Podcasts about foreign affairs

Merriam-Webster's Word of the Day for January 30, 2026 is: preeminent • pree-EM-uh-nunt • adjective Preeminent is a formal word used to describe someone or something more important, skillful, or successful than their counterparts or peers. It is used synonymously with outstanding and supreme. // She's the preeminent chef in a city renowned for its cuisine. See the entry > Examples: "In this warmly engaging intellectual biography, [author Paul R.] Viotti traces the life and ideas of Kenneth Waltz, a preeminent figure in post–World War II international relations scholarship." — G. John Ikenberry, Foreign Affairs, 16 Dec. 2025 Did you know? What is noteworthy about the following sentence? "Mount Kilimanjaro is a prominent eminence on the Tanzanian landscape." You very likely recognized two words that are closely related to preeminent: prominent and eminence. All three words are rooted in the Latin verb stem -minēre, which is taken to mean "to stand out" though there is no record of its use without a prefix. Mount also deserves an honorable mention: it comes from the Latin mont- or mons, meaning "mountain," which is understood to share a common ancestor with -minēre. Mount leads us in turn to paramount, a word closely related in meaning to preeminent.

For years Xi Jinping has mapped out a strategy for the rise of China as a superpower. How will this ambition shape the world's future? In the latest episode of This Is Not A Drill, Gavin Esler talks to Elizabeth Economy, Hargrove senior fellow the Hoover Institution, about China's plans in a series of ‘frontier domains', from the bottom of the sea to outer space. Read Elizabeth Economy's article ‘How China Wins the Future' in the latest issue of Foreign Affairs here. Advertisers! Want to reach smart, engaged, influential people with money to spend? (Yes, they do exist). Some 3.5 MILLION people download and watch our podcasts every month – and they love our shows. Why not get YOUR brand in front of our influential listeners with podcast advertising? Contact ads@podmasters.co.uk to find out more. • Support us on Patreon to keep This Is Not A Drill producing thought-provoking podcasts like this. Written and presented by Gavin Esler. Produced by Robin Leeburn. Original theme music by Paul Hartnoll – https://www.orbitalofficial.com. Executive Producer Martin Bojtos. Managing Editor Jacob Jarvis. Group Editor Andrew Harrison. This Is Not A Drill is a Podmasters production. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices

We discussed a few things including:  1. Your career journeys 2. Gitte's biotech venture 3. Garnet's venture capital firm 4. Discuss effects of federal policies on innovation ecosystem 5. Discuss outlook for 2026  Garnet Heraman is a serial entrepreneur and investor with 25 years experience at the intersection of innovation + technology. Originally from the island nation of Trinidad & Tobago, he was educated at Columbia University (BA), NYU (MBA) and The London School of Economics.  As a dotcom entrepreneur Garnet had 3 exits, 1 of which was to a publicly traded company. As an investor, he is co-founder and managing partner of Aperture® Venture Capital, a seed stage fintech fund backed by 7 different Fortune 500 corporations.  He is also an LP in other VC funds such as NY InsurTech Fund II and the Berkeley Skydeck Fund, as well as a prolific angel investor. Garnet is highly sought after as a startup technology expert, appearing in over 30 business publications and at events on 5 continents.  ------ Gitte Pedersen is a scientist, CEO, company builder, and investor with a mission to improve health and sustainability. RNA enthusiast. Focused on helping cancer patients survive through better diagnostics and treatment navigation tools.  Serial entrepreneur. Advised several small and medium-sized biotech companies and the Danish Ministry of Foreign Affairs, bringing in +$1B deals to Danish Biotech companies. Advised the European Commission on evidence-based innovation and investment policies.  Won numerous prizes and awards and raised $8M+ in grants. Worked at Novo Nordisk in several management positions, inventing, developing and bringing multiple products to market worldwide. #podcast #AFewThingsPodcast

Embassy buildings are the most tangible evidence of a state's diplomatic presence abroad. State authorities have invested in the architectural conception of purpose-built embassies to flex their diplomatic muscle and project nationhood on foreign soil. While scholars have primarily focused on purpose-built embassies of (former) world powers, Building for Belgium: Belgian Embassies in a Globalising World (1945-2020) (Leuven UP, 2025) by Dr. Bram de Maeyer shifts the perspective by scrutinising the Belgian Ministry of Foreign Affairs' embassy-building programme from 1945 to 2020. Rather than a conventional political assessment of diplomatic relations, the book foregrounds the often-overlooked architectural lives of embassies and their social, economic, and political entanglements. By examining Belgian embassy projects across all continents, it reveals how the Belgian diplomatic corps has navigated diverse political regimes, geopolitical contexts, cultures, and building codes. More than the outcome of a deliberate policy, the embassy-building programme has been shaped by incidental decisions, private ambitions and personal tastes of Belgian diplomats, ministry officials and politicians. Building for Belgium not only sheds light on diplomatic architecture but also connects domestic conversations about architecture in Belgium with global state-building projects. Offering fresh insights into the politics of space, it will be of value to scholars and practitioners in architecture, urban studies, international relations, cultural heritage, and Belgian and European studies. This interview was conducted by Dr. Miranda Melcher whose book focuses on post-conflict military integration, understanding treaty negotiation and implementation in civil war contexts, with qualitative analysis of the Angolan and Mozambican civil wars. You can find Miranda's interviews on New Books with Miranda Melcher, wherever you get your podcasts. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices Support our show by becoming a premium member! https://newbooksnetwork.supportingcast.fm/new-books-network

Embassy buildings are the most tangible evidence of a state's diplomatic presence abroad. State authorities have invested in the architectural conception of purpose-built embassies to flex their diplomatic muscle and project nationhood on foreign soil. While scholars have primarily focused on purpose-built embassies of (former) world powers, Building for Belgium: Belgian Embassies in a Globalising World (1945-2020) (Leuven UP, 2025) by Dr. Bram de Maeyer shifts the perspective by scrutinising the Belgian Ministry of Foreign Affairs' embassy-building programme from 1945 to 2020. Rather than a conventional political assessment of diplomatic relations, the book foregrounds the often-overlooked architectural lives of embassies and their social, economic, and political entanglements. By examining Belgian embassy projects across all continents, it reveals how the Belgian diplomatic corps has navigated diverse political regimes, geopolitical contexts, cultures, and building codes. More than the outcome of a deliberate policy, the embassy-building programme has been shaped by incidental decisions, private ambitions and personal tastes of Belgian diplomats, ministry officials and politicians. Building for Belgium not only sheds light on diplomatic architecture but also connects domestic conversations about architecture in Belgium with global state-building projects. Offering fresh insights into the politics of space, it will be of value to scholars and practitioners in architecture, urban studies, international relations, cultural heritage, and Belgian and European studies. This interview was conducted by Dr. Miranda Melcher whose book focuses on post-conflict military integration, understanding treaty negotiation and implementation in civil war contexts, with qualitative analysis of the Angolan and Mozambican civil wars. You can find Miranda's interviews on New Books with Miranda Melcher, wherever you get your podcasts. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices Support our show by becoming a premium member! https://newbooksnetwork.supportingcast.fm/architecture

Two years after Hamas invaded Israel, a ceasefire agreement brokered by the United States brought the conflict one step closer to resolution. That October 10th agreement created to conditions for the return of remaining Israeli hostages and the bodies of deceased captives in exchange for nearly 2,000 Palestinian prisoners. It also opened up channels for the delivery of humanitarian aid at levels that had not been seen since the October 7, 2023, invasion.rnrnThe 20-point peace plan is complex and fragile. Hostilities continue to break out episodically, and though aid has scaled up, many Gazans continue to face chronic food insecurity. Hamas has not disarmed, and Israel continues to remain in a wartime posture. Despite uncertainty, progress toward a lasting peace remains the stated goal of the warring parties.rnrnBoth Michael Koplow and Ahmed Alkhatib know this conflict intimately.rnrnBorn in Saudi Arabia to Palestinian parents, Ahmed Alkhatib is a writer and the head of Realign for Palestine. a project of the Atlantic Council, Realign advocates for Palestinian statehood and self-determination.rnrnMichael Koplow is Chief Policy Officer at the Israel Policy Forum. His writing frequently appears in the Atlantic, Foreign Affairs, and Foreign Policy, among many other publications.rnModerated by Cleveland Council on World Affairs' CEO Marti Flacks.

Eric and Eliot welcome Stephen Kotkin, professor emeritus of history at Princeton University and senior fellow at Stanford University's Hoover Institution and Freeman-Spogli Institute. They discuss his recent Foreign Affairs article, “The Weakness of the Strongmen: What Really Threatens Authoritarians?” Kotkin explores the frailty and resilience of authoritarian regimes through the lens of recent events in Venezuela and Iran, as well as the rise of Russia and China as authoritarian powers. They also discuss potential alternative future paths for Russia and turn to the current authoritarian temptation in the United States, along with the historic reasons for optimism that American democracy is robust enough to weather the depredations of the Trump administration.  Eliot's Latest in The Atlantic: https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/2026/01/trump-greenland-europe-nato/685720/?gift=KGDC3VdV8jaCufvP3bRsPgGy7Ja9UMv_dSH1wXC41Rk&utm_ The Weakness of the Strongmen: What Really Threatens Authoritarians?: https://www.foreignaffairs.com/china/weakness-strongmen-stephen-kotkin The Five Futures of Russia: And How America Can Prepare for Whatever Comes Next: https://www.foreignaffairs.com/russian-federation/five-futures-russia-stephen-kotkin Stalin: Paradoxes of Power, 1878-1928: https://a.co/d/40CsvHC Stalin: Waiting for Hitler, 1929-1941: https://a.co/d/6IQt4nR Shield of the Republic is a Bulwark podcast co-sponsored by the Miller Center of Public Affairs at the University of Virginia.

In the past year, Donald Trump has upended the global trading system and used American economic power like no president in recent memory. He's imposed tariffs to force other countries to fall into line on commercial issues and geopolitical disputes—like this week's threats against NATO partners over Greenland. He's called into question the role of the dollar. And at home, he's attacked the independence of the Federal Reserve and intervened in private-sector decision-making. Lael Brainard served as director of the National Economic Council in the Biden administration and, before that, as vice chair of the Federal Reserve. Dan Kurtz-Phelan spoke to her not about the short-term consequences of Trump's policies but about what they would mean for U.S. power and prosperity in the long term. Brainard has taken on that question in recent pieces for Foreign Affairs. In this conversation, she stressed not just the risks posed by Trump's economic agenda but the bigger changes necessary to sustain American economic success into the future. You can find sources, transcripts, and more episodes of The Foreign Affairs Interview at https://www.foreignaffairs.com/podcasts/foreign-affairs-interview.

As global temperatures rise, Greenland is becoming one of the most strategically important places on Earth—but will President Trump ever acknowledge why? Michael Smerconish explores the growing geopolitical and military significance of the Arctic, featuring expert insights on national security, NATO, and climate science. Listen here, then vote on today's Smerconish.com poll question: "Will President Trump ever admit that “climate change” is fueling the strategic value of Greenland?" Hosted by Simplecast, an AdsWizz company. See https://pcm.adswizz.com for information about our collection and use of personal data for advertising.

Dan Wang is a research fellow at Stanford University's Hoover History Lab. Previously, he was a fellow at the Yale Law School's Paul Tsai China Center. His writing has appeared in the New York Times, Foreign Affairs, the Financial Times, New York Magazine, Bloomberg Opinion, and The Atlantic. This is one of the most important books you'll read: Breakneck: China's Quest to Engineer the Future Anthony Scaramucci is the founder and managing partner of SkyBridge, a global alternative investment firm, and founder and chairman of SALT, a global thought leadership forum and venture studio. He is the host of the podcast Open Book with Anthony Scaramucci. A graduate of Tufts University and Harvard Law School, he lives in Manhasset, Long Island.

Our friend Allen West is back to talk international affairs and maybe one or two non-political topics, including...........What happens when men who lean Democrat are given testosterone...........

