Lavrov made the remarks on Wednesday while speaking to students and staff at the Moscow State Institute of International Relations (MGIMO) in response to Polish proposals for a NATO and international “peace mission.”

“Our Polish colleagues have already stated that there will be a NATO summit now, we need to send peacekeepers. I hope they understand what is at stake,” Lavrov said, according to Russian state-owned news agency TASS.

“This will be the direct clash between the Russian and NATO armed forces that everyone has not only tried to avoid but said should not take place in principle,” the foreign minister said.

The comments came amid the ongoing Russian invasion of Ukraine, which has seen NATO members provide humanitarian and military aid to the country while imposing harsh sanctions on Russia.

On March 15, Jarosław Kaczyński, leader of Poland’s ruling party, called for NATO peacekeepers to be sent to Ukraine.

“I think that it is necessary to have a peace mission – NATO, possibly some wider international structure—but a mission that will be able to defend itself, which will operate on Ukrainian territory,” Kaczyński said at a news conference.

“It will be a mission that will strive for peace, to give humanitarian aid, but at the same time it will also be protected by appropriate forces, armed forces,” he said.

The following day, Polish Prime Minister Mateusz Morawiecki said his country would propose a peacekeeping force at the next NATO summit.

The U.S. and NATO have previously ruled out imposing a no-fly zone over Ukraine despite repeated requests from Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky because of concerns about a potential confrontation between NATO and Russian forces.

President Joe Biden has also ruled out U.S. troops on the ground in Ukraine and it remains unclear how NATO leaders will approach the Polish proposal.

The Russian foreign minister also suggested on Wednesday that the Polish government may want to “make headquarters” in the Ukrainian city of Lviv and “stay there.”

“Why not, they had such thoughts, and not only thoughts, this was in the past,” Lavrov said.

Lviv is about 40 miles from the Polish border and was once part of Poland before the German and Soviet invasion of the country in 1939. It was occupied by Germany during World War II, after which it became part of the Soviet Union

Newsweek has asked NATO for comment.

Source: https://www.newsweek.com/russia-warning-direct-clash-nato-peacekeepers-ukraine-1690935

The post Russia Warns of Direct Clash with NATO If Peacekeepers Sent to Ukraine first appeared on Garner Ted Armstrong Evangelistic Association.

A terse synchronized statement issued by the Kremlin and the White House said Putin and Trump will discuss bilateral issues and international relations. The announcement comes a day after Trump’s National Security Adviser John Bolton held talks with Putin in Moscow to lay the groundwork for the summit.

“I’ve said it from Day One, getting along with Russia and with China and with everybody is a very good thing,” Trump said Wednesday. “It’s good for the world. It’s good for us. It’s good for everybody.”

He said they would discuss Syria, Ukraine and “many other subjects.”

Finland has been a favored location for U.S.-Russian summits since the Cold war times, a role helped by its efforts to maintain neutral friendly ties with its huge eastern neighbor.

The summit will offer Putin a chance to try to persuade Washington to lift some of the sanctions imposed on Russia over its 2014 annexation of Crimea, its support for separatists fighting the government in eastern Ukraine and its alleged meddling in the 2016 U.S. presidential election.

During Wednesday’s meeting with Bolton, Putin argued that U.S.-Russian relations were at a low point because of American political infighting and expressed a desire to “restore full-fledged relations based on equality and mutual respect.”

Putin had two brief meetings with Trump on the sidelines of international summits last year, but plans for a full-fledged summit had been delayed amid the FBI and Congressional probes into alleged Russia-Trump ties that Trump has dismissed as a “witch hunt.”

Russian officials and lawmakers warned against excessive optimism about the summit — a cautious stance reflecting Moscow’s failed expectations for rebuilding ties after Trump’s victory.

Trump has called for improving relations with Moscow, but his administration has imposed an array of new anti-Russia sanctions.

During Thursday’s briefing, Russian Foreign Ministry spokesman Maria Zakharova warned against waiting for any quick breakthroughs resulting from the summit, noting that Moscow has “pragmatic and realistic” expectations for the meeting given the scope of issues to be addressed.

She said Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov and U.S. Secretary of State Mike Pompeo could meet as part of efforts to prepare for the summit.

Ahead of the announcement, Trump repeated Russian denials of election interference, tweeting “Russia continues to say they had nothing to do with Meddling in our Election!”

