Russian President Vladimir Putin signed a new nuclear deterrent policy on Tuesday. While it retains some existing features that have been standard nuclear policy for decades, it adds two new provisions that are unique due to their first strike nature. 

Nuclear First

The use of nuclear weapons by any state has largely been governed by rules written and unwritten that they should only be launched in the event of a nuclear attack. That is to say, nuclear weapons have mostly been relegated to a defensive manoeuvre. Putin changed that with Moscow’s new nuclear policy, The New York Times reported. 

The policy document details two instances that would permit Russia to respond with nuclear force. The first is an attack from “conventional weapons that threatens the country’s existence.” The second is if Moscow receives “reliable information” of a ballistic missile attack on Russia or its allies, or if such an attack would damage government or military institutions to the point they could no longer respond with nuclear weapons.

In these cases, Putin has authorised Russia to strike first with nuclear weapons, a dramatic shift from decades of nuclear deterrence policy. The changes were prompted by a perceived threat from the US, according to the policy document.

US forces are stationed along Russia’s borders including missile launchers. Moreover, Moscow is concerned with space-based weapons. American President Donald Trump created a new Space Force designed to aggressively pursue the militarisation of space-based technology.

Back to the Cold War

Under Trump, the Washington–Moscow relationship has fallen to Cold War era lows. Not only has Trump deployed more military to states bordering Russia, but he has also reduced the trust the post-USSR world was predicated upon. By removing the US from the Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces Treaty, then the Open Skies Treaty, and now possibly the New Strategic Arms Reduction  Treaty (START), Trump has at every turn given Putin reason to distrust America.

Combined with the fact that Putin is ex-KGB and has pursued aggressive authoritarian measures to maintain a grip on power, the situation has reversed into a Cold War-like tone.

Washington’s answer to this has been to call for a multi-lateral agreement by bringing China on-board, an idea Beijing is vehemently opposed to. China has roughly 300 nuclear weapons compared to 1.550 in both Russia and the US. By signing onto a new treaty, presumably to replace the INF, it would at worst case need to cap itself at 300 and at best case be limited to 1.550.

Chinese Foreign Ministry Spokesman Zhao Lijian commended Putin for signing a new nuclear policy, TASS reported.

“We noted this event. China respects and supports efforts that Russia is making to ensure security,” Zhao said. He indicated further cooperation between Moscow and Beijing could be in-store for the future and added, “We are ready to facilitate maintenance of peace and security in the world together with Russia.”

America Rethinks Nuclear, Too

America’s own nuclear policy is “ambiguous,” Newsweek reported. In 2018, the Nuclear Posture Review called for the use of nuclear weapons “only in extreme cases when it is forced to defend the U.S. or its allies or partners.”

Last year, however, the Joint Chiefs of Staff published an unclassified document that alluded to potentially lowering the bar for scenarios that demand a nuclear response. The document was quickly deleted by preserved by the Federation of American Scientists.

“Using nuclear weapons could create conditions for decisive results and the restoration of strategic stability. Specifically, the use of a nuclear weapon will fundamentally change the scope of a battle and create conditions that affect how commanders will prevail in conflict,” the report entitled “Nuclear Weapons: Planning and Targeting” read.

Battle of Strongmen

Both Trump and Putin have governed with a ‘strongman’ mentality, using force or the threat of force to have their way. It should come as no surprise then that nuclear weapons, the ultimate weapon, are on both of their agendas. While the Trump administration has erased most of Washington’s nuclear treaties with Moscow, that is by design. Doing so frees the US from restrictions as much as it does Russia.

Putin’s approval of a new policy featuring nuclear-first strike scenarios is an extreme step in reverse for a world that once decided they should never be used except as a deterrent. However, actions by the Trump administration haven’t been so peaceful either, and with Space Force, Putin is feeling surpassed in power. Russia is not a state to be complacent when it is outmatched. Consequently, more policy changes designed to counter an aggressive US military will likely come from Moscow with the singular goal of advancing the Russian state.

L'articolo Putin Signs New Nuclear Policy Authorising First Strike Scenarios proviene da InsideOver.

North Korea does not celebrate Christmas, but it is willing to make an exception this year to give the United States a gift. According to Ri The Song, first Vice Minister at the Foreign Ministry, it us up to Washington to decide the nature of the present. Reading between the lines, Pyongyang appears to be hinting at further missile tests if the US refuses to return to the negotiating table. The gift could be a concession, however, if American diplomats reengage their North Korean counterparts after months of stalled discussions. 

