Two Ukrainian defense-tech firms, The Fourth Law and Odd Systems, have joined forces to mass-produce thermal imaging sensors in Europe and the US, The Fourth Law told Militarnyi. The goal is to wean Western militaries off foreign suppliers, chiefly China, for the core part of every thermal camera.
Amid Russia's daily attacks, Ukrainian drone makers have been shifting production to allied countries. Linza and Zoom drones are now built in Germany, and another top manufacturer has taken its technology to Canada and Finland. Sensor plants would move a core component west, not just finished drones.
The project, called Project Foundation, will build long-wave infrared sensors, known as microbolometers. These chips register heat, so a camera can pick out a person or vehicle at night or through smoke. The aim, The Fourth Law said, is to "ensure the sovereignty of Western countries in the field of thermal imaging technology."
The project will run two sites, First Foundation in Europe and Second Foundation in the US, from a headquarters in Eindhoven, a Dutch semiconductor hub. Mass production is due to start in 2027. Within three years, the partners want to quadruple Europe's output of these sensors and double America's.
Ukraine's front line burns through sensors faster than Europe can make them. "Europe currently produces less than 500,000 such sensors per year, while Ukraine consumes this amount in about five months," Odd Systems co-founder Yaroslav Azhniuk said in February, when he first announced plans for a plant able to make one million sensors a year. European sensors cost about five times as much as Chinese ones and are hard to buy at all, because Europeans need them too, he added.
Factories working for Ukraine abroad have already become sabotage targets. In March, an arson attack in Pardubice, Czechia, destroyed nearly all the production capacity of a plant making drones and thermal sights for Ukraine's army. Czech investigators are looking into a possible Russian trail behind the attack.
China has rejected a European Union request to restrict exports of hybrid cars to Europe, increasing the likelihood of new trade defence measures against Chinese manufacturers as negotiations continue in Beijing.
The disagreement comes during a visit by EU Trade Commissioner Maroš Šefčovič, who is seeking commitments from Chinese officials to address the bloc’s growing trade deficit and improve access for European businesses to the Chinese market.
According to accounts of the negotiations, Beijing has declined the EU’s proposal for voluntary restrictions. The European Commission is consequently considering safeguard measures that could limit hybrid vehicle imports or impose additional tariffs when shipments exceed specified thresholds.
No final decision has been announced, and the precise scope of any restrictions remains under discussion.
The dispute adds another difficulty to EU–China economic relations before European leaders meet in Brussels on 15–16 October, when the bloc’s commercial relationship with Beijing is expected to feature prominently.
The latest confrontation follows the introduction of EU countervailing duties on battery-electric vehicles manufactured in China in October 2024.
Those measures, imposed after an investigation into Chinese state subsidies, did not cover hybrid vehicles.
Chinese manufacturers have since increased their presence in Europe’s hybrid market, offering competitively priced vehicles that combine combustion engines with electric propulsion.
The European Commission previously confirmed that its original anti-subsidy investigation applied specifically to battery-electric vehicles and could not automatically be extended to hybrids.
Consequently, any additional import restrictions must have a separate legal basis.
One option under consideration is a safeguard mechanism that would permit a defined quantity of imports before higher tariffs apply.
Such a measure would differ from the existing anti-subsidy duties, which target alleged unfair financial support provided to manufacturers.
Safeguard restrictions are designed to address injury caused by increased imports. They may also create difficulties for Brussels because measures directed at a particular product can affect suppliers from countries other than China.
Japan, South Korea and Britain could therefore face consequences depending on the structure and legal basis of any proposed restrictions.
The dispute is taking place against a widening imbalance in goods trade between the European Union and China.
The EU’s annual merchandise trade deficit with Beijing has reached approximately €360 billion, equivalent to almost €1 billion per day.
European officials are particularly concerned about Chinese industrial overcapacity and the export of manufactured goods at prices that European producers struggle to match.
During the latest trade negotiations, Brussels has sought commitments concerning market access, import volumes and restrictions affecting European companies.
