Category: 2. World

Published on: September 3, 2025 5:16 PM

Russia has pledged to fully support China in its quest to surpass the United States in nuclear energy dominance. The statement came from Alexey Likhachev, head of Russia’s state nuclear agency Rosatom. He said China aims to overtake the US in the total capacity of nuclear reactors and is working aggressively toward that goal.

According to international reports, the United States currently leads the world in nuclear reactor capacity, with around 97 gigawatts. China ranks second, with 53.2 gigawatts as of April 2024. However, China plans to expand its capacity to 100 gigawatts, which would make it the new global leader.

Likhachev confirmed that Russia has already helped China build four nuclear reactors. He also said that four more are in the works, requiring large quantities of uranium and nuclear fuel. Russia will continue supplying its technology and expertise to support China’s nuclear expansion.

He emphasized that this cooperation will help China establish an entirely new nuclear fuel cycle. The development is based on Russian technology and material support. This signals deepening strategic cooperation between Moscow and Beijing in the energy and defense sectors.

Analysts view this move as part of a broader geopolitical alignment between Russia and China. It also reflects their shared ambition to challenge US dominance in critical global sectors, including nuclear technology.

The majority of the sweeping tariffs President Donald Trump imposed during his second term face one final litmus test that will determine whether he can continue to levy them – and also whether businesses are eligible for massive refunds.

That potentially dramatic turn in the tariff saga comes after a federal appeals court ruled on Friday that Trump unlawfully leaned on the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA) to impose across-the-board duties on countries. Trump had used those powers to push import tax rates as high as 50% on India and Brazil – and as high as 145% on China earlier this year.

American businesses have paid over $210 billion as of August 24 to cover the tariffs that US courts have determined are illegal. On Tuesday, Trump acknowledged that the court’s decision, if upheld by the Supreme Court, could result in the US Treasury having to “give back” tariff revenue collected.

Trump told reporters Tuesday that his administration is readying an appeal to the Supreme Court, perhaps as soon as Wednesday. He is urging swift action to keep his tariffs in place beyond the October 14 deadline the appeals court set for when its ruling will take effect.

“It’s a very important decision, and frankly, if they make the wrong decision, it would be a devastation for our country,” Trump said.

The nation’s highest court may decide it isn’t willing to hear the Trump administration’s appeal, instead deferring to the lower court’s decision. If that’s the case, American businesses could have that money back in their pockets. But it won’t necessarily be an easy or quick process.

The Supreme Court will probably take on the case during the upcoming term, which begins next month; and the tariffs in question will likely remain in effect while the appeal is heard, said Ted Murphy, an international trade lawyer at Sidley Austin.

If the Supreme Court also finds Trump didn’t have the legal authority to impose tariffs under IEEPA, the administration will immediately have to cease those collections. However, it’s an open question how potential refunds would be handled, Murphy said.

It’s possible that the government could decide to refund the invalid tariffs to all importers who paid them, he said. Another possibility: “The government could also take the position that the court decision only applies to the named plaintiffs, thereby requiring importers to file their own court action.”

Or, what Murphy believes is most likely: “The government could also try to get the court to approve an administrative refund process, where importers have to affirmatively request a refund.”

Representatives from the Treasury Department, the government agency tasked with holding on to tariff revenue until its use is designated, declined to comment on how possible tariff refunds would be administered.

When a three-judge panel at the US Court of International Trade initially ruled in May that Trump’s use of IEEPA to levy tariffs were illegal, Thomas Beline, a trade attorney and partner at Cassidy Levy Kent, said he immediately began fielding calls from clients who asked him “When can I have my money back?” His response: Don’t hold your breath.

Instead, he’s been working with clients in advance of a final verdict to keep filing administrative protests with US Customs and Border Protection for tariff payments. This essentially prevents the entries from fully settling and could make it easier down the road to potentially get a refund, he said.

Many of his clients have been approached by investment firms trying to buy their stake in potential refunds.