Merry Christmas

It is not entirely clear what the gift may entail, however, so for now, Ri’s comments have only provoked speculation. The last time North Korea gave the US a “gift” was in 2017 for the Fourth of July when it test-launched an intercontinental ballistic missile. Pyongyang set a deadline of the end of the year for nuclear discussions, but with only three weeks left in December and no news from Washington, time will likely run out. 

Ri accused the US of purposely delaying peace negotiations for political gain. 

“The dialogue touted by the US is, in essence, nothing but a foolish trick hatched to keep the DPRK bound to dialogue and use it in favor of the political situation and election in the US,” he said.

The North Korean situation has taken a backseat to other pressing matters, such as the US-China trade war and the Iranian nuclear deal. At home, US President Donald Trump is also facing impeachment over a scandal involving Ukraine and Democratic presidential frontrunner Joe Biden. Although Trump opened the door to talks with North Korean leader Kim Jong-Un when he took office, discussions have lacked steady progress. Trump even became the first sitting president to meet with a North Korean leader at the demilitarized zone since the Korean War, an impressive gesture toward building a new relationship. 

Trump appeared unfazed by Kim’s promise of a holiday gift.

“We’ll see what happens,” he said, speaking from London. “My relationship with Kim Jong Un is really good, but that doesn’t mean he won’t abide by the agreement we signed. I hope he lives up to the agreement, but we’re going to find out.”

Updated Technology

The agreement Trump referred to was signed at a summit in Singapore on June 12, 2018. Each agreed to establish relations in the pursuit of peace and prosperity. Furthermore, Pyongyang agreed to work toward denuclearization of the Korean Peninsula. This year, North Korea began test-firing missiles once more, but Trump did not budge.

“North Korea fired off some small weapons, which disturbed some of my people, and others, but not me,” Trump said. Although he said he hopes Kim abides by their agreement, it has become clear that Kim is only willing to do so if the US returns to the negotiating table. 

Pyongyang fired another missile on a new launcher dubbed its “super-large” launcher Nov. 29 in what it claimed was a “final review” of the setup. The practical effect of the test is that North Korea is ready to deploy updated offensive missiles, but the underlying message was meant not for its South Korean adversary, but the Trump administration. Kim is not baiting the US into war, but rather flexing the nation’s muscles to convince Washington to reopen diplomatic discussions. 

Waiting Game

It is neither a new nor recent strategy; Iran is using a similar playbook by gradually reducing its adherence to the Obama-era nuclear deal. The strategy has not worked for Tehran, but North Korea may find success where the Middle Eastern state has failed because Trump has expressed admiration for Kim and spoken highly of talks. At the last meeting between the two powers, American officials told the media they felt talks were “good,” even as North Korean diplomats expressed the opposite sentiment. 

Trump has met Kim, but while the American leader viewed it as a concession, Kim was emboldened by the move. As American negotiators continued to hold discussions, the Trump administration was comfortable with the pace and lack of progress, aside from a non-binding agreement signed between Trump and Kim. Pyongyang has different take on the situation, preferring to have a formal deal in place before the end of 2019. 

North Korea perhaps wants a deal made before the US election season begins in earnest because they fear Trump might lose and due to the time demands required to run for president. If Trump is busy holding rallies, he will not have time to focus on North Korea. A Christmas gift is a reminder that the problem is still there and Kim is not content to wait idly in the hope that one day Trump might pick up the phone again and arrange for another summit. Trump’s nonchalant demeanour indicates that he has larger obsessions at home (i.e. impeachment) and abroad (Iran and China) and when you deal with Trump, you do it on his terms, at his pace.

L'articolo North Korea Promises Christmas Gift for America proviene da InsideOver.

Russia allowed US inspectors to examine Russia’s Avangard hypersonic nuclear missile The Kremlin claimed to be capable of penetrating the US military defence, Associated Press reported Wednesday (November 27).

The inspectors arrived in Russia for a two-day visit to examine the missile as part of the bilateral nuclear treaty New START (Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty), which will expire in 2021.

Previously Russia expressed its willingness to extend the treaty. However, the US has yet to respond to Moscow’s proposal.

What is the New START treaty?

The US and then-Soviet Union signed a historic agreement to reduce the stockpiles of nuclear warheads to one-third in July 1991. Then-President George W.Bush and then-Soviet leader Mikhail Gorbachev inked the treaty known as the New START in Moscow.