Trump has continually parroted the Kremlin’s denial of election interference, a move that has put him out of step with the findings of the U.S. intelligence community and nearly all Democrats and Republicans in Congress, who say there’s clear evidence of Russian efforts to influence the 2016 U.S. presidential campaign.

Putin’s foreign affairs adviser, Yuri Ushakov, said after Putin’s meeting with Bolton that the issue of alleged Russian meddling in the U.S. presidential election was raised in the meeting and the Kremlin reiterated its denial of any interference with the U.S. vote.

“It was stated clearly by our side that the Russian state hasn’t interfered with the U.S. domestic politics, moreover hasn’t interfered in the 2016 election,” Ushakov said.

NATO Secretary-General Jens Stoltenberg welcomed the U.S.-Russian summit, saying that “for me, dialogue is not a sign of weakness. Dialogue is a sign of strength.”

“It’s absolutely, totally in line with NATO policies to talk to Russia, to meet with Russian leaders. We don’t want a new Cold War. We don’t want to isolate Russia. We want to strive for a better relationship,” Stoltenberg said.

Finland served as a venue for a 1975 meeting between U.S. President Gerald Ford and Soviet leader Leonid Brezhnev and also hosted a summit between U.S. President George H.W. Bush and Soviet President Mikhail Gorbachev in 1990. In 1997, President Bill Clinton met his Russian counterpart Boris Yeltsin in Helsinki.

Former Soviet President Mikhail Gorbachev said Helsinki summit could go down in history as a major landmark if Putin and Trump make steps toward cooperation. Russian lawmakers were also positive about the meeting.

“The decision on holding a full-fledged summit is a very positive development,” Russian upper house speaker Valentina Matvienko said Thursday in remarks carried by Russian news agencies. “We hope it will play a very important role in helping begin the normalization of Russia-U.S. ties.”

___

Jari Tanner in Helsinki contributed to this report.

Source: http://www.hawaiinewsnow.com/story/38530896/putin-trump-to-have-summit-in-helsinki-on-july-16

The post Putin, Trump to have summit in Helsinki on July 16 first appeared on Garner Ted Armstrong Evangelistic Association.

Iran’s allies are mulling limitations on Revolutionary Guard activity in Syrian territory, and may have already begun blocking Iranian access to military facilities in the hopes of avoiding future confrontations with Israel.

Russia’s Foreign Minister, Sergey Lavrov, suggested Monday afternoon that his country would accept Israel’s demand that Iranian forces not occupy positions close to the Israeli border.

According to Russia’s RIA outlet, Lavrov said during a news conference in Moscow that only Syrian forces should be deployed along Syria’s southern border, suggesting the Putin government is prepared to back Israeli demands that Iranian and Iranian-backed forces be kept away from the Israeli frontier.

“Of course, the withdrawal of all non-Syrian forces must be carried out on a mutual basis, this should be a two-way street,” Lavrov added.

“The result of this work which should continue and is continuing should be a situation when representatives of the Syrian Arab Republic’s army stand at Syria’s border with Israel.”

On Sunday, the Haaretz daily reported that the Kremlin is considering the possibility of requiring that Tehran remove its forces from Israel’s northern border, and limit its deployment of military assets in Syria to areas at least 37 miles from the Israeli frontier.

According to the report, Russian officials are prepared to pressure Iran to pull back its forces away from Israel’s border as part of talks with Israeli officials in the hopes of avoiding confrontations between its military and Israel’s, and to shield the Assad regime from a possibly destabilizing war with the Jewish state.

Lebanese sources claim that Israeli and Russian fighter jets were involved in an “incident” over the skies of Lebanon early Monday morning, Channel 2 reported.

According to Lebanese media outlets, Israel Air Force jets were met by Russian Su-34 fighters over Lebanon and were forced to return to Israeli airspace. The IDF has refused to confirm the report.

Russian forces stationed in Syria reportedly scrambled the jets in an attempt to block IAF activity in the area.

Israel recently vowed to take action against Iranian weapon transfers in Syria and Lebanon, as well as the manufacture of missiles in Iranian-affiliated facilities in Lebanon.

While Russian officials mull limits on Iranian deployments near the Israeli border, sources within Syria claim that the Assad regime has already imposed its own limitations on Iranian access to Syrian military facilities, following a series of targeted strikes on sites used by Iran’s Revolutionary Guard in Syria.

