#diplomacy

F*ck Trump?

C7EE72AC-CBA0-42E2-9253-C41134CBAA35.jpeg

Would DeNiro have got the same rapturous applause at the Tony’s for saying “F&ck Trump” if it were held this evening? Most likely answer is yes. Hollywood and the liberal mainstream media outlets can’t wipe the bitter taste from their mouth that the man they despise so much has done something not seen since Reagan and the fall of the Berlin Wall. While details of any negotiations are sketchy it is without a doubt a milestone in history.

They say “it takes one to know one.” Even if it holds true that both are narcissistic madmen, that’s what it took to achieve these talks. This is the power of unpredictability. Unlike the gutless and all too predictable diplomacy of recent decades, expediency has not been put before principle. It took a horses’s head in the bed to make Kim realize that he must reform. Better to do so on terms that are in his favour than face military reprisals. Sometimes being the most powerful military in the world has its advantages. After all Al Capone said, “I grew up in a tough neighborhood where I learnt you could get much further with a kind word and a gun than just a kind word.”

How political elitism has been exposed since he took office. While Trump has had a volatile revolving door in his own administration, how telling to see the smiles wiped off the face of G-7 cronies. Instead of working for the greater good of constituents they seem insistent on padding future careers in bodies they have set up for life outside politics. Spineless and literally “brow” beaten.

Unconventional, brash, rude, petulant, moody or whatever else the liberals want to rightly or wrongly categorize Trump as, DeNiro would be well advised that the global audience witnessing Trump shaking hands with Kim are probably overwhelmingly applauding the President indirectly saying “F*ck DeNiro”

Will liberal media go back to reruns of Stormy Daniels or admit they have been so wrong?  Expect belittling articles downplaying the significance of these talks. Whatever they scribe the script for the 2020 re-election is already written, even if Bill Maher gets his wish for a recession.

Folly of The Economissed

1112BF95-7829-4171-92B5-D4197936EB30.jpeg

On a flight back to Tokyo this week a copy of The Economist was in the magazine rack. A subscription had long been cancelled for its plunge into yet another group think rag. A long time ago, the magazine was regarded as the go to for objective journalism from economics, geopolitics through to specials. Now it is little more than a cheerleader. A chance was given to see if things had changed. If anything it has gotten worse. This article on the peace deal only reinforces the pathetic bias and wish that Trump losing is preferable to any alternative including world peace.

For no sooner had Trump sent a letter calling the peace talks with North Korea off, The Economist was writing about humiliation. They’ve got to be kidding?

While even the blind can see any postponement is a setback, it is not without reason. Trump has made absolutely clear from the beginning – ‘peace or business as usual. Your move Kim.’ 

This started when Kim Jong-Un fired angry remarks when long scheduled war games were  commenced by the South. If one wanted to gift the upper hand to the North Koreans in the negotiations then stopping annual war games would be a great way to do it. It was tactical.

Glass jaw or not, firing salvos at Vice President Pence or standing up US envoys is not conduct becoming peace talks. Trump’s letter sounded somewhat childish with respect to comparing arsenals again but the point being made to Kim is clear – “we’re not playing. Put up or shut up!

This is exactly what you’d want Trump to do. Not some Obama era red line which crossed carries no consequences. This is exactly why there is so much geopolitical instability thanks to 8 years of utter weakness in foreign policy. This isn’t about humiliation at all. This about a world leader who is using clear military and economic strengths at the negotiating table with a dictator who 6 months ago threatened to nuke Guam. We should not want Trump to appease at any cost which we’ve seen throughout history carry devastation.

The reason Kim was drawn to the negotiating table was because China realized the new sheriff wasn’t bluffing. Why was Beijing Kim’s first state visit before shaking hands on the 38th parallel with President Moon?? He was seeking assurances from the other dictator on staying in power lest booking a plot of land in exile in Sichuan province if things require him to step down.

Kim needs to realize that the ‘throwing toys out of the cot strategy’ of decades past no longer works. He was hoping to get an apology from Trump along with better concessions ahead of the negotiations. Trump essentially told him the ‘art of the deal’ in that the status quo remains if he doesn’t wake up to harsh realities. Sending home three American hostages was a token.

It will be China sending Kim back to the meeting table with Trump because it will ultimately be managing the protectorate after any peace is signed for its own geopolitical aims. China does NOT want US friendly forces on its border. Best keep the buffer by getting Kim to accept a lesser deal where he gets to keep his life. For a man in his early 30s he can either choose to go down fighting or see out his days with the embezzled billions and bevy of beauties in his concubine.

