The Islamic State (ISIS) released a video released Saturday in which its Japanese hostage Kenji Goto Jogo says the terrorist group is willing to trade his life for a Jordanian prisoner, Sajida al-Rishawi.

Previously, the group asked for $100 million each for Goto and Haruna Yukawa, a second Japanese hostage. After the ransom was not delivered, ISIS beheaded Yukawa and changed its demands to focus on al-Rishawi’s release.

“They no longer want money. So you don't need to worry about funding terrorists. They are just demanding the release of their imprisoned sister Sajida al-Rishawi. It is simple. You give them Sajida and I will be released,” Goto said in Saturday’s video, noting Japanese representatives were currently in Jordan. “You bring them their sister from the Jordanian regime and I will be released immediately. Me for her.”

The woman ISIS is seeking is a would-be suicide bomber. In 2005, al-Rishawi and her husband attacked a Radisson hotel in Jordan, but only his explosives detonated. After her explosives failed, she fled with the crowd but was later arrested. Following a televised confession, in which she claimed her husband was the mastermind of the double suicide bombing plan, she was sentenced to death.

A video grab image shows Sajida al-Rishawi who confessed on Jordanian TV to trying to blow herself up at a hotel in Amman. Reuters

A potentially “crippling” and “historic” blizzard is headed toward the Northeast, according to a warning issued by the National Weather Service.

A variety of warnings were issued between Maine and Indiana, with some of the harshest storms predicted to be in New England. New York City and its surrounding suburbs may face 20 to 30 inches of snow between Monday afternoon and midnight. The weather warnings affect more than 60 million Americans.

Here's the National Weather Service snow map at this moment... pic.twitter.com/iEFu0K7DQH

— Harry Enten (@ForecasterEnten) January 25, 2015

Clipper will bring #snow to Ohio Valley, lower Great Lakes and northern mid-Atlantic Sun/Mon. http://t.co/Encl3uyc2spic.twitter.com/3f1LaGPZLy

— NWS (@NWS) January 25, 2015

In addition to the snow, winds of up to 65 miles per hour could cause whiteout conditions, as well as downing trees and power lines.

According to Reuters, airlines are already planning for the storm. American Airlines has canceled some flights, and Southwest and Delta are anticipating Monday and Tuesday cancellations, though they have not yet been finalized. 

Greek leftist leader Alexis Tsipras promised on Sunday that five years of austerity, "humiliation and suffering" imposed by international creditors were over after his Syriza party swept to victory in a snap election on Sunday.

With about 60 percent of votes counted, Syriza was set to win 149 seats in the 300 seat parliament, with 36.1 percent of the vote, around eight points ahead of the conservative New Democracy party of Prime MinisterAntonis Samaras.

While a final result may not come for hours, the 40-year-old Tsipras is on course to become prime minister of the first euro zone government openly opposed to the kind of crippling austerity policies which the European Unionand International Monetary Fund imposed on Greece as a condition of its bailout.

"Greece leaves behinds catastrophic austerity, it leaves behind fear and authoritarianism, it leaves behind five years of humiliation and anguish," Tsipras told thousands of cheering supporters gathered in Athens.

European leaders have said Greece must respect the terms of its 240 billion euro bailout deal, but Tsipras campaigned on a promise to renegotiate the country's huge debt, raising the possibility of a major conflict with euro zone partners.

Tsipras said on Sunday he would cooperate with fellow euro zone leaders for "a fair and mutually beneficial solution" but said the Greek people came first. "Our priority from the very first day will be to deal with the big wounds left by the crisis," he said. "Our foremost priority is that our country and our people regain their lost dignity."

Tsipras's campaign slogan "Hope is coming!" resonated with voters worn down by huge budget cuts and heavy tax rises during six years of crisis that has sent unemployment over 25 percent and pushed millions into poverty.

With Greece's economy unlikely to recover for years, he faces enormous problems and his victory raises the prospect of tough negotiations with European partners including German Chancellor Angela Merkel.

As thousands of flag-waving supporters hit the streets of Athens, some shedding tears of joy, Germany'sBundesbank warned Greece it needed reform to tackle its economic problems and the euro fell nearly half a U.S. cent.

Tsipras has promised to keep Greece in the euro and has toned down some of his rhetoric but his arrival in power would mark the biggest challenge to the approach adopted to the crisis by euro zone governments.

"We are delighted," said 47-year-old teacher Efi Avgoustakou. "We hope our expectations will be fulfilled," she said. "On Monday in class, we're not allowed to comment and take sides but we will be smiling."

With Greece's bailout deal with the euro zone due to end on Feb. 28, Tsipras' immediate challenge will be to settle doubts over the next instalment of more than 7 billion euros in international aid. EU finance ministers are due to discuss the issue in Brussels on Monday.

Financial markets have been worried a Syriza victory will trigger a new financial crisis in Greece, but the repercussions for the euro zone are expected to be far smaller than feared the last time Greeks went to the polls in 2012.

If Syriza ends up short of an absolute majority, Tsipras will have to try to form a coalition with smaller parties or reach an agreement that would allow it to form a minority government with ad-hoc support from others in parliament.

Negotiations are likely to begin immediately and both Panos Kammenos, the leader of the small Independent Greeks party and Stavros Theodorakis, head of the centrist To Potami party, said they would be willing to support an anti-bailout government.

If Syriza requires support to govern, it may find itself hostage to its partners' demands, raising questions over how durable a Tsipras government would prove.

STANDOFF WITH BERLIN

Tsipras has promised to renegotiate agreements with the European Commission, European Central Bank andInternational Monetary Fund "troika" and write off much of Greece's 320 billion-euro debt, which at more than 175 percent of gross domestic product, is the world's second highest after Japan.

Coming after the ECB's move to pump billions into the bloc's flagging economy, Sunday's result will stir consternation in Berlin. A senior lawmaker in Merkel's conservative party said the result showed Greek voters had turned away from austerity but he said Europe could not accept rejection of the bailout.

"We must not reward the breaching of agreements," Wolfgang Bosbach told the daily Osnabruecker Zeitung newspaper. "That would send completely the wrong signal to other crisis-stricken countries that would then expect the same treatment."

As well as renegotiating a debt agreement, Tsipras wants to roll back many of the measures demanded by the "troika", raising the minimum wage, lowering power prices for poor families, cutting property taxes and reversing pension and public sector pay cuts.

Markets had been jittery in the run-up to the vote but growing confidence that a deal could be reached has helped ease fears of a return to crisis.

U.S. investment bank J.P. Morgan said the result could weigh on markets but that it considered speculation over a possible Greek exit from the euro was "a stretch" and a negotiated deal appeared the most likely outcome.

It added: "our base case remains that a Syriza government or Syriza-dominated coalition would alter its platform to retain troika financing."

Syriza officials have said they would seek a six-month "truce" putting the bailout programme on hold while talks with creditors begin.

Greece, unable to tap the markets because of sky-high borrowing costs, has enough cash to meet its immediate funding needs for the next couple of months but it faces around 10 billion euros of debt repayments over the summer.

Greek left wing leader Alexis Tsipras struck a deal with a right-wing party to form a government to confront international lenders and reverse years of painful austerity following a crushing election victory by his Syriza party.

The success of the anti-bailout party reignites fears of a new financial troubles in the country that set off the regional crisis in 2009. It is also the first time a member of the 19-nation euro zone will be led by a party rejecting German-backed austerity, emboldening anti-austerity movements elsewhere.

Fresh from trouncing conservative Prime Minister Antonis Samaras on a campaign of "Hope is coming!", the 40-year-old Tsipras quickly sealed a deal on a coalition with the head of the small Independent Greeks party which, like Syriza, opposes Greece's bailout deal.

"From this moment there is a government in the country. The Independent Greeks give a vote of confidence in Prime Minister Alexis Tsipras. There is an agreement in principle," Panos Kammenos said after talks with Tsipras at Syriza's headquarters in Athens.

A deal with the right-wing party makes an unusual alliance between parties on the opposite end of the political spectrum but brought together by a mutual hatred for the EU/IMF bailout program keeping Greece afloat.

Reaction from financial markets to Syriza's victory was largely muted, with the euro recovering from a tumble to a 11-year low against the dollar on initial results. Greek stocks dipped slightly while 10-year bond yields rose.

