Trump’s BRICS ultimatum won’t deter de-dollarization – Asia Times

By:
On:
In: Asia, Finance

The US President-elect is undoubtedly concerned about what the BRICS countries might have in business for the US dollar as Donald Trump prepares for a second term in the White House.

And, not surprisingly, Trump is threatening big-time fines for any hint of de-dollarization among Brazil, Russia, India, China, South Africa and the grouping’s novel people, including Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates.

Trump recently posted to his Truth Social system, saying that the notion that the BRICS countries are trying to walk away from the money while we watch and watch is over.

We demand a commitment from these nations that they won’t create a new BRICS money, nor will they support any other money to replace the powerful US money, or that they will be subject to 100 % tariffs, and that they should anticipate saying goodbye to selling into the wonderful US market.

Never simply a delightful bed from the Trump 2.0 group. Trump’s affected tariffs on the BRICS may only serve as fuel for the” International South” to look for or develop a buck alternative.

According to Michael Wan, senior currency analyst at MUFG Research, it’s unclear how 100 % tariffs on a group of nations that make up 37 % of global GDP would actually occur.

Additionally, it’s unclear how the BRICS’ sky-high taxes would benefit the world’s largest economy. But as Deutsche Bank argues, Trump’s preoccupation with a powerful money appears greater than ever.

” This seems to further show that money strength is an concern for the new leadership, unlike Trump 1.0″, when the US took a less ambitious approach, Deutsche researchers wrote.

Development countries have plenty of reason to be concerned about the dollars with US government debt exceeding US$ 36 trillion and Trump countering enormous budget-busting tax cuts. Washington, after all, only has one AAA record score left — from Moody’s Investors Service.

Morgan Stanley, for one, is advising that it might be time to sell the dollars. According to scientist David Adams,” a lot of the great news for the USD” has already been priced, with the majority of them having “largely internalized the US outperformance storyline” based on Trump’s pledges to impose their tax and trade policies. Businesses, though, may become “overestimating the rate, depth and scale” of those swings.

” We sense investment attitude on the whole is very productive on the franc, suggesting asymmetrical risks for a’ problems trade,’ in the months ahead”, Adams noted.

Trump World has made it clear the US Federal Reserve’s democracy, a key component in global confidence in the greenback, is also on the board come January. The” Project 2025″ system that his Democratic party cooked up for Trump 2.0 includes treatments for curbing the Fed’s much-vaunted freedom.

The Fed almost escaped Trump 1.0 unhurt. Trump placed the pressure on his hand-picked Fed Chairman Jerome Powell first and frequently during his first term in office, which spanned from 2017 to 2021.

Trump attacked the Powell-led Fed in statements, press events and on social media. Trump also mulled firing Powell. The Fed started adding liquidity to an business that didn’t have any additional assistance in the same year.

In October, Trump mocked Powell’s policy staff over. ” I think it’s the greatest job in government”, Trump told Bloomberg. Everyone talks about you like a god when you say, “let’s say turn a gold,” and you show up to the office once a month.

But&nbsp, Trump&nbsp, even defends the right of the leader to persuade the Fed into lowering costs. In August, Trump said,” the Federal Reserve&nbsp, is a very fascinating thing and it’s sort of gotten it wrong a bunch”.

Trump added,” I feel the leader should have at least stayed there, yeah. I feel that clearly. I think that, in my situation, I made a lot of money. I was extremely prosperous. And I believe I have a better impulse than those who, in many cases, may become chairman of the Federal Reserve.

For Asian officials and politicians, it’s a truly personalized abuse on the Fed’s position. The largest US Treasury supplies ever held by Eastern central bankers are held by the world’s largest central banks. Japan only holds$ 1.1 trillion&nbsp, of US loan, China$ 770-plus billion.

More broadly, Asia’s largest holders of dollars are sitting on about$ 3 trillion worth. It all implies that a Trump 2.0 administration would put a lot of Asian state success in danger.

Actually so, Trump is trying to wrench up tariff-induced problems for any country — or economic bloc — brave to champion a penny alternative.

The coming Treasury Department, however, was apply currency manipulation charges, trade controls or levies on trade beyond anything Trump has previously suggested or announced.

Trump appears to be prepared to punish allies who look to conduct bilateral trade in currencies other than the dollar, as well as adversaries. In March, Trump told CNBC that he “would not allow countries to go off the dollar”, as it would be” a hit to our country”.

Yet de-dollarization has moved to the center of the BRICS agenda, particularly since the grouping’s 2023 summit. Both Trump’s and US President Joe Biden’s fingerprints are present in this backlash.

Trump’s meddling with the Fed, hints at defaulting on US debt, and fiscal excesses affected dollar perceptions significantly. When Fitch Ratings revoked Washington’s AAA status, it&nbsp, cited the Capitol Hill chaos on&nbsp, January&nbsp, 6, 2021, as a “reflection of the deterioration in governance” imperiling US finances.

Biden-led efforts to impose economic sanctions on Russia, including accusations of “weaponizing” the dollar, exacerbated the problem.

” The United States ‘ ability to hobble Russia to this extent, without firing a shot, highlights the sovereignty of the United States and the dollar in the global economy”, argues George Pearkes, an analyst at the Atlantic Council’s GeoEconomics Center.

” In this case”, Pearkes noted,” sovereignty is the degree to which a currency issuer can dictate the use of that currency”. But, he added,” by using the power of dollar sovereignty, dollar sovereignty risks endangering the reserve status, which allows it to be weaponized”.

To be sure, Pearkes noted that “aggressive use of dollar weaponization has been signaled repeatedly by US policymakers to achieve US goals in the current Ukraine dispute.”

Although this would have a significant impact on Russia, he noted that “negative feedback on dollar sovereignty will be measured in decades rather than years— and will unavoidably come.”

According to Pearkes,” the ability to restrict access to financial markets is significantly more powerful than it has historically been.” What’s more, he noted,” the weaponized dollar” was “already a fact of life in global affairs” before Russia invaded Ukraine.

Pearkes noted that” the governments of Cuba, Iran, North Korea and Venezuela can all attest to that fact, as can their civilian populations. In all four countries, dollar sovereignty has been weaponized in a contemporary context”.

Trump is, however, steadfast in his desire to avoid the risk that the Global South might lose the dollar. &nbsp,

There is no way the BRICS will ever replace the US dollar in global trade, and any nation trying should wave goodbye to America, Trump said via social media.

Trump has recently shook markets with plans to impose 25 % tariffs on Canada and Mexico as well as additional levies on China up and above the 60 % he has already threatened.

Curiously, Trump said he’s had contact with Chinese leader Xi Jinping in recent days. Over the weekend, Trump told NBC that “we’ve had communication”.

At the Group of 20 summit in Japan in June 2019, Trump and Xi had their final in-person meeting. Trump stated to NBC,” I had an agreement with President Xi, who I got along with very well.

Still, Trump World is clearly steeling for a Trade War 2.0 with Xi’s Communist Party. Last week, Trump buttressed his” Tariff Man” street cred by naming uber-China hawk Peter Navarro as his top trade adviser. Navarro, &nbsp, who in 2011 co-authored a book titled” Death by China”, rarely misses a chance to accuse Xi’s party of “robbing us blind”.

Trump also appointed aggressive China critic Marco Rubio as secretary of state, and padded his next trade negotiations team with extremists like Jamieson Greer and Robert Lighthizer.

Trump 2.0’s supporters contend that tariffs are merely a tactic used to bring Xi’s party to consensus. Yet Xi’s inner circle seems unsure of Trump’s sincerity concerning a new “grand bargain” trade deal.

Case in point: Beijing’s move to limit the sales of key components used to build drones to the US and Europe. While bad news for Ukraine’s defense against Russia, it also serves as a sign of upcoming broader export restrictions.

China also opened an investigation into US chipmaker Nvidia this week following concerns that the business might have violated its anti-monopoly laws. This is also being interpreted as a sign of targeted Chinese trade war retaliation measures. Nvidia is at the center of Nvidia’s efforts to rule the artificial intelligence market.

Earlier this year, the BRICS added Egypt, Ethiopia, Iran, Saudi Arabia and the UAE to its ranks.

Mariel Ferragamo, a member of the Council on Foreign Relations, said,” The addition of Egypt and Ethiopia will amplify voices from the African continent.” Egypt also shared close political ties with Russia and close business ties with China and India. As a new BRICS member, Egypt seeks to&nbsp, attract more investment&nbsp, and improve its battered economy”.

According to Ferragamo,” the addition of Saudi Arabia and the UAE would bring in the Arab world’s two biggest economies, as well as the second and eighth top oil producers globally.”

Yet the most powerful connector among BRICS members, old and new, is stepping out of Washington’s financial orbit. As such,” we think the bloc&nbsp, has &nbsp, the most potential to forward its de-dollarization agenda in&nbsp, FX reserves and fuel trade”, said Chris Turner, global markets head at ING Bank.

Turner noted that the BRICS bloc controls 42 % of global central bank currency reserves, likely contributing to the global de-dollarization process.

The BRICS is “gaining more and more visibility as a trade partner for other emerging markets, particularly in the fuel trade,” adding that it is “gaining more and more ground in regional trade.” BRICS accounts for 37 % of the EM fuel trade, a key area of interest for de-dollarization”, he said.

The BRICS , Turner noted, “is actively de-dollarizing its financial flows from above-average levels, as seen through declining shares of US dollar in their cross-border bank claims, international debt securities, and broader external debt”.

