#North's nuclear ambitions

[trendynewsnow]

North Korea Launches ICBM, Heightening Tensions in East Asia

North Korea Launches Intercontinental Ballistic Missile, Heightening Regional Tensions In a significant development, both South Korea and Japan have confirmed that North Korea has launched an intercontinental ballistic missile (ICBM) that traveled a record distance before plunging into the waters off its east coast. This missile launch has sparked renewed concerns among international observers…

[blackpilledkremlintsarina5294]

US President George W. Bush walks with Russian President Vladimir Putinafter arriving at Camp David 26 September, 2003, Maryland. US. Bush and Putin begin a two-day summit, with the two men still far apart over Russian nuclear ties with Iran even if their Iraq dispute may be in the past. Bush said at the White House that Iran's nuclear ambitions will be on the agenda for the US-Russia summit at the Camp David presidential retreat in Maryland, north of Washington.

[nicklloydnow]

“In the midst of the raging war in Ukraine, Washington’s attention is understandably focused on maintaining robust Western support for Ukraine’s valiant effort to thwart Russia’s aggression and expel it from its territory. The setbacks of Ukraine’s ongoing counteroffensive have made it clear that victory will not come soon, if at all. A long war of attrition lies ahead.

But the conflict will eventually end, and the United States will remain faced with the question of Russia. Win, lose, or draw, Russia is not going to disappear as a major challenge.

Despite some Western pundits’ breathless predictions, the chances of Russia’s breaking up as a consequence of the war are negligible. Unlike the Soviet Union in its agony, Russia is held together by powerful centripetal forces, including patriotism and xenophobia, supply chains and critical infrastructure, not to mention the powerful security services that want to draw on the resources of the entire country. Although there are substantial minorities, notably the Tatars in the Volga region, and whiffs of separatism, the country remains overwhelmingly ethnic Russian, and countries that are ethnically homogenous rarely, if ever, break up from internal causes.

(…)

Barring extraordinary developments, post-conflict Russia, with or without Vladimir Putin at the helm, is most likely to be some recognizable version of its historical self, authoritarian in domestic structure, expansionist in impulse, economically and technologically lagging, yet determined to play the role of a great power. This Russia will be a U.S. rival, as it has been since the United States emerged as a global power at the very end of the 19th century, with clashing geopolitical ambitions and an opposing worldview.

And this Russia will still matter. Because of its large nuclear arsenal, cyber and space capabilities, and military potential, it will continue to be a key factor in strategic stability. Any code of conduct for cyberspace would be incomplete if it did not include Russia. Retarding the spread of weapons of mass destruction and containing Iranian and North Korean nuclear ambitions will require U.S.-Russian cooperation.

Russia will also remain a critical component of European security. The immediate question is whether Europe’s security architecture needs to be redesigned to protect the continent from Russia over the long term, or whether it might prove possible to build that architecture in cooperation with Russia once the acute phase of the war in Ukraine has passed. But either way, Europe will not escape the conundrum it has faced for at least 200 years: How to manage relations with a huge country to the east that is alien in spirit but central to the continent’s security.

(…)

In short, the United States will not be able to ignore Russia. But, contrary to current thinking in Washington today, the challenge is not to contain Russia. Instead, we need to figure out how to harness its power for American purposes in the global arena.

The three tasks that have defined relations with Russia for the past half-century or more should continue to inform American policy. First is the pursuit of peaceful coexistence to reduce to the minimum the risk of a nuclear cataclysm — an imperative for the two rivals that together control close to 90 percent of the world’s nuclear weapons. Second is the responsible management of the inevitable competition to avoid a direct military confrontation which could escalate to nuclear war, especially in Europe, the Middle East and the Arctic, where Russia plays prominent roles. And third is mutually beneficial cooperation to meet urgent transnational threats, such as climate change, the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction, international terrorism and pandemics, among other things. In current circumstances, a fourth should be added: structuring relations with Russia to best position the United States to deal with its major strategic rival, China.

(…)

To start, while there is good reason to seek to weaken Russia so that it lacks the capacity to invade any European country, seeking to cripple the Russian economy actually jeopardizes American interests. As Washington understood during the final days of the Soviet Union, it needs a Russia strong enough to reliably control its arsenal of weapons of mass destruction, the vehicles to deliver them, and the materials and knowledge to build them. Russia should also be strong enough to govern its own territory effectively and to prevent severe domestic instability, which would inevitably spill over into neighboring regions. And it should be strong enough to negotiate and implement agreements to reduce the production of greenhouse gases and to mitigate the damaging consequences of the Arctic’s rapid warming.

More controversially, Washington has an interest in a Russia strong enough to play a role in sustaining stable regional balances of power along its long periphery in Eurasia. An overly weak Russia would enable China to gain effective control of Russia’s natural resources, especially in the Russian Far East, thus substantially enhancing its own power at little cost. A weak Russia would also jeopardize stability in the Arctic and reliable management of the Northern Sea Route, while encouraging a greater Chinese presence, to America’s detriment. And, ironically, a weak Russia would threaten to erode the West’s unity, which is preserved to a great degree by a continuing fear of Russian power, as we have seen since Russia’s invasion of Ukraine.

(…)

Three issues will dominate U.S. relations with Russia in the years ahead: Strategic stability, European security and China.

Strategic Stability: The era of strategic stability based on an interlocking set of U.S.-Russian bilateral nuclear arms control treaties has ended irretrievably. The strategic landscape is rapidly becoming ever more complex and multipolar. China’s expansion and modernization of its nuclear arsenal mean that any future nuclear arms control agreement will have to be trilateral, at a minimum. Technological advance — artificial intelligence, precision-guidance systems — enlarge the sphere of strategic weaponry, while the proliferation of missile technology and cyberweapons multiply the number of countries that can impact the strategic equation.

(…)

European Security: The major challenge will be reconciling Russia to a situation in which for all practical purposes it is no longer inside Europe but rather compelled to deal with a more or less politically consolidated Europe. In Moscow’s view, that arrangement denies it the strategic depth it has seen as essential to its security and creates on its borders a state-like entity that dwarfs it in population, wealth, and power potential, much as the United States does today. The great irony of course is that it is precisely Russia’s invasion of Ukraine that accelerated movement toward this outcome.

(…)

China: Despite Russia’s current close strategic alignment with China, underlying frictions could resurface quickly as China’s rapid economic growth and technological advance widen the gap in power between the two countries, and Beijing’s geopolitical ambitions further encroach on Russia’s influence in the former Soviet space. Russia is already hedging against an excessive reliance on its giant Asian neighbor, in part by seeking to embed it in multilateral forums that constrain its ambitions, such as the Shanghai Cooperation Organization and the BRICS.

(…)

No matter what happens in Ukraine, the United States is not about to rid itself of Russia. Even when seemingly weak, Russia has an uncanny ability to make its presence felt on the global stage, and opportunities to do so will multiply as the U.S.-led world order comes under increasing stress and slowly gives way to a new one in which power will be more diffused.

In this emerging order, the challenge for the United States is not to defeat Russia, as much of the American foreign policy establishment would now have it, but rather to skillfully exploit relations with a rival to construct a new global equilibrium that advances American interests.

