<h4>Did the assassination of the Iranian general harm Russia?</h4>



On January 2nd, General Qassem Soleimani, the head of the Quds special forces unit of the Islamic Revolutionary Guards Corps of Iran, was killed in Baghdad by the US drone strike. He was called one of the most influential people not only in Iran, but throughout the Middle East. It was he who became the architect of the Iranian &#8220;hybrid war&#8221; which included the creation of the so-called &#8220;irregular armies&#8221; in neighboring states posing as local &#8220;militias&#8221; and allowing Iran to control other countries through these formations. It was this idea that Moscow borrowed in the use of its covert forces in Ukraine, Georgia and Moldova.



Soleimani is called the savior of the Bashar al-Assad regime in Syria, and it is believed that it was he who initiated the official intervention of Russia in the Syrian war in 2015 (according to unofficial data, Russian special forces have been present there at least since 2012). In the West, Soleimani was accused of the deaths of hundreds of US troops in Iraq and involvement in attacks on Israel, as well as threats to wipe off the Jewish state from the face of the Earth. The United States included him, along with other Iranian officials, among the terrorists accused of conspiring to kill the Saudi Arabian ambassador in Washington in 2011. In Iraq, Al-Quds and Soleimani himself <a href="https://www.bbc.com/russian/news-50981883">were accused</a> of brutally suppressing the protests.



<h4>Crying over Soleimani</h4>



All analysts agree that the murder of a senior general and, in combination, a war criminal will significantly weaken Iran’s influence in the region. As for Moscow’s position in the Middle East, as the Russian political analyst, orientalist, Doctor of Historical Sciences Elena Galkina said <a href="https://www.forumfreerussia.org/multimedia/video-ffr/2020-01-06/ubijstvo-sulejmani-kreml-lishilsya-nalazhennogo-kanala-svyazi/ffr/">in the interview</a> with the Free Russia Forum, with the death of Qassem Soleimani, the Kremlin lost an established channel of communication with Iran. It is also true, as Elena noted, that this loss is unlikely to be critical for Moscow.



Russia, for its part, has shown restrained indignation and grief over US actions both at the official level and in state media. Thus, immediately after the death of Soleimani, the Russian Foreign Ministry <a href="https://ria.ru/20200103/1563091337.html">stated</a> that &#8220;this step by the United States lies outside any legal framework&#8221; and makes the world &#8220;face a new reality.&#8221; Pro-Kremlin analysts <a href="https://ria.ru/20200103/1563093859.html">predict</a> that the United States will lose influence in the Middle East and further weaken its foreign policy position. Orthodox radicals from Tsargrad TV channel went even further and <a href="https://www.facebook.com/tyurenkov/posts/2870664136317419">proclaimed</a> Soleimani and his militants &#8220;Iranian heroes&#8221; fighting &#8220;against the servants of the coming Antichrist – the invaders of the Holy Land and their overseas curators and minions&#8221;; and also once again envied the Iranian example of &#8220;the possibility of theocracy in the modern, largely godless world.&#8221;



However, let’s try to figure out if the assassination of the Iranian general actually caused real damage to Moscow.



<h4>Why Kremlin valued Soleimani</h4>



Russians are not hiding the fact that the assassinated general was a valuable figure for Moscow, and that many of his operations and crimes were useful not only to the Iranian authorities, but also to Russia. At the same time, unlike official propagandists, military analysts describe the “merits” of the deceased much more honestly. In particular, the authors of the Military Review website, close to the Russian Ministry of Defense, <a href="https://topwar.ru/166407-zachem-tramp-ubil-sulejmani-i-pochemu-jeto-vazhno-dlja-nas.html">list</a> among Soleimani’s main “virtues” his effective “hybrid” war against the United States in Iraq, which caused the death of many American soldiers, as well as the cultivation of Hezbollah and the rescue of Assad.



“They also managed to seriously arm the rebels &#8230; The Iranians very quickly created IED’s and set up their production and delivery to Iraq. These mines easily hit the monstrous American armored cars and claimed the lives of hundreds of American soldiers. And this was also Soleimani’s work&#8230; In addition to the war aimed at weakening the United States, Soleimani was committed to ensuring that a strong government capable of threatening Iran would never be established in Iraq, and he succeeded in that. In 2011, as the result of his efforts, the US officially ended the occupation of Iraq by minimizing its presence in this country,” – Russian military analysts praised the Iranian general.



Nevertheless, the authors of the Military Review note one “mistake” by Soleimani: the involvement of Al-Qaeda in operations against the United States – and this only because it “led to the attacks by its militants on the Iraqi Shiites.” However, according to the Kremlin’s military experts, it was a forgivable blunder, because, quoting verbatim: &#8220;However, they also killed Americans, so it was not a serious mistake.&#8221;



&nbsp;“Few people know that until around 2016, Iran “carried” almost the entire war on land, since the Syrian army at some point almost completely lost its combat effectiveness&#8230; Soleimani also greatly strengthened Quds’ ties with the Lebanese Hezbollah movement, getting more help for this movement from Iran, including Iranian recruits,” – the author continues to list the General’s “merits”.



