Monday, April 20, 2026
Home Blog Page 84

What are the components of the Gaza ceasefire agreement?

0
Protesters outside Israeli Defence Ministry headquarters in Tel Aviv call on President-elect Donald Trump to end the war in Gaza.

The key components of a ceasefire agreement in Gaza took effect on Sunday, concluding 15 months of conflict that resulted in the deaths of tens of thousands of Palestinians and heightened tensions in the Middle East.

The commencement of the ceasefire was postponed by nearly three hours after Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu requested Hamas to submit a list of hostages scheduled for release that day. An Israeli official later confirmed that the list had been received.

While the mediators, Israel, and Hamas have not publicly disclosed the specifics of the agreement, officials familiar with the terms have outlined the following points:

  •  The initial ceasefire phase will last six weeks, during which Israeli forces will gradually withdraw from central Gaza, allowing displaced Palestinians to return to northern Gaza.
  •  The agreement stipulates that 600 truckloads of humanitarian aid will be permitted to enter Gaza daily throughout the ceasefire, with 50 of those trucks designated for fuel. Of the total, 300 trucks will be directed to the northern region, where civilian conditions are particularly dire.
  • Hamas is set to release 33 Israeli hostages, which includes all women (both soldiers and civilians), children, and men aged over 50. The release will prioritize female hostages and those under 19, followed by men over 50. According to the Israeli Prime Minister’s office, three female hostages are expected to be released via the Red Cross on Sunday after 1400 GMT.
  • In return, Israel will release 30 Palestinian detainees for each civilian hostage and 50 Palestinian detainees for every Israeli female soldier released by Hamas.
  • Under the agreement, Hamas will notify the International Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC) of the designated meeting point within Gaza, after which the ICRC will proceed to that location to retrieve the hostages.
  • Israel is set to release all Palestinian women and children under the age of 19 who have been detained since October 7, 2023, by the conclusion of the first phase. The total number of Palestinians released will be contingent upon the number of hostages freed, potentially ranging from 990 to 1,650, encompassing men, women, and children.
  • Hamas will facilitate the release of hostages over a six-week timeframe, ensuring that at least three hostages are freed each week, with the remaining 33 released by the end of this period. Living hostages will be prioritized for release, followed by the remains of deceased hostages.
  • The execution of this agreement will be overseen by Qatar, Egypt, and the United States.
  • Discussions regarding a second phase of the agreement are set to commence on the 16th day of the first phase, which is anticipated to encompass the release of all remaining hostages, including Israeli male soldiers, the establishment of a permanent ceasefire, and the complete withdrawal of Israeli forces.
  • The third phase is expected to involve the return of all remaining deceased individuals and the initiation of reconstruction efforts in Gaza, under the supervision of Egypt, Qatar, and the United Nations.

Israeli forces have initiated an attack on Gaza after the ceasefire deadline has passed

0
Smoke rises after an explosion in northern Gaza, before a ceasefire deal between Israel and Hamas goes into effect, as seen from Israel.

Israeli air and ground forces launched strikes on the northern Gaza Strip on Sunday, resulting in the deaths of eight individuals, according to Palestinian medical sources. This escalation occurred shortly after Israel and Hamas failed to meet a ceasefire deadline that could potentially bring an end to one of the most severe conflicts in the region in recent years.

The postponement of the ceasefire and the ensuing violence followed a request from Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, who, just an hour before the 0630 GMT deadline, asked Hamas to provide the names of three hostages scheduled for release that day as part of the agreement.

Hamas asserted its commitment to the ceasefire but cited “technical field reasons” for its inability to deliver the hostage list, without further details. The ceasefire arrangement holds the potential to conclude the ongoing Gaza conflict, which erupted after Hamas launched an attack on Israel on October 7, 2023, resulting in approximately 1,200 fatalities, as reported by Israeli officials.

In retaliation, Israel’s military actions have devastated the Gaza Strip, leading to nearly 47,000 Palestinian deaths, according to health authorities in Gaza. The conflict has also sparked broader tensions across the Middle East, particularly between Israel and Iran, which supports Hamas and various anti-Israeli and anti-American militant groups in the region.

Israeli military representatives stated on Sunday that their forces targeted “terror sites” in northern and central Gaza, emphasizing that operations would persist as long as Hamas failed to fulfill its commitments under the ceasefire agreement.

The Palestinian Civil Emergency Service reported that Israeli attacks resulted in the deaths of at least eight individuals, with many others injured. Medics indicated that tanks were targeting the Zeitoun area of Gaza City, while both an airstrike and tank fire struck the northern town of Beit Hanoun, causing residents who had returned in hopes of a ceasefire to flee once again.

The Israeli military clarified that an air raid siren that had sounded in the Sderot area of southern Israel was a false alarm.

In Khan Younis, celebratory gunfire and cheers were heard at 8:30 a.m. (0630 GMT), coinciding with the anticipated start of the ceasefire. Reports from pro-Hamas media indicated that Israeli forces began their withdrawal from areas in Gaza’s Rafah towards the Philadelphi corridor along the Egypt-Gaza border early on Sunday.

HOSTAGE LIST

Prime Minister Netanyahu requested a list of the first three hostages expected to be released shortly after the ceasefire, just one hour before the deadline. His office stated, “The prime minister instructed the IDF (Israel Defense Forces) that the ceasefire, scheduled to commence at 8:30 a.m., will not take effect until Israel receives the list of released abductees that Hamas has committed to providing.” Hamas attributed the delay to “technical” issues but assured that the names of the hostages would be disclosed soon.

The three-phase ceasefire agreement emerged after several months of intermittent negotiations facilitated by Egypt, Qatar, and the United States, coinciding with the upcoming inauguration of U.S. President-elect Donald Trump on January 20.

The initial phase will span six weeks, during which 33 of the remaining 98 hostages—comprising women, children, men over 50, and those who are ill or injured—will be released in exchange for nearly 2,000 Palestinian prisoners and detainees. This group includes 737 individuals, including men, women, and teenagers, some of whom are affiliated with militant organizations and have been convicted for attacks resulting in the deaths of numerous Israelis, alongside hundreds of Palestinians from Gaza who have been detained since the onset of the conflict.

The first three hostages, all women, are anticipated to be released via the Red Cross on Sunday. For each woman released, 30 Palestinian prisoners currently held in Israeli facilities will be freed. According to the agreement, Hamas will notify the International Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC) of the designated meeting point within Gaza, and the ICRC is expected to proceed to that location to retrieve the hostages, as reported by an official involved in the negotiations.

ENDING THE WAR?

Following the release of hostages on Sunday, lead U.S. negotiator Brett McGurk announced that the agreement stipulates the release of four additional female hostages within the next seven days, with three more hostages to be freed every subsequent week. The Biden administration collaborated closely with former President Trump’s Middle East envoy, Steve Witkoff, to finalize the arrangement. As Trump’s inauguration neared, he consistently urged for a swift resolution, cautioning that failure to secure the hostages’ release would result in severe consequences.

However, the future of Gaza remains uncertain without a comprehensive plan for the region’s postwar reconstruction, which will necessitate substantial financial investment and years of effort. While the ceasefire aims to bring an end to the conflict, its stability is precarious. Hamas, which has governed Gaza for nearly twenty years, has managed to endure despite significant losses in leadership and personnel. Israel has committed to preventing Hamas from regaining control and has cleared extensive areas within Gaza, a move interpreted as an effort to establish a buffer zone that would enable its forces to operate more freely against potential threats.

In Israel, the return of the hostages may alleviate some public discontent directed at Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and his right-wing administration, stemming from the security lapses that led to the tragic events of October 7, which marked the deadliest day in the nation’s history.

MIDEAST SHOCKWAVES

The conflict has reverberated throughout the region, igniting tensions with the Tehran-supported Lebanese Hezbollah and marking the first direct confrontation between Israel and its long-standing adversary, Iran. This situation has significantly altered the dynamics of the Middle East. Iran, which invested heavily in establishing a network of militant factions surrounding Israel, has witnessed the disintegration of its “Axis of Resistance” and has been unable to deliver more than minimal damage to Israel during two significant missile strikes.

Hezbollah, once perceived as the most formidable threat to Israel due to its extensive missile stockpile, has suffered the loss of its senior leadership and the destruction of a majority of its missiles and military assets.

On the diplomatic stage, Israel is grappling with widespread condemnation and isolation due to the casualties and destruction in Gaza. Prime Minister Netanyahu is contending with an arrest warrant from the International Criminal Court related to war crimes, alongside separate allegations of genocide at the International Court of Justice. Israel has responded vehemently to these accusations, dismissing them as politically driven and accusing South Africa, which initiated the ICJ case, along with the supporting nations, of antisemitism.

Gaza ceasefire postponed due to hostage list issues

0
Buildings lie in ruin in Beit Hanoun in the Gaza Strip, amid the ongoing conflict between Israel and Hamas, as seen from southern Israel.

A ceasefire in Gaza, scheduled to commence on Sunday morning, has been postponed following a request from Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu for Hamas to provide a list of hostages to be released that day. Hamas responded that it was unable to do so due to “technical” issues.

An Israeli military spokesperson stated at 0630 GMT, the time the ceasefire was expected to start, that Hamas was failing to fulfill its obligations, and Israel would persist with its military actions until its demands were met.

