of Western forces to Ukraine during or after the crisis.
During meetings in December and January, Ukrainian, European, and US officials agreed a “multi-tiered response” to breaches of a possible ceasefire by Moscow, the FT said in an article on Tuesday.
Three people familiar with the matter told the outlet that the counter-measures would come within 24 hours, starting with a diplomatic warning and engagement by the Ukrainian military.
If this failed to stop the fighting, the second phase of the plan would see an intervention by the so-called ‘Coalition of the Willing’, which includes numerous EU nations as well as the UK, Norway, Iceland, and Türkiye, they said.
In case the violation turned out to be extensive and extended beyond 72 hours, it would be met with “a coordinated military response by a Western-backed force, involving the US military,” the sources claimed.
The FT report comes ahead of the second round of talks between Russian, Ukrainian, and US delegations scheduled to take place in Abu Dhabi, UAE on Wednesday and Thursday.
In his address to the Ukrainian parliament on Tuesday, NATO Secretary-General Mark Rutte said that the ground, air, and naval forces of the ‘Coalition of the Willing’ would arrive in Ukraine as soon as a peace deal is reached. NATO countries will also help Kiev “in other ways,” he added.
Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov reiterated on Monday that the deployment of Western military units and infrastructure to Ukraine “will be classified as a foreign intervention posing a direct threat to Russia’s security.”
Putin warned last September that if any foreign troops arrive in the country, Russia will “proceed from the fact that these will be legitimate targets for their destruction.”
Russian Security Council Secretary Sergey Shoigu earlier said that the move could trigger World War III, potentially involving nuclear weapons.
Russia Vows to Protect Its Oil Tankers
teleSUR | January 30, 2026
On Friday, Russian Foreign Affairs Ministry spokeswoman Maria Zakharova announced that her country will take all necessary measures to protect its oil tankers, several of which have been seized in international waters.
“If the norms of international law are violated in relation to vessels flying our flag, Russia will take all measures at its disposal to defend them. Attacks on freedom of navigation are inadmissible,” she said.
Referring to Western sanctions used to justify the seizure of tankers belonging to the so-called “shadow fleet,” Zakharova said they run counter to international law and, in any case, cannot serve as a basis for exercising jurisdiction on the high seas and seizing vessels.
“Allusions to European Union sanctions, which French leaders arbitrarily describe as international, as grounds for adopting coercive measures against any vessel are absolutely untenable,” she insisted.
Russia adopted a very restrained stance in the case of vessels seized by the U.S. Coast Guard, as occurred earlier this year with the tanker Marinera.
Moscow’s position became much firmer in the case of the vessel Grinch, seized more than a week ago by French authorities between Morocco and Spain.
Western authorities have decided in recent months to intensify their pursuit of the fleet Moscow uses to circumvent sanctions on its oil exports, which have declined significantly since the end of last year.
Iran, China and Russia sign trilateral strategic pact
By Ranjan Solomon | MEMO | January 29, 2026
In a dramatic geopolitical development this afternoon, Iran, China and Russia formally signed a comprehensive strategic pact, marking one of the most consequential shifts in 21st-century international relations. While the full text of the agreement is being released in stages by the three governments, state media in Tehran, Beijing and Moscow have acknowledged the ceremony and described it as a cornerstone for a new multipolar order.
The pact comes against the backdrop of decades of growing cooperation between these three states. Iran and Russia earlier concluded a 20-year Comprehensive Strategic Partnership Treaty designed to deepen economic, political, and defence ties, and to blunt the impact of Western sanctions — a treaty that was signed in January 2025 and entered into force last year. Meanwhile, Iran and China have been bound by a 25-year cooperation agreement first signed in 2021, aimed at expanding trade, infrastructure, and energy integration.
What makes today’s signing significantly different, and newsworthy, is that it explicitly combines the three powers in a coordinated framework, aligning them on issues ranging from nuclear sovereignty and economic cooperation to military coordination and diplomatic strategy.
Officials in Tehran described the pact as a joint commitment to “mutual respect, sovereign independence and a rules-based international system that rejects unilateral coercion,” echoing similar statements issued by Beijing and Moscow.
