Hegseth dangles second Typhon missile system for Philippines – Asia Times

By:
On:
In: Asia

MANILA – US Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth’s attend to Manila brought a sigh of relief to his Filipino visitors and new reason for military problem in China.

Major Spanish officials and strategists have fretted for weeks about potential problems and possible devaluations in proper relations amid signs of an isolationist change in Washington’s international policy under Donald Trump.

Next month, Philippine Ambassador to Washington Jose Manuel Romualdez officially warned that his country should actively plan for the day when it can no longer depend on its century-old American alliance.

The high-profile explore by the US defence chief, who will soon be followed by US Secretary of State Marco Rubio, has probably put those proper doubts somewhat to sleep.

During his kindness visit at the Malacañang Palace, Hagseth told Philippine President Ferdinand Marcos Jr that President Trump sends his good intentions and” thinks very warmly of this great state”.

Crucially, Hegseth underscored how both the US president and he “want to express the ironclad commitment we have to the Mutual Defense Treaty ( MDT ) and to the partnership, economically, militarily, which our staffs have worked on diligently for weeks and weeks and months”.

In reaction, the Filipino head praised how the attend was” a very strong evidence and sends a very powerful message of the responsibility of both our countries to continue to work together, to maintain the peace in the Indo-Pacific Place within the South China Sea”.

Beyond diplomatic niceties, Hegseth also announced crucial upgrades to bilateral military cooperation to “re-establish deterrence” in light of rising tensions between Manila and Beijing over contested territories in the South China Sea.

In particular, Hagseth announced the deployment of the Navy-Marine Expeditionary Ship Interdiction System ( NMESIS), a naval strike missile-equipped unmanned ground vehicle capable of striking targets up to 100 nautical miles away, for this year’s edition of Philippine-US Balikatan exercise.

The US defense chief also announced the deployment of unspecified “highly-capable unmanned surface vehicles” for planned joint drills in the South China Sea. He was likely referring to US-made Maritime Tactical Systems T-12 MANTAS and Devil Ray T-38 drones, which were used by American troops deployed to the Philippines earlier.

Moreover, special forces from both sides are also slated to conduct joint exercises in Batanes, the Philippines ‘ northernmost province facing Taiwan. Despite the ongoing freeze on US overseas aid, Hagseth also reassured his hosts of the$ 500-million commitment in foreign military financing this year to help modernize the Armed Forces of the Philippines ( AFP).

The two sides also announced further improvements to military facilities used by rotational US forces in the Philippines under the Enhanced Defense Cooperation Agreement ( EDCA ).

” We will enhance our current EDCA locations and we will make improvements. Mind you, these are Philippine bases of which we have to invest in. We will enhance them for logistical support”, Philippine Defense Secretary Gilbert Teodoro Jr said during a joint press conference with his American counterpart.

Most crucially, in a move that will deliberately irk China, Hegseth’s visit paved the way for the United States Indo-Pacific Command ( Indopacom ) to deploy a second mid-range Typhon Missile System battery to the Philippines for upcoming joint exercises.

The current Typhon system is capable of striking strategic targets within a 500 to 2, 000-kilometer range, which means it could conceivably hit many of China’s southern military bases. It was first deployed to the Philippines as part of joint exercises last year but was not removed after the drills were completed.

China has strongly protested the highly mobile system’s deployment to the Philippines, claiming that the US is fueling a regional arms race. The Wall Street Journal noted it marked the first time since the Cold War that the US military has deployed a land-based launching system with such a long range outside its borders.

The&nbsp, Lockheed Martin-built system, which has four launchers, a battery operations center, modified trailers and prime movers, boasts a vertical launch system that utilizes Tomahawk and Raytheon-built Standard Missile-6 missiles.

In the event of a conflict in the South China Sea or neighboring Taiwan, the Typhon missile could counter China’s famed” DF” anti-cruise ballistic missile ( ASBM ) launchers.

Accordingly, the vaunted American medium-range mobile missile system provides a tremendous deterrence effect, especially if deployed on a large scale and across strategic locations in the Philippines.

” This is a welcome development for the Armed Forces of the Philippines. We can say that the more the merrier. So the more assets that we have, the more also that we are able to train more personnel on our part. So we accept this willingly”, AFP spokesperson Colonel Francel Margareth Padilla told reporters after the announcement of the potential deployment of an additional Typhon missile battery as part of joint exercises this year.

” We welcome events like this because this would help our personnel train faster. So we welcome if it will arrive”, Philippine Army spokesperson Colonel Louie Dema-ala said. Last year, Philippine officials welcomed the’ permanent’ stationing of the weapons system in EDCA facilities and, down the road, even direct acquisition for the AFP.

The US Army’s 3rd MDTF, headquartered in Hawaii, is also&nbsp, slated to soon receive its own Typhon battery, underscoring the growing importance of advanced missile systems in America’s regional defense strategy. &nbsp,

” We’re constantly looking for opportunities to exercise capability like that forward in theater… We learn enormous lessons by bringing capability into the theater”, Col. Michael Rose, the 3rd MDTF commander, told reporters recently.

Crucially, the US official confirmed that the Typhon deployment will undirgird&nbsp, Operation Pathways, a series of year-round exercises aimed at establishing an “integrated deterrence” strategy with Asian allies to counter China’s rising power.

Before Hegseth’s visit, China hoped to steer the second Trump administration away from closer defense cooperation with Manila.

At a press briefing last week, Chinese Foreign Ministry spokesperson Guo Jiakun warned the Philippines that “nothing good could come out of opening the door to a predator]America ]” and that those willing to be pawns in great power competition” will be deserted in the end”.

China’s statements came amid growing doubts about America’s commitment to its frontline Asian allies, including the Philippines. The rise of isolationist figures in the Pentagon, the so-called “restrainers”, has been a great source of concern among America’s traditional Asian allies, not least in Manila.

In an essay months ahead of his appointment as Pentagon’s Southeast Asia chief, Andrew Byers, for instance, advocated for Washington to effectively abandon its Philippine ally in exchange for cooperative schemes with China to de-escalate tensions in the South China Sea.

A top US general also played into anxieties among Filipinos when he announced that the US forces would not conduct a live-fire operation of its&nbsp, the Typhon Missile System during upcoming exercises in the Philippines. &nbsp,

” We are not planning to conduct live-fire in the Philippines right now”, Major General Jeffrey VanAntwerp, deputy chief of staff of operations, plans and training at US Army Pacific, told reporters ahead of Hagseth’s visit. His comments raised fears in Manila of potential retrenchment by the Pentagon in exchange for improved relations with Beijing.

But the US defense chief’s visit and largely dispelled those worries as the Trump administration’s plans for confronting China in the Pacific start to come into clearer view.

Follow Richard Javad Heydarian on X at @Rich Heydarian

Continue Reading

New wave of fighter jets transforming aerial combat – Asia Times

By:
On:
In: Asia

The most advanced fighter jet in the world are known as “fifth technology”. They contain technology developed in the first part of the 21st century. Cases of fifth-generation fighter jet include America’s F-35 Lightning II and F-22 Raptor, China’s Chengdu J-20 and Russia’s Sukhoi SU-57.

