Donald Trump’s multipolar diplomacy – Asia Times

By:
On:
In: Asia, World

A new multipolar world can be reached by Donald Trump by achieving harmony in Ukraine, stabilizing the Taiwan dispute, and then cutting protection investing in half, preventing a potential US debt crisis.

More than any of his successors, Trump has &nbsp, explained to&nbsp, the people exactly what he means to do and why. &nbsp, The bewilderment with which Western officials and media have responded to Trump and his vital aides&nbsp, does not stem from lack of clarity in Trump’s communication, &nbsp, but from neglect. &nbsp, America’s former clients have &nbsp, little&nbsp, to&nbsp, do &nbsp, in the new order.

The US-Russian agreements that brokered on February 18 in Saudi Arabia are expected to lead to a deal that extends beyond the Ukraine War.

” One of the first meetings I want to have ]is ] with President Xi]of] China and with President Putin of Russia and I want to say,’ let’s cut our military budget in half. &nbsp, We’re going to have them spend a lot less money and we’re going to spend a lot less&nbsp, income, &nbsp, and I know they are going to accomplish it,'” Trump told investigators February 13.

Trump may enter the May 9 Moscow&nbsp, 80th&nbsp, celebration party of success in Europe, which Xi&nbsp, Jinping may go. The Chinese website” Observer” ( guancha.cn ) &nbsp, on February 19 speculates that Trump may convene a “new Yalta conference”, referring to the 1945&nbsp, meeting between Roosevelt, Churchill and Stalin&nbsp, that sketched the postwar order. Russian state leaders have also made an appearance in Moscow regarding Trump. &nbsp,

The government’s notes to writers February 18 at Mar-al-Lago provoked outraged&nbsp, remark in conventional media. &nbsp,” Today I heard&nbsp, ]from Ukraine ] &nbsp,, &nbsp,’ Oh, we weren’t invited ‘]to Tuesday’s U. S. Russia talks ]. Well, you’ve been there for three years, you should have ended it ]in ] three years. You should have always started&nbsp, it, &nbsp, you could have made a deal”.

Russia, to be sure, &nbsp, started the military conflict, Trump apparently referred to Zelensky’s abandonment of the Minsk II framework ( Russophone autonomy in a neutral, sovereign Ukraine ). &nbsp, Politico, the victim of tens of millions of dollars of grants from USAID, denounced Trump for “echoing the Kremlin”.

But Trump is unfazed. &nbsp,” They were quite good”, he&nbsp, said&nbsp, at Mar-al-Lago&nbsp, of&nbsp, the debate with&nbsp, Russia&nbsp, in Saudi Arabia. &nbsp,” Russia wants to do something. They want to quit the violent barbarianism”.

The historical allusion to the original Yalta is timely because it marked a catastrophe for the Central Europeans and East Germans who fell under Soviet rule. However, Germany’s Die Welt stated that the Great Powers may end war while the small people are relegated to the children’s board. &nbsp,

The Cheshire cat&nbsp, of&nbsp, Alice in Wonderland&nbsp, vanished&nbsp, except&nbsp, for its smile, and the British—whose then Prime Minister Boris Johnson&nbsp, helped thwart peace negotiations in early 2022 – have disappeared except for their catty sense of humor.

The&nbsp, Economist&nbsp, pundit&nbsp,” Talleyrand” &nbsp, on February 19 deplores&nbsp,” the readiness with which much of the world has accepted the humiliation of Ukraine and its European friends. Where were the South Vietnamese present during the Paris peace negotiations? This pattern was established a long time ago. When the US finally started speaking with the Taliban, where were the Afghan puppet rulers? And now, what about the stalwart&nbsp, Mr&nbsp, Zelenskyy? Proxies are almost always treated&nbsp, thus…. If&nbsp, the Ukrainians are clever, they’ll quietly ask about applying for entry to the BRICS. Join the queue”.

A&nbsp, three-way&nbsp, summit&nbsp, in Moscow&nbsp, is far from certain. If it occurs, the agenda&nbsp, will&nbsp, look something like this:

1 ) A ceasefire in Ukraine with Russia in complete control of the territory it has already taken, including the majority of Donetsk and Luhansk, as well as new elections in Ukraine that almost certainly would eliminate Zelensky. Given that the Europeans have too few deployable forces to cause trouble, and US Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth has already stated that peacekeepers would not be protected by the mutual defense provisions of NATO treaties, some European or UK peacekeepers might be permitted.

2 ) &nbsp, A rapid end to economic sanctions on Russia. Given that Trump prefers to sell US natural gas to Russia for roughly twice the price than to restore Russian supplies, whether gas supplies will be restored is a matter of negotiation.

3 ) &nbsp, An agreement with China to stabilize the status of Taiwan. Although this would likely fall short of a new Shanghai Agreement&nbsp ( the 1972 treaty restored diplomatic relations between the US and China ), it would still be strong enough to win over both parties.

4 ) &nbsp, The beginning of a nuclear arms negotiation on the scale of the Reagan-Gorbachev&nbsp, agreement at Reykjavik in 1986.

” Observer” columnist Yan Mo on February 19 argues that Trump’s main objective in Taiwan is to bring onshore the knowhow of Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Company, &nbsp, which fabricates 90 % of the world’s advanced chips ( 4 nanometers and below ).

Noting Trump’s mention of a 100 % tariff on Taiwanese chip exports to the US, Yan writes: &nbsp,” Trump&nbsp, knows that it is meaningless to impose&nbsp, tariffs&nbsp, on&nbsp, TSMC. After all, TSMC is in an absolute monopoly position…. &nbsp, No matter&nbsp, what tariff&nbsp, is imposed, it will only be shared by customers. &nbsp, At present, the main buyers of TSMC’s advanced process chips are mostly American customers”.

What Trump intends, the Chinese columnist adds, is to force TSMC to set up several plants in the United States ( after years of delays, it is about to open one plant in Arizona ), or to merge TMSC with the struggling US chipmaker Intel, in effect acquiring TSMC’s technology.

From a national security standpoint, that is quite logical: The United States&nbsp, does not want to depend on the People’s Republic of China for advanced chips in the event that Taiwan&nbsp, were&nbsp, absorbed into the mainland. &nbsp,

The State Department last week deleted a phrase from its&nbsp, Taiwan fact sheet&nbsp, stating that the US does not support Taiwan’s independence. That is a bargaining move, the” Observer” columnist argues. ” The US State Department’s deletion of the statement&nbsp, about’ not supporting Taiwan independence ‘&nbsp, is a negotiating posture&nbsp, with respect&nbsp, to&nbsp, mainland&nbsp, China”. If so, it is a clever negotiating move.

Vladimir Putin was forced out of the Kremlin in March 2022, when President Biden declared that the Russian economy would shrink by half&nbsp and that the unipolar world order would end. &nbsp, In October 2022, the United States imposed tech controls&nbsp, that a&nbsp, prominent&nbsp, US analyst&nbsp, dubbed” a new US policy of actively strangling large segments of the Chinese technology industry– strangling with an intent to kill”.

At the conclusion of the first Godfather film, Biden’s attempts to imitate Michael Corleone woefully failed. Russia ‘s&nbsp, economy expanded rather than collapsed, and&nbsp, out-produced&nbsp, the combined NATO countries in arms, while China found workarounds to US controls, producing its own high-end chips and innovative AI systems.

On January 30th, Secretary of State Marco Rubio delivered the eulogy&nbsp for unipolarity, saying,” It’s not normal for the world to simply have a unipolar power.” Unipolarity, he told&nbsp, interviewer Megyn Kelly, “was an anomaly. You eventually would have a multipolar world, multi-great powers operating in various regions of the planet, despite the fact that it was a result of the Cold War’s end.

Continue Reading

Apparent Trump vision: Divvy up the world into demarcated empires – Asia Times

By:
On:
In: Asia, World

Technically, America– whether led by Joe Biden, Kamala Harris or Donald Trump– may be trying to remain the country’s pre-eminent corporate power.

The realist perspective holds that the global system of states compels specific states to seek as much power as possible in foreign relations theory. &nbsp, This is the only means to effectively make themselves more stable.

From these, there is a cut between defensive and offensive realists.

Protective realists think that as a condition improves its standing over potential rival states, it stops at the accelerator and concentrates more on upholding the status quo than leading.

According to insulting realists, a state can never have too much security, and states will not give up trying to bolster their relative power over other nations, who could also be adversaries. &nbsp, Any condition that has the capability may try to dominate its relatives.

John J. Mearsheimer portrayed as” Mearchiavelli”, by Marwane Pallas, the Philomathean Society. Image: mearsheimer.com

One of the most popular American proponents of authenticity, University of Chicago doctor John Mearsheimer, is in the unpleasant station. &nbsp, His outlook&nbsp, predicts:” The United States is going to come to great lengths to make certain that China does not occupy Asia”.

