Tripartite

In May, Edward Wong in The New York Times wrote that President Trump's

actions and statements suggest he might be envisioning a world in which each of the three so-called great powers — the United States, China and Russia — dominates its part of the globe, some foreign policy analysts say.

It would be a throwback to a 19th-century style of imperial rule.

Mr. Trump has said he wants to take Greenland from Denmark, annex Canada and re-establish American control of the Panama Canal. Those bids to extend U.S. dominance in the Western Hemisphere are the clearest signs yet of his desire to create a sphere of influence in the nation’s backyard.

He has criticized allies and talked about withdrawing U.S. troops from around the globe. That could benefit Russia and China, which seek to diminish the American security presence in Europe and Asia. Mr. Trump often praises President Vladimir V. Putin of Russia and Xi Jinping, China’s leader, as strong and smart men who are his close friends.

In March, Washington Post columnist David Ignatius had argued much the same, that

The best assessment of Trump’s strategic “vision” that I’ve seen comes from Alex Younger, a former head of the British intelligence service known as MI6. He said in a Feb. 21 interview on BBC’s “Newsnight” that “we are in a new era where, by and large, international relations aren’t going to be determined by rules and multilateral institutions. They’re going to be determined by strong men and deals"...

Trump seems to envision a new balance of power with three poles: the United States plus Russia and China, whose leaders he sees as kindred spirits. The rest of the world, including the United States’ oldest allies, must fend for itself.

Two months later, as more evidence rolled in, Edward Wang in The New York  Times agreed, writing that President Donald Trump's

actions and statements suggest he might be envisioning a world in which each of the three so-called great powers — the United States, China and Russia — dominates its part of the globe, some foreign policy analysts say.

It would be a throwback to a 19th-century style of imperial rule.

Mr. Trump has said he wants to take Greenland from Denmark, annex Canada and re-establish American control of the Panama Canal. Those bids to extend U.S. dominance in the Western Hemisphere are the clearest signs yet of his desire to create a sphere of influence in the nation’s backyard.

He has criticized allies and talked about withdrawing U.S. troops from around the globe. That could benefit Russia and China, which seek to diminish the American security presence in Europe and Asia. Mr. Trump often praises President Vladimir V. Putin of Russia and Xi Jinping, China’s leader, as strong and smart men who are his close friends.

Not quite as presciently- it appears- Ignatius had added

European leaders tell me they are so worried about an expansionist Russia that they are prepared to take a strong stand in Ukraine by committing to send troops there to deter further aggression after a ceasefire. The Russians are outraged, but if Europe holds firm, will Trump really take Putin’s side against America’s closest allies? I doubt it.

Doubt no longer. In the months which have followed, Donald repeatedly has taken Russia's side againt Ukraine, pressuring Zelenskyy to give up territory and on a few occasions claiming that Ukraine itself started the war. While the President criticizes NATO, his Administration has advocated "ending the perception, and preventing the reality, of NATO as a  perpetually expanding alliance."

That attitude throws into doubt the possibility of an agreement ending the Russia-Ukraine war which would give Ukraine significant security guarantees. The President does not view the transatlantic alliance as helpful to his dream of a world dominated by the world's three greatest powers- Russia, China, and the USA. Unfortunately

... the haggling over who gets dominance over what and where would likely come at the expense of (countries other than the USA, China, and Russia).

"Today's major powers are seeking to negotiate a new global order primaraily with each other," Monica Toft, professor of international relations at Tufts University in Massachusetts wrote in the journal Foreign Affairs.

"iIn a scenario in which the United States, China, and Russia all agree that they have a vital interest in avoiding a nuclear war, acknowledging each other's spheres of influence can serve as a mechanism to deter escalation," Toft said.

If that were the caase, "negotiations to end the war in Ukraine could resemble a new Yalta," she added.

Yet the thought of a Ukraine deemed by Trump to be in Russia's sphere is likely to send shivers down the spines of many in Europe- not least in ukraine itself.

"The success or failure of Ukraine to defend its sovereignty is going to have a lot of impact in terms of what the global system ends p looking like a generation from now," Mankoff said.

When Donald Trump forces an end- an unjust end- to the war in eastern Europe, he will have taken a step in promoting Vladimir Putin's plan to gain control over the entire region. "He (Putin) wants to see it happen," President Trump says. We know what Putin wants, and it has been clear since the beginning of this presidential term that Donald Trump wants the same thing.