Today, however, nations are moving forward with the fifth generation of fight jets. In the past several decades, China has flown its J-36 and J-50 design planes. However, the US has selected Boeing to develop a fresh fighter plane called the F-47.

As with previous generations, the sixth will incorporate major advances in aircraft design, onboard electronics (avionics ) and weapon systems.

But how will the new era of planes stand out from the previous one? Potential combat planes will not see dramatic rises in highest speed nor in flight efficiency. Otherwise, the true advances will be in how these devices operate and achieve supremacy in aerial combat.

Like the second century, the fifth may be dominated by cunning technology. This helps warrior jet to reduce their chances of being detected by infrared and detector sensors, to the point that when their names are eventually picked up, the player has no time to act.

Stealth is achieved through special shapes of aircraft ( such as stone shapes ) and paints on the airplane – called sensor absorbing materials. The aircraft is the basic structural construction of an plane, encompassing the aircraft, wings, tail assemblage and landing gear.

The diamond-like styles that now characterize fifth-generation jets are likely to be in the future era of fighter, but they will develop.

A popular feature we’re good to see is the decrease or total removal of horizontal tails at the back of the plane and their control surfaces. In recent aircraft, these tail provide lateral stability and control in trip, allowing the aircraft to preserve its course and movement.

But, sixth-generation jets could accomplish this power with the help of force vectoring – the ability to change the way of machines and, therefore, the direction of thrust ( the force that moves the jet through the air ).

The function of vertical feathers could also be largely replaced by products called fluidic actuators. These apply troops to the flap by blowing high-speed and high-pressure heat on different parts of it.

F-35 Lightning II fighter plane. Lateral tails can be seen at the back of this fifth-generation plane. Photo: US Air Force / Paul Holcomb

The removal of the horizontal tails may contribute to the player’s stealth. The new era of soldiers is also possible to see the use of novel radar-absorbing components with advanced features.

We’ll view the introduction of what are known as dynamic period vehicles on sixth-generation soldiers. These engines did have what’s known as a three-stream architecture, which refers to the airstreams blowing through the website. Recent planes have two airstreams: one that passes through the core of the website and another that bypasses the key.

The development of a second supply provides an extra supply of air movement to improve the engine’s gas efficiency and performance. This will allow both the capability to sail quickly at sonic rate and provide a great force during combat.

It is likely that China and the US will develop two distinct soldiers with various airframes. One may have a bigger aircraft, designed for use in an area like the Pacific Ocean area. Here, the ability to travel farther and carry a heavier load will be important because of the ranges involved. Airframes designed for this place may, therefore, become larger.

Another fighter plane carrying a smaller aircraft may be designed for use in regions such as Europe, where dexterity and flexibility will be more important.

The second wave of jets may have a system in the pilot that gathers lots of data from various aircraft, ground monitoring stations and satellites. It would then integrate this data to give an enhanced situational awareness to the pilot. This system would also able to actively jam enemy sensors.

Another key feature will be the deployment of unmanned combat aerial vehicles ( Ucavs ), a form of drone aircraft. The piloted fighter jet would be able to control a variety of Ucavs, ranging from loyal wingmen to cheaper, unpiloted fighter jets that will assist the mission, including protecting the piloted fighter.

Rendering of the US future F-47 fighter jet. &nbsp, Image: US Air Force

This will all be the responsibility of something called the advanced digital cockpit, a software-driven system that will use virtual reality and allow the pilot to effectively become a battle manager.

Artificial intelligence ( AI ) will be a key feature of the support systems for drones. This will allow them to be controlled with complete autonomy. The pilot will assign the main task – such as, “attack that enemy jet in that sector” – and the system will carry out the mission without any further input.

Another advancement will be the weapon systems, with the adoption of missiles that will not only be capable of traveling at hypersonic speeds but will also incorporate stealth features.

This will further reduce the reaction times of enemy forces. Directed energy weapons systems, such as laser weapons, could potentially appear in later stages, as this technology is under study.

Under America’s sixth-generation fighter program, the US Navy is working on a separate jet called the F/A-XX, complementing the F-47.

The UK, Italy and Japan are also working on a jet project known as the global combat air program ( GCAP ). This will replace the Eurofighter Typhoon in service with the UK and Italy and the Mitsubishi F-2 in service with Japan.

Germany, Spain and France are working on a fighter program called the future combat air system (FCAS ). This could supersede Germany and Spain’s Typhoons and France’s Rafale.

The path for sixth-generation fighter jets seems to have already been traced, but uncertainties remain. The feasibility of some of the characteristics described and development times and costs are not yet well defined.

This interval of time was more than ten years for fifth-generation fighter jets– and the sixth is going to be far more complex in terms of requirements and capability.

A new generation of fighter jet is expected to remain on active duty for something like 30 years. But warfare across the world evolves rapidly. It is unclear whether the design requirements we are fixing today will remain relevant over the coming years.

David Bacci is senior research fellow, Oxford Thermofluids Laboratory, University of Oxford

This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.

Continue Reading

Trump’s Russia oil sanctions threat targets China, India – Asia Times

By:
On:
In: Asia

Trump said in an exam with&nbsp, NBC News&nbsp, that” If Russia and I are unable to make a bargain on stopping the unrest in Ukraine, and if I think it was Russia’s fault— which it might not be — but if I think it was Russia’s fault, I am going to put extra tariffs on oil, on all oil coming out of Russia. That would be that if you buy oil from Russia, you didn’t do business in the United States. There will be a 25 % tariff on all oil, a 25- to 50-point tariff on all oil”.

NBC News interpreted this as talking to what he earlier threatened on social media regarding the implementation of secondary restrictions on those that buy oil from Venezuela.

He&nbsp, wrote&nbsp, that “any Country that buying Oil and/or Gas from Venezuela will be forced to give a Tariff of 25 % to the United States on any Trade they do with our Country”. As it relates to Russia, this would rise tariffs on China and India, the first of which is now in a trade conflict with the US while the second&nbsp, wants to avoid one.

This is exactly what the previous US Envoy for Ukraine and Russia, Keith Kellogg, insinuated in an appointment with the New York Post in early February that was analyzed&nbsp, these &nbsp, at the time. The conclusion was that such risks might suffice for getting them to push Russia into a bargain over Ukraine despite whatever apprehensions Putin may possess.

The effects of not doing so may be their conformity with the US secondary sanctions and all that may entail for the Russian business if it’s deprived of this income.

India is more prone to this form of American pressure, while China might endure for the reasons explained&nbsp, here, in which case Russia may be overwhelmingly dependent on China, thus leading to the fait accompli of de facto young partnership status that Putin has tried his utmost to prevent.

Accordingly, it might only be India that tries nudging Russia into a deal over Ukraine while China might not do what Trump expects, instead&nbsp, openly defying&nbsp, his secondary sanctions if they’re then imposed.