Wonderful measures include declaring war on Taiwan. Americans “would fight and die to support Taiwan”, he&nbsp, believes.

He dissects questions about whether US citizens would be in favor of a war by stating that the US government had “manipulate the discourse on what is happening in ways that manifest China as a corporeal threat.”

Mearsheimer&nbsp, gives&nbsp, two causes why Washington had try so hard to have PRC expansionism.

Second, the United States has worldwide economic passions to defend. A possible adversary, such as China, do threaten American prosperity if it gained control of a significant region with its wealth, commercial potential, and economic power. &nbsp,” It is evident from the traditional record”, he&nbsp, writes, that” the US does not tolerate friend competition”.

Second, Mearsheimer argues that a strong country that establishes domination over its region is “free to roam” .&nbsp, Not threatened by any of its own neighbors, it will make aggressive probes into some other major power’s neighborhood. &nbsp, So if the US wasn’t blocking Beijing’s power over areas of China’s close overseas such as Taiwan, the East China Sea and the South China Sea, China may be challenging US protection in the Northern Hemisphere.

Mearsheimer’s unpleasant realism, nonetheless, has a built-in weakness. He acknowledges that governments, including those of the US, do not always work as his theory suggests, despite the reasoning that seems to suggest that America should hang onto proper hegemony at all costs and ensure China does no achieve hegemony over Asia.

For example, he&nbsp, says, &nbsp, it was “foolish” and a” proper blunder” for the US to energy China’s rapid economic growth and technical progress starting in the 1980s in the mistaken belief&nbsp, that this would preclude potential security conflicts with China– an opinion that many other analysts then share.

Mearsheimer claims that his theory accurately predicts how major powers will act in response to external circumstances, but that some nations, including the most important nation on earth, reject to act in accordance with his theory.

Despite the pressures of the international system, it seems as though this makes room for the possibility that a government in the US that is no longer interested in preventing Chinese hegemony in East Asia might emerge.

This may in fact be happening. &nbsp,

Trump’s strategy appears to involve dividing the world into clearly defined empires, rather than an activist America that favors liberal rules and institutions and seeks to shape regions around the world to stop the rise of powerful adversaries. His continued rant about annexing Canada and Greenland seems more like a joke to his domestic political rivals.

Trump may have accepted the Russian and Chinese empires, according to some sources. &nbsp, His government has signaled acceptance of Russia&nbsp, keeping&nbsp, its recent territorial gains in Ukraine.

Recent statements by Trump’s controversial Defense Secretary&nbsp, Pete Hegseth&nbsp, and Vice President&nbsp, J. D. Vance&nbsp, have deepened European&nbsp, fears&nbsp, that Trump II intends to scuttle US security commitments to Western Europe.

Trump has frequently said the US alliances with Japan and South Korea are worthwhile only if America&nbsp, makes a profit&nbsp, from them. He has said little about the strategic significance of these alliances, which suggests he is not in favor of strategically containing China, even though some of his senior officials are.

Trump reportedly&nbsp, wants&nbsp, to withdraw US troops from South Korea. &nbsp, He has also&nbsp, said&nbsp, he has” no problem” with North Korea testing short-range missiles that cannot reach the US, even though such missiles threaten South Korea. If Trump were to remove America from Pyongyang’s target list, it seems as though he would be willing to let go of South Korea’s defense.

As for the possibility of US intervention in a Taiwan Strait war, Trump has said Taiwan is&nbsp, indefensible and is&nbsp, unimportant&nbsp, compared with China – and that he resents Taiwan for allegedly” stealing” the semiconductor manufacturing business from the US.

After taking part in annual drills at the Tsoying naval base in Kaohsiung, Taiwanese sailors in this file photo, taken on January 31, 2018, salute the island’s flag on the deck of the Panshih supply ship. Photo: AFP / Mandy Cheng

Trump sees China as a threat as an economic threat, which he would address primarily through economic policy rather than military strategy.

He has always preferred tariffs as a tool. Trump argues that tariffs can help to balance the US trade deficit and encourage manufacturing to relocate there. &nbsp, In late 2024 Trump&nbsp, said&nbsp, in an interview with the&nbsp, Wall Street Journal&nbsp, that he would respond to a PRC attack on Taiwan by imposing high tariffs on China, not by sending US forces to help.

Contrary to Mearsheimer’s expectation, Trump seems not to fear that a Chinese hegemony over Asia would seriously jeopardize US prosperity.

Despite China’s impressive economic development, accumulation of wealth and military buildup, America is still the world’s leading economic, military and innovation power. &nbsp, Washington also has a network of strong allies, unlike China.

The US has not abandoned its efforts to support global arrangements made up of liberal principles that serve US interests, or to oppose Chinese expansionism in East Asia. &nbsp, Rather, the Trump II administration may be choosing to let&nbsp, Pax Americana&nbsp, die in a case of domestic politics triumphing over international imperatives that are clearly not irresistible.

Denny Roy is a senior fellow at the East-West Center, Honolulu.

Continue Reading

Time for Europe to get up, stand up – Asia Times

By:
On:
In: Asia, World

America is certainly attempting to conserve Europe at this time.

That is the clear communication of two location statements from the previous year — one by U. S. Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth, the other by Vice President JD Vance. Hegseth stated at a conference in Brussels on February 12 that Europe is no longer America’s top priority for safety:

We’re here presently to declare unequivocally that the United States of America is primarily focused on the security of Europe. The United States is in danger of facing serious threats to our country. We must – and we are – focusing on protection of our own borders… We furthermore face a peer competition in the Communist Chinese with the ability and intention to harm our country and core national hobbies in the Indo-Pacific.

For the sake of all of us, punishment never fail. As the US favors deterring war with China in the Pacific, the US must make the resource compromises that reflect this. [ I put emphasis on mine ]

Hegseth also warned that the US will eventually&nbsp, take its troops out of Europe, and said that Europe may provide the vast majority of aid for Ukraine going forward.

Vance argued two days later at the Munich Security Conference that what he saw as a fallout from the anti-democratic principles was Europe’s biggest risk rather than Russia or China.

The danger from within, the surrender of Europe from some of its most basic values, ideals shared with the United States of America, is the one that worries me the most about. It is not China, it is not any other additional actor.

As evidence of Europe’s retreat from democracy, he cited Romania ‘s&nbsp, cancellation&nbsp, of an election result due to supposed election interference, Sweden ‘s&nbsp, jailing&nbsp, of a rightist activist for burning a Koran, and Britain ‘s&nbsp, arrest&nbsp, of an anti-abortion activist for silently praying near an abortion clinic. He even urged Western governments to spend more on defense and to listen to their members who are upset about current wave after wave of emigration.

Although these statements may be interpreted in two entirely different ways, they both lead to the same fundamental conclusion.

The initial understanding is that Hegseth and Vance are telling Europe hard beliefs that it needs to hear. Even if America wants and needs to be the surety of Western security as it did in the Cold War and World Wars, it can’t, at least not if it wants to be the surety of surveillance in Asia, where its most fearsome foe looms. In terms of manufacturing capacity, China is significantly ahead of America in terms of community and technologies, and it has four instances that of America. Yet with Japan, India, Korea, Australia, and other friends entirely on board, America may be sorely hard-pressed to endure a concerted Chinese attempt to take over Asia.

America is not the democracy’s army anymore, it once was, smothered by decades of underdevelopment and smothered in levels of claims and regulations. There is no choice but to promote because it has. Asia is more economically crucial to the US, and China is a&nbsp, much&nbsp, bigger long-term danger to the US than Russia is. Therefore, it’s just inevitable that America will have to turn away from Europe and the Middle East and instead focus more on Asia.

Vance does make a point about Western values. The EU Charter of Fundamental Rights&nbsp, claims to safeguard freedom of expression, as does the UK’s&nbsp, Human Rights Act of 1998. The laws that prohibit burning the Koran and praying near an abortion office certainly seem to violate the right to free speech. And even though Russia allegedly influenced Romania’s vote, canceling it risks creating a dangerous precedent because it’s always relatively simple to claim or manipulate foreign interference if you’re an immoral autocrat.

So it’s probable that Hegseth and Vance are not only being honest, but are giving Europe a needed wake-up visit.

Hegseth and Vance are portrayed as being dishonest in the following sense. According to this tale, the MAGA action respects and has a close relationship with Russia. Trump draws a false social equality between Russia and Ukraine, unfairly&nbsp, laying some of the blame on Ukraine&nbsp, for the battle.

Regardless of whether or not their help has been significantly significant, Trump has a strong preference for those who support him. Russia has always, favored Trump over his rivals. And unlike the Europeans, who they perceive as wicked deracinated socialists, many on the British right mistakenly view Russia as a follower of traditional Christian and muscular values. But perhaps Trump and his folks just want Russia to prevail over Ukraine.

