How the US sanctioned itself in Ukraine – Asia Times

By:
On:
In: Asia

The US Treasury yields, which are the key drivers of international markets, lower property prices, increase the US dollar exchange rate, and pose a threat to US homebuilding and another rate-dependent economic activity. As rates rise, moreover, the US Treasury deficit – already above 6 % of GDP – will increase. The federal debt’s interest rate increased from$ 400 billion to$ 1 trillion in 2021, putting an additional$ 1.8 trillion requirement on top of the previous year’s$ 1.8 trillion.

Despite my calculations, foreign central banks have decreased their holdings of US government debt, putting pressure on yields by painfully 0.8 %, based on my analysis. Central bankers shifted out of money assets as a result of the arrest of Russian foreign exchange reserves in 2022. The US business was perhaps more harmed by the reserve arrest than Russia’s.

The Federal Reserve, to be sure, increased the rate at which banks are charged for overnight cash, which contributed to the majority of the price rise. However, a significant increase in the so-called real offer of Treasury bonds ( in this case, the interest rate on inflation-indexed Treasuries ( TIPS) is attributable to less foreign central banks purchasing of US loan. Reduced foreign central bank holdings of US government debt account for roughly 80 basis points ( 8/10ths of a percentage point ).

Foreign central banks, including those of China, India, Saudi Arabia, and Turkey, began shifting their foreign exchange reserves into gold and out of Treasuries after the US and its allies seized half of Russia’s$ 600 billion in foreign exchange reserves in early 2022, following Russia’s invasion of Ukraine.

The influence of foreign central banks ‘ sales of US federal debt is illustrated in the table below.

The Fed’s report on the change in international central banks holdings of Treasuries for six weeks is shown in the red line. The offer of 10-year TIPS is depicted in the blue line, which is the nighttime rate that the Fed charges bankers. 10-year Ideas provides increased by 80 basis points as of January 1 ( the shift in the TIPS supply that is not explained by the federal funds rate is depicted in the blue line, once more ). At the 95 % trust level, statistical tests demonstrate that the relationship between the two elements is important.

While the US Treasury’s saving necessity has risen quickly, foreign central banks holdings of US Treasuries have declined. This contrasts starkly with the time period 2007-2012 ( including the World Financial Crisis ), when the Treasury intervened with an ( then ) unprecedented$ 800 billion bailout to support the banking system. Foreign central banks, notably including China, stepped in to support the Treasury, doubling their holdings of US government debt to$ 4 trillion from$ 2 trillion in 2007. During the Covid crisis of 2020, by contrast, foreign central banks ( notably including China ) reduced their holdings of Treasuries.

This has had a significant and palpable effect on US Treasury provides.

We are comparing leads and falls, which clearly demonstrate that adjustments in foreign central banks holdings of Treasuries are related to changes in the TIPS offer (once more, the changes are not those that the federal funds rate has predicted ). Each table in the table below displays the relationship between the two factors ‘ current and past lagged values at regular intervals. For instance, the lagged benefit of changes in international central banks holdings of Treasuries shows a -0.6 relationship with that weekend’s TIPS yield when compared to a 5-week slowdown. Changes in international central banks investments are consistent with the cross-correlogram, which is contrary to what the cross-correlogram suggests.

Additionally, it explains how the real yield on US Treasuries is decoupled from the golden value. For the 15 years 2007 to 2022, golden and TIPS provides were traded simultaneously. They provide a form of protection against unanticipated prices and dollar depreciation, and they both play a similar investment role. The difference is that Treasury assets may be seized by the US government, as in the case of Russia, while metal in a central bank’s tomb can’t.

After March 2022, metal rose sharply despite the surge in TIPS provides. The balance of the government’s debt is in question, and the value of golden as a wall against currency depreciation is rising as a result of all the major American economies’ running huge deficits.

Like additional sanctions against Russian business, Washington’s arrest of the Russian supply backfired. It destroyed confidence in the basic property of the US dollar supply system, particularly the debt of the US Treasury, and raised America’s borrowing cost just as the Treasury’s borrowing requirements exploded.

Continue Reading

China’s zero-inflation troubles getting harder to ignore – Asia Times

By:
On:
In: Asia

With the announcement that manufacturer prices dropped for a 27th consecutive month in December and that customer price changes are essentially zero perhaps before Donald Trump’s trade war kicks off, China’s deflation issues became more difficult to rewrite.

The 2.3 % decline in wholesale prices year over year and the small 0.1 % rise in consumer prices only add to the growing fad. That’s nothing more true than in China’s bond business. Offer relationships suggest investors have never been so skeptical on Beijing’s ability to avoid so-called” Japanification”.

The yield gap between 10-year US securities and similar 10-year royal Chinese debt increased to an unprecedented 300 basis points this week. Despite Team Xi’s storm of signal efforts, that’s despite. In the wake of the Asian financial crisis, investors are concerned that China will soon surpass its record-breaking negative work in the late 1990s.

Trump’s returning to the US presidency in 11 days is the financial undertone. The US dollar is currently in a strong upward trend due to anticipation that Trump did implement tariff and revenue cuts. Team Xi and the People’s Bank of China are now trying to stop the yuan from falling below the$ 7.2 per dollar mark as a result.

There’s some good news moving in, also. Stock exercise, for instance, seems to be holding upward, expanding for three straight weeks now. However, good socioeconomic factors remain constrained as a 2025 begins to look incredibly uncertain.

According to Zhiwei Zhang, chief economist at Pinpoint Asset Management,” Recent economic data has stabilized, but the speed is not strong enough to put downward pressure on consumer prices already.”

Also before Trump’s profit, weak domestic demand has Taiwanese firms cutting output, freezing hiring and laying off employees. Nevertheless, says Macquarie Group general China analyst Larry Hu,” 2024 may be remembered as a time of muddle-through”.

Although this was much better at least than the -0.6 % and -0.3 % changes in November and October, economist Michael Pettis at the Carnegie Endowment notes that “despite this being much better at least than the -0.6 % and -0.3 % changes in December, it represents the fourth month of zero to negative price changes. CPI inflation overall for 2024 was at a very low 0.2 %, the same as it was last year, and the lowest level since 2009. For all the signal and the boom in bill during the year, in other words, China has been unable to resurrect inflation”.

Brian Tycangco, researcher at Stansberry Research, adds that” the recession threat is real and growing in China. Beijing should use this most recent information as a sign to act more quickly on stimulus.

As the new year begins, Xi’s internal group appears to be doing just that, stepping up efforts to shock need. Beijing is rolling out 15 % incentives for buying fresh smartphones, tablets, devices and other devices. In coastal towns of Shanghai, card programs are popping up to increase demand for goods like furniture, cars, and electronics, as well as interior metropolises like Hubei and Sichuan.

