US Warns China Nuclear Buildup After New START Expiry
P&C | Tuesday, 24 Feb. 2026
Geneva | Planet & Commerce
The United States has accused China of “massively” expanding its nuclear arsenal and conducting secret low-yield nuclear tests, heightening fears of a renewed global arms race following the expiration of the New START treaty. The allegations, made at the Conference on Disarmament in Geneva, were strongly rejected by Beijing, which accused Washington of distorting its nuclear policy and using unverified claims as a pretext to justify its own potential return to nuclear testing. Speaking at the high-level forum, Christopher Yeaw, the US assistant secretary of state for arms control and non-proliferation, argued that China’s rapid and opaque nuclear weapons buildup had rendered previous bilateral arms control frameworks inadequate. He said the now-expired New START treaty between Washington and Moscow failed to account for what he described as China’s deliberate expansion of its nuclear capabilities. “Despite its claims to the contrary, China has deliberately and without constraint, massively expanded its nuclear arsenal without transparency or any indication of China’s intent or end point,” Yeaw told delegates. He added that Beijing is on track to possess enough fissile material for more than 1,000 nuclear warheads by 2030 — a development that could significantly alter global nuclear balance calculations. New START, which expired on February 5, had capped the United States and Russia at 1,550 deployed nuclear warheads each. According to the International Campaign to Abolish Nuclear Weapons, both Washington and Moscow each possess more than 5,000 nuclear weapons when stockpiled warheads are included. The treaty’s lapse marks the first time in decades that no binding agreement limits the deployment of the world’s largest nuclear arsenals.
China has dismissed US accusations. Shen Jian, China’s ambassador in Geneva, said Beijing “firmly opposes the constant distortion and smearing of its nuclear policy.” He insisted that China would not engage in any nuclear arms race and argued that its arsenal remains significantly smaller than those of the United States and Russia. “It is not fair, reasonable or realistic to expect China to participate in the so-called trilateral talks,” Shen said. Washington has long sought to bring China into arms control negotiations alongside the US and Russia, arguing that Beijing’s growing missile silo fields and advanced delivery systems require new multilateral agreements. While China maintains that its nuclear force is minimal and defensive in nature, US officials contend that rapid expansion at previously undisclosed sites signals a strategic shift. The dispute has been compounded by renewed allegations of covert nuclear testing. Yeaw provided detailed claims that US monitoring data from Kazakhstan indicated a 2.75-magnitude underground explosion at China’s historic Lop Nur test site in Xinjiang on June 22, 2020. He estimated the yield at roughly 10 tonnes nuclear equivalent, suggesting that Beijing may be preparing additional tests with larger yields. China has categorically denied conducting any nuclear tests, calling the accusations “groundless.” Shen accused Washington of using such claims to justify its own reconsideration of nuclear testing policy. Former President Donald Trump had previously signaled that the United States could resume nuclear testing on an “equal basis” if rivals were found to be violating test moratoriums. Independent analysis has not conclusively supported the US claims. A recent assessment by the Center for Strategic and International Studies found no definitive satellite evidence of unusual activity at Lop Nur consistent with a nuclear explosion. Analysts emphasized that seismic data alone can be difficult to interpret without corroborating imagery.
Beyond the testing allegations, geopolitical tensions are shaping nuclear diplomacy. US officials have also accused Russia of exceeding New START limits and assisting China in enhancing its nuclear capacity. The Kremlin has not directly responded to the latest remarks but has previously criticized Washington’s missile defense programs and NATO expansion as destabilizing factors. Despite the sharp rhetoric, US officials insist that Washington is not abandoning arms control efforts. Yeaw said the expiration of New START could create an opportunity for a “better agreement” that addresses evolving nuclear realities and potentially includes China. “Our goal is a better agreement toward a world with fewer nuclear weapons,” he said. The stakes are high. With no treaty now restricting the deployment of strategic warheads, military planners across nuclear-armed states face fewer formal constraints. Arms control advocates warn that miscalculation, technological competition, and declining transparency could fuel a new era of nuclear proliferation. As debates intensify in Geneva, global powers are grappling with how to prevent escalation while addressing shifting power dynamics. Whether trilateral or broader multilateral frameworks can be achieved remains uncertain, particularly as trust between major powers continues to erode. For now, the collapse of New START and renewed testing allegations have revived anxieties reminiscent of Cold War-era nuclear rivalry. With modernization programs accelerating in Washington, Moscow, and Beijing, the path forward for global nuclear disarmament appears increasingly complex and contested.