Hegseth is obviously blowing the whistle when he claims that America needs to divert resources to secure its own borders. Even the$ 7.3 billion that America spends on border security ( just$ 7.3 billion in 2024, despite years of significant increases ), would leave it much less than Ukraine aid. And it’s a little pricey for JD Vance to condemn Romania for allowing an vote when he backs Trump’s plan to do something incredibly related in 2020.

In this view, all Trump’s people are saying is simply an extension of right-wing culture-war politics — their problem for free conversation is a fig leaf, they like European far-right parties because they’re anti-immigration, and they want to change America’s foreign policy up to isolationism and the Northern Hemisphere.

Which of these interpretations is correct, in my opinion, is a little agnostic. I believe that Hegseth is being sincere, while Vance is likely exploiting his domestic political base in the US. In addition, the Trump administration likely includes a number of both right-wing isolationists who want America to leave the world and concentrate all of its efforts on internal ideological conflicts, and conservative internationalists who acknowledge the magnitude of the threat from China.

But more importantly, I think that from Europe’s vantage point, &nbsp, it mostly doesn’t matter&nbsp, which interpretation of America’s recent words and actions is more accurate.

Whether America really wants to concentrate on deterring China in Asia or whether it wants to focus on bullying Canada, Panama, and its own minorities is another question that ignores the cold hard reality that America is stepping down as the protector of European security.

Whether or not Trump’s supporters actually believe Russia to be a threat to Europe doesn’t change the fact that Russia is a threat to Europe. And whether Trump’s people truly care about free speech, that doesn’t change the fact that&nbsp, Europe’s people are angry&nbsp, about recent immigration waves, and if that anger isn’t accommodated through the democratic process, Europe’s stability could be in danger.

In other words, both the challenges that Europe faces and the fact that the US is unwilling to assist in those challenges are obvious and obvious. Europe must either retaliate against the threats that confront it or abandon its position.

Fortunately, some of the Europeans may finally be realizing this. Hegseth is essentially correct in his argument that Europe needs to step up and fill the void the US is leaving, which Benjamin Tallis has in an excellent thread. Zelensky, the president of Ukraine, has been&nbsp saying similar things. And France’s President Macron has &nbsp, called an emergency EU summit&nbsp, to discuss America’s withdrawal from the region.

And fortunately, even without America’s assistance, Europe has the fundamental strength it needs to withstand the threats it faces.

Russia can be handled alone by Europe if it so chooses to.

Just as the US is overmatched by China, Russia is overmatched by Europe. I wrote out the fundamental case two years ago along with some pertinent numbers.

Russia and Europe both have significantly more people and industries. The EU and UK together have half a billion people — more than three times as many as Putin’s empire:

UN source

The ratio is even more lopsided when Turkey is included in the mix.

As for industrial output, even after Russia’s big wartime mobilization, Europe still makes far more stuff. Russia would only be the region’s fifth-largest manufacturing nation if it were included in Europe:

Source: World Bank via Wikipedia and Wikipedia

Even the UK manufactures more than Russia!

This is just a rough measure because not all types of manufacturing are equally useful for war. For example, Russia typically produces a lot of tanks and artillery shells, while Europe produces a lot of pharmaceuticals and medical devices.

However, the comparison is so unfair that it is obvious that a united, determined Europe would prevail over Russia in any protracted conventional conflict, even without the iota of American assistance. And Europe has its own nuclear deterrent as well, mostly in the hands of France and the UK.

It’s also fanciful to think that Europe might band together to combat Russia. NATO command can act as a single military force for any and all European efforts against Russia, even if the United States officially withdraws from NATO or simply refuses to come to its aid.

Crucially, NATO also includes Turkey and the UK, who aren’t in the EU, but both of which are rivals of Russia. Without a Trump-led US weighing the alliance down, it might be free to become the pan-European military force that the region requires.

Politically speaking, Europe is more united than it has ever been throughout its history, as evidenced by how the entire region banded together to impose sanctions on Russia in 2022, and how even traditionally neutral nations like Sweden have been a part of NATO.

But even with unity, Europe will still need the will to fight. None of Europe’s largest countries are currently achieving the level of what it would take to contain Russia without American assistance, despite the many bold rhetoric from officials in Germany, France, and the UK.

This is typically expressed in terms of the share of GDP that European nations invest in their militaries. And yes, Russia spends far more of its GDP on its military than the major European countries do:

Changes to this number can also reveal details about a nation’s priorities. Germany, France, and the UK are showing that they aren’t yet taking the Russian threat as seriously as they should, despite the fact that military spending hasn’t increased significantly in those countries. Poland, in contrast, is clearly taking the threat seriously, which is why Hegseth consistently praises Poland.

Of course, because Europe has a much higher GDP than Russia does, even a smaller share of GDP could result in a higher total military spending amount. However, it’s important to keep in mind that the real purchasing power of the military also depends on prices, such as soldiers ‘ salaries and medical expenses, weapons, vehicles, transportation, etc. are cheaper in Russia than in Europe, that means$ 1 of Russian defense spending counts for more than$ 1 of European defense spending.

In reality, Russia sells its military equipment for a a lot  less. Taking this into account, it probably spends about as much money on its military as all of Europe combined:

Russia’s military expenditure is rising so fast that it is outperforming all European countries combined despite their effort to boost budgets and rearm, according to the International Institute for Strategic Studies ‘ latest&nbsp, Military Balance report…The think tank said that Russia’s military expenditure last year was forecast at 13.1 trillion rubles ($ 145.9 billion ) …Meanwhile, Europe’s combined 2024 defense spending was$ 457 billion …11.7 percent higher in real terms than the previous year…

The Kremlin’s military expenditure would reach$ 461.6 billion, the IISS said, if its spending is calculated in purchasing power parity terms, which are used in nations like Russia where domestic inputs are significantly less expensive than on the global market.

Russia has about 1.1 million active military personnel, whereas NATO does not have nearly as many, despite having about a quarter of that number. But it’s not clear how many of those troops NATO could actually bring to bear in a fight.

Germany, France, and the UK need to immediately and significantly increase their defense spending. Hegseth is correct in saying that Poland’s goal of 5 % of GDP by 2025 is appropriate and roughly equivalent to what the US spent on its military spending during the 1980s during the peace process.

Furthermore, European countries need to make sure their troops are well-trained and their militaries are well-integrated. And Europe needs to strengthen its nuclear deterrent in order to be less dependent on the ( now likely nonexistent ) US nuclear umbrella. France and the UK need to build more nukes, while Germany and Poland need to obtain their own.

There are essentially two dangers for Europe: a lack of cooperation between nations and a lack of popular will within each nation.

It’s possible that European publics simply don’t worry enough about the Russian threat, or that they’ve become so rich and complacent — or perhaps so infused with leftist ideology — that they hate the very idea of spending money on the military. Elites in Europe, particularly those in Germany, France, and the UK, simply need to persuade the public that a strong, integrated defense is necessary.

If they are unable to do that, the European nations will demonstrate that democracies are inherently weak and incapable of standing up for themselves. In the 20th century, democracies passed the toughness test, sacrificing blood and treasure to crush fascism and contain communism. Perhaps America is failing that test in the twenty-first century. If so, it becomes even more crucial that Europe succeed in the examination.

The other danger is that each European country will look after its own narrow interests, throwing the other countries to the wolves. There is a tendency for each nation to view the countries east of it as buffer states, which is a defense-in-depth way to fend off the Russians. This is a dangerous fantasy.

The more Russia conquers, the more powerful it growth, since it basically enslaves each conquered group into its army to conquer the next group. When the USSR attacked Poland in 1919, it did so with a large number of Ukrainian troops, and when it faced West Europe’s Cold War, Polish troops were used to defend it. And so forth. Europe has to make a stand and put up a hard wall, instead of letting Russia continue to absorb and enslave its people bit by bit.

It might make sense for Europe to actively participate in the conflict, helping the Ukrainians stop Russia from grabbing any more territory, if the US abandons Ukraine entirely to Russia, as it appears to be now.

Europe could send troops to strengthen Ukraine’s defenses and learn how modern warfare operates while they are lacking in manpower and grit. But even if direct intervention doesn’t happen, Europe will need to fortify its borders in the east against continued Russian encroachment.

There is actually a historical precedent for this. The UK and France formed a partnership in 1865-1946 to defend the weakening Ottoman Empire from Russian territorial grabs. The result was the Crimean War, in which the alliance of Britain, France, and Turkey — depicted at the top of this post — defeated the Russians and halted their westward expansion. Over the next 20 years, Europe will be able to defeat the new Russian empire, even if it doesn’t actually fight in Ukraine. If Europe increases defense spending and deploys its forces to its eastern borders.

Europe needs to reform its immigration and economy.

It should also go without saying that Europe needs to fix its economy. Over the past ten and a half, the region has stagnated. Even when comparing purchasing power parity, which is unaffected by exchange rate movements, it is obvious that Europe has been trailing the US:

It’s not just that the U. S. has more immigration, either — Europe ‘s&nbsp, per capita GDP has lagged&nbsp, as well.