This analysis&nbsp, here &nbsp, briefly touches upon the five reasons why Russia might accept or reject a ceasefire in Ukraine, with it becoming increasingly likely that Trump might soon ramp up the pressure on Putin to decide, especially after he also just said that there‘s a “psychological deadline” for this. &nbsp,

In his words, which followed right after his interview with NBC News,” It’s a psychological deadline. If I think they’re tapping us along, I will not be happy about it”.

The day before, Trump spent a sizeable amount of the day golfing with Finnish President Alexander Stubb, who shared his impression of his counterpart’s approach to Russia with the media. &nbsp,

As he put it,” When you spend seven hours with someone, you at least get an intuition of the direction in which we’re going…The half-ceasefire has been broken by Russia, and I think America, and my sense is also the President of the United States, is running out of patience with Russia”.

This assessment aligns with what Trump told NBC News the next day and his later quip about a “psychological deadline” for concluding talks with Putin. The American leader’s preference for wielding sanctions as a foreign policy tool might, therefore, &nbsp, come into play against Russia&nbsp, exactly as was foreseen in early February after Kellogg’s cited interview.

This moment of truth could even arrive earlier than expected and thus force Putin to compromise&nbsp, or escalate&nbsp, before he’s fully made up his mind either way.

This article was first published on Andrew Korybko’s Substack and is republished with kind permission. Become an Andrew Korybko Newsletter subscriber&nbsp, here.

Continue Reading

How China plans to bounce back from more Trump tariffs – Asia Times

By:
On:
In: Asia

China’s president Xi Jinping just held a meeting with 40 leaders of foreign firms, including BMW and AstraZeneca.

In contrast to Donald Trump’s language, Xi told the top-level managers that globalisation was never going away. Xi is attempting to boost international investment in China, which has dropped in the last few decades, and establish new connections that will compensate Trump’s levies on some Chinese products.

In the March 28 meet, Xi “vowed to boost business entry” and assured business leaders that “lines of conversation” between them and the Chinese government are available.

Xi is hoping to build on an anti-Trump jump and encourage firms to again Beijing as some evidence emerged that China’s economy was doing a much better than expected in first 2025.

Industrial production went up by 5.9 % in January and February. Credit growth, which measures the amount of loans banks give out, also appears to be picking up, suggesting that businesses might be growing in China.

Retail sales, which are a major economic marker indicating consumer spending, has risen by up to 4 % in January and February this year, compared to last year.

Beijing is also willing to create further stimulus packages to sustain China’s economic growth, which might lift consumer confidence further.

But this is hampered by a real estate crisis that began in 2021. What followed was an already high local government debt that was exacerbated by the property crisis, and high youth unemployment that has existed since 2023.

The big question then is what are the factors that could lead to a more buoyant outlook in China’s economic fortunes?

Policy resolve

According to a Bloomberg report, China has traditionally relied on cheap loans and subsidies to boost economic sectors in infrastructure, manufacturing, and the property market. However, those times are over.

The problem is China has produced more goods to sell than people are willing to buy. In the past, Beijing relied on the West to purchase its products, but with rising protectionism and looming tariffs stemming from a Donald Trump-led US, US consumption of Chinese goods is likely to fall.

And if another key market in the form of the EU were to take a cue from Trump’s economic playbook and impose more tariffs on China, then Chinese hope for sales in the west for economic growth may not materialise.

Beijing’s surest way of boosting sales is through domestic consumption. This isn’t easy as China’s domestic spending remains relatively low at 40 % of the country’s GDP, which is about 20 % lower than the global average. And if Beijing wants cautious consumers to spend amid a relatively weak economic outlook, it needs to do more to raise consumer confidence.

Although China did introduce a stimulus package in September 2024, it has resolved to do more. In an early March 2025 speech in the Chinese parliament, Chinese Premier Li Qiang promised a” special action plan” to vigorously raise domestic consumption for 2025.

Several weeks later Li reiterated in the China Development Forum that Beijing would roll out more stimulus packages when the need arose.

These assurances are likely to have helped improve market sentiment, and the fact that China’s GDP growth target was also set at an ambitious level of around 5 %, might signal Beijing’s confidence and resolve that the economy will improve.

China’s AI revolution

In the past, China was considered a copycat nation known for manufacturing shanzai, or fake and pirated products. This difficulty in innovating and reliance on the designs of others largely lay with an education system steeped in rote learning, and a top-down culture with a conformist approach.

This is why experts thought China would struggle when the US decided to introduce restrictions on Chinese access to semiconductor and AI technologies. However, despite these restrictions, China has managed to develop a highly capable AI model of its own in the form of DeepSeek, which was unveiled early this year, and immediately boosted China’s image as an innovator.

Unlike other AI models, DeepSeek was apparently made at a&nbsp, fraction&nbsp, of the cost of other traditional AI models such as ChatGPT and may have a&nbsp, more efficient&nbsp, coding scheme that allows for quicker problem-solving. This has prompted Donald Trump to coin DeepSeek’s development as a wake-up call for the US tech industry.

Many AI startups in China are now revamping their business models to compete with DeepSeek, following the widespread adoption of the latter’s technology. The AI revolution in China could potentially reduce costs and thereby boost efficiency in the financial sector.

Following Trump’s return to the Oval Office, investors across the globe have been trying to reduce their reliance on the US by looking for investment opportunities elsewhere. This isn’t entirely surprising given Trump’s knack for the unpredictable, and how new US tariffs have been applied to a host of US allies such as Mexico, Canada and the European Union.

While Trump is striking an increasingly protectionist tone, China is taking the opposite approach. Trump’s penchant for tariffs and disregard for the economic interest of US allies may mean Beijing might not need to do too much to attract more nations and businesses to consider turning towards Chinese markets.

Chee Meng Tan is assistant professor of business economics, University of Nottingham

This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.

Continue Reading

Trump’s ‘Liberation Day’ puts Asia in its line of fire – Asia Times

By:
On:
In: Asia

As Donald Trump shocks stock markets from New York to Singapore with widening risks of new levies, officials in Washington might want to examine what really happened in Seoul.

Over the weekend, South Korea, China and Japan met for their first high-level financial speech in five times. The style: beefing up local business as Trump’s White House supersizes its tariffs program.

The countries ‘ industry officials pledged to” carefully cooperate for a complete and high-level” process to create a three-way free trade agreement centered on “regional and international trade”.

In other words, Trump’s dumping of fresh grenades at the international trading program– and the resulting chaos in markets– has officials in Seoul and Tokyo but spooked that they’re talking. Truly talking, despite historic enmities.

People in Tokyo, however, are turning to Beijing as they realize the US, when Japan’s most trusted partner, is no longer the alliance it thought. Seoul, also, which has had a very up-and-down partnership with China during the Xi Jinping time.