The anti-Assad Zaman al-Wasl outlet reported Monday that in light of recent Israeli military actions against Iranian forces operating out of Syria, the Assad regime has removed Iranian-aligned forces from some of its bases and barred Iran from massing arms at Syrian facilities.

Source: https://www.israelnationalnews.com/News/News.aspx/246565

The post Russia: No Iranian forces on Israeli border first appeared on Garner Ted Armstrong Evangelistic Association.

The battle for influence in the decades-long North Korea crisis is key ahead of high-stakes summits planned between Kim Jong-un, leader of the reclusive authoritarian state, and South Korean President Moon Jae-in in April, then US President Donald Trump in May or June.

In recent months, the region has seen a decompression in tensions – which escalated after a series of missile and nuclear tests from Pyongyang, then retaliatory international sanctions – and a rapprochement between North and South Korea for the winter Pyeongchang Olympics.

The upcoming summits present an opportunity to pave the way for negotiations further down the line, including on the denuclearisation of the Korean peninsula, analysts say.

But the key players have different security interests, with some pushing for the resumption of six-party talks – intermittent negotiations suspended in 2009 – and others preferring fewer players at the table. Here’s what each of the major stakeholders wants from potential talks.

China: Four-party talks (US-ROK-DPRK-China) or Six-party talks

China wants to position itself as the central state in Korean peninsula diplomacy, with the security of the region closely related to the stability of its northeastern region.

As North Korea’s isolation grew over the past few years, China’s influence over the Korean peninsula appeared to wane, exacerbating security in the northeast, one of its least developed regions.

Why China remains cautious over prospects for breakthrough at Korean leaders’ peace summit

But Beijing was successful in changing the perception last month when Kim visited ahead of his talks with Moon and Trump. Chinese state media reported that Kim’s visit was at President Xi Jinping’s invitation – a strategic effort to protect China’s national interest by preserving the status quo on the Korean peninsula.

By leaving North Korea as its buffer from Washington’s powerful democratic influence, China may buy time to work against a sudden disruption of the regional power structure and give it greater room for political and strategic manoeuvre.

“Whether it is four or six, the number is not key as long as China is involved,” Zhao Tong, a fellow on the nuclear policy programme at the Carnegie-Tsinghua Centre for Global Policy, said.

“But at the moment, China would seem to opt for the four-party talks because it will be a more direct discussion.”

South Korean diplomatic sources told the South China Morning Post that Beijing proposed a “collective body” for the peninsula talks when Yang Jiechi, a Politburo member and special envoy of Xi, travelled to Seoul to meet Moon last month.

Nuclear crisis at ‘crucial moment’ for US-North Korea talks, Chinese minister says

Although Beijing also seeks denuclearisation of the Korean peninsula, securing a peaceful environment for the enhancement of Chinese domestic growth is its top priority, and the best way to achieve this is through a “collective body” of dialogue.

Yang stressed during his visit that Beijing needed to be actively involved in any dialogue, and that China wanted to guarantee both the security of the North Korean regime and the removal of nuclear weapons from the Korean peninsula, sources said.

United States: Three-party talks (US-ROK-DPRK) / Bilateral talks (US-DPRK)

One of Washington’s foremost strategic priorities in the region is countering Beijing’s growing global clout, fearing that a rising China will undermine the US-led world order.

Washington considers Beijing a potential competitor with and challenger to its global hegemony. Since the Obama administration, Washington has implemented its ‘Pivot to Asia’ strategy, to limit China’s influence in Asia and counteract Beijing’s attempt to shift the equilibrium of the East Asian regional order.

The US prefers three-party talks or bilateral talks directly between Washington and Pyongyang, since excluding China gives the US a way to check Beijing’s growing influence, a source who used to work at the Ministry of Unification in South Korea, said.

Trump says Kim Jong-un ‘very open’ and ‘very honourable’

“One of the ways to check and balance China is to expand its military facilities throughout the peninsula,” the source said. “If China is involved in the talks, the US can’t talk freely about its possible options with North Korea.”

The fastest way to halt North Korea’s advancement of nuclear-capable intercontinental ballistic missile technology is to have direct talks with Kim, said Boo Seung-chan, a research fellow at Yonsei Institute of North Korean Studies in South Korea.

“The US has never gambled its security against other nuclear states, so the pre-emptive ‘bloody nose’ operation cannot be an option, because nuclear attack in any part of US territory would cause a total catastrophe,” he said, noting that North Korea’s existing technology was capable of attacking US territory Guam.