Particularly poorly has Germany done in recent years. Before the Ukraine war broke out, Russian gas was cut off, and its industrial production has been declining since long before:

Source: &nbsp, Marginal Revolution

When confronted with these facts, Europeans typically comfort themselves ( or attack their American critics ) by highlighting Europe’s lower levels of inequality, life expectancy, and crime. However, those benefits don’t really help the hundreds of thousands of Russian drones, which make Europe a nice place to live. To build up military-industrial strength, you need higher GDP and you need higher industrial production.

How Europe can obtain those things is a challenging question to answer. There are some obvious policy choices, such as removing internal trade barriers between European nations, general deregulation, and reversing the Danish “flexicurity” system to promote labor mobility. Europe also needs as much cheap energy as it can get, since factories are especially power-hungry.

There is a requirement to restart all mothballed nuclear reactors, and many more should be constructed. Europe should also be generating as much solar power as possible, particularly in Spain, where it’s sunny and sparsely populated, before using high-voltage transmission lines to supply the country’s industrial heartland.

On top of that, Europe needs to build a better software industry. AI and especially software will play an increasingly significant role in manufacturing, and exporting software can also help to boost the economy. Europe already has a lot of talented coders, especially in East Europe, and it also has a lot of capital to invest.

However, the region has been having a really difficult time creating a software ecosystem a la the US. Deregulation should be the first step in this regard, making sure that there are no real obstacles to innovation until laws like GDPR are changed. After that, tweak financial laws to encourage venture capital, and work to harmonize standards and regulations across EU member states so the market isn’t fragmented.

Age is one of Europe’s biggest challenges, and every nation in the world is either dealing with it or will have to deal with it quickly. Unfortunately, effective pro-natalist policies still don’t exist ( mostly because France only experiences passing results with them ) Until recently, robust immigration partially filled Europe’s gap, but there is a huge backlash against the types of immigrants Europe has been absorbing in a flurry of mass for the past ten and a half. Even if you doubt JD Vance’s motives, he’s right that European countries need to accede to the will of their increasingly immigration-skeptical populaces, to do otherwise would risk political instability.

The most obvious move in this situation is to simply restrict the set of source countries, in addition to deporting immigrant criminals so that the populace feels more positively about the entire thing. It would probably be a good idea to take fewer refugees from violent war-torn areas and more skilled or semi-skilled immigrants from stable low-crime nations.

Anyway, I have &nbsp, much&nbsp, more to say about the European economy, but for right now, I just want to point out that although Europe desperately needs a stronger military, countries that pump up their militaries without concomitant increases in their economic output typically don’t fare well.

Instead of waiting for America to intervene and save the day like it did in the 20th century, the Europeans need to think about economics and military power as one big interconnected effort.

This article was originally published on Noah Smith’s Noahpinion&nbsp, Substack, and it is now republished with kind permission. Become a Noahopinion&nbsp, subscriber&nbsp, here.

Continue Reading

Can the Alternative for Germany save NATO? – Asia Times

By:
On:
In: Asia, World

” We are at an existential milestone for our freedom and security” ,&nbsp, declared German Foreign Minister&nbsp, Annalena&nbsp, Baerbock, who demanded European involvement in the Ukraine peace talks initiated this week by Presidents Trump and Putin.

Better said, it is an existential time for Baerbock’s Green Party, the most intense conflict hawks on the German political range. Despite the Greens ‘ enthusiasm for the Ukraine War, only&nbsp, 9 % of its members&nbsp, told German pollsters that they would fight to defend their country. &nbsp,

Europe’s war eagles don’t want to spend and don’t want to struggle. Their sense of entitlement derives from their status as customers of the Washington foreign&nbsp, and security&nbsp, policy establishment, which paid billions of dollars a year through USAID, the National Endowment for Democracy&nbsp, ( NED), and prominent private foundations to keep complaisant Germans on the payroll. &nbsp,

” Brutally hard Americans shock Europe”, reads the headline in today’s” Berlin Playbook” newsletter by&nbsp, the German Springer Verlag-owned&nbsp, Politico, &nbsp, the recipient of$ 8 million a year in US government subsidies, according to a&nbsp, White House spokesperson.

Die Welt’s Jacques Schuster, writer, reported February 13 that the shock extends far beyond the peace negotiations in Ukraine, which left the Europeans “relegated to the family’s table.” &nbsp,

President Donald Trump pulled that lock after years of warning that the United States could not and would not be able to defend Europe continuously. &nbsp, Trump&nbsp, on&nbsp, February 13 proposed a new global security alliance with Russia and China that may help the United States to reduce its military expenditure in half.

” At some point, when things settle down, I’m going to meet with China and I’m going to meet with Russia, in particular those two, and I’m going to say there’s no reason for us to be spending almost$ 1 trillion on the military … and I’m going to say we can spend this on other things”, Trump said.

Europe will have to see to its own defence. &nbsp, The only major political party with a clear defense strategy is Germany’s Alternative für Deutschland&nbsp, ( AfD ), the scrappy populist&nbsp, contender that filled the vacuum&nbsp, on the conservative spectrum after Angela Merkel&nbsp, moved her Christian Democrats toward the left.

Merkel suspended&nbsp, compulsory&nbsp, military support for all men 18 years or older in 2011&nbsp, and&nbsp, later&nbsp, allied her gathering with the&nbsp, Social Democrats&nbsp, and adopted green&nbsp, anti-nuclear&nbsp, strength guidelines.

In a&nbsp, December 22, 2024, research, &nbsp, we&nbsp, noted that the&nbsp, AfD&nbsp, is the only European party proposing a&nbsp, comprehensive&nbsp, restoration of&nbsp, military recruitment. The&nbsp, AfD’s&nbsp, gathering system states:

Military support is virtuous services. It should not be understood as a violation of a citizen’s fundamental right initially, but as a civic duty to defend peace and security and ensure the stability of our nation’s politics. The federal troops should be established within society, and the end of conscription has significantly damaged this relationship in recent months.

At the&nbsp, AfD’s&nbsp, group agreement January 12 in the city of Riesa in the state of Saxony, its co-chair Tino&nbsp, Chrupalla&nbsp, proposed to eliminate recruitment from the group’s electoral&nbsp, campaign&nbsp, system. More than 70 % of the 600 members voted to keep recruitment at the vanguard of the battle, outvoting&nbsp, the&nbsp, AfD’s&nbsp, second-highest standard.

AfD&nbsp, Bundestag part Jan-Wenzel Schmidt, a head of the group in the European state of Saxony-Anhalt, told Asia Times,” The&nbsp, AfD&nbsp, advocates the&nbsp, full&nbsp, resumption of recruitment. National support for&nbsp, Germany offers younger people the opportunity for private development while making a&nbsp, valuable&nbsp, commitment to their country. Most importantly, it&nbsp, is essential for rebuilding Germany ‘s&nbsp, defense capabilities” .&nbsp,

He added,” It is&nbsp, critical&nbsp, for Germany to become more independent from its alliance partners. The Bundeswehr]German armed forces ] must be&nbsp, ready, &nbsp, if&nbsp, required, &nbsp, of defending Germany freely.

” This requires the acquisition of present defence equipment and the expansion of our own defense production&nbsp, of which European industry is highly competent, “he continued”. The&nbsp, AfD&nbsp, is strongly committed to NATO account, provided that the empire pieces &nbsp, to its&nbsp, function as a defensive alliance and does not work as a global&nbsp, offender.”

No one will fight and die for” Europe,” the abstract global government sitting in Brussels. &nbsp, But revolutionaries may fight for their country, the source of their personality and the&nbsp, vehicle for its distribution to future generations. &nbsp,

The&nbsp, AfD’s&nbsp, devotion to a large&nbsp, citizen&nbsp, army&nbsp, has profound strategic implications. Under Angela Merkel and&nbsp, her son, Social Democratic Chancellor Olaf Scholz, the Bundeswehr atrophied to the point that it cannot area a second combat-ready section.

Germany’s defence strategy is one of clinging to the American radioactive overcoat while doing nothing. &nbsp, That is an essentially unstable and unsafe state of affairs. Every crisis is sanitized by the lack of regular forces, which propels it further up the nuclear escalation ladder. &nbsp,

Helmut Schmidt clearly recognized this danger that&nbsp, ( West ) &nbsp, Germany would become a nuclear battleground ( and cemetery, as German soldiers&nbsp, darkly&nbsp, put it in the 1970s ) &nbsp, when he served as defense minister ( 1969-1972 ) under Chancellor Willy Brandt&nbsp, and acted on when he became chancellor himself in 1974 ( serving in that position until 1982 ).

Helmut Schmidt. Photo: Wikimedia Commons

Called Schmidt-the-Lip (” Schmidt-Schnauze” ) by his countrymen, &nbsp, he defined military (or&nbsp, theater ) nuclear arms as” nuclear arms that go off in Germany.”

