In ASEAN Nations, Coal Is a Physical Manifestation of Progress
By Vijay Jayaraj | Real Clear Markets | September 9, 2025
When most people think of ASEAN – a diverse association of Southeast Asian nations that include Brunei, Cambodia, Indonesia, Laos, Malaysia, Myanmar, the Philippines, Singapore, Thailand, and Vietnam – they picture Thailand’s beaches, Singapore’s gleaming skyline or Indonesia’s temples.
What they don’t see is an economic juggernaut that will drive some of the planet’s largest growth in energy demand. Vietnam has emerged as a global manufacturing hub. Indonesia processes the world’s nickel for electric vehicle batteries. Thailand manufactures automobiles for export across Asia. Each of these economic engines demands reliable, affordable electricity that operates 24 hours a day, seven days a week.
In fact, 2023 witnessed a demand increase of nearly 45 terawatt-hours (TWh), an amount of energy that must be generated, transmitted regionally, and delivered locally on a continual basis. Where did this new power come from? Coal. An astonishing 96% of that new demand was met by coal-fired power plants.
Let that sink in. Coal, the energy source routinely demonized in Western capitals and at global climate summits, met nearly all the region’s new electricity needs. This reality stands in direct contradiction to rosy predictions of a transition to “renewables” manufactured by highly compensated executives at elite consulting firms who have spent the better part of a decade selling energy fairy tales to governments and investors.
Indonesia alone added 11 TWh of coal-generated electricity in 2023, while its electricity demand rose by 17 TWh, with coal meeting two-thirds of this increase. The Philippines generates more than 60% of its electricity from coal, and Malaysia and Vietnam each around 50%.
Ultra-supercritical coal technology – using extraordinarily high temperatures and pressures and pioneered at Malaysia’s Manjung plant and Indonesia’s Batang facility, delivers higher efficiency than older coal plants. These advanced facilities demonstrate that coal technology continues to improve while wind and solar remain dependent on weather conditions and the time of day.
The wind and solar share across ASEAN remained a pitiful 4.5% in 2023. This minuscule contribution exposes the bankruptcy of consultants’ promises of “renewables” dominating the regional power mix by mid-2020s.
Coal’s dominance in recent years is not an accident; it is a necessity. Indonesia, the region’s economic giant, leans on coal to power its export-driven industries, including nickel for EV batteries. Vietnam’s manufacturing boom, lifting millions into the middle class, runs on coal’s steady output. Malaysia and the Philippines, too, rely on coal to sustain their growing economies. Even Singapore, a global hub of innovation, depends on coal to maintain its energy security.
Yet, to focus solely on the power grid is to miss the forest for the trees, as electricity is just one component of total energy consumption. Electricity represents only a fraction of total consumption across ASEAN. The larger picture is primary energy consumption, which includes fuel for transport, industry and heating.
Oil, natural gas and coal collectively hold the major share of ASEAN’s primary energy mix, with oil leading consumption patterns across transportation and industrial sectors. Factories, petrochemicals, shipping, aviation, and agriculture all consume fossil fuels in large quantities.
ASEAN countries are committing hundreds of billions of dollars to fossil fuel infrastructure that will operate for decades. Coal plants have an average lifespan of 40 years. These capital investments create long-term commitments to hydrocarbon use that extend far beyond current political cycles.
Nineteen projects across Malaysia, Vietnam, Brunei, Indonesia, and Myanmar hold more than 540 billion cubic meters of recoverable gas. Countries don’t spend billions developing gas fields if they plan to abandon fossil fuels within the next decade.
ASEAN’s embrace of coal is about more than just keeping the lights on. These nations aren’t chasing arbitrary climate targets; they’re building the infrastructure of their future and prosperity for people.
Every new airport, every new highway and every new factory is a testament to the power of coal. To argue against coal is to oppose the physical manifestations of progress. The “green” agenda, by seeking to eliminate coal, demands that the developing world stop building – an ultimatum that ASEAN is rightly and wisely ignoring.
#BlockTheBoat: Global mobilization to stop cargo vessel carrying explosives to Tel Aviv
By Maryam Qarehgozlou | Press TV | September 14, 2024
In a display of solidarity with Palestinians in Gaza, activists around the world have joined forces to block the MV Kathrin, a cargo vessel carrying explosives for the Israeli regime.
While the vessel has been traversing the seas for over a month, a campaign dubbed “#BlockTheBoat” aims to expose the Zionist regime’s violations of the Genocide Convention and the UN Human Rights Declaration amid the genocidal war on Gaza that has already claimed over 41,000 lives.
