Trump made no commitments on Ukraine to EU leaders, according to the Wall Street Journal

November 9, 2024

Leaders from several EU member states have sought to convince US President-elect Donald Trump to maintain financial support for Ukraine’s military efforts against Russia, as reported by the Wall Street Journal, which cited unnamed sources.

Trump achieved a decisive victory over Vice President Kamala Harris in the recent presidential election, with Republicans also regaining control of the Senate and likely retaining a majority in the House. Following the election, numerous EU leaders have reached out to congratulate him.

According to the WSJ, Trump has been largely noncommittal regarding Ukraine during these discussions, primarily listening and posing questions, as reported by anonymous officials familiar with the talks.

The newspaper noted that EU leaders attending the European Political Community summit in Hungary this week appear to have differing views on Ukraine. During a dinner on Thursday at the Budapest parliament, leaders from the Baltic states and Scandinavia urged the EU to enhance its support for Kyiv in the event of a reduction in US assistance. In contrast, French President Emmanuel Macron and Italian Prime Minister Giorgia Meloni appeared less supportive.

Hungarian Prime Minister Viktor Orban, who is hosting the summit, has called on Trump to initiate negotiations for a ceasefire in Ukraine at the earliest opportunity. Slovakian Prime Minister Robert Fico has also expressed his support for peace.

After the dinner, European Council President Charles Michel informed reporters that the bloc has been attempting to convince Trump that showing weakness towards Russia would convey a negative message to China and the global community. The previous day, Macron reportedly urged Trump to obtain “real concessions” from Russia during any discussions regarding Ukraine.

On Thursday, Macron emphasized at the summit that “our interest is in ensuring that Russia does not prevail in this war… Because a Russian victory would mean an imperialist power positioned at our borders.”

Finnish Prime Minister Petteri Orpo stated that the summit must deliver a “clear message” to Trump, affirming that “we will support Ukraine for as long and as much as necessary.”

Ukrainian President Vladimir Zelensky addressed the EPC summit, stating that he was uncertain about Trump’s intentions but emphasized that Kyiv must determine the agenda for concluding the conflict. He also urged the European Union to release approximately $300 billion in frozen Russian sovereign assets in the event that the U.S. withdraws its support, asserting that these funds “rightfully belong” to Ukraine.

The Wall Street Journal noted that Ukraine remains “overwhelmingly dependent on foreign military assistance and budgetary support” from Western nations.

Since the escalation of the conflict in February 2022, the United States has provided the Ukrainian government with $106 billion, which includes $70 billion in military aid, alongside an additional $70 billion allocated for various U.S. initiatives related to Ukraine. The European Union has contributed a total of $133 billion in financial, humanitarian, refugee, and military support. Additionally, Norway and the United Kingdom, both NATO members but not part of the EU, have also invested billions in assistance.

Pentagon officials are considering responses if Trump issues controversial directives

Asif Shahid

November 9, 2024

Pentagon officials are engaged in informal conversations regarding the Department of Defense’s potential response should Donald Trump issue directives to deploy active-duty troops within the United States and dismiss a significant number of nonpartisan staff members, according to defense officials speaking to CNN.

Trump has indicated a willingness to utilize active-duty military personnel for domestic law enforcement and large-scale deportations, expressing a desire to fill the federal government with loyal supporters while removing what he perceives as corrupt elements within the national security framework.

During his previous administration, Trump had a contentious relationship with many senior military leaders, including retired General Mark Milley, who took measures to restrict Trump’s authority to deploy nuclear weapons while serving as chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff. The president-elect has also consistently criticized U.S. military generals, labeling them as “woke,” “weak,” and “ineffective leaders.”

Officials are currently evaluating various scenarios in anticipation of a significant restructuring at the Pentagon.

“We are all preparing and strategizing for the worst-case scenario, but the truth is we are uncertain about how this will unfold,” remarked one defense official.

The election of Trump has sparked discussions within the Pentagon regarding the implications of a potentially unlawful order from the president, especially if his political appointees within the department do not resist.

“Military personnel are legally obligated to refuse unlawful orders,” stated another defense official. “However, the concern is what follows – will we witness resignations from high-ranking military officials? Or would they perceive that as abandoning their troops?”

At this stage, it remains uncertain who Trump will appoint to lead the Pentagon, although officials anticipate that he and his team will aim to foster a more cooperative relationship with the military compared to his previous administration, according to a former defense official familiar with the first Trump term.

“The rapport between the White House and the Department of Defense was extremely poor, and it is certainly a priority for them to consider how they select individuals for the DoD this time,” the former official noted.

Defense officials are also working to identify civilian employees who could be affected if Trump reinstates Schedule F, an executive order he initially issued in 2020 that, if implemented, would have reclassified a significant number of nonpolitical, career federal employees, making them more susceptible to dismissal.

Secretary of Defense Lloyd Austin expressed confidence on Tuesday, stating, “I firmly believe that our leaders will continue to act appropriately regardless of the circumstances. I also trust that our Congress will persist in supporting our military effectively.”

Pentagon has limited options

A primary concern for many defense officials is how Trump intends to utilize American military capabilities domestically.

Last month, Trump suggested that the military should be deployed to address what he termed “the internal adversary” and “radical left extremists.”

“I believe it can be effectively managed, if necessary, by the National Guard, or if absolutely required, by the military, because they cannot allow that to occur,” he stated, alluding to possible protests on Election Day.

Numerous former high-ranking military officials who served under Trump have raised alarms in recent years regarding his authoritarian tendencies, including Milley and retired General John Kelly, who was Trump’s chief of staff. Kelly remarked prior to the election that Trump aligns “with the general definition of fascism” and referenced the loyalty exhibited by Hitler’s Nazi generals.

The Pentagon has limited options to proactively protect the military from potential misuse of power by a commander in chief. While Defense Department attorneys can and do advise military leaders on the legality of orders, there are no substantial legal protections to prevent Trump from deploying American troops to enforce order on U.S. streets.

A former senior Defense Department official who worked under Trump indicated that it is probable that more active-duty forces will be assigned to support Customs and Border Protection at the southern border.

There are currently thousands of personnel stationed at the border, comprising active duty members, National Guard, and Reserves. Last year, the Biden administration deployed 1,500 active duty troops, followed by the addition of several hundred more.

According to a former official, there is a possibility that forces could be dispatched to American cities if requested to assist with the mass deportation strategy frequently mentioned by Trump during his campaign.

He noted that domestic law enforcement agencies lack the necessary manpower, helicopters, trucks, and expeditionary capabilities that the military possesses. However, he stressed that the decision to deploy active-duty forces in American urban areas must be approached with caution.

“You can never downplay that; it’s not something you can dismiss lightly. It is a significant matter,” the former senior official stated. “Yet, it may be the only viable solution to address issues on a larger scale.”

In a separate discussion, an Army official indicated that a Trump administration might consider sending several thousand additional troops to bolster the border mission, but cautioned that this could negatively impact the military’s readiness to confront foreign threats.

The president’s authority is particularly extensive if he opts to invoke the Insurrection Act, which allows for the deployment of troops domestically under specific circumstances related to the defense of constitutional rights.

Additionally, the Posse Comitatus Act aims to limit military involvement in law enforcement unless Congress grants authorization. However, this law includes exceptions for situations involving rebellion and terrorism, providing the president with considerable discretion regarding the invocation of the Insurrection Act.

Reports suggest that Trump contemplated invoking this Act in 2020 to address protests following George Floyd’s death.

“If a city or state fails to take necessary actions to protect the lives and property of its residents, I will deploy the United States military to swiftly resolve the issue for them,” he stated at that time.

Civilian Employees Facing Uncertainty

In a video released last year, Trump stated that if he were to be elected, he would “promptly re-issue my 2020 Executive Order that reinstates the President’s power to dismiss rogue bureaucrats…we will eliminate all corrupt individuals within our National Security and Intelligence framework, and there are many.”

The Pentagon is already preparing for potential changes in policy.

“My inbox has been flooded with inquiries regarding this issue,” remarked one defense official concerning Schedule F. “It’s certainly going to be a hectic few months.”

Following Trump’s initial implementation of Schedule F late in his previous term, the Pentagon and other federal agencies were instructed to compile lists of employees who would be categorized under this designation. At that time, defense officials aimed to minimize the number of civilian employees affected to mitigate workforce disruption, according to sources. The department is currently engaged in similar preparations.

In April, the Office of Personnel and Management introduced a regulation intended to enhance protections for federal employees. However, a defense official noted that “there are still avenues a new administration could exploit to circumvent these safeguards,” even if it may require several months to execute.

Austin has consistently expressed concerns regarding the potential for political misuse of the military. In a memo issued in July, he emphasized the importance of preserving the integrity and continuity of the civilian workforce, stating that Department of Defense career civilian employees must be protected from unlawful and inappropriate political influences, just as their uniformed colleagues are.

He further noted that career civil servants have a responsibility to uphold strict political neutrality, prioritizing their allegiance to the Constitution and the laws of the United States.

In a message to military personnel on Wednesday, he reaffirmed that the US military will follow only lawful orders.

“The US military will continue to be prepared to implement the policy decisions of its next Commander in Chief and to adhere to all lawful directives from its civilian leadership,” he stated. “You represent the United States military—the most exceptional fighting force in the world—and you will persist in safeguarding our nation, our Constitution, and the rights of every citizen.”

Meanwhile, Secretary of State Antony Blinken communicated to State Department employees in an email on Friday that he would convey to the incoming Trump administration that “you are all patriots.”

This message, which was shared with CNN, recognized that “transitions can create uncertainty and provoke questions about the future of our global work, the State Department itself, and its personnel.”

This statement appears to be particularly significant, considering that during Trump’s first impeachment, several top career officials at the State Department were targeted, leading to a notable exodus of career diplomats during his initial term.

Trump faces a notably different North Korean leader this time

Asif Shahid

November 9, 2024

North Korean leader Kim Jong Un and U.S. then-President Donald Trump shake hands over the military demarcation line between North and South Korea on June 30, 2019.

No leader in the United States has approached relations with North Korea in the same manner as Donald Trump.

