 Hello and welcome to NewsClick. We have with us our editor-in-chief Mr. Prabir Porkayasta to discuss some key global developments. Welcome, Prabir. Let's talk about North Korea-United States conflict. Both of them have increased the ante. They are involved in Brickmanship. Where do you think the conflict is heading towards? Let's look at what the current increase of rhetoric is all about. Trump used the United Nations platform to really launch a frontal attack on North Korea, threatening its very existence, while at the same time talking about how each nation has its right to run whatever system it wants by itself. Apparently, that is not true for North Korea or Venezuela or Cuba, and all the countries have not put on its list of countries he doesn't like. So sovereignty was supposed to be the keynote of what he addressed and talked about how sovereignty should be respected by countries, but he used the second half of the speech to really contribute that idea itself. North Korea, he made highly incendiary statements including the destruction of North Korea. And of course he always said if US is threatened, but being threatened is different from being attacked. And obviously what he was saying is therefore that they can take action even before North Korea does anything by sheer virtue of it being perceived to be threatened by the United States. So that's a dangerous position and the fact that they used the United Nations platform for doing so is really something which other American presidents have really not done. They have attacked, yes. Generally this kind of threats have also been held. It's not the first time this is happening. Even Obama made such threats against North Korea, but using the United Nations platform, using this in this kind of incendiary fashion is really the first. It was followed up by what would be called the executive order which the president issued, which observers have said or analysts have said is really an declaration of economic war. It says that any entity which deals with North Korea for instance does a bank transaction. United States unilaterally can effectively make its dollar transactions impossible. This kind of threats were also issued during the Iran sanctions. And that's one of the reasons India could not buy after a certain point oil from Iran because Indian banks were threatened being taken outside the SWIFT system if they did so. So this is really a ratcheting up the threat beyond the sanctions that the United Nations has imposed for which all the countries in the Security Council agree to. It takes it well beyond that in the realm of what has been called economic war. So this declaration of economic war makes, it's a very strange issue that on one hand you go to United Nations, ask for sanctions and then you impose unilateral sanctions which go far beyond what the United Nations Security Council sanction was all about. So why do you have this duality of policies? If we are going to declare economic war unilaterally, why do you go to United Nations at all? North Korea on its side has also responded in kind. They have called Trump an evil president. They've called him a dotard which has led a lot of people to scramble for the meaning of the word dotard. And also after that Trump is again issued a threat saying this state is not for long and this regime will not last for long. And it's personally threatened both the president and the foreign minister with literally with their execution. So I think this mindless ratcheting of tension for a country the size of United States which is really not threatened by North Korea in any sense. I think does represent a lack of what shall I say statesmanship on account of both the president and his advisers and I don't think this is a good sign. China has now called for restraint but nobody is really listening at the moment and I do think that what I had held earlier in this discussions that I don't think this is really going to lead to war and both sides should better sense and really come down and have negotiations. There is still no sign of this. At the moment the way it is going with threats of economic war, the kind of threats Trump has issued, the kind of responses North Korea has done. I think things are becoming dangerous and it does spell threat for the Korean Peninsula as well as countries like Japan would definitely be involved in any of these activities. And so also Russia and China. We are moving to West Asia. We spoke about realignment last time. Right now Syrian government forces control more than 85% of the territory. That's what the Russian Defense Ministry said. Moving from here, of course there are realignments happening. That's what I've unfolded. How do you see the situation from now on? How do you see the Syrian government responding to Israelis, responding to Iran and the other regional developments? Let's see first the military situation in Syria itself. As you have said about 80-85% of the territory is now the Assad forces. If it takes 6 months back, say before the fall of Aleppo as the western, but the liberation of Aleppo as most of the Syrians have held it to be. You would see that at that point probably the Syrian government did not hold more than 30-35% of the Syrian territory. Of course a large part of it is the East Syrian desert. It's a very sparsely populated region with some towns and villages dotted over virtually empty countryside. So therefore the population and the areas don't map equally. In fact they map very unequally. But leaving that out, if you see after the seizure or breaking the siege of Deir Ezzor as the Syrians and the Russian, Iranian forces have done with the support of the Iraqi groups as well. That has changed qualitatively the complexion of the East Syria. And almost