Over the weekend, President Trump sent a deranged text to Norway's prime minister linking his failure to win the Nobel Peace prize to the possibility of taking Greenland by military force. That wasn't a one-off: Trump said something similar in rambling remarks on Tuesday. Trump's lunacy is prompting a medical expert to sound the alarm: He notes that Trump's conduct should “trigger a bipartisan congressional inquiry into presidential fitness.” That was amplified by a Danish politician, who called Trump “mad and erratic.” So how is all this madness perceived by the rest of the world right now? We talked to international relations expert Elizabeth Saunders, who has a great new piece for Foreign Affairs magazine about the future of “primitive anarchy” that Trump is leading us into. She explains the deeper reasons Trump is so unconstrained, how his conduct is seen by other foreign leaders, and why there's reason to fear that Trump's designs on Greenland are deadly serious. Looking for More from the DSR Network? Click Here: https://linktr.ee/deepstateradio Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

NATO's Meaning and Existence: Within the Interstate Intersubjectivity (Vernon Press, 2026) a forthcoming 2026 book by Yunus Emre Ozigci, offers a deep analysis of NATO's identity and role, suggesting it's stuck in bureaucratic inertia despite modern crises, aiming to redefine its purpose through exploring shared identity and transformation, particularly in the context of Russia's actions. This scholarly work uses intersubjectivity to understand how NATO's internal dynamics and external relations, especially concerning the Ukraine conflict, shape its meaning beyond mere military power, potentially moving beyond traditional IR theories to explore collective identity and systemic challenges. In NATO's Meaning and Existence: Within the Interstate Intersubjectivity (2026), Ozigci treats NATO as an intersubjective phenomenon rather than an objective entity. To him, NATO “does not exist objectively” but rather appears “meaningfully through intersubjective recognition.” His skillful integration of philosophical innovations from such thinkers as Edmund Husserl, Martin Heidegger, and Jean-Paul Sartre supports his deep insights into Kenneth Waltz's structural interpretations of the balance of power, John Mearsheimer's offensive realism, and Robert Keohane's complex interdependence and invites readers to reconsider how alliances exist beyond the surface of policy and power. This work reminds us that NATO's real strength does not necessarily come from being the most efficient military structure in the world, promoting those who excel at following orders, but rather from its ingenuity, resourcefulness, and unity of purpose. His study provides a rare synthesis of diplomatic experience and philosophical depth, inviting readers to reconsider how alliances exist beyond the surface of policy and power. This is an original, meticulously argued, and intellectually stimulating contribution to both NATO studies and the philosophy of international relations. Piotr Pietrzak, Ph.D. -- In Statu Nascendi Think Tank Yunus Emre Ozigci holds a PhD degree in Political Sciences from the Université catholique de Louvain. He graduated from the Galatasaray University (International relations) and completed his MA studies at the University of Ankara (International relations). His research interests and publications cover the IR theory and phenomenology. Since 2000, he has been working as a diplomat in the Turkish Ministry of Foreign Affairs and served, besides various departments of the Ministry, in Algeria, Belgium, Switzerland and Russia. Currently, he is the First Counsellor of the Turkish Embassy in Nairobi and Deputy Permanent Representative to UNON (UNEP and UN-Habitat). ORCID: 0000-0003-3388-7149 Please note: This publication is a personal work. It does not reflect the official views of the Turkish Ministry of Foreign Affairs. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices Support our show by becoming a premium member! https://newbooksnetwork.supportingcast.fm/new-books-network

Over the weekend, President Trump sent a deranged text to Norway's prime minister linking his failure to win the Nobel Peace prize to the possibility of taking Greenland by military force. That wasn't a one-off: Trump said something similar in rambling remarks on Tuesday. Trump's lunacy is prompting a medical expert to sound the alarm: He notes that Trump's conduct should “trigger a bipartisan congressional inquiry into presidential fitness.” That was amplified by a Danish politician, who called Trump “mad and erratic.” So how is all this madness perceived by the rest of the world right now? We talked to international relations expert Elizabeth Saunders, who has a great new piece for Foreign Affairs magazine about the future of “primitive anarchy” that Trump is leading us into. She explains the deeper reasons Trump is so unconstrained, how his conduct is seen by other foreign leaders, and why there's reason to fear that Trump's designs on Greenland are deadly serious. Looking for More from the DSR Network? Click Here: https://linktr.ee/deepstateradio Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

Over the weekend, President Trump sent a deranged text to Norway's prime minister linking his failure to win the Nobel Peace prize to the possibility of taking Greenland by military force. That wasn't a one-off: Trump said something similar in rambling remarks on Tuesday. Trump's lunacy is prompting a medical expert to sound the alarm: He notes that Trump's conduct should “trigger a bipartisan congressional inquiry into presidential fitness.” That was amplified by a Danish politician, who called Trump “mad and erratic.” So how is all this madness perceived by the rest of the world right now? We talked to international relations expert Elizabeth Saunders, who has a great new piece for Foreign Affairs magazine about the future of “primitive anarchy” that Trump is leading us into. She explains the deeper reasons Trump is so unconstrained, how his conduct is seen by other foreign leaders, and why there's reason to fear that Trump's designs on Greenland are deadly serious. Looking for More from the DSR Network? Click Here: https://linktr.ee/deepstateradio Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

NATO's Meaning and Existence: Within the Interstate Intersubjectivity (Vernon Press, 2026) a forthcoming 2026 book by Yunus Emre Ozigci, offers a deep analysis of NATO's identity and role, suggesting it's stuck in bureaucratic inertia despite modern crises, aiming to redefine its purpose through exploring shared identity and transformation, particularly in the context of Russia's actions. This scholarly work uses intersubjectivity to understand how NATO's internal dynamics and external relations, especially concerning the Ukraine conflict, shape its meaning beyond mere military power, potentially moving beyond traditional IR theories to explore collective identity and systemic challenges. In NATO's Meaning and Existence: Within the Interstate Intersubjectivity (2026), Ozigci treats NATO as an intersubjective phenomenon rather than an objective entity. To him, NATO “does not exist objectively” but rather appears “meaningfully through intersubjective recognition.” His skillful integration of philosophical innovations from such thinkers as Edmund Husserl, Martin Heidegger, and Jean-Paul Sartre supports his deep insights into Kenneth Waltz's structural interpretations of the balance of power, John Mearsheimer's offensive realism, and Robert Keohane's complex interdependence and invites readers to reconsider how alliances exist beyond the surface of policy and power. This work reminds us that NATO's real strength does not necessarily come from being the most efficient military structure in the world, promoting those who excel at following orders, but rather from its ingenuity, resourcefulness, and unity of purpose. His study provides a rare synthesis of diplomatic experience and philosophical depth, inviting readers to reconsider how alliances exist beyond the surface of policy and power. This is an original, meticulously argued, and intellectually stimulating contribution to both NATO studies and the philosophy of international relations. Piotr Pietrzak, Ph.D. -- In Statu Nascendi Think Tank Yunus Emre Ozigci holds a PhD degree in Political Sciences from the Université catholique de Louvain. He graduated from the Galatasaray University (International relations) and completed his MA studies at the University of Ankara (International relations). His research interests and publications cover the IR theory and phenomenology. Since 2000, he has been working as a diplomat in the Turkish Ministry of Foreign Affairs and served, besides various departments of the Ministry, in Algeria, Belgium, Switzerland and Russia. Currently, he is the First Counsellor of the Turkish Embassy in Nairobi and Deputy Permanent Representative to UNON (UNEP and UN-Habitat). ORCID: 0000-0003-3388-7149 Please note: This publication is a personal work. It does not reflect the official views of the Turkish Ministry of Foreign Affairs. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices Support our show by becoming a premium member! https://newbooksnetwork.supportingcast.fm/political-science

NATO's Meaning and Existence: Within the Interstate Intersubjectivity (Vernon Press, 2026) a forthcoming 2026 book by Yunus Emre Ozigci, offers a deep analysis of NATO's identity and role, suggesting it's stuck in bureaucratic inertia despite modern crises, aiming to redefine its purpose through exploring shared identity and transformation, particularly in the context of Russia's actions. This scholarly work uses intersubjectivity to understand how NATO's internal dynamics and external relations, especially concerning the Ukraine conflict, shape its meaning beyond mere military power, potentially moving beyond traditional IR theories to explore collective identity and systemic challenges. In NATO's Meaning and Existence: Within the Interstate Intersubjectivity (2026), Ozigci treats NATO as an intersubjective phenomenon rather than an objective entity. To him, NATO “does not exist objectively” but rather appears “meaningfully through intersubjective recognition.” His skillful integration of philosophical innovations from such thinkers as Edmund Husserl, Martin Heidegger, and Jean-Paul Sartre supports his deep insights into Kenneth Waltz's structural interpretations of the balance of power, John Mearsheimer's offensive realism, and Robert Keohane's complex interdependence and invites readers to reconsider how alliances exist beyond the surface of policy and power. This work reminds us that NATO's real strength does not necessarily come from being the most efficient military structure in the world, promoting those who excel at following orders, but rather from its ingenuity, resourcefulness, and unity of purpose. His study provides a rare synthesis of diplomatic experience and philosophical depth, inviting readers to reconsider how alliances exist beyond the surface of policy and power. This is an original, meticulously argued, and intellectually stimulating contribution to both NATO studies and the philosophy of international relations. Piotr Pietrzak, Ph.D. -- In Statu Nascendi Think Tank Yunus Emre Ozigci holds a PhD degree in Political Sciences from the Université catholique de Louvain. He graduated from the Galatasaray University (International relations) and completed his MA studies at the University of Ankara (International relations). His research interests and publications cover the IR theory and phenomenology. Since 2000, he has been working as a diplomat in the Turkish Ministry of Foreign Affairs and served, besides various departments of the Ministry, in Algeria, Belgium, Switzerland and Russia. Currently, he is the First Counsellor of the Turkish Embassy in Nairobi and Deputy Permanent Representative to UNON (UNEP and UN-Habitat). ORCID: 0000-0003-3388-7149 Please note: This publication is a personal work. It does not reflect the official views of the Turkish Ministry of Foreign Affairs. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices Support our show by becoming a premium member! https://newbooksnetwork.supportingcast.fm/world-affairs

Is four months too short a turnaround for a guest on Midrats? Not if the topic at hand keeps running to the top of your read board.From the unending diplomacy responding to the Trump Administration's unending drive to get Greenland's geography—and the resulting security—more firmly under American control, to the sitcom-worthy deployment of a couple of dozen “Coalition of the Freezing”—Greenland can't-stop-won't-stop from gathering eyeballs and attention.So, we're bringing back Elizabeth Buchanan for another visit. We'll use her recent article in The Spectator as starting off point, A buyer's guide to Greenland.Dr. Elizabeth Buchanan is a senior fellow with the Australian Strategic Policy Institute and an expert associate of the French Ministry of Armed Forces' Institute for Strategic Research.Most recently she was Head of Research for the Royal Australian Navy (Department of Defence). Dr Buchanan is co-founder of the polar warfare program (Project 6633) at the Modern War Institute of the West Point Military Academy. Before joining Australia's Defence Department, Dr. Buchanan was Lecturer of Strategic Studies for the Defence and Strategic Studies Course at the Australian War College.Elizabeth holds a Ph.D. in Russian Arctic Strategy and completed her post-doctoral studies as a Maritime Fellow at the NATO Defense College in Rome. She has published widely on geopolitics, most recently with Australian Foreign Affairs, International Affairs, War on the Rocks, Foreign Policy, Foreign Affairs, The Australian, and The American Conservative.Dr. Buchanan has been a Visiting Scholar with the Brookings Institution and was an analyst with Royal Dutch Shell. Elizabeth has three published books:: Russian Energy Strategy in Asia and Red Arctic: Russian Arctic Strategy under Putin. In addition to, So you want to own Greenland, she also has an upcoming book, Competitive Cooperation at the Ends of the Earth.Show links:So You Want to Own Greenland?: Lessons from the Vikings to Trump.Liz's SEP 2024 visit to Midrats.The Unfortunate Greenland Kerfuffle.Denmark's strategic concerns about China and Russia around Greenland, via Nick Solheim.Liz on X.SummaryIn this episode of Midrats, the hosts welcome back Dr. Elizabeth Buchanan, a senior fellow at the Australian Strategic Policy Institute and Center for the National Interest, to discuss the ongoing geopolitical significance of Greenland. The conversation delves into the historical context of U.S.-Greenland relations, particularly in light of recent tensions and discussions surrounding Greenland's potential independence. Dr. Buchanan emphasizes the importance of understanding Greenland's strategic position in the Arctic, especially regarding U.S. national security interests and the implications of a changing global landscape, including China's growing influence. The dialogue also touches on the complexities of Greenland's relationship with Denmark and the potential for a direct U.S.-Greenland partnership.Chapters00:00: Introduction and Overview of Greenland's Importance02:38: Historical Context of U.S.-Greenland Relations05:52: The 2004 Defense Treaty and Its Implications12:23: Greenland's Independence Movement and Future Prospects31:50: Best Case Scenarios for U.S.-Greenland Relations32:17: Understanding the Scrappy Spirit of Greenland39:12: The Geopolitical Landscape: Europe and the U.S.54:31: Greenland's Future: Independence or Status Quo?

Minister for Foreign Affairs and Trade, Helen McEntee, on the possible EU response to tariff threats by the Trump administration over Greenland.

More than 12,000 people have reportedly been killed over the past several weeks of anti-government protests across Iran - including one Canadian, according to Foreign Affairs.Meantime, US President trump has vowed to take action against the Iranian regimes if the death and corruption continues amid the protests.Host Mark Day speaks to Maral Karimi, professor at Toronto Metropolitan University and author of The Iranian Green Movement of 2009: Reverberating Echoes of Resistance. The two discuss Iran's complex socio-political history, the power of women-led protest, and the potential danger amid US intervention in Iran. We love feedback at The Big Story, as well as suggestions for future episodes. You can find us:Through email at hello@thebigstorypodcast.ca Or @thebigstoryfpn on Twitter

In this episode of DISINFORMATION WARS, host Ilan Berman speaks with Dr. James Robbins, Senior Fellow at the American Foreign Policy Council and Dean of Academics at the Institute of World Politics, about their experiences dealing with international broadcasting during the Trump 47 Transition - and where America's public diplomacy enterprise is today. BIO:Dr. James S. Robbins is a national security columnist for USA Today and Senior Fellow in National Security Affairs at the American Foreign Policy Council. He is a former special assistant in the Office of the Secretary of Defense, and in 2007 was awarded the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Joint Meritorious Civilian Service Award.Dr. Robbins is also the former award-winning Senior Editorial Writer for Foreign Affairs at The Washington Times. His work has appeared in The Wall Street Journal, National Review, and other publications. He appears regularly on national and international television and radio.Dr. Robbins holds a Ph.D. from the Fletcher School of Law and Diplomacy and has taught at the National Defense University and Marine Corps University, among other schools.