The former president transitioned from issuing threats of “fire and fury” against Kim Jong Un for missile tests to developing a personal rapport, engaging in a series of historic summits, and even claiming that the two had fallen “in love.”

This unexpected alliance is now poised for scrutiny. Trump is anticipated to reclaim the presidency during a time of heightened concern among the U.S. and its allies regarding Kim and the dangers posed by his regime.

Reports suggest that Pyongyang has dispatched thousands of troops and significant amounts of munitions to Russia as it continues its conflict in Ukraine, which Western leaders view as a significant escalation. Just days before Trump secured the presidency, North Korea conducted another provocative act by testing an intercontinental ballistic missile capable of reaching any part of the United States.

More assertive North Korean leader

While campaigning, Trump remarked that Kim “misses” him and suggested that North Korea would refrain from provocations upon his return to power.

However, a second Trump administration will confront a North Korean leader who is likely more assertive and potentially more perilous.

Kim, along with his military capabilities, is now strengthened by growing connections with Moscow. He has adopted a more rigid approach towards the United States and its ally South Korea following the unsuccessful diplomatic efforts of the previous Trump administration.

This development complicates the possibility of reaching an agreement aimed at curbing North Korea’s weapons program and raises concerns about whether Trump, recognized for his unpredictable foreign policy, might alter the expectations the US has for North Korea, according to experts.

During a series of meetings in 2018 and 2019 in Singapore, Hanoi, and the demilitarized zone, Trump and Kim created unprecedented visuals for both leaders.

At that time, the leader of the world’s democratic superpower was seen smiling and taking photos with an isolated autocrat, notorious for his oppressive governance and pursuit of weapons that defy international sanctions to maintain his regime.

For Trump, these meetings represented an attempt to achieve what previous US presidents have long sought: to limit Pyongyang’s nuclear ambitions. For Kim, they provided an opportunity to seek relief from stringent international sanctions and to gain significant recognition on the global stage.

However, the discussions concluded without any significant progress, with the abrupt termination of the 2019 summit in Hanoi being viewed by experts as a considerable loss of prestige for Kim.

Although the leaders convened again that year, experts indicate that Pyongyang has since declined to reengage with the United States and has resumed weapons testing that had seemingly been halted during the discussions. While North Korea has not conducted a nuclear test since 2017, Kim has recently pledged to significantly increase the nation’s nuclear arsenal.

Rachel Minyoung Lee, a senior fellow at the Stimson Center in Washington, remarked, “The conditions we face in dealing with North Korea have fundamentally shifted compared to five years ago.” She highlighted the increased costs associated with North Korea’s nuclear and missile programs due to advancements made since the Hanoi summit, as well as a shift in North Korea’s foreign policy following the summit’s failure, which has fostered skepticism within the North Korean leadership regarding the strategic importance of the United States.

In the past year, Kim has raised global alarm by altering North Korea’s longstanding policy towards South Korea, now labeling it a “permanent enemy.” He has urged his military to expedite war preparations in response to what he perceives as “confrontation moves” by the US, coinciding with the Biden administration’s efforts to strengthen alliances and enhance military exercises with South Korea and Japan.

Additionally, there has been a notable strengthening of ties with Russia. Since last September, Kim has met with his “closest comrade,” Russian President Vladimir Putin, on two occasions and formalized a significant defense agreement in June.

Western officials have expressed concerns about the formation of an anti-Western coalition involving China, North Korea, Iran, and Russia. This narrative, whether it materializes or not, is likely to be advantageous for Kim, who aims to diminish his country’s isolation and enhance its global influence.

According to Lee, Kim perceives greater economic, military, and diplomatic benefits from aligning North Korea with China and Russia rather than reestablishing ties with the United States, especially given the unpredictable outcomes of such engagement.

Kim’s personal rapport with Trump

This situation complicates how Trump might approach Kim and raises doubts about whether the North Korean leader would be open to further discussions, should Trump seek to revive their previous rapport.

During a talk at the World Knowledge Forum in Seoul in September, former Trump national security advisor Robert O’Brien indicated that Trump would be willing to resume negotiations with North Korea if he were to regain the presidency. However, he noted that it remains uncertain how Kim would react to renewed discussions and whether he would adhere to previous commitments regarding denuclearization, which have historically not been fulfilled. O’Brien emphasized that for the U.S., demanding anything less than complete denuclearization would be a challenging stance to maintain.

In response to Trump’s remarks about Kim missing him, North Korean state media stated over the summer that they are indifferent to who occupies the White House. The stance from Pyongyang suggests that Kim’s nuclear weapons strategy will persist regardless of developments in the United States.

However, Kim’s core objectives—gaining recognition from the U.S. as a legitimate nuclear state and obtaining sanctions relief to foster economic growth—are believed to remain intact.

This indicates that the North Korean leader might seek advantages should Trump return to power.

Although Kim views the U.S. as unreliable, Eul-Chul Lim, director of the North Korea Research Center at Kyungnam University’s Institute for Far Eastern Studies (IFES) in Seoul, noted that “Trump’s reelection is likely to significantly encourage Kim Jong Un—at the very least, it would enable him to reaffirm his personal rapport with Trump and maintain communication.”

Lim also pointed out that Kim may leverage a strengthened North Korea-Russia alliance to enhance his negotiating position with the United States.

The question remains whether Trump is inclined towards negotiation and what form such a deal might take.

Some analysts have expressed concern that he might dilute U.S. demands in pursuit of a desirable agreement, or alternatively, could escalate tensions once more.

“Trump’s unpredictability is notable… and his approach during his first term may not serve as a reliable predictor of his future actions. We will need to observe whether Trump 2.0 remains committed to capping and ultimately reducing North Korea’s nuclear arsenal,” stated Duyeon Kim, an adjunct senior fellow at the Center for a New American Security based in Seoul.

“The most troubling scenario would be if Kim persuades Trump 2.0 to abandon denuclearization efforts and accept North Korea’s continued enhancement of its nuclear capabilities without limits,” she added.

Geopolitical Divides

The geopolitical divides that have intensified since Trump’s previous administration have significantly altered the foundation for any potential US-North Korea dialogue.

The conflict in Ukraine has not only pushed Russia closer to North Korea but has also strengthened its ties with China, the primary geopolitical adversary of the United States.

While Trump has shown admiration for Putin and expressed skepticism towards US alliances, including those with NATO, Japan, and South Korea, there are likely constraints on his ability to redefine these relationships in an effort to counteract Beijing.

Additionally, Trump will encounter a markedly different South Korea, where the conservative government led by Yoon Suk Yeol has positioned itself as a robust ally of the US in enhancing deterrence against North Korea. This administration is unlikely to support a meeting between Trump and Kim without a definitive strategy for North Korea’s denuclearization.

Edward Howell, a politics lecturer at the University of Oxford specializing in the Korean Peninsula, stated, “The chances of the US abandoning South Korea are minimal, especially considering the serious threats posed by North Korea, Russia, and China.”

He further noted, “Even if direct dialogue between leaders might lead to a temporary easing of tensions, it is hard to envision Pyongyang making any substantial concessions regarding its nuclear program, which it considers vital.”

Israel Katz, the new Defence Minister, is called a “bulldozer” by Israeli media for his assertive approach

Asif Shahid

November 8, 2024

Israel’s newly appointed Defence Minister, Israel Katz, is recognized for his confrontational approach and has been a steadfast ally of Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu for many years.

In a significant move announced late Tuesday, Netanyahu dismissed Defence Minister Yoav Gallant, citing a loss of trust during the ongoing conflict with Hamas in Gaza.

“Trust has diminished over the past few months. Consequently, I have decided to terminate the defence minister’s position,” Netanyahu stated in an official release.

The announcement also confirmed that Foreign Minister Israel Katz would succeed Gallant.

At 69 years old, Katz has been characterized by Israeli media as a “bulldozer” due to his forthright and often tough demeanor, and he is regarded as a close confidant of Netanyahu.

Following his appointment, Katz pledged to confront Israel’s adversaries and fulfill the nation’s military objectives.

“We will collaborate to guide the defence establishment towards victory over our foes and to accomplish the war’s objectives: the safe return of all hostages, which is our foremost moral duty, the eradication of Hamas in Gaza, the defeat of Hezbollah in Lebanon, the containment of Iranian threats, and the safe return of residents from the north and south to their homes,” he declared in a statement.

A member of Netanyahu’s ruling Likud party, Katz has served in various cabinet positions since 2003 and previously held the presidency of the party’s convention.

Criticism of the UN

During his tenure as foreign minister, Katz garnered global attention for his sharp criticisms of world leaders and international organizations that opposed Israeli military operations, especially in Gaza.

He led a diplomatic campaign against the United Nations Relief and Works Agency for Palestine Refugees in the Near East (UNRWA), and last month, the Israeli parliament prohibited the agency from operating in Israel and occupied East Jerusalem.

On Monday, Katz directed his ministry to officially inform the United Nations of Israel’s decision to terminate its agreements with UNRWA.

Last month, Katz sparked controversy by labeling UN Secretary-General Antonio Guterres as “persona non grata” in Israel and stated in a post on X that he would prevent Guterres from entering the country.

Before taking on the role of foreign minister, Katz was primarily recognized for his tenure as the minister of transport. He held this position for a decade, from 2009 to 2019, and also managed the energy and finance portfolios in various cabinets under Netanyahu.

Aviv Bushinsky, a political analyst and former chief of staff to Netanyahu, remarked to AFP that Katz is expected to align more closely with the prime minister compared to his predecessor, Gallant.

“I cannot recall a time when Israel Katz opposed Netanyahu on any issue,” Bushinsky noted.

“While it is true that he lacks military experience, he excelled as a transport minister and has been a long-standing member of the cabinet,” he continued.

“Moreover, Netanyahu believes he can effectively manage affairs on his own – and he has succeeded in doing so, even after the departures of Benny Gantz and Gadi Eisenkot, both of whom are generals.”

Katz, who hails from the coastal city of Ashkelon, has been a significant figure in Israeli politics since he joined the Knesset in 1998.

Currently, he ranks among the top ministers in the Likud party.

He is married with two children and resides in Moshav Kfar Ahim in southern Israel.

