As Reince Priebus was approaching his final days in the West Wing, staffers had a running joke: if you got between the frenzied chief of staff and the Oval Office, you risked being run over as he darted from meeting to meeting, hoping to force himself into President Donald Trump’s good graces. John Kelly, who now finds his standing in the White House similarly fractured, has adopted a different approach. Sources inside the West Wing say Kelly has attempted no such effort to insert himself into the President’s daily interactions. Now less engaged in West Wing decisions and less visible in Trump’s day-to-day, Kelly has found himself on a downward slide, sources familiar with the situation said. Though Kelly used to hold senior staff meetings in his office three times a week, the chief of staff has reduced those to one per week, preferring instead to hold smaller meetings with fewer staffers throughout the day, a source with knowledge of the meetings tells CNN. Related article Trump's perceived persecution fuels unrest Kelly was initially expected to quiet a chaotic West Wing by instilling order and restraining an impulsive President. But his limited influence has been on full display in recent weeks as Trump has shown himself more unleashed than ever. Just this week, he lashed out at the special counsel, his attorney general and his deputy attorney general as part of a larger outburst during a meeting with senior military officials that was supposed to focus on his administration’s response to Syria. Kelly, a retired Marine Corps general, was horrified at the highly charged display, according to one person familiar with his reaction. Trump’s erratic behavior hasn’t waned. He promised a missile strike on Syria Tuesday morning before a final decision had even been made. Ironically, the chaos he was brought in to quell may serve to bolster Kelly’s standing. Even as Trump has considered overhauling his staff, including weighing whether Kelly should go, various crises have served to put off the decision. On Wednesday, White House press secretary Sarah Sanders said it was “just not accurate” that Kelly had been sidelined. “I have seen him in nearly every meeting and several one on ones with (Trump),” Sanders said. Related article New Trump adviser is 'not much of a carrot man' But Trump has nonetheless ensured that other staffers are empowered as Kelly’s influence wanes. National Economic Council chairman Larry Kudlow and national security adviser John Bolton entered their posts as favorites of Trump’s from afar: he watched their appearances, respectively, on CNBC and Fox News, and consulted with them over the telephone, even before they were brought onto his staff. Now that their advice and counsel is at his constant disposal, Trump has sought them out more than Kelly, who has been left out of key decisions and is no longer regularly consulted about policy decisions. Trump singled out his new hires on Twitter Wednesday morning. The Washington Post is far more fiction than fact. Story after story is made up garbage - more like a poorly written novel than good reporting. Always quoting sources (not names), many of which don’t exist. Story on John Kelly isn’t true, just another hit job! “So much Fake News about what is going on in the White House,” he wrote. “Very calm and calculated with a big focus on open and fair trade with China, the coming North Korea meeting and, of course, the vicious gas attack in Syria. Feels great to have Bolton & Larry K on board.” After The Washington Post reported last week that Kelly’s role as the White House disciplinarian had faded, Trump lambasted the story, calling it a hit job. But he didn’t go any further than that to express confidence in his once-favored chief of staff. Kelly himself has appeared to second guess his own standing in the West Wing, and was frustrated after CNN reported in March that Trump had emboldened his former communications director Anthony Scaramucci, who was fired by Kelly after just 10 days, to continue attacking him during cable news appearances. Related article John Bolton pushes out Tom Bossert as homeland security adviser Trump views his new staffers as mini-executives, with wide unilateral prerogative for their own areas of focus, according to two senior administration officials. He has given them wide leeway to hire who they like and dismiss those they don’t, the official said. The changes were already evident three days into Bolton’s tenure. He has overseen the dismissals of spokesman Michael Anton, homeland security adviser Tom Bossert, and Nadia Schadlow, the deputy national security adviser for strategy. Other top NSC aides who worked in the office of former national security adviser H.R. McMaster departed before Bolton arrived on Friday. White House officials said that kind of turnover was only natural for the incoming Bolton, who will want his own team around him as he prepares Trump for an intensive month of diplomacy, including potential talks with North Korean leader Kim Jong Un. But inside the NSC, the churn has led to a sense of anxiety. Top officials are uncertain of their standing and are scrambling to maintain a sense of continuity in the policies and initiatives that were already underway, according to people familiar with the matter. Kudlow, meanwhile, has largely maintained the staff recruited by his predecessor Gary Cohn. He has indicated to NEC aides that he’s not eyeing a complete overhaul of the office. But he’s held out the possibility of replacing certain key staffers with his own selections. Trump’s willingness to allow his new team wide latitude to make staffing decisions reflects his style as chief executive of the Trump Organization, where different divisions were headed and run by trusted confidants, including his children, who all reported to him. In the past months, Trump has been counseled by some friends that structuring the White House in a similar fashion might suit his style better than tasking all oversight to a single chief of staff. Trump has not ruled that out should Kelly leave the White House, though there are no indications his departure is imminent. And there are signs that however Trump may favor his new team, his penchant for surprising aides with impromptu announcements won’t end. Last week, Kudlow admitted that he didn’t have a long heads-up that Trump would threaten new tariffs on China, escalating a tit-for-tat battle that could turn into a trade war. Asked in front of a crowd of reporters the morning after when he first learned of the tariff threat, Kudlow took a long pause before conceding: “Last evening.”


The affair is a lesson for Trump in how every word a potential commander in chief utters is parsed Democrats widely panned his remarks as disloyal to his country Donald Trump said Thursday that he was being sarcastic when he appeared to suggest that Russia should use espionage to find Hillary Clinton’s deleted emails. But he’s finding out that presidents – and by extension, presidential nominees – don’t get that luxury when the topic is national security. The GOP nominee tried to dampen controversy over his apparent call Wednesday for Russia to either stage an espionage cyber hack to find Clinton’s deleted emails or to publish information it had already stolen. “Of course I’m being sarcastic,” Trump said in a Fox News interview that aired the day after his comments at a news conference in Florida sparked a national furor and offered ammunition for Democrats who claim he’s not fit to be president. The affair is a lesson for Trump in how every word a potential commander in chief utters is parsed and amplified, and can have significant political and diplomatic consequences. US presidents in the modern era have seen singular sentences and offhand comments define global perceptions on US policies and leadership. It’s nothing new for the outspoken Republican nominee to cause a firestorm with comments that he made in a press conference; he’s been doing it for his entire presidential campaign, with any resulting political damage seeming to be offset by the media attention and appeal they have to his voters. But when they step up to accept their party’s nomination, candidates move into an arena where the stakes are higher and the bar for mistakes is much more unforgiving than the rough-and-tumble of a primary campaign. RELATED: Democrats accuse Trump of disloyalty over Clinton emails Nominees are viewed by voters, reporters, their peers and future international counterparts as commanders in chief-in-waiting on whose choice of words lives and crucial national security interests could ultimately depend. As a result, the room for error is far narrower than before. That they are preparing to assume that role is underscored by the classified intelligence briefings they receive as official major-party nominees. A US intelligence official told CNN on Thursday that the process will begin within days. On Thursday, Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid called for Trump to get “fake briefings.” “I think that the man is a loose cannon,” he told CNN. “He’s done so much to hurt our country with our international relations.” And it isn’t only the Republican nominee who has been burnt by the sharper glare of the spotlight on their national security credentials as they assume their party’s mantle. Amidst the denunciation of Trump’s statements Wednesday, his campaign pointed to Clinton’s use of personal server for official business as secretary of state despite handling sensitive classified information in that role and the thousands of emails she didn’t hand over to the State Department while destroying the server itself – the very emails Trump was referring to. Senior policy adviser Stephen Miller blasting “Hillary Clinton’s enablement of foreign espionage with her illegal email scheme.” FBI chief James Comey criticized Clinton’s use of a private email server, though he recommended that no criminal charges be brought against her. Trump’s remarks about Russia and Clinton’s emails came at a news conference in which he was discussing the hack of the Democratic National Committee that led to the publication of thousands of emails on WikiLeaks. The emails showed officials strategizing against Clinton primary rival Bernie Sanders in his campaign for the Democratic nomination at a time when the DNC claimed it was neutral in the race. US officials believe that the hacking likely originated in Russia, opening the possibility that it was the result of an espionage operation. The Clinton campaign alleges that the leak was a deliberate attempt to damage her campaign and help Trump, who some experts believe the Kremlin prefers to be the next US president. But James Clapper, the director of the Office of National Intelligence, urged caution Thursday, telling an audience at the Aspen Security Forum, “I don’t think we are quite ready yet to make a call on attribution.” He indicated that the response to the incident had been somewhat overblown, describing it as “hyperventilation.” Trump’s campaign has dismissed the idea that the Kremlin is trying to help the real estate mogul win and was quick to say Wednesday that the GOP nominee wasn’t “inviting” an attack by Russia’s highly capable intelligence agencies on the US government or private networks in the United States. Vice presidential nominee Mike Pence came to Trump’s defense Thursday, accusing reporters and pundits in Philadelphia of taking his remarks out of context. “They’ve taken a sarcastic comment, suggested that he was encouraging that activity all the while ignoring the extraordinary revelations in these emails of collusion of horrible statements regarding race, ethnicity and religion,” Pence said on Laura Ingraham’s radio show. Trump’s campaign may be discounting the furor, but it is undeniable that his comments on Wednesday – in which he also appeared to open the way to recognizing Russia’s annexation of the Ukrainian territory of Crimea in contravention of current US policy – offered an opening for the Clinton campaign. “His fascination and admiration for Vladimir Putin is quite peculiar. He has taken policy positions that are clearly seeing to advance Russia’s interests against the interests of our European allies,” Clinton campaign spokesman Brian Fallon told CNN. “On issue after issue, he has shown a strange affinity for Vladimir Putin and Putin’s Russia.” The lack of open public support from senior Republican officials during the controversy only widened the Clinton campaign’s opportunity. Speaker after speaker at the Democratic convention in Philadelphia on Wednesday lambasted Trump over his suitability to be president. “Donald Trump says he gets his foreign policy experience from watching TV and running the Miss Universe pageant. If only it were funny. It is deadly serious,” said former CIA Director Leon Panetta. “Donald Trump is asking one of our adversaries to engage in hacking or intelligence efforts against the United States to affect our election.” Retired Navy Adm. John Hutson also piled on. “This morning, this very morning, (Trump) invited Russia to hack us. That’s not law and order, that’s criminal intent,” he said, playing off a slogan that Trump emphasized at the Republican convention last week. And in his marquee speech concluding the evening, Obama slammed Trump for cozying up to Putin. The billionaire businessman has offered a string of favorable remarks about the Russian strongman’s leadership style by the billionaire – part of a remarkable scenario in which Democrats, often blasted as weak during the Cold War by the GOP are now emerging as Kremlin-baiters in trying to argue that the Republican nominee is unfit to be president. Were he not so vehemently opposed to Trump, Obama could give the billionaire a lesson in how a single remark or offhand equip on issues of national security can haunt a president for years. RELATED: Wikileaks posts hacked DNC voicemails Commanders in chief and other senior members of the national security establishment speak so carefully, they often resort to the cliches of diplomatic speak in the knowledge that what they say immediately rockets round the world. Obama is still suffering the consequences of saying in a White House news conference in 2012 that Syria’s use of chemical weapons would be a “red line” for him. Obama’s decision not to attack the regime of Syrian President Bashar al-Assad for its use of such arms was seen by critics as a disastrous blow to not just his own credibility but that of the United States itself. The fallout from the episode raised questions about whether the US word on its security guarantees elsewhere – for example with treaty allies in Europe and Asia – was as absolute as many nations had assumed. Trump’s comments during the campaign about NATO and musings on whether US allies Japan and South Korea should consider nuclear weapons have similarly concerned those countries. Though just a candidate, the policies would have major implications for their security should he be the next occupant, causing consternation in foreign ministries around the world. Another brief comment on national security that lingered for years occurred when an unnamed senior official described the US support role in Libya in the New Yorker as “leading from behind.” Ever since, the phrase has incessantly been used by Republicans to argue that Obama is a weak leader. In another New Yorker piece, Obama famously referred to ISIS as the “JV” team – a comment that has plagued him since the group seized territory to create a self-declared caliphate in the Middle East and started staging and inspiring terror attacks in Europe and the US. And Obama is far from the first American president to discover how unwise remarks on national security can hurt. His predecessor, George W. Bush, for instance, found that early in his presidency that imprecise language could trip him up, as he stumbled into controversies on Taiwan policy and the terminology used to refer to terrorism after 9/11. And sometimes, presidential sarcasm can simply lead to commanders in chief being accused of acting in bad taste. In 1984, while the standoff with the Soviets still raged, President Ronald Reagan quipped during an off-air sound check that he had “signed legislation that will outlaw Russia forever. We begin bombing in five minutes.” The comment prompted then-Democratic nominee Walter Mondale to remark: “A president has to be very, very careful with his words.” CNN’s Eugene Scott, Theodore Schleifer, Matthew Chance, Ryan Browne, Manu Raju, Barbara Starr and Jeremy Diamond contributed to this story.


