Tag: geopolitics

Posted on

531: INDIA IN THE CROSSROADS OF TRUMP 2.0

 

 

Pics courtesy Internet

 

My Article Published on The EurasianTimes Website on 07 Nov 24.

 

Donald Trump’s return will have many implications for India regarding economics, security, and global alignments. Trump is more of a businessman and generally favours bilateral trade deals over multilateral ones. He may advocate a more transactional approach in his second tenure, focusing on trade deficits. His previous administration’s tariff policies targeted many trading partners, including India, which saw increased duties on certain exports. India might face pressure to expand its markets to American goods, particularly in the agriculture, pharmaceuticals, and technology sectors. Trump’s previous immigration policies impacted the H-1B visa program, which disproportionately affected Indian workers in the tech sector. A return to these policies could limit Indian talent mobility, impacting both individuals and companies. India’s IT sector might find the U.S. less accessible for skilled migration, though Trump has sometimes indicated support for highly skilled immigration.

 

 

Security Repercussions for India

Trump’s “America First” approach sometimes means stepping back from global commitments, including military engagements abroad. If the U.S. were to reduce its military presence in Asia, this could shift greater responsibility to regional players. While India is enhancing its military capabilities, a significant U.S. pullback from the region could embolden China or other adversarial forces, increasing security pressure on India. India’s security landscape will be affected in several ways, especially concerning regional stability, defence partnerships, and counterterrorism.

 

Increased Demand for Strategic Alignment with the U.S. A Trump victory could mean heightened expectations for India to align with U.S. policies in the region, which could be at odds with India’s traditionally non-aligned stance. India might face pressure to take more decisive stances on issues like Taiwan, South China Sea disputes, and participation in regional blocs led by the U.S. India may have to weigh its economic and diplomatic ties with other countries, particularly Russia, against the U.S. demands for closer alignment.

 

China-India-U.S. Dynamics. Trump’s “Indo-Pacific” strategy strongly focuses on containing China, and a second term would likely deepen this agenda, intensifying U.S.-China competition. India would likely be asked to take a more assertive role in regional security, particularly in the Indian Ocean. While India could benefit from U.S. support in balancing China’s influence, it also risks being pulled into a more intense, potentially destabilising rivalry, which might strain its resources and complicate diplomatic relations with China.

 

Impact on the Quad Alliance. Trump has supported the Quad (U.S., India, Japan, and Australia), seeing it as a counterweight to China’s influence. His re-election could lead to an expanded Quad agenda, including more security collaboration in the Indian Ocean and South China Sea. This might benefit India’s strategic standing but could also draw it into more confrontation with China. The Quad’s increased visibility may create additional security risks, with China potentially reacting aggressively in the region, impacting India’s borders and maritime security.

 

Pakistan Policy. Trump previously adopted a tough stance on Pakistan, particularly regarding terrorism financing and harbouring militant groups that target Afghanistan and India. He may again apply pressure on Pakistan to dismantle terrorist networks. This would align with India’s security goals, potentially reducing cross-border terrorism. However, any diplomatic tension between the U.S. and Pakistan could destabilise, making Pakistan lean more heavily toward China and impacting India’s security environment.

 

Afghanistan’s Security Dynamics. Trump had strongly advocated withdrawing U.S. forces from Afghanistan. While a complete withdrawal has already taken place, his potential re-election could mean a lack of further U.S. engagement in Afghan stability, especially in containing Taliban and extremist groups. For India, this would mean facing an increasingly Taliban-influenced Afghanistan, leading to higher security risks, especially if terror groups resurge in the region.

 

 

Repercussions on Military Cooperation

Trump’s administration fostered strong defence cooperation with India as part of a broader Indo-Pacific strategy to counterbalance China’s growing influence. However, Trump’s unpredictable alliance approach could lead India to exercise caution. The repercussions on military cooperation between the U.S. and India could be multifaceted, introducing new strategic dynamics.

Strengthened Defence Partnership. Trump’s administration previously prioritised India as a significant defence partner within the Indo-Pacific framework. A second term could intensify military cooperation. India may receive advanced technology and intelligence sharing, and joint exercises could increase frequency and complexity. However, this could also increase India’s security obligations in the Indo-Pacific, putting it on the front lines of any U.S.-China friction in the region.