The BRICS , according to Turner, “has a much smaller global presence in those areas that limits the impact of its regional de-dollarization on the global role of the US dollar.”

Even so, the BRICS are causing the dollar to pivot, despite Trump’s efforts to stifle the process. Perhaps the better course of action would be to improve the US financial system.

But that seems unlikely as Trump eyes additional multi-trillion-dollar tax cuts sure to push America’s national debt toward an eye-watering$ 40 trillion over the next four years.

Trump may also be using the reserve currency to defy de-dollarization advocates. With the BRICS cast playing the role of a spoiler, the dollar will likely be a major battleline in the Trump 2.0 era.

Follow William Pesek on X at @WilliamPesek

Continue Reading

Rocket fuel eating away at US, China nuclear weapons – Asia Times

By:
On:
In: Asia

A new record that exposes the ticking time bomb inside both US and Chinese missiles suggests that aging jet energy may be slowly crippling the nation’s nuclear arsenals.

South China Morning Post (SCMP ) reported this month that Chinese rocket scientists have discovered that the solid fuel used in intercontinental ballistic missiles ( ICBMs) ages much more quickly than previously thought, potentially making hundreds of missiles unusable.

Major changes in the fuel columns that can happen within the next 30 years, making them unable to resist the loads during flight, were discovered in China’s National Key Laboratory of Solid Rocket Propulsion in Xian. This finding might explain the regular launch failures that some nuclear powers have experienced in recent years.

The older engineer Qin Pengju led the study, which revealed that while the aged propellant appeared stable during regular storage, it quickly became considerably more brittle when under high pressure. It mentions that the research focused on the solid fuel commonly used in ICBMs: ammonium perchlorate, aluminum powder and hydroxyl-terminated polybutadiene ( HTPB) binder.

According to SCMP, the study’s results suggest that after just 27 years, the battery’s flexibility may be compromised, leading to potential fast fractures during launch. It notes that the topic has raised questions about the US’s declining nuclear deterrent capacity, which relies on Trident II weapons and Minuteman III weapons from the 1970s.

A Minuteman III ICBM check that went wrong in November 2023 may have heightened concerns about the US’s aging land-based nuclear army, perhaps as an example of the instability of aging ICBMs. According to an anomaly, the unarmed weapon was launched from Vandenberg Space Force Base.

While the Minuteman III as a whole is nonetheless considered a reliable arms structure, its subcomponents, such as the container, technology and weapon, are outdated and may have been neglected.

As delays and price shortfalls plague its next-generation LGM-35A Sentinel system, according to a report from Asia Times that the US is under increasing pressure to replace its aging Minuteman III ICBMs.

Budgeted first at US$ 95.8 billion, the Sentinel’s price has surged to an estimated$ 160 billion, forcing the Pentagon to support the raise under the Nunn-McCurdy Amendment. According to Covid-19 disruptions and prices, generation delays have postponed its implementation until 2029. As a result, the US Air Force has stretch Minuteman II I’s duration.

In addition to outdated delivery methods, Asia Times reported in January 2024 that the US’s proper barrier is severely hampered by the country’s aging of uranium mines in US nuclear arms. Despite plutonium’s 24, 000-year half-life, micro changes over time can impact the backup protection and violent yield of nuclear arms.

The US National Nuclear Security Administration ( NNSA ) has struggled to build new plutonium pits, with the goal of 80 pits per year unanticipated until 2030 or later. This gap is attributed to a post-Cold War tradition of apathy, a lack of skilled workers and limiting environmental rules.

Existing mines, designed for older arms, does not perform as required in newer techniques, raising concerns about the stability of the US nuclear arsenal.

Keeping the 1970s-era Minuteman III poses major problems. Lauren Caston and other authors claim that the aging equipment and components that require ongoing development are essential to keeping the aging Minuteman III in company in a February 2014 RAND statement.

Caston and others make the claim that while the Minuteman III Service Life Extension Program ( SLEP ) aims to replace crucial subsystems like guidance and propulsion with incremental modernization, the obsolescence of the original manufacturing processes and materials, which makes it necessary to rely on more expensive, contemporary alternatives.

Another major operational requirement is the monthly check firing charge, which accelerated after 2017, when the price increased from three to four tests per year, due to the depletion of missile inventory. Without boosting new production, they claim that America’s missile stockpile could fall below the required operational levels by 2030.

Parth Satam mentions in a July 2024 article for The Aviationist that it is much less expensive to extend the Minuteman II I’s life until 2050 because previous renovations cost only$ 7 billion for 450 missiles, as the US struggles to keep the Minuteman III in service while defending the Sentinel’s ballooning costs.

Satam points out that maintaining these outdated systems is technically challenging due to outdated documentation and a lack of skilled technicians. He contrasts that to the Sentinel program, despite its$ 140 billion price tag and cost overruns, promising a modern, cyber-defendable command and control system.

Satam says the US Department of Defense’s ( DOD ) projected lifetime for the Sentinel, set up to 2075, is arbitrary and inflates costs. He claims that a more flexible timeline could increase the viability of the Minuteman III extension. However, he cautions about the risks of not modernizing, citing the need to address emerging threats from nuclear-armed competitors like China and Russia.

However, he notes the Sentinel’s development could also strain budgets, potentially impacting other key defense programs such as the Next-Generation Air Dominance ( NGAD ) fighter and B-21 Raider stealth bomber.

In light of growing threats from nuclear rivals, reliability and deterrence are in doubt as a result of this situation. China and Russia have aggressively modernized their nuclear arsenals, further compounding the US’s strategic quandary as Russia exhibits nuclear brinkmanship in the Ukraine war and China ramps up fissile material production.

While liquid-fuel systems may avoid problems associated with solid fuel, they bring challenges such as difficult-to-store propellants, design complexity, which opens up more points of possible failure, and the need to be fueled before launch, unlike solid-fuel missiles.

To illustrate these problems, Sidharth Kaushal mentions in an October 2024 Royal United Services Institute ( RUSI) article that Russia’s efforts to replace the aging liquid-fuel R-36 Satan ICBM with the RS-28 Sarmat have faced significant challenges, highlighting issues within its missile production sector.

According to Kaushal, the recent catastrophic failure of the Sarmat test in September 2024 highlights these difficulties. He notes that the failure, likely due to propulsion issues, caused extensive damage to the Plesetsk Cosmodrome.

He points out that since its development in 2013 the Sarmat, which was meant to replace the Soviet-era R-36, has experienced numerous delays and technical issues. These setbacks are a result of the lighter structure and complexity of the new system’s propulsion system.

Additionally, he mentions that the collapse of Russia’s cooperation with Ukrainian contractors, who previously maintained the R-36, has exacerbated the situation. He claims that Russia’s reliance on its Makeyev Rocket Design Bureau for the Sarmat’s development has not completely resolved these issues.

Kaushal points out that the RS-28’s troubled history, including multiple failed tests and delays, raises concerns about the reliability of Russia’s silo-based ICBMs, which are crucial for its strategic deterrence. However, he says that despite these challenges, the Sarmat has been accepted into service, reflecting the urgency of replacing the R-36.

Continue Reading

Syria’s Islamist militias will listen if engaged – Asia Times

By:
On:
In: Asia

The world was informed on Sunday ( December 8 ), suggesting that it had stopped believing that anything was possible. The violent government of Syria’s leader, Bashar al-Assad, is gone and the Syrian civil war may become coming to an end after 13 years of suffering.

Hayat Tahrir al-Sham ( HTS), an armed Islamist group with headquarters in Idlib in the north of Syria, seized the city of Damascus in just a few days, overrunning Aleppo and Homs and finally capturing Damascus. Assad, however, is reported to have fled with his home to Moscow.

The most positive observers see this as a chance for peace. Syria’s several armed factions are now finally being toppled, his main allies Russia and Iran are cooperating elsewhere, and a delicate calm is beginning to emerge between them.

Some warn that the subsequent vacuum could cause a continuation of erratic violence, similar to that which has plagued Libya since Muammar Gaddafi’s regime was overthrown and killed in 2011.

What did come last will depend just as much on the international rights as those in Syria. In 2013, I spent time in Syria chatting with members of the various organizations that merged into HTS, including the Palestinian al-Qaeda online. Armed groups like Units tend to listen when the global community tries to engage with them, as I learned from speaking with them.

A number of Islamist-backed organizations in northern Syria, including the Palestinian affiliates of al-Qaeda, known as Jabhat Fatah al-Sham, united in the formation of HTS in 2017. Units had previously been pushed into a spot in the Idlib area. Despite being attacked by a government supported by Russian warplanes and Hezbollah fighters, it endured tenacious resistance.

Syria is at a crossroads and has many options open up. Some folks point to HTS’s Islamic roots. The earth has been attempting to stop this terrible situation since 2011 by a radical Islamist party coming to power in Syria.

Some claim that the organization has shifted away from its more extreme roots. Al-Qaeda was disbanded in 2016 as a result of Jabhat Fateh al-Sham’s decision to merge with various organizations to shape HTS.

Additionally, HTS has recently attempted to promote a more reasonable image and even promote religious tolerance. If its promises are to be believed, it may attempt to create a secure and peaceful Syria.

The activities of various nations that seek to engage Units and its affiliates will be crucial in shaping Syria’s future. My studies suggests that, at times, they will utilize shifts as a result of such speech. Organizations that have previously abused the laws of war does respond to global pressure and alter their behavior.

They will also, at periods, respond favorably to relationship by taking part in discussions and conflict resolution. But when ostracised, isolated or ignored, these organizations may do the exact same.

