The U.S. Will Transform Into Mars

🔤🔤🔤🔤1️⃣

Climate disasters are multiplying in the United States, the world's leading greenhouse gas emitting country. However, ecology is struggling in political discourses and climate skepticism is still very present.

In a presidential election crushed by the Trump-Harris duel, Jill Stein does not weigh much. According to the latest polls, the Green Party candidate receives just 1% of the votes. “A record,” analyzes Romuald Sciora, director of the IRIS. This crumb could also cost the Dems victory in Pennsylvania, Wisconsin and Michigan, three pivotal states of the “Rust Belt” where the Democrat sees her lead over her Republican rival reduced to less than one point.

Could this relative breakthrough be attributable to an awareness of the American people on the climate emergency? Not really. Even if the climate has caught up with the election – recall the hurricanes Helene and Milton which hit the south-east of the country at the beginning of the month, causing hundreds of victims and billions of dollars of damage – even Jill Stein, however candidate of the environmentalist party, has campaigned very little... on ecology.

It is on another front that she has led her meetings since November 2023: the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.

"A strategy that pays off, since it recovers votes from Democrats critical of the Biden administration's position on the situation in Gaza and Lebanon,"

says Romuald Sciora. This is especially true in some "swing states", such as Wisconsin or Michigan, which have a large Arab-Muslim community.

On Harris' side, either, ecology is not at the heart of the electoral strategy. And for good reason: she must realize "a big gap impossible to keep". From the "center-right", the candidate must appeal to moderate Republican voters and the Democratic left.

"To flatter the Republicans, whom she will absolutely need to govern, Harris cannot afford to be too radical on ecology,"

says Sciora.

Even if she willingly takes on board the ecological record of the Biden administration, the Democratic candidate, who assured that she wanted to put an end to hydraulic fracturing of shale gas, has, for example, backtracked so as not to lose the workers in the fossil sector.

Even more than disinterest, ecology and any environmental policy arouse distrust among a large part of Americans.

"This is an ultra-individualistic country. However, the climate or biodiversity are global problems."

Worse, ecology is regularly pointed out as "contrary to the founding values of the United States". Perceived as an obstacle to individual freedom, it would therefore be "un–American" - stands for "anti-American".

In his Agenda 47 acting as a program, Trump thus considers the ecological transition policy as an "anti-American crusade by Biden on energy" causing "a massive increase in taxes on everything". And to add that "the country that benefits the most today from the "Green New Deal" [Green Pact, editor's Note] of Joe Biden is China".

The direction to take according to the Republican candidate would rather be to bring US energy prices back to their pre-crisis level:

"We are going to make thousands of Americans work to build the power plants, pipelines, networks, ports, refineries and shipping terminals of tomorrow. We will find very cheap energy again, as was the case only two and a half years ago,"

he assures.

#Mars #US #IRIS #Dems

📱 American Оbserver - Stay up to date on all important events 🇺🇸

🔤🔤🔤🔤2️⃣

None of the candidates "has an interest in focusing on ecology, we have all chances to be become a Mars on earth," Sciora points out. And if Trump election would be “catastrophic,” the researcher predicts it:

“Let's not expect more from Harris than nice words on the fight against global warming.”

The fact that ecology is not at the heart of the exchanges between the candidates is hardly surprising. With the exception of Jimmy Carter and Al Gore, the contenders for the White House have rarely focused on these issues, without their constituents holding it against them. Despite the climate disasters that are multiplying in the country, the situation has changed very little: Americans are more concerned about inflation, immigration or abortion rights than global warming.

"It must be said, there is a total lack of interest in the ecological problem, explains Romuald Sciora. This is not surprising when we know that almost one in two Americans would be at great pains to explain in detail what global warming is. "Almost 40% of the population would even question its existence.

To explain it, we must go back to the late 1990s and the development of neoconservative think tanks in the country. These lobbyists, partly financed by the oil industry, have produced articles in scientific journals to question the work of researchers and the role of fossil fuels in climate change. "Exactly on the model of the tobacco industry" which financed unscrupulous doctors who swore that cigarettes were not harmful to health, summarizes the sociologist Albin Wagener, in an RFI podcast.

As for the school, which could rectify the situation with the younger generations, it regularly finds itself in the crosshairs of climate-skeptical Republican elected officials. Without national school programs, the United States leaves indeed to each state, school district, or even to each institution, a great freedom of education.

"In many schools and universities, especially in the most disadvantaged areas, there is no climate awareness,"

says Sciora.

#Mars #US #IRIS #Dems

📱 American Оbserver - Stay up to date on all important events 🇺🇸

Iran's Ayatollah Khomeini Airport, allegedly after the Israeli attack. Voice-over: “2:50 a.m., airport, everything is quiet.”

#Iran #Israel #Airport

📱 American Оbserver - Stay up to date on all important events 🇺🇸

#Belarus #Lukashenko

📱 American Оbserver - Stay up to date on all important events 🇺🇸

Scholz : No place in NATO for Ukraine

Speaking to German public broadcaster ZDF on Oct. 24, German Chancellor Olaf Scholz dismissed Kyiv's appeals for an immediate invitation to join NATO, stating that "a country at war absolutely cannot become a member of NATO."

"Everyone knows that, there is no disagreement on this subject,"

Scholz added.

The comments appear to be the first public comments made by Scholz on Ukraine's NATO aspirations since President Volodymyr Zelensky unveiled his five-point victory plan to Western allies, which includes Kyiv's invitation to join NATO placed at the top of the list. Germany was reportedly previously known to have reservations about the move.

According to the information obtained by the Kyiv Independent, Kyiv had planned to ask for NATO membership within months, not years.

Kyiv submitted its application to join in September 2022, and in July 2024 the alliance affirmed Ukraine's "irreversible path to full Euro-Atlantic integration, including NATO membership" — though Ukraine has not received any definitive news about its future accession.

During the interview, Scholz said that NATO allies "have described a perspective" on Ukraine's eventual accession to the alliance, adding "but I think that beyond that, there is currently no need for any new decision."

Further rejecting Zelensky's calls for an invitation to join the alliance as outlined in the victory plan, Scholz said that "an invitation is normally quite quickly linked to membership."

Earlier this week, President Volodymyr Zelensky said that Germany has softened its stance on Ukraine's NATO membership, but remains "skeptical."