NATO has called North Korea’s military deployment a ‘perilous escalation’ supporting Russia in Ukraine

Asif Shahid

November 8, 2024

NATO officials expressed on Friday that the deployment of North Korean troops represents a “dangerous expansion” of the nation’s backing for Russia‘s conflict in Ukraine.

In a collective statement, the military alliance’s 32 member nations cautioned that “the escalating military collaboration” between Russia and North Korea “significantly affects Euro-Atlantic security, with repercussions for the Indo-Pacific region as well.”

Australia, Japan, New Zealand, South Korea, and Ukraine also endorsed the NATO statement.

NATO Secretary General Mark Rutte indicated in late October that North Korean forces have been dispatched to Russia, with military units positioned in the Kursk area.

Following a meeting with Rutte, Ukraine’s President Volodymyr Zelenskyy remarked on Thursday that “a more robust response from Western nations regarding North Korea’s emerging role in the Russia-Ukraine conflict is essential.”

The implications of Trump’s return for China

asifshahid73@gmail.com

November 8, 2024

China is preparing for a potentially tumultuous and unpredictable future in its intensifying rivalry with the United States, following Donald Trump‘s remarkable political resurgence that has led him back to the presidency.

His return may result in tariffs reaching as high as 60% on Chinese imports, which could severely impact economic growth in the world’s second-largest economy and disrupt global supply chains. Additionally, increased technology restrictions and aggressive rhetoric towards Beijing could further escalate tensions in the already strained relations between the two superpowers.

However, Trump’s protectionist trade policies and transactional foreign policy approach might also undermine U.S. alliances and its global leadership role, creating opportunities for China to capitalize on America’s withdrawal and influence the development of an alternative global order.

Shen Dingli, a foreign policy analyst based in Shanghai, remarked, “Trump’s return to power will undoubtedly present both increased opportunities and heightened risks for China. The ultimate outcome—whether it results in more risks or opportunities—will hinge on the nature of interactions between the two nations.”

Officially, China has aimed to maintain a neutral position regarding Trump’s victory. The Foreign Ministry stated on Wednesday that it “respected” the decision made by the American electorate.

On Thursday, Chinese leader Xi Jinping extended his congratulations to Trump. Despite the deterioration of US-China relations during Trump’s previous term, he has consistently expressed admiration for Xi, referring to him as “a very good friend.”

According to a statement from the Chinese Foreign Ministry, Xi conveyed to the president-elect that China and the United States can “discover the right way” to “cooperate in the new era.”

However, beneath this composed exterior, Beijing is likely preparing for potential challenges and uncertainties.

Liu Dongshu, an assistant professor of international affairs at the City University of Hong Kong, noted, “Trump is an unpredictable individual. It remains unclear how he will execute, and to what degree, the policies he advocated during his campaign, and whether he will adhere to his agenda from his first term.”

High Tariffs

During Trump’s initial term, the outspoken populist, who vowed to restore America’s greatness, initiated a contentious trade conflict with China. He placed Huawei, a major Chinese telecommunications company, on a blacklist citing national security concerns and held Beijing accountable for the Covid-19 outbreak. By the conclusion of his first term, the relationship between the two nations had deteriorated to its lowest level in decades.

In his current campaign, Trump has threatened to impose tariffs of 60% on all Chinese-made products and to revoke China’s “permanent normal trade relations” status, which has afforded the country the most favorable trade conditions with the United States for over twenty years.

If implemented, this severe action could significantly harm an economy already struggling with a property crisis, declining consumer demand, decreasing prices, and increasing local government debt.

Investment bank Macquarie projects that at the extreme 60% tariff rate, China’s growth could be reduced by two percentage points, nearly half of the anticipated full-year economic growth rate of 5%.

Larry Hu, chief China economist at Macquarie, noted in a research report on Wednesday that a potential Trade War 2.0 could disrupt China’s current growth model, which heavily relies on exports and manufacturing as its primary growth engines.

This forecast seemed to resonate with investors, as Trump’s lead over Vice President Kamala Harris expanded on Wednesday, leading to a significant decline in both Chinese stocks and the yuan.

Tariffs function as a tax on imports, negatively impacting consumers in the imposing country and businesses that depend on imported raw materials and intermediate goods for their production processes. A major escalation in global trade tensions is expected to cause difficulties not only for China and the United States but also for other nations engaged in global supply chains.

In contrast to his Republican predecessors who were more traditional in their approach, Trump employs an unpredictable and unconventional policy-making style, which heightens Beijing’s uncertainty.

“Trump started his first term as a strong supporter of Xi Jinping, but later imposed tariffs and criticized Beijing during the pandemic,” remarked Daniel Russel, vice president of international security and diplomacy at the Asia Society Policy Institute.

“Consequently, Beijing is likely to approach the President-elect with caution, seeking to understand which version of Trump they will encounter and identifying potential opportunities,” added Russel, who previously served as the chief Asia advisor to former President Barack Obama.

Challenges and Opportunities

Experts suggest that Trump’s “America First” agenda and his transactional approach may inadvertently benefit Beijing.

“While Beijing is genuinely worried about the unpredictability of Trump’s policies towards China, it also recognizes that challenges can present opportunities,” stated Tong Zhao, a senior fellow at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace.

“Even with concerns about a potential trade war, Beijing is confident that Trump’s stringent tariff measures will face significant backlash in Europe, allowing China to enhance its economic relationships with European nations and counteract U.S. efforts to further decouple technology and supply chains between China and the West,” he explained.

Trump’s long-standing skepticism towards NATO—having stated in February that he would not defend NATO allies who do not meet defense spending commitments against a potential Russian attack—along with his general disregard for international alliances and institutions, poses a risk to the American partnerships that President Joe Biden has diligently worked to strengthen in response to the challenges posed by a rising China.

This situation could provide Beijing with a timely advantage, as it grows increasingly frustrated with what it perceives as Washington’s strategy to encircle and contain China through an “Asian NATO.”

Furthermore, America’s potential shift towards isolationism under Trump may be seen as favorable by Xi, who has intensified his efforts to assert leadership in the Global South and to establish a new world order that is less influenced by Western powers.

Taiwan and Its Relations with Russia

Beijing may be exploring ways to leverage Trump’s affinity for negotiation, particularly regarding Taiwan. The Chinese Communist Party asserts sovereignty over the island, despite never having exercised control over it.

During the previous Trump administration, characterized by a strong stance against China, the United States enhanced its support for Taiwan through increased arms sales and diplomatic engagements. However, recent statements from Trump have raised doubts about the U.S. commitment to this democratic entity.

While campaigning, Trump accused Taiwan of “stealing” the semiconductor industry from the United States, suggesting that the self-governing democracy should compensate the U.S. for its defense.

Experts in the industry argue that Taiwan developed its semiconductor sector through a combination of strategic foresight, diligent effort, and significant investment. Additionally, the island has acquired the majority of its military equipment from U.S. manufacturers over the past few decades. Nevertheless, Trump’s campaign rhetoric has indicated a shift towards a more transactional perspective on Taiwan.

In an interview with the Wall Street Journal, Trump was asked whether he would resort to military action against a potential Chinese blockade of Taiwan. He responded that such a scenario was unlikely, as he believes Xi respects him and perceives him as “crazy.” Instead, Trump proposed imposing tariffs on Beijing ranging from 150% to 200%.

Zhao noted that Trump’s comparatively less vigorous stance on defending Taiwan might encourage Beijing to seek more concessions from Washington regarding the Taiwan issue. He suggested that China could employ both positive incentives and coercive tactics to persuade the United States to lessen its military and political backing for Taiwan.

Trump, who has often highlighted his favorable relationship with Russian President Vladimir Putin, has hinted that the US might push Ukraine towards a difficult peace agreement with Russia.

Ending the protracted conflict in Ukraine could alleviate a significant point of contention in China-Europe relations, but it might also complicate the growing alignment between Moscow and Beijing since Russia’s invasion, according to Liu from the City University of Hong Kong.

Liu stated that if US-Russia relations improve, it could create a rift between Russia and China, effectively driving them apart. He emphasized that Trump clearly views China, rather than Russia, as the primary adversary.

On Thursday, Putin congratulated Trump on his electoral victory and expressed his willingness to engage with the United States.

During a policy forum in Sochi, Russia, Putin remarked that Trump’s campaign statements regarding the resolution of the Ukraine conflict and the restoration of US-Russia relations “merit at least some attention.”

When asked if he was open to discussions with Trump, Putin replied affirmatively, stating, “Yes we are. We’re ready.”

Poland has finalized a deal to enhance its missile launcher capabilities with new vehicle supplies

Asif Shahid

November 8, 2024

Poland's Minister of Defence Wladyslaw Kosiniak-Kamysz

Poland has finalized a contract worth 1.3 billion zloty ($323.19 million) for the acquisition of domestically manufactured support vehicles intended for the WR-40 Langusta multiple rocket launchers, as announced by Defence Minister Wladyslaw Kosiniak-Kamysz on Friday.

This initiative is part of Poland‘s broader strategy to enhance its military capabilities in light of Russia‘s invasion of Ukraine. “We aim to fulfill as many orders as possible, as safety and economic considerations are paramount,” Kosiniak-Kamysz stated.

He emphasized that the Polish defense industry should prepare for an increase in orders, noting that 50% of the budget for the Polish military will be directed towards domestic production.

The Polish government has committed to allocating 4.1% of its gross domestic product to defense in 2024, maintaining the highest percentage among NATO allies for the second consecutive year, with plans to raise this figure to 4.7% by 2025. The vehicles contracted are expected to be delivered by 2028, although Kosiniak-Kamysz did not reveal the total quantity ordered.

Furthermore, the contract includes provisions for modifications to all previously delivered WR-40 Langusta launchers.

In 2024, the Armaments Agency has already finalized approximately 100 military contracts, with several dozen additional agreements anticipated by the end of the year, as reported by General Artur Kuptel, the head of the Armaments Agency, to Reuters in October.

Viktor Orban claims the EU should reassess its support for Ukraine after Trump’s electoral victory

Asif Shahid

November 8, 2024

Hungarian Prime Minister Viktor Orban stated that the European Union must reassess its support for Ukraine in light of Donald Trump‘s recent election victory in the U.S. He emphasized that Europe cannot bear the financial burden of the war on its own, just prior to a summit of EU leaders on Friday.

