Ukraine War scenarios don’t all assume Trump will favor Russia – Asia Times

Donald Trump proclaimed his word when he won in the early days of November 6. Promises made and promises kept would be a cornerstone of his second word as US president. Whether or not this would include his promise to resolve the conflict in Ukraine “within 24 hours” of taking office in January, he did n’t specify.

On the face of it, that timeframe is impossible. However, a quick decision is possible, and all nations who have an interest in the fight are now trying to influence the president-elect, whether it be Russia or Ukraine, to achieve a result.

In Ukraine, there are four fundamental changes that are achievable and in progress.

1. The” Trump plan” is a cold war logic.

His campaign group laid out a strategy that lessens immediate US involvement in the discord and European security in public once it became apparent that Trump had been re-elected. The plan calls for a 800-mile demilitarized cushion area with Ukrainian military personnel patrolling the frontlines of Ukraine, with Ukraine holding off on joining NATO for at least 20 years.

To deter further Russian attacks, the US would send forces to Ukraine and pay for any military support there.

During the Cold War, eastern European states such as East Germany, Poland, Czechoslovakia and Hungary had formed a large buffer zone between the Soviet Union ( Moscow in particular ) and NATO countries.

US Vice President-elect JD Vance. Photo: Wikimedia Commons

It’s important to note, however, that important members of Trump’s team carry views that are likely to affect the new government’s approach to the battle seriously.

Pete Hegseth, Trump’s pull as secretary of defense, is noted for his anti-NATO position.

Marco Rubio, who is Trump’s pull for secretary of state, is likely to need Ukraine to acknowledge a deal with Russia at almost any amount.

Vice President-elect JD Vance, meanwhile, is well known for his 2022 statement,” I gotta be honest with you, I do n’t really care what happens to Ukraine one way or another”.

The creation of a buffer area, which is funded and maintained by Western forces, is a clear example of Trump’s” America first” philosophy, which links European states to chance and costs. The program has been criticized because it essentially recognizes Russia’s regional states, while undermining NATO unification on the topic of Ukraine’s pre-2014 independence.

2. Western aid for Ukraine

Western leaders, especially the UK and France, have pledged “unwavering help” for Ukraine. If the US resolutely withdraws from its support for Ukraine and European safety, there are still significant questions about whether that assistance will continue.

US assistance has traditionally been a significant factor in German defense and security policy. Without the American security promise, investment and social capital, NATO is likely to be diminished, which in turn may weaken Western cohesion around the Ukrainian question.

If the US decides to leave, Europe may be burdened financially to bear a significant and lasting financial hardship. Putin will gain from this as a way to achieve his goal of stifling and fracturing the European Union, which he believes is crucial to safeguarding Russian objectives.

3. Zelensky’s present to Trump

Ukraine’s leader, Volodymyr Zelensky, has made two ideas to Trump designed to appeal to Trump the dealmaker. The US is second to pay less for the replacement of some of the country’s military forces in Europe after the battle, according to the initial demands.

The US and other eastern allies would need to have access to some of Ukraine’s resources. The victory of Ukraine in the conflict, which is currently not sure, is clearly the precondition for Zellensky’s offer.

The Ukrainian leader finds himself facing a lot of difficulties. There is doubt around the Trump administration’s support for Ukraine, which will require substantial management.

Home animosities toward Zelensky and the military’s leadership are starting to deteriorate. It could represent a turning point in the conflict if this is combined with standard dread in Europe and the associated costs.

In the eyes of Trump, Zelensky is obviously aiming to place Ukraine as a significant contributor to post security. His present appeals to Trump’s oft-stated desire for less US involvement in Western protection while favoring US expansion. However, it greatly depends on Ukraine’s acceptance into NATO, which seems very uncertain right now.

4. Russia’s military speed

Nevertheless, Russia is now winning major swathes of territory in northeast Ukraine. Russia’s new invasion of Vuhledar, a effectively significant city, has made it easier for them to advance further into the nation.

Russia’s insulting is moving along faster than it has ever before, and it is capturing country more quickly than it has ever been. Map: Institute for the Study of War

In the Kursk region of Russia, where Ukranian forces are battling to support country they captured over the summer, there are also reports that Moscow is gearing up for an unpleasant involving about 11, 000 North Koreans and about 40, 000 Russians. The basic Ukrainian protection will be under more pressure as a result.

At a juncture

Putin’s goal has then gotten closer to what he had hoped for when he launched his full-scale war in 2022, but the Ukrainian opposition held him back. The main difference will be the level of support that its northern friends provide.

Trump’s placement is definitely not predestined. He is regarded as a very contextual politician, particularly in terms of international affairs. In other words, if Trump wins a bargain and emerges as the “big person of history,” the Western powers, and Ukraine could find a way to appeal to his natural propensity to cut a deal and become the “big man of history” if it leads to a different outcome.

A strategy that allows Trump to minimize his military presence in Europe while allowing him to assert in public that he won the peace may be beneficial for the re-elected leader. However, conflicts are contentious, and the reality is being changed by Soviet actions in Ukraine.

By the time Trump takes office, the situation in Ukraine and the Russian army ‘ regional hold on the area are likely to have drastically changed. Therefore, everyone’s attention should be on the two months leading up to Trump’s opening on January 20.

Robert Dover, the University of Hull’s professor of instructors, and professor of intelligence and national security, is there.

The Conversation has republished this essay under a Creative Commons license. Read the original content.

Continue Reading

Trump vs China is about to rock Asia’s world – Asia Times

Donald Trump might be the most important threat to the global economy in 2025 when US President Joe Biden and Chinese leader Xi Jinping meet on Saturday ( November 16 ).

Former and current US president has been a pro-China hardliners and a long-standing loyalist for major case positions in the days following his victory on November 5.

Marco Rubio, a senator from Florida, serves as the head of US politics. Rubio would be the first hanging secretary of state to remain barred from traveling.

Rubio’s appearance alone would symbolize” a nightmare come true” for Xi’s Communist Party, notes Zhu Junwei, a producer at Grandview Institution in Beijing and a former scientist for the People’s Liberation Army.

Increase in policy hawk&nbsp, Robert&nbsp, Lighthizer, Trump’s past and possible future business king. Earlier this year, he talked of a Trump 2.0 wish to degrade the US dollar, Argentina-style, to boost exports.

And then there’s Mike Waltz, one of the most outspoken China reviewers in Congress who’s called Xi’s state an “existential danger”, as Trump’s national security adviser.

Trump tapped New York Congresswoman Elise Stefanik, a furious China writer, to get his United Nations adviser. Xi’s inner circle wo n’t be happy if Trump names FOX News host Pete Hegseth as defense secretary or Beijing critic John Ratcliffe as the CIA’s head of office.

