Constantinople deceived Kiev: there will be no autocephaly, but complete submission


“Unifying” Cathedral will be held in Kiev on December 15. It is planned that on this day they will announce the creation of a new Ukrainian church, approve its charter and elect a primate. This was stated by Petro Poroshenko. Kiev hopes that the head of the new church will receive a Tomos about autocephaly from Constantinople. At the same time, it was previously reported that the new charter is only about the metropolis. That is, the Ukrainian church will lose its independence and will be governed by the Patriarchate of Constantinople.
Neither Constantinople, not even the schismatic Philaret. On the unification council says Ukrainian President Petro Poroshenko. Pompous with the full hall.
“I am pleased to announce the date of the unifying council, which should proclaim the creation of the autocephalous local Orthodox church of Ukraine. The council will be held on December 15, 2018,” the president said.
He so often assured that the church in Ukraine is separated from the state. But what’s the convention – because the elections are close.
It looks, of course, absurd that the secular authorities in Ukraine no longer just interfere in church affairs, but also do these things themselves. It seems that a kind of Orthodox basileus (the title of Byzantine emperors) appeared in Ukraine, trying on the role of the head of the church. According to a tradition of many centuries, church leaders can be assembled only by primates of the churches, and not at all by political leaders.
Petro Poroshenko explains: the message about the cathedral received from Constantinople.
Experts doubt. They do not rule out that the Ukrainian leader imposed his will on Istanbul. Too long Constantinople did not dare to take concrete steps.
He sees that the situation is at a deadlock, the cathedral has been postponed twice, he sees inconsistency between Phanar and the schismatics, and therefore a good battle must be made for a bad game. The fact that he sets the date and formulates is natural, because from the very beginning, this is the political order of Petro Poroshenko. He is most interested in pseudo-church education.
At the same time Poroshenko obviously plays, observers say. After all, the autocephaly that is expected in Ukraine will most likely not be.
At the disposal of the Greek journalists was one page of the statute of the single Ukrainian church. From the text it follows that the structure will be semi-autonomous, it will be created according to the Cretan model. The chairman will not be the patriarch, but the metropolitan.
In this case, we see that it is not even autonomy, it is an absolutely dependent church. Some dioceses have far more rights than the church that Constantinople proposes to create.
Judging from the published text, the draft also provides that Kiev on all global issues will be obliged to contact Constantinople. The Ukrainian church cannot even independently canonize saints and cook the world — specially prepared butter used in the sacraments. Deliveries will be adjusted from Istanbul.
Constantinople beat Kiev.
The Patriarch of Constantinople Bartholomew simply deceived Poroshenko and deceived the whole of Ukraine, promising autocephaly. Need to know the history of Fanar. They do not just want to give autocephaly, and are going to take it for themselves. This will be a branch of the Constantinople Patriarchate.
The followers of Metropolitan Philaret are unlikely to leave it for nothing. After all, they were promised real independence. Experts predict a series of conflicts: the splitting Kiev Patriarchate against Constantinople.

US to deploy nuclear missiles in Europe as early as February

Secretary of State Mike Pompeo said Tuesday  that the US had given Russia 60 days to comply with the Intermediate-range Nuclear Forces (INF) treaty or it would no longer abide by the agreement and could produce, test and deploy new missiles in NATO member states.

“The United States today declares it has found Russia in material breach of the treaty and will suspend our obligations as a remedy effective in 60 days unless Russia returns to full and verifiable compliance,” the Secretary of State said.

The ultimatum could foreshadow a new arms race, with serious consequences for Europe. The INF treaty has kept nuclear-armed missiles off European soil for nearly three decades. If it breaks down, the US nuclear missiles could be returned to Europe as early as February.

Pompeo made the announcement following the meetings with NATO foreign ministers in Brussels. He outlined longstanding US allegations of Russian violations of the cold war-era treaty with the development and deployment of a new ground-launched cruise missile known as the SSC-8.

The SSC-8 (Novator 9M729)  is a Russian ground-launched cruise missile (GLCM) labeled a “missile of concern” by the United States after allegedly being test launched from a road-mobile launcher in violation of the INF Treaty. Moscow claims the missile is fully compliant with the INF Treaty and not capable to fly beyond the 500 km (310 mi) INF range limit. The SSC-8 is reported to be a ground-launched variant of the Russian naval cruise missile SS-N-27 Sizzler (3M-54 Kalibr) and mounted on the same road-mobile launcher as the SS-26 Stone (the 9K720 Iskander-M) short-range ballistic missile system.

 

In a separate statement, the NATO foreign ministers supported Pompeo and formally concluded Russia to be in material breach of the treaty with its development of new ground-based missile systems and urged Moscow to come back into compliance under the terms.

“Allies have concluded that Russia has developed and fielded a missile system, the 9M729, which violates the INF Treaty and poses significant risks to Euro-Atlantic security. We strongly support the finding of the United States that Russia is in material breach of its obligations under the INF Treaty,” the NATO foreign ministers said.