Venezuela's future looks uncertain, and the entire region is bracing for what comes next. Will Freeman is a fellow for Latin America studies at the Council on Foreign Relations. He joins host Krys Boyd to discuss Nicolás Maduro's removal and the United States' new bid for dominance in Latin America, what oil means for regional economies, and how Colombia, Cuba and other countries might meet this moment. His article in Foreign Affairs is “The Shock Waves of Venezuela.” Learn about your ad choices: dovetail.prx.org/ad-choices

In this episode, Dominic Bowen and Ángeles Jiménez discuss the geopolitical significance of Ceuta and Melilla as Europe's only land borders with Africa, and why these two Spanish cities embody sovereignty disputes and migration pressure between Spain, Morocco, and the European Union. They unpack how these enclaves function as “grey zones” where coercion, leverage, and competition occur below the threshold of armed conflict.Find out more about how migration has become a tool of geopolitical pressure, how EU border externalisation shapes incentives on both sides of the Mediterranean, and why securitisation has repeatedly failed to prevent humanitarian tragedies at these borders. The discussion highlights how local events in Ceuta and Melilla are embedded in wider regional dynamics involving EU–Morocco relations, Western Sahara, and strategic bargaining.The conversation also addresses the often-overlooked maritime dimension of the dispute, including continental shelf claims, maritime boundary delimitation, and the role of international law under the UN Convention on the Law of the Sea. Ángeles Jiménez explains how technical legal processes can become politicised and why maritime claims matter for resources, influence, and long-term strategic positioning.Finally, they explore the concept of grey zone strategy more broadly, examining how states pursue territorial and political objectives through legal acts, narrative framing, migration management, and civilian mobilisation, without triggering open conflict. The episode reflects on what Ceuta and Melilla reveal about modern geopolitics, international risk, and the limits of legal and institutional solutions.Ángeles Jiménez García-Carriazo holds a Ph.D. in Law, specializing in the Law of the Sea and Public International Law. She is currently a Research Fellow at the University of Cádiz (Spain), where she leads various academic and policy-oriented initiatives on ocean governance and human rights at sea. She also serves as Legal Advisor to the Spanish Ministry for Foreign Affairs, and is a member of the Spanish Delegation to the United Nations Commission on the Limits of the Continental Shelf (CLCS). She is the Director of the Observatory for Migration and Human Rights of the European University of the Seas Alliance (SEA-EU). Her scholarly output includes a monograph, edited volumes, numerous book chapters, and peer-reviewed articles addressing key areas of the law of the sea: the continental shelf, maritime boundary delimitation, underwater cultural heritage, peaceful settlement of disputes, and human rights at sea.The International Risk Podcast brings you conversations with global experts, frontline practitioners, and senior decision-makers who are shaping how we understand and respond to international risk. From geopolitical volatility and organised crime, to cybersecurity threats and hybrid warfare, each episode explores the forces transforming our world and what smart leaders must do to navigate them. Whether you're a board member, policymaker, or risk professional, The International Risk Podcast delivers actionable insights, sharp analysis, and real-world stories that matter.The International Risk Podcast is sponsored by Conducttr, a realistic crisis exercise platform. Visit Conducttr to learn more.Dominic Bowen is the host of The International Risk Podcast and Europe's leading expert on international risk and crisis management. As Head of Strategic Advisory and Partner at one of Europe's leading risk management consulting firms, Dominic advises CEOs, boards, and senior executives across the continent on how to prepare for uncertainty and act with intent. He has spent decades working in war zones, advising multinational companies, and supporting Europe's buTell us what you liked!

On this episode of Christopher Lochhead: Follow Your Different, Israeli Deputy Minister of Foreign Affairs Sharren Haskel joins us to discuss the rapidly evolving regional dynamics, the impact of October 7th, and the broader implications for Western democracies facing the challenges posed by radical ideologies and political inaction. You're listening to Christopher Lochhead: Follow Your Different. We are the real dialogue podcast for people with a different mind. So get your mind in a different place, and hey ho, let's go.   Sharren Haskel on the Rising Extremism and Western Political Paralysis Deputy Minister Haskel’s personal story and her reflections on recent attacks in places like Australia, the UK, and across Europe, reveal a growing concern about the unchecked rise of extremism and anti-Semitism in historically tolerant Western societies. Drawing on her years in Australia and the tragedy at Bondi Beach, Haskel expressed her deep shock and frustration over the persistent inaction by local governments in the face of escalating hate crimes against Jewish communities. According to Haskel, the roots of this problem go far beyond foreign policy. She attributes much of the inaction to internal politics and the pursuit of re-election, wherein politicians seek to appease immigrant communities that often arrive with deeply ingrained cultural prejudices, including anti-Semitism, from the Middle East. She criticized governments in Australia, Canada, and the UK for failing to enforce clear boundaries against hate speech and violent incitement. Instead, she argued, there has been a pattern of rhetorical condemnation without concrete protective measures, resulting in what she described as an environment where radicalization can flourish unchecked and Jewish communities are left vulnerable.   The October 7th Attack and Israel's Existential Resolve The conversation turned to the profound impact of October 7th, 2025, an event described as the largest and most brutal attack on Jews since the Holocaust. Haskel recounted the collective mourning and soul-searching that swept Israel, as well as a wave of determination to prevent such atrocities from ever happening again. For Haskel and many Israelis, the attack was not only an unspeakable tragedy but also a moment of disappointment in their generation’s promise to uphold the creed of “never again.” Yet, from the aftermath of horror emerged a powerful sense of resolve. Lochhead remarked that Israel appeared stronger after the attack, not weaker. Haskel recounted how, rather than fleeing, tens of thousands of Israelis and Jews from around the world returned to the country to support its defense. She described this as a pivotal moment, a ‘make it or break it’ scenario in which Israel had to repel attacks from multiple fronts—Hamas, Hezbollah, and hostile forces backed by Iran from Syria, Iraq, and Yemen. The attacks were not only aimed at Jews but also targeted Christians, Muslims, and citizens from various nations, further underscoring the broader threat posed by radical groups.   Iran's Uprising and the Global Stakes for Freedom As the Iranian regime confronted an unprecedented uprising (sparked by years of repression, economic hardship, and the regime's violent response), international attention intensified. Haskel spoke of thousands of Iranians killed or missing, the regime shutting down the internet, and the desperate situation faced by protesters, many of whom were being shot or abducted in broad daylight. Despite threats from Tehran aimed at both Israel and the United States, the Israeli government has maintained a cautious but attentive stance, recognizing both the risks and opportunities presented by the unrest. For Haskel, the Iranian regime stands as the foremost threat to global freedom, having long exported terror and repression while suppressing its own people. She called for solidarity among all who value democracy, emphasizing that the fall of the regime would be a victory for human rights, women’s rights, and the pursuit of liberty everywhere. Despite the cautious approach taken by Israel and its allies, she noted that the most vital pressure must come from within Iran, recalling the historic example of the Shah, who fled under international but primarily popular pressure. The world now stands on the verge of profound change, as old certainties crumble and new alliances and realities emerge. Haskel's message for Iran's protesters was clear: though international support matters, lasting liberation rests on the courage and resilience of the Iranian people themselves. The lesson for the broader international community is that the defense of freedom requires vigilance, unity, and unflinching resolve, both against external enemies and the creeping dangers within democratic societies. As the fate of the Iranian uprising, and indeed the region, hangs in the balance, the stakes extend far beyond the Middle East. The choices made by leaders and citizens alike will shape the future not only of a region in turmoil but of the democratic world as a whole. To hear more from Sharren Haskel and the current state of affairs in the world, download and listen to this episode.    Bio Sharren Haskel is an Israeli politician serving as Deputy Minister of Foreign Affairs since 2024. She has been a member of the Knesset since 2015, initially with Likud, later joining New Hope and National Unity. A combat veteran of the IDF’s Border Police during the Second Intifada, she previously worked as a veterinary nurse in Australia. Haskel holds a degree in political science and international relations. Known for her liberal-conservative stance, she champions free markets, civil liberties, and environmental causes. She is a prominent advocate for Israel's international relations and UNRWA reform.   Links Connect with Sharren Haskel X (formerly Twitter)   We hope you enjoyed this episode of Christopher Lochhead: Follow Your Different™! Christopher loves hearing from his listeners. Feel free to email him, connect on Facebook, X (formerly Twitter), Instagram, and subscribe on Apple Podcast / Spotify!

At the end of December, protests erupted across Iran. The government has since cracked down hard with potentially thousands of Iranians killed. It now seems possible that the United States might intervene. Via social media, U.S. President Donald Trump has told Iranian protesters that “help is on the way.” We do not know yet what, if anything, Washington will do. But the repressive regime of Ayatollah Ali Khamenei is being pushed to the brink after punishing years of war and sanctions.  Few observers of Iranian politics have thought more deeply about the regime and its future than Karim Sadjadpour. He is a senior fellow at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace. And he is the author of a recent essay in Foreign Affairs in which he underlines the fragility of the Ayatollah's regime and explores what might happen after its fall.  Deputy Editor Kanishk Tharoor spoke to Sadjadpour on the morning of January 12 about the upheaval in Iran, the weakness and brutality of the regime, what U.S. intervention can and cannot achieve, and about what kind of political order might emerge in the coming years.  You can find sources, transcripts, and more episodes of The Foreign Affairs Interview at https://www.foreignaffairs.com/podcasts/foreign-affairs-interview.

Iran has witnessed widespread protests since 28 December, triggered by economic crisis, plunging currency & unemployment. #CutTheClutter episode 1782 looks at how these protests differ from what the country has witnessed earlier. ThePrint Editor-In-Chief Shekhar Gupta also explains how Iran's economy has taken a hit since 7 October 2023, why the country stands isolated, & the Trump factor. ----more----Watch #CutTheClutter Episode 1684 here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vRpCRxRfFy4----more----Read the report by Karim Sadjadpour & Jack A. Goldstone in TheAtlantic here: https://www.theatlantic.com/international/2026/01/iran-revolution-protests-collapse/685578/----more----Read Karim Sadjadpour's essay in Foreign Affairs here:https://www.foreignaffairs.com/iran/autumn-ayatollahs----more----Read David Remnick's essay in The New Yorker here: https://www.newyorker.com/news/the-lede/the-bloody-lesson-the-ayatollah-took-from-the-shah----more----Read the essay by Jamsheed K. Choksy and Carol E. B. Choksy in Foreign Affairs here: https://www.foreignaffairs.com/iran/iranian-regime-could-fall

In this episode of China Desk, Steve Yates analyzes the dramatic U.S. action in Venezuela, the arrest of Nicolás Maduro, and the disruption of an illicit oil “ghost fleet supplying China, Russia, and Iran. The discussion explores why Venezuela's oil reserves matter so deeply to Beijing, how China's hemispheric ambitions collided with renewed American resolve, and what the episode signals for future flashpoints—from Taiwan to the South China Sea. A clear-eyed look at geopolitics, energy security, sovereignty, and power projection in an increasingly unstable global order. Watch Full-Length Interviews: https://www.youtube.com/@ChinaDeskFNW

Subscribe to Inside Call me Back https://inside.arkmedia.orgGift a subscription of Inside Call me Back: https://inside.arkmedia.org/giftsRead Karim's piece in Foreign Affairs: https://www.foreignaffairs.com/iran/autumn-ayatollahsSubscribe to Nadav Eyal's Substack: https://nadave.substack.com/Subscribe to Amit Segal's newsletter ‘It's Noon in Israel': https://arkmedia.org/amitsegal/Watch Call me Back on YouTube: https://youtube.com/@CallMeBackPodcastFor sponsorship inquiries, please contact: callmeback@arkmedia.orgTo contact us, sign up for updates, and access transcripts, visit: https://arkmedia.org/Ark Media on Instagram: https://instagram.com/arkmediaorgDan on X: https://x.com/dansenorDan on Instagram: https://instagram.com/dansenorTo order Dan Senor & Saul Singer's book, The Genius of Israel: https://tinyurl.com/bdeyjsdnToday's Episode: As Iran enters another week of unrest, protests have continued to spread across the country, with demonstrations reported in multiple major cities. The regime has responded by sharply restricting internet and cellular access, making it difficult to assess the full scale of the crackdown as regional tensions rise and President Trump warns that the United States could intervene if protesters are killed.To discuss what this moment could mean for Iran's future, Dan was joined by Karim Sadjadpour, an analyst at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace and a recurring guest on the podcast. Karim examines whether Iran may be nearing a tipping point, how the regime is attempting to suppress dissent, and what the fall of the Islamic Republic could look like, including the risks and challenges of political transition.CREDITS:ILAN BENATAR - Producer & EditorADAAM JAMES LEVIN-AREDDY - Executive ProducerBRITTANY COHEN - Production ManagerMARTIN HUERGO - Sound EditorMARIANGELES BURGOS AND PATRICIO SPADAVECCHIA - Additional EditingYUVAL SEMO - Music Composer