Hegseth claimed in a new YouTube video that China “built an military specifically to defeat the United States of America” and that it was using its growing market share in manufacturing and technology to acquiesce globally.

” They have a full-spectrum long-term view of not just local but international domination”, Hegseth said. They can only do so by defeating us, which is the only means they can put in place a framework that can benefit them. They have the guts to make a schedule for it.

These viewpoints explain why Xi’s group is anticipating a Trumpian storm. And why Biden and Xi have much to discuss this weekend, when the two men meet on the sidelines of the Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation ( APEC ) summit&nbsp, in Peru.

The tete-a-tete may function as a sendoff for Biden’s personal efforts since 2021 to take on an increasingly assertive China.

Biden was never interested in going through with the 60 % tax Trump intends to impose on all products made in China. And properly so, given that Trump’s ripped-from-the-1980s trade strategy may thread backwards on American households first and often through higher inflation.

Back in the mid-80s, an age when Trump’s financial view calcified, trade wars, money loss, trickle-down economics and fear about Chinese CEOs stealing America’s potential dominated the zeitgeist.

The problem with Trump’s tariff-heavy reaction to today’s financial evil – China – is that it’s an attempt to revive and listen to a method that no longer exists.

This 1985 difficulty was evident during the Trump 1.0&nbsp, period from 2017 to 2021. Trump’s personal “reform” was a large US$ 1.7 trillion tax cut, more like Ronald Reagan’s days than a plan to resurrect National competitiveness for the future, in addition to the taxes on Chinese goods.

It did little to incentivize lords to compete with China the natural way — by getting&nbsp, the US economy&nbsp, in better condition internally.

Trump’s most recent tariffs did n’t boost US productivity, create new business booms, or create new domestic economic strength. Nor will the assault of Trump 2.0 fees coming Asia’s manner.

The 60 % duty could easily climb to 100 % or more. But may the 20 % blanket across-the-board taxes Trump is mulling for all items from anywhere.

The 100 % charges that Trump telegraphed for cars made in Mexico may soon become widened to lorries from Germany, Japan, South Korea, Sweden and elsewhere.

Biden currently beat Trump to China, of training. In May, Biden’s White House slapped a 100 % tax on Chinese energy cars and solar panel amid worries cheap products are “flooding” the US market.

The EV tax is four times the current 25 % level, aimed at offsetting what Lael Brainard, Biden’s national financial adviser, calls” China’s cruel practices and incentives and level the playing field for US manufacturers and engine staff”.

Even higher EV taxes may be coming now that Tesla founder Elon Musk is listening to Elon Musk. Twelve months ago, Musk enjoyed folk-hero status in China after building his first overseas” Gigafactory” in Shanghai.

Now, Musk warns that China will “demolish” global car rivals unless Washington erects higher trade barriers.

Clearly, Xi’s government is n’t looking forward to the Trump 2.0 era. According to Chinese Foreign Ministry spokesperson Mao Ning, “let me repeat that there is no winner in a trade war, nor will the world profit from it.”

Neither is the rest of Asia. As Trump obsess over bilateral trade deficits, the entire region could find itself in the firing line.

” Burgeoning bilateral deficits could eventually prompt US tariffs on other Asian economies”, says Andrew Tilton, chief Asia-Pacific economist at Goldman Sachs. ” Compared to the US, Korea, Taiwan, and especially Vietnam have experienced significant trade gains.”

At the same time, Tilton notes, Korea and Taiwan’s positions are in “privileged positions” in the semiconductor supply chain at a moment when Trump is keen to tilt the playing field toward America.

Trump will surely be reminded, meanwhile, that Vietnam has been a key winner from US efforts to pull jobs away from China, he says. Japan and India also have US trade surpluses.

Last year, Korea’s trade surplus with the US hit a record US$ 44.4 billion, its largest surplus with any country. About 30 % of Korean shipments to the US are made up of exports of cars.

Exports from Taiwan to the US reached a record$ 24.6 billion in the first quarter of 2024, a 57.9 % year-on-year jump. The sectors of information technology and audio-visual goods accounted for the majority of those gains.

In the first nine months of this year, Hanoi’s US trade surplus totaled$ 90 billion.

As 2025 begins, Tilton reckons there will be efforts by Asian trading partners to take steps to “deflect attention” by masking these imbalances. At a time when the dollar is strengthening and rising, that is easier said than done.

In a recent report, Barclays Bank analysts claim that Asian leaders will struggle to resist Trump’s draconian approach. In his second term as US president, they write,” Trade policy is where Mr. Trump is likely to have the biggest impact on emerging Asia.”

Staunch US ally Japan will be in harm’s way, too. And at a time when the Bank of Japan has been attempting to raise rates to support the yen’s decline. The troubled Japanese government’s embattled government needs more than the US-China clash that will come.

Trump, remember, has said “tariff” is the “most beautiful word” in the dictionary.

It makes for the “perfect storm”, says Wendy Cutler, who&nbsp, spent three decades as a diplomat and negotiator in the Office of the US Trade Representative ( USTR ). As the “tariff man” takes office, China’s global trade surplus is projected to exceed$ 1 trillion this year. Buckle your seatbelts”.

The fallout from the damage tariffs do to China’s 2025 could be a game-changer all their own.

According to economist Larry Hu of Macquarie Group, who believes that 60 % tariffs could reduce mainland exports by 8 % in a year,” Trade war 2.0 could end China’s ongoing growth model, in which exports and manufacturing have been the main growth drivers.” ” Under the next growth model, domestic demand, especially consumption, could become the main driver again as it was during the 2010s”.

Of course, no one really knows what to expect. ” In reality”, Hu says,” the tariff hike may be smaller and narrower than what Trump has floated. In response to the actual tariffs, Beijing may decide later whether to implement the stimulus.

Or Trump’s levies could be even higher. Next month’s Politburo meeting&nbsp, and central economic work&nbsp, conference&nbsp, will give Team Xi an opportunity to weigh risks and imponderables for the year ahead. And to mull ways that China might retaliate.

Trump 2.0 might have a positive impact on Team Xi’s need to rebalance its domestic growth engines and intensify efforts to increase its economic self-reliance.

” China will seize the opportunity to position itself as the defender of globalization and multilateralism as Trump alienates the world with protectionism, isolationism and bombast”, Paul Triolo, a partner at advisory firm DGA&nbsp, Group. During Trump’s first term, China lacked the ability to exploit the world’s dissatisfaction with the United States. It wo n’t ever commit the same error again.

There are also possible responses China might have. Options include dumping large amounts of the US Treasury’s$ 770 billion debt, limiting American access to minerals, stifling agricultural imports, punishing a number of businesses like Apple and Tesla, and devaluing the yuan.