The campaign has been trending globally on social media platforms with supporters expressing anger and outrage over the continued military aid to an apartheid regime in Tel Aviv.
Spearheading this fight is the Boycott, Divestment, and Sanctions (BDS) movement, which has been advocating for an end to Israeli occupation and apartheid through boycotts and sanctions.
The movement has called on countries with stakes in the MV Kathrin to end their complicity in the Israeli genocidal war on Gaza while urging people to pressure their governments to comply with international law and rulings of the top UN court.
Key facts about MV Kathrin
The MV Kathrin (IMO 9570620) is owned by Lubeca Marine Germany GMBH and operated by Ocean 7 Project through AGL (Africa Global Logistics).
The vessel is reportedly carrying eight containers of Hexogen/RDX explosives destined for the Israeli-occupied territories, in addition to 60 containers of TNT with unknown destinations.
The explosive cargo was loaded in Hai Phong, Vietnam, on July 21. It is scheduled to be unloaded at the port of Koper, Slovenia, before reaching its final destination in the occupied territories.
This information was provided to the media by the Namibian National Police and Namport authorities.
What is RDX?
RDX, a vital component in Israel’s aircraft bombs and missiles, has been widely used in the ongoing genocidal war on the Gaza Strip and the relentless bombings of the besieged territory and killing and maiming of nearly 136,000 Palestinians, more than 70 percent of them women and children.
Elbit Systems, Israel’s largest weapons manufacturer, ranks among the top global consumers of the explosive material RDX.
This highlights the significant role RDX plays in the manufacturing of Israel’s military equipment, according to military experts.
Industry insiders noted in March that Israel’s mass production of ammunition would be hindered by the limited availability of RDX on the global market.
Countries providing Israel’s RDX supply
MV Kathrin is a German-owned cargo ship and Germany has been a major supplier of weapons to Israel during its genocidal war against the 2.3 million civilian population of Gaza.
Germany is already facing charges at the International Court of Justice (ICJ) for complicity in Israel’s genocide in Gaza in a case brought by South Africa to the top UN court late last year.
The vessel was loaded in Vietnam. The Israeli regime resumed its military cooperation with Vietnam a decade ago, despite its popular support for Palestinian rights.
Vietnam is now facilitating the export of the same explosives that the US used to exterminate and maim millions of Vietnamese in the Vietnam War (1954–75).
Kathrin is scheduled to unload its cargo in Koper, Slovenia. This marks the second instance in recent months that the Slovenian port has been implicated in illegal weapons transfers to Israel.
It also raises concerns about Slovenia’s lack of compliance with international law and the ICJ’s ruling on the ongoing genocide in Palestine.
Kathrin and Portuguese complicity in genocide
The MV Kathrin is registered under the Portuguese flag through the International Shipping Register of Madeira (MAR), which is one of the leading ship and yacht registers in the European Union.
Despite calls from Portuguese Palestine solidarity organizations and political parties like Bloco de Esquerda, Portuguese Foreign Minister Paulo Rangel in late August evaded responsibility, claiming that the Kathrin is not transporting ready-made weapons, is not headed to the Israeli-occupied territories, and that this arms trade has “commercial purpose.”
On Friday, the European Legal Support Center (ELSC) sent a legal notice to the Portuguese government demanding the removal of its flag from the MV Kathrin “in compliance with the erga omnes obligations to prevent the crime of Genocide.”
Despite mounting pressure from civil society and political stakeholders, Portugal has yet to take any concrete action in response to the controversial situation.
France, Italy, and Switzerland are other countries that are complicit in the Israeli genocide. Africa Global Logistics (AGL) is a French logistics operator with headquarters in Puteaux.
Although AGL functions independently, it is an integral part of the Cargo Division of the Italo-Swiss MSC group.
Which countries refused to be complicit in the genocide?
On August 20, almost a month after MV Kathrin left the port of Hai Phong, the Palestinian BDS National Committee (BNC) warned activists and decision-makers in Namibia regarding the MV Kathrin which was set to arrive at the port of Walvis Bay.
The committee has raised concerns over credible intelligence suggesting that the ship was transporting military supplies destined for Israel.
On August 22, the Economic and Social Justice Trust (ESJT), a Namibian human rights organization, also called on Walvis Bay port to deny the MV Kathrin entry.
The Namibian government on August 24 canceled the docking permit for the Kathrin, after having received written confirmation from the vessel that 8 containers of RDX/Hexogen explosives were destined for Israel.