This article is shocking not because it lists examples of Soleimani’s crimes — one can learn about them from other sources — but by the&nbsp; fact that the Russian military openly describes them as valiant and concludes on their basis that “no peaceful coexistence with the United States is possible, attempts to achieve such is a waste of time.&#8221; There is no doubt that the Kremlin really valued Soleimani and participated with him in many war crimes. And yet this does not mean that at this stage, contrary to apparent damage, the death of the Iranian general may not play into the hands of Moscow.



<h4>A tip from Putin?</h4>



Some American analysts suggest that, paradoxical as it may sound, the Americans determined the location of Soleimani&#8230; with the help of a tip from Putin!



“The Kremlin offered a statement about the call that Mr. Putin thanked Trump for information helping Moscow thwart a terrorist attack and said the relationship was bilateral. Question: had Moscow supplied information in return?&nbsp; If so, it could not have been a warning of the next rocket attack on a US base in Iraq; or the US embassy compound rioting. What was provided in return, if anything? Might it have been Suleimani’s location information? Would Moscow share it? Why?”, wonders American military analyst Michael Woodson.



This hypothesis is not as improbable as it might seem at a first glance. The Kremlin, so fond of reproaching the United States for not observing any agreements and easily betraying its former allies, uses the same methods. Yes, Soleimani was indeed the creator of many terrorist groups that Russia used for its own purposes. Together with Moscow, he supported the Assad regime and participated in the reprisals against the Syrian opposition. But it is entirely possible that Putin had already received everything he wanted from the Iranian general, and further decided to act on the principle: &#8220;The Moor has done his job, the Moor can leave.&#8221;



This is partly recognized by the already mentioned authors of the Military Review. In particular, <a href="https://topwar.ru/166407-zachem-tramp-ubil-sulejmani-i-pochemu-jeto-vazhno-dlja-nas.html">they write</a> about the current situation in Syria: &#8220;Russia has been able to create its own ground forces not controlled by Iran in this country.&#8221; Moscow is unlikely to need Soleimani for ties with Hezbollah either; <a href="https://ru.krymr.com/a/27500744.html">according to Israeli analysts</a>, the Kremlin has long been working directly with this organization. 



In addition, Putin likely needs chaos in the Middle East, rather than a strong Iranian influence, in the region where Moscow does not mind strengthening its own positions. So, 4 years ago, experts from the Belarusian Center for Strategic and Foreign Policy Studies <a href="https://ru.krymr.com/a/27480552.html">indicated</a> that Russia was interested in escalating tensions between Iran and Saudi Arabia. According to the director of the Center Arseny Sivitsky, the main motive of Moscow is the positive impact of instability in the Middle East on the world oil prices. At the same time, as Arseny Sivitsky points out, the Kremlin very skillfully exploits regional conflicts along the Shiite-Sunni axis and alternately supports various sides in the conflict in order to maintain a certain level of tension in the hope that it will contribute to rising oil prices.



At the same time, the Russian military themselves admit that Soleimani, “by controlling the banks and oil supplies in Iraq, and then in other places, has made his military empire self-financing.” However, the oil empire, under the control of a strong state, is not able to create the degree of chaos that is beneficial to Moscow.



At the same time, a new round of confrontation between Iran and the United States will lead not only to the weakening of Iran, but also the United States, which cannot but please Putin. Russian military analysts are considering two possible scenarios. The first may be the final withdrawal of US troops from Iraq. In Russia, they are even <a href="https://topwar.ru/166407-zachem-tramp-ubil-sulejmani-i-pochemu-jeto-vazhno-dlja-nas.html">entertaining</a> the theory that Trump killed Soleimani specifically in order to divert attention from impeachment and at the same time provoke the corresponding demand of Baghdad, as this will allow him to &#8220;get out of the Middle Eastern quagmire.&#8221; No matter how hard Kremlin experts try to convince everyone that such a development is not good for Russia, it is logical to assume that a decrease in American influence in the region, combined with the weakening of Iran, will automatically lead to increased Russian influence.



The second option, according to Moscow, could be the further “sucking in” of the United States in the Middle East wars;  Russian military analysts do not conceal their goal, which is to get the Americans “bogged down” in this region and not be able to influence other world events (in particular, in Eastern Europe). Therefore, whether or not Kremlin will benefit from the assassination of Qassem Soleimani ultimately depends on the policy of the United States.