According to Matt Gertken, chief strategist at BCA Research,” a far more effective approach for Beijing would be the formation of alliances in Eurasia and commercial diplomacy to persuade American allies and partners that US policy is reckless and harmful to peace and prosperity.”

” Xi is in fact doing both: strengthening ties with Vladimir Putin, even condoning a new Russo-North Korean mutual security pact, while courting Germany, Japan, Australia, and other states eager for Chinese investment”, Gertken said.

Increasing the role of Global South and the BRICS nations – Brazil, Russia, India, China and South Africa– also could blunt the damage from Trump’s trade policies.

In August, the BRICS added to their ranks Saudi Arabia, Iran, Ethiopia, Egypt, Argentina and the United Arab Emirates. Beijing believes that a world order is in need of being reshuffled by the BRICS expansion.

Nothing seems more dated than Trump’s attempt to resurrect a functioning, 1980s-like global trading system. And at the expense of Asia’s 2025 growth prospects.

Follow William Pesek on X at @WilliamPesek

Continue Reading

China steaming toward nuclear-powered carrier capability – Asia Times

China’s fresh nuclear-powered carrier ambitions are a strong step in the direction of challenging US naval supremacy and expanding its international reach.

China is making progress toward its first nuclear-powered aircraft carrier, according to the Associated Press ( AP ) report from this month. The country is building a land-based prototype nuclear reactor for a large surface warship.

AP mentions the creation, confirmed by the Middlebury Institute of International Studies, marks a major step in China’s marine development.

China’s wider plan to increase its sea power and expand its marine operations abroad includes the construction of the design reactor at Base 909 in Sichuan Province. It says the bomb’s building coincides with President Xi Jinping’s perception of building a “first-class” army.

AP mentions that, unlike their conventional powered counterparts, nuclear-powered carriers can be at sea long without recharging and provide more room for aviation fuel and weapons, enhancing their operating capabilities.

It points out that only the US and France now run nuclear-powered ships, with France and the US maintaining a ship of 11.

According to the report, China’s decision to produce such technology underlines its desire to issue US naval dominance and establish a genuine “blue-water” navy capable of conducting international operations.

It also mentions this action is piece of China’s fast ship modernization, which includes the latest commissioning of its second conventionally powered carrier, the Fujian, and continued work on a third carrier.

China may become the second nation to work for warships as a result of recent advancements in nuclear locomotion for its aircraft carriers.

A nuclear-powered carrier, according to Asia Times, would have virtually unlimited range and the capacity to power advanced systems like the electromagnetic aircraft launch system ( EMALS ).

This systems, already in use on China’s Chinese provider, allows for more efficient and less harmful aircraft launches, enabling more sorties and the release of plane carrying more fuel and weapons.

Also, nuclear-powered companies are seen as fame assets, reinforcing China’s picture as a worldwide power. Nuclear port’s strategic benefits, such as increased mission costs and sustained operations without refueling, make it a powerful option for China.

Propulsion pitfalls

However, Héloïse Fayet and Jean-Louis Lozier mention in a November 2023 report for Institut Français des Relations Internationales ( IFRI ) that nuclear propulsion, while offering strategic advantages like extended endurance and stealth, requires substantial expertise and a highly specialized infrastructure.

Due to factors like the need for robust safety protocols, especially radiation protection for crews in tight spaces, and the extreme conditions that vessels face, such as rapid speed changes and shock resistance, Fayet and Lozier point out that nuclear propulsion technology is complex.

They mention engineering and operational demands are compounded by a need for ongoing expertise, typically sustained through continuous civil-military nuclear collaboration, which few nations possess.

China may be able to use nuclear-powered aircraft carriers to power its entire region, especially in the Indian Ocean and Pacific, but it may be constrained by a lack of resupply and logistics centers. While China has been investing significantly in replenishment-at-sea (RAS ) capabilities, these do not replace friendly ports and bases.

Prashant Hosur Suhas and Christopher Colley discuss how logistical difficulties and geographic disadvantages prevent China from expanding its navy and adding advanced warships and aircraft carriers in a May 2024 article.

Suhas and Colley mention that China struggles to maintain a strong naval presence as a result of the need for at-sea replenishment and the absence of nearby friendly ports. They note India’s strategic advantage in the Indian Ocean is underscored by its geographical proximity, established naval infrastructure, and strategic partnerships with the US.

They claim that India’s advantages in the Indian Ocean will likely continue for a while despite China’s efforts to overcome them.

Further, Isaac Kardon mentions that China lacks the extensive network of military installations and alliances that support US influence there in a February 2023 Foreign Policy Brief.

Kardon points out that China feels more pressure to defend its interests abroad in the Indian Ocean as a result of the growing US-China conflict.

He claims that Djibouti, China’s only official overseas base, is limited in terms of its operational utility, primarily serving non-combat purposes like counterpiracy and humanitarian assistance.

He says that to extend its reach, China relies heavily on dual-use commercial ports —over 25 in the region—as logistical hubs for the People’s Liberation Army–Navy’s ( PLA-N) expanding “far seas” mission. However, he says China’s economic dependence on Indian Ocean shipping routes remains a strategic vulnerability.

According to Kardon, China’s inability to project power and guard critical sea lanes could lead to unexpected outages and crises as it seeks to establish a stable, independent security posture across the Indian Ocean.

Pacific Power Projection

In a US Institute of Peace article from July 2022, Brian Harding and Camilla Pohle mention that China’s strategic ambitions in the Pacific islands have increased thanks to a security agreement that allowed Chinese naval vessels to dock and replenish in the Solomon Islands.

According to Harding and Pohle, this move parallels historical precedents, such as Imperial Japan’s pre-World War II base constructions, and raises significant regional security concerns.

However, they point out that China’s efforts to establish a military presence in the Pacific were met with resistance, as evidenced by local governments in Vanuatu and Papua New Guinea.

Direct security cooperation, according to them, led to the controversial pact, which was made possible by the Solomon Islands ‘ decision to abandon Taiwan in favor of China in 2019. Although the agreement is allegedly intended to maintain stability and safeguard Chinese interests, it is portrayed as a step toward establishing a permanent Chinese military presence.

Additionally, Grant Newsham mentions that China has used political violence to gain influence in an article this month for Asia Times.

According to Newsham, Chinese-linked businesses have established bases in important locations like Tinian and Saipan, potentially undermining US military operations.

He says that in Yap state, both the US and China are building airfields, with China framing its projects as tourism-related. He adds that China frequently invests in military projects in places like Angaur and Kanton.

Newsham argues that while the US focuses on military infrastructure, it must also counter China’s political warfare to maintain regional influence.