Namibian Justice Minister Yvonne Dausab said that this decision “complies with our obligation not to support or be complicit in Israeli war crimes, crimes against humanity, genocide, as well as its unlawful occupation of Palestine.”
Following a nearly week-long period of remaining stationary off the Namibian coast, the MV Kathrin had to change course and headed toward Angolan waters on August 31.
At about the same time, BNC sent an appeal to Angola to follow Namibia’s example, not to let the Kathrin dock or confiscate the military supplies destined for Israel.
Francesca Albanese, UN Special Rapporteur on the occupied Palestinian territories, also urged Angola not to let the Kathrin dock.
“This may be a breach of the Genocide Convention. Critical reminder: Any military transfer to Israel, which the ICJ determined may be plausibly committing genocide, amounts to a breach of the Genocide Convention and of the HRC resolution 55/L.30 mandating an arms embargo on Israel,” she said.
MV Kathrin also waited over a week off the coast of Angola, however, on September 5 it was confirmed that Kathrin had to reroute and schedule Bar (Montenegro) as the next port of destination.
The BDS in its calls for blocking Kathrin warned concerned governments that Participation in arms transfer to Israel amounts to “complicity in genocide, crimes of humanity and war crimes.”
It highlighted since ICJ decided in January that Israel is “plausibly” perpetrating genocide, refraining from playing any direct or indirect role in arming Israel during its genocidal carnage in Gaza is a “legal duty for all states.”
“Together, we can block the boat and stop the deadly cargo from feeding Israel’s unspeakable massacres,” says BDS.
On Friday, Malaysia also joined global efforts to stop the MV Kathrin’s cargo.
BDS Malaysia activists lodged a police report at the Sentul Police Station concerning the involvement of United O7 Asia Sdn Bhd with a vessel, according to a statement issued by BDS Malaysia.
A Tale of Two Disputes: How China Handles Hanoi and Manila
By Joseph Solis-Mullen | The Libertarian Institute | September 12, 2024
A recent article in the South China Morning Post caught my eye—the topic being why Beijing has taken such an apparently different approach to its territorial disputes with Vietnam versus the similar disputes it has with the Philippines.
Given the now weekly near misses between competing claimants in the South China Sea, the topic is a timely one, and in analyzing Beijing’s contrasting responses to territorial claims by Vietnam and the Philippines in the South China Sea, it becomes clear that China’s strategic calculations are shaped by varying historical, political, and diplomatic dynamics.

Historically, Vietnam’s claims to the South China Sea date back several centuries, although the exact extent and nature of these claims have evolved significantly over time.
Vietnamese records from the Nguyễn Dynasty (1802–1945) suggest that Vietnamese rulers asserted control over certain islands and features in the South China Sea. And references to the Spratly and Paracel Islands appear in historical texts from as early as the seventeenth century. These documents suggest that Vietnamese fishing fleets and merchant vessels regularly visited the islands and considered them within their traditional maritime territory.
When France colonized Vietnam in the late nineteenth century, it began asserting territorial claims on behalf of the Vietnamese protectorate in the South China Sea. In the 1930s, the French government formally claimed both the Paracel and Spratly Islands, citing historical Vietnamese sovereignty. The French established outposts and conducted surveys on some of the islands, mainly driven by the strategic importance of the South China Sea for naval dominance. These colonial claims are crucial because they form part of the modern Vietnamese argument that sovereignty was maintained through continuous occupation, even when the country was under colonial rule.
After the French withdrew in 1954, both North and South Vietnam laid claims to the islands, though South Vietnam maintained physical control over most of the features in the South China Sea. Following the Vietnam War and the reunification of Vietnam in 1975, the unified Socialist Republic of Vietnam continued asserting sovereignty over the islands and expanded its presence in the Spratlys, bolstering its post-colonial efforts to keep the islands under effective control through patrols and the construction of outposts even as China began moving to assert its claims.
The longstanding control of these features is one reason why Beijing has been relatively restrained in responding to Hanoi’s recent expansion activities.
Moreover, Vietnam’s strategy of managing maritime disputes with Beijing “quietly” contrasts sharply with the Philippines’ approach of publicizing clashes and appealing to international forums. Vietnam’s decision to handle disputes internally and seek “friendly consultations” has helped to de-escalate tensions with China, despite the fact that its island-building mirrors China’s own efforts over the past decade.