With almost all votes counted, Syriza won 149 seats in the 300-seat parliament, two short of an absolute majority. But the result marked a comprehensive rejection of the years of austerity demanded by the European Union and International Monetary Fund in return for the 240 billion-euro bailout.

Syriza's campaign of hope resonated with voters worn down by huge budget cuts and heavy tax rises during the years of crisis that have sent unemployment over 25 percent and pushed millions into poverty.

"Greece leaves behind catastrophic austerity, it leaves behind fear and authoritarianism, it leaves behind five years of humiliation and suffering," Tsipras, pumping his fist in the air, told thousands of cheering supporters in Athens on Sunday.

Tspiras will be creating the first euro zone government elected to undo the orthodox conservative policies of strict budgetary rigor that German Chancellor Angela Merkel has championed for the bloc's most troubled economies although he has not laid out what his first moves in office would be.

For the first time in more than 40 years, neither the New Democracy party of Samaras nor the center-left PASOK, the two forces that had dominated Greek politics since the fall of a military junta in 1974, will be in power.

Tsipras also expects to talk to the heads of two other parties, the centrist To Potami and the communist KKE, a sign he may look for their support even if they do not join a formal coalition.

The Independent Greeks, a right wing party with a hardline stance against illegal immigration, disagrees with Syriza on many social issues which could create tensions but it shares its opposition to the international bailout.

An alliance between the two sides would suggest a hardline stance against Greece's creditors, who have dismissed Tsipras's demands for a debt write off and insisted the country stay on the path of reforms and austerity to get its finances back on track.

Hours after Syriza's victory, ECB Executive Board member Benoit Coeure said that Greece had to pay its debts and warned Tsipras to play by the "European rules of the game".

"There is no room for unilateral action in Europe, that doesn't exclude a discussion, for example, on the rescheduling of this debt," Coeure told Europe 1 radio.

Together with last week's decision by the ECB to pump billions of euros into the euro zone's flagging economy despite objections from Germany, Syriza's victory marks a turning point in the long euro zone crisis.

But after the euphoria of election night, hailed by flag-waving crowds in Athens, Tsipras faces daunting challenges and can expect strong resistance to his demands from Germany in particular.

With Greece unable to tap the markets because of sky-high borrowing costs and facing about 10 billion euros of debt payments this summer, he will have to seek a deal to unlock more than 7 billion euros of outstanding aid by the time the bailout is due to expire on Feb. 28.

However, Syriza's victory will also encourage other anti-austerity forces in Europe and add impetus to calls for a change of course away from the focus on budget belt-tightening and structural reform favored by Berlin.

Those calls have come not just from anti-system movements such as Podemos in Spain but also from leaders such as French President Francois Hollande, who congratulated Tsipras on his win, and Italian Prime Minister Matteo Renzi.

Three potential Republican presidential candidates appeared before a gathering of wealthy donors organized by the conservative billionaire Koch brothers in California on Sunday night.

The summit, held at a luxury resort near Palm Springs sealed off to outsiders, drew Republican Senators Marco Rubio from Florida, Rand Paul from Kentucky and Ted Cruz from Texas.

It was organized by brothers Charles and David Koch, successful industrialists who bankroll conservative causes across America. Access to their network of money and influence is alluring to some potential Republican presidential hopefuls.

The Kochs have a private network that spent hundreds of millions of dollars in recent elections and a donor list that is wealthy, diverse and hungry for a Republican candidate that can win the White House in 2016.

The Koch event capped a busy two days where the long road to the Republican nomination appeared to have begun in earnest.

Eight potential Republican candidates made speeches at a separate gathering in Iowa on Saturday.

At least a dozen Republicans are showing interest in 2016. Former Florida governor Jeb Bush and former Republican presidential nominee Mitt Romney are among those seriously looking at White House bids.

Chris Christie, the Republican New Jersey governor, has formed a political action committee, a major step to a presidential run, the Wall Street Journal reported Sunday.

On Sunday night, Republican senators Rubio, Paul and Cruz discussed domestic and foreign policy. They were being hosted by Freedom Partners Chamber of Commerce, a non-profit organization backed by the Koch brothers.

"Struggle for Freedom"

Freedom Partners and other Koch political fundraising entities are structured under the U.S. tax code so that their donors, and how much money they give, do not have to be disclosed.

The political advocacy network run by the Koch brothers aimed to spend $290 million on advertisements and messaging ahead of the 2014 mid-term elections.

The Koch brothers are frequently criticized by Democrats as being secretive bankrollers of Republican causes and campaigns.

The press was not allowed access for the California gathering. Freedom Partners released excerpts of a speech by Charles Koch to attendees on Saturday night, in which he said "the struggle for freedom never ends".

An internet feed of the three senators' discussion was also provided. Lifting people out of poverty, and whether a federal minimum wage was a potential solution, particularly animated them.

"I think the minimum wage constantly hurts the most vulnerable," Cruz said.

The British government said it was reviewing security procedures after a hoax caller claiming to be the director of Britain's GCHQ eavesdropping agency was put through to Prime Minister David Cameron on Sunday.

In a separate hoax call to GCHQ, also on Sunday, a mobile phone number for its director Robert Hannigan was given out. The government said the number provided is not used for calls involving classified information.

"The Prime Minister ended the call when it became clear it was a hoax. In neither instance was sensitive information disclosed," a spokeswoman for Cameron's office, Number 10 Downing Street, said in a statement.

"Both GCHQ and Number 10 take security seriously and both are currently reviewing procedures following these hoax calls to ensure that the government learns any lessons from this incident."

All government departments have been now put on alert for such calls, she added. 

It has taken more than eight years. But finally, at 10am on Tuesday 27 January, the doors to court 73 at London’s Royal Courts of Justice will swing open; the barristers, solicitors, reporters, and a host of other interested parties will troop in, and judge Sir Robert Owen will declare the start of a public inquiry into the death of Alexander Valterovich Litvinenko, a fugitive from Russia and newly-minted British citizen, who died in a London hospital on 23 November 2006.

At the centre of proceedings will be Marina Litvinenko, Alexander’s wife for 12 years and a figure of preternatural calm and dignity amid all the hurly-burly and frustration of the near-decade since his death. In large measure, that these hearings are being held at all, and that they have been designated a ‘public inquiry’ rather than an inquest, represents a personal victory for Litvinenko, reflecting her dogged determination to find out how and why her husband died.

She also wants to know whether the UK security services could have done something to save her husband. The British government, in its standard phrase, “neither confirms nor denies” her assertion that Alexander received a regular stipend from the British intelligence agencies.

At the time of his death, he had lived in Britain – with his wife and young son, Anatoly – for six years. A fugitive from Russia, he had spoken out ever more boldly against President Vladimir Putin and rights abuses in his homeland.

What else he may have done with his life, however, was largely eclipsed by the way in which he died: poisoned, as it was established too late, by the radioactive isotope, polonium-210. To readers of the British press, Litvinenko will forever be a bald and emaciated figure in a green gown in a hospital bed, whose last testament was to accuse Putin of his murder. At the time, all the elements combined to tell a simple story, and an official narrative soon settled down. According to it, Litvinenko had been killed on the orders of the Kremlin because of his increasingly vocal opposition.

Russia was one of very few countries to produce polonium-210. Scotland Yard’s investigation led investigators to a certain KGB officer-turned-security consultant, Andrei Lugovoi, who was charged in absentia. Efforts were made to secure his extradition, but they failed, with Russia invoking a constitutional ban on extraditing nationals. A diplomatic stand-off between the UK and Russia ensued, with tit-for-tat expulsions initiated by a furious David Miliband, who at the time had just become foreign secretary.

But this was not just a dry tale of diplomatic shenanigans. The Litvinenko affair came adorned with all the seductive baubles of a spy thriller. There was Litvinenko’s own shadowy background in Soviet and then Russian intelligence. There were the polonium tracks across London and in British Airways planes in distant parts of the world. Don’t panic, Londoners were told, even as the spectre was conjured up of a criminal, armed with deadly radiation, loose in the UK capital.