This trilateral work probably wouldn’t be happening if Trump stuck with Plan A: a “grand deal” trade deal with China that creates a ginormous Group of Two market and gives Trump the financial legacy he so eagerly craves.

The plunge in global shares ahead of Trump’s” Liberation Day” reciprocal tariffs announcement on April 2 is garnering attention of the kind that the Trump 1.0 presidency would not have liked. Something Trump really does care about is the stock market.

So far, Trump 2.0 has displayed a greater pain threshold with regard to falling equities. Hence his recent comments about there being a “period of transition” for his tariff regime to make America’s economy great again.

As Trump said last month:” There’ll be a little disturbance, but we’re OK with that”. Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent argues the world’s biggest economy needs a “detox” to wean it off dependence on public spending.

Last month, Bessent said Washington’s reciprocal levies will target the “dirty 15” that maintain substantial and chronic trade barriers with the US. Though Bessent didn’t specify which 15, suffice to say China is among them.

Commerce Department data show that as of the end of 2024, the US has the highest goods deficits with China, the European Union, Mexico, Vietnam, Ireland, Germany, Taiwan, Japan, Korea, Canada, India, Thailand, Italy, Switzerland, Malaysia, Indonesia, France, Austria and Sweden.

But the fallout for Asian markets more broadly will come into sharper relief on Trump’s” Liberation Day”. Given the mixed signals from Trump, and how often he’s changed his mind about who’s in the collateral damage zone and why, Asia can’t be sure if Trump will wake up on April 3 and say “never mind” or instead add even more tariffs.

It’s the not knowing that has Asia on a cliff’s edge. This extends to what strategy the Trump team might be employing this week, as opposed to next or the one after.

Trump’s mixed-signal tariffs on China are a case in point. Team Trump seemed to think the mere threat of taxes on Chinese goods, touted as high as 60 % on the 2024 campaign trail, would shock Xi’s Communist Party into submission.

And that Beijing would draw up an extensive list of preemptive concessions to make” Tariff Man” Trump happy. Instead, Xi’s team made it clear they were looking forward to seeing Trump’s concession list. Having called Trump’s bluff, the White House quickly pivoted to tariffs — now at 20 %.

Yet Team Xi has stood firm. No clear concessions, no efforts to compliment Trump or signal China might cave. This lack of fealty is putting China in harm’s way as Trump’s revenge machine turns its way.

The bigger question is whether China bears the brunt of Trump’s bruised ego. Rather than bowing to Trump’s provocations, leaders from Canada to Mexico to Denmark have pushed back. Greenland is clapping back at Trump World’s designs on the island. Officials in Panama are rolling their eyes.

Enter Vladimir Putin for the coup de grâce. A few weeks ago, Trump was certain he’d scored the Russia-Ukraine ceasefire that eluded Joe Biden. Now, Putin is proving right the geopolitical wags who warned that he’s playing Trump. Not to mention depriving Trump of the Nobel Peace Prize he craves.

Trump is now “pissed off” that Putin is dashing ceasefire hopes and is threatening 50 % tariffs on nations that buy Russian oil. But mostly, Trump is miffed Putin exposed his art-of-the-deal schtick to be more myth than reality.

As so many world leaders brush Trump off, might the bullseye on China become even bigger in the weeks ahead? The impulse could be to go even harder at showing China who’s the boss.

That would put Asia writ large in harm’s way. Since the 1980s, Trump, then a New York real estate mogul, has blamed the region for stealing US jobs and prosperity in the most sinister terms. Back then, Japan was at the center of Trumpian ire.

At&nbsp, the&nbsp, time, Trump the businessman was a regular on daytime talk shows complaining about how Japan had” systematically&nbsp, sucked&nbsp, the&nbsp, blood&nbsp, out of America –&nbsp, sucked&nbsp, the&nbsp, blood&nbsp, out! They have gotten away with murder. They have ended up winning&nbsp, the&nbsp, war”.

Today, China inhabits the bogeyman role. It’s more complicated, though, given Trump’s oft-articulated affection for Xi. On January 23, for example, Trump said,” I like President Xi very much. I’ve always liked him”. Trump added that he’s “always had a great relationship” with China’s strongest leader since Mao Zedong.

Yet Trump and Xi seem on a collision course as the former realizes the latter isn’t the junior partner he envisioned. This raises the odds Trump might supersize the revenge tour that Asia has been dreading all year, including levies of 60 % or more on Made in China goods.

Wall Street, too. Along with increased tariffs, investors are trying to factor in the global fallout from Trump’s spending cuts and the risk of a US recession. At the same time, there are concerns about a bubble in artificial intelligence stocks, seen in recent big declines in the tech-heavy Nasdaq 100 benchmark.

One concern is that hundreds of billions of dollars flowing into data center infrastructure are outpacing the need for such facilities. That’s pulling the rug out from under shares in chipmaker&nbsp, Nvidia Corp&nbsp, and companies from Broadcom Inc to Microsoft Corp to Amazon.com&nbsp, to Alphabet Inc&nbsp, to Meta Platforms.

But the real fallout could be on the outlook for Asia’s$ 41 trillion economy, and how it reverberates back on America. Trump’s tariffs threaten to deal a generational blow to the region’s development.

” Asia-Pacific economies are bracing for details of wide-ranging US tariffs”, says Helen Besier, an economist at Moody’s Analytics. ” The Trump administration has investigated the country’s trade relationships and appears bent on hiking tariffs to neutralize any duties, policies or practices that it believes create an uneven playing field. Beyond the direct impact on targeted countries, the toll will multiply. Much of this region’s trade is about components that come together as finished products destined for the US”.

Though China is standing its ground versus Trump, 2025 is proving to be an increasingly challenging year.

This week brought news of a slight improvement in manufacturing activity, as evidenced by China’s official purchasing managers ‘ index. The Manufacturing PMI quickened to&nbsp, 50.5 in March, its best performance in 12 months.

Even so, notes Carlos&nbsp, Casanova, senior Asia economist at Union Bancaire Privee,” support measures remain essential to sustain recovery in the first half of 2025″.

This may include the People’s Bank of China easing monetary policy again. That’s particularly possible as deflation pressures continue to bedevil officials in Beijing.

Julian Evans-Pritchard, head of China economics at Capital Economics, says the PMI data suggest “infrastructure spending is ramping up again and that exports have so far remained resilient in the face of US tariffs”. Yet, he adds, China’s economy likely grew noticeably slower in the first three months of 2025 than the last three of 2024.

Xi and Premier Li Qiang have pledged to step up fiscal policy moves to achieve this year’s growth target of&nbsp, “around 5 %”. Thus far, the priorities have been on giant trade-in programs for consumer goods to boost household spending and increased debt issuance to support the beleaguered housing sector.

For 2025, Beijing upped its budget deficit to around 4 % of gross domestic product ( GDP ), up from 3 % last year. It’s a rare increase as Team Xi works to counter Trump’s tariffs.

” The budget does allow for fiscal support to be stepped up further over the coming months”, Evans-Pritchard says, though US tariffs” will start to weigh on exports before long”.