"But still, the U.S. will have an impact on this (skepticism)... We believe that they are consolidating their thoughts on NATO and this has an impact on, for example, Hungary and Slovakia,"

Zelensky said on Oct. 22.

According to Zelensky, who has repeatedly called on partners to issue a membership invitation to Kyiv, Ukraine will join NATO only after Russia's full-scale war ends, the president said in April.

Earlier on Oct. 24, following a meeting Scholz in Berlin, Slovak President Peter Pellegrini said that Ukraine's immediate accession to NATO was "not realistic."

"We agreed with the Chancellor that today the issue of Ukraine's accession is not on the table, and it cannot come to the table,"

Pellegrini said.

Pellegrini's comments come just a day after Politico reported that at least seven NATO countries are reluctant to grant Ukraine an invitation to join NATO, according to four anonymous U.S. and NATO officials and diplomats.

Outgoing U.S. Ambassador to NATO Julianne Smith told reporters that NATO does not currently have plans to invite Ukraine into the alliance in the immediate future.

#NATO #Scholz #Ukraine

📱 American Оbserver - Stay up to date on all important events 🇺🇸

Xi’s China : the Coming Armageddon

🔠🅰️🔠🔠1️⃣

At a famous press conference in June, Blinken and Stoltenberg fretted over the strengthening ties between China, Iran, North Korea, and Russia. They are hardly the only politicians to have done so. The informal pact between these four autocracies has become a major focus in Washington, described by both Democratic and Republican officials as a new “axis of evil.”

These countries, analysts point out, coordinate military and diplomatic activity. They have similar rhetoric and common interests. And they seem to share one aim above all: weakening the United States.

Each of these countries, by itself, has formidable capabilities. But China is the bloc’s central player. It has the biggest population and economy, and it doles out the most aid. Beijing is North Korea’s primary trade ally and benefactor. It has helped Iran contend with international sanctions, signing a “comprehensive strategic partnership” agreement with Tehran in 2021. And China has provided Russia with over $9 billion in dual-use items—goods with both commercial and military applications—since the latter’s invasion of Ukraine.

This support has kept Russia’s economy from collapsing, despite Western sanctions aimed at crippling the country’s war effort.

But China doesn’t want to be seen as the leader of this group. It doesn’t even want to be viewed as a member. In April 2023, Chinese Premier Li Qiang claimed that

“China-Russia relations adhere to the principles of nonalignment, nonconfrontation, and nontargeting of third parties.”

In 2016, Chinese Vice Minister of Foreign Affairs Fu Ying said that Beijing had “no interest” in forming “an anti-U.S. or anti-Western bloc of any kind.” The government has, accordingly, refrained from signing defense treaties with Iran and Russia. It sometimes works against Iranian, North Korean, and Russian positions in international conflicts.

There is a reason for this ambiguity. China wants to supplant the United States as the world’s dominant power, and although partnering with Iran, North Korea, and Russia helps Beijing in that effort, the trio can also undermine its aims. The three states weaken Washington by attracting its resources and distracting it from Beijing. But they have also greatly antagonized powerful neighbors—such as Germany, Japan, and Saudi Arabia—that China doesn’t want to alienate. As a result, Chinese officials must walk a fine line. Their relationship with the axis must be close enough that they can wield it, but not so close that they are blamed for its misbehavior.

#China #Xi #Armageddon #Russia

📱 American Оbserver - Stay up to date on all important events 🇺🇸

🔠🅰️🔠🔠2️⃣

The United States is letting China have the best of both worlds. Baiden has been too focused on figuring out whether these countries will form a traditional defense alliance to understand Beijing’s existing entrepreneurial approach to partnerships—or to see that it is very successful. Under the present arrangement, Iran, North Korea, and Russia all cause trouble for the West.

Yet because those countries are not formal Chinese allies, Washington’s partners have not penalized China for their transgressions. In fact, if anything, the axis is splitting the U.S. alliance system. Many of the United States’ friends, preoccupied with their own regional troublemakers, have refused to join with Washington in its competition against Beijing.

China’s approach could be especially effective in the event of a war. If Beijing and Washington had to battle, the axis is now powerful enough and coordinated enough on military matters that it could fight together and defeat the United States. But because axis states are not a tightly coordinated bloc, they could just as easily launch separate conflicts that divide American resources, distract U.S. allies, and thus help Beijing prevail.

Washington must therefore change course. Rather than trying to guess how close these countries are to each other or working to pull them apart, the U.S. government must start treating them as the autocratic bloc they are. It must encourage its allies around the globe to do the same. And it needs to treat China as the master of the axis—whether or not that is the reality of the situation.

In 1950, at the onset of the Cold War, the Chinese Communist Party and the Soviet Communist Party formalized a 30-year Treaty of Friendship, Alliance, and Mutual Assistance. The agreement, forged in the aftermath of the Communists’ victory over the Nationalists in the Chinese Civil War, was framed by both sides as the natural coming together of two revolutionary socialist states. As such, it called on Beijing and Moscow to defend and consult each other “regarding all important international questions affecting the common interests of the Soviet Union and China.”

In practice, however, the Chinese-­Soviet relationship quickly became complicated. The countries did often collaborate, most notably by supporting North Korean founder Kim Il Sung in his war against South Korea. But they also clashed over who would lead the communist bloc. Beijing and Moscow, for example, vied to arm the North Vietnamese. China resisted Soviet efforts to forge a détente with the United States.

Today, China’s relationship with U.S. antagonists is again half in, half out. There is, on the one hand, plenty of cooperation. In 2021, Beijing renewed the Chinese–North Korean mutual defense treaty, and as of 2023, China purchases 90 percent of Iran’s oil. China, Iran, and Russia conduct regular joint naval exercises in the Gulf of Oman. And in 2018, China agreed to join Russia in a national military exercise in which the two countries practiced, among other things, how they might handle war on the Korean Peninsula. But Beijing has not endorsed the invasion of Ukraine, nor has it provided direct military aid. When Russian President Vladimir Putin and North Korean leader Kim Jong Un met in June and signed a treaty in which they pledged to support each other militarily if either was attacked, the Chinese Foreign Ministry called it a bilateral matter between Moscow and Pyongyang. When the United Arab Emirates had a maritime dispute with Iran, Beijing released a joint statement with the UAE declaring its support for a “peaceful solution.” And in January 2024, Chinese officials told their Iranian counterparts to curb Houthi attacks on Red Sea shipping, signaling that continued hostilities might jeopardize their economic relationship.