This anticipated ceasefire could potentially bring an end to a 15-month conflict that has significantly impacted the Middle East. Netanyahu announced just an hour before the ceasefire was set to begin that it would not take effect until Hamas submitted a list of the first three hostages scheduled for release on Sunday. His office confirmed that the prime minister directed the Israel Defense Forces (IDF) to delay the ceasefire, originally planned for 8:30 a.m., until the list of released individuals was received.

Hamas reiterated its commitment to the ceasefire agreement but attributed the delay in providing the names of the hostages to “technical field reasons,” without further details. Reports from pro-Hamas media indicated that Israeli forces had begun to withdraw from areas in Gaza’s Rafah towards the Philadelphi corridor along the Egypt-Gaza border early on Sunday. Explosions were reported in Gaza right up to the deadline, and at 0630 GMT (8:30 a.m. local time), residents in Khan Younis celebrated, with gunfire heard in the air.

Israel’s military has issued a warning to residents of Gaza, advising them to avoid approaching its forces or moving throughout the Palestinian territory as the ceasefire deadline approaches. They stated that once movement is permitted, a formal announcement with guidelines for safe transit will be provided.

This ceasefire agreement, which consists of three phases, emerged after extensive negotiations facilitated by Egypt, Qatar, and the United States, coinciding with the upcoming inauguration of U.S. President-elect Donald Trump on January 20.

The initial phase will span six weeks, during which 33 of the remaining 98 hostages—comprising women, children, men over 50, and those who are ill or injured—will be released in exchange for nearly 2,000 Palestinian prisoners and detainees. This group includes 737 individuals of various ages, some of whom are affiliated with militant organizations and have been convicted of attacks resulting in numerous Israeli casualties, alongside hundreds of Palestinians from Gaza who have been detained since the conflict began.

On Sunday afternoon, three female hostages are anticipated to be released through the Red Cross, in exchange for 30 prisoners each. Following this release, U.S. negotiator Brett McGurk indicated that the agreement stipulates the release of four additional female hostages after a week, with three more hostages to be freed every subsequent week.

During this initial phase, the Israeli military will withdraw from certain positions in Gaza, allowing displaced Palestinians from northern Gaza to return to their homes.

U.S. President Joe Biden’s administration collaborated closely with Steve Witkoff, Trump’s Middle East envoy, to finalize the agreement. As Trump’s inauguration neared, he consistently urged for a swift resolution, cautioning that there would be severe consequences if the hostages were not freed.

FUTURE OF GAZA POST-CONFLICT?

The future of Gaza remains uncertain without a comprehensive plan for its postwar reconstruction, which will necessitate significant financial investment and years of effort. While the ceasefire aims to bring an end to the conflict, its stability is questionable. Hamas, which has governed Gaza for nearly twenty years, has managed to endure despite the loss of its senior leaders and numerous fighters.

Israel has committed to preventing Hamas from regaining control and has cleared extensive areas within Gaza, a move interpreted as an effort to establish a buffer zone that would enable its forces to operate more freely against potential threats in the region.

In Israel, the return of the hostages may alleviate some public discontent directed at Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and his right-wing administration regarding the security lapses that led to the tragic events of October 7, which marked the deadliest day in the nation’s history. However, hardline members of his government have already signaled their intention to withdraw support if military action against Hamas does not resume, placing Netanyahu in a challenging position between the U.S. push for peace and the demands of his far-right political partners.

If hostilities resume, numerous hostages may remain in Gaza.

MIDEAST SHOCKWAVES

The conflict has reverberated throughout the region, igniting a confrontation with the Iran-supported Lebanese Hezbollah and drawing Israel into direct engagement with its longstanding adversary, Iran, for the first time.

Over a year later, the landscape of the Middle East has dramatically changed. Iran, which invested heavily in establishing a network of militant factions surrounding Israel, has seen its “Axis of Resistance” severely weakened and has been unable to cause significant harm to Israel during two major missile offensives.

Hezbollah, once perceived as the most formidable threat to Israel due to its extensive missile stockpile, has been significantly diminished, with key leaders eliminated and much of its missile and military infrastructure obliterated.

In the wake of these events, the long-standing Assad regime in Syria has been dismantled, eliminating another key Iranian ally and leaving Israel’s military largely unopposed in the region.

On the diplomatic stage, Israel has encountered widespread condemnation and isolation due to the casualties and destruction in Gaza.

Prime Minister Netanyahu is facing an arrest warrant from the International Criminal Court for alleged war crimes, along with separate charges of genocide at the International Court of Justice.

Israel has responded vehemently to these allegations, dismissing them as politically driven and accusing South Africa, which initiated the ICJ case, along with the nations that have supported it, of antisemitism.

The conflict was ignited by Hamas’ assault on southern Israel on October 7, 2023, resulting in the deaths of 1,200 individuals and the abduction of over 250, as reported by Israeli sources. Since then, more than 400 Israeli soldiers have lost their lives in the ongoing combat in Gaza. Israel’s extensive military operation in Gaza, which has lasted 15 months, has devastated much of the densely populated coastal region, leading to nearly 47,000 Palestinian fatalities, according to figures from the Gaza health ministry.

The United Nations human rights office has indicated that the majority of the confirmed deaths are women and children. Israel contends that over one-third of those killed in Gaza are combatants.

NATO F-16 pilot dies in Russian attack – TASS

0
Ukrainian service personnel use searchlights as they search for drones in the sky over the city during a Russian drone strike, amid Russia's attack on Ukraine, in Kyiv, Ukraine.

Danish instructor Jepp Hansen, who was engaged in training Ukrainian pilots on F-16 fighter jets, has reportedly been killed in a Russian missile strike in Ukraine, according to TASS on Saturday.

Sources from Russian law enforcement have informed the agency that Hansen lost his life during an assault on a training facility located in Krivoy Rog, in the Dnepropetrovsk Region of central Ukraine.

Earlier, the Russian newspaper Gazeta reported that Russian forces utilized an Iskander missile to target a former university building in the city, which had been repurposed by the Ukrainian military as barracks. Reports indicate that the upper section of the four-story structure was nearly entirely destroyed, while the facade suffered extensive damage.

Russian media, referencing a social media post by Hansen’s friend, noted that he possessed considerable expertise in flying F-16 jets and had trained “hundreds of Ukrainians” in their operation.

As of now, neither Denmark nor the Russian Defense Ministry has provided an official statement regarding these reports.

In the previous year, the Netherlands and Denmark supplied 20 F-16s to Ukraine and have committed to delivering additional aircraft through 2025. Norway, Belgium, and Greece have also expressed intentions to send several fighter jets to Kyiv.

Moscow has condemned the Western arms deliveries, asserting that they will merely extend the conflict without altering its outcome. It has also characterized the provision of F-16s as an escalation of hostilities.

United States has stationed upgraded nuclear weapons in Europe

0
A frontal view of four B-61 nuclear gravity bombs on a cart.

The United States has finalized the modernization of its main thermonuclear weapon, as stated by NNSA Administrator Jill Hruby. She noted that the B61-12 variant of the gravity bomb has already been deployed at military bases in Europe as part of NATO’s nuclear weapons-sharing initiative.

The B61 series has been operational for more than five decades. The B61-12 Life Extension Program, which began in 2008, focuses on upgrading both the nuclear and non-nuclear components of the bomb, thereby extending its operational life by a minimum of 20 years. Earlier this month, the US National Nuclear Security Administration confirmed the program’s completion, with the last planned unit of the B61-12 now produced.

“The new B61-12 gravity bombs are fully forward deployed, and we have enhanced NATO’s awareness of our nuclear capabilities through visits to our enterprise and other regular engagements,” Hruby remarked during her address at the Hudson Institute on Thursday.

While Hruby did not provide specifics on what “full forward deployment” entails, previous variants of the B61 have been stored in Belgium, Germany, Italy, the Netherlands, and Türkiye as part of NATO’s nuclear sharing arrangement. Moscow estimates that at least 150 of these bombs are stationed across Europe, which lowers the nuclear threshold.

Additionally, the US intends to position its nuclear weapons in the UK, according to various reports that reference procurement contracts for a new Pentagon facility at the RAF station in Lakenheath, Suffolk, designated for B61-12 bombs.

“Our strategic partnership with the UK is robust, as is their dedication to their nuclear deterrent. We have also collaborated on enhancing our understanding of critical supply chain resilience,” Hruby stated, though she did not elaborate further.

In November, the Pentagon revealed a modification to its nuclear deterrence strategy. This strategy emphasizes heightened readiness for the Ohio-class submarines equipped with nuclear capabilities and the advancement of the B61-13 gravity bomb, aimed at providing the United States with “additional options against certain harder and larger military targets.” The National Nuclear Security Administration (NNSA) has confirmed that it is in the process of transitioning to the production of this new bomb variant.

The Kremlin has repeatedly condemned the military expansions by the United States, cautioning that the worldwide deployment of nuclear-capable weapons could elicit a corresponding response. In September, Russian President Vladimir Putin mandated a revision of the country’s nuclear doctrine, stating that “an aggression against the Russian Federation and/or its allies by any non-nuclear state with the participation or support of a nuclear state will be regarded as their joint attack.”

These modifications received approval in November, following the decision by the US and several Western nations to permit Ukraine to utilize foreign-made long-range weaponry for strikes deep within Russian territory, despite Moscow’s warnings that such actions would escalate the conflict and lead to NATO’s direct involvement.

In retaliation for Ukraine’s cross-border assaults using US-supplied ATACMS and HIMARS systems, as well as British-French Storm Shadow/SCALP missiles, Russia executed a ‘combat test’ of its new Oreshnik medium-range hypersonic missile against a military facility in Ukraine.