 

Enhanced Defence Technology and Arms Transfers. Under Trump, the U.S. could prioritise India as a key buyer of advanced defence equipment, including drones, anti-missile systems, and surveillance technology. India has acquired U.S. assets like C-17 heavy lift aircraft, C-130 Special operation aircraft, Apache attack helicopter, Chinook heavy lift helicopter, and P-8I Poseidon surveillance aircraft. A second Trump term might accelerate such sales, particularly if the U.S. encourages India to purchase high-tech systems that enhance its capabilities against China.

 

Military Modernisation. Trump’s administration previously pushed for arms deals with India, and a second term could further expand India’s access to U.S. military technology. This could accelerate India’s modernisation efforts, potentially providing advanced systems and technologies. Trump’s administration might push for more defence manufacturing in India through programs like “Make in India.” The U.S. could support joint ventures and technology transfers to Indian companies, allowing India to produce components of high-tech defence systems locally. While this would strengthen India’s defence manufacturing sector, there might be strings attached, with the U.S. expecting greater access to India’s defence markets and influence over India’s arms export policies.

 

Counterterrorism and Intelligence Sharing. Trump’s stance on counterterrorism aligns with India’s interests, and military cooperation could extend to enhanced intelligence-sharing agreements. The U.S. has been a critical partner in sharing counterterrorism intelligence with India, which helps prevent potential terrorist attacks. India’s counterterrorism efforts could be bolstered if Trump maintains or deepens intelligence sharing. However, if his administration decides to limit or privatise specific intelligence-sharing mechanisms, India might face challenges acquiring timely information.

 

Cyber security and Space Warfare Collaboration. Trump has shown interest in cyber defence and space as critical domains of warfare. Cooperation in these fields could deepen under his presidency, with the U.S. assisting India in building its space-based surveillance and cyber security capacities. This could help India counter cyber threats from adversaries like China and strengthen satellite surveillance of sensitive border areas. However, tighter coordination in these domains might push India further into the U.S. strategic orbit, affecting its autonomy in setting space and cyber policies.

 

Joint Military Exercises and Training. Military exercises like the Malabar naval drills have seen increased engagement from all Quad members (U.S., India, Japan, and Australia), aiming to boost interoperability among the forces. With Trump in office, India may face opportunities for more profound joint training and exercises, extending into new domains like cyber and space warfare.

 

Conclusion. Trump’s second tenure could bring some alignment on shared geopolitical interests but might introduce new uncertainties, especially in trade and immigration policies. It could deepen the relationship between the U.S. and India regarding strengthened defence cooperation and intelligence, enabling India to access advanced defence technologies and participate more actively in joint exercises. However, India might face growing expectations to align with U.S. policies in Asia, potentially narrowing its strategic autonomy and requiring it to manage and navigate a delicate and complex regional security landscape. India must weigh these factors carefully, balancing cooperation with the U.S. against its regional interests.

 

Your valuable comments are most welcome.

 

617
Default rating

Please give a thumbs up if you  like The Post?

 

For regular updates, please register your email here:-

Subscribe

 

 

References and credits

To all the online sites and channels.

 

Disclaimer:

Information and data included in the blog are for educational & non-commercial purposes only and have been carefully adapted, excerpted, or edited from reliable and accurate sources. All copyrighted material belongs to respective owners and is provided only for wider dissemination.

 

 

Posted on

515: KURSK INCURSION: TURNING THE TABLES

 

 

My OPED published on the EurAsian Times website on 30 Sep 24.

 

In an unexpected move, On Aug. 6, Ukraine surprised the world by launching a bold pre-emptive offensive attack into Russian territory. Reportedly, over 1000 Ukrainian troops, along with armour, crossed into Kursk Oblast, a Russian region that borders Ukraine to the southeast. Ukraine’s cross-border attack named “Operation Krepost” on Russia’s Kursk region is the most significant incursion by Ukrainian forces into Russian territory since the start of the war. In this operation, Ukraine claims to have seized over 1,000 square kilometres of territory and captured several settlements and hundreds of Russian soldiers. The Kursk attack is distinct in the scale of resources used by Ukraine and its highly secretive nature. The event represents a turning point in the war and global geopolitics, shifting the initiative temporarily from Moscow to Kyiv. It has sparked widespread debate, highlighting the conflict’s potential for escalation and geographical expansion and raising questions about the underlying objectives behind this move and its possible future repercussions.