I spoke with a number of the various rebel groups while I was in Syria, and one thing I noticed was how ignored they were by the global society. A common from the Free Syrian Army, which was a partnership of rebel rebels that the US supported, complained about the challenges of upholding international humanitarian law without international support.

Islamist group soldiers criticized the duplicity of international companies. When they attempted to talk to governments and organizations, they were forced to unite with more moderate parties. In an effort to foster stronger global ties, an Islamic State captain actually asked me to send positive messages to my friends and family.

It would be wrong to completely agree with armed parties when they asserted a need for peaceful coexistence. But by the same coin, ignoring them wholly is unlikely to stop the fighting.

Is harmony possible?

It may be simpler to explain how we got to this point than to predict what will happen next. Assad’s government has long been propped up by its friends. Units saw an opportunity and seized it as Hezbollah and Iran were both reeling from their fight with Israel and Russia.

Although some are expressing gratitude for the ineffectiveness of the Russian and Persian interventions in Syria, it is doubtful that either country’s effect there will end. New developments could also bring the two closer together in cooperation that might include markets of weapons technologies or interventions abroad.

No nation may merely abandon their goals in Syria. For example, Russia has geopolitical air and naval bases there that are essential for the Kremlin to establish influence in the Middle East, the Mediterranean, and Africa. Russia does certainly give up on these quickly.

Turkey, a long supporter of HTS, seems to be in a solid position to influence activities. This may include pressing its advantage in its continued assault against the Kurdish-led Syrian Democratic Forces ( SDF) in Syria’s northeast.

Although the SDF are merely National friends, it is doubtful that Donald Trump’s immediate foregoing of them in 2019 has been forgotten. Turkey used a power pump as justification for the US president’s decision to withdraw US military troops from Syria to launch an offensive against the Syrian Kurds.

The future of Kurdish freedom may, therefore, been in fear, though the battle-hardened SDF will likely not go down without a struggle.

How Syria’s HTS-controlled relationship with the Trump presidency is still a mystery. However, it’s difficult to imagine Trump becoming friends with Units, an armed party with historical links to Islamists, despite the fact that it’s unlikely that there will be more American involvement on the ground.

Meanwhile, Israel has seized temporary command of a demilitarized cushion zone in Syrian-controlled sections of the Golan Heights. Some apprehensions about a potential increase in fight there are expressed by some. Refugees living in five settlements close to the occupied places have been warned by the Israeli military to” remain home.” Additionally, some schools have switched to online groups in response to turmoil.

HTS is at the middle of these events in Syria, which have profound effects on the nation and the location. The group’s ability to hold onto power in Syria is still uncertain, and if so, what kind of program they will try to establish.

The regional and global powers ‘ responses may be crucial at this time, when partnering with HTS is crucial if the chance for peace is to be exploited.

William Plowright is associate professor in global stability, Durham University

This content was republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original content.

Continue Reading

Sandbagging Trump: obstacles galore to a Ukraine deal – Asia Times

By:
On:
In: Asia

US President-elect&nbsp, Donald Trump begrudgingly met with Ukraine President Volodymyr Zelensky&nbsp, and French President Emanuel Macron in Paris to explore the way forward in Ukraine.

Zelensky is already jittery about any agreements he might have made, even though Trump claims to have persuaded him to continue with the agreements with Russia. A peace and dialogue are neither Macron’s desires, sometimes.

The Trump strategy for Ukraine is simple but full of munitions. Trump, to put it simply, proposes a ceasefire and negotiations and anticipates that Ukraine will formally lose some of its place to Russia. So far as can be determined, Trump has not yet talked to Putin.

When a territorial agreement is reached, there will be some kind of cushion area and some soldiers from France, Germany, and the UK serving as soldiers ( which Russia about certainly won’t agree to ). In some fashion, Ukraine will withdraw itself from any concern for NATO membership, possibly for a period of time ( anywhere from five to 20 times ).

What will be said by the Russians? As long as Russian troops are stationed on Belarusian territory, the Russians are unlikely to agree to a ceasefire. Putin, hence, will demand their expulsion from Kursk.

Due to Trump, the US/Ukrainian location is that Kursk is a negotiation device, and it seems that Ukrainians want to sell Kursk for Russian-held Ukrainian territory.

Russia has reclaimed a large portion of the land it previously held in Kursk. Image: X Screengrab

The Russians have now reclaimed about 50 % to 60 % of the Kursk territory that the AFU ( Armed Force of Ukraine ) initially seized. However, Ukraine has continued to undertake significant resources to the area, which means that it will take time to finally dislodge the AFU.

In this context, AFU deaths in Kursk, according to the Russians, are approaching 40, 000, with large losses of tools and weapons. There are no credible reports, but Russian casualties may become higher as well.

Putin’s options are either ( 1 ) to continue the Kursk counter-offensive, possibly increasing the number of troops and firepower, or ( 2 ) to accept that taking back all of Kursk is too costly in manpower and material, leading to a ceasefire in place.

Vladimir Putin, the Russian president, can be expected to follow solution one, but with a secret timetable that could take one or two months to complete the counter-offensive.

It is important to point out that there has been conflict between the Russian military, which hasn’t always had the same level of political enthusiasm as Russia’s, or who has not been as capable as privately advertised.

Socially speaking, Putin is not in good condition. He is tying up his outposts in Syria, but it could blow up anytime. No one can predict the exact design or goals of the new Syrian state.

Putin’s regional failure ( throwing most of his eggs into the Iranian-Hezbollah-Syrian basket ) has weakened Russian prestige. Another bad choices, such as the North Koreans or Chinese, even are fraught with small and long-term difficulties, some of which can be managed but not all.

What will happen if Kim Jong Un’s government crumbles or China experiences a tense financial problems? Putin has some possibilities, but a significant change in Russia’s national surveillance strategy may be required to proceed from here. Trump may see an opening ok, right?

Russia’s President Vladimir Putin ( right ) and Turkey’s President Recep Tayyip Erdogan meet on the sidelines of the BRICS summit in Kazan, Russia. Photo: Greek President’s Press Office

Turkey, which has much more on its head than killing Kurds, poses a major problem for Putin. It wants to become a significant person in the former Russian footing ground, which was formerly known as the Turkic Central Asian country.

The” stans”, as they are called, are under pressure from NATO, from China and from Turkey, and Russia’s relationship with Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdogan is, shall we say, problematic.

How this plays up is anyone’s guess, but obviously, Turkey will need a bigger position and lead place in exploiting the country’s natural resources, including uranium, gold, copper, and natural gas, among many others.

Trump’s plan’s main focus is on ending the Ukraine war. It says little about many of Russia’s reported objectives, although Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov went through these in his&nbsp, interview with Tucker Carlson, particularly protecting Russian speakers, denazification, security of the Russian Orthodox Church in Ukraine, a natural Ukrainian government, no NATO bases or troops.

All of this implies significant modifications to Ukraine’s Constitution and the withdrawing of several laws passed by the Verkhovna Rada, Ukraine’s legislature, as well as canceling different National decrees.

Putin might want a ceasefire and negotiations on territorial issues and the status of forces to be concluded before these laws and decrees are signed. It’s still unclear whether he will or not.

There is talk of sending Zelensky into exile ( London is mentioned ) and holding elections in Ukraine in NATO circles. To accomplish this, political exiles from Ukraine would need to be able to go back to Ukraine and form organizations, and those who are imprisoned or under house arrest also need political freedom.

President Volodymyr Zelensky met with members of the Ministry of Defense of Ukraine’s Main Intelligence Directorate and presented state awards on the occasion of the 30-year anniversary of military intelligence of the country. Image: X Screengrab

The Ukrainian secret services and their military enlistrers are the stumbling blocks. They are the ones ( both the” civilian” and military secret services ) that have been keeping the current Ukrainian government in power.

Without putting an end to these powerful, quasi-military police operations that systematically eavesdrop on Ukrainian citizens and orchestrate bombings and assassinations at home as well as in and outside of Russia, it is difficult to imagine how free elections could be held in Ukraine. Without a solution to the security services issue, it is difficult to imagine how any elections in Ukraine could go wrong.

The Ukrainian GRU, officially the Main Directorate of Intelligence, is&nbsp, tightly tied to the CIA&nbsp, in the US and&nbsp, MI-6&nbsp, in the UK, and other intelligence services in the NATO countries ( i. e., BND or Bundesnachrichtendienst in Germany, DGSE or Directorate General for External Security in France, and the Security Service or Agencja Bezpieczeństwa Wewnętrznego in Poland. )

Any attempt to overthrow or weaken the Ukrainians ‘ sister services will be met with resistance.

Another significant issue is the actions and role of the nationalist militias in the Ukrainian army, including Azov and a number of others. Included here is the Special Operations Forces ( SSO ) of Ukraine, which consists of 4, 000 Spetsnaz specialists.

Will these units follow orders from Kyiv or will they obey them? The truth is that the Ukrainian army’s professional and volunteer components could act as spoilers and trigger attempts to overthrow the country’s government.

Ukrainian Spetznaz training during a NATO exercise ( Photo: Sgt. &nbsp, Patrik Orcutt

The Biden administration, which has been funneling billions in weapons to Ukraine at the eleventh hour, thereby delaying negotiations, and conducting provocative NATO exercises that pose a direct threat to Russia, is only making matters worse for Trump.

The most recent example is the deployment of nuclear bombers, AWACS, and other aircraft ( some of which are from the allies, including Sweden ) that are close to Kaliningrad and conducting exercises in the Gulf of Finland and the Kola peninsula.