To do that, the United States needs to see Russia plainly and without sentiment. Getting Russia right, as so often in the past, still remains critical to America’s future.”

“Armenia’s parliament voted Tuesday to join the International Criminal Court, a move that further strains the country’s ties with its old ally Russia after the court issued an arrest warrant for President Vladimir Putin over events in Ukraine.

Moscow last month called Yerevan’s effort to join the the ICC an “unfriendly step,” and the Russian Foreign Ministry summoned Armenia’s ambassador. Countries that have signed and ratified the Rome Statute that created the ICC are bound to arrest Putin, who was indicted for war crimes connected to the deportation of children from Ukraine, if he sets foot on their soil.

Armenia later sought to assure Russia that Putin would not be arrested if he entered the country.

Still, Kremlin spokesman Dmitry Peskov called Tuesday’s decision “incorrect,” saying it will raise “additional questions” in Moscow, even though Armenia is “our ally, a friendly state, our partner, and a lot unites us with the brotherly Armenian people.”

Asked if Putin would have to refrain from traveling to Armenia, he added: “Of course, we wouldn’t want the president to have to ever, for whatever reason, refuse a visit to Armenia.”

(…)

Armenian officials have argued the move has nothing to do with Russia and was prompted by what they call Azerbaijan’s aggression against the country.

Lawmakers voted to ratify the Rome Statute by a vote of 60-22. The measure goes next to Armenia’s president, who must prepare a ratification document, which is then deposited with the U.N. secretary-general. The decision comes into force 60 days after the ratification, according to Armenian lawmakers.

(…)

In 2020, Moscow brokered a deal that ended a six-week war between Armenia and Azerbaijan. It mandated that Yerevan cede to Baku large swaths of territory in and around Nagorno-Karabakh, a part of Azerbaijan with a predominantly Armenian population.

Russia then sent some 2,000 peacekeepers to the tumultuous region and Armenia has accused the troops of failing to prevent recent hostilities by Azerbaijan that led to Baku taking full control of the region.

The Kremlin, in turn, has accused Armenian Prime Minister Nikol Pashinyan of precipitating the fall of Nagorno-Karabakh by acknowledging Azerbaijan’s sovereignty over the region.

Moscow also blames Yerevan for damaging ties with Russia by embracing the West, including hosting U.S. troops for joint military drills.

It remains unclear whether Pashinyan might take Armenia out of the Moscow-dominated Collective Security Treaty Organization, a group of several former Soviet nations, and other Russia-led alliances. Armenia also hosts a Russian military base and Russian border guards help patrol Armenia’s frontier with Turkey.

Armenia had started the process of joining the ICC more than 20 years ago, but in 2004 its Constitutional Court ruled that the Rome Statute contradicted the country’s constitution at the time, putting the process on pause. The constitution has been amended twice since then. In March, the Constitutional Court ruled that the obligations for signatories outlined by the Rome Statute are in line with the existing constitution.

(…)

Human Rights Watch hailed Armenia’s move and urged other countries in the region to follow its example.

“Armenia’s decision to join the International Criminal Court in the face of strong opposition – including from Russia – deserves international support,’' Balkees Jarrah, associate international justice director at Human Rights Watch, said in a statement.

(…)

Yerevan wants the ICC’s jurisdiction to take force starting from May 10, 2021, but under the court’s founding treaty, Armenia would likely have to make a separate declaration to that effect.

Kirakosyan said last week that Armenia has proposed to Moscow a bilateral agreement to assuage Russia’s concerns about Putin. The text was presented to Russia in April, he said, and Armenian officials have been waiting for a response.

Kirakosyan also said an arrest of Putin is not a possibility even after Armenia joins the ICC, since “leaders have immunity.””

[warningsine]

ROSTOV-ON-DON, Russia, June 24 (Reuters) - Russian President Vladimir Putin vowed to crush an armed mutiny after the private army of mercenary boss Yevgeny Prigozhin seized control of a southern city as part of an attempt to oust the military leadership.

In Russia's first armed insurrection since the Chechen wars decades ago, heavily armed fighters from Prigozhin's Wagner militia were in control of the streets of Rostov-on-Don, a city of more than a million people close to the border with Ukraine.

Prigozhin, whose private army fought the bloodiest battles in Ukraine even as he feuded for months with the top brass, said he had captured the headquarters of Russia's Southern Military District after leading his forces into Russia from Ukraine.

In Rostov, which serves as the main rear logistical hub for Russia's entire invasion force, residents milled about, filming on mobile phones, as Wagner fighters in armoured vehicles and huge battle tanks took up positions in the city centre.

One tank was wedged between stucco buildings with posters advertising the circus. Another had "Siberia" daubed in red paint across the front, a clear statement of intent to sweep across the breadth of Russia.

A Russian security source told Reuters that Wagner fighters had also seized military facilities in the city of Voronezh, further north on the road towards Moscow, where the governor said operations were under way to put down the mutiny. Reuters could not independently confirm the situation there.

In Moscow, there was an increased security presence on the streets. Red Square was blocked off by metal barriers.

"Excessive ambitions and vested interests have led to treason," Putin said in a televised address.

"It is a blow to Russia, to our people. And our actions to defend the Fatherland against such a threat will be harsh."

"All those who deliberately stepped on the path of betrayal, who prepared an armed insurrection, who took the path of blackmail and terrorist methods, will suffer inevitable punishment, will answer both to the law and to our people."

A defiant Prigozhin swiftly replied that he and his men had no intention of turning themselves in.

"The president makes a deep mistake when he talks about treason. We are patriots of our motherland, we fought and are fighting for it," Prigozh said in an audio message. "We don't want the country to continue to live in corruption and deceit."

In a series of hectic messages overnight, Prigozhin demanded Defence Minister Sergei Shoigu and the chief of the general staff Valery Gerasimov come to see him in Rostov.

Western capitals said they were closely following the situation in nuclear-armed Russia. The White House said President Joe Biden was briefed.

"This represents the most significant challenge to the Russian state in recent times," Britain's defence ministry said.

"Over the coming hours, the loyalty of Russia's security forces, and especially the Russian National Guard, will be key to how this crisis plays out."

Prigozhin, a former convict and long-time ally of Putin, leads a private army that includes thousands of former prisoners recruited from Russian jails.

His men took on the fiercest fighting of the 16-month Ukraine war, including the protracted battle for the eastern city of Bakhmut.

He railed for months against the regular army's top brass, accusing generals of incompetence and of withholding ammunition from his fighters. This month, he defied orders to sign a contract placing his troops under Defence Ministry command.

ALLEGED AIR STRIKE

He launched the apparent mutiny on Friday after alleging that the military had killed a large number of his fighters in an air strike. The Defence Ministry denied it.

"Those who destroyed our lads, who destroyed the lives of many tens of thousands of Russian soldiers, will be punished. I ask that no one offer resistance...," Prigozhin said.

"There are 25,000 of us and we are going to figure out why chaos is happening in the country," he said, promising to destroy any checkpoints or air forces that got in Wagner's way. He later said his men had been involved in clashes with regular soldiers and had shot down a helicopter.

Russia's FSB security service opened a criminal case against Prigozhin for armed mutiny and said his statements were "calls for the start of an armed civil conflict on Russian territory".

