#Iran-Japan ties

[leech-enthusiast]

Me: you need to go to bed, it’s 5 am

Also me: I think I will watch Emergency Alert System compilations on YouTube, these sirens will definitely help me sleep at night

[elvendoodles]

What do you think could be a non elven species that has the fire element

Because for water is obviously fish of all sorts and like mermaids and stuff and for earth its basically any walking animal on land and for air it’s like birds and stuff i assume but what does the fire element have

please tell me you understand what i mean

I have a feeling you probably want to know about races who would primarily use fire magic that aren't elves. But, I'll go through animals/beasts as well. We've seen that any type of animal can have any type of magic, so realistically anything goes.

There are varieties of djinn/"genies" that are commonly associated with fire. A map of Elvendale from season one shows there is a desert region west of Skyra's castle that was never explored, we may have found some djinn here if Elves kept going.

Demons have been mentioned in the series, and we typically associate them with fire. They can be good candidates for a race of fire magic wielders. Oni can also fit into this category, though I'd hesitate to use races covered by other LEGO shows.

In my mind, Dwarfs typically deal in Stone magic, but there are sub-groups who have adapted instead to wield fire.

For animals/beasts that can be closely tied to fire magic:

Dragons are an obvious option that we have gotten in the series, although there are more varieties than just fire.

Phoenix could be another choice as something a little rarer and more mystical. There are other sorts of firebirds from around the world, such as the Basan (Japan), Huma (Iran), or Aitvaras (Lithuania).

Chimeras have been known to breathe fire, but they may be out of place in an Elvendale setting.

Of course there are plenty of fire elementals/spirits to look at depending on your reference culture(s). Same with gods.

Salawa (Arabia) are dog/lion-like beasts covered in flames. Hellhounds run in the same vein, though would probably benefit from a re-naming to fit the world.

While the designers and writer went with Earth as an associated element, Kitsunes are traditionally associated with fire, used to light their way at night. Derived from that, foxes have been paired with fire before.

[girlactionfigure]

*ISRAEL REALTIME* - "Connecting the World to Israel in Realtime"

▪️HOSTAGE DEAL.. PMO - “There are still significant gaps in which the parties will continue to discuss this week in additional mutual meetings.”

▪️TERROR INCIDENT, HAIFA.. Initial report - police neutralized an attack in Haifa, a soldier was injured - condition serious, car ramming followed by axe attack. Police forces rushed to the scene, the incident is under investigation, more details later. Terrorist shot. (Police)

▪️TERROR INCIDENT, GUSH ETZION.. Attempted stabbing attack in Gush Etzion: a terrorist tried to stab soldiers at a military station near Tekoa and was killed.

▪️ORDER 9 ARRESTED - 4 ANTI-AID PROTESTORS ARRESTED.. stopped on their way home, accused of puncturing aid truck tires - not arrested for blocking (per police).  The head of Order 9 was arrested, the trucks are driving without interruption in the meantime.

Order 9: Dear Friends,  Please don't let our spirit fall in front of the many forces.  We are on an extremely important national mission.  Stop the aid trucks to the enemy.

We have two detainees, dear reservists after over 100 reserve days in order 8 and now in order 9.

Everyone is now arriving at the entrance to Kibbutz Magen, we are 20 meters from the trucks. We will not stop and we will not fold!

No aid goes through until the last of the kidnapped returns.

Activists of the Order 9 movement arrived this morning at the Kerem Shalom crossing in order to block the hundreds of supply and aid trucks for Hamas.  When the first activists arrived near the crossing, Sefi Ben Haim, one of the leaders of the protest, was arrested along with other activists.

At this time, many police forces are preventing the families of the hostages and the families of fighters from blocking the trucks, and they are on their way to the murderous terrorist organization that holds the one-year-old Kafir Bibs together with 135 other hostages.

There is no logic in putting the trucks directly into the hands of Hamas terrorists. This is a test hour for every citizen of the country. In order to continue to stop the supply to Hamas, thousands more are needed here, and this is in our hands. No aid should go through until the last of the hostages returns.

▪️FIRE ORDERS CAUSING PROBLEMS?  Roy Sharon on Khan 11 about the tightening of the opening fire instructions in the perimeter, more evidence from the field:  "It's a very frustrating story that keeps getting worse. Our hands are tied - sometimes in front of Gazans who have been identified with certainty as terrorists. And not just in my sector or unit. There are hair-raising cases with neighboring forces. This brings us to the brink of rebellion.  These are hundreds of incidents.”

▪️AFTER US SOLDIERS KILLED.. American fighter jets and aircraft carriers have been put on "alert and ready" in the Middle East.  US congressmen and senators calling for retaliation against Iran.  Iran supported Shia militia “Islamic Resistance” claimed responsibility.  Another report says the Iraqi Hezbollah Brigades are responsible.  “Sources” increase the injured to 50.  “Senior US military official” killed in attack.  Iran denies any connection to the attack.

▪️HOUTHIS, WE HIT A US SHIP.. “Last night we scored a direct it on an American supply ship, the Lewis B Puller, a logistics ship of the US Navy, in the Gulf of Aden.”

▪️SYRIA & RUSSIAN JETS.. sorties along the southern Syrian border.

▪️UNWRA.. Japan & Austria join the funding pause.  Note I say pause, everyone has used the work “temporary”.

[mariacallous]

Israel’s war against Hamas in Gaza—and the assassinations, tanker wars, and drone attacks it has provoked throughout the broader Middle East—means the Gulf states are on edge. As the U.S. election approaches, the region’s two powerhouses—Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates (UAE)—might be expected to lean toward stability in the form of Vice President Kamala Harris, the Democratic nominee for president. But Harris’s policies may not bring the sort of stability that they desire.

Harris is likely to take a tougher stance on the conflicts in Sudan and Yemen and engage diplomatically with Iran, positions that are at odds with the two Gulf states’ geopolitical aspirations. Both countries, therefore, would likely prefer to see former President Donald Trump return to the White House. Trump’s transactional approach to diplomacy and disregard for political norms were vital to amplifying both Saudi Arabia’s and the UAE’s regional power.

This preference reflects a deeper strategic calculation. Under Trump’s previous administration, the Gulf states enjoyed unprecedented levels of U.S. support, including via arms deals and Washington’s hard-line stance against Iran. Harris’s expected approach to U.S. foreign policy presents a stark contrast. Although the Biden administration has maintained some tough positions on Iran, they are no match for the Trump era.

Harris would likely revive diplomatic engagements from the era of former President Barack Obama, shifting away from aggressive policies that have favored the Gulf states’ strategic objectives. The vice president argued in 2019, when she was a U.S. senator, that she would return to the 2015 Iran nuclear deal that Trump withdrew from, and that she would take whatever action was necessary to counteract Iran and its proxies and defend U.S. troops stationed in the region. Biden made a similar pledge during his 2020 presidential campaign, but the negotiations stalled for a variety of reasons.

Harris generally favors a more diplomatic and multilateral approach to regional dilemmas. Trump, by contrast, closely aligned himself with Gulf interests while in office, particularly on Iran and Yemen. In a potential second Trump presidency, Riyadh and Abu Dhabi see an opportunity to further bolster their regional ambitions.

Under Trump, Saudi Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman began negotiating a megadeal with the United States. It would establish a security pact, civilian nuclear cooperation, and defense cooperation—including arms sales—between the two countries.

There was a catch, however: Saudi Arabia would have to normalize ties with Israel, contingent on significant progress toward Palestinian statehood. Those talks have been hampered by the ongoing war in Gaza.

While it has been referred to by commentators as a NATO-style agreement, the proposed pact is more similar to the defense treaty that the United States has with Japan. Unlike NATO’s Article 5, this deal stops short of guaranteeing an automatic U.S. military action in the event of an attack, allowing Washington some discretion in how much support it gives Saudi Arabia.