Singapore’s Liao Fan Hong Kong Soya Sauce Chicken Rice & Noodle  – the humble hawker stall now home to the world’s cheapest Michelin-star meal – was the only place you could try Chan Hon Meng’s iconic S$2 ($1.42) chicken rice dish. Now, there are two. Late last year the chef-owner partnered with Hersing Culinary to open Liao Fan Hawker Chan, a casual dine-in offshoot located meters away from his Chinatown Complex Market & Food Centre-based stall in Singapore. Meng created this quick-service restaurant to harness the sudden worldwide fame and, consequently, customer demand following his stall’s groundbreaking induction into Singapore’s inaugural Michelin Guide in July 2016. “I didn’t know anything about the Michelin Guide, but I knew it was for a very ‘high’ type of food,” admits the Malaysian-born chef, who initially dismissed news of Michelin’s interest in his stall as a joke. He has since undergone quite the learning curve of the guide’s impact on any given restaurant. The new expansion seats 80 diners and still includes take-out service, which is a necessity: on Hawker Chan’s second soft-opening day, an ever-growing line of tourists and locals spilling out of the restaurant and onto the sidewalk almost mirrored that of the stall, where people wait for several hours to experience his famous fare. “The customers here [at Hawker Chan] are a bit more demanding,” Meng tells CNN while seated in his new restaurant. “Upstairs [at the stall], they will just stand there and wait. They are more patient.” Hawker Chan’s menu is a duplicate of the stall, including the char siew noodles, pork rib hor fun and Meng’s legendary Cantonese-style soya sauce chicken rice. Asia’s 50 best restaurants 2017 So what’s different about Hawker Chan? For one, it’s an air-conditioned, up-to-date space unlike the stall’s spartan, often muggy food court location, and it has new dishes such as Thai-style tofu and wonton soup in addition to combo platter options. The number of staff quadruples that of the hawker stall, which should surely help curb wait times. 10 Singapore street foods guaranteed to make you hungry You’ll also now find the 52-year old Michelin man himself cooking and overseeing the new restaurant, while occasionally checking in on the original stall, which his wife, Irene, helps manage. There is a price to pay for the more comfortable dining experience, however: the SGD $2 chicken rice dish at the stall, for instance, is marked-up at SGD $3.80, which Meng explains is only to cover overhead expenses. Still, each single-meal served at Hawker Chan will set you back less than US$4, a true value compared to other restaurants helmed by a chef with Michelin honors. Will Hawker Chan bring Chan Hong Meng his second “star?” It didn’t happen in Singapore’s 2017 Michelin Guide, but there’s always the next year. Just in case, Meng should keep his eyes peeled for a third venue. Why Gordon Ramsay fell in love with Singapore Liao Fan Hong Kong Soya Sauce Chicken Rice & Noodle: Chinatown Complex Market & Food Centre, 335 Smith St, SingaporeHawker Chan: 78 Smith St, Singapore Travis Levius is a globetrotting writer, editor and photographer for the likes of BBC Travel, Business Insider and Forbes Travel Guide. You can follow his adventures on Instagram and his travel/inspiration blog MisterLevius.com.

Hawker Chan (Liao Fan Hong Kong Soya Sauce Chicken Rice & Noodle)


Editor’s Note: Jeanne Shaheen, a Democrat, is a United States senator for New Hampshire and a member of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee on Europe. The opinions expressed in this article belong to the author. NATO faces both an old danger to the east and a new danger to the west Shaheen: The cornerstone institutions of our alliance have, nonetheless, shown that they can take a punch Europe has been battered by Brexit, terrorist attacks, Russian aggression, the migrant crisis, and uneven economic performance. The two most important institutions undergirding European stability – NATO and the European Union – confront grave threats. The case for Euro-pessimism seems compelling. So why am I guardedly optimistic about the future of our transatlantic alliance? First, let’s consider the case for gloom.  NATO faces both an old danger to the east and a new danger to the west. To the east, Russia has invaded Ukraine, annexed Crimea, and tripled defense spending since 2000. Russian President Vladimir Putin has ordered the creation of three new combat divisions – comprised of tens of thousands of troops – and plans to station them near the Baltics and Poland by the end of the year. His absurd pretext for invading Ukraine – supposedly to protect Russian-speaking minorities – is deeply troubling to the Baltic states, especially Latvia and Estonia, where ethnic Russians constitute nearly a quarter of the population. Related video Fears of a new Cold War as Russia beefs up military Looking west, NATO faces a potential danger from within. Donald Trump, the Republican candidate for president of the United States, has said he would consider disbanding the alliance because it “may be obsolete.” He also suggested that the US might not honor Article V of the North Atlantic Treaty – the promise of collective self-defense – if NATO members have “not fulfilled their obligation to us.”  If a future US president were to refuse to defend an ally under attack, NATO would lose all credibility.  Even threatening such inaction weakens the alliance and emboldens adversaries. Meanwhile, the EU faces profound stresses from the ongoing migration crisis and Great Britain’s decision to exit the union. There have been very real fears that the British vote and the discontents that propelled the “leave” campaign could strengthen anti-EU parties across Europe and cause the EU to unravel. No question, these are all disturbing developments. My case for guarded optimism rests on one quality the transatlantic alliance has always displayed in abundance: resilience.  However, it is contingent on the assumption that Alliance members, most critically the US, continue to provide strong, effective leadership. Thanks to current US leadership, NATO is responding to its challenges in a very robust way. Within the alliance, the idea that NATO “may be obsolete” is rejected as dangerously out of touch with the threats confronting the US and our European friends, in particular the threat from Russia. At the NATO summit this summer in Warsaw, the alliance ratified decisions to deploy multinational battalions  – including U.S. troops and armor – to the Baltic States and Eastern Europe, and to maintain troops in Afghanistan. Member nations reaffirmed their commitment to increase defense spending to at least two percent of GDP.  This comes on the heels of President Obama’s $3.4 billion European Reassurance Initiative, which is bolstering readiness across the alliance, most importantly in Eastern Europe. Related video Corker to Trump: 'Don't let Putin flattery affect judgment' Much work remains to be done, but the Warsaw summit sent a clear message: NATO is back, and any lingering post-Cold War complacency is gone.  NATO is resolved to deter a revanchist, anti-democratic Russia.  The US is bolstering Europe by contributing to NATO’s new mission in the Aegean, providing generous assistance to refugees, and tenaciously pursuing an end to the Syrian crisis. Meanwhile, nearly three months after the Brexit vote, UK Prime Minister Teresa May has called for a responsible, orderly departure from the EU.  Even some of the most outspoken “leave” campaigners – including Boris Johnson, the new Foreign Secretary – have gone out of their way to insist that “Britain needs Europe and Europe needs Britain,” and that the UK wants a close relationship with the EU going forward. In the immediate aftermath of the vote, support for the EU surged in country after country across Europe. In France, support was up 10 points to 67 percent.  In Germany and Spain, support rose to 81 percent.  So while the British vote has been a blow to the EU, it has also been a wake-up call across Europe. The general view on the Continent is: Britain has made its choice, but we are rededicating ourselves to EU solidarity and to jointly addressing the migration crisis. It has never been a good idea to bet against our transatlantic alliance.  Across nearly seven decades, NATO and the EU have faced down the Soviet Union during the Cold War; integrated former Soviet-bloc countries into a Europe whole and free; restored peace in the Balkans after Yugoslavia’s break-up; and, most recently, fought alongside the United States in Afghanistan. Sign up for CNN Opinion’s new newsletter.Join us on Twitter and Facebook In the wake of the 9/11 attacks, NATO for the first time in its history invoked Article V, coming to the defense of the United States. Today, 15 years later, nearly 4,000 troops from our NATO allies continue to serve alongside US forces in Afghanistan. Nicholas Burns, one of America’s most experienced and respected diplomats, testified recently before our Senate Armed Services Committee.  He said: “The number one strategic advantage we have over Russia and China is that we have alliances in Europe and Asia, and the Russians and Chinese do not. So we should build on those alliances.” I agree.  NATO is indispensable to America’s national security.  The US-EU partnership is indispensable to ensuring a Europe whole, free, and at peace. I am confident that most Americans understand the value of the Transatlantic Alliance and will elect a new president who will strengthen this alliance, not discard it. Today, as in the past, the cornerstone institutions of our alliance have shown that they can take a punch – indeed, multiple punches – and still stand strong.  So while I hear the pessimists, I also listen closely to the generals and diplomats. I’m placing my bet on NATO, the EU, and continued strong US leadership across the globe.