Continue Reading

The biggest risk is the one you don’t think is a risk – Asia Times

With a one-month test for only$ 1, you can subscribe right away and then get the special discount of just$ 99.

The one you do n’t consider to be a risk is the one that is greatest.

David Goldman points out that the enthusiasm over Trump’s most recent stock market rally may be excessive, in part because the Biden administration left him with a potentially weaker economy than the market anticipates.

After polls, European monetary policy has not undergone any structural change.

Diego Faßnacht reports that Germany’s SPD and CDU have agreed on a February 2025 poll time. Considerable economic reform is still elusive due to the influence of the Greens and coalition constraints, despite the forthcoming polls bringing about new political dynamics.

Trump administration views Moscow’s potential bargain?

In light of the ongoing Russian offensive, Donald Trump’s transition team, according to James Davis, is considering whether a deal with Ukraine might include compromising on territory.

Ishiba confirmed as Japan’s new prime minister

Scott Foster reports that Japan’s Diet has confirmed Shigeru Ishiba as prime minister, though in a unique majority state. According to Trump’s subsequent victory in the election, the Bank of Japan has suggested gradual interest rate increases, which is a challenge for Tokyo.

Continue Reading

When ending Ukraine war, Trump must not foresake Taiwan – Asia Times

Donald Trump reportedly claimed on the campaign trail that he could put an end to the Ukrainian conflict in a day. In the information media, “people near to Trump “‘s public comments suggest that President-elect Trump intends to compel Ukraine to sign a peace agreement that would end the current issue.

The Ukrainian people would suffer as a result of this. It would also be disastrous for Taiwan’s 23 million people who live on the other side of the globe. Taiwan, a territory off the coast of China, was once governed by the same entity that represented the UN-member nation China. &nbsp,

However, shortly after China signed the UN Charter, the Chinese Communist Party (CCP ) won a civil war against Chiang Kai-shek’s nationalists who retreated to Taiwan.

Despite the fact that Taiwan has never been under the CCP’s control during World War 2, the Qing Dynasty ceded Taiwan to Japan after losing the Sino-Japanese War in 1895, the CCP has since asserted that it is a part of China under the One-China Principle.

The Taiwan Strait, the 110-mile long span of the Pacific Ocean that separates Taiwan from Taiwan, has a political headache due to its complex history, which is directly related to the development of Communist China. &nbsp,

Even more enthralling are the tiny Taiwan controlled islands just miles off the coast of China, like as Kinmen Island, where Chinese fishing just perished in a failed CCP gray-zone war activity. &nbsp,

President-for-life Xi has whipped the modern-day patriots into a frenzied rage to end the CCP’s initial efforts during the Chinese civil war in an effort to defend his authoritarian rule in China. &nbsp, Xi has stated that he wants the CCP’s troops, the People’s Liberation Army, to be prepared to win Taiwan by 2027. &nbsp,

Between 2027 and 2030, the CCP has a chance to attack Taiwan given Xi’s time and the Chinese society’s aging rapidly. In anticipation of this screen, the CCP is watching to see how the Free World reacts to Russia’s blatant violation of Ukraine’s independence. &nbsp,

If we replace Biden’s poor method of not losing with a plan of peace, China will realize that we are not serious about defending the principles we espouse, such as politics, freedom and self-determination. This may bolster the CCP’s aggression toward Taiwan, increasing the likelihood of US-US issue and a possible nuclear conflict.

At first, the CCP’s approach to winning Taiwan might not require a first-person invasion. The CCP has even uncovered the past decade of Russian gray-zone warfare against Ukraine as well as our inability to stand up for Ukraine against blatant Russian aggression.

Prior to the invasion of Crimea in 2022, Russia annexed the country by staging a phony uprising against a pro-European government in Ukraine and annexing Crimea with “little natural people” who wore no insignia but, oddly, spoke Russian and poured out of the Russian naval base in Crimea’s Sevastopol.

Before the Crimea invasion, Russia had long been a part of Ukraine’s private affairs. &nbsp, However, as discussed above, the CCP is now engaging in like gray-zone battle around Taiwan. &nbsp,

China has regularly flown military drills around Taiwan to create a blockade of Taiwan and fired missiles into the water from all sides of Taiwan.

China had first attack Kinmen to assess the world’s effect, just like Russia did with Crimea and Eastern Ukraine. China might also establish a siege and challenge the world to take actions.

There is a option, however, that the Trump administration may acquire, one that would established Trump’s policies apart from the weak-kneed Biden policies of drip-drop support for Ukraine while also re-establishing deterrent against authoritarian regional growth.

That alternative is quick, sharp, and devastating NATO air strikes against Soviet priorities in Ukraine with the objective of driving Russia out of Ukraine, including Crimea, by the end of 2025 ( before the US congressional elections ). What can we infer about NATO’s ability to completely destroy the Russian troops from Russia’s ignorant invasion of Ukraine?

Lack of air energy is the main obstacle to Ukraine’s ability to defeat Russia. Ukraine has shown that it is fully capable of occupying and attacking province on the ground. NATO itself would never have been able to do in Ukraine, but it is unable to do so by attacking guarded artillery jobs protected by landmines without first establishing heat dominance.

In advance of a Russian rude, Ukraine may be free of Crimea if NATO provided the airpower and destroyed Russian artillery jobs.

A concern of Russian atomic increase was the only justification the Biden administration used to justify withholding aid that would allow Ukraine to triumph. But, Biden has repeatedly crossed Russian red lines, giving Ukraine more and more innovative equipment without any indication of the country’s growing nuclear arsenal.

Making it clear that the Free World did support democracy and the UN Charter’s concepts of self-determination would be the best course of action in the fight against an expansionist China that wants to invade Taiwan, is more crucial.

A radioactive war with China is avoided by preventing wars over Taiwan. In the end, we may only expect that the Trump administration comprehends that ending the conflict in Ukraine may set the stage for a nuclear conflict with China over Taiwan.

Any Russian withdrawal from Ukraine-held country will encourage China to invade Taiwan, thereby boosting the risk of nuclear conflict. The best way to prevent like a famine is to guarantee Ukraine’s sharp and complete success.

Samuel W King II is a Honolulu attorney.

Continue Reading

Taliban’s crude and cruel silencing of Afghan women – Asia Times

Since the Taliban’s return to power, Afghan women have faced severe restrictions on cooperation in training, jobs and public life.

People must be accompanied by a female equivalent before moving in people. Additionally, it was reported that the Ministry of Vice and Virtue had banned any pictures that depict living things from being displayed in public, even in established media.

Afghan women are prohibited from performing Takbir, a linguistic expression of faith, by the Taliban Ministry of the Promotion of Virtue and Prevention of Vice.