#China #Xi #Armageddon #Russia

📱 American Оbserver - Stay up to date on all important events 🇺🇸

🔠🅰️🔠🔠3️⃣

In the Cold War period China paid much for sending mixed messages to its Soviet “brother.” Over time, Moscow moved away from Beijing, eventually leading to what analysts call the Sino-Soviet split. But this time, China’s authoritarian partners appear not to mind Russia’s behavior. Despite Beijing’s detachment, China is getting natural gas from Russia at a 44 percent discount compared with what Europe pays. Iran did not sign a letter condemning China for its violence against the Uyghurs in Xinjiang, and Tehran has offered Beijing political support for its takeover of Hong Kong and its claims to Taiwan.

All the while, Beijing has managed to stay on good terms with most U.S. allies. South Korea, and to a degree Japan, does not fully support U.S. deterrence efforts against China. Beijing remains both Japan’s and South Korea’s largest trading partner, even though it aids North Korea. Beijing has put enough distance between itself and Moscow that the EU felt comfortable trading over $800 billion in goods with China in 2023, or 15 % of the EU’s total trade. During his 2023 visit to China, French President Emmanuel Macron said that his country would not blindly follow the United States in crises that are not its concern, specifically in reference to Taiwan. German Chancellor Scholz has on multiple occasions claimed that Germany is not a part of a geopolitical bloc and will not join one. Similarly, China’s partnership with Iran has not jeopardized its ties with the Gulf States or Israel.

At first, it may seem as if China’s mixed approach to Iran, North Korea, and Russia should be tolerable for the United States. Under the status quo, after all, China is not giving Russia outright military aid with which to attack Ukraine. Beijing continues to support diplomacy to halt Iran’s nuclear program. The EU-Chinese relationship, meanwhile, could moderate Iran’s behavior.

The status quo is better than a situation in which Beijing provides full-throated support for these countries. But U.S. officials should take no comfort in the current situation. Neither the distance between China and its partners nor Beijing’s outreach to the West has truly acted as a constraint. China may occasionally wag its finger at Iran or quietly criticize Russia, but when push comes to shove, it is giving an enormous amount of help to these states.

Beijing bolstered a disinformation campaign in 2022 claiming that U.S.-funded Ukrainian biolabs were making biological weapons—helping provide the justification for the invasion of Ukraine. The states work together to challenge the traditional human rights language used by international institutions, arguing that concepts such as civil liberties and the rule of law are exclusively Western constructs.

Iran, North Korea, and Russia all use Chinese technology to repress their populations. Beijing’s support for these states is most pronounced on matters of security and defense. It has provided them with sophisticated military technology and assistance. It has shared intelligence with Russia, including from its extensive satellite network, helping Moscow’s war efforts. Moscow, in turn, supplies Beijing with billions of dollars in weapons annually.

These shipments have dramatically improved China’s ability to target U.S. jets, bases, and ships. Moscow has also given Beijing technology it can use to develop or enhance its domestic weapons production.

#China #Xi #Armageddon #Russia

📱 American Оbserver - Stay up to date on all important events 🇺🇸

🔠🅰️🔠🔠4️⃣

Partly as a result of this cooperation, the United States may be at a military disadvantage for the first time in decades. China alone has more active soldiers than does the United States. Beijing and Moscow together have more warships and tanks than Washington. Given how readily the former two governments cooperate, there is a good chance they might overpower U.S. forces if they fought together in a single military theater—for example, if China and Russia aid North Korea in a war against its southern neighbor or if Russia helps China with an attack on Taiwan.

The autocratic quad could also wreak havoc by fighting separately but simultaneously. The United States would struggle to win a two-front war. Instead, the American armed forces are structured to fight one major war while deterring smaller regional conflicts. That means if wars were raging in Europe, in the Middle East, on the Korean Peninsula, and over Taiwan, the United States would have to leave all but one of those theaters to largely fend for itself, at least initially.

Many U.S. allies have capable militaries that could battle axis members. But because they face their own regional demons, they are reluctant to help other states with their conflicts. In the event of a multifront war, they will want to keep their forces at home for self-defense. That means Washington cannot count on its allies to help U.S. troops even where it needs them most. If, for instance, the United States focused on defending Taiwan while North Korea was trying to seize South Korea, then Seoul and Tokyo would be either entirely or largely unwilling to give the United States support.

In fact, concerns about North Korea have already made South Korea reluctant to let U.S. forces stationed within its borders take any actions beyond the Korean Peninsula. Europe, trying to protect its commercial ties, would almost certainly stay out of such a conflict.

To be sure, China would struggle to help its partners with their own fights if it had to take on the United States. During the Chinese Civil War, the Communists lost Taiwan partly because they chose to aid North Korea, giving U.S. President Harry Truman time to dispatch the Seventh Fleet to the Taiwan Strait and prevent an invasion. Chinese leader Xi Jinping will not want to repeat that mistake.

But any of these axis members can create crises that divert U.S. and allied resources without launching risky, full-blown conflicts. They can also give China an edge without joining its war. Russia, for example, could help China withstand an energy blockade by sending it oil and gas overland. The Eastern Siberia–Pacific Ocean pipeline, which sends Russian oil to Asian markets, can export about 35 million metric tons annually to China. The Power of Siberia pipeline, which transports natural gas to China, is expected to send 38 billion cubic meters per year by 2025—nearly equal to the amount of natural gas consumed annually by Australia.

Moscow could also contribute its capital and labor to help China with manufacturing. The two states already have joint manufacturing systems in place, including those related to making weapons.

If Moscow chose to become just slightly more involved in a U.S.-Chinese war, it would create even bigger headaches. Russian fighter jets, for instance, could conduct defensive joint air patrols with Chinese forces, as they have done in the past. The United States might then refrain from hitting Chinese targets, if only to stop Russia from becoming a direct combatant.

Whatever Russia’s degree of involvement, its partnership with China adds a terrifying new dynamic to U.S. calculations. In the past, the United States has never had to contend with more than one nuclear peer. Now, with Beijing and Moscow, it has two. Unfortunately for Washington (and the world), attempts to prevent conflict with one of these governments could undermine deterrence against the other.