Additionally, US Secretary of Defense Lloyd Austin’s statements, which are combative, claim that they are proud to have sand in the direction of the upcoming administration that wants to slow or stop sales of weapons to Ukraine and not make the situation worse by flooding Ukraine with weapons.

Oddly enough, Putin will find it more difficult to make concessions to Trump as a result of the recent blows to Russian prestige in the Middle East. Can Trump persuade Putin to cooperate?

He will require some potent sweeteners to entice Russia, but we cannot specify what they are. Meanwhile, the obstacles, including Biden, are sandbagging Trump and making real progress hard, even impossible.

UPDATE: &nbsp, Zelensky says discussions with US President-elect Trump&nbsp, are premature, as Trump does not have the authority to address such matters.

Because he is not currently in the White House, it is difficult to talk to President Trump about this. By the way, I am going to call President Biden in the near future to raise the issue of Ukraine’s NATO invitation”, Zelensky&nbsp, said.

The Ukrainian president also&nbsp, expressed openness&nbsp, to French President Macron’s proposal to deploy international military forces in Ukraine, potentially bridging the gap before NATO membership.

Reports indicate that the UK and France are &nbsp, considering&nbsp, peacekeeper deployments after a possible ceasefire, an idea that German Foreign Minister Annalena Baerbock&nbsp, did not rule out.

Stephen Bryen is a correspondent for Asia Times and previously held the positions of the US Senate Foreign Relations Committee’s staff and deputy undersecretary of defense for policy. &nbsp, This&nbsp, article was first published&nbsp, on his&nbsp, Substack newsletter&nbsp, Weapons and Strategy and is republished with permission.

Continue Reading

Russia’s loss of Syria naval base would sink its global power – Asia Times

By:
On:
In: Asia

The Assad regime’s drop is a significant blow to Russia’s reputation and international policy. Not least of the difficulties are the possibility of having to deal with the loss of Syria’s even overseas naval base, which is located in the port of Tartus on the Mediterranean coast.

The base’s destiny is still a mystery. There is no denying that the Kremlin’s best officials will work closely with the new leaders of Damascus to establish their sole inventory and repair facility in the Mediterranean.

However, the fact that all Russian ships left the base last year suggests that events have overtaken the Russian army. At this stage, the possible result is that Moscow’s long-term exposure to this center will be at least compromised.

Since Peter the Great established the traditional Soviet army in 1696, Moscow’s diplomatic and military forces have made unwavering efforts to gain access to “warm waters.”

In fact, Russia’s exposure to the world’s communication channels is restricted by enclosed seas ( such as the Baltic Sea, Black Sea, and Sea of Japan ), which do not allow Russian ships to have unimpeded access to the world’s sea, or by unfriendly natural settings ( such as the Arctic Ocean and Bering Sea ), where problems frequently make navigation dangerous.

One of Moscow’s most beloved benefits was having access to a naval hospital at Tartus for supporting the Assad government during the Syrian civil war that started in 2011.

Since 2013, Assad provided the Soviet army with a secure area for its medium-sized vessels operating in the Mediterranean. Its main objective is to maintain and repair Russia’s marine resources, enabling them to remain in the area for longer periods of time.

The work force has used Tartus as a foundation from which to carry naval exercises and operations to dark NATO troops in the Mediterranean, despite being frequently overlooked. The purpose of this, in the framework of global political tensions, has been to battle ( or at least check ) European dominance of the Mediterranean.

Greater political effects

If Russia loses Tartus for good, Moscow will suffer a number of losses as a result. Most notably, its everlasting naval task force in the Mediterranean would have to either embark on a lengthy, humiliating journey up to Russian installations or relocate to a new temporary base in the area.

In accordance with the Montreux protocol, Ankara closed the Greek Islands to Russian ships after Moscow launched a full-scale invasion of Ukraine in 2022. Any warships operating in the Mediterranean are unable to travel via the Bosphorus to the Russian outposts in Sevastopol or Novorossiysk in the Black Sea.

In the longer word, Russia’s presence in the Mediterranean and, by extension, the Middle East may become diminished. Marine forces are crucial in shaping power and force prediction. In fact, American states’ military supremacy is based on their ability to deploy troops across the globe for extended periods of time.

Big carrier battle parties, for example, are frequently used as prepositioning causes. It’s a website in which&nbsp, Russia has typically lagged behind&nbsp, NATO and the West. This has generally hampered Russia’s skill to use its military might abroad.

Logistics is essential here. Russians ‘ loss of Tartus, in addition to the Turkish Straits ‘ enduring closure of its warships as long as the conflict in Ukraine persists, may significantly impair Moscow’s capability to install marine task forces and support operations on land in the area and beyond.

In addition, the naval forces ‘ duties include protecting one’s personal merchant marine and the world’s communication paths of communication. Moscow is significantly dependent on its ships of Russian-flagged boats to keep its supply chain as a result of American sanctions limiting commercial shipping businesses to and from Russia.

Any restriction placed on the Russian navy might have an impact on the security of its industrial and civil operations.

Russia’s ability to save its customer in Syria does have a significant impact on Moscow’s politics in Africa, Asia, and South America, where it won’t be able to work with the same convenience.

Aside from all of this, it is important to remember that the risk of a naval facility strikes at Russia’s international reputation. With the numerous failures Russia has suffered to its Black Sea fleet, this had now taken a hit.

Without a doubt, the loss of Tartus didn’t prevent Russia’s conflict with Ukraine. In the past, Moscow has shown endurance to tactical flops. But it is a major blow to Moscow’s image as a great authority.

And in advance of a second Trump administration, the Kremlin is ill manage this.

Basil Germond is professor of global stability, Department of Politics, Philosophy and Religion, Lancaster University

This content was republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original content.

Continue Reading

David Steinberg, prolific and profound on Myanmar, dies at 96 – Asia Times

By:
On:
In: Asia

Professor David Steinberg, one of the most renowned Western spectators of contemporary Myanmar, passed away at the age of 96. Steinberg was a minister, development employee, professor and people academic who specialized in Myanmar, Korea and broader global relationships.

Before the Communist Revolution, Steinberg, one of the last American trade pupils to China, was from Dartmouth in the United States, where he studied before the Socialist revolution had expelled some immigrants. Before joining the Asia Foundation, he continued to study at Harvard University and the School of Oriental and African Studies ( SOAS ).

He served in Burma from 1958 to 1962, when General Ne Win’s defense coup forced the majority of Westerners to leave. Before joining the United States Agency for International Development ( USAID), where he was posted to Bangkok for three years, he was then stationed for the base in Hong Kong and South Korea.

After a long lack of over 50 years, Steinberg was instrumental in helping to reopen the Asia Foundation business in Yangon in 2013. He even generously donated his sizable Myanmar-related book series to the office in 2019, only two years before the 2021 revolution forced its closing.

Steinberg was a well-known Eastern studies teacher at Georgetown University for many years. His intellectual career spanned 14 novels, most on Myanmar, but some also on Korea, along with 150 books, information and book chapters, and some 300 commentaries and opinion pieces, including in Asia Times.

He continued to write for a number of papers until well into 2024, including Frontier Myanmar and The Irrawaddy. His approach to realizing Myanmar was generally multi-disciplinary, seeking a consolidation of political perspectives, scientific investigation and the practicalities of advancement work.

In a 2007 meeting, he said,” I would describe my job as trying to bridge the spaces between recognized plans, the scientific community, and the non-profit area. So those in each industry would likely criticize me for not being sufficiently committed to their strategy (either theory or practice ). I strongly believe that these three industries can benefit from one another and their initiatives.

Very presciently, given the state of civil conflict and common suffering in Myanmar presently, he provided guidance to younger scholars. Think about how your research and study does, either directly or indirectly, improve the understanding of the numerous issues the citizens of that nation face, and thus improve their internal and external capacities to ameliorate their miserable condition. There are great theoretical and philosophical justifications for studying Burma, but the requirements in that world don’t seem to bother me at this point.

Steinberg was a vehement critic of Myanmar’s Western economic sanctions policies, which sparked a lot of resentment from some activists. However, his opinions finally spanned liberal concerns about how sanctions affected ordinary people of Myanmar.

He also supported important engagement with Myanmar’s prior military regimes. His long-standing presence there as a representative of the Asia Foundation, which he remembered with wonderful kindness, was frequently obscured by his critics. These reviewers occasionally made up inaccurate statements about him, forgetting that he was a follower of the sanctions that were put in place following the coupd’etat of 1988.

Steinberg was listed as one of the” Enemies of the Burmese Revolution” in a checklist released by the National League for Democracy in 2006. He wrote about his listing in an article from late-2023 in The Irrawaddy:” ( m ) ost of the names had titles, military units and comments on their views. Although the majority of those present were in the military, there were numerous foreigners of various cultures. I was listed as range 320 because Steinberg’s letter neared the end of the word, and I indicated that I opposed Daw Aung San Suu Kyi’s punishment plan. That was appropriate. Despite my lack of power, I didn’t appear to suffer as a result of being included.

This analyst first met Professor Steinberg at a 1998 conference held by the Australian National University ( ANU) in Canberra about the Burma/Myanmar Update. He was always really supportive of emerging scholars, total of attention and guidance, and craved hearing a multitude of varied study and perspectives. At the age of 86, he attended the yearly Burma/Myanmar Studies Conference in Singapore every program and was always crowded with newcomers and old pals. And he never stopped speaking.