 

Surprise, Shock and Awe. Any move into Russia required a surprise. The Ukrainian attack on Kursk was a stunning display of surprise in modern warfare. By employing a mix of operational secrecy, deception, and tactical manoeuvring, Ukraine managed to achieve a surprising advantage. Ukraine had been engaging Russian forces in the eastern regions around Toretsk and Pokrovsk, giving an impression that its primary focus remained there and diverting attention away from the northern border with Kursk. Ukraine also exploited the gaps in stretched-out Russian deployment by attacking an area with lesser defences. In contrast to previous minor ones with irregular forces, the sheer magnitude of the incursion misled Russian military planners, leaving them in shock and awe at the audacity of the Ukrainian troops. The plans were kept tightly under wraps, sharing them only with a tight group of generals and security officials. The attack was executed with remarkable speed and efficiency, limiting Russia’s ability to mobilise reserves and respond effectively in the early stages. This swift strike allowed Ukrainian forces to capture territory and establish control over critical areas before a complete Russian response could be coordinated.

 

Intentions and Objectives. Ukraine aimed to shift the momentum of the war by launching an offensive into Russian territory. Strategically, Ukraine aimed to divert Russian forces from other critical fronts, such as the eastern regions of Toretsk and Pokrovsk, where Russia had been advancing. While the complete success of this diversion is debated, Ukraine’s offensive has forced Russia to reassess its deployments and react to the threat. Ukraine’s objectives could also be to weaken Russia’s military capability, capture territory, and disrupt Russian supply lines. Some analysts also speculate that holding Russian territory might give Ukraine better leverage in peace negotiations in future. Besides, Ukraine needed to boost its morale after months of defensive operations. A successful offensive into Russia would showcase Ukrainian capabilities and counter Russian propaganda about an inevitable victory. These factors combined to encourage Ukraine to take the risk of crossing into Russia and launching the most significant cross-border attack of the war.

 

 

Effect on Russia. The Ukrainian attack on Kursk has had a significant effect on Russia, both militarily and politically. It has forced Russia to divert resources, exposed its military vulnerabilities, and increased internal political and psychological pressure. The Kursk Offensive has further stretched the already heavily engaged Russian military on multiple fronts, further complicating ongoing Russian offensive operations. Ukraine’s capture of territory in Kursk, including several settlements, is a blow to Russian morale and undermines the Russian invincibility. However, it has also significantly boosted Ukrainian morale, providing a much-needed psychological advantage. This also posed logistical challenges, as Ukrainian forces targeted vital supply lines and infrastructure. The Kursk attack is a psychological blow to the Russians, raising fears of further incursions and challenging the Kremlin’s portrayal of the war as distant from Russian territory. The shock of the incursion could also erode public support for the ongoing conflict as casualties rise and domestic security is threatened. The attack puts internal pressure on the Russian government.

 

Russian Response. Russian President Vladimir Putin called the incursion “a large-scale provocation” and responded by declaring an emergency, imposing heightened security measures in these areas and launching retaliatory counterattacks. Russia mobilised additional troops, mainly from regions close to Kursk, such as Belgorod and Bryansk, to stabilise the situation and prevent further Ukrainian advances. Russia escalated its aerial bombardments across Ukraine, focusing on critical infrastructure, military installations, and supply lines. These colossal airstrikes aimed to disrupt Ukraine’s operations and cripple its logistics. Several missiles (including Kinzhal, Kh-101 and Iskander missiles) and drones attacked 15 of Ukraine’s 24 regions.  Russia also deployed more drones and missile systems to target Ukrainian cities far from the front lines. Russia organised ground counteroffensives to reclaim the territory lost to Ukrainian forces in the Kursk region. These counterattacks aimed to regain control of settlements captured by Ukraine and reinforce border defences. Alongside traditional military responses, Russia reportedly increased cyber-attacks on Ukrainian infrastructure and government systems, aiming to weaken Ukraine’s command and control capabilities. Diplomatically, Russia described the Ukrainian attack as a significant provocation, with President Putin labelling it as part of Ukraine’s broader strategy to destabilise Russia. The Russian government used the Kursk attack to rally domestic support for the war effort and called on international partners to limit support for Ukraine.