Last month, Russia and Belarus concluded a security agreement that solidifies plans to deploy Oreshnik missile systems in Belarus by 2025. Moscow asserts that these missiles cannot be intercepted by existing Western defense systems and are capable of reaching targets across Europe within minutes.

Israeli troops start withdrawing from Gaza in anticipation of a ceasefire, pro-Hamas media reports

0
An Israeli tank maneuvers, amid cross-border hostilities between Hezbollah and Israel, by Israel's border with Lebanon in northern Israel.

Israeli forces have begun their withdrawal from certain regions in Rafah, Gaza, moving towards the Philadelphi corridor along the Egypt-Gaza border, as reported by pro-Hamas media early Sunday.

A ceasefire between Israel and Hamas is scheduled to take effect on Sunday morning, with a subsequent hostage release planned for later in the day. This development may signal a potential conclusion to a 15-month conflict that has significantly impacted the Middle East.

The ceasefire agreement emerged after extensive negotiations facilitated by Egypt, Qatar, and the United States, coinciding with the upcoming inauguration of US President-elect Donald Trump on January 20. The ceasefire will be implemented in three phases, starting at 0630 GMT on Sunday.

The initial phase will span six weeks, during which 33 of the remaining 98 hostages—comprising women, children, men over 50, and those who are ill or injured—will be released in exchange for nearly 2,000 Palestinian prisoners and detainees. This group includes 737 individuals of various ages, some of whom are affiliated with militant organizations and have been convicted of attacks resulting in numerous Israeli casualties, alongside hundreds of Palestinians detained since the conflict began.

On Sunday afternoon, three female hostages are anticipated to be released through the Red Cross, with a reciprocal exchange of 30 prisoners for each. Following this initial release, US negotiator Brett McGurk indicated that the agreement stipulates the release of four additional female hostages after a week, with three more hostages to be freed every subsequent week. During this first phase, the Israeli military will withdraw from certain positions in Gaza, allowing displaced Palestinians from northern Gaza to return to their homes.

US President Joe Biden’s administration collaborated closely with Steve Witkoff, Trump’s Middle East envoy, to finalize the agreement. As Trump’s inauguration neared, he consistently urged for a swift resolution, cautioning that there would be severe consequences if the hostages were not freed.

Post-war Gaza?

What lies ahead for Gaza remains uncertain due to the lack of a comprehensive plan for the region’s postwar future, which will necessitate significant financial investment and extensive efforts for reconstruction. While the ceasefire aims to bring an end to the conflict, its stability is questionable. Hamas, which has governed Gaza for nearly twenty years, has managed to endure despite the loss of its senior leaders and numerous fighters.

Israel has declared that it will not permit Hamas to regain control and has cleared substantial areas within Gaza, a move interpreted as an effort to establish a buffer zone that would enable its forces to operate more freely against potential threats. The return of the hostages may alleviate some public discontent directed at Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and his right-wing administration regarding the security lapses that led to the tragic events of October 7.

However, hardline members of his government have already signaled their intention to resign if military action against Hamas does not resume, placing Netanyahu in a difficult position between the U.S. administration’s push for peace and the demands of his far-right political partners. Should hostilities restart, many hostages could remain stranded in Gaza.

Mideast Turmoil

The conflict in Gaza has reverberated throughout the Middle East, igniting a war with the Iran-supported Lebanese Hezbollah and marking Israel’s first direct confrontation with its long-standing adversary, Iran.

Over a year later, the landscape of the region has dramatically changed. Iran, which invested heavily in establishing a network of militant factions surrounding Israel, has seen its “Axis of Resistance” severely weakened, managing to inflict only minimal damage on Israel during two significant missile strikes.

Hezbollah, once perceived as the greatest threat to Israel due to its extensive missile stockpile, has been significantly diminished, with many of its senior leaders killed and a large portion of its missile capabilities and military infrastructure destroyed.

In the wake of these developments, the long-standing Assad regime in Syria has been dismantled, eliminating another key Iranian ally and leaving Israel’s military largely unopposed in the region.

However, on the diplomatic front, Israel has encountered widespread condemnation and isolation due to the extensive loss of life and destruction in Gaza.

Prime Minister Netanyahu is facing an arrest warrant from the International Criminal Court for alleged war crimes, along with separate genocide accusations at the International Court of Justice. Israel has responded vehemently to these allegations, dismissing them as politically motivated and accusing South Africa, which initiated the ICJ case, along with the supporting nations, of antisemitism.

The conflict was ignited by Hamas’ attack on southern Israel on October 7, 2023, resulting in the deaths of 1,200 individuals and over 250 hostages, according to Israeli reports. Since then, more than 400 Israeli soldiers have lost their lives in combat operations in Gaza.

Israel’s 15-month military campaign in Gaza has reportedly resulted in nearly 47,000 Palestinian deaths, as per figures from the Gaza health ministry, which does not differentiate between combatants and civilians, leaving the coastal enclave in ruins. Health officials indicate that the majority of the deceased are civilians, while Israel claims that over a third are militants.

Netanyahu says a Gaza ceasefire won’t happen until hostages’ names are revealed

0
Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu

Israeli Prime Minister Netanyahu has directed the Israeli military to delay the commencement of the ceasefire in Gaza, which is set to take effect at 8:30 a.m. (0630 GMT), until Hamas provides the names of the hostages to be released, according to a statement from his office on Sunday.

The statement indicated that the prime minister has instructed the IDF that the ceasefire will not be initiated at 8:30 a.m. until Israel receives the list of abductees that Hamas has committed to releasing.

Philippines and the United States conduct collaborative maritime drills in the South China Sea

0
A crew member works on the deck of the USS Carl Vinson aircraft carrier during an earlier maritime exercise in the Philippine Sea.

The Philippines and the United States conducted their fifth round of joint maritime exercises in the South China Sea, as reported by Manila’s armed forces on Sunday, a development likely to provoke China.

According to a statement from the Philippine military, the “maritime cooperative activity” took place on Friday and Saturday, marking the first such exercise of the year and the fifth since the initiation of these joint operations in 2023.

Under the leadership of Philippine President Ferdinand Marcos Jr., security collaborations between the two nations have intensified, with a shift towards closer ties with Washington. This has facilitated the expansion of military bases accessible to American forces, including those positioned near Taiwan.

The recent maritime exercises featured the U.S. Carl Vinson Carrier Strike Group, accompanied by two guided missile destroyers, two helicopters, and two F-18 Hornet aircraft.

On the Philippine side, the Antonio Luna frigate, Andres Bonifacio patrol ship, two FA-50 fighter jets, and air force search and rescue units were deployed.

The Philippine armed forces stated that these activities “reinforced bilateral maritime cooperation and interoperability.” This joint exercise coincided with the Philippines’ recent objections to the presence of Chinese coast guard vessels within its maritime zone, including a notably large ship referred to as “the monster” due to its size.

The Chinese embassy in Manila did not provide an immediate response to requests for comment over the weekend.

Trump intends to travel to China during his presidency, according to reports from the Wall Street Journal

0
U.S. President Donald Trump poses for a photo with China's President Xi Jinping before their bilateral meeting during the G20 leaders summit in Osaka, Japan.

U.S. President-elect Donald Trump has indicated to his advisers a desire to visit China following his inauguration, as reported by the Wall Street Journal on Saturday, citing sources familiar with the matter. According to the report, Trump is particularly interested in making this trip within his first 100 days in office.

With Trump’s inauguration set for Monday, Chinese state media announced on Friday that Vice President Han Zheng will be present, signaling Beijing’s readiness to enhance cooperation.

Discussions have taken place between Trump and Chinese President Xi Jinping, facilitated by their representatives, regarding a potential in-person meeting. One possibility includes Trump inviting Xi to the United States, as noted by the WSJ. The Chinese embassy in Washington has not yet responded to inquiries for comment.

Malaysia takes the lead in ASEAN while balancing expectations regarding Myanmar and the South China Sea

0
The ASEAN flag is placed alongside the flags of its member countries ahead of the ASEAN Foreign Ministers' Retreat in Langkawi, Malaysia.

Southeast Asian foreign ministers convened for a private retreat in Malaysia on Sunday, marking the country’s inaugural meeting as the chair of the ASEAN regional bloc. This gathering occurs against the backdrop of a worsening civil conflict in Myanmar and ongoing tensions in the South China Sea.

As Malaysia assumes the rotating chairmanship of the 10-member Association of Southeast Asian Nations, the bloc faces challenges posed by China’s assertive actions in the South China Sea and a stalled peace process regarding Myanmar, where the military government intends to conduct elections this year.

While Malaysia is dedicated to tackling regional challenges, a senior official cautioned that expectations regarding Myanmar and the progress of discussions on an ASEAN-China code of conduct for the South China Sea should be tempered. “Claiming that we will find an immediate solution would be overly ambitious,” stated Amran Mohamed Zin, the secretary general of the Malaysian foreign ministry, during a media briefing prior to the retreat on Langkawi island.

Since the military coup in early 2021 that ousted an elected civilian government, Myanmar has been engulfed in chaos, leading to pro-democracy protests that have escalated into a widespread armed rebellion across the nation. Despite facing numerous challenges, including a devastated economy and the banning of numerous political parties, the junta is determined to proceed with elections this year, which critics have condemned as a façade to maintain military control through proxies.

