Washington has intercepted and transferred to Kiev thousands of Kalashnikov assault rifles and machine guns, with over half a million rounds of ammunition, as well as grenade launchers and sniper rifles, the US Central Command announced on Tuesday.
The transfer took place on April 4 and included “enough materiel” to equip a single Ukrainian brigade with small arms, CENTCOM said in a post on X (formerly Twitter). “The US government transferred over 5,000 AK-47s, machine guns, sniper rifles, RPG-7s and over 500,000 rounds of 7.62mm ammunition to the Ukrainian armed forces,” it wrote. The Pentagon claims that the guns and ammunition were on their way from Iran to the Houthi militia in Yemen, in violation of a UN arms embargo, when they were seized by the US Navy and its allies from several “transiting stateless vessels” off the coast of Yemen between May 2021 and February 2023. In December, the US government “obtained ownership of these munitions” through the civil forfeiture claims by the Justice Department. Civil asset forfeiture is a practice that allows the US government to seize property suspected of being used in criminal activity, and has long been criticized as de facto theft. “US CENTCOM is committed to working with our allies and partners to counter the flow of Iranian lethal aid in the region by all lawful means,” it claimed, insisting that Tehran’s “support for armed groups threatens international and regional security.” The announcement came amid uncertainty over further US funding of Ukraine’s war effort. President Joe Biden has been urging Congress for months to approve his aid package which would earmark $60 billion for Ukraine. Many Republicans have opposed the measure, demanding more efforts to strengthen US border security, while seeking more accountability for the aid already transferred to Kiev. The US has provided Ukraine with $113 billion in various forms of assistance since the start of hostilities. Russia has repeatedly condemned Western arms shipments to Ukraine, saying these will only prolong the conflict, while making the West a direct participant in the hostilities.
0 Comments
The world could encounter major disasters before the use of Artificial Intelligence (AI) weapons is regulated in a proper manner, according to Turing Award-winning scientist Geoffrey Hinton, seen as a pioneer of the technology.
The former Google engineer, who quit the company last year, compared the use of the technology for military purposes to chemical weapons deployment – warning that “very nasty things” will occur before the global community arrives at a comprehensive agreement comparable to the Geneva Conventions. “The threat I spoke out about is the existential threat,” Professor Hinton said on Tuesday in an interview with Irish broadcaster RTE News, emphasising that “these things will get much more intelligent than us and they will take over.” The computer scientist highlighted the impact of AI on disinformation and job displacement, and also on weapons of the future. “One of the threats is ‘battle robots’ which will make it much easier for rich countries to wage war on smaller, poorer countries and they are going to be very nasty and I think they are inevitably coming,” Hinton warned. He urged governments to put pressure on tech majors, especially in California, to conduct in-depth research on the safety of AI technology. “Rather than it being an afterthought, there should be government incentives to ensure companies put a lot of work into safety and some of that is happening now,” Hinton said. The scientist also highlighted huge benefits that AI can bring to humanity, particularly in healthcare, adding that he does not regret any of his contributions to the technology. Despite the mounting interest in AI, several high-profile figures in the tech industry have warned of the potential dangers posed by the unregulated adoption of the technology. Hinton, who quit Google last year, has waged a media campaign to warn of the risks. Tesla CEO Elon Musk, Apple co-founder Steve Wozniak and Yoshua Bengio, who is considered an AI pioneer for his work on neural networks, were among the top industry figures to co-sign a letter last year calling for aggressive regulation of the AI sector. Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu says his government has set a date for a major ground operation in Rafah, the last remaining Palestinian shelter in Gaza.