Indeed, the political relationship between China and Vietnam is arguably the key factor shaping Beijing’s measured response. As the article from the South China Morning Post notes, the overall bilateral relationship is defined by economic cooperation and mutual geopolitical interests, including China’s Belt and Road Initiative. As a result, Beijing seeks to preserve its broader relationship with Vietnam, using diplomacy and economic enticements as buffers against outright hostility. This is in contrast to the Philippines, whose defense ties with Washington have escalated tensions. The longstanding U.S.-Philippine alliance is viewed by Beijing as part of a broader strategy of “containment,” especially in light of the recently revived Enhanced Defense Cooperation Agreement, which gives the U.S. military access to more bases close to Taiwan and the South China Sea.
The Philippines has made headlines by consistently publicizing its maritime disputes with China. Videos of Chinese coast guard vessels colliding with Philippine boats and the use of water cannons have garnered international attention, forcing Beijing to defend its actions diplomatically. Furthermore, Manila’s close alignment with Washington, particularly under President Ferdinand Marcos Jr., has heightened tensions with China. This is exacerbated by joint military exercises between the Philippines, the United States, and other allies like Japan and Australia. For Beijing, this has elevated the Philippines to a higher priority in terms of countering what it perceives (correctly) as a U.S.-led containment effort in the region. Vietnam, by contrast, has avoided such provocative military cooperation with external powers, further explaining why Beijing’s approach has been comparatively restrained.
The American role in the region cannot be understated. Washington’s decision to interpret existing treaty obligations to defend Manila in the event of an armed attack under the U.S.-Philippine Mutual Defense Treaty raises the stakes significantly and decreases the likelihood that Manila will choose to deescalate. This brings into focus the risk of conflict between the United States and China in defense of territorial claims in the South China Sea, which would likely start with a confrontation over the Scarborough Shoal or Spratly Islands. Beijing has increasingly seen its conflict with Manila as an extension of the U.S.-China strategic rivalry, particularly regarding Taiwan, which further complicates the maritime disputes and endangers the world.
At the same time, as Beijing seeks to prevent a collective response from claimant states, recognizing that pushing too hard against Vietnam could drive Hanoi closer to the United States and its allies. While Vietnam has taken advantage of Beijing’s focus on the Philippines to accelerate its island-building activities, Beijing’s restraint towards Vietnam does not rule out future escalations, especially if Vietnam’s militarization of these features intensifies.
While much is uncertain, one thing seems clear: far from being a force for peace in the region, Washington’s intervention, far from America’s own shores, is a clear source of instability and potential danger.
American Bombings of Vietnam during World War II
Tales of the American Empire | August 15, 2024
Americans know about the massive American bombing of Vietnam in the 1960s and 1970s. Few know that thousands of American bombs fell on Vietnam during World War II. The Japanese had occupied some ports in French Indochina in 1940 to support naval and air operations in the region. After the United States entered the war, the US Army Air Corps needed targets to justify strategic bombing since Japan remained beyond range until B-29s arrived in 1944. As a result, many questionable targets were bombed in Vietnam that resulted in thousands of civilian casualties, while a million Vietnamese starved during the resulting famine.
______________________________________________
Related Tale: “The Anglo-American War on France”;
• The Anglo-American War on France
Related Tale: “American Mass Bombings of Chinese Cities in World War II”;
• American Mass Bombings of Chinese Cit…
“Bombing of South-East Asia (1944–1945)”; Wikipedia; https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bombing…)
“The OSS in Vietnam, 1945: A War of Missed Opportunities”; Dixee Bartholomew-Feis; The National World War II Museum; July 15, 2020; https://www.nationalww2museum.org/war…
Related Tale: “American Bombings of Allied Cities in World War II”;
• American Bombings of Allied Cities in…
Related Tale: “The Illusion Called South Vietnam”;
• The Illusion Called South Vietnam
Related Playlist: “The Vietnam War”;
• The Vietnam War
A new multipolar security system based on ‘Pax Rossiya’
Strategic Culture Foundation | June 21, 2024
For several years now, Russia, China and other members of the expanding BRICS alliance have been formulating progressive trade and financial relations of the emerging multipolar world order. That order is based on mutual respect and partnership grounded in international law and the UN Charter.
The BRICS concept is rightly the zeitgeist of our time. It is rallying more nations to its fold especially those of the so-called Global South which for decades have been subjected to the unilateralism of Western hegemony.
The trouble is that for a new world order based on equality and fairness to succeed in practice, it needs to be secure from arbitrary military aggression and imperialist tyranny. In other words, a new security architecture is required to underpin the development of a multipolar world.
