World News Insights
1-3 Minute Gist

Browse Articles or use Lyrarc's US patented "Groups" and "Links" for new insights. A Lyrarc Group of Articles on a topic gives insights into particular angles shown in the Group Title. A Lyrarc Link shows more specific insights for 2 articles.

All Topics Articles

LyrArc brings in selected articles from many of the world's top publications.

Articles are selected by experts and you can see the gist of the important articles.


Original article ›
LyrArc Article Gist
This article in NYT by a China expert based in Hong Kong points out that a key driver in the current developmetns in Korea are not understood. With the growth of China's influence in East Asia and a decline in American influence many of the countries in the region are rebalancing. Vietnam and Singapore are pushing back. In the same way North Korea under Kim Jong Un is concerned about its dependence on China with 90% of its trade conducted with China. The Chinese participation in the strong sanctions introduced by president Trump has increased this awareness of its dependence on China. President Xi Jinping has also ignored North Korea as China focuses on larger issues in international relations, including its relationships with the U.S., EU and India. This strategic development is what drives the current meetings between president Moon of South Korea and president Kim of North Korea, and the planned meeting of Kim with president Trump.  This China expert says the shift in better relations could be part of North Korea's effort to open up to the U.S, South Korea and Japan, in an effort to diversify its relationships to reduce dependence on China. This does not mean the unification of North and South Korea, he says, because it would mean loss of power for the Kim regime and would be too costly for the South. The nuclear missile development was part of an effort to preserve the Kim regime. The Kim regime is also focusing efforts on economic development which would be better achieved by opening up to the U.S., South Korea and Japan. ...
WSJ Original article ›
LyrArc Article Gist
Gerald Seib of the WSJ points out that after all the belligerent talk diplomacy remains the only best option to reduce the risk of a war with North Korea. He says the U.S. position is weaker with a lack of a clear understanding between the U.S. and its allies. The U.S. and South Korea have differences on trade and on how to address the threat from North Korea.

The New York Times Original article ›
LyrArc Article Gist
Tensions rise in the Korean peninsula after the launch of an intercontinental ballistic missile by North Korea that could reach Alaska. U.S. General Brooks says only "self-restraint, which is a choice, is all that separates armistice from war." The 1953 armistice never really ended the war between the North and the South on the Korean peninsula. The Kim regime in Pyongyang sees its missile systems and nuclear weapons as the only way for it to survive. For the U.S., Japan and North Korea, the situation is getting graver by the year, each year that North Korea develops its missile systems. The U.S. conducted its own military exercize with South Korea off the east coast, firing a number of missiles into the sea. Japan is now considering the Thaad missile defense system for its own defense. That missile defense system was put in place in South Korea by the U.S. in 2016. In a separate analysis David Sanger of the NYT says U.S. options are limited. After the collapse of the Gaddafi regime in Libya which gave up its nuclear weapons capabilities, other regimes see the nuclear weapons as a way to survive, which is why the North Korean regime puts emphasis on its nuclear program. ...
The New York Times Original article ›
LyrArc Article Gist
There is a small opening for talks between North and South Korea after sanctions lead to an overture by the North Korean leader Kim Jong-Un. The Korean president Moon sees this as part of his campaign effort to engage directly with North Korea. This report points to considerable skepticism of South Koreans whether a new "Sunshine Policy" effort is likely to work as it was tried with little success by previous presidents Kim Dae-jung and Roh Moo-hyun. Yet it offers an opportunity to calm things down after the volatile exchanges between Trump and North Korea.