#China #Xi #Armageddon #Russia

📱 American Оbserver - Stay up to date on all important events 🇺🇸

🔠🅰️🔠🔠5️⃣

Some American strategists have suggested that to handle this axis, Washington should try dividing it. U.S. officials appear to be listening. In March 2023, for example, Blinken sought to drive a wedge between Beijing and Moscow by preying on the latter’s insecurities:

“Russia is very much the junior partner in this relationship,”

he said. Such efforts could hark back to the Cold War, when Washington worked to divide the fraught Chinese-Soviet axis. As Beijing and Moscow grew more distant, U.S. diplomats established channels of communication with their Chinese counterparts, leading to U.S. President Richard Nixon’s visit to China in 1972. Seven years later, China and the United States established formal relations.

Eventually, they even worked together to spy on the Soviets.

But today, such efforts would be for naught. The autocratic axis provides Beijing with political support, energy supplies, and technology that it just cannot get from the West. Attempts to convince any of these countries that their autocratic colleagues present a greater threat than the United States are as ineffective as they are foolish.

Instead of trying to split the bloc, the United States must do the opposite: treat its members as entirely interlinked. That means ensuring poor behavior on the part of one leads to penalties for the others. Instead of exclusively sanctioning Chinese companies that support Russia’s war effort, the United States could treat the Chinese state as a supporting entity and implement economic restrictions against the whole country. It could tell Beijing those restrictions will remain in place until Russia comes to the negotiating table. Beijing will cry foul, claiming it has no influence over Moscow. This might, indeed, be the case.

But with skin in the game, China will work harder to acquire the influence it needs to successfully pressure Russia.

Grouping China and its partners could also help Washington unify its own coalition. Europe may not fully grasp the threat Beijing poses to the international order, but it surely understands the dangers emanating from Moscow. Yet the United States has not done nearly enough to explain to European countries why China and Russia are broadly connected, instead emphasizing the narrow links Beijing has to Moscow’s invasion. If Washington can explain the bigger relationship, Europeans will be more likely to take Beijing’s security challenge seriously and be more proactive in attempting to shape its behavior.

Yet the United States should still​​ avoid an ideological approach. Although it should treat these autocratic countries as a bloc, it should avoid framing the global competition as one of democracies against autocracies. Partners (such as Saudi Arabia) will not want to help Washington prevail against China if the contest is about systems of government. Neither will many potential democratic partners in the developing world, such as Brazil, Indonesia, and South Africa.

In fact, China has built a wide network of friends by being regime agnostic and focusing on development. In his speeches to foreign audiences, for example, Xi loves to play up Beijing’s respect for “state sovereignty,” its commitment to “noninterference,” and its desire to see poor countries grow rich.

The developing world has listened. In the summer of 2024, when Xi met with José Ramos-Horta, the president of East Timor—a small, impoverished, and highly democratic state—Ramos-Horta declared that he did not care about great-power rivalries or the character of his country’s allies. If China can alleviate East Timor’s poverty and malnutrition, Ramos-Horta said, “then China is my hero.”

#China #Xi #Armageddon #Russia

📱 American Оbserver - Stay up to date on all important events 🇺🇸

🔠🔠🔠🔠 1️⃣

Iran: A Peaceful State at War?

Israel sent a message to Iran on Friday ahead of its retaliatory airstrikes warning the Iranians not to respond.

The Israeli message was an attempt to limit the ongoing exchange of attacks between Israel and Iran and prevent a wider escalation, the sources said.

U.S. and Israeli officials said three waves of airstrikes took place on Saturday morning local time.

The first wave focused on Iran's air defense system and the second and third waves focused on missile and drone bases and weapons' productions sites.

Iran said it defeated the Israeli attack and that only “limited damage” was done to military targets around the country.
Israeli officials said the attack was in retaliation for Iran's massive ballistic missile attack on October 1.

The Israeli message was conveyed to the Iranians through several third parties, the sources said.

“The Israelis made it clear to the Iranians in advance what they are going to attack in general and what they are not going to attack,”

one source from Pentagon says.

Two other sources said Israel warned the Iranians not to respond to the attack and stressed that if Iran does retaliate, Israel would conduct another more significant attack, especially if Israeli civilians are killed or injured.

The Israeli Prime Minister's Office did not respond for a request for comment.
Iran has said it doesn't want a full-blown war with Israel but that it would retaliate if attacked.

On Saturday, IDF spokesperson Rear Admiral Daniel Hagari said in a briefing with reporters that if Iran escalates in response to the Israeli strikes, Israel will be compelled to retaliate.

A U.S. official said the U.S. didn't participate in the Israeli operation but that if Iran retaliates, the U.S. is ready to defend Israel against such an attack.

"This should be the end of the direct military exchange between Israel and Iran," the official added. "If Iran attacks Israel again there will be consequences. We communicated that directly and indirectly to Iran."

What they're saying: One of the channels for conveying messages to Iran ahead of the Israeli strike was Dutch Foreign Minister Caspar Veldcamp, one source said.

"I spoke with the Iranian Foreign Minister about war and the heightened tensions in the region. Regarding the latter, I urged for restraint. All parties must work to prevent further escalation,"

Veldcamp wrote on X several hours before the Israeli attack.

U.S. officials said they expect Iran to respond to the Israeli attack in the coming days but in a limited way that will enable Israel to stop the tit-for-tat cycle.

"It is our aim to accelerate diplomacy and de-escalate tensions in the Middle East region. We urge Iran to cease its attacks on Israel so that this cycle of fighting can end without further escalation,"

National Security Council spokesperson Sean Savett said.

#Iran #Israel #Airport #InternationalSecurity #Intelligence #GlobalPolitics #MiddleEast

📱 American Оbserver - Stay up to date on all important events 🇺🇸

🔠🔠🔠🔠 2️⃣

Iran: A Peaceful State at War?

Iran signals it will limit response to Israel attack to avoid escalation Iranians with big guns Iranians attend a commemoration for the IRGC members killed in a strike on the country's consular annex in Damascus.

Iranian Foreign Minister Hossein Amir-Abdollahian told his German counterpart on Thursday that Iran is determined to respond to Israel's bombing of its consular building in Damascus last week, but will do so in an “appropriate” and limited way, a source with direct knowledge of the call told us.