Russian President Vladimir Putin has been advocating for a new indivisible international security system. This week saw the plan for a new security arrangement put into action.
The Russian leader embarked on state visits to North Korea and Vietnam during which he signed new strategic partnership and defense accords.
Ahead of his trip to the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea, Putin outlined the integrated vision thus: “We are also ready for close cooperation to make international relations more democratic and stable… To do this, we will develop alternative mechanisms of trade and mutual settlements that are not controlled by the West, and jointly resist illegitimate unilateral restrictions. And at the same time – to build an architecture of equal and indivisible security in Eurasia.”
The concept of indivisible security is by no means limited to Eurasia. Russia has signaled the same principles apply to Latin America, Africa and indeed every other corner of the world.
During Putin’s meetings with Chairman Kim Jong Un of the DPRK and President Lo Tam of the Socialist Republic of Vietnam, the strategic partnerships agreed were not merely about military defense and security. They involved comprehensive partnerships for the development of trade, transport, technology, education, science and medicine.
Nevertheless, it was clear that the commitment to strategic partnership was underpinned by new mutual defense accords. This was most explicit in the treaty signed with the DPRK which furnished “mutual assistance in the event of aggression against one of the parties”.
This is a game-changer. It totally upends the geopolitical calculations of the United States and its NATO partners who have been unilaterally expanding military force and provocations in Eurasia and elsewhere.
U.S. President Joe Biden’s administration has ramped up aggression in the Asia-Pacific against China and North Korea with impunity. Under his watch, the US has increasingly moved nuclear forces into the region to intimidate not only Beijing and Pyongyang but also Moscow. The Biden administration has been assiduous in forming hostile military formations in the region with its NATO partners, including Australia, New Zealand, Japan and South Korea.
Year after year, the United States has built up weapon systems in Taiwan to provoke China and on the Korean Peninsula to threaten North Korea.
This unilateral aggression and “might is right” arrogance underpin the notion of Pax Americana that prevailed for decades after the Second World War. That notion was always a cruel euphemism for American imperialist violence to impose its economic and political interests. The Korean and Vietnam Wars in which millions of civilians were annihilated were the real-world grim translations of Pax Americana and its fraudulent “rules-based order”.
Geopolitical perceptions have dramatically changed in a few short years. The U.S. and its Western partners – a global minority – have come to be seen by most people of the world as rogue states that have trashed international law through illegal wars and unilateral bullying with economic sanctions. The U.S. dollar and Washington’s relentless debt spending are seen as instruments of imperialist looting.
The BRICS multipolar world order is a welcome alternative to the mayhem of the Western-dominated system. The principles of fairness and cooperation are laudable and necessary to implement. But such principles must be reinforced with military defense and security for all. This is far from the one-sided “defense and security” of the United States and its NATO partners, which in reality is an Orwellian cover for aggression.
The defense commitments given by Russia to the DPRK this week can be seen as long overdue. One may wonder how the U.S. and its allies got away with threatening the people of North Korea for so long and denying Pyongyang the sovereign right to self-defense. Admittedly, Russia did previously support UN sanctions on North Korea over its missile program. That’s over.
The U.S.-led proxy war in Ukraine against Russia that erupted in February 2022 was a wake-up call for Moscow and many people around the world.
Patently, the Western hegemonic system will stop at nothing to assert its neocolonialist privileges, even to the point of antagonizing a nuclear world war.
There is only one language that the U.S. and its minions understand – and that is the threat of devastating countervailing force.
Washington and its NATO lackeys think they can put missiles in Ukraine to hit Russia or in South Korea and Japan to hit North Korea – at no cost to their own security. Well, now, they might want to think again. There’s a new sheriff in town, as this week’s developments show.
A new global security system is being incarnate. Russia’s vision of indivisible, mutual security is shared by China and many other nations because it is fully compliant with international law and nations’ sovereignty.
Russia, China and other supporters of a multipolar world are not preemptively threatening anyone. But it takes the guarantee of unassailable nuclear powers, Russia and China, to make a new security system viable by restoring the deterrence towards the rogue states of the United States and NATO accomplices.
The defense accords between Russia, the DPRK and Vietnam are installments of the new security architecture that is needed in Eurasia and globally. The has-been American hegemon has been served notice that from now on its presumption of belligerence with impunity, to destroy nations, and to have a license to murder en masse is null and void.
Welcome to the new multipolar order and Pax Rossiya. All are welcome – except hegemonic rogue states.