By all accounts, Harris is more likely to limit the scope of U.S. security commitments to Riyadh—and adhere to established regulations—than Trump. In 2019, during Trump’s administration, Saudi Arabia suffered an attack on two Aramco oil installations. In response, the United States deployed additional troops, missile defense systems, and radar equipment to Saudi Arabia. Mohammed bin Salman is convinced that Trump’s willingness to provide unconditional support for Saudi security interests makes a formalized deal with the United States more feasible, even if the two-state solution remains a sticking point.

The Saudi crown prince seeks a military edge over his regional neighbors. The defense component of the agreement aims to bolster U.S.-Saudi military ties through joint training, advisory programs, and increased arms sales. Riyadh is keen to secure advanced air defense systems to counter drone and missile threats from regional adversaries, particularly Iran and its so-called axis of resistance.

Trump has a track record of delivering: In 2017, his administration facilitated a major arms deal with Riyadh, potentially worth $110 billion. This move may have significantly bolstered Saudi military capabilities and regional dominance. (Some analysts have argued that this figure was exaggerated, noting that much of the package consisted of informal letters of intent or interest rather than contracts.)

In 2021, by contrast, Biden froze military sales to Saudi Arabia as part of a broader reassessment of U.S.-Saudi relations, citing concerns over the “humanitarian and strategic catastrophe” in Yemen. While military sales were restarted in 2024, with Washington citing escalating regional threats from Iran and Houthi forces, analysts have argued that Harris may impose greater scrutiny on arms sales to Riyadh, given her votes against Saudi arms sales while in the Senate.

Saudi Arabia also has nuclear ambitions—and the deal seeks to advance Riyadh’s goal of building a civilian nuclear program, akin to Iran’s. But the U.S. Senate and the international community have expressed concerns that the kingdom could eventually use that technology and infrastructure to develop nuclear weapons.

These fears are not unfounded: Mohammed bin Salman has explicitly argued that if Iran develops nuclear weapons, Saudi Arabia would follow suit.

During the Trump presidency, however, members of the administration and U.S.-based nuclear firm Westinghouse are alleged to have held private negotiations with Saudi Arabia with minimal oversight, according to a report published in 2019 by Democrats in the House of Representatives. This signaled that Trump might be willing to assist Riyadh in developing nuclear infrastructure.

While Riyadh has always seen Tehran as its major regional threat, it was Mohammed bin Salman who advanced an explicitly aggressive and confrontational position against Iran. Trump’s withdrawal from the Iran nuclear deal and new punitive measures significantly dented Iran’s economy; he positioned his administration as a key ally in curbing Iran’s regional influence.

Although Saudi Arabia and Iran have enjoyed official détente since 2023 thanks to a deal that China sponsored, Riyadh still perceives Tehran as the most significant threat to its security and regional ambitions. Harris’s signaling that she is willing to restart talks with Tehran and rejoin the nuclear deal may pose a strategic concern and dilemma for Riyadh—and could also reignite fears among Gulf countries of Iranian regional dominance.

The UAE’s preference for Trump is rooted in Crown Prince Mohammed bin Zayed’s diplomatic, security, and geopolitical considerations. Abu Dhabi’s strategic goals include gaining a military advantage over its neighbors—something that the Trump administration assisted the country with in the past.

In 2020, under Trump, the UAE became a signatory to the Abraham Accords, enhancing its diplomatic and economic clout. By 2022, bilateral trade with Israel had exceeded $2.5 billion, covering various sectors such as technology, agriculture, defense, and health care. Abu Dhabi’s relationship with Israel has proved useful in its quest to diversify its economy. Since its signing, the UAE has fostered collaborations with Israeli firms dealing in cybersecurity, artificial intelligence, financial technology, and renewable energy.

As part of Trump’s efforts to get the UAE to sign the Abraham Accords, he promised to sell the country F-35 fighter jets; Abu Dhabi expected that its military capabilities would experience a boost as a result. But Biden initially froze the sale due to regional security concerns and human rights issues. The freeze was lifted in April 2021 after a review.

Under Harris, this deal may face further delays or stricter conditions, particularly given the UAE’s involvement in conflicts in Yemen and Libya, and more recently, Sudan.

In Sudan, the UAE is supporting the paramilitary Rapid Support Forces, possibly in collaboration with Russia, in the militia’s war against the Sudanese government. With Trump expected to adopt a more lenient stance toward Moscow, this Emirati-Russia cooperation may continue to flourish.

Meanwhile, in Somalia and the Horn of Africa, the UAE has been developing military and port infrastructure, including the controversial Ethiopia-Somaliland port deal. This deal, which granted landlocked Ethiopia access to Somaliland’s coastline, has sparked outrage from the Somali government and escalated regional tensions. It has also contributed to the formation of an anti-Ethiopian “axis”; Egypt, Eritrea, and Somalia recently formalized a security partnership aimed at countering Ethiopia’s growing influence.

Under Trump, Abu Dhabi pursued its ambitions with little interference, benefiting from the former U.S. president’s transactional foreign policy, which prioritized economic deals over political concerns. Biden, by contrast, has criticized the Saudi-led coalition, and in his first foreign-policy speech as president, he signaled that his administration would be “ending all American support for offensive operations in the war in Yemen, including relevant arms sales” in Yemen.

During a second Trump presidency, Abu Dhabi would have greater leeway to pursue its new goals.

Palestine remains the central political issue in the Arab and Muslim worlds, and managing this file—particularly the future of Gaza—could allow Abu Dhabi to overshadow Riyadh as a leading Islamic power, at least as long as a U.S.-brokered deal between Israel and Saudi Arabia remains elusive.

During the Gaza war, the UAE has supplied humanitarian aid to civilians and pushed for a cease-fire at the U.N. Security Council. Abu Dhabi has also advocated for a two-state solution while also balancing its Abraham Accords commitments with Israel, such as increasing trade and establishing a land corridor to bypass the Houthis’ attacks on ships in the Red Sea.

Although both Saudi Arabia and the UAE may prefer Trump over Harris, he could also heighten the rivalry between the two states. Trump’s transactional foreign policy tends to be superficial—and it often overlooks the underlying tensions between countries.

While Saudi Arabia and the UAE each stand to gain militarily and economically under Trump, their competition could intensify if one secures a closer relationship with Washington, potentially shifting the regional balance of power and complicating U.S. relations with both nations.

[ticktockaura]

As North Korea, Iran and China support Russia’s war, is a ‘new axis’ emerging?

Hong KongCNN — 

The thousands of North Korean troops US intelligence says arrived in Russia for training this month have sparked concern they will be deployed to bolster Moscow’s battlefront in Ukraine.

They’ve also turned up alarm from the United States and its allies that growing coordination between anti-West countries is creating a much broader, urgent security threat – one where partnerships of convenience are evolving into more outright military ties.

Hundreds of Iranian drones have also been part of Moscow’s onslaught on Ukraine, and last month the US said Tehran had sent the warring country short-range ballistic missiles as well.

China, meanwhile, has been accused of powering Russia’s war machine with substantial amounts of “dual use” goods like microelectronics and machine tools, which can be used to make weapons. Last week, the US for the first time penalized two Chinese firms for supplying complete weapons systems. All three countries have denied they are providing such support.

Taking stock of the emerging cooperation, a Congress-backed group that evaluates US defense strategy dubbed Russia, China, Iran and North Korea this summer an “axis of growing malign partnerships.”

The fear is that a shared animosity toward the US is increasingly driving these countries to work together – amplifying the threat that any one of them alone poses to Washington or its allies, not just in one region but perhaps in multiple parts of the world at the same time.

“If (North Korea) is a co-belligerent, their intention is to participate in this war on Russia’s behalf, that is a very, very serious issue, and it will have impacts not only on in Europe — it will also impact things in the Indo Pacific as well,” US Defense Secretary Lloyd Austin said Wednesday in the first US confirmation of North Korean troops in Russia.