Trump has been critical of the extent of U.S. assistance to Ukraine amid Russia’s full-scale invasion that began in 2022. He previously indicated a desire to resolve the conflict before assuming office, although he did not provide specific details on how he would achieve this.

The future of aid to Ukraine is a significant issue for the EU following Trump’s election, as the bloc grapples with internal divisions and the political instability of its two largest nations, Germany—whose government has recently collapsed—and a weakened France.

Orban, a close ally of Trump, remarked on state radio that he believes the U.S. will withdraw its involvement in the conflict, stating, “The Americans will quit this war; they will not support it any longer,” ahead of the informal EU summit he is set to host in Budapest.

Europe cannot bear the financial burden of this war independently. While some advocate for the continued provision of substantial funds to this seemingly futile conflict, an increasing number of voices are either remaining silent or cautiously suggesting that we must adapt to the evolving circumstances.

Together with the United States, the EU and its member states rank among the largest contributors of military and financial support to Ukraine, with most EU leaders expressing strong backing for this ongoing commitment.

German Chancellor Olaf Scholz reaffirmed this position in Budapest on Friday, emphasizing the need for Europe to enhance its own defense capabilities. “Russia has invaded Ukraine and is persisting in this war with relentless brutality,” he stated.

“It is clear that as the European Union, we must collectively take the necessary steps to ensure our security. Our success will depend on the contributions of all member states.”

CEASEFIRE APPEAL

Orban has urged for an immediate ceasefire in Ukraine, advocating for subsequent peace negotiations between Kyiv and Moscow—a proposal that Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskiy has firmly dismissed.

“This presents a grave challenge for our citizens: first a ceasefire, and then we will see. Who are you? Are your children perishing?” Zelenskiy remarked during a press conference in Budapest on Thursday, shortly after Orban reiterated his appeal.

“A ceasefire is being suggested by a leader who opposes Ukraine’s NATO membership. Just imagine… this is absurd and creates discord,” Zelenskiy stated.

Only Orban and Slovak Prime Minister Robert Fico advocated for a shift in the Ukraine strategy during a dinner of EU leaders in Budapest on Thursday evening, while others maintained that the current approach is effective, according to a senior EU official.

However, leaders are aware of the potential for reduced U.S. support for Ukraine under Trump and have started to deliberate on their response should that occur, officials report.

Fico, who ceased state military aid to Ukraine upon taking office a year ago, indicated that Slovakia would resist the EU assuming “financial responsibility” for Ukraine if U.S. assistance under Trump were to be limited or terminated.

In a video shared on his Facebook page, Fico asserted that if the EU can allocate funds for Ukraine, it should also be able to finance efforts against illegal migration, which he described as an “existential threat” to the bloc.

“I stressed that if we are to allocate resources for Ukraine, we must also ensure funding for issues that pose a significantly greater threat to the EU,” he stated.

UN rights office reports that almost 70% of the fatalities in the Gaza conflict are women and children

Asif Shahid

November 8, 2024

Palestinians react after a school sheltering displaced people was hit by an Israeli strike, at Beach camp in Gaza City .

The U.N. Human Rights Office reported on Friday that nearly 70% of the fatalities it has confirmed in the Gaza conflict were women and children, denouncing what it described as a systematic breach of fundamental international humanitarian law principles.

This U.N. assessment pertains to the initial seven months of the Israel-Hamas conflict in the Gaza Strip, which commenced over a year ago. The 8,119 verified victims during this period is significantly lower than the more than 43,000 casualties reported by Palestinian health authorities for the entire 13 months of the conflict.

However, the U.N.’s analysis of the victims’ age and gender supports the Palestinian claim that a substantial number of those killed in the war are women and children.

The report highlights “a systematic violation of the fundamental principles of international humanitarian law, including the principles of distinction and proportionality,” according to a statement from the U.N. rights office that accompanied the 32-page report.

United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights Volker Turk emphasized the necessity for accountability regarding serious allegations of international law violations, calling for credible and impartial judicial processes, while also stressing the importance of collecting and preserving all relevant information and evidence in the interim.

Israel has not provided an immediate response to the findings of the report. The Israeli military, which initiated its offensive following the October 7, 2023 attack that resulted in the deaths of approximately 1,200 individuals in southern Israel and the abduction of over 250 hostages by Hamas fighters, asserts that it strives to minimize civilian casualties in Gaza.

The military claims that for every fighter killed, roughly one civilian has also died, attributing this ratio to Hamas’s tactics of utilizing civilian infrastructure. Hamas has refuted these allegations, denying the use of civilians and civilian facilities, such as hospitals, as shields.

YOUNGEST VICTIM AGED ONE DAY

According to the report, the youngest verified victim was a one-day-old infant, while the oldest was a 97-year-old woman.

Children accounted for 44% of the total victims, with those aged five to nine forming the largest age group, followed by children aged 10 to 14, and then those aged four and younger. This distribution aligns with the demographics of the enclave, indicating a significant lack of measures taken to prevent civilian casualties.

The data indicated that in 88% of instances, five or more individuals lost their lives in a single attack, highlighting the Israeli military’s deployment of munitions capable of affecting a broad area. However, it also noted that some casualties might have resulted from stray projectiles fired by Palestinian armed factions.

Implications of Trump’s victory for the U.S., Russia, and the global landscape

Hammad Saeed

November 8, 2024

This week’s presidential election marks a significant milestone for the United States. Donald Trump‘s remarkable victory suggests that, at least initially, voters found his stances on key issues such as the economy and immigration more persuasive than those of Vice President Kamala Harris. Additionally, it is evident that Americans opted for a leader with a more dominant personality.

Moreover, Trump’s anticipated return to the White House signifies a setback for the Democratic Party’s extensive campaign to depict the Republican as a criminal, a fascist, and a Kremlin agent.

Furthermore, Trump’s success represents a substantial challenge to the left-liberal agenda of the globalist factions within the political West. Right-wing nationalist movements in Europe, whether in power (like Hungary) or in opposition (such as in France and Germany), have gained a formidable ally. While this does not signify the end of liberal globalism, it does indicate a temporary retreat. As for the so-called deep state, having failed to thwart Trump’s electoral success, it will now attempt to constrain him within its influence. The United States is entering a phase of political unpredictability; however, the undeniable nature of Trump’s victory significantly lowers the chances of civil unrest and widespread violence.

Additionally, the transition of the White House and at least one chamber of Congress (the Senate) to Republican leadership will likely result in a tougher stance in Washington’s foreign policy towards its allies. The trend of shifting military and financial responsibilities for supporting ‘free world interests’ from the United States to its partners began during Trump’s first term and has continued under Joe Biden. Despite concerns from Atlanticists, NATO is unlikely to be disbanded, but Western European nations will be expected to contribute significantly more. Asian allies will also face increased demands to invest in countering China, a strategy that began under Trump and is set to escalate.

In the Middle East, the United States is expected to adopt a more proactive and transparent stance in its support for Israel, moving away from the previous approach of veiling this support with selective critiques.

The Trump administration will exert pressure on nations perceived as threats to its status as the global hegemon, particularly targeting China and Iran. Washington will intensify its opposition to China’s economic and technological advancements, as well as bolster its military and political alliances. Additionally, the U.S. will actively encourage its European allies—often against their own interests—to participate in economic sanctions against China. Iran will also face heightened animosity, both directly and through increased backing for Israel.

Trump has made headlines with his remarks regarding the potential for World War III and his assertion that he could resolve the conflict in Ukraine “in 24 hours.” Acknowledging the risk of the ongoing indirect confrontation between the West and Russia escalating into a direct conflict is a constructive aspect of Trump’s campaign messaging. In contrast, the Biden-Harris administration’s strategy of intensifying hostilities has raised the specter of nuclear confrontation. It is important to recognize that ending the war will not occur “in 24 hours” and that “ending the war” does not equate to “stopping the fighting,” but rather entails addressing the underlying issues that led to the conflict.

The prospect of a ceasefire along the current front lines is unlikely to be taken seriously by Moscow. Such an outcome would merely serve as a temporary halt, likely followed by a resurgence of conflict with increased intensity. The future of the Ukrainian regime, its military capabilities, and Kiev’s geopolitical standing are critical factors for Russia, alongside the need to consider new territorial realities.

It is unlikely that the new Trump administration will engage in meaningful discussions regarding these matters, much less consider Moscow’s fundamental interests. Should there be a willingness to engage, dialogue may commence, but reaching an agreement remains uncertain. Additionally, the challenge lies in defining what constitutes satisfactory guarantees in an environment of mutual distrust. The two Minsk Agreements from 2014 and 2015 have been disregarded, and the third attempt, which was initiated in Istanbul in 2022, was unsuccessful, making a fourth agreement improbable.

The only assurance that Russia can depend on is one that it provides for itself. On a positive note for Russia, Trump has expressed a desire to reduce military assistance to Ukraine. Although this may be partially countered by increased support from Western Europe for Kiev, if it materializes, it could pave the way for a more peaceful resolution.

Putin extends his congratulations to Trump on his presidential victory and expresses his readiness for dialogue

Asif Shahid

November 8, 2024

Russian President Vladimir Putin extended his congratulations to Donald Trump on his electoral victory on Thursday, expressing his openness to engage in dialogue with the president-elect.

“I would like to take this opportunity to congratulate Donald Trump on his election as the president of the United States. I have previously stated that we are prepared to work with any leader chosen by the American populace. This will indeed be our approach in practice,” Putin remarked during his address at the Valdai Discussion Club in Sochi, as translated into English.

When asked about his willingness to communicate with Trump, Putin affirmed, “Yes, we are ready.”

“If he were to call and say, ‘Vladimir, let’s meet,’ I would not hesitate to reach out to him myself,” the Russian president added, marking his first public remarks regarding the U.S. election.

Putin acknowledged Trump’s “interest in restoring relations with Russia to help resolve the Ukrainian crisis” as worthy of consideration.

However, he noted that he would refrain from initiating contact with Trump, citing that “at one point, Western European leaders were reaching out almost weekly, but that communication abruptly ceased,” seemingly alluding to the global response following Russia’s full-scale invasion of Ukraine in 2022.

