Historic China-Canada Trade Reset Signals a Shifting Global Order

Historic China-Canada Trade Reset Signals a Shifting Global Order

    Friday, January 16, 2026   No comments

 In a landmark diplomatic and economic breakthrough, Canada and China have agreed to slash bilateral tariffs on key goods—including electric vehicles (EVs), canola, and seafood—marking what Canadian Prime Minister Mark Carney called a “historic reset” of relations strained for nearly a decade. The agreement, finalized during Carney’s state visit to Beijing—the first by a Canadian prime minister since 2017—comes not only in the wake of long-standing trade tensions but also amid growing global resistance to America’s increasingly unilateral economic coercion.

The Enduring Fallout of Trump-Era Protectionism—and Its Escalation

The roots of today’s China-Canada trade thaw lie in the turbulence unleashed by the Trump administration’s aggressive tariff regime. Beginning in 2018, Washington imposed sweeping duties on Chinese goods, triggering retaliatory measures from Beijing and setting off a chain reaction that ensnared allied economies like Canada’s. When Ottawa aligned with U.S.-led sanctions on Chinese EVs in 2024—imposing a blanket 100% tariff—Beijing responded by targeting Canadian agricultural exports, particularly canola, with tariffs soaring to 84%. The fallout was swift: by 2025, China’s imports of Canadian goods had dropped by 10.4%, hitting farmers and rural communities hardest.

Now, both nations are stepping back from the brink. Under the new deal, Canada will allow up to 49,000 Chinese EVs annually at a reduced 6.1% most-favored-nation tariff, while China will lower its canola seed tariff to approximately 15%. The changes take effect March 1, 2026, and are expected to unlock billions in trade across agriculture, fisheries, and clean tech sectors.

But this reset is not just about mending past wounds—it’s a strategic recalibration in response to a broader American policy trend that threatens global economic stability.

New U.S. Tariffs on Iran Partners Backfire Before They Even Take Effect

Adding fuel to this realignment is the Biden administration’s recently announced plan to impose 25% punitive tariffs on any country that conducts significant trade with Iran—a move ostensibly aimed at isolating Tehran but one that risks alienating two of the world’s largest economies: China and India. Both nations are among Iran’s top trading partners, with China alone importing over $20 billion in Iranian oil annually under long-term energy agreements, often settled in yuan or rupees to bypass U.S. financial controls.

Rather than compelling compliance, this latest U.S. sanction threat is accelerating a counter-movement. Countries unwilling to sacrifice lucrative partnerships with Iran—or bow to Washington’s extraterritorial demands—are deepening ties with China as a hedge against American economic coercion. The Canada-China deal is just the latest example. Similar overtures are already underway from Gulf states like the UAE and Saudi Arabia, which—while maintaining security ties with the U.S.—are quietly expanding yuan-denominated trade, joint infrastructure projects, and technology partnerships with Beijing.

As one Asian diplomat recently confided: “If doing business with half the world means being punished by Washington, then we must build alternatives that don’t depend on it.”

Prime Minister Carney made this shift explicit. Speaking after his meeting with President Xi Jinping, he warned that “the architecture, the multilateral system is being eroded—undercut.” His reference to a “new global order” reflects a sober recognition: the era of unquestioned U.S. economic leadership is ending—not because of Chinese aggression, but because of American overreach.

President Xi reinforced this vision, stating: “A divided world cannot address the common challenges facing humanity. The solution lies in upholding and practicing true multilateralism.” Notably, both leaders pledged to expand cooperation in green technology, critical minerals, and food security—sectors central to future economic sovereignty.

Carney set an ambitious goal: a 50% increase in Canadian exports to China by 2030. Achieving it would not only revive rural economies but also position Canada as a pragmatic player in a multipolar trade system—one where loyalty is earned through partnership, not enforced through tariffs.

The Self-Defeating Logic of Economic Coercion

The irony is stark. By wielding tariffs as weapons—first against China, now against any nation engaging with Iran—the United States is not strengthening its global position but weakening it. Each new sanction pushes traditional allies and neutral economies closer to Beijing’s orbit, not out of ideological alignment, but out of economic necessity and strategic self-preservation.

The Canada-China reset is not an isolated event. It is a harbinger. As more nations conclude that reliance on U.S. markets comes with unacceptable political risk, they will seek alternatives. And China—offering market access without political strings—is ready to fill the void. In the long run, America’s tariff wars may succeed only in hastening the very multipolar world it fears.

The Kidnapping of Nicolás Maduro and Its Immediate Impact on Russian Foreign Policy

The Kidnapping of Nicolás Maduro and Its Immediate Impact on Russian Foreign Policy

    Friday, January 09, 2026   No comments

In an unprecedented breach of international law and state sovereignty, Venezuelan President Nicolás Maduro was forcibly abducted by armed forces of the United States government on January 3, 2026. The incident has triggered a global diplomatic crisis and prompted a swift, uncompromising response from Moscow.

Dmitry Medvedev, Deputy Chair of the Security Council of the Russian Federation, issued a scathing statement describing it as “sheer thuggery and vileness—or, to put it more elegantly, a civilizational catastrophe in the sphere of international relations.” His remarks are not mere rhetoric; they reflect a fundamental recalibration of Russia’s strategic posture in the wake of what is now widely regarded as the most brazen act of state-sponsored abduction in modern history.

For Moscow, Maduro’s abduction is not just a regional crisis—it is a direct challenge to the multipolar world order Russia has spent two decades trying to construct. Venezuela has been a cornerstone of Russian influence in Latin America, serving as a strategic counterweight to U.S. dominance in the Western Hemisphere.

In his statement, Medvedev outlined two possible outcomes: either the U.S. releases Maduro under diplomatic cover—an outcome he deems “minimal”—or Maduro becomes “a new Latin American Mandela,” martyred by Western imperialism and immortalized alongside Simón Bolívar, Francisco de Miranda, and Hugo Chávez. Either scenario, Medvedev argues, strengthens the anti-imperialist narrative that Russia and its allies have cultivated globally.

Medvedev tied the kidnapping directly to energy politics. “Oil is the key factor here,” he noted, referencing Venezuela’s vast reserves—the largest in the world. He warned that if the current Venezuelan authorities (now led by acting President Delcy Rodríguez) refuse to grant U.S. firms access to those resources, Washington might consider a full-scale invasion. Yet he dismissed this as unlikely, citing domestic political constraints in the U.S., including a divided Congress and growing public opposition to foreign military entanglements.

Perhaps most significantly, the Maduro kidnapping has accelerated Russia’s formal abandonment of the post–World War II international legal framework. Medvedev explicitly stated that after such an act, “the American elites—both Republican and Democratic—should permanently shove their long tongues back into their rickety asses” and “acknowledge the legitimacy of Russia’s actions during the SMO [Special Military Operation] in Ukraine.”

This linkage is deliberate: Moscow now asserts moral equivalence between its actions in Ukraine and U.S. actions in Venezuela—both, in its view, are exercises of sovereign power in a world where might makes right. In this new paradigm, international law is not merely weakened; it is declared obsolete. As Medvedev chillingly put it: “international law is not required at all.”

He reinforced this stance in discussing the recent seizure of a Russian-flagged tanker by U.S. naval forces—a vessel that had been granted temporary registration to evade sanctions. While acknowledging the move violated the UN Convention on the Law of the Sea, Medvedev pointed out that the U.S. never ratified the treaty, rendering its objections hypocritical. More importantly, he argued that responses to American aggression must now occur “entirely outside the framework” of existing legal structures.

Medvedev’s closing metaphor reveals the emerging Russian doctrine: in a world turned into “outright Bedlam,” diplomacy is futile. “Dangerous madmen,” he wrote, “require either a straitjacket—or a lifesaving injection of haloperidol.” The reference to events “last night in the west of the Bandera-run Ukrainian periphery” suggests that Russia has already begun administering its own form of “treatment”—likely a major retaliatory strike or covert operation designed to signal that any further U.S. adventurism will be met with asymmetric, unpredictable force.

This marks a decisive shift from deterrence through parity to deterrence through unpredictability. Russia is no longer seeking to negotiate within the system; it is working to dismantle it and replace it with a raw balance of power enforced by “orderlies with massive fists.”

The kidnapping of Nicolás Maduro on January 3, 2026, is not a speculative fiction—it is a watershed moment in international relations. It has validated Moscow’s long-held claim that the United States operates as a lawless hegemon, willing to violate the most basic norms of sovereignty when convenient. In response, Russia has abandoned any pretense of working within Western-led institutions and is now openly advocating for a world governed by strength, loyalty, and retribution.