Litvinenko’s movements shortly before he became ill included lunch with an Italian agent and investigator, Mario Scaramella, in a Piccadilly sushi bar, and a meeting with Lugovoi – who, it turned out, was a long-time associate – at the Pine Bar in Mayfair’s Millennium Hotel. It was here, police concluded, that the deed had been done, when a deadly dose of polonium was added to Litvinenko’s tea. Boris Berezovsky, the émigré oligarch, fierce Putin foe and incorrigible schemer, had more than a bit part. Litvinenko, it emerged, had been partly in his employ, and Berezovsky had funded the family in London. Reinforcing the cloak-and-dagger atmosphere was the coincidence of the new James Bond film, Skyfall, hitting the screens, with spectacular sequences shot around the Thames-side headquarters of MI6.

The main suspect in the case, Andrei Lugovoi, said he would not cooperate with the inquest because political pressure in Britain was preventing him from getting a fair trial. AP

Months trundled by; then years. The law requires that mysterious deaths be investigated, and they hardly come more mysterious than Litvinenko’s – or more potentially threatening to public safety or to diplomatic relations. The first step is to conduct a post-mortem, which was duly done in the hospital basement, by three doctors encased in protective clothing. The second is to open an inquest and the third, where a crime is suspected, is to put the presumed perpetrator on trial. In fact, a trial commonly supersedes an inquest, as the same evidence is likely to be heard. In the Litvinenko case, Russia’s refusal to deliver up Lugovoi delayed, and eventually thwarted, the possibility of a trial.

There was further delay to the inquest when the coroner, who should have conducted it, first fell ill and was then replaced for (unrelated) misconduct. It was postponed once more by government attempts to protect most intelligence evidence. And lastly, it was delayed by judicial wrangling about its status: whether a case with so many ramifications should not take the form of an inquiry. The home secretary opposed this. But after a court challenge and – something ministers deny was related – the implication of Russia in the downing of the Malaysian airliner in eastern Ukraine last year, the government changed its mind. The inquest was redesignated a public inquiry.

In practice, the distinction will be modest. The inquiry allows the judge – but no one else – to consider secret intelligence evidence; that would not have been so with an inquest. But how much will remain secret is still in doubt.

The years of delay nourished a clutch of conspiracy theories, but the official version of events and motives has been set for so long that few expect Owen to turn up any surprises, despite his repeated resolutions to undertake a “fair and fearless” inquiry. UK public opinion has largely tired of the story, dismissing it as just another example of Kremlin thuggery.

Yet the gaps and inconsistencies that have been pointed out by some of those lumped with conspiracy theorists are fundamental to documenting, if not actually explaining, what happened. The most glaring, seen as the key to any inquiry by the US investigative author, Edward Jay Epstein, among others, is the publication of the post-mortem findings. Although Litvinenko’s death provoked shocked headlines and prompted a drawn-out diplomatic row, the actual post-mortem results have never been released, not even to support the UK’s extradition request for Lugovoi.

As the British investigative reporter David Habakkuk notes, it is still not at all clear who contaminated whom, and in what order. There remain questions about the role of Berezovsky in “managing” information, and the role of a certain businessman, Yuri Shvets (who was the focus of a BBC radio investigation soon after Litvinenko’s death).

A Soviet-era exiled scientist, Zhores Medvedev, insists that Russia itself is among those who argue that the country is not the only source of polonium. There is evidence, too, that in the wake of Berezovsky’s death last year, Scotland Yard is taking a new look at its earlier investigation into the Litvinenko case. Some also maintain that Owen has retreated from his earlier assumption that this was a (Russian) state-directed assassination. This line was put about, first by anonymous security sources, and later by the director of public prosecutions at the time, Ken Macdonald. If true, this would change a great deal.

There is plenty, in other words, for Sir Robert Owen to get his teeth into, if he so chooses. Marina Litvinenko, meanwhile, remains stalwart in her faith in British justice. In interviews, she has said that there is no such thing in Britain as Russian-style “telephone justice”, and the that law had to be allowed to take its course. Her solicitor, Elena Tsirlina, insists that her client is “happy” with the inquiry arrangements, including the anonymity granted to many witnesses and the amount of evidence likely to be heard in secret. “She has full confidence in Sir Robert Owen,” she told me.

In Ben Emmerson, Marina Litvinenko has one of the country’s most revered barristers when it comes to challenging the establishment. But there are many – including Epstein, in a recent book about unsolved cases – who doubt that the truth will ever come out. He observes that the least likely to be resolved are those where there is state, and especially multiple-state, involvement. Less conspiratorially, there is the abiding truth that justice delayed is justice denied. A lot of truth can go missing in eight years.

Just about the only thing that binds Greece's new leader Alexis Tsipras with his new government ally Panos Kammenos is an aversion to the country's tough economic bailout terms.

Both believe Greece should write off its huge debt and roll back some of the policy prescriptions of its 240 billion euro ($270 billion) financial aid package from international lenders.

They both want Greece to grab back economic and political sovereignty lost over the past five years - but on most other issues, they stand far apart.

Syriza leader Tsipras, 40, is a left-wing politician who wants children born to immigrants to automatically get Greek citizenship. He asked to be sworn in as prime minister not on a Bible, as is tradition, but in a non-religious ceremony.

Kammenos, the 49-year-old head of the small right-wing Independent Greeks party, is a political and social conservative who wants less immigration and believes the Orthodox Church should play a bigger role in national politics.

He was decorated with France's prestigious Legion of Honour by former center French President Nicolas Sarkozy for his help in the fight against terrorism.

"The aim is that Greeks move to a new day in unity, respecting the national sovereignty of the country, democracy and the constitution," the father-of-five said after joining forces with Tsipras on Monday.

That politicians with such disparate political beliefs would come together in government underscores the level of Greek voter discontent with the past five years of economic policies dictated by the International Monetary Fund and Berlin.

It is also likely to raise the temperature in future negotiations with Greece's international lenders.

Tsipras had toyed with the idea of making new centrist party To Potami the government's coalition partner. But To Potami's rhetoric is far more conciliatory towards Greece's international lenders and is decidedly pro-European. In Kammenos, Tsipras has an ally that supports a hardline stance in Brussels.

'BLACKMAILING WILL BE OVER'

Kammenos has played a quiet but sometimes defining role in Greek politics over the past decade. As a longtime member of New Democracy, Greece's outgoing center party, Kammenosserved as deputy minister of marine affairs between 2007 and 2009.

During that time, he helped negotiate a landmark deal under which China's port operator Cosco would manage and upgrade two of Greece's busy Piraeus port's cargo piers.

But in 2012, he and 20 other lawmakers were kicked out of the party by outgoing Prime Minister Antonis Samaras after they voted against a bout of tax hikes and cuts in spending.

The expulsion boosted Kammenos' popularity; he founded the Independent Greeks party and immediately ranked fourth in that year's elections.

During those elections, he campaigned on a platform to punish Greece's creditors, whom he blamed for the country's economic suffering. He also favors setting a cap on immigrant inflows, in addition to deporting and repatriating illegal migrants.

In December, Kammenos was instrumental in triggering the sequence of events that broughtGreece to Sunday's elections.

The 12 Independent Greek lawmakers voted against Samaras' government in a parliamentary vote to choose the country's new head of state. The inability of Samaras to push his candidate through effectively felled his government.

In this recent campaign, one of Kammenos' battle cries has been the protection of Greek homes from foreclosures. Greece's six-year recession has cost many people their homes, but a moratorium on home foreclosures expired in December last year, under pressure from Greece's international lenders.

"No homes in the hands of bankers. Hang up on collection companies and tell them they will be finished on Jan. 25, the blackmailing will be over," Kammenos said during a recent campaign speech.

Despite past differences, Kammenos on Monday played up his camaraderie with Tsipras: visiting Greece's new leader to discuss their alliance, he shed his usual suit and tie look and sported an open-shirt look, Syriza-style.

Xu Li Chin isn’t quite sure what has happened to his once-thriving business. For 20 years he has been the owner of a company just outside Shenzhen in southern China that supplies medical equipment. He started small and grew steadily, first via exports to a variety of countries in Southeast Asia, the United States and even Japan, and more recently riding the growth in China’s own economy.