 

Ukraine’s Supporters.  Several nations and organisations provided critical assistance to Ukraine. The U.S. is Ukraine’s most prominent supporter, providing billions in military aid, including advanced weaponry, intelligence, and training. The U.S. has supplied systems like HIMARS and air defence platforms, which are essential to Ukraine’s defence against Russian advances. Most NATO members, particularly those in Eastern Europe, like Poland, the Baltic States, and Romania, have provided substantial military aid, logistical support, and training. The European Union has also contributed financially, providing billions in aid packages. The U.K. has been a critical supporter, delivering advanced weapons systems and training Ukrainian forces. It has also played a significant diplomatic role, pushing for continued Western support for Ukraine. Canada has offered military and financial assistance to Ukraine, providing artillery systems, armoured vehicles, and drones. It has also imposed significant sanctions on Russia and supported diplomatic initiatives against the invasion. Western defence contractors, particularly from the U.S., have supplied Ukraine with essential technology and equipment. Civil society movements and non-governmental organisations in countries supporting Ukraine have also raised funds and provided humanitarian assistance. These state and non-state supporters have enabled Ukraine to continue resisting the Russian invasion, providing a vital backbone of military, economic, and diplomatic support.

 

Behind-the-scenes Support. In this instance, a debate has arisen about the direct or indirect involvement of the behind-the-scenes supporters. Washington says it was not informed about Ukraine’s plans ahead of its Aug. 6 incursion into Kursk. The United States has also said it did not take any part in the operation. Russia claims that the United States’ involvement in Ukraine’s incursion into Russia’s western Kursk region was “an obvious fact.” Russia also asserts that Western weaponry, including British tanks and U.S. rocket systems, have been used by Ukraine in Kursk. Media sources have reported that the United States and Britain have provided Ukraine with satellite imagery and other information about the Kursk region in the days after the Ukrainian attack. The intelligence was aimed at helping Ukraine keep better track of Russian reinforcements that might attack them or cut off their eventual withdrawal back to Ukraine.

 

 

Crystal Gazing. Ukraine’s advance into Kursk would culminate due to a combination of the Russian response, the number of casualties, and extended lines of communication. The Ukrainian army will probably be unable to hold all of the Russian territory it has advanced on. Kyiv is contemplating a longer-term occupation to use the land as a bargaining chip.  This will take a lot of Ukrainian resources, and enforcing a long-term occupation would depend on factors like Ukraine’s priorities, the availability and spare ability of resources, and the severity of the Russian response. The choices include consolidation on the captured terrain and partial or complete withdrawal. Partial withdrawal and consolidation seem to be the logical possibility.

 

The initial successes achieved by Kyiv in The Kursk attack have further intensified the war and raised questions about the future of the conflict. The Ukrainian offensive into Russian territory has had a profound impact on the course of the war. On one hand, it has boosted the morale of the Ukrainian army and sent a strong message to the West about Ukraine’s ability to take the offensive initiative. On the other hand, the offensive has elicited mixed reactions in Russia. The event has far-reaching repercussions on the entire war, further complicating the situation in the coming period. The war in Ukraine is a complex game, with many intertwined factors influencing the course of events. Both sides are undertaking concurrent campaigns that consume enormous resources (manpower, munitions, and supporting systems). Surge operations for short durations are possible, but sustaining them for long durations is doubtful. The future of this war mainly depends on the extent of continued Western military and political support to Ukraine.

 

Link to the Website:

https://www.eurasiantimes.com/operation-krepost-ukraines-awe-inspiring/

 

Suggestions and value additions are most welcome.

 

617
Default rating

Please give a thumbs up if you  like The Post?

 

For regular updates, please register here:-

Subscribe

 

References

  1. Basel Haj Jasem, “Kursk: A new chapter in the Ukraine war”, Daily Sabah, 27 Aug 2024.
  1. Anastasiia Lapatina, “Six Observations—and Open Questions—on

Ukraine’s Kursk Operation”, 15 Aug 2024.

  1. Deutsche Welle, “What is behind Ukraine’s Kursk operation in Russia?” The Indian Express, New Delhi, 11 Aug 24.
  1. “Moscow says US involvement in Ukrainian incursion into Russia’s Kursk is ‘an obvious fact’”, By Reuters, 27 Aug 24
  1. Mick Ryan, “The Kursk Offensive Dilemma”, Futura Doctrina, 19 Aug 24.