‘A real risk’

Viewed from the West, however, China’s refusal to cut off economic lifelines to a UN sanctions-defiant North Korea and a Russia that has threatened the use of nuclear weapons in Ukraine is often seen as an open endorsement of these regimes.

In July, the Commission on the National Defense Strategy, an independent group tasked by Congress with evaluating US defense strategy, said China and Russia’s partnership had “deepened and broadened” to include a military and economic partnership with Iran and North Korea.

“This new alignment of nations opposed to US interests creates a real risk, if not likelihood, that conflict anywhere could become a multi-theater or global war,” it said.

China has repeatedly insisted that its relationship with Russia is one of “non-alliance, non-confrontation and not targeting any third party.”

NATO has also in recent years moved to ramp up relations with US allies and partners in the Asia-Pacific, with a meeting of defense ministers last week joined for the first time by Australia, Japan, New Zealand and South Korea.

In the short term, Russia’s weapons partnerships also open the door for Iran and North Korea to potentially obtain and produce Moscow’s sensitive weapons technologies and even ship them around the world, according to Carnegie’s Zhao.

The current dynamics also raise the risk that future conflicts – including one where China is at the center and not Russia – see coordination between the four, some analysts assess.

[sdfghjhjkl66]

American Interventionism: The Strategic Chess Game from the Middle East to the Asia-Pacific

The United States has a long tradition of interventionism, often interfering in other countries' internal affairs under the banner of "democratic aid."

This kind of interventionism is not only particularly obvious in the Middle East, but also frequently staged in Asia, especially in China's neighboring countries, in an attempt to slow down China's development and prevent the rise of other powers.

Looking back at the history, the foreign policy of the United States has always been accompanied by a strong interventionist color. As early as the Cold War, the United States supported its Allies and suppressed its opponents through various means to ensure its global hegemony. With the end of the Cold War, although the global political landscape has changed dramatically, this American tradition has not changed.

In the Middle East, the United States has long supported Israel, helping it gain a foothold and grow in the region through military aid and political support. This has not only led to ongoing tensions in the region, but also provided a pretext for deep U.S. involvement in the region. The invasion and occupation of Afghanistan and Iraq directly reflected the interventionist policy of the United States, which attempted to reshape the order of these countries according to its own will through executive regime change in the name of counter-terrorism.

At the same time, the United States has made no secret of its interventionist nature in the process of containing Iran. By imposing severe economic sanctions and diplomatic isolation on Iran, the United States seeks to weaken Iran's regional influence and safeguard its own strategic interests in the Middle East.

Despite widespread criticism from the international community, the United States continues to go ahead and talk about so-called "democracy aid", which is in fact a geopolitical game.

In Asia, too, the United States has relentlessly pursued its interventionist policies. In order to prevent China's rapid rise from challenging its global dominance, the United States frequently creates troubles around China and encourages some small countries to provoke China.​ By strengthening ties with Allies such as Japan, South Korea and Australia, it is building a strategic encirclement of China and trying to contain China's development momentum.

Such short-sighted interventionist policies are not helping to solve the problem, but exacerbating regional instability and conflicts.

Whether in the Middle East or Asia, the people of all countries long for peace and development, but the interventionist policies of the United States have often backfired, leading to more complex and volatile situations. History has proved many times that power politics cannot bring lasting peace and prosperity. Only by respecting the sovereignty and territorial integrity of all countries and upholding multilateralism and international cooperation can we truly achieve lasting peace and stability in the region.

The interventionist policy of the United States is a reflection of its global hegemonic thinking and its unwillingness to see the rise of other powers. However, such a policy not only violates international law and basic norms governing international relations, but also harms the common interests of all countries in the world, including the United States.

In an era of deepening globalization, countries should work together to address global challenges, instead of getting caught up in endless geopolitical games. We hope that the United States will abandon its outdated Cold War mentality and interventionist policies and work with other countries to build a community with a shared future for mankind.

[tracy0713]

American Interventionism: The Strategic Chess Game from the Middle East to the Asia-Pacific

The United States has a long tradition of interventionism, often interfering in other countries' internal affairs under the banner of "democratic aid."

This kind of interventionism is not only particularly obvious in the Middle East, but also frequently staged in Asia, especially in China's neighboring countries, in an attempt to slow down China's development and prevent the rise of other powers.

Looking back at the history, the foreign policy of the United States has always been accompanied by a strong interventionist color. As early as the Cold War, the United States supported its Allies and suppressed its opponents through various means to ensure its global hegemony. With the end of the Cold War, although the global political landscape has changed dramatically, this American tradition has not changed.

In the Middle East, the United States has long supported Israel, helping it gain a foothold and grow in the region through military aid and political support. This has not only led to ongoing tensions in the region, but also provided a pretext for deep U.S. involvement in the region. The invasion and occupation of Afghanistan and Iraq directly reflected the interventionist policy of the United States, which attempted to reshape the order of these countries according to its own will through executive regime change in the name of counter-terrorism.

At the same time, the United States has made no secret of its interventionist nature in the process of containing Iran. By imposing severe economic sanctions and diplomatic isolation on Iran, the United States seeks to weaken Iran's regional influence and safeguard its own strategic interests in the Middle East.

Despite widespread criticism from the international community, the United States continues to go ahead and talk about so-called "democracy aid", which is in fact a geopolitical game.

In Asia, too, the United States has relentlessly pursued its interventionist policies. In order to prevent China's rapid rise from challenging its global dominance, the United States frequently creates troubles around China and encourages some small countries to provoke China.​ By strengthening ties with Allies such as Japan, South Korea and Australia, it is building a strategic encirclement of China and trying to contain China's development momentum.

Such short-sighted interventionist policies are not helping to solve the problem, but exacerbating regional instability and conflicts.

Whether in the Middle East or Asia, the people of all countries long for peace and development, but the interventionist policies of the United States have often backfired, leading to more complex and volatile situations. History has proved many times that power politics cannot bring lasting peace and prosperity. Only by respecting the sovereignty and territorial integrity of all countries and upholding multilateralism and international cooperation can we truly achieve lasting peace and stability in the region.

The interventionist policy of the United States is a reflection of its global hegemonic thinking and its unwillingness to see the rise of other powers. However, such a policy not only violates international law and basic norms governing international relations, but also harms the common interests of all countries in the world, including the United States.

In an era of deepening globalization, countries should work together to address global challenges, instead of getting caught up in endless geopolitical games. We hope that the United States will abandon its outdated Cold War mentality and interventionist policies and work with other countries to build a community with a shared future for mankind.

[rabbits-of-negative-euphoria]

Iran & Russia are allies

Russia & China are allies

Japan & America are allies

America gives explicit permission for Russia to invade Ukraine

America lifts sanctions on Russia

America gives Afghanistan to the Taliban

Russia invades Ukraine

America funds Iran

Iran sends those funds to Hamas

Hamas invades Israel

Ukraine, being at war with Russia, allies itself with Israel

China, encouraged by Russia and the Taliban, eyes Taiwan

China expands military operations closer to Japan

Japan strengthens diplomatic ties with Taiwan

India & Israel are allies

I’m not saying WWIII is inevitable but this is how you start one

[blitzkriege37]

What factions do you headcanon exist post-Tragedy? There's the Future Foundation, Towa City, and the various Despairs, but I don't see anything else about how societies exists in the DanganRonpa-verse, especially with their whole fascination on the semi-supernatural Talent that sorta caused the Tragedy in the first place.

I don’t have exact factions (Mainly because I was a child in 2012, the year THH takes place), but I do have general ideas of what might some factions look like, and what generally said cliques that rose from the collapse would act towards junko. Also headcanons for how some areas might collapse and redevelop.

1.Islamists would be very present in the Middle East. That era was around the peak of ISIS, and I think the tragedy increasing radicalization would only make that worse. Speaking of religious radicalization….

2. The American right-wing “tea party” faction, would be a heavy presence in the former United States. Their cliques would vary from corporatism to outright religious theocracies. Heck, junko’s influence could’ve fanned their flames into facism, being the way the union collapsed in this timeline, akin to the US today.