Kseniya Kirillova for <a href="https://mnews.world/en/">M.News World</a>

large_1-47.jpg

medium_1-47.jpg

small_1-47.jpg

thumbnail_1-47.jpg

1-47.jpg

Kremlin and Soleimani

Deutsche Bank cumulatively loaned Donald Trump more than $2 billion over two decades when he was in real estate, according to a new report from The New York Times.
While Trump&#8217;s relationship with Deutsche Bank — which dates back to the 1990s — is not entirely revelatory, The Times spoke to more than 20 people who who either currently or previously worked as executives for Deutsche Bank, giving a broader look at the scope of the relationship.
The bank was one of the few on Wall Street that would take a risk with Trump following his casino bankruptcies, The Times reported in 2016 ahead of that year&#8217;s presidential election. (&#8220;Several bankers on Wall Street say they are simply not willing to take on what they almost uniformly referred to as &#8216;Donald risk,'&#8221; The Times Susanne Craig reported.) 
Deutsche Bank, however, was trying to make inroads into Wall Street by taking on clients that other banks would not work with, according to the Financial Times. Through their ongoing business, Trump owes Deutsche Bank around $300 million, the Financial Time reported in 2017.
The New York Times&#8217; Monday night report highlighted the business relationship between Deutsche Bank and Trump, as investigations are being conducted by two committees in Congress and the New York attorney general.
Here&#8217;s what we learned:
Trump worked with the investment-banking division (including the commercial real-estate unit) and private-banking division. 
He continued to get loans from the bank as recently as 2015, when a $170 million loan was underwritten for the transformation of the Old Post Office building in Washington, DC. 
Trump continued to be loaned money despite his relationship souring with investment-banking executives: He filed a lawsuit against the bank in 2008 before part of a loan he took out to build Trump International Hotel and Tower in Chicago was due, claiming the financial collapse that year was an act of God. 
One section of the investment-banking unit ended its relationship with Trump in 2004, after Trump Hotels &amp; Casino Resorts defaulted on bonds. 
Trump&#8217;s son-in-law, Jared Kushner, introduced him to Rosemary Vrablic, a private banker with Deutsche Bank. 
Working with Vrablic, Trump secured funds to purchase Doral Golf Resort and Spa, and another $48 million for Chicago&#8217;s Trump International Hotel and Tower. 
The $48 million personal loan would be used to pay back the investment-banking loan. &#8220;Even by Wall Street standards, borrowing money from one part of a bank to pay off a loan from another division within the same bank was an extraordinary act of financial chutzpah,&#8221; The Times called the decision. 
Trump inflated his net worth on several occasions. He once said he was worth around $3 billion, but the bank said it was more like $788 million — yet Deutsche Bank continued to work with him. 
Deutsche Bank is not without its own issues with US regulators unrelated to Trump, The Hill reports. In a statement to The Times, a spokeswoman said, &#8220;We remain committed to cooperating with authorized investigations.&#8221; Business Insider contacted the White House, Deutsche Bank, and the Trump Organization for comment.

large_o4cwoze7te3fngvxzehplxhaj0uskzhq.jpg

medium_o4cwoze7te3fngvxzehplxhaj0uskzhq.jpg

small_o4cwoze7te3fngvxzehplxhaj0uskzhq.jpg

thumbnail_o4cwoze7te3fngvxzehplxhaj0uskzhq.jpg

o4cwoze7te3fngvxzehplxhaj0uskzhq.jpg

Trump received around $2 billion in loans from Deutsche Bank

Israeli warplanes on Friday struck some 100 Hamas targets in the Gaza Strip in response to a rare rocket attack on Tel Aviv. Rocket fire persisted into the morning, setting the stage for additional possible reprisals.
The army said its targets included an office complex in Gaza City used to plan and command Hamas militant activities, an underground complex that served as Hamas&#8217; main rocket-manufacturing site, and a center used for Hamas drone development.
In Gaza, health officials reported four people wounded, including a husband and wife in the southern town of Rafah. There were no further details. The office building struck by Israel had been used by Hamas&#8217; office of prisoner affairs.
The sudden outbreak of violence comes at a sensitive time for both sides, and it appeared Israel and Gaza&#8217;s Hamas rulers had incentives to end the fighting.
Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu is in the midst of a tight re-election battle. A tough response would draw international criticism and domestic accusations that he is acting out of political motivations ahead of the April 9 vote. But a restrained response would draw criticism from his fellow hard-line rivals. 
Hamas, meanwhile, is coping with its own domestic troubles. Israel and Egypt have maintained a crippling blockade on Gaza since Hamas took over the territory in 2007. The blockade, along with sanctions by the rival Palestinian Authority and Hamas&#8217; own mismanagement, have fueled an economic crisis that has driven unemployment over 50 percent.
Shortly before the rocket attack, Hamas police on Thursday violently broke up a rare protest by demonstrators angry about the dire living conditions in Gaza.
The crackdown triggered heavy criticism on social media, raising the possibility that the rocket fire was a diversionary tactic. Palestinian media in Gaza said a weekly protest along the Israeli border would take place as usual.
The fighting came as Egyptian mediators were trying to extend a cease-fire between the bitter enemies, which last fought a war in 2014. The Egyptians left Gaza late Thursday.
Hamas, which typically claims responsibility for its military actions, denied involvement in the rocket attack on Tel Aviv and even said it had undermined its interests. But Israel&#8217;s military said it had concluded the group was behind the attack.
&#8220;The IDF holds the Hamas terror organization responsible for all events transpiring in the Gaza Strip and emanating from it,&#8221; the military said in a statement.
The late-night attack Thursday on Tel Aviv, Israel&#8217;s densely populated commercial and cultural capital, marked a dramatic escalation in hostilities. It was the first time the city had been targeted since a 2014 war between Israel and Gaza militants.
Following the first Israeli airstrikes, several additional rounds of rocket fire were launched into Israel. The military said several rockets were intercepted by its air defense systems, and there were no reports of injuries.
The initial blasts from the Israeli airstrikes in southern Gaza were so powerful that smoke could be seen in Gaza City, 15 miles to the north. The Israeli warplanes could be heard roaring through the skies above Gaza City.
Israel and Hamas are bitter enemies and have fought three wars since the Islamic militant group seized power in Gaza in 2007. Smaller flare-ups have occurred sporadically since Israel and Hamas fought their 2014 war.
Despite its denial, Hamas is one of the only groups in Gaza with the means to strike Tel Aviv. A smaller militant group, the Iranian-backed Islamic Jihad, also possesses a large arsenal of rockets, though it also denied involvement.
Smaller Salafi groups inspired by the Islamic State of Iraq and Syria (ISIS) also operate in Gaza, though it is unclear whether they have powerful rockets capable of striking so deep inside Israel.
Brig. Gen. Ronen Manelis, the chief Israeli military spokesman, said the army had been caught off guard by Thursday night&#8217;s rocket barrage and had no advance intelligence.
Israeli Cabinet Minister Naftali Bennett, a hard-line rival of Netanyahu&#8217;s, called on the prime minister to convene a gathering of his Security Cabinet and demand the army &#8220;present a plan to defeat Hamas.&#8221;
Earlier this week, Israel struck Hamas targets in Gaza in response to rocket fire on southern Israel, near the border.
At the time, Netanyahu issued a warning to Hamas, rejecting suggestions that Israel would be reluctant to take tough action in Gaza ahead of national elections next month.
&#8220;I suggest to Hamas, don&#8217;t count on it,&#8221; he told his Cabinet. &#8220;We will do anything necessary to restore security and quiet to the area adjacent to the Gaza Strip and to the south in general.&#8221;