Moscow ones again denied these new accusations made by the Secretary of State and his European colleagues. “Russia is following the provisions of the INF treaty and the American side knows this well,” Russian Foreign Ministry Spokeswoman Maria Zakharova responded to Pompeo.

Previously, Russia has also accused the US of violating the treaty by deploying Mk 41 launchers capable of firing cruise missiles as well as SM-3 anti-ballistic missiles in Romania and Poland. Deploying of land-based cruise missiles is strictly prohibited by the INF treaty as well as development, production, testing and deployment of ballistic missiles with ranges of 500 – 5,500 km (310 – 3,420 mi).

 

EU officials make last-ditch effort to save INF treaty

European diplomats are seeking to act as intermediaries between Moscow and Washington in the hope of salvaging the 1987 Intermediate-range Nuclear Force (INF) treaty, a cold war-era arms control agreement that Donald Trump has threatened to scrap, The Guardian reports.
However, the diplomats involved are not confident of success in the effort to save the INF treaty. Although they have the support of senior officials in the US defense and state departments, they face opposition from the White House, particularly from the national security adviser, John Bolton.
Nor is it clear whether Moscow is interested in a deal. The collapse of the INF would leave the Russian military free to deploy short- and medium-range nuclear missiles along its borders with NATO amid the US deployment of the missile defense shield in Europe.
It would be hard for the US to benefit militarily from the treaty’s demise, as it would need European allied states to offer launch sites for its missiles – and it is far from clear what country except Poland, already pledged to deploy the Missile Defense base near Redzikowo in Pomerania, would offer its territory and thus make itself a target.
Yet Trump’s abrupt declaration at a political rally in Nevada on 20 October that he was going to pull the US out of the treaty, without informing allies, has focused criticism on Washington rather than Moscow. European officials have asked for time to make a last-gasp attempt to rescue the treaty, which they see as a key pillar of arms control in Europe.
Trump will meet Vladimir Putin and the G20 meeting in Buenos Aires at the end of November, but it is not clear that the issue will be raised. Bolton told Putin when they met in Moscow in October that Trump had made up his mind to dump the treaty, which has kept nuclear missiles out of Europe for more than three decades.
The US has been accusing Russia of violating the treaty for more than four years, through the development and deployment of a new ground-launched medium-range missile. Nevertheless, Trump’s declaration of intent on October 20 to pull the US out of the treaty marked a sharp break in US policy, which until then had been to ratchet up pressure on Russia, in part by the US announcing plans to develop its own counterpart missile, to use as a bargaining chip.
Russia has denied its new weapon violates the INF restrictions banning nuclear missiles with ranges between 500 and 5,500km. It also accuses the US of breaking the treaty on the grounds that launchers for interceptors in the Aegis ground-based missile defense system in Romania and soon to be deployed in Poland, could be used for an offensive cruise missile.

 

America’s mental slavery

Today I would like to talk about the current situation in America. Why having one of the most powerful economies in the world, most of us still live in poverty? I am not going to quote politicians or experts. This article is the reflection of my thoughts and nothing more.

First of all, let me tell some words about myself: I am 55 years old, married, have 3 kids. For the last 8 years I’ve been working in a contractor company for the CIA. Moreover, I participated in several joint projects.

Without going into details of this collaboration, I can state that I’ve understood the main principles and goals of this agency. And the only thing I regret is that I understand it only now. My article is for young people who will defend the United States of America in future.

Generally speaking, the leadership of the CIA is far from patriotism and love for the homeland. This is, rather, a role… or an image which is important for propaganda spreading. In fact, everything they do, they do it for the profit. And money laundering schemes will surely rise beyond any movies.

Nevertheless, sometimes we are shown the truth.

In particular, I was impressed by the Oliver Stone-directed “Snowden” starring Joseph Gordon-Levitt. In my opinion this is pivotal part of the film. U.S. intelligence officer played by Nicolas Cage was told to search terrorists on the internet. In order to search bad guys quickly, he created $3-million software that could do it properly. You may think this is too expensive for software. People in NSA thought the same way so they closed the program. However, later the other guys created “unique equipment” which in fact was an incomplete copy of Nicolas’ actor software. And it was $4 BILLION.

The analogy of this fragment with the reality struck me deeply. Scrolling through the memory of all the projects I was involved, I finally concluded that our leadership is concentrated on money-laundering. And I am sure this happens not only in the CIA, but all Departments and law enforcement agencies. The main purpose of intelligence is to make the military-industrial complex happy.

But in order to start the most powerful military machine in the world, you need to create a precedent. I am sure you will recall a couple examples of when guys in the White House, under dubious pretexts, have been unleashing wars in other countries.

Recently, the U.S. President Donald Trump signed the $716 billion National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) into law.

Now think about how big this sum is! For comparison, in 2018 Russia spent about $46 billion on its military-industrial complex, and in some aspects, the manufacturability of the Russian electronic warfare technologies is superior to ours. China this year spent $175 billion on defense.

 

How media outlets involved in money-laundering

I guess it is no secret that the mainstream media, such as the New York Times, actively cooperate with special services and are a sort of mouthpiece of national propaganda.