Higher US tariffs on Chinese exports are also expected to hit domestic manufacturers in the coming months.

” The manufacturing sector faces downside risk in the second quarter as the external demand weakens, driven by the tariffs and the economic slowdown in the US”, says economist Zhiwei Zhang, president of Pinpoint Asset Management. ” The big question is how much export growth will decline, and how quickly the fiscal spending will pick up to offset weaker exports”.

Fighting these downside risks is pivotal to Xi making good on his pledge to create more than 12 million new urban jobs in 2025. Trump’s trade war, though, is generating unprecedented headwinds everywhere, including the globe’s biggest stock bourses.

The fallout could see Asia’s consumers and investors pulling back in ways that crimp US growth, too. And three of Asia’s four biggest economies striking a grand bargain trade deal with Trump Nation nowhere in sight.

Follow William Pesek on X at&nbsp, @WilliamPesek

Continue Reading

Rash AI deregulation puts financial markets at high risk – Asia Times

By:
On:
In: Asia

As Canada moves toward stronger AI regulation with the proposed Artificial Intelligence and Data Act ( AIDA ), its southern neighbor appears to be taking the opposite approach.

AIDA, piece of Bill C-27, aims to establish a regulatory framework to strengthen AI transparency, accountability and monitoring in Canada, although some researchers have argued it doesn’t go far enough.

Nevertheless, United States President Donald Trump is pushing for AI restructuring. In January, Trump signed an executive order aimed at eliminating any perceived regulatory impediments to” American AI development”. The executive order replaced past president Joe Biden’s due executive order on AI.

Importantly, the US was also one of two countries — along with the UK — that didn’t signal a worldwide declaration in February to ensure AI is “open, inclusive, open, honest, safe, protected and trustworthy”.

Eliminating Artificial protection leaves economic institutions vulnerable. This risk can improve confusion and, in a worst-case situation, increase the risk of widespread decline.

The power of AI in economic areas

AI’s ability in financial areas is obvious. It can increase administrative efficiency, perform real-time risk assessments, generate higher earnings and forecast forecast financial change.

My research has found that AI-driven machine learning models hardly only beat standard techniques in identifying financial statement scams, but also in detecting abnormalities quickly and effectively. In other words, AI does find evidence of economic mismanagement before they spiral into a crisis.

In another investigation, my co-researcher and I found that AI models like artificial neural networks and classification and regression trees may identify economic distress with amazing accuracy.

Artificial neural networks are brain-inspired algorithms. Similar to how our brain sends messages through neurons to perform actions, these neural networks process information through layers of interconnected “artificial neurons”, learning patterns from data to make predictions.

Similarly, classification and regression trees are decision-making models that divide data into branches based on important features to identify outcomes.

Our artificial neural networks models predicted financial distress among Toronto Stock Exchange-listed companies with a staggering 98 % accuracy. This suggests AI’s immense potential in providing early warning signals that could help avert financial downturns before they start.

However, while AI can simplify manual processes and lower financial risks, it can also introduce vulnerabilities that, if left unchecked, could pose significant threats to economic stability.

The risks of deregulation

Trump’s push for deregulation could result in Wall Street and other major financial institutions gaining significant power over AI-driven decision-making tools with little to no oversight.

When profit-driven AI models operate without the appropriate ethical boundaries, the consequences could be severe. Unchecked algorithms, especially in credit evaluation and trading, could worsen economic inequality and generate systematic financial risks that traditional regulatory frameworks cannot detect.

Algorithms trained on biased or incomplete data may reinforce discriminatory lending practices. In lending, for instance, biased AI algorithms can deny loans to marginalized groups, widening wealth and inequality gaps.

In addition, AI-powered trading bots, which are capable of executing rapid transactions, could trigger flash crashes in seconds, disrupting financial markets before regulators have time to respond.

The flash crash of 2010 is a prime example where high-frequency trading algorithms aggressively reacted to market signals causing the Dow Jones Industrial Average to drop by 998.5 points in a matter of minutes.

Furthermore, unregulated AI-driven risk models might overlook economic warning signals, resulting in substantial errors in monetary control and fiscal policy.

Striking a balance between innovation and safety depends on the ability for regulators and policymakers to reduce AI hazards. While considering the financial crisis of 2008, many risk models — earlier forms of AI — were wrong to anticipate a national housing market crash, which led regulators and financial institutions astray and exacerbated the crisis.

Blueprint for financial stability

My research underscores the importance of integrating machine learning methods within strong regulatory systems to improve financial oversight, fraud detection and prevention.

Durable and reasonable regulatory frameworks are required to turn AI from a potential disruptor into a stabilizing force. By implementing policies that prioritize transparency and accountability, policymakers can maximize the advantages of AI while lowering the risks associated with it.

A federally regulated AI oversight body in the US could serve as an arbitrator, just like Canada’s Digital Charter Implementation Act of 2022 proposes the establishment of an AI and Data Commissioner.

Operating with checks and balances inherent to democratic structures would ensure fairness in financial algorithms and stop biased lending policies and concealed market manipulation.

Financial institutions would be required to open the “black box” of AI-driven alternatives by mandating transparency through explainable AI standards — guidelines that are aimed at making AI systems ‘ outputs more understandable and transparent to humans.

Machine learning’s predictive capabilities could help regulators identify financial crises in real time using early warning signs — similar to the model developed by my co-researcher and me in our study.

However, this vision doesn’t end at national borders. Globally, the International Monetary Fund and the Financial Stability Board could establish AI ethical standards to curb cross-border financial misconduct.

Crisis prevention or catalyst?

Will AI still be the key to foresee and stop the next economic crisis, or will the lack of regulatory oversight cause a financial disaster? As financial institutions continue to adopt AI-driven models, the absence of strong regulatory guardrails raises pressing concerns.

Without proper safeguards in place, AI is not just a tool for economic prediction — it could become an unpredictable force capable of accelerating the next financial crisis.

The stakes are high. Policymakers must act swiftly to regulate the increasing impact of AI before deregulation opens the path for an economic disaster.

Without decisive action, the rapid adoption of AI in finance could outpace regulatory efforts, leaving economies vulnerable to unforeseen risks and potentially setting the stage for another global financial crisis.

Sana Ramzan is assistant professor in Business, University Canada West

This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.

Continue Reading

Trump is redefining, not abandoning, American soft power – Asia Times

By:
On:
In: Asia

For years, the United States projected global influence through what foreign policy experts call” soft power” – the ability to form world politics through social appeal, political engagement and intellectual interest rather than military power.

Under President Donald Trump’s administration, this traditional approach to international relationships is undergoing a basic change.

Critics decry the move as withdrawal of American administration. They’re missing the point. What we’re witnessing isn’t a foolish destroying of American influence but more a necessary recalibration for a universe where the old rules no longer use.