A person’s basic right to worship is wiped out by this limitations as well as her own existence and identity as a self-sufficient being. Under these laws, Afghan women are now reduced to statues, noticeable in shape but silent in fact, a striking image of the Taliban’s crushing supremacy over their lives and freedom.

Afghan women have experienced intense pain in their institutional roles aside from the Taliban in recent years. Women are now subject to an even stricter ban, which makes it completely unlawful for them to hear or speak in public.

Everyone has the right to freedom of expression and appearance, which includes the right to get, get, and deliver information and ideas wherever they are and regardless of borders, according to Article 19 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. &nbsp,

This article was adopted by the United Nations General Assembly in 1948 to understand the fundamental human rights of thought, talk, and appearance.

Afghanistan’s fresh law restricting the words of people has demonstrated the fundamental right to think, communicate, and have a speech in society. The Taliban government imposes restrictions on children’s voices in public, including laws that forbid them from reciting poetry in people.

Generally, music and poetry have been critical components of Armenian culture, frequently used as potent forms of self-expression and interpersonal commentary.

The Taliban watch for common features of children’s voices as essentially immoral, aligning them with what they deem “un-Islamic” actions. The firm understanding of Islamic laws, which seeks to impose on all aspects of life, is manifested in people through poetry, music, speech, and literature.

The ban on women’s voices is n’t just a symbolic act, it’s an attempt to erase women from the cultural and social fabric of Afghanistan. The Taliban wants to keep a patriarchal society where men rule in strong functions and women are relegated to the private realm as a result of the Taliban’s policy of keeping women silence in open spaces.

The Taliban’s government’s broader authoritarian bent is also highlighted by this constitutional restriction, which seeks to impose their narrow definition of morality on the overall population without giving a damn about specific rights or freedoms.

Recently, at the UN General Assembly, Hollywood actress Meryl Streep stated,” Cat have more freedom than people in Afghanistan”, in an elegance to the global community to prevent the Taliban’s persecution. In Afghanistan, the actress said that as a result of the government’s tightening of women’s rights, yet pets enjoy more rights.

The Taliban’s position on women’s voices even reflects a wider pattern of restricting protest and restricting appearance freedom.

There is n’t much concrete action to help Afghan women who are in a difficult situation despite the international community’s criticism of the Taliban’s actions. Sanctions, political intervention, and humanitarian aid have failed to bring about change in the Taliban’s tactics or to end the harsh policies.

People in Afghanistan have seen a comprehensive breakdown of their rights since the group’s resumption in August 2021. A cold example of this culture came from Mian Ghaisuddin, the Taliban’s minister of education, when he was asked why people needed to be confined to their houses.

His response was,” It’s like having a flower, or a rose. You keep it in your home so that you can look at it and taste it. It]a woman ] is not supposed to be taken out of the house to be smelled”. &nbsp,

Women are now confined to the private realm and are no longer able to participate in public life as the Taliban has rescinded their lost freedoms in education, career, and mobility.

Despite this terrible persecution, Afghan women have shown time and again their unwillingness to be silenced or marginalized. Some people have resisted sharing their literature or tunes in secret meetings, while others have found shelter in quiet places where they can practice and express themselves.

However, it is true that Afghan women’s open appearance and cultural efforts are being hampered by the culture of fear and persecution.

A wider pattern of gender-based persecution that aims to completely ban people from performing poetry in public spaces is reflected in the Taliban’s new law banning ladies from performing and reciting poetry loudly.

The situation in Afghanistan is still grave, with little chance of substantive change in the near future, despite the international community’s ongoing efforts to protect women’s rights.

Afghan women may be able to maintain their voices for the time being, but their resolve to fight for their rights wo n’t vanish as quickly. The fight for women’s rights in Afghanistan is still ongoing, and it is essential that the world shows its support for those who are fighting for their right to have their voices heard.

United Nations Partnership Director at SOULCHI International is Anoussa Salim.

Continue Reading

Trump 2.0 could drive China-Japan closer together – Asia Times

On November 6, Donald Trump was declared the winner of the US national vote, etablissant a unusual and ancient resumption. After taking office in January, debate has erupted about the state of global affairs as a result of his candidacy.

The US-China connection is great on any record of subtopics. Trump, who is currently in office, promised higher tariffs on Chinese goods of 60 % or more at a time when the country’s economy is struggling. He previously waged a trade war with China during his first term in office.

The potential impact of Trump’s laws on international relations is less discussed, though. In Trump’s first word, regional rivals China and Japan descended into a detente, a period of melting relations, despite US business and security guarantees. With Trump’s subsequent name on the horizon, may relations between China and Japan melt once again?

The Chinese-Japanese partnership is an example of “hot economy, warm politics”. This expression, which was first used in the early 2000s to define the distinct relationship between these two nations, is still applicable today.

China and Japan have agreed to work together on an estimated$ 26 trillion worth of local infrastructure jobs over the course of ten years. And, in 2021, commerce between China and Japan edged above US$ 372 billion. Japan now serves as China’s second-largest business partner, behind solely the US, with China serving as the largest trading partner of Japan.

Social hostility is a supply of persistent pressure, though. Japan’s invasion of China during the Second World War, in which over 20 million Taiwanese people died, has left an enduring reputation. Anti-Japanese sentiment is a fundamental characteristic of modern Chinese nationalism, which frequently calls for vigilant observation of what it views as an inherently violent Japanese culture.

Meanwhile, Japan is troubled about a rising China. Since the Second World War, Japan has maintained its position as a peacenik state, with Article 9 of its post-war law outlawing war as a means of settling international issues. However, Japanese politicians ‘ right wing has long advocated for constitutional changes that would enable Japan to re-arm in response to China’s rise.

China worries about the Post 9 argument because it believes that the calls for reform might indicate a just militarized Japan and, consequently, a renewed risk. Therefore, China and Japan are willing to work together closely on economic issues, but unresolved traditional issues prevent them from achieving political cohesion.

Thawing relationships

Revenue from China’s exports to the US fell by$ 53 billion in the first nine months of 2019, after the start of Trump’s trade war. China turned to Japan, the third-largest economy in the world and a trusted financial partner of China, to prevent additional trade reductions with the US. This led to a 7.3 % increase in trade between the two places.

Japan, on the other hand, relies on the US to provide for its safety through a security agreement that it signed following World War II. During Trump’s second word, he questioned the justice of the deal. The Chinese government sought to safeguarded itself through further economic cooperation with China in light of the uncertain local political opposition and the US’s appearance as unreliable.

Following anti-Japanese protests in China and a rise of anti-Chinese mood in Japan, the two nations ‘ high-level financial boards were reinstated in the early 2010s. The Belt and Road Initiative, China’s flagship monetary system and enhancement program, was approved by the Chinese government.