After the signing of the treaty, the Soviet Union collapsed in December 1991, before the New START ratification. Then, the agreement was reached by The Russia Federation and three former Soviet states where nuclear weapons were placed: Kazakhstan, Belarus, and Ukraine.

It took more than nine years to negotiate the treaty, as BBC History wrote. Under the agreement, Soviet saw the 50 per cent cut in its ground-based intercontinental ballistic missiles (ICBM)

The agreement also restricts the numbers of deployed ICBMs, submarine-based ICBMs, and heavy bombers used for nuclear missions up to 700 units. The deal limits the total numbers of deployed and undeployed assets to 800 units.

Both Washington and Moscow have been in a dispute over the Cold War nuclear agreement The Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces (INF) signed in 1987. Both nuclear powerhouses withdrew from the treaty after accusing each other of violating the deal.

The collapsed INF banned the launch of ground conventional and nuclear missiles with ranges of 500-5,500 kilometres. The treaty forced the US and Russia, then the Soviet Union to relocate around 2,700 short-range and intermediate-range missiles from the battlefield.

Russia claims Avangard does not breach  New START

Russia’s Ministry of Defense stated that the exhibition of the Avangard aimed to maintain the treaty viability and effectiveness.

“Under the Treaty on Measures for the Further Reduction and Limitation of Strategic Offensive Arms, a US inspection group was shown the Avangard missile system with the hypersonic boost-glide vehicle on the territory of Russia on November 24-26, 2019,” said the ministry in a statement as TASS reported.

The ministry added that the hypersonic glider would resume its combat service in December 2019. A source in the country’s defence industry told TASS on November 13 that the first two UR-100 UTTKh ICBMs equipped with Avangard vehicle would enter an experimental combat duty at the end of November or early December in the Dombarovskaya division of The Strategic Missile Forces.

Russian President Vladimir Putin mentioned that Avangard is the latest breakthrough since the Soviet Union started its satellite mission in 1957. He claimed the newest vehicle could manoeuvre by making sharp twists and be activated a few seconds before reaching targets, making it difficult to be traced by any nuclear defence system. Also, Avangard can fly 20 times faster than the speed of sound, or one mile per second.

Will New START Be Extended?

After the INF was over, US President Donald Trump considered including China in the arms control talks with Russia, given Beijing’s modernized weaponry.

However, China refused to join, citing that the numbers of nuclear weapons possessed by the US and Russia are bigger than that of China. Also, Beijing felt that the US’ exit from the Iran nuclear deal made Washington less trusted.

The world has 14,000 nuclear warheads, and the US and Russia possess more than 90 per cent of them while China has around 290 nuclear warheads, according to the Arms Control Association.

Instead of letting the New START lapse, Trump and Putin have an option to extend the treaty for the next five years, as Iain King wrote for the Center for Strategic and International Studies (CSIS). 

Extending the deal until February 2026 can be the best and the most realistic option as both Russia and the US have more time to think about whether to involve China in an arms control discussion, decide which technology that goes with the agreement and discuss about what to do to anticipate if either of them breach the deal.

The START is one of the few international treaties Russia adheres to. Therefore, there should be a strong commitment from both Russia and the US to avoid a further global arms race.

L'articolo Russia Displays Its Hypersonic Missile Amid Calls For New START Extension proviene da InsideOver.

A 60-page PDF report recently published by the Pentagon has caused quite a stir among nuclear proliferation experts and atomic weapons scholars. The document has attracted so much attention due to its controversial content, the authors cited, due to the fact that it is the first document of its kind in 14 years, and also because the file was almost immediately taken down from the websites of the Department of Defense. This peculiar episode is further confirmation that nuclear weapons have once again become part of the military strategies of the great powers in recent years. But it also says a lot about the complex power games within the most important department in the United States.

A nuclear strategy instruction manual

On 11 June ,the US joint chiefs of staff published a document entitled Nuclear Operations. According to the preface, the document sets out the fundamental principles and guidelines for planning, executing and assessing nuclear operations. Last year, the Trump administration released the latest Nuclear Posture Review, which highlighted the new needs of America’s nuclear arsenal, the risks from other powers and the needs to be met, notably the production of low-yield warheads. But if that document represented a sort of theoretical statement of intent, the one published by the joint chiefs of staff represents a hypothetical instruction manual.