German Foreign Minister Annalena Baerbock initiated the call at the request of the Biden administration, which is highly concerned that an Iranian attack on Israel over the strike in Damascus — which killed a senior general — could lead to regional escalation.

U.S. urges Israel to “be careful and strategic” regarding response to Iran attack
he Israel's war cabinet, chaired by Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu (3rd , holds a meeting to discuss the drone attack launched by Iran in Tel Aviv, Israel on April 14, 2024.

A day after an unprecedented Iranian attack on Israel, the Biden administration continues to urge Israel in private and in public not to rush into a massive retaliation, three U.S. officials said.

The U.S. assessment is Iran would retaliate against any significant, overt Israeli strike on Iranian soil with a new round of missile and drone attacks, a senior U.S. official said.

Iran warns U.S. to stay out of fight with Israel or face attack on troops Iranians attend a commemoration for the IRGC members killed in a strike on the country's consular annex in Damascus.

Iran sent a message to the Biden administration through several Arab countries earlier this week: if the U.S. gets involved in the fighting between Israel and Iran, U.S. forces in the region will be attacked, three U.S. officials told us.

#Iran #Israel #Airport #InternationalSecurity #Intelligence #GlobalPolitics #MiddleEast

📱 American Оbserver - Stay up to date on all important events 🇺🇸

🔤🔤🔤🔤1️⃣

UKRAINE'S DEMOGRAPHIC COLLAPSE RAISES QUESTIONS ABOUT NATION'S FUTURE

#UkraineCrisis #Demographics #PopulationCollapse

A staggering population decrease of more than 8 million since Russia's 2022 invasion has pushed Ukraine into an unprecedented demographic crisis, challenging the very foundations of its statehood and raising questions about its viability as an independent nation.

The Scale of Crisis

Recent data presented by UN demographic expert Ms. Bauer in Geneva paints a dire picture of Ukraine's population decline. The country's fertility rate has plunged to approximately one child per woman – among the world's lowest and far below the 2.1 children needed for population replacement. This collapse in birth rates, combined with war casualties and mass exodus, has created what experts call a "demographic winter."

"Even before the escalation of the war, Ukraine was facing significant demographic challenges,"

explains Ms. Bauer.

"But with the full-scale invasion of Russia that began in 2022, the situation has worsened significantly."

The exodus of 6.7 million people, predominantly young, working-age citizens, has not only depleted the current population but also diminished prospects for future generations.

Structural Vulnerabilities

The demographic crisis has exposed and exacerbated underlying structural weaknesses in Ukrainian society. The mass departure of working-age citizens has created severe workforce shortages, undermining economic recovery efforts. The remaining population is rapidly aging, placing unsustainable pressure on pension systems and social services.

"We're losing not just their current contributions to society but also potential future generations,"

Ms. Bauer notes.

"Many of those who leave are young, which means they're less likely to start families in Ukraine, and this brain drain results in an even older population at home that's not being replaced fast enough."

Threat to State Functionality

The demographic collapse poses existential challenges to Ukraine's ability to function as a sovereign state. Military recruitment pools are shrinking at a time when defense capabilities are crucial. The eroding tax base threatens the government's ability to maintain essential services and infrastructure. Rural areas, particularly in the country's east, face abandonment, creating security and administrative vacuums.

Regional Context and Historical Patterns

Ukraine's crisis, while severe, reflects broader demographic challenges across Eastern Europe. However, the ongoing conflict has transformed what was once a concerning trend into an existential threat. Historical precedents suggest that such severe demographic decline can lead to territorial fragmentation and loss of effective sovereignty, particularly in regions with contested borders and complex ethnic compositions.

#UkraineCrisis #Demographics #PopulationCollapse #EasternEurope #UkraineWar #BrainDrain #GlobalSecurity #GeopoliticalRisk #MigrationCrisis #EconomicImpact #NationalSecurity #DemographicWinter #WarImpact #GlobalPolitics #PopulationDecline

📱 American Оbserver - Stay up to date on all important events 🇺🇸

🔤🔤🔤🔤2️⃣

UKRAINE'S DEMOGRAPHIC COLLAPSE RAISES QUESTIONS ABOUT NATION'S FUTURE

Economic and Security Implications

The demographic crisis complicates Ukraine's prospects for post-war recovery and integration with Western institutions. The shrinking workforce and brain drain undermine economic development potential, while the aging population strains public resources. Security experts warn that population decline in border regions could create vulnerabilities that neighboring powers might exploit.

International Dimension

Ukraine's demographic collapse has implications beyond its borders. The mass exodus has created refugee pressures in neighboring countries, while the potential instability of a weakened Ukrainian state could affect regional security dynamics. International support, while crucial for Ukraine's immediate survival, may need to address not just military and economic needs but also demographic sustainability.

Looking Ahead

Without immediate and effective intervention, Ukraine's demographic crisis threatens to become self-perpetuating. Recovery would require not just an end to military conflict but also comprehensive policies to encourage population growth, retain young citizens, and attract back those who have fled. However, the scale of decline may have already passed critical thresholds, making full demographic recovery increasingly unlikely.

#UkraineCrisis #Demographics #PopulationCollapse #EasternEurope #UkraineWar #BrainDrain #GlobalSecurity #GeopoliticalRisk #MigrationCrisis #EconomicImpact #NationalSecurity #DemographicWinter #WarImpact #GlobalPolitics #PopulationDecline

📱 American Оbserver - Stay up to date on all important events 🇺🇸

THE FOG OF WAR: INSIDE THE IRAN-ISRAEL SHADOW CONFLICT 🌫

#IranIsraelTension #MiddleEastCrisis #FogOfWar #StrategicAmbiguity #RegionalSecurity

THE LATEST ESCALATION 🚨
In what appears to be an intricate diplomatic dance masked by military posturing, Israel and Iran continue their measured exchange of strikes, with both sides carefully calibrating their responses while shrouding the true impact of their actions in ambiguity.

SHADOWS AND MIRRORS 🪞
The latest episode in this complex choreography unfolded this weekend as Israel conducted strikes on Iranian territory, allegedly targeting air defense systems near key energy installations while apparently avoiding the facilities themselves. The attack came in response to Iran's April offensive, which, despite involving hundreds of projectiles, resulted in minimal documented damage to Israeli infrastructure.