The Israeli leader is under pressure both from close ally the US, which sees the promised offensive as a major threat to civilians, and from members of his own coalition, who demand military action. Some 1.3 million people, most of them displaced from other parts of the Palestinian enclave, are estimated to be crammed into the city, which is located at Gaza’s border with Egypt. In a short video statement on Monday night, the prime minister said that achieving a victory over the militant group Hamas “requires entry into Rafah and the elimination of the terrorist battalions there. It will happen – there is a date.” Earlier in the day, Israel’s National Security Minister Itamar Ben-Gvir issued an ultimatum to Netanyahu, stating that if he “decides to end the war without a broad attack on Rafah in order to defeat Hamas, he will not have a mandate to continue serving as prime minister.” West Jerusalem has declared the elimination of Hamas, which organized a deadly incursion into southern Israel last October, as its primary goal. Netanyahu has previously claimed that the Israel Defense Forces (IDF) “had eliminated 19 out of 24 of the Hamas battalions”. Last Sunday, the IDF announced that it was pulling most of its ground forces from the southern part of Gaza. The move will give soldiers rest, in preparation for a future mission in the Rafah area, Defence Minister Yoav Gallant said. Critics of the Israeli tactics say it is a far cry from the precision-targeting of Hamas militants, which is how West Jerusalem portrays it. Over 33,000 Palestinians have been killed in more than six months of hostilities, compared to some 1,200 Israelis killed in the initial Hamas massacre. Last week, Israel targeted a convoy of the humanitarian group World Central Kitchen in a series of drone strikes, which killed seven aid workers. The attack, which the IDF described as a tragic mistake, was ordered despite the group having closely coordinated its mission with the military. US President Joe Biden threatened last Thursday to reconsider Washington’s support for Israel unless it changes its approach. Israel has since reopened a border crossing to allow more aid into Gaza and reported a surge in the number of trucks loaded with crucial supplies entering the blockaded territory, after claiming for months that it was not preventing the flow of aid. The Israeli military has destroyed 19 of Hamas’ 24 regional battalions in Gaza over the past six months, Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu has claimed.
In a statement ahead of a cabinet meeting on Sunday marking six months since the start of the Gaza war, Netanyahu said Israel was “one step away from victory.” “Today we mark six months since the war began… We eliminated 19 out of 24 of the Hamas battalions, including their senior commanders. We killed, wounded or captured a significant number of Hamas terrorists... We destroyed their factories manufacturing rockets, weapons, ammunition,” the prime minister said. The conflict kicked off on October 7 last year with a surprise Hamas raid that claimed the lives of an estimated 1,200 Israelis and saw the capture of more than 200 hostages. Netanyahu promptly declared war on the militant group and vowed to eradicate it. As a result, due to the density of Gaza’s population, over 33,000 Palestinians have been killed in Israeli strikes on the enclave in the following months, with much of the area razed to the ground. In his statement, Netanyahu reiterated that Israel needs to continue fighting until all Hamas militants are eliminated. He noted that Hamas still holds 133 Israeli citizens hostage, and stressed that there will be no talk of a ceasefire until all of them are freed. “There is no war more just than this war, and we are determined to finish it with complete victory. To return all those who were abducted, complete the elimination of Hamas in the entire Gaza Strip, including Rafah, and ensure that Gaza will no longer pose a threat to Israel,” he stated. Israeli and Hamas delegations held ceasefire negotiations brokered by Egypt and Qatar on Sunday in Cairo. According to a report on Al Arabiya TV channel, Hamas’ demands included Israel dropping plans to persecute and eliminate its leaders once the fighting in Gaza stops, as well as a lasting ceasefire and a full Israeli withdrawal from Gaza. Netanyahu called these demands “extreme” and said Israel will not “surrender to them,” as, according to him, they may “endanger our citizens and our soldiers” in the future. Netanyahu’s refusal to strike an agreement with Hamas and thus secure the release of hostages has been brewing discontent among Israelis. Tens of thousands of demonstrators staged a protest in Tel Aviv on Saturday evening to demand Netanyahu’s resignation and for a deal to be reached with the Palestinian militants. Ukraine may ultimately have to agree to some kind of compromise with Russia to end the conflict, NATO Secretary General Jens Stoltenberg has said.
