Offsetting falling birth rates with immigration is destructive to stability and national identity, the Russian president has said
Russia will support family values as the foundation of its society, rather than following in the footsteps of countries that try to solve demographic issues by replacing their native populations with “chaotic migration,” Russian President Vladimir Putin has said.
Speaking at a meeting of a government council for demographic and family policy on Thursday, Putin said that falling birth rates have become a global trend and a challenge both domestically and abroad.
“Different countries respond to this demographic challenge in various ways, including encouraging uncontrolled, and even chaotic migration to replace the native population,” he said. As a result, nations often sacrifice national identity, culture and internal political stability, he added.
Our choice is unequivocal: we support the family as the fundamental basis of Russian society and aim to protect and preserve genuine family values and traditions, which have united and strengthened our country for centuries.
Putin said Russia must foster a social norm where having large families is seen as natural and prestigious. Families with three or more children should become the norm, he said, adding that rather than applying pressure, the state will focus on building trust by ensuring timely support.
❗️Putin: Some Countries Choose Uncontrolled Migration To Replace Native Population, Russia Chooses 'All-Encompassing Support Of The Family' pic.twitter.com/2HPjjKmmZU
Existing aid programs – such as maternity capital, benefits for low-income families, and preferential mortgages – will continue, alongside new incentives such as tax cuts and housing assistance for families with two or more children.
Russian officials have long warned of a looming demographic crisis in the country, with 2024 data showing the lowest annual birth rates since 1999.
Despite this, Russia has been methodically tightening migration policy since the deadly Crocus City Hall terrorist attack last year in which IS-linked Tajik nationals killed 149 people at the behest of Ukrainian intelligence, according to Russian authorities.
However, Putin has moved to ease immigration to Russia for foreigners who share its “traditional values” and disagree with “destructive neoliberal ideology” pushed by their governments.
Kiev is reportedly seeking a flexible use of the funds, while some EU states want spending limited to European-made weapons
Ukraine has pushed back against EU plans to impose conditions on a proposed multi-billion-euro loan backed by frozen Russian central-bank assets. Reuters sources indicate that the dispute has exposed divisions within the EU over how the money should be spent.
EU officials, who are meeting in Brussels on Thursday, are debating the proposed “reparations loan” worth about €140 billion ($162 billion) for Kiev. The loan would be secured by the Russian assets immobilized by the West after the escalation of the Ukraine conflict in 2022. Under the plan, Kiev would only repay the money if Moscow covers the damages incurred in the conflict. Russia has denounced the proposal as a “theft.”
Kiev insists it must be free to decide how it can use the funds. A senior official told Reuters that the money was needed before year-end, and while Kiev supports cooperation with European defense industries, it “would insist on autonomy in deciding how to allocate resources.”
Some EU nations are pushing to direct most of the money toward the purchase of European-made weapons, while others urge greater flexibility. The European Commission has reportedly proposed a compromise where most of the funds would go to Ukrainian and EU arms purchases, with a smaller share available for Ukraine’s general budget support, including weapons bought outside the bloc.
Bloomberg has reported the US will not join the EU-led initiative, warning that the move could unsettle global markets. Western officials have also cautioned that seizing Russian assets outright – estimated at around $300 billion – would be illegal and undermine the West’s credibility.
Belgium, which holds most of the immobilized assets, has voiced concern over risks to Euroclear, the Brussels-based clearinghouse where the funds are kept. Prime Minister Bart De Wever has set three conditions for backing the loan, one of which is that the potential risks be shared, warning that otherwise he would “do everything” to stop the decision.
Moscow has condemned the freeze and any attempt to repurpose the funds. Finance Minister Anton Siluanov has promised a reciprocal response, and President Vladimir Putin has said that the “smarter” governments oppose the seizure of Russian assets.
An open letter signed by 450 Jewish figures urges the UN and world leaders to hold Israel accountable for its actions in Gaza
Hundreds of prominent Jewish figures across the world have called on the UN and global leaders to impose sanctions on Israel over what they describe as “unconscionable” actions in Gaza that they say amount to genocide.
An open letter urging governments to hold Israel accountable for alleged violations of international law in Gaza, the West Bank, and East Jerusalem garnered more than 450 signatories, including former Israeli officials, intellectuals, and artists. The letter coincides with reports that EU leaders may abandon plans to introduce sanctions against Israel during a summit in Brussels on Thursday.