He set out to regain reliable proper equilibrium in Europe, in particular, after&nbsp, the Russian deployment of the MIRVed SS-20 smart IRBM in 1976.

Under Schmidt ‘s&nbsp, leadership, the Bundeswehr grew to its maximum personnel strength of 495, 875 by the end of 1982. The army fielded 38 brigades, deployed over 7, 000 tanks and was judged ( even by American observers ) the world’s best standing fighting force. NATO’s 1979 decision, prompted by Schmidt, to deploy 108 Pershing&nbsp, II IRBM launchers in Europe led to equalization of the in-theatre&nbsp, nuclear balance.

And yet, &nbsp, in 1983, the world came perilously close to nuclear war during the NATO” Able Archer “exercises. By involving UK Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher and German Chancellor Helmut Kohl, NATO tried to make the exercises hyper-realistic, convincing the Russians that the exercise showed a NATO first strike against the Warsaw Pact.

NATO personnel participating in the training session called” Able Archer.” Photo: History Skills

In response, &nbsp, the Soviets readied their forces, including their nuclear forces, and potential disaster was only avoided when NATO headquarters realized the Soviet countermobilization was real&nbsp, and called the whole exercise off.

MiG-27s at Laerz Air Base in former East Germany. These nuclear-capable fighter-bombers were put on heightened alert by the Soviets during Able Archer. Photo: Wikiimedia Commons

After the near-disaster, Germany &nbsp, continued to&nbsp, build&nbsp, up&nbsp, and modernize its&nbsp, conventional forces, &nbsp, a process that only came to a halt after the fall of the Berlin Wall in 1989 and the subsequent collapse of the Soviet Union. &nbsp,

Talk of a peace dividend was reasonable, and it would have made sense to downsize the unified Germany.

What made no sense, &nbsp, and now condemns&nbsp, Germany &nbsp, to impotence in the current security situation in Europe, &nbsp, was a series of mindless government decisions driven by narrow budget considerations&nbsp, of&nbsp, the&nbsp, Social Democrat-Green&nbsp, ruling&nbsp, coalitions under Gerhard Schroeder ( 1998 – 2005 ) and the&nbsp, Christian Democratic-Social Democratic and Christian Democratic-Liberal&nbsp, coalitions headed by Angela Markel.

Those successive governments&nbsp, let the&nbsp, Bundeswehr&nbsp, fall into utter disrepair, its personnel reduced to just 180, 000 ( and falling ) at present.

Trump wants a less militarized security system. The key to achieving this goal&nbsp, is a robust German conventional force. That isn’t merely a matter of budget allocation, but of a national commitment to defense. The&nbsp, AfD’s&nbsp, proposal to revive the citizen army that Germany had in the closing years of the Cold War dovetails with Trump’s strategic vision.

Continue Reading

Why EU may seize Russia’s ‘shadow fleet’ in the Baltic – Asia Times

By:
On:
In: Asia, World

Last month, Polititico&nbsp reported that some EU nations might capture Russia’s” shadow ship” in the Baltic Sea under the pretext of adhering to global climate and piracy laws.

They might even pass novel national laws to validate this, too. The arrest of one of these ships in Finland last December under the excuse that it was engaged in cutting an underground cable reportedly prompted them to do so frequently. The goal would be to reduce the Kremlin’s international revenue flow from Asia-based sales of reduced oil.

Stopping them from operating in the Baltic Sea may have a significant financial impact on the Kremlin because roughly 40 % of its” dark ship” transits through the Baltic Sea, or a little less than 350 warships, whose entire business was roughly comparable to one-third of Russia’s monthly defense budget.

However, these plans have a lot more difficulties in them than policymakers may suppose, issues that were raised in Politico’s statement.

First of all, the seizure of even a solitary ship could result in big political and legal costs due to international law and the ownership of some” shadow fleet” vessels, something that Finland is only just starting to learn after the dramatic incident in December.

If they can’t rely on the EU as a whole to support them, let alone NATO’s head, they may decide to reconsider the intelligence of seizing any more boats, particularly if they need to reconsider this.

In the event that Russia sends naval tankers to escort its” shadow submarine” through the Baltics, the last-mentioned problem leads to the second level about the potential for anescalation.

The deputy chairman of Russia’s political security committee&nbsp, warned&nbsp, that “any assault on our ships may be regarded as an assault on our place, even if the ship is under a foreign flag”. Trump doesn’t favor escalation against Russia, at least at this time, so he might not extend Article 5 guarantees to allies that seize such vessels.

And finally, all of this might simply be too little, too late. Russia and the US have already started backchannel discussions with Ukraine, putting an end to their proxy war when the stereotypically slow EU decides to support the US’s” shadow fleet “‘s capture of the Baltic Sea.

Moreover, this wasn’t hitherto seriously considered due to the two aforesaid reasons, which remain relevant. It’s, therefore, unlikely that the bloc will suddenly change its calculations.

The questions that are being addressed by the previous points are as simple as those in which some EU nations, like the hawkish Baltic States, want to appear as though they haven’t yet exhausted their policy options against Russia.

The realization that there isn’t anything they can do to stop Russia’s on-the-ground advance or collapse its economy as they anticipated could lead to a lot of demoralization because everything they’ve already done hasn’t stopped its on-the-ground advance.

The other two reasons might be even simpler because they could have already persuaded themselves that discussing this alone might deter Russia’s” shadow fleet” from operating in the Baltic and/or spur Trump’s aggression in Ukraine.

No matter how unlikely either outcome is, it doesn’t mean they still sincerely believe they’re possible. These political fantasies could quickly become dangerous, however, if any of the associated states try to unilaterally bring them to fruition.

A major incident at sea could instantly spark a&nbsp, New Cold War&nbsp, crisis that brings the&nbsp, Baltic front&nbsp, of this competition to the center of global attention.

It’s highly unlikely that Trump will turn his back on Russia if this occurs while Trump is still in talks with Putin because it is clear that this is a “deep state” provocation meant to sabotage a peace deal. However, if those discussions go wrong and he decides to “escalate to de-escalate” on better terms for the US, his strategy might change.

That could backfire though if Putin authorizes the navy to defend his” shadow fleet” as a reciprocal escalation&nbsp, following the precedent&nbsp, that he established last November.

Back then, he authorized the first-ever use of the hypersonic Oreshniks in response to Ukraine using long-range Western missiles against targets within Russia’s pre-2014 borders, which signaled that the days of his backing down were over. He used to be self-assured to avoid World War III, but that only unintentionally led to more hostility.

Putin is, therefore, expected to strongly respond to the scenario of European countries seizing his” shadow fleet” in the Baltic, which could lead to a Cuban-like brinksmanship crisis that might easily spiral out of control.

Trump would likely either decline to support such a provocation or would abandon whichever ally unilaterally engages in defiance of his warnings because he doesn’t appear to be willing to risk World War III by cutting off the Kremlin’s foreign revenue flow.

Russia’s” shadow fleet” shouldn’t have anything to worry about because the odds of European nations seizing its vessels are low, even though some of them might still attempt to capture a few ships under false pretenses like last December’s.

Russia might not escalate as it did less than two months ago as long as this is extraordinarily rare. However, any expansion of that policy almost certainly would result in a strong response from Russia.

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

US makes clear Europe’s security isn’t a Trump priority – Asia Times

By:
On:
In: Asia, World

Western defence ministers left their conference in Brussels on February 12 in horror after the new US secretary of defense, Pete Hegseth, &nbsp, told them&nbsp, they may no longer depend on the US to ensure their security.

Hegseth stated that he was there” to express explicitly and unequivocally that the United States of America is not mainly focused on the protection of Europe.”

He even insisted that Western states provide the “overwhelming” share of money for Ukraine in the future. The US has been the largest recipient of Ukrainian military assistance, with US assistance, weapons, and financial aid essential in assisting Kyiv in thwarting the Russian war.

Hegseth’s responses are in keeping with the position of the US senator, Donald Trump, on the NATO intercontinental military empire. Trump has repeatedly urged its members to improve their defence spending because he believes NATO is a burden on the US financially.

But Hegseth’s notes may also be seen as a mark of America’s waning devotion to the conditions of Nato’s founding treaty. Article 5 of the 1949 agreement, signed by the US, Canada, and a number of western European countries, mandates that member states stand up for one another in the event of an military assault.

The US has the biggest army in NATO and the biggest hoard of nuclear weapons. But, on the face of it, attempts to resurrect the alliance appear to have caused a significant change in Europe’s security landscape following the cold war.

However, those who are familiar with the political climate surrounding NATO and the US’s role in protecting Europe may soon learn that this action follows in the footsteps of others who have fought hard to achieve since the Cold War.

Changing over time

NATO was put under enormous pressure to adapt to the new world attempt in 1991 as a result of the Soviet Union’s decline. Some in Washington were yet to be thinking about a rising China, but they were concerned that the US’s financial commitments to Western Europe during the Cold War would not remain.