In an interview with the BBC published on Saturday, the NATO chief reiterated that the West must support Ukraine in the long term “even if we believe and hope that the war will end in the near future.” He added that Western countries should invest in Kiev’s defence capabilities to make it more resilient in the event of future hostilities. At the same time, he signaled that it was up to Ukraine to choose when and under what conditions to seek peace with Russia. “At the end of the day, it has to be Ukraine that decides what kind of compromises they’re willing to do,” Stoltenberg said, adding that the West’s role is to help Kiev reach a negotiating position that could produce an “acceptable result.” That said, Stoltenberg emphasized that he was not pushing Kiev toward any concessions, adding that “real peace” can only be achieved with a Ukrainian victory. Earlier this week, the NATO boss made a strong plea to support Kiev in the long term, urging the bloc’s members to “rely less on voluntary contributions and more on NATO commitments.” According to several reports, Stoltenberg proposed a five-year €100 billion ($107 billion) military aid package to Ukraine. The exact details of the initiative are reportedly now under discussion. Throughout the conflict, Russia has maintained that it is open to talks with Ukraine. However, Ukrainian President Vladimir Zelensky banned any negotiations with the current leadership in Moscow after four former Ukrainian territories overwhelmingly voted to join Russia in the autumn of 2022. The Ukrainian leader has been advocating a ten-point ‘peace formula’ demanding that Moscow withdraw its troops from territory Kiev claims as its own, as well as for a tribunal to be established to prosecute Russian officials for alleged war crimes. Moscow has dismissed the initiative as “detached from reality.” In an interview with Politico on Saturday, Zelensky’s chief of staff, Andrey Yermak, claimed that while Ukrainians were tired of the conflict, they would vehemently oppose any compromise with Russia. However, last month Zelensky suggested that a return to Ukraine’s 1991 borders was no longer a precondition for negotiations with Russia. Nevertheless, he still insisted that Kiev must regain the territory it lost to Moscow in 2022. Moscow has said Ukraine must take into account the fact that its borders have changed drastically since the start of the hostilities. NATO Chief Jens Stoltenberg urged the United States to stick with Europe as the military alliance turned 75 menaced by Russia and the spectre of Donald Trump's return to power.
"I don't believe in America alone, just as I don't believe in Europe alone. I believe in America and Europe together in NATO because we are stronger and safer together," Stoltenberg said on Thursday at a ceremony at NATO headquarters in Brussels. Foreign ministers from NATO's 32 countries will hold a ceremony at its Brussels headquarters to fete the organisation that bills itself as the "most powerful and successful alliance in history". But, amid the cake-cutting and speeches, NATO is grappling with one of its most serious challenges since it emerged from the ashes of World War II in 1949 to counter the Soviet Union. "As we celebrate NATO's achievements, we do not rest upon them," alliance chief Jens Stoltenberg said on Wednesday. "Europe now faces war on a scale we thought was resigned to history." Since Russia launched its all-out offensive on Ukraine two years ago, a reinvigorated NATO has added Finland and Sweden to its ranks and bolstered its forces in eastern Europe. Alliance members also have thrown their weight behind Kiev -- which is bidding to join NATO -- by sending Ukraine weapons worth tens of billions of dollars. But those supplies have now dwindled as support from leading NATO power the United States remains stuck by political wrangling. On the frontline, Ukraine's outgunned forces have been pushed onto the back foot. In the face of surging Russian missile attacks on its infrastructure, Kiev is pleading with its Western backers to send all the Patriot defence systems they can spare. Stoltenberg, meanwhile, has proposed a 100-billion-euro ($108-billion) five-year fund in a bid to ensure long-term support for Ukraine. He is also pushing to get NATO as an organisation more directly involved in coordinating deliveries, something the alliance has so far refused to do out of concern it could drag it closer to war with Russia. Part of the urgency for the plan, officials say, is to try to protect support for Ukraine from the possible return of Donald Trump to the White House after US elections in November. The former US president has worried allies by criticising backing for Kiev and he unleashed a political firestorm by saying he would "encourage" Russia to go after NATO allies who do not spend enough on defence. Today is the last day of a four-day demonstration in Jerusalem. Close to the Knesset, the Israeli parliament, hundreds of demonstrators have camped in tents in recent days.