As nations across the Global South watch closely, the coming weeks will determine whether this act triggers a cascade of realignments—or a broader conflict. One thing is certain: the rules-based order did not die slowly. It was taken hostage from a bedroom in Caracas—and with it, the last vestiges of post–Cold War stability.

Media Review: Analysis of U.S. Intervention in Venezuela, Russian Actions in Ukraine, and China’s Stance on Taiwan

Media Review: Analysis of U.S. Intervention in Venezuela, Russian Actions in Ukraine, and China’s Stance on Taiwan

    Wednesday, December 17, 2025   No comments

As geopolitical tensions rise across the globe, the situations in Venezuela, Ukraine, and Taiwan serve as focal points for the strategic maneuvers of the United States, Russia, and China. Each of these regions reflects unique historical alliances and challenges, revealing profound implications on the global stage.

In Venezuela, the U.S. has embarked on a path that raises alarm bells not just for Latin America, but for the international community at large. Under the Trump administration, military deployments to the Caribbean have intensified, signaling a potential intervention in a country already strained by political and economic turmoil. The announcement that Venezuelan airspace would be “closed” evokes memories of earlier U.S. military operations, such as in Iraq. This time, however, the rhetoric suggests a dual purpose: while the U.S. claims it is targeting drug trafficking, many experts and observers sense a deeper agenda aimed at regime change, particularly focused on toppling President Nicolás Maduro.

Historically, Maduro has relied heavily on the support of his allies, notably Russia and China. Yet, in recent months, that support has waned considerably. Both Moscow and Beijing, once stalwart backers of Venezuela’s socialist government, appear to have shifted to a more symbolic stance. Their public statements of support lack the concrete military or financial assistance that Maduro might need during this hour of crisis. As the U.S. steps up its military activities, including naval forces and airstrikes, Russia finds itself navigating its own daunting challenges in Ukraine. The demands of that conflict have stretched Russian resources thin, diverting attention and funding away from its commitments in Latin America. Consequently, there is little incentive for Russia to risk further sanctions that would come from overtly supporting Maduro’s increasingly isolated regime.

Conversely, China's approach to the situation diverges sharply. While it continues to publicly oppose U.S. interference in Venezuela, Beijing has refrained from taking significant steps to defend Maduro. Instead, China seems focused on stabilizing its own economic interests rather than embroiling itself in a conflict that could jeopardize its fragile relationship with the United States. The reality is that China’s influence in Venezuela hinges less on unwavering ideological commitment and more on strategic economic calculations. By reducing new lending and prioritizing the recovery of past debts, China signals a pragmatic shift away from outright support for Maduro’s fragile government.

Meanwhile, the situation in Taiwan adds another dimension to this geopolitical puzzle. China, under Xi Jinping, remains adamant about its claims over Taiwan, treating it as a breakaway province rather than a separate entity. Beijing’s approach is defined by a readiness to utilize military posturing to assert its sovereignty, contrasting sharply with its reluctance to take a militaristic stance in Latin America. The dynamics in Taiwan reflect a calculated strategy aimed at consolidating its territorial claims, even as it navigates relationships with other nations, including the United States.

The contrasts among these events underscore the complexities of international relations where military commitments, regional stability, and economic interests collide. The U.S. appears intent on reinvigorating its influence in Latin America through potentially aggressive actions, while Russia's focus on Ukraine hinders its ability to support its allies elsewhere. China, too, must balance its ambitions, choosing when to assert its power and when to practice restraint.

As the world watches these developments unfold, the implications extend far beyond the borders of Venezuela, Ukraine, or Taiwan. The actions taken—or not taken—by these major powers may redefine the landscape of global alliances and power dynamics for years to come. In this moment of uncertainty, it becomes increasingly clear that the interconnectedness of global affairs demands a nuanced understanding of the motivations and limitations of each nation involved. The stakes are high, and the potential for conflict looms large as the balance of power continues to shift in unexpected ways.

Witkoff's Peace Proposal Aimed at Ending the War in Ukraine

Witkoff's Peace Proposal Aimed at Ending the War in Ukraine

    Friday, November 21, 2025   No comments

In a dramatic and highly controversial initiative that has reignited global debate over the future of Ukraine and European security, real estate magnate and Trump adviser Steven Witkoff has unveiled a comprehensive peace proposal aimed at ending the war in Ukraine. First reported by The Wall Street Journal, Bloomberg, and The New York Times in late November 2025, the 28-point plan — dubbed “Witkoff’s Peace Proposal” — presents a sweeping, U.S.-mediated framework that would require profound concessions from both Ukraine and the West, while offering Russia significant strategic and economic rewards.

At its heart, Witkoff’s proposal seeks to freeze the conflict on terms that would effectively legitimize Russia’s territorial gains while embedding Ukraine into a new, constrained security architecture.

The plan begins with a rhetorical affirmation of Ukraine’s sovereignty — a necessary fig leaf for Western audiences — but quickly pivots to concrete measures that would permanently alter Ukraine’s geopolitical trajectory. Most notably, Ukraine would be constitutionally barred from joining NATO, and NATO would formally pledge never to extend membership to Kyiv. In return, NATO would agree not to station troops or military infrastructure on Ukrainian soil — a direct reversal of current Western policy.

To ensure compliance, the proposal calls for a U.S.-mediated Russia–NATO security dialogue, a U.S.–Russia working group to monitor adherence, and the legal codification of Russian non-aggression pledges toward Ukraine and Europe. Simultaneously, Ukraine’s armed forces would be capped at 600,000 troops — a significant reduction from its current mobilized strength — and it would remain a non-nuclear state, reinforcing its dependence on Western security guarantees rather than self-reliance.

Territorial Concessions: The De Facto Recognition of Annexation

The most contentious element of the proposal lies in its territorial provisions. Ukrainian forces would withdraw from remaining Kyiv-held areas of Donetsk, creating a demilitarized buffer zone that would be “recognized as Russian territory.” While the proposal claims both sides will “not change territorial arrangements by force,” critics argue this is a de facto international recognition of Russia’s illegal annexations of Donetsk, Luhansk, Zaporizhzhia, and Kherson — territories seized since 2014 and fully occupied since 2022.

This concession, if implemented, would mark the largest territorial realignment in Europe since the end of World War II — and would fundamentally undermine the post-Cold War order built on the principle that borders cannot be changed by force.

Economic Engine: Frozen Assets as Reconstruction Fuel

Witkoff’s economic plan is equally ambitious. It proposes using $100 billion of frozen Russian assets — held primarily in Western banks — to fund Ukraine’s reconstruction, with the U.S. receiving 50% of the profits generated from those assets. Europe would contribute an additional $100 billion. The remainder of frozen Russian funds would be redirected to joint U.S.–Russia investment projects, signaling a dramatic thaw in economic relations.

The proposal further calls for Russia’s phased reintegration into the global economy, including an invitation to rejoin the G8 — a move that would reverse the Western diplomatic isolation imposed after the 2014 annexation of Crimea. Russia would also guarantee Ukraine’s free commercial use of the Dnieper River and establish agreements on Black Sea grain exports — critical for global food security.

Humanitarian and Political Measures: Elections and Amnesty

On the humanitarian front, the proposal includes a humanitarian committee to oversee prisoner exchanges, repatriation of civilians, and family reunifications — widely welcomed by international NGOs. It also mandates that Ukraine hold elections within 100 days of signing the agreement and grants full wartime amnesty to all parties, including Russian soldiers and Ukrainian collaborators — a provision that has drawn sharp criticism from human rights advocates.

Enforcement: Trump at the Helm

Perhaps the most politically explosive feature is the proposal’s enforcement mechanism: a “Peace Council” chaired by former President Donald Trump, empowered to impose sanctions or penalties for violations. This unprecedented role for a private citizen — and a former U.S. president with known pro-Russia leanings — has drawn bipartisan alarm in Washington. Critics warn it would undermine international law and institutional legitimacy, turning diplomacy into a personal project.

Reactions: Polarization Across the Globe

Reactions have been sharply divided. In Kyiv: Ukrainian officials have called the plan “a surrender disguised as peace,” warning it would cement Russian occupation and betray Ukraine’s sacrifices. President Zelenskyy’s office stated, “No peace that requires Ukraine to abandon its sovereignty or future in Europe can be legitimate.”

In Moscow: Russian state media hailed the proposal as “a realistic and dignified path forward,” with Foreign Ministry spokesperson Maria Zakharova calling it “the first serious Western acknowledgment of Russia’s security needs.”

In Brussels and Washington: NATO allies expressed deep skepticism. German Chancellor Olaf Scholz said the plan “violates the spirit of the UN Charter,” while U.S. Senator Bob Menendez called it “a dangerous appeasement that would embolden authoritarianism.” However, some conservative voices in the U.S., including former Trump officials, have praised it as “pragmatic statecraft.”