“We have not forgotten that so many of the laws, charters, and conventions established to safeguard and protect all human life were created in response to the Holocaust,” the signatories wrote. “Those safeguards have been relentlessly violated by Israel.”
The appeal includes former Knesset speaker Avraham Burg, Israeli peace negotiator Daniel Levy, authors Michael Rosen and Naomi Klein, Oscar-winning filmmaker Jonathan Glazer, actors Wallace Shawn and Ilana Glazer, and philosopher Omri Boehm. The group has urged world leaders to enforce International Court of Justice and International Criminal Court rulings, halt arms sales, and impose targeted sanctions on Israeli officials and entities complicit in alleged crimes.
The petition follows a shift in public opinion among American Jews and voters more broadly. A recent poll by the Washington Post found that 61% of US Jews believe Israel has committed war crimes in Gaza, and 39% say it is committing genocide. A separate Quinnipiac survey in August found that half of US voters hold the same view.
Israel launched its military operation in Gaza in response to the Hamas attack in which 1,200 people were killed and 250 others were taken hostage in October 2023. The scale of the Israeli response has elicited widespread condemnation and has prompted a wave of support for the Palestinian people.
Gaza’s Health Ministry has reported at least 68,000 Palestinians killed and more than 170,000 injured over the past two years. The UN has estimated that around 90% of Gaza’s residents have been internally displaced.
Hundreds of public figures have signed a letter calling for a global ban on a form of AI that could outthink humans
Hundreds of dignitaries across tech, academia, politics, and entertainment have signed a letter urging a ban on the development of so-called “superintelligence,” a form of AI that would surpass humans on essentially all cognitive tasks.
The group argues that the creation of superintelligent AI could trigger economic chaos, undermine human freedom, and even threaten human extinction if left unchecked. The call follows months of escalating warnings from experts who say existing AI models are advancing faster than regulators can keep up.
Among the 4,300 signatures as of Thursday are Apple cofounder Steve Wozniak, Virgin Group founder Richard Branson, media celebrities Kate Bush and Will.I.am, and tech “godfathers” such as Geoffrey Hinton and Yoshua Bengio.
The statement calls for the prohibition to be imposed until “there is broad scientific consensus that [the development] will be done safely and controllably,” as well as “strong public buy-in.”
Despite growing alarm over AI’s potential risks, global regulation remains patchy and inconsistent.
The European Union’s AI Act, the world’s first major attempt to govern the technology, seeks to categorize AI systems by risk level, from minimal to unacceptable. Yet critics say the framework, which could take years to implement fully, may be outdated by the time it comes into force.
OpenAI, Google DeepMind, Anthropic, and xAI are some of the big tech companies that are spending billions to train models that can think, plan, and code on their own. The US and China are positioning AI supremacy as a matter of national security and economic leadership.
Supplying Kiev with the long-range missiles would be an “escalation attempt,” the Russian president has said
Russia would deliver a “very serious, if not downright staggering” response to any Ukrainian strike using US-made Tomahawk missiles, President Vladimir Putin warned on Thursday, calling pressure on Washington to supply such weapons “an attempt at escalation.”
Speaking to journalists after a meeting in Moscow, Putin cautioned that any use of Tomahawk missiles against Russian territory would provoke a powerful reaction. “This is an attempt at escalation,” he said. “But if such weapons are used to strike Russian territory, the response will be very serious, if not downright staggering. Let them think about that.”
Ukrainian leader Vladimir Zelensky reportedly raised the issue of obtaining Tomahawk missiles during his meeting with US President Donald Trump at the White House last week. According to Axios, the request was turned down, although US officials have said the option remains under review, with Trump expected to make the final decision.
The Tomahawk, a long-range cruise missile with a maximum range of around 2,500 kilometers (1,550 miles), requires lengthy and complex training to operate, Trump told reporters on Wednesday during talks with NATO Secretary-General Mark Rutte at the White House.
“This would be an escalation. It is an escalation attempt,” Putin said, commenting on a potential delivery. “If Russian territory is hit… with such a weapon, the response will be very serious if not outright overwhelming,” the president added, encouraging Western leaders “to think about it.”
Moscow has previously warned that although Tomahawk deliveries would not affect the state of the battlefield of the Ukraine conflict, they would diminish peace prospects and strike a blow to US-Russian relations.