What the pact represents
This agreement does not – at least from the initial public texts – constitute a formal mutual defence treaty akin to NATO’s Article 5, obligating one to defend the others militarily. Past pacts between Iran and Russia always carefully stopped short of a binding defence guarantee. Instead, the pact appears to link three major powers in a broader geopolitical coalition defined by shared opposition to Western military dominance and economic coercion.
Central to the agreement is a unified stance against reimposition of sanctions on Iran tied to its nuclear programme under the 2015 Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA). Tehran, Beijing and Moscow have previously issued joint statements rejecting European attempts to trigger “snapback” sanctions, and have declared the UN Security Council’s considerations of the nuclear deal terminated.
This trilateral pact is therefore as much about diplomatic leverage and strategic narrative as it is about concrete defence or economic mechanisms.
Immediate regional and global consequences
The pact’s signing coincides with heightened tensions between the United States and Iran. President Donald Trump has reiterated threats of military action against Iran absent a negotiated settlement on its nuclear activities, even deploying a US carrier strike group to the Middle East theatre. Against that backdrop, this new strategic pact serves both Tehran and its partners as a buffer against unilateral US military pressure. By presenting a united front, the three governments aim to compel Washington to negotiate from a position of constraint rather than dominance.
For the Middle East, the balance of power is reshaping. Iran, long isolated by Western policies — now claims the protection of two permanent members of the UN Security Council. This will embolden Tehran’s regional posture in theatres such as Iraq, Syria and the Persian Gulf, and complicate conventional deterrence strategies exercised by the United States and its Gulf allies.
For Europe, the pact undercuts Brussels’ ambitions to retain independent influence in Middle Eastern diplomacy. European powers have repeatedly attempted to revive elements of the JCPOA and threaten punitive measures against Tehran, but coordination by Iran, China and Russia has thwarted those efforts, exposing Europe’s diplomatic limitations in a world less anchored to Western consensus.
Economic repercussions
Economically, the deal signals deeper integration among three of the world’s most significant non-Western economies. Russia and China have already worked on investment protection and bilateral trade agreements designed to sidestep Western financial systems, such as SWIFT, which have been used as vectors for sanctions. A trilateral pact potentially accelerates the creation of alternative financial mechanisms and trade routes that further bleed Western economic leverage.
Iran — sitting on vast energy resources — gains broader access to markets and investment, especially as China continues its Belt and Road initiatives and Russia seeks alternatives to sanctions-laden European markets. In combination, these developments portend increased trade flows and reduced vulnerability to the US dollar-centric financial system.
Military and strategic dynamics
Although not a formal alliance, the pact strengthens military cooperation among the trio. China and Russia have conducted regular joint naval drills in the Indian Ocean and Gulf waters — exercises that Iran has participated in as well, signalling interoperability and shared security interests.
Strategically, the pact will likely lead to more coordinated defence planning and intelligence sharing, even if it stops short of a binding treaty that compels military intervention. For the United States and NATO partners, this raises the stakes in multiple regions: any escalation with Iran now risks broader strategic responses involving Beijing and Moscow, increasing the threshold for conflict and reducing the effectiveness of unilateral threats.
Longer-term global impact
In the long term, the pact accelerates the multipolar restructuring of international relations. For decades, the United States and its allies have dominated the architecture of global governance — from trade regimes to security pacts. A structured alignment of Iran, China and Russia signifies an alternative axis that challenges Western hegemony not through ideological competition but through pragmatic power balances.
Whether this pact evolves into a deeper defence agreement, or stays as a diplomatic and strategic framework, remains to be seen. What is indisputable is that the world’s power centre is shifting — not towards a simple “East vs West” dichotomy, but towards a more contested, multipolar world order where diplomatic leverage, economic resilience and military signalling converge in new and unpredictable ways.
Security Guarantees Supported by Russia Agreed on in Istanbul in 2022 – Lavrov
Sputnik – 29.01.2026
MOSCOW – Security guarantees supported by Russia were agreed on during negotiations with Ukraine in Istanbul in 2022, Russian Foreign Ministry Sergey Lavrov said on Thursday.
“Security guarantees were agreed in April 2022 in Istanbul, and the main draft of these guarantees was proposed by the Ukrainian side itself. We supported this project. Then you know the story when Boris Johnson, the then Uk prime minister, forbade them to sign the relevant agreement, which had already been initialed,” Lavrov told reporters.