In Global South: Many non-aligned nations welcomed the economic reintegration of Russia, seeing it as a step toward multipolarity — but questioned why Ukraine bore the full cost of peace.

Witkoff’s proposal is not a negotiation — it is a blueprint for a new European order, one in which military conquest is rewarded with economic rehabilitation and strategic legitimacy. It offers Ukraine security guarantees but at the cost of its sovereignty, neutrality, and future aspirations.

While it may offer a path to an immediate ceasefire — and relief for millions of war-weary civilians — it does so by codifying the results of aggression. As one European diplomat told Reuters: “This isn’t peace. It’s the institutionalization of defeat.”

Whether the proposal gains traction — particularly with Trump’s potential return to the White House in 2025 — remains uncertain. But one thing is clear: Witkoff has forced the world to confront an uncomfortable question: At what price do we end a war — and what kind of world do we create when we do?

Source: The Wall Street Journal, Bloomberg, The New York Times, Reuters, and BBC as of November 20–21, 2025.

   

Russia and Iran Seal $25 Billion Nuclear Deal in the Shadow of Conflict

Russia and Iran Seal $25 Billion Nuclear Deal in the Shadow of Conflict

    Friday, September 26, 2025   No comments

In a move that signals a profound shift in the geopolitical landscape, Iran and Russia have signed a monumental $25 billion agreement to expand Iran’s nuclear energy program. The deal, coming just 15 weeks after a major US-Israeli attack on Iranian nuclear facilities, is being interpreted by analysts as more than a simple commercial venture; it is a strategic gambit that likely includes unspoken security guarantees, effectively placing Iran’s nuclear ambitions under a Russian shield.

The Deal: A Massive Expansion of Nuclear Capacity

The agreement, signed between Iran’s Hormoz Energy Company and Russia’s state nuclear corporation, Rosatom, entails the construction of four new, advanced nuclear power plants in Iran’s southern Hormozgan province. The project, which will occupy a 500-hectare site, involves third-generation reactors, representing a significant technological leap. This deal is an execution of a memorandum of understanding signed days earlier in Moscow, highlighting the rapid pace of deepening ties between the two nations.

This expansion is in addition to Rosatom’s ongoing work completing the second and third units at the existing Bushehr nuclear power plant, solidifying Russia's role as the primary architect of Iran's civilian nuclear infrastructure.

Strategic Context: The Unspoken Security Guarantee

The timing and scale of this agreement cannot be divorced from the recent military confrontation. A 12-day war, initiated by a US and Israeli strike on Iran's nuclear facilities, demonstrated Tehran’s vulnerability to Western military action. However, one critical detail from that conflict has not gone unnoticed in world capitals: Russian-built facilities, namely the Bushehr power plant, were conspicuously spared from attack.

This selective targeting is widely believed to be a deliberate choice by the US and Israel to avoid a direct military confrontation with Russia. It underscored a stark reality: infrastructure under Moscow’s umbrella enjoys a level of protection that purely Iranian facilities do not. 

It is within this context that the new $25 billion deal must be viewed. While officially a "peaceful nuclear energy" project, the agreement almost certainly contains implicit, if not explicit, security understandings. By massively expanding its physical and financial stake in Iran’s nuclear program, Russia is raising the stakes for any future adversary.

An attack on these new facilities would not just be an attack on Iran; it would be an attack on a $25 billion Russian asset, potentially triggering a direct response from Moscow. This creates a powerful deterrent. The security guarantee may also manifest in the form of advanced Russian air defense technology, such as the S-400 system, specifically deployed to protect these sensitive sites.

Geopolitical Implications: A New Axis Solidifies

This deal represents a formalization of the Iran-Russia axis, which has been strengthening over years of shared opposition to Western foreign policy. For Russia, the agreement serves multiple strategic purposes:

• Economic Leverage: It injects billions into its state-owned nuclear industry, circumventing Western sanctions.
• Strategic Depth: It anchors Russian influence deep in the Middle East and the crucial Strait of Hormuz. 
• Deterrence Posturing: It signals to the West that Russia is willing to directly underwrite the security of US adversaries, complicating future military calculations.

For Iran, the benefits are equally clear. Beyond the energy independence the plants may provide, the deal offers a form of insulation from external military threats that it could not achieve on its own. In the wake of the recent attacks, securing this Russian "nuclear umbrella" for its facilities is a paramount strategic victory.

Beyond this deal...

The $25 billion nuclear deal between Moscow and Tehran is far more than an energy contract. It is a direct consequence of the recent conflict and a strategic response to it. By embedding its nuclear corporations ever deeper into Iranian soil, Russia is not just building power plants; it is constructing a geopolitical fortress. The unspoken message to the West is clear: any future strike on Iran’s nuclear program will have to calculate the high risk of striking a Russian target, fundamentally altering the calculus of confrontation in the Middle East. 

Chechnya Launches Major Humanitarian Mission for Gaza, Citing Muslim Duty

Chechnya Launches Major Humanitarian Mission for Gaza, Citing Muslim Duty

    Friday, September 05, 2025   No comments

Amid the profound humanitarian crisis in Gaza, a significant aid mission has been launched from the Chechen Republic, a federal subject of Russia. This effort, described as one of the largest in the history of the Regional Public Foundation named after Hero of Russia Akhmat-Hadji Kadyrov, aims to deliver critical supplies to approximately one million Palestinians. The first shipments, containing colossal quantities of food and water, have already begun to reach residents, marking a substantial intervention from this predominantly Muslim region in the North Caucasus.

The driving force behind this initiative is portrayed as a deeply personal and religious endeavor led by the republic's leadership. The President of the Foundation, Aymani Nesievna Kadyrova, is publicly honored for her "sincere care for Muslims in distress," with the delivery of aid attributed directly to her "mercy and support." The supplies reported are vast, including tens of thousands of ready-made meals and hundreds of tons of essential staples like rice, flour, sugar, pasta, and drinking water.

The operational coordination of the mission is being carried out under the instruction of her son, Ramzan Kadyrov, the Head of the Chechen Republic. He has publicly tasked high-ranking officials, referred to as his "dear brothers," with managing the logistics. These officials include the republic's minister for national policy and a prominent police commander, both decorated figures within the local power structure. Overseeing the entire program as its main curator is Adam Kadyrov, the Assistant to the Head of the Republic and Secretary of the Security Council, whose daily supervision is said to ensure the mission's reliable implementation.

This very public display of support for Palestine is consistent with long-standing political and rhetorical positions emanating from Grozny. The action is framed not merely as humanitarian but as a sacred duty, a reflection of Islamic solidarity with fellow Muslims facing "constant suffering and deprivation." For the Chechen leadership, providing this aid fulfills a religious obligation and projects an image of Chechnya as a significant, autonomous actor on the global Muslim stage. Furthermore, it aligns seamlessly with the broader foreign policy objectives of the Russian government, which has historically supported the Palestinian cause as a counterbalance to Western and Israeli influence in the region. Thus, while the aid itself addresses a critical material need, its announcement and narrative also serve to bolster domestic legitimacy and demonstrate loyalty to the Kremlin's geopolitical strategy. The effort concludes with a public invocation for divine reward for all participants and a prayer for "peace and freedom" for the people of Palestine.

Statement from the leader of the Chechen Republic about Aid to Gaza

My dear MOTHER, the President of the Foundation, Aymani Nesievna Kadyrova, has, as always, shown sincere care for Muslims in distress. Thanks to her mercy and support, colossal amounts of food have been delivered to Gaza: 50,000 ready-made meals, 250 tons of rice, 200 tons of flour, 168 tons of sugar, 243 tons of pasta, and 500 tons of drinking water.

At my instruction, the coordination of this work is being carried out by my dear BROTHERS — the Minister of the Chechen Republic for National Policy, External Relations, Press, and Information, Akhmed Dudayev, and Hero of Russia, Commander of the A.A. Kadyrov Special Police Regiment, Zamid Chalayev.

The main curator of the program to support the Palestinian people is the Assistant to the Head of the Chechen Republic, Secretary of the Security Council of the Chechen Republic, Adam Kadyrov. His daily supervision and attention to every stage ensure the reliable and effective implementation of the mission.