Germany Balances Beijing Ties In New World Order
P&C | Tuesday, 24 Feb. 2026
Beijing | Planet & Commerce
German Chancellor Friedrich Merz arrived in China for his first official visit as head of government amid mounting economic pressures, strategic rivalry, and geopolitical uncertainty reshaping the global order. The two-day trip places trade imbalances, China’s stance on the Ukraine war, and Europe’s evolving strategic autonomy at the center of talks with Xi Jinping and Premier Li Qiang. Merz’s visit comes as Germany confronts a widening trade deficit with China and as former U.S. President Donald Trump continues to challenge longstanding international economic arrangements. European leaders are recalibrating their positions amid shifting alliances, supply chain disruptions, and concerns over global security architecture in the wake of Russia’s invasion of Ukraine. China has positioned itself as a defender of multilateralism while seeking to counter U.S. trade policies and sanctions frameworks. However, Berlin approaches Beijing with caution. In January, Merz told Germany’s Bundestag that Europe must “learn the language of power politics” and strengthen both economic resilience and military capacity to navigate a more competitive international system. Trade tensions are a central concern. According to Germany’s latest foreign trade data, imports from China rose 8.8 percent last year to 170.6 billion euros, while German exports to China fell 9.7 percent to 81.3 billion euros. The imbalance reflects China’s growing industrial capacity and competitiveness, particularly in electric vehicles and advanced manufacturing — sectors traditionally dominated by German firms such as Volkswagen and Mercedes-Benz. Chinese electric vehicle manufacturers have expanded rapidly, challenging Germany’s automotive leadership in global markets. German industry leaders accompanying Merz hope to stabilize market access while addressing regulatory hurdles and subsidies that Berlin argues distort competition. The visit includes a stop at a Mercedes-Benz facility in China and travel to Hangzhou, home to technology giant Alibaba Group and robotics innovator Unitree Robotics, highlighting Germany’s interest in technological cooperation and innovation ecosystems.
The German government’s “de-risking” strategy remains a key backdrop to the trip. Berlin continues to view China as both an indispensable economic partner and a systemic rival. Policymakers aim to reduce dependence on Chinese supply chains, particularly for rare earth minerals critical to automotive production, defense systems, and high-tech manufacturing. Restrictions on rare earth exports and concerns over Chinese industrial subsidies have intensified debates within the European Union about economic security. The war in Ukraine adds further complexity. While China insists it maintains an “objective and impartial position,” Germany and other European states view Beijing’s alignment with Moscow as troubling. The expiration of diplomatic momentum in peace talks and ongoing Russian military operations have heightened European security anxieties. Although no major shift in China’s Ukraine policy is expected, Merz is likely to reiterate Berlin’s concerns regarding China’s indirect support for Russia. Recent months have seen a parade of Western leaders travel to Beijing, including French President Emmanuel Macron and leaders from Ireland, Canada, South Korea, Finland, and the United Kingdom. These visits reflect efforts by middle powers to maintain channels with China while safeguarding strategic interests. China’s foreign ministry spokesperson Mao Ning emphasized that stable China–Germany relations serve both economies and meet global expectations. She added that the Ukraine crisis “should not become an issue between China and Europe,” signaling Beijing’s preference to compartmentalize disagreements. Merz, however, has warned that Germany must harbor no illusions about China’s ambitions. He has stated that Beijing seeks to shape a new multilateral order aligned with its own rules and governance philosophy. The challenge for Berlin lies in balancing pragmatic economic cooperation with principled positions on security and international norms.