Putin discussed the issue with Trump during a phone call last week. Delivering the missiles would “severely undermine the prospects of a peaceful settlement,” he said at the time. Following the call, Trump said it would be “not easy” for the US to provide Kiev with Tomahawks and maintained that Washington should not deplete its own arsenal for Ukraine.
Beijing’s new five-year plan pushes for technological independence amid a deepening trade war with the US
China has vowed to accelerate the push for technological self-reliance, stepping up a long-running drive that has gained new urgency amid the escalating trade war with the United States.
The pledge came in a communique released by the ruling Communist Party on Thursday after it approved a draft of the country’s next five-year development plan. The party listed “substantial improvements in scientific and technological self-reliance and strength” among its main objectives for the period of 2026–2030.
Washington has been gradually tightening restrictions on China’s access to semiconductors and other advanced technology vital for numerous sectors, including artificial intelligence, while imposing tariffs on Chinese goods. In January, President Donald Trump backed a $500 billion federal initiative to secure American leadership in advanced AI systems, a move seen in Beijing as part of a broader campaign to contain its technological rise.
President Xi Jinping has said China aims to achieve “superiority in AI” and strengthen domestic production of chips and software as part of its modernization drive.
Beijing has retaliated with export curbs on rare-earth metals essential to US high-tech industries, in what Trump last week openly called a “trade war.”
The Chinese Foreign Ministry has framed Beijing’s strategy as part of a broader vision for “an equal and orderly multipolar world,” stressing that it “will always commit to self-confidence and self-reliance.” It has also repeatedly accused Washington of economic bullying.
American firms are shuffling off discarded electronics to developing countries, environmental watchdog BAN has alleged
Brokers are shipping millions of tons of scrapped electronics from the US overseas, largely to developing countries in Asia and the global South that are unprepared to safely handle the toxic waste, according to a report released on Wednesday.
According to the Seattle-based watchdog Basel Action Network (BAN), ten large US firms have been shipping significant volumes of e-waste to countries that have banned its import. BAN said the business could total more than $200 million each month. Industry-wide, the trade could exceed $200 million per month, BAN estimated.
Between January 2023 and February 2025, such shipments may have amounted to 6% of all US trade with Malaysia, the primary recipient of this flow of hazardous waste, it said.
“This new, almost invisible tsunami of e-waste, is taking place… padding already lucrative profit margins of the electronics recycling sector while allowing a major portion of the American public’s and corporate IT equipment to be surreptitiously exported to and processed under harmful conditions in Southeast Asia,” it said.
BAN alleged that the brokers and “largely unregulated intermediaries” facilitated the practice, which “may contravene certification requirements, legal frameworks, and Environmental, Social, and Governance (ESG) principles.”
Many of these brokers, which operate in industrial zones east of Los Angeles and market themselves as “responsible recyclers,” in fact ship e-waste to informal junkyards overseas while routinely misclassifying the cargo as raw materials or working electronics, according to BAN.
At such facilities, the hazardous waste is often processed through open burning, acid leaching, and other dangerous methods by undocumented laborers without adequate protection, the watchdog said. Subsequent rogue dumping of the byproducts also poses long-term risks to the environment and local communities, it added.
E-waste has been on the rise worldwide, hitting a record of 62 million metric tons in 2022, with less than a quarter documented as being properly recycled, according to UN data. By 2030, the figure is expected to hit 82 million metric tons.
The Russian president noted that the idea of a meeting in Budapest was initially suggested by Trump
Russian President Vladimir Putin has confirmed that the planned Budapest summit with US counterpart Donald Trump is being postponed. Speaking to journalists on Thursday, he noted that the proposal was initially made by the American side.
The Russian leader admitted that it would have been a mistake to approach the summit without the necessary preparations, suggesting that a meeting might still take place at a later date. Putin emphasized that dialogue is always better than confrontation, arguments, and the continuation of war.
A Russia-US summit, which was planned to be held in the Hungarian capital, was announced last week by both the Kremlin and the White House after a phone call between Trump and Putin. On Wednesday, however, Trump announced that the meeting would be postponed. On the same day, Washington imposed sanctions on two major Russian oil companies, Rosneft and Lukoil.
Commenting on the sanctions, Putin described them as an “unfriendly move” that does not boost Russia-US relations.