While describing Trump as a relatively inexperienced politician, Putin also commended his “courageous” actions following an assassination attempt in July.

Trump has indicated in the past that he might withdraw US support for Ukraine’s military efforts and asserted that he could resolve the conflict with Russia “in one day.”

Furthermore, Trump has consistently lauded Putin while frequently criticizing Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky, with whom he shares a complex relationship.

In a recent statement, Zelensky mentioned that he had a “productive” discussion with Trump. The Ukrainian leader emphasized that Kyiv will seek “peace through strength” instead of making territorial concessions or adopting a stance of neutrality.

Trump could weaken Biden’s efforts to persuade Israel and regional players to resolve conflicts in Gaza and Lebanon

Asif Shahid

November 8, 2024

Smoke billows over southern Lebanon, amid ongoing cross-border hostilities between Hezbollah and Israeli forces

The Biden administration is set to make a final effort to secure difficult agreements aimed at resolving the conflicts in Gaza and Lebanon. However, the potential election of Donald Trump may diminish Washington’s ability to influence Israel and other regional stakeholders before he assumes office.

Senior U.S. officials, who have been actively engaged in peace talks across the Middle East for several months, are now likely to encounter counterparts who are hesitant to make significant commitments, opting instead to wait for Trump’s inauguration in January, as indicated by sources familiar with the situation and independent analysts.

Trump has expressed his intention to achieve peace in the Middle East, though he has not outlined a specific strategy. Based on his previous term, it is anticipated that he will adopt a strongly pro-Israel stance, potentially exceeding the robust support that President Joe Biden has extended to the United States’ primary regional ally.

In anticipation of a second Trump administration, U.S. State Department spokesperson Matthew Miller stated on Thursday: “We will persist in our efforts to end the conflict in Gaza, resolve the situation in Lebanon, and increase humanitarian aid, as it is our responsibility to pursue these policies until noon on January 20.”

With Biden now in a position of diminished influence, Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, a staunch ally of Trump, along with Arab leaders, is expected to show little willingness to cooperate with the Democratic president. Instead, they may align their strategies with those of his Republican successor, whose unpredictable foreign policy during his first term left the region in a state of uncertainty.

“They have significantly less influence,” stated Brian Finucane, a senior adviser at the International Crisis Group’s U.S. program. “While they may still receive responses to their communications, the focus is shifting towards a new administration that will likely adopt different policies and priorities.”

PREPARING FOR CHANGE

Following Trump’s election victory over Vice President Kamala Harris, officials from both Arab nations and Israel have started to adjust their strategies. Egyptian mediators, who have been collaborating with U.S. and Qatari representatives on ceasefire proposals for Gaza, are now awaiting the specifics of Trump’s plans for the region, according to Egyptian security sources. As the global community observed the U.S. election, Netanyahu, who openly favored Trump and referred to his victory as “historic,” dismissed his Defense Minister Yoav Gallant, thereby removing one of the Biden administration’s preferred Israeli allies.

The Palestinian militant organization Hamas, which has been engaged in conflict with Israel for over a year in Gaza following its assault on southern Israel, along with the Lebanese group Hezbollah, which is involved in a concurrent struggle against Israeli forces, both seem to be looking beyond President Biden towards the forthcoming Trump administration.

Escalating retaliatory strikes between Israel and Iran have heightened concerns about a potential wider regional conflict.

Hamas has urged Trump to “learn from Biden’s mistakes,” while Hezbollah expressed skepticism regarding any significant change in U.S. policy that would move away from its support for Israel.

Nevertheless, officials from the Palestinian Authority anticipate continued collaboration with Biden’s team until Trump assumes office. Washington attempted to revive ceasefire discussions in Gaza after the Israeli killing of Hamas leader Yahya Sinwar in mid-October, but these efforts proved unsuccessful. In Lebanon, U.S. representatives have indicated some progress, although a conclusive agreement remains elusive.

When questioned about the perception that the Biden administration’s influence has diminished following the election, a spokesperson from the White House National Security Council stated, “I’m not going to speculate on hypotheticals.”

WAITING FOR TRUMP

Netanyahu and his supporters rejoiced at Trump’s election, viewing him as a strong yet occasionally unpredictable ally for Israel. They anticipated that the Republican president, who had previously facilitated significant achievements for Netanyahu during his first term, would provide unwavering support for Israel.

Trump has been a vocal advocate for Netanyahu’s objective of dismantling Hamas, urging Israel to expedite its efforts in this regard.

In his victory address, Trump stated, “I’m not going to start a war. I’m going to stop wars,” though he did not provide further details.

Biden’s backing of Israel has created rifts within his Democratic Party, resulting in a loss of support from many Arab Americans and progressive voters for Harris.

The Democratic president has consistently endorsed Israel while urging Netanyahu to take greater measures to safeguard civilians and increase humanitarian assistance to Gaza.

However, Biden has struggled to bring an end to the conflict, with some critics arguing that he should have taken stronger action to limit the billions of dollars in military aid the U.S. provides to Israel each year.

Laura Blumenfeld, a Middle East analyst at the Johns Hopkins School for Advanced International Studies in Washington, anticipates that prior to Trump’s inauguration, Netanyahu will make a limited attempt to address Biden’s requests regarding Gaza aid, while also considering the actions necessary to appease Trump.

“From Election Day to inauguration day, Israel’s approach to the U.S. will be influenced by two factors: Netanyahu’s needs and his fears,” she stated. “Netanyahu is also wary of the unpredictable temperament of the incoming American president.”

In a letter dated October 13, U.S. Secretary of State Antony Blinken and Defense Secretary Lloyd Austin urged Israel to implement specific actions to enhance aid for Gaza, warning of possible repercussions for U.S. military support if they do not comply.

Blumenfeld noted that during this transitional period, Netanyahu would likely make only a minimal effort to meet these demands, “just enough to prevent significant restrictions on weaponry.”

Some analysts suggest that Trump may allow Netanyahu greater freedom to take action against Iran and its affiliates.

“Netanyahu understands that Trump will provide him with the freedom to execute his plans, so he is simply waiting for the right moment,” remarked Brett Bruen, a former foreign policy adviser in the Obama administration.

What factors contributed to Russia’s lack of urgency in responding to Trump’s election victory?

Asif Shahid

November 7, 2024

Russian President Vladimir Putin chairs a meeting

When Donald Trump assumed the presidency of the United States following his victory in the 2016 election, there were expectations in Moscow that the businessman-turned-politician would align more closely with Russia‘s interests.

However, the reality diverged from those expectations. Despite facing indictments of several associates over claims that the Kremlin attempted to influence the elections in his favor, Trump intensified sanctions against Russia and enhanced Ukraine’s military support with Javelin missiles after taking office.

Fast forward eight years, and with Trump winning the presidential race this week against Vice President Kamala Harris, the Kremlin’s response has been notably subdued.

While numerous global leaders—including French President Emmanuel Macron, Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, NATO chief Mark Rutte, and Chinese President Xi Jinping—have extended their congratulations to Trump, Russian President Vladimir Putin has remained silent. This is a stark contrast to 2016, when Putin was among the first to congratulate Trump on his electoral success.

“We must remember that we are dealing with an unfriendly nation that is both directly and indirectly engaged in hostilities against our country,” stated Kremlin spokesman Dmitry Peskov during a press briefing on Wednesday morning.

Peskov stated that Putin does not intend to extend congratulations to Trump in the immediate future, opting instead to observe his actions once he assumes office.

“Once [in the Oval Office], statements can sometimes take on a different tone. That’s why we say we are carefully analysing everything, monitoring everything, and we will draw conclusions from specific words and concrete actions,” Peskov remarked.

In contrast, Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy promptly congratulated Trump on his “impressive” victory.

Alexey Malinin, the Moscow-based founder of the Center for International Interaction and Cooperation and a member of the Digoria Expert Club, noted that Trump’s victory indicates that American voters prioritize domestic issues over global politics.

“However, it is clear that no one anticipates Trump to neglect foreign policy matters,” Malinin told Al Jazeera. “He has already declared that there will be no wars during his presidency, which suggests he may aim to resolve the conflicts in Ukraine and the Middle East.”

Malinin, however, warned against exaggerating the extent to which Trump could alter Washington’s foreign policy, even with a Republican majority in Congress. While Republicans have regained control of the US Senate, the outcomes for the House of Representatives remain uncertain.

“In my view, it is certainly premature to celebrate,” Malinin stated.

He contended that it would be “impossible” for Trump to unilaterally bring an end to the war in Ukraine. “Ending it through any form of coercion against Russia will not be feasible, and the conditions that we find acceptable may not align with the views of many Americans or several of Ukraine’s European backers. They might question, ‘So much money has already been invested. Is it truly all for nothing?’”

Malinin also expressed skepticism about Trump’s ability to broker peace in the Middle East, even if it meant further empowering Israel in its conflicts with Gaza and Lebanon.

Nevertheless, analysts noted that while the Kremlin recognizes it may not always agree with the next occupant of the White House, it might experience slightly more leeway with Trump compared to Harris, who was anticipated to persist in providing military support and funding to Ukraine.

Former President Dmitry Medvedev expressed on Telegram that Trump possesses a valuable trait: his deep-rooted aversion to spending money on unnecessary associates, misguided charitable initiatives, and greedy international organizations. He included “toxic Ukraine of Bandera” in this category, questioning how much pressure Trump will face to finance the war effort. Medvedev noted Trump’s stubbornness but emphasized that the system may ultimately prevail.

Medvedev’s comments referenced Stepan Bandera, a Ukrainian ultranationalist who collaborated with Nazi Germany during World War II and is regarded as a national hero in Ukraine.

Political consultant Ilya Gambashidze supported Medvedev’s views, describing Trump as an “excellent” businessman who prioritizes trade over conflict.

Gambashidze remarked to Al Jazeera that while some label Trump as pro-Russian or a “friend of Putin,” Russia does not require such a relationship. He asserted that Russia has no need for sympathy or assistance from Trump.

Gambashidze stated that it would be sufficient for him to concentrate on supporting the United States, particularly its economy and social issues. This would entail a transition from a confrontational stance with Russia to one characterized by constructive and pragmatic engagement. “We would advise Trump to prioritize trade over conflict, and everything will turn out well.”