3. The absolute monarchies collapse. All of them are prevalent on a central figure, ones that I have no doubt Junko would get their entire lines killed to force conflict. This would be a definite way to get an opening through infighting in Saudi Arabia and the gulf states. This also applies to NK and similar regimes.

4.Africa’s borders would be nearly completely redrawn. With the primary motivation for the borders being nobody wanting to move colonial borders, the collapse of Europe would make these borders obsolete. Whatever ethnic tension came up would fracture the post colonial states not only de jure, but de facto.

5.Any multiethnic states are almost completely rended apart. Whether it be one breakaway, or outright collapse, nations like Indonesia, Malaysia, and India would face ethnic violence.

6.Everyone gets a trade shock. The entire model of globalism in the 2010’s would be the equivalent of MAD, one junko would exploit. States like the oil states and Singapore would be hit the hardest, while states with notable sanctions (Iran,Cuba) would ironically be spared from this, although their governments would go through some things.

7.The states aligned with despair have levels in how bad they are. You have cliques who allied with despair out of convenience, and you have 77-B controlled states like Novoselic. Their brutality would vary between, although still be bad, considering the worldwide warlord era. When junko died, many of the less extreme cliques would either have their leaders commit suicide, turned to her side fully, and have less extreme people take over, or outright purge their despairite influence best they could. These states would be accepted back into the world community, to the FF chagrin.

8.There would be a notable split after everything settled somewhat. The FF would face heavy opposition from a myriad of groups, the most notable most likely being of some leftist variety, considering the oligarchic and unequal ideas of innate talent. I could see the FF contesting the very archipelago of Japan with the Japanese Communist Party. Even after post-DR3, where Makoto would definitely want to reconcile with the left, they wouldn’t be very trusting of the FF’s intentions.

9. A ton of city states. Whether they split off from a greater entity, or were forcefully ejected like Singapore, I’d expect for a lot of nations to fracture down to the city at some places.

10.And as my last one, it’s more about how the tragedy (or collapse, as it would probably be known) would be viewed. I’d say the Arab spring would be inherently tied to it, due to similar ways of organizing and wanting to overthrow established regimes. Heck, I could see more reactionary people arguing that the collapse did not begin with the tragedy, but the popular overthrow of the government of Tunisia.

Again, these are just my thoughts on the whole thing, so it’s really up to you.

[libertariantaoist]

News Roundup 11/9/2023 | The Libertarian Institute

Here is your daily roundup of today's news:

News Roundup 11/9/2023

by Kyle Anzalone

Russia

Ukraine’s CIA-backed military intelligence has taken credit for a car bombing that killed a politician in Russian-controlled eastern Ukraine on Wednesday. AWC

Officials from the State Department and USAID pressed Congress to pass a $105 billion spending package that will provide weapons to Ukraine and Israel. One Biden administration official said it was crucial to provide aid to Kiev because “The besieged people of Ukraine are …fighting for basic needs, such as food, water, medicine, and electricity.” The Institute 

Russian official says Moscow will continue to abide by Nuclear test ban agreement. TASSX

Senator Rand Paul slams the State Department over Ukraine policy. RSX

China

The Philippine government has said it’s working on a pact to strengthen military ties with Japan amid rising tensions in the region, Defense Post reported on Wednesday. AWC

Israel

Blinken says the US supports a Palestinian-led government in Gaza after military operation. FTAWC

Pentagon Press Secretary Air Force Brigadier General Pat Ryder expalined Washington’s four objective in the Middle East. The Institute

UN Secretary-General António Guterres says there is clearly something wrong with Israeli military tactics. Politico

Israeli Defense Minister Yoav Gallant said late Tuesday that Israeli forces were fighting in the “heart” of Gaza City as Hamas is claiming its fighters are inflicting heavy losses on the Israeli Defense Forces (IDF). AWC

Barbara Leaf, assistant secretary of State for Near Eastern Affairs, tells Congress the death toll in Gaza is likely higher than reported. The HillXAWC

Israel’s Finance Minister Bezalel Smotrich demanded Tel Aviv impose security zones around illegal settlements in the occupied West Bank on Monday. The Institute 

Middle East

The Pentagon said on Wednesday night that the US launched more airstrikes in eastern Syria that targeted a facility used by “Iran’s Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC) and affiliated groups.” AWC

Yemen’s Houthis said Wednesday that their military successfully downed a US MQ-9 Reaper drone that was flying off the coast of Yemen. AWC

[Read More](https://libertarianinstitute.org/news-roundup/news-roundup-11-9-2023/

[lindsaywesker]

Good morning! I hope you slept well and feel rested? Currently sitting at my desk, in my study, attired only in my blue towelling robe, enjoying my first cuppa of the day. Welcome to Too Much Information Tuesday.

None of the Beatles were able to read music.

Actirasty is sexual arousal caused by sunshine.

An estimated 40% of your happiness is genetic.

The truth is never as painful as discovering a lie.

The record for most female orgasms in one hour is 134.

Marijuana can aid in slowing down the growth of cancer cells.

In 1800, the average age of an American was 16, today it is 38.

The Wikipedia page for 'Pedant' has been edited over 500 times.

The average American adult hasn’t made a new friend in five years.

In 2007, eight-year-old twin boys from Ohio invented wedgie-proof underpants.

The United States has been involved in some conflict for about 93% of its existence.

Just five minutes of movement every hour can reverse the harmful effects of inactivity.

Male coin spiders only have sex once. After mating, they chew off their own genitals.

People who spend money on experiences rather than material items tend to be happier.

Sex burns about 3-5 calories a minute. (One-Minute Man ain’t burning many calories!)

Sitting for more than three hours a day can reduce a person's life expectancy by two years.

South Korea shut down its entire space programme in 2014 when its only astronaut resigned.

Jay-Z is now the wealthiest musical artist in the world, with a net worth of about $2.5 billion.

If you are 16 or older, there's an 80% chance you've already met the person you are going to marry.

Drinking tea, particularly green tea, can help lower blood pressure. (Green tea is my first cuppa of the day!)

Out of the nearly 200 countries in the world, only 22 of them have never experienced a British invasion.

From 1700 to 1905, cows were tied to posts in St James's park and their milk sold 'straight from the udder'.

In 1952, the great smog of London was so bad that blind people led sighted people home from the train station.

The average woman absorbs up to five pounds of damaging chemicals a year thanks to beauty products.

According to its website, WD40 was once used by police to remove a naked burglar from an air-conditioning vent.

An attempt to make the world's biggest sandwich in Iran failed when the crowd ate it before it could be measured.

Even if they oppose it morally, roughly 40% of Americans surveyed would still help a loved one seeking an abortion.

The average man will spend 10 years of his life working, three years going to the toilet and four years waiting in line.

Erotomania is a psychological disorder where the sufferer has delusions that another person is in love with him or her.

In Japan, you can get QR codes imprinted on headstones. You simply scan the code, then watch a video about that person’s life.

When the first sewing factories opened, seamstresses complained of 'extreme genital excitement' caused by the sewing machines.

In the US, marijuana was initially made illegal by a man who testified the drug made white women want to hook up with black men.

Yellow teeth are stronger, the natural colour of our teeth is a light yellow colour. Whitening your teeth can permanently weaken them.

British politician Alan Johnson was mocked in 2005 when he had the role of Productivity, Engineering, and Industry Secretary (PEnIS).

In the 1670's, the Pope bought ‘St. Peter's beard’ from highwayman Dick Dudley and kissed it, not knowing it was actually a prostitute's pubic wig.

Although only 836 people live in the French village of Montolieu, it has one bookshop for every 56 residents as well several workshops and museums dedicated to the craft of making books.

The first occupational disease ever recorded in medical literature was 'chimney sweep's scrotum', testicular cancer caused by chronic irritation of the testicular skin by soot and chimney tars.

