“The long-running narrative of “collusion” between Donald Trump’s 2016 presidential campaign and Russian intelligence peddled by hack journalists and entitled former U.S. “intelligence” officials has been dealt another significant blow. Never mind the fact that absolutely no evidence linking Trump to a Russian influence operation in 2016 has been uncovered (despite nearly two years of an out-of-control special counsel investigation), President Trump last week withdrew America’s participation in the Reagan-era Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces (INF) treaty with Russia.”
“A balance of power paradigm that pits one group of foreign states mostly serving American interests against another, is the best way. Enough of over-committing U.S. forces to the field of battle at the outset of any potential conflict. Play all sides until the best deal can be reached.
The United States isn’t opposed to fighting. The country has been engaged in warfare of some kind for 222 out of its 239-year existence (that’s roughly 93 percent of American history). It’s not about being afraid to fight. The issue is when to fight and how (also, why, particularly in the case of the Middle East).
American policymakers cannot formulate a cogent answer to those questions. At least, not until the wonderfully disruptive Age of Trump.”
“Once U.S. forces are gone, only the region’s local actors will be left. And, nothing kills a toxic relationship—such as the one between China and North Korea—like proximity. For once, the United States might end up taking the role of a neutral mediator in any future conflict in northeast Asia. That is much to be preferred over being at the front of a potential nuclear conflict on the Korean peninsula.”
“Putin’s hand is remarkably weak—and he knows it. Ultimately, Putin needs a deal more than Trump does, though there is no denying that a deal will be good for the United States, too. Whatever bluster Putin may exhibit in public, if Trump grants Putin the simple kindness that international law insists all world leaders be granted by fellow world leaders—legitimacy—then the Russo-American relationship will stabilize.”
“America faces a world of severe threats with rapidly growing capabilities to threaten the United States—from space. A succession of American administrations have watched the threat grow over the last 30 years and done little to deter it. Now the threats are metastasizing. The solution, as Donald Trump has shown since 2016, is in nationalism—that is, space nationalism.”
“Even among enemies one must respect them. In so doing, perhaps, actual trust can be garnered. And, from there, hopefully, peace can be fostered; threats can be mitigated; and everyone can move toward prosperity. But, it all starts with respect. Trump gave Kim the respect that he had been seeking for most of his life from the West. In return, Kim gave Trump respect.”
“Investing in space-based missile defense will be the leapfrog that the United States needs to maintain its dominance and secure itself from a world gone haywire.”
“With the two leaders talking–and the Chinese understanding the ramifications of an American invasion of North Korea–it seems unlikely that, irrespective of whether North Korea achieve nuclear weapons capability, the North will push their proverbial luck with a nuclear war against the world.”
“Far from being a weakness, Trump’s willingness to deal fairly—and strongly—with these states will likely be remembered as the cause for no major war breaking out on Trump’s watch.”
“There is no way for Kim to win any other course of action aside from negotiating in good faith; adhering to Trump’s demands for de-nuclearization; and accept Trump’s offer of economic and political assistance.”