However, 25 years later, Japan continues to demonstrate that a comprehensive response to depreciation requires a disproportionate use of both monetary and fiscal resources, and the sooner the better. Looked at through this lens, all gaze are on how the current annual Central Economic Work Conference&nbsp, held in Beijing affects Xi’s policy objectives.

That mid-December session ended with pledges for macro policies aimed at” stabilizing growth” and “reviving household consumption” and achieving a “reasonable rebound” of inflation via “more proactive” fiscal and monetary maneuvers. Yet it’s rubber-hitting-the-road time as global investors fun about depreciation getting worse in Asia’s biggest market.

Problem is that economics have more questions than answers regarding Xi’s plan proposals. What are you going to do with all this generation, asks Natixis scholar Alicia Garcia Herrero? Who will you import to? Protectionism is rising, and China isn’t changing its unit, making the issues likely become more serious. I think 2025 is time for change, and China needs to change quite quickly, or the year may end up very hard”.

The coming” Trump deal” is raising the stakes. To be sure, no everyone fears the worst. Bank of America planners warn that “geopolitical tensions and probable US guidelines… could lead to higher cost of capital and several de-rating once more in 2025. That said, we believe the worst of flow/position-selling for the China business should have been over”.

The 60 % tax threat, according to the optimistic viewpoint, is a negotiating ploy intended to bring Xi to the table of negotiations. The next four years might not be the business conflict hellscape traders fear, so if Trump give a significant business deal with China precedence over a business war.

However, the worst-case circumstance might occur sooner than China bulls now believe. The economy’s current uptrend is predicated on expectations that Trump’s 60 % taxes are just the start. Never mind that an “increase in customs duties may lead to an understanding of the money which would cancel out the gain in competitiveness,” according to economist Sylvain Bersinger of the business intelligence company Asterès.

The bigger problem is Trump’s 1980s-era view that taxes are “beautiful” and the fastest road to raising America’s financial activity. China’s economy will suffer as a result of a worsening house crisis, great youth unemployment, mounting debts among local governments, and poor consumer demand.

” Imports will naturally grow much less and purchase too”, alert economics at S&amp, P Global. ” The impact on investment can in part blow in even before US tax implementation, because of the increased confusion. Spill-over to job, income and trust will ponder on use”.

Ian Bremmer, chairman of Eurasia Group, notes that the “incoming US leader promises taxes that could destroy the global economy, incident relations with China, and increase the conflict in unregulated spots”. He cites the US-China conflict as “export disruption disruption to everyone else this season, shortening the global recovery and accelerating geoeconomic separation at a time when global growth is sluggish, inflation remains high, and debt levels are at traditional highs.”

What’s more, Bremmer says, Trump 2.0″ will destroy an uncontrolled decoupling in the world’s most important political marriage. That, in turn, risks a significant financial disruption and broader crisis. Trump will impose new tariffs on Chinese goods in an effort to entice Beijing to make concessions on a number of issues, and China’s leaders will do so more strongly to demonstrate to both Trump and the Chinese people that they can and will fight back.

Wildcards appear, also. Conflicts over Taiwan” may perhaps fall”, Bremmer says, even if a “full-blown problems” seems doubtful in 2025.

The renminbi is its own potential battlefield. Team Xi and currency speculators are attempting to reduce the yuan against the money as the year gets underway. At the moment, the People’s Bank of China is really publicly setting the dollar’s regular mention price stronger than 7.2 per money, signaling that Beijing isn’t favoring a weaker exchange rate.

However, the decline in Chinese bond yields and the growing spread with the US may make it even more difficult to stabilize the yuan. The trend has 10-year yields around 1.6 % – and lower at times – for the first time since the worst of the Covid-19 pandemic and the 2008 Lehman Brothers crisis

Markets aren’t always accurate, but the deflationary signals coming out of the current yield levels should stoke the alarm at Xi’s Ministry of Finance. The fallout could further lower retail spending, aggravate China’s capital outflow issue, and give the Japanification talk that irritates Xi’s reform team more.

The case study from Japan’s 1990s, according to Goldman Sachs, serves as a “valuable playbook” for economists and stock investors trying to assess the outlook for Chinese assets.

To be sure, there may be winners from falling Chinese prices, just as there was with Japan. Falling prices could act as a covert tax cut for consumers who are in a tough economy. In China, brokerage Haitong Securities believes that low prices could benefit technology companies looking to expand, high-dividend stocks, and exporters with diversified businesses.

Still, the ways in which deflation could undermine confidence in China Inc. make today’s bond markets signals a wake-up-call moment for Xi’s economy.

Continue Reading

US missile shield buckling under China, Russia, and North Korea – Asia Times

By:
On:
In: Asia

As outdated techniques and minimal interceptors struggle to withstand an ever-increasing storm of nuclear threats, US weapon defenses are receiving increasing criticism.

The Atlantic Council released a statement this month in which it claimed that US weapon mechanisms are inadequate against adversaries with nuclear weapons, including China, Russia, and North Korea.

The report claims that while the 2022 National Defense Strategy and Missile Defense Review recommends maintaining a lead in North Korea’s weapon skills while relying on proper deterrent against China and Russia, this method is insufficient due to the increasing sophistication and quantity of missile risks.

While the report says that the Biden Administration’s plan to increase ground-based interceptors ( GBIs ) by 2028 is seen as a step forward, it raises concerns about strategic stability with China and Russia. A split missile defense system, incorporating cutting-edge technologies and defensive measures to stop missile launches, is recommended by the statement.

In order to prevent punishment, it also emphasizes the importance of maintaining US command and control systems and nuclear forces.

In order to lessen concerns about arms races, the statement recommends increasing funding for missile defence to a portion of the defence budget each year and increasing transparency with China and Russia. It states that the ultimate objective is to develop a strong defense system that stifles adversaries ‘ invasion plans and informs US allies.

Without addressing these risks, the report concludes that US national security and its ability to project authority worldwide could be seriously harmed.

US missile defence may not have been a top concern since the Reagan administration. In 1983, the Reagan Administration unveiled the Strategic Defense Initiative ( SDI), a futuristic multi-layered space-based missile defense system. But, SDI received criticism for its exorbitant fees and the point that it could not be tested without a nuclear strike.

The idea of preventing nuclear attacks even conflicted with deterrence, which would encourage a Communist first strike before the US had put an end to the system. When the Reagan Administration ended and the START I Treaty was signed in 1991, US involvement in the SDI decreased.

Additionally, Robert Peters and Keara Gentry notice that despite spending more than USD 170 billion on defense in the last two years, US missile defence capability has largely remained constant since 2004 in a Heritage Foundation report from June 2024.

Peters and Gentry make the point that the 44 GBIs the US currently possess may be inadequate to stop a minimal nuclear attack on the US island and potential risks. Additionally, they claim that it would cost$ 90 million to expand the number of GBIs, making it a difficult task.

A report from the US Government Accountability Office ( GAO ) from June 2024 mentions risks brought on by the next-generation interceptor program, which aims to improve US &nbsp missile defense.