On the sites of Asia Times in 2011, I had a vocal discussion with Steinberg about issues of punishment and human rights transparency in Myanmar. It was a tag of his personality that he bore no prejudices and I constantly valued his compassion, information and guidance, yet when we disagreed.

As he once told me,” we can agree on 95 % of problems and that other 5 % we can continue to believe but always debate” he again told me in Washington. He had an unquestionable person researcher part, and this is what. He was constantly available to question, explain, and discuss ideas with grace and wit. When disputes in Washington DC turned, as they frequently did, become heated, yet his opponents had to acknowledge that he was a class act.

Up until immediately before his passing, we kept in touch regularly. Professor Steinberg often regaled me with many anecdotes, including reminiscing in an email last month about a meal at Harvard in 1956 with Henry Kissinger, while also offering suggestions on each other’s published articles. With his characteristic understatement, he said of Kissinger,” (w ) e all know that being intelligent does not necessarily result in better policies”.

It would be an understatement to say that Professor Steinberg was alarmed by the military’s repression of power in 2021. Only someone with 70 years of experience with Myanmar could possibly express such pain to him.

He was thrilled, and in some respects vindicated, by the early years of the post-2011″ transition”, which at first seemed to expand openings and possibilities more than anyone had predicted. He already had growing concerns about the military’s involuntary maneuverings and the country’s future under the National League for Democracy even before the coup.

His post-coup writings conveyed those concerns, but as always he thought and argued with independence, reason and, as ever, a sense of how to improve the dire conditions of the country and its people.

His analysis was markedly more thoughtful, understanding, and informed than commentators his age, and he decried those who are “bound in webs of self-deception or propaganda” from Myanmar opposition figures and their Western courtiers, which is propaganda that permeates political action in Myanmar.

In one of his pieces from earlier this year, he wrote of the challenges of “assembling” a new Myanmar. The current leadership of all conflicting parties has shown to be ineffective at best and ineffective at reaching agreements necessary for reassembly. A new generation of leaders from all political parties who are willing to think critically is urgently needed, but power is a corrosive force that frequently undermines reality and is rarely voluntarily discarded… The current chaos is unacceptable to all parties, and yet no group has sought viable alternatives. There is a need for dialogue, discussion and compromise”.

The legacy of Professor Steinberg will serve as invaluable markers for what has failed in the past as Myanmar reassembles for a challenging future. But most importantly will be how he approached thinking and writing: with clarity, honesty and commitment.

Independent analyst David Scott Mathieson is engaged in conflict, humanitarian, and human rights issues in Myanmar.

Continue Reading

Salt Typhoon: The Chinese hackers deep inside US telecoms – Asia Times

By:
On:
In: Asia

The US government is raising the alarm as a result of cyberattacks perpetrated by the Chinese authorities that have severely damaged the country’s telecommunication network.

The chair of the Senate Intelligence Committee, Sen. Mark Warner (D-VA ), has called it the “worst telecom hack in our nation’s history” and noted that it makes prior cyberattacks by Russian operatives look like” child’s play” by comparison.

The intricate attack, carried out by a group of Taiwanese thieves dubbed Salt Typhoon, began as far back as 2022. According to US leaders, its goal was to encrypt Chinese hackers throughout the US by compromising equipment like routers and switches owned by businesses like AT&amp, T, Verizon, Lumen, and people.

Following rumors that the FBI and the CENSIS and another security-related security agencies were working with phone companies to stop another China-connected network compromises, this attack comes to mind.

The earlier hacking was a result of a terrorist attack that targeted people in the Washington region who held political or government positions, including those who were running for president in 2024.

But Salt Typhoon is not just targeting Americans. According to research from security firm Trend Micro, attacks by Salt Typhoon have in recent years compromised another important facilities around the world. US authorities have confirmed these studies as well, and it is interesting how concerned they are.

Chinese authorities have responded to claims that they are responsible for this activity by disclosing other cyberattack claims.

As a security scientist, I find this assault is truly amazing in its range and severity. However, it’s hardly surprising that this happened. Many businesses of all sizes however don’t adhere to ethical cybersecurity standards, have limited resources, or have IT infrastructures that are too difficult to effectively manage, monitor, and safe.

How bad is it?

Salt Typhoon hacked technical flaws in some cybersecurity products, including firewalls used to protect big organizations. Once inside the community, the attackers used more standard equipment and information to spread their reach, gather data, conceal themselves, and install malware for use later.

According to the FBI, Salt Typhoon allowed Taiwanese authorities to get a large number of data that showed who, when, and with whom certain persons were conversing. They did some research and even found that Salt Typhoon could obtain the articles of text messages and phone calls.

YouTube video

]embedded articles]

The White House’s latest information on Salt Typhoon is reported in” PBS News Hour.”

Salt Typhoon even compromised the secret sites, or backdoors, that phone companies provide to law enforcement to demand court-ordered checking of telephone numbers pursuant to investigations. This site is also used by US intelligence to track down international targets inside the country.

In order to avoid being caught spying on the Salt Typhoon, the adversaries may have gathered information about which Chinese intelligence agencies were monitoring.

The National Security Agency, FBI, and Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency released direction to the people on how to deal with the Salt Typhoon attack on December 3.

Their Enhanced Visibility and Hardening Guidance for Communications Infrastructure link basically repeats best security procedures for businesses to help reduce Salt Typhoon’s influence or upcoming knockoff problems.

However, it does contain advice on how to defend particular communications products for some of the Cisco items that were targeted in this assault.

Despite the fact that the attack has been continuing for decades, US officials and the affected firms have not been able to fully assess the extent, level, and intensity of the attack.

What can be done?

According to US officials, countless of Salt Typhoon’s attacks took place through existing facilities flaws. Failure to implement basic security best practices, as I’ve formerly mentioned, can result in crippling incidents for all sizes of organizations.

It is more crucial than ever to maintain security programs that make it hard for attacks to achieve, especially for important facilities like the phone network, given how dependent the world is on connected information systems.

Companies should continue to be diligent in addition to adhering to the best practices guidance released by the Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency earlier this year.

To stay up to date on adversaries ‘ techniques and methods – and ways to store them, they should follow not only the news for information about this harm but also the various free, proprietary, or private risk intelligence feeds and informal professional sites.

Businesses and governments may also make sure that best practices are followed when hiring and funding their IT departments and security applications in order to meet their needs. The Federal Communications Commission is already threatening businesses with charges for failing to strengthen their defenses against Foreign hackers.

Backdoors and poor people

The typical American should not be concerned about Salt Typhoon, despite any alleged illegal security. The Taiwanese government is unlikely to be interested in your family’s telephone calls or texts to friends. However, if you want to improve your security and privacy a little, consider using end-to-end encrypted messaging service like Signal, FaceTime or Emails.

Make sure your devices, including your house network, don’t use definition or guessed passwords on them. Additionally, think about using two-factor identification to ensure that any crucial online accounts are protected.

Salt Typhoon has demonstrated that the years of cautions issued by the online security community were accurate, which is lost in the story’s sound. No obligated solution or exclusive access to technology products is likely to go unnoticed or be only used by” the good guys,” and demands on them are likely to fail.

So it’s ironic that one of the measures recommended by the government to stop Salt Typhoon snooping is to use highly encrypted solutions for phone calls and text messages. The government has spent years trying to devalue these features so that only” the great guys” can use it.

Richard Forno is primary teacher, CSEE &amp, associate director, UMBC Cybersecurity Institute, University of Maryland, Baltimore County

This content was republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original content.

Continue Reading

Reminder to America: How republics succeed, falter and fail – Asia Times

By:
On:
In: Asia

The US has a fragmented and impressive economy that draws international talent and unparalleled military strength, which gives it an edge over other republics.

Yet the Roman Republic, which had its own analytical benefits, eventually fell to authoritarian rule, and the US faces a similar fate if it fails to protect administrative dignity and unchallenged power continues to grow.

Reform is essential to maintaining democratic government, but history shows that enshrined strength frequently threatens this process. Social function and the growing impact of business interests threaten to destroy the basic principles of the US, posing a threat to its long-term security.

From its beginning, the US has worked to address its internal inconsistencies by guaranteeing good therapy for its citizens. Autocratic impulses even emerged first, with minute President John Adams’s Alien and Sedition Acts targeting political dissent, refugees, and free conversation.

Lincoln later expanded his executive power during the Civil War, avoiding Congress to protect the Union and end slavery, which has become the most controversial and considerable political issue since the country’s founding.

Despite for departures from Constitutional procedure—sometimes for great reasons—the system’s checks and balances finally resisted after senior overreach, likeFDR’sfailed Court-Packing plan.

The unique political challenges facing democratic techniques are concerning, but the degradation of democratic culture also causes irreversible shifts in the political landscape. Political bribery, unregulated imperialism, and government serving business interests over citizens mix to continuously get the system.

A select group of actors has created a constant, increasingly scripted cultural-political spectacle, causing civic decay. As a result, the public has reduced active participation in governance in exchange for the passive right to cheer or criticize from the sidelines.

The Roman Republic’s collapse, which endured for centuries before becoming a slave country, provides valuable context—lessons on not only what values to uphold but also on how reform efforts can backfire.

Half-hearted efforts to fix inequality and instability often strained the system, pushing it closer to dysfunction and leading it to autocracy. Learning from Republican Rome’s successes and failures can be applied to the challenges of today.

A balanced republican political system encourages elites to compromise, build consensus, and compete for public approval, qualities the early Roman Republic struggled to develop after its establishment in 509 BC.