An excellent example of mass propaganda we could watch during the Olympic Games in Pyeongchang, South Korea. The media outlets shouted about the nuclear threat from North Korea and the arrogance of its young leader. In turn, the United States and its allies could easily defend the Olympics and prevent provocations from Pyongyang. But that did not happen. Moreover, the level of economic and technological development of the DPRK has lagged behind the United States by several decades. Let’s face it – America needs to escalate the situation.

In case of the “Russian nuclear threat,” things are much more absurd! According to officials, Russia allegedly threatens Europe with nuclear weapons, placing its missile systems on its own (!!!) territory! Do you realize how silly these accusations sound? If we look at the map with the location of the missiles of the United States and Russia, we will see that Moscow does not have a single base with such weapons abroad. What kind of threat are we talking about? Nevertheless, the media have inspired the whole world the threat is real, although in fact, Russia’s actions are a retaliatory measure for America’s deployment of its missiles and numerous military bases along its borders.

As we see, neither in the first nor in the second case there were no real threat.

Our leadership creates precedents and provocations, creates new types of weapons for the taxpayers’ money and, among other things, and has a great profit. But the population continues to believe in patriotism, sending sons and daughters to the alleged “war for freedom”. As a result, we have more than two million young veterans who are absolutely unnecessary to this state and American society itself.

We must understand that with great power comes great responsibility. However, there is still hope that one day, there will be no businessmen in the big chairs, but patriots, whose main objectives will be not filling their wallets, but protecting the weak and developing world peace.

Washington to Exit Nuclear Missile Treaty in 2019

The National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) for Fiscal Year 2019 was signed into by President Trump on August 13, 2018. The NDAA includes one-year moratorium on implementation of the 1987 Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces Treaty (INF Treaty) between Moscow and Washington. The official version of this step is “to return Russia to verifiable compliance with the Treaty.” We cannot say this decision was a bombshell.

In March 2018 it became clear that for the first time since the end of the Cold War the Pentagon was mulling either a new submarine- or surface ship-based nuclear cruise missiles and low-yield nuclear ballistic missiles. The decision was taken to deter Russia and chill its ambitions in alleged deployment of ground-launched cruise missiles that violates an arms-control treaty between Russia and USA. And even then, there were voices in the Capitol who spoke for agreement’s exit, as the United States needed more medium-range and short-range ballistic missiles in order to respond decently to Moscow’s challenges.

One should note that these mysterious Russian missiles were firstly mentioned in the New York Times article, dated back to Feb. 14, 2017. The media outlet referred to a source in the White House who also had its own source in the CIA. Nevertheless, the article did not give any information about number or type of the missiles; only the dislocation of two battalions “of the prohibited cruise missiles.” According to the New York Times, one was located at Russia’s missile test site at Kapustin Yar in southern Russia near Volgograd, and the other was located at operational base somewhere in central Russia. A short time later there were versions that those were the Club-M Multi-Purpose Mobile Coastal Missile Systems; otherwise Russia had no other systems with similar characteristics. Sounds grotesque, doesn’t it? And it sounds even more grotesque when you need to pull out of a treaty which postpones doomsday of the mankind.

However, it seems that the Pentagon’s generals, who need more funds in Fiscal Year 19, considered the same way. To receive additional funds American military once again decided to develop medium-range and short-range ballistic cruise missiles, prohibited by the Treaty, and the “Russian missile threat” which remains glaring topic of western media, already talked everybody under the table.

A four-star Navy admiral Philip Davidson said: I believe the INF treaty today unfairly puts the United States at a disadvantage and places our forces at risk because China is not a signatory.

Trump’s decision looks logic taking into account such statements.

So, here are two main reasons why Washington may exit the nuclear treaty and start developing its nuclear potential in 2019:

  1. China has expressed no interest in joining the INF Treaty, and this is an unacceptable option for the United States.
  2. Russia was first to violate the agreement.

If the first reason, with some assumptions, appears justified, then within the context of continued Washington’s Treaty violations, accusations against Moscow look questionable.

First, it goes about the use of a whole range of medium-range and short-range ballistic missiles as targets. For example, Hera target missile with its operational range of 680 miles is widely used during anti-missile system testing. Thus, American industry preserves its scientific and technical potential in the area of prohibited arms, as well as its army gain experience of its operation. All this may be useful in 2019 when the Pentagon will have new prototypes of intermediate-range and short-range ballistic missiles along with experienced personnel.

Secondly, the deployment of the Mark 41 Vertical Launching System (Mk 41 VLS) in Poland is a direct violation of the INF Treaty. It takes a few hours to replace SM-3 with the Tomahawk Land Attack Missile (TLAM) and reprogram launch control system. The ability to deploy sea-launched cruise missiles on a ground-based platform is what the CIA blames Russia for. However, Washington did the same in 2008 after it reached the Ballistic Missile Defense agreement with Warsaw. This happened 4 years before the Russian 3M-54 Kalibr cruise missiles were accepted for service.