Last time we spoke about the climax of the battle of Changkufeng. A 7–10 August clash near Changkufeng and Hill 52 saw a brutal, multi-front Soviet push against Japanese positions in the Changkufeng–Hill 52 complex and adjacent areas. The Korea Army and Imperial forces rapidly reinforced with artillery, long-range 15 cm and other pieces, to relieve pressure. By 7–8 August, Soviet assault waves, supported by tanks and aircraft, intensified but Japanese defenses, including engineers, machine-gun fire, and concentrated artillery, prevented a decisive breakthrough at key positions like Noguchi Hill and the Changkufeng spine.  By 9–10 August, continued Japanese counterfire, improved artillery neutralization, and renewed defenses kept Hill 52 and Changkufeng in Japanese control, though at heavy cost. The frontline exhaustion and looming strategic concerns prompted calls for intensified replacements and potential diplomatic considerations. It seemed like the battle was coming to an end.   #184 The Lake Khasan Truce Welcome to the Fall and Rise of China Podcast, I am your dutiful host Craig Watson. But, before we start I want to also remind you this podcast is only made possible through the efforts of Kings and Generals over at Youtube. Perhaps you want to learn more about the history of Asia? Kings and Generals have an assortment of episodes on history of asia and much more  so go give them a look over on Youtube. So please subscribe to Kings and Generals over at Youtube and to continue helping us produce this content please check out www.patreon.com/kingsandgenerals. If you are still hungry for some more history related content, over on my channel, the Pacific War Channel where I cover the history of China and Japan from the 19th century until the end of the Pacific War. The casualties were atrocious for both sides, yet they continued to mobilize more forces to the conflict area. While the Russians appeared uninterested in all-out war, they were not rushing to settle the crisis through diplomacy and, at the front, were launching "reckless" counterattacks at inconvenient locations, presumably to occupy positions useful for bargaining. The local Soviet military, having ceded the hills at the outset, must also have been anxious about its prestige. The Kwantung Army's potential threat to the flank undoubtedly made the Russians nervous. Although the leading echelon of the 104th Division did not reach Hunchun until the evening of 13 August, Japanese intelligence heard that the Red Army Headquarters staff at Khabarovsk had detected movements of Kwantung Army elements around 10 August and had been compelled to take countermeasures: they reinforced positions along the eastern and northern Manchurian frontiers, concentrated the air force, ordered move-up preparations by ground forces in the Blagoveshchensk district, and commandeered most of the motor vehicles in the Amur Province. By shifting its main strength to the eastern front, the Kwantung Army exerted, as intended, a silent pressure. The covert objective was to restrain and divert the Russians and to assist Japanese diplomacy, not to provoke war. Nevertheless, an American correspondent who visited the Changkufeng area in mid-August privately reported that the Kwantung Army was massing large numbers of troops near the border and expected further trouble.  Toward its weak neighbor in Korea the Kwantung Army rendered every support. Apart from its major demonstration in eastern Manchuria, the Kwantung Army promptly sent whatever reinforcements of artillery, engineers, and other units that Seoul had desired. Being also intimately involved in anti-Soviet military preparations, the Kwantung Army understandably wanted the latest and most authentic information on Russian Army theory and practice. The Changkufeng Incident furnished such a firsthand opportunity, and the professional observers sent from Hsinking were well received at the front. Military classmate ties contributed to the working relationships between the armies. As one division officer put it, the teams from the Kwantung Army came as "friends," not only to study the battlefield by their respective branches of service but also to assist the front-line forces; "the Kwantung Army was increasingly helpful to us in settling the incident." Foreign Minister Ugaki felt that the pressure of troop movements in Manchuria played a major part in the Russians' eventual decision to conclude a cease-fire. From Inada's viewpoint, it had been a "fine and useful demonstration against the Soviet Union." Pinned at Changkufeng, the Russians did not or could not choose to react elsewhere, too. Army General Staff officers believed that clear and consistent operational guidance furnished by Tokyo produced good results, although the fighting had been very hard for the front-line Japanese troops because of the insistence on exclusive defense, the curbs on interference by the Kwantung Army, and the prohibition on the use of aircraft. It had been close, however. Only by conscious efforts at restraint had the small war at Changkufeng been kept from spilling over into neighboring areas. Escalation of combat in early August had caused the Japanese government to try to break the diplomatic impasse while localizing the conflict. On 2 August Premier Konoe assured the Emperor that he intended to leave matters for diplomacy and to suspend military operations as soon as possible, an approach with which the government concurred. The Changkufeng dispute had been accorded priority, preceding overall settlements and the creation of joint commissions to redefine the borders. On the 3rd, after coordinating with the military, the Ministry of Foreign Affairs advised Shigemitsu that the front-line situation had become "extremely critical" and that a quick suspension of fighting action should be proposed. Soviet and Japanese troops should be pulled back to the setup as of 30 July.  In the midst of the Changkufeng Incident, the USSR intensified harassing tactics against the last Japanese consulates located within the Soviet Union. Forty-eight hour ultimatums to quit the country were delivered to the consuls at Khabarovsk and Blagoveshchensk on 3 and 4 August, respectively. Although the Japanese government warned that it might retaliate, the Russians were unyielding. The foreign ambassadors, Mamoru Shigemitsu and Maxim Litvinov met on August 4th, whereupon Shigemitsu argued, the best procedure would be to suspend military operations on both sides and to restore the status quo. Litvinov in a long manner explained the stance of the USSR as Shigemitsu put it "the Soviet side had a disposition to cease fighting, provided that conditions were satisfactory."  The Russians were stalling at the very time the Red Army was bending every effort to retake Changkufeng. Coordination between the Army, Navy, and Foreign Ministers produced cease-fire conditions which were rushed to the Japanese ambassador on 6 August. Two alternate lines were proposed, to which both armies would pull back. After the creation of a buffer zone, discussions could begin concerning delineation of boundaries in the region of the incident. The Hunchun pact could be the basis for deliberations, demarcation to be effected by joint investigations on the spot in consultation with documents in the possession of Manchukuo and the USSR; the Japanese would serve only as observers. Shigemitsu conferred once more with Litvinov for three and a half hours on 7 August, but no progress was made. Litvinov insisted that a clash could be averted only if Japanese forces pulled However Litvinov's positive reaction to the idea of a demarcation commission was seen as a good sign.  On August the 10th, both sides seemed to have reached a similar conclusion that a cease-fire needed to rapidly be implemented. At 11pm that night Litvinov called the embassy, asking for Shigemitus to see him as fast as possible. Shigemitsu arrived around midnight whereupon Litvinov showed him a draft of a final accord: 1. Japanese and Soviet forces shall cease all military activities on 11 August at noon local time. Instructions to that effect are to be issued immediately by the governments of the USSR and Japan.  2. Japanese as well as Soviet troops shall remain on those lines which they occupied at midnight local time on 10 August.  3. For redemarcation of the portion of frontier in dispute, there shall be created a mixed commission of two representatives from the USSR and two representatives from the Japanese-Manchurian side, with an umpire selected by agreement of both parties from among citizens of a third state.  4. The commission for redemarcation shall work on the basis of agreements and maps bearing the signatures of plenipotentiary representatives of Russia and China. Shigemitsu agreed to the inclusion of a Japanese commissioner on the Manchukuoan delegation, but he could not assent to the addition of a neutral umpire. Moscow received the news of the truce with gratification mingled with surprise. Few realized that the USSR had taken the step of appeasing or at least saving face for the Japanese even after Shigemitsu had pleaded for and won a cease-fire. The world was told by the Russians only that specific overtures for cessation of hostilities had originated with the Soviet authorities. In general, it was not difficult to guess why the Russian government, distracted by the European political scene and apprehensive about a two-front war, agreed to a cease-fire at Changkufeng.  The slowness of communication across the many miles between Moscow and Tokyo did nothing to alleviate nervousness in the Japanese capital during the night of 10–11 August. Ugaki wrote in his diary that, "after ten days of tension, the struggle between the Japanese and Soviet armies on the USSR–Manchukuo border had reached the decisive brink". Complicating the situation was the fact that, late on 10 August, the president of Domei News Agency conveyed to Konoe a message from one of his Moscow correspondents. Purporting to sum up Shigemitsu's latest outlook, the report stated that success in the negotiations seemed unlikely. The contents of the message were transmitted to Ugaki and Itagaki. Consequently, Konoe and his associates spent a fearful and depressed night. Shigemitsu's own report, sent by telegram, arrived frustratingly slowly.  After definite information had been received from Shigemitsu, Harada happily called Kazami Akira, the prime minister's chief secretary, and Konoe himself. "Until the accord was implemented," Kazami had said, "we would have to be on the alert all day today." Konoe and Kazami seemed "a little relaxed anyhow." Inada had finally retired past midnight on 10–11 August, "agreement or no agreement. I must have been dozing from fatigue when the jangle of the phone got me up. It was a message saying that a truce had been concluded the preceding midnight. Just as I had been expecting, I said to myself, but I felt empty inside, as if it were an anticlimax." The call had to have been an unofficial communication, perhaps the latest Domei news, since the records showed that definitive word from the embassy in Moscow did not reach Tokyo until after 10:00. Attache Doi's report to the Army General Staff came at about 11:00. This was extremely late in terms of getting Japanese troops to cease operations at 13:00 Tokyo time (or noon on the spot); a tardy imperial order might undo the Moscow accord. Complicating this matter of split-second timing was the fact that the first official telegram from Shigemitsu referred to unilateral Japanese withdrawal by one kilometer. At the Japanese high command level, there was agitated discussion when initial word of these arrangements arrived. Inada speculated that on 10 August the Russians had staged persistent close-quarter assaults against Changkufeng and seized the southern edge eventually, although repulsed at all other points. Moscow may have agreed to a truce at that midnight because they expected that the crest of Changkufeng would be in their hands by then and that a fait accompli would have been achieved. Some officers argued that the Russian forces were suffering "quite badly and this caused the authorities' agreeability to a cease-fire." Most exasperating, however, was the provision stipulating a one-sided military withdrawal. Admittedly, such action had been under discussion by the Army General Staff itself, particularly after Terada's sobering appeal of 10 August. It was another matter to have a Japanese withdrawal dictated by the USSR while Russian troops did not have to budge. Initial puzzlement and chagrin began to yield to rationalization. The Japanese side seemed to have made a concession in the negotiations, but there must have been significance to the phrase which said, "the line occupied by Japanese forces has been taken into due consideration." Japanese troops had presumably advanced to the edge of the frontier, while Russian soldiers had not come even close. Thus, it must have been necessary to have the Japanese units withdraw first, to fix the boundaries, since it had been the Japanese who had done the greater advancing. One Japanese office remarked "A pull-back was a pull-back, no matter how you looked at things—and we were the ones who had to do it. But the atmosphere in the command had been far from optimistic on 10 August; so we decided that it was unnecessary to complain about this issue and we approved the agreement in general. Both the senior and junior staff levels seemed to be quite relieved." The 11th of August had been an awkward day to conduct liaison between the Foreign Ministry, the Army, and the Throne, since the Emperor was leaving Hayama to visit naval installations in the Yokosuka area and the navy air unit in Chiba from morning. By the time a conclusive report on the cease-fire could be conveyed to the monarch, he was aboard the destroyer Natsugumo at Kisarazu. Naval wireless facilities in Tokyo had to be used to transmit coded messages to Admiral Yonai, the Navy Minister, for delivery to the Emperor. This was done shortly before 14:45 According to Yonai, the Emperor "was very pleased and relieved when I reported to him… about the conclusion of the truce accord." The appropriate Imperial order was approved promptly. But not until 15:00, two hours after cease-fire time at Changkufeng, did word of Imperial sanction reach the high command.  Japanese soldiers in the lines recalled nothing special on 11 August. "We didn't hear about the truce till the last minute," said one, "and we had become so inured to enemy artillery we hardly noticed any 'last salute.' From Tokyo, on 11 August, it was reported that the Japanese side had suspended operations promptly at noon, as agreed, but that sporadic bursts of fire had continued to come from the Soviet side. Colonel Grebennik, when asked after the war whether the combat did end at noon, replied petulantly: "Yes, but not quite so. The fighting actually ceased at 12:05." According to him, the tardiness was the Japanese side's fault.  The Japanese press told readers that "the cease-fire bugle has sounded—the frontier is cheerful now, 14 days after the shooting began." All was quiet in the area of Changkufeng, where the sounds of firing ceased at noon "as if erased." The most intense period of stillness lasted only a few minutes and was followed by the excited chattering of soldiers, audible on both sides. Korea Army Headquarters spoke of the "lifting of dark clouds [and] return of the rays of peace." In Hongui, a Japanese combat officer told a Japanese correspondent: "Suddenly we noticed the insects making noise; the soldiers were delighted. Once the fighting stopped, Japanese national flags were hoisted here and there along our front. … After the Russians observed what we had done, they broke out red flags also, at various points in their trenches." Some Japanese soldiers were given cookies by Soviet medical corpsmen. At Hill 52, an infantryman remembered, the Japanese and the Russians were facing each other, 50 meters apart, that afternoon. "We just lay there and stared at each other for two hours, waiting grimly. But it was well past cease-fire now, and those same Russians finally started to wave at us. Later that day, when Soviet troops came to salvage their KO'd tanks, we 'chatted' in sign language." After the cease-fire, Ichimoto, whose battalion had seen the most difficult fighting, stuck his head above the trench and waved hello to some Soviet officers. "They waved back. It gave me an odd sensation, for during the furious struggle I had considered them to be barbarians. Now I was surprised to see that they were civilized after all!" A rifleman at Changkufeng remembered swapping watches with an unarmed Russian across the peak. The Japanese front-line troops stayed in their positions confronting the Russians and conducted preparations for further combat while cleaning up the battlefield. Soviet troops also remained deployed as of the time of the cease-fire and vigorously carried out their own construction. The day after the cease-fire went into effect, Suetaka escorted an American reporter to the front. At Changkufeng:  "carpenters were making wooden receptacles for the ashes of the Japanese dead. Funeral pyres still were smoldering. . . . From our vantage point the lieutenant general pointed out long lines of Soviet trucks coming up in clouds of dust [which] apparently were made deliberately in an effort to conceal the trucks' movements, [probably designed] to haul supplies from the front. Soviet boats were pushing across [Khasan] . . . and Soviet soldiers were towing smashed tanks back from no-man'sland. On the Japanese side there was a pronounced holiday spirit. Soldiers, emerging from dugouts, were drying white undershirts on near-by brush and bathing in the Tumen River. The soldiers were laughing heartily. A few were trying to ride a Korean donkey near Changkufeng's scarred slope. The general pointed out three Soviet tanks behind the Japanese advance lines east of Changkufeng. He said the Russians had hauled back seventy others [on the night of 11 August]. . . . The writer was shown a barbed wire fence immediately behind a wrecked village on the west slope of Changkufeng which the general said the Soviet troops built at the beginning of the fighting. Possiet Bay also was pointed out, clearly visible across the swamp." Soviet losses for what became known as the battle of Lake Khasan for the Russians and the Changkufeng incident for the Japanese, totaled 792 killed or missing and 3,279 wounded or sick, according to Soviet records. The Japanese claimed to have destroyed or immobilized 96 enemy tanks and 30 guns. Soviet armored losses were significant, with dozens of tanks knocked out or destroyed and hundreds of "tank troops" becoming casualties. Japanese casualties, as revealed by secret Army General Staff statistics, were 1,439 casualties, 526 killed or missing, 913 wounded; the Soviets claimed Japanese losses of 3,100, with 600 killed and 2,500 wounded. The Soviets concluded that these losses were due in part to poor communications infrastructure and roads, as well as the loss of unit coherence caused by weak organization, headquarters, commanders, and a lack of combat-support units. The faults in the Soviet army and leadership at Khasan were blamed on the incompetence of Blyukher. In addition to leading the troops into action at Khasan, Blyukher was also supposed to oversee the trans-Baikal Military District's and the Far Eastern fronts' move to combat readiness, using an administrative apparatus that delivered army group, army, and corps-level instructions to the 40th Rifle Division by accident. On 22 October, he was arrested by the NKVD and is thought to have been tortured to death. At 15:35 on 11 August, in the Hill 52 sector, high-ranking military delegates bearing a white flag emerged from the Soviet lines and proceeded to Akahage Hill, about 100 meters from the Japanese positions. Cho, as right sector chief, was notified. He sent three lieutenants to converse with the Russians; they learned that the Soviets wanted the Japanese to designate a time and place for a conference. This word was conveyed to Suetaka, who had already dispatched Lieutenant Kozuki to the heights east of Shachaofeng to contact the Russians. Around 4:20, the commander canceled Kozuki's mission and instructed Cho to reply that the delegation ought to convene near the peak of Changkufeng at 18:00 Cho set out promptly with several subordinates; they reached the Changkufeng crest a little before 6. The Russians then said they wanted to meet the Japanese near the Crestline southeast of Changkufeng, the excuse being that the peak was too far for them to go and that they could not arrive by the designated time. Cho took his team to the location requested by the Russians. There, the Japanese found 13 Soviet soldiers and a heavy machine gun on guard, but the Russian delegates had not arrived, although it was 6:18. The irked Japanese clocked a further delay of two minutes before the Russian truce chief, Gen. Grigory M. Shtern, rode up on horseback with a party of eight. Both delegations saluted, the chiefs and team members identified themselves, and all shook hands. The Soviet team was made up of Corps General 3rd rank Shtern, 38, chief of staff, Far East area army; Brigade Commissar Semenovsky political major general, 37 or 38; Colonel Fedotev, 42; and Major Wabilev, about 30. Interpreting for the Russians was Alexei Kim. In Colonel Cho's opinion, "It was always necessary to take the initiative in dealing with the Soviets. So, even in such matters as shaking hands or conversing, he always did things first." During the exchange of greetings, Cho teased Shtern about his bandaged forehead. "A Japanese artillery shell got you, didn't it?" he asked. But Cho began formal discussions on a more dignified note: "Cho: It is very much to be regretted that the Japanese and Soviet armies had to get involved in combat around Changkufeng. Nevertheless, I laud the consummation of the Mos­cow accord on the part of both governments. And, I must say, your forces were quite brave and patriotic. Shtern: I agree with you. The Japanese Army, too, was courageous and strong." Negotiations would go on at the local level and diplomatic level for many days. In Tokyo, on the morning of 13 August, Ugaki had gone to the Meiji shrine to "report" on the cease-fire and to express his gratitude. At 10:00, when received in Imperial audience, he discussed the Changkufeng Incident. "I humbly regret to have troubled Your Majesty so unduly in connection with an unimportant affair on the Soviet-Manchurian frontier" at a time when the monarch was confronted by grave national problems. A long and winding road lay ahead before the incident as a whole was settled, but a good start had been made and "we are going to be even more careful in handling matters, although the Soviet regime  consists of devious, vicious scoundrels." Recognition of the Japanese Army's performance was accorded by the highest authorities in the homeland. As soon as the fighting ceased, Kan'in transmitted a message of appreciation. The day after the cease-fire, the command in North Korea issued a generous communique: "We pay homage to the Japanese for defending themselves against 100 planes, 200 tanks, and 60 pieces of heavy artillery. Our admiration for the bravery of both armies is of the highest." At 14:00 on the 15th, Kan'in was received in audience and reported on the settlement of the crisis. Said the Emperor: "We are gratified by the fact that, during this incident at Changkufeng, Our officers and men achieved their mission fully and manifested prudence and forbearance while confronting difficult circumstances with small forces. Our profound condolences to the casualties. Convey this message to the officers and men." A wire was dispatched promptly to Nakamura. With Imperial use of the wording "Changkufeng Incident," the nomenclature for the affair was fixed in Japan. When the cabinet met on 16 August, the decision was reached officially. After the Changkufeng affair, Japanese officers claimed that the Soviets had dispatched tactical experts "to ascertain why their elite Far Eastern forces had not been able to achieve satisfactory results. They realize the urgency of this investigation in preparation for any great war." Specifically, the AGS heard that on the day of the cease-fire, Blyukher had sent an investigative team of commissars under Romanovsky to the scene. Japanese experts on the USSR speculated that the experience at Changkufeng ought indeed to have impressed the Red Army: "Our forces did seize the hill and hold it. After comparing the strengths involved ... the Russians may well have had to modify their estimates." According to one Japanese commentator, improvements in political leadership were judged imperative by the USSR, gainsaying claims that the Soviet Army had been strengthened through the purge of alleged Japanese tools. Soviet authorities would conclude "As a test of doctrine, the fighting had confirmed the correctness of the basic principles embodied in the 1936 Field Service Regulations." The Soviet infantry had paid dearly for this, as well as for the deficiencies in tactical training. Defense Commissar Voroshilov admitted, "We were not sufficiently quick in our tactics, and particularly in joint operations in dealing the enemy a concentrated blow." In the view of historian Mackintosh: "The Soviet success at Lake Khasan was bought at the cost of heavy casualties and exposed serious defects in the mobilization machinery and the training of troops. There can be little doubt that these factors checked to some extent the Soviet Government's overoptimistic estimate of its own military strength and cast doubt on the effectiveness of its policy of expansion in all fields of military organization". Writing a year and a half after Changkufeng, an Mainichi reporter observed that the greatest harvest from the incident was tangible Japanese experience in determining the fighting strength of the Russians. Purchased with blood, this knowledge could provide valuable evidence for future combat operations. It was a question whether Changkufeng really possessed such strategic significance as was claimed for it, but the Soviet policy of bluff could be interpreted as substantiating the weakness of the defenses of Vladivostok. "The Russians used all kinds of new weapons at Changkufeng and tipped their whole hand. But although mechanization of the Red Army had attained high levels with respect to quantity, their weaknesses in technique and quality were laid bare." Imaoka observed that since the Changkufeng Incident marked the first time that the Japanese and Soviet armies engaged each other in combat involving large strategic elements, divisional and above, Russian fighting strength was studied with keen interest. The Japanese did not rate the capacity of the officers or Soviet quality, in general, as especially high. Still, the Russians did possess quantitative abundance, and Japanese losses had been heavy because the enemy had fired masses of ammunition against fixed targets. Suetaka seemed to have comprehended the scope of tangible Soviet strength in equipment and materiel, as shown by his comment: "I felt deeply that if the gap in manpower went beyond limits, it would be inevitable for our casualties to increase tremendously; this might even cause us danger in specific local areas." Few Japanese officers saw anything new in Soviet tactical methods, although considerations of mass were ever-present. Not only intelligence experts but the whole army worked on ways of coping with Soviet forces that would have the numerical advantage by 3:1. Most awesome was the "fantastic abundance" of hostile materiel, although the Russians could not deploy to surround the Japanese because of the geography. An AGS expert on the USSR summed it up: "We learned that Soviet strength was up to expectations, whereas Japanese arms and equipment had to be improved and reinforced." Worded in a multiplicity of ways, the Japanese conclusion was that patient imperial forces had won a great victory by defending the contested border with flesh vs. steel and by limiting the Changkufeng Incident, till the end, against enemy hordes supported exclusively by planes and tanks. Japanese infantrymen admit that the combat soldiers did not savor their disadvantages. "All our materiel was inferior in quality and particularly in quantity. We had the impression that whereas we relied on muscle power, the enemy used engines. This rendered our fighting particularly hard, but we had full confidence in our spiritual strength [i.e., superiority]."  Nevertheless, the Japanese mode of tactical operation, asserted Iwasaki, the Korea Army senior staff officer, was "the worst possible: fighting with hands tied." This meant that the Russians could fight "to their hearts' content," committing tanks and planes, and striking from all directions. A front-line infantry commander commented: "One's troops ought to be provided meaningful reasons for fighting and for dying happily. It is cruel to ask officers and men to meet masses of steel and to shed their blood without visible cause, and apparently because of inadequate combat preparations." The cease-fire agreement was concluded "at just the right time," General Morimoto admitted. A secret report prepared by AGS analysts sheds light on the larger question of what the army thought it had learned about itself and the Soviet enemy: "In studying Changkufeng, one ought to bear a number of cautions in mind: (1) The incident broke out when we were concentrating on the holy war against China; severe limitations on combat operations were imposed by the necessity to adhere to a policy of nonenlargement. (2) Apparently, the enemy also adopted a policy of localization while continuously attempting to recapture the high ground in the Changkufeng area. (3) Our forces employed units which were on Phase-1 alert from beginning to end; in terms of quality, the personnel were excellent—mainly active-duty types, from key men down. But our numbers were far inferior, and our organization and equipment were not of the best. In addition, we committed no planes or tanks, whereas the enemy used plenty. (4) The 19th Division was thorough, rigorous, and realistic in its combat training prior to the engagement. (5) Battlefield terrain seriously limited the enemy's attacks, especially tank action. But while the Tumen restricted assaults against our flanks and rear, it hampered our own services of supply, notably the provision of position construction materials." The Japanese learned few or erroneous lessons from the Changkufeng affair; the Kwantung Army, for example, was convinced that everything had been handled badly in 1938 by the Korea Army and the high command. When a dispute arose in 1939 at Nomonhan on another border lying between Outer Mongolia and Manchukuo, the staff in Hsinking fostered escalating measures. The USSR, however, learned in 1937 and 1938 that the Japanese Army seemed to respect only force.  I would like to take this time to remind you all that this podcast is only made possible through the efforts of Kings and Generals over at Youtube. Please go subscribe to Kings and Generals over at Youtube and to continue helping us produce this content please check out www.patreon.com/kingsandgenerals. If you are still hungry after that, give my personal channel a look over at The Pacific War Channel at Youtube, it would mean a lot to me. The Changkufeng incident or battle of Lake Khasan clash saw a fierce Soviet push against Japanese positions around Changkufeng and Hill 52. The cease-fire ended the incident, but not the conflict. Despite the brutal lessons learned by both sides, a much larger conflict would explode the next year that would alter both nations throughout WW2.   