Almost all Allied states were able to reduce their military spending at this time thanks to the so-called “peace income,” a popularized by former US president George H. W. Bush and past UK prime minister Margaret Thatcher.

The alliance actively participated in maintaining a no-fly area over Yugoslavia in 1992, almost as soon as Western Nato countries were reducing their forces and deploying specialist soldiers.

A novel Nato was becoming evident. It was changing from a social protection group to one of social security, where conflicts were fought within NATO’s borders.

A US fighter jet at an air base in Italy.
A US fighter aircraft at Aviano air center, Italy, after a goal over Bosnia to maintain the no-fly territory in 1993 Photo: Sgt. Janel Schroeder / Wikimedia Commons

This cooperative security agreement was effective up until 2001 when George W. Bush’s management entered the White House and engaged the US in wars in Afghanistan and Iraq. Following the terrorist attacks of September 11 in the US, NATO resorted to Article 5 and went back to the process of social defense.

Some Western countries, including the new, smaller NATO says like Estonia and Latvia, sent soldiers to Iraq and Afghanistan. We need to be there when the US needs us so that they will be that when we need them, according to the consistent explanation I heard in the European state.

However, Barack Obama’s administration introduced a “pivot to Asia” in 2011 before the war in Iraq and Afghanistan were through. The US’s intention was to shift its focus away from China’s Western hemisphere mostly.

By this stage, China had become the second-largest economy in the world and was quickly developing its defense. Incredibly, the US changed its mind in German cities as a result of this policy change. They thought it was the US’s decision to decide that its own stability did not reside in Europe as it has since 1945.

Therefore, in 2014, Russia invaded Crimea and the Donbas in eastern Ukraine. The expansion to Asia appeared to have stopped. However, as US military installations were closed across Europe, US involvement and investment in Western defense remained stagnant. The second Trump presidency followed the pattern established by Obama.

President Joe Biden, who became president in 2021, used the invasion of Ukraine in 2022 to demonstrate to European officials that the US also saw its own stability in Europe and that it would support Ukraine.

However, the US remained persistent in urging Western nations to invest in their own defense. Over the past few years, the UK, Poland, and France have all pledged to raise their defence spending, but overall, the total cost of European NATO states has remained stagnant.

There has been a long-held conviction in the US that Europe is “freeriding” on British strength. This freeriding was permitted to continue while the US saw its personal safety in Europe.

However, as the US’s perspective has changed and the focus is now being put on thwarting China, it has been eager to suggest that European defense should significantly fall under the purview of Europe itself.

Nato won’t leave without a hitch. It is much more probable to vanish slowly with a whimper. After all, who did Trump match on his next morning in business? Never NATO but the Quad: an alliance between Australia, India, Japan and the US in the Indo-Pacific.

Professor of International Security at the University of Bath, David J. Galbreath

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

Continue Reading

Putin’s diminishing returns and Russia’s shrinking world – Asia Times

By:
On:
In: Asia, World

Vladimir Putin, the president of Russia, emailed Donald Trump a cautious congratulations information on the day of his inauguration, before making a protracted call with Xi Jinping, the country’s leader.

From Putin’s standpoint, this makes sense. Russia gets billions of dollars from power sales to China and engineering from Beijing, but from Washington, until recently, generally sanctions and fear.

Moscow is hoping for a more positive relation with the White House’s present owner, who has made it known that he wants a “deal” to stop the Ukrainian conflict.

However, Putin should not be faking the fact that this three-year-old issue has had one of the worst years in Russian foreign policy since the Cold War’s finish.

Transatlantic unification

Russia’s actions around the world have been stifled by the conflict in Ukraine and limited by its possibilities.

The 2022 war, in contrast to the 2014 annexation of Crimea, resulted in an extraordinary amount of intercontinental unity, including the growth of NATO and sanctions against Russian commerce and finance. Both the US and the European Union have recently expanded their sanctions measures.

The EU also forbids the re-export of Soviet liquefied natural gas and ends help for an Arctic LNG project by Russia for the first time.

EU-Russian industry, including Western imports of vitality, has dropped to a fraction of what it was before the battle.

The two Nord Stream pipes, designed to bring Russian oil to Germany without transiting East Europe, lie crippled and unoccupied. Energy profits have about one-half of what they did two years ago.

The West has also provided billions in humanitarian and military aid to Ukraine, giving Russia a degree of endurance for which Russia was ready. In addition, international businesses and professional authorities and intellectuals have flocked to Russia in droves.

China has been the nation’s major lord despite Russia’s” shadow fleet,” an aged group of ships sailing under different administrative and technical evasions.

Since the end of 2021, trade between China and Russia has increased by nearly two-thirds, and the US cites Beijing as the primary cause of Russia’s “dual apply” and other systems.

Since the start of the war in Ukraine, Russia has moved from an energy-for-manufactured-goods business partnership with the West to one of protectorates with China, as one Russia researcher termed it.

Hosting an October gathering of the BRICS countries – today counting 11 people, including the five original people: Brazil, Russia, India, China and South Africa– is unlikely to account for political costs elsewhere.

Two men in suits hold wine glasses.
Russian President Vladimir Putin and Chinese President Xi Jinping bread their companionship in March 2023. Photo: Pavel Byrkin / AFP via Getty Images/ The Talk

Problems at home …

The Russian economy is deeply distorted by increased military spending, which represents 40 % of the budget and 25 % of all spending. The government currently needs the equivalent of US$$ 20 billion annually to pay for new hires.

Russian officials may find a way to satisfy at least some of the populace, but consistent inflation and shortages of supply money directly from the conflict have made this task more difficult.

On the field, the battle itself has killed or wounded more than 600, 000 Russian men. Operations during 2024 were especially dangerous, producing more than 1, 500 Russian deaths a day.

The head who anticipated Kyiv’s acquiescence in time then discovers that Russia’s place is occupied, its naval troops are withdrawn from the Black Sea, and one of its own commanders was murdered in Moscow.

The fact that this presumptive great energy, which has a community of 144 million, has to rely on North Korean troops to help conquer its own land is probably the biggest humiliation.

… and in its yard

Moscow’s commitment to the conflict has affected its ability to influence activities abroad, even in its unique community.

For instance, Russia had much supported Armenia in its ongoing conflict with Azerbaijan over borders and people in the Caucasus following the fall of the Soviet Union.

Moscow has engaged in various ceasefire negotiations. Despite the presence of about 2, 000 Soviet troops dispatched to defend the remaining Armenian population in some of the disputed territory of Nagorno-Karabakh, continuous attacks and territorial benefits for Azerbaijan persisted.

In September 2023, Azerbaijan’s troops immediately took command of the rest of Nagorno-Karabakh. In the largest ethnic purging incident since the end of the Balkan Wars, over 100 000 Armenians have fled. The soldiers stayed out of the situation and afterwards withdrew. The Russian army, absorbed in the terrible efforts in Ukraine, was not rear up or reinforce them.

In recent years, the Azeris ‘ diplomatic and economic standing have improved, helped by support from NATO member Turkey and increased demand for its gas as a substitute for Russia’s.

The Iranian state, which is feeling betrayed by Russia, has for the first time emailed its sentiments to the West, which is content to accept such requests.

Losing control and associates

Russia’s losses in the Caucasus have been dwarfed by the Middle East’s negative impact and impact on its defense.

Russia backed Bashar al-Assad’s Syrian government during the Arab Spring in 2011 and directly aided it by starting defense action in 2015.

However, a mix of rebel groups quickly swept Assad out in December 2024. With the conflict in Ukraine having drained Russia’s potential for more, the protection offered to Assad by Moscow was the closest it could offer.

Russia’s potential departure from the Arab naval base at Tartus and the airport at Khmeimim would eliminate property that made it able to work with Iran, its main strategic companion in the region.

In recent years, Jewish attacks on Iran and other Iranian-backed troops in Lebanon and Syria have had an impact on Russia’s credibility as an alliance and arsenal.

The loss of the Arab foundations, which are crucial start points for expanding Russian energy, and Moscow’s apparent ability to influence the situation on the ground across the Sahel area in north-central Africa would also have a negative impact on Russia’s position in Africa.

Diminishing results

Moscow is increasingly reliant on a variety of different means to try to influence others, given the impasse in Ukraine and the Russian’s corporate losses in Syria and elsewhere.

Disinformation, election interference and various threats are not fresh and are part of Russia’s deeds in Ukraine. However, recent efforts in East Europe have not been very successful.

For instance, massive Russian funding and propaganda in Romania helped to pave the way for a flimsy victory for a candidate for president against NATO in December 2024, but the Romanian government quickly exposed these practices, and the election was voided.

Russia has long been a target of threats and propaganda in neighboring Moldova, especially during recent presidential elections and a referendum on stipulating a” European course” in the constitution.