Today, the Palestinian people are enduring the most severe trials, facing constant suffering and deprivation. In such a moment, helping them is the sacred duty of every Muslim. I express my deep gratitude to my dear MOTHER Aymani Nesievna and to everyone who is helping in this campaign with a sincere heart. May Almighty Allah reward everyone who is participating in this noble mission and grant our brothers and sisters in Palestine peace and freedom

Russia's non-diplomatic response to Ukraine's threat to target world leaders attending Victory Day: our Army doesn’t engage in terrorism like yours

Russia's non-diplomatic response to Ukraine's threat to target world leaders attending Victory Day: our Army doesn’t engage in terrorism like yours

    Saturday, May 10, 2025   No comments

Dmitry Medvedev, the former President and Prime Minister of Russia and current Deputy Chairman of the Security Council, made a public statement in response to Ukrainian officials who reportedly said that Ukraine could not guarantee the safety of foreign leaders visiting Moscow for the Victory Day celebrations.

In his statement, Medvedev used non-diplomatic language aimed at what appears to be Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy, referencing drug use and calling him a "typhus-carrying louse." He questioned what Zelenskyy would do if Russia stated it could no longer guarantee the safety of European leaders visiting Kyiv. Medvedev also claimed that the Russian army does not engage in terrorism, in contrast to what he described as "Banderite bastards," referring to Ukrainian nationalists. He ended the message by referencing comments made about the Victory Day parade in Moscow.

Russia's foreign PM, President, and now head of the security systems in Russia, Dmitry Medvedev:

"What would the typhus-carrying louse with a coke-dusted nose do if he were told that our country can no longer “guarantee the safety” of the European leaders who arrived in Kiev today?  Chill out, rat! Unlike the Banderite bastards, our Army doesn’t engage in terrorism. Just remember today, you degenerate, all the crap you said about the Victory Parade in Moscow."

Media Review: Why does Trump Think Erdogan is a "Winner"? -- Analyzing Current Events in the Middle East

Media Review: Why does Trump Think Erdogan is a "Winner"? -- Analyzing Current Events in the Middle East

    Wednesday, April 09, 2025   No comments

Recent developments in the Middle East have raised significant concerns about Israel's national security, particularly in light of the shifting dynamics following the weakening of the Assad regime in Syria. This article explores how Israel's previous strategies may backfire, especially with Turkey's increasing involvement representing a new challenge for Israeli policy.

For years, Israel has maintained a complex relationship with Syria, often justifying its military actions by citing the Iranian presence in the region. The narrative framed Iran as a significant threat, allowing Israel to conduct operations with a degree of international acquiescence. However, the fall of the Assad regime, which Israel purportedly supported and even took credit for, may turn out to be a strategic miscalculation.

The vacuum left by the fall of Assad regime has not led to a straightforward advantage for Israel. Instead, it has opened the door for a more assertive Turkey, a NATO member, to expand its influence in Syria. This shift complicates Israel's security calculus, as Turkish Foreign Minister Hakan Fidan recently stated that while Turkey does not seek confrontations with Israel in Syria, Israel's actions could pave the way for future instability in the region.

Then, sitting next to Israel's prime minister, US president Trump said that Erdogan is a "winner". President Trump's comments about Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdoğan reveal a startling acknowledgment of Turkey's growing role in Syria. Trump congratulated Erdoğan for effectively asserting control over Syrian territories through proxies.

Turkey's potential establishment of military bases in Syria poses a direct challenge to Israel's strategic interests. While Fidan noted that any agreements the new Syrian administration might pursue with Israel are its own business, the tension remains palpable. Israeli Prime Minister Netanyahu has expressed concerns about Turkish military presence, indicating that Israel does not want Turkey using Syrian territory as a base against it.

Iran's Enhanced Position: A Trojan Horse

Contrary to Israel's previous assertions, Iran's capacity to operate in Syria is potentially more secure due to Turkey's involvement. The collaboration between Turkey and Iran could facilitate logistics and support in ways that were previously less feasible. This partnership undermines Israel's long-standing narrative of Iranian isolation, presenting a more unified front against Israeli interests.

Moreover, Turkey's criticisms of Israeli military actions—labeling them as genocidal and a violation of regional stability—highlight the precariousness of Israel's position. Turkish officials have condemned Israeli airstrikes on Syria, which they perceive as an infringement on Syrian sovereignty. This rhetoric 

Israel's national security strategy has relied heavily on maintaining a powerless Syria. A fragmented state is easier to control and less likely to pose a direct threat. However, with Turkey's burgeoning role in the region, Israel finds itself in a precarious position. Erdoğan's ambitions could lead to the establishment of Turkish military bases in Syria, effectively transforming the landscape into a more complex battleground for Israel.

The current events in the Middle East illustrate the intricacies of regional politics and the potential repercussions of Israel’s earlier strategic choices. The fall of the Assad regime, rather than serving as a victory for Israeli security, might lead to a more complicated and threatening environment.

Trump’s Perspective on Erdogan as a "Winner"

Trump's admiration for Erdogan can be traced to Turkey's significant role in the ongoing conflict in Syria. By supporting the Islamist-led coalition that ousted Bashar al-Assad, Erdogan has effectively increased Turkey's influence in a region historically dominated by various power struggles. Trump’s comments, such as congratulating Erdogan for "taking over Syria," highlight a recognition of Turkey's strategic gains. This acknowledgment reflects Trump's broader narrative of strength and success, often favoring leaders who exhibit assertive control over their territories and dominating weaker nations.

Moreover, Trump’s personal rapport with Erdogan is notable. By describing Erdogan as "very smart" and emphasizing their strong relationship, Trump positions himself as a potential mediator in the fraught dynamics between Turkey and Israel. This personal connection may enhance Trump's ability to navigate the delicate political waters of the Middle East, where alliances shift rapidly.

Erdogan’s achievements in Syria are significant. By backing opposition forces and securing a foothold in the region, Turkey has not only expanded its influence but also positioned itself as a key player in any future resolution of the Syrian crisis. However, the devastation wrought by over 11 years of war has left Syria in ruins, requiring an estimated $300 billion for reconstruction. This staggering cost presents a challenge for Turkey, as Erdogan does not have the financial resources to undertake such an extensive rebuilding effort.

Moreover, Turkey’s relationship with Iran and Russia complicates the situation. Erdogan has cultivated strong ties with both nations, enabling Turkey to leverage its relationships with the new Syrian leadership to gain economic benefits from Iran. This alignment stabilizes Iran’s influence in Syria, creating opportunities for Turkey to extract advantages from its connections with both Iran and its adversaries. Given Syria's geographical significance but economic liabilities, Erdogan's strategy may involve encouraging Gulf states and energy-rich nations, including Iran, to participate in rebuilding efforts.

Trump's offer to mediate between Erdogan and Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu is critical for several reasons. First, it illustrates the U.S. role as a central player in Middle Eastern diplomacy. By positioning himself as a mediator, Trump aims to stabilize relations between two countries that have historically been at odds, particularly regarding their respective approaches to the Syrian conflict.

Moreover, Trump's influence could potentially steer Erdogan towards a more conciliatory stance regarding Israel. 

While Trump’s relationship with Erdogan provides a unique opportunity for diplomatic engagement, the extent of his influence is debatable. Erdogan's actions are driven by Turkey's national interests, which may not always align with U.S. or Israeli objectives. For instance, Erdogan’s strong support for Hamas and his anti-Israel rhetoric complicate any straightforward mediation effort.

Furthermore, Erdogan's recent statements indicating a desire to avoid confrontation with Israel suggest a potential openness to dialogue, albeit cautious. 

Trump's perception of Erdogan as a "winner" reflects a broader acknowledgment of Turkey's strategic gains in Syria, especially through its relationships with Iran and Russia. Erdogan's successes, while beneficial for Turkey, also pose challenges to Israeli interests, making Trump’s proposed mediation a critical juncture in Middle Eastern diplomacy. As Syria emerges from devastation, the need for reconstruction creates a complex dynamic; Erdogan will likely seek Gulf states' participation, recognizing that any rebuilding effort will come with significant geopolitical strings attached. This transformative potential could reshape regional dynamics, with the outcomes of Erdogan's actions significantly impacting the future stability of Syria and the broader SWANA region.

Beijing Hosts Trilateral Meeting Between Iran, Russia, and China: Call for Ending Sanctions and Diplomatic Resolution of Nuclear Issue

Beijing Hosts Trilateral Meeting Between Iran, Russia, and China: Call for Ending Sanctions and Diplomatic Resolution of Nuclear Issue

    Friday, March 14, 2025   No comments

Beijing hosted a high-level trilateral meeting on Friday, bringing together deputy foreign ministers from Iran, Russia, and China to discuss Iran’s nuclear program and broader cooperation among the three nations. The meeting concluded with a joint statement emphasizing the necessity of lifting unilateral sanctions and advocating for political dialogue as the only viable solution to ongoing disputes.