The U.S.-India partnership has been a cornerstone of American Indo-Pacific strategy for two decades, but it's now facing its most serious crisis. After bipartisan American efforts to bring India into closer partnership as a counterweight to China, President Trump has triggered the most dramatic deterioration in U.S.-India relations in a generation. What began with optimism in Delhi about Trump 2.0 has devolved into a breakdown of trust, escalating tariffs, and diplomatic miscalculation that threatens the entire architecture of Indo-Pacific security.​In this essential episode, hosts Ray Powell (former U.S. military officer) and Jim Carouso (former U.S. diplomat) welcome back James Crabtree - distinguished visiting fellow at the European Council on Foreign Relations, former Financial Times bureau chief for India, and author of the acclaimed book “The Billionaire Raj.” Drawing on his recent Foreign Affairs article, “The India That Trump Made,” Crabtree unpacks how two decades of strategic partnership have been upended in less than a year.​What Happened?India expected favorable treatment from Trump given Modi's strong personal relationship with the president during his first term. Instead, they received 50% tariffs - first 25% on general goods, then another 25% for buying Russian oil, putting India's tariff burden equal to China's. Then came the Pakistan crisis: when India and Pakistan clashed in Operation Sindor, Trump claimed credit for brokering a ceasefire that India insists he didn't actually broker. Trump's perceived slight over not receiving sufficient credit has fueled ongoing tensions, while Pakistan successfully leveraged the moment through crypto deals, a Nobel Peace Prize nomination for Trump, and high-level military diplomacy.​Strategic ConsequencesThe Quad, the critical U.S.-Australia-India-Japan partnership, is essentially stalled, with a planned summit canceled and little energy for revival. India is now pursuing what Crabtree calls a “pivot to Europe,” seeking to replace American technology transfer, investment, and defense expertise with European alternatives. An EU-India summit in January will likely announce a long-negotiated trade deal, marking India's shift toward multi-alignment rather than U.S. partnership.​Meanwhile, Pakistan has successfully re-emerged as a regional player, signing security treaties with Saudi Arabia that include nuclear assurances and repositioning itself diplomatically after years in India's shadow. Russia remains a “diminishing asset” for India due to supply unreliability and limited technological offerings, though Delhi still needs Moscow for defense systems like the S-400 and to prevent Russia from becoming a complete Chinese vassal state.​India's FutureDespite the diplomatic turbulence, India posted 8% GDP growth last quarter and remains on a positive economic trajectory, though still a developing country at $2,000-3,000 per capita income. Prime Minister Modi, now in his third term and 11 years in office, continues to dominate Indian politics and will likely seek a fourth term, cementing his status as the most significant political figure in independent Indian history. India's “Make in India” defense ambitions are advancing slowly, with systems like the BrahMos missile finding export success in Southeast Asia, though India remains heavily import-dependent for military hardware.​Can U.S.-India trust be rebuilt? Crabtree is pessimistic: “The trust that had been built up between the U.S. and India over a two-decade period has been destroyed”. The pro-American camp in Delhi that architected the strategic partnership has been undermined, while pro-Russia voices feel vindicated.