NEW: "Saudis are beginning to feel a little threatened here," CNN military analyst says Country is in a "rapid downward spiral," U.N. officials warn With U.S. and UK forces gone, fears rise that terror could blossom in Yemen The United States and Great Britain have pulled their last forces out of strife-torn Yemen, raising fears that the failed state will become even more of a breeding ground for terror groups plaguing the Middle East and the West. Over the weekend, the United States evacuated the last of its special operations forces – including Navy SEALs and Army Delta Force troops – amid the deteriorating security situation in the country, the U.S. State Department said. On Monday, a security source in the region familiar with the situation in Yemen told CNN’s Nic Robertson that British special forces had also left Yemen in the last few days. The British Ministry of Defence declined to comment. Related gallery Yemen mosque attacks The U.S. move came a day after terrorists bombed two mosques in the capital, Sanaa, on Friday, killing at least 137 and wounding 357 others, according to Yemen’s state-run Saba news agency. The terror group ISIS, based in Syria, claimed responsibility for the attack. Related video U.N. warns Yemen is at  'edge of civil war' It also followed months of fighting between government forces and Houthi rebels, who on Sunday seized the international airport in Taiz. The rebels now control both the airport and Sanaa. Yemen has been a key U.S. ally in the fight against al Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula, allowing U.S. drones and special operations forces to stalk terrorists in the country. Now, that arrangement is in tatters, along with any semblance of peace in the Middle Eastern nation. While State Department spokesman Jeff Rathke said Saturday that the United States would continue to “take action to disrupt continuing, imminent threats to the United States and our citizens,” the move left some wondering what role the U.S. could play with no forces on the ground. The country closed its embassy in Sanaa last month. “I don’t think there is an active role for the U.S. other than intelligence and trying to see where the dust is going to settle,” said U.S. Sen. Angus King, a Maine Independent who serves on the Senate Armed Services and Intelligence committees. That raises the possibility of the already unstable country becoming an even more fertile environment for terror groups to collaborate, grow and export violence, according to Robin Wright, a security and defense analyst with the Woodrow Wilson Center. “It’s becoming much like Syria, much like Afghanistan was at the peak of its instability,” she said. Related video U.S. pulls military forces from Yemen On Sunday, U.N. officials said the country appeared to be on a “rapid downward spiral.” The Security Council again deplored the violence and called for an end to the fighting and for Houthi rebels to return government facilities to the elected government of President Abdo Rabbo Mansour Hadi. But officials said recent events “seemed to be leading the country further away from a peaceful settlement and towards the edge of civil war.” In addition to counterterrorism issues, all sorts of geopolitical influences are at work in Yemen – chief among them the regional power play between regional rivals Iran and Saudi Arabia. The Houthi rebels are Shiites with ties to Iran, who have long felt marginalized in majority Sunni Yemen. Sunni Arab countries in the Gulf Cooperation Council want to limit the influence of Iran, particularly Saudi Arabia, said CNN military analyst Lt. Col. Rick Francona. “They believe now that Iran is in control in Beirut, in Damascus, in Baghdad and now on their southern border in Yemen,” Francona said. “So the Saudis are beginning to feel a little threatened here and are hoping the Yemen situation doesn’t spiral out of control.” The Saudis and other Gulf Arab nations have called for every effort to be made to roll back the Houthi gains and hand full control back to Hadi’s government. On Monday, Houthi leader Abdul Malik al-Houthi criticized regional governments over their stance on the fighting. Al-Houthi said his group was striking back at al Qaeda and ISIS in self defense, and said he found it “very strange” that nearby governments would condemn the group for such acts while welcoming the United States, which he called “the umbrella of tyranny in the world.” Yemen: What you need to know about how we got here Related video Yemen on the brink There’s little reason to believe the Security Council’s calls for peace will have much impact. Last month the council slammed the rebels for taking over democratic institutions and holding officials under house arrest, with little effect on the fighting. Last week, a Yemeni jet commanded by the Houthi fired missiles at a palace housing Hadi in the port city of Aden. No one was injured, but the direct strike marked an escalation in the deadly fighting between the two sides. That same day, Yemeni military forces – some under the Houthis, others led by officers loyal to Hadi – battled in Aden, leaving at least 13 people dead in the clashes, Aden Gov. Abdul Aziz Hobtour said. The fighting is taking a huge toll on Yemen’s people and economy, said Rafat al Akhali, the country’s former youth minister. Aside from the direct impact of fighting, people are losing jobs and businesses are closing, he said. There’s still time, he said, to implement a political solution to the crisis. “I don’t think we’re past the point of no return yet,” he said. Francona was less sanguine. “I don’t see anything stopping a major war going on,” he said. CNN’s Hakim Almasmari, Catherine E. Shoichet, Richard Roth and Stephanie Halasz  contributed to this report.


Authorities crack down on European horsemeat ring; arrest 65 Meat labeled unfit for human consumption was processed using forged documents and transported across the continent Spanish police have arrested and charged 65 individuals over a continent-wide ring that traded in horsemeat from animals “in bad shape, too old or simply labelled as ‘not suitable for consumption,‘“according to a statement released by Europol. Spain’s Guardia Civil, in coordination with Europol, the European police agency, charged the individuals with crimes including animal abuse, document forgery, perverting the course of justice, crimes against public health, money laundering and being part of a criminal organization, the press release says. The investigation is related to 2013’s horsemeat scandal, which came to light after the Food Safety Authority of Ireland found that 10 out of 27 hamburger products it analyzed in a study contained horse DNA. In one sample from Tesco – Britain’s largest grocery chain – the horsemeat accounted for about 29% of the burger. A French supplier, Comigel, which supplies products to customers in 16 countries, was at the time implicated in the scandal. Some frozen products labeled as beef contained as much as 60% horsemeat. The investigation in the wake of the scandal let to “the identification of a Dutch citizen known in the horsemeat world,” Europol says. The suspect was later identified as the ringleader of an operation investigated in 2016 in which horses unfit for human consumption were being killed in two abattoirs in northern Spain and then sent to Belgium after their paperwork and microchips were altered. After analyzing samples of the meat found in the Spanish slaughterhouses, investigators concluded that the meat was mostly sold abroad. The Dutch suspect oversaw operations from Alicante, Spain, and had a network of “his most trusted men in charge in every country affected by the scam.” The leader of the criminal group was arrested in Belgium, and police actions were carried out across the continent, including in France, Portugal, Italy, Romania, Switzerland and the UK.