Experts were surprised by some very specific details, demonstrating how America’s nuclear doctrine could slip dangerously from one of deterrence to attack in the coming years. Perhaps the most controversial passage is found in the third chapter. The Pentagon appears to be convinced that by using nuclear weapons, conditions can be created for achieving decisive results by re-establishing strategic stability.

This passage is essential to understanding the paradigm shift that has occurred. There are officials at the Pentagon who are convinced that it is not only possible to fight a nuclear war, but that such a conflict is “winnable”. The document goes on to say that specifically:

The use of a nuclear weapon will fundamentally change the scope of a battle and create conditions that affect how commanders will prevail in conflict

A few pages on, the authors cite the Art of War by Sun Tzu, namely that it is a doctrine of war not to assume the enemy will not come, but rather to rely on one’s readiness to meet him; not to presume that he will not attack, but rather to make one’s self invincible. The document reiterates that nuclear operations include not just deterrence but also “strike, assessment and return to stability,” and also that it is possible to win a nuclear conflict.

Regional use of nuclear warfare

The document then moves from the realm of theory, listing the practical aspects to be considered in the event of a nuclear attack: yield selection, height of burst, fallout, and weapon system selection, whether by gravity bomb, intercontinental ballistic missiles or submarine-launched ballistic missiles. But the report is not just a detailed list of instructions for “decision-makers”. It goes much further. It analyses a series of aspects, such as whether troops or the command and control systems would survive a nuclear attack.

In line with the Nuclear Posture Review, the authors demonstrate that they share the principle that nuclear weapons, despite their complexity, are very much like any other type of weapon. In the Cold War years, possible thermonuclear conflict was seen as something taking place on a large scale, with warheads being fired from the two opposing blocs. But the report is clear that small-scale, regional nuclear warfare is a possibility.

The quotes used to open each chapter caused a few eyebrows to raise among non-proliferation experts, particularly a quote from Herman Kahn. Known as a futurist and expert on military strategies, he worked for many years as an analyst for the RAND Corporation, and postulated the notion of a “winnable nuclear war”. Between the 1970s and 1980s he wrote: “My guess is that nuclear weapons will be used sometime in the next hundred years, but that their use is much more likely to be small and limited than widespread and unconstrained.” Unsettlingly, Kahn was the inspiration behind the character of Dr. Strangelove, the eponymous character in Stanley Kubrick’s film.

Leaks

The document was taken down shortly after publication without any particular explanation. The spokesman of the joint chiefs of staff told the Guardian that the document was taken down because it was confidential and should be for official use only. The fact that these leaks appear and are then removed shows that there is a degree of confusion within the Pentagon. The department is still rudderless. Donald Trump withdrew the nomination of Patrick Shanahan, who had replaced Jim Mattis, and nominated Mark Esper instead, but it is still unclear whether the appointment will receive Senate confirmation. This is all taking place against the backdrop of rising tensions with Iran, and escalating nuclear tensions across the globe.

The evolution of the nuclear scenario

This new nuclear doctrine comes at a time when the US, under Donald Trump, is working to reformulate their role as a nuclear power. Last year, the White House withdrew from two nuclear treaties, one with Iran, and the INF treaty signed with Russia in 1987. More than a few hawks in the administration, John Bolton chief among them, would also like to dismantle the US-Russia New START treaty signed in 2010, and in force until 2021, which limits the number of deployed strategic nuclear warheads. It is also true, however, that despite the treaty called for by the Obama administration, both Washington and Moscow have worked, and continue to work, to carry out a vast plan to modernise their arsenals, from warheads to control and command systems. There are also risks arising from the new global players, notably China.

Translation by Stephen Dinkeldein

L'articolo Pentagon Changes Nuclear Doctrine and Prepares for War proviene da InsideOver.

Saudi Arabia’s nuclear ambitions continue to inch closer to realization. The U.S. Department of Energy revealed this week that the Trump Administration had approved a total of seven permits pertaining to the transfer of nuclear expertise to the Middle Eastern kingdom. The ties between U.S. President Donald Trump and his Riyadh counterpart, Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman, have always raised eyebrows, but this time politicians from both parties are irked.

One reason is the timing of the permits, called 810 authorizations. The first was approved only two weeks following the murder of Washington Post journalist and U.S. resident Jamal Khashoggi. Following international outcries, Mohammed bin Salman eventually accepted responsibility for the killing which took place at the Saudi consulate in Istanbul, but continues to insist it was an accident. Only a few months before that event last October, the crown prince was on a world tour including two weeks in the U.S. courting business magnates and politicians alike.