The GAO report says that the US Missile Defense Agency ( MDA ) has not fully addressed technical risks or updated threat-related performance requirements, raising concerns about the program’s ability to meet its 2028 fielding deadline.

Despite those potential gaps, US weapon protection presents a major concern to potential nuclear-armed adversaries, perhaps provoking an offense-defense arms competition.

Ottawa Sanders claims in a 2024 content for the American Academy of Arts and Sciences that China worries that US weapon defenses could degrade its ability to launch a second strike by intercepting surviving missiles after a US second strike, degrading its atomic deterrent. He claims that Russia is concerned that US weapon defenses may weaken its capability to fight following a US counterattack.

North Korea threatens to employ nuclear weapons to push the US mainland into making choices that are beneficial to the latter in order to keep the US mainland at risk of a strong nuclear strike. But, US weapon protection threatens to destroy North Korea’s nuclear threats.

These potential opponents have developed nuclear weapons in a way that could fight US missile defense.

According to the US Department of Defense’s 2024 China Military Power Report, China’s nuclear growth is progressing quickly. Its stash exceeded 600 operating weapons in 2024 and is projected to exceed 1, 000 by 2030.

The report states that the People’s Liberation Army Rocket Force ( PLARF ) is establishing 320 solid-propellant silos and doubling its DF-5 liquid-silo force to 50 silos, bolstering its “early warning counterstrike” capability. Additionally, according to the PLARF, 400 intercontinental ballistic missiles ( ICBMs) can be used to launch multiple independently targetable reentry vehicles ( MIRV ) simultaneously.

The document says China’s sea-based nuclear arsenal includes six Jin-class submarines armed with JL-2 and JL-3 submarine-launched nuclear weapons. It also mentions that China improvements lower-yield tactical nuclear weapons, hypersonics and partial planetary assault systems, demonstrating corporate balance ambitions​.

According to Andrew Harding and various writers in a Heritage Foundation content this month, China’s aim to achieve a “world-class” defense by 2049 may push the nuclear buildup. China may be increasing its nuclear arsenal in order to coerce itself into including a potential invasion of Taiwan in addition to its goal of developing a world-class military by 2049 and as a defensive response to US missile defense systems.

In Russia’s case, a November 2024 US Congressional Research Service ( CRS ) report says that Russia has around 1, 710 deployed nuclear warheads, including ICBMs, SLBMs, and strategic bombers. The report highlights Russia’s modernization efforts, focusing on the SS-X-29 Sarmat heavy ICBM, SS-27 Mod 2 Yars ICBM, and Borei class SSBN.

The report says Russia’s strategy to counter US missile defenses includes developing advanced delivery systems such as hypersonic glide vehicles, nuclear-powered cruise missiles, and autonomous underwater systems. These innovations are intended to keep Russia’s ability to retaliate following a first strike, keeping strategic deterrence at bay. Additionally, it mentions Russia’s opposition to US efforts to limit the use of tactical nuclear weapons in Belarus.

Russian officials express concern about the impact of US advances in long-range conventional strike and missile defenses on the survivability of their strategic forces, according to the report.

In regards to North Korea, Hans Kristensen and other authors mention that there may be enough fissile material for up to 90 nuclear warheads, with about 50 likely assembled, in a July 2024 report for the Bulletin of Atomic Scientists. Kristensen and others say North Korea is enhancing its missile force with new solid-fuel long-range strategic missiles, short-range tactical missiles, and sea-based missiles.

They highlight North Korea’s strategic goals, including producing” super-sized nuclear warheads”, improving precision strike and range capabilities and developing hypersonic glide vehicles. They point out that North Korea’s plan to defeat US missile defenses includes diversifying its arsenal and developing advanced delivery systems to ensure its ability to retaliate after a first strike.

In keeping with those objectives, Politico reported in February 2023 that North Korea may already possess enough ICBMs to completely overthrow US missile defenses. According to the report, North Korea displayed 10 to 12 ICBMs during a military parade. According to the report, the ICBMs could easily surpass the US’s 44 GBI interceptors when fitted with four different warheads.

Continue Reading

Dead soldier a reminder US must do more about traumatic brain injury – Asia Times

By:
On:
In: Asia

The death of Matthew Livelsberger and blowing himself up on January 1st at a Trump Hotel in Las Vegas is unknown.

Aside from traumatic head injuries, Livelsberger may have experienced both post-traumatic stress disorder and trauma.

​PTSD and TBI are not the same item. Several soldiers in war zones are affected by PTSD, which is also present in some residents. PTSD patients frequently go through “intense troubling thoughts and feelings” that may persist for a long time after their military services. They may experience grief, fear, or rage, as well as separation or estrangement from other people, according to the article. Suicide poses a serious hazard to those with PTSD.

Livelsberger’s ex-girlfriend, Alicia Arritt, reported that Livelsberger experienced problems, stress, memory loss and times of departure, which she identified as important indicators of TBI. Arritt had served at the German military base Landstuhl Regional Medical Center, where many men who had suffered battle wounds from Iraq and Afghanistan were treated, some of whom were still serving, as well as those from Syria and Iraq. Livelsberger, serving in Helmand territory in Afghanistan, told Arritt that he had suffered numerous injuries.

Alicia Arritt and Matt Livelsberger. Photo: kindness Alicia Arritt

TBI is difficult to diagnose, hard to treat, and no usually mitigated by consultation. Livelsberger, a decorated Green Beret, deployed half to Afghanistan and served in Ukraine, Tajikistan, Georgia and Congo.

In brief, TBI is a hidden bodily injury. While it is possible to have both PTSD and TBI at once, it is even more difficult and challenging to cure severe cases of TBI.

In cases where there is an actual pain that is quickly apparent, treatments that are somewhat successful include diuretics to reduce the amount of liquid in brain tissue and increase urine output, anti-seizure drugs similar to those used for treating strokes, and coma-inducing drugs for cases where the brain is not getting enough blood due to pressed blood vessels coming from the concussive effects of a blast, according to I wrote in the Asia Times in January 2020.

Illustration: https ://neurologycharleston.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/01/DemystifyingBrainInjury .jpg

TBI injuries are classified as mild, moderate and severe. Strong TBI is simple to spot because the victim will immediately become confused, may have blurred vision, or have trouble hearing, and may be confused or even incoherent. The symptoms may not appear for hours or even days after the injury occurred, and moderate and mild TBI are much more challenging to diagnose.

Most doctors in the military, as in medical diagnosis generally, use the&nbsp, Glasgow Coma Scale&nbsp, questionnaire to assess TBI. The&nbsp, Glasgow Coma Scale&nbsp, has three main components: it measures eye-opening and how the eyes respond to stimuli, a verbal response to questions ( for example, does the assessed victim cry or smile appropriately? ) and various checks for motor response.