92% of pollution-related deaths occur in low and middle income countries Pollution, including heavy metals are damaging to kids' brains The fatal effects of pollution are seen across our planet. In 2015, nearly one in six deaths, an estimated nine million worldwide, was related to pollution in some form – air, water, soil, chemical or occupational pollution, according to a new report published Thursday in The Lancet. Air pollution is by far the largest contributor to early death, according to the new research produced by The Lancet Commission on Pollution and Health. This form of pollution is linked to 6.5 million fatalities in 2015. Water pollution, responsible for 1.8 million deaths, and workplace-related pollution, which led to 0.8 million deaths, pose the next largest risks, the report noted. r The overwhelming majority of pollution-related casualties – 92% – occur among people living in low- and middle-income countries. And, one in every four early deaths in nations trying to industrialize rapidly – such as India, Pakistan, China, Bangladesh, Madagascar and Kenya – could be connected to filthy air, water, soil or other contamination. “Pollution disproportionately impacts the poor and the vulnerable,” said Dr. Olusoji Adeyi, a commissioner and director of the health, nutrition and population global practice at the World Bank Group. In countries at every income level, disease caused by pollution is most prevalent among minorities and the marginalized. “Children face the highest risks,” said Adeyi. “It is important to translate awareness into action at the local, national, and global levels.” Dr. Philip J. Landrigan, co-leader of the commission, said the problem is chemicals. “There are thousands of chemicals out there and we know that people are exposed to them,” said Landrigan. “We just didn’t know enough about what chemicals are doing to people.” In the months leading up to the 2008 Olympics in Beijing, China’s air quality became a matter of international concern. Smog obscured the blue sky and distant buildings even on days the nation’s Ministry of Environmental Protection reported excellent air quality. Quietly, the United States Embassy in Beijing acquired a stationary monitor to track particulates and later, three additional hand-held air monitors. Embassy officials “worked closely with the US EPA “to set up the rooftop air monitoring equipment, explained Noel Clay, a spokesperson for the State Department. To “put it gently,” said Landrigan, people saw the US Embassy data as “unbiased” compared to the air quality data being released by Chinese officials. Embassy officials wanted the more reliable data to “make better daily decisions regarding the safety of outdoor activities,” said Clay. Related article Can China fix its mammoth water crisis before it's too late? Soon, though, the data gained a wider audience than intended. “There’s a lot of kids in China who are very internet savvy,” said Landrigan. These kids figured out how to access the data, which was published online by the US Embassy, and once that hurdle was cleared, the Chinese citizens themselves “started buying monitors and doing their own testing and sharing their results over the internet.” Accelerated by the US Embassy in Beijing, air quality data went viral across China. “It became a very powerful bottom-up influence that I think factored into the Chinese government’s decision to do something – they’re actually taking major strides in China to control air pollution now,” said Landrigan. Now he’s seeing the same thing happen again in other regions of the globe. With the cost of a reliable air monitor priced around $100, said Landrigan, “more and more people around the world are starting on their own – citizen scientists if you will – to collect air pollution data.” The data for this new report comes from “two very credible sources,” noted Landrigan: The World Health Organization and The Institute for Health Metrics and Evaluation, which is based at Seattle’s University of Washington and is funded by the Gates Foundation. Data is collected by satellites and other monitoring technologies, which, due to increasing sophistication, provide more information today than in the past. “For the first time, we pulled out and collected in one place all of the information on deaths caused by all forms of pollution combined – in other words, air pollution, water pollution, chemical pollution, soil pollution, occupational pollution in the workplace – and put it all together,” said Landrigan who is also a professor of preventive medicine and pediatrics at Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai. The very poorest countries have many fewer deaths from pollution than the people on the next rung up – the lower-middle income countries, noted Landrigan. “This is not traditional pollution that is killing people in these rapidly industrializing lower middle-income countries, it’s urban industrial air pollution – chemical pollution,” he said. Traditional pollution arises at the household level and is associated with profound poverty, said Landrigan. Household air pollution resulting from poorly ventilated indoor cook stoves and fecal contamination of drinking water are the major forms of traditional pollution. Modern forms of pollution are outdoor air pollution, chemical pollution, soil pollution and occupational pollution, all associated with modern industry, modern cities, modern lifestyle. “All of those are going up,” said Landrigan, adding that the number of deaths associated with modern pollutions have increased year to year. The other thing that’s new about this report is that economists on the commission’s team developed a separate analysis to calculate the costs that result from diseases caused by pollution, added Landrigan. “Just look at the experience within our country,” said Landrigan pointing out a graph in the report that shows how pollution decreased by 70% from 1970 to 2015 following passage of the Clean Air Act in 1970.  “In that same 45-year period, the GDP has increased by 250%,” said Landrigan, who noted this does not support arguments suggesting pollution regulation stifles the economy. Nicholas Burger, senior economist and director of the Center for Research and Policy in International Development at the RAND Corporation, said the numbers look right but this type of economic analysis is “incredibly difficult.” Burger was not involved in the Commission or its report. “Simply saying we’ve observed this level of growth and we’ve observed this level of pollution reduction is not enough to make a strong statement that absent the pollution reduction we would have seen the same level of growth — or lower growth or higher growth,” said Burger. It is necessary to understand what would have happened absent those regulations, noted Burger. And that’s not easy to answer on the macro level. Related article A spate of deadly disasters for the elderly “There’s pretty strong evidence that pollution control policy – pollution regulation – does not adversely affect growth by as much as people often argue that it does or that we might tend to think that it does,” said Burger.  He added there are even some instances where researchers believe pollution policy has not harmed economic growth or perhaps even “enhanced growth.” “You put a scrubber on a power plant to remove the harmful pollutants coming out of the stack of that power plant that is going to make that power plant less efficient – that’s basic physics,” he noted. But the question is how much less efficient? Industry often comes up with ways to exceed the efficiency requirements of regulators. One theme that comes out of the regulation research is to never underestimate the efficiency and innovation abilities of Western industries, said Burger. Related article Michigan officials charged in Flint Legionnaires' outbreak Even when regulations slow growth of one industry, then, other businesses providing goods and services to accommodate the new regulations may grow. Consider, though, that health care costs are also part of the GDP. It’s extremely complicated trying to calculate “how the economy would reorient itself and reoptimize itself” with or without pollution regulations, said Burger. Still, Commission Co-leader Richard Fuller of Pure Earth, USA, an international non-profit, maintains that countries can have “consistent economic growth with low pollution” and he bases this opinion on the experiences of Western nations. “If you just think about it, anecdotally in the West, we really did knock pollution on the head,” Fuller said. The rules and regulations of the 1960s and 1970s made our water safe to drink and the air reasonably clean. “It’s certainly enormously better than it used to be,” said Fuller. When you see pictures of Beijing filled with “nasty, gunky air, that’s how it was in New York City and in Pittsburgh and in Los Angeles back in the ’60s and even in the ‘70s,” he said. Meanwhile, in lower income countries, ministers of finance believe that you need to “allow pollution to happen in order to become industrialized,” said Fuller. “If you adopt green growth strategies it’s more likely – according to the literature – you will actually grow stronger because you won’t have people sick or dying before their time.” Poor health and early death requires people to look after others and this “costs” societies wanting to grow. “It’s a key message in the report,” said Fuller, who hopes the new report gets the development community to consider pollution “as an issue they should worry about it, an issue that should be on the global agenda.” The pollution piece of the agenda has largely been forgotten because the planet is cleaner due to efforts made in the US and Europe, “but it hasn’t had the same effort in the rest of the world,” said Fuller. So what can people do? “People should go to www.pollution.org,” said Fuller. While the data is not comprehensive, it’s the best available for people to see what is happening in their own neighborhoods. “If you’re not seeing what you’re feeling, you can add your story,” said Fuller. These civic contributions will be brought into policy discussions happening in the concerned country, said Fuller. The website, then, is “a place for people to have their voice get heard in a non-confrontational way.” Related article Exposure to air pollution before birth may shorten our lives Individual voices need to be heard, Fuller noted, because worldwide, children are vulnerable. “The thing that worries me most in all this is the neurological damage that many of these toxins have,” said Fuller. Heavy metals, including lead, damage kids’ brains. See the latest news and share your comments with CNN Health on Facebook and Twitter. “My concern is if you release a toxin in China, it can end up in LA just as easily,” said Fuller. Particulate matter travels, he said, with research demonstrating that carbon from burning coal in China is in air pollution in LA. “We need to look after it because they’re going to poison us as well.” CORRECTION: This story has been corrected to say one in six deaths was related to pollution and to identify RAND as a corporation.


The CIA mulled mafia hits on Cuban President Fidel Castro. Someone called the FBI threatening to kill Lee Harvey Oswald a day before Oswald’s murder. And the US examined sabotaging airplane parts heading to Cuba. These assertions are some of many unearthed in newly revealed government documents related to the assassination of President John F. Kennedy. Following a deadline 25 years in the making, the National Archives on Thursday evening released a horde of JFK files. President Donald Trump blocked the release of some documents at least temporarily, citing national security concerns, leaving researchers, conspiracy theorists and interested onlookers 52 previously unreleased full documents and thousands in part to sift through. Here are some of the highlights from the trove so far. A 1975 document from the Rockefeller Commission detailing the CIA’s role in foreign assassinations said plans to assassinate Castro were undertaken in the early days of the Kennedy administration. The report said Attorney General Robert Kennedy, the President’s brother, told the FBI he learned the CIA hired an intermediary “to approach Sam Giancana with a proposition of paying $150,000 to hire some gunman to go into Cuba and kill Castro.” The attorney general said that made it hard to prosecute Giancana, a Sicilian American mobster. “Attorney General Kennedy stated that the CIA should never undertake the use of mafia people again without first checking with the Department of Justice because it would be difficult to prosecute such people in the future,” the report reads. The report also said the CIA was later interested in using mobsters to deliver a poison pill to Castro in order to kill him. A document dated November 24, 1963, showed FBI Director J. Edgar Hoover addressing the death of Oswald at the hands of Jack Ruby. “There is nothing further on the Oswald case except that he is dead,” Hoover begins. Hoover said the FBI’s Dallas office received a call “from a man talking in a calm voice,” saying he was a member of a committee to kill Oswald. Related article Trump 'unhappy' with government redactions to JFK files He said they pressed the Dallas chief of police to protect Oswald, but Ruby was nevertheless able to kill the gunman. “Ruby says no one was associated with him and denies having made the telephone call to our Dallas office last night,” Hoover said. Hoover went on to say the FBI had evidence of Oswald’s guilt and intercepts of Oswald’s communications with Cuba and the Soviet Union. He said he was concerned there would be doubt in the public about Oswald’s guilt and that President Lyndon Johnson would appoint a commission to investigate the assassination. A national security council document from 1962 – before Kennedy’s murder – referenced “Operation Mongoose,” a covert attempt to topple communism in Cuba. In the minutes of a secret meeting on Operation Mongoose from September 14,1962, “General (Marshall) Carter said that the CIA would examine the possibilities of sabotaging airplane parts which are scheduled to be shipped from Canada to Cuba.” A top secret document from 1975 for the Rockefeller Commission outlines the testimony of former CIA Director Richard Helms. In the transcript, Helms said he thought former President Richard Nixon believed the CIA was responsible for the death of South Vietnamese President Ngo Dinh Diem, who died following a coup linked to the CIA. “There is absolutely no evidence of this in the agency records and the whole thing has been, I mean rather – what is the word I want – heated by the fact that President Johnson used to go around saying that the reason President Kennedy was assassinated was that he had assassinated President Diem and this was just … justice,” Helms said. Helms added: “where he got this from, I don’t know.” The deposition continues, with him being asked if there was any way Oswald was in some way a CIA agent or an agent,” before the document cuts off. A cable from the FBI in 1967 quoted one man quipping Oswald must have been a good shot. The alleged Cuban officer returned, “oh, he was quite good.” Asked why he said that, the officer said, “I knew him.” FBI Director Hoover forwarded a memo to the White House in 1963, shortly after Kennedy’s death. The memo, obtained by the Church Committee and classified top secret, detailed US sources’ sense of the reaction in the USSR to Kennedy’s death. “According to our source, officials of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union believed there was some well-organized conspiracy on the part of the ‘ultraright’ in the United States to effect a ‘coup,’” the memo said. “They seem convinced that the assassination was not the deed of one man, but that it arose out of a carefully planned campaign in which several people played a part.” The source said the Soviet officials claimed no connection between Oswald and the USSR, and described him as “a neurotic gunman.” A CIA memo from the day of Kennedy’s assassination outlined a CIA intercept of a call from Oswald, then in Mexico City, to the Russian embassy in Mexico. Oswald spoke to the consul, Valeriy Vladimirovich Kostikov, an “identified KGB officer” “in broken Russian.” The memo’s author said he was told by the FBI’s liaison officer that the bureau believed Oswald’s visit was to get help with a passport or visa.


