Will Trump go down as a great or awful president? – Asia Times

By:
On:
In: Asia

Political “greatness” is a hard thing to determine, although some people have tried.

One of the accepted theories is that it is necessary for a president to face significant challenges, meet them by altering how the US operates, institutionalize those changes in a way that has a lasting impact, and persuade the American people to support them by unifying ( or at least coalescing ) behind the president’s leadership.

Research on the role of US president has attempted to establish how past presidents ‘ positions stack up against those of their predecessors. There is general agreement that the United States has had three truly great presidents – George Washington ( 1789-1797 ), Abraham Lincoln ( 1861-1865 ), and Franklin Delano Roosevelt ( 1933-1945 ) – and several truly terrible presidents – including Warren G Harding ( 1921-1923 ), James Buchanan ( 1857-1861 ) and Franklin Pierce ( 1853-1857 ).

But what distinguishes these presidents as great or bad? These examinations are consistent with the intensity of the problems that these leaders encountered during their terms in office and how they successfully overcame them.

George Washington had to work together to form a new country out of the 13 freshly united states, creating a nation that still stands.

Lincoln had to deal with the independence of the southern says, the Civil War, and the difficulty of putting an end to slavery. He won the war, bringing the country together, and finally put an end to the most controversial matter the country has ever encountered ( or at least its change from slavery to racism and segregation ).

FDR participated in both the Second World War and the Great Depression. He also altered the US government, giving birth to the modern-liberal condition.

All three faced philosophical problems to the government’s very existence, and they succeeded in overcoming them. By the end of their administration, all three had finally been acknowledged as having influenced the public to their opinions.

As for the “terrible” leaders, they usually preceded the fantastic people, facing similar problems and failing to meet them. Many of the “middle” leaders never had to face significant difficulties or were able to overcome them by utilizing the country’s existing power and institutions without having to transform the nation.

So where does Trump fall in this mythology? His previous name, generally speaking, is difficult to define as “great”. In fact, according to some political positions, he is considered the worst president in history.

He did implement some scheme adjustments that his supporters liked, but he was able to bring about lasting change or unite the nation in support of his leadership. Reelection battle and his son Joe Biden’s instant reform of many of his policies provide evidence of this, which demonstrates that Trump had not been able to engender lasting change.

Mount Rushmore in South Dakota features the heads of presidents George Washington, Thomas Jefferson and Theodore Roosevelt.
President George Washington, Thomas Jefferson, and Theodore Roosevelt are among the guests at Mount Rushmore in South Dakota. Photo: Guido Vermeulen-Perdaen / Shutterstock via The Talk

The Covid-19 pandemic and the country’s huge polarization provided the opportunity, but neither of these events led to unifying victories for Trump’s legacy.

Trump largely responded to the epidemic with” Operation Warp Speed,” a public-private collaboration that accelerated the development of vaccinations for the pandemic. However, he downplayed vaccines as a cure for the disease in his later speeches and tweets, stoking disagreement over how to address the issue, causing magnetization and stoking vaccine skepticism.

The US’s largest issue that has occurred over the past 20 years has undoubtedly been its increasing degree of magnetization, which has increased steadily since the mid-1990s. President Obama, Biden, and George W. Bush have all failed to stop the country’s growth, making it the most significant domestic threat to legal democracy.

Trump may be able to stop this, despite being generally seen as a divided and polarizing number.

One of Trump’s greatest advantages is that he has assembled a group of incredibly devoted and devoted followers who can rely on his selections. His supporters appear to be enthusiastic about Trump and his individual tone, which have given him great latitude to pursue his goals with legislation in a variety of fields. His supporters care a lot about issues like immigration and the business, and he has already taken steps to satisfy them in these areas.

His day-one actions&nbsp, to mark the border&nbsp, and boost arrests will&nbsp, meet some Republicans, &nbsp, and research indicates that views of the economy are &nbsp, greatly biased by politics. Trump’s mere election will likely encourage Republicans ‘ conviction that the business is performing well.

Trump’s biggest challenge is in getting the almost two-thirds of Americans who don’t consistently vote Republican on table. Because of his supporters ‘ devotion, he is likely to keep them backing whatever cause he advocates for in the majority of policy sections. He frequently makes changes in what he stands for and supports policies that his supporters used to support without experiencing reaction.

He has changed, for instance, from opposing the US government’s restrictions on the social media network Twitter to delaying the US’s. With a little maneuvering in the social environment, he might be able to win more supporters among Americans.

You Trump expand his assistance?

If Trump were to take action on issues that already have widespread public support, such as abortion, gun control, and the provincial part in healthcare, he would likely be able to maintain his devoted following while gaining support from earlier hostile groups.

The majority of people prefer Democratic policies on these subjects, so Trump may offer to work with Democrats to create nonpartisan policy that previous presidents had just dreams about.

Republican supporters may not be able to cast ballots against their own president, who frequently might laugh at working with Democrats to succeed. Democrats are but defeated that they might seize every chance they are given to enhance their goals, which is against the customary tendency to attempt to deny a sitting Republican president any parliamentary success.

In this way, Trump may achieve something that no previous leader has accomplished in the last 30 times: bipartisan support for significant congressional legislation that would tackle issues that Americans consider crucial. This may end the polarization circular and provide the first political pact in US history in decades.

It is difficult to understand how Trump achieves his purpose of being viewed as “great” if this situation is left open and a new global turmoil may arise. The course of four years will show.

David Andersen is an associate professor in US politicians, Durham University

The Conversation has republished this essay under a Creative Commons license. Read the original post.

Continue Reading

Trump voters not the climate enemies you think they are – Asia Times

By:
On:
In: Asia

People of Carteret County, North Carolina, whose seaside towns and villages are being slashed by the rising Atlantic, will experience yet another monster sea on another day.

However, its electorate elected Donald Trump to the White House, a gentleman who had rejected the science of climate change and had unilaterally withdrawn his nation from the Paris Agreement on climate change before the moon had also set on his first time in business.

It is a paradox that has captivated many people’s minds. The term “denialism” dominated late-night talk shows and became widely known at annual UN summits in 2017, when Trump forked out for the first time to withdraw from the agreement, which spiritually pledges nations to reduce global warming to well below 2°C.

Denialism stifles a compulsive rejection of climate change’s existence. It has led to a community that is unable to distinguish fact from fiction, frequently to the expense of the author. However, climate-conscious officials in a handful of Democrat states have repeated their devotion to medical information.

As an anthropologist, I found myself miserable with the way the famous Trump voting was treated while hardly ever being given the opportunity to speak for themselves. I have participated in climate elections as a scientist, environmentalist and minister, and I felt there was little mirror among the treaty’s activists about their own part in the US exit.

I began a PhD to learn about culture politics ‘ non-participants. It took me to southern North Carolina, where the effects of climate change and a flimsy indifference to the crisis are both present. Like so many other American communities, this place is also known for its coastal communities.

Hurricane Helene also rages in North Carolina in the fall of 2024. Photo: Karl Dudman via The Talk

I was interested in learning how people around dealt with climate research and what denialism really looked like. I spent a time talking to people with” Trump Won” colors on their meadows, but I also met experts, government officials, activists and Liberals.

Here is one point I found, and one point I didn’t.

Culture triumphs over “facts”

Although the science of climate change is very powerful, technology alone cannot explain what makes a solution fair or who should have a say in its design. The Paris Agreement, for instance, has a strong social aspect that was hard-won by developing countries, small island states and global activists.