The statement highlighted the need to end all illegal unilateral sanctions, stressing that diplomatic and political dialogue, based on mutual respect, remains the only effective and feasible approach to resolving tensions. Additionally, it called on all involved parties to address the root causes of the current situation and to refrain from sanctions, pressure, or threats of force.

The three nations also reiterated their commitment to the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons (NPT), recognizing it as the cornerstone of the global nuclear non-proliferation regime. China and Russia welcomed Iran’s assurance of the peaceful nature of its nuclear program and its commitment to full compliance with NPT obligations and comprehensive safeguards agreements. Both countries reaffirmed their support for Iran’s continued cooperation with the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) and emphasized Iran’s right to the peaceful use of nuclear energy.

The meeting, held at Beijing’s Diaoyutai State Guesthouse, was attended by Russian Deputy Foreign Minister Sergey Ryabkov, Chinese Vice Foreign Minister Ma Zhaoxu, and Iranian Deputy Foreign Minister Gharib Reza Abadi. Ryabkov reiterated the importance of respecting Iran’s right to peaceful nuclear energy and urged the avoidance of any actions that could escalate tensions in the Middle East. He stressed the need to create conditions conducive to a diplomatic resolution of the nuclear issue.

Beyond the nuclear discussions, the meeting also explored opportunities for enhanced collaboration within international organizations such as the Shanghai Cooperation Organization (SCO) and BRICS, underscoring the need to strengthen multilateral cooperation.

U.S. Sanctions and Iran’s Stance Against Pressure Tactics

The meeting in Beijing occurred against the backdrop of ongoing U.S. sanctions on Iran. Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei reaffirmed that while Iran does not seek war, it will respond decisively if provoked by the United States or its allies. Iranian President Masoud Pezeshkian also asserted that Iran will not succumb to threats, clarifying that willingness to negotiate does not equate to submission.

Iranian Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi reiterated on Thursday that Tehran will not engage in negotiations under maximum pressure, arguing that such talks would fail to meet Iran’s demands. Araghchi stated that Iran’s strategy in response to Washington’s pressure campaign is one of “maximum resistance.” He further emphasized that Iran would only enter direct negotiations with the U.S. if its national interests were guaranteed and discussions were conducted without threats or coercion.

Meanwhile, Iranian Foreign Ministry spokesperson Esmail Baghaei condemned U.S. efforts to disrupt Iran’s economic and trade activities, labeling them as clear violations of international law and free trade principles. Earlier, the U.S. government had announced new financial sanctions targeting an alleged international network accused of transferring Iranian oil to China to fund Tehran’s military activities.

Background: The Iran Nuclear Deal and Its Fallout

In 2015, Iran reached a nuclear agreement with the U.S., the UK, France, Germany, Russia, and China, which required Tehran to limit its nuclear activities in exchange for sanctions relief. However, in May 2018, during the first term of President Donald Trump, the U.S. unilaterally withdrew from the agreement and reinstated sanctions on Iran. In response, Iran gradually reduced its commitments under the deal, including lifting restrictions on nuclear research and uranium enrichment.

As tensions persist, Iran, Russia, and China continue to push for a diplomatic approach, urging an end to economic sanctions and reaffirming their commitment to peaceful negotiations.

Israeli government committee: Turkey-backed Syria may pose greater threat than Iran

Israeli government committee: Turkey-backed Syria may pose greater threat than Iran

    Tuesday, January 07, 2025   No comments

An Israeli government committee said Monday that Turkey could pose a greater threat to Israel than Iran in Syria if it backs a hostile “Sunni Islamist” force in Damascus.

Ankara has emerged as a major beneficiary of the collapse of Bashar Assad’s government in Syria last month, following an offensive by rebels led by Hayat Tahrir al-Sham (HTS) and other Turkish-backed Syrian groups.

Since then, Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdogan has pledged all forms of support, including military and security assistance, to help the new Syrian caretaker government establish public order in the country under the leadership of Ahmed al-Sharaa, also known by his nom de guerre Abu Mohammed al-Julani.

The “Committee to Evaluate the Defense Establishment Budget and Balance of Power,” headed by former National Security Council head Yaakov Nagel, is commonly referred to in Hebrew media as the Nagel Committee or the Nagel Committee.

The committee was established in 2023, before the outbreak of the Israeli war on Gaza, with the aim of making recommendations to the Defense Ministry on potential areas of conflict that Israel could face in the coming years.

The committee said that “the origins of the rebels and their leaders,” some of whom were previously associated with groups such as Al-Qaeda, should not be ignored.

For this reason, we must take into account that Israel may face a new threat emerging in Syria, which in some respects may be no less dangerous than the previous threat. This threat may take the form of a radical Sunni force that also refuses to recognize the existence of Israel,” the committee said.

Moreover, since the Sunni rebels will exercise political power by virtue of their central control in Syria, they may pose a greater threat than the Iranian threat, which has been limited by Israel’s continued actions, as well as the restrictions imposed on Iran by the sovereign Syrian state.

The committee warned that the problem could intensify if the Syrian force effectively becomes a proxy for Turkey, “as part of Turkey’s ambition to restore the Ottoman Empire to its former glory.”

We must prepare for war with Türkiye

Israeli media reported that a government committee recommended in its report to Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, yesterday, Monday, to prepare for a possible war with Turkey, in light of growing concerns in Tel Aviv about Ankara’s alliance with the new administration in Damascus after the fall of the Bashar al-Assad regime.

The Jerusalem Post quoted the committee’s report as proposing to increase the defense budget by up to NIS 15 billion ($4.1 billion) annually over the next five years, to ensure that Israeli forces are equipped to deal with the challenges posed by Turkey, as well as other regional threats.

The committee also recommended several measures to prepare for a possible confrontation with Turkey:

Advanced weapons: Acquiring additional F-15 fighter jets, refueling aircraft, drones and satellites to enhance Israel’s ability to carry out long-range strikes.

Air defense systems: Enhancing multi-layered air defense capabilities, including the Iron Dome, David’s Sling, Arrow and the newly operational laser defense system.

Border security: Building a fortified security barrier along the Jordan Valley, which would represent a major shift in Israel’s defense strategy despite the potential diplomatic fallout with Jordan.

The Israeli Prime Minister's Office said in a statement on Monday that Netanyahu, Defense Minister Yisrael Katz, and Finance Minister Bezalel Smotrich had received the Nagel Committee's recommendations.

According to the statement, Netanyahu said, "We are in the midst of a fundamental change in the situation in the Middle East. We have known for years that Iran poses the greatest threat to us, both directly and through its proxies."

He continued, "Of course, we were keen to hit this axis hard. But we have seen the reality that: First, Iran is still there, and second, additional forces have entered the field, and we always need to be prepared for what may come."

Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdogan had warned - a few weeks before the Syrian armed opposition overthrew the regime of Bashar al-Assad - that Israeli military moves in Syria could pose a direct threat to Turkey's security on its southern border.

Media Review: Syrian opposition received Ukrainian support to undermine Russia and its allies

Media Review: Syrian opposition received Ukrainian support to undermine Russia and its allies

    Wednesday, December 11, 2024   No comments

The Washington Post reported that “the Syrian opposition that seized power in Damascus last weekend received drones and other support from Ukrainian intelligence agents who sought to undermine Russia and its Syrian allies,” according to sources familiar with Ukrainian military activities abroad.

The sources told the newspaper that “Ukrainian intelligence sent about 20 experienced drone operators and about 150 drones to the rebel headquarters in Idlib, Syria, four to five weeks ago to assist Hayat Tahrir al-Sham.”

Western intelligence sources believe, according to the newspaper, that Kiev’s assistance played only a modest role in the ouster of Syrian President Bashar al-Assad, but it was notable as part of a broader Ukrainian effort to covertly strike Russian operations in the Middle East, Africa and inside Russia itself.

“Ukraine’s covert aid program in Syria was an open secret, though senior Biden administration officials have repeatedly said they were unaware of it,” she added. “The motivation behind it is clear: Facing a Russian onslaught inside their country, Ukrainian intelligence looked for other fronts where it could bloody Russia’s nose and undermine its clients.”

  

Syria and the "Arab Spring" 2.0

Syria and the "Arab Spring" 2.0

    Friday, December 06, 2024   No comments

The popular uprising that broke in the Southwest Asian and North African, SWANA, in 2011, that transformed the region was frozen ten years later, especially in Syria and Yemen. Syria, after ten years of war, saw some calm since 2021, with the country still divided into three areas of control: one under "Sunni" rebels supported by Turkey and Qatar controlling the northwest, a second under Kurdish control in the northeast supported by the US, and the rest of Syria controlled by the Syrian government supported by Russia and Iran. On November 27 of this year, the calm was shattered when the Turkish backed armed groups regained major cities they lost in 2017-19. The crisis is unlikely to be resolved short of outside strong intervention, which is also unlikely, given that the outside actors are now busy dealing with new crises centers. So, for the foreseeable future, there are two possible paths forward. The various faction will continue to fight, but unlikely that one will prevail over the other two. Alternatively, a reshuffle of the alliances internally will consolidate some power leading to a stalemate, which will force all three sides to negotiate a deal that preserve the gains and interests of all ethnic, religious, sectarian, and ideological groups. That seem to be the realization of some world and regional powers, though not all think they have to give anything to dial down violence.

