Connect with us

Latest

News

Economy

China didn’t start the trade war but will finish it

“As long as the United States issues a so-called tariff list, China will take necessary measures to firmly protect its legitimate interests,”

Published

on

1,148 Views

China has declared that if a trade war goes down between China and the United States, it won’t be at China’s volition or instigation, declaring that should it happen, it will be the fault of the Trump administration in Washington, D.C. The US has prepared a round of tariffs on Chinese imported goods worth some $34 billion to go into effect on July 6. At the same time, Beijing has prepared its response to the American action, and is set to respond with countermeasures of equal weight.

CGTN reports:

China will not fire the first shot in implementing tariffs on the United States, the Customs Tariff Commission of the China’s State Council announced on Wednesday.

“The Chinese government has reiterated its stance that it will not fire the first shot and will not preempt the United States’ move of imposing additional tariffs,” it said in a statement on the website of China’s Finance Ministry.

Washington has said it would implement tariffs on $34 billion of Chinese imports on July 6, and Beijing has vowed to retaliate in kind on the same day.

Earlier, Chinese Foreign Ministry spokesman Lu Kang said China was ready to act, though he did not confirm the start date for Chinese tariffs.

“China has already made preparations,” Lu told a daily news briefing.

“As long as the United States issues a so-called tariff list, China will take necessary measures to firmly protect its legitimate interests,” he added.

China’s yuan rose sharply against the dollar on Wednesday, a day after the central bank the People’s Bank of China assured markets it would keep the currency stable amid growing worries about trade friction, although stocks fell.

Since the day has come, and the American have chosen to move forward with their tariffs measures, they have started the largest trade conflict in recorded history. Headlines are likely to issue soon detailing Beijing’s response.

Liked it? Take a second to support The Duran on Patreon!
Advertisement
3 Comments

3
Leave a Reply

avatar
3 Comment threads
0 Thread replies
0 Followers
 
Most reacted comment
Hottest comment thread
3 Comment authors
JNDillardHappyCynicthomas malthaus Recent comment authors
  Subscribe  
newest oldest most voted
Notify of
JNDillard
Guest
JNDillard

At least EU counter sanctions – I don’t know about the Chinese ones – are targeted at Trump’s political base. His inflationary, deficit-increasing, plutocrat pleasing tax cut is already being negated by higher oil prices, which his supporters will have to bear. When the EU and Chinese sanctions kick in his base is gonna squeal, then get pissed. Very unlikely Trump will be re-elected, regardless of his foreign policy successes. “It’s the economy, stupid.”

HappyCynic
Guest
HappyCynic

Trump has a clear view of the end-game in this trade war. The side with the biggest trade deficit has the advantage in a trade war, and the US trade deficit with China is huge. Imagine the US puts 100% tariffs on all goods from China, and China puts 100% tariffs on all goods from the US. Who loses the most in this scenario? Obviously, China is the big loser in this case. China knows this full well, and is therefore trying to get the EU to agree to take more of their exports (but the EU declined). The only… Read more »

thomas malthaus
Guest
thomas malthaus

In other news:http://www.foxnews.com/opin… It may be too bad. The Americans had a great deal of emotional investment, among other possibilities. The South Koreans are probably extremely saddened. President Moon Jae-in was probably looking forward to reuniting families as a top five goal. Mister Kim must have realized that a level of transparency regarding his nuclear program was essential for comity. No way to milk this one. I hope he realizes baby steps are taken on both sides to gain trust. Some of us dreamed for decades of vastly improved DPRK-ROK relations. At least South Koreans won’t be fooling themselves anymore.… Read more »

Latest

Syria is a Lost Cause and America Must Move On

America must realize it has no military role to play in Syria’s future.

Published

on

Candidate Donald Trump sounded different from his predecessors. He criticized endless war-making in the Middle East and wanted U.S. forces out of Syria. But U.S. administration officials recently said they are in no hurry to exit the Syrian civil war and threatened military strikes if the Assad government again used chemical weapons.

Why?

The seven-year conflict is in its endgame. Backed by Russian airpower and Iranian ground forces, the Assad government has steadily defeated various rebel groups across the country. Damascus is now secure, with rebels finally driven from nearby suburbs. Some neighborhoods in Homs and Aleppo lie in ruins, but fighting has ceased. The regime is in firm control over most of the country.

Only Idlib province remains under insurgent control, and President Bashar al-Assad’s forces are preparing what may be the final offensive. The region is crammed with refugees, sparking fears of a humanitarian disaster. But with Iran’s and Russia’s aid Damascus almost certainly will reestablish its control, destroying or displacing rebel forces that are now mostly Islamist radicals. At that point, only territories in the north and southeast—which have U.S. bases—lie outside the Assad regime’s control.

U.S. policy has been counterproductive, even irrational, throughout the extended conflict. The Obama administration originally labeled Assad a “reformer.” Then Washington demanded his ouster—reducing the incentive for both him and the opposition to negotiate. As the conflict developed the United States initiated combat operations against the Islamic State while pushing to oust Assad, who fielded the strongest forces opposing ISIS. American aid then went to so-called moderates even as they fell behind more radical groups, often surrendering to the latter.