small_netan700.jpg

thumbnail_netan700.jpg

netan700.jpg

Israel says it hit 100 Gaza Strip targets after rockets were aimed at Tel Aviv

On March 5, Deputy Foreign Ministers Igor Morgulov and Takeo Mori met in Moscow to continue peace treaty talks between Russia and Japan, thereby raising the prospects of ending the abnormal state of relations that has existed since the Soviet Union declared war on Japan in August 1945. This was the second such meeting since a new framework for talks was agreed between President Vladimir Putin and Prime Minister Shinzo Abe at the end of 2018.
Little has been made public about the details of the discussions, yet it is widely reported in the Japanese media that Abe is aiming to conclude an outline agreement when Putin visits Japan for the G-20 summit in June. What would such a peace agreement include and can it be delivered?
The first priority for the Japanese side is that the document address the countries’ dispute over the Northern Territories, which are known in Russia as the Southern Kurils. It is these disputed islands that have prevented the conclusion of a peace treaty due to Japan’s refusal to sign an agreement until the status of the islands is resolved. As Abe told parliament on February 11, the demarcation of the border is therefore an essential part of any deal.
Traditionally, Japan has called for the return of all four disputed islands, yet this changed in November 2018 when Abe and Putin agreed to accelerate peace treaty talks on the basis of the 1956 Joint Declaration. This document promises that Moscow will transfer Habomai and Shikotan to Japan after the conclusion of a peace treaty. It says nothing, however, about the much larger islands of Iturup and Kunashir (Etorofu and Kunashiri in Japanese). The November agreement thereby shows that Abe is willing to settle for a two-island deal, even though this would only deliver 7 percent of the total disputed landmass.
The envisioned peace treaty would therefore recognize Russian sovereignty over Iturup and Kunashir, and Japanese sovereignty over Habomai and Shikotan. This represents a major concession by Abe, yet, as noted by Kremlin press secretary Dmitry Peskov in November 2018, even after the conclusion of the peace treaty, there would be nothing automatic about the transfer of the two islands. Instead, a process will be needed to determine how and when the transfer would take place. This is particularly important in the case of Shikotan, which has a Russian population of more than 3,000.
The approach that the Abe administration appears to have in mind could be described as Kawana-2. The original Kawana proposal was made by Prime Minister Ryutaro Hashimoto to President Boris Yeltsin at the Kawana summit in April 1998. This suggested that the border be demarcated to assign the islands to Japan, but that Russia be allowed to continue administering the territory for a determinate period of time. This would permit a smooth transition and prevent sudden disruption to the lives of the Russian islanders.
The difference is that the original Kawana proposal envisaged sovereignty over all four islands being assigned to Japan, whereas Kawana-2 would see only Japan’s rights to Shikotan and Habomai being recognized. This is a measure of the extent to which Japan’s position has weakened during the two decades since 1998.
Besides the territorial dispute, the proposed peace treaty can be anticipated to address broader aspects of the bilateral relationship, including security issues. There is no need to end the state of war since this ceased with the entry into force of the 1956 Joint Declaration. Instead, the peace treaty could be expected to focus on expressions of friendship and mutual non-aggression.
Specifically, Kyodo reported in January that Japan and Russia are discussing a potential peace treaty clause that would commit the sides not to engage in hostile military action against each other. This is intended to assuage Moscow’s concerns that Japan could assist its U.S. ally in taking aggressive action against Russia. The Asahi Shimbun also claimed in November that Abe had promised Putin that no U.S. bases would be permitted on any transferred territory.
Abe appears to have assumed that the inclusion of this reassuring language and his willingness to settle for just two islands would be sufficient to achieve a breakthrough. In reality, however, there remain serious obstacles to a peace treaty.
First, as Japan’s position has softened, Russia’s position has hardened. Most fundamentally, Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov has begun to repeatedly demand that, as a first step, Japan must recognize the results of World War II, including Russian sovereignty over all the disputed islands. In February, Sergei Ivanov, a special representative to Putin, also visited Shikotan where he dismissed the suggestion that Russia was considering transferring the island, stating that, “in fact, there is nothing behind it, it’s all virtual.” These are not the actions of a government that is preparing to cede territory.
What is more, even if Abe were able to strike a deal with Russia, he may find himself facing a domestic backlash. This is because the Japanese leadership has not sufficiently explained its shift in strategy. Indeed, the Abe government has simply stopped talking about the return of four islands and now conscientiously avoids speaking of the islands as “inherent territory” under “illegal occupation.” When challenged about this by members of the opposition and journalists, government ministers avoid answering by claiming that they cannot discuss the details of ongoing talks.
Given the government’s secrecy, it is not surprising that the Japanese public has not been won over. Indeed, a Nikkei survey in January found that only 11 percent of respondents were willing to settle for just two islands. This figure would likely be even lower if respondents realized that, under the Kawana-2 concept, even Shikotan and Habomai might not be transferred to Japanese control for a decade or more.
In these circumstances, it is far from certain that the Japanese parliament would agree to ratify the peace treaty. Moreover, Abe’s chances of securing ratification will surely diminish as he moves closer to the end of his premiership in 2021 and his political power steadily drains away.
Overall, Abe has made relations with Russia a priority and he evidently remains committed to fulfilling his pledge to resolve the territorial and peace treaty issues before the end of his time in office. However, as the details of the proposed peace treaty begin to become clear, it is apparent that his government risks negotiating an agreement that only the prime minister himself and those closest to him are willing to accept.
The Diplomat