To date, ASEAN has struggled to implement a “Five-Point Consensus” peace plan introduced shortly after the coup, which calls for dialogue and a cessation of hostilities, and has yet to establish a unified stance on the upcoming election. “Everyone is eager to assist Myanmar… engagements have taken place and will persist under Malaysia’s leadership,” Amran remarked.

TENTATIVE PROGRESS

Amran emphasized that each ASEAN member state has a crucial role in maintaining the South China Sea as a “sea of peace and trade.” He noted that initial steps have been taken towards establishing a code of conduct with China, which asserts its sovereignty over a significant portion of this vital waterway.

The South China Sea is a key route for approximately $3 trillion in annual maritime trade and has witnessed intense confrontations in recent years, particularly between the Philippines and China, a principal player in the region’s trade and investment landscape. Additionally, Vietnam and Malaysia have raised concerns regarding the actions of Chinese vessels operating within their exclusive economic zones, which China claims are functioning lawfully within its jurisdiction.

On Saturday, the Philippine foreign minister indicated to Reuters that it is time to address complex “milestone issues” related to the long-standing code, such as its scope and the potential for it to be legally binding. Adib Zalkapli, managing director at Viewfinder Global Affairs, remarked that while there is political will in Malaysia to seek a resolution for Myanmar, tangible advancements on regulations for the South China Sea are unlikely during Malaysia’s leadership. “It remains a matter that the claimant states must manage and contain to prevent unnecessary escalation,” Abib stated.

German ambassador warns against Trump’s initiative to change the constitutional framework, per a document

0
Donald Trump gestures at Turning Point USA's AmericaFest in Phoenix, Arizona, U.S.

Germany’s ambassador to the United States has expressed concerns that the forthcoming Trump administration may undermine the independence of U.S. law enforcement and the media, while granting significant influence to major technology companies. This warning is detailed in a confidential document reviewed by Reuters.

Dated January 14 and authored by Ambassador Andreas Michaelis, the briefing outlines Donald Trump’s objectives for his anticipated second term as one characterized by “maximum disruption,” which could lead to a “redefinition of the constitutional order” that concentrates power in the presidency at the expense of Congress and state governments.

The document states that “fundamental democratic principles and checks and balances will be significantly weakened,” with the legislature, law enforcement, and media potentially being politicized and stripped of their autonomy, while Big Tech is positioned to gain co-governing authority.

Trump’s transition team has not yet responded to the ambassador’s remarks. The German foreign ministry acknowledged that U.S. voters elected Trump through a democratic process and expressed a commitment to collaborating closely with the new U.S. administration for the benefit of Germany and Europe.

Chancellor Olaf Scholz’s outgoing government has largely avoided overt public criticism of Trump since the election; however, the ambassador’s confidential insights provide a candid perspective from a high-ranking German official. Typically, ambassadors remain in their positions during a new administration unless a change is warranted for diplomatic reasons.

The document highlights the judiciary, particularly the U.S. Supreme Court, as pivotal to Trump’s efforts to advance his agenda, noting that while the court has recently expanded presidential powers, “even the most vocal critics believe it will mitigate the worst outcomes.”

Michaelis views the control of the Justice Department and the FBI as crucial for Trump to achieve his political and personal ambitions, which include mass deportations, revenge against perceived adversaries, and legal immunity. He asserts that Trump possesses extensive legal avenues to impose his agenda on the states, suggesting that “even military deployment for law enforcement purposes could be feasible in the case of a declared ‘insurrection’ or ‘invasion.'”

The 1878 Posse Comitatus Act restricts federal military involvement in domestic law enforcement, although there are certain exceptions. Michaelis also anticipates a “redefinition of the First Amendment,” noting that Trump and billionaire Elon Musk are already taking measures against critics and media outlets that do not comply. “One is utilizing lawsuits, threatening criminal charges and license revocation, while the other is manipulating algorithms and blocking accounts,” he states in the document.

Musk’s ongoing support for the far-right Alternative for Germany (AfD) in advance of the February 23 national election has sparked backlash in Berlin, yet the government has refrained from a unanimous departure from his platform. Berlin experienced a particularly strained relationship with the United States during Trump’s first term, facing significant tariffs and criticism for not meeting NATO’s defense spending targets.

Widespread blackouts have affected large areas of army-controlled Sudan following drone strikes

0
Plumes of smoke rise during clashes between the paramilitary Rapid Support Forces and the army in Khartoum, Sudan.

Most regions in Sudan under army control are experiencing widespread blackouts due to drone strikes on power generation facilities carried out by the paramilitary Rapid Support Forces, as reported by government officials and local residents to Reuters.

The outages commenced on Monday following drone assaults on the Merowe Dam, the largest in the country, which impacted the northern state of Sudan. Additionally, a technical malfunction affected the River Nile and Red Sea states. The situation worsened on Saturday after an overnight attack on the al-Shouk power station in eastern Sudan, leading to power outages in Gedaref, Kassala, and Sennar states, according to officials and residents.

These blackouts predominantly affect areas still under army control, which has been engaged in a nearly two-year conflict with the RSF, the latter of which governs much of the western region of the country. The ongoing fighting has also disrupted electricity generation in most RSF-held territories.

The regions experiencing blackouts are home to millions of internally displaced individuals, exacerbating the strain on living conditions and infrastructure.

“The assault on the power station has resulted in the loss of electricity to hospitals, schools, and water facilities, endangering civilian lives, especially in these challenging humanitarian conditions,” stated the human rights organization Emergency Lawyers. “These attacks not only strip civilians of their fundamental rights but also heighten the risk of further violence,” they added.

The conflict in Sudan has led to the displacement of over 12 million people, and the global hunger monitor has estimated that approximately 24.6 million individuals, or nearly half of the Sudanese population, are in urgent need of food assistance through May.

Residents of Omdurman, located in the broader Khartoum region and partially under military control, have reported the closure of bakeries, leading many to draw water from the Nile River. Meanwhile, engineers are making efforts to restore functionality at the Merowe power station, although they have not yet achieved success, according to sources in the area.

Russia and Iran bolster their partnership following challenges in Syria

0
Russian President Vladimir Putin meets Iranian counterpart Masoud Pezeshkian on the sidelines of a cultural forum dedicated to the 300th anniversary of the birth of the Turkmen poet and philosopher Magtymguly Fragi, in Ashgabat, Turkmenistan.

Iran and Russia have finalized a long-awaited cooperation agreement, solidifying their relationship as both nations confront increasing geopolitical challenges.

The 20-year pact, signed by Iranian President Masoud Pezeshkian and Russian President Vladimir Putin in Moscow on Friday, enhances military and defense collaboration. It includes a provision ensuring that neither country will permit its territory to be used for actions that could jeopardize the other’s security, nor will they assist any entity that attacks either nation.

Discussions about such an agreement have been ongoing for years, but recent developments have intensified the urgency for its establishment.

For Russia, the ongoing conflict in Ukraine has strained its geopolitical influence, while Iran, alongside Moscow, has been dealing with Western sanctions and the repercussions of Israel’s assaults on its regional allies, compounded by the collapse of Bashar al-Assad’s regime in Syria earlier this month.

Syria has arguably been a significant factor driving the enhancement of ties, as both nations have lost a crucial ally in al-Assad, diminishing their influence in the broader Middle East.

Ultimately, both Moscow and Tehran have shown a willingness to move beyond their support for al-Assad, having been taken by surprise by the opposition’s advances. They now seem dedicated to fortifying their bilateral relationship.

The establishment of the Comprehensive Strategic Partnership Agreement during Pezeshkian’s official visit to Moscow signifies a notable development.

This agreement not only enhances Russian-Iranian collaboration concerning Ukraine and strategies to circumvent Western sanctions but also supports the North-South Transport Corridor—an initiative promoted by Moscow to streamline trade from Asia to Russia.

This route aims to avoid geopolitical bottlenecks such as the Suez Canal and the Baltic Sea, favoring a land corridor that traverses Iran, Azerbaijan, and the Caspian Sea.

Syria as a catalyst

Before the onset of the Syrian war in 2011, both Moscow and Tehran had established their own strategic alliances with Damascus.

Russia’s partnership was primarily linked to the naval base in Tartous, created in 1971 to extend its influence in the Mediterranean, and the Khmeimim airbase, which was constructed in 2015 to support al-Assad against the Syrian opposition. Over time, this airbase has become crucial for Moscow’s operations in Africa.

Conversely, Iran strengthened its ties during the Iran-Iraq war in the 1980s, motivated by a shared opposition to Western intervention in the region. Syria emerged as a vital link to the Lebanese Shia group Hezbollah, integral to Iran’s “Shia crescent” and “axis of resistance.”

Iranian and Russian strategic interests aligned in Syria as the conflict evolved, particularly in 2015, when both nations intervened decisively to thwart an opposition victory.

Russia’s military involvement in 2015 helped stabilize President al-Assad’s regime, supported by Iranian-backed militias that were instrumental in shifting the momentum of the war.

“Since then, the relationship between Russia and Iran has broadened,” stated Kirill Semenov, a non-resident expert at the Russian International Affairs Council, in an interview. “Post-2020, developments in Syria have had a limited effect on Russian-Iranian relations, which have diversified into various new areas.”

These areas encompass military collaboration and an increase in economic partnerships, with Tehran and Moscow striving to circumvent Western sanctions through alternative financial systems and energy agreements. Iran has also emerged as a crucial transit point for Russia’s North-South Transport Corridor, providing an essential trade route to Asia.