Germany’s manufacturing sector faces mounting competitive pressure as China’s industrial overcapacity boosts exports. The surge in Chinese imports has helped offset declines in shipments to the United States amid tariff disputes. European policymakers worry that continued imbalance could erode domestic industries and technological leadership. At the same time, Germany remains deeply intertwined with China’s vast consumer market. Many German companies derive significant revenue from Chinese sales, particularly in automotive and engineering sectors. Business leaders accompanying Merz aim to expand commercial opportunities while navigating regulatory constraints and geopolitical sensitivities. Shortly after returning from Beijing, Merz is scheduled to travel to Washington for further discussions, underscoring Germany’s dual-track diplomacy between the United States and China. The chancellor’s approach reflects Europe’s broader effort to assert strategic autonomy without alienating key partners. Observers suggest that tangible breakthroughs are unlikely during this visit. Instead, success may be measured in incremental cooperation — preserving trade channels, clarifying positions on Ukraine, and managing disagreements without escalation. As the post–World War II global order undergoes strain from trade disputes, security conflicts, and shifting alliances, Germany’s engagement with China illustrates the delicate balancing act facing Europe’s largest economy. Whether Merz can navigate trade deficits, geopolitical friction, and technological competition will help define Berlin’s role in an increasingly multipolar world.
Slovakia Halts Power Aid Over Oil Pipeline Row
P&C | Tuesday, 24 Feb. 2026
Bratislava | Planet & Commerce
Slovakia has suspended emergency electricity supplies to Ukraine amid an escalating dispute over Russian oil transit through the Soviet-era Druzhba pipeline, deepening tensions within the European Union over energy security and sanctions policy. Slovak Prime Minister Robert Fico announced that state-owned grid operator SEPS would no longer provide emergency support to Ukraine’s power system until oil flows to Slovakia are restored. Fico’s decision follows a two-day ultimatum to Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy demanding the reopening of the Druzhba pipeline, which transports Russian crude across Ukrainian territory into Central Europe. The pipeline was disrupted in late January after what Ukraine described as damage caused by a Russian drone strike on infrastructure. “As of today, if the Ukrainian side turns to Slovakia with a request for assistance in stabilising the Ukrainian energy grid, such assistance will not be provided,” Fico said in a video statement, linking electricity support directly to the resumption of oil transit. He added that Slovakia would reconsider its “previously constructive positions” on Ukraine’s European Union membership if the dispute persists. Ukraine’s grid operator Ukrenergo responded that it had not been formally notified and insisted that the suspension would not significantly affect Ukraine’s unified power system. Ukrenergo noted that the last request for emergency electricity assistance from Slovakia occurred more than a month ago and was limited in scale.
The Druzhba pipeline — one of the world’s longest oil conduits — remains a critical energy artery for landlocked Central European countries. Although the European Union imposed a broad embargo on most Russian oil imports in 2022 following Moscow’s invasion of Ukraine, the pipeline was granted an exemption to allow countries like Slovakia and Hungary time to diversify supply sources. Both Slovakia and Hungary have declared energy emergencies over the disruption in oil deliveries. Hungarian Prime Minister Viktor Orban has similarly demanded the reopening of the pipeline and has linked the issue to broader EU policy debates. Hungary recently vetoed additional European sanctions against Russia and is stalling a proposed 90-billion-euro EU loan package for Ukraine. Fico described the oil disruption as a “purely political decision” aimed at blackmailing Slovakia over its stance on the war in Ukraine. He also referenced Ukraine’s earlier halt of Russian gas transit after a long-standing agreement expired on January 1, 2025, arguing that the move costs Slovakia approximately 500 million euros annually in damages. Energy flows between Slovakia, Hungary, and Ukraine are tightly interconnected. According to Kyiv-based consultancy ExPro, Slovakia and Hungary accounted for roughly 68 percent of Ukraine’s imported electricity this month. It remains unclear how much of that volume constituted emergency assistance.
The dispute reflects broader fractures within the EU regarding relations with Russia, energy dependency, and support for Ukraine. While Brussels continues to back Kyiv politically and financially, member states differ sharply over the costs and strategic implications of severing remaining energy ties with Moscow. The oil standoff also highlights the fragile balance between energy security and geopolitical solidarity. For Slovakia, heavily reliant on Russian crude delivered via Druzhba, the outage underscores vulnerabilities in supply diversification. For Ukraine, maintaining energy stability amid ongoing Russian attacks on infrastructure remains a top priority. Brussels has urged member states to coordinate responses to energy disruptions and avoid unilateral measures that could undermine collective policy. However, domestic economic pressures and political dynamics in Slovakia and Hungary complicate consensus-building. As negotiations over pipeline repairs continue, Fico signaled that the electricity suspension could be reversed once oil transit resumes. Until then, the episode adds another layer of strain to EU unity at a time when Europe grapples with sanctions enforcement, reconstruction funding for Ukraine, and the long-term reconfiguration of its energy landscape.