The Senate, which was largely dominated by the patrician aristocracy, had theoretically the power to act as an advisory body, but in reality it had significant influence over finances, foreign policy, and much of the legislative process. Nonetheless, there was strong competition among patrician families for the two annual consulship positions.

In addition to limiting any power concentration, these roles, which were filled through the cursus honorum ( course of honor ), allowed two capable leaders to ascend to the position in a predetermined hierarchy and shared short-term executive authority.

Consuls often entered the Senate or assumed other political positions after their terms, where they could be prosecuted for misconduct. Because of this rotation and accountability, leaders ‘ interests were better off running the state than accumulating personal acclaim for their roles or accomplishments.

The design of Roman statues also supported this culture, celebrating the civic virtue of individuals over personal achievements. In deft contrast to the idealized perfection of Greek art, the stereotypes depict aging and imperfections. The Republic also barred actors from government, viewing their imitation of life as deceptive and unworthy of public office.

Republican Rome thrived on political engagement, despite uneven participation, like other effective republican city-states. The Republic’sseasonal political process, shaped by agricultural cycles, military campaigns, and religious festivals, advantaged wealthy landowners who could afford to leave their estates for politics, perpetuating uneven and inconsistent efforts to address problems.

Military victories were frequently a factor in political advancement, which made them popular and occasionally pursued for personal reasons rather than strategic reasons.

Yet this seasonal structure still created predictable opportunities for many citizens to travel to Rome to participate in political affairs, ensuring concentrated and focused decision-making during key periods. Additionally, it found ways to lessen the power imbalance between the patricians and the commoners, or plebeians.

TheConflict of the Orders (5th to 3rd centuries BC ) brought about significant gains for plebeians. Rome’s economy was severely hampered by mass strikes, and soldiers refused to fight, leading to changes like the Concilium Plebis, along with theComita Tributa.

Additionally, after 451 BC, legal safeguards via the Twelve Tables and the establishment of the Tribunes of the Plebs—two annually elected magistrates with executive power to protect plebeian interests—were also won.

Plebeians gained greater social mobility during the fourth century BC, including the right to wed patricians, as well as gaining access to the consular office, the Senate, and other positions of religious authority.

After 338 BC, the Latin Rights extended certain privileges to non-Roman communities in Italy, such as intermarriage and participation in commerce. Although full citizenship gradually became available, these measures integrated new populations while preserving the identity of Roman citizens.

Despite the Republic’s growing wealth and territories, inequality remained rife. The army’s backbone was made up of Plubeians, who suffered the most from imperial expansion but hardly received any rewards.

Longer military service in support of campaigns left them unable to tend to their farms, indebting many. Plubeians frequently capitalized on this by acquiring their lands, but the use of slave labor during conquests reduced plebeians ‘ bargaining power as necessary workers. Many moved to Rome, swelling the urban poor.

Prior republics, including Rome, had a history of erasing debts and lowering slavery to restore economic balances, but these measures ceased in the Late Republic. Expansion also strained governance, as new territories were home to communities who had fewer rights than Roman citizens andpaid heavily in taxes, further exposing the Republic’s systemic inequities.

Policies intended to combat inequality frequently ended up worsening it. The Lex Claudia ( 218 BC ), for instance, barred senators and their sons from owning large commercial ships to prevent them from dominating Rome’s expanding maritime trade. However, this primarily benefited wealthy Plebeians and other elites who could afford their own fleets, widening economic disparities.

Richer plebeians also disproportionately benefited from privilegeslike access to higher office, enabling only some to join the senatorial elite. The horseman’s order, which had its roots in Rome’s cavalry, eventually developed into a distinct wealthy class. Though largely lacking formal political power, members enjoyed elevated benefits and economic strength that deepened Rome’s social stratification.

Many of the new elites developed into populist reformers, or<a href="https://www.thoughtco.com/ancient-roman-history-<a href="https://www.thoughtco.com/ancient-roman-history-optimates-119359″>optimates-119359″>populares ( “for the people” ), or<a href="https://www.thoughtco.com/ancient-roman-history-optimates-119359″>optimates ( “best men” ), who opposed the senatorial elite. Distinctions between the two groupswere not always strict—the <a href="https://www.thoughtco.com/ancient-roman-history-<a href="https://www.thoughtco.com/ancient-roman-history-optimates-119359″>optimates-119359″>populares included both new aristocratic elites and sidelined senatorial factions seeking to reclaim influence lost to dominant <a href="https://www.thoughtco.com/ancient-roman-history-optimates-119359″>optimates.

Populares-aligned politicians used plebeian support to alter the power balance in their favor, shifting from genuine reform to self-serving opportunism. Alliances were fluid, showing how Roman politics often prioritized status and influence over rigid ideology.

Plebeians ‘ demands for greater equality were further fueled by elite infighting, which used their citizenship and numbers to further their advantage. Political gridlock became more frequent, and violence escalated.

Numerous of their supporters were killed in addition to prominent pro-Plebean leaders like Tiberius Gracchus ( 133 BC ), Gaius Gracchus ( 121 BC ), and Publius Clodius Pulcher ( 52 BC ). In this way, Roman politics devolved into a zero-sum struggle where the defeated often faced death.

They were more prone to break with political customs and precedents when it was appropriate for their cause because of the use of violence and intimidation to harm plebeian interests, coupled with persistent inequality. Power was increasingly extended in executive positions, with populares-aligned Gaius Mariusholding seven consulships, and citizen soldiers showing increasing loyalty to individual commanders rather than the state.

A dramatic overcorrection resulted from Marius ‘ eventual defeat by Lucius Cornelius Sulla, a patrician allies ‘ ally. During his dictatorship ( 82–79 BC ), Sulla’s constitution aimed to curb instability by empoweringthe old aristocracy and Senate, severely weakening the tribunes, and restricting thepowers of citizenship.

The enthralled aristocracy failed to address the root causes of economic inequality. Ambitious figures like Pompey, through military power, and Marcus Licinius Crassus, through immense wealth, exploited these tensions to consolidate power and play kingmaker.

Under Julius Caesar’s plebeian-friendly policies bypassed the Senate by utilizing popular assemblies, Sulla’s reforms ultimately failed, exposing the new fragility of Rome’s legal system.

Thegrowing glorification of individual leaders reached a turning point when Caesar became the first living Roman to appear on a coin, a stark departure from tradition. After being deemed a dictator for life, his assassination by senators infuriated the electorate, which sparked a power struggle and civil war. This ultimately led to the rise of Caesar’s adopted heir, Octavian, who centralized authority in 27 BC and later became known as Augustus.

Many Romans willingly traded their political rights for oligarchic rule, violence, and uncertainty while maintaining a facade of republican governance. When rumors spread of Octavian relinquishing his special powers, public sentiment opposed the idea.

With the emergence of the Roman Empire, an urban proletariat that was dependent on state-sponsored food distribution and entertained by gladiator games became more and more peaceful under the strategy of “bread and circuses,” strengthening the new order.

A reshuffling of the nobility, suppression of opposition, and unchecked territorial expansion fueled instability in Republican Rome. Despite its 500-year existence and shoddy attempts to address it, persistent inequality remained the Republic’s fundamental flaw.

These pose lessons for the US today. Inequality continues to be a major issue in the US. Once marked by strong social mobility, at least for white residents, ithas declined since the 1940s, initially due to the end of the post-war boom but now reflecting deeper systemic flaws.

US social welfare falls behind in comparison to the EU, and policies like corporate bailouts highlight how citizens bear the burden of debt while large corporations profit from government regulation and lucrative contracts. Aculture of consumerism encourages US citizens to take on debt, mirroring the problems of the Roman Republic, instead of building a more efficient economic system.

Republican Rome’s challenges and those faced by the US are similar, but each has its own unique set of problems. In Rome, the wealthy were directly involved in political life, using their influence to shape decisions.

In contrast, US elites have access to representatives, who are encouraged to advance their interests despite not typically coming from the wealthiest social classes. This indirect control reduces the accountability of the elite, as their influence is masked by the modern US political structure and hidden from public view.

Although corrupt or incompetent politicians can be imprisoned or tried for, those who are truly responsible for the system remain largely unaffected, allowing the pay-to-play political system to continue unabated.

Rome’s political processes grew opaque and less respected, a trend increasingly seen in contested US elections in recent decades. After George W. Bush’s contentious victory in 2000 and Trump’s victory in 2016, there were still doubts among Democrats that remained within institutional boundaries.

However, election denial escalated dramatically with Trump’s response to Joe Biden’s 2020 victory, and the ensuing 2021 insurrection marked a major challenge to the peaceful transfer of power and trust in electoral integrity.

Establishing trust in the process calls for strict rules regarding voting, role assignment, and transparency in procedures. Laws crafted through open processes rather than private deals are crucial, allowing citizens to view the electoral process and governance as fair, smooth, and rooted in mutual understanding.

However, the risks of unrelenting public political engagement have grown even more acute. Modern technology enables 24/7 politicization, and constant campaigning distracts from governance and risks citizen burnout.

Public apathy makes it possible for organized elites to rule politics, and only well-resourced groups can effectively mobilize and strategize, according to legal scholar Ganesh Sitaraman.

The US judiciary remains distinct in its reliance on common law, a system shared by a few English-speaking countries, allowing adaptability through evolving precedents as new cases are brought forward.

Juries ‘ use imposes a fundamental responsibility on citizens ‘ moral and legal judgment, ensuring public participation. However, this system is increasingly vulnerable to politicization, as judicial appointments and voting processes for judges and other judicial/law enforcement positions risk undermining impartiality and fairness.