Chinese exports of plug-in hybrid vehicles to the EU have reportedly increased by 86 per cent over the past year, while battery-electric vehicle imports have risen by approximately 40 per cent.
This expansion has intensified pressure on European manufacturers already confronting high production costs, weak demand in some domestic markets and substantial expenditure on electrification.
EU Today reported in September that Brussels had requested voluntary restrictions on Chinese hybrid exports as part of a broader effort to rebalance commercial relations.
Beijing’s refusal has now brought the possibility of unilateral European measures closer to consideration.
Germany and France have increasingly aligned their positions on the need for stronger European instruments to address unfair competition and dependence on Chinese industrial supply chains.
France has long advocated a more interventionist European industrial policy, while German manufacturers have traditionally placed greater emphasis on preserving commercial access to China.
That calculation is changing as Chinese competitors strengthen their position in the European automotive market.
The problem is particularly sensitive for Germany, whose automotive industry depends on extensive supplier networks, skilled employment and exports.
German manufacturers also operate significant businesses in China, meaning that new European trade measures could expose them to retaliation in one of their principal overseas markets.
China has already responded to previous European restrictions with trade investigations and duties affecting agricultural products and alcoholic beverages.
Further measures against Chinese vehicle imports could therefore extend the dispute into sectors unrelated to the automotive industry.
The European Commission must determine whether voluntary arrangements can produce measurable reductions in Chinese exports or whether formal restrictions are required.
The legal distinction between anti-subsidy duties and safeguard measures will be particularly important.
The existing electric-vehicle tariffs were introduced following an investigation that examined subsidies and their effects on European manufacturers.
A safeguard mechanism would require a different assessment, including evidence concerning increased imports and injury to domestic producers.
It would also have to comply with the EU’s international trade obligations.
Meanwhile, Chinese manufacturers are developing production facilities within Europe, potentially reducing their exposure to tariffs imposed on imported vehicles.
EU Today’s earlier examination of the proposed hybrid tariffs considered the broader consequences of Chinese investment in European manufacturing and the bloc’s dependence on critical raw materials.
The negotiations in Beijing are expected to influence whether the Commission proceeds with formal restrictions or continues seeking a negotiated settlement.
The immediate question is whether China is prepared to offer concessions sufficiently substantial to persuade Brussels that additional tariffs are unnecessary.
With EU leaders due to discuss relations with Beijing next week, the dispute has become a test of the Commission’s willingness to use trade defence instruments against one of Europe’s largest commercial partners.
Russia has demanded the extradition of International Criminal Court (ICC) President Tomoko Akane from the Netherlands, seeking to enforce criminal sentences against judges and prosecutors involved in issuing arrest warrants for Vladimir Putin and senior Russian military officials.
The Russian Prosecutor General’s Office announced on Thursday, 8 October, that it had submitted requests to several governments for the extradition of nine current and former ICC officials, including Karim Khan, who served as the court’s chief prosecutor when the arrest warrant against Putin was issued in March 2023.
The requests follow a ruling by Moscow City Court on 12 December 2025, when nine ICC officials were convicted in absentia and sentenced to prison terms ranging from three and a half to 15 years. Their alleged offences arose from their participation in investigations and judicial decisions concerning Russian officials suspected of international crimes.
Moscow’s latest move is unlikely to secure Akane’s extradition from the Netherlands, which hosts the ICC and is among its principal supporters. Russian authorities are nevertheless seeking cooperation from several countries, potentially exposing court officials to arrest when travelling to jurisdictions maintaining close relations with Moscow.
Japan has condemned the proceedings against Akane, a Japanese national who became ICC president in March 2024.
Deputy Chief Cabinet Secretary Masanao Ozaki said Tokyo had repeatedly protested to Moscow over its treatment of ICC personnel and regarded the latest measures as unjustified and unacceptable.
He indicated that Japan would consider further diplomatic action in consultation with the court and other states parties to the Rome Statute.
Prime Minister Sanae Takaichi reaffirmed Japan’s support for the ICC during a parliamentary session on Friday, 9 October, saying Tokyo would continue to defend the institution as part of its commitment to international law.