The standard soft energy model lacked clear indicators in today’s competitive world landscape. While previous administrations invested heavily in abstract notions of kindness and long-term control, Trump recognized that in a world where China and Russia wield economic liquidity to grow their spheres of influence, America needed a approach prioritizing substantial returns over intellectual appeal.

This approach has manifested in several high-profile decisions: withdrawing from agreements like the Paris Climate Accord and the Iran nuclear deal, questioning the value proposition of NATO ( in today’s form ), and reconsidering America’s role in international organizations.

These movements signaled that US agreements may be subject to practical national passions rather than abstract principles of international security.

Take, for example, Trump’s critique of the World Health Organization ( WHO ), the United Nations ‘ global public health agency. While his amounts weren’t perfect ( according to various fact-checking publications ), his fundamental analysis was correct.

Based on WHO estimates, American combined assessed and voluntary contributions to the WHO’s 2024-2025 resources is US$ 706 million, compared to$ 184 million for China.

Whatever the measures, it is hard for British citizens to understand how the country’s second largest economy with a considerably larger community pays only 26 % of what the US contributes to the WHO.

Trump’s critics have characterized these decisions as America retreating from global leadership. In reality, they represent a strategic pivot toward a more transactional form of influence.

Trump recognizes that foreign aid can be restructured to serve a more immediate geopolitical purpose, aligning with his broader” America First” doctrine. Aid and alliances are now treated as business arrangements with expectations of immediate returns – a sharp departure from past administrations that justified foreign assistance primarily as instruments for building goodwill and sowing benign influence.

Having deconstructed the old model, the challenge now is how to complete the redefinition of American soft power for this new era. Four key areas demand particular attention:

First, America must transition from viewing foreign aid as charity to embracing strategic economic engagement. China’s Belt and Road Initiative demonstrates how infrastructure projects can build influence while ensuring recipient nations see tangible benefits from alignment with a major power.

America should develop its own model of partnership that yields mutual advantages. It is not clear the US International Development Finance Corporation ( DFC) is the vehicle to do this, thus Trump’s desire to create an American sovereign wealth fund.

Second, the US faces global threats on three key fronts: military, economic and technological. The Trump team has been extremely clear on the first two threats. The technological front can sometimes fall under the radar but is vital to success on all other fronts.

It is imperative that US technological leadership becomes a cornerstone of America’s global influence strategy. As digital connectivity reshapes international relations, US dominance in technology, artificial intelligence and cybersecurity offers powerful leverage to shape global norms and standards in ways that reflect democratic values.

Third, America needs resilient, flexible alliances rather than outdated treaty frameworks. The limitations of institutions like the UN and NATO have become increasingly apparent with the UN hamstrung by the Security Council and NATO struggling to balance the interests of all members ranging from Turkey to France.

The EU itself continually has a love-hate relationship with different members from Italy to Hungary. Interest-based coalitions that reflect contemporary geopolitical realities will prove more effective than rigid multilateral structures designed for a bygone era.

Finally, America must compete more effectively in the global information space. Nations are now shaping their own images through state-controlled media and digital diplomacy. The US must rethink how it communicates its values and interests to global audiences.

Abandoning platforms like Voice of America without replacement strategies surrenders the battlefield of ideas at a critical moment when America’s enemies will spend richly to ensure their narratives gain global traction.

While podcasts and new streams of communications dominate in the West, a large swathe of the world’s population still turns on the television, listens to the radio and picks up a newspaper for world news. To abandon those information spaces would be counterintuitive to American diplomacy.

Critics say Trump’s tenure is irreparably damaging traditional US soft power, the reality is it is exposing the need to modernize America’s approach to global influence.

Whether through economic incentives, technological leadership or reimagined alliances, America’s ability to attract and influence must evolve alongside an evolving geopolitical landscape.

The challenge for the Trump team and beyond is to reconstruct American soft power with a clearer strategy—one that recognizes both the limitations of past approaches and the opportunities of a new era.

Kurt Davis Jr is a Millennium Fellow at the Atlantic Council and a member of the Council on Foreign Relations. He advises private, public and state-owned companies and their boards as well as creditors across the globe on a range of transactions.

Continue Reading

US Navy’s latest frigate drifting into familiar troubled waters – Asia Times

By:
On:
In: Asia

The US Navy’s newest fleet system is sailing directly into the same wind that sank its final two big shipping efforts: rising costs, style chaos and shrinking credibility.

Last month, the US Government Accountability Office ( GAO ) reported that despite repeated assurances of lessons learned from the troubled Littoral Combat Ship (LCS) and Zumwalt-class ( DDG 1000 ) destroyer programs, the US Navy’s Constellation-class frigate ( FFG 62 ) is repeating the same acquisition missteps.

In all three scenarios, the US Navy committed to deliver design before achieving firm designs, resulting in trickling delays, soaring costs and diminished capabilities, according to the GAO’s latest findings.

Like the LCS, the Constellation-class ship began building with an exaggerated style implementation day, after revealed to be only 70 %, not 88 %. This led to a three-year wait for the prospect send and a US$ 3.4 billion devotion to inadequate models.

Like DDG 1000, where juvenile technologies and fragile requirements raised unit costs tenfold, the frigate now faces complex risks from untested propulsion and machinery control systems.

Further, the frigate’s modifications have eroded its advertised commonality with the Italian parent design, undermining the program’s original risk-reduction rationale and prompting it to sacrifice speed in compensation for weight growth — a trend that parallels the LCS and Zumwalt’s ultimate delivery of less than promised.

The GAO stresses that history will continue to repeat itself until the US Navy abandons its flawed acquisition playbook and adopts leading commercial ship design practices, such as completing functional designs before construction, which jeopardizes the fleet’s readiness and credibility.

The Constellation class was envisioned as a general-purpose naval combatant, akin to the 1970s Oliver Hazard Perry-class frigates. A December 2024 US Congressional Research Service ( CRS ) report notes that the class intentionally avoids introducing new, unproven technologies and relies instead on systems already deployed across the US Navy to reduce costs.

The CRS report mentions the Aegis Combat System and Enterprise Air Surveillance Radar as pre-existing systems to be used in the Constellation class, distinguishing it from the LCS, which struggled with immature systems, such as its propulsion system and multi-mission modules.

Emphasizing the need to replace the LCS, Andrew Latham argues in a February 2025 article for 1945 that even with missile upgrades, the type would be little more than a liability in a possible Pacific conflict due to a weak hull, a lack of long-range weapons, and limited endurance to contribute in a fight against China’s People’s Liberation Army Navy ( PLAN ) blue-water fleet consisting of frigates, destroyers and cruisers.

However, a May 2024 GAO report notes that the Constellation-class frigate’s design has experienced unplanned weight growth exceeding 10 % of the initial estimates due to incomplete design information and underestimations when adapting the foreign parent design to US Navy requirements.

The report mentions that growth has raised concerns about the frigate’s ability to meet its speed requirements, leading the US Navy to consider reducing the ship’s speed as a potential solution.

However, in a November 2024 article for 1945, Robert Farley notes that extra weight could make it difficult for the Constellation class to keep pace with US carriers and destroyers, and may also complicate future upgrades.