It depicts a planet where wealthy nations like the US are largely to blame for climate change and have to take responsibility for addressing it, and it forbids financial flows to the developing nations to aid in their adaptation. This is a tough narrative for several precarious Americans who don’t feel wealthy or bad.

I saw a similar structure in my own research. Designs that generally guide open relationship with climate action by the federal government and community actions include racism, indigenous information, industrial injustice, and children. These topics won’t always be popular in remote, traditional communities like Carteret state.

According to opinion polls and vote information in the US, climate change is a topic on which voters are divided.

A boathouse with a boat bearing a US flag.
North Carolina has a long history of being a major local firm. Karl Dudman

This helps explain why climate change advocates frequently speak to the already-engaged by making reference to other liberal reasons. However, supporters may not always be more influenced by the truth than they are by naysayers. Simply put, it’s simpler to sign up for a reason you can see yourself supporting.

‘ Denialism’ is a poor strategy

What I didn’t get in North Carolina was what I came looking for: environment for.

In the conversations I had in Carteret County, climate change often came up naturally, but the responses were uneven, ranging from curiosity to concern to mistrust and disinterest to fatalism and skepticism. What mention there was hardly fit the stereotype of bitter, conspiracy-fuelled rejection of reality.

In this tight-knit fishing community, people had become wary of outside interventions. Some people were offended by environmental movements because they were given instructions on how to manage a coastline by regulatory scientists or environmental activists.

Others were fatalist about preventing sea level rise; generations spent on the Atlantic’s fierce frontline taught them that you don’t fight storms, you ride them out. Many people were aware of the changes taking place but were unable to devote much time or money, or else found it intolerable to wake up each day thinking about the demise of their local community.

A fishing boat leaving a harbour at dusk.
North Carolina’s fishers face several threats to their livelihood. Photo: Karl Dudman via The Conversation

Denialism lacked a justification for this. In contrast, it misrepresented complex social dynamics as a matter of simply accepting or rejecting facts by failing to distinguish between disagreement and lack of agreement.

So why does any of this matter? Because we give ourselves permission to stop enquiring about what we could be doing differently when we identify one group as the sole cause of a problem. After all, climate action’s supporters, from UN officials to individual voters, have a say in what legitimate climate action looks like and who wants to be a part of it.

Reiterating that “science is real,” in the vein of world leaders and American lawn signs, is a rip-off of the US’s withdrawal from Paris, misses the point. Public dissention frequently relates to whose vision of a good world we are working toward rather than whether we should fix it.

This is not to shift blame for Trump’s withdrawal. Nor should it be used to applaud those in politics, business, and the media who have repeatedly omitted the climate debate in defiance of their own policies.

A person sits mending rope in a workshop.
Carteret’s older residents have seen the decline of local industries and ecosystems. Photo: Karl Dudman via The Conversation

However, limiting public dissention to a matter of misinformation and gullibility implies a lack of humility and ignores concerns that might not turn into opposition if handled politely. We can all do more to reduce the toxicity of climate politics by asking ourselves more questions.

As Trump signed his first executive orders, I pressed send on my thesis’s final corrections. How the international community reacts this time is up for debate, but the last four years have taught me that it may influence whether or not there will be another time.

Karl Dudman is a PhD candidate in anthropology, University of Oxford

The Conversation has republished this article under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.

Continue Reading

Human conscription flagging? Learn the term ‘attritible drone’ – Asia Times

By:
On:
In: Asia

Since Russia’s full-scale invasion of Ukraine in February 2022, the war there has been impacted by relatively expendable ( “attritable” in military jargon ), cheap drones&nbsp, and a rapidly growing roster of unmanned and robotic systems. Collectively, these systems are redefining how military forces may pay modern war.

With each part in this battle rushing to secure a modern benefits, the Russian battle is&nbsp, transforming&nbsp, into a clash between normal forces that are both backed by growing numbers of intelligent and remote-controlled systems. Each attack has steadily&nbsp, poured&nbsp, more and more resources into developing this technology, buying to be a move ahead of the other.

Ukraine’s experience on the front lines reflects a shift toward robotic systems that strengthen or attempt to replace human operators in the most risky missions and in opposition to an enemy that is willing to deploy more and more manpower into major front assaults.

Ukrainian officials began to describe their nation as a “war test for the future” after Kyiv’s forces fielded but some intelligent and mechanical systems over the past three years. This is because fight in Ukraine offers the best environment for ongoing testing, evaluation, and refinement of like systems.

Numerous businesses in Europe and the United States have tested their robots and other devices in Ukraine. At this point in the fight, those companies are striving to achieve “battle-tested in Ukraine” certificates for their goods.

For instance, US defence technology firm &nbsp, Anduril&nbsp, just started selling its new autonomous robots after successful testing carried out in Ukraine in October 2024. Russian and Western aircraft manufacturers are now working more closely together on both developing AI and drones. Through its Replicator&nbsp program, the US government is attempting to expedite the deployment of affordable automatic systems. Additionally, it is working closely with the private industry to examine Ukrainian systems and technologies before using them in upcoming conflicts.

Lately, US Army Chief of Staff General Randy George&nbsp, noted&nbsp, that the Ukraine conflict “has demonstrated the value of little, attritable robots on the field”. This fight implementation of relatively cheap platforms has provided the Pentagon an opportunity to observe how integrating cutting-edge software with robust drone technology can continue across the US Department of Defense, drawing&nbsp, lessons&nbsp, from the Russia-Ukraine war as the Pentagon prepares for potential future conflicts, including with&nbsp, China.

One of the larger, more expensive drones that are NOT considered’ attritible’: Soldiers from the Ukrainian drone unit Yasni Ochi set up a Ukrainian Vampire bomber drone, which drops anti-tank mines, for bombing operations. Photo: David Kirichenko.

For the first time in December 2024, Ukrainian forces successfully attacked Russian positions using only ground and first-person view drones, further developing how Ukraine is utilizing unmanned technology on the battlefield.

According to Sergeant&nbsp, Volodymyr Dehtiarov&nbsp, of the Khartiia Brigade, which was involved in this attack, dozens of robotic and unmanned systems, including machine-gun-equipped ground drones and kamikaze first-person view aerial drones, were deployed near Lyptsi, north of Kharkiv.

Although these were remote-controlled systems that still needed a significant human to operate them, Ukraine is now making progress by gradually putting more combat robots into use and eventually releasing more autonomous systems to the battlefield.

In September of this year, Ukraine also attacked a Russian trench with ground robots in Kursk Oblast, with numerous other instances of these systems being quickly developed and deployed for combat.

Ukraine has no choice but to maximize its use of technology, as the&nbsp, manpower disparity&nbsp, between Ukraine and Russia is still significant along the eight-hundred-mile front line of the war.

While technological developments have proceeded at a very rapid pace in this war, it also became clear that systematizing the combined research, development, testing, evaluation, and use of different systems by different units across the entire force was crucial.

Therefore, in February 2024, Ukraine’s president Volodymyr Zelenskyy signed a&nbsp, decree&nbsp, to establish the national Unmanned Systems Forces, with Colonel Vadym Sukharevskyi&nbsp, appointed&nbsp, as commander in June 2024.

The Russian military announced in December 2024 that it would establish an unmanned systems branch to better integrate its forces ‘ use of autonomous and robotic technologies and ensure that different military branches can take and codify lessons learned from combat in Ukraine.

Both nations assert that their respective militaries have used numerous AI developments in drones and other tactical and battlefield systems.