Beijing Cites Taiwan Tensions And Remilitarization Concerns
P&C | Tuesday, 24 Feb. 2026
Beijing | Planet & Commerce
China has placed 40 Japanese companies on new export control and watchlists, escalating economic pressure on Tokyo as tensions mount over Taiwan and regional security policy. The measures, announced Tuesday by China’s Commerce Ministry, restrict the sale of dual-use goods — items with both civilian and military applications — to 20 named Japanese entities and impose additional licensing requirements on another 20. The export controls ban Chinese exporters from supplying dual-use items to the listed companies and prohibit foreign organizations from transferring Chinese-origin dual-use goods to those entities. “All ongoing related activities must cease immediately,” the ministry said, describing the move as necessary to safeguard national security and curb what it called Japan’s “remilitarization and nuclear ambitions.” Among the targeted firms are subsidiaries of Mitsubishi Heavy Industries involved in shipbuilding, aircraft engines, and maritime machinery, as well as divisions of Kawasaki Heavy Industries and Fujitsu. On the separate watchlist requiring case-by-case export licenses are companies including Subaru Corporation, Mitsubishi Materials Corporation, and Institute of Science Tokyo. Under the new rules, Chinese exporters must submit detailed risk assessment reports and written pledges that the goods will not be used for military purposes when dealing with firms on the watchlist. Beijing emphasized that the restrictions apply only to dual-use items and would not disrupt “normal economic and trade exchanges” between the two countries. The decision follows remarks in November by Japanese Prime Minister Sanae Takaichi, who suggested Japan could consider military intervention if China attacked Taiwan. Beijing views Taiwan as a breakaway province and opposes any statements by foreign governments implying support for Taiwanese sovereignty or security guarantees.
Takaichi’s recent parliamentary landslide has emboldened a conservative shift in Japan’s defense posture. Her administration has pursued expanded military capabilities, closer security coordination with the United States, and increased defense spending. Analysts say China’s latest export controls are a direct response to Tokyo’s increasingly assertive stance on Taiwan and broader Indo-Pacific security. China’s Commerce Ministry defended the measures as “legitimate, reasonable, and legal,” arguing they target only a small number of entities linked to sensitive sectors. However, the inclusion of major industrial conglomerates underscores the seriousness of Beijing’s concerns about dual-use technology transfers and supply chain vulnerabilities. The move adds another layer to already complex China-Japan relations. While China remains Japan’s largest trading partner, bilateral ties have been strained by disputes over the East China Sea, historical grievances, semiconductor export restrictions, and alignment with U.S. strategic policy. Japan has also strengthened ties with Taiwan in trade and security dialogues, drawing repeated protests from Beijing.
Industry observers warn that the restrictions could disrupt supply chains in aerospace, maritime engineering, advanced materials, and high-tech manufacturing. Japanese manufacturers rely on Chinese rare earth elements and specialized components for electric vehicles, robotics, and defense equipment. Conversely, Chinese exporters benefit from Japanese technological collaboration and capital investment. Markets reacted cautiously to the announcement, with shares of several affected Japanese firms experiencing volatility amid concerns about production delays and licensing uncertainty. Economists note that even limited dual-use controls can have broader ripple effects across integrated global supply chains. The development also comes amid heightened geopolitical competition in the Indo-Pacific region. The United States and its allies have intensified efforts to limit China’s access to advanced semiconductor technology, while Beijing has introduced countermeasures targeting strategic industries. Export controls have become a central instrument in the unfolding technology and security rivalry. Despite the sharp rhetoric, both sides have signaled interest in preventing a full-scale economic rupture. China stressed that compliant companies have “nothing to worry about,” while Japanese officials have yet to formally respond, though diplomatic channels are expected to engage. As Taiwan remains a flashpoint and Japan recalibrates its security strategy, the export control measures reflect how economic policy is increasingly intertwined with geopolitical signaling. The latest restrictions mark a further escalation in Sino-Japanese tensions and highlight the growing use of trade tools in strategic competition.