However, uncertainties surrounding Trump’s foreign policy strategy and the individuals who will implement it could present challenges from Russia’s viewpoint.

Ilya Budraitskis, a Russian historian and social scientist currently serving as a visiting scholar at the University of California, Berkeley, cautioned, “We are still uncertain about who Trump will appoint to lead foreign policy.”

He noted that while Vice President-elect JD Vance may be open to making certain concessions to Moscow concerning Ukraine, a figure like Nikki Haley, who served as the UN Ambassador during Trump’s first term, has adopted a much tougher position on Russia.

Budraitskis also emphasized that Trump’s relationships with Russia’s allies, particularly China and Iran, will have significant implications for Moscow.

It is essential to consider the broader context. Trump views China as his primary strategic rival and has signaled a willingness to adopt a more assertive stance towards Iran.

A new wave of displacement is happening in northern Gaza due to new evacuation orders

asifshahid73@gmail.com

November 7, 2024

Children at tent camp for displaced people in Gaza

Israeli forces intensified their bombardment across the Gaza Strip on Thursday, issuing new evacuation orders that prompted a fresh wave of displacement from northern Gaza, raising concerns among Palestinians about their ability to return.

Palestinian health officials reported that at least 10 individuals were killed and several others injured due to an Israeli airstrike on a school sheltering displaced families in the Shati refugee camp in Gaza City. There was no immediate response from Israeli authorities.

As Israeli tanks moved into Beit Lahiya, a month into their renewed offensive in northern Gaza, numerous families fled, seeking refuge in schools and other shelters in Gaza City with whatever belongings and food they could carry. Drones flew overhead, broadcasting evacuation orders, which were also disseminated through social media and sent as audio and text messages to residents’ phones, according to one displaced individual.

“After displacing most, if not all, of the people in Jabalia, they are now bombing everywhere, killing people on the roads and in their homes to force everyone out,” the man, identified only as Ahmed for safety reasons, told Reuters via a messaging app.

Palestinian authorities have accused Israel of executing a strategy of “ethnic cleansing.” Local residents report that no humanitarian assistance has reached Jabalia, Beit Lahiya, or Beit Hanoun since military operations commenced on October 5.

The Israeli Defense Forces assert that they were compelled to clear Jabalia and initiate operations in the adjacent Beit Lahiya on Wednesday to confront Hamas militants, who they claim have reestablished their presence in those areas.

The military refuted media claims suggesting that individuals evacuated from northern Gaza would be prohibited from returning, emphasizing that it continues to facilitate the delivery of aid to northern Gaza and the Jabalia region, where it is currently engaged in “intense combat.”

“The recent statement attributed to the IDF, indicating that residents of northern Gaza will not be permitted to return to their homes, is inaccurate and does not align with the IDF’s goals and principles,” the military stated. It also noted that 300 trucks of aid from the United Arab Emirates had arrived at the Ashdod port and would be dispatched into Gaza through the Erez crossing in the north and Kerem Shalom in the south.

The military issued new evacuation directives for residents in areas surrounding and within Gaza City, citing rocket fire from Palestinian militants as the reason. These directives specifically affected the northern section of the Shati camp and three additional neighborhoods in Gaza City.

Palestinian medical personnel reported that Israeli gunfire resulted in the deaths of six individuals in Jabalia, the largest of the enclave’s eight historic refugee camps, along with four fatalities in Beit Lahiya and seven in Rafah, located near the Egyptian border in southern Gaza.

According to the Israeli military, operations in Jabalia have led to the elimination of approximately 50 militants over the past day, and they have facilitated the safe exit of Palestinians from combat zones via organized routes.

Palestinian and U.N. representatives assert that there are no secure areas within the enclave, where the majority of its 2.3 million residents have been displaced from their homes.

Israel’s ground offensive aimed at dismantling the Islamist movement has persisted for over a year, transforming much of the Gaza Strip into a devastated region facing a humanitarian crisis.

Many Palestinians are anxiously observing whether Donald Trump’s election as U.S. president will bolster American support for Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu. Trump positions himself as a more dependable ally for Israel compared to the current president, Joe Biden. Health authorities in the enclave report that over 43,300 Palestinians have lost their lives during more than a year of conflict in Gaza.

The conflict erupted following an attack by Hamas-led militants on Israel on October 7, 2023, resulting in approximately 1,200 fatalities and the abduction of 251 individuals to Gaza, as reported by Israeli sources.

Since the onset of the Hamas-Israel conflict in Gaza, violence has escalated in the Israeli-occupied West Bank.

In Tulkarm, Israeli forces fatally shot a Palestinian man during a raid, according to medical personnel, who also reported that an Israeli drone strike injured five others, including a mother and her son with learning disabilities.

Numerous Palestinians, comprising armed combatants, youths throwing stones, and innocent bystanders, have lost their lives in confrontations with Israeli security forces.

The Palestinian health ministry, which does not distinguish between civilians and combatants in its casualty reports, has recorded 775 deaths, including 167 children.

In the past year, dozens of Israelis have also been killed in attacks carried out by Palestinians on the streets.

Is it feasible for Trump to resolve the Ukraine conflict within a 24-hour timeframe?

Hammad Saeed

November 7, 2024

The US presidential election has concluded, and the final results are being compiled. Republican candidate Donald Trump has been officially declared the victor. From a Russian perspective, the critical issue now is how Ukraine’s military-technical collaboration with the incoming administration will evolve and what implications Trump’s victory holds for both Moscow and Kiev.

Campaign Commitments

Throughout his campaign, the president-elect asserted that he could resolve the conflict in Ukraine prior to his inauguration on January 20, claiming he could achieve this in merely 24 hours.

While such assertions may be seen as typical campaign rhetoric, Trump has a history of making unconventional statements.

For instance, in February 2019, he boldly claimed he would “solve the problem” with North Korean leader Kim Jong-un. However, the outcome of their meeting in Hanoi revealed that no agreement was reached. This indicates that the Republican lacks a track record of successfully navigating complex geopolitical challenges.

Regarding his pledge to conclude the conflict in Ukraine before officially taking office, no specifics have been provided on how he intends to carry out this plan.

It remains uncertain how this will function in practice in the immediate future. Until noon on January 20, Trump will hold no authority, particularly regarding foreign policy matters. During this period, Joe Biden will continue to serve as president.

The 47th president must first be inaugurated and assemble a team before he can start executing his agenda. It is not feasible for two administrations with conflicting perspectives to coexist in Washington, eliminating any risk of dual governance in this context.

What conditions might lead to the resolution of the conflict in Ukraine?

Considering the potential for concluding the armed conflict in Ukraine, it is theoretically feasible, but the critical questions revolve around the conditions for resolution and the identification of a victor. Currently, the collective West, including figures like Trump, is resistant to ending hostilities on terms favorable to Russian President Vladimir Putin. This includes stipulations such as Ukraine adopting a non-aligned status, Russia maintaining control over newly acquired territories, and the demilitarization and denazification of Ukraine.

Accepting these terms would represent a significant political setback for the United States and its allies in the context of the Ukraine conflict. Essentially, it would imply that the efforts made by Washington and Brussels have been ineffective and without substantial military or political impact. Furthermore, it is unlikely that a new U.S. administration would pursue such a course, especially in light of the recent setbacks in Afghanistan, which could further undermine Washington’s standing in foreign policy.

If Trump genuinely seeks to bring an end to the conflict in Ukraine, he would need to navigate the situation in a manner that allows for the perception that Russia has not emerged victorious (despite its territorial advancements) while ensuring that Ukraine is seen as having preserved its independence and sovereignty.

It is crucial for the West that Kyiv takes the initiative to express its willingness to end the armed conflict on terms that do not solely reflect Western interests. The coming weeks will reveal whether Trump can effectively address the existing contradictions, creating a scenario where it appears that the West has not suffered a loss, Russia has not achieved a victory, and Ukraine has not been defeated. However, this resolution will not materialize overnight, even with the most optimistic outlook.

The future U.S. president undoubtedly possesses significant economic and military tools to influence the situation. The new administration can exert pressure on Moscow by intensifying sanctions, as there remains potential for further measures. Conversely, it could place Kyiv in a precarious position by drastically cutting the supply of weapons and military equipment. In essence, the White House has various strategies at its disposal to escalate the challenges faced by the conflicting parties.

The pivotal question is whether Moscow will accept such proposals and whether, in the lead-up to January 20, the Kremlin will refrain from pursuing a policy of fait accompli, which involves achieving direct victories on the battlefield to further tilt the situation in its favor.

Latvia plans to implement conscription for women in military service

Asif Shahid

November 7, 2024

Latvia has initiated a plan to require women to participate in military service, as stated by Defense Minister Andris Spruds on Wednesday. In a discussion on Latvian television, Spruds mentioned that while significant work remains, the new conscription law could be implemented by 2028.

The minister emphasized that this initiative is part of the government’s commitment to advancing gender equality within the armed forces, which he described as “a very important issue.” He pointed out that similar laws are already enacted in Sweden, Norway, and Denmark, indicating that Latvia is following their example.

“This initiative will establish mandatory military service for both genders,” Spruds remarked. Currently, women in Latvia can enlist in the military on a voluntary basis.

He further explained that the legislation is still in the early stages of development.

“It is evident that this cannot be accomplished overnight. There is substantial groundwork to be done, which includes discussions and dialogue among the government, parliament, and the public,” Spruds stated. He acknowledged the necessity of public support for this initiative, noting that many Latvians previously opposed the reintroduction of compulsory service for men.

Orders have been issued to the appropriate authorities to initiate preparations for the integration of women into the military, as noted by Spruds. This includes assessing the necessary modifications, such as equipping the army with suitable gear, uniforms, and weaponry designed specifically for female personnel.

“We have developed a strategic plan, with one of its potential objectives being the conscription of women starting in 2028,” Spruds remarked.

The defense chief initially proposed the concept of mandatory military service for women in August, which ignited discussions among Latvian legislators. MP Harijs Rokpelnis expressed concerns, stating that drafting women would be a premature action and “not the path Latvia should pursue.” Meanwhile, MP Anna Udre called for a broader dialogue on the matter.