It almost looks like a festival site. In addition to speakers, there are music performances, posters with political statements hang everywhere, and the overnight demonstrators can get food and drinks in special tents. But the joy of a festival is certainly not there. People are frustrated and angry with the government. They want elections to be held as soon as possible and Prime Minister Netanyahu to leave. When the war started, there was already dissatisfaction with the prime minister. But then there was the feeling that unity was the most important thing, and that it was not the time for demonstrations against the government. Those days are over, says Ami Dror, one of the organizers of the protest in Jerusalem: "A change is happening. The Israeli people are slowly moving away from their wait-and-see attitude to the view that they want a different government as soon as possible." In recent days, tens of thousands of people have attended the demonstration, which has become the largest anti-government protest since the start of the war. “This government no longer represents the Israeli people, they are so far away from us,” Dror said. The demonstrators believe that Netanyahu is deliberately prolonging the war and blocking a deal with Hamas to remain in power. They blame him for putting his own interests above those of the people. Political analyst Aviv Bushinsky, who was Netanyahu's political assistant for many years, also thinks that the prime minister is not looking for a deal with Hamas: "Hamas wants an end to the war as part of the deal, but that is something Netanyahu does not agree to." will agree. Because above all he wants to destroy Hamas. And he knows that if he does not succeed, the right-wing voters will punish him for it. He will then lose the support of the right, but these are precisely the voters who are now putting him on the have held power." Yet many protesters also say they want to defeat Hamas and win the war. Only they have no confidence that Netanyahu is the man who will bring the war to a successful conclusion. “I want new elections as soon as possible,” says Ilana Kaminka. Her son was in the army and was killed by Hamas on October 7. She carries a flag with his photo on it. “We need leaders who can give us hope. Who present a vision. Leaders who understand how to unite a society. Not people who tear our society apart as they have done from day one.” Netanyahu doesn't want to know anything about elections. He keeps repeating that victory is in sight and that this is not the time for elections. And the fact that such a victory would be achieved under his leadership is crucial for his political survival, says Bushinsky: "Let's say that Netanyahu achieves the ultimate victory. Then he could say that he was indeed responsible for the lack of preparedness on October 7. But that he fought himself back. And he kept his promises." The demonstrators no longer want to wait for that, says a demonstrator who is staying the night in the tent camp. "We are all here to make it clear to Netanyahu that he must leave, we don't want him anymore. He may not listen to us, but we will continue to convey that message." In times of conflict or war, nations often undergo a significant transformation in their economic structures, transitioning towards what is commonly known as a "war economy."
This economic model is characterized by a reorientation of resources, industries, and policies to prioritize military production and defence. While such measures may be deemed necessary for national security, the consequences of a war economy can have profound impacts on both regular citizens and the countries as a whole. A war economy refers to an economic system that is heavily geared towards supporting and sustaining the efforts of a nation during times of war or conflict. In a war economy, resources, industries, and policies are mobilized to prioritize military production, defense, and logistics over other sectors of the economy. Impact on Regular People One of the most immediate and tangible consequences of a war economy is its impact on regular citizens. As resources are diverted towards military needs, shortages of consumer goods and everyday necessities can occur. Rationing may be implemented to ensure equitable distribution, leading to reduced access to essential items for ordinary people. In addition, the disruption of labor markets due to mobilization for military service or diversion to defense industries can result in unemployment and economic hardship for individuals and families. Moreover, the psychological toll of living in a state of war, with its uncertainty and fear, can lead to anxiety, stress, and trauma among the civilian population.
Impact on Countries War economies can also have far-reaching consequences for the countries involved. The significant increase in military spending can strain national finances, leading to budget deficits and debt accumulation. This economic strain may persist long after the conflict has ended, creating challenges for economic recovery and reconstruction. Moreover, countries heavily reliant on defense industries may become dependent on continued military spending for economic growth, making it difficult to transition to peacetime economies. Socially, war economies can exacerbate inequalities and divisions within society, as certain groups may benefit disproportionately from wartime contracts and opportunities, while others bear the brunt of economic hardship and sacrifice.