Congress has a lengthy list of priorities, but the week has been dominated by the Trump administration's operation in Venezuela and what to do next. Geoff Bennett spoke with Michigan Sen. Elissa Slotkin for the Democratic perspective. PBS News is supported by - https://www.pbs.org/newshour/about/funders. Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy

Congress has a lengthy list of priorities, but the week has been dominated by the Trump administration's operation in Venezuela and what to do next. Geoff Bennett spoke with Michigan Sen. Elissa Slotkin for the Democratic perspective. PBS News is supported by - https://www.pbs.org/newshour/about/funders. Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy

How has China's Ministry of Foreign Affairs transformed itself into one of the most assertive diplomatic actors on the global stage? What explains the rise of “wolf warrior” practices, and how should we interpret Beijing's evolving diplomatic identity? In this episode, Duncan McCargo speaks with Dylan Loh, an Associate Professor in the Public Policy and Global Affairs programme at Nanyang Technological University (Dr. Dylan M.H. Loh - Associate Professor | International Relations Scholar | Chinese Foreign Policy), about his award-winning new book China's Rising Foreign Ministry: Practices and Representations of Assertive Diplomacy (Stanford University Press, 2024). Dylan Loh unpacks how Chinese diplomats craft narratives and balance assertiveness with professionalism, touching on institutional habitus, ritualised loyalty, and China's bid for discourse power on platforms like X. This conversation offers timely insights for anyone interested in Chinese foreign policy, diplomacy, and the future of great-power relations. Host: Duncan McCargo is President's Chair in Global Affairs at Nanyang Technological University. Podcast Editing: Ishaan Krishnan Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices Support our show by becoming a premium member! https://newbooksnetwork.supportingcast.fm/new-books-network

How has China's Ministry of Foreign Affairs transformed itself into one of the most assertive diplomatic actors on the global stage? What explains the rise of “wolf warrior” practices, and how should we interpret Beijing's evolving diplomatic identity? In this episode, Duncan McCargo speaks with Dylan Loh, an Associate Professor in the Public Policy and Global Affairs programme at Nanyang Technological University (Dr. Dylan M.H. Loh - Associate Professor | International Relations Scholar | Chinese Foreign Policy), about his award-winning new book China's Rising Foreign Ministry: Practices and Representations of Assertive Diplomacy (Stanford University Press, 2024). Dylan Loh unpacks how Chinese diplomats craft narratives and balance assertiveness with professionalism, touching on institutional habitus, ritualised loyalty, and China's bid for discourse power on platforms like X. This conversation offers timely insights for anyone interested in Chinese foreign policy, diplomacy, and the future of great-power relations. Host: Duncan McCargo is President's Chair in Global Affairs at Nanyang Technological University. Podcast Editing: Ishaan Krishnan Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices Support our show by becoming a premium member! https://newbooksnetwork.supportingcast.fm/political-science

How has China's Ministry of Foreign Affairs transformed itself into one of the most assertive diplomatic actors on the global stage? What explains the rise of “wolf warrior” practices, and how should we interpret Beijing's evolving diplomatic identity? In this episode, Duncan McCargo speaks with Dylan Loh, an Associate Professor in the Public Policy and Global Affairs programme at Nanyang Technological University (Dr. Dylan M.H. Loh - Associate Professor | International Relations Scholar | Chinese Foreign Policy), about his award-winning new book China's Rising Foreign Ministry: Practices and Representations of Assertive Diplomacy (Stanford University Press, 2024). Dylan Loh unpacks how Chinese diplomats craft narratives and balance assertiveness with professionalism, touching on institutional habitus, ritualised loyalty, and China's bid for discourse power on platforms like X. This conversation offers timely insights for anyone interested in Chinese foreign policy, diplomacy, and the future of great-power relations. Host: Duncan McCargo is President's Chair in Global Affairs at Nanyang Technological University. Podcast Editing: Ishaan Krishnan Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices Support our show by becoming a premium member! https://newbooksnetwork.supportingcast.fm/world-affairs

How has China's Ministry of Foreign Affairs transformed itself into one of the most assertive diplomatic actors on the global stage? What explains the rise of “wolf warrior” practices, and how should we interpret Beijing's evolving diplomatic identity? In this episode, Duncan McCargo speaks with Dylan Loh, an Associate Professor in the Public Policy and Global Affairs programme at Nanyang Technological University (Dr. Dylan M.H. Loh - Associate Professor | International Relations Scholar | Chinese Foreign Policy), about his award-winning new book China's Rising Foreign Ministry: Practices and Representations of Assertive Diplomacy (Stanford University Press, 2024). Dylan Loh unpacks how Chinese diplomats craft narratives and balance assertiveness with professionalism, touching on institutional habitus, ritualised loyalty, and China's bid for discourse power on platforms like X. This conversation offers timely insights for anyone interested in Chinese foreign policy, diplomacy, and the future of great-power relations. Host: Duncan McCargo is President's Chair in Global Affairs at Nanyang Technological University. Podcast Editing: Ishaan Krishnan Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices Support our show by becoming a premium member! https://newbooksnetwork.supportingcast.fm/chinese-studies

Subscribe to Inside Call me Back inside.arkmedia.orgGift a subscription of Inside Call me Back: inside.arkmedia.org/giftsSubscribe to Amit Segal's newsletter ‘It's Noon in Israel': arkmedia.org/amitsegal/Subscribe to Nadav Eyal's Substack: https://nadave.substack.com/Watch Call me Back on YouTube: youtube.com/@CallMeBackPodcastCheck out Ark Media's other podcasts: For Heaven's Sake: https://lnk.to/rfGlrA‘What's Your Number?': https://lnk.to/rfGlrAFor sponsorship inquiries, please contact: callmeback@arkmedia.orgTo contact us, sign up for updates, and access transcripts, visit: arkmedia.org/Ark Media on Instagram: instagram.com/arkmediaorgDan on X: x.com/dansenorDan on Instagram: instagram.com/dansenorTo order Dan Senor & Saul Singer's book, The Genius of Israel: tinyurl.com/bdeyjsdnToday's Episode: For more than a week, hordes of Iranians have taken to the streets and risked their lives to protest the Islamic regime. The regime's attempts to suppress the protests are failing; instead, the unrest has spread from the capital city of Tehran to other cities and provinces. On Friday, President Trump warned that the U.S. would intervene if the Iranian state kills anti-regime protestors. Against this backdrop, on Saturday, in a shocking military escalation, U.S. special forces captured Venezuelan dictator Nicolas Maduro and his wife while carrying out strikes on the capital city Caracas. Under Maduro, Venezuela has fostered warm ties with the Islamic Regime of Iran as well as Russia and China. Many see Trump's action in Venezuela as an indication that he is willing to heighten American aggression against its enemies, including the Islamic Republic of Iran. To discuss what to make of the societal upheaval in Iran – and how the historic events in Venezuela play a role here – Dan was joined by Karim Sadjapour. Karim is an analyst at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace and a recurring guest on this podcast on all things Iran.Karim's piece on Foreign Affairs: https://www.foreignaffairs.com/iran/autumn-ayatollahsCREDITS:ILAN BENATAR - Producer & EditorADAAM JAMES LEVIN-AREDDY - Executive ProducerBRITTANY COHEN - Production ManagerMARTIN HUERGO - Sound EditorMARIANGELES BURGOS AND PATRICIO SPADAVECCHIA - Additional EditingMAYA RACKOFF - Associate ProducerGABE SILVERSTEIN - Community ManagementYUVAL SEMO - Music Composer

