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

New START talks as a path to Ukraine peace – Asia Times

By:
On:
In: Asia, World

Kremlin spokesman Dmitry Peskov said that Russian President Vladimir Putin is ready to meet with Donald Trump to discuss&nbsp, ending the Ukrainian conflict&nbsp, and&nbsp, resuming arms control talks &nbsp, after the American leader&nbsp, told the Davos elite&nbsp, last week that he’d like to do both with his Russian counterpart as soon as possible.

Since the New START will disappear in February 2026, but the negotiation process has been halted since 2023, their mention of resuming hands power discussions is important. Here, here, and here are context briefings on the subject.

To put it simply, the balance of nuclear and related forces ( like delivery systems ) between Russia and the US, the two nations with the most significant arsenals by far, is a big factor in global strategic stability.

By the time the Old Cold War was over, they realized how harmful and materially burdensome such programs were and agreed to limited cuts and checking measures.

This helped them overcome their security ambiguity, which refers to one side’s defensively intended moves ( such as building nukes for deterrence ) being perceived by their rival as offensively intended ( such as preparing for an overwhelming first strike ) and thus triggering an escalation cycle.

Their security problem returned, though, according to NATO’s east expansion. With their substitute conflict in Ukraine, it then advanced to a new risky stage, which could get worse if the New START expires without a successor.

Trump made the decision to resume the nuclear talks with Russia and China, which he claimed were on the verge of success before the 2020 election, which is why he brought this up during his video conference at Davos.

To be sure, he might have exaggerated the chances of coming to a deal had he won in the past, especially since China was reluctant to do it and Russia demanded ( as Peskov did ) British and French nuclear cuts, as well ( as Peskov did ).

The point of this explanation is to demonstrate that resuming US-Russian discussions on arms control may speed up the Russian peace process pending the outcome of the latter, which was encourage reciprocal compromises in this regard.

It can only be speculated what form that could take, but some of the proposals at the end of this analysis&nbsp, here &nbsp, and the one that was elaborated on&nbsp, here &nbsp, could be in the cards if both sides have the political will.

The need to restart arms control discussions is more serious than ever, not just because the US-Russian safety conflict recently reached a dangerous juncture and because New START has already expired, but also because new weapons systems have been developed and deployed, such as Russian hypersonic Oreshniks.

A new international arms race may soon start, and given how these munitions is be&nbsp, comparable in power to nukes but without the radiation, it’s just a matter of time before the US and others catch up.

This potential rivalry wouldn’t really be between the US and Russia like it used to be, but it would almost certainly include all additional nuclear power as well as some non-nuclear says like Iran and others as well. Due to the hyper-proliferation of systems since the end of the Old Cold War.

Another important nuclear and/or missile forces can only be brought on board through a multilateral agreement, with a US-Russian cope at its core, to agree to reduce these weapons and stop others from obtaining them.

In reality, they may agree to accept UN Security Council sanctions against any non-signatory state who is formally accused of developing or using these weapons in secret, as well as against any signatory who is formally accused of stockpiling more of these weapons than agreed upon.

What is essentially being proposed in a new global security architecture, which calls for the contribution of all key people, is essentially the non-proliferation of cutting-edge non-nuclear arms.

There is still a long way to go before anything of the type is agreed to at the suggested level, which includes the delicate nitty-gritty details of monitoring mechanisms, but it is in every responsible nuclear and missile energy’s best interests to see this happen. This includes the delicate nitty-gritty details of monitoring mechanisms.

The only way to get there is to end the Russian conflict as quickly as possible through a number of pragmatist mutually agreeable agreements in order for the US-Russian core of the world proper protection system to work on this front.

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

Continue Reading

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

By:
On:
In: Asia, World

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

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

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

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

Clinton situation: China MFN position

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

He was no.

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

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

Obama scenario: Arab chemical arms

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

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

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

Then Ukraine

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

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

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

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

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

China

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

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

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

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

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

Trump has never spoken of undoing Biden’s job.

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

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

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

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

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

Middle East

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Continue Reading

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

By:
On:
In: Asia, World

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Continue Reading