A CRS report from last month describes the operational roles of the Constellation-class frigates. The ships are designed as multi-mission platforms capable of anti-air, anti-surface, antisubmarine and electromagnetic warfare, enabling them to operate independently or as integral units within carrier strike groups, surface action groups ( SAG ) or allied naval formations.

The report states that the US Navy plans to conduct an iterative procurement of at least 20 ships, with additional ships anticipated under the long-range shipbuilding plan. Once production stabilizes, the phased delivery of these frigates will incrementally provide operational commanders with adaptable assets for both blue-water and littoral missions.

However, US shipbuilding capabilities are insufficient for the Constellation-class program’s requirements.

A January 2025 US CRS report explicitly links design instability and delays with operational-level uncertainty for fleet planning. It highlights that the FFG-62 lead ship is now facing an approximate 36-month delay, more than double the initial delay reported, due to design workforce limitations and incomplete design work before construction.

The report notes that this is part of a broader pattern across multiple shipbuilding programs, creating what it refers to as an “extraordinary situation” unseen since World War II.

According to the report, these delays and the US Navy’s inability to meet projected procurement rates undermine the access of combatant commanders to expected assets and complicate force generation planning.

Despite these challenges, the US Navy’s persistence in pursuing the Constellation class underscores the need to reconstitute its surface force to counter China’s growing naval presence and power in the Pacific.

Underscoring this point, the US Department of Defense’s ( DOD ) 2024 China Military Power Report states that the PLAN is the world’s largest navy, comprising 370 ships and submarines, including more than 140 major surface combatants.

In contrast to the Constellation class, which is still under construction, Eric Wertheim mentions in a Proceedings article from last month that China has commissioned the Luohe, the first Jiangkai III-class ( Type 054B ) frigate, signifying a notable advancement in the PLAN’s capabilities.

Wertheim notes that the frigate, built at Hudong Zhonghua Shipbuilding in Shanghai, boasts enhanced stealth, firepower and technology compared to its predecessor, the Jiangkai II class.

He says that the Type 054B, equipped with a 32-cell vertical-launch system (VLS), advanced active electronically scanned array ( AESA ) radar, and expanded antisubmarine warfare capabilities, positions China for diversified naval operations.

He notes that the Luohe has been assigned to the PLAN North Sea Fleet while additional ships are in production, underscoring a strategic emphasis on modernizing China’s naval forces.

In contrast, the Constellation class may risk becoming a symbol of US shipbuilding dysfunction and decline.

Alistair MacDonald mentions in a Wall Street Journal ( WSJ) article last month that the US Navy faces a critical challenge in shipbuilding as delays and cost overruns persist, undermining its strategic position amid intensifying global competition.

To underscore the point, MacDonald says that the Constellation-class frigate, the first of a new frigate class intended to address fleet deficiencies, remains years behind schedule and over budget despite efforts to accelerate production by adopting a proven Italian design.

He says that while US allies favor purchasing advanced American fighter jets and missile systems, American warships struggle to compete internationally due to high expenses and outdated infrastructure.

MacDonald emphasizes that with China producing naval vessels at a superior pace and cost efficiency, the US must confront systemic inefficiencies in shipbuilding to restore naval dominance.

Continue Reading

If negotiations among Russia, Ukraine, US collapse, what’s next? – Asia Times

By:
On:
In: Asia

It may be that the US-Russia and US-Ukraine discussions are going off the rails.

However the US is anxious for Europe to get over responsibility for supporting Ukraine as Washington turns to the Middle East and Pacific areas. The Europeans therefore will need to determine if they are ready, willing and able to make up the difference.

One method for them is to try to secure eastern Ukraine, figuring the Russians may be effective south of the Dnieper, But that concept is certainly a cake walk and may cause a wider conflict. Washington will have to make up its mind on what is following regarding Ukraine.

President Trump is complaining that the Russians are dragging out discussions on a thorough peace, and he is threatening Russia with new power restrictions. The main function of the hazard from Trump is that states that buy Russian oil may be cut off from business with the US. This includes India and China.

US total goods trade with China was an estimated$ 582.4 billion in 2024. US goods exports to China in 2024 were$ 143.5 billion.

In 2023-24, the US was the largest trading partner of India with$ 119.71 billion bilateral trade in goods ($ 77.51 billion worth of exports,$ 42.19 billion of imports, with$ 35.31 billion trade surplus ).

President Trump said he intended to speak to Russian President Putin immediately ( the precise timing of a phone call never revealed ).

Both Ukraine and Russia are trying to position themselves as best they can before any ceasefire begins ( if one actually occurs ).

Russia has several military activities in Ukraine covering regions from Kursk on down through Luhansk and Donetsk, including Zaphorize and, perhaps, Kherson. The Russians have even signaled their involvement in Odesa which they claim is a Belarusian capital.

In all regions except one, Ukraine is trying to hold onto place and reduce Russian advances. CNN has described Ukraine’s military as “on their rear foot”, meaning those troops are losing surface.

The one exception is the Belgorod area. Belgorod is Soviet territory west of Kursk. The city of Belgorod and surrounding settlements have been subjected to Russian artillery and aircraft problems for decades. Today, however, the Russians have launched attacks and made some important success on Russian country.

The true goal of the Russian attacks is vague. Some observers think the idea is to push Russia to redeploy troops to the Belgorod country, taking the stress off of Ukrainian threats abroad, as in areas such as Pokrovsk.

May by ISW

Reliving Russian pressure was also part of the idea behind the Kursk salient, along with Ukraine having a territorial bargaining chip in a forthcoming possible negotiation ( land for land ). But that is not the whole story. Ukraine hoped to capture the nuclear power plant in Kursk, offsetting Russian attacks on Ukraine’s energy infrastructure.

The Russians were able to block Ukraine’s army from getting that far and, over seven months, began to roll up Ukraine’s attack. Today Ukraine’s forces are almost completely out of Kursk, and the Russians have crossed the border into Ukrainian territory in Sumy.

It is too soon to predict the outcome in Belgorod. Two villages, Popovka and Demidovka, have come under multiple Ukrainian attacks. Ukraine continues to beef up its assault forces, the latest the redeployment to Belgorod of the 17th Heavy Mechanized Brigade, suggesting that Ukraine thinks it can be successful.

Regional governor Vyacheslav Gladkov says that in all Ukraine has attacked more than 20 villages. There is no word yet on losses on either side.

Ukraine might get a temporary morale boost if it can hold onto some of the villages it is attacking, but for how long no one can yet say.

Meanwhile, France and the UK, and possibly some others, are working on a new idea on injecting European forces into the conflict in support of Ukraine. The latest is for Europe ( or at least those who will support the venture ) to send both air and naval forces to Ukraine.

Reports say that a mission is being dispatched to Ukraine to decide where to position such forces if they are sent. Combat aircraft would be vulnerable anywhere near eastern Ukraine, considering Russia’s layered air defenses. Similarly, naval forces have few options outside of Odesa, and Odesa is exposed to Russian missile attacks.