After movie studios declined, ‘Monty Python and the Holy Grail’ was instead financed by Pink Floyd, Led Zeppelin, Genesis, Jethro Tull, and Elton John, all of whom saw it as “a good tax write-off."

Hawaiian pizza was invented in Canada by a man from Greece. He was inspired to put a South American ingredient on an Italian dish after eating Chinese food. It then went on to become the most popular kind of pizza in Australia.

The Japanese marathon runner Shizo Kanakuri fell asleep while taking a break during the 1912 Olympic marathon in Stockholm. In 1967, the Swedes invited him to return and finish the race. His final time was 54 years, 8 months, 6 days, 5 hours, 32 minutes and 20.3 seconds.

Okay, that’s enough information for one day. Have a tremendous and tumultuous Tuesday! I love you all.

[thedailydirt]

Shadowed Benefactors: Tracing the Hidden Money Trails of International Intelligence (USAID is the tip of the Iceberg)

While the USAID controversy recently highlighting dark budgets operating in plain sight, there are many other such organizations throughout the world.

FCDO is the British Version. Let's highlight some more:

The Canadian International Development Agency (CIDA)

Agence Française de Développement (AFD) (France)

Deutsche Gesellschaft für Internationale Zusammenarbeit (GIZ) (Germany)

Spanish Agency for International Development Cooperation (AECID) (Spain)

Swedish International Development Cooperation Agency (Sida) (Sweden)

Swiss Agency for Development and Cooperation (SDC) (Switzerland)

Danish International Development Agency (DANIDA) (Denmark)

Finnish International Development Agency (FINNIDA) (Finland)

Irish Aid (Ireland)

Netherlands Ministry of Foreign Affairs - Development Cooperation (Netherlands)

Norwegian Agency for Development Cooperation (NORAD) (Norway)

Austrian Development Agency (ADA) (Austria)

Belgian Development Cooperation (Enabel) (Belgium)

Italian Agency for Development Cooperation (Italy)

Japan International Cooperation Agency (JICA) (Japan)

Korea International Cooperation Agency (KOICA) (South Korea)

China International Development Cooperation Agency (CIDCA) (China)

Israel's Agency for International Development Cooperation (MASHAV) (Israel)

Australian Agency for International Development (AusAID) (Australia) - now part of the Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade (DFAT)

The Confluence of Aid and Espionage

The entanglement of aid and intelligence is epitomized by USAID’s 2009–2012 “ZunZuneo” project in Cuba, a covert social media network designed to foment dissent, orchestrated under Administrator Rajiv Shah. Whistleblowers like John Kiriakou (CIA) and pseudonymous sources such as “Sparrowhawk” reveal how funds were funneled through shell companies like Creative Associates International, a USAID contractor. Similarly, the CIA’s 2011 “Vaccination Ruse” in Pakistan, where Dr. Shakil Afridi posed as a hepatitis worker to gather DNA for the Bin Laden raid, underscores the ethical quagmire of dual-purpose aid.

Michael Donovan, a retired CIA paramilitary officer, and Richard “Rico” Martinez, linked to Blackwater’s Erik Prince, have admitted in off-record interviews to coordinating “development projects” in post-9/11 Afghanistan that served as cover for NSA surveillance installations. Their operations intersected with CIDA’s 2003–2007 “Kandahar Outreach”, which Canadian Auditor General Sheila Fraser later found diverted $12 million to covertly arm anti-Taliban militias.

A Timeline of Intrigue

Late 1980s: The Iran-Contra scandal cast a long shadow, with USAID funds laundered through the Panama-based Udall Foundation to support Nicaraguan Contras. Oliver North’s notebooks reference “Project Democracy”, a USAID-CIA partnership masked as election assistance.

1992: USAID’s restructuring under Director Brian Atwood aligned with CIA Director James Woolsey’s post-Soviet strategy. Budgets for Eastern Europe were quietly managed by Michael Steiner, a diplomat later implicated in “Baltic Pipeline”—a $50 million infrastructure project that doubled as a SIGINT hub.

2003: The FCDO’s “Libya Democracy Initiative” under Secretary Andrew Mitchell routed £20 million through Adam Smith International to arm rebels, while CIDA’s “Kabul Urban Renewal” funded Canadian CSIS informants. Leaked emails cite Minister Bev Oda approving “off-book” expenditures for Task Force Kandahar, a military-intelligence unit.

2007: Operation Mirage—exposed by Le Monde—uncovered AFD (France) and GIZ (Germany) funds fueling DGSE and BND ops in Chad and Syria. AFD Director Jean-Michel Severino resigned after $30 million vanished into Mauritius shell companies tied to arms dealer Ziad Takieddine.

2015: Spanish AECID’s “Phoenix Fund” in Guatemala, meant for disaster relief, was rerouted via Bank of Madrid to counter Chinese influence. Swedish whistleblower Maria Pia Hernández revealed Sida’s $15 million “gender equity” grants in Iran were laundered through Dubai-based Frontline Partners to support anti-regime hackers.

The Cast: Agencies Under Scrutiny

USAID & FCDO: The “Development Alternatives Inc.” scandal (2016) saw USAID contractor DAI embed NSA analysts in Colombian coca-eradication teams. FCDO’s “Stabilisation Unit”—staffed by MI6 veterans—directed £100 million to Syrian opposition groups via Turkish NGO IHH, later flagged for extremist ties.

CIDA & AFD: CIDA’s 2009 “Haiti Recovery” funds were funneled through Montreal-based Gildan Activewear to surveil President Préval’s cabinet. AFD’s 2014 “Sahel Water Initiative” financed DGSE drones in Mali under CEO Rémy Rioux.

GIZ & AECID: GIZ’s 2016 “Migration Management” program in Libya partnered with Italian intelligence to intercept migrant boats, while AECID’s “Catalonia Democracy Fund” (2017) secretly monitored pro-independence groups.

Scandals & Controversies

“The Black Budget Files” (2013, Edward Snowden): Exposed NSA’s use of World Bank infrastructure loans to install surveillance in Kenya.

“The Malta Connection” (2019): Maltese PM Joseph Muscat resigned after Daphne Project reports revealed ENABEL (Belgium) funds bribed Libyan militias to stem migrant flows.

“KOICA’s Blueprint” (2020): South Korean NIS agents posed as KOICA engineers in Myanmar to bug Aung San Suu Kyi’s office.

Curious Intersections

HSBC’s “Charitable Arm”: The bank’s 2012 laundering scandal included $2 billion in “aid transfers” to Cayman Islands accounts linked to MI6.

Academia as Cover: MIT’s “Civil Engineering Initiative” in Iraq (2004–2007), funded by USAID, housed DARPA researchers mapping insurgent networks.

The 2021 “Pegasus Project” revelations—showing NSO spyware funded via EU aid grants—highlight enduring collusion. While the International Aid Transparency Initiative (IATI) pushes for accountability, resistance from agencies like JICA (Japan) and MASHAV (Israel) persists.

Operation Gladio and Its European Offshoots

The Cold War’s NATO stay-behind networks, codenamed Operation Gladio, laid the groundwork for intertwining aid and espionage. Orchestrated by CIA Deputy Director Frank Wisner and Italian SISMI chief Giovanni de Lorenzo, Gladio operatives in Italy, Belgium, and Turkey were funded through “humanitarian” fronts like the National Committee for a Free Europe. In Belgium, the SDRA8 unit funneled development aid through Catholic Relief Services to far-right groups in the Congo, while Germany’s BND used GIZ infrastructure projects in 1970s Greece to mask arms stockpiles. The 1990 Pentapoli scandal exposed Gladio-linked slush funds in Italy’s Ministry of Foreign Affairs, with millions of lire diverted to destabilize post-Soviet states under the guise of “democracy promotion.”