Ukraine has been a leader in the development and use of various unmanned systems and AI technologies across domains and mission types, three years into its conflict with Russian aggression. In 2025, Ukraine is&nbsp, expected&nbsp, to field AI-enabled drone swarms and massive numbers of ground vehicles to counter Russian forces. As&nbsp, one Ukrainian official put it:” We count people, and we want our people to be as far from the front line as we can”.

Ukraine’s private sector has stepped up to accelerate the development of autonomous and robotic technologies for enhanced targeting capabilities, with companies like&nbsp, TAF Drones&nbsp, leading the way, aided by the&nbsp, Brave1&nbsp, organization, a coordination platform established by Ukraine’s government playing an important role in helping the private sector.

Brave1 uncrewed ground vehicle with machine gun. Photo: Iryna Supruniuk

Ukraine’s plan is to ensure&nbsp, AI-powered&nbsp, combat drones can ensure the nation’s advantage over the Russian force on the battlefield.

The Russian military&nbsp, claims&nbsp, the same for its military AI research and application in this war. For example, Russian Defense Minister Andrei Belousov&nbsp, stated&nbsp, in October 2024 that AI-powered drones are playing a pivotal role on the battlefield in Ukraine, though he did not elaborate.

The Russian Ministry of Defense launched the Rubicon Center in August 2024 to help systematize lessons from Ukraine, including the development and application of AI, to better understand how different kinds of robotic and autonomous systems are used in Ukrainian combat. Russia’s planned unmanned systems branch is likely to be at the epicenter of this initiative. Russian president Vladimir Putin also announced that Russia is&nbsp, increasing&nbsp, military drone production to approximately 1.4 million in 2024, aiming to stay abreast of Ukraine’s own&nbsp, rapid&nbsp, and large-scale drone manufacturing.

Both Ukrainian and Russian forces&nbsp, prioritize&nbsp, minimizing drone operator involvement to protect trained assets in a complex combat environment. Concerning the use of drones capable of killing targets, Ukraine frequently prioritizes the need to survive and defend itself.

Meanwhile, despite recent&nbsp, announcements&nbsp, of AI-enabled combat drones already used against Ukraine, Russia’s military AI likely mainly supports data analysis and rapid decision-making. For example, In November 2024, the Russia-allied Donetsk People’s Republic claimed that its” Donbass Dome” airspace defense and electronic warfare system&nbsp, evaluates&nbsp, different types of information from multitudes of sources to evaluate incoming threats. This is said to be accomplished with the aid of artificial intelligence algorithms. The evaluated data is&nbsp, transmitted&nbsp, to the military and law enforcement for follow-on actions.

Given that the Russian military is attempting to understand the Ukrainian battlefield, such data analysis efforts are likely occurring across a variety of systems, even though public information on their overall effectiveness is comparatively sparse. Similar initiatives are being made in the Russian defense sector, with a subsidiary of the Russian military industry Rostec claiming in 2024 that a neural network for optical drone detectors allegedly increases their detection range by 40 %.

On the other side of the war, Ukrainian officials are &nbsp, on record&nbsp, noting the need for tens of thousands of uncrewed robotic ground vehicles in 2025 for combat and logistics missions. These officials also noted that Ukrainian forces have been using numerous domestically developed AI-augmented systems to allow aerial drones to attack targets on the battlefield without being piloted while remaining effective in areas protected by extensive jamming. At this point in the war, there are &nbsp, around &nbsp, ten Ukrainian companies competing in state procurements to offer AI products.

Ukrainian officials have stated that in 2025, more autonomous drones with AI targeting&nbsp, will arrive&nbsp, on the battlefield, potentially making way for “real drone swarm uses”. Ukraine’s efforts to use AI on the battlefield are aided by willing partners, such as the Germany-based Helsing AI firm. In December 2024, Helsing&nbsp, announced&nbsp, that the first few hundred of almost four thousand of its AI-equipped HX-2 Karma unmanned aerial vehicles earmarked for Ukraine were set to be delivered to the Ukrainian front.

Apparently, HX-2 is&nbsp, immune&nbsp, to electronic warfare countermeasures via its ability to search for, reidentify and engage targets without a signal or a continuous data connection, while allowing a human operator to stay in or on the loop for critical decisions.

Russian technical experts &nbsp, acknowledge&nbsp, that “autonomous flying robots”, drones with artificial intelligence that determine their own targets, are used in combat and apparently kill people – already hitting and eliminating&nbsp, targets although the Russians usually don’t provide technical specifications for such claims.

Such developments, such as the terminal guidance and image recognition technologies that allow drones to fly autonomously to designated targets once the human operator has approved strikes on those targets, are likely to indicate a more limited AI role in aerial drones.

While on the receiving end of Ukraine’s increasing AI and autonomy use, many Russian experts express&nbsp, concerns&nbsp, that the pace of AI-enabled military developments could get out of control, thus requiring global regulation “in the interests of all humanity”. They also note how difficult it is to forbid the development of AI for military purposes when national interests are in jeopardy and the outcome of wars are in dispute.

Still, Russian military experts, including those writing in key military publications such as&nbsp, Arsenal Otechestva, believe in AI’s potential in military applications. These experts highlight its ability to increase system autonomy, improve tactical decision-making, enable real-time operational support in combat zones, reduce crew risks, and reduce uncertainty due to the rapid processing of large amounts of unstructured data.

The technological arms race in this war continues to grow as Russia is determined to fight until Ukraine is conquered and Ukraine is resolute in defending its freedom. Each month in this protracted war brings new technological advancements and successes, with the innovation cycle being continuously pushed forward by new technologies that the adversary either copy or counter, causing a new round of innovation to bring about the newest discovery.

The development and deployment of these technologies in battle is closely monitored by Ukraine’s Western supporters. Mark Milley, a former chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff and retired Army general, predicted that up to one-third of the US military would be made up of robotic systems within the next ten to fifteen years, an assessment that was likely based on observations of technologies used in the Ukraine war.

To be sure, certain systems in use by both Ukrainian and Russian forces can function more effectively than others on a battlefield teeming with countermeasures, but the sum total of different autonomous, robotic, and unmanned technologies used in the past three years demonstrates the potential for rapid, large-scale fielding.

Both Ukraine and Russia are working toward a faster pace with the development of various battlefield drone and robotic systems as a result of their desire for precision, mass employment, overwhelming the adversary, resilience against countermeasures, and reducing risks to human lives. These advancements are having an impact on the battlefield at both the tactical and operational levels and are shaping how the battle will be conducted in the future.

Samuel Bendett is a Technology and National Security Program adjunct senior fellow with the Center for a New American Security. David Kirichenko is a Henry Jackson Society associate research fellow. He can be found on X @DVKirichenko.

This article, originally published by the Modern War Institute, is republished by Asia Times with permission. The authors ‘ opinions are those of themselves, and they do not represent the official positions of the United States Military Academy, Department of the Army, or Department of Defense.

Continue Reading

Tariffs targeting China and Mexico can’t solve US fentanyl crisis – Asia Times

By:
On:
In: Asia

About 6 % of the US population regularly uses illegal medications, compared to more than anyone else in the world.

One of these drugs, fentanyl, a synthetic opioid that is 50 to 100 times more potent than morphine, is the main cause of the rise in US overdose incidents in recent years. Although recent fentanyl overdose deaths have decreased a little, they are also significantly higher than they were only five years ago.