The relationship has further strengthened since the onset of the Russia-Ukraine conflict, during which Russia has utilized Iranian-supplied drones, motivated by mutual interests in challenging the perceived global dominance of the United States. Both nations are exploring alternatives to the US-led international framework, with Iran perceiving Russia as a key ally in its shift towards the East.

Iran’s accession to the BRICS group of emerging economies in 2023, which already included Russia, can be interpreted as a strategic move towards greater collaboration. BRICS serves as a platform for Iran to pursue membership and align itself with a multipolar economic bloc that resonates with its objectives.

Semenov emphasized that the pursuit of a multipolar world and the need to counter the expansionist ambitions of the United States and the collective West are fundamental to the cooperation between Russia and Iran.

This shared adversarial perspective has fostered a closer relationship between the two nations, according to Hamidreza Azizi, a visiting fellow at the German Institute for International Security Affairs.

Azizi noted that both countries have made strides to enhance their relationship into a strategic partnership, particularly in military, security, and increasingly economic cooperation, aimed at circumventing sanctions and addressing the adverse effects of Western economic pressures.

Limits to a Russian-Iranian partnership

However, there are limitations to the Russian-Iranian partnership. The cooperation agreement signed recently indicates a strengthening of ties but lacks a mutual defense clause and does not establish a formal alliance, in contrast to the treaty Russia entered into with North Korea last year.

This may highlight the constraints within the Iran-Russia relationship, which have already been evident in Syria, where both nations struggled to find common ground and often undermined each other’s efforts in the reconstruction of the war-torn country.

In 2017, Russian Deputy Prime Minister Dmitry Rogozin asserted that Russia would be the sole nation responsible for the reconstruction of Syria’s energy sector. Meanwhile, Iran, eager to capitalize on the reconstruction opportunities, found itself sidelined by both al-Assad and Moscow, with one Iranian parliament member cautioning that Iran was being “sacrificed.”

The evolving Syrian administration could also highlight differences between Russia and Iran, as Moscow is likely to adopt a more accommodating stance.

Azizi pointed out that the implications of al-Assad’s potential downfall for both Russia and Iran will hinge on various factors, including “whether there has been any covert agreement or understanding between Russia and the US, Turkiye, and the former Syrian rebels, as part of a broader deal encompassing Syria and Ukraine.”

He further explained that if Russia can retain its military installations in Syria, even in a diminished role, and if a resolution to the Ukraine conflict is reached following the inauguration of [US President-elect] Donald Trump, Russia might find itself less reliant on Iranian support in both Syria and Ukraine. However, Azizi expressed skepticism about any significant shifts in Iran-Russia relations, citing the “growing depth of cooperation” observed in recent years.

Divergence may also occur in various other domains, particularly regarding nuclear weapons, which the West has accused Iran of pursuing. Officially, Iran’s defense doctrine rejects the development of nuclear arms; however, certain factions within the country have recently advocated for a shift in this stance following Israel’s significant actions against its allies, notably Hezbollah in Lebanon.

Historically, Russia has played a role in Iran’s nuclear initiatives, including the construction of the Bushehr nuclear power facility, but it has often hindered progress during the 2000s and 2010s, leading some Iranian officials to label Russia as an unreliable ally. Additionally, Moscow postponed the delivery of the S-300 missile defense system from 2010 to 2016 due to sanctions imposed on Tehran by Western countries.

“Russia is not inclined to allow Iran to acquire nuclear weapons, as this would disrupt the balance of power in the Middle East to Russia’s detriment. Ideally, Russia prefers Iran to remain under sanctions while it confronts the US and Europe regarding its nuclear ambitions,” stated Armin Montazeri, foreign policy editor at Hammihan Daily in Tehran.

“Should Russia engage in efforts to contain Iran, it would likely demand concessions from the US concerning the Ukraine situation,” Montazeri further noted.

Evolving Alliances in the Middle East

Geopolitical landscapes are subject to change based on real-time developments, as evidenced by the situation in Syria. The absence of strong ideological ties beyond a shared anti-US sentiment could lead to a deterioration of relations between Iran and Russia.

The shifting nature of alliances is illustrated by Turkiye’s stance, which opposes Iran and Russia while simultaneously cooperating with them.

In December 2024, as the Assad regime faced collapse, the foreign ministers of Turkey, Iran, and Russia met on the sidelines of the Doha Forum in Qatar.

The tripartite meeting was held as part of the Astana process, a diplomatic effort focused on addressing the Syrian conflict, with Russia and Iran acting as guarantors for the regime and Turkiye representing the opposition.

Astana provided a platform for these three nations to collaborate on security objectives in Syria, despite their support for opposing factions. However, throughout much of this process, Turkiye found itself in a relatively weaker position, particularly in light of what was perceived as al-Assad’s effective victory in the conflict.

This dynamic has shifted, as Turkiye’s enduring backing of the former opposition now positions it as a significant player in relation to Iran and Russia, allowing it to exert influence over Damascus.

Omer Ozkizilcik, director of Turkish Studies at the Omran Center for Strategic Studies in Istanbul, noted that this new reality necessitates adaptation from all parties involved.

“Iran, while clearly at a disadvantage, will need to recalibrate its approach and forge some type of relationship with Syria’s new government,” Ozkizilcik stated, highlighting the extensive freedom granted to Iran by the Assad regime to operate within Syrian borders.

Meanwhile, Russia, while aiming to maintain its military presence in Syria, is also diversifying its strategy by engaging more with Libya, where it has established a close relationship with the eastern government in Benghazi, evidenced by multiple flights of Russian cargo planes to its al-Khadim base.

Conversely, Iran appears to be consolidating its position in Iraq, reportedly urging its allies there to cease rocket and drone attacks on Israel, which may have provoked US-Israeli strikes against their positions.

In this context, Iran is likely to strengthen its influence in Iraq, which Montazeri describes as “the last pillars of Iran’s axis of resistance.”

Iraq currently plays a crucial role as a financial asset and a defensive shield for Tehran, which depends on the nation for economic assistance in light of ongoing sanctions.

Seyed Emamian, co-founder of the Governance and Policy think tank in Tehran, noted that Iran has a track record of adjusting to evolving geopolitical circumstances and is likely to endure any shifts while preserving its ties with Russia.

Regardless of the agreements that may arise between Russia and the US after Trump’s inauguration, Iran’s leadership does not anticipate a significant change in Putin’s strategic approach towards Iran.

“Putin is acutely aware of the anti-Russian sentiments prevalent within the US and European institutions,” Emamian stated.

“Over the past three years, Russia has confronted what it views as a fundamental threat from the West … it appears improbable that Putin would jeopardize his long-standing alliances, particularly with those who have demonstrated their loyalty during critical times, such as in Syria and Crimea,” Emamian further remarked.

Ukraine has reported that it targeted oil depots located in the Kaluga and Tula regions of Russia

0
Firefighters work at a site of a building damaged during a Russian drone strike, amid Russia's attack on Ukraine, in Kyiv region, Ukraine.

Ukraine reported on Saturday that it had conducted attacks on oil depots located in western Russia, marking a continuation of its air campaign targeting strategic sites within Russian territory. The General Staff of Kyiv announced that its forces had targeted storage facilities during the night in the Kaluga and Tula regions, with damage assessments still ongoing. These depots were identified as contributing to Moscow’s military operations in Ukraine.

Vladislav Shapsha, the regional governor of Kaluga, mentioned on Telegram that a fire erupted following an attack on an industrial site in the city of Lyudinovo. He also noted that seven drones had been intercepted, with one landing in a “non-residential area.” Meanwhile, Dmitry Milyaev, the governor of Tula, reported on Telegram that a fuel and lubricant tank ignited at a facility in the region due to a Ukrainian drone strike.

Ukrainian forces have intensified their operations within Russia, focusing on oil depots and military production sites, as they face ongoing Russian advances on the eastern front. In response, Russia has continued its air strikes on Ukrainian cities, resulting in four fatalities in a missile attack on central Kyiv on Saturday.

As both sides prepare for the inauguration of U.S. President-elect Donald Trump on Monday, who has expressed intentions to pursue a rapid resolution to the conflict, they are actively seeking to strengthen their positions in the nearly three-year-long invasion of Ukraine.

Philippines urges ASEAN and China to address complex issues regarding the South China Sea code

0

The ASEAN regional bloc and China need to make progress on the long-standing code of conduct for the South China Sea by addressing critical “milestone issues,” such as its scope and the potential for it to be legally binding, according to the Philippines‘ foreign minister on Saturday.

The South China Sea continues to be a point of contention between China and its neighboring countries, including the Philippines, Vietnam, and Malaysia. Relations between Beijing and Manila, a U.S. ally, have deteriorated significantly, with frequent confrontations raising concerns about the possibility of conflict.

In 2002, the Association of Southeast Asian Nations and China committed to developing a code of conduct, but it took 15 years to initiate discussions, and progress has been sluggish. In an interview prior to a meeting with his ASEAN counterparts on the Malaysian island of Langkawi, Philippine Foreign Minister Enrique Manalo stated that while discussions on the code are progressing, it is crucial to begin addressing the more complex and significant issues.

“It is essential that we focus on topics that have not been thoroughly discussed or negotiated,” Manalo remarked to Reuters. These topics include the code’s scope, its legal binding status, and its implications for third-party nations. He emphasized the goal of creating a code that is both effective and substantive. “We must start tackling these critical issues,” Manalo concluded. “This could be the best approach to advance the negotiations.”