Now that homegrown growth has diminished, the industries he supplies suffer from overcapacity, as does his own, where price-cutting to maintain market share is now rampant. And last month his world got even more complicated when he lost a key export customer in Japan, which told him it was moving back to a homegrown supplier. The Japanese yen has depreciated by nearly 20 percent against the renminbi over the past two years, “and they said it made sense for them to switch” suppliers. “Now,” Xu says, “we’ll never be profitable this year, and to be honest I’m not sure when we will be.”

Competitive price cuts, slowing growth, the disruptive impact of rapid currency adjustments: Welcome to the global economy, circa 2015. If businessmen like Xu in China—ostensibly still one of the relative bright spots amid the gathering global gloom—is depressed, then the world has problems, quite possibly big ones.

Two specters now loom over the global economy, one tied directly to the other: deflation, and beggar thy neighbor currency wars. On January 22, Mario Draghi, chief of the European Central Bank (ECB), ended months of speculation and announced what asset markets pretty much the world over had been waiting to hear: The ECB would jump into the same pool that his counterparts in Tokyo and in Washington had long been swimming in. He said the ECB was going to implement quantitative easing (QE): European central banks would directly buy the sovereign bonds of the 19-member eurozone, effectively pumping money into the economy, which in theory would cause prices to rise. The ECB pledged to do so for as long as necessary in order to achieve price stability—or, as Draghi put it in a press conference, “a sustained adjustment in the path of inflation.”

In December, consumer prices in the eurozone had fallen 0.2 percent, the first such drop in five years, and with economic growth minimal pretty much throughout Europe, the prospect for further outright declines in the price level had clearly concentrated the minds of European central bankers. (At least those outside of Germany’s Bundesbank, which opposed the adoption of QE. For Germans, the prospect of Weimar-style hyperinflation always lies just around the corner.)

And Europe is not alone. A monthly survey of China’s manufacturing sector—the HSBC/Markit Flash Manufacturing PMI—showed a slight contraction, but that’s not what got people’s attention: Input prices fell to their lowest level since the height of the global financial crisis nearly seven years ago. That partly reflected the steep drop in crude oil prices in the past few months—by itself a deflationary force globally—but input prices were weak across the board, reflecting a slowing economy more broadly. The report “enhanced our concerns over deflation,” said Nomura International economist Chang Chun Hua, and made it more likely the China’s central bank will join the ECB in the fight against declining prices.

In a world of pronounced economic weakness, the United States is supposed to be the outlier—an economy finally gathering strength after years of financial crisis-induced slow growth. To fans of QE, the better growth numbers lately are a vindication for a U.S. Federal Reserve policy that’s been in place since 2008. Under Ben Bernanke and now Janet Yellen, the Fed has bought roughly $4.5 trillion in bank debt, mortgage backed securities and U.S. government bonds since the crisis. But even here the deflation hawks are worried. The U.S. consumer price index fell 0.4 percent in December, surprising most economists, and January will likely show a similar decline. After six years of near zero interest rates, those numbers were all but unthinkable to most mainstream analysts.

Why do declining prices—which, to the average consumer everywhere, would seem to be a benefit (who doesn’t want to pay less for stuff?)—put the fear of God into economists and policymakers? For an answer to that, turn only to the recent history of Japan, whose “bubble” economy burst in the early 1990s, and which tried and failed to escape from a deflationary spiral for about a decade.

Economists call a deflationary spiral the “fallacy of composition,” which, as Nomura Research Institute chief economist Richard Koo explains, refers to a situation “in which behavior that is correct for individuals or companies has undesirable consequences when everyone engages in it.” Thus, when you know that something you want to buy will be cheaper next month, it’s rational to hold off. But in a general deflation, that pretty much means everyone is holding back on buying anything, which contracts an economy and puts further downward pressure on prices, thus triggering the same decision-making loop.

Deflation, in other words, is how depressions arise—and it is to be avoided at all costs. Japan didn’t do a good job of that. From 1990 onward, falling land and equity prices alone destroyed 1.57 trillion yen in wealth. “No other nation in history has experienced such a large economic loss during peacetime,” according to Koo.

President of the European Central Bank Mario Draghi arrives for a press conference in Frankfurt, Germany, 22 Jan. 22, 2015. Draghi announced a landmark quantitative-easing program worth 60 billion euros (70 billion dollars) per month. Arne Dedert/picture-alliance/dpa/AP

Even before Bernanke became chairman of the Federal Reserve board—he was a governor for three years before succeeding Alan Greenspan—he had fixated on Japan’s experience. A scholar of the Great Depression while a professor at Princeton, he was fascinated by how deflation had brought down what was then the world’s second largest economy. As far back as 2003, Bernanke gave a speech in Tokyo in which he urged the Bank of Japan (BOJ) to figure out ways to, among other things, use its balance sheet to reflate the economy. He was, in other words, urging QE in Japan—which the BOJ eventually adopted—and which he would be forced to implement himself as Fed chairman in the U.S. when its own bubble burst in 2008.

Now Draghi has joined them. The question is, do QE and zero interest rate policies work? In Japan, recent data show an inflation rate above the flat line—2.6 percent in December. To QE’s supporters, that means the answer is: yes…eventually. In the United States, supporters say it helped prevent a second Great Depression and eventually helped to boost growth, particularly by aiding a recovery in interest rate-sensitive industries such as housing and autos.

Skeptics, however, note that there is more than $2 trillion in Fed-supplied reserves sitting on bank balance sheets in the U.S.—meaning big banks took advantage of cheap money from the Fed but did not in turn lend all that money at similarly low rates to customers, as envisaged by the Fed. That is evidence, argues David Malpass, president of Encina Global, an economic consulting firm, that there’s “no longer any link from central bank reserves to private sector money.” Skeptics like Malpass believe that Draghi will find the same to be true in Europe, and that there will be very little macro bang for the QE buck (or, in this case, euro).

At the same time, some economists warn, loose monetary policies feed what they say is becoming a destabilizing round of currency devaluations. Japan’s QE policies have helped drive down the yen by nearly 20 percent against the dollar and China’s renminbi in the past two years, and 14 percent against the euro. On the day Draghi announced his QE intentions, the euro weakened sharply against both the dollar and the yen. National politicians usually like weaker currencies because they believe they help domestic companies by fueling exports. That’s why, when one country does it, others tend to follow. Currencies are already weaker in Southeast Asia, and some smart hedge fund managers have already begun to bet on devaluation in South Korea.

That leaves the two largest economies in the world, the United States and China, with a very significant decision to make: how to respond. Under Yellen, the Fed has stopped its QE bond-buying program and has said it wants to start “normalizing”—that is, hiking—interest rates later this year. But with the yen and euro continuing to weaken, an interest rate hike would only put increased upward pressure on the dollar. Eventually, that will hit exports and make a lot of big U.S. companies squeal. A stronger dollar, meanwhile, helps contain any inflationary pressures in the U.S., which are barely existent to begin with. Thus, skepticism is mounting that there will be any increase in interest rates from the Fed this year—part of the reason the U.S. stock market reacted so positively in the wake of Draghi’s announcement and bond yields remained under pressure.

The men who run China’s economic policy have an even tougher decision to make. Their economy is slowing, and now all of Beijing’s major trading partners (except, for now, the United States) are devaluing their currencies. All compete with Chinese exports. For decades, Beijing has loosely tied its currency to the dollar, allowing a slow, steady appreciation in the face of incessant criticism from abroad that it was “manipulating” the renminbi to gain advantage. Beijing, in other words, feels the pain of men like Xu Li Chin, and if the globe’s quiet currency wars intensify, Beijing’s hand could be forced.

Is a once unthinkable thought—a Chinese devaluation—suddenly becoming thinkable? That would roil global markets. It would also, among other things, intensify the globe’s deflationary pressures, as prices for Chinese goods (in dollars or euros or yen) decline. “We’re at a point,” says a Tokyo-based hedge fund manager who has been warning of such a scenario for months, “that when pretty much everyone is trying [via devalued currencies] to export deflation, a lot of folks are likely to catch it.” QE or no QE.

Kurdish forces took full control of the Syrian town of Kobane on Monday, driving out remaining Islamic State fighters to end a four-month battle that became a focal point of the international fight against the ultra-hardline Islamist group.

