Tag Archives: foreign policy

They Know the Answer to This

Posted on by
Reply

There is a growing recognition around the world of the economic dangers posed by the People’s Republic of China’s export dominance, achieved as it has been through its domestic overproduction and overseas sales at below-cost prices of that overproduction, with the losses to the PRC’s businesses made good by PRC government subsidies.

A Group of 20 statement implicitly criticizing Beijing for its overreliance on exports for growth marks a new stage in international pressure. The statement, issued Tuesday at the G-20 meeting of finance ministers and central-bank chiefs in Asheville, NC, was a striking example of agreement in an otherwise-fractious affair that featured disputes over Russia and President Trump’s policy toward Canada.
Countries across Europe and Asia worry domestic industries in areas such as autos, electronics, and heavy machinery won’t survive China’s push to export its way out of domestic economic troubles.

The US Treasury issued a statement summarizing the matter, although Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent shied away from mentioning the PRC by name.

It said “countries with excessive and persistent external surpluses” should end policies that “result in an overreliance on exports for growth” and cause harmful spillovers around the globe.
Those countries should “eliminate nonmarket policies” and “remove distortions that constrain domestic consumption….”

Of course all of the G-20 players know full well that the PRC won’t do anything of the sort. Those exports are too important an economic weapon for the PRC to lay them down.

Last year, China responded to American tariffs by restricting the export of rare earths to every country, pummeling global manufacturers. Beijing also cut off certain mineral exports to Japan after a spat over Taiwan.

These world “leaders” know this weaponization. They just need to stop importing from the PRC, whether by serious tariffs, or complete refusal to buy PRC products. The doing would correct the economic damage, and from that, greatly reduce the political risk to their national sovereignty (a risk those “leaders” still don’t seem to see). The doing in the longer run also would more than pay for the disruption of shifting their supply chains. They just lack the courage to do it, satisfying themselves, instead, with yapping about it from the safety of their porches, and so they’re failing their people.

Action and Response

Posted on by
Reply

Russian President Vladimir Putin has been stepping up his drone invasions (they aren’t incursions; they’re deliberate and deliberatively provocative), sabotages, cyberattacks, election interferences, and on and on of Europe’s NATO member nations. The reason, Remigijus Bridikis, Lithuania’s State Security Department Director, says is this:

Russia is looking for ways to reduce support among NATO countries for Ukraine and, one of the secondary effects they are also pursuing is spreading panic[.]

The barbarian’s efforts to cow the Ukrainian people into submission with his terror bombing of houses, apartment buildings, hospitals, schools, shopping malls, and on and on is failing miserably. Those folks are too fresh from the Soviet jackboots on their necks to be intimidatable.  The populations of other nations are long gone soft and morally weak, he thinks, coddled as they’ve been, in fact, by American defenses and expenditures, so he’s starting to try those populations.

Putin isn’t far wrong regarding central and western Europe’s populations and government men and women. He’ll find the Baltic and Polish people, though, to be made of the same sterner stuff as Ukrainians and for the same reason.

The question becomes, then, how Germany, France, Spain, Italy, UK, Netherlands, Brussels, et al., will respond to Putin’s lower-key—journalists are pleased to call them “gray zone”—attacks. Those nations and their peoples have two paths along which to respond. One is to slowly back away and reduce support for Ukraine’s fight for its existence, hoping the barbarian at their gates will move on.

The other path is for them to have the moral courage and associated morale to step up their support for Ukraine and to do so materially, not just rhetorically.

That’s an open question, unfortunately.

A Good Start

Posted on by
Reply

President Donald Trump (R), through Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent, has announced Operation Economic Outcast, a far more broad based and farther reaching set of economic sanctions on Iran than any prior set.

It’s a badly needed expansion of the economic circumcision of Iran, but it assumes that the terrorists running Iran will feel the pain of the cutoffs and isolation that Iranian citizens will experience. That’s unlikely, since those terrorists don’t care about their subjects, only about their personal power and their mantra of destruction.