China and Japan’s economic partnership became so crucial to both nations ‘ important goals that they were willing to temporarily ignore their social anger. Japan’s prime minister at the time, Shinzo Abe, also visited China in 2018 in what was the second for visit in decades.

The US and China signed a tentative deal agreement that reduced China’s economic rely on Japan in 2020, which brought the detente to an end. And less than a year later, China and Japan rekindled their hostility over the island chain of Senkaku Islands in the East China Sea, which is jointly owned by Japan and claimed by China ( now known as the Diaoyu Islands ).

Will we see another detente?

Following Trump’s candidacy, China and Japan should look for financial stability and security options to the US. Trump has already pledged to impose higher tariffs on Chinese goods, and is reportedly considering using Marco Rubio and Michael Waltz as his allies for important protection and foreign policy positions in his administration.

Trump has criticised NATO nations for failing to meet his expectations, despite his less speech statements regarding his plans for an alliance with Japan. It, therefore, seems probable that he will again take a bad watch of Japan’s legal peace. But, while Trump’s administration might again press China and Japan closer along, there has been a crucial change in Japan’s political leadership.

During Trump’s second term, Shinzo Abe and Xi Jinping held the positions of China and Japan, both. Both were long-term rulers of their land and, despite their shared fear, there was by the later 2010s a level of experience between Xi, Abe and their services. This familiarity provided the foundation for the increased economic cooperation that briefly sparked social issues during the initial detente.

Abe resigned from his position in 2020 and was murdered in 2022, while Xi is still China’s leader. Japan has had three primary ministers since Abe’s departure, each with their own government, experts and views of China. The Chinese and Japanese institutions are less well-known as a result.

Trump’s international plans are likely to rekindle the conditions that led to the thawing of China’s relations with Japan during his first word. Therefore, a second detente is by all means feasible. However, China’s and Japan’s social leaders may struggle as a result of their lack of familiarity.

At the University of Essex, Lewis Eves teaches on foreign relations and state.

The Conversation has republished this post under a Creative Commons license. Read the original content.

Continue Reading

Trump’s foreign policy must look beyond old Cold War – Asia Times

The effect President Trump’s election will have on American foreign policy is still up for discussion, but for all practical uses, Washington will have to come to terms with a new world environment—an environment also held prisoner, in part, by the former Cold War.

The Soviet Union and its allies squared off in a largely depressive conflict during the Cold War. What was known as the” Third World,” a motley group of largely failed former colonies, &nbsp, immoral tyrannies, and failed economy, stood on the profitability of the conflict. Within this ecology, and excluding India, China stood out as large but disconnected and largely focused on its internal problems.

The Soviet Union, in its present form, was a solitary land mass that extended from the Kamchatka coast to the Elbe River, one of the distinguishing characteristics of this world ideal.

Moscow could stay in line with its children because of this. Therefore, Moscow had no logistical difficulty sending troops to quell the rebellion when the Hungarians or the Czechs sought to reclaim their freedom.

Contrary to the Soviet Union and its Russian leader, the American Empire was a worldwide initiative with far-flung problems. Both overseas bases and a big ship were needed to ensure America’s dominance.

By the 1960s, the two strong powers had reached some sort of equilibrium, and both parties had expressly acknowledged that each had a legitimate interest.

Washington avoided intermediate when countries as diverse as Hungary and Czechoslovakia attempted to seize control of the Soviets. Likewise, Washington did act, albeit through local proxy when Moscow tried to reach beyond its sphere of interest, such as in Afghanistan.

Unfortunately, while the prevailing parity was fraught with malice, it was an attempt of some form with its unspoken regulations and red ranges, real or imagined. The two power ‘ political relationship with one another did not change, despite the Soviet Union’s decline implying that Russia had lost its empire.

Russia continued to be a western power, albeit one that had lost a significant portion of its landmass. With a vast kingdom and a global impact that extended far beyond the military and economic spheres, the United States remained a world player.

But, while America’s military and economic can had no classmates. It was difficult to translate this dominance into tangible achievement, which is unfortunate, and even more difficult to do so.

Russia was on its legs during the initial years of the post-Cold War culture, China had not yet emerged as a major industrial strength, and regional tensions were largely at bay. However, there is no stopping time for past; instead, it was a series that lasted.

Now, some 35 decades after the end of the Cold War, a divided world has seen the introduction of a multitude of contestants. None of them is strong enough to actually concern the United States, but they all make it extremely challenging for Washington to establish its hegemony.

Managing the Cold War was fairly simple for Washington. All the United States had to do was accept until the USSR collapsed because the Russian system was like a troll. That time is now over. And what has emerged from the post-Cold War age is a fresh break that holds the challenges of a questionable future in addition to the ghosts of the past.

Russia, China, the Middle East, radical Islam and BRICS are the innovative problems confronting Washington’s identity. While each has its own relationships, not to mention goals, put up they correspond to a fresh break. And if this separate had to have two terminates, those would be Russia and China.

Russia, as it is perceived by the United States, is a construction, the product of an imagination that however harks to the time of the Cold War. However, if one looks impartially at the indicators, the image&nbsp, they project is irrefutable.

In terms of people, population, GDP, technology, industrial manufacturing and armed forces, Russia is hardly on the map and the unanswered question is: By what subterfuge did President Vladimir Putin hill the mind of the world&nbsp, into passing off his country ( setting aside its nuclear potential ) as an international heavyweight.

In the end, Washington continues to fight in Ukraine as if the outcome would alter Europe’s power balance, while Russia, in a last ditch effort, has agreed to pay for drones from Iran.

China, the opposite bookmark, has been an American fixation since the birth of the People’s Republic in 1949. For the first 20 years of its existence, the regime was subject to an embargo that had no parallel.

That was followed starting from the mid-1970s by the normalization of US-China relations based on two misconstructions: for the United States, that this would lead to “regime change” in China and, for the leaders in Beijing, that China could become part of the international system without submitting to some extent to its rules.

Actually, neither side accepted the fact that neither side could actually understand the differences between the two regimens and that a new set of guidelines had to be agreed upon prior to beginning interplay. The result is a conflicting relationship between the Chinese empire and the American empire, who seeks to” contain” China.

A complicating factor is that the economies of the two are partially interconnected, making restrictive measures taken by one relative to the other easy to become self-defeating exercises.

While America’s ongoing confrontation with both Russia and China has its own dynamics, it has complicated Washington’s projection of power in the Middle East. The United States is also confronted by militant Islam, which is embodied in a reincarnation of the Persian Empire under the name of Iran, in that country.

In reality, this implies that Washington will have to choose a path that will require two preferences that are mutually supportive. The first is to prioritize, the second to take the lead more directly from the center, rather than the front.