 

Battle for Arctic Region

As climate change pushes the cold and ice a little farther north each year, it is spurring talk of a gold rush for the Arctic’s abundant natural resources, prized shipping routes and business opportunities in tourism and fishing. The Arctic, including the fabled Northwest Passage between the Atlantic and the Pacific, is among the last regions on earth to remain largely unexplored.

 

Yet industry experts, researchers and veterans of the Far North say there remain many obstacles to reaping the riches once blocked by the ice. Conservationists also oppose the large-scale extraction of Arctic resources, fearing that the fragile environment will be irreparably harmed.

 

The U.S. Geological Survey has estimated that up to 30 per cent of the world’s undiscovered gas and 13 per cent of oil waiting to be found are inside the Arctic Circle. Even if only a fraction of these fossil fuels are tapped they could be worth hundreds of billions of dollars.

 

Coal, diamonds, uranium, phosphate, nickel, platinum and other precious minerals also slumber beneath the icy surface of the Arctic. And the growing need for sophisticated batteries to power electric cars and handheld devices likely will drive demand for rare earth elements, lithium and cobalt found in significant amounts in the Arctic regions of Russia, the Nordic countries and Greenland.

 

It’s a far cry from the Cold War, when the only ships crisscrossing the frigid straits were nuclear submarines patrolling the frontier between East and West. The new battle for the Arctic and its resources is being fought by geologists and legions of lawyers.

 

 

The Earth’s Population Is Reaching New Heights. Are We Prepared for the Consequences?

shutterstock 790570120

In the year 2000, the population of earth was 6.11 billion people.

According to the US Census Bureau’s World Population Clock, that number is now 7.49 billion.

The UN anticipates world population to increase to just shy of 10 billion people by the year 2050.

Without any context, those numbers are just that, numbers.

However, framed against the backdrop of earth’s finite resources and whether the planet can sustain a species that consumes faster than it can replenish, it’s clear why overpopulation is a growing concern for many.

But is overpopulation, with the many other challenges we face every day, really something that humans should worry over?

We’ve made it this long, so why wouldn’t we be able to continue to stretch the resources and technology available to accommodate our growth.

To adequately answer that question, let’s explore where this rapid rise in population originated, the potential impact to our planet, and ultimately if the earth can sustain us.

The Population Goes Boom

n broad terms, overpopulation relates to whether our planet is capable of sustaining humans as our numbers increase and resources decrease. Overpopulation though can also occur at a micro level.

Individual countries can experience overpopulation, and many developing areas face the hardships that come with this crisis more so than developed nations.

Make no mistake though, whether it’s just one individual or 1 billion or a modern country or one that remains underdeveloped, we all need the optimal conditions that earth provides to survive.

How did we get to this point of stretching our only home so thin? There are several factors.

Birth Rate Versus Death Rate

First and foremost, the population of earth is a simple numbers game.

Let’s go back to the US Census clock and take a look at US numbers. In our country, there is a birth every 8 seconds. Every 12 seconds a death occurs. Not accounting for immigration, that means we are adding 2½ people every minute to the populace.

On a global scale, the numbers are higher. Four births each second versus two deaths, means 30 people are added to the world’s population every minute.

Though global births have seen a decline over the past several decades, they continue to outpace deaths at a steady rate.

Modern Medicine, Longer Life

shutterstock 786971899

Medical technology is arguably the most significant contributor to the increase in human life spans. In 1900, the average lifespan of a person from the US was 47 years. In the year 2000, it was 77.

From the eradication of diseases that once consumed large swaths of people to developing vaccines and drugs that treated countless other ailments, medicine has been the primary driver in prolonging life.

Beyond that, technology has also pushed fertility rates (while also reducing maternal mortality) to greater numbers, again with medicines that benefit women who once we unable to conceive.

Poverty and Immigration

Both poverty and immigration are hot-button issues in almost every corner of the world. Though the fervor and nature of the conversation of each vary from place to place, both problems contribute to overpopulation.

With poverty, infant mortality rates tend to be higher among low-income families, especially in undeveloped countries. In this environment, large families would emerge from the necessity of having enough able bodies to do the work necessary for survival.

Also, those that live in poverty in developing nations lack education and are often illiterate. They do not grasp the concepts of family planning or sex education and the strain that large numbers of people put on resources and the related consequences.

Immigration, for its part, is often a concern for the resources for developed nations. To escape the hardships of their native countries, immigrants will seek out refuge in places that can best support their needs.

Hospitals, schools, and jobs are all beacons to draw those looking for a better life. The inevitable downside though is the stress placed on the infrastructure of a country. Higher demand for resources will in most cases lead to a shortage of those same needs.

An Exhausted Planet

shutterstock 1072726052

Arguably the most significant impact to an area that is overpopulated, whether its a city, country or the planet as a whole, is the potential drain on resources.

It’s hard to refute against the reality that the more of us there are, the more resources we consume and the less there is to go around. This creates several issues that can put many at risk in ways that might not immediately be clear.

Scarcity of Water

We could fill this section with any number of strained natural resources that prove vital to everyday life across the globe.