Credits

To all the online sites and channels.

Disclaimer:

Information and data included in the blog are for educational & non-commercial purposes only and have been carefully adapted, excerpted, or edited from reliable and accurate sources. All copyrighted material belongs to respective owners and is provided only for wider dissemination.

 

Posted on

512: PEACE AND SECURITY IN SOUTH ASIA: BANGLADESH AND MYANMAR

 

 

My Article published on IIRF (Indus International Research Foundation) site

 

South Asia is one of the world’s most populous and geopolitically significant regions. A complex web of ethnic, religious, political, and territorial disputes makes maintaining peace and security in the region a big challenge. Bangladesh and Myanmar, two key countries in this region, face specific regional stability challenges. These include ethnic conflicts, refugee crises, political instability, and militant threats. Both nations’ security dynamics also have wider implications for neighbouring countries, especially India, China, and Southeast Asia.

 

Critical Issues

 

Ethnic Conflicts and the Rohingya Crisis. Myanmar’s Rohingya Crisis has been one of the most significant security challenges in recent years. The Rohingya Muslim minority in Myanmar’s Rakhine State has faced decades of persecution, which culminated in a military crackdown in 2017 that was widely condemned as ethnic cleansing. Over 700,000 Rohingya fled to neighbouring Bangladesh, creating one of the largest refugee crises in recent history. Bangladesh provided temporary refuge in the Cox’s Bazar area. The strain on its resources, coupled with fears of radicalisation and the Rohingya population’s vulnerability, raised concerns over the long-term security and stability of the region. The inability to repatriate the Rohingya to Myanmar due to Myanmar’s refusal to guarantee safety, citizenship, or basic rights continues to fuel tensions.

 

Myanmar’s Political Instability and Civil War. Myanmar’s political situation worsened after the military coup in February 2021, which ousted the civilian government led by Aung San Suu Kyi and re-imposed military rule. The coup triggered widespread civil disobedience movements, violent military crackdowns, and growing armed resistance by ethnic militias and the newly formed People’s Defense Forces (PDF). The country is now in the grips of a low-intensity civil war, where several ethnic armed groups (Kachin, Karen, Shan, etc.) have intensified their fight for autonomy. The instability in Myanmar has made it a hotspot for human rights violations, arms smuggling, and cross-border tensions. The situation has created refugee flows into neighbouring countries, particularly Thailand and India, and has raised fears that Myanmar could become a haven for terrorist networks and drug trafficking.

 

Islamic Extremism and Terrorist Threats. Bangladesh has faced sporadic issues with Islamic extremism, with groups like Jamaat-ul-Mujahideen Bangladesh (JMB) and other more minor factions trying to radicalise youths. These groups have been responsible for attacks on secularists, bloggers, and foreigners, raising concerns about the growth of extremism in a relatively moderate Muslim-majority country. Although the Bangladeshi government had taken steps to curb militancy, the risk of radicalisation within specific sectors of society, particularly in refugee camps (housing the Rohingya), poses a long-term threat to regional security.

 

Border Management and Illegal Activities. Bangladesh-Myanmar border areas have been hotspots for illegal activities, including arms trafficking, human trafficking, and drug smuggling. The porous borders and the lack of effective governance in these areas complicate efforts to maintain peace and security. The spread of narcotics such as methamphetamines from Myanmar into Bangladesh and other neighbouring countries has become a severe issue, contributing to organised crime and funding insurgent groups.

 

Geopolitical Competition and Influence. South Asia is an arena for geopolitical competition between major powers like China, India, and the United States. All of these powers have interests in maintaining stability in the region but also pursue policies driven by strategic competition. China’s growing influence in Bangladesh and Myanmar complicates regional dynamics. Myanmar’s military regime has long had close ties with China, which provides diplomatic support and economic investments. Meanwhile, Bangladesh has also seen increased Chinese investment, primarily through the Belt and Road Initiative (BRI). India, which has historical and strategic ties with Bangladesh and shares a long border with both countries, seeks to counterbalance Chinese influence. India supports the return of democracy in Myanmar, but its ability to directly influence the political outcomes in either country remains limited. The United States has also increased its attention on South Asia as part of its Indo-Pacific strategy, which aims to contain China and promote democratic governance. Washington has imposed sanctions on Myanmar’s military leaders post-coup, but it is also seeking to strengthen ties with Bangladesh, particularly in areas of security cooperation and economic development.