MILITARY CONVOY

At about 2 a.m. (2300 GMT), Prigozhin posted a message on the Telegram app saying his forces were in Rostov and ready to "go all the way" against the top brass and destroy anyone who stood in their way.

At about 5 a.m. (0200 GMT), the administration of the Voronezh region, on the M-4 motorway between Rostov and Moscow, said on Telegram that a military convoy was on the highway and urged residents to avoid using it.

Unverified footage posted on social media showed a convoy of assorted military vehicles, including at least one tank and one armoured vehicle on flatbed trucks. It was not clear where they were, or whether the covered trucks in the convoy contained fighters. Some of the vehicles were flying the Russian flag.

Prigozhin denied that he was trying to stage a military coup. He said he had led his fighters out of Ukraine to Rostov, where a video posted by a pro-Wagner Telegram channel showed him, seemingly relaxed, conversing with two generals at the Southern Military District headquarters.

"We have arrived here, we want to receive the chief of the general staff and Shoigu. Unless they come, we'll be here, we'll blockade the city of Rostov and head for Moscow," he said in the video.

Army Lieutenant-General Vladimir Alekseyev issued a video appeal asking Prigozhin to reconsider his actions.

"Only the president has the right to appoint the top leadership of the armed forces, and you are trying to encroach on his authority," he said.

An unverified video on a Telegram channel close to Wagner showed the purported scene of an air strike against Wagner forces. It showed a forest where small fires were burning and trees appeared to have been broken by force. There appeared to be one body, but no more direct evidence of any attack.

It carried the caption: "A missile attack was launched on the camps of PMC (Private Military Company) Wagner. Many victims. According to eyewitnesses, the strike was delivered from the rear, that is, it was delivered by the military of the Russian Ministry of Defence."

The Defence Ministry said the allegation was false.

[thepastisalreadywritten]

Armageddon to wet lettuce: The phrases that defined 2022

Agence France-Presse, 5 December 2022

PARIS — A year of extraordinary upheaval, from the war in Ukraine to catastrophic natural disasters, AFP looks at some of the words and phrases that have defined 2022.

ARMAGEDDON 

With the war in Ukraine and increasingly strident threats from Russian President Vladimir Putin, the specter of nuclear warfare is stalking the globe for the first time in decades.

"We have not faced the prospect of Armageddon since Kennedy and the Cuban missile crisis" in 1962, US President Joe Biden warned in October.

Experts warned of the most dangerous situation they can remember, with fears not limited to Russia: North Korean nuclear saber-rattling has reached new heights, with the world bracing for a first nuclear test since 2017.

LONDON BRIDGE 

At 6:30 p.m. on September 8, Buckingham Palace announced that Queen Elizabeth II had died, bringing to an end the longest reign in British history and sending shock waves around the world.

For 10 days, Britons paid respects to the only monarch most had known, following a carefully choreographed series of ceremonies.

The program of events, famously codenamed "London Bridge", set out in minute detail every aspect of the protocol -- down to BBC presenters wearing black ties.

In the event, she died in Scotland, meaning special provisions came into force -- Operation Unicorn.

LOSS AND DAMAGE

World leaders and negotiators descended on the Egyptian Red Sea port of Sharm el-Sheikh for the latest United Nations summit (COP27) on tackling climate change.

After a fractious summit, widely seen as poorly organized, a deal was clinched on a fund for "loss and damage" to help vulnerable countries cope with the devastating impacts of climate change.

Behind the institutional-sounding name lies destruction for millions in the developing world.

The COP summit was hailed as historic but many voiced anger over a lack of ambition on cutting greenhouse gas emissions.

WOMAN. LIFE. FREEDOM. 

The chant screamed by protesters in Iran following the death of Mahsa Amini, a young woman arrested by the Tehran morality police.

Protesters have burned posters of supreme leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, and women have appeared in public without headscarves, in scenes scarcely imaginable before the uprising.

The demonstrations have lasted 3 months and appear to pose an existential challenge to the 43-year rule of the clerical regime.

BLUE TICK

The tiny blue tick (it's actually white on a blue background), which certifies users on Twitter, became a symbol of the chaos engulfing the social media platform in the wake of its $44-billion takeover by Elon Musk.

The mercurial Tesla boss announced that anyone wanting the coveted blue tick would have to stump up eight dollars, only to scrap the plan hours later.

A month on from the takeover, Twitter's future remains up in the air, with thousands of staff laid off, advertisers leaving, and its "free speech" platform hugely uncertain.

ROE V. WADE 

In an historic ruling, the conservative-dominated US Supreme Court overturned the landmark 1973 "Roe v. Wade" decision that enshrined a woman's right to an abortion.

The Supreme Court ruled that individual states could restrict or ban the procedure -– a decision seized upon by several right-leaning states.

Protests erupted instantly in Washington and elsewhere, showing how divisive the topic remains in the United States.

The overturning of "Roe v. Wade" became a critical battle in the US mid-terms in which candidates in favor of abortion rights won several victories. 

QUIET QUITTING 

One of the "words of the year" in Britain and Australia, the phrase refers to doing the bare minimum at work, either as a protest against your employer or to improve your work-life balance.

The trend, which has sparked debate about overwork, especially in the United States, appears to have surfaced first in a TikTok post in July.

"You're not outright quitting your job but you're quitting the idea of going above and beyond," said the post which went viral, drawing nearly a half-million likes.

WET LETTUCE 

As Liz Truss approached the end of her chaotic and short-lived tenure as British prime minister, the Economist weekly mused that her effective period in office had been "roughly the shelf-life of a lettuce."

The tabloid Daily Star leapt on the idea, launching a live web cam featuring said vegetable -– complete with googly eyes -- next to a picture of the hapless Truss.

Her premiership lasted just 44 days and featured a mini-budget that collapsed the markets and generated extraordinary political upheaval. In the end, the lettuce won.

TOMATO SOUP 

Environmental protesters seeking to draw attention to the role of fossil fuel consumption in the climate crisis hurled tomato soup at Vincent Van Gogh's "Sunflowers" painting at London's National Gallery in October, touching off a series of similar stunts.

Since then, activists have smothered mashed potato on Claude Monet and glued themselves to works by Andy Warhol, Francisco Goya and Johannes Vermeer.

For some, the campaigners are heroes bravely drawing attention to the climate emergency.

For others, the attacks are counterproductive and lose force by becoming commonplace.

A4 

Protests erupted in China, initially over COVID restrictions but later widening to broader political grievances, posing the greatest threat to the Beijing authorities since 1989.

The demonstrations became known in some quarters as the "A4" protests as protesters held up blank A4-sized sheets of white paper in a sign of solidarity and a nod to the lack of free speech in China.

© Agence France-Presse 

[mariacallous]

There’s a song on the Lemonheads’ underrated 1996 album Car Button Cloth that I love for very personal reasons. “The Outdoor Type” is a jangly pop tune in which the narrator admits that he had earlier misled his partner about his true interests:

I can’t go away with you on a rock-climbing weekend;

What if something’s on TV and it’s never shown again;

It’s just as well I’m not invited, I’m afraid of heights;

I lied about being the outdoor type.