At the same time, he noted that the new restrictions would not have a significant impact on the Russian economy.
Putin also stated that the US sanctions are yet another attempt by Washington to exert pressure on Moscow and stressed that “no self-respecting country ever does anything under pressure.”
He further suggested that there are certain people in the US administration that have been encouraging Trump to restrict Russian oil exports and called for considering who these individuals actually work for.
Putin insisted that Russia and the US actually have many areas in which they could cooperate if they would move away from pressure tactics and toward serious conversations about the long term.
As Western sanctions target Russia’s defense exports, the global race for tanks reveals a simple truth: no one builds them like Moscow does
Who can replace Russia in the global tank market? As Western sanctions tighten around Moscow’s defense industry, that question has become more than theoretical. For decades, Russia has supplied much of the developing world with reliable, combat-tested armored vehicles – often under licensing agreements that allowed local assembly and maintenance.
Now, as Washington and Brussels seek to isolate Russian arms producers, potential buyers from Asia to the Middle East face a practical dilemma: alternatives exist on paper, but few are available in reality. Behind the headlines about sanctions and “de-risking,” the global market for main battle tanks tells a quieter story – one where Russia’s designs remain the benchmark, and its competitors struggle to match both production scale and battlefield experience.
Russia’s armored advantage: combat-proven and export-ready
Russia remains one of the world’s top three producers and exporters of armored vehicles – alongside the United States and China. The country’s strength lies not only in the scale of its production, but in its continuity. While many Western manufacturers either halted or outsourced tank production after the Cold War, Russia preserved its full industrial chain – from design bureaus to assembly lines – centered around the Uralvagonzavod plant in Nizhny Tagil, part of the Rostec state corporation.
That consistency allowed Russian engineers to build on proven designs rather than start from scratch. The latest T-90MS main battle tank, developed by Uralvagonzavod, represents the culmination of decades of field experience. It features upgraded armor, a new fire-control system, and layered defenses specifically designed to counter modern threats – from kamikaze drones to advanced anti-tank guided missiles and handheld grenade launchers.
“Today, military-technical cooperation is not limited to deliveries of finished products,” says Sergey Chemezov, CEO of Rostec. “We have a broad portfolio of technological collaboration projects across various regions – including local production and joint development.”
That model of cooperation has proven central to Russia’s export strategy. Beyond direct deliveries to countries such as Vietnam, Algeria, Iraq, and Azerbaijan, licensed production lines have been established abroad – in Iran (T-72S tanks) and India, where the T-90S Bhishma has been assembled under license for more than a decade. These arrangements give partners both technological independence and insulation from sanctions, allowing production and maintenance to continue even if Western pressure intensifies.
Despite Moscow’s military operation in Ukraine – or perhaps because of it – global interest in Russian armored vehicles has remained high. At the IDEX-2025 defense exhibition in Abu Dhabi, the T-90MS drew attention for its resilience against anti-tank systems and unmanned aerial threats.
“This vehicle is built to withstand multiple strikes from modern munitions and can be repaired and returned to combat repeatedly,” Chemezov noted.
“Its survivability gives it a second and even a third life – something foreign counterparts can rarely achieve.”
For Moscow’s competitors, the success of the T-90MS poses a problem that cannot be solved through engineering alone. Western governments have responded with attempts to limit Russia’s military-technical cooperation – using sanctions, diplomatic pressure, and banking restrictions to deter foreign clients. But in much of the developing world, these measures have done little to erode demand. Russia continues to be seen as a supplier that offers modern, battle-tested armor – without political strings attached.
Designed for export and battlefield endurance, the T-90MS combines proven engineering with modern defensive systems tailored for today’s drone- and missile-heavy wars.
Russia’s global position looks even stronger when compared to its main competitors. Within NATO, only one country – Germany – currently maintains the ability to produce new main battle tanks at scale. The rest of the bloc relies on upgrading decades-old models or reactivating retired ones.
After the end of the Cold War, the United States halted new tank production entirely. The Abrams series, manufactured between 1980 and 1995, remains the backbone of the US Army. Since then, the government-owned plant in Lima, Ohio, has focused solely on refurbishing existing vehicles. Successive modernizations – M1A2, M1A2 SEP V2, and now SEP V3 – have made the Abrams heavier and more complex, but not necessarily more agile. Its power-to-weight ratio has dropped from 27.6 hp/ton in the early M1 model to 22.4 hp/ton in the M1A2 SEP V3, all while using the same 1,500-horsepower Avco-Lycoming turbine engine.