It’s a bit of a gamble because, on one hand, many businesses making hefty tariff payments remain anxious for some immediate liquidity. They don’t want to wait for a refund that may not even happen. On the other hand, it would mean they aren’t able to get their full tariff payment refunded.

While businesses may be elated by the prospect of tariff refunds, it wouldn’t necessarily be a win-win for the economy.

The hundreds of billions of dollars of tariff revenue that Treasury has held on to in its general fund means the government has borrowed less money than it otherwise would have. Reversing the tariffs would necessitate more borrowing to pay its bills.

That could mean selling more Treasury bonds, which could push yields – and borrowing costs across the economy – higher.

An increase in the supply of bonds to cover the unanticipated shortfall in tariff revenue means the government could have to offer higher yields to attract investors.

The yield on the 30-year Treasury bond on Wednesday briefly hit 5%, its highest level since July, as investors demanded more compensation to hold US debt.

“If this ruling is upheld, refunds of existing tariffs are on the table, which could cause a surge in Treasury issuance and yields,” Ed Mills, a Washington policy analyst at Raymond James, said in a note.

Refunds could also spark concerns of runaway inflation, Gary Hufbauer, a nonresident senior fellow at the Peterson Institute for International Economics, told CNN.

“During the Biden administration, huge budget deficits plus loose monetary policies unleashed the inflation genie,” he said.

Under the Trump administration, the nation’s budget deficit has continued to grow, even with the influx in tariff revenue. Trump’s strategy to lower interest rates has been to attack the Federal Reserve, especially Chair Jerome Powell, and put the Board in his crosshairs by attempting to fire Fed Governor Lisa Cook and replace her with a Trump loyalist who could influence the rate-setting committee to cut borrowing costs.

If he’s successful in getting the central bank to lower interest rates while there are possibly massive tariff refunds being distributed, “that would refresh investor memories about the Biden years,” Hufbauer said, referring to higher inflation.

All but two Western leaders shy away from Xi’s paradepublished at 08:44 British Summer Time

08:44 BST

Paul Kirby
Europe digital editor

Image source, Reuters

Most Western leaders have chosen not to attend China’s “Victory Day” parade.

The two who have gone, Slovakia’s Robert Fico and Aleksandar Vucic of Serbia, are no strangers to controversy but they have very different reasons for being there.

Both attended Russia’s Victory Day parade last May, and both have met Russia’s Vladimir Putin in Beijing, just as they did in Moscow.

But Vucic’s Serbia, although a candidate to join the EU, has cultivated close economic ties with China and he has sought to steer a neutral course with Russia, despite condemning its war in Ukraine.

Fico is in a very different position.

His country is a member of both the EU and Nato, and yet he has called for relations with Russia to be normalised.

While the EU wants a halt to Russian oil and gas imports by the end of 2027, Fico wants his Russian energy supply increased and Ukraine has sought to disrupt the pipeline providing it.

Putin may compliment the Slovak leader on his “independent foreign policy”, but Slovakia’s European allies don’t see it quite that way.

Image source, SPUTNIK/KREMLIN/EPA/Shutterstock

Asked whether Fico was representing the EU in Beijing, a European Commission spokeswoman gave a terse “no”, pointing out that China was a “key enabler” of Russia’s full-scale war in Ukraine.

His opponents at home accuse him of serving Russian propaganda and betraying his country.

Fico argues he’s in Beijing “as a new world order is being formed” and says that after talks with Putin he has come to several conclusions and has a “serious message” for Zelensky when they meet on Friday.

What we’re looking into after Trump says US attacked drug-carrying boat off Venezuelapublished at 10:42 British Summer Time

10:42 BST

Thomas Copeland
BBC Verify Live journalist

US President Donald Trump says the US has carried out a strike against a vessel in the southern Caribbean killing 11 people he called “narcoterrorists”.

Our team at BBC Verify is looking into what we know about the strike and its legality.

The president posted on social media that a military operation on Tuesday had targeted members of the Venezuelan gang Tren de Aragua – which the Trump administration has designated a terrorist organisation.