The tiny nation made a move to lower its dependence on Russian gas, but it is still largely squat on a territorial level due to the separatist region of Transnistria, which had previously provided most of the nation’s electricity.

Despite these factors, the results were not what Moscow wanted. In both votes, a European direction was favored by the electorate. When the Transnistrian legislature in February 2024 appealed to Moscow for protection, none was forthcoming.

It’s fair to say that your power ranking has decreased when Moldova criticizes you.

Wounded but still dangerous

Not all recent events have had an impact on Moscow. The state’s economic dominance has led to the quick reconstruction of a weakened military and support for its technology sector in the near future. With Chinese assistance and evasion of sanctions, sufficient resources and energy will allow the conflict in Ukraine to continue.

Despite some ambiguous signals, Donald Trump’s election will likely favor Putin. A task force headed by Biden, which was established in the US, was threatened with tariffs and additional sanctions, as well as the US president’s threat to impose sanctions on Russian oligarchs who evaded sanctions.

Someone in the White House has publicly admired Putin, expressed doubts about US support for Ukraine, and hurriedly bullied America’s most enticing allies in Latin America, Canada, and Europe.

Most importantly, Trump’s eagerness to make good on his pledge to end the war may provide the Russian leader with a deal he can call a “victory”.

The shrinking of Russia’s world has not necessarily made Russia less dangerous, it could be quite the opposite. Some Kremlin observers contend that a more isolated Russia is less receptive to American economic pressure.

A retreating Russia and a troubled Putin might also choose to make even more careless threats and actions, such as those involving nuclear weapons, especially if reversing their policies in Ukraine would threaten his standing. It is, after all, Putin’s war.

The acrimonious dictum” Russia is never as strong as she looks… nor as weak as she looks” has been ominously rephrased by Putin himself as” Russia was never so strong as it wants to be and never so weak as it is thought to be” would be wise to all observers to take note of.

Ronald H Linden is professor emeritus of political science, University of Pittsburgh

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

Continue Reading

Trump, Putin and Xi as co-architects of brave new multipolar world – Asia Times

By:
On:
In: Asia, World

The Soviet Union’s decline and America’s current collapse have amazing connections. The Soviet Union was a failure because it marginalized the business community. Due to the ruling class’s marginalization of the working class, which has caused serious financial disparity and political polarization, the United States is faltering.

In his first name, Donald Trump resembled Boris Yeltsin, the destroyer of the ancient purchase. Trump may imitate Vladimir Putin’s playbook, a nationalist developer focused on home matters and rebuilding its business center, in his second term.

You Trump and Putin, along with China’s Xi Jinping, become the co-architects of a new multipolar world get?

Russia and the United States have more in popular than they would like to say. Both nations were born from revolutions against European empires and were founded on humanitarian political ideals ( freedom and social equality, respectively ), as American futurist Lawrence Taub noted in the 1980s. And both expanded by retaking control of the land by aboriginal peoples in the 19th century.

Additionally, both the US and Russia both have federated political systems and are generally European in origin. Although both have multiethnic populations, they are dominated by a single group ( WASPs in the US, Russians in Russia ) culturally, economically, and politically.

Cowboys and Russian

Alexis de Tocqueville and, more recently, Paul Dukes, in his book” The Emergence of the Super-Powers” ( 1970 ), also drew parallels between Russia and the United States.

According to Dukes, they had until recently held the view that it had a present life, a global goal, and that the other was the main impediment to its accomplishment. Also, they had the Cowboy/Cossack mystery and a connected inclination to see all political and religious issues in straightforward, black-and-white terms.

Both locations are powers with power attitudes. They are huge in size, close in people, and related in culture, temperate zone location and terrain. Both countries have substantial arms stockpiles and have decades of space exploration experience.

In the 1980s, Mikhail Gorbachev visited China under Deng Xiaoping. Deng successfully incorporated bourgeois concepts into the socialist system of China, promoting economic growth while preserving the Communist Party’s position of authority.

Gorbachev aimed for a similar transformation through perestroika ( economic restructuring ) and glasnost ( political openness ). He lacked the political will and administrative balance to carry out his vision, though.

His laws, in contrast to supervised reform, accelerated social fragmentation and economic decline, which led to the Soviet Union’s abolition in 1991.

In 1989, Mikhail Gorbachev and Deng Xiaoping pose with the Great Hall of the People. Image: Public Domain

The reforms that were carried out by Gorbachev opened the door for Yeltsin, a nationalist who capitalized on popular unpopularity with socialist rule. Alternatively of refining communism, Yeltsin dismantled it.

By scrapping Communist Party power, Yeltsin aimed to change Russia to a Western-style politics and marketplace economy. The end result was widespread corruption, common poverty, and the unregulated increase of elites, who consolidated their wealth at the expense of the Russian people.

It paved the way for a president who reimposed attempt and reclaimed Russia’s independence.

Putin’s fresh get

Clinton permitted the oligarchs to rule Russian scheme, but Vladimir Putin reined them and established state control. His method combined nationalism, financial control and, specifically, national independence, which had been under risk during the Yeltsin years.

Russia reaffirmed its position on the global stage under Putin, utilizing its military and energy resources to challenge European dominance. Although his autocratic strategies were contentious, he helped to restore Russia’s post-Soviet state’s standing as a powerful force.

Lenin speaks from atop a Russian tank in front of the pro-Trump protesters occupying Washington’s Capital on January 6, 2021, challenging the status quo. Image: Public Domain

In contrast to the Soviet Union, there is no such person as Gorbachev, a powerful leader who is valiant enough to press for structural reform.

In the midst of the 2008 financial crisis, Barack Obama had the chance to apply reform. But, rather than pushing architectural changes, Obama bailed out Wall Street. This choice exacerbated the economic inequality and fueled the nationalist uprising that precipitated Trump’s ascendancy.

Trump’s first president bore resemblance to Yeltsin’s career. Both officials disrupted the political creation, challenged entrenched leaders and thrived on nationalist rhetoric.

Trump’s second expression was marred by chaos, administrative collapse, and an emphasis on restoring the old order. His policies—such as trade war, deregulation and a target on nationalism—reflected a broader dismissal of the post-Cold War crony discussion.

Trump is now attempting to impose himself on the state machinery in his next term, much like Putin did in Russia.

Despite their similarities, but, Trump and Putin are different in their interactions with the super-rich. Putin, upon consolidating energy, curbed the effect of Russia’s elites, ensuring that the condition remained strong.

By comparison, Trump aligned himself with America’s wealthiest leaders, securing help from the super-rich who benefited from his tax laws and reform plan. The construction of the American political system—where corporate effect is greatly entrenched—makes a fundamental change doubtful.

Putin was able to organize energy in a way that Trump, constrained by British institutions and legal systems, may get difficult to replicate.

Toward a unipolar universe

A walk beyond superpower conflict and toward a unipolar world has become all but inevitable for many reasons, among them the conflict in Ukraine, the formation of BRICS, the US president’s unsustainable debt and China’s growing economic, scientific and political clout.

China is the world’s largest industrial producer and trading center. Red imports from China are more common than those from Germany or the US. Map created by&nbsp, reddit user creeper321448

When Trump and Putin solve the Ukrainian crisis, they will have an opportunity, in consultation with China, to go down in history as the co-architects of a multipolar world. The three countries could create a 21st-century-appropriate global order.

Capitalist and socialist ideologies, the two main political ideologies of the 20th century, are unique in China. The nation arguably lifted a billion people out of poverty by using 10, 20, and even 50-year plans, took the lead in most of the Industry 4.0 technologies that will shape the 21st century, and became the world’s indispensable industrial and trading nation.

With the Deng reforms of the 1970s, the Chinese rediscovered their 2, 500-year-old tradition of reconciling (yin-yang ) opposites, the basis of the Confucian Middle Way. Xi Jinping, the premier of China, will be able to serve as a mediator between Trump and Putin by presenting Confucian wisdom that has been updated for the twenty-first century.

Don’t be a capitalist or collectivist, be both

Don’t be a nationalist or globalist, be both

Don’t be a realist or idealist, be both.

Contrarian Chinese philosopher Chuang Tzu, who criticized the dangers of being firmly reliant on a fixed identity, belief, or worldview, could be quoted by Xi.

Without praises, without curses,

Now a dragon, now a snake, &nbsp, &nbsp, &nbsp, &nbsp, &nbsp, &nbsp, &nbsp, &nbsp, &nbsp, &nbsp, &nbsp, &nbsp, &nbsp, &nbsp, &nbsp, &nbsp, &nbsp, &nbsp, &nbsp, &nbsp, &nbsp, &nbsp, &nbsp, &nbsp, &nbsp, &nbsp, &nbsp, &nbsp, &nbsp, &nbsp, &nbsp, &nbsp, &nbsp, &nbsp, &nbsp, &nbsp, &nbsp, &nbsp, &nbsp, &nbsp, &nbsp, &nbsp, &nbsp, &nbsp, &nbsp, &nbsp, &nbsp, &nbsp, &nbsp, &nbsp, &nbsp, &nbsp, &nbsp,

You transform with the times.