TBI is generally recognized as the” signature injury” caused by improvised explosive devices ( IEDs ) and recently by missile, drone and rocket attacks on US bases in Jordan, Syria and Iraq. Since 2000, more than 500 000 service members have received TBI diagnoses. In 2024 alone, more than 20, 000 service members were diagnosed with traumatic brain injuries. According to the Defense Department, roughly 440, 000 service members are thought to be at high risk of being exposed to blasts due to their job types. Minor TBI is present in 15.2 % to 22.8 % of returning service members from operations in Afghanistan and Iraq.

Unfortunately, what might have been initially thought to be mild TBI can turn out to be much more severe brain trauma later. Moreover, multiple concussions compound the problem, since an initial test might only catch the first symptoms.

Just as in US sports, especially football, there is a real need to develop better helmets, face masks and other protections for servicemen and women. Face shields, for example, &nbsp, could help reduce the damage&nbsp, a shock wave might cause to the brain, especially the frontal lobes. Face shields have not yet been adopted by the Army, despite the MIT study in 2010 that pointed the way.

More research has been done to improve the seating in military vehicles that is shock-resistant.

Blast shelters used on US bases, especially forward operating bases in combat zones, represent a significant shortcoming. Although blast shelters and warning systems are present in the Army, Marines, and other services, modern-generation shelters do not appear to deal with blast effects in a way that can protect against TBI. Many of those who had TBI-related injuries were inside shelters.

Given the high number of TBI cases and their long-term effects on society and health, a much higher priority needs to be given to TBI injuries. Better methods for identifying, classifying, and treating TBI cases anticipatibly could also help stop the blowback experienced by the victims and, in particular, by our communities in general.

Former US deputy undersecretary of defense for policy, Stephen Bryen. This article, which originally appeared on his Substack newsletter Weapons and Strategy, is republished with permission.

Continue Reading

Ahmad al-Shara seeks legitimacy inside and outside war-torn Syria – Asia Times

By:
On:
In: Asia

Syria has reached a crucial turning point thanks to the fall of the Assad regime after more than 50 years and the rise of the militant group Hayat Tahrir al-Sham ( HTS ).

Serious intellectual and emotional divisions have been eroding within Syrian society as a result of decades ofBa’athist rule. The military patriotism and extremism of Assad’s regime have left the nation with lasting social and political scars, aside from the enormous task of rebuilding the country’s infrastructure. If his descendants really want to create a unified national personality, these issues must be addressed as a matter of necessity.

The 13-year legal war deepened religious separation, especially between the ruling Alawite and bulk Sunni areas. HTS’s Sunni-centric history today presents it with the significant concern of bridging these gaps. Additionally, the group’s traditional ties to intellectual fanaticism and its history as a violent and military movement contribute to a major trust deficit both domestically and internationally.

However the old purchase has been shattered. This was already happening. By the time of Assad’s death, the government’s infantry was severely compromised. Its ability as a military force had been hampered by widespread corruption, religious favoritism, and organisational inefficiency.

The Syrian troops was a spacious organization with hundreds of thousands of personnel spread across different branches before the war started with the famous uprising of 2011. By and large, devotion to the plan was prioritized over expert competence.

The military’s integrity was more eroded by a web of competing interests that were seriously reliant on sectarian and ethnic allegiances and deeply embedded nepotism. It was also generally lost the respect of the majority of Syrians, and was viewed by most as a resource of Assad as an advocate for the people rather than a keeper of the people.

The brutality displayed during the uprising against quiet civilian protesters served to cement this notion in the minds of many people.

More than a decade of fight further eroded the army’s success. Over 75 % of its conflict features have been lost, according to reports, as a result of defections, causalities, and the capture of arms by opposition forces.

The second leader generation’s task will be to recover. Ahmad al-Shara, the head of the HTS, stated that he hopes the Syrian army will switch from a conscription-based selection to a specialist, volunteer force with current technology and advanced training. However, this approach is unclear and contradictory, especially given that al-Shara has yet to come to an agreement with al-Shara regarding the complete peace of armed groups, which is a necessary condition for the formation of a unified federal army.

Difficulties back

The local dynamics, which pose significant problems to the new administration under HTS, add complexity to this. Encouraging armed groups, including groups within the Turkey-backed Palestinian National Army, to fully disarm remains a significant hurdle. Turkey’s involvement in continuing divisiveness in northeastern Syria makes this issue even more problematic.

Turkey’s guidelines in northeastern Syria have long been in line with its political and national protection goals. This is especially true when it comes to thwart Kurdish vehement moves in northeast Syria. This may help Ankara’s tactical objectives, but it runs the risk of undermining Syria’s efforts to secure its independence.

The new routine, whatever shape it takes, has ensure it addresses local objectives. However, it must not compromise the larger goal of creating a Palestinian state that is all-encompassing and consolidated.

It will be crucial to strike a balance between additional support and the need to regain people trust. This will be a significant problem in achieving this harmony. However, it is necessary to create a secure and independent Syria.

Syria’s fresh leadership’s initial statements regarding the military’s reform and its dedication to transitional justice indicate that it intends to rebel against the Assad regime’s harsh methods. However, alarming instances that raise concerns about accountability and the broader repercussions of this change have already overshadowed these statements.

In places such as Latakia and Homs, Arabic-language movies that have surfaced show deeds of terrible punishment. These have included abuse of Alawites. Additionally, there is proof that some of the Assad regime’s vestiges were executed without warning. So far, it seems as though there hasn’t been any evidence of fair trial or proof that the perpetrators may be held accountable.

Subtle change

Conversations with former top government officials by some advertising programs, incuding al-Jazeera, have revealed a mix of cautious optimism and confusion. The peace process was described by the officers as being comparatively simple. However, some appeared to be unsure about their upcoming responsibilities and whether they would be incorporated or completely ignored. This limbo-induced feeling has the ability to destabilize the change.

HTS’s continued efforts to legitimize itself in the eyes of the international community add an additional layer of difficulty. Since taking power, the party has deliberately sought to be delisted as a terrorist organisation. It presents itself as a logical and stable power capable of resolving the power pump in post-Assad Syria.

In its several days in charge, the new government has welcomed a number of Muslim and other foreign representatives. This demonstrates HTS’s determined determination to present itself as a genuine political force poised to guide the upcoming chapter of Syria’s history. Although this discussion has the potential to improve the way al-Shara and Units are perceived internationally, it presents many difficulties and conflicts.

On one hand, the cooperation of global representatives in speech with HTS could be seen as a necessary, if provocative, move toward stabilizing Syria and preventing extended conflict. However, there is a chance that by acting too quickly, al-Shara and HTS may have unchecked authority before addressing important issues about governance, inclusivity, and the group’s philosophical legacy.

A new type of dictatorship, concealed in the language of transformation and stability, is feared because of the absence of concrete guarantees for a change to power-sharing and administrative pluralism.