Latvia has not enforced mandatory national service since 2006. However, last year, the country reinstated the draft for men aged 18 to 27, citing the necessity to strengthen military forces in light of perceived threats from Russia. As a member of both the EU and NATO, Latvia has consistently supported Ukraine during the ongoing conflict with Moscow and has provided its military with domestically manufactured combat drones.

Moscow has consistently refuted allegations regarding any plans to launch attacks on the Baltic states or other European nations, a topic that has garnered significant attention in Western discourse over the last two years. Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov has previously described such conjectures as “absurd.”

Trump’s victory represents a triumph for Americans who think independently

Sadia Asif

November 7, 2024

It seems that average Americans are not fond of being treated like children. At least Trump had faith in their ability to appreciate humor, unlike his adversaries. So, when can we expect Liz Cheney’s reckoning? Are we finished with the anti-Trump narratives now that a significant portion of voters can see through them? Probably not, right?

Aside from a few states, Americans came together to support former President Donald Trump’s return to the White House, granting him significant power with Republican control of the Senate and likely the House as well. Quite an achievement for someone the establishment attempted to label as a modern-day Hitler. Did Hitler also showcase large Israeli flags at his Madison Square Garden rally? Or visit the Western Wall in Israel while wearing a yarmulke and surrounded by Hebrew-inscribed tablets? This should have been the Democrats’ first indication that their branding strategy was misguided. Yet, much like the aptly titled upcoming biography of Harris co-authored by Chelsea Clinton: She Persisted.

It would be beneficial for them to develop a concrete agenda and select a candidate who directly addresses pertinent questions and issues, rather than relying on vague talking points and platitudes that leave voters uncertain about what to expect if elected. This approach typically perpetuates the existing establishment status quo, which many Americans believe is inadequate. A significant portion of the population feels that the country is moving in the wrong direction.

The Democrats appear to have centered their campaign around abortion rights, targeting a candidate who seems relatively indifferent to the subject, especially in light of recent court decisions. Notably, CNN exit polls indicate that Harris secured the female vote with a margin five points lower than Biden’s in 2020 and three points lower than Hillary Clinton’s against Trump in 2016, a time when abortion was not a focal issue.

Certain voter demographics significantly illustrate the narrative of this election. Notably, white women with college degrees showed an 11% preference for Harris over Biden in 2020. This suggests that the messaging from institutional elites and their celebrity advocates resonates more with those who are perceived as well-educated, regardless of gender. The prevailing narrative from party leaders was that abortion should be the sole concern for women, reducing them to simplistic stereotypes. However, many women reject being condescended to and viewed merely as vessels for reproduction, even when the condescension comes from other women. This perspective likely explains why white women without degrees favored Trump by a substantial 25 points over Harris, and why voters of color without degrees, typically seen as reliable Democratic supporters, also shifted their support away from Harris, voting 14 points less for her than for Biden four years prior.

Additionally, the youngest voters, aged 18-29, who might be expected to prioritize reproductive rights—either as women or as supportive male allies—actually shifted their support to Trump by 11 points compared to 2020.

Ultimately, women navigating complex lives with diverse priorities do not appreciate being treated as if they need guidance, a tendency that Democrats frequently exhibit. The fact that the condescension comes from women and their representatives does not make it more acceptable. It merely positions them as unwitting supporters of a patriarchal system that seeks to manipulate women’s voting behavior to uphold a status quo that disadvantages them in critical areas, from economic challenges to the implications of foreign conflicts that affect their families. Uncle Sam’s profit motives are at play, and the individual you label a misogynist is the one willing to confront him.

In relation to costly military engagements, CNN exit polls indicate that approximately two-thirds of voters perceive the economy as worse than it was in 2020, a time when the nation was dealing with the repercussions of the Covid crisis. This change has favored Trump, who has consistently emphasized his desire to resolve foreign conflicts and prioritize the American economy. He has even proposed pressuring allies to purchase American weapons with their own funds, threatening to undermine NATO if they refuse, rather than escalating current conflicts or initiating new ones to justify increased military spending, as seen under the Biden administration.

Harris has not demonstrated any inclination to challenge the entrenched political establishment that has been in control during Biden’s tenure, which would likely have persisted even with a Harris victory. While Trump may not possess all the solutions, he has articulated a definitive intent. In this regard, he resonates with voters who, while uncertain about the answers, recognize the need for change.

Ultimately, while Trump has criticized figures like Liz Cheney and her father, Dick, both of whom have supported Harris, he has voiced the sentiments of ordinary citizens weary of war. Meanwhile, establishment figures have attempted to exploit his provocative language to insinuate that he would resort to authoritarian tactics against his adversaries if re-elected. This narrative seems inconsistent, considering his previous four years in office. The only individual who has faced significant backlash has been Trump himself.

It has become evident that people appreciate humor, understand what constitutes a joke, and are not swayed by the exaggerated claims of Democrats and the establishment that underestimate their intelligence. Democrats and their affiliates believed that a comedian’s joke about Puerto Rico during a late-campaign rally for Trump would significantly harm his support among Latino voters. Contrary to their expectations, Trump secured a ten-point lead among Latino men and saw a 15-point increase in support from Latina women compared to the 2020 election.

The notion that America is deeply divided may be overstated. In reality, ordinary individuals from various backgrounds, who rely on their own experiences rather than the narratives pushed by Hollywood and corporate media, have taken the opportunity to voice their opinions in a truly democratic manner. Their message is clear: the real radicalism lies with the establishment, not Trump.

The silent majority, feeling increasingly sidelined and even censored, has found a representative in Trump whose views resonate with their own. It is now the responsibility of the establishment to spend the next four years determining how to genuinely address the needs of the average voter, rather than focusing solely on their own interests and exploiting America’s diversity for divisive purposes.

Ukraine must confront a harsh reality under Trump that it wished to avoid

Asif Shahid

November 7, 2024

Ukraine's President Volodymyr Zelenskiy appears at a joint press conference

Bets were placed, potential outcomes envisioned, and protective measures devised. However, the prevailing sentiment was a desire for the situation to remain unchanged. For months, Ukraine and its NATO partners have contemplated the possibility of a Trump presidency, weighing the implications of a strongman leader in the U.S. who could either become a more formidable ally, a negotiator capable of brokering a favorable peace, or a fresh perspective that might lead to a resolution of a prolonged conflict.

This notion, however, is merely a comforting illusion. The future for Kyiv appears exceedingly bleak. There should be no ambiguity regarding the implications of a Trump administration for Ukraine. Donald Trump has claimed he could resolve the war “in 24 hours,” yet he has not specified how. He has also criticized President Zelensky, stating that “he should never have let that war start,” and referred to him as “one of the greatest salesmen I have ever seen,” who secures $100 billion from Congress with each visit.

As of this morning, the fact that these assertions are gross exaggerations has become irrelevant. They now serve as the distorted perspective through which the president-elect of the United States will view the most significant conflict in Europe since World War II. While Trump may select a cabinet that slightly modifies the pace or tone of his inclinations, his ultimate desire is to withdraw. The strategic reality that Ukraine’s conflict has offered the Pentagon a relatively low-cost method of undermining its second-largest adversary without American casualties is inconsequential. This situation contradicts two of Trump’s primary aversions from his first term: expensive U.S. military involvement overseas and antagonizing Russian President Vladimir Putin.

The Kremlin’s initial reaction—that US-Russia relations cannot deteriorate further under President Joe Biden—suggests a sense of satisfaction. Analysts generally view the upcoming year as a calculated risk for Russia. Moscow has been deploying troops to strategic high ground around Ukraine’s military centers in the Donbas region, specifically near Pokrovsk, Kurakhove, and Chasiv Yar, with the intention of exerting significant pressure on Kyiv this winter to force its withdrawal from the Donetsk area.

A successful campaign in Donetsk could potentially open the way to major urban centers like Dnipro and Zaporizhzhia, rendering the Ukrainian capital highly susceptible and possibly altering the dynamics of the conflict. However, time is not on Russia’s side. Western officials have indicated that the current casualty rate—estimated at around 1,200 dead or injured daily—is not sustainable without implementing another major and unpopular mobilization. Furthermore, next year could bring significant challenges for Moscow in terms of armor and ammunition production.

Putin has strategically played his recent cards with the hope that Trump would emerge victorious, banking on the belief that Trump would continue to be instinctive—favoring isolationism and harboring skepticism towards America’s long-standing alliances.

Trump’s approach is characterized by erraticism and unpredictability, particularly regarding intricate and lengthy issues such as foreign conflicts. He tends to favor quick solutions, exemplified by his decision to leave Afghanistan to the Taliban, engage in a direct meeting with North Korean leader Kim Jong Un in Singapore, or authorize a drone strike against Iranian Revolutionary Guard commander Qasem Soleimani. It remains uncertain whether he genuinely considered the implications of his policies on Ukraine or if he simply wishes to avoid discussing the war and its financial burdens.

Regardless of the pace or thoroughness of Trump’s strategy, the repercussions will be evident in the coming weeks. I remember the significant dip in morale among Ukrainian forces last December when U.S. military aid was stalled for approximately six months. Frontline soldiers expressed their fears of having to abandon their positions without that support, despite knowing that the Biden administration was, in principle, still committed to assisting them. Now, they face a new challenge: the potential for limited aid from the Pentagon and European NATO allies, while the Trump administration adopts a more adversarial stance towards Kyiv.

Moreover, Trump assumes the presidency at a particularly dangerous juncture for Kyiv since the onset of the conflict. Various analyses indicate that Ukraine has experienced unprecedented territorial losses in October, with the fall of minor villages that, while individually insignificant, collectively represent a strategic disadvantage, leaving the eastern front particularly exposed.

NATO’s strategy has long exhibited a significant flaw; the Biden administration was hesitant to provide Ukraine with sufficient military support to potentially defeat Russia, fearing it could lead to a broader conflict. Conversely, Biden was also unwilling to allow Russia to emerge victorious. Consequently, the alliance urged Ukraine to persevere, hoping that eventually, Putin would falter. This created a complex contradiction at the core of the support for Kyiv, yet it was preferable to demanding Ukraine’s capitulation.