Monitoring group Syrian Observatory for Human Rights said Syrian Kurdish YPG forces had retaken the town, close to the Turkish border, but were still proceeding carefully in the eastern outskirts where Islamic State had planted mines before fleeing.

"I can see the YPG flag flying over Kobane. There are the sounds of jets flying above," said Tevfik Kanat, a Turkish Kurd who rushed to the border with hundreds of others, including refugees from Kobane, after hearing about the advance.

"People are dancing and singing, there are fireworks. Everyone feels a huge sense of relief," he said by telephone.

U.S.-led forces have carried out almost daily air strikes on Islamic State positions around the town, a frontline in the battle against the group that has captured large expanses of Iraq andSyria and proclaimed an Islamic caliphate.

Photographs posted on social media showed male and female Kurdish fighters shaking hands and Kurdish flags flying over recaptured territory. Reuters could not immediately confirm the pictures' authenticity.

The fighting in and around Kobane drove tens of thousands of residents into Turkey and prompted Iraqi Kurdish forces known as peshmerga travel to Syria to support the YPG after theUnited States asked Ankara to let them join the fight.

The battle of Kobane is the only publicly-declared example of U.S.-led forces closely coordinating militarily with a ground force to battle Islamic State.

The United States says it wants to train and equip non-jihadist groups to fight Islamic State elsewhere in Syria but fighters say there is uncertainty surrounding the plans.

The recapture raises the question of what Islamic State will do next. Its fighters halted a westwards advance in the countryside north of Aleppo in September when it launched the offensive against Kobane.

The group still has fighters in hundreds of surrounding villages.

"The entire city is liberated. The clashes will start now in Kobane's villages," said Perwer Mohammed Ali, a journalist from the town who was at the frontline with the YPG.

An official in Kobane told Reuters earlier on Monday that half of the city had been completely destroyed and much of the rest had suffered damage.

Idris Nassan said the predominantly Kurdish town, known as Ayn al-Arab in Arabic, also lacked water, electricity, hospitals and food.

Around 3 a.m. on Monday, a two-foot, four-propeller drone flying at low altitude crashed on the southeast side of the White House complex, the Associated Press reports.

There’s been a series of Secret Service security gaffes in recent years; an armed security contractor with an arrest record shared an elevator with the president, a knife-carrying fence hopper ran deep into the White House, and a shooting took place on the White House grounds in 2011 with little notice. Monday’s incident will undoubtedly add to complaints about the Secret Service and concerns about the safety of the president.

The unmanned device quickly prompted a lockdown, which lasted until 5 a.m. In that time, police cars, fire trucks, other emergency vehicles and members of the Secret Service swarmed the grounds. The White House later determined that the drone did not post a security threat.

President Barack Obama was not home, as he and first lady Michelle Obama are currently traveling in India. It remains unclear, however, as to whether their daughters Sasha and Malia or their grandmother, Marian Robinson, were home.

"An investigation is under way to determine the origin of this commercially available device, motive, and to identify suspects," Secret Service spokesman Brian Lear told the Associated Press.

The late Saudi King Abdullah often sought to project a reformist image, but, just as with Iran across the Persian Gulf, the rhetoric of reformism was for external consumption only. The reforms he once discussed—letting women drive, for example—never materialized.

While many in the United States and Europe condemn the Bahraini government for its repression of its Shi‘ite population, the West remains largely silent on parallel Saudi action in the Eastern Province. The only difference between the two, of course, was that Bahraini forces use tear gas and rubber bullets, whereas their Saudi counterparts prefer live ammunition.

While Abdullah’s 79-year-old and ailing younger brother Salman became king upon his death, he will probably not hold that position long. Like many in the inbred royal family, he has congenital spinal problems, he has suffered at least one stroke and some analysts suggest he suffers from dementia.

Rumors always surround the Saudi royal family, and some of those amplifying them have never met the people whom they discuss, let alone stepped foot in Saudi Arabia. Still, given his age, Salman’s tenure will probably last months, or perhaps a year or two, but even the best medical treatment might not be able to keep him alive much longer.

His brother and Crown Prince, Muqrin bin Abdulaziz, is a relatively spry 69-year-old. He used to head the Saudi intelligence service and was the family disciplinarian. If he was willing to put princes behind bars, it is not hard to imagine his attitude toward dissidents, Sufis and Shi‘ites.

Indeed, while some analysts suggest he is a relative liberal—and that term must be taken with a grain of salt within the context of the royal family—he was a strong proponent for an even stronger crackdown on the restive, oil-rich Eastern Province.

The real problem, however, lies with the appointment of Muhammad bin Nayef as deputy crown prince. Bin Nayef, now only 55, will represent a generational shift in the Saudi leadership which traditionally passes between brothers rather than from father to son.

He is a hardliner and steeped in sectarian warfare. He has, for example, handled the Saudi aspect of operations in both Yemen and Syria. While Washington Post columnist David Ignatius has written that Bin Nayef’s role in Syria was a reflection of the Kingdom’s concern over the growing radicalization of the Syrian opposition, Saudis from the Eastern Province suggest that Bin Nayef has been the driving force for Saudi Arabia’s most hardline, repressive policies.

And he also took a hardline against allowing Saudi women to drive, an issue which is not only a priority for feminists, but also is a matter of economic concern for the Saudi middle and lower class for whom driving wives and daughters either distracts from work or represents a large expense to hire a driver.

There is often hope in the West that autocratic regimes moderate with time. Alas, Bin Nayef’s record and appointment as second-in-line suggests the intention by the Saudi royal family to tack more conservative in coming years.

It seems rather than blunt sectarianism and repression with reforms, the House of Saud has just decided to double down on repression. That will neither bring economic stability and health to Saudi Arabia nor will it lend itself to moderation and stability throughout the region.

Michael Rubin is Resident Scholar at the American Enterprise Institute. This article first appeared on the American Enterprise Institute website.

Russia has purchased 70 new army jets and helicopters which will be stationed across the annexed Crimean peninsula over the course of the coming year. The move is part of a massive overhaul of the facilities in its Southern Military District, which stretches between the Caspian and the Black seas.

The new southern-based units consist of 50 fighter jets and 20 helicopters, some of which will come under the command of Russia’s air force, while others will join the air defence regiment of Russia’s historic Black Sea Fleet naval unit in Crimea. New additions will include Su-34 strike fighter jets, the amphibious Beriev Be-200 jet and Mil Mi-28 attack helicopters, also known as ‘Havoc’.

Earlier this month Russia’s air force estimated 150 new units would be added to its ranks in 2015 across all four of its military districts, meaning that almost half of Russia’s military aviation reinforcements in the next year are to be stationed in the district surrounding Crimea.

Although it is territorially the smallest out of the country’s four military districts, Russia’s Southern Military District has becoming increasingly strategically important as it covers the disputed territories of Chechnya, borders the Russian-backed self-recognised independent republics of South Ossetia and Abkhazia, and crucially also currently incorporates annexed Crimea.

The district also had control over one of Russia’s largest and most controversial strongholds - its Black Sea Fleet headquarters in Sevastopol, even when the city, as well as the rest of Crimea, was under Ukrainian control.

Shortly after Crimea’s impromptu decision to split from Ukraine and join Russia in the much-disputed referendum in March, Russian President Vladimir Putin admitted Black Sea Fleet troops had “stood behind” pro-Russian militias fighting against Ukraine’s national forces on the peninsula prior to the referendum.

The recent deterioration of relations between the West and Russia over the Ukraine conflict has seen an increase in its troops based near the Black Sea. While the Southern Military District only had about 25 military aircraft in 2011, last year the Kremlin added 40 new aircrafts to the district’s ranks. This year the number of new units added has almost doubled.

Russia’s increased military strength around the Crimea is also mirrored by its naval strategy, which lists the Black Sea as one of the two major focal points for Russian naval activity in the next fifteen years, alongside the Arctic.

Russia’s Ministry of Defence also announced it will increase air force drills in the district by 30% in the coming year.

Despite the growing threat of recession in Russia, the Kremlin has increased the military’s budget to $26 billion for 2015 - an all time high in Russia’s post-Soviet history.

During a brutal New England blizzard last year, Jess Seinfeld, who’s married to the multimillionaire comedian Jerry Seinfeld, Instagrammed a $415 bill from Uber with the following message: “Uber charge during a snowstorm to drop one [child] at Bar Mitzvah and one child at a sleepover. #OMG #neverforget #neveragain.”