In conclusion, war economies represent a fundamental reorientation of a nation's economic priorities towards military production and defence. While such measures may be deemed necessary for national security during times of conflict, the consequences for regular people and countries can be profound and long-lasting. From economic hardship and social disruption to psychological trauma and dependency on military spending, the impacts of war economies are multifaceted and complex. As such, it is essential for policymakers to consider not only the short-term imperatives of war, but also the long-term consequences for the well-being and prosperity of their citizens and nations. In the search for unanimity on the appointment of the new NATO chief, the number of supporters for Mark Rutte is now estimated at 28. This should convince four more NATO member states of the candidacy of the current Dutch Prime Minister. There is cautious optimism in government circles about Rutte's chances, although it is emphasized that unanimity is a condition for the appointment. It's not that far yet. For example, there is resistance from Hungary. Romania has put forward its President Klaus Johannis as an opposing candidate. Last month, the American capital Washington announced that President Biden supports Rutte's appointment. Shortly afterwards, expressions of support followed from the United Kingdom and France, among others. At that time, the number of supporters for Rutte was still estimated at 20 out of 31 countries by the website Politico. Sweden is now also a member of NATO and the support of 28 of the 32 member states is assumed. Dutch soldiers Rutte is in Lithuania on Tuesday. He arrived in the morning at the NATO base Rukla, west of the capital Vilnius. Dutch soldiers are also stationed at the camp. Later he meets Lithuanian President Nauseda. The day ends with a European working dinner with several fellow government leaders, at the invitation of European President Charles Michel. The European meeting is the reason for the lightning visit to Lithuania, but above the visit there is of course the fact that Rutte is in the race to become Secretary General of NATO. At the beginning of the day, Lithuania did not yet know whether it considers Rutte to be the right candidate for the post. However, in The Hague it can be heard that things are also 'looking good' with support around the Baltic states, in addition to Lithuania, Estonia and Latvia. Later on Tuesday, Rutte will hold a joint press conference with his Lithuanian host, President Nauseda. This week, a formal decision on the successor to Norwegian Jens Stoltenberg would be made at a ministerial NATO summit. The American ambassador to the organization had indicated that Washington would like to complete the appointment in the first quarter of this year. That turns out not to have worked; A number of countries in Eastern Europe in particular are not yet outspoken in favor of Rutte's candidacy. People in that region believe that they deserve a stronger say within the alliance, because the secretaries-general are usually supplied from the west of Europe. For example, the Hungarian Foreign Minister said that his country could not vote for Rutte because of his strong position at European level towards Budapest.
Production of Taurus missiles, which Kiev has been pressuring Berlin to supply for use against Russia, is currently suspended, the head of the German branch of European arms manufacturer MBDA has said.
Around 600 of the missiles have so far been produced at a facility in the State of Bavaria, but the company cannot make more of them because it has no current contract with the German authorities, Thomas Gottschild said in an interview with the Augsburger Allgemeine newspaper on Saturday. The production lines for the Taurus are still available, so MBDA could “ramp up” deliveries of the missiles “at any time,” the executive said. “To do this, however, we would need a new order for these weapons,” he added. The company cannot make reserves of the missiles because it is prohibited under German law, he explained. The halt in production is always a “challenge” for the defense industry, Gottschild stressed. “Our suppliers, who are often small and medium-sized enterprises... often cannot afford financially to maintain production lines. So if we were to receive new orders for the Taurus, our suppliers would first have to reposition themselves and, for example, secure the raw materials they need,” he explained. The Taurus missile has a range of over 500km (around 310 miles) and “is only detected very late by radar” as it moves at a low altitude, the executive said. “This capability profile is in high demand, especially in Ukraine.” However, Gottschild declined to answer a question on whether Kiev should be given the missiles, calling it a “political decision” that should be made by the German government. Chancellor Olaf Scholz doubled down on his refusal to provide Ukraine with Taurus missiles in mid-March, telling parliament that “this is a very long-range weapon” that could not be used without the deployment of German soldiers.” The statement was made just over a week after the publication by RT Editor-in-Chief Margarita Simonyan of a leaked recording, in which high-ranking German officers discussed the possible use of Taurus missiles against the Crimean Bridge, and spoke about maintaining plausible deniability in the event of such an attack on Russian territory. Kremlin spokesman Dmitry Peskov said the leak “once again confirms the direct involvement of… the so-called collective West in the conflict around Ukraine,” while Russia’s First Deputy Permanent Representative at the UN, Dmitry Polyansky, suggested that it revealed Germany’s “new colors,” portraying it as “lying, mean, aggressive, revanchist and Russophobic.” The German authorities confirmed the authenticity of the recording, but claimed that Moscow took the conversation out of context in an attempt to cause division among Ukraine’s allies in the West. The Netherlands will deploy a Patriot air defence unit to its NATO ally Lithuania as part of a summer joint air defence exercise, the Dutch Défense Ministry announced this week.