Erdogan: We hope that the Syrian "opposition" factions will continue their progress.. and the goal is Damascus

Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdogan said he hopes that the progress of what he called the "opposition" in Syria will continue "without problems," considering that the next "target" after the armed factions took control of Idlib, Hama and Homs, "is Damascus."

Erdogan's words came in press statements, and he added: "We had invited Assad (Syrian President Bashar al-Assad)... and we told him: Let us determine the future of Syria together. Unfortunately, we did not receive a positive response on this issue."

Recently, Syria's permanent representative to the United Nations, Qusay al-Dahhak, confirmed that the terrorist attack on northern Syria could not have been carried out without a green light and a joint Turkish-Israeli operational order paved by repeated Israeli attacks on Syrian territory.

Syrian President Bashar al-Assad also confirmed his country's insistence on eradicating terrorism, stressing that terrorists do not represent a people or institutions, but rather the apparatuses that support them.

Foreign Ministers of Iraq, Syria and Iran: Protecting Syria's Security is Necessary to Protect the Security of the Region

The foreign ministers of Iraq, Syria and Iran stressed on Friday that "threatening Syria's security poses a general danger to the stability of the entire region," stressing that "there is no choice but to coordinate, cooperate and consult diplomatically continuously, in order to eliminate all risks of escalation in the region."

In a joint statement following the meeting at the Iraqi Foreign Ministry, the ministers stressed "the seriousness of the events in Syria and their sensitivity to all parties in the region," warning of "the possibility of their expanding dimensions, which will pose a grave danger to the three countries and threaten the security of their peoples and the entire region."

The ministers also urged "the need to mobilize all Arab, regional and international efforts to reach peaceful solutions to the challenges facing the region in general, and Syria in particular."

In addition, the statement stressed "the agreement on the need to continue consultation and coordination between the three countries, follow up on these developments and prepare for any developments in the coming days," and respect for Syria's sovereignty, independence, unity and territorial integrity.

They also condemned "terrorism in all its forms and manifestations classified by the Security Council," stressing "collective action to confront it." They also condemned the ongoing Israeli attacks on Syria, Gaza and Lebanon.

Russia: Indonesia, Malaysia and Thailand are new partners in BRICS

Russia: Indonesia, Malaysia and Thailand are new partners in BRICS

    Friday, November 15, 2024   No comments

Russian Deputy Foreign Minister Alexander Pankin revealed that Indonesia, Malaysia and Thailand have become partners in the BRICS bloc.

Pankin explained during a joint meeting of foreign and trade ministers of APEC member states that the BRICS summit held in Kazan "demonstrated the desire of the global majority to create a fair world order, with a focus on reforming international institutions and strengthening equal economic relations."

He also pointed out that "the summit resulted in a set of important agreements in the fields of trade, investment, artificial intelligence, energy, climate and logistics."

Pankin pointed out that "the share of the economies of the Asia-Pacific region in Russia's foreign trade has reached 70%, while about 90% of payments are made in national currencies."

In a related context, the Russian Deputy Foreign Minister confirmed that his country continues to secure stable supplies of energy resources to the APEC countries.

It is noteworthy that the BRICS summit, which was held in Kazan between October 22 and 24, was attended by the heads of state of the group.

BRICS Calling for a ceasefire in Gaza: We condemn Israel's attacks on Lebanon and Syria

BRICS Calling for a ceasefire in Gaza: We condemn Israel's attacks on Lebanon and Syria

    Wednesday, October 23, 2024   No comments

The BRICS group of countries stressed the need for an immediate and permanent ceasefire in Gaza, expressing its condemnation of the Israeli occupation's targeting of humanitarian operations and aid distribution centers in the Strip.

In a statement issued by the summit held in Russia on Wednesday, BRICS expressed its support for granting occupied Palestine full membership in the United Nations.

In addition, the group's countries confirmed that they consider the occupation's bombing of pagers in Lebanon a violation of international laws, expressing their condemnation of Israel's targeting of Iranian diplomatic buildings in Damascus.

In the statement, BRICS urged all parties to resume the Iranian nuclear agreement, calling for strengthening the "non-proliferation regime and establishing a nuclear-weapon-free zone in the Middle East."

Regarding the war in Ukraine, BRICS countries welcomed "good offices proposals on the Ukrainian settlement."

They also called for accelerating "the development and adoption of a comprehensive agreement to combat international terrorism within the framework of the United Nations," expressing "deep concern about the negative impact of unilateral sanctions on the global economy and other areas," and stressing the group's "leading role in the process of improving the global financial system."

It is noteworthy that the activities of the second day of the BRICS Summit 2024 began on Wednesday in the Russian city of Kazan, where a number of leaders, leaders and guests arrived in the city to participate in the summit, which was held in an expanded manner.

During a brief meeting held by Russian President Vladimir Putin with the group’s leaders, he confirmed “the existence of radical changes in a multipolar world,” stressing that his country “seeks to strengthen BRICS’ position in the world and focus on solving global and local problems,” adding that the group’s countries “show responsibility in their dealings with global situations through actions, not words.”

What to expect from BRICS under Russia's leadership

Russian President Vladimir Putin announced today, Wednesday, during a narrow meeting with the leaders of the BRICS group, that there are radical changes in a multipolar world.

During the meeting, Putin stressed that the BRICS countries have enormous economic, scientific, demographic and political potential.

He pointed out that Russia seeks to strengthen the position of BRICS in the world and focus on solving global and local problems, adding that the group's countries "show responsibility in their dealings with global situations through actions, not words."

The Russian president also stressed that "the BRICS countries' share in the global economy by the end of this year will represent 36.7%, which is more than the share of the G7 countries," adding that "the BRICS countries have become the most powerful economic group in the world."

He stressed that using the dollar as a weapon undermines confidence in it, noting that Russia is not abandoning it but is forced to look for alternatives.

Regarding the expansion of BRICS, Putin said: “Of course, it would be wrong to ignore the unprecedented interest of the countries of the Global South and East in strengthening contacts with the group’s countries, as more than 30 countries have already expressed this desire in one form or another,” but at the same time, “it is necessary to maintain balance and prevent a decline in BRICS’ effectiveness.”

During the meeting, the Russian President proposed to form a list of BRICS partner countries and to fix this in the final declaration of the Kazan Summit.

An alternative to SWIFT and de-dollarization.. BRICS expansion pushes towards a new global financial system

With the BRICS summit being held in the Russian city of Kazan with the participation of 36 countries, the group's aims have begun to materialize in practice, as its serious and decisive efforts to expand its membership circle have become apparent, and thus push towards creating a new financial system, far from the SWIFT system, which serves specific economic entities and entrenches economic crises that harm every entity trying to find a place outside the framework of Western hegemony.

The use of the US dollar and the SWIFT system as a weapon by the United States of America, especially after targeting Russia and separating it from the SWIFT system in 2022, has raised deep concerns about the security of the global financial system centered around America, as this exclusion has serious economic consequences, not only for the targeted countries, but for global trade in general.

This situation has highlighted the urgent need for alternatives to SWIFT, and for a financial system less dependent on the dollar to mitigate such risks. In this context, the group has long been discussing the idea of ​​a BRICS currency, which could be a basket of currencies backed by natural resources such as gold, oil and gas. What helps BRICS is that its countries collectively have larger gold reserves than the International Monetary Fund and the European Central Bank combined, according to the Independent Online website, and it is now seeking to expand its membership.

  

Taliban Delegation Arrives in Moscow for Consultations on Afghan Issues

Taliban Delegation Arrives in Moscow for Consultations on Afghan Issues

    Friday, October 04, 2024   No comments

A Taliban delegation, led by the acting Afghan Foreign Minister, has arrived in Moscow for the “Moscow format” consultations on Afghanistan. The format, established in 2017, brings together 10 nations interested in an Afghan settlement, including Russia, India, Iran, and China.

The Russian Foreign Ministry confirmed that the decision to remove the Taliban from the list of terrorist organizations "was made at the highest level," the Russian news agency TASS reported on Friday. The Russian president's special representative to Afghanistan, Zamir Kabulov, explained that this decision must be followed by various legal procedures.