 

Enhancing Peace and Security

 

 

Regional Cooperation and Multilateral Engagement. Addressing the interconnected security challenges in Bangladesh and Myanmar requires robust regional cooperation. Organisations like SAARC (South Asian Association for Regional Cooperation) and ASEAN (Association of Southeast Asian Nations) can play a role in conflict resolution, refugee management, and addressing cross-border threats such as terrorism and trafficking. ASEAN, of which Myanmar is a member, has struggled to mediate the crisis post-coup. However, ASEAN’s efforts to establish dialogue with Myanmar’s military and other stakeholders must be enhanced to prevent the country’s further isolation and encourage a peaceful resolution. Bangladesh can benefit from broader multilateral forums like BIMSTEC (Bay of Bengal Initiative for Multi-Sectoral Technical and Economic Cooperation), which includes Myanmar, to promote economic cooperation and discuss transnational security threats.

 

Resolving the Rohingya Crisis. The Rohingya refugee crisis is central to the peace and security dynamics between Bangladesh and Myanmar. Bangladesh’s diplomatic efforts to resolve the crisis should focus on resolving the issue through the United Nations, ASEAN, and bilateral talks with Myanmar. More significant international pressure on Myanmar is needed to ensure a safe and dignified repatriation process for the Rohingya. However, this will require Myanmar’s willingness to provide citizenship rights and security guarantees.

 

Combating Extremism and Transnational Terrorism. Bangladesh must continue its successful counter-terrorism initiatives, such as intelligence sharing, policing reform, and de-radicalisation programs, to mitigate the threat of extremism. Regional cooperation on counter-terrorism between Bangladesh, Myanmar, India, and other neighbouring states is crucial, especially in curbing cross-border terrorist movements and dismantling terrorist financing networks.

 

Political Stability and Democratic Transitions. Supporting democratic transitions in Myanmar is critical to long-term stability. Diplomatic efforts should bring various ethnic groups and political stakeholders, including the military and opposition groups, to the negotiating table for a political settlement. Bangladesh’s democratic institutions must be supported in maintaining the rule of law, good governance, and political inclusivity, as these are critical factors in preventing the growth of extremism and unrest.

 

Peace and security in Bangladesh and Myanmar remain precarious, influenced by internal political strife, ethnic conflicts, and cross-border security threats. The Rohingya crisis stands as a pivotal issue that affects both countries and needs a coordinated international response. Moreover, Myanmar’s internal conflict following the military coup has destabilised the region, raising fears of spillover effects, including refugee flows, terrorism, and illegal trafficking. Enhanced regional cooperation, international engagement, and sustained humanitarian support are essential in promoting stability in this part of South Asia. Bangladesh’s efforts in combating terrorism and maintaining political stability should be supported, while Myanmar requires a long-term strategy to achieve peace and move towards democratic governance. Without sustained international pressure and multilateral diplomacy, these challenges may continue to undermine the security of the entire region.

 

Suggestions and value additions are most welcome.

 

Link to the article:-

https://indusresearch.in/peace-and-security-in-south-asia-bangladesh-and-myanmar/

 

617
Default rating

Please give a thumbs up if you  like The Post?

 

For regular updates, please register here:-

Subscribe

 

 

References and credits

To all the online sites and channels.

References:

  1. “Khandakar Tahmid Rejwan”, Myanmar’s Civil War: Security Implications for Bangladesh, Stimson, 26 jun 24.

 

  1. Sreeparna Banerjee, “The Rohingya Crisis and its Impact on Bangladesh-Myanmar Relations, Issue Brief, Observer Research Foundation, 10 May 23.

 

  1. Sagarika Dutt, “Peace and Development in South Asia: Problems and Prospects”, Sage Journals. 02 Jan 24.

 

  1. Jubaida Auhana Faruque, “A Civil War in Myanmar, a Regional Threat to South Asia”, BIPSS, Jul 21.

 

  1. Prothom Alo, “Myanmar’s conflict and implications for Bangladesh and the region”, BIPSS Policy Circle, 22 Feb 24.

Disclaimer:

Information and data included in the blog are for educational & non-commercial purposes only and have been carefully adapted, excerpted, or edited from reliable and accurate sources. All copyrighted material belongs to respective owners and is provided only for wider dissemination.