Putin has agreed to a Black Sea deal, but that would collapse if the UK and France move naval forces to ostensibly protect Ukraine. Both France and the UK have aircraft carriers, but whether they would risk such assets so close to Russia is open to considerable doubt.

It may be that the UK and France, perhaps even with the backdoor support of the United States, want to protect western Ukraine should the Russians overrun the Ukrainian army and collapse the Kiev government.

To do this both France and the UK would need support from Poland, and Polish authorities have not shown much enthusiasm for getting involved.

If the negotiations on a Ukraine-Russia deal go off the rails, as seems more and more likely, then the fallback” security guarantee” for part of Ukraine could be an option for Europe if Europe actually believes it is threatened by Russian land armies.

But air force and naval assets are only a temporary hack for the Europeans. They would have to put boots on the ground in western Ukraine. Europe does not have deployable forces in sufficient numbers ( nor do they have stockpiles of weapons ) to be any more than a tripwire, and the Europeans would have to expect pushback from the Russians– who may decide to attack staging areas and supply depots in Poland and Romania.

The Charles De Gaulle aircraft carrier.

Depending on how the war evolves, and how much force the Russians are prepared to bring to the conflict, Russia could achieve its territorial and local political goals in a relatively short time. The territorial goals are already spelled out by Russia. The political goal is to force NATO out of Ukraine and change the Ukrainian government to one friendly to Russia.

Some say Russia cannot sustain the war, that its economy is a shambles, and that pulling in more conscripts to fight is politically difficult because the conflict has dragged out. If that is true, Russia is without an exit strategy other than for its political and military institutions to collapse. That is a recurring theme in NATO circles, but is it because NATO does not want to lose or do people in those circles really believe the scenario?

An important question is what steps the Trump administration is willing to take if the so-called peace process stalls or collapses. Sanctions won’t change the military situation, and might backfire on a US economy and stock market already in panic.

Furthermore, the administration is trying to fry too many eggs in foreign policy at the same time and that can lead to mistakes and blunders. If the reports on Pentagon plans are right, the administration wants to contain China, not so much Russia.

It is at least possible, given the limits of the US arsenal and the deployment of US forces, that Washington will be inclined to turn Ukraine over to Europe. The White House dream of huge deals with Russia aimed at sidelining the Russian-China partnership mostly has evaporated.

As matters now stand, soon Washington will have to make some hard decisions.

Stephen Bryen is a special correspondent to Asia Times and former US deputy undersecretary of defense for policy. This article, which originally appeared on his Substack newsletter&nbsp, Weapons and Strategy, is republished with permission.

Continue Reading

Trump’s step back abroad has triggered an atomic race in East Asia – Asia Times

By:
On:
In: Asia, World

US friends in Asia fear losing their radioactive umbrella because US President Donald Trump suggested some international withdrawal. Without the awning, as seen with Ukraine, a government’s liberation is in danger. It starts a new spread.

Washington is tempted to retreat from some foreign pledges and is willing to do its plan without much discussion or consensus with the allies. There are different objectives in the partnerships.

Facing the Northern Korean nuclear danger, the majority of South Koreans apparently want the weapon. Japan, threatened by North Korea and scared by China, may quickly acquire a nuclear security. At that point, actually Vietnam or Indonesia may comprehend plutonium features. And why not the Philippines or Thailand? India and Pakistan now possess a magnificent stockpile.

The big question is Taiwan: did the area produce to Beijing or create its weapons?

China would be in a minefield. It’d be the goal of this army and in a violent circle – the more weapons it companies, the more explosives its neighbors will store. It’d be extraordinary with unimaginable consequences.

The atmosphere in Asia is more difficult than in Europe, where two powerful US-backed systems, NATO and the Union, have held the peninsula along for years. Asia has thinner international organizations and intergovernmental agreements with the US.

Countries in the region usually don’t believe China or each other. If America steps up, everything will fall apart. China is not willing to offer free safety offers to anyone, replacing American people, and its assures could not be welcomed.

Eastern options

A plan could be for Korea and Japan to question France and the UK to expand their radioactive umbrella to Asia. A similar arrangement is under concern in Europe, where France and the UK may extend their national safety across the peninsula. This may enhance the transatlantic split, as the UK plus EU may produce greater room for maneuvering out of Wahington’s programs.

Besides, a Franco-British reach over Eurasia’s east side could spark fresh, not necessarily positive, global political and military dynamics. Alternatively, there could be greater political and military coordination among America’s allies, even with the US taking a step back.

The UK ( with Keir Starmer ), France ( with Emmanuel Macron ), Germany ( with Friedrich Merz ), and Japan ( with Fumio Kishida ), are possibly weaving the fabric of something new that other countries could join. In World War II, the US wanted to stay out of the fight, but then Churchill, with words and actions, helped to convince Roosevelt to change his mind.

China, America’s primary concern and preoccupation, could turn the situation by tackling it head-on. Beijing should force Pyongyang to forfeit its nuclear arsenal. It should press Russia to disarm partially, and it should shelve its rearmament plans. It would defuse the arms race.

It’d be challenging, but it’d be essential to start working on it.

It could also dissuade the US from leaving the region and persuade it to engage in a genuine negotiation on the RMB’s full convertibility, the complete opening of China’s internal market, and Beijing’s territorial claims.

US world

Underpinning this scenario is perhaps a reality that’s perceived vaguely in Beijing and taken for granted ( thus similarly unclear ) in Washington. America is not a country but a world order, just as Rome ceased to be a city when it cemented its empire around the Mediterranean.

This empire is not based solely on military might as was that of the Mongols. It has a sophisticated architecture comprising many elements besides strength: culture, rule of law, history, economic and financial prestige. If the US tries to withdraw, not only will the world order collapse but the United States will crumble, too. There’s no way back from “imperial America” other than suicide.

Naturally, the US feels immense strain after decades of vast responsibilities. Thus, many political and economic aspects must be renegotiated, but invading Greenland destroys the world order and the American nation.

It might superficially look like an opportunity for China to take up the US slack. However, Beijing could have far more problems than it currently faces, or it could face negotiating a broad deal with the US.

In all this, too many elements are up in the air, and the role of the Vatican as a disarmed yet knowledgeable and disenchanted mediator could be invaluable.

Many players would need to leave their present trajectory and comfort zone to turn the present undercurrents around. The US should rethink its direction and renegotiate its commitments. It’d be safer and less expensive than to gamble a global security overhaul. Perhaps Trump is pursuing this, but the public hears a different message.

Therefore, Asian and, thus, global nuclear proliferation is the likely scenario. The old Cold War set the terms of the previous arms race– it was run between two blocs. Now, alliances are unraveling, and every country could be basically on its own. This race would be different, more challenging, and full of unexpected incidents.

Everyone needs to step back and keep a cool head to avert a military tsunami.

Continue Reading