Security guarantees to Kiev, which serve to preserve this regime parts of territories of former Ukraine, are unlikely to provide reliable peace, the minister said, adding that security guarantees agreed on in Istanbul in 2022 ensured security of both Russia and the region where Ukraine is located.
Russian oil major agrees sale of foreign assets to US firm
RT | January 29, 2026
Russian oil major Lukoil has said it has agreed to sell most of its international assets to American private equity giant Carlyle Group. The US has targeted Russia’s second-biggest oil producer with sanctions, forcing it to divest its overseas holdings worth $22 billion.
Washington has imposed broad sanctions on the Russian oil sector since the Ukraine conflict escalated in February 2022. Along with oil majors, including Rosneft, Gazprom Neft, Surgutneftegas, and their subsidiaries, the US has banned American firms from deals with Russian oil companies, joined the G7 price cap on Russian energy, and imposed restrictions on more than 180 oil tankers and ships.
Moscow has argued that the sanctions show that the West is scrambling to maintain dominance and is resorting to anti-democratic and anti-market practices to eliminate competition.
Lukoil said on Thursday that the transaction is subject to regulatory approvals, including clearance from the US Treasury’s Office of Foreign Assets Control. The company did not disclose the financial terms, but stressed it is continuing talks with other potential buyers. It noted that the deal doesn’t include its assets in Kazakhstan.
Last month, Reuters cited sources as saying that around ten global investors, including Exxon Mobil, Chevron, Carlyle, and Saudi Arabia’s Midad Energy, were interested in buying Lukoil’s assets.
A previous offer from Swiss-based trader Gunvor Group reportedly collapsed in November after the US Treasury accused the firm of having ties with Moscow. Gunvor, headquartered in Geneva, was co-founded in 2000 by Swedish businessman Torbjorn Tornqvist and Russian entrepreneur Gennady Timchenko. Timchenko sold his stake in 2014, when Washington targeted him with personal sanctions.
Founded in Washington in 1987, Carlyle Group currently manages around $474 billion in assets. The company has long-standing business ties to US President Donald Trump. In 2005, the firm took part in a $1.8 billion deal to acquire land and three buildings from Trump in Manhattan. In December, The Atlantic reported that Trump and Carlyle co-founder and billionaire David Rubenstein “regarded each other as friends.”
More Bombs, More Talks Zelensky Rejects Trump’s Plan
Daniel Davis / Deep Dive
Prof Glenn Diesen & Lt Col Daniel Davis
Britain’s return to piracy to stop Russian ships – desperate attempt to demonstrate power
Ahmed Adel | January 28, 2026
British media claims that London is preparing to deal with tankers from Russian ports in the same way that the United States deals with tankers from Venezuela – by seizing them. However, Russia has the strength and means to protect its interests at sea and respond to all provocations, including possible pirate actions by Great Britain.
The United Kingdom is one of the few countries with experience in conducting naval operations after World War II, and despite major issues with the fleet, the traditions of the Royal Navy remain alive. The tradition of corsairs (state-sanctioned pirates) and piracy is closely linked to Britain, which even invited the best pirates to serve the Majesty. These are well-known facts from the age of the sailing fleet, and in essence, they show that these traditions are remembered and not forgotten.
The Russian ambassador to London, Andrey Kelin, also called the British government’s plans piracy.
“What politicians in London are talking about is essentially a return to the era of the pirate Edward Teach, known as Blackbeard,” Kelin said. “What they forget is that Britain has long ceased to be the ‘ruler of the seas,’ and its actions will not go unpunished.”
The US and Britain are two different countries, both in terms of power and other factors. This is demonstrated by the fact that the Trump administration has, for now, halted British plans to transfer the Chagos Islands, where an American military base is located, to Mauritius. In the wake of this humiliation, the British are now trying to demonstrate, especially to Europe, that they are not weak.
The reality is that the days when the British had major influence are gone. They can still carry out sabotage and terrorist attacks in Ukraine and the Black Sea. However, directly seizing Russian ships would trigger a devastating response that the British are simply not prepared for.