thumbnail_thediplomat_2016-12-22_15-46-40-386x238.png

thediplomat_2016-12-22_15-46-40-386x238.png

The Details of Abe’s Proposed Peace Treaty With Russia

<div class="voa-content">
North Korea announced last week it would not pursue denuclearization unless the United States removes what it calls its nuclear threat, <a href="https://www.voanews.com/a/japan-to-leave-international-whaling-commission-resume-commercial-whaling/4717431.html">VOA</a> <a href="https://www.voanews.com/a/japan-to-leave-international-whaling-commission-resume-commercial-whaling/4717431.html">news</a> reports.
The Institute for North Korean Studies Yongwook Ryu was not surprised by North Koreas declaration.
Most people suspected that North Korea and the United States, also including South Korea, has a different understanding of denuclearization, he said. Analysts and pundits knew that by denuclearization, North Korea meant the removal of U.S. forces from the Korean Peninsula, as well as U.S. nuclear threat.
However, the Asan Institutes Seong Whun Cheon goes further, saying, North Korea hijacked the terminology denuclearization from South Korea and the United States.
Denuclearization was coined by Washington, Cheon said, referring to a process whereby South Korea and North Korea give up all forms of nuclear position, including uranium enrichment and reprocessing facilities that can be devoted to military purposes.
Cheon said that was the ultimate goal of the 1991 joint North and South Korean declaration, but Pyongyang ignored the statement and continued to develop its programs, all the while telling Seoul and Washington they were abandoning them.
Timing of North Koreas statement
North Koreas statement defining denuclearization came as Pyongyang and Washington are trying to negotiate a second summit between its two heads of state, North Korean leader Kim Jong Un and U.S. President Donald Trump.
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet">
Christmas Eve briefing with my team working on North Korea – Progress being made. Looking forward to my next summit with Chairman Kim! <a href="https://t.co/zPTtDbrP0o">pic.twitter.com/zPTtDbrP0o</a>
— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) <a href="https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/1077311502615490560?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">24 декабря 2018 г.</a></blockquote>
But in its statement Pyongyang said, The United States must now recognize the accurate meaning of the denuclearization of the Korean Peninsula, and especially, must study geography.
When we talk about the Korean Peninsula, it includes the territory of our republic and also the entire region of (South Korea) where the United States has placed its invasive force, including nuclear weapons. When we talk about the complete denuclearization of the Korean Peninsula, it means the removal of all sources of nuclear threat, not only from the South and North but also from areas neighboring the Korean Peninsula, the statement read.
Ryu indicates that North Korea may be signaling that it is not interested in initiating dialogue with the United States at this time.
This does not necessarily mean they do not want to have talks with [the United States], but its telling the American side that its not intending to begin negotiations at this moment in time, he said, noting Washington should respond to the statement in some way.
The most recent statement from North Korea is just a repetition of their view, Cheon said. The problem is we have ignored, or we simply were fooled by North Koreas propaganda.
He says the timing of the statement may be in response to the Trump administrations pressure on Pyongyang to implement the terms of the Singapore Summit, as the United States interpreted them.
Prospects for a second Trump-Kim summit
We still are working through the execution of Chairman Kims commitment to denuclearize, U.S. Secretary of State Mike Pompeo told Kansas-based KNSS Radio last week. The U.S., he added, is hopeful that in the new year President Trump and Chairman Kim will get together not too long after the first of the year and make even further progress on taking this threat to the United States away from us.
Cheon is slightly less optimistic than Pompeo, predicting the likelihood of a second summit at 50 percent and the deciding factor is what President Trumps position will be on North Korea, in the wake of General Mattis departure from the Defense Department.
I think the swing of Americas North Korea policy is so wide, he said, that engagement policies could hit two extremes.
On one hand, President Trump may compromise with North Korea [and] be satisfied with eliminating North Koreas ICBMs and [some of their] nuclear warheads, but Cheon said that if the president believes he was fooled by North Korea &#8230; he may take more radical, hotter and aggressive action toward North Korea.
While the United States has been discussing the timing of a second summit early in 2019, Ryu says that while such a meeting may still happen, it may happen later than that.
In Kim Jong Uns forthcoming New Years Day address, Ryu said there is a possibility that the North Korean leader will not emphasize North Korea being a nuclear sate as a gesture to the USA and South Korea [and] that it is still interested in holding talks and advancing negotiations with the hope of removing sanctions on Pyongyang.
Meanwhile, Seoul has unveiled its national defense strategy that continues to pursue peace on the peninsula in the wake of stalled talks and an uncertain future.
</div>