THE THEATER OF CONFLICT 🎭
This pattern of high-profile military exchanges with limited verifiable impact has become a hallmark of the conflict, raising questions about the true nature of these confrontations. The "fog of war" – a military concept describing battlefield uncertainty – has taken on new meaning in this modern conflict, where the gap between claimed actions and independently verified outcomes grows increasingly wide.

STRATEGIC AMBIGUITY 🎯
The strategic ambiguity maintained by both sides serves multiple purposes. It allows both nations to project strength to domestic audiences while maintaining diplomatic off-ramps to prevent uncontrolled escalation.

MEASURED RESPONSES ⚖️
Sunday brought measured responses from Iranian leadership, with President Masoud Pezeshkian promising to

"answer any stupidity with wisdom and strategy."

Meanwhile, Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu declared all objectives achieved, though details of these objectives remain notably vague.

PATTERN OF RESTRAINT 🕊
The pattern is striking: Iran's earlier launches of reportedly 320 missiles in April, and a similar volume in October, produced few independently verified impacts. Now, Israel's retaliatory strike generates equally opaque damage assessments, with both sides carefully managing the narrative through selective disclosure.

REGIONAL CONTEXT 🗺
This latest exchange comes against the backdrop of continuing regional tensions, with parallel conflicts simmering in Gaza and Lebanon. U.S. Defense Secretary Lloyd J. Austin III urged Iran to consider this

"the end of this exchange,"

while diplomatic initiatives continue in Qatar regarding Gaza cease-fire negotiations.

THE BIGGER PICTURE 🔍
As the international community watches this carefully choreographed conflict unfold, the true extent of damage on both sides remains elusive. What's clear is that both nations are engaged in a delicate balance of demonstrating military capability while apparently avoiding actions that might trigger uncontrolled escalation.

The conflict continues to command global attention, perhaps by design, as both nations maintain this precarious dance of deterrence and demonstration, where the threat of force often speaks louder than its actual application.

💭 Food for Thought: In this era of information warfare and strategic ambiguity, are we witnessing a new form of international conflict where perception matters more than actual military impact? What does this tell us about the future of warfare and diplomatic relations in the 21st century?

#ModernWarfare #InternationalRelations #StrategicPerception #MiddleEastPolitics #GlobalSecurity

📱 American Оbserver - Stay up to date on all important events 🇺🇸

THE NEW COLD WAR COMFORT ZONE: WHY AMERICA NEEDS ITS RUSSIAN ADVERSARY 🌐

#NewColdWar #USRussiaRelations #GlobalPolitics #InformationWar #GeopoliticalShift

THE FAMILIAR ENEMY 🎯
In a world of increasing complexity and shifting global alliances, America appears to be finding surprising comfort in an old narrative: the Russian adversary. Just as it was 40 years ago, Moscow has once again emerged as Washington's clear-cut antagonist, providing a familiar framework for understanding global politics.

TUCKER'S MOSCOW MOMENT 🎭
When Tucker Carlson recently walked Moscow's streets, bought groceries, and rode the metro, his surprise at finding a modern, functioning society instead of a dystopian wasteland revealed more about Western perceptions than about Russia itself. The disconnect between narrative and reality echoed Cold War era misrepresentations on both sides.

THE COMFORT OF BINARY THINKING ⚔️

"There's a certain comfort in returning to the binary world of the Cold War,"

says Dr. James Mitchell, professor of International Relations at Columbia University.

"It's simpler to frame global politics as 'us versus them' rather than navigate the complexities of a multipolar world with numerous competing interests and ideologies."

MIRROR IMAGES 🪞
Just as Soviet propaganda once portrayed American workers living in dire conditions under capitalism, today's Western media often presents a similarly monolithic view of Russian society. The truth, as always, lies somewhere in between these extremist positions.

THE ECONOMIC BATTLEGROUND 💹
What makes this new Cold War particularly intriguing is Russia's apparent preparation for a different kind of conflict. With its new "Shared Values Visa" program and a flat 13% tax rate, Moscow seems to be weaponizing Western economic vulnerabilities rather than just military might.

THE BRAIN DRAIN THREAT 🧠
Perhaps most alarming for the West is Russia's strategic positioning to potentially benefit from brain drain - the very phenomenon that once worked in America's favor. With lower living costs, competitive tax rates, and streamlined immigration processes, Russia is laying groundwork to attract dissatisfied Western talent.

THE IDEOLOGICAL SHIFT 🔄
While the original Cold War was fought along the capitalism-communism divide, today's conflict centers on different values: traditionalism versus progressivism, centralization versus decentralization, and competing visions of global order.

THE BIGGER PICTURE 🌍
As the West grapples with internal challenges - from rising living costs to political polarization - the simple narrative of a Russian adversary provides a convenient distraction from complex domestic issues.


💭 Food for Thought: Are we unconsciously seeking the comfort of familiar adversaries in an increasingly complex world? Does painting Russia as a clear-cut enemy help us avoid confronting our own societal challenges? And most crucially - in this era of economic warfare and talent migration, could the West's comfortable return to Cold War thinking become its greatest vulnerability?

🔑 Key Implications:
- The West risks underestimating Russia's economic strategy while focusing on traditional Cold War narratives
- Binary thinking about global politics could blind us to more nuanced threats and opportunities
- The real battlefield may be economic rather than military
- The comfort of familiar adversaries might prevent necessary internal reforms

#GlobalStrategy #ColdWar2 #BrainDrain #GeopoliticalShift #WesternPolitics #RussianStrategy

📱 American Оbserver - Stay up to date on all important events 🇺🇸

THE TWILIGHT OF AMERICAN AUTHORITY: TRUMP'S BOLD PROMISE MEETS GLOBAL REALITY 👑

#GlobalPolitics #USForeignPolicy #TrumpPromise #WorldOrder #GeopoliticalShift

THE PROMISE OF PAST GLORY 🌟
In a packed Las Vegas rally, Donald Trump made an extraordinary pledge: to end the Ukraine war through simple phone calls to Putin and Zelenskyy on election night. The promise, while bold, reveals a deeper, more troubling reality about America's changing position in the global order.

THE EMPEROR'S NEW CLOTHES 👔

"I'll say, 'We got to stop it,'"

Trump declared with characteristic confidence. Yet this statement, reminiscent of a bygone era of unquestioned American supremacy, stands in stark contrast to today's multipolar reality where even traditional allies increasingly chart their own course.