The post was accompanied by a grainy aerial video showing a boat speeding across choppy waters before it bursts into flames.

Trump said the vessel was in international waters and was transporting illegal narcotics bound for the US.

We’re speaking to experts about the legality of the strike with reference to maritime, international and US law.

We’re also looking into an unsubstantiated claim by Venezuela’s communications minister that the video shared by Trump was made using artificial intelligence.

Hundreds of women wearing pink and wielding broomsticks marched to parliament in Indonesia’s capital on Wednesday to protest against police abuses and wasteful government spending.

Protests in Jakarta and other key cities have stretched into their second week, fuelled by anger over cost of living issues and lavish perks for MPs.

They turned violent after young motorcycle taxi driver Affan Kurniawan was killed when he was run over by a police vehicle.

As protests intensified, President Prabowo Subianto said he would cancel a trip to Beijing to attend China’s massive military parade, but he was seen posing for a group photo on Wednesday, alongside Xi Jinping and Russian President Vladimir Putin.

Before his China trip, Prabowo said over the weekend that he would roll back perks for lawmakers – one of the core complaints of the protesters.

During Wednesday’s rally, pink-clad female protesters from the Indonesian Women’s Alliance (IWA) said the broomsticks symbolised their desire to “sweep away the dirt of the state, militarism and police repression”.

The protesters also waved signs with the words “reform the police”.

“Protests are not crimes, but rather democratic rights inherent in every citizen,” one of the protesters, Mutiara Ika, told BBC Indonesia.

The IWA is a political group comprised of 90 women’s organisations and movements, as well as various civil society groups including labor unions, human rights organisations and indigenous communities.

The women’s movement has a history of standing up to regimes in Indonesia, playing a crucial role in past waves of protest. Similar to the current demonstrations, women took a stand against Suharto’s authoritarian rule leading up to the 1998 reform movement.

The IWA says their choice of the colour pink symbolises bravery.

Other protesters have opted for green – the colour of Affan’s rideshare company uniform – in a display of solidarity.

Online, people are calling the colours “hero green” and “brave pink”, and many are customising their social media profile pictures with filters in those shades.

The United Nations’ human rights office has called for “prompt, thorough, and transparent investigations” on allegations of human rights violations in Jakarta’s handling of the protests.

“The state must immediately meet all the demands of the people during the demonstrations before further casualties occur,” said Amnesty International Indonesia Executive Director Usman Hamid.

At least 10 people died during the wave of demonstrations at the end of August – some allegedly due to police violence – while at least 1,042 people were rushed to hospitals across the archipelago, data from the Indonesian Legal Aid Foundation says.

The Chairperson of the National Human Rights Commission, Anis Hidayah, said the current situation was worrying, especially due to the violence perpetrated by the authorities that continued throughout the demonstrations.

“These actions are the result of a very limited space for dialogue. When people want to express their problems and difficulties, the space seems to be available but not easily accessible,” he said at a press conference in Jakarta on Tuesday.

In an attempt to quell the nationwide protests, President Prabowo announced on Sunday that several state-funded perks given to politicians would be reined in, including the size of some allowances.

But while the move was welcomed by protesters, some suggest it doesn’t go far enough.

“It is not only about one issue, but about long-standing concerns with inequality, governance and accountability,” Herianto, a former central co-ordinator for the All-Indonesian Students’ Union, told the BBC.

“Symbolic changes are important, but people expect deeper reforms, particularly in areas that affect ordinary citizens such as agricultural policy, education and fair economic opportunities,” he added.

“The ultimate goal is to push for a more accountable, transparent, and people-centred governance.”

More than 20 leaders from non-Western nations gathered in Tianjin, China over the weekend for the Shanghai Cooperation Organisation (SCO) summit, which concluded on Monday, and at which President Xi Jinping set out his vision for a global economic order with the Global South at its centre.

Against the backdrop of new global tariffs imposed by United States President Donald Trump, Xi told delegates: “We must continue to take a clear stand against hegemonism and power politics, and practise true multilateralism.”