Talks without China would also allow the US to maintain its legitimacy to continue its military engagement in the region.

The presence of a rogue state, North Korea, has given the US legitimacy to conduct drills using its strategic assets on the Korean peninsula over the past few decades. When a nuclear-powered aircraft carrier, USS Carl Vinson, made a port call in Busan in South Korea last year, many analysts expressed the opinion that the drill was aimed at China.

A retired officer of the Republic of Korea Air Force, who requested anonymity, said: “When Carl Vinson came to Busan, its crews must have checked various military operations targeting mainland China.”

US in no position to lecture ‘disobedient’ countries on human rights, says North Korea

If denuclearisation of the Korean peninsula were achieved through the upcoming talks, the US would lose one of its pretexts to engage in East Asian regional security. Washington is therefore likely to demand strategic compensation in return, so as to continue its engagement there.

“We do not know how much the US will demand [from North Korea], or how much the North may accommodate [the US]” said Kim.

South Korea: Three-party talks (US-ROK-DPRK)

Seoul prefers three-party talks with Pyongyang and Washington through a collective dialogue mechanism, South Korean diplomatic sources said, since its influence could be diluted in four-party or six-party talks.

Its goal is to achieve the denuclearisation and prevention of military conflict on the Korean peninsula, while avoiding being sidelined in any moves towards reconciliation with North Korea.

Although South Korea’s presidential office said no decision had yet been reached on the collective dialogue mechanism, Moon said last month that a three-way summit with North Korea and the US was possible.

Why economic cooperation could be the stumbling block at the inter-Korea summit

But some South Korean politicians argue that Seoul ultimately has no choice but to allow China to be involved in peace discussions.

“It is true that three-party talks is our priority, but after the talks we are likely to invite China [to join in discussing] the settlement of permanent peace in the Korean peninsula,” Won Hye-young, a Democratic Party of Korea lawmaker, said.

North Korea: Six-party talks

Survival has been North Korea’s primary goal, fuelling its desire to become a nuclear state. International sanctions in recent months have tightened the screws on the hermit kingdom, with particularly painful measures from China, its biggest trading partner.

Kim’s policy has been to play nations off against one another, analysts said, and six-party talks would allow it to sit at the negotiating table with neighbouring China and Russia by its side.

In the lead-up to high-stakes summits with Moon and Trump, Kim has recognised the need to coordinate with both China and Russia to enter negotiations with their backing, said Benoit Hardy-Chartrand, lecturer at the University of Montreal.

Korea summit: is Kim Jong-un sincere? Here’s how to tell

Kim’s decision to travel to Beijing for his first foreign trip shows that he needs China, in particular, as a key guarantor of his regime’s survival, analysts said.

“North Korea is using a hedging strategy,” Boo explained. “President Trump may demand something in the summit that Kim could never accommodate. By patching over relations with China, he is trying to build a safety net for his regime.”

Russia: Six-party talks

Russia has seen its influence on the Korean peninsula recede in recent years, and is keen to avoid being sidelined in the region’s biggest crisis, particularly with it being on its borders.

With the North Korean summits approaching, Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov has welcomed a high-level government delegation from Pyongyang to Moscow, headed by Foreign Minister Ri Yong-ho.

Even as Moscow contends with a host of foreign policy issues, including its increasingly fraught relationship with Washington, it is keen to maintain its foothold on the Korean peninsula, given the security risks from nuclear weapons or chaos in North Korea.

Japan: Six-party talks

Japan, too, has been marginalised in recent developments on the Korean peninsula, but Prime Minister Shinzo Abe has sought to remedy this by exploring the possibility of holding a summit with Kim.

Japan demands Koreas pull dessert from summit menu because it features disputed islands

In addition to denuclearisation, Tokyo has pushed to ensure the negotiation agenda would include Japanese nationals abducted by alleged North Korea agents decades ago.

“Everybody seems right now to want to be a part of the game, now that Trump and Moon are going to meet with Kim,” Hardy-Chartrand said. “There’s a real risk for Abe to be left on the sidelines … Nobody wants to be left on the sidelines.”

Additional reporting by Kinling Lo

Source: http://www.scmp.com/news/china/diplomacy-defence/article/2143328/china-russia-and-japan-seek-seats-table-kim-jong-un

The post China, Russia and Japan seek seats at the table with Kim Jong-un, Moon Jae-in and Donald Trump first appeared on Garner Ted Armstrong Evangelistic Association.