Uber’s surge pricing, a premium charged when drivers are scarce, was about eight times the normal fare. While Seinfeld has vowed to “never again” participate in Uber’s surge storm pricing, it is likely that hundreds of other New Englanders will need rides and turn to e-hailing services.

This year, though, New York state is looking out for its travelers’ wallets. Following a claim from the New York attorney general that Uber was price-gouging customers, the company and the state reached a formula to determine state of emergency surge pricing: “For each market, the state of emergency price will be set after excluding the three highest-priced, non-emergency days of the preceding two months.”

In layman's terms, that means Uber will make a list of the highest surge prices over the last 60 days and strike the three highest days (that means New Year’s Eve, a notoriously pricey night, will not be included) to determine the company’s blizzard storm pricing.

Here’s an example of the blizzard pricing, provided in the agreement between the AG and Uber: “The three highest prices set for Uber X in New York City on different days during the sixty days preceding the [blizzard] are 4.5X, 4.5 X and 3.25X. The next highest price set on a day other than the days on which the three highest prices were set was 2.5X. The price cap [during the blizzard] would be 2.5X.”

Uber has not yet disclosed the pricing New Yorkers can expect Monday night and Tuesday, and it has not commented on pricing in other blizzard-affected states.

Its main competitor, Lyft, has capped surge pricing at 200 percent, which equates to three times the normal price—as the 200 percent is added onto the existing fare. “Demand may not even push prices that high, but the cap is there so rides during busy periods remain affordable. Our community’s safety is our top priority, and we want to make sure everyone has a safe, reliable ride home,” Lyft said in a statement about the approaching blizzard.

With Lyft, a ride from New York’s 14th Street at Union Square to 42nd Street at Times Square would usually run customers $12. If maximum surge pricing goes into effect during the storm, expect that same ride to be $36, as the cost minimum will jump to $24 from $8 and the per mile cost will be $6.45.

Connecticut and New Jersey residents shouldn’t expect to ride for less than $20, as there is usually a cost minimum of $5 plus a $1.10 per mile charge, in addition to several other fees. Bostonians have a slightly lower cost minimum at $4, but the base charge and safety fee are higher, as is the cost per mile.

Though the attorney general’s office has reached a state of emergency pricing formula with Uber, it does not have a similar plan set up with Lyft. “The attorney general's office...will be monitoring all price-gouging complaints, including those regarding all ride-sharing services, during the storm,” an AG representative told Newsweek.

Luckily, public transportation fees don’t change during big storms, but service may be faulty. Yellow cabs in New York have been instructed to drive slowly and carefully, and some drivers may not work at all considering the blizzard. “Yellow taxi drivers are some of the safest drivers on the road, so remember while you may be in a hurry to get home, your driver also wants to get home safe,” Tweeps Phillips Woods, the executive director of the Committee for Taxi Safety, told Newsweek. In Boston, public transportation will operate as close to normal as possible, but in Philadelphia transit will move to a weekend schedule during the blizzard.

For those truly worried about commuting, and the potential cost that comes with it, we recommend staying home and curling up with a great magazine. 

With the reported beheading of hostage Haruna Yukawa, Japan has joined the list of countries scarred by the brutality of ISIS.

The country now waits to learn the fate of second hostage Kenji Goto, as Japanese prime minister Shinzo Abe has publicly announced that he will not pay the demanded $200 million ransom, the same amount Abe pledged in humanitarian aid to countries combatting ISIS.

What is clear is that ISIS will target the citizens even of nations that provide non-lethal aid to those fighting its virulent Islamic ideology.

There are stories that the Japanese public is divided on its views of Yukawa and Goto, with some blaming the men for putting themselves unnecessarily into danger. The plight of Goto, a freelance journalist, apparently garners more sympathy than that of Yukawa, a self-described military consultant and soldier of fortune.

Some go so far as to say that the fate of Yukawa and Goto prove that Japan should not get more involved in the world, and that Prime Minister Abe’s plans for a greater Japanese role abroad will only lead to more tragedy and crisis.

This is exactly the wrong lesson to take from the brutal murder of Yukawa. Yes, he may have put himself in harm’s way, but pulling back from the world will not make it, or the Japanese people, any safer. An island nation mentality cannot work in the 21st century, just as it could not work at any time after 1868.

Japan has vaulted to being Asia’s most modern and wealthy nation precisely because of its post-World War II global role. Isolation is an impossibility in a globalized world, and calls for it to turn inward will only lead to a marginalized Japan.

Japanese should not be expected to flood war zones for whatever reason; but to apply a mistaken notion about how to avoid risk in a world that is not self-correcting can only harm Japan’s interests. Once the decision is made to avoid risk, then it will become increasingly easy to justify further pullback, maybe by giving up Tokyo’s budding cooperation with Southeast Asian nations, or possibly even by giving up its territorial control of islands in the East China Sea that are disputed by China.

The lesson of Yukawa’s death, rather, should be that liberal nations face a choice: whether to do what they can to battle growing disorder in the world, or to try and hide. The Japanese public should think about what kind of global role will best serve their interests in the Middle East, as well as in Asia.

Michael Auslin is Resident Scholar at the American Enterprise Institute. This article first appeared on the American Enterprise Institute website. Follow Auslin on Twitter @michaelauslin

The cliché goes that it’s too early to gauge the presidential race a year from the first fora. And it’s a cliché for a reason. Early judgments have a way of going wrong, something that Hillary Clinton could tell you all about since she seemed certain to get the 2008 presidential nomination and, of course, did not.

So the two public fora this past weekend -- one in California, the other in Iowa -- offered at least some glimmer into the race to come and how the candidates are projecting themselves at this early stage, albeit with caveats.

The first thing to know about much of the field is that as fervently as they hate Barack Obama, his presidential win as a freshman senator gave Ted Cruz, Rand Paul and Marco Rubio -- all first termers -- the room to run. It’s unlikely they would have launched bids in a different era, were it not for Obama. Sure, John Edwards made a bid in 2004 as he came to the end of his first term, but in general it’s been long-time Senate veterans -- John McCain, Bob Dole, Al Gore -- who have sought the presidency, not newbies. After Obama,  the idea of “qualified” is completely different. And not only has the barrier to entry been lowered but there’s no need to even argue qualifications, only views. 

There was some scrambling over the weekend when Marco Rubio challenged governors like New Jersey’s Chris Christie and Wisconsin’s Scott Walker on their foreign policy cred -- jibing that a couple of visits abroad doesn’t make you “Henry Kissinger.” It was a good line, but for the conservative audiences there were better. Ted Cruz’s red meat as well as Scott Walker’s had more stamina. Each knew the audience’s erogenous zones--portraying most Republicans as too docile and hitting hard on Obama in unabashed language.

Walker’s experience taking on public employee unions was like manna for the crowd. Along with tax cuts, it’s one of the issues that unites Republicans. It helped that Cruz and Walker had the most energetic style. Paul may have the most radical agenda but his somewhat laconic manner might be too tepid for the crowds even if his ideas play well -- although his opposition to more Iran sanctions and embrace of opening to Cuba left him at odds with the audience conservatives who still disdain the libertarian approach to foreign policy that the Kentuckian espouses.

Governor of New Jersey Chris Christie arrives to speak at the Freedom Summit in Des Moines, Iowa, January 24, 2015. Jim Young/Reuters

At the Iowa forum, which saw 10 would-be candidates, Chris Christie did fine although his efforts to reassure conservatives seemed fumbling at times. He noted that he had been invited to Iowa five times and then offered that that proved he was in tune with the state’s conservatives. “Why would they keep inviting me back,” he asked in a tautology.

The more religious candidates did well enough. Mike Huckabee railed at climate change and the common core educational approach -- both the source of ridicule among conservatives. Ben Carson, an accomplished and retired neurosurgeon, got the crowd stirred up with his call to “seal the border.” Rick Santorum offered a blue collar pitch. He got the second most delegates after Mitt Romney in 2012, so he thinks he has a chance even if most people don’t.