I love this because I also misrepresented my enthusiasm for rock climbing to someone I very much wanted to spend more time with. And I was thinking about the lies we tell people we’re trying to lay because of the spate of recent articles trying to convince us that former U.S. President Donald Trump is an anti-imperialist.

Sen. J.D. Vance claimed in January that the most important part of Trump’s legacy is his foreign policy. “My entire adult lifetime has been shaped by presidents who threw America into unwise wars and failed to win them,” Vance wrote in a Wall Street Journal op-ed. “In Mr. Trump’s four years in office, he started no wars despite enormous pressure from his own party and even members of his own administration.”

Trump “has done more to restrain the US imperium than any politician in 75 years,” Christian Parenti wrote in Compact recently. This, Parenti claimed, is the real cause of his prosecution by the Manhattan district attorney. “Trump has been investigated, impeached, and indicted not because of the crimes of which he is accused,” wrote Parenti, “but because he has dared to oppose the imperial foreign policy favored by elites.”

Sohrab Ahmari, a former neoconservative now aligned with the Trumpist right, and one of the founders of Compact, followed up with a piece hailing Trump as “the one figure who in my lifetime has meaningfully rolled back the self-righteous imperium” scolding the anti-war left for not embracing Trump as its true hero. “The left suddenly turns ultra-principled when it comes to judging Trump’s record as an anti-imperial president: He wasn’t a total pacifist! He talked about ‘taking their oil.’ What about Yemen? Come on.”

These pieces foretell a larger effort to seduce the anti-war left with the idea that Trump, despite all evidence to the contrary, is an attractive partner for the project of reining in the American empire—that he really is the Outdoor Type. (Although for Vance, who went from outspoken Trump critic to cravenly falling in line when his political ambition required it, a better tune might be Stephen Stills’s “Love the One You’re With.”)

These pieces all rest heavily on the claim that Trump launched no new wars. That’s true as far as it goes. But it was certainly not for lack of trying. Trump might not have started any wars, but he massively inflamed existing ones—and came close to catastrophic new ones.

Let’s review the record. Despite inveighing against “endless wars,” Trump massively escalated the country’s existing wars in multiple theaters, leading to skyrocketing casualties. In Afghanistan, he substantially upped the amount of airstrikes, leading to a 330 percent increase in civilian deaths. In Yemen, he escalated both U.S. counterterrorism activities and support for the devastating Saudi-led war against the Houthis. According to the United Kingdom’s Bureau of Investigative Journalism, there were 2,243 drone strikes in just the first two years of Trump’s presidency, compared with 1,878 in the entire eight years of the Obama administration.

Trump also came very close to tweeting the country into a nuclear war with North Korea in late 2017 and early 2018, a completely self-inflicted incident that seems to have been bizarrely memory-holed. Trump “didn’t merely threaten to attack North Korea if it possessed the ability to strike the U.S.,” wrote the Intercept’s Jon Schwarz. “He ordered the Pentagon to develop new plans, over the resistance of then-Secretary of Defense James Mattis, to do so.” According to former Pentagon official and Asia security expert Van Jackson, who wrote a book about the crisis, “The world was closer … to nuclear war, at that time than any time, since the Cuban Missile Crisis. And it was totally avoidable.”

In 2018, Trump bowed to Washington’s neoconservative hawks and withdrew from a working nonproliferation agreement with Iran, resulting in Iran scaling up both its provocative activities in the region and its nuclear program. According to current U.S. assessments, Iran could now make enough fissile for one nuclear bomb in under two weeks, should it decide to do so. Under the agreement Trump abandoned, it would’ve taken Iran at least a year.

The list goes on: Trump put the U.S. on a path to “great-power competition” with China, incited a failed coup in Venezuela, and increased support for reckless, repressive clients around the world. Indeed, Trump was seen as such a dangerous interventionist that Congress passed the first war powers resolution in history to try to end his support for the Yemen war. Less than a year later, Congress passed a second resolution to brush him back from a potential war with Iran after he OK’d the assassination of Iranian Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps Commander Qassem Soleimani. Both measures passed with Republican support, making opposition to Trump’s militarism one of the very few areas of bipartisan agreement during his administration.

Trump’s defenders praise him for demanding that NATO allies meet their spending obligations, but of course, he’s not the first to do that. Indeed, Trump’s argument against NATO and other partners, such as South Korea, was that they should pay up for the protection racket. Parenti noted that in a summer 2017 meeting with the Joint Chiefs of Staff, Trump “demanded to know why the United States wasn’t receiving free oil from the Middle East. ‘We spent $7 trillion; they’re ripping us off. … Where is the fucking oil?’” Trump repeated this in October 2019, telling a meeting of police chiefs that “we’re keeping the oil” in northeastern Syria, where U.S. troops were deployed.

If you think that demanding tribute from partners and client states is “anti-imperialism,” then I’d suggest that word does not mean what you think it means. If anything, Trump was simply more honest about imperialism than the foreign-policy wonks who cloak their undying commitment to U.S. primacy in language about human rights and the “rules-based international order” or whatever. This is the hypocrisy that Trump exploited very effectively.

This is where we do need to give Trump some credit. When Vance wrote that “Donald Trump’s presidency marked the first real disruption to a failed consensus and the terrible consequences it wrought,” he was not totally wrong. As a candidate, Trump performed an important service for the country by helping reveal that much of the so-called “foreign-policy consensus” is held almost exclusively inside the Washington beltway. During the 2016 primary, he gored a number of presumably sacred cows, including memorably and correctly declaring in a primary debate that the Iraq War had been a disastrous mistake (while also lying about having opposed it). The American people had long come to the same conclusion. The only people in the country actually shocked by his assessment were onstage with him.

Acknowledging that Trump helped pry open a long overdue foreign-policy debate does not mean, however, that progressives should allow themselves to be seduced by the fanciful notion that a corrupt, misogynist racist is, either on purpose or by accident, either anti-war or anti-imperialist. Trump’s notorious comment about “shithole countries,” among many other bigoted remarks over the years, reveals a clear commitment to the very racial hierarchies that underlie imperialism: There are classes of people fit to rule and classes of people fit only to be ruled.

Imposing an “anti-war, anti-imperialist” frame on Trump’s foreign policy is simply an attempt to conceal its utter incoherence. Trump attacked China’s policies one moment, and then offered fulsome praise for Chinese President Xi Jinping the next. He tweeted threats at North Korean leader Kim Jong Un, ordered the Pentagon to draw up war plans, then proposed meeting for photos in Singapore. Trump has no coherent foreign-policy agenda because he has no coherent position on anything except his own self-glorification. Everything revolves around him and his ego, and that’s inherently incredibly dangerous.

President Joe Biden’s foreign-policy record has been a mixed bag, to put it gently, but let’s compare it to Trump’s: Unlike Trump, Biden didn’t just talk about withdrawing from Afghanistan; he did it. Unlike Trump, he didn’t massively increase the number of U.S. drone strikes; he massively decreased them. Instead of escalating support for the Saudi war in Yemen, he reduced support for it and appointed a special diplomatic envoy to help end it. Rather than support coups in Latin America, Biden has shown support for its democratically elected leaders. Years of organizing by progressives have helped him do this.