Without a strong resolve to fight—an understanding that victory is achievable—it becomes nearly impossible to expect Ukrainians to endure bombardments in trenches or advance their armored vehicles against hostile fire. No one wishes to be the last soldier to perish in a conflict; no one desires to sacrifice their life defending a family that may ultimately live under Russian control.

Trump’s potential return to power could further complicate Zelensky’s position. For years, Zelensky has effectively championed Ukraine’s cause, akin to a skilled salesman. However, he now carries the heavy burden of the controversies from Trump’s first term, particularly regarding Trump’s demands for investigations into the Biden family. Can Zelensky continue to be that effective advocate? Would a new leader in Bankova be more successful in securing military assistance or negotiating a feasible peace agreement?

Those who are weary of the ongoing conflict in Ukraine—whether they are allies of Kyiv or soldiers on the front lines—should be cautious about endorsing a deal backed by Trump. Historical precedents, such as Russia’s actions in Syria in 2013 and Ukraine in 2015, demonstrate that Moscow often negotiates to gain time for military preparations or to achieve its strategic objectives. Putin is likely to accept any territorial gains he can secure at the negotiating table, but he will subsequently regroup and continue his ambitions. Domestically, he has framed the war as a struggle against the united forces of NATO. The consequences of an overstretched Russian economy, a staggering death toll, and the reconfiguration of Russia’s industrial capabilities in pursuit of this conflict cannot be easily reversed. Putin increasingly relies on the war to maintain his authority.

This need for conflict is evident in his recent assertive actions towards neighboring countries. The recent unrest in Georgia and Moldova, where pro-Russian factions have attempted to undermine pro-European movements with limited success, may lead to increased Russian intervention in the near future. It is improbable that Putin will relinquish his aspirations for expanded regional dominance. It is essential to recall his initial intentions: the war was initiated with the goal of occupying Ukraine and preventing its integration into NATO and the European Union. The significant Russian casualties over nearly three years likely necessitate a more substantial victory than merely retaining the territory already acquired.

A crucial lesson from this war is now under serious threat. For the past two years, Putin’s most ardent critics have emphasized that there is no longer a need to fear Russia; the Kremlin has exploited the image of its formidable Bear as a psychological tool to compensate for its military weaknesses. Ukraine’s unexpected resilience has demonstrated that this fear was unfounded, revealing Moscow’s difficulties in overcoming a neighbor it once dismissed as incapable of defending itself.

A Trump administration might soon urge the global community to accept a seemingly analogous assertion that is, in reality, profoundly distinct: that the West should not fear Russia, as it poses minimal threat. This scenario would represent Putin’s most significant triumph and the West’s most glaring vulnerability.

Israeli airstrikes near Baalbek, Lebanon, resulted in 40 fatalities

Asif Shahid

November 7, 2024

Israeli airstrikes in Lebanon resulted in the deaths of 40 individuals near the eastern city of Baalbek in the Bekaa Valley on Wednesday, as reported by the country’s health ministry. Additionally, further strikes targeted the southern suburbs of Beirut as night fell.

For over a year, Israel and the Iran-aligned Hezbollah have been engaged in exchanges of fire, coinciding with the ongoing conflict in Gaza. However, hostilities have intensified since late September, with Israeli forces ramping up their bombardment of southern and eastern Lebanon and conducting ground operations in border villages.

The health ministry reported that the strikes on Baalbek and the surrounding area not only claimed 40 lives but also left 53 others injured. The Israeli military has not provided any comments on the situation. Israel has consistently targeted Hezbollah strongholds in the southern suburbs of Beirut. On Wednesday, the Israeli military instructed residents in these areas to evacuate several sites, leading to two waves of bombings—one late Wednesday and another early Thursday.

Lebanon’s Al Jadeed TV reported that there were at least four strikes on Thursday, although there were no immediate reports of casualties or specifics regarding the targets. Hezbollah’s Secretary General Naim Qassem stated on Wednesday that he does not believe political measures will effectively end the hostilities. He indicated that a pathway to indirect negotiations could emerge if Israel ceased its attacks. “When the enemy chooses to halt its aggression, we have outlined a clear route for negotiations—indirect discussions facilitated through the Lebanese state and Speaker of Parliament Nabih Berri,” Qassem remarked.

U.S. diplomatic initiatives aimed at ceasing the conflict between Israel and Hezbollah, which included a proposal for a 60-day ceasefire, encountered setbacks last week, coinciding with the U.S. elections on Tuesday, where former President Donald Trump regained the presidency.

RESCUERS SEARCH FOR SURVIVORS

Over the past year, Israeli airstrikes in Lebanon have resulted in the deaths of more than 3,000 individuals, with the majority occurring in the last six weeks.

In the town of Barja, located south of Beirut, Lebanese rescuers combed through the debris of a collapsed apartment building following an Israeli strike on Tuesday evening that claimed the lives of 20 people, according to Lebanon’s health ministry.

Moussa Zahran, a resident of one of the upper floors, returned to search through the remnants of his home. His feet, burned from the incident, were bandaged, and both his wife and son were hospitalized due to injuries sustained in the attack.

“These stones you see here weigh 100 kilos; they fell on a 13-kilo child,” he remarked, referencing his son and the apartment wall that collapsed on him during the assault.

It remains uncertain if the strike was aimed at a Hezbollah member, and there was no evacuation warning issued prior to the air raid.

Hezbollah announced on Wednesday that it had launched missiles targeting an Israeli military installation close to Ben Gurion Airport. Reports from Israeli media indicated that a rocket had struck near the airport.

Subsequently, the Israeli military confirmed that numerous projectiles had entered Israeli territory from Lebanon, with some being intercepted.

Diplomatic efforts to resolve the ongoing conflict have reached an impasse. On Tuesday, Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu appointed Israel Katz as the new defense minister, who pledged to defeat Hezbollah to facilitate the return of those displaced from northern Israel.

Berri, a Hezbollah ally and key diplomatic figure, met with the U.S. and Saudi ambassadors to Lebanon on Wednesday to discuss the current political situation, although his office did not provide additional details.

Meanwhile, Lebanon’s caretaker prime minister extended congratulations to the U.S. president-elect.

Netanyahu expressed support for Trump’s election, while senior Hamas official Sami Abu Zuhri remarked that Trump would face scrutiny regarding his claims that he could resolve the Gaza conflict within hours as president.

Biden aims to expedite billions in security aid to Ukraine before his term ends

Asif Shahid

November 7, 2024

President Joe Biden is set to accelerate the disbursement of billions in security assistance to Ukraine before the end of his term in January, as reported by sources on Wednesday. This effort is intended to bolster the Ukrainian government in Kyiv in anticipation of President-elect Donald Trump‘s inauguration on January 20.

A senior administration official, speaking anonymously, stated, “The administration intends to advance efforts to position Ukraine as favorably as possible” before the end of its term.

Trump has expressed criticism regarding Biden’s support for Ukraine, raising concerns about the continuity of assistance for President Volodymyr Zelenskyy’s administration under a Republican-led White House, Senate, and potentially the House of Representatives.

Since January 2023, the House has been under narrow Republican control, and as of Wednesday afternoon, it remained uncertain whether the party had secured enough seats in the recent elections to prevent Democrats from achieving a slim majority.

The House of Representatives, under Republican control, last authorized aid for Ukraine in April, which included granting President Biden the authority to transfer billions of dollars’ worth of weapons from U.S. reserves. This decision came eight months after Biden initially requested additional assistance, garnering more support from Democrats than Republicans.

From the weapons transfer authority approved in April, $4.3 billion remains available, alongside $2.8 billion in transfers that lawmakers had previously sanctioned and an additional $2 billion allocated for purchasing new weapons from manufacturers.

In total, this $9 billion in military support would significantly enhance Ukraine’s military capabilities.

Biden’s intentions regarding these transfers were first disclosed by Politico, and the White House has not yet provided a response to inquiries for comment.

The U.S. plans to continue supplying munitions and anti-tank systems, including the Javelin produced by Lockheed Martin and RTX, to Ukraine in the upcoming months.

To assist Ukraine in reclaiming its territory amid the ongoing conflict with Russia, there will be a need for more ground vehicles and 155mm artillery manufactured by General Dynamics Corp.

Additionally, Ukraine is expected to receive more GMLRS surface-to-surface rockets, which have been extensively utilized by the HIMARS multiple rocket launch system.

Analysts indicate that it is uncertain whether Washington will continue to support Ukraine once Republicans gain control of the White House and at least half of Congress, particularly in light of Ukraine’s recent challenges on the battlefield.

Scott Anderson, a governance studies fellow at the Brookings Institution, remarked, “This will pose a significant issue when considering future funding for Ukraine, which will eventually be necessary.”

During a press conference on Wednesday, Senate Republican leader Mitch McConnell refrained from addressing Ukraine aid, stating that his focus was solely on discussing election outcomes.

While campaigning for a second term, Trump claimed that Russian President Vladimir Putin would not have invaded Ukraine in 2022 if he had been in office, asserting that he could resolve the situation within 24 hours.

Last year, Trump mentioned to Reuters that Ukraine might need to relinquish territory to achieve a peace deal, a notion that Ukraine has dismissed and one that President Biden has not proposed.

U.S. Senator J.D. Vance, the vice president-elect, has openly criticized assistance to Ukraine, contending that government resources would be more effectively allocated to domestic issues.

DefenceTalksLatest Defence News & Analysis

DefenceTalks

DefenceTalksLatest Defence News & Analysis

DefenceTalksLatest Defence News & Analysis

TOP STORIES

DIPLOMACY

Nuclear Doctrine

DISPUTES

Defense Budget

Featured

DEFENCE

Military Exercise

Ukraine War

DefenceTalks.com

TOP STORIES

DIPLOMACY

Nuclear Doctrine

DISPUTES

Defense Budget

Featured

DEFENCE

Military Exercise

Ukraine War

DefenceTalks.com

Pentagon has limited options

Civilian Employees Facing Uncertainty

More assertive North Korean leader

Kim’s personal rapport with Trump

Geopolitical Divides

Criticism of the UN

High Tariffs

Challenges and Opportunities

Taiwan and Its Relations with Russia