Russia lost to Croatia 114 to 112 The United States and United Kingdom also won seats For years, UN countries seeking to stop Russia from assisting the Assad regime militarily in Syria have been blocked by Moscow’s veto power as a permanent UN Security Council member. But on Friday at the UN, opponents of Russia’s punishing assaults in Syria achieved a small symbolic victory. Russia was defeated in its bid to be re-elected as a member of the UN’s Human Rights Council, the most prestigious panel in the UN system designed to examine global human rights. But it was close. Russia lost to Croatia by just two votes, 114 to 112, with Hungary claiming the Eastern Europe region’s other remaining seat. UN General Assembly voted in a secret balloting process that has no vetoes. The United States and United Kingdom also won seats on the rights panel. UN Watch, a UN watchdog group, said after the vote that “the non-election of Russia shows that the nations of the world can reject gross abusers if they so choose.” RELATED: Russian, US military planes in near miss over Syria Dozens of human rights groups had campaigned against Moscow’s bid, citing the massive bombing assault on parts of Syria opposed to the government of its close ally, President Bashar al-Assad. An estimated 400,000 people have died in the Syrian conflict. Moscow’s refusal to accept Security Council resolutions framed to seek the end of the war seemed to be a factor in Russia’s failure to gain support for the council seat from others in the UN. State Department spokesman Mark Toner, noting that he wasn’t referring to Russia specifically said that “we continue to believe that UN member states should seek countries that have a strong human rights record to be a part of the council.” Human Rights Watch’s UN director, Louis Charbonneau said, after Hungary and Croatia beat out Russia in their regional contest, that the vote “also shows how important it is to have competitive slates in UN elections. Countries should have a chance to reject those whose candidacies are so severely compromised, as they did today.” RELATED: US, Russia spar amid charges of war crimes in Syria It’s rare for one of the five powerful permanent UN Security Council member nations to lose any UN election. However, the United States, too, experienced such defeat in 2001, when the US failed to win a seat on the UN Human Rights Commission, which the council later replaced. Human rights advocates, however, did lose their campaign to stop Saudi Arabia from being re-elected. The Mideast power has recently been accused of major human rights violations in its onslaught in neighboring Yemen. But it was nearly impossible for Saudi Arabia to lose, having already been selected as one of the four Asia-Pacific region countries to run for that region’s four allocated slots. China and Cuba also won seats. UN Watch executive director Hillel Neuer said the re-election of Saudi Arabia, China and Cuba “casts a shadow upon the reputation of the United Nations.” CNN’s Elise Labott and Casey Riddle contributed to this report.


Editor’s Note: David A. Andelman, editor emeritus of World Policy Journal and member of the board of contributors of USA Today, is the author of “A Shattered Peace: Versailles 1919 and the Price We Pay Today.” Follow him on Twitter @DavidAndelman. The views expressed in this commentary are his own. Tractor trailer barrels into a crowded Berlin Christmas market, killing 12 David A. Andelman: The act could mean that Angela Merkel will be the next moderate European leader to face an uphill battle in her bid for re-election But the fallout will spread far beyond Germany, threatening to undermine the very fabric of the European Union, writes Andelman The apparent violent truck assault on Berlin’s crowded Breitscheidplatz Christmas market had all the hallmarks of Islamic State terrorism – the same type of semitruck, the same high speed of 40 miles an hour, the same mass of holiday revelers – as the horrific attack on the Promenade des Anglais in Nice last summer. In both cases, there were multiple deaths and scores of maimed and injured left in their wake. But beyond the immediate panic and horror, there also appears to be a potentially more pernicious reward to the forces of the political far right best positioned to capitalize on such a tragedy. Indeed, the domestic political fallout of both incidents promises to carry far beyond the borders of Germany or France, spreading a radical shift to the right that holds the potential of upsetting not only the ruling elite, but the very glue that holds Europe together. Even while Sven Gerling, a spokesman for the Berlin fire service, was saying, “We are at the scene with a large number of vehicles. The police are too. We are trying to save a number of lives,” a spokesman for Chancellor Angela Merkel was assuring the nation that she was being briefed by her interior minister and by the mayor of Berlin. As police began to dig into the background of the truck’s driver, however, it was clear that Merkel would have to do some neat pivoting if she was to win a fourth term as chancellor. Ironically, it was just one month ago that she announced she would stand for re-election. Even then, she was facing some tough challenges – particularly from the Alternative for German (AfD) Party and its fiery leader, Frauke Petry, who have already launched a vicious, and in scattered local contests, successful campaign. They claim that Merkel has been far too generous and accommodating in welcoming refugees from the Middle East, at least some of whom intend to harm the nation that has been so generous in opening its doors to them. Related video Berlin witness: Big hole in truck's windshield As long ago as January, Petry was urging German border police to shoot on the spot any refugees found entering Germany illegally. The fear is that to match such rhetoric in the face of the post-Christmas market massacre, Merkel will have to edge farther toward the right. Already, she did a bit of a pivot two weeks ago when she called for a ban on wearing a veil in public. “The full veil is not appropriate here. It should be forbidden wherever that is legally possible. It does not belong to us,” she told a Christian Democratic Union (CDU) gathering. The fact is, across Western Europe there is a full-scale assault on traditional democratic values that many are increasingly coming to fear are only giving aid and comfort to the kinds of jihadists prepared to seize on any leniency to drive their trucks into crowds of innocents enjoying themselves. Related article Why can't France stop this wave of terror? In France, the fears that sprung from a succession of terrorist attacks over the past year played a central role in hammering the popularity rating of Francois Hollande into the single digits and driving him from a re-election bid, while strengthening the hand of anti-immigrant, anti-Muslim, far-right leader Marine Le Pen of the National Front party. In Italy, similar concerns led to the ouster of Italy’s center-left politician, while in Austria the far-right candidate managed to get into a two-way run-off for his nation’s presidency. The new, populist government in Poland has already shifted far to the right, and other nations including the Netherlands, Norway, Hungary and even Liechtenstein are set to hold their own elections in 2017 alongside France and Germany. Across Europe, right-wing candidates are positioning themselves against immigration and Islam, defending an ever-tougher stance with every new terrorist assault. A broader fear, though, is that terror incidents that pose electoral challenges for some of Europe’s leading pillars of unity like Merkel could provide ammunition for right-wing leaders who want to go beyond simple bans on immigration from the Middle East. The AfD, the National Front and their supporters want nothing less than a dissolution of the European Union and a return to pull-up-the-drawbridge nationalism for their individual nations. Sign up for CNN Opinion’s new newsletter.Join us on Twitter and Facebook Brexit was only the first example of this kind of political mentality. The thousands of immigrants from the Middle East clamoring for entry to Britain only stoked the fires of exiting the European Union. Each successive, successful and bloody terrorist attack will further whet the appetite of right-wing politicians and their supporters, feverish to return full control over their nation’s security to their own security forces. This is the ultimate danger of terror attacks. Reasonable men and women must recognize them for what they are – an effort to drain what is left of democracy from our nations. As President-elect Donald Trump begins to focus on how to respond, he should understand that support for moderation and unity will defeat those who prefer to divide each of us. A populist agenda, in contrast, will only strengthen and embolden our enemies.