Beijing asserts its sovereignty over a significant portion of the South China Sea, a claim it supports with a fleet of coast guard and fishing militia. Some neighboring countries have accused these forces of aggressive actions that disrupt fishing and energy operations within their exclusive economic zones. China maintains that its activities are lawful within its territory and rejects the 2016 arbitration ruling that deemed its claims to be unfounded under international law.

U.S. INTERESTS REMAIN STRONG

Manalo noted that as President-elect Donald Trump prepares to assume office, there are no indications that the United States will reconsider its involvement in Southeast Asia. “We have not observed any signs of a reduction or significant change,” he stated. “We must wait for the new administration to take charge. However, based on current observations, U.S. interests remain intact.”

He also highlighted that the ongoing civil conflict in military-led Myanmar poses a significant challenge for ASEAN, which has excluded the military leaders from meetings due to their failure to implement the organization’s peace plan. The junta intends to conduct elections this year, but many opponents are either barred from participating or have chosen not to run.

Manalo expressed that it is too early to determine whether ASEAN will set preconditions for recognizing the elections, which he believes should involve broad participation from the populace. “If elections occur without being perceived as inclusive and transparent, it would be challenging for them to gain legitimacy,” he remarked.

Trump claims credit for the Gaza ceasefire; will he succeed in its implementation?

0
Protesters outside Israeli Defence Ministry headquarters in Tel Aviv call on President-elect Donald Trump to end the war in Gaza.

Donald Trump successfully brokered a ceasefire in the Gaza Strip, but the challenges ahead for the President-elect will be unprecedented, as he must enforce this agreement in a region eager to reignite hostilities and face a resolute Hamas.

Analysts suggest that Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu‘s recent acceptance of the ceasefire is partly motivated by his desire to establish a positive relationship with Trump, who enjoys significant popularity in Israel.

Trump has indicated a willingness to support Netanyahu on issues such as the expansion of Israeli settlements in the occupied West Bank and arms sales. He has appointed Mike Huckabee, a staunch advocate for West Bank annexation who has famously stated that “there is no such thing as a settlement,” as his ambassador to Israel.

During a Senate hearing this week, Marco Rubio, Trump’s nominee for Secretary of State, hinted that the new administration might lift sanctions imposed by the Biden administration last year on Israeli settlers and challenge the International Criminal Court regarding its genocide case against Israel.

William Usher, a former senior Middle East analyst at the CIA, noted in an interview, “I believe one of the reasons Netanyahu agreed to the deal was Trump’s desire for Israel to accept it. It’s likely that Netanyahu is looking for some last-minute concessions from Trump, such as approval for continued settlement expansion.”

The initial stage of the ceasefire is clear-cut and generally well-received in Israel, meaning it will not necessitate significant encouragement from Trump. This phase stipulates that Hamas must release 33 Israeli hostages in exchange for Israel liberating approximately 1,000 Palestinian prisoners.

Trump will take advantage of the compelling visuals of hostages being freed coinciding with his inauguration on January 20. The comparison to Ronald Reagan’s inauguration in 1981, when Iran released embassy hostages, will resonate with the American public.

However, the initial goodwill is expected to diminish after six weeks, as Hamas and Israel will enter discussions for the second phase of the ceasefire.

The negotiations for the second phase are a far more delicate and contentious issue in Israel, as they involve the release of the remaining 65 hostages, including male Israeli soldiers, a complete Israeli withdrawal from Gaza, and the establishment of a permanent ceasefire.

Hamas and Arab intermediaries are advocating for the release of Marwan Barghouti, a well-known Palestinian leader, during this phase, a demand that Israel strongly opposed during the 2011 Gilad Shalit prisoner swap.

Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu is already facing the loss of one coalition member due to his agreement to the ceasefire, and more may follow if he adheres to the conditions that call for a definitive conclusion to the conflict.

Israeli media has reported that to secure the backing of far-right Finance Minister Bezalel Smotrich, Netanyahu has committed to maintaining military operations in Gaza.

If Trump aims to maintain stability in the Gaza Strip during his presidency while focusing on his “America First” domestic agenda, alongside resolving the conflict in Ukraine and addressing challenges posed by China, he may face challenges with Netanyahu.

Trump has already expressed frustration over the delays in the ceasefire approval from Israel’s cabinet, suggesting that Hamas reneged on certain aspects of the agreement.

“We shook hands, and we signed certain documents, but it better be done,” Trump stated in a podcast on Thursday. He has taken a proactive role in the ceasefire negotiations, announcing it as “EPIC” ahead of both Arab mediators and the Biden administration.

On Friday, Israel’s security cabinet ratified the agreement.

Arab mediators and regional officials are now questioning how Trump will uphold the ceasefire he has claimed responsibility for. While he has various incentives and pressures at his disposal, each faces limitations due to domestic and international policy considerations.

“Trump will regret owning this deal. It will either fail or succeed under his leadership, and it cannot rely solely on incentives,” remarked Aron David Miller, a former Middle East negotiator for both Republican and Democratic administrations, in an interview.

Trump 2.0

Trump’s return to the White House has already raised expectations in Israel.

A current US intelligence official said that individuals within the security establishment close to Netanyahu are considering the annexation of the Jordan Valley in the occupied West Bank, citing “security concerns.” This move could be strategically aligned with Trump’s recognition of Israeli sovereignty over the valley.

The Jordan Valley borders the Jordan River, which acts as a boundary between the occupied West Bank and Jordan. This area is known for its fertility and potential for development.

Approximately 90 percent of the valley falls under Area C, indicating it is fully controlled by Israeli security forces, in contrast to Area A, where the Palestinian Authority is responsible for policing and administration.

This situation presents a challenge for Trump. While he may attempt to maintain Israel’s position in the ceasefire, he has already addressed the more straightforward issues during his previous term.

The United States acknowledged Israel’s annexation of the occupied Golan Heights and relocated its embassy to Jerusalem.

“This is not the same as Trump 1.0, where he took unilateral actions that had little effect on broader Middle Eastern policies. Those were isolated measures. Trump 2.0 is significantly more complex, as he will face pressure regarding the annexation of the West Bank and support for a potential Iranian nuclear strike,” Miller stated.

Additionally, Trump has shared videos on social media featuring economist Jeffrey Sachs, who criticized Netanyahu as a “deep, dark son of a bitch” for involving the US in “endless wars.”

Transition officials informed that Trump is preparing to intensify sanctions enforcement against Iran, and his usual nominees have adopted a tough stance on the Islamic Republic.

Nevertheless, Trump’s closest advisors have indicated a willingness to negotiate a deal.

Reports suggest that Elon Musk met with Iran’s ambassador to the UN.

Trump’s Middle East envoy, Steve Witkoff, mentioned that they aim to address tensions surrounding Tehran’s nuclear program through diplomatic means.

Trump’s Retaliation?

Trump has already removed the Gaza ceasefire from his agenda.

If maintaining Netanyahu’s involvement in the agreement requires the annexation of the occupied West Bank, it could jeopardize his ambition to further the Abraham Accords and secure a Nobel Peace Prize.

“We will persist in promoting PEACE THROUGH STRENGTH across the region, leveraging the momentum from this ceasefire to broaden the Historic Abraham Accords,” Trump stated on Wednesday, referencing the 2020 normalization agreements between Israel, the UAE, Bahrain, and Morocco.

The Biden administration attempted, but ultimately failed, to expand the Abraham Accords by including Saudi Arabia. The attack by Hamas on southern Israel on October 7, 2023, complicated these efforts. Riyadh has indicated that it requires tangible steps toward establishing a Palestinian state as a prerequisite for normalization.

Should Israel proceed with the annexation of significant portions of the occupied West Bank, it would complicate Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman’s commitment. He must consider whether his citizens will accept normalization with a nation he has publicly accused of “genocide.”

Trump’s leverage to ensure Netanyahu’s compliance in the agreement is the same tactic Biden opted not to employ during 15 months of conflict: the suspension of arms transfers.

Analysts suggest that, given Trump’s backing from evangelical Christians and pro-Israel lobbying groups, such a scenario is improbable.

Trump publicly clashed with Netanyahu following the latter’s acknowledgment of Biden’s election win, expressing his discontent by stating, “Fuck him (Netanyahu)” in response to the congratulations extended to his rival.

Currently, Netanyahu must navigate his position as Israel’s prime minister after agreeing to a ceasefire. Far-right minister Ben Gvir has indicated he will resign once the agreement is ratified, while Smotrich has threatened to step down if hostilities do not resume after the initial phase. Should these threats materialize, Netanyahu could be left with a minority government or be compelled to call for new elections.

The ultimate irony for Trump lies in the fact that the agreement he pressured Netanyahu into accepting now jeopardizes his own political future.

Delegation from Taiwan is set to extend its warmest congratulations at Trump’s inauguration

0

The leader of Taiwan‘s delegation attending Donald Trump‘s inauguration as U.S. president next week stated on Saturday that he aims to convey the island’s “highest blessings” to the United States. Taiwan, which China considers part of its territory, received significant backing from the previous Trump administration, including the regularization of arms sales that have persisted under President Joe Biden. However, Trump’s campaign remarks about Taiwan needing to pay for its defense caused some concern in Taipei.

Han Kuo-yu, the speaker of Taiwan’s parliament and a prominent member of the opposition Kuomintang party who ran for president in 2020, expressed at Taoyuan airport before departing for Washington that many foreign leaders were also en route despite the forecast of heavy snowfall. “All members of our delegation are bringing this enthusiasm to the United States to represent our 23 million citizens, and we extend our highest blessings to the U.S. presidential team and the American people,” he stated.