The several-week-long drill is essential to strengthening air defences on the eastern flank, the Dutch military claimed in a press release on Thursday. The stated goal is to test the ability of NATO troops to quickly transport and deploy such units to a given area. The decision to position a US-made system near the Russian border “contributes to the readiness of NATO air defence,” Dutch Défense Minister Kajsa Ollongren claimed in the release. Vilnius welcomed the exercise as excellent news, noting the Dutch will be training in the no-notice redeployment of such units alongside the Lithuanian armed forces. The US-led military bloc’s Enhanced Forward Presence forces are “vital for the Baltic states’ security,” Defense Minister Laurynas Kasciunas said on Friday, calling for more deployments and exercises involving NATO aircraft and ground-based air defense systems in her country. It’s unclear what the Dutch deployment of Patriot units in Lithuania will entail. A single battery of the air defence system consists of multiple truck-mounted units, including power, radar, antenna, engagement control and other support vehicles, as well as up to eight launchers with interceptor missiles. The Netherlands has been one of the few countries to supply two of their Patriot launchers to Ukraine, along with the US and Germany, which each sent a full battery. The deployment will follow NATO’ ongoing military exercise Steadfast Defender 2024, one of the biggest in decades, which features some 90,000 troops, more than a thousand combat vehicles, over 50 naval vessels, 80 helicopters, drones and fighter jets from all 32 member states. Russia has stated the US-led military bloc’s increased military spending and increasingly frequent military drills demonstrate its “increasingly aggressive nature.” The drills are practicing a “scenario of armed confrontation with Russia,” increasing tensions and destabilizing the world, Russian Security Council secretary Nikolay Patrushev said in early March. Patrushev described NATO as “an important tool of Washington’s influence on other countries,” which, over the 75 years of its existence as a self-described guarantor of peace and democracy “unleashed more than a hundred wars and military conflicts around the world and is getting ready for more.” What will happen when Russia destroys US-made F-16 fighter jets that eventually made it to Ukraine, just as it has other Western equipment?
Several NATO member states have promised to donate their F-16s to Kiev and have trained Ukrainian pilots to fly them, but no deliveries have been made yet. Russia has warned the West that fielding the nuclear-capable jets will represent an unacceptable escalation of the Ukraine conflict. “ If they deliver the F-16s, I think you know better than others that this will not change the situation on the battlefield,” the president said. “And we will destroy these planes just as we have destroyed tanks, armored vehicles, and other equipment, including multiple launch rocket systems.” The comments came during Putin’s visit to Torzhok air base in Tver Region, home of the 344th Training Center for Russian combat pilots, including personnel being trained to take part in the Ukraine conflict. F-16s flown by Ukrainian pilots but based in third countries will nevertheless be legitimate targets for Russia, Putin added. “Of course, if they are used from airfields of third countries, they become a legitimate target for us, wherever they are located,” he said. Russia is well aware that the 1970s jet can potentially carry nuclear weapons, and this will be taken into account in combat operations, Putin noted. Kiev has lost much of its air force over the past two years, including Soviet-era jets donated by several NATO members as replacements. The Ukrainian government eventually asked the US-led bloc for F-16s. The single-engine fighter is a late 1970s design, originally manufactured by General Dynamics before it was acquired by Lockheed Martin. It requires pristine runways, which are in short supply in Ukraine, prompting speculation that Ukrainian-operated jets might be stationed in nearby NATO countries instead. Former US President Donald Trump has warned that Israel is “losing a lot of support” and must “finish up” its war in Gaza before its reputation declines any further. The comments represented a rare moment of criticism of the Jewish state by Trump.