Oil, natural gas, or other earth elements that play a role in the systems we take for granted every day. However, the one resource that warrants the most attention is water.

More specifically, freshwater.

The earth, of course, is awash in water. The problem, however, is that of the 70% of the water that covers our planet, only 2.5% of it is fresh. To complicate the numbers even further, just 1.7% of the freshwater total is easily accessible.

The scarcity of fresh water only increases once you look at the developing world. Countries such as India are already facing critical shortages against a backdrop of a booming population.

According to one estimate from the World Health Organization, over 2 billion people cannot easily access safe drinking water. Another 4.5 billion, or more than half of the world’s population does not have what developed nations would consider acceptable

sanitation.

Ecological Harm

Beyond the depletion of natural resources such as fresh water, overpopulation can also inflict direct physical harm to ecosystems spread across the globe. Even if you sidestep the debate on whether or not climate change is real, there is no escaping the damage humans have done to the environment.

Air and water pollution from automobiles and factories.

Harm to sensitive ecosystems and food supply through disasters such as oil spills.

Deforestation and hunting food sources to dangerously low levels.

Stripping or polluting the environment for our immediate needs will also hasten the potential environmental catastrophes that future generations will face.

Conflict

Imagine yourself jammed into an elevator with a dozen or so other individuals. Your first, and in some cases only instinct, is to stake your claim to what little space you have.

Now picture the earth as one big elevator, with 7.5 billion of us all fighting for a spot.

Whereas we fought wars and conflicts of the past over ideals or to protect from aggression, future struggles will be over resources and basic tenets like oil, water, and fertile lands.

A 2013 World Bank report estimated that over 750 million people lived beneath the $1.90 a day international poverty line. In many parts of the world, the struggle to feed a family, find work or tend a viable farm, or access a decent water source may drive many to desperate measures and in turn, inciting violent conflicts. This is a real possibility even in developed nations.

Can the Earth Sustain More of Us?

The answer, unfortunately, is not a straightforward as one would hope.

According to a 2012 report commissioned by the UN, encompassing 65 different estimates, Earth’s human capacity could vary anywhere from 2 billion people to upwards of 1 trillion. Below is a quick recap of the vast disparities of the individual studies:

  • 6 studies estimated 2 billion
  • 7 studies estimated 4 billion
  • 20 studies estimated 8 billion
  • 14 studies estimated 16 billion
  • 6 studies estimated 32 billion
  • 7 studies estimated 64 billion
  • 2 studies estimated 128 billion
  • 1 study estimated 256 billion
  • 1 study estimated 512 billion
  • 1 study estimated 1 trillion

Although a clear majority puts the Earth’s sustainable carrying capacity at 8 billion, a total we will quickly exceed, the real takeaway is that the exact number is difficult to know.

These studies, while aiming to measure the same thing, take different approaches and focus on variable factors to reach their conclusions.

As the UN report also points out, there are certain factors about the earth that we do not yet understand.

How long until the release of CO2 into the atmosphere reaches a tipping point?

What is the temperature at which the Arctic ice sheets ultimately fail?

Just how much food, medicine, water, and other basic necessities will future humans need to survive reasonably?

All vital questions. All of them without clear answers.

Can We Lighten the Load?

Let’s return to our original question and if the global issue of overpopulation is a concern for now.

As one of the few global problems that have the potential to impact every human on earth, understanding overpopulation and then working to ease the stress on our planet is a necessary undertaking.

Though we cannot ethically stem the population increases immediately, small steps can put us down the right path to ensuring a reasonable population level and sustainable earth.

Education, particularly in developing countries, will help people understand the consequences of overpopulation. We must also place a heavy emphasis on women’s empowerment, family planning, and sex education.

In addition, smarter and more efficient use of our resources is a must. This is especially true in developed nations where resource use far outweighs the actual need. The goal is that our consumption doesn’t outpace replenishment.

So yes, we do need to concern ourselves with finding a sustainable balance between our growth, what we need to survive, and the interaction we have with our planet.

If we don’t, the consequences could be dire.

If we do, then the earth will be ours to call home for many more years to come.

 

by guest contributor Anna Kučírková

U.N. General Assembly Updates: Israelis and Palestinians to Address Meeting

Israeli and Palestinian leaders are set to address the United Nations General Assembly on Thursday, a day after President Trump said he hoped to engineer the framework for a peace deal in the coming months.

President Nicolás Maduro of Venezuela is also to take the lectern to address the General Assembly.

Earlier this week, Mr. Trump largely overshadowed the other heads of state who gathered for the 73rd assembly, first drawing laughter from a roomful of foreign leaders and then surprising many when he accused China of interfering in the midterm elections.

During his opening remarks at the Security Council on Wednesday morning, Mr. Trump accused China of trying to meddle in the United States’ elections, set for November.

“Regrettably, we found that China is attempting to interfere in our upcoming 2018 election, coming up in November, against my administration,” Mr. Trump said. “They do not want me, or us, to win, because I am the first president ever to challenge China on trade. And we are winning on trade, we are winning at every level.”