Vietnam prioritizes Russian ties despite US attempts to pull it into its orbit
By Drago Bosnic | September 13, 2023
On September 11, Joe Biden concluded his visit to Vietnam, often hailed as an historic one by the mainstream propaganda machine. For instance, the BBC claims that “more than 50 years since the last American soldier left Vietnam, Mr Biden travelled to Hanoi to sign the agreement that will bring the former foes closer than ever before”. The troubled Biden administration hailed the Comprehensive Strategic Partnership with Vietnam as a major upgrade in relations with Hanoi and the culmination of efforts Washington DC invested in over the last several years. Biden also tried to present the rapprochement as having nothing to do with containing or isolating China, but about “maintaining stability in accordance with international rules”.
“I think we think too much in terms of Cold War. It’s not about that. It’s about generating economic growth and stability,” Biden told reporters on September 10, adding: “I want to see China to succeed economically, but I want to see them succeed by the rules.”
Obviously, this is a laughable claim for anyone remotely familiar with the rabidly Sinophobic policies the United States keeps escalating, be it the strategic containment of China, the never-ending stoking of tensions in Taiwan, attempts to prevent or at least derail Beijing’s technological development, etc. And to say nothing of the vaunted “rules-based world order”, as nobody actually knows what “rules” Biden is referring to. Not even Western leaders could pinpoint or even broadly explain the meaning of this pointless phrase, as the “rules” they keep parroting about are not defined. Essentially, they just make them up as they go, depending on the geopolitical circumstances, only later trying to present them as “in line with the international law”.
Still, even the BBC had to admit that Vietnam sees this rapprochement as nothing more than symbolic. According to Le Hong Hiep from Singapore’s ISEAS-Yusof Ishak Institute, “Hanoi has thought this through”, as the aforementioned agreement with the US is “symbolic rather than [one of] substance”. Washington DC was hoping to use the sizeable investments of various American corporations in Vietnam for geopolitical purposes, including the reduction of China’s economic influence and Russia’s close military cooperation with Hanoi. However, both attempts are bound to fail, as Vietnam will certainly not break close ties with either for the sake of US interests in the region, particularly not with Moscow, one of its closest allies.
Namely, on September 9, the New York Times published the contents of a leaked document issued by the Vietnamese Ministry of Finance, revealing a plan to covertly acquire advanced Russian weapons. It should be noted that the US would have to impose sanctions in the case that Hanoi goes through with the deal, which is not exactly a very good message if Washington DC wants a strategic rapprochement with Vietnam. The NYT complains that “even as the United States and Vietnam have nurtured their relationship over recent months, Hanoi is making clandestine plans to buy an arsenal of weapons from Russia”. This only reinforces the notion that the “upgraded US-Vietnam relations” are indeed largely symbolic.
“The Ministry of Finance document, which is dated March 2023 and whose contents have been verified by former and current Vietnamese officials, lays out how Vietnam proposes to modernize its military by secretly paying for defense purchases through transfers at a joint Vietnamese and Russian oil venture in Siberia,” the NYT reports, adding: “Signed by a Vietnamese deputy finance minister, the document notes that Vietnam is negotiating a new arms deal with Russia that would ‘strengthen strategic trust’ at a time when ‘Russia is being embargoed by Western countries in all aspects’.”
In other words, Vietnam is clearly determined not to turn its back on one of its oldest and closest allies. Hanoi could certainly get concessions from the US, including advanced weapons, but its leadership is perfectly aware that this would be unwise, to say the least. Russian weapons haven’t only been proven as much more robust and equally or more advanced than American equivalents, but also much more affordable and logistically less strenuous. To say nothing of the history of US aggression in Indochina, where the belligerent thalassocracy killed up to four million people in Vietnam alone. And yet, the casualties would’ve been a lot worse had it not been for Moscow’s extensive aid, both economic and military.
It was Russian SAM (surface-to-air missile) systems that brought down thousands of American aircraft, saving millions of civilians in the process. Without Russian assault rifles, tanks, artillery and other weapons, Vietnam’s chances of driving out American invaders would’ve been slim to none. Hanoi never forgot that and continues fostering close ties with Moscow. The document cited by the NYT states precisely that – “Our party and state still identify Russia as the most important strategic partner in defense and security.” Vietnam’s reliance on Russian weapons is the most geopolitically sound, as Hanoi’s complicated relationship with both the US and China prevents it from relying on either militarily. This is highly unlikely to change in the foreseeable future.
Drago Bosnic is an independent geopolitical and military analyst.