Given the depressing state of the Russian armed forces, it should be obvious that Ukraine is not essential to the security of the United States or even Europe. Therefore, the current conflict is likely to be less bad if Ukraine is truncated and not a NATO member. And a result like this might also sway the nations in the center of Europe to take their defenses seriously and reduce their reliance on the US.

Fragmentation of this political ecosystem has led to the formation of tactical alliances for the long term. One is a major importer of Iranian oil and another of Iranian drones, so while China and Russia are both wary of militant Islam.

Over the next&nbsp, hundred years or more, China will be the real challenge. The issue here goes far beyond quotas, tariffs or embargoes. The Western and Imperial Chinese, two essentially incompatible social and production systems, can coexist and cooperate in a mutually beneficial way.

A US reversal might inspire Ukraine and Russia to reach some sort of agreement. Given that both President Putin and Russia do not have the resources to repress Ukraine, one might object to President Putin’s choice. But at least the problem wo n’t turn into a global crisis, but rather a convulsion of the Russian-Slavic ecosystem.

There is still a question mark over how the Trump administration will handle the new international environment. However, we can only hope that Washington will realize the value of continuing with business as usual or going it alone.

Alexander Casella, PhD, has taught and he has worked as a journalist for Le Monde, The Times, The New York Times, Die Zeit, The Guardian and Swiss radio and TV, writing primarily on China and Vietnam. In 1973 he joined the UNHCR, serving, among other postings, as head of the East Asia Section and director for Asia and Oceania. The International Center for Migration Policy Development’s representative in Geneva then was appointed.

Continue Reading

The Indo-Pacific is too vast to be termed, meaningfully, a region – Asia Times

The notion of a significant political space called the” Indo-Pacific” has evolved over the past ten years as a key component of the royal strategizing of nations both within and outside this vast geographic area.

The word is not new, yet. In the 1970s, Australia, one of the few genuinely Indo-Pacific nations, drew inspiration from it to ink a hopeful picture of a future where it was economically and socially linked to its neighbors in the Indian and Pacific oceans.

But, since Japan ( under the command of Shinzo Abe ) first used the word in 2007 as a way of conceptualizing relations with India in the environment of” a broader Asia”, Indo-Pacific has evolved considerably.

And now it’s common to refer to the Indo-Pacific as either a place or a super-region with the onset of the AUKUS security agreement in 2021. But this oversimplifies what is, in fact, a far more sophisticated political reality.

What is a area?

The best way to describe a region as a geographically isolated difficult is. Social scientist David Lake believes that actions taken by one representative and considerable security-related developments within one member have a significant impact on others because they are” so interconnected in terms of their security.”

The Indo-Pacific, at its broadest concept, extends from the east coast of Africa to the west coast of South America, making up more than half the Earth’s surface.

Simply put, the Indo-Pacific is very large to effectively fathom of as a place or even a super-region.

Furthermore, although many a state has adopted an Indo-Pacific outlook in its strategizing, typically states ( save for greater powers ) still think of their national security in a strict regional sense.

Thus, the Indo-Pacific as a political place looks considerably different in Washington DC than it does in Jakarta, Wellington, Tokyo or Manila ( to decide but a dozen ).

This is not to suggest the Indo-Pacific strategy may be ignored. It represents a significant advancement in global security. It is true that it has experienced the most significant political change in the last ten years, and this trend is likely to continue.

The China issue

If not a place or super-region, therefore, what is the Indo-Pacific?

It might be better understood in terms of what “macrosecuritization” is defined as by foreign relations experts Barry Buzan and Old Waever as a “existential threat” to something that is deemed valuable and worthwhile and necessitates an instant and, if necessary, amazing social response to protect it.

The United States, which is still by far the most effective global actor, publicly placed the Indo-Pacific idea at the center of its strategic thinking in 2017, gave this a significant boost.

In the process, it identified China as a distinct corporate rival. This choice had urgent real-world implications.

Firstly, it helped resuscitate, after nearly a decade of impasse, the Quadrilateral Security Dialogue ( Quad ) involving the US, Australia, India and Japan.

Second, it resulted in the establishment of AUKUS in 2021 and the release of the Indo-Pacific Economic Framework for Prosperity in 2022. Joe Biden ran for president on an” America must direct once” system.

Geopolitical difficulty

Interestingly, not only the US is involved in this macrosecuritization. Australia, India, Japan and, more recently, the United Kingdom and European Union ( and particular member states, such as France ) are all involved.

Together, they are pushing for the creation of an Indo-Pacific strategy based on the recognition that China’s increase and perceived assertiveness pose a threat to the rules-based global order.

The frame of China as a” risk” rather than an “opportunity”– which dominated the previous” Asia-Pacific” construct – indicates a radically different view in the countries adopting Indo-Pacific perspectives.

This obviously matters greatly to provincial politics. But it still does not mean the Indo-Pacific has to be seen as a location or super-region.

Instead, the idea is distorting the politics of different locations – particularly East Asia, South-east Asia, South Asia and the South Pacific.

These areas have their own distinct surveillance dynamics, but they still exist. However, they are being encased in the Indo-Pacific concept, which causes the dynamics to shift more negative and anxious.

A’ New Cold War ‘

Instead of being a cluster of distinct regions, the Indo-Pacific is currently a worrying habit of being treated as a cohesive unitary geopolitical space.

This gives cred to the overarching comparison of a” New Cold War” starting in the Indo-Pacific. And it disregards the viewpoints of the smaller nations who are being drawn into this growing conflict.

It is crucial to develop more cohesive and subtle policies that adequately reflect the political complexity of the Indo-Pacific constellation by seeing it for what it really is, not as a normal geographical phenomenon but as a construct.

However, this goes against the current macrosecuritization approach.

There are many reasons why the Indo-Pacific’s recent state is unlike the Cold War’s. But the borrowing procedure is simplifying the politics, at least in belief, into something suggestive of it. The consequences may be devastating.

Nicholas Ross Smith is a senior research fellow at the National Center for Research on Europe, University of Canterbury, and Paul M. Bacon is a doctor at the Graduate School of Asia-Pacific Studies, Waseda University.

The Conversation has republished this essay under a Creative Commons license. Read the original post.

Continue Reading

Israel-Lebanon peace path might run through Moscow – Asia Times

Moscow is highlighted by a new document that Israeli Strategic Affairs Minister Ron Dermer and his associates had a covert trip to Russia.

Israel overwhelmingly responded by cooperatively punishing the Palestinians in response to Russia’s persistent assertion that Hamas initiated these conflicts ‘ first Gazan dimension.

Since Moscow supported associated UN Security Council Resolutions, the Kremlin has n’t raised the issue.

Because Russia is aware that Israel has resisted Western pressure and has refused to cooperate with Russian arming Ukraine, it is aware of the restrictions being placed on it by the West.