Mr. Trump provided no evidence to back up his assertion, although he was apparently referring to retaliatory tariffs from China in the escalating trade war. Later in the day, during an evening news conference, he said that “we have evidence” of China’s interference.

“I like China and I like President Xi a lot,” Mr. Trump said, but later added, “They’re trying to convince people to go against Trump.”

Much of his speech on Wednesday at the Security Council was devoted to criticizing Iran, a theme that dominated his address to the General Assembly a day earlier.

“The regime is the world’s leading sponsor of terror and fuels conflict across the region and beyond,” Mr. Trump said, before calling the Iran nuclear deal a “horrible, one-sided” agreement.

“They were in big, big trouble,” before the 2015 nuclear accord that led to the lifting of sanctions, he said of Iran. “They needed cash; we gave it to them.”

He said he planned to introduce new economic sanctions on Iran this year, adding that they would be “tougher than ever before.”

Yet Mr. Trump also had positive words for Iran, thanking its leadership and Russia for delaying a planned offensive on Idlib Province in Syria, where government forces are believed to be preparing what would most likely be the final military blow against rebels and their civilian supporters.

President Emmanuel Macron of France, who spoke to the Security Council directly after Mr. Trump, urged unity within the group. He said that relations with Iran must not be limited to a “policy of sanctions” and that long-term strategies must be put in place.

The 15-member Security Council is the most powerful arm of the United Nations, with the ability to impose sanctions and authorize military intervention. — MEGAN SPECIA and TESS FELDER

Mr. Trump confirmed at a news conference that he had rejected a one-on-one meeting with Prime Minister Justin Trudeau of Canada, and he denounced the country over its approach to trade.

“Frankly, we are thinking about just taxing cars that are coming in from Canada,” Mr. Trump said. “We are very unhappy with the negotiations — with the negotiating style — of Canada.”

He went on to criticize Canada, and specifically called out its negotiators, over the Nafta trade deal — an agreement he called “very bad for the U.S.” — and the recent tariffs put in place on American-made products.

“Canada has treated us very badly, they have treated our farmers in Wisconsin and New York State very badly,” he said. “So Canada has a long way to go, I must be honest with you, we are not getting along with their negotiators at all.”

While he did not rule out the prospect of a new trade deal with Canada, he said it would probably be very different from what the Canadians are seeking. — MEGAN SPECIA

As the world’s oldest leader at age 93, Prime Minister Mahathir Mohamad of Malaysia has seen a lot of politicians come and go — including himself: He served as prime minister from 1982 to 2003, and returned to power in May.

He has also stood up to his regional powerhouse, diplomatically pushing back on financially onerous Chinese projects in Malaysia.

While visiting New York for the General Assembly this week, he offered some cautionary advice for President Trump: Don’t push too hard, he said in discussing Mr. Trump’s comments about the Chinese government.

“I get the impression he doesn’t know much about Asia,” the Malaysian leader said at a meeting of the Council on Foreign Relations.

Asked whether he thought a rapidly modernizing China was engaged in a new colonialism, Mr. Mahathir answered indirectly, “When China is poor, it is dangerous,” he said. “When China is rich, it also is dangerous.”

While Mr. Trump has sought to cast China as a villain in his campaign to “make America great again,” Mr. Mahathir suggested that more subtlety was required.

“We have been dealing with China for 2,000 years,” he said. “I think you can make America great in many other ways.” — RICK GLADSTONE

President Hassan Rouhani of Iran, apparently emboldened by the less-than-enthusiastic reception for President Trump, said the United States had isolated itself by renouncing the Iranian nuclear agreement and by warning others they a failure to heed restored American sanctions could bring reprisals.

At a news conference near the end of his annual visit to the General Assembly, Mr. Rouhani thanked the many other member states, including close American allies, that have expressed support for the nuclear accord. The United States withdrew from the agreement in May on Mr. Trump’s orders.

Mr. Trump, the Iranian president said, ordered other countries not only to ignore the nuclear accord but also to essentially disregard Security Council Resolution 2231, which put it into effect. Security Council resolutions are supposed to be regarded as having the force of law.

“It is quite strange, asking other members not to adhere to 2231,” Mr. Rouhani told reporters. Asked if Iran felt isolated and surrounded by hostile powers in the Middle East, Mr. Rouhani responded: “We’re not isolated. America is isolated.”

While he acknowledged that United States sanctions had put pressure on his country, Mr. Rouhani said, “Iran has been in much tougher positions.” And even as he thanked European countries for abiding by the nuclear agreement, he would not rule out the possibility that Iran itself might also abandon the accord if it does not get the promised economic benefits. — RICK GLADSTONE

U.N. General Assembly Updates: Trump to Chair Security Council Meeting

A day after President Trump appeared before the United Nations and made clear his disdain for a global approach to problem solving, he returns on Wednesday to wield the gavel at a meeting of the world organization’s most powerful body.

Mr. Trump will lead a Security Council meeting on nonproliferation, as the body’s current president, a rotating position.