Ending the fentanyl problems won’t be easy. The U.S. has a decades-long addiction problem, which predates the development of fentanyl, and many attempts to regulate, constitutional, and confine people to drug use have had little impact. Americans are only a victim of the narcotic crisis, which costs them tens of billions of dollars annually.

President Donald Trump appears to be considering a new tool to combat America’s substance problem, trade policy, after previous policies that failed to stop fentanyl deaths.

Trump pledged to impose tariffs on Canada and Mexico if they don’t stop the flow of drugs across American territories during his plan. Trump also promised to implement a fresh tariff regime on China if it doesn’t act more to implement more restrictions on the production of the fentanyl-making substances. He reiterated his plan on his first day back in office, saying to reporters,” We’re thinking in terms of 25 % on Mexico and Canada because they’re allowing … fentanyl to come in”.

As a teacher who studies interpersonal plan, I believe that both the proposed transfer taxes and fentanyl pose significant risks to the US. The real issue is whether tariffs did work, or increase what is already a crisis, despite the unquestionable people toll of morphine.

Fentanyl: The’ second greatest problem ‘

More than 107, 000 Americans died from overdoses in 2021, making it the most of any overdose to date, and almost seven out of those incidents involved methadone or other chemical drugs. In 2022, methadone was killing an average of 200 folks each day. And despite a slight decline in fentanyl deaths in 2023, almost 75, 000 Americans still perished from synthetic opioids that time. The then-secretary of homeland security declared fentanyl to get” the single greatest challenge we face as a land” in March of that year, the most recent for which full-year data on overdose deaths is available.

However, record demonstrates that government efforts to stop drug use frequently fail miserably.

These plans have generally failed to reduce the supply and use of drugs, and they have also been known to seriously hurt people and communities of colour. For example, between 1980 and 1997, the number of detainment for nonviolent drug acts went from 50, 000 to 400, 000. But these guidelines barely put a dent in use. The share of high school seniors using drugs dipped only slightly over the same period, from 65 % in 1980 to 58 % in 1997.

In short, previous US efforts to reduce improper substance use haven’t been particularly successful. The US appears to be moving toward using taxes right now, but research suggests that those measures won’t produce better outcomes and may actually lead to significant damage.

Why taxes didn’t job

The Tax Act of 1789, which was passed in the United States, dates back to the beginning of its experimentation with levies. This much history has shown that protectionist policies, commercial subsidies, and tariffs can also cause global economic instability by raising prices for consumers. Additionally, story demonstrates that tariffs are ineffective as negotiating tools and fail to cause major policy changes in goal nations. The benefits of taxes are usually weighed against the costs, according to economists.

The average effective tariff rate on Chinese imports increased from 3 % to 11 % during Trump’s first term. However, while China’s imports decreased significantly, the total trade relationship didn’t significantly change: China continues to be the second-largest US supplier of goods.

Vietnam and various local nations with relatively low labor costs were benefitted by the levies. Basically, the tariffs on China caused production to change, with international companies investing billions of dollars in rival countries.

Trump has previously used industry plan to impose fentanyl on China; he did this in his first term. However, despite China‘s plan adjustments, such as adding fentanyl to its list of prohibited substances in 2019, morphine deaths in the US continued to rise. Already, China also ranks as the No. 1 maker of morphine precursors, or substances used to make illegal fentanyl. And there are others in the business: India, over that exact time, has become a major supplier of fentanyl.

A problem of supply and demand

Drug use has been a common practice throughout US story. And when you look at this story and examine how other countries are handling this issue without making it illegal, you discover that the Swiss and French have approached it as a potential habit issue. They realized that the illegal business is fueled by desire. And as any analyst will tell you, if you don’t restrict the desire, provide will find a way. That’s why care functions and bans don’t.

The US government’s ability to regulate these medicines ‘ production is at best limited. The issue is that fresh chemical products will continue to be developed. Basically, failure to restrict demand simply places dressings on hemorrhaging wounds. What the United States needs is a more comprehensive method of dealing with the requirement that is causing the medication crisis.

At Miami University, Rodney Coates is a professor of critical culture and cultural reports.

The Conversation has republished this essay under a Creative Commons license. Read the original content.

Continue Reading

Trump doesn’t talk softly, but does he carry a big stick? – Asia Times

By:
On:
In: Asia, World

Donald Trump, the president of the United States, claims to be an agent of great change both domestically and internationally. However, a closer examination of the possibility that he’ll overturn previous foreign policy decisions, including those made by his predecessor Joe Biden, suggests that the extent of his adjustments might not be in line with his New Golden Age language.

It’s unusual to change a plan from president to president. According to experts, free promises of remarkable shifts can be socially dangerous when they backfire.

” Across administrations—even people as diverse as those of Biden and Trump – foreign policy is something like an iceberg”, Richard Fontaine, CEO of the Center for a New American Security, wrote lately. The apparent portion is sharp and gleaming, and it draws a lot of the attention. Yet it also has a much bigger and underexamined base, one that tends to be largely unchanged”.

Current examples of promises that were implied or broken were also present.

Clinton situation: China MFN position

Clinton, the Democratic Party’s nominee for president in 1991, accused the first President Bush of being smooth on China, disregarding its human rights record for business benefits, while running against Republican incumbent George H. W. Bush. Clinton vowed to be more tough.

He was no.

Shortly after Clinton’s arrival in Washington, human rights came in second place, trailing only American businesspeople’s desire to capitalize on Chinese trading. Clinton offered China the&nbsp, business benefits conferred by most-favored-nation position, which guarantees non-discriminatory care between business associates. China may benefit from just making a small political movement or two at home.

The petition was rejected by Chinese officials. Clinton provided MFN anyhow.

Obama scenario: Arab chemical arms

President Barak Obama issued a stern warning to Palestinian leader Bashar al-Assad not to use chemical arms against rebels in 2012 after he had begun his second term in office. &nbsp, Doing so would mix a “red range” and result in serious US military action.

A year later, Assad bombarded pro-democracy residents with hazardous chemicals, and killed some 1, 400 people, women and children. Obama only laid the blame on the US Congress for forogling military actions.

Trump has three significant pieces of executive power left over from the previous leadership: the end of the Gaza conflict, forceful China in East Asia, and the Ukraine war. He might discover that politics benefits more from choice.

Then Ukraine

Biden vehemently supported Ukraine and decidedly detested Putin himself. In the runup to the November vote, Trump described Vladimir Putin as a “genius” and seemed ready to break with Biden plans.

Last year, however, Trump changed his tune. Acclaim for Putin morphed into mockery. ” It’s a ridiculous war”, he said of the Ukraine carnage. ” I think Russia’s going to be in big trouble”.

He said Putin is” not doing so well”, suggested that the Russian president’s leadership was” no way to run a state”. Trump said Putin had made a “big oversight” by invading Ukraine.

One important feature of his counterpart’s legislation that Trump now shared: opposiiton to sending US troops to fight the Russians.

Trump is inherited a pair of significant crises, aside from Russia, and it appears he is never considering making a reversal from current policies, including a belligerent China and a Middle Eastern conflict.

China

Washington’s reactions to the three governments have been careful because China has increased its threat to Taiwan and established marine isolation areas in the East China Sea and South China Sea.

Obama was concerned about China’s expanding economic dominance in the US market, but he frequently supported Beijing’s bourgeois stance. Nevertheless, he coined the phrase “pivot to China”, to attempt the US to bolster security in the Western Pacific.