At Lancaster University, Rahaf Aldoughli lectures on Middle Eastern politics.

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

Continue Reading

Chinese Communist Party’s grip on power is increasingly insecure – Asia Times

By:
On:
In: Asia

On December 31, Chinese President Xi Jinping delivered his annual televised fresh time target, and critics have been quick to offer their interpretations. Some have questioned Xi’s passing mention of Taiwan’s hazard of the Chinese reunification. People have focused on Xi’s remarks about China’s business, framing them as a fearful effect to Donald Trump’s election as US leader.

However, these addresses miss the bigger picture. The Chinese Communist Party’s (CCP)’s ) grip on power is becoming more and more insecure, according to Xi’s new year address. This uncertainty is obvious in how Xi’s feedback, supported by the group’s control of Taiwanese media, attempted to tease the Chinese people.

The main focus of Xi’s speech was on China’s economic victory. He stressed that the Chinese economy is thriving, and explained that China’s total GDP is soon expected to surpass 130 trillion yuan ($ 17.7 trillion ). Over the past twelve months, GDP has increased by 4.9 %, or equivalent.

This has been taken a step further by studies on Xi’s speech in the Chinese internet. China Daily, the official CCP-owned paper that is often used to connect the group’s location to the Chinese people, praised Xi’s “heartening conversation” and stressed the hugeness of China’s “remarkable” growth rate. Other developed economy struggled to regular levels of 1.5 %, according to an article published on January 1.

The reality that China’s economic growth has slowed, falling from 5.2 % in 2023, is not included in the good economic criticism of Xi’s target. Although the growth rate of 4.9 % is amazing in comparison to other developed nations, it is unsatisfactory given the pace of Chinese economic progress. In the 2000s, China’s GDP increased by about 13 %, surpassing its annual growth rates of over 10 %.

One time ago, in his 2024 handle, Xi acknowledged the problems facing the Chinese market. He promised financial reforms that would reduce youth unemployment, promote job creation, and boost growth. However, despite these initiatives, China’s economic growth continues to decrease and youth unemployment remains high.

Gaslighting the Taiwanese citizens

It may be difficult to comprehend why Xi and the CCP acknowledged financial problems when China’s expansion rate was higher and celebrated financial success when progress had slowed. But it makes sense when considered through the glass of “goal-shifting” – an action that goes beyond the good flip governments put on their country’s economic efficiency.

Goal-shifting is a form of social gaslighting, in which an established purpose is” shifted” to one that is easier to achieve. This results in a presentation of an undesirable outcome as an accomplishment by the new goal’s normal by the original goal’s standard.

If we take China’s 2024 GDP growth of 4.9 % as the results, it can be viewed negatively in comparison with China’s 5.2 % rise in 2023. China’s 2024 expansion rate can be described as “remarkable” in the context of China shifting the purpose to China having higher GDP growth than other developed markets, a miracle that was never really in doubt.

The CCP appears to be using its influence and control to highlight the financial information of Xi’s speech in Chinese internet. By undermining China’s financial objectives and downplaying the struggling economy, it is gaslighting the Taiwanese people. The CCP is framing the comparative strength of Taiwanese development as a result of the party’s financial management at the same time.

The CCP has relied on the twin pillars of populism and finance to defend the validity of its state since the 1980s. Financially, its validity was upheld by decades of high rise, which has lifted more than 800 million people in China out of poverty. But, with rise slowing over the past century, the CCP has pivoted towards a reliance on populism.

The CCP and China’s patriotic activity have a symbiotic relationship. Republican tasks like those involving historical societies, patriotic statues, and museums are supported by the CCP. Nationalist organizations have a vested interest in backing the CCP as a result.

But, this connection is harmful to the CCP in the long term. The CCP may impose restrictions on republican organizations without jeopardizing its own nationalist standing. Republican groups have acted in ways that go against the CCP’s desires, including starting cyberattacks both domestically and internationally.

The twin-pillar type the CCP has relied on for centuries is faltering. In his earlier new year target, Xi took the extraordinary step of acknowledging China’s financial challenges. The CCP attempted to use the financial foundation by betting on a reverse of economic wealth in 2024, afraid to mix nationalist sentiment. This turnaround failed to materialize.

The CCP has become extremely insecure, but Xi’s 2025 new year target adjusted the objectives for judging China’s financial performance. Meanwhile, the party encouraged reporting that supported Xi’s address, spinning China’s slowing growth and worsening economic woes as a “remarkable” economic achievement.

At the University of Essex, Lewis Eves lectures on government and international relations.

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

Continue Reading

Afghanistan shows economic gains from investing in girls’ education – Asia Times

By:
On:
In: Asia

People had been prohibited from attending university since 1996 when the Taliban took control of Afghanistan in 2001. Utilizing information from the Labor Force and Household Studies conducted in Afghanistan in 2007, 2014, and 2020, I, along with World Bank training expert Raja Bentaouet Kattan and scholar Rafiuddin Najam from American University. We found it was tremendous.

In the midst of the Taliban’s fall, education options expanded at all rates. The infant mortality rate declined by half, and the gross national income per capita almost tripled ( in real terms in purchasing authority, from US$ 810 in 2001 to$ 2, 590 in 2020.

Ladies are at the center of the country’s economic growth during this time. The general average return on investment in schooling in Afghanistan is minimal, but it is still great for women. For example, for every additional year of schooling a woman received, her earnings increased 13 %. This is higher than the average return on investment in knowledge, which is 9 % worldwide.

Why it concerns

The Taliban re-established its hold on power in 2021 after 20 years since the first restrictions on children’s schooling.

The financial cost could exceed$ 1 billion, excluding the higher social charges posed by lower female education degrees. For context, Afghanistan’s entire gross domestic product was just$ 17 billion in 2023.

Our research demonstrates how disastrous the most recent learning ban could be for everyone in the country.

How we did our labor

Studies on the monetary gain to teaching, especially for women, is limited in Afghanistan. However, for proof is essential to comprehending the financial loss that a nation experiences when women are denied access to education and employment opportunities.

Our study sought to fill this gap by examining how income changed as a result of an extra month of education. We examined the changes that occurred between 2004, when the government made compulsory education available to both men and women starting in the fifth through eighth grades, and 2020.

Our findings indicate that excluding women from work and training is significantly more expensive than originally thought. According to our research, Afghanistan risks losing over$ 1.4 billion annually. This equates to a 2 % decrease in national income.

What’s following

Scientists have long held that investing in children’s education has a greater impact than just for each individual person. It offers generations-long economic and social benefits. Higher college enrollment costs are among these factors, as are improved health for her children.

In addition to the financial gains, additional research may be done to examine the social benefits of children’s schooling in Afghanistan between 2001 and 2021. Future studies may look at the impact of investment in women’s education on public schooling by examining whether it reverses generational poverty cycles, promotes public health, and reduces inequality, giving rise to a multiple effect that benefits full communities.