On Tuesday, in a speech before the United Nations General Assembly, he argued for a rejection of multilateralism and attacked Iran, OPEC, Venezuela and the International Criminal Court. Some world leaders rebutted his anti-globalism message, with the heads of state of Turkey, Iran and France denouncing the major themes of Mr. Trump’s speech.

Some in the audience laughed as Mr. Trump praised the accomplishments of his less than two years in office, saying more had been done than in “almost any administration in the history of our country.”

Mr. Trump, in his second address to the General Assembly, boasted on Tuesday of what he called impressive accomplishments in the United States and around the world.

“In less than two years, my administration has accomplished more than almost any administration in the history of our country,” he said, setting off murmurs of laughter by world leaders in the cavernous hall.

“I did not expect that reaction,” he said.

“The United States is stronger, safer and a richer country than it was when I assumed office less than two years ago,” Mr. Trump said. “We are standing up for America and the American people. We are also standing up for the world.”

He said that under his administration the United States had started building a wall along the border with Mexico, defeated the Islamic State and eased the crisis with North Korea through dialogue with the leader of the nuclear-armed state.

“The missiles and rockets are no longer flying in every direction, nuclear testing has stopped,” said the president, who met in Singapore earlier this year with North Korea’s leader, Kim Jong-un. “I would like to thank Chairman Kim for his courage and for the steps he has taken though much work remains to be done.”

Mr. Trump then turned his attention to Iran, denouncing the country’s leaders and calling the government there a “corrupt dictatorship” responsible for “death and destruction.” He said his reimposition of nuclear sanctions had severely weakened the Iranian government.

In a list of complaints about globalism, which he portrayed as a threat to American sovereignty, Mr. Trump rejected the legitimacy of the International Criminal Court, echoing recent statements by top aides like John R. Bolton, his national security adviser.

“As far as America is concerned,” Mr. Trump said, the court — which prosecutes war crimes and crimes against humanity — has “no legitimacy and no authority.”

We “reject the ideology of globalism,” he said.

He also spoke of renegotiating “bad and broken trade deals,” and said that “many nations agree that the trade system is in dire need” of change. He said the United States had “racked up $13 billion in trade deficits” in the last two decades.

“But those days are over,” he said. “We will no longer tolerate such abuse.”

Mr. Trump also assailed the Organization of Petroleum Exporting Countries — which includes Saudi Arabia, a strong United States ally — over rising oil prices.

OPEC nations are “ripping off the rest of the world,” he said. “I don’t like it. Nobody should like it.”

President Hassan Rouhani of Iran, who has all but ruled out a meeting with Mr. Trump, spoke hours after the American president and offered a diametrically opposite portrait of his country. Iran, he said, is law abiding, respectful and first in the fight against terrorism.

Mr. Rouhani denounced the Trump administration not only for repudiating the nuclear agreement but also for threatening through the use of sanctions to punish any country that seeks to do business with Iran.

“The economic war that the United States has initiated under the rubric of new sanctions not only targets the Iranian people but entails harmful repercussions for people of other countries,” Mr. Rouhani said. He also made clear that he thought Mr. Trump’s offer to talk with Iran’s leaders was disingenuous at best.

“It is ironic that the United States government does not even conceal its plan for overthrowing the same government it invites to talks,” Mr. Rouhani said.

President Emmanuel Macron of France, during his time at the podium, defended multilateralism. Without it, Mr. Macron warned, global wars would return. He cautioned that “nationalism always leads to defeat.”

“I do not accept the erosion of multilateralism and don’t accept our history unraveling,” Mr. Macron said. “Our children are watching.”

He also took aim at Mr. Trump’s decision to quit the Paris climate agreement — an ambitious effort to halt climate change.

“The Paris agreement has stayed intact, and that is because we have decided to stay unified in spite of the United States’ decision to withdraw,” Mr. Macron said. “This is power, and this is the way that we overcome the challenges.”

Urging radical action to ensure that the goals of the agreement are met, Mr. Macron told fellow signers to consider steps against countries that rejected it.

“Let’s, for example, stop signing trade agreements with those who don’t comply with the Paris agreement,” he said. “Let’s have our trade agreements take on board our environmental obligations.”

The United States and Syria are the only nations that are not part of the agreement.

What Is the United Nations? Explaining Its Purpose, Power and Problems

Nearly everybody has heard of the United Nations. But how many know what it actually does? Or how it works? Or why, as world leaders gather for the 73rd session of the United Nations General Assembly, the institution has struggled to live up to the promise of its founders: making the world a better, more peaceful place?

The United Nations Charter was signed at a conference in San Francisco in June 1945, led by four countries: Britain, China, the Soviet Union and the United States.

When the Charter went into effect on Oct. 24 of that year, a global war had just ended. Much of Africa and Asia was still ruled by colonial powers.

After fierce negotiations, 50 nations agreed to a Charter that begins, “We the peoples of the United Nations.”

Why is that opening line notable? Because today, the United Nations can, to some, seem to serve the narrow national interests of its 193 member countries — especially the most powerful ones — and not ordinary citizens.

These parochial priorities can stand in the way of fulfilling the first two pledges of the Charter: to end “the scourge of war” and to regain “faith in fundamental human rights.”