large_01-524.jpg

medium_01-524.jpg

small_01-524.jpg

thumbnail_01-524.jpg

01-524.jpg

Analysts Look Ahead at Uncertain North Korean Talks

Analysts are warning that the jihadi group Turkistan Islamic Party (TIP) in northwestern Syria could pose a danger to Syria’s volatile Idlib province, where efforts continue to keep a fragile Turkey-Russia-brokered cease-fire between Syrian regime forces and the various rebel groups, VOA news <a href="https://www.voanews.com/a/analysts-uighur-jihadi-group-in-syria-could-pose-threat/4702665.html">reports</a>.
The TIP declared an Islamic emirate in Idlib in late November and has largely remained off the radar of authorities and the media thanks to its low profile. Founded in 2008 in the northwestern Chinese region of Xinjiang, the TIP has been one of the major extremist groups in Syria since the outbreak of the civil war in the country in 2011.
The TIP is primarily made up of Uighur Muslims from China, but in recent years it also has included other jihadi fighters within its ranks.
“Now they recruit non-Uighurs and some Syrians as well,” said Aymenn Jawad al Tamimi, a Syrian researcher at the Middle East Forum, a U.S.-based think tank. “They featured a video recently that showed some Europeans in their ranks. So they have certainly expanded their recruitment base beyond the Uighur refugees who were in Turkey.”
At the peak of the Syrian conflict in 2013, there reportedly were an estimated 3,000 TIP fighters across the country, mainly in Idlib, Aleppo, Hama, Homs and the northern part of Latakia province. Their numbers, however, have significantly declined because of major military advances by the Syrian regime troops, backed by Russia and Iran.
Sadradeen Kinno, a Syrian researcher who closely follows Islamist groups in the country, told VOA the reason TIP fighters “came to Syria in the first place was that they adhere to the jihadi ideology. For jihadi groups, Syria, or the broader Levant, is a holy land for global jihad. In their doctrines, the doomsday final battle takes place in Dabiq [a town in northern Syria].”
Kinno said the TIP has been largely inspired ideologically by jihadi networks like al-Qaida and the Taliban.
The group has claimed responsibility for several attacks against Syrian troops and their allies, including a 2016 attack in Khan Touman in Idlib, where dozens of Iranian soldiers and militiamen were killed.
Chinese Special Forces
In late 2017, Syrian regime officials said they had discussed with Chinese officials the possibility of deploying Chinese Special Forces to Syria to counter the threat of the TIP. China, however, has not publicly discussed such a deployment. Beijing considers TIP a terrorist organization.
In August of this year, a pro-regime Syrian newspaper, al Watan, reported that China’s ambassador to Damascus had expressed Beijing’s readiness to join the Idlib operation to back the Syrian regime against rebels, one month before Russia and Turkey agreed on a cease-fire there.
By targeting the regime of Syrian President Bashar al-Assad, the TIP fighters “think they’re fighting China, because China is an ally of Assad,” researcher al Tamimi said.
Along with Russia, China repeatedly has vetoed U.N. Security Council resolutions aimed at condemning Syrian government actions against civilians in Syria.
Syyed Mohammad Hadi, a Tehran-based analyst, says there are two explanations for why Chinese troops might be involved in Syria.
“From a security viewpoint, China will pursue its objectives of targeting trained and experienced fighters in Syria and preventing them from potentially transferring those fighting skills to their counterparts in the west of China,” Hadi told VOA.
“Beijing also sees itself as one of the main players in Syria’s reconstruction when the war is over,” he added. “So having a military presence will strength its stance in Syria and guarantee any future investments there.”
With Syria’s military continuing to make advances, analysts assert that the fate of Uighur fighters in Idlib and elsewhere in Syria depends on whether Turkey can crack down on such jihadi groups.
“If that doesn’t happen in the long run, then eventually [TIP fighters] could begin an offensive in Idlib,” al Tamimi said. “These groups won’t desist. They reject all diplomatic approaches, so I think they will continue their jihad in one way or another.”