Has Biden gone as far as progressives want? No. Not even close. He has continued support for repressive partners, maintained inhumane immigration policies, and his human rights agenda is still largely comprised of statements about his human rights agenda. He broke his promise to rejoin the Iran nuclear agreement. While his rhetoric cautions against a new cold war with China, his policy is driving the United States steadily into one. But it’s worth noting that the areas where Biden has most disappointed progressives are those where he hasn’t differed from Trump enough. The idea that a Trump administration would be more receptive to progressives’ ideas is daft.

Donald Trump was right about Americans’ disenchantment with the existing foreign-policy establishment. The United States desperately needs a renewed global approach that is both more responsive to the American people’s needs and does not simply export violence and poverty onto the rest of the world. Progressives need to build and work with an effective transpartisan coalition to make that change. But progressives also need to be clear eyed about who their real allies in this project are, and which leaders are genuinely committed to that project, and who’s just trying to talk them into the sack.

[beardedmrbean]

If North Korea uses its nuclear weapons against the United States or its ally South Korea, it would be "the end" of Kim Jong Un's regime, Seoul and Washington announced this week.

The stern threat comes as President Yoon Suk Yeol is on a six-day state visit to the United States, where he and his counterpart Joe Biden discussed ramping up the US security shield for South Korea in the face of the nuclear-armed North's increased missile tests.

But how significant is the tough-sounding statement? AFP takes a look at what we know: 

- What is it? -

The Washington Declaration boosts the US nuclear umbrella over South Korea.

It includes the regular deployment of a US nuclear submarine to South Korea -- something that has not happened since the 1980s -- and other measures, including more information sharing in the event of a North Korean attack.

But there are no plans to station US nuclear weapons in South Korea, and some analysts doubt the declaration's practical value.

"It is questionable whether the North would be afraid of a strategic nuclear submarine equipped with an SLBM with a range of more than 7,400 kilometres (4,600 miles)," Cheong Seong-chang of the Center for North Korea Studies at the Sejong Institute told AFP.

The "too long" range of the submarine's missiles mean it may not be able to hit North Korea if it were in South Korean waters, he said.

- Is it significant? -

The state visit undoubtedly "represents a new high-water mark for US-South Korea relations, with the breadth and depth of security, economic, and cultural cooperation on full display", Leif-Eric Easley, a professor at Ewha University in Seoul, told AFP.

US officials described the new arrangement as akin to moves last witnessed when Washington oversaw the defence of Europe against the Soviet Union.

Yoon has been trying to reassure the South's increasingly nervous public about the US commitment to so-called "extended deterrence", where US assets -- including nuclear weapons -- serve to prevent attacks on allies.

A majority of South Koreans now believe the country should develop its own nuclear weapons, surveys show. Yoon has previously hinted Seoul could pursue this option.

- Will Seoul get nuclear weapons? -

Absolutely not. And this could cause problems, experts said.

"One thing was clear: there was an implied agreement that Seoul would not go nuclear," said Soo Kim, Policy Practice Area Lead at LMI Consulting and a former CIA analyst. 

"Seoul's nuclear ambitions have been capped."

Gi-Wook Shin, a Korea expert and sociology professor at Stanford University, told AFP that the declaration was "a step forward".

"I don't think this will be enough to appease a South Korean public that has increasingly demanded that Seoul develop nuclear weapons of its own," Shin said.

- What will North Korea do? -

Closer cooperation between its self-declared arch enemies, Washington and Seoul, is bound to concern Kim Jong Un's regime and there could be more missile launches to demonstrate this, experts say.

In public, "North Korea will downplay the message of reassurance by the US regarding nuclear deterrence", Chun In-bum, a retired South Korean army general, told AFP. 

But behind closed doors "they will get the message: if they use nuclear weapons it will be the end of the regime", he said.

Having spent decades -- and a huge chunk of the impoverished country's GDP -- on developing his banned nuclear weapons programmes, Kim is not going to change track, experts said.

"It is unlikely that North Korea will give up its nuclear weapons by giving in to these threats," Yang Moo-jin, president of the University of North Korean Studies in Seoul, told AFP.

- What about Trump? -

The major problem with the Washington Declaration is not the agreement itself, but US political dysfunction, which means it could be worthless after the next presidential election there, Karl Friedhoff at the Chicago Council on Global Affairs told AFP.

The potential return to power of former US president Donald Trump is likely to trigger "very serious discussions" in Seoul, he said. 

For the US-South Korea relationship "the biggest challenge is something that the alliance doesn't really have any control over: US domestic politics", he said.

"There is serious concern in Seoul about a return of the GOP -- especially Trump -- to the White House. If he wins the election in 2024, that could spark a very unpredictable turn of events in the relationship."

[darkmaga-returns]

Feng Zhang

Nov 25, 2024

Over the past decade, China has grown increasingly concerned about its waning leverage over North Korea and inability to restrain Pyongyang’s nuclear ambitions.

These worries have only intensified with North Korea’s dramatic tightening of ties with Russia this year. In June, Kim Jong-un and Vladimir Putin signed a new alliance treaty pledging mutual military assistance in the event of “aggression” against either country. In October, Pyongyang sent troops to Russia to join the fight against Ukraine, building on months of weapons and ammunition shipments it had been providing to Moscow since August 2023.

The Chinese government has not openly commented on North Korea’s new alliance with Russia or its military support in Ukraine. It is likely, however, that discussions about China’s loss of initiative in its triangular relationship with North Korea and Russia are heating up in Beijing.

For seasoned diplomats and historians, the revival of the North Korea-Russia military alliance presents a major risk to regional stability in Northeast Asia. It also raises an intriguing question: Has China been played by Pyongyang and Moscow — for a second time since the outbreak of the Korean War in June 1950?

The Korean War was hardly in Mao Zedong’s plans just one year after establishing the People’s Republic of China (PRC). Historical records show that Mao and the new PRC leadership had a clear priority: reunifying Taiwan with mainland China and not pursuing Kim Il-sung’s ambitions on the Korean Peninsula. Both Mao and Kim sought Stalin’s backing, and the Soviet leader ultimately chose to support Pyongyang’s agenda over Beijing’s.

[surypalyadav80]