The New York Times Original article ›
LyrArc Article Gist
Rex Tillerson, U.S. Secretary of State takes a strong stand on North Korean missile testing and nuclear program in a visit to Seoul and Beijing. He said the U.S. would be forced to take pre-emptive action "if they elevate their threat of their weapons program"  to an unacceptable level. Continuing a policy of the Obama administration following missile tests by North Korea, the Trump administration has rejected any talks with North Korea. Tillerson said that "the policy of strategic patience has ended." It was also meant to signal U.S. intentions before Tillerson goes to Beijing from Seoul. President Trump commented on Twitter; "North Korea is behaving very badly. They have been "playing" the United States for years. China has done little to help." Because China sees North Korea as a bargaining chip with the U.S., Japan and South Korea, the situation has ended repeatedly in a impasse with the North Korean nuclear and missile program continuing during the Bush and Obama administrations. This has also meant that North Korea was unlikely to collapse on its own, with China pursuing a policy of using North Korea as part of its defense policies in the region, as pointed out by Sanger in this report. As the North's missile program continues the U.S., and with the North seeing the missile program as the only way to ensure the survival of the regime, the U.S. needed to come up with a new way to tackle the situation.   ...
WSJ Original article ›
DW.COM Original article ›
CNN Original article ›
South China Morning Post Original article ›
The New York Times Original article ›
NYTimes.com Original article ›
LyrArc Article Gist
The Russian position for a ceasefire in Ukraine and peace talks is set forth by president Putin. "Our principled position is that state of Ukraine must be neutral, non aligned and free of nuclear weapons." Putin wants Ukraine to give up Donetsk, Luhansk, Kherson and Zaporizhzhia regions, Russian speaking regions in the east of Ukraine. Capitals of Kherson and Zaporizhzhia regions and some of the territory is controlled by Ukraine today. It means that Russia could accept a ceasefire under the present lines of control. It also means Ukraine would not be part of NATO, though it could be part of the European Union, as a peace settlement. All western sanctions on Russia would have to be lifted. Throughout the decade of this war Russia has maintained close connections to the Russian speaking eastern part of Ukraine with historically close ties to Russia and as Ukraine public opinion shifted to the EU Russia began its efforts to bring these regions under its control even when German-Russian relations were better during Merkel years. Russia has the support of China and Brazil in its position. At some point if a settlement is reached one possibility is that the line of actual control or LAC would be put in place. It happened in the Korean War, when the demilitarized zone was setup and in other conflicts on the Indian border with China and Pakistan, in Cyprus between Greece and Turkey. For it to happen Russia will have to dispel fears in the EU and the US that Russia will continue the conflict at some later stage till all its objectives are achieved. This requires removing the perception that Putin is set on achieving all his objectives to reopen the war at some later stage. Mr. Putin hinted at this by saying "today we are making a concrete real peace proposal," and adding that Russia was not ''talking about freezing the conflict, but its final resolution." In this situation it is the western doubt about Putin's intentions that is another barrier to a settlement on European security, with continued destruction in Ukraine when the war has entered a stalemate where both sides have exhausted their resources and have little to gain by prolonging this conflict. ...
Wall Street Journal Original article ›
LyrArc Article Gist
This editorial in the WSJ reminds readers of China's warning about North Korea's nuclear weapons in April 2015, and says the nuclear agreements with North Korea never worked. It sees a similiar situation with the nuclear agreement the Obama administration is working out with Iran.
The New York Times Original article ›
LyrArc Article Gist
The new South Korean government proposes a resumption of military dialogue with North Korea in an effort to bring down tensions in the region. A military hotline existed between North Korea and South Korea till early in 2016. North Korea cut off the hotline after relations with the South Korean government of President Park Geun-hye deteriorated following a missile test in January 2016 by North Korea. By May 2016 the North Korean leader, Kim Jong-un proposed military dialogue and talks, an offer rejected by the Park government. With the impeachment of president Park the newly elected government of president Moon proposed improving relations. The recent series of North Korea missile tests was a setback for that effort. With China the new U.S.missile defense system called THADD that was installed in 2016 for South Korea was seen as a setback for China-South Korea relations. As a result the tensions are high in the region. The rhetoric and tone deteriorated after the Trump administration took office in the U.S. in early 2017. After the last missile test the South Korean government of president Moon is now reaching out to the North especially for restoring the hotline that connects the two governments in the event of a crisis, so that a disaster can be avoided on both sides. ...
Wall Street Journal Original article ›