the entire area between the area from Aleppo to Pamirah, that area, two ifrities. That area it does appear that ISIS is being squeezed out. They may still be there in certain pockets. They are indeed, but they seem to be there. Basic resistance seems to have folded up. And now you will see only the southeast of the area which is between Iraq and the Syrian forces now which have moved to Deir Ezzor. That area on the south is something that there is still some resistance over there. And there is the forces from both Iraq as well as Syria moving eastwards on the Iraqi border. As well as coming from Deir Ezzor down again to the Iraqi border. So this seems to be the next axis developing on this side of the Euphrates. On the other side of the Euphrates, there is a serious positional battle going on because the Syrian forces found it difficult to cross the Euphrates. They said the counterattack by ISIS came from areas which were occupied supposedly by the Syrian democratic forces which are the allies of the Americans and the Kurdish PWP and PWG. And then there is this issue which the Russians as well as the Syrians have said that the water in the Takmag Dam was released making the crossing more difficult. Of course that can delayed by 2 to 3 days, not more than that. There is not enough of stored water over there and they seem to have crossed over to the east of the Euphrates now. Now these are the oil resource areas, oil rich areas and this of course who gets it determines how much economic recovery is helped by the oil revenues. So both the Kurdish as the SDF, Americans and the Syrians, Russians, Iranians are contesting this part of it and the Iraqi forces also seem to be moving in their support. I don't think that this is going to lead to a large conflict between the SDF, Kurdish forces and the Syrian forces, government forces. I don't think that will happen but it's a positional battle that is still going on. Who goes first, who captures how much and how this area is then stabilized because there are a lot of Arab tribes over here, people who have a clear Arab identity, they are not Kurdish. So how those groups behave later, we will have to see. Idlib still remains something that we are not clear. We have to see how the relations between Turkey, Syrian government, the Kurdish and American forces as well as what's going to happen with now Qatar and Saudi Arabia. How that plays out in Idlib, I think that's a relatively fluid situation. As far as Damascus and other areas are concerned which is really, if we look at the southern part of Syria, I think we have already discussed earlier that slowly the Free Syrian Army, the Al Qaeda, ISIS affiliates are slowly being squeezed out of that area. I think that continues and I don't think the American forces which are now still there in Al-Tanaf area, which is really the south part of Syria and some of the British and other forces seem to be also there. I don't think that can be sustained for too long because of one side you have Iraq, one side you have Syria and I don't see that as a long-term viable pocket that can be maintained without the rebel forces. So yes, a lot of developments, Idlib remains to be something that we have to see what happens there. There have been even attacks from that side on to the Syrian forces in order to relieve some of the pockets of the ISIS in eastern Syria. So we have to see how this plays out. The second question that you ask, what is happening going to happen to the larger picture? I think a lot of this realignment should also depend on what happens to the Kurdish referendum, how Iraq and Turkey look at it, what happens in the Syria, Turkey, Iraq. Will there be realignment based on support to the Kurdish referendum tacitly by the United States? All of this we will have to see. But I think we should wait to see what's the result of the Kurdish referendum, which I think is going to be one-sided. That's what it is because it's being held under the Balzani groups ages. So that is something which I think is going to be for a declaration of independence for the Kurdish areas in Iraq. And that could have actually a realignment of Iraq, Syria and Turkey against the Kurdish areas. You see, if you look at the Kurdish areas, it's not as homogeneous as the name might appear. You speak multiple languages, they have multiple identities, they have multiple religious affiliations. So they are not a homogeneous identity as you might think from outside. And there's also landlock from outside. They don't have any access to sea unless Syria or Turkey concedes territory to them, which is not Kurdish for an outlet to the sea. So I don't see that as a long-term viable solution for them. Though there are landlocked states, it's not an impossibility. But the current condition looking at their neighbors in Iran is also one of the neighbors. Iran also has occurred this population. I don't see it as a viable alternative. So they should really have been seeking realignments and more autonomy within these countries. As Ocalan, who was the leader of the PKK in Turkey, has always argued. He's argued not always. He's argued recently that we should look for fluid borders, soft borders, and not ask for Kurdish independence as we used to do earlier. I think that's a reasonable and strategically the correct position for the Kurdish movements to take. And Barzani's this gamble is more to try and play the American game for me and then play it against Syria and Iraq, which the sea to be aligning with Iran, their enemy, and as you said, Israel. So Israel, America, Saudi Arabia on one side. I'm trying to stir all this nationality pot, shall we say, and see how they can be helped by it. Right. Thank you, Prabir. That's all we have for today. Please keep watching.