Editor’s Note: Peniel Joseph is the Barbara Jordan Chair in Political Values and Ethics and the Founding Director of the Center for the Study of Race and Democracy at the LBJ School of Public Affairs at the University of Texas at Austin, where he is also a professor of history. He is the author of several books, most recently “Stokely: A Life.” The views expressed here are his. Peniel Joseph: Fidel Castro re-shaped global politics before reaching the age of 40 Joseph writes that as a revolutionary, Castro was both an icon and an oppressor The firestorm over Canadian Prime Minister Justin Trudeau’s praise for Fidel Castro is proof that, despite the US government’s official denunciation of the Cuban leader, Castro’s legacy around the world ultimately remains far more complicated. Trudeau’s characterization of Castro as a “legendary revolutionary and orator” drew swift and withering rebukes from American elected officials, most notably from Sen. Marco Rubio, who tweeted that Trudeau’s remarks are “shameful & embarrassing,” and Sen. Ted Cruz, who called them “disgraceful.” Both senators are descendants of Cubans who fled pre- and post-revolutionary Cuba and both remain determined to close off US-Cuban ties until the island’s communist regime is replaced with free elections. Castro’s death, taking place against the backdrop of President Obama’s efforts at the end of his tenure to normalize relations with Cuba, has touched off a fierce international debate over the meaning of human rights, social justice and political revolution. Trudeau’s praise illuminates the fact that the meaning of Castro’s legacy largely depends on historical context. He stands alongside Dr. Martin Luther King and Malcolm X as a political icon who indelibly shaped world history and re-shaped global politics before reaching the age of 40. Castro’s successful 1959 revolution overthrew the US-backed Batista regime in favor of a socialist political experiment that was soon backed by the Soviet Union. Castro’s acumen as a revolutionary reached far beyond his country’s borders. He excoriated American imperialism in jaw-dropping three-hour speeches before the United Nations, met with Malcolm X and stayed in Harlem during a September 1960 visit to the States. He offered military, financial and medical assistance to unfolding liberation movements in Africa, Latin America and the Caribbean. Related article Fidel, the promise and the betrayal Trudeau calls Castro a “remarkable leader.” As the leader of a tiny island 90 miles off the coast of Florida determined to reject the dictates of US foreign policy, Castro was nothing if not a survivor: He weathered assassination attempts, fallout from the Cuban missile crisis and the economic punishment of the US embargo to emerge as the symbolic leader of revolutionary movements raging across the Third World during the 1960s and 1970s. For liberation movements—including Nelson Mandela’s African National Congress in South Africa—Cuba proved itself to be, under Castro’s leadership, a friend of last resort, willing to stand by jailed and demonized guerrilla fighters who, over time, emerged as global statesmen. Cuba provided safe space for Black Panthers, political exiles and revolutionaries around the world challenging what Castro blasted as American imperialism. Related article The man Americans loved to hate Castro’s swashbuckling forays into international affairs also overshadowed a visible dark side: the ruthless suppression of anti-Castro opposition forces, the curtailment of freedom of speech and expression, the imprisonment and killing of political enemies and a failure to confront racial hierarchies in revolutionary Cuba. For all the genuine strides his regime made in offering free education, medical care, housing and resources for the Cuban people, Castro’s authoritarian rule atrophied a once-promising revolution into a virtual dictatorship. Castro’s most enduring legacy is a contradictory one. For millions around the world, he remains a defiant figure: the handsome, cigar-chomping leader who attended UN meetings in olive fatigues, comfortably gossiped with Cuban peasants without security guards and challenged the hypocrisies of American politicians who balked at his close ties to the Soviet Union and nationalization of Western industries on the island but were willing to support pro-capitalist dictators. For his critics, especially the large Cuban-American exile community in Florida, Castro remains in death an egomaniacal dictator who murdered friends, families and innocents and forced them into over a half-century-long exile they pray will end soon. Sign up for CNN Opinion’s new newsletter.Join us on Twitter and Facebook Trudeau’s expression of “deep sorrow” for Castro’s death takes us back to an almost-vanished historical era, one in which public admission of complexity was not forbidden, statesmen did not use Twitter to make rash declarations and where even political enemies were offered a measure of dignity and respect in death.  Trudeau’s words acknowledge the achievements of a towering, but flawed, political figure.  A warts-and-all portrait of Castro will satisfy neither unblinking supporters nor inveterate critics. Neither the saint nor the monster he’s been often characterized as being, Castro was something far more and far less: a lawyer turned guerrilla leader who, in an extraordinary historical moment, threatened the legitimacy of the world’s greatest superpower. He did it with a charismatic panache that dazzled millions and inaugurated political regimes that, like his own in Cuba, simultaneously furthered human rights and denied these same rights to internal critics. Trudeau’s remembrance of Castro reminds us that the Cuban leader’s final legacy has yet to be written, but will be as interesting, complex and messy in death as it was in the course of his lifetime.


TEDGlobal has announced a short-list of speakers for its four day conference in August The conference is back in Africa after a 10 year absence Curator Emeka Okafor says  the chosen speakers have "fresh, unique perspectives in their initiatives, pronouncements and work." TEDGlobal has released a preview list of speakers for its four day conference in Arusha, Tanzania this August, the first TED conference on the continent for a decade. Details of more speakers will be released next month. According to curator Emeka Okafor the Africans on this list have “fresh, unique perspectives in their initiatives, pronouncements and work.” Okafor says the aim of the conference is to unite a large group with genuine interest in improving the continent. He added that he hopes the speakers will spark global discussions around the need to find solutions from within Africa and the diaspora. Here are some of the African speakers on the preview list: Kamau Gachigi is the executive director of Gearbox, Kenya’s first open maker space for rapid prototyping. With Gearbox, Gachigi empowers Kenya’s next generation of creators to build sustainable solutions to the challenges in Africa. He was also responsible for manufacturing and prototyping tools in 2009 whilst heading the University of Nairobi’s Science and Technology Park. When Oshiorenoya Agabi started Koniku his plan was to build a device capable of thinking like a human in two to five years.He is working to integrate biological neurons and silicon computer chips to build computers that can think like humans. “Faster, cleverer computer chips are key to solving the next big batch of computing problems, like particle detection or sophisticated climate modeling — and to get there, we need to move beyond the limitations of silicon” Agabi said. Natsai Audrey Chieza is the founder and creative director of Faber Futures, a creative R&D studio that redefines technology and biodesign. Chieza’s work as a design researcher crosses boundaries between technology, biology, design and cultural studies. Whilst at University College London, she created a design led microbiology protocol that replaces synthetic pigments with natural dyes excreted by bacteria to produce silk scarves dyed in different hues. Her creation is helping to reprogram the system of fashion and textile production especially in cases of resource scarcity, source and cultural particularity Executive Director of  Eritrean Initiative on Refugee Rights (EIRR), Meron Estefanos is a voice in advocating for the rights of Eritrean refugees, victims of trafficking, and victims of torture. She has been instrumental to resolving cases of victims of blackmail throughout the world.  She is also a human rights activist, host and presenter of  ‘Voices of Eritrean Refugees’, Radio Erena’s weekly program aired from Paris. Cultural historian and curator, Gus Casely-Hayford, writes, lectures and broadcasts on African culture. He has presented two series of The Lost Kingdoms of Africa for the BBC and has lectured on African art and culture, advising national and international bodies on heritage and culture. He is currently bringing important paintings of black figures together in Britain through a National Portrait Gallery exhibition that tells the story of slavery abolition through 18th and 19th century portraits. Tanzanian entrepreneur, philanthropist and former politician, Mohammed Dewji currently serves as President/CEO of MeTL Group, a Tanzanian conglomerate. Operational in 11 African countries they control a variety of industries such as trading, agriculture, manufacturing, energy and petroleum, financial services, real estate and so much more. Dewji previously served as Parliament member for Singida-Urban in 2005 till he retired in 2015. He is heavily invested in health, education and community development through his Foundation Mo Dewji. Touria El Glaoui who initially started out in the banking industry is the founding director of 1:54 Contemporary African Art Fair. The fair, which takes place in London and New York every year, showcases work of artists and galleries across Africa and the diaspora. While in banking, El Glaoui organised and co-curated exhibitions of her father’s work, Moroccan artist Hassan El Glaoui in London and Morocco.


Amnesty International said the journalists shouldn't have been tried in the first place The Thai navy has 30 days to appeal An Australian and a Thai journalist, who were charged with defamation for reporting on the alleged involvement of Thai naval forces in human trafficking, have been acquitted. Alan Morison, the 67-year-old Australian editor of independent Thai news website Phuketwan, and reporter Chutima Sidasathian, a Thai citizen, were facing seven years in jail – two years on criminal defamation charges and five years for breaching the Computer Crimes Act. On Tuesday, the judge delivered his verdict in a Phuket court: Not guilty. Amnesty International welcomed the news but said the pair shouldn’t have been put on trial to begin with. “This is just the latest in a long line of attacks on freedom of expression and media outlets since the military seized power in 2014,” said Josef Benedict of  Amnesty International’s South East Asia campaigns director. Chutima said the journalists are waiting to see whether the Royal Thai Navy will appeal. It has to do so within 30 days. “Today’s verdict turned out to be very satisfactory,” she told CNN. The charges were filed after the Thai navy complained about an article Phuketwan published in July 2013. The story included a 41-word paragraph from a Reuters investigative article alleging that “Thai naval forces” had profited from involvement in the smuggling of ethnic Rohingya from neighboring Myanmar. No one from Reuters, which won a Pulitzer Prize for the series of reports on Rohingya that the article featured in, was charged over the original story. The case was slammed by press freedom organizations and human rights groups, including the U.N.’s Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights. Eight international rights groups signed an open letter to Thai Prime Minister Prayuth Chan-ocha calling on him to drop the charges, claiming the case constituted a threat to the “bedrock of Thailand’s democratic society.” Chutima told CNN that she and Morison testified in court, defending the use of the paragraph that had prompted the charges. “We explained to them that the term ‘Thai naval forces’ doesn’t mean the Royal Thai Navy, but it means any forces with capability or resources to work in water or at sea,” she said. A witness, with expertise on the Computer Crimes Act, also testified in their defense, arguing the law was intended to prevent crimes such as hacking or credit card skimming, but had been abused. Chutima told the court that, in writing the article, she and Morison had been simply doing their jobs and acting in the public interest. “Regarding the first charge about defamation, the court has acquitted this because the statement didn’t affect Thai Navy’s reputation and images,” Chutima told CNN on Tuesday. “Also, the published story was useful for the public, which was about  human trafficking in Rohingyas.” Related video The apartheid you've never heard of The persecution of the stateless Rohingya Muslim minority in Myanmar has fueled a migrant crisis in Southeast Asia, as tens of thousands have been driven into the hands of traffickers in their attempts to flee. Related video Migrants remain stranded at sea In May, dozens of graves and a number of secret detention camps were found in trafficking hotspots around the Thai-Malaysian border. The ensuring Thai crackdown saw trafficking networks abandon their human cargo at sea, leaving thousands of vulnerable migrants on rickety wooden boats ping-ponging between different countries as they attempted to make landfall. The crackdown led to dozens of arrests, including of a senior army officer in the region, Lieutenant General Manas Kongpan, on human trafficking charges. Thailand’s military junta, which toppled the government of Yingluck Shinawatra in a coup last year, has introduced strict controls on media, amid a clampdown on civil liberties. Related video Thai PM: I have never been against democracy Prayuth has repeatedly griped publicly about journalists, and was slammed for an offhand comment at a press conference in March that he would “probably just execute” any reporters who stepped out of line. Benjamin Ismail, head of the Asia-Pacific desk for Reporters Without Borders, called on the Thai government “to end their policy of harassing the media.” “The trial of these two journalists, who just did their job as news providers with a great deal of professionalism, poses a great danger to all those independent voices in Thailand who want to use their freedom of expression and information,” he said in a statement last month. CNN’s Tim Hume contributed to this report.