A kinetic component remains badly needed.

Sanctioned oil tankers need to be seized wherever they are, whether or not they still have Iranian oil on board, and they need to be sold to legitimate shippers or to breakers.

The roads, railroads, bridges, and pipelines in Iran that carry oil, natural gas, and other cargo toward the People’s Republic of China need to be cut in several places, with the servicing repeated as necessary.

Shipping in the Caspian Sea that carries Iranian goods to Russia or to other nations on that Sea for transshipment to Russia and that carry foreign goods to Iran need to be sunk.

These kineticisms won’t impact the terrorists’ pain threshold enough to get them to accept the terms of renouncing and dismantling their nuclear weapons program and acknowledging that the Hormuz Strait is international water and not controlled or influenced by Iran. They will, though, severely circumscribe the terrorists’ ability to do much of anything beyond Iran’s borders.

Another VA Failure

Posted on by
Reply

It used American veterans’ genetic and medical data to conduct research with the People’s Liberation Army of the People’s Republic of China, which the PLA used, and is using, in its development of brain-controlled weapons. The work was done through US-blacklisted PRC companies directly tied to the PLA.

These were done before Doug Collins took over as VA Secretary, but these are irredeemable failures.

Deliberately working with the PLA on PLA weapons makes it a requirement.

Veteranos Administratio delende est.

Operating in a Hostile Drone Environment

Posted on by
Reply

The US Army tried that in an exercise in Germany in which Ukrainian drone operators were the OPFOR. The OPFOR won that engagement very easily, and in a real world shooting fight, it would have been a disaster for the US forces.

Because of that—all of us learn more from our failures than our successes—the exercise, Combined Resolve, was a treasure trove of learning opportunities regarding ground forces operating in a hostile drone environment.

Exercises like Combined Resolve are run precisely so that forces can experience realistic combat conditions. Army leaders in Europe over recent years have taken advantage of having Ukrainian forces on hand to participate and impart their hard-won skills to US and allied troops in practice, on simulated battlefields. The expectation is that failures are educational. British and Swedish exercises have also resulted in easy Ukrainian triumphs.

The problem with this, though, is identified by Air Force General Alexus Grynkewich, Commander, United States European Command, and Supreme Allied Commander Europe:

You can’t get training like this in the United States.

Grynkewich added that after NATO forces exercise against Ukrainian forces, “The change is remarkable.”

Why can’t we get that sort of training stateside? The USAF has stateside exercises where the OPFOR fly the actual aircraft of enemy nations where we have examples of them, and uses USAF aircraft flown by pilots steeped in enemy tactics and doctrine where enemy aircraft aren’t available. The Navy’s air forces do the same.

America pioneered using long-range drones in war. The Pentagon has recently spent billions acquiring new drone and counterdrone technology and formed special units to operate it.
Still, in the Middle East this year, the US has struggled to defend against Iran’s long-range drones, which have killed and injured soldiers and destroyed aircraft.

Why don’t we have drone exercises—especially with the short-range drones optimized for attacking close-in OPFOR or OPFOR in contact with our formations—to train for dealing with, operating in, and defeating enemy forces operating under or behind their drones?

One answer to my question, I freely speculate, is that there are too many bureaucrats, both uniformed and civilian, in the Pentagon. These folks are clogging up mission development, weapons design and development, and weapons acquisition, and therewith are badly slowing down field training for this environment by denying our field personnel the requisite equipment.

Another answer, which dovetails with that Pentagon bloat (again, I freely speculate), is that there is too many politics involved in the development and acquisition of these systems. Congressmen and Senators fight for the associated spending to be done in their districts and States, too often balkanizing the whole process, slowing it down, making it less efficient, and driving up costs entirely artificially.

Clear those two, and the situation, both in the training and on the battlefield, will greatly improve.