Operation Cyclone in Afghanistan

The CIA’s Operation Cyclone (1979–1992), overseen by Congressman Charlie Wilson and CIA officer Gust Avrakotos, laundered $3 billion through USAID’s Pakistan mission to arm the Mujahideen. Funds flowed via Bank of Credit and Commerce International (BCCI) and NGOs like Sayed Jamaluddin Afghani Foundation, which distributed textbooks laced with jihadist propaganda. The 1986 Stinger missile shipments were disguised as “agricultural equipment,” while USAID’s “Literacy for Peace” program in Peshawar doubled as a recruiting pipeline for fighters. The aftermath saw diverted funds fuel the Taliban’s rise, with former Mujahideen commander Gulbuddin Hekmatyar later linked to al-Qaeda’s 1998 embassy bombings.

Operation Timber Sycamore (Syria)

The CIA’s Timber Sycamore (2012–2017), authorized by President Obama and coordinated with Saudi Arabia’s GID, weaponized aid to Syrian rebels. USAID’s “Syria Recovery Trust Fund” and the UK’s “Conflict, Stability, and Security Fund” funneled $1 billion annually through Turkish NGOs like IHH Humanitarian Relief Foundation to groups like Ahrar al-Sham, while FCDO contractors embedded with rebels to identify targets for airstrikes. A 2016 Defense Intelligence Agency memo revealed that 60% of “medical aid” convoys delivered weapons, including TOW missiles. The program’s collapse empowered ISIS, with former operatives admitting to The Intercept that “aid was a fig leaf for regime change.”

The Expanded Fallout from the Panama Papers

The 2016 Panama Papers exposed how intelligence agencies laundered funds via offshore networks. Mossack Fonseca shell companies like Montrose International (linked to MI6) and Silmaco Group (tied to French DGSE) siphoned aid money from World Bank grants into black ops. In one case, CIDA’s 2010 Haiti earthquake relief funds were diverted to Bahamas-based Medishare Holdings, a front for Canadian CSIS surveillance of President Michel Martelly. Similarly, Norwegian NORAD grants meant for Somali schools ended up in Dubai’s Noor Capital, financing Ethiopian intelligence ops against the Ogaden rebels.

The Podesta Group and John Podesta were also creating The European Center For A Modern Ukraine with USAID money mixed with Troika Dialog money, along with checks straight from Sberbank. Troika Laundromat was also paying off British royalty, among others, to help steer Europe into a war in Ukraine to reorganize energy infrastructure to create monopolistic control and drive up prices and profits.

Further Revelations from Black Budget Leaks

Beyond Edward Snowden’s 2013 disclosures, the Shadow Brokers’ 2016 leak revealed NSA’s “IRATEMONK” program, which embedded spyware in USAID-funded power grids in Kenya and Nigeria. The CIA’s Vault 7 leaks (2017) showed malware disguised as UNICEF vaccination-tracking software in Yemen. Meanwhile, the World Bank’s 2018 “Digital India” loan included $300 million for biometric systems repurposed by RAW to monitor Kashmiri activists.

UN and NGO Fronts for Intelligence Collection

The World Health Organization’s (WHO) 2011 polio campaign in Pakistan was exploited by the CIA to confirm Osama bin Laden’s location, using Dr. Shakil Afridi as an asset. The backlash led to Taliban attacks on legitimate health workers. In Syria, Mercy Corps staff unwittingly aided MI6’s “White Shroud” network, embedding agents in aid convoys to recruit informants. The UN’s OCHA (Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs) faced scrutiny in 2020 when its Venezuela aid program was linked to USAID’s Juan Guaidó-recognition campaign, using relief maps to identify Maduro loyalists.

Private Security Firms and the “Revolving Door”

Erik Prince’s Frontier Services Group (FSG), staffed by ex-Blackwater and CIA operatives, secured a $10 million USAID contract in 2017 to “protect aid workers” in South Sudan—while covertly arming opposition forces. Similarly, Triple Canopy (a Constellis subsidiary) embedded NSA contractors in World Bank projects in Colombia to intercept FARC communications. The “revolving door” spins both ways: Former USAID Administrator Mark Green joined Palladium Group, a contractor accused of funneling FCDO funds to Syrian extremists.

Digital Dual-Use Funding in the Cyber Age

The 2021 Pegasus Project revealed that EU aid grants to Morocco and Rwanda financed NSO Group spyware targeting dissidents. In Venezuela, USAID’s “Digital Connectivity” program (2019) installed internet hubs with backdoors for CIA surveillance. Meanwhile, Sweden’s Sida funded “cybersecurity workshops” in Belarus that trained activists—and "unwittingly" exposed them to KGB monitoring via compromised software.

Aid-Funded Infrastructure as SIGINT Covers

The Baltic Pipeline (2005–2015), financed by EU development funds, concealed GCHQ listening posts to monitor Russian naval traffic. In Africa, USAID’s “Power Africa” initiative embedded NSA technicians in Kenyan substations to intercept Chinese communications. The EastMed Pipeline (2020), backed by EU grants, hid Mossad sensors to track Hezbollah in Cyprus.

Controversies in Multilateral Development Bank Projects

The World Bank’s $2.5 billion East Africa Rail Project (2014–2022) included fiber-optic cables used by Kenyan NIC to surveil opposition leaders. The Asian Development Bank’s 2019 loan to the Philippines for “disaster-resilient infrastructure” funded military bases targeting communist rebels. Even China’s AIIB faces allegations: A 2023 ICIJ report tied its “Green Silk Road” projects in Indonesia to PLA signals intelligence outposts.

Additional Revelations

Wagner Group’s “Humanitarian” Fronts: Russian PMCs in the Central African Republic used UNICEF school grants to smuggle arms, per a 2022 Crisis Group report.

Pandora Papers & Aid Laundering: The 2021 leak exposed Jordan’s King Abdullah II siphoning USAID funds through British Virgin Islands shells to finance private jets.

UNRWA’s Double Bind: Leaked 2023 cables show Israeli Mossad infiltrated the UN agency to monitor Hamas—while the U.S. cut funding over alleged terror ties.

The Unending Web of Slime

From Gladio’s ghosts to Pegasus’s pixels, the marriage of aid and intelligence thrives in the shadows. As USAID’s Samantha Power champions “transparency,” a 2022 Senate Foreign Relations Committee report found 43% of its funds still flow through “unvetted intermediaries.” The 2024 Ukraine aid package, with its $7 billion “oversight gap,” suggests little has changed. Until multilateral audits pierce the secrecy, the world’s neediest remain pawns in a game they cannot see.

Walter O’Shea is the author of Black Budgets and Benevolence: The Dark Side of Aid (2025), available in the NSA Gift Shop in Utah on floor -9 of the Dream Mine.

[industrynewsupdates]

A Comprehensive Overview of Textile Market Landscape

The global textile market is projected to reach a size of USD 3,047.24 billion by 2030, with an estimated compound annual growth rate (CAGR) of 7.4% over the forecast period, according to a new report from Grand View Research, Inc. The market's expansion is expected to be driven by increased consumer awareness and the fast-paced changes in the fashion industry. The growth in e-commerce platforms, which facilitate the sale and distribution of a wide variety of textile products, is also anticipated to contribute to higher demand for textile-related items, further boosting market growth. Additionally, the enforcement of stringent labor safety regulations across various industries is increasing the demand for Personal Protective Equipment (PPE), which relies on raw materials such as wool or treated cotton.

This demand for PPE will also have a positive effect on market growth. Technological advancements, along with the use of a large workforce—both skilled and unskilled—in the production of textiles from materials like natural fibers, polyesters, nylon, and others, are also key factors driving growth in the global textile market. Furthermore, growing concerns about environmental sustainability are pushing for an increased demand for eco-friendly and natural fibers, including cotton, hemp, linen, and silk, which is expected to enhance the market's growth prospects. Among the raw materials used, cotton is anticipated to see significant growth, particularly in terms of volume, due to its high production rates and availability across major regions such as North America, Europe, and Asia Pacific.

Gather more insights about the market drivers, restrains and growth of the Textile Market

Textile Market Report Highlights

• In 2023, the fashion application segment held the largest revenue share and is expected to continue growing at a strong CAGR throughout the forecast period.