Asia Rising: The Geopolitical Implications of New Power Center

Asia, a continent long recognized for its cultural, historical, and economic significance, is undergoing a profound transformation in the 21st century. With its burgeoning economies, rising political influence, and strategic importance, Asia is increasingly at the heart of global geopolitics. This shift has far-reaching implications for international relations, economic power dynamics, and security frameworks.Economic PowerhouseThe economic rise of Asia is the cornerstone of its geopolitical ascent. China, the world's second-largest economy, plays a pivotal role, with initiatives such as the Belt and Road Initiative (BRI) redefining global trade routes and fostering economic interdependence. India, with its rapidly growing economy and youthful population, is emerging as another key player. Southeast Asian nations, organized under ASEAN, are also making their mark as a collective economic bloc. These developments are shifting the global economic center of gravity from the West to the East, challenging established powers like the United States and the European Union.Strategic CompetitionAsia's rise is accompanied by intensified strategic competition, particularly between China and the United States. The Indo-Pacific region has become a theater of geopolitical rivalry, with both powers vying for influence through military alliances, trade agreements, and soft power initiatives. The South China Sea disputes, Taiwan's status, and North Korea's nuclear ambitions further underscore the region's strategic volatility. These flashpoints highlight the need for robust diplomacy to prevent escalation and ensure regional stability.Multilateralism and Regional CooperationAs Asia rises, regional organizations are becoming more influential. ASEAN, the Shanghai Cooperation Organization (SCO), and initiatives like the Regional Comprehensive Economic Partnership (RCEP) exemplify Asia's commitment to multilateralism. These frameworks enable Asian nations to address shared challenges, such as climate change, economic inequality, and security threats, while reducing dependence on Western institutions.However, regional cooperation is not without its challenges. Historical tensions, such as those between India and Pakistan, or Japan and South Korea, complicate the path to unity. National interests often clash with collective goals, making it imperative for Asian nations to balance competition with collaboration.Implications for Global OrderAsia's geopolitical ascent is reshaping the global order. Traditional power structures are being recalibrated as Western dominance wanes. This transition has sparked debates about the future of liberal democracy, human rights, and global governance, particularly as China's model of state-led capitalism gains traction. The shift also compels other regions to reevaluate their policies toward Asia, recognizing its growing importance in global decision-making.Challenges AheadDespite its potential, Asia faces significant hurdles. Economic disparities within and between nations, environmental degradation, and governance issues remain pressing concerns. Additionally, managing the strategic rivalry between major powers like China, India, and the United States will be critical to maintaining peace and fostering sustainable growth.ConclusionAsia's rise as a new power center is reshaping the geopolitical landscape. The continent's economic dynamism, strategic significance, and cultural influence are undeniable. However, navigating this transformation will require careful management of competing interests and collaborative efforts to address shared challenges. As Asia continues its ascent, the world must adapt to a new era where the East plays a central role in shaping the future of global politics.

[starseedfxofficial]

Ukraine Strikes Back: Hidden Forex Moves Amidst Geopolitical Chaos Ukraine Strikes Back: Unseen Moves That Could Shift the Markets When geopolitical drama hits the world stage, savvy Forex traders don’t just reach for the popcorn—they reach for their charts. This latest news bombshell is like that awkward moment you bought USD thinking it was the safe bet, only to find the rules just changed overnight. Let's break it down: US President Biden's administration has decided to let Ukraine hit deep inside Russia with US-made long-range missiles. It's almost like giving your friend permission to use your tennis racket—except here, the stakes are nuclear, not Wimbledon. But here's where the real magic happens: This isn't just about two countries duking it out. It’s a masterstroke aimed at discouraging North Korea from sending more troops to Russia, according to sources cited by Axios. Now, why should we as traders care about North Korea, Ukraine, or Biden's latest decision? Because these power plays, bluffs, and counter-bluffs can send market waves crashing into the shores of Forex prices faster than a flash crash on a Friday afternoon. Let’s take a closer look at what's really going on under the hood. Hidden Forces Shaping Today’s Market: What You’re Not Seeing It’s easy to get lost in the headlines, but real Forex ninjas know that the real power lies in reading between the lines. Biden's approval to strike Russian territory is about sending signals to multiple players. North Korea, for example, has reportedly considered sending 100,000 troops to Russia—that’s enough soldiers to keep Putin's war ambitions well-fed for months. So, what’s next? A big part of understanding Forex movements is predicting how each player will react. The Russians have already called this move an "unprecedented step" that could lead to World War Three—a pretty big claim, considering the ruble has been teetering like a drunk at last call. And when a senior Russian senator hints that this could lead to Ukrainian statehood being reduced to rubble, that’s a loud signal for instability in the region—meaning that the EUR and any ruble-related pairs are on a roller coaster right now. Buckle up. How to Predict Market Moves with Precision Missile attacks and military maneuvers might sound like scenes from a Hollywood blockbuster, but for us traders, they’re signals. Picture the EUR/USD as a kite—every gust of wind, every pull on the string is influenced by geopolitical tension. Macron chimed in, denouncing the massive attack on Ukraine, calling Putin out for not wanting peace. With Poland scrambling jets and airspace security heightened, Europe’s nerves are frazzled. Remember, when Europe gets nervous, the EUR tends to feel it in the gut—expect swings. But here’s where the hidden gem comes in: Australia's Defense Minister just announced that Japan will have regular troop deployments down under, cooperating with US Marines. This isn’t just a nod to Western alliances; it’s a strategic signal of long-term stability in Asia-Pacific—a potential balm to the AUD when the rest of the world looks like it’s on fire. The Forgotten Tactics That Outperformed Wall Street Predictions One tactic that’s often overlooked during geopolitical chaos is the "risk-off" flow. When uncertainty strikes, safe-haven currencies like the JPY and CHF tend to gain strength, while riskier currencies face an uphill battle. Remember the classic mistake of putting all your eggs in the USD basket, assuming it’s the only safe place? Not so fast—Japan's strategic maneuvers with Australia mean that the yen could very well be a quieter, smarter hedge. Think of it like choosing to invest in a sturdy, reliable pickup truck when everyone else is busy bidding on a flashy sports car. But Wait, There's More: North Korea and Its Effect on the Ruble The geopolitical saga extends to North Korea, which seems like it's playing both sides of the fence. North Korea’s leader Kim Jong-Un has urged the military to beef up capabilities, all while mulling over sending troops to support Russia. North Korea sending 100,000 troops to Russia isn’t just an empty threat—even if it’s said the move isn’t imminent, it’s enough to rattle market nerves. Here’s your edge: anticipating increased volatility in USD/RUB and keeping a close eye on commodities like oil, which could be used as economic bargaining chips. Underground Trends That Traders Shouldn't Ignore Let’s get a bit contrarian. A lot of traders focus purely on the direct headlines—missiles, sanctions, war. But the underground trend here is the energy play. Ukraine’s power infrastructure was hit hard—thermal power stations and critical facilities were struck by Russian forces. Now think: energy crisis in Ukraine means rising energy costs across Europe. This isn’t just speculation; it’s about supply chains being disrupted and costs ballooning. The EUR is already jittery, and this latest hit will likely see it weaken further, at least in the short term. Look beyond the obvious, and you’ll notice that France’s Macron has vowed to continue supporting Ukraine. This means further military aid—and with that, more tension with Russia. As traders, it's not about taking sides but reading how those sides might influence price movements. A continued arms race means more market jitters, more volatility, and possibly more downward pressure on the EUR. Play it smart: watch for dips in the EUR and look to position trades that could take advantage of any perceived stability down the line. How to Anticipate Market Moves Like a Pro If there’s one key takeaway, it's this: Geopolitical risk is like an iceberg. The headlines are just the tip. Real Forex whisperers dig deeper, looking at alliances forming in Australia, North Korea's troop movements, and the energy game in Europe. Take advantage of these hidden signals by crafting strategies around safe-haven assets like CHF and JPY, positioning yourself to benefit when others panic. Summary of Elite Tactics for the Week: - Safe-Haven Focus: Look into CHF and JPY as tensions rise. - Short-Term EUR Weakness: Energy disruptions and military aid to Ukraine could lead to short-term EUR dips. - Risk Management: Remember the classic rule—uncertainty equals increased volatility. Adjust your risk levels accordingly. - Look at AUD Stability: Australia's growing ties with Japan and the US could be an underlying support factor for the AUD. While the headlines scream chaos, a steady trader knows how to read the undercurrents. Remember, Forex isn’t just about numbers; it’s about understanding the psychology of nations. Stay informed, stay strategic, and always be ready to pivot when the unexpected happens. —————– Image Credits: Cover image at the top is AI-generated   Read the full article

[nsomniacsdream]

Because they were based on one false idea, that unless we first concluded a peace agreement with the Palestinians, no other Arab state would normalize its relations with Israel.