Every extra day that the education restrictions on women’s education is in effect, generations get worse, losses get worse, and millions of young people’s dreams get further out of reach.

The University of Arkansas ‘ seat in training plan is Harry Anthony Patrinos.

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

Continue Reading

Could Trump seize the Panama Canal? – Asia Times

By:
On:
In: Asia

As past and upcoming US President Donald Trump threatened to “take up” the Panama Canal, citing the great canal tolls as his justification, the world turned to Central America immediately before Christmas. In the days that followed, there was a lot of flurry of rumors as to what exactly happened with his comment and whether or not they reflected a wider political agenda.

He refrained from using military force to reclaim the river on Tuesday during a press event at Mar a Lago.

Is Panama at risk of losing control of the canal?

Trump does not have the methods to “take up” the river without starting an illegitimate war of aggression, according to the short answer.

The river territory was not US house, it was only leased. The river is not in danger of disappearing.

Trump’s remarks, in contrast, appear to be an early stage in his wider effort to reclaim control in Latin America.

Some important story

One of society’s most extraordinary engineering deeds, The Panama Canal, has connected the Atlantic and Pacific Oceans since 1914. The idea of constructing a waterway through Panama’s canal dates back to the 16th century, when Hispanic settlers saw potential in its transformation of international trade routes. However, it wasn’t until the 19th century that real programs for the river started to emerge, fueled by technological advancements, which made such a challenging job doable.

Ferdinand de Lesseps, the architect and inventor of the Suez Canal, was the first to lead the first major effort to construct the river in 1880. First, the program was for a sea-level river, but the technical and environmental issues proved overwhelming. The project’s collapse was caused by tough climates, tropical illnesses like yellow fever and malaria, as well as the challenging task of digging through swampy and rough terrain. By 1889, more than 20, 000 workers had died, and the venture’s fiscal sponsors faced bankruptcy, almost triggering a European state economic crisis.

The US expressed interest in building the river to reduce trade and military roads in the first 1900s. First discussions with Colombia, which included Panama at the time, failed when Colombia rejected the US’s request to rent the area.

The US therefore supported Panama’s democracy activity, and on November 3, 1903, Panama declared its independence from Colombia. Two weeks later, the recently established Filipino government signed the Hay-Bunau-Varilla Treaty, granting the US rights to contract a 16-kilometer-wide zone for constructing, operating, and defending the canal in return for an annual payment, although initially at a rate so small that it fueled after social tensions.

In addition to implementing important efforts to combat illness by eradicating mosquitoes and improving hygiene, the US started building in 1904. It also employed cutting-edge architectural techniques, including a switch system to manage elevation changes. The river was formally opened on August 15, 1914, a new time in international trade, as ships had then avoid the dangerous journey around Cape Horn.

The US viewed the river corridor as its country, despite the fact it was leased from Panama. Despite its economic and geopolitical value, US control over the canal and its revenues sparked hatred in Panama.

In the 1960s, strain reached its highest point. This led to conversations that culminated in the 1977 Torrijos-Carter Treaty, which outlined a phased exchange of river leadership to Panama, completed on December 31, 1999. Since then, the river has become a representation of Panama’s financial and national power.

The change of this year marked the 25th anniversary of Panama’s assumption of power over the canal’s management. Simply one day before the celebration, former US President Jimmy Carter, who had signed the 1977 agreement enabling the canal’s transfer, passed ahead.

The legal foundation is also essential.

The Torrijos-Carter Treaty

The two main contracts that govern the exchange of the Panama Canal are contained in the agreement, which was signed on September 7, 1977 by Filipino head Omar Torrijos and US President Jimmy Carter:

  • Panama Canal Treaty: This convention stipulated that the US would keep control of the canal’s operations, administration, and defence until December 31, 1999, at which point Panama would believe complete control. During the transition, US and Panamanian authorities collaborated to ensure a smooth handover.
  • The US is also given the right to intervene militarily if the canal’s neutrality or functionality is threatened. This treaty guarantees that the canal remains open to vessels of all nations, regardless of wartime or peacetime conditions. This clause has been contentious, as it partially limits Panama’s sovereignty, but was deemed necessary to guarantee the free flow of trade.

Panama still has full control over how the canal is managed and how much money is made, with only the US now theoretically able to intervene if a significant threat arises, a situation that hasn’t occurred in the last 25 years.

However, there are also other factors at play.

An emotional issue in the US

The handover of the Panama Canal to Panama was a highly emotive and controversial topic in the United States, touching deeply rooted geopolitical, economic, and patriotic sentiments. The UA had finished it and ran it for a long period of time. Many Americans viewed the canal as a representation of their country’s technological and political strength.

The transfer formalized through the Torrijos-Carter Treaty, was viewed by conservative circles, particularly Republicans, as a weakening of the United States ‘ global power position, a sentiment that continues to influence political rhetoric– especially within Donald Trump’s populist narrative.

Further background provides a further justification for why not everyone is willing to accept that the canal’s fate has been decided for the long.

Symbol of American strength

One of the greatest engineering achievements of the US was the construction of the canal, which is a testament to its rise as a global power in the early 20th century. Control over the canal was seen as a strategic advantage, securing US influence in the Western Hemisphere.

Geopolitical significance

The canal was a strategically important asset as well as a significant trade route. It made it easier for the US Navy to move quickly between the Pacific and the Atlantic. The transfer of control to Panama, according to critics of the handover, could compromise the security of the canal and, in turn, global trade routes.

the 1970s political landscape

During the 1970s, the US was grappling with a sense of self-doubt, shaped by the Vietnam War, the Watergate scandal and the oil crisis. Many Americans saw the canal handover as another sign of a “retreat” from global leadership. The canal had been constructed with great sacrifice and had been successfully managed for decades, according to republicans, making the handover amounted to a “betrayal.”

Jimmy Carter’s policies

Many Republicans thought Carter was a weak president who failed to adequately defend American interests.

The Torrijos-Carter Treaty, which was perceived as a concession to Panama, a smaller, weaker nation, was viewed as being incongruent with the idea of American national pride.

Donald Trump’s approach to the issue

Donald Trump paints a sentimental image of American dominance through the Panama Canal, which is very well-liked by conservative voters.

Rhetoric on “lost greatness.”

Trump has previously referred to the canal’s handover as an example of the “poor negotiation skills” of prior US administrations. He expands on the idea that such decisions have diminished the United States ‘ standing and strength internationally.

Populist narrative

Trump uses the canal’s history to support his” America First” agenda, presenting the handover as a representation of a time when the US was ruled by “weak” leaders. This rhetoric appeals to voters who long for a return to the days of unquestionable American dominance.

connection between current issues and strategic considerations

Trump makes connections between the handover of the canal and the ongoing trade negotiations or military withdrawals. He emphasizes that, as president, he would never make” such mistakes”, a stance that resonates with both nostalgic and security-conscious voters.