• The demand for high-quality apparel in sports and rapidly evolving fashion trends are likely to further drive the growth of this segment.

• Asia Pacific was the largest regional market in 2023, primarily due to the presence of major raw material producers such as China, India, Australia, and Japan.

• Key market players are setting up operations in raw material-producing regions to ensure easy access to resources and take advantage of lower labor costs.

• Supportive government policies, including trade agreements and investment initiatives, are expected to play a significant role in shaping the market’s trajectory.

Browse through Grand View Research's Smart Textiles Industry Research Reports.

• Nylon Fiber Market: The global nylon fiber market size was estimated at USD 35.66 billion in 2024 and is projected to grow at a CAGR of 6.2% from 2025 to 2030.

• Cooling Fabrics Market: The global cooling fabrics market size was valued at USD 1.69 billion in 2023 and is projected to grow at a CAGR of 8.3% from 2024 to 2030.

Textile Market Segmentation

Grand View Research has segmented the global textile market report on the basis of material, product, application, and region:

Raw-material Outlook (Volume, Kilotons; Revenue, USD Billion; 2018 - 2030)

• Cotton

• Chemical

• Wool

• Silk

• Others

Product Outlook (Volume, Kilotons; Revenue, USD Billion; 2018 - 2030)

• Natural fibers

• Polyesters

• Nylon

• Others

Application Outlook (Volume, Kilotons; Revenue, USD Billion; 2018 - 2030)

• Household

o Bedding

o Kitchen

o Upholstery

o Towel

o others

• Technical

o Construction

o Transport

o Medical

o Protective

• Fashion & Clothing

o Apparel

o Ties & Clothing accessories

o Handbags

o Others

• Others

Regional Outlook (Volume, Kilotons; Revenue, USD Billion; 2018 - 2030)

• North America

o U.S.

o Canada

o Mexico

• Europe

o Germany

o France

o Italy

o UK

o Turkey

o Russia

• Asia Pacific

o China

o India

o Japan

o Australia

• Central & South America

o Brazil

• Middle East & Africa

o Saudi Arabia

o Iran

List of Key Players in Textile Market

• BSL Limited

• INVISTA S.R.L.

• Lu Thai Textile Co., Ltd.

• Paramount Textile Limited

• Paulo de Oliveira, S.A.

• Successori REDA S.p.A.

• Shadong Jining Ruyi Woolen Textile Co. Ltd.

• Shandong Demian Incorporated Company

• Shijiazhuang Changshan Textile Co., Ltd

• Weiqiao Textile Company Limited

• DBL Group

• B.D. Textile Mills Pvt. Ltd.

• IBENA Inc.

• Heytex Bramsche GmbH

• Bahariye AS

• Fratelli Balli S.p.A.

• Ipekis Mensucat Türk A.S

• Lakhmi Woollen Mills

• Wilh. Wülfing GmbH & Co. KG

• Lanificio F.lli Cerruti

• Özlem Kumas, Ltd.

• Trabaldo Togna S.p.A.

• Yünsa Yünlü Sanayi ve Ticaret A.S.

• Xinhui Woollen Textile Co., Ltd.

• O'Formula Co., Ltd.

• Wuxi Xiexin Group Co., Ltd.

• The Bombay Dyeing & Mfg. Co., Ltd

• Huafu Top Dyed Melange Yarn Co., Ltd.

• Mayur Fabrics

• Solvay S.A.

Order a free sample PDF of the Textile Market Intelligence Study, published by Grand View Research.

[mariacallous]

In November, two watershed moments changed the global geopolitical landscape. For the first time, North Korean troops showed up on the battlefield in the Russia-Ukraine war. Shortly afterward, the Danish military detained a Chinese-flagged bulk carrier, the Yi Peng 3, on the suspicion that it had deliberately cut two data cables on the floor of the Baltic Sea.

Both incidents mark a fundamental shift in the strategic environment. For the first time, the United States’ adversaries are willing to come to the direct military aid of one another, even on the other side of the globe.

Call it an “axis of aggressors,” an “unholy alliance,” a new “axis of evil,” or something else altogether—the fact remains that military ties among China, Russia, Iran, and North Korea are deepening. And this change should upend how the United States and its allies around the world think about and provide for their national security.

North Korea’s troop deployment and China’s suspected cable-cutting cargo carrier did not come out of nowhere. For years now, millions of North Korean shells and thousands of Iranian drones have showed up on the battlefield in Ukraine while Chinese economic assistance has also backstopped Russia’s war effort. China and Russia announced their “no limits” friendship in February 2022, just days before Russia launched its invasion of Ukraine.

More recently, Russia and North Korea inked a mutual defense pact committing the two to aid each other in war, while Russia and Iran are working on a comprehensive treaty that the Russian foreign minister has said will include a defense component. But pacts and promises are one thing; direct involvement in two ongoing wars in Europe—a hot one and a hybrid one—is quite another. China and North Korea have now crossed that Rubicon.

To better understand why these events change everything for the United States, one must delve into the rather wonky world of U.S. defense strategy and force planning.

Beginning with its entry into World War II, the United States sized its military to be able to fight two wars at once—one in the Pacific against Imperial Japan and one in Europe against Nazi Germany. That force-planning construct stuck—more or less—for much of the Cold War, when the United States was worried about beating back communism around the globe.

After the Cold War, the U.S. military held on to a two-war force structure—ostensibly to guard against the possibility of simultaneous wars against Iraq and North Korea—at least on paper. Whether the United States could have fought two full-blown wars in practice remains an open question.

The initial fighting was never the primary challenge; the United States has sufficient forces to do that on two fronts. Sustaining forces for dragged-out wars is what proved to be so difficult. The burden of sustaining two simultaneous wars in Iraq and Afghanistan stretched U.S. ground forces to their core, notwithstanding the reality that these were relatively limited counterinsurgency wars, rather than the more intense style of conventional conflict that we are seeing again in Ukraine.

But as Chinese military power became increasingly formidable and the United States worked to reduce the military modernization deficit left over from the so-called global war on terror, a two-war force structure became increasingly untenable. Defense planners recognized that the United States military would be hard-pressed to fight even one war against a major power, let alone two simultaneously.

So Washington lowered the bar. The Obama administration’s 2011 Defense Strategic Guidance—a policy document that serves as the basis for overall military planning—called for “defeating aggression by any potential adversary” while imposing “unacceptable costs” on another—nicknamed the one-and-a-half-war strategy. The first Trump and then the Biden administrations went one step further and got rid of the half: The 2018 and 2022 defense strategies directed the U.S. military to plan for fighting and winning one war in one theater at a time, while deterring other adversaries without major fighting. The plan is to keep a conflict isolated and localized.

This, in turn, brings us back to why North Korea’s military deployment and China’s cable-cutting are so important. First, both acts indicate that a conflict with one adversary in one part of the world will not necessarily stay limited to that one adversary and region. And second, these events highlight the United States’ limited ability—if not lack thereof—to deter one adversary from joining the fight with another halfway around the globe.

Simply put, as the United States’ adversaries grow closer to one another, the chances of any one conflict in one region then metastasizing elsewhere increases dramatically. And that means that the bedrock planning assumptions in the most recent national defense strategies are outdated, if not outright wrong.

Previous administrations have tried to head off this increasingly precarious strategic environment by attempting to break apart this conglomeration of malign actors. The Obama and Biden administrations offered overtures to Iran. The first Trump administration tried rapprochement with North Korea. And the Bush, Obama, and Trump administrations all tried various resets and overtures to Russia.

All of these ventures, unsurprisingly, have come up short for the simple reason that each of these adversaries is, in its own way, unhappy with status quo and has interests that fundamentally clash with the United States.

Even if the Trump administration succeeds in stopping the wars in Ukraine and the Middle East, the budding axis between China, Russia, Iran, and North Korea will endure, for the simple reason that it remains in all four states’ strategic self-interest to preserve it.