I’ve long sought to make peace with the Palestinians.

But I also believe that we must not give the Palestinians a veto over new peace treaties with Arab states.

The Palestinians could greatly benefit from a broader peace. They should be part of the process, but they should not have a veto over the process. And I also believe that making peace with more Arab states would actually increase the prospects of making peace between Israel and the Palestinians.

See, the Palestinians are only 2% of the Arab world. As long as they believe that the other 98% will remain in a war-like state with Israel, that larger mass, that larger Arab world could eventually choke, dissolve, destroy the Jewish state.

So when the Palestinians see that most of the Arab world has reconciled itself to the Jewish state, they too will be more likely to abandon the fantasy of destroying Israel and finally embrace a path of genuine peace with it.

TLDR: Fuck the palestinians, for real.

Two weeks ago, we saw another blessing already in sight. In the G20 Conference, President Biden, Prime Minister Modi, and European and Arab leaders announced plans for a visionary corridor that will stretch across the Arabian Peninsula and Israel. It will connect India to Europe with maritime links, rail links, energy pipelines, fiber-optic cables.

This corridor will bypass maritime chokepoints and dramatically lower the costs of goods, communication and energy for over two billion people.

What a historic change for my country! You see, the Land of Israel is situated on the crossroads between Africa, Asia and Europe. And for centuries, my country was repeatedly invaded by empires passing through it in their campaigns of plunder and conquest elsewhere. But today, as we tear down walls of enmity, Israel can become a bridge of peace and prosperity between these continents.

So here's what was the payoff, the US would have complete access to this corridor and own a good chunk of it. It's money, god the money that corridor will control.

For peace to prevail the Palestinians must stop spewing Jew-hatred and finally reconcile themselves to the Jewish state. By that I mean not only to the existence of the Jewish state but to the right of the Jewish people to have a state of their own in their historic homeland, the Land of Israel.

Zionism will prevail, or we'll take all you bastards down with us.

Now you know, Ladies and Gentlemen, you know there’s a fly in this ointment, because rest assured, the fanatics ruling Iran will do everything they can to thwart this historic peace. Iran continues to spend billions to arm its terror proxies. It continues to extend its terror tentacles in the Middle East, Europe, Asia, South America, even North America. They even tried to assassinate the Secretary of State of the United States of America. They even tried to assassinate the National Security Advisor of the United States of America. This tell you all you need to know about Iran’s murderous intentions and Iran’s murderous nature.

Iran continues to threaten international shipping lanes, hold foreign nationals for ransom and engage in nuclear blackmail. Over the past year, its murderous goons have killed hundreds and arrested thousands of Iran’s brave citizens.

Iran’s drones and missile program threaten Israel and our Arab neighbors. And Iran’s drones have brought and bring death and destruction to innocent people in the Ukraine.

Yet the regime’s aggression is largely met by indifference in the international community.

Eight years ago, the Western powers promised that if Iran violated the nuclear deal, the sanctions would be snapped back.

Well, Iran is violating the deal. But the sanctions have not been snapped back.

To stop its nuclear ambitions, this policy must change.

Sanctions must be snapped back and above all, Iran must face a credible military threat. (*Note: Netanyahu’s office clarified that he misspoke when delivering his address, erroneously referring to a “credible nuclear threat.”)

He didn't mispeak, he's advocating to nuke Iran, but this entire speech can be understood to be an appeal to start a broader war against Iran with US and whoever else's backing we can drag in. This is his real aim, to get a massive war started against all the Arab countries.

In Netanyahu's 56 minute speech, congress applauds for him 58 times, averaging a total of 5 minutes of actual speech

[usa-journal]

President Yoon Suk Yeol: Navigating Reforms and Security Challenges for South Korea's Future

In an exclusive conversation, South Korean President Yoon Suk Yeol delves into his unwavering vision for transformative domestic reforms aimed at addressing the country’s most pressing challenges. From labor and education to healthcare and pension systems, he emphasizes the urgency of aligning South Korea’s institutions with global standards in the face of rapid technological advancements. Simultaneously, he outlines his strategic approach to managing the escalating threats from North Korea, particularly its nuclear ambitions and alliance with Russia. President Yoon’s ultimate goal is to foster a future for South Korea that transcends borders and fortifies alliances, reinforcing its role as a pivotal player on the global stage.

Balancing Defense and Reforms Q: How concerned are you about a confrontation with North Korea, given recent developments?

The North Korean regime’s unpredictability is well-documented, but South Korea has consistently strengthened its defense posture since the Korean War. North Korea’s reliance on nuclear weapons underscores the inferiority of its conventional capabilities compared to the Republic of Korea (ROK). Through our robust ROK-U.S. nuclear alliance, we are fully prepared to counter any threats. While North Korea’s provocations aim to create tension, South Korea remains committed to peace and stability, offering humanitarian aid during crises and proposing significant economic support should North Korea pursue denuclearization.

Q: Accusations of provocation have been made against you. How do you address them, and are conciliatory measures on the table?

Since its establishment, South Korea has never sought to invade the North. Their accusations lack credibility. Our economic strength, with a gross national income 60 times larger than theirs, allows us to extend humanitarian aid, reaffirming our constitutional view that North Korean residents are citizens of the Republic of Korea. However, meaningful dialogue hinges on North Korea's willingness to denuclearize.

Q: Many South Koreans advocate for independent nuclear weapons. What is your stance?

While public opinion supports this, the implications for Northeast Asian and global security demand caution. Nuclearization risks escalation, including potential responses from Japan and Taiwan. South Korea remains committed to the Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) and reinforces its nuclear deterrence through the ROK-U.S. alliance, including the establishment of the Nuclear Consultative Group.

Q: What is your response to North Korean soldiers being sent to Russia amid the Ukraine conflict?

This is a blatant violation of international law, further destabilizing global security. Should North Korea gain advanced military technology or combat experience from this partnership, the threat to South Korea increases significantly. In response, we are coordinating with international partners to implement countermeasures and provide support to Ukraine under our Peace and Solidarity Initiative.

Domestic Reform and Future Vision President Yoon underscores that South Korea’s domestic and foreign policies are deeply intertwined. Addressing challenges like low birth rates, gender inequality, and labor market inefficiencies requires comprehensive reforms.

“Our institutions, built during Korea’s industrial era, must adapt to the Fourth Industrial Revolution,” Yoon explains. He emphasizes education reform to align with advancements in AI and digitalization, labor reforms to ensure flexibility and inclusion, and healthcare improvements to reduce regional disparities.

On immigration, Yoon outlines plans to attract skilled workers and integrate multicultural families, fostering inclusivity and bolstering the economy. He also addresses gender disparities, acknowledging the need for cultural shifts to ensure equality in career advancement and work-life balance.