The added weight was meant to improve protection, but in practice has exposed the tank’s limits. US-made Abrams have suffered losses in Iraq and, more recently, in Ukraine. Of the 31 tanks supplied to Kiev from US stockpiles, several have already been destroyed, and at least five captured by Russian forces.
Britain’s experience tells a similar story. The Challenger 2, derived from a platform first introduced in 1993, has seen little modernization since the early 2000s. Additional armor raised its combat weight from 62 to 75 tons, but the tank still relies on the same 1,200-horsepower engine. British crews have long complained about its sluggishness – issues that Ukrainian operators also reported after receiving 14 vehicles. Following early losses near Rabotino in the Zaporozhyeregion, the remaining Challengers were withdrawn from active combat.
France has faced parallel challenges. Production of the Leclerc tank ended in 2007, with only the United Arab Emirates acquiring export versions. Their deployment in Yemen proved short-lived after several were destroyed by Ansar Allah fighters, prompting their withdrawal from the battlefield.
Only Germany continues to build new main battle tanks – the Leopard 2A7 and its successor, the Leopard 2A8. The original Leopard 2 entered service in 1979, and successive versions have refined its systems rather than reimagined them. Older Leopards were sold off to developing countries such as Chile, Indonesia, and Singapore, while newer models went to NATO allies. Qatar remains the only non-European buyer of the latest variant.
Of NATO’s four main tank producers, only Germany still builds new vehicles. Others rely on modernization programs for models designed decades ago.
However, export prospects for the Leopard 2A8 remain uncertain. Germany’s KNDS Deutschland plant is already operating at full capacity to meet domestic and NATO orders. The Leopard also faces reputational damage after battlefield footage from Syria and Ukraine showed multiple destroyed units – images that have circulated widely online and shaped perceptions of the tank’s vulnerability.
“We’ve examined several of the Leopard models captured in Ukraine,” says Chemezov. “They’re well-built machines with good components, but not suited to our conditions – and we haven’t seen any truly innovative solutions.”
As a result, NATO’s tank landscape today reflects industrial stagnation rather than superiority. Western factories are busy upgrading old hardware rather than producing new designs, while their armored vehicles continue to prove vulnerable in modern, drone-saturated battlefields. For many potential buyers outside the bloc, that reality is pushing them to look elsewhere.
Alternative suppliers: ambitions and limits
If NATO’s industrial base shows stagnation, the rest of the world faces another problem: scale. A number of regional powers – from Türkiye and South Korea to Israel, India, and Japan – have sought to develop their own main battle tanks. Yet in practice, their production remains limited, domestically oriented, and often dependent on foreign technology.
Türkiye, for instance, has completed the development of its first indigenous tank, the Altay. Ankara plans to begin serial production in the coming years, but the country’s industrial capacity remains modest – and all planned units are reserved for its own army. The Altay is not an entirely original design either: it borrows heavily from South Korea’s K2 Black Panther platform, produced by Hyundai Rotem since 2014.
South Korea’s K2 Black Panther, weighing 55 tons and powered by a 1,500-horsepower engine, is regarded as one of the most advanced non-Western tanks. Its weapon systems, powertrain, and electronics were initially based on US and German technologies, later localized by Korean industry. Until recently, production was focused solely on domestic needs, but the export deal with Poland – for 180 units – has shifted priorities. As of early 2025, over 100 tanks have been shipped, causing delays in rearming South Korea’s own forces. Future exports will depend on continued licensing approval from Washington and Berlin.
Israel presents a different case: a mature defense industry but narrow export options. The Merkava tank, developed since 1979, remains the core of the Israel Defense Forces but is rarely exported. A 2014 order from Singapore for 50 units of the Mk.4 variant has never been fulfilled. Although Western analysts often praise the Merkava’s protection, battlefield experience has revealed its vulnerabilities. During the 2006 Lebanon War, dozens were hit by anti-tank missiles of Russian design supplied to Hezbollah by Syria. In Gaza (2023-2025), Merkava Mk.4s again suffered losses from RPGs and kamikaze drones – despite continuous upgrades that raised their weight to nearly 70 tons and required replacing earlier 900-hp engines with 1,500-hp German ones.