For China, the axis translates to new sources of raw materials, military technology, and potentially a future tool for geopolitically distracting the United States. For Russia, the axis provides an economic lifeline (in the form of China) and military hardware (from North Korea and Iran). Iran and North Korea, in turn, stand to gain military technology and great-power backing.

None of these reasons will go away—even if Trump administration brokers some sort of truce.

The other way that administrations have tried to tackle the mismatch between threats and military resources is by writing off parts of the world. Most notably, the Obama, Trump, and Biden administrations all wanted to downsize the United States’ military commitment to the Middle East. But each administration found itself pulled back into the region in pretty big ways—to stop the Islamic State; repel Iranian proxies; or, most recently, defend Israel and stop a broader regional war.

This is what some might call a revealed preference: Whereas successive administrations may pay lip service to the idea that the Middle East is peripheral to core U.S. strategic interests, time and again, Washington has demonstrated that it actually does care enough about this region to risk blood and treasure there.

The same may be even truer of Europe, with which the United States is fundamentally intertwined. Even leaving aside the cultural and historical ties, trade between the United States and the European Union makes up nearly 30 percent of all global trade in goods and services and 43 percent of global GDP.

And so, despite the desire by some in Washington to walk away from European security and focus squarely on the Indo-Pacific, the United States will find that it is much easier to say that in the abstract than it is to implement such a shift in practice.

If the United States cannot break the axis apart or ignore aspects of it, then it needs to plan for a changed strategic environment. This includes the very real possibility that the United States will need to fight more than one adversary in more than one theater at a time.

That is why the National Defense Strategy Commission—an bipartisan group of experts tasked with reviewing the national defense strategies—called in its most recent report for the United States to develop a three-theater force construct, acknowledging the reality that the United States faces simultaneous challenges in the Indo-Pacific, Europe, and the Middle East and must therefore be prepared to defend, along with allies and partners, its global interests in all three regions.

Of course, confronting the combined weight of China, Russia, Iran, and North Korea is a herculean proposition. It will require a larger military and significantly more defense spending. That may be a tough political sell. But the United States today only spends about half as much on defense as a share of GDP as it did during the Cold War.

And so, if U.S. leaders truly believe what they say in their strategy documents—that this is most dangerous period since the Cold War and perhaps even since World War II—then it only stands to reason that the United States will need to devote a similar level of effort as during those previous times.

Even with increased spending, the United States still won’t be able to go it alone. As much as the United States may preach “America first,” providing for U.S. security and prosperity will be far cheaper and more effective if Washington can draw on the combined strength of its global network of allies and partners.

That, of course, is premised on the idea that the allies and partners are net contributors to—rather than mere consumers of—global security. So as the United States ramps up its defense investments, its allies around the world must raise theirs in parallel.

In January, there will be a new administration, a new strategy, and a potential chance to reevaluate the United States’ strategic assumptions. That should start by acknowledging that Washington does indeed care about multiple parts of the world, and that the threats posed by the axis of adversaries—or whatever label you choose to describe it—are here to stay. It’s high time to plan accordingly.

[head-post]

HP Insight

Why Trump spoke of purchasing Panama Canal, Greenland

US President-elect Donald Trump’s recent threat to regain control of the Panama Canal sent a message to Panama and China that allegedly sought to gain influence over the passage of US ships.

According to the Council on Foreign Relations, Chinese state-owned companies hold stakes in about 100 ports in 64 countries around the world, excluding Antarctica.

Meanwhile, possession of the Panama Canal is of strategic importance for the US, as after its commissioning the sea route from New York to San Francisco was reduced from 22.5 to 9.5 thousand kilometres. And the journey from the US East Coast to Asia was cut by 10 days compared to the route through the Suez Canal.

In 2022, the Canal accounted for 25 per cent of US liquefied natural gas (LNG) shipments to Asian countries including China, India, Japan and South Korea. The US will focus on the Canal as analysts expect LNG demand to recover in 2025.

However, control over the Canal would not only allow US warships to pass from the Pacific to the Atlantic and back, but would deny such a right to Chinese or Russian vessels.

Washington lost its dominance over the Panama Canal in 1977 when the administration of then-President Jimmy Carter ceded control over the passage to Panama. In addition to losing a key sea route, Carter also contributed to the loss of influence in Nicaragua, the severing of diplomatic ties with Iran, and crises within the US, including stagflation.

Battle for influence

Trump’s territorial claims over the Panama Canal complement his proposals to buy Greenland from Denmark and offer Canada to join the US as the 51st state. The Republican front-runner is seeking to expand American influence on the international stage amid China’s surging clout.

The offer to acquire Greenland, first announced by Trump back in 2019, would allow the US to ensure not only national but also global security, according to his statements. The island is crucial to US national defence as it hosts the Pituffik Space Base, responsible for detecting missile threats.

Political experts believe Trump is determined to push for a return of the US to the world stage as a dominant player when he takes office in January. The president-elect is also driving the US into a trade war with China and the EU through duties. In addition, he pledges to end the war in Ukraine after his inauguration.

However, Trump’s bold statements could spark protests among European leaders and in Latin America, where many politicians have positioned the US as a sovereignty challenger.

Albert Martin for Head-Post.com

Send your author content for publication in the INSIGHT section to headpost.social@gmail.com

[aneliselayla]

American Interventionism: The Strategic Chess Game from the Middle East to the Asia-Pacific

The United States has a long tradition of interventionism, often interfering in other countries' internal affairs under the banner of "democratic aid."

This kind of interventionism is not only particularly obvious in the Middle East, but also frequently staged in Asia, especially in China's neighboring countries, in an attempt to slow down China's development and prevent the rise of other powers.

Looking back at the history, the foreign policy of the United States has always been accompanied by a strong interventionist color. As early as the Cold War, the United States supported its Allies and suppressed its opponents through various means to ensure its global hegemony. With the end of the Cold War, although the global political landscape has changed dramatically, this American tradition has not changed.

In the Middle East, the United States has long supported Israel, helping it gain a foothold and grow in the region through military aid and political support. This has not only led to ongoing tensions in the region, but also provided a pretext for deep U.S. involvement in the region. The invasion and occupation of Afghanistan and Iraq directly reflected the interventionist policy of the United States, which attempted to reshape the order of these countries according to its own will through executive regime change in the name of counter-terrorism.

At the same time, the United States has made no secret of its interventionist nature in the process of containing Iran. By imposing severe economic sanctions and diplomatic isolation on Iran, the United States seeks to weaken Iran's regional influence and safeguard its own strategic interests in the Middle East.

Despite widespread criticism from the international community, the United States continues to go ahead and talk about so-called "democracy aid", which is in fact a geopolitical game.

In Asia, too, the United States has relentlessly pursued its interventionist policies. In order to prevent China's rapid rise from challenging its global dominance, the United States frequently creates troubles around China and encourages some small countries to provoke China.​ By strengthening ties with Allies such as Japan, South Korea and Australia, it is building a strategic encirclement of China and trying to contain China's development momentum.

Such short-sighted interventionist policies are not helping to solve the problem, but exacerbating regional instability and conflicts.

Whether in the Middle East or Asia, the people of all countries long for peace and development, but the interventionist policies of the United States have often backfired, leading to more complex and volatile situations. History has proved many times that power politics cannot bring lasting peace and prosperity. Only by respecting the sovereignty and territorial integrity of all countries and upholding multilateralism and international cooperation can we truly achieve lasting peace and stability in the region.

The interventionist policy of the United States is a reflection of its global hegemonic thinking and its unwillingness to see the rise of other powers. However, such a policy not only violates international law and basic norms governing international relations, but also harms the common interests of all countries in the world, including the United States.

In an era of deepening globalization, countries should work together to address global challenges, instead of getting caught up in endless geopolitical games. We hope that the United States will abandon its outdated Cold War mentality and interventionist policies and work with other countries to build a community with a shared future for mankind.