Israel's Best Friend

New York Times Original article ›
LyrArc Article Gist
Friedman highlights the importance of an interview with President Obama by Atlantic magazine's Jeffrey Goldberg. In this interview Obama gives a thoughtful understanding of what it means if Iran acquires nuclear weapons. The greatest danger is in nuclear proliferation. Obama brings to this an understanding of this issue from the time he focussed on this issue as a student at Columbia University, when he described the risks of nuclear proliferation in the Columbia student newspaper. There is the risk of an escalation in the development of nuclear weapons in the Middle East first, and then elsewhere. And there is the risk that nuclear weapons fall into the wrong hands. The situation would create problems like that faced in North Korea or in the India-Pakistan region, but increased by many times the current dangers. The entire nuclear de-proliferation effort and the efforts to de-nuclearize weapons stockpiles that took decades to accomplish with the Soviet Union could come undone- and it would then be necessary for all countries to invest in advanced technologies for defending against nuclear weapons, setting in motion another arms race. The current situation reminds people that the issues raised by nuclear weapons development will always be with us, and require a worldwide concerted effort, at official and public level, bringing in scientists, public opinion worldwide, and educating the public in all countries of the larger danger to mankind. The issues need to be put in the right context beyond nations and politics, beyond international conflicts and competing interests or ideologies, including Israel, Iran and any other nation looking for nuclear weapons as a solution for conflicts. Shultz, Perry, Kissinger and Nunn after a series of meetings at the Hoover Institution called for the update of the old policies of nuclear deterrance based on mutually assured destruction used with the Soviet Union, to reflect the new threat of terrorism- in an op-ed NYT 3/7/2011. The focus of this effort is on a new Fissile Material Cutoff Treaty, with all nations giving up nuclear material to an international nuclear material bank. Senator Obama strongly supported the efforts of Senators Lugar and Nunn in de-proliferation work after the collapse of the Soviet Union and joined the senators on one of their trips- Broad and Sanger, NYT, 7/5/2009. A major effort to reduce NATO, U.S. and Soviet nuclear weapons is called for to lead by example, providing a framework for other means of settling regional conflicts and educating public opinion in these countries, and moving forward the negotiating of the Fissile Material Cutoff Treaty. In many ways public opinion will have to lead the way in all countries as governments can lag behind- the efforts of Sam Nunn and Dick Lugar and the many unnamed people in the Soviet Union who aided their efforts show the importance of this....
Wall Street Journal Original article ›
Wall Street Journal Original article ›
LyrArc Article Gist
Daniel Yergin of consultancy firm IHS describes the geopolitical disputes in the Middle East between Russia, Saudi Arabia, and Iran that are leading to likely continued oversupply of oil in 2016, keeping prices in the $30-$40 range. Saudi Arabia is not likely to change its policy of going after market share, Venezuela is affected but lacks a voice in OPEC decisions, Russia continues its policies in Syria and Iraq under the Putin government affecting other Sunni states, and Iran following the lifting of sanctions is likely to ramp up supply to make up for its lost market share- all leading to an extended period of low prices. This situation benefits China, the European Union countries, India, Turkey and the U.S. in a period of slow economic growth in 2015-2016. Russia looks to use this period of low oil prices to shift to domestic industry after a period of rising imports when oil prices were high. The Saudis seeing their interests in the region threatened by Iran and Russia, and dissatisfied with the foreign policy of president Obama, see a policy of pushing for market share as appropriate in the current geopolitics of the region....
Wall Street Journal Original article ›
LyrArc Article Gist
A slight shift in American opinion favoring a deal with Iran is shown in a WSJ/NBC poll in July 2015 compared to the poll in April 2015. Support for reaching a nuclear deal with Iran remains stable at 36% in both polls, the opposed drops by 6 percentage points to 17% from 23%, and the percentage of people who say they do not know enough to formulate an opinion goes up to 46% from 40%. The intricacies of a nuclear technology deal and the sites involved lead to a high percentage of don't know enough to give an opinion. Factors hindering a deal include inspection of military sites, and Iranian intentions. Factors favoring reaching a deal now is the risk that this would mean Iran would go back into isolation and the opportunity to work with moderates might be lost. The Rouhani administration was an effort by voters to elect a government that could ease or remove sanctions to improve the economy and living conditions- its failure would lead to Iran losing an opportunity to open up to the world. The pressure from the U.S. Congress and Israel served to push for a verifiable and effective agreement to control development of nuclear technology for weapons systems. Behavioural factors involved are the very young population in Iran which has no memories about the period before the revolution in 1979- 70% of the population of 74 million are people under the age of 35. This group is eager for ties to the outside and could change Iran's outlook and policies int the future towards moderation. Risks in not reaching a deal also include the possibility of the Saudis developing nuclear technology and nuclear proliferation. Winners from a deal because of the flow of Iranian oil to world markets and a period of extended low oil prices are the U.S., Europe, China and India. Germany gains new markets to replace the growth in the Russian market after sanctions. Lifting of an arms embargo, an added risk in the last days of the talks, would be mitigated by making the lifting of that embargo very gradual....