Political parties were also opposed by the Founding Fathers because they feared factionalism would sever national unity. Today, the two major parties and their supporters increasingly treat politicsas a sports rivalry, prioritizing spectacle over policy debate.

Both parties rely on the power of celebrity to entice voters, with Ronald Reagan becoming the first actor-president in 1981, followed by entertainer Trump in 2017, while Democrats have consistently relied on the power of celebrity to win over voters.

This reliance on high-profile public figures allows citizens to disengage, as these amplified individuals are granted tacit approval to shape policy—even when they lack the expertise to do so—reducing the public’s role in democratic governance to passive spectatorship.

Violent language undermines the foundation of republican culture of compromise. While Trump is commonly associated with this trend in the US ( and remains its most persistent voice ), Democrats have also contributed. In the 1960s and 1970s, political violence was primarily directed at influential US figures, but it is now increasingly threatening local officials as well.

Comments about the existential danger posed by political opponents have been consistently undercut by post-election embraces. Trump was welcomed back to the White House by President Obama in 2016, just like Biden did in 2024, and he also toned down his stance toward them after victories. These radical shifts in messaging reveal the performative nature of politicians ‘ language and weaken the credibility of political discourse.

A healthy republic relies on the public’s support and deliberation as its last resort. Yet although Congress holds the constitutional authority to declare war, it has not done sosince 1941.

Instead, executive war powers have grown as a result of the abuse of emergency measures, preventing public sway over war and peace decisions. Numerous presidents have labeled major recent wars like Vietnam, Iraq, and Afghanistan as mistakes, eroding trust in leadership to responsibly conduct war.

The Trump administration now has to address undocumented populations and immigration. Past policies like Reagan’s Amnesty Bill and Obama’s executive action for so-called Dreamers caused friction and had far-reaching political consequences. Immigration was a central issue in the 2024 election, with Trump likely to have a strong support for a crackdown on illegal immigrants.

Solutions, however, must go beyond piecemeal fixes or mass deportations, which risk violating human rights and republican ideals. The main problems with immigration reform and enforcement are also ignored by less drastic approaches, like those pursued by Biden.

Rome offers a cautionary tale: patricians and plebeians showed rare unity in the Late Republic when they united against Gracchus after hepledged to extend citizenship rights to other populations. The situation demonstrates the need to increase responsibility.

The US economybenefits from labor tied to undocumented populations, and the root causes of migration, includingdecades of US intervention in Latin America, must also be acknowledged.

The US was initially established as a republican league of states, but it soon realized that national cohesion was necessary to ensure security and economic cohesion. Over time, the growing centralization of authority in Washington eroded the balance of this system and led to fears of ever-expanding executive power, particularly over matters of war.

This consolidation of power made the federal government more assertive and interventionist in its foreign policy, enabling it to project influence globally. Yet US states retain significant rights, functioning in a federated system with distributed powers that allow states to experiment with their own agendas. Among the options available to them are working together to counterbalance federal authority include health care reforms, voting rights, and working together.

American citizens also benefit from strong protections enshrined in the Bill of Rights, which, despite historical flaws in terms of racial and gender equity, established safeguards against government overreach.

However, a hesitance to fully leverage these rights remains, partly due to ignorance. Rights that are intended to advance all citizens, such as the right to bear arms, or judicially decided issues like access to abortion, frequently turn into sources of conflict and are presented as victories for one side as opposed to universal benefits.

This risks turning benefits into partisan battlegrounds, undermining their broader societal purpose. Many of the rights that Americans enjoy were secured by legislative action driven by social movements, not by courts interpreting the Constitution, which shows that the true source of rights is in the collective efforts of citizens and legislators.

US presidents have been generally unable to radically alter the nation’s political system, though the Jacksonian era proves there are exceptions. The two-party system was strengthened, the use of veto power expanded, and centralized executive authority were all the results of Andrew Jackson’s presidency ( 1829–1837 ), which fundamentally altered the role of the presidency.

Jackson, a populist, challenged corrupt elites and the political establishment but also aggravated tensions between the federal and state governments. Democratic participation was increased, but it was only for white men, and led to the substitution of officeholders with individuals loyal to them, with support for the continuation of slavery and the ethnic cleansing of Native Americans.

Concentrating authority away from the executive in a few oversight bodies or enlarged bureaucracy can also backfire, often encouraging corruption rather than transparency. For instance, in the 1970s, legislative changes to campaign finance intended to improve transparency unintentionally led to an increase in lobbying, attack ads, and electoral exploitation.

This shift, intended to curb corporate influence, instead deepened it, allowing corporations and interest groups to find new ways to wield power. While the founding fathers were focused on preventing tyranny through checks and balances, they were unable to anticipate the significant influence that corporate interests would have on political outcomes, leading to the development of a system where legal monetary contributions increasingly predominate policy.

The US faces a major struggle in adapting its republican system to the realities of the 21st century. Executive power has played a key role in addressing significant issues, such as the end of slavery, but it also poses a risk of abuse.

Efforts to forcefully reform republics from the top down, like those seen in Rome, often impose rigid systems that fail to meet society’s evolving needs. On the other hand, overreliance on populist power without the necessary safeguards can lead to impulsive choices and unstable government.

Rejecting populism does not equate to diminishing civic engagement, rather, it calls for more sophisticated participation for constructive political processes. Important power is still in place for Americans, including the right to organize, protest, and use of free speech and association.

Realizing the full potential of these rights and their responsible use requires a deeper understanding of the political system and a commitment to responsible use.

This can be accomplished by gaining knowledge from other nations that support public funding, educate young people, and promote political legitimacy through transparency and participation.

Ignoring the need to address the decline in civic culture and public understanding of the system of government will further weaken the foundation of democratic practices.

Although organizations like the Bipartisan Policy Center have been criticized for being compromised by corporate interests, reforming the US republic is necessary because of this.

Over time, bipartisanship has become entrenched as a long-term alignment in support of big-money interests and an imperialist foreign policy, sidelining efforts for systemic change and diverging sharply from the best aspects of the early US vision.

Contrastingly, many reform advocates advocate for quick fixes rather than lasting solutions, often through partisan lenses, populism, or authoritarian impulses.

Meaningful reform, however, will be a slow and contentious process, and progress will remain elusive without addressing the root causes of major problems and accepting a collective responsibility to solve them.

John P. Ruehl is a world affairs correspondent for the Independent Media Institute and an Australian-American journalist who resides in Washington, DC. He is a contributor to several foreign affairs publications, and his book, Budget Superpower: How Russia Challenges the West With an Economy Smaller Than Texas ‘, was published in December 2022.

This article was written by Human Bridges and republished with permission.

Continue Reading

Vietnam quiet, firm and resilient in the South China Sea – Asia Times

By:
On:
In: Asia

With overlapping states from various nations convergent in the resource-rich and strategically important canal, the South China Sea has long been a pot of stress and motivation. The conflicting and generally content relationship between Vietnam and China is at the center of the geopolitical debate.

The two countries previously allied during the Cold War are now at odds with one another in an escalating regional debate. Their adversaries ‘ conflict and hostility are clearly portrayed in the competing stories and power plays that determine their competitiveness in the conflicted waters.

China, with its sweeping “nine-dash line” claim, has aggressively pursued its goal of turning the South China Sea into what many see as a” Chinese lake”.

Beijing has transformed previously uninhabited islands into fierce military outposts thanks to enormous land reclamation tasks and the development of artificial islands with runways, weapon systems, and radar facilities.

These attempts, combined with regular naval patrols and political strong-arming, underscore China’s determination to argue supremacy over the area.

Vietnam, but, refuses to rear down. Vietnam is slowly but securely asserting its sovereignty, despite Beijing’s activities receiving a lot of media attention and frequently portraying the South China Sea dispute as a conflict between China and the United States or China and the Philippines.

Nowhere in the world is this more obvious than in the Spratly Islands, where Hanoi has increased its military presence in direct opposition to China’s wide states.

Vietnam’s approach is multi-faceted. On the one hand, it involves the design and development of military installations on the territory of its handle.

Vietnam had made significant progress toward land restoration in the Spratly Islands by the middle of 2024, growing roughly half as much territory as China did during the development of seven military installations between 2013 and 2016 compared to the start of 2016. This significant increase demonstrates Hanoi’s resolve to advance its proper position in the South China Sea.

Hanoi is upgrading its airstrips as well as fortifying its fortified troops with modern weapons and protective structures built to withstand potential attacks.

Vietnam is substantially expanding its security capabilities by using radar and maritime patrols to track activity in its disputed waters. These moves signal a calculated reply to China’s military, demonstrating Vietnam’s handle to protect its territorial dignity.

This confidence is rooted in Vietnam’s traditional experience. Vietnam views its independence with a strong sense of pride after enduring decades of Chinese dominance.

The South China Sea dispute, therefore, is not just about geographical boundaries or exposure to fish and undersea sources, it is a matter of national identity and traditional justification.

What makes Vietnam’s position particularly powerful is the David-versus-Goliath character of the conflict.

Vietnam has benefited from its strategic location, strong diplomatic ties, and expanding security partnerships to punch above its weight despite lacking the economic and military strength of its north neighbor.

Countries like the United States, Japan, and India have all recognized Vietnam’s crucial role in balancing China’s control in Southeast Asia. This has resulted in more military cooperation and arms deals that strengthen Hanoi’s defence capabilities.

Vietnam’s growing anger with ASEAN’s repeated delays and lack of cohesion in creating a bound Code of Conduct for the South China Sea has prompted Hanoi to map its own training in response to China’s extreme coastal growth.