Han is joined by a bipartisan group of seven other lawmakers. The Chinese delegation is headed by Vice President Han Zheng, and President Xi Jinping spoke with Trump on Friday, addressing various issues, including Taiwan. Han’s party typically advocates for strong relations and dialogue with China, while denying any pro-Beijing stance. The United States, like most nations, does not maintain formal diplomatic relations with Taiwan but is legally obligated to provide the island with defensive support.

In recent years, China has intensified its military pressure on Taiwan and has refused to engage with President Lai Ching-te, labeling him a “separatist.” Lai, who disputes China’s claims of sovereignty, has faced rejection of his overtures for dialogue. During a meeting late on Friday with Mike Pence, Trump’s vice president during his first term, Lai emphasized that in light of China’s threats and its growing ties with nations like Russia, democracies must collaborate closely.

Lai expressed to Pence that a strengthened partnership between Taiwan and the United States will enhance their collective ability to uphold global peace and stability.

A Historical Perspective: The Joint Strategy of India and Israel to Target Pakistan’s Nuclear Installations

0

In early 1984, reports led Pakistani authorities to believe that India, in collaboration with Israel, had devised a plan to dismantle Pakistan‘s emerging nuclear research facility in Kahuta. It was alleged that India and Israel had instilled fears regarding Pakistan’s development of an “Islamic” bomb, which could potentially be utilized by a Muslim nation or even a terrorist group, posing a threat to global security. Amidst domestic political challenges, this situation represented an unprecedented emergency for Pakistan.

Pakistan’s nuclear program commenced in earnest in 1975, following India’s first nuclear test in Pokhran. Prime Minister Zulfikar Ali Bhutto recruited nuclear scientist Dr. Abdul Qadeer Khan from the Almelo Uranium Enrichment Facility in the Netherlands, tasking him with initiating a similar nuclear initiative for Pakistan.

Initially, Bhutto assigned Dr. Khan to the Pakistan Atomic Energy Commission (PAEC), which was then led by Munir Ahmad. However, due to differing viewpoints between Khan and Ahmad, no significant advancements were achieved that year.

The prime minister sought to accelerate progress significantly. In July 1976, Dr. Khan was appointed to an independent role with the responsibility of developing a uranium enrichment program. Bhutto’s declaration during this period still echoes in the halls of authority: “Pakistanis would eat grass but they will make their bomb.” From that point on, Dr. Khan would report directly to the prime minister.

With Bhutto’s strong support, Dr. Khan initiated the establishment of the Engineering Research Laboratories in Kahuta. The project commenced on July 31, 1976, and within five years, it reached completion. On May 1, 1981, in acknowledgment of his contributions, the facility was renamed Dr. A.Q. Khan Research Laboratory.

However, was the facility adequately protected against foreign threats?

It soon became evident that safeguarding Kahuta was a critical concern after the Pakistani government recognized the vulnerability of its most sensitive site.

In 1979, as concerns grew about a potential Indian strike on the Kahuta research facility, Chief Martial Law Administrator General Ziaul Haq consulted Chief of Air Staff Air Marshal Anwar Shamim about enhancing security measures. The assessment was disheartening: “The Indian aircraft can reach the facility in three minutes, while the PAF would take eight minutes,” the air chief noted, “[This will] enable the Indians to attack and retreat before the PAF can respond.”

Given Kahuta’s proximity to the Pakistan-India border, it was determined that the most effective deterrent against an Indian assault would be to enhance air defense capabilities and acquire advanced fighter jets and armaments. Should India proceed with an attack on Kahuta, the new aircraft could facilitate a counterstrike against India’s nuclear research facilities in Trombay. The generals concluded that the F-16 Fighting Falcon would be the most appropriate aircraft for this mission.

In typical circumstances, Pakistan may not have acquired these advanced aircraft; however, the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan enabled Pakistan to enhance its ties with the United States for its own advantage. As part of the support extended to Pakistan, the U.S. proposed $400 million in aid. General Zia outright dismissed the initial tranche, labeling it as “peanuts” and inadequate in light of the expenses Pakistan was incurring due to the conflict.

The year 1983 commenced with a significant development, as the U.S. began supplying military equipment to Pakistan. Initially, the U.S. offered F-5Es and 5-Gs, which Pakistan declined. Subsequently, the U.S. agreed to sell F-16s, culminating in a deal signed in December 1981 for 40 F-16 fighter jets. The first three F-16s arrived in Pakistan on January 15, 1983.

Concurrently, a new chapter in Indo-Israeli relations was unfolding, marked by extensive cooperation across various sectors. Israel aimed to dismantle Pakistan’s nuclear capabilities, similar to its actions in Osiraq, Iraq, in 1981. In their 2007 book, Deception: Pakistan, the United States and the Global Nuclear Conspiracy, investigative journalists Adrian Levy and Catherine Scott Clark reveal that Indian military officials covertly visited Israel in February 1983 to procure equipment designed to neutralize the air defenses at Kahuta.

The agreement reached between India and Israel established a strategic operation: Israel would launch an assault on Kahuta from Indian military bases, with Levy and Clark asserting that Indira Gandhi approved the Israeli-led initiative in March 1984. As tensions escalated, both nations were compelled to withdraw after the US State Department cautioned India that “the US will be responsive if India persists.”

However, this withdrawal was not solely due to American pressure; Pakistan also communicated through various global channels that any Indian strike on its nuclear facility in Kahuta would result in a retaliatory attack on the Bhabha Atomic Research Centre in Trombay, with the potential for far greater destruction.

Air Marshal M. Anwar Shamim, in his memoirs titled Cutting Edge PAF: A Former Air Chief’s Reminiscences of a Developing Air Force (2010), recounted that while discussions regarding the India-Israel alliance were ongoing, he urged Foreign Minister Sahibzada Yaqub Ali Khan to publicly declare Pakistan’s intent to retaliate if any actions were taken against its nuclear facilities.

During this period, Munir Hussain, who was the secretary of science and technology at the time, warned his Indian counterpart at a scientific conference that India would face catastrophic consequences if it proceeded with such an attack. The Indian delegate responded, “No brother, we know your capability and we will not undertake such a mission.”

Perhaps the most significant communication came from the Pakistan Atomic Energy Commission to the Bhabha Atomic Research Centre, stating that Islamabad would target Mumbai if Kahuta were attacked. This threat of retaliation served as a crucial and effective deterrent.

In 1979, Israeli Prime Minister Menachem Begin wrote Margaret Thatcher about the Pakistan’s nuclear program

In the late 1970s, Pakistan recognized that Israel perceived its nuclear program as a significant threat. Concerns about a potential Israeli strike were heightened by specific attacks carried out between 1979 and 1981 against suppliers of AQ Khan in Europe, which the Pakistani government reasonably suspected were orchestrated by the Israeli Mossad. In 1979, Israeli Prime Minister Menachem Begin initiated a letter-writing campaign aimed at persuading Western leaders to take action against Pakistan’s nuclear ambitions. One notable letter from May 1979, directed to British Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher and now available in the NPIHP Digital Archive, emphasized that “to the people of Israel this could, one day, become a mortal danger.” Begin warned Thatcher about the implications of Pakistan’s collaboration with Colonel Qaddafi of Libya, highlighting the potential risks to the Middle East and the safety of Israeli citizens if such destructive weapons were to fall into the hands of an authoritarian leader like Qaddafi. The British Foreign and Commonwealth Office, however, was unimpressed and viewed Begin’s correspondence as a chance to address Israel’s own nuclear capabilities, reminding the Israeli government of their responsibility in preventing the proliferation of nuclear weapons in the region.

Concerns in Pakistan regarding a potential Israeli assault intensified following Israel’s successful operation against the Iraqi Osirak nuclear facility on June 7, 1981. The Pakistani leadership interpreted this incident as a clear indication that, while the United States might overlook a covert nuclear initiative like Iraq’s, Israel would not. In his book “Eating Grass,” former Brigadier General Feroz Hassan Khan elaborates on the apprehensions in Pakistan about a possible coordinated attack by Israel and India on the Kahuta nuclear site during the mid-1980s. Researchers Levy and Scott-Clark note that in 1984, the United States alerted Pakistan to the threat of an Indian-Israeli strike on Kahuta. They cite General K.M. Arif, Pakistan’s vice chief of army staff, who confirmed, “Our friends [the Americans] informed us of the intentions of the Israelis and Indians, and we communicated our response to them…”

The 1984 American alert regarding Pakistan was part of a broader context. Encouraged by Pakistan’s commitment to refrain from nuclear testing, the Reagan administration extended various leniencies towards Pakistan’s nuclear ambitions throughout the 1980s. Or Rabinowitz, in his book, Bargaining on Nuclear Tests, Explained how the Reagan administration opted to overlook Pakistan’s nuclear activities.

Israel contemplated initiating preemptive strikes on Pakistan’s nuclear installations

The Israeli military contemplated initiating preemptive strikes on Pakistan’s nuclear installations. The Israeli High Command authorized a plan for the Israeli Air Force to target the nuclear facilities in Kahuta, and the military reportedly constructed a detailed replica of these facilities in the Negev Desert, utilizing satellite imagery for Israeli pilots to conduct practice runs of the attacks. Initially, Israel aimed to execute the strike in collaboration with India; however, this proposal was declined by Delhi, leaving Tel Aviv to navigate the potential political repercussions independently. In the absence of direct Indian backing, Israel sought at least to secure landing and refueling permissions to facilitate the operation from Indian bases, but this request was also denied by Delhi, significantly complicating the Israeli mission.