One of the more bizarre moments came when Sarah Palin said she was interested in running in 2016 and gave a talk that was as circuitous and rambling as her famed “I can see Russia from my house” interview with CBS in 2008. While Palin has had some charmed moments since she electrified the GOP convention almost seven years ago, her stock with rank-and-file conservatives seems diminished, as they’ve found new icons like Cruz. Former Hewlett-Packard CEO Carly Fiorina spoke in Iowa too -- trying to establish herself as a heartland conservative, not a Bay Area executive. She denounced abortion, which won plaudits, but it’s hard to see how someone who was pushed out as leader of her company and who lost her only bid at elective office would have a good case to be president.

So the bottom line is that Cruz and Rubio and Walker had fine weekends. History, though, has a way of creeping in. In the last century only three sitting U.S. senators have been elected president -- Warren Harding, John Kennedy and Barack Obama. (Senate losers include Barry Goldwater and George McGovern, who got the Republican and Democratic nominations, and a cavalcade of those who didn’t.)

Governors tend to have better stories. They’re executives, after all, and that’s more presidential than being on, say, the agriculture committee. And so in the last 100 years we’ve had governors galore become president: Woodrow Wilson, Calvin Coolidge, Franklin Roosevelt, Jimmy Carter, Ronald Reagan, Bill Clinton, George W. Bush. The past isn’t always prologue. But it does suggest that it’s worth keeping a very close eye on Scott Walker, knowing that three other governors, Chris Christie, Mitt Romney and Jeb Bush, could up their games, too.

The men and women in these portraits have survived the unimaginable. Seven decades ago, each one passed through Auschwitz, the infamous Nazi concentration camp complex linked forever in history with the phrase that greeted arrivals to the main camp: “Arbeit macht frei,” or “Work makes you free.”

Many of their family members and fellow arrivals were sent immediately to the gas chambers, their remains cremated in ovens. Those pictured here were spared, only to be subjected to horrendous conditions: disease, starvation and brutal treatment by the Schutzstaffel -- guards of the Nazi regime, commonly known as the S.S. 

They escaped death at the hands of their persecutors, either liberated at Auschwitz on January 27, 1945, or from another camp or hiding place. The United Nations General Assembly chose the date to mark International Holocaust Remembrance Day.

These survivors are now in their 80s and 90s. Some are pictured holding photos of those who didn't live to tell their stories, bearing witness to the millions who died during the Holocaust, including six million Jews, as they have for the seven decades since they were freed.

EU finance ministers agreed on Tuesday to loan Ukraine 1.8 billion euros ($2.0 billion) to help save it from bankruptcy, leaving open the option of increasing aid at a later stage.

Diplomats at the meeting in Brussels said several European governments including Britain pushed for as much as 2.6 billion euros in medium-term loans for this year and 2016.

"The European Commission put 1.8 billion on the table. Some wanted us to do more," French Finance Minister Michel Sapin told reporters. "What is urgent today is to start implementing this package ... because Ukraine needs it so the government will not be faced with an unbearable situation."

Ukraine, fighting a costly war against pro-Russian separatists, is relying on a lifeline from the International Monetary Fund program to avoid default but some economists say it is facing a $15 billion shortfall in funding.

The International Monetary Fund's existing package for Ukraine is worth $17 billion and Ukrainian authorities hope the new round of talks under way will unlock fresh loans.

IMF Managing Director Christine Lagarde said in Davos she supported a bigger, longer-term funding plan for Ukraine in return for agreed structural economic and fiscal reforms.

France's Sapin said he wanted to see what was agreed with the IMF before committing to more EU aid, which comes on top of the 1.4 billion euros that Brussels handed over last year.

Ukraine faces about $10 billion in debt servicing this year, including corporate and sovereign loans and bonds, according to the Institute of International Finance, a financial group based in Washington.

"We (France) said it also depends on the IMF, everybody must make their contribution," he said.

Another constraining factor is that the European Union uses some of its budget as a guarantee against the money it raises on capital markets for the loans to Ukraine. Increasing EU aid to Kiev means less money for other EU priorities, for instance in development in Africa, a priority forFrance.

For the EU, the next step to disburse the first chunk of the loans is to sign a so-called memorandum of understanding with Kiev committing to reforms in areas ranging from the national budget to modernization of the banking and energy sectors.

Updated | A new video purportedly released by the Islamic State (ISIS) shows a still image of Japanese hostage Kenji Goto Jogo discussing his fate.

On Saturday, Goto appeared in another video, now authenticated, in which ISIS offered a prisoner swap. They demanded Sajida al-Rishawi, a woman who attempted to suicide bomb a hotel on behalf of Al-Qaeda, be released. She is currently held prisoner in Jordan where she faces execution.

In the newest video, Goto holds a still image of a man ISIS claims to be a Jordanian pilot and threatens his life if the hostage swap does not go through. The pilot is believed to be Muadh al-Kasasbeh. Al-Kasasbeh is a 26-year-old pilot captured by ISIS after he ejected from his F-16 jet during a crash in December. Al-Kasasbeh is a Muslim and many have called for ISIS to release him based on his faith. 

"I have been told this is my last message, and I have also been told that the barrier of extracting my freedom is just the Jordanian government delaying the government of Sajida. Time is now running very short. It is me for her, what seems to be so difficult to understand?” Goto says. Japanese officials have been in Jordan since last week, working toward a way to save the hostages without paying ransom. ISIS previously demanded $200 million in ransom money for two Japanese hostages and after it was not received, beheaded one of the two men. 

"Any more delays from the Jordanian government will mean they are responsible for the death of their pilot, which will then be followed by mine. I only have 24 hours left to live and the pilot has even less. Please don’t leave us to die,” he continues.

The video has not yet been authenticated, and its validity could not be independently confirmed by Newsweek.

This is a developing story and will be updated as more information becomes available. 

1. Why did President Obama go to India?

Obama went to India for its Republic Day celebrations. The Indian government invited him to be the chief guest for that commemoration. His January 25-27 visit follows closely on the heels of the September visit to Washington of Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi, who took office in May 2014.

American presidents have visited India in the past—Eisenhower (1959), Nixon (1969), Carter (1978), Clinton (2000), Bush (2006) and Obama (2010) -- but expect to hear repeatedly about two “firsts” with regard to this presidential trip to India:

• This is the first time India has invited an American president to be chief guest at its Republic Day.

• This is the first time an American president will visit India twice while in office.

2. What’s this Republic Day? I hear there’s a parade.

India’s Republic Day (distinct from its Independence Day) marks the anniversary of the date in 1950 when India’s constitution went into effect. It was on that day that India became a republic, with a constitution in which its democratic and secular nature was enshrined.

The U.S. Constitution influenced the drafters of this document in part. Obama alluded to the connection when he spoke to India’s parliament in November 2010 (another honor not often given to foreign leaders), noting that “we are two strong democracies whose constitutions begin with the same revolutionary words — ‘We the people.’”

One aspect of the commemoration of Republic Day is indeed a parade that takes place on January 26 every year. It has both solemn and festive elements. India’s fallen and its brave (both military and civilian) are honored. Its diversity and its federalism are celebrated. And, as my Brookings colleague W.P.S. Sidhu has noted, it’s a demonstration of both India’s soft and hard power.

Personnel from the Indian military, paramilitary and police forces march past, accompanied by military bands. Military equipment is showcased — produced domestically and procured from abroad. This year expect an emphasis on the former, and perhaps a highlighting of equipment acquired from the United States.

It’ll be interesting to see whether any equipment from Russia might feature — while India has been diversifying its purchases in recent years, that country remains a key defense supplier to India. On the soft power side, schoolchildren perform dances. There are floats (or tableaux — the term used in India) highlighting India’s states and some policy initiatives. There’s a riot of color, music and, yes, camels (they are part of the Border Security Force’s camel contingent). The parade usually ends with one of its most anticipated moments: daredevils on motorcycles and a fly-past with a tri-color (orange, white and green) smoke-trail.

Some media outlets have described the parade as a communist-style parade, but it pre-dates India-Soviet Cold War bonhomie and it’s to Britain rather than the Soviet Union that one might want to look for more of its inspiration. Think some combination of Trooping of the Colour in London, the Inauguration Day parade in Washington and/or the Victory Day parade in Moscow — with Indian touches, of course.