And never give in to being by one thing.

Continue Reading

Three reasons why gold’s record run is different – Asia Times

By:
On:
In: Asia, World

Gold opened in London January 31 at an all-time history of$ 2.845 an ounce. Platinum is a form of protection from political and financial disasters. More specifically, it has become a special insurance coverage against systemic risk, breaking apart from other resources it used to record – foreign assets and other metals, for instance, as well as inflation-linked Treasuries.

That may worry politicians in Washington.

Trump declared during his election plan,” I may end the war in Ukraine, I will stop the panic in the Middle East, and I will stop World War III from occurring,” adding,” You have no idea how near we are.” Trump vowed to put an end to the Ukraine War within a time of taking office, but peace is still not in view. The West didn’t accept Russia’s primary need for Ukrainian neutrality. Nevertheless, Russia continues to crush out regular gains.

What will the US would if Russia wins the military in a significant way over Ukraine? No single knows, and the price of end-of-the-world healthcare continues to rise.

Gold’s document work is distinctive in three ways.

First, gold stopped trading with other metals, including gold, copper and various professional metal. That partnership lasted from 2007 until the close of 2023. Gold has increased significantly over the past year, while another metal have not.

Next – as we have noted usually – gold traded in combination with the supply of inflation-protected US Treasuries, or TIPS. Both are types of protection against sudden inflation and serious dollar depreciation. However, after the US and its allies seize$ 300 billion of Russian foreign exchange reserves in March 2022, gold became decoupled from TIPS provides. A plan of insurance that the insurer may seize at will is less appealing than gold in a central bank vault.

Third: Different currencies used to indicate a wall against the dollar. The Japanese renminbi, an alternative to the penny, was almost tracked by the silver price. However, in 2022, this marriage ended. For one thing, Japan’s government debt is now 250 % of GDP ( twice the US figure of 120 % ), and the central bank owns more than half of that debt. Japan’s inflation has crept up, eroding consumer purchasing power and weakening the region’s political organizations. The japanese is no longer a haven for foreign currency investors. The Euro, which has the bag of fragile and depressed markets like France and Italy, is not.

The United States must sell more than a trillion dollars of assets to the rest of the world annually with a trade deficit of$ 1.2 trillion and a net international investment position of negative$ 25 trillion. Five years ago, foreign investors stopped purchasing US bill, and since then, the country has been selling tech companies to foreigners to help it balance its trade deficit. A stock market selloff may have negative effects on the US dollar.

During his confirmation hearings, Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent pointed out that the US federal deficit, which ranges between 6 % and 7 %, is unprecedented for a time without war or recession. As I wrote December 20 in Asia Times, the gap may be Trump’s rival. American businesses now have the ability to cover the majority of the US government’s gap since 2020 as a result of foreign central banks ‘ reductions in their investments of US Treasuries. However, to get interest-sensitive personal investors, it will require either lower interest rates to help banks purchases of Treasuries, which are expansionary, or higher yields on government loan.

Both the global financial picture and the geopolitical balance are becoming more dangerous. Gold’s cost run provides a disturbing measure of risk perceptions, and it has evolved into a unique hedge against both types of risk.

Continue Reading

Australia’s opposition overtly cozying up to China – Asia Times

By:
On:
In: Asia, World

When Peter Dutton was questioned this week about whether a Coalition authorities would continue to promote business relations with China, he unwaveringly stated that” the partnership with China will be much stronger than it is under the Albanese authorities.”

Two factors stood up: Dutton’s individual good speech, and his evident confidence about the future of Australia-China relationships.

It’s not uncommon for opposition leaders to undertake a renovation, to their people or policy, as an election approaches. Anthony Albanese gained new cups and lost pounds. Previously, he’d made Labor a little plan target.

Dutton tries to soften some aspects while maintaining the “hard guy” stereotype on others.

Mid-last time Dutton said:” I’m pro-China and the connection that we have with them. I want to strengthen our buying marriage. There are many companies in this area that rely on it, so we need to make sure we strengthen the trading marriage. However, we must be realistic about attempting to maintain peace because [ …] we live in a very uncertain time. The Prime Minister also asserts that the most difficult time has passed since the Second World War, and he is correct that we must work hard for serenity as well.

Contrast Dutton’s 2021 position as defence minister. Does the Foreign state want to hold other nations? Never in my wisdom. However, they do view us as watershed state. Our nation has fought against this retreat of independence and any disregard for the worldwide law of law since Federation.

Dutton has never altered his opinion of China. Instead, he’s camouflaged them with a softer voice, and in what he chooses to stress. Naturally, things have changed and Australia presently has a much better relationship with China. But tremendously, Dutton needs to appeal to the local Chinese-Australian citizens.

At the 2022 election, the Democrats took a big hit among citizens of Chinese heritage.

The party’s review of its election performance, undertaken by former party director Brian Loughnane and frontbencher Jane Hume, said:” In the top 15 seats by Chinese ancestry the swing against the Party ( on a 2PP basis ) was 6.6 %, compared to 3.7 % in other seats. Nowadays, there are more than 1.2 million Chinese citizens living in Australia. During this legislative session, reestablishing the Party’s partnership with the Chinese community may be top of mind.

Reid and Bennelong in NSW and Chisholm and Aston in Victoria are peripheral Work votes that the Democrats want to win because of the significance of the Chinese voting. This weekend, Dutton ( and the PM) will go a Lunar New Year festival in Box Hill in Melbourne.

It’s significant that David Coleman, named by Dutton next trip as the opponent’s new spokeswoman on international matters, has worked extensively with the Taiwanese community.

The talented James Paterson, one of the finalists for the position, was one of them. Paterson’s continued involvement in domestic politics may have had stronger justifications, but his hardline attitude toward China might have been a part of the equation.

Talking up the good side of the Coalition’s report on China, Dutton harked back to the filing of the free trade agreement under the Abbott state, and said” we want there to be common respect in the relationship”.

Over its years in government, the Coalition’s partnership with China has varied between rational compassion and suspicious anger. Things started to get worse when the Turnbull state called China out over international intervention, passed legislation, and removed Huawei from the 5G network.

The Morrison state therefore demanded an investigation into the causes and management of the Covid outbreak in Wuhan, which considerably sunk.

Despite Dutton’s optimism, it’s more than probable that, regardless of who is in charge, managing the China marriage after the vote might be more difficult than it has been during this one.

The Albanese state is cite the significantly improved diplomatic relationship as one of its most significant efforts in foreign policy. China has brought Australia out of the deep freeze, lifting the A$ 20 billion ( US$ 12.4 billion ) worth of trade barriers it had imposed. Governmental and speech markets have resumed. Albanians are favored in China.

The debate surrounding the new Taiwanese artificial intelligence system DeepSeek comes just as the latest sign of persistent security doubts regarding Chinese technology’s penetration.

( Incidentally, Dutton has an account on the Chinese-owned TikTok– despite it being banned from official government devices – in part to engage with the local Chinese community, as well as with younger people generally. )

Australia’s minerals business is likely prone to Taiwanese displeasure. The Senate, in the next month, will consider the government’s Potential Made in Australia policy, which provides a tax opportunity for processing essential nutrients.

The Chinese have a stronghold in this running and have shown a commitment to use it, such as against Japan. Producers in Australia have had a negative impact from China’s multi-billion money investment in nickel processing in Indonesia.

The change in Australian government undoubtedly contributed to the improvement in the diplomatic relationship, but it was also heavily influenced by China’s individual interests. Also, the future of the connection is more in China’s hands than in Australia’s.

China analyst Richard McGregor, from the Lowy Institute, says:” Relations with China are essentially dangerous. The day-by-day connections have returned to a degree of normal. However, all of the fundamental stresses that led to animosity are also present.

These include China’s “military confidence in the region, contest between the US and China, Australia’s worry about foreign meddling and hackers, China’s efforts to build their strength in the Pacific at the cost of Australia. None of that has gone aside”, McGregor says. The biggest change in recent years is that China has grown significantly more effective and willing to spread its wings.

Australia may find itself in the fire if there is a major deterioration in the US-China connection under Donald Trump, especially if his price policy causes a trade war. Simon Jackman, from the University of Sydney, warns that if US policy hit the ( already struggling ) Chinese economy, that would affect Australian exporters.

According to Jackman,” US tariffs or transfer bans that slowed China’s market do cause some short-medium headaches for American exporters.” If global supply chains had to re-equilibrate in response to an revolution in the US-China trade relationship, Australian export business may find themselves looking for opportunities abroad, as in Trump Mark 1 and Covid.

Surprisingly, the earlier search for diverse markets when the Chinese imposed restrictions on American producers may have helped exporters prepare for such a disaster.

Michelle Grattan is academic fellow, University of Canberra

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

Continue Reading