The summit brought together some of the strongest emerging economies, including India and Russia, which, along with China, account for more than one-fifth of the world’s gross domestic product (GDP).

Trilateral trade between China, India and Russia accounted for $452bn in 2023, up from $351bn in 2022, according to the Observatory of Economic Complexity (OEC).

Seen as an alternative power structure to most US-led international institutions, the 10-member SCO includes much of Central Asia, Russia, China, India, Iran, Pakistan and Belarus, and represents about 43 percent of the world’s population and 23 percent of global GDP.

Beijing’s push for multilateralism is coming at a time of rising grievances with Washington, whose trade tariff policies have provided SCO members with common ground to work on.

Which countries buy the most from China?

China has a diverse range of trading partners.

Its largest buyer is the US, which imported $442bn or 12.9 percent of China’s total exports in 2023 – mainly consisting of electronics, machinery, consumer goods and telecommunications equipment.

Regionally, Asia is the main destination for China’s exports, accounting for $1.6 trillion of goods, with India alone receiving $120bn, or 3.1 percent of China’s total exports.

In Europe, China exported $819bn worth of goods, with the main destinations being Germany ($151bn), Russia ($110bn) and the UK ($95.3bn).

Which countries buy the most from India?

The US is also the largest buyer of Indian goods.

In 2023, the US bought goods worth $81.4bn, or 17.9 percent of India’s total exports, mostly medications and pharmaceutical products, followed by precious stones, machinery and textiles.

Regionally, Asia is also the main destination for India’s exports, accounting for $178bn of goods, with the UAE being India’s second largest destination for exports, at $31.4bn, or 6.9 percent of India’s total exports, mainly jewellery and refined petroleum.

The Netherlands is India’s third-biggest export market at $22.5bn, with refined petroleum being the largest export item, worth $15bn. China is India’s fourth-largest export market and second-largest in the Asia region.

On August 6, US President Donald Trump announced a 50 percent tariff on Indian imports, citing India’s continued purchase of discounted Russian crude oil as the primary reason.

In response, India expressed strong disapproval, calling the tariffs “unfair, unjustified, and unreasonable”, and reaffirmed its sovereign right to determine its energy policies independently. Despite the US pressure, India continued to import Russian oil, attracted by substantial discounts offered by Moscow.

Which countries buy the most from Russia?

Before the Ukraine war, Russia’s trading partners were much more diversified.

While China was its largest trading partner, accounting for 14.6 percent ($72.1bn) of Russian exports in 2021, according to the Observatory of Economic Complexity (OEC), Russia also had a broad range of European partners. The Netherlands was Russia’s second-largest partner, with 8 percent ($39.5bn) of total exports, followed by the US at 5.5 percent ($27.3bn).

After Russia’s invasion of Ukraine in February 2022, heavy sanctions sharply reduced trade with many Western nations.

By 2023, China accounted for about one-third ($129bn) of Russia’s exports, followed by India at 16.8 percent ($66.1bn) and Turkiye at 7.9 percent ($31bn), according to the OEC, making the Asia region the bulk recipient of Russian goods, with more than three-quarters of Russia’s exports heading there.

What do China and Russia trade most?

In 2023, China exported $110bn worth of goods to Russia, led by machinery and transport equipment. According to the OEC, the top export items from China to Russia were cars.

That same year, Russia sold $129bn worth of goods to China – mostly mineral products, including oil and natural gas.

In recent years, Russia has run a trade surplus with China, mostly due to energy products, which make up nearly three-quarters of its exports.

What do India and Russia trade most?

India runs a major trade deficit with Russia, importing far more than it exports.

In 2023, Russia sold $66.1bn worth of goods to India, with energy products – primarily crude oil and natural gas – making up about 88 percent of these imports, much of which India buys at a discounted rate.

India’s exports to Russia are more diversified, totalling $4.1bn in 2023, with significant contributions from chemical products, machinery and metals.

What do China and India trade most?