In 2025, it is anticipated that global conflicts will escalate rather than be settled

0

Forecasting the future of international relations is inherently fraught with uncertainty. Historical evidence indicates that even the most assured predictions can prove inaccurate. For example, the Pentagon‘s last publication on ‘Soviet Military Power’ appeared in 1991, coinciding with the dissolution of the USSR. Likewise, a 1988 scenario from the RAND Corporation envisioned a nuclear conflict involving the Soviet Union and Pakistan over Afghanistan in 2004. Despite this, the instinct to foresee future developments is both natural and essential. The following is not a prediction but rather an effort to delineate plausible expectations for the global landscape in 2025.

Ukraine

The initiative by US President Donald Trump to broker a ceasefire along the frontlines in Ukraine is likely to be unsuccessful. The American strategy to “end the war” overlooks Russia‘s security interests and fails to address the fundamental issues at the heart of the conflict. Concurrently, the peace terms proposed by President Vladimir Putin in June 2024 will remain unacceptable to Washington, as they would effectively require Kiev to surrender and signify a strategic loss for the West.

Consequently, hostilities are expected to persist. In reaction to the dismissal of his proposal, a frustrated Trump will likely impose further sanctions on Moscow. However, he will refrain from any significant escalation that could provoke a Russian attack on NATO forces. Despite the strong anti-Russian sentiment, US assistance to Ukraine is anticipated to diminish, placing a greater burden on Western European countries. While the EU may be willing to intervene, the quality and extent of Western support for Ukraine are expected to decline.

On the battlefield, the momentum is likely to continue favoring Russia. Russian military forces are anticipated to drive Ukraine out of critical areas, including Donbass, Zaporozhye, and portions of the Kursk Region. In response, Ukraine will enlist younger, less experienced recruits to attempt to hinder Russia’s progress, although this approach is expected to yield limited results. Additionally, Kiev will increasingly depend on surprise tactics, such as border incursions and symbolic strikes deep within Russian territory, aiming to undermine the morale of the Russian populace.

On the domestic front, the United States and its allies may advocate for elections in Ukraine, seeking to replace Vladimir Zelensky—whose term ended last year—with General Valery Zaluzhny. While this political change could temporarily bolster Kiev’s leadership, it will not resolve the fundamental issues of economic decline and worsening living conditions faced by ordinary Ukrainians.

United States

Even with a peaceful transition of power, Trump’s second term is likely to be marked by ongoing tensions. The threat of assassination attempts will persist. Trump’s foreign policy, which is expected to be more pragmatic than Biden’s ideological approach, will include the following strategies:

  • Maintain NATO’s unity while insisting on increased financial contributions from European allies.
  •  Transfer a significant portion of the financial burden for Ukraine to the European Union.
  • Heighten economic pressure on China, exploiting its vulnerabilities to secure unfavorable trade agreements.

Trump is expected to closely align with Israel, backing its initiatives against Iran. With Tehran already in a weakened state, it will encounter stringent conditions regarding a nuclear agreement, and a refusal could lead to US military action against Iranian nuclear sites.

In 2025, Trump may meet with Putin, but this will not indicate an improvement in US-Russia relations. The rivalry between the two nations is likely to remain profound and persistent. Trump’s approach will focus on maintaining America’s global supremacy, often shifting the responsibilities of US commitments onto allies and partners, which may not serve their best interests.

Western Europe

European countries, cautious about Trump’s potential return, will eventually conform to his leadership. The EU’s reliance on the US for military and political guidance will intensify, even as European economies continue to contribute to the American financial landscape. Over the last thirty years, Western European leaders have evolved from national representatives to components of a transnational political framework centered in Washington. True advocates for national interests, such as Alternative for Germany and France’s Rassemblement National, continue to be sidelined politically.

Russophobia will persist as a unifying element in Western European politics. Contrary to common assumptions, this sentiment is not merely a product of US influence but is actively adopted by EU and UK leaders as a means of fostering unity. The Russian military actions in Ukraine have been portrayed as the initial phase of a perceived Russian effort to “capture Europe.”

In 2025, Germany’s newly formed coalition government will take an even firmer position against Moscow. However, concerns about a direct military confrontation with Russia will dissuade other European nations from sending troops to Ukraine. Instead, Western Europe will brace for a renewed Cold War, increasing military expenditures, ramping up production, and strengthening NATO’s eastern defenses.

Dissent within Europe is expected to be stifled. Political adversaries of the confrontational stance towards Russia will be labeled as “Putin’s useful idiots” or even as direct agents of Moscow. Hungary and Slovakia will continue to diverge in their relations with Russia, but their impact on EU policy will be minimal.

Middle East

Following notable military successes in 2024, Israel, supported by the United States, will seek to solidify its advancements against Iran. The strategy employed by the US and Israel will involve coordinated pressure, including military actions against Iranian proxies such as the Yemeni Houthis, alongside efforts to strengthen relationships with Gulf Arab monarchies under the Abraham Accords.

Although Russia entered into a treaty with Iran in January 2025, this agreement does not compel Moscow to take military action if Tehran is attacked. Therefore, a large-scale conflict in the Middle East involving both Russia and the US is unlikely. Internally, Iran is facing instability as Supreme Leader Ayatollah Khamenei, now 86 years old, approaches the twilight of his leadership.

Russia’s influence in the Middle East is set to decline as its military presence decreases. Nevertheless, maintaining logistical routes connecting Russia to Africa will continue to be a strategic focus.

East Asia

Tensions between the US and China are anticipated to escalate, driven by American initiatives aimed at containing China’s economic and technological growth. The United States will bolster alliances in Asia, particularly with Taiwan and the Philippines, to counteract Beijing’s influence. While the possibility of armed conflict over Taiwan or the South China Sea exists, it is deemed unlikely to occur in 2025.

The partnership between Russia and China is expected to strengthen, although it will not evolve into a formal military alliance. From a Western viewpoint, this collaboration will increasingly appear as an anti-American coalition. Together, Russia and China will work to challenge US global supremacy across geopolitical, military, and economic domains.

Russia’s immediate sphere of influence

Belarusian President Alexander Lukashenko is anticipated to secure another term in January 2025, further solidifying his partnership with Moscow. Concurrently, Russia aims to enhance its relations with Kazakhstan, although the absence of a strong vision for Eurasian integration from Moscow may pose challenges.

The year 2025 is likely to be characterized by strategic volatility, persistent conflicts, and increased geopolitical tensions. Global stability is still a distant goal.

Russian, Iranian presidents sign strategic partnership treaty

0

Russian President Vladimir Putin and Iranian President Masoud Pezeshkian engaged in discussions in Moscow on Friday, prior to the anticipated signing of a strategic partnership treaty that aims to enhance defense collaboration, a development that may raise concerns in the West.

During his inaugural visit to the Kremlin since assuming the presidency last July, Pezeshkian expressed optimism about the potential to finalize an agreement for the construction of a nuclear power plant in Iran with assistance from Russia.

Putin welcomed Pezeshkian in an impressive Kremlin chamber, where they convened at an elaborately decorated table adorned with the flags of both nations. “We will explore all facets of our cooperation and formalize a comprehensive strategic partnership agreement,” Putin stated. “This has been a long-term effort, and I am delighted that we have reached this stage,” he added, noting that the agreement is expected to enhance trade and economic relations.

Since the onset of the Ukraine conflict, Moscow has strengthened its relationships with Iran and other nations perceived as adversarial to the U.S., including North Korea. It has already established strategic agreements with Pyongyang and its close ally Belarus, as well as a partnership with China. The forthcoming 20-year agreement between Russia and Iran is not anticipated to feature a mutual defense clause similar to those established with Minsk and Pyongyang; however, it is likely to be viewed with apprehension by the West, which regards both nations as negative forces on the global stage.

Moscow and Tehran assert that their growing partnership is not aimed at opposing other nations. Russia has extensively utilized Iranian drones in the conflict in Ukraine, and in September, the United States accused Tehran of supplying short-range ballistic missiles to Russia for deployment against Ukraine, a claim that Tehran refutes.

While the Kremlin has not confirmed the receipt of Iranian missiles, it has acknowledged that its collaboration with Iran encompasses “the most sensitive areas.” Historically, Russia has provided Iran with S-300 air defense missile systems, and there have been reports in Iranian media regarding interest in acquiring more advanced systems like the S-400, as well as advanced Russian fighter jets.

Pezeshkian’s visit to Moscow coincides with a period of diminishing Iranian influence in the Middle East, following the rise of Islamist rebels in Syria who have ousted ally Bashar al-Assad, and the significant military actions by Israel against Iran-backed Hamas in Gaza. Additionally, Israel has dealt substantial blows to Hezbollah, which is also supported by Tehran.

Russia is also facing challenges in Syria, where it operates two key military facilities vital to its geopolitical and military presence in the region and Africa, but their future is now uncertain under the new Syrian leadership.

Putin met with Pezeshkian during the BRICS summit in Kazan in October and again at a cultural forum in Turkmenistan that same month. Pezeshkian, who had discussions with Russian Prime Minister Mikhail Mishustin prior to meeting Putin, is accompanied by his oil minister, and it is expected that they will address Western sanctions on the oil sector and strategies to navigate them. Mishustin noted that both countries are actively working to enhance cooperation in transport, energy, education, tourism, and cultural domains.