Vietnam continues to support ASEAN as a foundation of regional diplomacy, but the bloc’s inability to form a unified front has made it difficult for it to confront a dominant and assertive power like China.

In response to this, Vietnam has adopted a dual strategy: promoting regional cooperation while pursuing independent actions to defend its sovereignty.

By constructing and upgrading bases, deploying advanced surveillance systems, and expanding its naval and air defense capabilities, Hanoi has significantly increased its military and strategic presence in tense areas, such as the Spratly and Paracel Islands.

It has also deepened partnerships with global powers, including the United States, Japan, India, and Australia, to counterbalance China’s influence and access advanced defense technologies. These alliances strengthen Vietnam’s military readiness and demonstrate its strategic significance in preserving a free and open Indo-Pacific.

Vietnam continues to support ASEAN as a foundation of regional diplomacy, but the bloc’s inability to form a unified front has made it difficult for it to confront a dominant and assertive power like China.

At its core, Vietnam’s approach reflects a pragmatic recalibration of its priorities, balancing regional multilateralism with self-reliance. This approach draws inspiration from its historical resilience in the face of larger adversaries, which demonstrates its unwavering support for its own interests and resistance to unilateral actions.

Vietnam’s assertive behavior sends a clear message to Beijing: it will not remain a passive observer while trying to reshape the South China Sea in its favor.

By adopting decisive measures, Hanoi is strengthening its position as a key player in the region’s geopolitical dynamics by upholding both solidarity and individual resolve. It is also urging others to acknowledge that collective security in Southeast Asia depends on both solidarity and individual resolve.

However, Vietnam’s actions are not without risk. Its strategic maneuver in the Spratlys could lead to a new escalation with China, whose military is significantly more sophisticated and sophisticated than Vietnam’s.

The future of the region, therefore, depends on the delicate balance of power between local actors like Vietnam and international players like the US, who both have vested interests in preserving freedom of navigation and preventing unilateral control by any one country.

In this complex geopolitical puzzle, Vietnam’s resilience stands out. By asserting its right to bear arms in the South China Sea, Hanoi is also sending a powerful message about how crucial it is to stand up to aggression no matter the odds.

One thing is certain: Vietnam is determined to chart its own course in one of the world’s most contested maritime regions. Whether this approach will lead to a peaceful resolution or further conflict is yet to be seen.

James Borton is the author of” Dispatches from the South China Sea: Navigating to Common Ground” and a non-resident senior fellow at Johns Hopkins/SAIS Foreign Policy Institute.

Continue Reading

Philippines to match China’s gray zone tactics in South China Sea – Asia Times

By:
On:
In: Asia

Tensions are high in the fiercely contested South China Sea, which the approaching US leader could intensify or ease in the event that he decides to go after Donald Trump’s subsequent inauguration.

Once more, the Philippines and China are at odds with one another over the long-distanced Scarborough Shoal, with their sea forces dangerously close to a near-clash in the contested waters.

Chinese coastguard ships fired water cannons and side-swiped a ship from the Philippines ‘ Bureau of Fisheries and Aquatic Resources ( BFAR ), which is tasked with surveying and securing Philippine fisheries resources in the country’s exclusive economic zone ( EEZ ). &nbsp,

The near-clashes also involved a dangerous encounter between a Chinese navy vessel and Philippine coastguard counterparts, which, according to Philippine official sources, faced, “blocking, shadowing and dangerous maneuvers” from the People’s Liberation Army-Navy ( PLAN ) vessel.

China’s Coast Guard maintained that its actions were “professional, uniform, reasonable and lawful” and immediately shifted the responsible by maintaining” the duty lies entirely with the Spanish side”.

According to the Chinese beach guard,” China imposed controls on Spanish ships that attempted to enter the territorial waters of China’s Huangyan Dao [Scarborough Shoal ]”. &nbsp,

The most recent tragedy was quickly downplayed by notable Chinese authorities. According to the Global Times state spokesperson, Ding Duo, a deputy director of the Chinese National Institute for Maritime Law and Policy,” The Philippines is trying to fuel the South China Sea issue by continually creating trouble so as to generate fresh discourse materials for the mental war of building the” China threat “rhetoric.”

China’s maritime forces simply conducted routine operations and “necessary control measures” to defend the Asian nation’s maritime claims based on the so-called “nine-dash line,” a sprawling map that an international court at The Hague rejected as “illegal” in 2016 under the auspices of the UN Convention on the Law of the Sea ( UNCLOS).

China rejected the 2016 judicial tribunal decision, which lacked an enforcement system.

” We consider that a steep increase on the part of the People’s Republic of China”, Jonathan Malaya, a Philippine National Security Council director, told the media, underscoring the growing feeling of concern in the Philippines.

The Philippines even cautioned that it reserves the right to take more drastic measures in response. Vice Admiral Jose Ma Ambrosio Ezpeleta of the Spanish Navy, for his part, has suggested that the country could use its own “gray area” strategy to combat China while doubling down on conventional military prowess with allies.

The Philippines ‘ important supporters were quick to show support and, consequently, condemn China’s latest actions.

Another alarming record of harmful actions by Chinese warships against Asian vessels close to Scarborough Shoal. Such steps raise conflicts and the risk of misunderstanding. ]Britain ] urges adherence to International Law and underlines the primacy of UNCLO S”, the UK Ambassador to Manila, Laure Beaufils, said on her X account.

Japan ‘s&nbsp, adviser to Manila, Endo Kazuya, criticized China’s “use of ocean gun and obstructed tactics undermine the health of ship and crew” and reiterated that” Japan upholds the rule of law and opposes any steps which increase conflicts”.

” Risky behavior against PCG and BFAR boats undermine Indo-Pacific stability and security. ]Germany ] recalls UNCLOS and the 2016 arbitrary award and calling for the value to international law”, German Ambassador Andreas Pfaffernoschke, who has overseen a major rise in bilateral security ties in the past year, wrote on his X accounts. &nbsp,

However, US Ambassador MaryKay Carlson criticized China’s “unlawful usage of water guns and dangerous manoeuvres” that” stricken a Spanish sea operation on December 4 and put lives at risk. She reiterated that the US will support a rules-based get in the area alongside its convention allies.

The Philippines ‘ most recent joint naval exercises with Japan and the US in the South China Sea coincided with these new conflicts. The training brought up the Spanish Navy send BRP Andres Bonifacio and a C-90 little aircraft, a US Navy P-8A Poseidon aircraft and Japan’s Murasame-class battleship JS Samidare.

According to the AFP and US Indo-Pacific Command, their most recent training are “in accordance with international law and with due consideration for the protection of transportation and the rights and interests of different says.” &nbsp, The allies emphasized the need to “uphold the right to&nbsp, freedom of navigation&nbsp, and overflight]and ] other lawful purposes of the sea and international airspace”.

It’s no obvious what is simply driving China’s latest activities. However, some experts believe that the Asian power is trying to create favorable conditions and a certain level of dominance before confronting the incoming Trump 2.0 administration, which may decide to use a more aggressive or transactional strategy based on the forces ‘ balance.

As Kyiv and Moscow work to design the terms of any upcoming “peace deal” under Trump, a similar, but more perilous scramble has already been occurring in Ukraine.

China even seems troubled with Manila’s foreign policy way in recent years under President Ferdinand Marcos Jr, most notably his administration’s decision to network, if not attain, the US state-of-the-art Typhon weapon system, already positioned in a northern Philippine province facing Taiwan.

In a recent editorial, the state-backed China Daily accused the Philippines of provocation, saying,” The mid-range missile launch system, which is capable&nbsp, of firing both Tomahawk cruise missiles and the SM-6 surface-to-air and surface-to-surface missiles, is aggressive in intent as it puts not only&nbsp, southern Chinese military bases within range, but also the Taiwan Strait, and a large part of the South China Sea”.

For the Philippines, on the other hand, the status quo is increasingly unsustainable. It is currently considering the use of naval assets for routine patrol missions, a powerful move that could stoke new tensions and entice China’s much larger navy to use forcefully.

Vice Admiral Ezpeleta has also discussed the potential use of unconventional tactics to better defend Philippine claims.

” We have to support the actions of our white ships, such as our coastguard. Another]method ] is we have to enhance our maritime domain awareness”, the navy chief said at a recent Senate hearing.

” I would also like to point out that one of the ways to leverage is to make friends with our allies or our like-minded navies. We have a lot of efforts, especially in our modernization, let’s say for deterrence purposes”.

The Philippine naval chief declined to provide more information about the country’s upcoming actions. The Philippines might consider using physical force without weapons to avenge harassment by Chinese marine forces, similar to India, which has been engaged in numerous clashes with Chinese forces in disputed territories in the Himalayas.

It might also think about deploying more auxiliary forces as well as receiving more assistance from civil society organizations in the disputed areas.

Additionally, a greater reliance on drones, large transport ships, and fast patrol boats is likely to be considered in order to support Philippine resupply missions that China has previously harassed in disputed waters. It is also known that the option would be to welcome direct joint patrols and an expanded over-the-horizon American military presence.

Ultimately, however, the Philippines will likely rely on support from its major allies, most notably the US. In fact, Manila is anticipated to press the incoming Trump 2.0 administration for more assurances of the mutual defense treaty in the event of a crisis as well as the transfer of high-tech weapons systems like the Typhon.

Philippine authorities are determined to hold the line until Trump is in charge to stop China from occupying the territory Manila claims as part of its EEZ.

Follow Richard Javad Heydarian on X at @Rich Heydarian

Continue Reading