Good morning.
This morning, one more mom appeared towards the top of a major newspaper that was a witness of her family's destruction. Looking everyone in the eye. What was behind hers told many stories. 
One of them was, if it doesn't stop now, the situation might go on for the next hundred or 200 ideas.

When Putin set before his audience a proclamation several years ago, that military activities upon Ukraine were a paraphrased and translated necessary strategy, was or is ongoing scarring indelibly of principally the same people in a many aspects, also in what might be referred to as the vision?

Here's the thing about visions, strategies, and plans, -very often, plans don't go as planned.

Somewhere between the thought not to plagerize the referent over a century old paper, and getting a stronger idea of what is going on to confirm a very strong sense that there is a major problem, 'faces of mothers of victims' in the Russia Ukraine situation, as in from the 'invasion' a few years ago to the present, pictures come up in frameworks such as 'Kharkiv's hospitals reveal the hideous cost....invasion'. 

I'm not even in the region, and saw just a few pictures for a few minutes, and it's already at the stopping point where I could run the risk of putting psychological damage  if I research any further. Now contrast that to those affected in the region.

Way, way over threshold of what is acceptable.

It's being looked at. Digging deeper and deeper trying to get to the bottom of it. It might take years of digging; some of the issues were present before Volker Turk, about age 61, UN High Commissioner for Human Rights, was here, and strongly possible as well others interfacing the UN circles, and people reporting on the situation.

Dan Negrea, who led the referent walk-out, defected from then 'communist' Romania and sought asylum in the US, back in the 70s, his age estimated in the early 70s.
The UN basically came into existence in mid 1945, preceding Mr Negrea by just a few years, but both were in relative infancy at about the same time.

July 1946, was the King David Hotel bombing.

May 1948, Israel proclaimed. POTUS Truman is said to have concurred.

The UN flag-stand is supposed to be making sure that human rights is seen to, for everywhere.

In the last couple of years, among the world's most salient ongoing events have been Russia's actions on Ukraine, Israel actions on Gaza and Lebanon. More recently, US action on Iran, no strikes reported though the past couple of days.

Vote time on Volker Turk, from Austria, although the name implies Turk, the end of the day that is the name he is at least using, -vote time, and among the countries not voting for him to have a second term, are US, Israel, and Russia.

Some folks on earth don't care about what goes on inside the shell of the UN, as the results of what come outside that shell are what they are regardless.

Russia was considered one of the pillar points of communism for a while, especially after Bolshevik developments around early 1900. Although things supposedly changed at the historic level in late Gorbachev era, some ripple effects of communism still remain. For example, there is a prominent communist party in Russia still today.

Apparently, the tipping point prompting the walk-out was something the France delegation said about the US.

France has shown recently they are making strong presence on human right and fairness.

Aside from going into the science and logic of the walk-out, the Turk revote, all of it may have some viability questions by some readers, important is the concept of keeping as many friends as possible, especially advanced nations. The reasons standard obvious, such as strength in unity.

People know about the past of France, such as occupations; they were in the US a couple of hundred years ago.

Painting kettle with different complicated tricks from years back, in potential perspectives.


Afterword:
It won't be surprising that all nations involved in the moment of the walkout have some in-house sessions about where going, and trying to go.

Thematic, sensitivity to disintegration; word forms, disintegration, and thereunto.

Over the past few days, tensions toppled over in the region. Among the incidents, 2 masajid (mosques) were heavily damaged due to fire. Key points in the issue seem to centered on settlers and settlement, and discomfort with policies.

Shipwreck last week, healthcare system fledgling, buildings thrashed, fighting, and more.

This summary for now.

In the news today 7/23, Al Jazeera runs story that says 'Trump says Saudi nuclear pact hinges on kingdom joining Abraham Accords'.

What are some of the components that lead up to feelings of a mixed vibe?

Here are a few, ones that are historical facts:

Nuclear as a science now is becoming a smaller and smaller component of the larger picture of energy related technology. Today, there are for instance nanotechnologies, laser and light technologies, AI (artificial intelligence), huge arrays of solar technologies, to name a few. So why (today) harp on a simplistic fulcrum of nuclear related subject, whereat it may have become a go-to mainstay in policy and defense arenas?

That nuclear technology has many different areas, is already in consideration in this discussion.

Saudi Arabia is about as far as one can go in meeting the criteria of being the cradle of the cradle of civilization in certain aspects. In Saudi are 2 of 3 holiest sites of the Muslim World. In older days, when protection strategies involved a lot of horizontal plane defense, such as keeping makes of distance from potential attackers, inherently the strategies proved for the most part viable, as attack methodologies were often based on ground movements, soldiers marching, maybe with some archery involved.
When airplanes came along, the strategy of distance for defense still had some impact, but obviously with the potentiality of airspace being violated, vulnerability can be about as wide as the vulnerable air space will let it.

Long range missiles and drones that can change course during flight and pinpoint targets the size of an eye of a needle, has changed the defense dynamic.

It just so happens that there have been a number of who-thought-it-would-ever-happen, a break from the 'pacts of expectation', the hearts and minds of the Arab people, moreover, psychology of the Arab World, a number aerial weapons being deployed all over the Middle East in about the last year.

Meanwhile is tension between Saudi and Yemen Houthis at whatever degree at whatever moment.

Altogether, numerous weaponry has been in the skies in the past several years, moreso the past year,  at a very uncomfortable distance to the said 2 holy sites.

The second point, is historically, Iran and Iraq got into some tensions, just a few seasons after Ayatollah Khomeini took power, which was a 'shocker' in some ways to many, especially in the aspect of 2 'Muslim countries' combatting one another.
In the timeline, Israel's Menachem Begin proposed to the US the idea of supplementing nuclear arms, in brief words, to Iran,  respective the Iran-Iraq situation.

There have been a number of it was once on the up, then went down, relations, between nations in the Middle East and the US.
The US was once a proponent of Iraq, reference Baath Party, Saddam Hussein, etc, then later war broke out, post 'invasion of Kuwait' for reference frame.
Syria, he US was once a proponent of the Asad regime, towards the waning of it, just several years ago, many voices in US government weren't raving about it. There may have been reasons for that, however, this discussion is to illustrate the roller coaster ride of relations.

There are high policy seats in the US that are and or were proponents of dismantling nuclear capabilities of Iran, markedly over the last year.

At this time, it's pretty clear that basically the final geo-political border that surrounds the 2 holy sites, working outward to inward, is the one the sites sit in.

The idea of potentiality of ups and downs in relations, is already present, already illustrated, and amplified with intensified relations along with concerns about it, with the advent of subjects nuclear.


The old saying, you see where this conversation is going.

Another historical ray, is the normalisation of relations concept. The relations respective Egypt, to all nations in the Middle East, since Anwar Sadat. What was normal and to who? Tensions over Sinai Peninsula, peace accords, resumption of ties yo other consortiums in the Middle East post Sadat.

Abraham Accords, may be thorny subject matter, if that's the caveat to nuclear relations, programs and development.