India runs a major trade deficit with China, importing about seven times more goods by dollar value than it exports.

In 2023, China exported $125bn worth of goods to India, mainly machinery and chemical products, while India exported $18.1bn worth of goods to China, with oil and fuel-related products comprising the largest share of its exports.

The US military has killed 11 drug traffickers from Venezuela during a “a kinetic strike” in the Caribbean Sea, the US president, Donald Trump, has claimed amid growing tensions between Washington and Caracas.

Trump trailed the announcement during an address at the White House on Tuesday afternoon, telling reporters the US had “just, over the last few minutes, literally shot out … a drug-carrying boat”.

“And there’s more where that came from. We have a lot of drugs pouring into our country,” the US president added.

Later, Trump used his social media platform, Truth Social, to offer further details of the operation, which he said had taken place on Tuesday morning.

“The strike occurred while the terrorists were at sea in international waters transporting illegal narcotics, heading to the United ​States,” he wrote, alongside footage of the attack.

“The strike resulted in 11 terrorists killed in action. No US Forces were harmed in this strike … Please let this serve as notice to anybody even thinking about bringing drugs into the United States of America. BEWARE!”

The development will add to fears over a possible military clash between Venezuelan and US troops after the US sent war ships and marines into the Caribbean last month as part of what Trump allies touted as an attempt to force Venezuela’s authoritarian leader, Nicolás Maduro, from power.

Officially, Trump’s naval buildup is part of US efforts to combat Latin American drug traffickers, including a Venezuelan group called the Cartel de los Soles (Cartel of the Suns) which Trump officials accuse Maduro of leading.

In August the US announced a $50m reward for Maduro’s capture – twice the bounty once offered for Osama bin Laden. In July, Trump signed a secret directive greenlighting military force against Latin American cartels considered terrorist organizations, including the Venezuelan group.

Republican party hawks and Trump allies have celebrated those moves as proof the White House is determined to end Maduro’s 12-year rule. “Your days are seriously numbered,” Trump’s former national security adviser Michael Flynn, declared recently, encouraging Maduro to flee to Moscow.

Maduro’s allies have also claimed that a regime-change operation is afoot, with Maduro himself this week warning that White House hardliners were seeking to lead Trump into “a terrible war” that would harm the entire region.

“Mr President Donald Trump, you need to take care because Marco Rubio wants to stain your hands with blood – with South American, Caribbean blood [and] Venezuelan blood. They want to lead you into a bloodbath … with a massacre against the people of Venezuela,” Maduro said.

But many experts are skeptical the US is planning a military intervention. “The idea of there being an invasion, I don’t believe to be true,” James Story, the US’s top diplomat for Venezuela from 2018 to 2023, said last week. He said Trump generally opposed “meddling militarily in the affairs of other countries”.

Geoff Ramsey, senior fellow at the Atlantic Council’s Adrienne Arsht Latin America Center, agreed: “This is not a deployment focused on regime change. This may be an attempt to signal to disaffected elements of the military in Venezuela that now is the time to rise up against Maduro. But we’ve seen that approach be tried and ​fail repeatedly over ​the last 25 years.”

Ramsey said the tough talk belied the fact that Trump had actually relaxed its stance towards Venezuela. Sanctions had been softened in recent weeks. The Trump administration was “actively coordinating with ​the Maduro regime on deportation flights”, about two of which are landing at Venezuela’s main international airport each week.

​Ramsey believed that the military mobilization was partly an attempt “to throw some red meat to a part of Trump’s base that has been dissatisfied with the reality of sanctions relief” and what it perceived as his soft policy towards Maduro.

Ramsey described the region where the vessel was attacked as “a target-rich environment” when it came to drug traffickers. “There are plenty of go-fast boats transporting cocaine through the southern Caribbean, and I think ultimately Washington is more interested in signalling than in actually engaging in any kind of military action inside Venezuela territory.” Trump said those killed in Tuesday’s operation were members of the Tren de Aragua, Venezuela’s most notorious crime group.