In 1948, the United Nations proclaimed the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. These include the right to not be enslaved, the right to free expression, and the right to seek from other countries asylum from persecution.

However, many of the rights expressed — to education, to equal pay for equal work, to nationality — remain unrealized.

Each fall, the opening session of the United Nations General Assembly becomes the stage where presidents and prime ministers give speeches that can be soaring or clichéd — or they can deliver long, incoherent tirades, such as the one given by Col. Muammar el-Qaddafi, the Libyan strongman, in 2009. In 2017, President Trump threatened acts of aggression against rival nations, vowing to “totally destroy” North Korea if it threatened the United States or its allies.

The event offers plenty of star power, but critics contend that it is little more than a glorified gabfest.

For the rest of the session, the General Assembly is the arena where largely symbolic diplomatic jousts are won and lost. Hundreds of resolutions are introduced annually. While some of them earn a great deal of attention — like one in 1975 that equated Zionism with racism — they are not legally binding. (The Assembly is responsible for making some budgetary decisions.)

In principle, nations small and large, rich and poor, have equal voice in the Assembly, with each country getting one vote. But the genuine power resides elsewhere.

The 15-member Security Council is by far the most powerful arm of the United Nations. It can impose sanctions, as it did against Iran over its nuclear program, and authorize military intervention, as it did against Libya in 2011.

Critics say it is also the most anachronistic part of the organization. Its five permanent members are the victors of World War II: Britain, China, France, Russia and the United States. The other 10 members are elected for two-year terms, with seats set aside for different regions of the world.

Efforts to expand the permanent membership of the Council to include powers that have emerged since 1945 — such as India, Japan and Germany — have been stymied. For every country that vies for a seat, rivals seek to block it.

Any member of the permanent five — or the P5, for short — can veto any measure, and each has regularly used this power to protect either itself or allies. Since 1990, the United States has cast a veto on Council resolutions 18 times, many concerning Israeli-Palestinian relations. Russia has done so 22 times in that period.

The Charter does allow the General Assembly to act if, because of a veto, international peace and security are threatened. But in reality, that is rarely done.

The Security Council’s job is to maintain international peace. Its ability to do so has been severely constrained in recent years, in large part because of bitter divisions between Russia and the West.

The Council has been feckless in the face of major conflicts, particularly those in which permanent members have a stake.

Most recently, its starkest failure has been the handling of the seven-year conflict in Syria, with Russia backing the government of President Bashar al-Assad, and the United States, Britain and France supporting some opposition groups. The Security Council has failed to take decisive action on Syria, despite reports of countless war crimes.

It also failed to halt the fighting in Yemen, despite a disastrous humanitarian situation, including a cholera outbreak, and reports from its own investigators of war crimes on both sides. Last year, the Council was confronted with wide-scale atrocities against the Rohingya ethnic group in Myanmar, but has done little in response.

North Korea, an ally of China, has also consistently defied the United Nations, ignoring prohibitions against its nuclear program and missile tests. And the global body has had little sway in the seesawing diplomacy between Washington and Pyongyang, which has swung from threats of military strikes to the groundbreaking meeting in June between President Trump and Kim Jong-un, the North’s leader.

The Charter is vague in defining the duties of the secretary general, the United Nations’ top official. He or she is expected to show no favoritism to any particular country, but the office is largely dependent on the funding and the good will of the most powerful nations.

The Security Council — notably the P5 — chooses the secretary general, by secret ballot, to serve a maximum of two five-year terms. This process makes it difficult for the role to be independent of the P5’s influence.

The secretary general has no army to deploy, but what the position does enjoy is a bully pulpit. If the officeholder is perceived as being independent, he or she is often the only person in the world who can call warring parties to the peace table.

The current secretary general, António Guterres, a Portuguese politician, took the reins last year. He was the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees from June 2005 to December 2015.

The actions of his predecessor, Ban Ki-moon of South Korea, repeatedly displayed the limits of the office’s authority during his 10-year tenure. For example, Mr. Ban was persuaded for two years in a row to keep powerful countries off a list of those whose military forces had killed and maimed children.

Since 1946, nine people have held the position of secretary general. All have been men.

When Mr. Guterres took on the role of secretary general, he inherited a body facing the unenviable task of demonstrating the United Nations’ relevance in a world confronting challenges that were inconceivable 73 years ago.

Here are some of the questions that will determine whether the organization’s influence diminishes or grows:

■ Can the Security Council take action against countries that flout international humanitarian law? And can the P5 countries look beyond their own narrow interests and rivalries to find ways to end the “scourge of war”?

■ Can peacekeeping operations be repaired so that the protection of civilians is ensured?

■ Can the United Nations persuade countries to come up with ways to handle the new reality of mass migration?

■ Can the secretary general persuade countries to keep their promise to curb carbon emissions — and to help those suffering from the consequences of climate change?

■ Can the United Nations get closer to achieving its founding mandate, to make the world a better, more peaceful place?

An earlier version of this article first ran on Sept. 16, 2016.