The Panama Canal’s transfer is still seen as a declaration of a perceived loss of American privilege. It represents a fableable surrender of geopolitical power and national honor for many Republicans. Trump uses the 1977 treaty as a prime example of weak political decision-making to further his message of restoring American strength. He mobilizes his political base by framing this emotional legacy.

It is no coincidence that this issue came up less than two weeks before Jimmy Carter’s passing and the 25th anniversary of Panama’s accession to the canal.

Economically significant for both China and the US

Both the United States and China both have significant economic ties to the Panama Canal. About 20 % of the goods transported through China come from or are intended for the US. The Panama Canal accounts for roughly 5 % of global maritime trade. On average, cargo ships pay more than$ 200, 000 in tolls for passage, with significantly higher amounts possible. These figures highlight the importance of the canal in global trade.

Expansion of the canal &amp, Chinese investments

The expansion of the Panama Canal, completed in 2016 with the introduction of the so-called” New Panama Canal”, marked a pivotal moment in global shipping.

The expansion enabled the transit of neo-Panamax ships, thereby significantly increasing the canal’s efficiency and capacity. The growing scope of global trade, and particularly the expanding flow of goods between Asian and Western markets, required this improvement.

China, as one of Panama’s largest trading partners and a leading global economic power, plays a central role in this context.

In addition, China has made substantial investments in infrastructure around the canal, including ports and logistics centres, further enhancing Panama’s importance as a hub for global trade. These developments highlight China’s growing influence in Latin America, making the Panama Canal a strategic focal point within Beijing’s Belt and Road Initiative.

The canal’s expansion was economically vital for Panama, as were the investments from China. However, Panama retains control over the canal.

Does China control the canal?

Trump and others in the US and Europe have been trying to make the impression that China has taken control of the canal, putting its neutrality at risk in recent weeks. This claim, however, is far from reality.

Panamanian President José Raúl Mulino has made it clear that neither the EU, the US, nor China controls the canal—only Panama does. He reaffirmed the canal’s neutrality during the 25th-anniversary celebrations of Panama’s full control. Over the previous 25 years, he emphasized, there has not been a single reason to doubt the canal’s neutrality.

Panama’s national motto,” Pro Mundi Beneficio” (” For the Benefit of the World” ), reflects the canal’s mission of serving global interests, irrespective of the nationality of the ships using it. Panama’s operations are heavily funded by the expansion of the canal, with the tolls being calculated based on the canal’s intrinsic value rather than being included in the original treaties.

Trump has been irritated by Panama’s growing political independence from the US over the years. A nation like Panama prioritizes its own national interests.

During his first presidency, Trump was already dissatisfied with China’s investments in Panama, as well as in Latin America at large, and his current rhetoric echoes a neo-colonial tone.

Trump has no contractual means to influence the canal’s toll structure, which is determined by market principles or by its management. A military intervention, under current conditions ( with neither the canal’s security nor its neutrality threatened ), would constitute an illegal act of aggression under international law.

Trump frequently declares himself to be a peacemaker, so it is likely that his strong words are intended to stifle other economic developments rather than lead to concrete action.

This is especially important in light of potential future infrastructure projects in Panama, such as the Panama City to Costa Rica train project. China might be the main target for upcoming projects.

Trump’s desire to rename the Gulf of Mexico after declaring at Tuesday’s press conference that he wanted to do so has raised a lot of rumors right now. New name: Gulf of America.

Continue Reading

China’s Metal Storm poised to shred hypersonics – Asia Times

By:
On:
In: Asia

China has developed a hyper-fast device weapon that could improve protection against fast missiles, posing a formidable challenge to conventional missile security systems.

South China Morning Post (SCMP ) reported this month that Chinese scientists are developing a revolutionary machine gun known as the” Metal Storm,” which can fire bullets at a rate of 450, 000 per minute per barrel.

The tool, which could one day be the most potent machine gun in history, has five or more barrels and is designed to stop hypersonic missiles moving at speeds over Jet 7 from the radar.

According to the review, the task, which is being led by Lu Xutao, an associate professor at the North University of China, uses a novel box-type circular firing systems with removable publications filled with biodegradable barrels. This creativity addresses the difficulty of refilling ammunition for a tool that burns thousands of rounds per minute. The electric set program, developed by Lu’s group, uses coils to create a high-energy material jet that ignites the violent, achieving a firing time of only 17.5 microseconds.

The Metal Storm concept was developed in the 1990s by Australian innovator MikeO’Dwyer, but his business went bankrupt in 2012. According to the report, China’s continued investment in this tech aims to beat the Northern design by at least ten times in the fire price, making it crucial for defending territorial waters and aircraft in upcoming issues.

Gun-based defenses such as China’s” Metal Storm” have a key advantage over missile defense systems in the sense that they have faster reaction times – they may begin firing almost quickly at an approaching threat’s basic direction, in contrast to missile-based defenses that take time to identify, identify, track, and join targets.

However, unlike missile defense systems, gun-based defenses have a very short range – just 5 to 9 kilometers in the case of the US Navy’s Phalanx close-in weapons system ( CIWS), limiting their use to point defense scenarios.

When the target must be instantly destroyed, gun-based defenses may perform poorly. There is a chance that a hypersonic missile still hits its target despite suffering multiple bullet hits, with its high velocity guaranteeing heavy damage just by sheer kinetic energy, unlike an interceptor hit that can completely destroy an incoming missile using hit-to-kill methods.

Existing and future defense strategies that face cost, technical, and operational challenges face significant technical and structural challenges.

Hypersonic weapons, which can travel at speeds exceeding Mach 5, have exceptional maneuverability and low-altitude flight, making them difficult to detect with conventional radar and missile defense systems. These flight characteristics make it possible for hypersonic missiles to make use of air defense defense gaps.

Ballistic missiles are targeted by traditional missile defense strategies and technologies at various stages of their flight. A boost phase intercept may have the best chance of intercepting a ballistic missile when its rocket motors are burning to launch it into a high altitude. Positioning interceptor missiles close to the target are required for this strategy. Ballistic missiles also have short boost phases, lasting only 3-5 minutes, providing a tiny time window for interception.

A ballistic missile travels through space in a ballistic arc when it reaches its midpoint. This long phase gives more time for interception. However, within this time frame, it can deploy countermeasures, decoys, and penetration aids to defeat incoming interceptors.

When a ballistic missile re-enters the atmosphere and enters its final phase, defending it against specific targets like cities or military installations is necessary. However, this phase has a very short time window for the interception, and the re-entering missile travels at hypersonic speed, making interception very challenging. An already difficult task would become even more challenging if you hit a maneuvering target like a hypersonic missile.

The SM-6 Dual is the only US interceptor missile with some form of effectiveness against hypersonic threats, according to Asia Times in February 2022, and even then, its range of potential may be minimal.