In India and Japan, national tank programs remain largely symbolic. India continues limited production of the domestically developed Arjun MBT while relying on licensed Russian designs like the T-90S. Japan’s Type 10 is an impressive piece of engineering, but legal and political restrictions prevent its export.
Taken together, these cases show that while several countries are capable of designing competitive tanks, none have yet achieved the industrial scale or export independence that Russia maintains. For most, the challenge is not in engineering, but in production capacity and global support networks – areas where Moscow has decades of experience.
Several regional powers have developed modern tanks — but most remain tied to foreign components or limited to domestic service.
Among potential competitors to Russia, China stands out for one reason: scale. The state-owned defense conglomerate China North Industries Group Corporation Limited (NORINCO) is one of the world’s largest weapons manufacturers, and over the past two decades it has built a full line of main battle tanks for both domestic and foreign use. Yet the company’s rapid expansion reveals a clear divide between the equipment fielded by the People’s Liberation Army (PLA) and the simplified models sold abroad.
NORINCO was founded in 1980, with one of its earliest missions being the creation of a fully Chinese tank. The task fell to the Inner Mongolia First Machinery Group, which initially relied on an imported Soviet T-72 acquired through the Middle East. Lacking the technical expertise to reproduce it exactly, Chinese engineers developed their own platforms – incorporating some Soviet design principles but substituting domestic components where necessary.
The result was the Type 96 and later the Type 99, both equipped with a 125mm smoothbore cannon and an autoloading system similar to that of the T-72. These tanks became the backbone of the PLA’s armored forces, with roughly 5,000 units built since 1997. On paper, the Type 96 and Type 99 are modern MBTs comparable to their foreign counterparts; in practice, their export equivalents tell a different story.
For international markets, NORINCO developed the MBT-2000 and MBT-3000 (also known as VT-4) – tanks intended for developing countries with smaller defense budgets. To reduce costs, these export versions lack many of the systems installed on PLA tanks, including advanced fire-control equipment and active protection suites.
NORINCO’s marketing of the VT-4 began with an unusual debut. Instead of unveiling the tank at a land warfare exhibition, the company presented it at the Zhuhai Airshow in 2014, traditionally devoted to aviation. The announcement promised a revolutionary platform, but what specialists saw was a hybrid of older designs – a blend of the VT-1A and the soon-to-be-retired Type 96B. Two years later, the tank appeared again at Eurosatory 2016, now rebranded as the MBT-3000, emphasizing modularity and export readiness.
Even so, reliability concerns have persisted. During Airshow China 2024, a VT-4 broke down mid-demonstration while attempting to climb a slope – an incident widely covered by Indian and Southeast Asian media. This did little to help NORINCO’s credibility among prospective clients.
The MBT-2000, based on the Type 90-II (a design rejected by the PLA), saw only limited export success. Bangladesh purchased 44 tanks in 2021, and Myanmar acquired 12. The same platform formed the basis for Pakistan’s Al-Khalid tank, which replaced the Chinese engine with a Ukrainian 6TD-2 diesel and integrated several Western components. Pakistan has about 300 Al-Khalids in service and 110 upgraded versions. Attempts to market similar tanks to Saudi Arabia, Malaysia, and Peru ultimately failed after comparative testing.
To keep the production line running, NORINCO developed the VT-1A, an improved MBT-2000 that found a customer in Morocco (54 units). It weighed 49 tons and featured a 1,200–1,300-horsepower diesel engine. Those upgrades became the basis for the VT-4, launched in 2017. Nigeria received six tanks, Thailand 62, and Pakistan selected the VT-4 as the foundation for its locally produced variant, the Haider, built at the state-run Heavy Industries Taxila (HIT) plant.
The Haider project also illustrates NORINCO’s role as a “stopgap supplier.” When Ukraine’s Kharkov Malyshev plant – which produced the 5TD/6TD engine family used in Pakistan’s Al-Khalids – was incapacitated during the conflict, Islamabad turned to Beijing to fill the gap. Pakistan ordered 680 Haider tanks in 2023. While the shift ensured production continuity, it also meant replacing a proven Ukrainian engine with a less reliable Chinese one – effectively a technological step backward.
“The Chinese industry respects the choices of its own army,” says one Russian defense analyst familiar with NORINCO’s exports. “What the PLA won’t use, NORINCO sells abroad – often cheaper, but rarely better.”