Trump followed up during his 2017-2021 second phrase, and warned of increasing Chinese military strength. He claimed that Beijing was attempting to “displace the US in the Indo-Pacific area, expand the reach of its state-driven economic unit, and rearrange the region in its favour.” He increased US military spending by about 17 % compared to Obama’s.

In addition, Trump tried to rebalance US trade with China, an action that had little effect on China’s exports to the US ( they increased ) or American exports into China ( they decreased ).

After Biden took strength, he maintained and expanded Trump’s taxes. He even built on Trump’s and Obama’s China fears by &nbsp, beginning to revive traditional relationships along the China Seas and into the Pacific Ocean: with &nbsp, South Korea, Japan, The Philippines and Australia. Chinese leader Xi Jinping signaled his irritation with the move, accusing Biden of trying to” contain” China.

Trump has never spoken of undoing Biden’s job.

His choice of two China hawks to direct his foreign interests team, including new secretary of state Marco Rubio and former head of the country Michael Waltz, is widely regarded as strong on Beijing.

Rubio had a telephone conversation with Chinese Foreign Minister Wang Yi and was informed in his post the week before being confirmed. The conversation centered on the” United States ‘ responsibility to our allies in the region.” According to a State Department consideration, he even expressed” critical concern over China’s aggressive behavior against Taiwan and in the South China Sea.”

Wang reacted with a dose of condescension-infused proper diplomacy. ” We will not help Taiwan to be separated from China”, Wang said. Wang finally added a term used by teachers to chastise rebellious kids,” I hope you will operate accordingly”, which roughly translates as “behave yourself”.

Waltz has praised Biden’s alliance building in Asia, a rare piece of praise in highly partisan Washington. Shortly after his nomination, he called China the “greatest adversary” of the United States.

Trump has yet to remark, or remake, one of Biden’s most surprising declarations. In a dozen statements, Biden pledged that if Beijing attacks Taiwan, which China considers its own, the US will militarily defend it. The statements violated almost a half-century of US” strategic ambiguity” intended to keep China guessing what the Americans would do if they invaded the island.

Middle East

Trump wants to put an end to the conflict between Israel and Hamas, the Islamist terror organization, in the Middle East. He supports Israel, which is one of the longest-lasting constants of US foreign policy. Nonetheless, he has expressed horror at the heavy death toll among Palestinians.

Trump and Bidden entered into a diplomatic partnership as he was getting ready to travel back to Washington. Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu objected to Biden’s attempts to reach a truce despite the US administration sending naval warships to the Levantine coast to deter Iranian attacks on the Jewish state.

Trump worked to get Netanyahu to agree to a 42-day ceasefire, by adding enticements to the diplomatic pressure. Beyond anything Biden had to offer, both sweeteners went:

  • He would direct the US to levy sanctions on Netanyahu’s allies who occupy West Bank settlements and brutally assault Palestinian residents.
  • He also suggested a radical solution to the issues that Palestinians will encounter when they return to their severely damaged homes in the community. He suggested moving more than half of the two million people into Egypt and Jordan.

Trump said the exile could be for a short time or “long-term”.

The offers appealed to Netanyahu. A significant portion of the electorate supports his government, according to settlers. Moreover, Netanyahu has long favored” transfer” of Palestinians from both Gaza and the West Bank to Arab countries. He was once associated with an organization called” Jordan is Palestine, Inc”.

The neo-transfer idea died quickly. Egypt and Jordan rejected hosting expelled Palestinians.

The truce agreement, which includes an unrestricted Israeli exit from the Gaza Strip, may face problems in the future.

Ultra-nationalist members of Netanyahu’s government coalition are threatening to bring&nbsp, down the government. Hamas must be totally destroyed, they insist, and Israel forces must stay in the Gaza Strip for an open-ended period occupation, they said. They remarked that their demands were objectives that Netanyahu had set out.

If the Netanyahu government falls, it’s not clear if a new coalition can be built. The public at large wants Hamas destroyed. Elections would take time and undermine Trump’s desire to end the war immediately.

In short, it’s likely that Trump’s deal-making skill will face plenty of challenges before the Gaza war is over.

Continue Reading

Trump’s Columbia beatdown a message to China, Russia – Asia Times

By:
On:
In: Asia, World

Gustavo Petro, the president of Colombia, initially believed he would adjust strained relationships with his returning US rival by immediately rejecting two recently agreed military flights for the repatriation of his government’s illegal immigrants, but he was finally taught an unforgettable lesson.

Trump&nbsp, reacted with fury&nbsp, by threatening 25 % taxes that would twice in a year’s time and sanctions high-level officers on national security reasons among other disciplinary measures, which immediately prompted Petro&nbsp, to surrender.

White House Press Secretary Karoline Leavitt then&nbsp, confirmed&nbsp, her country’s triumph in its short dispute with Colombia, soon after which Petro&nbsp, rage-tweeted a complex rant&nbsp, about imperialism and racism as a parting shot against Trump that was frequently met with scorn online, particularly from Americans.

Trump’s handling of this brief-lived scandal was significant because he demonstrated how serious he is about using tariffs and sanctions to coerce Ibero-American nations into accepting the return of their repatriated citizens.

He won the 2016 election in part because of his campaign pledge to stop illegal immigration along the southern border, but after an estimated 8 million illegals flooded into the country during Biden’s term, he then promised to expulse as many as possible if voters returned him to power like they did in the end.

However, it’ll be challenging to return all of them, which is why his administration wants to coerce them into voluntarily resigning by making the most difficult conditions for those who remain.

In order to intimidate some of them into returning home on their own terms, ergo the importance of making sure these flights aren’t rejected by sending them back to their homelands on military flights, including what just happened to some illegal immigrants from Brazil.

In parallel with this, the Trump Administration is&nbsp, exploring an agreement&nbsp, to deport asylum seekers to El Salvador, which is now globally known for its zero-tolerance of gang members.

On the topic, US-sanctioned Venezuela&nbsp, halted&nbsp, repatriation flights last February after&nbsp, briefly allowing&nbsp, their resumption in October 2023, so suspected Venezuelan gang members might be sent straight from the US to Salvadoran prisons if a deal is reached.

People who remain in the US illegally will always have to look over their shoulders and be afraid of being deported back to their homelands or sent to El Salvador, depending on who they are, with an unprecedented ramping up of ICE raids across the country.

Trump’s harsh response to Petro’s rejection of those two previously agreed military flights is due to the fact that the Trump administration recognizes illegal immigration as a threat to national security.

If he didn’t inspire others to follow him, the majority of Ibero-American nations would, as one might expect, defy the US on this front as well, ruining his ambitious repatriation plans. Trump, therefore, had to remind Colombia and every other country in the hemisphere that they’re the US ‘ junior partner.

Failure to comply with its reasonable demands for repatriated citizens who illegally immigrated to the US will result in severe tariff and sanctions that will threaten their economies and severely inconvenience their political elite.

In what Trump called the nascent” Golden Age of America,” disrespecting Trump and the US personally as Petro did is completely unacceptable, and those who do so will be forced to pay the price, both politically and personally.

Regarding the assertion that every nation is supposed to be equal and must adhere to the same rules, the Biden administration falsely claimed that the so-called “rules-based order” was never what it was.

It was always about upholding the US’s declining unipolar hegemony in the emerging Multipolar World Order by strengthening the post-Old Cold War international hierarchy that dominated where it is now. To coax countries into meeting goals with varying success, a carrot-and-stick strategy pairs explicit double standards with.

Like most Ibero-American nations, those that are dependent on the US market and/or military equipment are more reliant on it, while those who are more autarkic and strategically independent are more receptive.