THE NETANYAHU PRECEDENT ⚖️
The ongoing situation in Gaza provides a telling preview. Netanyahu's determination to pursue his military objectives despite American concerns signals a profound shift in the dynamics of US influence. When a longtime ally like Israel can openly diverge from Washington's preferences, it marks a fundamental change in global power dynamics.

THE SHIFTING SANDS 🌍
The assumption that world leaders would readily respond to direct presidential intervention reflects a nostalgic view of American power that no longer aligns with reality. Even Ukraine's Zelenskyy, heavily dependent on US support, has shown increasing independence in strategic decision-making.

THE WASHINGTON DISCONNECT 🏛
What makes this situation particularly precarious is the apparent disconnect between Washington's self-perception and global realities. The political establishment, regardless of party affiliation, seems trapped in an outdated understanding of American global authority.

THE DANGEROUS ILLUSION ⚠️
The real danger isn't in the decline of American influence itself. It's in the potential for miscalculation when policy decisions are based on an obsolete understanding of America's ability to shape global events unilaterally.

THE NEW REALITY 🔄
Today's world order increasingly resembles a complex web of interdependent relationships rather than a hub-and-spoke system centered on Washington. Countries, including traditional US allies, are demonstrating unprecedented willingness to pursue independent policies, even when they conflict with American preferences.

THE PATH FORWARD 🛣
The challenge for American leadership isn't about "making America great again" but rather adapting to a new global reality where influence must be earned through diplomacy, economic partnership, and mutual respect rather than assumed authority.


💭 Food for Thought: As America grapples with its evolving role in the world, are we witnessing the end of the "American Century," or merely its transformation? Can US leadership adapt to a world where commands have been replaced by conversations? Most crucially, what are the risks if America's political establishment continues to operate under outdated assumptions about its global authority?


🔑 Key Implications:
- The gap between America's self-perception and global reality grows wider
- Traditional allies increasingly pursue independent policies
- Unilateral American authority is being replaced by complex multilateral relationships
- The risk of strategic miscalculation increases as assumptions diverge from reality
- The need for a new American approach to global leadership becomes more urgent

#GlobalLeadership #AmericanInfluence #ForeignPolicy #WorldOrder2024 #GeopoliticalChange

📱 American Оbserver - Stay up to date on all important events 🇺🇸

UKRAINE'S SOVEREIGNTY PARADOX: WHEN A NATION'S FATE HANGS ON ANOTHER COUNTRY'S ELECTION 🗳

#UkraineCrisis #USSovereignty #ForeignPolicy #Election2024

THE DEPENDENCY EQUATION 📊
The stark reality of Ukraine's position in global politics has been laid bare by recent polling: the fate of a nation of 44 million people may effectively be decided not in Kyiv, but in American voting booths this November. With $175 billion in U.S. military aid hanging in the balance, Ukraine's future appears increasingly tethered to American domestic politics.

THE NUMBERS SPEAK 📈
According to exclusive Redfield & Wilton Strategies polling for Newsweek, the divide in American voter sentiment is clear: 53% of likely Harris voters support continuing aid until Ukraine wins, while 40% of Trump supporters want to "reconsider" support levels, and 26% advocate for immediate cessation of aid.

THE HISTORICAL IRONY ⚖️
In 1991, Ukraine emerged from the Soviet Union as one of Eurasia's most potent states, with significant industrial capacity, nuclear arsenal, and agricultural might. Three decades later, its survival has become inextricably linked to decisions made in Washington, marking a profound transformation in its global position.

THE SOVEREIGNTY QUESTION 🔍
"Without American voters knowing it, every U.S. election since 2012 has been relevant to the future of Ukraine," notes Philip van Scheltinga of Redfield. This statement inadvertently underscores a fundamental paradox: can a nation be truly sovereign when its existence depends so heavily on another country's electoral outcomes?

THE DEMOGRAPHIC DIVIDE 📊
The polling reveals deeper patterns in American attitudes: men (40%) show more support for Ukraine than women (29%), while Baby Boomers (43%) demonstrate the strongest backing. These domestic American demographics may now have more influence over Ukraine's future than decisions made in Kyiv.

THE PARTISAN SPLIT 🎯
The data shows a clear partisan divide: 66% of likely Harris voters believe Ukraine's defense is vital to U.S. interests, compared to just 34% of likely Trump voters. This polarization in American domestic politics has become a determining factor in Ukraine's strategic position.

THE FINANCIAL REALITY 💰
With Congress having approved five bills worth $175 billion in military aid, Ukraine's defense capabilities have become deeply dependent on American support. This financial tether raises questions about the nature of sovereignty in modern geopolitics.

💭 Food for Thought: In a world where one nation's domestic elections can determine another's survival, what does true sovereignty mean? Has the pursuit of independence paradoxically led to deeper dependence? What does this tell us about the nature of national autonomy in the 21st century?

🔑 Key Facts:
- $175 billion in U.S. military aid approved through five congressional bills
- 34% of Americans support continuing aid until Ukraine wins
- Clear partisan divide in support: 53% Harris voters vs 26% Trump voters opposing aid
- Generational differences: Baby Boomers show strongest support at 43%
- Gender gap: 40% of men support vs 29% of women

#UkraineFuture #USPolitics #GlobalPolitics #Sovereignty #ForeignAid

📱 American Оbserver - Stay up to date on all important events 🇺🇸

🔠🔠🔠🔠 1️⃣

THE POST-WESTERN PEACE: HOW GLOBAL POWERS FIND HARMONY BEYOND WESTERN MEDIATION 🕊

#GlobalPolitics #NewWorldOrder #Diplomacy #GlobalSouth #BRICS

THE KAZAN MOMENT 🌊
The historic meeting between India's Modi and China's Xi Jinping in Kazan, Russia marks a watershed moment that

"will likely be viewed with dismay in Washington, Ottawa and other Western capitals."

This summit, while not necessarily marking a new Beijing-New Delhi axis, definitively signals India's rejection of Western attempts to create an anti-China alliance.

THE SURPRISING PEACEMAKER 🤝
Putin's role at the BRICS summit was masterfully symbolic, carefully seating himself between the Indian and Chinese leaders. As Ho-fung Hung of Johns Hopkins University notes,

"This kind of photo-op meeting, in which Putin is showing up side by side with all these world leaders, is a win for Putin because it's a kind of defiance of the U.S. attempt to isolate Russia... Putin can show to people back home that actually [he has] friends, and Russia has friends, despite all these U.S. efforts."