large_jihadi-group.jpg

medium_jihadi-group.jpg

small_jihadi-group.jpg

thumbnail_jihadi-group.jpg

jihadi-group.jpg

Analysts: Uighur Jihadi Group in Syria Could Pose Threat

<div class="voa-content">
State and federal authorities estimated Tuesday that it will cost at least $3 billion to clear debris from 19,000 homes and businesses destroyed by three California wildfires last month,<a href="https://www.voanews.com/a/california-wildfires-cleanup-to-cost-at-least-3-billion/4696507.html"> reports VOA News.</a>
The disaster relief officials said the cleanup costs will far surpass the record cleanup expense of $1.3 billion the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers spent on debris removal in Northern California in 2017.
California Office of Emergency Services Director Mark Ghilarducci said the state will manage cleanup contracts this time. Hundreds of Northern California homeowners complained contractors last year paid by the ton hauled away too much dirt and damaged unbroken driveways, sidewalks and pipes. The state OES spent millions of dollars repairing that damage.
Ghilarducci said the state OES will hire auditors and monitors to watch over the debris removal in hopes of cutting down on the number of overeager contractors.
&#8220;We learned a great number of things&#8221; last year, Ghilarducci said.
He said the Corps of Engineers was asked to lead the effort last year because state resources were stretched thin after responding to more than a dozen wildfires. This year, he said, state officials can manage the cleanup and costs will be shared among state, federal and local authorities.
He said he expects the cleanup to begin in January and take about a year to complete. State and federal officials are currently removing hazardous household materials from the damaged properties.
Most of the work will occur in Northern California, where the state&#8217;s most destructive wildfire destroyed the city of Paradise.
</div>

large_6b2fac04-9203-46e9-b479-869361d2176f_cx0_cy3_cw0_w1023_r1_s.jpg

medium_6b2fac04-9203-46e9-b479-869361d2176f_cx0_cy3_cw0_w1023_r1_s.jpg

small_6b2fac04-9203-46e9-b479-869361d2176f_cx0_cy3_cw0_w1023_r1_s.jpg

thumbnail_6b2fac04-9203-46e9-b479-869361d2176f_cx0_cy3_cw0_w1023_r1_s.jpg

6b2fac04-9203-46e9-b479-869361d2176f_cx0_cy3_cw0_w1023_r1_s.jpg

California Wildfires Cleanup to Cost at Least $3 Billion

<div class="voa-content">
The World Health Organization (WHO) is calling for urgent action to put a brake on road traffic crashes that kill 1.35 million people every year, mostly in poor developing countries, <a href="https://www.voanews.com/a/who-road-traffic-crashes-are-leading-killer-of-children/4691065.html">VOA news</a> reports.
In Geneva, the U.N. agency launched its global status report on road safety 2018.
The report found road traffic injuries to be the leading killer of children and young people aged five to 29 years, with a death occurring every 24 seconds. The report said more than half of those killed are pedestrians, cyclists, and motorcycle riders and passengers.
Etienne Krug, head of the U.N. Agency&#8217;s Department on Disability, Violence and Injury Prevention, called these deaths a huge inequality issue.
&#8220;Low-income countries have one percent of the vehicles in the world and 13 percent of all the deaths; while high-income countries have 40 percent of all the vehicles,&#8221; Krug said. &#8220;So, that is 40 times more, but only seven percent of the deaths.That is half of the deaths with 40 times more vehicles.&#8221;
The report said death rates are highest in Africa and lowest in Europe. Some of the key risk factors include speeding, drinking and driving, and failure to use seat belts, motorcycle helmets and child restraints.
Krug said putting the right measures in place will save lives. These include the right legislation and enforcement, creating special lanes for cyclists and improving the quality of vehicles.
&#8220;It is not acceptable that vehicles are being sold in developing countries that look the same as the vehicles that we see here in Switzerland or the U.S. or anywhere else, but that are not,&#8221; Krug told VOA. &#8220;Because to make them cheaper, they have been stripped of all of their safety features, such as air bags or electronic stability control, etc.&#8221;
WHO noted that 48 middle- and high-income countries that have implemented strong road traffic laws and other safety measures have made progress in reducing road deaths.
However, it said no such progress has been made in low-income countries where safety measures are lacking.
</div>