Trump is more direct than the Obama and Biden administrations, trying to hide this reality with lofty rhetoric and occasionally blinding its partners in ways like those Ibero-American nations that have previously refused to accept their repatriated citizens.

He doesn’t feel guilty about disclosing their junior status in the US because, per Machiavelli, he prefers his country to be feared over loved.

Additionally, Trump is preparing for&nbsp, negotiations with Putin&nbsp, over Ukraine as well as with Xi over trade and likely also Taiwan, so he’d appear weak in their eyes if he let middling leader like Petro publicly defy and even insult him without consequence. He became more aggressive with Colombia because of these demands.

The example that Trump just made out of Petro will, therefore, reverberate across the world. The” Golden Age of America,” as he affectionately describes it, is the US’s most extreme form of hyper-realism in foreign affairs, which explicitly declares its goals and aggressively pursues them without considering the opinions of other countries.

Thus, it might be better for Russia and China to&nbsp, compromise with the US&nbsp, instead of challenge it if they won’t replicate this policy, or if they lack the same power or will to use it.

This&nbsp, article&nbsp, 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 DeepSeek did it – Asia Times

By:
On:
In: Asia, Technology

With the release of highly effective AI models that can compete with cutting-edge products from US companies like OpenAI and Anthropic, Chinese artificial intelligence ( AI ) company DeepSeek has shocked the tech industry.

With a fraction of the money and computing power of its competitors, DeepSeek, which was founded in 2023, has been able to achieve its goals.

DeepSeek’s “reasoning” R1 unit, released last week, provoked enthusiasm among academics, shock among shareholders, and reactions from AI heavyweights. A model that you work with both images and text was released on January 28th.

But what has DeepSeek done, and how did it do it?

In December, DeepSeek released its V3 type. This is a very effective” normal” large language model that works at a similar amount to OpenAI’s GPT-4o and Anthropic’s Claude 3.5.

These types can perform tasks like writing essays, writing system script, and correcting errors when they are prone to make up their own facts. On some testing of problem-solving and scientific argument, they score better than the average man.

V3 was trained at a noted value of about US$ 5.58 million. This is dramatically cheaper than GPT-4, for example, which cost more than$ 100 million to develop.

DeepSeek even claims to have trained V3 using around 2, 000 professional computer chips, especially H800 GPUs made by Nvidia. This is again little fewer than other businesses, which may have used up to 16, 000 of the more prominent H100 cards.

On January 20, DeepSeek released another unit, called R1. This is a so-called “reasoning” unit, which tries to work through difficult problems step by step. These models appear to be better at a number of tasks that call for context and have numerous linked components, including reading comprehension and strategic planning.

The R1 concept was modified to make room for V3 using a method known as reinforcement learning. R1 appears to work at a similar amount to OpenAI’s o1, released next year.

DeepSeek also used the same technique to make “reasoning” types of little open-source designs that can work on household servers.

This announcement has caused a significant increase in interest in DeepSeek, increasing the popularity of its V3-powered robot app, and causing a significant price drop in tech stocks as investors reevaluate the Artificial industry. At the time of writing, chipmaker Nvidia has lost around$ 600 billion in value.

DeepSeek’s advances have been in achieving greater performance: getting good results with fewer tools. In specific, DeepSeek’s engineers have pioneered two methods that may be adopted by AI researchers more widely.

The first involves a scientific concept known as” sparsity.” Although V3 has around 671 billion guidelines, only a small portion of these variables is used for any given type, AI models have a lot of them.

But, identifying which criteria will be needed isn’t simple. DeepSeek used a new approach to do this, and subsequently trained solely those guidelines. As a result, its types needed much less education than a standard method.

The other flaw is related to how V3 shops data in memory. DeepSeek has discovered a smart way to condense the relevant data to make it easier to store and get immediately.

People can download and change the concepts and methods used by DeepSeek under the complimentary MIT License.

Although this may be bad for some Artificial companies– whose profits may be hampered by the availability of readily available, effective models – it is also good for the broader Iot research community.

At present, a lot of AI exploration requires access to huge amounts of technology solutions. Scientists like myself who are based at universities ( or anywhere else besides big tech firms ) have had limited access to conducting tests and tests.

The condition can be changed by more effective designs and methods. For us, research and growth may now be much simpler.

For consumers, exposure to AI may also become cheaper. More AI designs may be run on people ‘ personal tools, such as devices or apps, rather than running “in the sky” for a membership fee.

More productivity may have a smaller impact for scientists who already have a lot of sources. Whether DeepSeek’s strategy will help to create models with better overall performance or just more effective designs remains to be seen.

Tongliang Liu is the chairman of the University of Sydney’s Sydney AI Centre and associate professor of machine learning.

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

Continue Reading

DeepSeek’s shock in wider US vs China perspective – Asia Times

By:
On:
In: Asia

What this second says about the world’s two biggest markets is what makes the DeepSeek-driven property judgment most intriguing.

To supply with the clear, neither Donald Trump’s 2017-2021 trade conflict nor Joe Biden’s more precise limits these last four years halted Chinese leader Xi Jinping’s technology ambitions. Although there are a few speed bumps occasionally, Xi’s” Made in China 2025″ feast is undoubtedly its biggest public relations triumph.

The most positive headlines Xi’s market has had in a while came from the shockwaves that Foreign artificial intelligence company DeepSeek sent through international markets.

Its claim of a cost-effective AI type using less-advanced cards has America’s Nvidia and French huge ASML&nbsp, reeling. Additionally, it removed the burden of Silicon Valley executives who were warming up to US President Trump. Immediately, US tech supremacy is in question as often before.

DeepSeek’s appearance also managed to confine Trump’s great AI instant below the fold. On January 21, Trump stood with OpenAI’s Sam Altman, &nbsp, SoftBank’s Masayoshi Son and Oracle’s Larry Ellison to consider an AI triumph for America. The US$ 5 billion Stargate AI infrastructure project seems to be outdated and a probable huge boondoggle at this point.

However, it’s the financial lessons that stand out the most. In China, Xi’s victory may give the country an even stronger incentive to make more strides toward fostering confidence in the country’s economy. This is a stark warning for Trump that tariffs won’t revive US digital technology in ways that equalize the China danger; only daring policy choices you accomplish that.

New data revealed that China’s stock activity surprisingly decreased in January, ending three months of expansion at the same time DeepSeek was sputtering global markets.

China’s standard purchasing managers ‘ score slid to 49.1. The non-manufacturing PMI test, which includes companies and design, slowed to 50.2 from 52.2 in December. Industrial profits, meanwhile, are now down for three consecutive years, dropping 3.3 % in 2024 alone.

According to Zichuan Huang, an economist for China at Capital Economics,” the disheartening PMI data highlights the challenge that policymakers face in sustaining a sustained treatment in growth.” China is struggling as Trump considers taxes and intensifying challenges, Huang said, despite hints that were made in late 2024 that trigger attempts were taking off.

Many pre-existing conditions at home are bringing in new risks from abroad. China’s home crisis resulted in the longest negative run since the 1997-98 Asian problems. Poor family demand and&nbsp, near-record&nbsp, children poverty are slamming confidence.

” To even have a chance to boost prices and confidence”, says Hui Shan, chief China scholar at Goldman Sachs, Beijing has install” a big stimulus from the state” to generate a real “turning stage”.