3. Is it a big deal that Obama was invited? Isn’t this just “non-essential foreign travel”?

As two long-time South Asia hands and former U.S. diplomats put it, “it is a huge deal.” The invitation to be chief guest is one of the most significant honors that India can bestow on any foreign leader. The fact that it was even issued is historical and significant because of what it says about India’s world view, its leader’s foreign policy approach and the perception of the state of India-U.S. relations.

Commentators have described it as a “watershed"; as India “exorcis[ing] yet another ghost” and moving past a “psychological barrier.” In the past, even when India-U.S. relations have been healthy and growing, an invitation hadn’t been forthcoming.

Even as it has become much closer over the last decade, the relationship with the United States wasn’t one Indian policymakers seemed to want to highlight publicly. Many preferred to downplay the relationship; some even wanted to downright hide it. Governments were sensitive about being seen as moving too close to the United States.

This sensitivity won’t go away entirely — see the speedy correction from the Indian foreign ministry spokesperson when he referred to the United States as “one of our most friendly allies” and then quickly changed that to “partners” — and India will continue to maintain its other partnerships. But this moment does represent a shift.

This Indian prime minister has shown a willingness to bring the India-U.S. relationship more out into the open. In an interview published a few days before the Indian election results were announced in May, Modi didn’t hesitate to use the term “natural allies” to describe the relationship.

During his visit to the United States last year, in an op-ed he outlined why he believed this relationship was important. He stressed that the United States was India’s “natural global partner” and that “India and the U.S. have a fundamental stake in each other’s success.” The Republic Day overture is the latest manifestation of this openness. State-run television and radio carry the ceremony live, and India’s many private news channels will also have days of live coverage related to the president’s visit.

The Obama administration recognizes the significance of the invitation and the moment (hence the acceptance of the invitation), as does Congress, which speedily confirmed Richard Verma as ambassador to India in time for the visit.

Some have wondered about the timing of the visit, i.e., why the president is taking off for India a few days after the State of the Union address, when they say he should focus domestically. Given that the Republic Day date is fixed, there was not much Washington could do about the timing of the trip.

Turning down an invitation wouldn’t have just been a missed opportunity, but probably would have set back the United States relationship with India. Moreover, rather than Obama’s attendance, it would have been his absence that would have elicited criticism from Republican quarters.

When it comes to India, the complaint of many in the GOP hasn’t been that Obama has done too much, but the opposite—that he should think bigger, do more. Senator John McCain, now chairman of the Senate Armed Services Committee, said as much in September.

This is why despite the timing not perhaps being ideal — the Obama administration might have wanted to plan a return visit later in his second term — the president made the decision to go to India. This won’t go unnoticed in India, particularly by Modi.

It’ll definitely be a contrast to Russian President Putin’s 23-hour, 15-minute dash to India—despite the Indian prime minister’s request to him to spend more than a day in India.

4. So, was it all about the optics?

Firstly, optics do matter. Symbolism and substance aren’t mutually exclusive — the former can indeed facilitate the latter. This has definitely been the case in India-U.S. relations in the past. This trip, in particular, gives the United States and India an opportunity to feature and celebrate what they share: democracy and diversity.

We will also see personal touches, highlighting the relationship between the two countries and the leaders. The Indian media has been reporting that the prime minister is looking to make some special gestures, not least to convey his appreciation for the welcome he received in Washington and to reciprocate.

But, while this trip is optics-heavy — if nothing else, because the parade and the Taj Mahal give shutterbugs ample fodder — there is also substance. Some of this will be evident; some of it will take place behind the scenes.

The timing of this visit — in terms of how soon it comes after Modi’s visit to the United States in September — has presented both a challenge and an opportunity for those who “work” the relationship. In terms of opportunity, with this summit, the leaders can build on the momentum generated from their first one.

As an action-forcing event, it’s made the two bureaucracies focus on the relationship at a time when both governments are grappling with other foreign and domestic priorities. They’ve indeed already moved on a number of commitments made during the September summit.

This visit is also a chance for the two leaders to get to know each further and continue to establish a personal relationship that could pave the way for a smoother ride ahead and especially be crucial in times of crisis or difficulties. It also gives Obama the opportunity to engage with other key stakeholders in the relationship, especially the business community and the Indian public.

However, given that this visit comes less than four months after the last one — months that haven’t exactly been quiet for either Delhi or Washington — it has also posed a challenge in terms of getting significant movement on the substance side and reaching more concrete agreements. Nonetheless, the two governments have been working overtime to make progress in key areas.

On the functional side, defense cooperation will feature, with the potential renewal of the defense framework agreement on the table (the previous one was signed in 2005), as well as some progress on co-production and co-development projects under the Defense Trade and Technology Initiative.

Economic ties — trade, investment (especially in infrastructure) — is a key theme, especially with Commerce Secretary Penny Pritzker, U.S. Trade Representative Michael Froman and several business leaders also traveling to India. Half a day has been devoted to the president and prime minister meeting with private sector leaders from both countries.

Climate change and clean energy are other focus areas. While a deal as ambitious as the China-U.S. agreement is not expected (in recent months, India has indeed been emphasizing that it cannot be clubbed together with China), there might be some movement on this front. There is also expectation that there will be announcements related to the two countries’ Partnership to Advance Clean Energy, perhaps on the technology and investment front.

Both sides have been working toward operationalizing their nuclear energy cooperation agreement, but as yet it’s not clear whether they will find a way out of the impasse in time for the summit (or, if the proposed solution will be feasible). Counterterrorism cooperation and homeland security are also likely to be discussed—though these are issues where details might not be too forthcoming.

Related to this, the two sides will discuss the situations in Afghanistan and Pakistan, as well as the Middle East (including Iran and ISIL). The consultations on regional issues are likely not just to focus on India’s west, but also on its east — where they have identified stability in the Asia-Pacific as a shared interest.

There are indeed a host of other areas in which the two countries cooperate and if there’s a joint statement, we’ll get more details on related progress on bilateral, regional and global issues. Overall, there will be “deliverables,” but it’s not clear that there will be what the Indian media calls “big-ticket announcements.”

It will be interesting to see if they issue a roadmap, laying out the agenda ahead for the relationship. On the whole, both governments have been actively managing expectations. But with two leaders who have surprised observers of this relationship before, there will likely be unexpected things to write and comment about — whether those will be on substance or symbolism.

5. What’s in it for the United States and India? What’s in it for Obama and Modi?

Democratic and Republican administrations over the last decade and a half have indicated support for India, stressing that strengthening relations with that country is in U.S. interests. Hence, then national security adviser Tom Donilon put it bluntly in 2013, “We don’t just accept India’s rise, we fervently support it.”

The American investment in India has been predicated on at least three assumptions. For some, it has been the idea of India that has been important — a diverse, developing democracy that could be a partner. For others, India’s economic potential — as a market and as a source of investment and talent — has been what makes it attractive. For yet others, it has been India’s strategic potential, especially as a balance against (or contrast to) China.

For Obama, this trip offers a way to consolidate India-U.S. relations. A strong, economically rising India and a close, stable relationship with it can help his domestic objectives (including economic ones), his rebalance to the Asia-Pacific, as well as his global goals. It can also be a key legacy issue for him: leaving his successor a transformed relationship with India.

For Modi, this relationship offers both strategic and political benefits. He has promised his people a strong, secure, prosperous, inclusive India that will be respected on the world stage. The Modi government sees the United States as playing a crucial role in helping them deliver on this promise. Thus, the prime minister has clearly stated that he sees the United States as “a principal partner in the realization of India’s rise.”

And, bucking some in his own base, he has taken the relationship he found that the previous government had established with the United States and has run with it — speedily. This visit provides an opportunity to move it forward significantly, to enhance Indian interests, and for Modi to strengthen his position at home and his image abroad.

Crucially, however, both leaders will have to deliver — domestically and in terms of the relationship. If not, there’s a danger that disillusionment and drift will again set in. Differences might also crop up on issues like trade and climate change or countries like Pakistan, Russia and Iran that will need to be handled with care.

Tanvi Madan is a fellow in the Foreign Policy program at the Brookings Institution, and director of The India Project. This article first appeared on the Brookings Institution website. Follow Madan on Twitter @tanvi_madan