This dual-track approach defines China’s tank industry today. The PLA receives the best, while simplified variants go to foreign buyers. The model allows NORINCO to maintain a strong presence in developing markets, but it also reinforces perceptions that China exports quantity over quality.
Compounding the issue is the lack of real combat testing. Since the 1979 border conflict with Vietnam, the Chinese military has not fought a high-intensity war, and most of NORINCO’s customers have faced only low-intensity insurgencies. That leaves both Chinese and export tanks largely unproven under modern battlefield conditions – a critical contrast to Russia’s equipment, which continues to evolve through direct experience in high-tech warfare.
While China’s top-tier tanks remain for domestic use, NORINCO’s export models are simplified for affordability – a strategy that ensures sales but limits battlefield credibility.
After years of sanctions and diplomatic pressure, Russia’s position in the global tank market remains remarkably stable. Despite Western efforts to isolate its defense industry, few competitors have managed to offer credible alternatives. NATO states have focused on refurbishing legacy platforms rather than producing new ones, while emerging players from Türkiye to South Korea still rely on imported technologies and limited domestic capacity. China’s NORINCO, though prolific, exports simplified versions of its own equipment – designed for affordability, not performance.
Russia, by contrast, continues to supply combat-proven, serially produced tanks backed by an uninterrupted industrial base. From the T-72 and T-80 upgrades to the latest T-90M Proryv and export-oriented T-90MS, these machines have evolved through real battlefield experience. That experience has driven continuous improvements in protection systems, mobility, and firepower – qualities that matter more to foreign buyers than glossy marketing or untested prototypes.
“Western tanks have mobility issues – they get stuck in soft soil and, because of their size, become easy targets,” says Chemezov. “Russian designs, by contrast, remain maneuverable and can survive multiple hits without losing combat capability.”
The ongoing Ukraine conflict has accelerated this evolution. Russian engineers have integrated lessons from drone warfare, electronic countermeasures, and precision artillery into both new and legacy platforms. The result is a family of armored vehicles that combine traditional durability with modern adaptability – a combination that few other producers can match.
Equally important, Russia’s export strategy remains pragmatic. Through its long-standing military-technical cooperation framework, Moscow provides not only finished hardware but also local production, maintenance support, and training, giving partner nations a degree of autonomy absent from most Western deals. This structure has allowed programs in countries such as India, Iran, and Algeria to continue even under sanctions pressure.
In the end, sanctions may slow transactions, but they cannot substitute for capability. The global armored vehicle market has shown that there are only a handful of producers capable of delivering reliable, mass-produced tanks – and Russia remains one of them. For many nations seeking proven, cost-effective, and politically independent options, that reality still makes Moscow the supplier of choice.
The estimated 73,000 annual deaths from the opioid drug in the US is a grave issue, according to Tom Homan
US officials should consider classifying fentanyl as a weapon of mass destruction (WMD), according to President Donald Trump’s border czar.
Speaking at a defense forum organized by publisher Axios, Tom Homan stressed that the US death toll, estimated at 73,000 annually from fentanyl alone, is a grave issue that should “at least be discussed.”
He urged officials to prepare their recommendations and submit them to the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) for further consideration.
The fentanyl crisis has led Trump to impose tariffs on dozens of countries, accusing trade partners of being part of the supply chain fueling the epidemic. The US administration’s efforts have also included strengthening border controls with Mexico and Canada and strikes on alleged drug vessels off the coast of Venezuela.
The Trump administration describes the steps as part of a coordinated effort to disrupt smuggling routes and dismantle production networks tied to the opioid crisis. Economists, however, warn that broad tariff measures could heighten tensions with key trade partners and slow global commerce.
The US Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) confiscated over 380 million lethal doses of fentanyl in 2024. Updated figures through September show over 262 million doses seized so far this year. However, preliminary data from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention indicates that drug overdose deaths fell 26.9% in 2024 to the lowest annual level since 2019, with an estimated 80,000 deaths compared to 110,037 in 2023.
Since 2019, the DHS has considered designating fentanyl as a WMD under specific conditions. Several legislative efforts to reclassify the drug have been introduced but none passed. A bill introduced in Congress by Representative Lauren Boebert earlier this year would require the department to formally classify fentanyl as a WMD.