More than 80 people were killed in Vietnam in flooding caused by Tropical Cyclone Damrey, authorities said, just days before US President Donald Trump is set to visit the country. Some 26 people are also missing, the Vietnam Disaster Management Authority said. The agency said nearly 120,000 homes have been ruined and early 10,000 hectares of rice and more than 15,000 hectares of vegetables were flooded. Many of the damaged homes were in the provinces of Khan Hoa, Ninh Thuan and Phu Yen, the European Union’s humanitarian aid agency reported earlier this week, citing local media. President Trump is scheduled to visit the coastal city of Da Nang for a summit of the Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation (APEC) forum as part of a two-week trip across the Asia-Pacific region. He’ll also travel to the capital, Hanoi, for an official state visit with Vietnamese President Tran Dai Quang. Trump arrived in Beijing Wednesday and will head to Vietnam later this week. CNN’s Stella Ko contributed to this report

US President Donald Trump's visit to Vietnam


ISIS is fending off enemies from all sides in Raqqa But there's been little coordination between various groups on the ground The “caliphate” declared by the Islamic State in Syria and Iraq (ISIS) will lose its last two cities of any consequence – Mosul in Iraq and Raqqa in Syria – within months, according to the senior U.S. general in the region. Speaking on a tour north of Baghdad this week, Lt. Gen. Stephen Townsend, commander of the Combined Joint Task Force, said the next phase of the Iraqi military operation to take Mosul will get underway imminently. The city of some 300,000 inhabitants is ISIS’ administrative headquarters, and its hub for planning overseas terror attacks.  Not so long ago, ISIS controlled a wide swathe of land between Raqqa and the Turkish border, allowing as many as 2,000 foreign fighters a month to reach the “promised land.” Now most of that land is held by the group’s enemies. Its leadership, weapons caches and oil revenues in Syria have been pummeled for months. Related article As Donald Trump takes over, a diminished ISIS awaits ISIS lost 23% of its territory in Iraq and Syria last year, according to analysis by security consultants IHS Janes . Since November it has lost some 3,400 square kilometers around Raqqa, in a wide arc north of the city. The group’s last significant holdout north of Raqqa – the town of al Bab – is remorselessly bombed by US, Russian and Turkish aircraft. ISIS finds itself fending off enemies in all directions, over an area of several hundred square kilometers, much of it open land where the movement of any sizable reinforcements would be vulnerable to air attack. Its advantage is that – so far – there’s been little coordination among its adversaries on the ground, and none of them seems strong enough to take Raqqa alone. ISIS has built multi-layered defenses around the city and would be fighting among a civilian population under siege. The long Syrian war has spawned a bewildering array of factions, but there are essentially three competitors in the “race” for Raqqa: Sometimes they compete, sometimes they quietly cooperate, and just as often they ignore each other. The SDF are currently the closest to Raqqa – less than 20 kilometers in some places, according to US military officials – after advancing fairly quickly across barren, sparsely-populated plains. But they are yet to clear ISIS from the town of al-Tabqa, the site of an important dam on the Euphrates. The SDF has received substantial support from US-led coalition aircraft – with as many as 20 airstrikes a day around Raqqa recently, according to figures released by the coalition. Among the targets bombed were two bridges across the Euphrates River that were essential to ISIS’ mobility. Now it’s much more difficult for them to move in and out of their stronghold. In the words of US Central Command, “disabling the bridges will further isolate ISIL [another acronym for ISIS] fighters and they will have to take their chances with fighting and dying or surrendering to the SDF.” The SDF’s next goal is to cut ISIS’ communications between Raqqa and the town of Deir Ezzor to the east, which would make it much harder for the group to use the Syria-Iraq border. Related video US official: ISIS ranks reduced by 75% Coalition officials estimate the SDF can muster as many as 50,000 fighters in various states of readiness and ability. The Kurdish YPG are the most effective and numerous part of the SDF but in recent months the Arab contingent has grown to more than 20,000, of whom 13,000 have been vetted by the US military, which means they can receive training and weapons. US support for the SDF has grown to include additional Special Forces on the ground and the supply of a handful of armored vehicles. US military officials have insisted weapons are going to Arab factions and not the YPG, in an effort to assuage Turkey – which sees the YPG as linked to Kurdish militants inside Turkey. By contrast, Turkish-backed factions have struggled to eradicate stubborn ISIS resistance in and around al Bab further north and remain a long way from Raqqa. Syrian regime forces have tried to make progress towards the city, but twice have been beaten back. For a second time, ISIS captured the town of Palmyra, with its precious architectural heritage, in December. The Syrian army and supporting militia have been focused on taking and holding Aleppo and securing the main routes linking government-held territory. Raqqa is a mission too far at present, some 150 kilometers from the closest regime front line. Related video Turkey to US: 'Let's take Raqqa back together' Barring the complete (and unlikely) collapse of ISIS resistance, the final assault on Raqqa will be a street-by-street slog. It would be well beyond the capability of the Arab component of the SDF alone. It’s taken the Iraqi Army, with massive coalition air support, three months to take half of Mosul, whose civilians have been able to escape to established camps outside the city thanks to the deep presence of UN agencies. There is no such option around Raqqa, which could quickly become a humanitarian disaster. “It would probably take a major ground intervention by one of the main external players – the US, Turkey, or Russian and Iranian-backed Syrian government forces – to expel the Islamic State from Raqqa,” says IHS Janes analyst Columb Strack. The big question is which of these external players will step up and whether they will work together. US President Donald Trump has spoken several times of cooperating with Russia against ISIS in Syria, and in his phone call with President Vladimir Putin on January 28, the Kremlin said the two leaders agreed to “establish real coordination” against “terrorist groups” operating in Syria. The Trump administration is also moving to improve relations with Turkey, which were severely strained in the last few months of the Obama administration over its support for the Syrian Kurds, among other issues. Related video Plan to seize ISIS 'capital' Raqqa announced Trump and President Recep Tayyip Erdogan have spoken recently, and the semi-official Turkish news agency Anadolu reported that cooperation in evicting ISIS from al Bab and Raqqa was discussed. The White House readout was less specific. US defense officials have prepared a variety of options, including adding hundreds or even thousands of US ground forces to support (though not take part in) an attack on Raqqa. Another option would be to arm Kurdish fighters, though that would obviously anger Turkey. Erdogan reminded Trump of Turkey’s view of the YPG in their call, Anadolu reported. Some within the US military believe the injection of US ground forces is a risk too far. In his last interview as defense secretary, Ashton Carter told the Associated Press that more US troops would mean “fighting on the enemy’s terms, which is infantry fighting in towns in a foreign country.” As the battle space becomes more crowded and fluid, there is also the risk of mistakes. Russian planes killed three Turkish soldiers near al Bab this week. And Colonel John Dorrian, the coalition spokesman, noted the area was “becoming more complicated as the forces converge around al Bab, so we’ll maintain our de-confliction channel with the Russians.” The campaign for Raqqa will help shape the new US administration’s attitude towards military interventions overseas, its appetite for collaboration with Russia and its perspective on the future of Syria. There’s a lot at stake.


A flood of developments related to the Russia investigation on Thursday marked the latest news-packed day in Donald Trump’s presidency. Here’s a look at the biggest headlines from a whirlwind day. The Justice Department turned over to congressional committees redacted versions of the memos that James Comey wrote recounting his conversations with Trump when he was still FBI director. Comey revealed their existence during a Senate hearing last year but now lawmakers are finally able to view the closely guarded memos since the DOJ determined it won’t impact any ongoing investigation. The Comey memos, obtained by CNN, recount Trump’s “serious reservations” about then-national security adviser Michael Flynn, Trump’s concerns about media leaks, and Trump’s recollection of Russian President Vladimir Putin telling him that Russia had the “most beautiful hookers in the world.” The former New York City mayor, who is a former US attorney for the Southern District of New York, joined Trump’s personal legal team on a “limited” basis after the team struggled to find lawyers who are willing to defend the President in the Russia probe. Giuliani told CNN his intent is to help bring Mueller’s investigation to a conclusion, saying it “needs a little push.” He plans on getting a list from Mueller of what is needed to “comply” with the probe, and depending what’s on the list, quickly provide compliance, even as soon as “a couple of weeks.” The Justice Department’s inspector general referred his findings on former FBI Deputy Director Andrew McCabe – who, a recent report found, “lacked candor” with internal investigators – to the US attorney’s office in Washington to determine whether McCabe should be charged with a crime. McCabe’s attorney, Michael Bromwich, said he believes there will be no charges filed and that the referral was “unjustified.” Attorney General Jeff Sessions had cited the IG’s findings when he fired McCabe, the former No. 2 at the FBI, last month. In an interview with CNN’s Jake Tapper, Comey said he could “potentially” wind up being a witness against McCabe. “Given that the IG’s report reflects interactions that Andy McCabe had with me and other senior executives, I could well be a witness,” Comey told Tapper Thursday. The IG report found that MCcabe misled investigators who were looking into a leak to the press. McCabe has said he was in position to authorize FBI officials to provide information to The Wall Street Journal and that Comey was aware McCabe had done it. Comey, however, told internal investigators that he did not recall McCabe telling him about having authorized FBI officials to speak to the media. It was revealed Thursday that Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein had told Trump in a recent meeting that he’s not a target in the investigation into his personal lawyer Michael Cohen, a source familiar with the matter told CNN. The source noted that Rosenstein – who is in danger of being fired by the President – was not referring to Mueller’s investigation, though his team had also informed Trump’s legal team that the President is not considered a target in that probe. Trump’s personal lawyer Cohen dropped defamation lawsuits late Wednesday against Fusion GPS and BuzzFeed regarding the production and publication of the infamous Russia dossier. Cohen had sued Fusion GPS, the political research firm that contracted the dossier, and BuzzFeed, the media company that published it, separately in January. He had alleged that the dossier included false information about his family ties with Russians and a trip he took overseas, as well as damaged his professional reputation. By dropping the lawsuits, Cohen avoids turning over information about himself to the companies. During a court hearing Thursday in the case against Trump’s former campaign chairman Paul Manafort, the special counsel’s team indirectly pushed back against assertions that its investigation has gone rogue or corrupt. Manafort, who was indicted on money laundering and other charges, filed a lawsuit against Rosenstein and Mueller in January, alleging that the two have unlawfully exceeded the authorities allowed under the law governing special counsel appointments. The suit also challenges Mueller’s decision to charge Manafort with alleged crimes that they say have nothing to do with the 2016 campaign. Manafort has plead not guilty to the charges. Justice Department attorney Michael Dreeben argued Thursday that Rosenstein had discussed with Mueller what prosecutors should pursue in the Russia probe as early as last May, months before he wrote a classified memo in August that outlined Mueller’s directive. Rosenstein’s August 2 memo gives Mueller the green light to investigate Manafort for his lobbying work in Ukraine years before the campaign, allegations that Manafort colluded with Russians during the campaign, and several other still-undisclosed allegations that Mueller could investigate. CNN’s Pamela Brown, Laura Jarrett, Dana Bash, Sophie Tatum, Jim Acosta, Katelyn Polantz, Liz Stark and Eli Watkins contributed to this report.