Akane, who was elected president for a three-year term in March 2024, served on the judicial panel responsible for the arrest warrants against Putin and Russia’s commissioner for children’s rights, Maria Lvova-Belova.
Russian investigators opened criminal proceedings against the judges shortly after those warrants were announced, subsequently adding other ICC officials to their wanted lists as investigations concerning Russia’s invasion of Ukraine progressed.
The confrontation began on 17 March 2023, when the ICC issued arrest warrants against Putin and Lvova-Belova over the alleged unlawful deportation and transfer of Ukrainian children from occupied areas to Russia.
The judges found reasonable grounds to believe that both officials bore individual criminal responsibility for the alleged offences. The warrants remain in force, although neither suspect has been brought before the court.
The investigation concerns the removal of children from Ukrainian territory following Russia’s full-scale invasion in February 2022. Ukrainian authorities have documented cases involving children transferred to Russia, placed with Russian families or subjected to measures intended to integrate them into Russian society.
Russia maintains that the transfers were humanitarian evacuations. The ICC’s investigation concerns whether children were unlawfully deported or transferred from occupied territory, conduct prohibited under international humanitarian law.
The court subsequently issued further warrants against senior Russian commanders. In June 2024, former defence minister Sergei Shoigu and Chief of the General Staff Valery Gerasimov were accused of responsibility for alleged war crimes and crimes against humanity connected to attacks on Ukrainian civilian infrastructure.
Russian prosecutors responded by expanding their criminal cases against ICC personnel. The charges included knowingly prosecuting innocent individuals and attacking representatives of a foreign state.
The December 2025 convictions provided Moscow with the domestic judgments it is now attempting to enforce through extradition requests.
The Netherlands has not indicated any intention to surrender Akane. Dutch authorities have consistently supported the ICC’s independence, and the Russian convictions concern actions undertaken by officials in the exercise of their judicial responsibilities.
The position may be less predictable in countries maintaining extradition arrangements with Moscow. Although Russian convictions would not automatically require another state to surrender an ICC official, the existence of arrest warrants could complicate international travel and expose those named to detention pending legal proceedings.
The situation recalls the difficulties surrounding Putin’s own international movements since March 2023. His arrest warrant has restricted travel to ICC member states, which are generally required to cooperate with the court’s requests for arrest and surrender.
Russia’s withdrawal of its signature from the Rome Statute in 2016 did not prevent the ICC from investigating alleged crimes committed on Ukrainian territory. Ukraine had already accepted the court’s jurisdiction and became a full member on 1 January 2025.
The ICC investigation into Ukraine continues, covering alleged offences committed since 21 November 2013 within the scope of Ukraine’s acceptance of jurisdiction.
The Russian extradition demands coincide with a separate dispute between the ICC and the United States, whose government has sanctioned several members of the court.
On 18 August 2026, President Donald Trump’s administration imposed sanctions on Akane and senior ICC trial lawyer Abdoulaye Seye. Washington has objected to investigations involving American personnel and Israeli officials, arguing that the court has exceeded its jurisdiction.
The ICC condemned the additional American sanctions, warning that restrictions targeting judges and prosecutors interfere with its judicial work.
The American measures primarily involve financial restrictions, while Russia has pursued criminal convictions and extradition requests. Both have placed ICC personnel under pressure for their involvement in proceedings opposed by governments outside the Rome Statute system.
The European Union has repeatedly defended the ICC against attempts to interfere with its investigations. The Netherlands, as host country, has particular responsibilities concerning the court’s operations and the security of its personnel.
Moscow’s latest requests are therefore expected to meet resistance from European governments. Their possible consequences elsewhere will depend on the countries approached and whether local authorities are prepared to act on Russian arrest warrants.
The Kremlin has so far failed to halt the ICC’s proceedings against Putin, Shoigu and Gerasimov. Its response has been to pursue the judges and prosecutors responsible, seeking prison sentences against international judicial officials while the allegations against Russia’s own leadership remain before the court.
Login