White House Press Secretary Sarah Huckabee Sanders confirmed the call in a press briefing on Monday.

“As the president himself confirmed on March 20, hours after his last call with President Putin, the two had discussed a bilateral meeting in the ‘not-too-distant future’ at a number of potential venues, including the White House,” Sanders said. The administration had no further comment on the matter, she said.

The Kremlin’s foreign policy aide, Yuri Ushakov, told reporters on Monday that Trump had suggested meeting at his official presidential residence and workplace in the US capital: “When our presidents spoke on the phone, Trump suggested having the meeting in Washington at the White House,” Ushakov said. “This is quite an interesting, positive idea,” he added.

Trump congratulated Putin on his election victory during their phone call

Underlying tensions

Planning for the visit was interrupted by the expulsion of Russian diplomats from the US and other Western states following the poisoning of former spy Sergei Skripal and his daughter in England. The US has supported the UK’s claim that Russia was responsible for the poisoning with a military-grade nerve agent. Russia denies the accusation.

Tensions also continue with the US investigation into alleged meddling by Russia in the 2016 presidential election.

“I hope the Americans won’t abandon their proposal to discuss the possibility of holding the summit,” Ushakov said on Monday. “There was no time for discussion and there wasn’t even anyone to discuss it with,” Ushakov said, adding he hoped that “serious and constructive dialogue” could now start.

Trump met with Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov at the White House last May. The talks were in preparation for Trump’s meeting with Putin, which took place at the Group of 20 summit in Hamburg in July 2017.

Putin last visited the White House in November 2001 when he met former President George W. Bush.

---

Source: http://www.dw.com/en/white-house-confirms-donald-trump-and-vladimir-putin-will-meet/a-43228539

[Disclaimer]

The post White House confirms Donald Trump and Vladimir Putin will meet first appeared on Garner Ted Armstrong Evangelistic Association.

Lavrov, speaking at an annual news conference on Russian international issues, said an increasing number of nations are strengthening their military power to ensure sovereignty because of a decline in international law. He blamed the situation on bullying from the West.

“The methods they resort to to contain their rivals are, for the most part, rather dubious and unscrupulous,” Lavrov said. “Their range is wide — from deploying a global missile-defense system to unilateral sanctions, extraterritorial use of their legislation and threats to tackle any international issues in accordance with their own scenario exclusively, stopping at nothing, including the use of brute military force.”

The State Department did not respond to a request for comment.

Lavrov reiterated Moscow’s commitment to the Iran nuclear deal, dismissing President Trump’s pledge to make changes to the multination agreement. He said Moscow will not support U.S. effort to dictate terms unacceptable for Tehran.

“Unfortunately, our U.S. colleagues and their allies … do not want to listen to the point of view of the other centers of the global politics,” Lavrov said. “They do not want to recognize the realities of the forming multipolar world.”

More: GOP’s crazy Russia probe conspiracies are crushed in Fusion GPS transcript

More: Trump lawyers turn to 1994 Espy probe to provide cover in Russia probe

Lavrov also pressed the U.S. to accept a plan forwarded by Russia and China that would stop U.S.-South Korean military drills in exchange for a halt in North Korea’s nuclear and missile programs. North Korea and the U.S. have both essentially rejected the plan.

Lavrov said the U.S. and West are losing the dominant global positions they have enjoyed for more than 50 years “as new centers of economic growth, financial power and political influence are emerging in the natural course of history.” He accused the U.S. of failing to adapt to the changing world.

“As … the process of equal dialogue, and the process of creating constructive solutions, satisfying everyone, emerge, the United States, unfortunately, resorts to illegitimate methods,” Lavrov said.

Source: https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/world/2018/01/15/russia-unscrupulous-u-s-behavior-destabilizes-world/1033628001/

The post Russia: ‘Unscrupulous’ U.S. behavior destabilizes world first appeared on Garner Ted Armstrong Evangelistic Association.

The post Russia berates US for ‘destabilizing’ world first appeared on Garner Ted Armstrong Evangelistic Association.

Moscow (CNN)Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov has accused the United States of destabilizing the world, airing a list of grievances over the Trump administration’s foreign policy.

CNN’s Emma Burrows and Lindsay Issac reported from Moscow. Angela Dewan wrote from London. Stephanie Halasz contributed to this report.