Russian President Vladimir Putin noted last July that Russia considers the Taliban an ally in the fight against terrorism. Russia has called on Western countries to lift sanctions imposed on Afghanistan.

Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov stressed the need for the West to take responsibility for the reconstruction of post-conflict Afghanistan, stressing the need to return confiscated assets to Kabul.

Relations between Russia and the Taliban have strengthened since they seized power in August 2021, following the withdrawal of US forces from Afghanistan. Moscow has gradually moved towards removing the movement's designation as a "terrorist organization," despite Western sanctions imposed on the Taliban for more than 20 years.

"We urge Western countries to recognize their responsibility for the reconstruction of post-conflict Afghanistan, lift sanctions imposed on it, and return confiscated assets to Kabul," Lavrov said.

Lavrov stressed that Russia will not accept any military presence of other countries in Afghanistan or the establishment of new military bases in neighboring countries. He also stressed the importance of the current Afghan government in combating drug production and fighting ISIS.

Lavrov called for increasing humanitarian aid to the Afghan people, and stressed that Russia will continue to provide food support and basic supplies to Afghanistan.

At the end of his remarks, Lavrov called on the United States to return confiscated Afghan assets, holding the West responsible for the country's post-conflict reconstruction.

Russian President Vladimir Putin kisses the Holy Quran handed to him as a gift from Chechen leader Ramzan Kadyrov

Russian President Vladimir Putin kisses the Holy Quran handed to him as a gift from Chechen leader Ramzan Kadyrov

    Wednesday, August 21, 2024   No comments

Russian President Vladimir Putin was presented a gold-encrusted copy of the Holy Quran in the recently built "Prophet Jesus" mosque in Grozny, the capital of the Chechen Republic of Russia.

Putin arrived at the mosque accompanied by the President of the Republic Ramzan Kadyrov, and the Mufti of Chechnya, the head of the Religious Administration of Muslims of the Republic Salah Mezhiev.

When opening the pages of the Quran, the Mufti recited to Putin a verse from Surat Al-Anfal - "And you did not throw when you threw, but Allah threw", and translated its meaning into Russian.

President Putin kissed the copy of the Quran before embracing it and taking a souvenir photo with Kadyrov and the Mufti of Chechnya.

                         

Turkish President announces readiness to extend an invitation to President Assad

Turkish President announces readiness to extend an invitation to President Assad

    Sunday, July 07, 2024   No comments

Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdogan confirmed on Sunday that "once Bashar al-Assad takes a step towards improving relations with Turkey, we will respond appropriately."

He continued in press statements: "We will extend our invitation to Assad, and with this invitation we want to return Turkish-Syrian relations to the same point they were in the past."

He added: "Our invitation can happen at any time."

The Turkish president added in his press statements: "Russian President Vladimir Putin has an approach regarding our meeting (with Assad) in Turkey, and Iraqi Prime Minister Mohammed Shia al-Sudani has an approach. We are talking here about mediation, so what is wrong with it with our neighbor?"

On Friday, Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdogan confirmed that he could, in cooperation with his Russian counterpart Vladimir Putin, "extend an invitation" to Syrian President Bashar al-Assad to start a new process of normalizing relations with Syria.

"I already said on Friday (last), after the Friday prayers, that we can start a new process (of normalizing relations) with Syria. We can invite Mr. Assad with Mr. Putin," Erdogan told reporters upon his arrival from Astana.

Erdogan added that Russian President Vladimir Putin's upcoming visit to Turkey could be the beginning of a new process of normalizing relations between Ankara and Damascus.

He commented: "If our honorable Mr. Putin can visit Turkey, this could be the beginning of a new process (of normalizing relations between Turkey and Syria). All the years that have passed in the Syrian arena have clearly shown everyone that it is necessary to create a mechanism for a permanent settlement. Syria, whose infrastructure has been destroyed and whose people have been scattered, must stand on its own feet and end the instability. The recent calm in this area can open the door to peace if wise policies and an approach to solving problems are adopted without bias."

Commenting on Syrian President Bashar al-Assad's statements about normalizing relations between Syria and Turkey last week, Erdogan said that "there are no reasons not to establish diplomatic relations between the two countries," and according to him, "Ankara does not aim to interfere in Damascus' internal affairs." Assad had stated on June 26, during a meeting with the Russian President's special representative, Alexander Lavrentiev, that "Syria is open to all initiatives related to its relations with Turkey, which are based on respect for the country's sovereignty."

Previously, Syrian President Bashar al-Assad confirmed Syria's openness to all initiatives related to the relationship between Syria and Turkey, based on "the sovereignty of the Syrian state over all its territories on the one hand, and the fight against all forms of terrorism and its organizations on the other hand."

The Syrian presidency stated in a statement on its Telegram channel that "President al-Assad confirmed during his meeting with the special envoy of the Russian President, Alexander Lavrentiev, Syria's openness to all initiatives related to the relationship between Syria and Turkey, based on the sovereignty of the Syrian state over all its territories on the one hand, and the fight against all forms of terrorism and its organizations on the other hand, stressing that these initiatives reflect the will of the countries concerned to establish stability in Syria and the region in general."

Earlier, a Turkish newspaper reported, citing sources, that military delegations from Turkey and Syria, with Russian mediation, held talks at the Hmeimim air base, and another meeting is expected to be held in Baghdad.

The newspaper said: "In this regard, a meeting of military officials from the Turkish Armed Forces and the Syrian army was held at the Russian Hmeimim Air Base southeast of Latakia on June 11," and stated that "the meeting discussed the latest developments in and around Idlib province."

The first meeting of the foreign ministers of the four countries (Russia, Turkey, Iran, Syria) was held in Moscow on May 10, 2023. Based on its results, the ministers ordered the preparation of a draft roadmap for normalizing relations between Turkey and Syria.

Earlier, the Russian President's Special Representative for Syria, Alexander Lavrentiev, stated in an interview with Sputnik that Moscow had handed Ankara and Damascus a draft roadmap for normalizing relations between the two sides, indicating that they could make amendments to it.

Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov has previously identified priority topics in the roadmap, which include restoring Syrian government control over all parts of the country, ensuring the security of the Syrian-Turkish border, and eliminating the possibility of cross-border attacks and terrorist infiltration.

Russian official: Washington and its allies may face the use of our weapons by third parties

Russian official: Washington and its allies may face the use of our weapons by third parties

    Thursday, June 06, 2024   No comments

Russia appears to be changing its military posture in reaction to Western countries allowing Ukraine to use NATO weapons to strike inside Russia. Russia is now open to supplying other countries with Russian weapons the same way US, France, and the UK are supplying Ukraine with their weapons that are used to kill Russians; according to Russian officials. This is a significant development that could impact events in conflict zones, including the wars in Syria and Gaza.

Deputy Chairman of the Russian Security Council Dmitry Medvedev confirmed on Thursday that the United States and its allies may face the direct use of Russian weapons by third parties.

Medvedev said in posts on the "X" platform and his telegram channel that these people or regions were intentionally left unnamed, but they could be all those who consider the United States and its partners their enemy, regardless of their political outlook and international recognition.

He added that "their enemy is the United States, which means they are our friends."

This statement comes after Russian President Vladimir Putin announced on Wednesday that Russia may consider supplying areas of the world with its long-range weapons, in order to launch sensitive strikes against countries that supply Ukraine with weapons.

The US State Department confirmed, in late May, that US President Joe Biden had given the green light to launch Ukrainian strikes using weapons supplied by the United States inside Russian territory, near the city of Kharkiv.

A US State Department spokesman told the Russian Sputnik Agency that "Biden recently tasked his team with ensuring that Ukraine is able to use weapons provided by the United States for counterattack purposes in the Kharkiv region so that Kiev can respond to Russian forces."

The US spokesman claimed that Washington's policy of not allowing long-range strikes using ATACMS missiles inside Russia has not changed.

As for Germany, it backtracked on a position it had previously announced, and granted Ukraine permission to use the weapons it had supplied to it, in order to strike targets inside Russia.

In the same context, NATO Secretary General Jens Stoltenberg called for Ukraine to be allowed to use Western weapons to strike targets inside Russia.

Stoltenberg said that it is time for member states to "reconsider the restrictions that hinder Kyiv's ability to defend itself."

In response, Italian Deputy Prime Minister Matteo Salvini called on Stoltenberg to resign.

Russia has previously sent a memorandum to NATO countries due to the supply of weapons to Ukraine, and Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov indicated that any shipment containing weapons to Ukraine "will become a legitimate target for Russia."