During a stop at the White House last March, Trump and the Mohammed bin Salman discussed a host of issues including Iran and human rights, but mostly the business relationship between the kingdom and U.S. weapons manufacturers. $400 billion worth of purchases was pledged by Saudi Arabia, a staggering number that Trump boasted about during a press gathering. The president made a point to associate the arms with benefits to the U.S. economy.

“We’re talking about over 40,000 jobs in the United States,” Trump said.

Whether that number is statistically accurate or not, there is no slowing down the flow of U.S. technology and expertise to Riyadh. Trump’s cozy business relationship with the kingdom has faced unprecedented scrutiny, not only on the suspicion of backdoor arrangements, but also due to both Khashoggi’s murder and Saudi involvement in the Yemen Civil War.

Both houses of Congress passed a historic War Powers Resolution in April to curtail U.S. involvement, legislation which Trump promptly vetoed.

While U.S. weapons sales were on the rise even before he assumed office – U.S. weapons exports rose 30 percent during 2013-2017 over the previous five-year duration – Trump has been emboldened by unchecked power. With his own party holding power in the Senate, veto power over any binding legislation that does happen to pass, and emergency powers that Republicans refuse to rein-in, Trump’s administration practically taunts any notion of corruption investigations with deals between Washington and Riyadh. Take for instance Westinghouse Electric Company: the nuclear company declared bankruptcy in 2017 yet the company that bought it out, Brookfield Asset Management, spent $1 billion to rent a Manhattan property owned by Jared Kushner.  Perhaps coincidentally, Trump met with the company in February.

Westinghouse’s bankruptcy was pinned on failed nuclear reactor deals in the United States. It just so happens there’s another place welcoming nuclear installations with open arms: Saudi Arabia.

In 2011, the late King Abdullah devised a plan to construct 16 reactors in the kingdom with the stated goal of using it to supply energy for his country. At that time, his country’s oil exports were steadily on the rise, hitting record highs for the decade, but Abdullah declared that the kingdom should use less and export more. While the plan was later downscaled to only two reactors, Riyadh has continued its pursuit.

Naturally this has furrowed some eyebrows across the international community because while nuclear energy can certainly power a nation, it can also lead to the development of nuclear weapons. According to Mohammed bin Salman, it is not a current goal of Saudi Arabia, but in the event that Iran develops its own nuclear weapons, Riyadh would do so as well.

Saudi Arabia’s advancement towards potentially becoming a nuclear state could certainly hinder any discussions with Iran. Trump recently cancelled the Iranian nuclear deal and imposed harsh sanctions that are beginning to cripple the Iranian economy. Thus far, diplomatic discussions have yet to resume, although Secretary of State Mike Pompeo and Iranian President Hassan Rouhani have both spoken publicly about their willingness to meet.

Surely when they do, the Washington’s relationship with Riyadh, a longtime adversary of Iran, will be called into question. A nuclear Saudi Arabia, should it go down that path, would make it the first Middle Eastern state to develop its own weapons. Presently, Israel is only thought to have the capability with no official determination. The closest neighbors possessing nuclear arms are India and Turkey, which is a part of NATO’s nuclear weapons sharing program enabling it to possess them, but not develop their own.

Mohammed bin Salman has not shied away from ambitious pursuits to transform his nation. At times these have been markedly positive, such as permitting women to drive and allowing cinemas. However, the manner by which he is pushing Saudi Arabia to regional dominance has the potential to harm even the economics of its neighbors. For instance, Riyadh rallied some of the gulf countries to end all relations with Qatar over its alleged support for the Muslim Brotherhood. In today’s world, Saudi Arabia has the power to accuse and punish other states for supporting terrorism, a sobering notion. With nuclear capabilities, it would have ultimate regional dominance and Trump seems perfectly content with this as long as the money continues to flow.

The U.S. Congress has limited options at its disposal to break up the Washington – Riyadh relationship, and Trump has proven he can circumvent just about anything it throws his way. While the 810 permits do not allow the transfer of equipment or technology, only expertise, it’s the first sign that the romance has entered a new stage and it has the power to disrupt Iranian negotiations and regional stability, to say nothing about the continuing humanitarian conflict in Yemen.

One form of recourse that House of Representatives might try is to place conditions within its annual national defense budget, or even refuse to pass the annual National Defense Authorization Act entirely. This military funding legislation must be renewed for the Department of Defense to continue operations.

Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi hasn’t publicly admitted to considering the option yet, but her spokesperson said that any options available to Congress would be considered to end U.S. involvement in Yemen. Until then, a group of seven senators from both parties will hold votes of disapproval for 22 individual weapons transactions with Saudi Arabia. Although the votes have no binding power, they will publicly rebuke the continued support of the United Arab Emirates and Saudi Arabia. Senator Lindsey Graham, a Republican and staunch Trump supporter, has even added his support for the measure.

Saudi Arabia can obtain nuclear technology and know-how from a number of other states including China and Russia, so preventing it from obtaining the technology is perhaps impossible. It doesn’t have to be with U.S. support, however, and certainly not at a time when it is suffocating Iran for having a fully-IAEA compliant nuclear program.

L'articolo Nuclear Power Rising: Trump’s Relationship with Saudi Arabia Called into Question proviene da InsideOver.

It is a strange version of Donald Trump who has flown to Japan. It is a long visit, four days, with the intention of reforging Washington-Japan relations, which are all the more crucial now that he has embarked on an all-out confrontation with China.

Tokyo is considered the mainstay of the policy of containment towards Beijing which the US administration has suddenly fuelled.

Yet, despite that reasons for the visit having already intensifiedy already clear international tensions, during his trip to Tokyo Trump gave signs of the opposite, as is by now common in his policy of alternating between exhibitions of strength and declarations of  opennessings.

In doing so he has effectively disowned John Bolton, who had arrived in Japan before him, officially in order to prepare for the visit but in actual fact to work on his parallel diplomacy, based on a neo-conservative agenda often which is in contrast with the official agenda of the visit.

The repudiation of Bolton

The US National Security Adviser took advantage of his visit to Japan to try and spoil negotiations between Trump and Kim Jong-un, declaring that the launch of North Korean missiles which had occurred at the beginning of May, “without doubt” violated UN resolutions.

His words greatly angered Pyongyang who denied the violation – stating that it was a military exercise – and defined Bolton a “war monger” and “a defective human product” who should be ousted from the US administration.

As well as Bolton, Kim also criticized White House Democratic candidate Joe Biden, who accused Trump of siding with the North Korean “dictator”. The former US vice president is defined by Pyongyang in his reply as a man of low IQ.

Trump’s reply via twitter was imaginative: “North Korea fired off some small weapons, which disturbed some of my people, and others, but not me. I have confidence that Chairman Kim will keep his promise to me and I also smiled when he called […] Joe Biden a low IQ individual and worse. Perhaps that’s sending me a signal?”

A total disownment of Bolton, however soft, and an interesting reference to “Kim’s signal.” Trump wants an agreement with Kim in order to win the next presidential elections and seems to interpret the counterattack on Biden as the counterpart’s acceptance of such a prospect.

Abe’s activism

Shinzo Abe expressed himself on the North-Korean incident, praising Trump’s openness to dialogue and declared that he is willing to meet Kim “without preconditions” (New York Times).

The Japanese Prime Minister’s receptiveness was evidently noticed by China who is extremely interested in a reconciliation between the two Koreas, and immediately appointed a new ambassador to Japan, with the choice falling – not by chance – on Kong Xuanyou, the Vice Foreign Minister who was special envoy for North Korea. (Reuters)

The is in opposition to the China – US crisis, and Beijing’s opening has certainly encountered Trump’s silent approval. It represents a good omen also for relations between the two powers.

Unfortunately, the inter-Korean dialogue faces a new and unexpected obstacle. Concurrently with Trump’s visit, a petition was launched to collect signatures in favour of the impeachment of South Korea’s president Moon Jae-in for his openings towards Pyongyang (Reuters).

While the author of the petition has yet to be identified, the number of signatures collected over a short time are enough to demand a formal answer from the government. The incident is both a disruption and a warning to the political figure who more than any other has made efforts to develop dialogue between Kim and Trump and between the two Koreas.

And not just with North Korea: Abe has also offered to mediate between the US and Tehran, considering that the Japanese president has “a very good relationship with Iran,” as recognized by Trump himself who publicly praised the proposal. (Guardian).

All in all, The US president’s trip to Japan has opened up the path to dialogue. However, the visit was forced to end when, in a Japanese school, an attack took place very similar to those which plague America: a madman attacked students with a knife killing two girls. A bad omen.

L'articolo Trump Looks to Rekindle US-Japan Alliance proviene da InsideOver.