Source: http://www.cnn.com/2018/01/15/world/russia-us-lavrov-trump-foreign-policy-intl/index.html

The post Russian foreign minister berates US for ‘destabilizing’ world first appeared on Garner Ted Armstrong Evangelistic Association.

The Iranian reports are making an effort to frame the assault as an incident that doesn’t warrant a main headline and most particularly if it has nothing to do with Iran. If Israeli Defense Minister Avigdor Lieberman states publicly that there are no Iranian forces in Syria, why should Iran deny it?

According to reports in Syria, the assault was near the city of Al Kiswah, south of Damascus. If this is true, this is a Syrian base where Hezbollah activists and other Iranian-backed forces are stationed. The lack of an official Iranian response so far, even one that makes clear its commitment to protect Syria, could attest to the fact that at this point Tehran doesn’t want the assault to become a strategic test that could lead to a direct clash with Israel.

As opposed to Lieberman’s statements, the Iranian opposition reported in detail on the location of the Iranian bases in Syria, the deployment of Iranian forces and its proxies in that country. According to the opposition, those forces number about 70,000, and include members of the Revolutionary Guard, Afghans recruits operating as a militia (Al Fatemiyoun), Hezbollah fighters and other foreign operatives. Iran’s military investment in Syria, even before the outbreak of the crisis in 2011, makes clear that Tehran does not intend to give up the strategic opportunity that has crossed its path and that it intends to directly strengthen its position in Syria, not only through Assad’s regime.

Iran has short-term and long-term goals in Syria. In the short term, the duration of which depends on the attainment of a political solution in Syria, it intends to continue its military hold over the country, on the pretext that it is part of the forces supervising security in the region. In this, Iran says, its status can be no different than that of Turkey or Russia.

Iran, as opposed to Turkey or the United States, is legitimately present in Syria, having been “invited” by the regime to assist in its defense. As long as this invitation holds, Iran will be considered a legitimate presence there. This position was bolstered on Saturday during a conference in Rome under the title, “Mediterranean Dialogues,” where Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov called on countries that were not invited into Syria to leave it. His remarks were directed at the United States. The Iranians and the Russians, on the other hand, are invited to stay.

In the long term, Iran is a partner to the diplomatic process led by Russia and agreements on the security zones. Any solution submitted to the regime, opposition figures and rebels will have to be approved by Iran. This is the first time since the Islamic revolution in which Iran is a partner to international diplomatic moves intended to resolve conflicts in the Middle East – a status it won after it signed the nuclear accord.

Iran can also contribute significantly to resolving the war in Yemen and influence Iraq’s foreign policy. Thus it may be assumed that it will prefer its new strategic status and not put it at risk by a direct clash with Israel, as long as it can show that the attacks in Syria do not harm Iranian forces or installations. This status also strengthens it vis a vis its rival, Saudi Arabia, whose attempts to resolve regional crisis have not borne fruit. Saudi Arabia is not an active partner in arrangements in Syria, the end of the war in Yemen which it initiated is not on the horizon, and neither has the crisis it sparks in Lebanon fared well for the kingdom.

But Iran is not the only country pondering issues of responses. Russia has already made clear to Israel what the red lines are beyond which Israel will not enjoy military freedom of action in Syria. If the reports are true, Russia might consider the latest attack as crossing those lines, since its proximity to Damascus and a strike against a Syrian military base could be interpreted as an expansion of the Israeli conflict front. If it once seemed that Russia turned a blind eye to assaults on weapons convoys intended for Hezbollah or an Israeli response against Syrian targets that had fired in the direction of Israel, Russia might now go as far as to threaten air action to reduce Israel’s freedom of action. It might do this in the same way it threatened action against American or Turkish aircraft operating in Syria without coordinating with Russia. These days, Russia is preoccupied with completion of the diplomatic process and has even stated that the military phase in Syria is over. Another round of talks is expected in Astana, Kazakhstan toward the end of this month, and a summit will subsequently be called in Geneva. Russia, which has been able to establish partial cease-fires throughout Syria,  and is leading to a general cease-fire, doesn’t need a new front between Syria and Israel.

Source: https://www.haaretz.com/middle-east-news/.premium-1.826328

The post Analysis Alleged Israeli Strike in Syria: Why Iran’s Silence Speaks Volumes first appeared on Garner Ted Armstrong Evangelistic Association.