Lavrov stated that the United States and NATO are directly involved in the conflict in Ukraine, "not only through the supply of weapons, but also through training in the territories of Britain, Germany, Italy and other countries."

Was Biden angry with Netanyahu for attacking Iran’s diplomatic building, a treaty violation, or for killing aid workers, a war crime, or both?

Was Biden angry with Netanyahu for attacking Iran’s diplomatic building, a treaty violation, or for killing aid workers, a war crime, or both?

    Monday, April 08, 2024   No comments

With news reports about US administration reaching out to Iran with an offer to stop its promise of retaliatory strikes against Israel for the latter's attack on Iran's diplomatic facility in Syria, and with Iran's foreign minister making an unscheduled trip to Oman yesterday, it appears that Biden used the killing of aid workers to mask his anger with Israel crossing a red line and carrying out what is essentially a direct attack on Iran.

There is no doubt that Iran can retaliate directly against Israel. It did so against the US when Trump assassinated Soleimani in January 2020. An Iranian retaliatory attack against Israel could set new course for the entire region, however. 

If Iran attacks Israel directly, the right-wing government in Israel will be forced to retaliate or it will collapse. If it were to retaliate to the retaliation, the armed confrontation enters a new phase, similar to the active front with Hezbollah. That will be catastrophic for Israel for many reasons.

Israel cannot invade Iran and if the US does not get involved directly, all Israel can do is to trade rockets and bombs from distance. That formular favors Iran for many reasons, too.  

First, Iran is a much larger country, and its weapons systems are dispersed all over the country. It will not be possible for Israel to take out all weapons systems. If that was possible, US could have done that in Yemen where a much smaller and less prepared group, the Houthis, have overcome a military Western coalition that has been bombing them for months.

Second, Iran has a formidable array of weapons, rockets and drones, that can be launched for months or even years. In addition to these long-distance weapons, Iran can rely on its allies in Gaza, Lebanon, Yemen, and Iraq to provide support.

Iran will respond given that the highest authority in the country already stated that Iran will receive “a slap”. The question is whether US diplomacy will manage to limit Iran’s response to limits of Israel’s attack. That is, an attack on Israeli diplomatic missions and perhaps an attack on military installations in occupied territories to end the cycle. Iran has the option to attack Israel directly because it considers its diplomatic facilities sovereign territories of Iran. However, attacking Israel diplomatic facilities places Iran outside International norms, too, which it has been using to get the world community to condemn it. 

All these factors give credence to the reporting about the US offer to Iran, possibly through Oman. Because all these indicator show that Israel committed a grave mistake when it attacked a diplomatic facility. It may not just US acting to prevent the widening of a conflict, it is likely that Israel wants to limit the damage too. 

The following media reports provide more contect to what might be behind the scene negotiations.

Iranian diplomatic sources say the US is trying to convince Iran not to retaliate against Israel for its bombing of the Iranian embassy in Syria earlier this month, Al-Jarida newspaper reported on 8 April.

The Israeli strike targeted a building attached to the Iranian embassy in Damascus. It led to the killing of the commander of the Quds Force of the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC), Brigadier General Mohammad Reza Zahedi, his deputy, and five other IRGC officers.

A source in the Iranian foreign ministry told Al-Jarida that Washington offered Tehran direct negotiations with Tel Aviv to de-escalate the conflict.  

According to the source, Washington will guarantee to persuade Tel Aviv to stop its military operations in Syria and Lebanon on the condition that Iran commit not to retaliate against Israel for the Damascus attack.

At the same time, a diplomatic source in Beirut told Al-Jarida that Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu rejected an American proposal to pledge to stop attacks in Syria.

The source added that Iranian leader Ali Khamenei is reviewing the US offer but is not expected to accept it if it does not include guarantees for a comprehensive ceasefire in Gaza and to stop all Israeli and US attacks on Iranian targets or those belonging to Iran's allies in the Axis of Resistance.

The source revealed that the Iranians had also previously received a verbal Israeli proposal via a Gulf state. In the proposal, Tel Aviv claimed it was ready to stop operations against Iranian targets in Syria and Lebanon in exchange for Tehran abandoning retaliation for the killing of Zahedi, whose killing was considered the most significant blow to Iran since the assassination of Qassem Soleimani.

According to the source, the Iranian Foreign Ministry responded to the Israeli message by saying that the proposal must also include a ceasefire in Gaza.

However, some IRGC leaders were unhappy with the foreign ministry's response, viewing the Israeli proposal as a trap. The IRGC leaders argued that any negotiations with Israel must take place only after Iran has retaliated.

The source stated that IRGC commanders believe that Israel's targeting of the Iranian consulate is an opportunity that should not be missed to strike a strong blow at Israel, especially since the consular building in Damascus is considered sovereign Iranian territory and was targeted in a clear violation of international law.

The source said that the IRGC leadership believes Washington will not enter a war with Iran even if it retaliates against Israel. They also consider that an adequately harsh strike against Israel will compel it to accept a ceasefire in Gaza and abandon any plans to invade Lebanon or escalate its bombing in Syria.

Western government continue to lose credibility

Despite the fact that the attack on Iran’s diplomatic mission in Syria violated global treaties including the Vienna Conventions regulating diplomatic and consular relations and the immunities of diplomats and headquarters (1961, 1963, 1969) and the Rome Statute, US government and its Western allies did not explicitly condemn the attack. Instead, they called on Iran to exert “self-restraint.” 

On Thursday, the German Foreign Ministry called, through a statement, on all parties in the Middle East to calm down, exercise restraint, and act responsibly, following a call by Minister Annalena Baerbock who discussed the matter with Iranian Foreign Minister Hossein Amir Abdollahian.

On Thursday, British Foreign Secretary David Cameron warned of “expanding conflicts”. During a phone call with his Iranian counterpart, Hossein Amir Abdollahian, according to a statement by the Iranian Foreign Ministry that was reported by local media outlets, including the private “Tasnim” agency.

According to the agency, the Iranian Foreign Ministry quoted Cameron as saying that he asked Iran to exercise restraint, and said that “lack of restraint on the part of the parties could lead to further expansion of conflicts in the region.”

Regional powers on the other hand voiced condemnation, directly accusing Israel of violating international norms.

Turkey denounced, in a Foreign Ministry statement, the bombing and considered it a violation of international law, warning that the attack may lead to an exacerbation of the conflict in the region.

Saudi Arabia also condemned the targeting in a Foreign Ministry statement, expressing its “categorical rejection of targeting diplomatic facilities for any justification, and under any pretext.”

In a brief Foreign Ministry statement, the UAE condemned “the targeting of the Iranian diplomatic mission in the Syrian capital, Damascus,” without any additional comment.

Qatar also condemned, in a Foreign Ministry statement, the attack, and considered it “a blatant violation of international agreements and conventions,” stressing “its complete rejection of targeting diplomatic and consular missions and the necessity of providing protection for their employees in accordance with the rules of international law.”

Egypt said, in a statement to the Foreign Ministry, “We categorically reject the attack on diplomatic facilities under any justification, and we stand in solidarity with Syria in respecting its sovereignty and the integrity of its lands and people.”

Kuwait also considered, in a Foreign Ministry statement, the attack a “flagrant assault,” renewing its call on “the international community and the Security Council to assume its responsibilities towards taking the necessary measures and exerting the necessary efforts to preserve the safety and stability of the countries of the region and reduce tension and escalation.”

In a statement condemning the attack, the Omani Foreign Ministry stressed “the need to stop the escalation in the region and reject aggression and other actions that threaten security and stability,” expressing condolences to the families of the victims and wishing a speedy recovery to the injured.

Iraq also confirmed in a Foreign Ministry statement that the attack “represents a clear and flagrant violation of international law and Syrian sovereignty,” warning that “the expansion of the cycle of violence in the region will lead to more chaos and instability.”

China and Russia, on the other hand, took advantage of Western reluctance to denounce the flouting of international law

Chinese Foreign Ministry spokesman Wang Wenbin said that his country strongly condemns the Israeli attack and stresses that the security of diplomatic institutions cannot be violated. He stressed in a press conference in Beijing that “China opposes any actions that lead to escalation of tensions in the Middle East region.”

The Russian Foreign Ministry on Monday strongly condemned the Israeli attack on the Iranian consulate building in the Syrian capital Damascus earlier in the day, denouncing the action as "unacceptable."

"We consider any attacks on diplomatic and consular facilities, the inviolability of which is guaranteed by the relevant Vienna Conventions, to be categorically unacceptable," the ministry said in a statement.

Noting that the attack was carried out in a densely populated metropolitan area with a high risk of mass civilian casualties, the ministry said such "aggressive" actions by Israel are "absolutely unacceptable and must be stopped."