Zhiwei Zhang, president of Pinpoint Asset Management, notes that “part of the decline may be expected to weaker outside requirement, as the new import orders score dropped to its lowest level since March last time.”

If Trump fulfills his threats to impose 60 % tariffs on all domestic goods, things could start to get worse. Trump’s implementation of trade restrictions has been much slower than anticipated by international investors.

According to analysts at Singapore-based UOB Global Economics &amp, Markets Research,” a lot of what Trump pledged to do was carried out on day one with the absence of concrete tariff measures are a significant relief.” ” There is, after all, another four years of Trump to go”.

These dangers only make Xi’s team’s task more pressing to stabilize China’s financial system. Immediate priorities include repairing a weak property sector fueling deflation, building more vibrant capital markets, reducing youth unemployment, addressing runaway local government debt, curbing the dominance of state-owned enterprises and increasing transparency.

Team Xi also must create a vibrant network of social&nbsp, safety&nbsp, nets&nbsp, to encourage consumption over saving. Last week, Xi’s government intensified efforts to support China’s volatile stock markets. That included encouraging mainland households to buy more shares and encouraging pensions and mutual funds to make more domestic stock investments.

According to Wu Qing, the head of the China Securities Regulatory Commission,” This means that at least several hundred billion yuan of long-term funds will be added to A-shares every year.”

Such steps are only necessary, though, because Team Xi has been too slow to address the economy’s pre-existing conditions. In financial circles, is it a hot button whether Beijing should use a yuan-sheen deflation strategy to boost growth? &nbsp,

The pros are obvious. Exports, which were a major factor in China’s 5 % growth in 2024, would be further boosted by a weaker exchange rate. In December alone, overseas shipments jumped 10.7 % year on year.

However, the disadvantages prevent Team Xi from choosing the less effective yuan route. For one thing, it might make it more difficult for highly indebted property developers to pay off offshore bonds. That would increase&nbsp, default&nbsp, risks &nbsp, in Asia’s biggest economy. Seeing# ChinaEvergrande or# ChinaVanke&nbsp, trending again is the last thing Xi’s Communist Party needs in 2025.

Another is that deleveraging efforts could be wasted due to the monetary easing required to lower the yuan. Beijing has made significant strides over the past few years in reducing China’s financial woes and raising the standard of its gross domestic product. As a result, Xi and Premier Li Qiang have been reluctant to let the People’s Bank of China ease more assertively, even as deflation deepens.

The yuan’s use in trade and finance might be Xi’s biggest reform accomplishment over the past dozen years. In 2016, China won a place for the yuan in the International Monetary Fund’s” special drawing rights” basket, joining the dollar, yen, euro and pound. Since then, the currency’s use in trade and finance has soared. Excessive easing now might damage trust in the yuan, slowing its progression to reserve-currency status.

It also might trigger a broader&nbsp, Asian currency war&nbsp, that’s in no one’s best interest. Tokyo might be all-in on a much weaker yen, entice South Korea into the fray.

Memories of 2015 are clearly entering into Beijing’s equation. A destabilizing capital flight that still lingers among party bigwigs was caused by China’s decision to devalue the yuan by nearly 3 % ten years ago. Over the next year, Xi’s team had to draw down Beijing’s foreign exchange reserves by&nbsp, US$ 1 trillion&nbsp, to restore calm.

However, Trump World should also take a wake-up call about its top economic policy initiatives this week. A massive trade war, like that one in Exhibit A, might have worked better in 1985, when a select few industrialized nations had more economic power.

This same stuck-in-1985&nbsp, problem&nbsp, helps explain why Japan’s efforts since 2012 to increase competitiveness and rekindle innovation came up short. The enterprise, led by former Prime Minister Shinzo Abe, is largely about bringing back the trickle-down economics of the 1980s Ronald Reagan era.

Abe backed up his wager that monetary easing and currency depreciation would cause a rise in corporate profits and initiate a virtuous cycle. The intention was for boom stocks to spur CEOs on to fatten their paychecks, thereby boosting consumer spending and accelerating economic growth.

The plan for Japan was correct about the stock boom. The Nikkei 225 Stock Average reached its highest point last year thanks to aggressive Bank of Japan easing, a plunging yen, and some efforts to improve corporate governance.

Yet wages didn’t surge as hoped, ending the year on average or below the roughly 2.5 % inflation rate. Reaganomics is even less effective at raising living standards today than it was 40 years ago, according to all so-called Abenomics.

This is the way Trump 1.0 went, too. A$ 1.7 trillion tax cut, which primarily targeted the top 1 %, was the centerpiece of Trumponomics. More importantly, the maneuver made it more advantageous to reduce income inequality and put the national debt on track to reach the current$ 36 trillion level.

Now, Trump 2.0 is angling to make the$ 1&nbsp, trillion-plus tax cuts from his first term permanent while adding new ones to the books that will inevitably exacerbate Washington’s already serious debt woes.

The US net foreign investment position, or the difference between foreign assets owned by Americans and those owned abroad, is now nearly twice the size of the US gross domestic product. It’s negative$ 24&nbsp, trillion compared with negative$ 18&nbsp, trillion&nbsp, when Biden entered office in 2021.

A big dilemma now faces Trump: widen Washington’s investment imbalances or reduce its addiction to imports and capital inflows. For now, Trump’s new economic team is more interested in protecting the status quo than disruption.

Washington’s budget would be reliant on the savings of both Japanese and Chinese households as well as the world’s developing countries as more tax cuts are proposed. Trump’s tariffs and trade restrictions would increase US inflation and reduce domestic consumption.

Many economists believe that Trump should concentrate more on boosting domestic economic stoke. Biden, for all his policy missteps, paved the way for the US to compete with China more organically.

Biden’s 2022 CHIPS and Science Act, for example, deployed$ 300&nbsp, billion &nbsp, to strengthen domestic research and development. Biden took other steps to incentivize innovation, raise America’s semiconductor capabilities, improve infrastructure and increase productivity.

It was only a start, though. Despite his deregulation comments, Trump has not yet come up with a strategy to replace Biden’s tech upgrade policies.

As Trump prioritizes old-school tariffs, lower Federal Reserve interest rates and a weaker dollar, Xi’s China is engaged in a multi-trillion-dollar effort to lead the future of electric vehicles, semiconductors, renewable energy, robotics, biotechnology, aviation, high-speed rail and, of course, AI.

This last priority is now paying, and this has never before been a positive outcome for China. And serving as a wake-up call for both Xi’s party and Trump 2.0 that it’s time to raise their games.

Follow William Pesek on X at @WilliamPesek

Continue Reading

Russia’s ‘shadow fleet’ stirring expanded war fears in the Baltic – Asia Times

By:
On:
In: Asia, World

Tensions between local nations and an increased NATO appearance have been the result of numerous instances of suspected Russian-linked damage of underwater wires in the Baltic Sea.

The Scandinavian coast protect boarded a ship in the Baltic Sea on January 26 on suspicion of outlet drag and alleged damage of vital undersea cables that run through the area.

Additionally, Latvia conducted a ship search of the incident to discover fiber-optic wires ‘ injuries. The Russian vessel is now under inspection. The ship’s user has denied any involvement in damage.

The countries along the Baltic Sea coastline have started stationing military ships at sea every day and have started to worry about suspected destroy of their underwater facilities in recent months due to ships deliberately drag their anchors along the seabed.

Anchor drag can quickly damage important underwater system. Russia has denied involvement in these situations. However, there are also reliable information that Russia has been conducting undersea system mapping.