Here’s how Hope Hicks explained her decision to resign as White House communications director, according to The New York Times’ Maggie Haberman, who broke the story: “She told colleagues that she had accomplished what she felt she could with a job that made her one of the most powerful people in Washington, and that there would never be a perfect moment to leave.” Ahem. Cough. Throat clear. Nervous looking around. Collar tug. Cough. So, no. Whatever the opposite of the perfect time to leave the White House is – the “imperfect time”? – this is it. Hicks is not only the third Trump White House communications director to resign in just over a year, but she also leaves: * One day after she spent hours testifying in front of the House Intelligence Committee regarding its investigation into Russia’s attempted meddling in the 2016 presidential election. In that testimony, Hicks acknowledged that she sometimes told white lies for Trump but insisted that she had never done so in regard to the Russia investigation. * Amid a security clearance crisis that caused White House staff secretary Rob Porter’s resignation. Porter, who was romantically involved with Hicks, stands accused of domestic abuse by both of his ex-wives. Those allegations, which Porter denied, had kept him from gaining a permanent security clearance. Which meant that Porter was operating with an interim clearance, despite handling oodles of top secret and classified information in his role as staff secretary. But, wait, there’s more! Hicks was deeply involved in the crafting of chief of staff John Kelly’s initial defense of Porter, despite her romantic ties to the now-former aide. * As tensions between Trump’s immediate family – Ivanka Trump and Jared Kushner, in particular – and Kelly boil over. The downgrading of Kushner’s security clearance by Kelly hamstrings the first son-in-law, whose portfolio includes negotiating Middle East peace and managing the US’s relationship with China (among many, many other things). * On the same day the President resumed his ad hominem smear campaign against his own attorney general and one day after CNN reported that special counsel Robert Mueller is taking a look at Trump’s finances in the run-up to his decision to run for president. Related article 16 insane things that happened in Trumpworld in just the last 48 hours Hicks’ departure is another major negative story amid that laundry list. Whatever you thought of her credentials to be the head of the White House’s communications operation – Hicks had little practical experience in dealing with the media – there is no debate that she was one of the few aides who Trump trusted totally. Hicks had been part of the original Trump campaign staff alongside the likes of Corey Lewandowski and Dan Scavino. She was with Trump before anyone even thought he had a chance. She believed in him when everyone else was laughing at him. And that sort of loyalty goes a very, very long way with Trump. “I don’t think it’s possible to overstate the significance and just the importance of her role within the White House,” one Trump ally told CNN’s Jeremy Diamond. “She’s an invaluable team member and one of the originals.” Remember that Trump tends to view the world in very stark terms: those who are loyal to him (very few people) and those who are out to get him (everyone else). Hicks was very much in the former category. “She is as smart and thoughtful as they come, a truly great person,” Trump said of Hicks in a statement released by the White House. Simply put: This is a White House in crisis. Hicks’ departure adds to that sense that the sky is falling around and on Trump. There’s no spin to put out that. You can’t polish a turd. And when you try to, it tends to get all over the place.


NEW: "A political solution to the crisis in Syria is more needed than ever," and commitment to Turkey is "rock solid," NATO chief says Syrian official: Russian strikes have "diminished the fighting capacity of ISIS and other terrorist groups" Russia says it fired 26 missiles from the Caspian Sea into Syria The Syrian regime, which had appeared earlier this year to be on the ropes, has “launched a wide-scale offensive,” a senior military official said Thursday. The aim is “eliminating the terrorist groups and liberating the areas and towns that have suffered from terrorism and its crime,” Gen. Ali Abdullah Ayyoub, the Syrian army chief of staff, said on state media, Ayyoub provided no details of the area in which the offensive is being launched or its size and scope. But he acknowledged the key role being played by Russia, which appears bent on supporting a Syrian regime that had been badly in need of help. “Following the Russian military airstrikes that diminished the fighting capacity of ISIS and other terrorist groups, the Syrian armed forces maintained their military initiative,” Ayyoub said. Russia has dramatically altered the balance of power in the Middle East with its robust intervention in the Syrian civil war. On Wednesday, it launched a naval bombardment  of ISIS targets in Syria, a senior Russian official said, ramping up its newly muscular presence in the Middle East. Four Russian ships fired 26 missiles into Syria, hitting 11 targets, Russian Defense Minister Sergei Shoigu told President Vladimir Putin during a televised meeting. Shoigu said the strikes were launched from the Caspian Sea using precise long-range missiles that flew 1,500 kilometers (930 miles) to their targets. Wednesday also appeared to mark new and closer military cooperation between Russia and the embattled Syrian regime of President Bashar al-Assad. Russia and Syria launched coordinated attacks on Islamist factions in towns in Hama and Idlib provinces in western Syria, with the Syrian shelling apparently conducted in concert with Russian airstrikes, according to an opposition group. Why are Russian airstrikes in Syria a big deal? The report appeared to offer fresh evidence that Russia’s primary goal is propping up al-Assad rather than fighting terrorism. Even as its ships and warplanes conducted fresh strikes, Russia said it was willing to cooperate with the United States in carrying out attacks in Syria. However, speaking to reporters in Rome, U.S. Defense Secretary Ashton Carter called the Russian campaign of airstrikes in Syria a “fundamental mistake.” He said the United States was not ready to cooperate with Russia on operations in Syria. The U.S. military recently had to divert an aircraft over Syria to ensure it could maintain a safe flying distance from a Russian fighter, a Pentagon representative said. Until the two countries agree on mutual flight safety rules in Syrian airspace, U.S. pilots are under orders to change their flight path if a Russian plane is within 20 nautical miles (37 kilometers), a senior defense official told CNN. Russian warplanes conducted heavy airstrikes Wednesday on Islamist factions, accompanied by shelling from government forces, according to the UK-based, anti-Assad Syrian Observatory for Human Rights. Related article War in Syria: Six graphics that explain the latest on the ground The head of the observatory said that there were no ISIS positions in the areas targeted and that fierce clashes were taking place on the ground between regime forces and their allies and armed Islamist rebel factions, including the Ahrar al-Sham and al Qaeda-affiliated al-Nusra Front. Wednesday’s clashes are the fiercest in the last month, the observatory said. Russia has said it is targeting ISIS, al-Nusra Front and “other terrorist groups” as recognized by the United Nations Security Council or Russian law. Syria’s ambassador to Russia, Riad Haddad, said Wednesday that around 40% of ISIS infrastructure had been destroyed since Moscow’s military operation began, Russia’s state-run Sputnik International reported. But Turkey, Syria’s neighbor to the north, cast fresh doubt Wednesday on whether Russia’s goal was to go after ISIS. A fraction – 3.5% – of Russia’s airstrikes in Syria so far have targeted the terror group, Turkish Prime Minister Ahmet Davutoglu said. On Thursday, NATO Secretary-General Jens Stoltenberg called recent violations of Turkish airspace unacceptable and said the alliance stood ready to help Turkey protect itself. Speaking after a meeting of NATO defense ministers in Brussels, Belgium, Stoltenberg said the alliance was in constant dialogue with Turkey, and its determination to help Turkey defend itself was “rock solid.” “A political solution to the crisis in Syria is more needed than ever,” he said. The U.S. Embassy in Syria also questioned Russia’s targets. “So what we’ve seen in initial airstrikes that Russia carried out beginning last week were primarily targeting places where ISIL wasn’t ensconced, didn’t exist, didn’t have a presence, and frankly it was where moderate Syrian opposition forces are generally located,” deputy spokesman Mark Toner told reporters Wednesday, referring to ISIS with another acronym. Related article How to defeat ISIS: 10 ideas 6 graphics that explain the latest on the war in Syria The developments came a day after Stoltenberg expressed alarm over how the Russian military had grown on several fronts in Syria, including boots on the ground. Russian planes have also incurred into Turkish airspace twice, he said. “It’s unacceptable, it’s dangerous, and it’s reckless behavior and it adds to the tensions,” he told CNN. Stoltenberg said he doubted that Russia was interested primarily in fighting ISIS. “I’m also concerned that Russia is not targeting ISIL but instead attacking the Syrian opposition and civilians,” he said. Related article Russia 'sent ground troops' The Pentagon shares those worries. The latest U.S. assessment indicates that Russia has moved ground combat weapons and troops to western Syria where anti-regime forces are, according to two American defense officials. The United States sees the move as Russia “stepping up its ground activity” in Syria to attack those forces, rather than ISIS elements, according to one of the officials. But Russian officials deny ramping up military activity. Officials quoted by state media said there would be no ground operation in Syria and – in contrast to what officials had said earlier – Russia would try to prevent any “volunteers” from going to Syria. Opinion: Putin’s Syria moves leave U.S. looking weak CNN’s Hala Gorani, Hamdi Alkhshali and Michael Martinez contributed to this report.