In an interview with Israel Hayom partially published on Monday, Trump said that he would have acted “very much the same way as you did” if the US was attacked like Israel was by Hamas in October. “Only a fool would not do that,” Trump added. However, Trump called Israel’s wholesale destruction of civilian homes in Gaza “a very big mistake.” “It’s a very bad picture for the world. The world is seeing this…every night, I would watch buildings pour down on people,” Trump continued. “Go and do what you have to do. But you don’t do that,” he told the Israeli newspaper. “And I think that’s one of the reasons that there has been a lot of kickback. If people didn’t see that, every single night I’d watch and every single one of those... And I think Israel wanted to show that it’s tough, but sometimes you shouldn’t be doing that.” Trump was a close ally of Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu during his term in the White House, and described himself as “history’s most pro-Israel US president.” He imposed sanctions on Iran at Netanyahu’s request, moved the US embassy in Israel to West Jerusalem, and brokered the Abraham Accords, which saw Israel normalize relations with Bahrain, the United Arab Emirates, Morocco, and Sudan. However, this relationship soured after Netanyahu congratulated US President Joe Biden on his electoral victory over Trump in 2020. Speaking to Fox News in October, Trump claimed that Netanyahu was “not prepared” for Hamas’ attack. At a campaign event later that day, Trump declared that Netanyahu needed to “straighten out” his intelligence apparatus. With the war in Gaza approaching the six-month mark, the former president urged Netanyahu to bring it to a swift conclusion, telling his Israeli interviewers that “you’re losing a lot of support” internationally. “You have to finish up your war,” he said. “You gotta get it done. And, I am sure you will do that. And we gotta get to peace, we can’t have this going on.” Netahyahu has vowed to continue fighting until Israel achieves “total victory over Hamas,” and has promised to invade the city of Rafah – currently home to more than a million displaced Gazan civilians – in defiance of the White House’s pleas. The Israeli leader on Monday canceled a visit to Washington by an Israeli delegation to discuss the planned Rafah operation, after the United Nations Security Council passed a resolution demanding an immediate ceasefire in Gaza. The resolution passed thanks to the US abstaining from the vote. Given Washington’s typically unconditional support for Israel at the UN, the abstention and failure to veto by the US was seen by pundits as an historic show of dissatisfaction with Netanyahu’s conduct in Gaza. Israel declared war on Hamas on October 7, after the militants carried out a cross-border raid, killing more than 1,100 people and taking at least 250 hostages. Israeli forces have killed more than 32,000 Palstinians in the time since, according to the enclave’s health authorities. Asymmetric warfare refers to conflicts between two parties where there is a significant disparity in their military power, resources, and strategies. In such conflicts, one party typically possesses much greater military strength, technology, and resources compared to the other, often referred to as the weaker party.
Key characteristics of asymmetric warfare include
Examples of asymmetric warfare include insurgencies against occupying forces, such as the Vietnam War or the ongoing conflict in Afghanistan, as well as acts of terrorism carried out by non-state actors against more powerful state entities. Additionally, cyber attacks and hybrid warfare tactics are becoming increasingly prevalent forms of asymmetric warfare in the modern era. Kim Yo Jong, the younger sister of North Korean leader Kim Jong Un, has captured the attention of the world with her enigmatic persona and prominent role within the North Korean regime. While often portrayed as a powerful figure in her own right, her life and background remain shrouded in mystery. This essay delves into the life and background of Kim Yo Jong, exploring her rise to prominence, her family dynamics, and her influence on North Korean politics.