DW.COM Original article ›
LyrArc Article Gist
German perceptions of Mikhail Gorbachev are shown here in DW.com. He is revered in Germany because of Gorbachev's efforts to end Soviet rule in East German state called the GDR, leading to the fall of the Berlin Wall. Gorbachev supported German reunification but did not do this is in a way that ensured that ordinary Russians and citizens of the GDR could make the transition to democratic processes in a smooth way. He also failed to grasp that economic transition could be difficult and would require extensive aid and grants from the west, and that safeguards and protections for retired pensioners and vulnerable sections of society needed to be in place. The following is a reflection of the background in political government and economy of the events in Europe leading to the war in Ukraine.  As a result Gorbachev's instincts were right by first 1956 as a student, and then 1979 as government official about the need for democratic processes to realize the real potential of Russia, just as has happened in many countries that lacked these processes for change in government- Japan, Germany, South Korea, India, Brazil and many countries in Asia and Latin America. But not realizing that these countries made the transition with considerable American and British assistance. Even where there was no direct assistance indirectly the British setup the first limited Swaraj or free rule in India, with elections and elected assemblies in Indian states in the 1930's, following the pattern in Dominion states Australia and Canada. Mohandas Gandhi negotiated within these processes for rights of South African Indians and Colored people, gaining experience, including study of British law.  A son of poor farmers in the agricultural region of North Caucasus, in Stavropol, it is relevant today that his maternal grand parents were from Chernihiv in Ukraine. He came to power in 1980 after entering the Politburo that year. These were the waning years of Leonid Brezhnev, president of the Soviet Union who followed Nikita Khrushchev (1953- 1964). Khrushchev was from eastern Ukrainian region near Donetsk. Leonid Brezhnev was a protege of Krushchev since 1931, from Kamianske, Ukraine.   Gorbachev was influenced by Khrushchev's speech that denounced Stalin in 1956 in favor of a freer and more open society. Khrushchev, became first secretary of the Communist party in 1953 after the death of Stalin and set the pace of post war Soviet society from 1950 to 1964. He removed the fear of the dictatorship of the proleteriat working class, increasingly dictatorial under Lenin, and blatantly arbitrary under his successor to make Soviet Union a freer society.  Yet his tendency to make decisions on his own without consulting others, and the failure of agriculture in the Soviet Union including food shortages led to his replacement by his protege Brezhnev. Brezhnev's whole career was built under Krushchev in Ukraine, in the army in Ukraine, and as a political leader in the Soviet 18th Army that entered Prague in 1945 defeating the Nazis. Why is this relevant? Gorbachev was educated at Moscow State University when the Soviet Union was in the Sputnik era, and felt at the time that it could reach the 1950's standard of living in the US- very different from the earlier leaders. Yet he may have been too much of an optimist and not hands on in understanding the working of a modern economy as large as Russia and the interests of different groups of society that had to be be balanced and protected. His understanding of the US and of how the US and British economies had evolved was limited or nonexistent. The isolation of the Soviet period may have compounded this. The Russian state in the Soviet Union could not simply unwind the power of the state and its intervention and everything would come out right of its own accord.   Leonid Brezhnev, the Ukrainian Russian who succeeded Krushchev from 1964 to 1979 let the system of Soviet rule remain as it was, in the Great Stagnation, leading to lethargy, lack of innovation, and a weak economy with military expansion. Gorbachev tried to regenerate the system by opening it up, but failed to see that there was a risk that it could come apart quickly as it did in just 4 years after he became president in 1985. Only the centralized power of the state had kept the Russian state together from the Tsarist period through the Communist period. The risks of this Gorbachev failed to grasp. What if it happened too quickly without a safety net for the people who could not make the transition. What lawlessness and failure of the rule of law could happen. The US and Britain had evolved their democracies over centuries. Wars were fought in the US and Britain over rights and responsibilities of kings and parliaments. In the US Lincoln fought the civil war not just for emancipation but to ensure safeguards for free white men on the farms so that Labor did not get disabilities placed on them by Capital (entrenched forces of Capital of which the southern plantation economy was only one aspect.)  