Watch The X22 Report On Video No videos found (function(w,d,s,i){w.ldAdInit=w.ldAdInit||[];w.ldAdInit.push({slot:17532056201798502,size:[0, 0],id:"ld-9437-3289"});if(!d.getElementById(i)){var j=d.createElement(s),p=d.getElementsByTagName(s)[0];j.async=true;j.src="https://cdn2.decide.dev/_js/ajs.js";j.id=i;p.parentNode.insertBefore(j,p);}})(window,document,"script","ld-ajs");pt> Click On Picture To See Larger Picture Trump is showing the world how green energy doesn’t work, plus it also shows the environmentalist really don’t care about the environment. The people are waking up to the fact that the [CB] have been robbing us of our money. Trump’s economy is taking off. The [DS] is being exposed, the people are now seeing the criminal syndicate system, it is one tyrannical money laundering system. The people have been funding our destruction. The [DS] hunted Trump and now Trump is hunting them. The difference is that the [DS] have committed the crimes and the investigations will show their criminal acts. We are in the process of fighting the 2nd American revolution. Economy  (function(w,d,s,i){w.ldAdInit=w.ldAdInit||[];w.ldAdInit.push({slot:18510697282300316,size:[0, 0],id:"ld-8599-9832"});if(!d.getElementById(i)){var j=d.createElement(s),p=d.getElementsByTagName(s)[0];j.async=true;j.src="https://cdn2.decide.dev/_js/ajs.js";j.id=i;p.parentNode.insertBefore(j,p);}})(window,document,"script","ld-ajs"); https://twitter.com/KobeissiLetter/status/2006870301041467482?s=20   improved across every US region last month to their highest levels of 2025. The West posted the largest increase, followed by the South, the nation's largest home-selling region. As a result, the Pending Home Sales Index is up to 79.2 points, the highest since February 2023. Homebuyer activity is regaining traction. https://twitter.com/elonmusk/status/2006832536257966286?s=20   need to cut fraud https://twitter.com/CynicalPublius/status/2006750062844534872?s=20  greatly eliminates fraud, waste and abuse; -or- (ii) Middle-class taxpayers decide enough is enough and they too stop following the rules. Door (i) = prosperity. Door (ii) = anarchy. https://twitter.com/elonmusk/status/2006833536335327501?s=20 https://twitter.com/QuantusInsights/status/2006036670680912007?s=20   overseas buying. This is strong, confidence-driven allocation by sophisticated investors looking 12–24 months ahead. When stocks, Treasuries and corporate bonds all see heavy inflows together, the data quietly signals: • U.S. growth looks resilient (no recession on the horizon) • American institutions remain solid • Global alternatives don't measure up A rare combination that points to a strong setup for the U.S. economy. https://twitter.com/howardlutnick/status/2006867104272961854?s=20  positions across industries and our nation. This new growth will employ millions of workers in great, high-paying jobs. The era of non-productive jobs fueled by DEI bureaucracy and corporate performative politics is over. Those who want to work and build America will be rewarded. Great positions and opportunities will be plentiful. The time is now to Make America Great Again. To the amazing success of America and the American worker in 2026!! Political/Rights   the Country, including Tim Waltz, Gavin Newscum, for who is going to lead the Democrats to their future defeat. Clooney got more publicity for politics than he did for his very few, and totally mediocre, movies. He wasn't a movie star at all, he was just an average guy who complained, constantly, about common sense in politics. MAKE AMERICA GREAT AGAIN! https://twitter.com/RichardGrenell/status/2006739373346226506?s=20  quickly. It's unverified gossip that is embraced by News Editors. I see it everyday with the Trump Kennedy Center. Fake news repeated over and over without a single reporter calling to verify the information they are repeating. DOGE https://twitter.com/EricLDaugh/status/2006843983016960428?s=20 “This is deeply morally WRONG.” “Why is it right for someone who escaped tyranny in other countries and happens to live in SF to pay ‘reparations’ for something they had nothing to do with?”  “California didn’t even have slaves!” Geopolitical More Than 1,000 Cars Burned in France, as New Years' Eve ‘Celebrations' in Europe Turn Into a ‘Fireworks War' Between Migrants and Police (VIDEOS)  Cars burning on NYE: Macron is presiding over the destruction of France. The suicidal policy of unchecked mass migration is takings its toll on the European nations. Among the multiple problems, there's the fact that the New Years ‘celebrations' have turned into an excuse for violent migrants to attack police, firefighters and commons citizens with fireworks, turning it into a war. https://twitter.com/visegrad24/status/2006763220258926726?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw%7Ctwcamp%5Etweetembed%7Ctwterm%5E2006763220258926726%7Ctwgr%5E6f5fbf697d1dedb8ea125a1a961ff7b248f5d362%7Ctwcon%5Es1_c10&ref_url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.thegatewaypundit.com%2F2026%2F01%2Fmore-than-1000-cars-burned-france-as-new%2F https://twitter.com/RMXnews/status/2006884531585024201?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw%7Ctwcamp%5Etweetembed%7Ctwterm%5E2006884531585024201%7Ctwgr%5E6f5fbf697d1dedb8ea125a1a961ff7b248f5d362%7Ctwcon%5Es1_c10&ref_url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.thegatewaypundit.com%2F2026%2F01%2Fmore-than-1000-cars-burned-france-as-new%2F Source: thegatewaypundit.com https://twitter.com/visegrad24/status/2006843568816796153?s=20  Maduro Says He’s Ready to Play ‘Let’s Make a Deal’ Venezuela’s Nicolas Maduro says that he’s willing to come to terms with President Trump if the U.S. ends its military pressure campaign in an interview with socialist academic and journalist (but I repeat myself) Ignacio Ramonet. Trump has made multiple demands that Maduro depart, going back to the beginning of the pressure campaign in November, for instance, on December 23: “We want it back,” he added. “They took our oil rights — we had a lot of oil there. As you know they threw our companies out, and we want it back.” The list includes, but is not limited to: Exxon Mobil—2007—oil extraction. Conoco Phillips—2007—oil extraction. Halliburton—2009—oil operations. Cargill—2009—rice processing. Owens Illinois—2010—glass. Clorox—2014—consumer goods.  General Motors—2017—auto manufacturing.  Kellogg's—2018)—cereals. Goodyear—2018—tires. Source: redstate.com War/Peace Anonymous U.S. Officials Say Ukraine Didn't Target Putin with Drone Attack – Russian Officials Say They Have Drone Flight Plan From Navigation Unit  The Wall Street Journal is reporting that Ukraine did not target the personal residence of Russian Federation President Vladimir Putin, “according to U.S. officials.”   However, Russia captured one of the drones intact and have said they were able to “extract a file containing a flight plan from the navigation unit” which they plan to share with the Trump administration through established channels. {LINK}   Who are we going to believe, Russian “special service” operations or anonymous “U.S. Intelligence Officials”?  U.S. media have said the attack on Putin may be a lie; however, with physical evidence from the defense operation, it is less likely Russia just made up the attack.  At this moment in the conflict, Putin doesn't need domestic propaganda.    Source: theconservativetreehouse.com [DS] Agenda https://twitter.com/KanekoaTheGreat/status/2006842440968450361?s=20 https://twitter.com/MrAndyNgo/status/2006830735626301488?s=20   up to dozens of times for safety violations. Four facilities had prepared themselves for liberal journalists by having Somali children inside. https://twitter.com/MrAndyNgo/status/2006877951376154782?s=20  extreme, with little girls usually required to wear both head and body coverings. Female genital mutation is also endemic to their cultural practices. In June 2025, Mayor @Jacob_Frey released an official video in Somali condemning the U.S. government’s efforts to restrict incoming migration from Somalia. This is the same mayor who oversaw (managed) the burning of Minneapolis during the 2020 BLM-Antifa riots. http://ngocomment.com https://twitter.com/MrAndyNgo/status/2006849302002544832?s=20 https://twitter.com/AAGDhillon/status/2006887697743302932?s=20 Report Alleges Somalia's Foreign Minister, Whose Ohio Healthcare Company Receives U.S. Tax Dollars, Also Controls LLC at SAME ADDRESS as Somali Money Transfer Firm Accused of Terror Financing  A new report alleges that Somalia's Foreign Minister Abdisalam Abdi Ali, a U.S. citizen whose Ohio-based healthcare company has raked in millions from American taxpayers, also controls an LLC operating out of the same address as a Somali money transfer firm previously accused of funneling funds to terrorist organizations. Abdisalam Abdi Ali was appointed Minister of Foreign Affairs and International Cooperation of Somalia in May 2025. Born in Somalia but building a life in the U.S., Ali established Ritechoice Healthcare Services LLC in Toledo, Ohio, over a decade ago. Shockingly, two additional healthcare companies operate out of the same office suite. https://twitter.com/libsoftiktok/status/2006872203921600958?s=20 In that role, he: Oversees Security Council meetings Sets the Council's agenda Manages resolutions and presidential statements Speaks for the A3+ bloc (African nations plus Caribbean representation) on issues like Afghanistan and Yemen But before assuming global authority in New York, Osman spent years embedded inside Ohio's public welfare system. Osman relocated to the United States in the late 1980s and built his career in Ohio's taxpayer-funded social services apparatus. From 1999 to 2012, he worked at the Franklin County Department of Job and Family Services, serving as: Case Manager Social Program Specialist Source: thegatewaypudit.com  https://twitter.com/JoeLang51440671/status/2006726416168079799?s=20   democrats by the same corrupt Somali's. Stolen elections violate the Constitutional rights of citizens. That will play a HUGE part in FORCING our election system to be completely transformed. Fraud vitiates everything and everything is connected. Source: thegatewyapundit.com President Trump's Plan https://twitter.com/ScottAdamsSays/status/2007077071684780275?s=20 https://twitter.com/elonmusk/status/2007076187760366005?s=20 President Trump Issues the First Vetoes of His Second Term  It took about 11 months, but President Donald Trump has finally issued the first vetoes of his second term. And like most things involving the president, the moves aren't without their critics — including some you might not normally expect pushback from. Trump's rapid response team highlighted the two vetoes: https://twitter.com/RapidResponse47/status/2006153283996381333?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw%7Ctwcamp%5Etweetembed%7Ctwterm%5E2006153283996381333%7Ctwgr%5E79e6ef2350ae826bc802e9e5d82d5c97bad630de%7Ctwcon%5Es1_c10&ref_url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.thegatewaypundit.com%2F2026%2F01%2Fpresident-trump-issues-first-vetoes-second-term%2F The “Miccosukee Reserved Area Amendments Act” is a bill aimed at expanding the land set aside for the Miccosukee Tribe inside Everglades National Park by officially including a section known as Osceola Camp. Trump had a couple of issues with this. The residential community in that area “was constructed in 1935, without authorization, in a low area that was raised with fill material,” Trump's explanation read. “None of the current structures in the Osceola Camp are over 50 years old, nor do they meet the other criteria to be considered for listing in the National Register of Historic Places,” Trump wrote to the House. He added that, “the Miccosukee Tribe has actively sought to obstruct reasonable immigration policies that the American people decisively voted for when I was elected.” That appears to be a direct reference to the tribe's publicized opposition — including a lawsuit against the Trump administration — to the “Alligator Alcatraz” detention center in Florida, as noted by The Associated Press. The “Finish the Arkansas Valley Conduit Act,” meanwhile, is a bill designed to make it easier for rural Colorado communities to complete a long‑planned water pipeline project that will facilitate drinking water to people in the Arkansas River Valley. Trump appeared to take specific issue with the price tag and repayment plans for this project. “It was originally authorized … in a bill signed by President Kennedy in 1962,” Trump said. “For decades it was unbuilt, largely because the AVC was economically unviable.” “More than $249 million has already been spent on the AVC, and total costs are estimated to be $1.3 billion,” Trump wrote. “H.R. 131 would continue the failed policies of the past by forcing Federal taxpayers to bear even more of the massive costs of a local water project — a local water project that, as initially conceived, was supposed to be paid for by the localities using it. “Enough is enough. My administration is committed to preventing American taxpayers from funding expensive and unreliable policies. Ending the massive cost of taxpayer handouts and restoring fiscal sanity is vital to economic growth and the fiscal health of the Nation.” The bill was backed and pushed by Colorado GOP Rep. Lauren Boebert — normally a staunch supporter of Trump's — who seemed incensed with the president's veto and vowed that “this isn't over.” Source: thegatewaypundit.com https://twitter.com/EagleEdMartin/status/2006700820432130068?s=20  to believe that these Democrat Mayors and Governors, all of whom are greatly incompetent, would want us to leave, especially considering the great progress that has been made??? President DJT https://twitter.com/EndWokeness/status/2006537728369057886?s=20 https://twitter.com/BradCGZ/status/2006485378031824908?s=20 https://twitter.com/WhiteHouse/status/2006523871181300073?s=20  (function(w,d,s,i){w.ldAdInit=w.ldAdInit||[];w.ldAdInit.push({slot:13499335648425062,size:[0, 0],id:"ld-7164-1323"});if(!d.getElementById(i)){var j=d.createElement(s),p=d.getElementsByTagName(s)[0];j.async=true;j.src="//cdn2.customads.co/_js/ajs.js";j.id=i;p.parentNode.insertBefore(j,p);}})(window,document,"script","ld-ajs");

In this episode, David Miliband, president and chief executive officer of the International Rescue Committee, discusses the new IRC Emergency Watchlist report. The report highlights the countries at highest risk of humanitarian crisis in 2026, and evaluates the international community's progress and shortcomings.   Background Reading: This article discusses Venezuela's dire humanitarian landscape, as the White House reviews potential military operations in the region. This article examines Sudan's humanitarian crisis, and a stubborn lack of international attention to its plight. Host: Andrea Mitchell, Chief Washington Correspondent and Chief Foreign Affairs Correspondent, NBC News   Guest: David Miliband, President and Chief Executive Officer, International Rescue Committee; Former Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, United Kingdom   Want more comprehensive analysis of global news and events sent straight to your inbox? Subscribe to CFR's Daily News Brief newsletter.   To keep tabs on all CFR events, visit cfr.org/event. To watch this event, please visit it on our YouTube channel: Forecasting Humanitarian Risk in 2026: A Conversation with David Miliband.   

The biggest questions in U.S. foreign policy today tend to be about China. Policymakers and analysts argue over the implications of China's rise, the extent of its ambitions, the nature of its economic influence, and the meaning of its growing military strength. Underlying these arguments is a widespread sense that where Beijing once seemed likely to slot comfortably into a U.S.-led international order, it now poses a profound challenge to American interests. No one brings more perspective to these arguments than the historian Odd Arne Westad. In a series of essays in Foreign Affairs over the past few years, Westad has explored the drivers of China's foreign policy, its approach to global power, and its fraught ties with the United States. He sees in the long arc of Chinese and global history a stark warning about the potential for conflict, including a war between China and the United States. But Westad also sees in this history lessons for policymakers today about how to avert such an outcome. Dan Kurtz-Phelan spoke to Westad about China's complicated past, about how that history is defining its role as a great power, and about the paths both to war and to peace in the years ahead.   You can find sources, transcripts, and more episodes of The Foreign Affairs Interview at https://www.foreignaffairs.com/podcasts/foreign-affairs-interview.