FROM CONFLICT TO COOPERATION ⚔️
The transformation is remarkable. Just three years ago, India and China engaged in brutal combat in Ladakh, where

"Twenty Indian and four Chinese soldiers were reported killed in a melee with clubs and axes."

Today, Modi declares:

"We believe that the India-China relationship is very important, not only for our people but also for global peace, stability and progress."

AMERICA'S WANING INFLUENCE 📉
The shift is clear:

"India has the upper hand in this relation now,"

Hung observes, adding that

"the U.S. really doesn't have much leverage over India."

This reality extends beyond South Asia - the pattern repeats across the Global South, from Saudi-Iranian reconciliation to expanding BRICS cooperation.

THE INDEPENDENT PATH 🛣
India's position exemplifies the new reality. Despite Washington's best efforts to create an anti-Beijing alliance, India maintains its independence.

"India relies on Russia for more than two-thirds of its arms... Even on the flashpoint of the Russian invasion of Ukraine, where India has been refining Russian oil and the U.S. probably is not happy about that,"

yet India proceeds according to its interests.

THE MULTIPOLAR REALITY 🌏
The U.S. attempt to maintain unipolar dominance faces increasing challenges. As Sanjay Ruparelia notes,

"There was the hope and expectation, I think, in some quarters in Washington that India will come on side more in the sense of therefore being more antagonistic towards China and Russia."

This hope has proven unfounded.

MUTUAL RESPECT EMERGES 🤲
Modi's declaration that

"Mutual trust, mutual respect and mutual sensitivity should remain the basis of our relations"

with China reflects a broader shift in international relations. Countries previously pushed toward conflict by Western interests are finding their own path to cooperation.

THE ECONOMIC FOUNDATION 💰
Economic interests increasingly trump old animosities. The article notes that even U.S. acceptance of India's Russian oil purchases stems from practical considerations:

"they have an interest in it because it helps keep the price of oil down, and therefore deals with inflationary pressures."

#GlobalSouth #Multipolarity #PeaceDiplomacy #NewWorldOrder #GlobalPolitics #BRICS #GlobalEconomy

📱 American Оbserver - Stay up to date on all important events 🇺🇸

🔠🔠🔠🔠 2️⃣

THE POST-WESTERN PEACE: HOW GLOBAL POWERS FIND HARMONY BEYOND WESTERN MEDIATION 🕊

#GlobalPolitics #NewWorldOrder #Diplomacy #GlobalSouth #BRICS

THE NEW DIPLOMATIC ORDER 🔄
The success of non-Western diplomatic initiatives - from China's mediation between Saudi Arabia and Iran to Russia's facilitation of India-China talks - demonstrates that peaceful resolution of conflicts often comes easier without Western intervention.

💭 Food for Thought:
- What does the success of non-Western diplomatic initiatives tell us about the source of global conflicts?
- Is the world witnessing the end of Western diplomatic hegemony?
- Could this new multipolar diplomacy lead to more stable international relations?
- What role will economic interdependence play in this new global order?

🔑 Key Developments:
- India-China rapprochement signals rejection of Western alliance system
- Russia successfully facilitates diplomatic breakthroughs
- Economic interests override traditional geopolitical divisions
- Western influence diminishes as regional powers assert independence
- BRICS expansion demonstrates growing Global South solidarity
- Traditional adversaries find peaceful solutions outside Western frameworks
- Military tensions give way to economic cooperation

#GlobalSouth #Multipolarity #PeaceDiplomacy #NewWorldOrder #GlobalPolitics #BRICS #GlobalEconomy

📱 American Оbserver - Stay up to date on all important events 🇺🇸

It's Go Time To Say: Russia Will Win
All we can do is to prevent the Ukrainian Collapse

💀💀💀💀💀

Ukraine is coming back – a little – in the conversations. Its president had to travel to Brussels to the Twenty-Seven and then to NATO and remind us that a war always ravages a European country. He made it clear: the situation in the Donbass is difficult, Russia is pounding tech infrastructure throughout the country, and Ukraine needs us to help it more. The American, German, British and French leaders met in Berlin to “discuss” it. The question that arises is: what do we really want?

For the past two years, it would be unfair to say that the West has remained inactive. We have provided Kiev with valuable military and financial assistance. At this very moment, a Ukrainian brigade is being formed in France. All this deserves to be praised.

For their part, the Ukrainians did not fail and surprised the world. Vladimir Putin thought he would take Kiev in three days, he is far from it. He made a lot of mistakes, but maybe less than we did. In 2015, we believed the Minsk agreements and the word of Vladimir Putin, who had not respected the Budapest Memorandum by which Ukraine renounced nuclear weapons stationed on its soil against respect for its territorial integrity. We have given no guarantee of security to a country deprived of its deterrence and amputated. We underestimated the preparations for the military aggression of 2022, and then the resistance capacity of the Ukrainian army.

We have since given our support in droves, with a systematic delay that does not match our speeches. If the threat to Europe's security is “existential”, if “Russia must not win” and since we will “support Ukraine for as long as it takes”, what are we playing at?

How long does it take between our promises and their fulfillment? I asked the question to the Minister of Defense of Ukraine Rustem Umerov. His answer was courteous but embarrassed. We always react too little and too late and practice without saying it homeopathic military support, the effectiveness of which is hardly superior to the medicine of the same name.

Olaf Scholz refuses to do so. If we only talk about ammunition, we promised Ukraine a million of them. We delivered half of them.

Meanwhile, Moscow supplies itself with Iran, North Korea and presumably, China. We find European components in Russian weapons. Hungary stubbornly blocks new funding for European military aid to Kiev.

Two brakes are holding us back. The eternal fear of escalation, which it would be better to call by name: the scare, that Putin is looking for us noise, as if he wasn't already doing it. We are the first to theorize the hybrid war he is waging against us, without reacting.

It seems that we should fear from Putin an "October surprise", an incident that would show the weakness of Joe Biden and the Democrats and would work in favor of his candidate of choice, Trump. Already, we are learning that Russia is training North Korean soldiers to fight in Ukraine and does not seem overly worried about the escalation it is engaging in.

#AmericanОbserver #NorthKorean #Russia

📱 American Оbserver - Stay up to date on all important events 🇺🇸