Trump: "I saw a very interesting President Putin today. I mean, he wants to see it happen. He wants to see it. He told me very strongly. I believe him. Don't forget, we went through the Russia Russia Russia hoax together and he'd call me, I'd call him, I'd say 'Can you believe… pic.twitter.com/CKFq6bYYe2

— Aaron Rupar (@atrupar) December 28, 2025

 

Share |

The Olympic Games

As some eagerly, and some of us less eagerly, await the 2008 Olympics in Beijing, China, we recall the hope of the naive and the hype of the economically self-serving that the "Olympic Games will have definitely a positive, lasting affect on the Chinese society."

So saith International Olymic Committee President Jacques Regge, as related by Joshua Kurlantzick in "Swifter, Higher, Crueler (subscription required)," which appeared in the 2/27/08 issue of The New Republic. Kurlantzick notes that the reality has been far crueler than predicted. Brad Adams, head of Human Rights Watch's Asia division, warns "we are seeing the gagging of dissidents, a crackdown on activists, and attempts to block independent media coverage," a conclusion consistent with that of Amnesty International. According to Kurlantzick, Financial Times has revealed that the Chinese government has assumed "greater swathes of government bureaucracy" while a new law restricts "foreign news agencies working in China and also tightened control of the domestic press by launching a crackdown on 'false' news and shutttering some 18,000 blogs and websites since April," 2007. Anxious to avoid negative publicity once the media arrives for the Games, "Chinese authorities have arrested, abducted, and simply beaten activists, writers, and lawyers."

And what about the reaction of George W. Bush, head of the party which once masqueraded as singularly anti-Communist? Mr. Bush has promised to attend the Olympics, calling to mind attendance at the Berlin games by nations which thereby signaled acceptance of the legitimacy of the Nazi regime. Human Rights Watch's Asia Advocacy director, Sophie Richardson, told the New York Times "Mr. Bush is providing "an enormous propaganda opportunity to an abusive government."

A president who toppled Saddam Hussein at the cost of nearly 4,000 American lives, hundreds of thousands of Iraqi lives, and an effective fight against terrorism could lead in defying the brutal dictatorship in Beijing. Of course that wold involve offending Mr. Bush's corporate benefactors, but there is always a first time.

Quote of the Week


"(Treasury) Secretary (Henry) Paulson has given China the same old speech yet again, urging it to reform without laying out the specifics of what is required. Right now, China subsidizes its exports to the United States, the Americans do nothing, so why should the Chinese change? We're practicing a policy of appeasement towards China."

-Henry Morici, University of Maryland, as shown on Lou Dobbs Tonight, 11/12/07

Quote of the Week


"While technologically and financially you are giants, morally you are pygmies."

-House Foreign Affairs Committee Chairman Tom Lantos (D.-Cal.) after hearing from Yahoo Incorporated's chief executive officer Jerry Yang and its general counsel, Michael Callahan. (Yahoo upon request had provided the government of mainland China information about the online activities of journalist Shi Tao, who was then jailed for ten years for engaging in pro-democracy efforts.)

Reflections on the Debate (Philadelphia)- no. 5

These guys are dangerous. Maybe Barack Obama was a community organizer. It's beginning to appear that the target audience for not only John Edwards but also Barack Obama is Main Street, not Wall Street. Here are a few examples from these fellows from the 10/31/07 Presidential debate in Philadelphia, Pa.


In response to a question about oil prices, John Edwards said in part "well, what we can do in the short term—and I will do as president—is ensure that my Justice Department investigates what these oil companies who are vertically integrated, you know, from refinery to pump, are doing." Asked about the Alternative Minimum Tax, Senator Obama got a little off the subject, but rightly maintained "I want to make sure that seniors who are making less than $50,000, that they get some relief in terms of the taxes on their Social Security. Those kinds of progressive tax steps, while closing loopholes and rolling back the Bush tax cuts to the top 1 percent, simply restores some fairness and a sense that we’re all in this together, as opposed to each of us being in it on our own."

And after criticizing lobbyinsts for hedge funds, Edwards noted "we decided to try to keep the country safer by inspecting containers that come into this country. And who lobbied against it? The biggest company in America: Wal-Mart. We’ve had trade deals that have cost us millions of jobs, and what did America get in return? We got millions of dangerous Chinese toys."

Cutting taxes for those (elderly) earning little, questioning individualism ("as opposed to each of us being in it on our own") at the expense of community, criticizing a corporate behemoth, and questioning our trade policy that aids the mainland Chinese at the expense of consumers and workers. Dangerous ideas. Senator Clinton will not embrace them. The media will be skeptical of them. And the Repubs will be horrified.