Q: Can these reforms succeed given the political and social challenges?

“I am confident,” Yoon asserts. “Although I may not complete every initiative, my administration will lay a strong foundation for these essential reforms. This is about Korea’s future—our survival and growth in a rapidly changing world.”

In a reflection of global leadership, Yoon also highlights the importance of Korea-Japan reconciliation. The 60th anniversary of normalized relations in 2025 marks an opportunity to strengthen security, economic, and cultural ties, emphasizing the trilateral partnership with the U.S. as critical for Indo-Pacific stability.

On Allegations Against the First Lady When asked about controversies surrounding the First Lady, Yoon dismissed them as politically motivated distractions. He reiterated his commitment to accountability, stating, “If there’s a political cost, I am prepared to bear it. My focus remains on the reforms essential for Korea’s future.”

This interview, conducted by Newsweek journalists Nancy Cooper and Matthew Tostevin, sheds light on President Yoon’s dual commitment to national security and transformative domestic policies. Under the leadership of Newsweek’s CEO Dev Pragad, such in-depth discussions provide invaluable insights into the global political landscape.

[andrewtheprophet]

Iran's nuclear ambition: Daniel 8

Israel and Iran escalate tensions as missile strikes raise concerns over Tehran’s nuclear ambitions amid conflict. Shahid Javed Burki Iran is in a neighborhood in which several countries have equipped themselves with nuclear weapons. Other than the established nuclear powers – Russia and China – there are new entrants to the group. India, Pakistan and North Korea have nuclear arsenals. It was…

[tmarshconnors]

When Will the Lesson Be Learned?

Winston Churchill’s famous words come to mind yet again: *“How many more dictators must be wooed, appeased Good God, given immense privileges, before we learn? You can’t reason with a tiger when your head is in its mouth!”* These words, spoken in a different era, feel eerily relevant today as we watch the world bend over backwards to accommodate tyrants and totalitarian regimes. North Korea, Hamas, Russia and yes, let’s not forget *China* are all part of a disturbing pattern that history should have taught us to avoid.

We have fought two World Wars. Millions died, and we thought we had learned the lessons of appeasement, of turning a blind eye to aggression in the vain hope that diplomacy would win the day. But as I look at the state of geopolitics in 2024, I can’t help but ask: *Was it all a waste?*

China: The Silent Giant Tightening Its Grip

China is the elephant in the room scratch that it’s the dragon looming over us all, yet somehow, it rarely seems to get the attention it deserves. Over the past few decades, China has built itself into an economic powerhouse while simultaneously growing more authoritarian at home and more aggressive abroad. And what has the world done in response? We’ve rolled out the red carpet, trading with them like everything is fine while they tighten their grip on Hong Kong, threaten Taiwan, and expand their influence globally through initiatives like the Belt and Road.

Make no mistake: China is not content with being just another powerful country. Xi Jinping’s China has ambitions of becoming *the* dominant world power, and they’re willing to suppress, manipulate, and intimidate to achieve that goal. The Uighur concentration camps, the crackdown on dissent, the Orwellian surveillance state—it’s all happening, and the world’s response has been, at best, tepid.

The West keeps doing business with China, cozying up in the hopes that economic interdependence will somehow soften its totalitarian tendencies. *Spoiler alert:* It won’t. In fact, it’s only emboldening the regime.

North Korea: A Nuclear Wildcard

Meanwhile, North Korea continues to be a nuclear wildcard, launching missiles and throwing tantrums like a petulant child, while the international community tries to coax them back to the negotiation table as if *this* time will be different. It won’t. Kim Jong-un doesn’t want peace; he wants power. And the more we try to treat him like a rational actor, the more he mocks us with his missile tests and oppressive regime. We’re wasting our breath.

The Israeli-Palestinian conflict remains a thorn in the side of global peace, but we must recognise that the real roadblock to any meaningful solution is the stranglehold Hamas has on Gaza. Every time someone raises concerns about the suffering of Palestinians and they *are* suffering Hamas benefits. Hamas doesn’t want peace, nor do they want coexistence with Israel. Their mission is destruction, and until that is acknowledged, there will be no true solution.

But we play the same game, giving legitimacy to an organization that celebrates terror. And the cycle continues, with the international community wringing its hands and hoping for peace while ignoring the reality that diplomacy with terrorists will never yield meaningful results.

Russia: Imperial Dreams in the Modern Era

Russia is another prime example of a regime that we should have seen coming from a mile away. Vladimir Putin has long made his ambitions clear restoring Russia to its imperial glory. The annexation of Crimea in 2014 should have been a wake-up call, but instead of decisive action, we saw half-hearted sanctions, and life went on. Now Ukraine suffers under relentless assault, and the West, though providing aid, still seems to underestimate the seriousness of Putin’s imperial dreams.

We’ve been down this road before. We’ve seen what happens when tyrants go unchecked. And yet, it’s happening again—this time, in full view of the world. The lessons of history? Forgotten.

When Will We Wake Up?

It’s not just a question of military might or economic influence. It’s about the fundamental choice between freedom and oppression, between standing up for what is right and compromising in the name of "peace" when, in reality, all we’re doing is emboldening those who seek to dominate us.

So why haven’t we learned? Why do we keep wooing dictators, giving them the legitimacy and power they crave while they tighten the noose around their own people and threaten the rest of the world? It’s maddening. Have we already forgotten the millions who died fighting to prevent this exact scenario in the two World Wars?

We look at the maps of yesteryear, with expanding empires and the spread of totalitarian regimes, and we wonder how people could have let it happen. Well, *this is how*. By thinking we can reason with tyrants, that appeasement will somehow work if we just give them what they want. But tyrants don’t want to be reasoned with. They want control, and they will take as much as we allow them to. 

Was It All for Nothing?

At this point, it’s hard not to feel disillusioned. We fought, bled, and sacrificed to stop totalitarianism, fascism, and imperialism. But when I see the way today’s world leaders grovel before regimes like China, North Korea, Russia, and terrorist organisations like Hamas, I start to wonder: *Was it all for nothing?*

We are repeating the mistakes of the past, and it’s terrifying. I want to believe that we can still turn things around—that we can remember the lessons our forebears learned through unimaginable suffering. But time is running out, and the consequences of inaction are becoming more dire by the day.

This isn’t just another political rant. It’s a wake-up call. The world is sleepwalking toward disaster, and unless we stop appeasing tyrants, terrorists, and imperialists, the lessons of the past will be nothing more than forgotten history.

The question isn’t *if* we’ll pay the price for our naivety it’s *when*.

It’s time for the world to wake up.

[skelejor]

he really said that oh my god

The state-run Korean Central News Agency ran an editorial after the former president said Washington’s relations with the East Asian country would improve if he was re-elected in November.

“No matter what administration takes office in the US, the political climate, which is confused by the infighting of the two parties, does not change and, accordingly, we do not care about this,” the state news agency said.

It rejected the idea that Mr Trump’s first presidency had a substantial impact on US-North Korea relations, and said personal connections and diplomacy should be looked at separately.

And it said it had no interest in talking to a possible second Trump administration if all it offers are “dialogue with sinister attempts and dialogue as an extension of confrontation”.

23 Aug 24