NATO increased its local naval presence in response to rising concerns about network protection by launching the Baltic Sentry vision on January 14 and adding maritime patrol vessels to its list of local marine bases.

What’s the perspective?

As vessels pass through the Baltic Sea, there have been numerous studies in recent months of harm being done to subterranean cables. Attacks on underwater cords are comparable to conventional operations in espionage and knowledge.

This activity is conducted at a level that is comparable to warfare, intended to send specific signals to hostile powers. The intention could be to convey that the ability to effectively cut off and isolate people from the outside world is present.

These cords are extremely important. They are used to move online traffic, gas, and power between nations. Additionally, recent events have resulted in a decrease in the amount of light that can be transported, despite the fact that this has not already resulted in widespread power outages.

Another issue is that destruction to digital wires could thwart the flow of financial market data. Due to its sensitive nature, this is especially prone.

Map of the Baltic Sea.
Map: PorcupenWorks / Shutterstock

How does cables get protected?

Protecting the connectors is a difficult endeavor. Due to the idea of high seas freedom of navigation, there is little that can be actually done to stop another warships from crossing the seas and oceans. And Russia has a right of passage for its ships, for instance, from St Petersburg to the North Sea.

Without really seizing the vehicle or preventing its advancement in any way, investigations into apparent threats may be conducted. This can be accomplished by combining GPS tracking data with other data, such as witness testimony, and using GPS tracking data.

Targeting these cables may help a country fight its adversaries in a more subtle way and without the threat of armed conflict, despite the possibility of natural causes.

YouTube video

]embedded material]

A fleet suspected of being involved in damage was taken by the Scandinavian army.

Unintentional engagement is most likely to blame for the large volume of traffic on these oceanic cables. However, Russian military ships ‘ increased activity in mapping the Baltic Sea ground has raised questions.

To better understand where these cables are located, the most possible justification for the enhanced Russian ocean mapping activity. However, it might be a concept that this crucial infrastructure is difficult to defend and vulnerable to attack and damage.

Some merchant vessels are registered in international provinces, and equity can be hard to monitor. This gives a degree of believable denial over who may have directed or managed the businesses that might have damaged wires.

It makes taking action harder, but it also leads to charges that these boats are posing as part of Russia’s” shadow fleet.”

However, this more naval presence in the Baltic might serve as a barrier and give the wires greater safety. Sweden has then boarded a vehicle. Another drawback is that the country where the vehicle is registered is in no way required to cooperate with any research.

Various factors are even involved. The Baltic states and Finland have thoughts of the social control&nbsp, imposed upon them by the Russian government&nbsp, due to, and, in some cases, after, the Second World War, and this will add to the stress.

Russia’s war of Ukraine has heightened local concerns about what might transpire future. Moscow may be attempting to put more pressure on the European countries to stop them from continuing to support Ukraine by mounting tension along the coast.

However, increasing worry about Russia’s position of authority in the Baltic Sea may have the same result by escalating the tide of suspicion. It might also indicate that the Baltic and Nordic countries are more eager to spend more money on security and make plans for potential military action.

Matthew Powell is a training fellow in corporate and heat energy research, University of Portsmouth

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

Continue Reading

Trump’s Ukraine peace plan looking like a non-starter – Asia Times

By:
On:
In: Asia

Donald Trump had promised to put an end to the Soviet aggression against Ukraine in the 24 days that he had promised. But Trump’s second month since his inauguration on January 20, 2025, has yet been a busy one regarding Ukraine.

Trump criticized his father Joe Biden of running a “government that has given unrestricted cash to the defense of international borders but refuses to support American borders” in his inauguration address, making just a passing and direct reference to Ukraine.

Trump threatened Russia with fees, taxes, and restrictions if his Russian counterpart doesn’t agree to a deal soon in a blog on his TruthSocial community. He reiterated this on January 23 in remarks made at the World Economic Forum in Davos, adding that he “really would like to be able to meet with President Putin.”

Cut out of Donald trump truth social post about Russia and Ukraine
Donald Trump/Truth Social

Trump’s candidate for government secretary, Scott Bessent, had previously backed Trump’s view during his Senate confirmation hearing on January 16. Bessent especially emphasized increasing sanctions against Russian crude companies” to levels that would take the Russian Federation to the table” in the same way as Trump.

Putin responded the following day, saying that Trump and he should actually talk about Ukraine and fuel prices. But this was much from a strong commitment to provide into discussions, and especially not with Ukraine.

Putin alluded to an October 2022 order by Ukraine’s leader, Volodymyr Zelensky, banning any agreements with the Kremlin after Russia fully annexed four parts of Ukraine. Since then, Zellensky has stated that all except him is covered by the decree, indicating that he won’t interfere with any direct conversations with Russia.

However, Putin is likely to remain playing for time. A ceasefire that stops the line of communication at the time of agreement will be the most good first step in a Trump-brokered package. Every day of fighting gives Putin more territorial gains because his forces are also advanceing on the ground in Ukraine.

Russian friends ‘ aid is showing no signs of waning, either. Few and far between as they may remain, China, Iran and North Korea have been important in sustaining the Kremlin’s war effort. Moscow has then ratified a comprehensive strategic agreement with Iran in addition to the one it signed with North Korea in June 2024.

However, the Russia-China no-limits association of 2022, more deepened in 2023, shows no signs of strengthening. Additionally, it’s unlikely that Putin is all too concerned about extra US sanctions given that Belarusian leader Alexander Lukashenko won a sixth consecutive term on January 26.

Zelensky, like Putin, may sing for day. Trump’s hazard of sanctions against Russia good indicates a US president’s feeling of frustration that Putin doesn’t seem to be willing to compromise. Russia may continue to expand its regional ties to eastern Ukraine, but it hasn’t made any proper strides.

War of attrition

Since September 2024, the US military has probably increased significantly, and Kyiv has likely been able to maintain its current protective efforts through 2025 as a result of commitments from European allies, including the UK.

Ukraine might not be able to build a major offensive, but it may still be able to keep Russia’s costs higher. On the field, these fees are estimated at 102 fatalities per square mile of Ukrainian place captured. Beyond the frontlines, Ukraine has likewise continued its aircraft battle against targets inside Russia, particularly the government’s oil facilities.

Trump won’t succeed in putting an end to the fighting in Ukraine, that is for sure. However, a significant distinction can be made between a peace and a lasting peace deal. And while a peace, at some point, may be in both Russia’s and Ukraine’s attention, green harmony is much more difficult to achieve.

Putin’s goal of a complete success poses the same challenges as Western reluctance to offer Ukraine reliable security guarantees.

At this point, it seems unlikely to be possible to join the NATO or join a western-led security power that may serve as a credible deterrent.

Without a doubt, it would be impossible for Europe to carry the 200 000 soldiers Zelensky had in mind for a implementation to Ukraine to ensure any offer with Putin. But a smaller power, led by the UK and France, may be achievable.

No one has blinked in Kyiv or Zelensky’s ongoing retention conflict, which continues to be waged by them in Kiev and Moscow. It is not clear but whether, and in which manner, Trump did bend the stability and how this may affect either side’s commitment to submit to his deal-making work.

Thus far, Trump’s moves are certainly a game-changer. This is the first major attempt to put an end to the battle in nearly three years of conflict, though. Whether Trump, and everyone else, have the mind and may persevere to ensure that this course will inevitably lead to a just and stable peace for Ukraine remains to be seen.

Stefan Wolff is professor of global surveillance, University of Birmingham

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

Continue Reading