Cognizant of the SM-6 Dual’s shortcomings, a June 2024 US Congressional Research Service ( CRS ) report mentions that the US is developing interceptors such as the Glide Phase Interceptor ( GPI ) and Glide Breaker projects to defeat hypersonic threats.

However, these interceptors ‘ high costs and protracted production times may make them ineligible against a saturation hypersonic missile attack. Additionally, the number of interceptors that US warships can carry is limited due to the limited magazine depth.

Although directed energy weapons like lasers and microwaves have been hailed as the future of missile defense and have been hailed as the best way to attack missiles with virtually unlimited ammunition at a reasonable price, the technology has not lived up to its promise.

In January 2024, Asia Times noted that key limitations in the US laser weapons program include the need for substantial physical, weight, power, and cooling space, which current US surface combatants lack.

While US initiatives like the HELIOS laser and the ODIN ( Optical Dazzling Interdictor ) systems are continuing efforts, technological maturity issues persist, such as improving beam quality and control. Further, the US Navy’s Arleigh Burke-class destroyers, already maxed out on upgrade potential, face internal space constraints, limiting the installation of new power generation systems necessary for laser weapons.

Railguns have been looked into as a potential defense against hypersonic weapons, similar to shooting down a bullet with a bullet. They use electromagnetic energy to propel a projectile instead of explosive propellants like traditional guns.

However, as with laser weapons, railguns have substantial physical, weight, power, and cooling space requirements. Further, the current railgun technology only permits a few shots per barrel because the intense heat from firing warps the rails, which are responsible for the projectile’s propellant.

Given the limitations of current and future counter-hypersonic defense systems, it would be possible to go against their kill chains, which include the people, processes, and assets required for a successful hypersonic missile attack.

However, Asia Times pointed out in December 2024 that multi-domain operations ( MDO ) may be the latest military conceptual boondoggle. Most ideas lack a crystal-clear theory of victory, generally frame adversaries, and make exaggerated assumptions about technological prowess, which could reduce the success of inter-service rivalry and whole-of-government strategies.

Continue Reading

Nippon Steel and US Steel: One last chance, Mr Trump – Asia Times

By:
On:
In: Asia

Team Biden is doing so many strange things on its way out the door that nobody should have been surprised that President&nbsp, Joe Biden&nbsp, ( or whoever calls the shots ) &nbsp, rejected&nbsp, Nippon Steel’s bid to buy&nbsp, US Steel. &nbsp,

The White House stated that the agreement threatened regional stability. However, most of the Committee on Foreign Investment in the United States, known as the CFIUS assessment committee that considered the national safety perspective, didn’t see it that way.

President Biden needs to state in detail what concerns are if there are concerns about national protection with this package. &nbsp,

The pieces of American Pennsylvania and Indiana that will suffer the most from this determination must then be compelled to testify in public before union rooms and local chambers of commerce.

Does they? No.

In south Pennsylvania, both Senator John Fetterman and Governor Josh Shapiro must even appear. They, too, may discuss why this was a good choice.

Does they? No.

Screenshot of the US Steel website’s landing page (screenshot October 7, 2024 ).

Shaking the alliance&nbsp,

This decision didn’t send down the&nbsp, US-Japan ally. But it hurts. &nbsp,

Japan is frequently touted as America’s key ally. The “most significant diplomatic marriage, club none,” as former adviser Mike Mansfield put it.

Immediately, we’ll have Japan to engage in more military action than it has ever done, or even more than it wants to do.

Telling Japan,” We want you to combat China with us but we don’t want you to private US Metal” won’t be well received in Tokyo. &nbsp,

Japan and its businesses have previously been treated this way, starting in the 1980s when it was portrayed as the monetary composite who would put US businesses out of business. Japan, in contrast, exhibited some compassion by jolting the US economy, especially Detroit automakers, into getting its act collectively.

In the&nbsp, Nippon Steel&nbsp, situation, the business bent over backward – or, better said, bent over forward in an nearly humiliating style – to show its great faith. It also offered to give the US government a&nbsp, reject &nbsp, over any potential business decisions regarding US Steel production.

A vital allied world’s company should not have to do this.

As for the&nbsp, regional security&nbsp, explanation?

Tokyo may find it irksome that it is included in the socialist Chinese. And don’t assume they haven’t noticed that the Biden administration supports the planned&nbsp, CCP-tied Gotion&nbsp, power factory in Michigan. A US defense foundation is even close by that location. The citizens don’t want it, but Team Biden does. &nbsp,

However, Nippon Steel poses a greater threat to national security than the US companies whose equipment and technology were officially used in the Chinese spy balloon the Biden management allowed to fly over the country in 2023.

Heartless? A deception? Or both?

Without Nippon Steel’s funding and technology, US Steel did fish and just may collapse. That would endanger people, families, and full towns.

US Steel control, people, and local folks support the deal. Yet the neighborhood organizations do. Top&nbsp, United Steelworkers&nbsp, ( USW) leadership, as is often the case with union bosses, don’t seem to care or listen to what rank-and-file members want.

Spend an hour watching this&nbsp, Hudson Institute&nbsp, discussion&nbsp, with US Steel staff and union exercises, as well as a native president.

You’ll get informed ー and moved.

One final possibility is Trump

Generally, business announcements are drab, lifeless jargon. &nbsp,

Not this one. &nbsp,

US Steel President David B Burritt gets it&nbsp, best.

January 3, 2025– President Biden’s activity today is terrible and dishonest. He gave a political retribution to a union boss out of reach with his associates while harming our company’s potential, our employees, and our national security. He insulted Japan, a crucial alliance for both economic and regional security, and threatened the United States ‘ profitability. Dancers from the Chinese Communist Party in Beijing are taking to the streets. And Biden did it all by refusing to even ask to talk to us about the specifics.

Better is what our staff and societies deserve. We needed a leader who is knowledgeable about how to negotiate the best package for America and work tirelessly to make it happen. Make no mistake: this purchase is what guarantees a great potential for US Steel, our employees, our communities, and our nation. We intend to fight President Biden’s social problem. &nbsp,

Hopefully, after January 20th, CEO Burritt won’t be able to insert” Trump” for” Biden” and re-issue the statement. &nbsp,

Yet, both President-elect&nbsp, Donald Trump&nbsp, and Vice President-elect&nbsp, JD Vance&nbsp, opposed the deal before the vote.

US Steel workers, and regional union representatives, and additional autoworkers supported Trump anyway. Obviously, they thought that he understood them and only needed to get through the vote.

They stuck their heads up and kept their confidence. &nbsp,

Mr. Trump must backward this pronouncement, or he will leave along with the Vice President and make an apology. If that’s even probable.

You simply get one chance in this region of America when people put their trust in you.

RELATED:

Grant Newsham is a former US minister and former US Marine agent. He is the author of the book” When China Attacks: A Warning To America“.

This article was originally published by JAPAN Forward. It is republished with permission.

Continue Reading