Japan and Germany were set up as democratic states through American power and constitutional frameworks with Marshall Plans or agreement to take in unlimited imports from Japan. This bad scenario happened in Russia because Gorbachev failed to set the conditions first and work patiently to achieve them including introducing limited  elections and parliamentary processes first in Russia.  Leaders such as Yeltsin who succeeded Gorbachev in 1989, winning the elections that followed, failed to provide a safety net for the vulnerable in the 1980's. Unemployment increased rapidly, life expectancy dropped in Russia, and the economy failed in the early years after 1980. A Marshall Plan like that offered to Germany could have helped but Gorbachev's failure may have been his failure to provide this transition by arranging for West Germany and the US to support a planned transition, a kind of Marshall Plan of Aid, and maintaining a gradual move to democracy as the country was given time to learn institutions of American and British parliamentary democracy. No such Marshall Plan was negotiated for a smooth transition over inevitable obstacles, no safeguards were put in place for illegal efforts to control the state by rogue elements and to seize assets of state companies, no efforts to first introduce limited elections and parliamentary processes for learning democratic process in Russia, and the people of Russia were left with a memory of the this period as a bad lawless period from 1989 to 2005.  Leading to the situation today under Putin of aspiring to the Soviet period as a kind of period that had offered Russia the world recognition it had lost. And this had happened even though the Russian economy had recovered and the standard of living had risen under Putin. Putin's career spanned the period as a Russian official in Dresden, Germany Democratic Republic or Soviet period East Germany to working in the St Petersburg City Council under Yeltsin. He personally witnessed the fall of the Berlin Wall and the fall of the German Democratic Republic from Dresden and Gorbachev's refusal to build a transition period for the changes so that it would not be traumatic for the GDR. Even after reunification these traumas remain in some segments of the older population in East Germany that saw themselves as neglected and support extreme right wing parties in eastern German states by 2020- considering the Soviet period as one in which their lives were less neglected.  After three terms as president Putin with his own traumas from that period in Dresden, and with a mother lost in the period after the Nazi invasion of Russia, a father who survived the Battle of Stalingrad, saw the period of lawless behaviour in the collapse of the Soviet Union as the"greatest geopolitical disaster of the century."  Putin and people around him made missteps and miscalculations launching a war in Ukraine, leading to the situation today- jeopardizing hard won gains for the Russian economy. By 2022 Russian standards of living had risen and the economy was in the best shape it had been in the modern period since the Industrial Revolution. Yet largely exposed because of the dependence on oil and gas during a period of climate change and focus on building future economies free of fossil fuels.  Putin in his own peculiar logic may have seen this as the only opportunity in 2022 before deliinking from fossil fuel reduced the importance of the Russian fuel dependent economy to make some territorial readjusments in Ukraine with a quick war taking Kviv. That turned into a massive miscalculation with the emergence of nationalist fervor in western Ukraine spreading to the whole country of 40 million people. In the future to 2030 with phasing out of the fossil fuel economy, Russia without the connections to the US and European Union's technology and resources it had during Putin's three terms, and facing strict sanctions from US and EU, faces a difficult future. This has cautionary lessons for all countries- the US that read too much into the fall of the Berlin wall and indulged in a losing proposition with free markets that damaged its infrastructure and manufacturing with shifts to China, China understanding of how it to was dependent on the world economy for its future development, India that had to navigate a difficult period and what lessons to draw for building a bigger economy, the EU realizing the failure of its policies of depending on Russia for energy and China for manufacturing with fragile supply chains,  and Russia that there were twists and turns and the need for safeguards and experience building democratic processes before these processes would work for the economy, its people and for Russia as a nation. ...
Wall Street Journal Original article ›

Support LyrArc

We took a different way to help millions around the world build educated informed mindsets that affects and shapes their lives. For a future that is open, global and digital, with everyone having access to high quality information. We believe in the renewal of America, renewal of Europe, the renewal of India, the rest of Asia, Latin America and Africa. The renewal of our supply chains, health, education, infrastructure, as we rebuild our countries after the pandemic. Literacy and knowledge we believe cannot thrive and grow in a world of web bots, web crawlers, or AI. This requires human curiosity, human learning, and human imagination. We take as inspiration the saying- “One has to be free, and as broad as sky. One has to have a mind that is crystal clear, only then can truth shine in it.” Every contribution whether big or small is precious- in this crisis and ahead.

Support Lyrarc from as small as $1


Copyright © 2006 - 2026 Intelilinks LLC
Terms and Conditions | Copyright Policy | Privacy Policy | Contact Us