To take The Economist at its journalistic integrity, it will be secretly happy if North Korea doesn’t sue for peace because any victory for Trump is something it can’t swallow. For the magazine to have that level of disingenuous editorial speaks volumes about turning a once prestigious brand into a tabloid. Reading through the blurb of The Economist’s 2017 Annual Report and the trends tell the story.

World on the brink of WW3? Press on the blink more like it

9C37D7FB-6B41-492C-9481-F19515C18AB7.jpeg

When you read a title like “world on the brink” it is easy to be misled to thinking this is a Trump/Putin related incident. The fact is the Iranian backed Houthi in Yemen have been lobbing ballistic missiles at Riyadh and staging border skirmishes for years. The Americans have been advising Saudi Arabia where to strike the Houthi in Yemen. This is a decades old fight and since the death (assassination) of former President Saleh last year the Houthi have become even more emboldened than they were during the Arab Spring 8 years ago.

Yet it is so easy to draw conclusions. Did the mainstream media report the sinking of a Saudi naval frigate in the Bab-al-Mandeb strait in Jan 2017 which took the lives of 176 sailors? Has the Israeli shekel collapsed since Trump and Putin exchanged verbal salvos? No. The Tel Aviv indices? No. Surely a relatively liquid financial barometer in a country that has been warned not to intervene by Putin too. Would quickly price in any fears.

The situation over Syria may be tense but if you look at what Putin is really trying to do he is weighing the size of Trump’s guts to call his bluff. We shouldn’t forget when Russia first intervened in Syria several years ago, Putin told Obama that US forces had two hours to get out of harm’s way. That is the warning one would give the Luxembourg armed forces, not the most powerful military in the world. Obama heeded Putin. Putin had carte blanche. That’s why nothing happened with the Ukraine. Sanctions were put in place but no one made any attempt to ‘change behviours.’

It is worth nothing that Syria is Rosoboronexport’s (Russia’s military export wing) 2nd largest customer after Iran. Putin is sick of having the West try to remove his clients. Assad is key to Russia’s foothold in the Middle East. With an essentially pro-Iran Iraqi government and Syria as well as Hezbollah Putin has a geopolitical doormat from the troubled separatist states to Russia’s south to Lebanon.

The problem Putin faces is if Trump yanks his chain, does he shoot US missiles down as threatened? He said they’ll attack launch sites which effectively equals sinking US naval vessels as that is how they are launched. This is perhaps the easiest way to escalate a skirmish out of Putin’s control. If Putin doesn’t do anything, Trump holds one over him. So Putin is hoping by the use of very strong language that Trump backs down. It is not exactly the best way to handle on either side but this is the first time in almost a decade where the US has a leader that won’t be pushed around. Unpredictablity is a strength not a weakness

Looking at history. The NVA was supplied by the Russians during the Vietnam War and the Afghans were supplied by the Americans in the war with Russia. Nothing new. The Russians returned the favour when the “Coalition” deposed Saddam and entered Afghanistan. Proxy wars have been fought for over 50 years.

The US is dispatching a carrier battle group to the Mediterranean. Theresa May is sending a UK submarine. The Russians are conducting military exercises with 11 warships in the same area. Of course scare stories are amock and clickbait media will report how we’re two seconds from a thermonuclear exchange.

It begs the question had Obama suggested to Putin he was bombing Syria, he would be praised for level headed genius. If Trump managed to bomb Syria with no Russian response then would we see the media have a mea culpa moment? Not a chance. It would be palmed off as a lucky break. If we go back in history, we can see good nations that did nothing let tyrants get away with murder. Have a look at Russia and China in the last decade. Man made military bases in territorial waters of other nations, early warning systems on the contested  Spratly’s and agreements in Vanuatu and Sri Lanka which provides naval ports for China. Putin is getting the old ‘union’ back together and there are plenty of willing despots happy to ride his coattails.

Putin is livid at the outcome of the nerve agent scandal seeing the expulsion of so many diplomats. He is not one that likes criticism as many an oligarch has found out the hard way. The question for those that fear what Trump might do should worry more about what will happen if he doesn’t. The downside is that the media likes Putin more than Trump. For a president with a glass jaw, his moves will be far more heavily scrutinized than Putin’s. He’s damned whichever way he turns. Putin on the other hand  willl be excused for being a dictator, whatever he chooses to do. The media will hope it dies down as they turn a blind eye and pillory their own governments for not taking in enough refugees.

Appeasement is an ever widening feature of governments in the West today. There are Neville Chamberlains everywhere. Who will stand up to Putin if Trump doesn’t? Whether Syria is the right battleground is beside the point. Because if it isn’t Syria it will end up being somewhere else.  The problem is only Trump “can” credibly shirt-front the former KGB officer.