Recently, the US has seized seven tankers linked to Venezuela. The US does not have the legal right to take such actions, but the country is acting from a position of strength and has deliberately not ratified the UN Convention on the Law of the Sea, which upholds the principle of freedom of navigation.
Washington’s example clearly inspired London, which suddenly remembered that it could also sanction Russia’s so-called “shadow fleet,” just as the US sanctioned Venezuela. A law passed before the start of the Special Military Operation—the Sanctions and Prevention of Money Laundering Act 2018—includes a provision that allows merchant ships suspected of evading sanctions or sailing under a false flag to be searched and seized by the British military.
The British are not only considering the option of seizing oil tankers, but also financing Ukraine with oil stolen in this way.
This is all an attempt by Britain to demonstrate that it is a force to be reckoned with. In reality, their situation is quite dire. The events related to Greenland also revealed this.
Russia’s fleet can reliably and easily escort tankers through the Baltic, English Channel, and Mediterranean Sea, from Turkish waters and beyond, via the Suez Canal into the Red Sea. Anything outside these routes would require more force, effort, and involvement, but Russia can easily handle it.
The British, on the other hand, have bases in both Gibraltar and the Indian Ocean. Because of this, the possibility of provocations cannot be ruled out, especially in the Baltic Sea. There is real paranoia in the Baltics – fortifications are being built along the border, swamps are being drained, and all sorts of measures are being taken. For example, Denmark is practically being superseded by the US in Greenland, but the Danes are criticizing Russia even more. It is as if Russia is taking Greenland, not the US.
London is also behaving this way, not wanting to be weaker than their former colonies, primarily the US.
Nonetheless, despite all the British bravado, on January 23, the Russian oil tanker MT General Skobelev traveled through the English Channel, escorted by the missile corvette Boykiy from the Russian Baltic Fleet, while two British Navy ships, HMS Mersey and HMS Severn, could only watch without attempting to intercept the Russian merchant vessel.
Britain’s political elite and its allies are considering various measures to put pressure on Russia. Ideas about the blockade of Kaliningrad are also emerging, while Britain is still one of the main sponsors of the Kiev regime and the main culprit for prolonging the war in Ukraine. Given this situation, which the Kremlin has not instigated, the most important thing is that the Russian Navy has the strength, capabilities, resources, and everything it needs to protect merchant vessels and tankers from British pirate raids.
Ahmed Adel is a Cairo-based geopolitics and political economy researcher.
G7 Hands Ukraine $40Bln Generated From Frozen Russian Assets
Sputnik – 28.01.2026
The G7 issued $37.9 billion in loans to Ukraine in 2025 using income from Russian assets, which is more than 70% of foreign financing for the Ukrainian budget, Sputnik’s calculations revealed on Wednesday.
Under a 2024 G7 plan, a $50 billion loan for Ukraine was approved, funded by proceeds from frozen Russian assets. As of December 31, 2025, $38.9 billion of this sum had already been allocated.
At the end of 2024, the United States was the first to transfer $1 billion, but since then, no further payments have been reported. The EU was the largest contributor to the scheme, providing Ukraine with $21.1 billion in loans. The remaining funds came from Canada, the UK, and Japan.
Apart from the G7 loan, Ukraine was handed an additional $12.1 billion from the EU, $454 million from Japan, $912 million from the International Monetary Fund, and $733 million from the World Bank in 2025.
In total, the Ukrainian budget raked in $52.1 billion from foreign creditors last year, 73% of which came from the G7 loan.
With the start of Russia’s military operation in Ukraine in 2022, EU and G7 members froze nearly half of Russia’s foreign currency reserves, totaling approximately 300 billion euros ($360 billion). Around 200 billion euros in frozen Russian assets are held in European accounts, primarily at the Belgium-based securities depository Euroclear. The European Commission has been pressing EU members for the green light to use these frozen Russian assets to bankroll Kiev’s war machine.
The Kremlin has cautioned that any attempts to confiscate Russian assets would amount to theft and be in violation of international law.
Following a summit in Brussels on December 19, 2025, the EU opted to abandon its plans temporarily to seize Russian state assets and instead agreed to extend a 90-billion-euro loan to Ukraine from the EU budget. However, Hungary, Slovakia, and the Czech Republic refused to shoulder any responsibility for the loan.