PM Targets Populism Immigration And Tax Debate
P&C | Tuesday, 24 Feb. 2026
Canberra | Planet & Commerce
Prime Minister Anthony Albanese has launched a pointed attack on Pauline Hanson’s One Nation party, declaring it does not “represent working people,” while also accusing independent ACT senator David Pocock of seeking to “promote grievance” in national debates. In an hour-long YouTube interview with Nine journalist Karl Stefanovic on his independent podcast, the Labor leader addressed a wide range of issues including immigration policy, tax fairness, Syrian detention camp repatriations, the rise of minor right-wing parties, and Australia’s broader political direction. The appearance marked the first time a Labor politician has featured on Stefanovic’s solo podcast venture, which has previously hosted high-profile conservative figures. As the discussion unfolded, antisemitic remarks and references to extremist groups briefly appeared in the live YouTube comment stream before being deleted, raising concerns about online moderation during politically sensitive broadcasts. Albanese used the platform to counter claims that One Nation could capture working-class support traditionally aligned with Labor. Recent political polling in Australia has shown a surge in support for minor parties following the 2025 federal election, amid internal Coalition tensions and heightened debate over immigration and cost-of-living pressures. “They oppose every advance that trade unions have ever made,” Albanese said, citing One Nation’s opposition to industrial relations reforms, wage protections, and weekend penalty rates legislation. He pointed to Labor’s policies enshrining “same job, same pay” standards and pay increases in the aged care sector as evidence of the government’s pro-worker credentials. The prime minister also highlighted the political connections between Hanson and mining magnate Gina Rinehart, arguing that corporate backing undermines claims that One Nation champions working-class Australians. Hanson has previously traveled on Rinehart’s private jet to attend conservative events in the United States, including conferences linked to former U.S. President Donald Trump.
“When people look at what policies they have, they don’t represent working people,” Albanese said, suggesting that the minor party’s agenda favors business interests over labor protections. The prime minister attributed One Nation’s rising support to voter frustration with the Coalition rather than a shift away from Labor’s economic agenda. “The polling represents people walking away from the Coalition,” he argued, describing it as an expression of disillusionment rather than ideological realignment. Albanese also responded to comments from Pocock regarding Australia’s taxation framework, particularly claims that Australians pay more tax on beer than mining companies contribute for resource extraction. Initially mistaking the argument for one made by the Greens, Albanese said environmental parties would “shut down all of our industry if they had the chance.” Upon clarification, he directed criticism at Pocock, stating the senator “seeks to promote grievance as well.” The exchange reflects ongoing debates over mining royalties, corporate taxation, and resource policy — issues that have gained renewed attention amid Australia’s economic transition and global commodity volatility. Immigration and national identity were also central to the discussion. Albanese rejected inflammatory rhetoric used by some political figures about migrants, including remarks made by Barnaby Joyce suggesting immigrants who do not embrace Australian values should return to their countries. “We have a non-discriminatory policy,” Albanese said, emphasizing that migrants from war-torn nations seek stability and opportunity. He cited the Vietnamese community’s success as an example of multicultural integration contributing positively to Australia’s social and economic fabric.
The interview further touched on diplomatic developments involving Andrew Mountbatten-Windsor. Albanese confirmed he had written to British Prime Minister Keir Starmer supporting any proposal to remove Mountbatten-Windsor from the royal line of succession following his arrest on suspicion of misconduct in public office. Mountbatten-Windsor has denied wrongdoing and has not been formally charged. When asked whether raising the royal succession issue was intended to deflect attention from Australian women and children detained in Syrian camps, Albanese dismissed the suggestion bluntly. “Karl, I call bullshit,” he said, underscoring the political sensitivity surrounding foreign policy and humanitarian repatriation debates. The conversation highlighted broader themes shaping Australian politics in 2026: populism versus institutional reform, immigration policy, tax fairness, industrial relations, and the evolving media landscape. With minor parties gaining traction and public trust in major political institutions fluctuating, Albanese’s remarks signal Labor’s intent to frame itself as the defender of working-class interests while challenging both right-wing populism and independent crossbench narratives. As Australia navigates economic uncertainty, geopolitical tension, and domestic political fragmentation, the prime minister’s intervention reflects an increasingly combative tone ahead of future electoral contests. The debate over representation, grievance politics, and national values is likely to intensify as parties compete to define the country’s political identity in a shifting global order.