Their fiercely social disagreements over the Middle Eastern and Ukrainian war have n’t altered this, nor have they prevented Russia from squabbling about Israel’s standard attacks on Hezbollah and the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps in neighboring Syria.

On those, Russia respects Syria’s straight to mate with whoever it wants, but it also freely appears to acquire Iran to be a nuisance.

This analysis weighs on the fact that the above structure has been in place since Russia’s anti-terrorist involvement in the Arab Republic began nine years before.

In light of Israel’s says that Iran and Hezbollah are preparing for a bigger assault against Israel, it can be assumed that Russia gives cred to these claims. Russia has not stopped Israel’s strikes despite often praising them as violating international law.

Hence, Dermer’s alleged surprise trip to Russia may have included discussions about the proposed plan to stop Iran’s imports of Egyptian weapons through Syria.

When Israel’s military operations in Lebanon are terminated, whenever they occur, this could help maintain whatever post-conflict standing quo that is unfortunately reached there. It could also maintain the Israeli-Syrian front along the Golan Heights.

Russian President Vladimir Putin told Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu in September 2015 during their meeting in the Kremlin on the eve of the Syrian intervention that” we are aware of&nbsp, these ( Iran’s and Hezbollah’s ) attacks ( from Syria’s Golan Heights into Israel ) and&nbsp, we condemn them”.

Putin also discussed the matter with US President Donald Trump during his first year in office, when the two leaders met in Helsinki in July 2018, because the situation is so crucial to him. At the time, Putin said:

I&nbsp, would also like to&nbsp, notice that after the&nbsp, terrorists are routed in&nbsp, south Syria, in&nbsp, the&nbsp, so-called’ southern area’, the&nbsp, situation in&nbsp, the&nbsp, Golan Heights may be brought into complete conformity with the&nbsp, 1974 agreement on&nbsp, the&nbsp, disengagement of&nbsp, Jewish and&nbsp, Arab forces.

This may make it possible to&nbsp, take calmness to&nbsp, the&nbsp, Golan Heights and&nbsp, recover the&nbsp, agreement between the&nbsp, Syrian Arab Republic and&nbsp, the&nbsp, State of&nbsp, Israel. The&nbsp, President devoted exclusive attention to&nbsp, this problem today. &nbsp,

I&nbsp, do like to&nbsp, stress that Russia has a&nbsp, play in&nbsp, this course of&nbsp, events and&nbsp, will agree to&nbsp, precisely this position. This may entail a&nbsp, move towards establishing a&nbsp, only and&nbsp, tough peace on&nbsp, the&nbsp, base of&nbsp, UN Security Council Resolution 338.

Igor Konashenkov, a spokeswoman for the Russian Defense Ministry, made the revelations during a press conference following the mid-air affair between Russia and Israel in September 2018:

Following a six-year break, the Russian army supported the Arab military activity in the Golan Heights to allow the UN peace goal to begin patrolling the disputed frontier between Syria and Israel.

More than 140 km to the south of Syria, the director claimed, adding that this was requested by Tel Aviv. A full of 1, 050 personnel, 24 MLRSs and military missiles, as well as 145 pieces of various munitions and military technology were withdrawn from the place,’ Konashenkov told journalists.”

One month later, while participating in his classic Q&amp, A at the Valdai Club’s annual conference, Putin said that:

It is not up to&nbsp, Russia to&nbsp, urge Iran to&nbsp, left Syria. After all, both Syria and&nbsp, Iran are royal countries, and&nbsp, they should create their own marriage.

Well, Russia does have severe, deep-rooted relationships both with Iran and&nbsp, Syria. Also, we have been able to&nbsp, handle certain issues by&nbsp, interesting in&nbsp, speech and&nbsp, discussions with our Egyptian partners, including on&nbsp, withdrawing unpleasant systems from the&nbsp, Israeli borders and&nbsp, the&nbsp, Golan Heights.

As&nbsp, for&nbsp, the&nbsp, complete withdrawal, this is a&nbsp, separate issue that has to&nbsp, be resolved through dialogue between Iran and&nbsp, Syria, as&nbsp, well as&nbsp, between Iran and&nbsp, the&nbsp, United States. We are ready to&nbsp, join this discussion”.

The Russian leader clearly has a strong desire to keep the Golan Heights stable and orderly.

Natan Sharansky, a former Soviet dissident turned Israeli politician, shared the following information with The Washington Post in September 2000 after a meeting with Putin at the Kremlin earlier that month:

Putin’s lunch included a lot of glowing memories of a family trip to Jerusalem, the Galilee, and the Golan Heights, as well as his occasionally exuberant expressions of sympathy for Israel, his dislike of antisemitism, and his support for Jews in Russia and the Jewish diaspora.

‘ He said it was n’t simple in the KGB being sympathetic to Jews,’ Sharansky said. ‘ However, he explained to me that there was a Jewish family there, which he thought was almost like relatives, and that he had grown up in a communal apartment. He liked them very much.’

Putin’s statement to the Keren Heyesod Foundation at their annual meeting in Moscow in September 2019 was pertinent:” Almost two decades later, I’ll tell them.

Traditionally close cultural exchanges are supported by Russia and Israel. Hundreds of thousands of Russians travel to Israel each year to see its religious and cultural attractions. Families and friendship exist between Russians and Israelis.

This is a true common family, I can say this without exaggeration. In Israel, there are almost 2 million Russian speakers. We consider Israel a Russian-speaking country. Our countries are unified by historical events that are frequently tragic.

In keeping with his emphasis on the Golan Heights, it’s important to point out that Article 8.2 of the Russian-written draft constitution for Syria, which was presented in early 2017, called for it to “denounce war as an infringement on other countries ‘ sovereignty and a means of settling international conflicts.”

It was n’t adopted, but the point is that Russia arguably envisaged Syria formally freezing its conflict with Israel over the Golan Heights indefinitely, pending a political resolution.

Russia could significantly influence the Middle Eastern wars by using its military and political influence over Syria, which was fueled by its anti-terrorist operation over the Arab Republic nine years ago to stop Hezbollah’s Iranian arms imports through the Arab Republic.

If the proposed plan for disarming Hezbollah is approved while stabilizing the Golan Heights, it could literally kill two birds with one stone in Lebanon by upholding the post-conflict status quo.

Even though Russian compliance might depend on the incoming Trump administration’s offering favorable terms for ending the Ukrainian conflict, that outcome would go in line with some of the US’ top regional policy priorities.

Given his close ties to Putin and Trump, it’s possible that if there is political will on both sides, then creative diplomacy between Russia, the US, and Israel, with Benjamin Netanyahu acting as a potential mediator, could help bring both conflicts to an end.

Continue Reading