large_ea389395-ce43-4733-ae1e-914b8e929da6_cx0_cy7_cw0_w1023_r1_s.jpg

medium_ea389395-ce43-4733-ae1e-914b8e929da6_cx0_cy7_cw0_w1023_r1_s.jpg

small_ea389395-ce43-4733-ae1e-914b8e929da6_cx0_cy7_cw0_w1023_r1_s.jpg

thumbnail_ea389395-ce43-4733-ae1e-914b8e929da6_cx0_cy7_cw0_w1023_r1_s.jpg

ea389395-ce43-4733-ae1e-914b8e929da6_cx0_cy7_cw0_w1023_r1_s.jpg

WHO: Traffic Crashes Are Leading Killer of Children

<div class="voa-content">
&#8220;I&#8217;m not going to put the country out of business trying to maintain certain standards that probably don&#8217;t matter,&#8221; President Donald Trump told VOA when asked about the economic impacts of climate change,<a href="https://www.voanews.com/a/trump-weighs-in-on-climate-change/4687607.html"> reports VOA News.</a>
<div class="row">
<div class="col-xs-12 col-sm-12 col-md-12 col-lg-12">
<div class="media-block size-3 also-read horizontal has-img">
<div class="img-wrap also-read__img"></div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
When not denying its existence, the Trump administration&#8217;s approach to 
climate change essentially comes down to three arguments: the United States has already cut its greenhouse gas emissions more than other countries, regardless of any international agreement; regulations to cut emissions come with high costs and few benefits; and those regulations would put the United States at a disadvantage because other countries will not follow.
&#8220;When you look at China, and when you look at other countries where they have foul air,&#8221; Trump added, &#8220;we&#8217;re going to be clean, but they&#8217;re not, and it costs a lot of money.&#8221;
As U.N. climate negotiations get under way in Poland to work out rules for implementing the Paris climate agreement &#8212; from which Trump intends to withdraw the United States &#8212; experts weigh in on the administration&#8217;s claims.
Emissions cuts
It&#8217;s true that the United States has reduced its greenhouse gas production more than any other country. U.S. emissions peaked in 2005. In the last decade, they have fallen by about 13 percent, according to the BP Statistical Review of World Energy.
But the United States was the world&#8217;s leading producer of greenhouse gases until 2006. And, others have made bigger cuts by percentage. Hungary&#8217;s levels, for example, decreased 14 percent.
U.S. emissions started to fall when the fracking boom took off.
The new technique of hydraulic fracturing turned the United States into a major natural gas producer. As the price of natural gas has dropped, it has been steadily replacing coal as the dominant fuel for electricity generation. Because burning natural gas produces far less carbon dioxide than coal, greenhouse gas emissions have decreased.
More recently, renewable sources such as solar and wind power have started to make inroads on the power grid.
While U.S. emissions have fallen since the 2000s, China&#8217;s have soared.
The country pursued astonishing economic growth with an enormous investment in coal-fired power plants. China is now the leading producer of greenhouse gases by far, roughly doubling U.S. output.
Cost-benefit
Trump has argued that regulations aimed at limiting greenhouse gas emissions would hobble the U.S. economy. He has moved to undo the Obama administration&#8217;s proposed rules on carbon dioxide emissions from power plants and efficiency standards for vehicles and appliances, among others.
Critics question whether those regulations would cost as much Trump suggests.
&#8220;None of these policies were going to have dramatic increases in the prices that consumers would see,&#8221; Duke University public policy professor Billy Pizer said. He added that normal price swings would likely swamp the cost of the regulations Trump targets.
The emissions reductions the Obama administration pledged in Paris &#8220;were built largely on a continuation of the coal-to-gas transition and a continuation of growth in renewable energy that&#8217;s already happening,&#8221; said Alex Trembath of the Breakthrough Institute research center. As such, he added, they &#8220;don&#8217;t imply a large cost. In fact, they imply a marginal increased benefit to the U.S.&#8221;
Those benefits come, for example, because burning less coal produces less air pollution, which lowers health costs.
Not to mention the direct results of climate change: wildfires, floods, droughts and so on.
&#8220;We have enough science and enough economics to show that there are damages resulting from us releasing CO2 into the atmosphere. We know that that is not a free thing,&#8221; University of Chicago public policy professor Amir Jina said. &#8220;And yet, we are artificially setting it as free because we&#8217;re not paying the price of that externality.&#8221;
He said economists nearly unanimously support a carbon tax, a cap-and-trade program or some other way to put a price on carbon emissions.
Collective action
Few nations have taken the necessary steps to meet the emissions reduction pledges they made in Paris, according to the most recent United Nations emissions gap report.
Even those pledges would fall far short of the Paris goal of limiting global warming below 2 degrees Celsius, the report adds. Reaching that target will take &#8220;unprecedented and urgent action.&#8221; A 2016 report said an additional $5.2 trillion investment in renewable energy will be necessary worldwide over the next 25 years.
Trump&#8217;s statement &#8212; &#8220;we&#8217;re going to be clean, but they&#8217;re not, and it costs a lot of money&#8221; &#8212; sums up why nations are reluctant to act: no one wants to take on burdens that they think others won&#8217;t.
&#8220;It&#8217;s the thing which has been dogging action on climate change for generations,&#8221; Jina said.
&#8220;We only really solve the problem if everybody acts together,&#8221; he added. &#8220;And if enough people are not acting, then we don&#8217;t.&#8221;
Paris depends on countries following through on increasingly ambitious emissions cuts.
Each country decides what it is willing to do. Every five years, countries come together and show their progress.
&#8220;You over time build confidence in each other,&#8221; Pizer said. &#8220;Ideally, you ratchet up the commitments as you see your actions reciprocated by other countries.&#8221;.
Trump&#8217;s backpedaling on the U.S. commitment raises questions about the prospects.
However, the first of these check-ins is five years away. Trump can&#8217;t formally withdraw the United States from the agreement until 2020.
Pizer notes that the predecessor to the Paris Agreement, the Kyoto Protocol, failed in part because it imposed caps on countries&#8217; carbon emissions, and most of the world balked.
&#8220;In my mind, this is the best we can do,&#8221; he said. &#8220;If there were a different way to do it, I&#8217;d be all over that.&#8221;
</div>