Episode 539: Live from RNDF: Ambassador YuiAs part of our crossover series of Fault Lines and CTRL+F, “Modern Deterrence: Allies, Innovation, and the Future of Defense,” recorded live at the Reagan National Defense Forum, Jess and Jamil sit down with Ambassador Yui, Taiwan's Representative to the United States. With more than 35 years of diplomatic experience—including senior leadership roles in Taiwan's Ministry of Foreign Affairs and postings across Europe, Latin America, and the U.S.—Ambassador Yui offers a uniquely informed view of the shifting security landscape in the Indo-Pacific and Taiwan's evolving role within it.How does Taiwan assess the current deterrence environment amid intensifying PLA activity and hybrid pressure from Beijing? Where are the biggest opportunities, and remaining obstacles, in United States–Taiwan defense, economic, and technological partnership? And as Taiwan advances major modernization efforts, from asymmetric defense to cyber resilience and semiconductor security, what should Washington understand about the capabilities, priorities, and challenges shaping Taiwan's strategic future?@jamil_n_jaffer@nottvjessjonesLike what we're doing here? Be sure to rate, review, and subscribe. And don't forget to follow @faultlines_pod and @masonnatsec on Twitter! Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

The world has reached various inflection points, or so we are often told. Advanced technology, such as artificial intelligence, promises to transform our way of life. In geopolitics, the growing competition between China and the United States heralds an uncertain new era. And within many democracies, the old assumptions that undergirded politics are in doubt; liberalism appears to be in disarray and illiberal forces on the rise.  Few scholars are grappling with the many dimensions of the current moment quite like Daron Acemoglu is. “The world is in the throes of a pervasive crisis,” he wrote in Foreign Affairs in 2023, a crisis characterized by widening economic inequalities and a breakdown in public trust. Acemoglu is a Nobel Prize–winning economist, but his research and writing has long strayed beyond the conventional bounds of his discipline. He has written famously, in the bestselling book Why Nations Fail, about how institutions determine the success of countries. He has explored how technological advances have transformed—or indeed failed to transform—societies. And more recently he has turned his attention to the crisis facing liberal democracy, one accentuated by economic alienation and the threat of technological change. Deputy Editor Kanishk Tharoor spoke with Acemoglu about a stormy world of overlapping crises and about how the ship of liberal democracy might be steered back on course. You can find sources, transcripts, and more episodes of The Foreign Affairs Interview at https://www.foreignaffairs.com/podcasts/foreign-affairs-interview.

The New Yorker staff writer Andrew Marantz is joined by the political scientists Steven Levitsky and Daniel Ziblatt, who teach at Harvard, and Lucan A. Way, who teaches at the University of Toronto, for an installment of “How Bad Is It?,” a monthly series on the health of American democracy. In a new essay for the journal Foreign Affairs, “The Price of American Authoritarianism,” the scholars of government assert that President Trump's rapid consolidation of power in the first year of his second term has tipped the United States into authoritarianism—specifically, into competitive authoritarianism, in which elections persist but the ruling party rigs the system in its favor. The panel discusses how they arrived at their conclusions and suggests that not all is lost: America's authoritarian moment could be temporary. “The United States is in a very good place to resist,” Levitsky says. “Civil society is very robust and so there is a very high likelihood that Trump will fail.” The Political Scene draws on the reporting and analysis found in The New Yorker for lively conversations about the big questions in American politics. Join the magazine's writers and editors as they put into context the latest news—about elections, the economy, the White House, the Supreme Court, and much more. New episodes are available three times a week. Tune in wherever you get your podcasts. Learn about your ad choices: dovetail.prx.org/ad-choices

Last week, the Trump administration released its National Security Strategy. Such documents are usually fairly staid exercises in lofty rhetoric. Not this one. It harshly rebukes the strategies of prior administrations, highlighting what Trump's team sees as the failures of traditional foreign policy elites. It pointedly criticizes Washington's traditional allies in Europe and fixates on security issues in the Western Hemisphere, but it has little to say about American rivals such as China and Russia. In recent weeks, the administration has provided a demonstration of what its strategy looks like in practice, launching controversial strikes against boats allegedly trafficking drugs in the Caribbean and mulling military intervention in Venezuela, while also putting the trade war with China on hold and pushing for a negotiated end to the war in Ukraine. To Kori Schake, this approach represents a fundamental misunderstanding of the means and ends of American power. Now a senior fellow and director of foreign and defense policy studies at the American Enterprise Institute, Schake served on the National Security Council and in the State Department in the George W. Bush administration, and she has become one of Trump's sharpest critics. What she sees from the administration is “solipsism masquerading as strategy,” as she put it in her most recent piece for Foreign Affairs. Schake argues that the administration's actions—and the worldview undergirding them—are based on “faulty assumptions” with potentially dire consequences: a United States hostile to its longtime allies, a brewing civil-military crisis at home, and a world order that could leave Washington behind.  You can find sources, transcripts, and more episodes of The Foreign Affairs Interview at https://www.foreignaffairs.com/podcasts/foreign-affairs-interview.

Former Australian diplomat Jane Hardy joins this episode to discuss how Australia has engaged with North Korea over the past few decades, and what that experience reveals about diplomacy, deterrence and nuclear risk today.  Hardy, who spent over 30 years in the Australian Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade, shares insights from her work on Korean Peninsula issues during the Sunshine Policy era, including Australia's brief normalization with Pyongyang and her own visit to North Korea in 2001.  Jane Hardy is a former senior Australian diplomat who has served in seven long-term overseas missions, four at ambassador level. She also held numerous senior executive positions at the Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade, Canberra, during her 33-year career. Jane is now a senior fellow at the U.S. Studies Center, Sydney University advising the Women in the Alliance program.  About the podcast: The North Korea News Podcast is a weekly podcast hosted by Jacco Zwetsloot exclusively for NK News, covering all things DPRK — from news to extended interviews with leading experts and analysts in the field, along with insight from our very own journalists. NK News subscribers can listen to this and other exclusive episodes from their preferred podcast player by accessing the private podcast feed. For more detailed instructions, please see the step-by-step guide at nknews.org/private-feed.

Our guest today, Lizzi Lee, is smart, daring and unconventional. After earning a PhD in economics from MIT, Lizzi Lee took a bold right turn and dove into research and writing. A few weeks ago, Lizzi wrote a very compelling piece in Foreign Affairs about the risks facing Chinese companies - price wars and vanishing margins at home. The stubborn underlying problem is that China cannot shake itself free from chronic overcapacity. Well, why not, we might wonder. Just shout down the extra plants and get supply in line with demand. It's more complicated than that, of course, especially in China where jobs and stability are number one. Too much capacity, too little profits making everyone a little bit tired, a phenomenon the Chinese call involution or neijuan in Chinese to roll up or coil up.  Born in China, formative years in Hong Kong and Singapore, and now in America, Lizzi gives us an insider's view of the realities oin the ground in the PRC as we get ready to head in to 2026. 

 The U.S. and China may be the world's current superpowers – but that doesn't mean they can ignore other countries. Emma Ashford is a senior fellow at the Stimson Center, and she joins guest host John McCaa to discuss the implications of moving to a multipolarity, in which Russia, India and others hold increasing sway over global affairs. Her article “Making Multipolarity Work” was published by Foreign Affairs.  Learn about your ad choices: dovetail.prx.org/ad-choices

Welcome to The Times of Israel's Daily Briefing, your 20-minute audio update on what's happening in Israel, the Middle East and the Jewish world. US bureau chief Jacob Magid joins host Amanda Borschel-Dan for today's episode. Magid joins us from the Doha Forum, an annual gathering bringing together government officials, policymakers, civil society representatives and business leaders from around the world to discuss major global challenges. Qatar’s Prime Minister said yesterday that Doha does not consider the current situation in Gaza to be a ceasefire, arguing that this would require an Israeli withdrawal from the entirety of the enclave. At the same time, Egyptian Foreign Minister Badr Abdelatty called for deploying the International Stabilization Force (ISF) in Gaza “as soon as possible,” claiming that Israel is using the absence of international monitors on the ground in Gaza to violate the ceasefire on a daily basis. We hear additional statements critical of Israel and discuss their significance, even as the Trump administration appears to announce that Phase 2 of the Gaza ceasefire will commence in the coming weeks. Also yesterday at the Doha Forum, Syrian President Ahmed al-Sharaa accused Israel of “exporting crises” to other countries around the region to distract from its “horrifying massacres” in Gaza. We learn how those at the forum consider that the Syrian president, once denounced as a terrorist, is a legitimate actor in the region, whereas Israel is not. Piling on to the criticism against Israel at the forum, also yesterday, a senior Saudi diplomat said that while there is much focus in the international community on the need for the Palestinian Authority to engage in a comprehensive reform process, a reform of the Israeli government is what is most needed for peace in the region. Magid puts this new Saudi statement in the context of what we also learned yesterday: that the US and Saudi Arabia had reached understandings on the eve of Hamas’s October 7 attack regarding the concessions Israel would have to make vis-à-vis the Palestinians for Riyadh to normalize relations with Jerusalem. Magid previews what he has uncovered, which will be discussed more in depth in Friday's Lazar Focus podcast. Check out The Times of Israel's ongoing liveblog for more updates. For further reading: Qatari PM: Gaza truce can’t be considered ceasefire until Israel leaves the Strip Trump says next phase of his Gaza plan will soon commence amid concern it’s stalling Syria’s Sharaa slams Israel for ‘exporting’ conflict to region to hide Gaza ‘massacres’ Senior Saudi diplomat: It’s Israel, not PA , that most needs reform to secure peace ToI reveals: US and Saudis reached understandings on Palestinian component of normalization before Oct. 7 The day after that never came: How time ran out on Blinken’s plan for postwar Gaza Subscribe to The Times of Israel Daily Briefing on Apple Podcasts, Spotify, YouTube, or wherever you get your podcasts. This episode was produced by Pod-Waves. IMAGE: (From L) CEO and President of the International Crisis Group Comfort Ero, Spain's Foreign Minister Jose Manuel Albares, Egypt's Foreign Minister Badr Abdelatty, Norway's Foreign Minister Espen Barth Eide and Saudi Cabinet of the Minister of Foreign Affairs's minister plenipotentiary Manal Radwan attend the opening day of the Doha Forum, an annual diplomatic conference, in Doha on December 6, 2025. (Mahmud HAMS / AFP)See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

New START, the last bilateral nuclear arms control treaty between the United States and Russia, will expire in February 2026 if Washington and Moscow do not reach an understanding on its extension—as they have signaled they are interested to do. What would the end of New START mean for U.S.-Russia relations and the arms control architecture that had for decades contributed to stability among great powers?Lawfare Public Service Fellow Ariane Tabatabai sits down with John Drennan, Robert A. Belfer International Affairs Fellow in European Security, at the Council on Foreign Relations, and Matthew Sharp, Fellow at MIT's Center for Nuclear Security Policy, to discuss what New START is, the implications of its expiration, and where the arms control regime might go from here.For further reading, see:“Putin's Nuclear Offer: How to Navigate a New START Extension,” by John Drennan and Erin D. Dumbacher, Council on Foreign Relations“No New START: Renewing the U.S.-Russian Deal Won't Solve Today's Nuclear Dilemmas,” by Eric S. Edelman and Franklin C. Miller, Foreign Affairs“2024 Report to Congress on Implementation of the New START Treaty,” from the Bureau of Arms Control, Deterrence, and Stability, U.S. Department of StateTo receive ad-free podcasts, become a Lawfare Material Supporter at www.patreon.com/lawfare. You can also support Lawfare by making a one-time donation at https://givebutter.com/lawfare-institute.Support this show http://supporter.acast.com/lawfare. Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

Day 1,379.Today, after Tuesday's inconsequential meeting in Moscow, Ukrainian negotiators are updating European counterparts on Kyiv's response before flying to meet Steve Witkoff in Miami. We consider why U.S. Deputy Secretary of State Christopher Landau has lambasted European NATO allies for prioritising their own defence industries over American suppliers – comments made just as another billion dollars was added to the PURL fund – and we ask whether, if Pokrovsk has indeed fallen, Russia will now shift its efforts toward Zaporizhzhia oblast. And later, we return to the GRU's murder of British woman Dawn Sturgess by nerve agent in 2018, as the final report into her death is released.ContributorsDominic Nicholls (Associate Editor of Defence). @DomNicholls on X.Francis Dearnley (Executive Editor for Audio). @FrancisDearnley on X.Hamish De Bretton-Gordon (Former British Army Tank Commander). @HamishDBGon on X.SIGN UP TO THE ‘UKRAINE: THE LATEST' WEEKLY NEWSLETTER:http://telegraph.co.uk/ukrainenewsletter Each week, Dom Nicholls and Francis Dearnley answer your questions, provide recommended reading, and give exclusive analysis and behind-the-scenes insights – plus maps of the frontlines and diagrams of weapons to complement our daily reporting. It's free for everyone, including non-subscribers.CONTENT REFERENCED:Trump: I don't know what the Kremlin is doing (The Telegraph):https://www.telegraph.co.uk/us/news/2025/12/03/trump-i-dont-know-what-the-kremlin-is-doing/ Britain can't let the man Putin hates most die in prison (Sir Tom Stoppard in The Telegraph):https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2023/05/19/britain-cant-let-the-man-putin-hates-most-die-in-prison/ The West's Last Chance (Alexander Stubb, Finland's President, in Foreign Affairs):https://www.foreignaffairs.com/united-states/wests-last-chance Top US official berates Europe over cutting American industry out of defense buildup (POLITICO):https://www.politico.eu/article/christopher-landau-top-us-official-berates-europe-nato-cut-industry-defense-buildup/ LISTEN TO THIS PODCAST IN NEW LANGUAGES:The Telegraph has launched translated versions of Ukraine: The Latest in Ukrainian and Russian, making its reporting accessible to audiences on both sides of the battle lines and across the wider region, including Central Asia and the Caucasus. Just search Україна: Останні Новини (Ukr) and Украина: Последние Новости (Ru) on your on your preferred podcast app to find them. Listen here: https://linktr.ee/ukrainethelatestSubscribe: telegraph.co.uk/ukrainethelatestEmail: ukrainepod@telegraph.co.uk Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.