Early Life and Family Background Born on September 26, 1987, Kim Yo Jong is the youngest daughter of former North Korean leader Kim Jong Il and his wife, Ko Yong Hui. She is the full sister of current leader Kim Jong Un and the granddaughter of North Korea's founder, Kim Il Sung. Growing up in the privileged environment of the ruling Kim family, Kim Yo Jong received a comprehensive education, likely tailored to prepare her for a future role within the regime. Kim Yo Jong's family background is deeply intertwined with the power dynamics of North Korea. Her father, Kim Jong Il, ruled the country with an iron fist for seventeen years until his death in 2011, leaving his young and relatively inexperienced son, Kim Jong Un, to assume leadership. Kim Yo Jong's close relationship with her brother, Kim Jong Un, has been speculated to play a significant role in her rise to prominence within the North Korean hierarchy. Rise to Prominence Kim Yo Jong's ascent to prominence began in 2014 when she was appointed as a senior official in the Workers' Party of Korea, the ruling political party of North Korea. Over the years, she steadily climbed the ranks, assuming various roles within the regime's propaganda and guidance departments. Her public appearances alongside her brother, Kim Jong Un, during official events and summits have further solidified her image as a trusted confidante and advisor to the North Korean leader. In recent years, Kim Yo Jong has emerged as one of the most visible and influential figures in North Korean politics. Her portfolio includes overseeing key government agencies and spearheading diplomatic initiatives, particularly in relations with South Korea and the United States. Notably, she played a prominent role in the 2018 Winter Olympics held in South Korea, leading the North Korean delegation and capturing global media attention. Influence and Political Dynamics Despite her relative youth and lack of formal titles, Kim Yo Jong's influence within the North Korean regime cannot be underestimated. As a member of the ruling Kim family, she holds significant sway over decision-making processes and enjoys privileged access to her brother, Kim Jong Un. Her proximity to power, combined with her astute political acumen, has positioned her as a formidable figure within the secretive and hierarchical structures of North Korean politics. Kim Yo Jong's influence extends beyond her familial ties. She is regarded as a key figure in shaping North Korea's propaganda machine, employing sophisticated media strategies to bolster the regime's image both domestically and internationally. Additionally, her involvement in diplomatic endeavours underscores her role as a trusted envoy and interlocutor in North Korea's interactions with the outside world. Challenges and Speculations Despite her rise to prominence, Kim Yo Jong's role within the North Korean regime is not without challenges and speculations. The authoritarian nature of the regime, coupled with the pervasive culture of secrecy, makes it difficult to discern the true extent of her power and influence. Moreover, questions regarding her health and well-being have periodically surfaced, leading to conjectures about potential power struggles and succession issues within the ruling elite. Furthermore, Kim Yo Jong's image as a progressive and moderate figure has been met with scepticism by analysts who view her as a product of the same repressive regime that her family has upheld for decades. Her involvement in orchestrating propaganda campaigns and enforcing strict social controls underscores the complexities of her persona and the inherent contradictions within North Korean politics. In conclusion, Kim Yo Jong's life and background offer a fascinating glimpse into the inner workings of North Korea's ruling elite. As the younger sister of Kim Jong Un and a member of the powerful Kim family, she occupies a unique position of influence within the regime. Her rise to prominence, coupled with her enigmatic persona and strategic manoeuvring, has made her a figure of intrigue on the global stage. However, unravelling the complexities of her role and motivations remains a daunting task amidst the opaque and tightly controlled political landscape of North Korea. |
Thank you for choosing to make a difference through your donation. We appreciate your support.
This website uses marketing and tracking technologies. Opting out of this will opt you out of all cookies, except for those needed to run the website. Note that some products may not work as well without tracking cookies. Opt Out of CookiesCategories
All
Archives
April 2024
|