CLICK HERE to Support The Duran >>

While targeting ISIS, Washington backed Islamists such as Jabhat al-Nusra, an Al Qaeda affiliate. Washington also sought to work with Turkey’s Erdogan government, even as the latter facilitated Islamic State operations in Syria. America turned to Kurdish forces to lead the ground attack on the Islamic State but refused to defend its allies when Ankara intervened militarily to expel Kurds from their homes near the Turkish-Syrian border. Furthermore, Washington encouraged the involvement of the Gulf States, which underwrote the most radical rebel factions. Although nominally arrayed against ISIS, Washington’s allies largely shifted their militaries away from America’s priority of fighting ISIS to Yemen.

While avoiding direct involvement in Syria’s conflict, the United States launched missile strikes in response to alleged Syrian use of chemical weapons. Yet the vast majority of the conflict’s casualties—with deaths estimated at around a half million—were the result of conventional military action by all sides. Bombs and bullets killed far more people than chemical weapons. Washington, however, preened morally while Syrians still died in by ever-increasing numbers.

Finally, the Obama administration steadily increased U.S. involvement in Syria, a distant conflict with no significant impact on American security, yet while also denouncing both Iran and Russia for intervening in support of their far greater interests. The administration introduced U.S. forces without congressional authorization while Tehran and Moscow, both long allied with Damascus, responded to the Assad government’s request for support.

Overall, U.S. policy was not just a failure, but a disaster. Washington managed to do little more than raise expectations among Assad’s opponents, prolonging the war and increasing its toll. American aid strengthened radical jihadists, which pose a far greater challenge to America than Damascus. Washington’s focus on ISIS allowed the governments most threatened—Syria, Turkey, and the Gulf States—to focus on other enemies (“moderate” insurgents, Kurds, and Yemenis, respectively).

Finally, Washington reinforced its well-earned reputation for being not just careless but irresponsible in attacking countries without considering what was likely to follow. Assad is a tribal leader with strong support, especially from Syrian minorities who saw the consequences of America’s invasion of Iraq and didn’t want a repeat. One Alawite told me that disagreements with Assad ended when the fighting started.

The latter was the only defense against “chaos and the jungle.” Washington officials might view that attitude as short-sighted. But somewhere between two hundred thousand and a million people died in the sectarian war unleashed by the U.S. invasion of Iraq. Why would anyone trust America?

It is this record which candidate Trump understandably criticized for good reason.

But President Trump’s Syria policy has turned into that of his predecessor. Although Washington gave up supporting insurgents, there aren’t many left to aid. The Islamic State is largely defeated, but America is unwilling to shift responsibility back to Iraq, Syria, Turkey, Jordan, and the Gulf States, all of which have interests in eradicating ISIS’s final elements.

With the Idlib offensive soon to begin, the Trump administration is threatening military action if, but only if, the Assad government uses chemical weapons, a minor factor in the conflict.

Even worse, the administration apparently plans to reinforce the U.S. presence in the southeast near the Iraqi border to pressure Iranian supply lines. And Washington hopes American forces cooperating with Kurdish militias in the north can both inhibit Iranian access to the rest of Syria and force Assad’s ouster by denying the regime access to people and resources, especially oil deposits.

These operations are illegal under both U.S. and international law. Congress never authorized an American invasion of Syria to oust its legally legitimate (however hostile) government. Nor was any action authorized to prevent the operation of an alliance between Damascus and other legally legitimate governments, including Iran.

Nor is it obvious why Washington should want to do so. Syria does not threaten the United States, or Israel, which is more than capable of deterring Damascus. Brutal authoritarian governments are unpleasant, but common in the Middle East. Moreover, they are often allied with America (think Egypt, Bahrain, Saudi Arabia, United Arab Emirates, Turkey).

Iran is a malign actor but is overstretched, and its alliance with Syria is defensive. Far more aggressive and dangerous is Washington’s “friend,” Saudi Arabia, which has invaded its neighbor Yemen. Saudi Arabia has used its troops to sustain a minority royal dictatorship in Bahrain, funded anti-Western radicals in Syria, and kidnapped the Lebanese prime minister.

In any case, it is hard to imagine how the administration can succeed. When visiting Syria at the end of August, I traveled widely, including to Homs and Aleppo. The reconstruction process will be painfully slow, but the war in these cities is over. The Assad regime is in firm control. He won’t leave because Washington wants him to.

Nor is there any chance that Moscow will oust its ally. Russia has paid heavily to sustain the Assad government; Putin will not risk his gains to please America, absent an unlikely offer of great value, such as lifting sanctions. Additionally, there is little Moscow can do to coerce Syria, other than halt support for military operations—but that won’t force out Assad.

The Russians have even less leverage over Iran, which is in Syria at the invitation of the Assad government. Nor are the Kurds, effectively abandoned by Washington when they were attacked by Turkey, likely to do the Trump administration’s dirty work. They are far more likely to strike a deal with Damascus.

America, with very little at stake in Syria, wants to dictate Syria’s future and limit or exclude countries with far greater interests at stake than America has. Washington policymakers are dreaming. Even if their objectives were realistic, the gain wouldn’t be worth the effort. Both the Obama and Trump administrations were living in a fantasy world when it came to Syria.

However, the greatest risk from American involvement is the possibility of triggering a military confrontation. For instance, when attacking Washington’s Kurdish allies, Turkey threatened to advance on areas containing American personnel. Also, should Washington order attacks on Syrian military units for whatever reason, Russia might respond by either defending its ally or targeting America’s regional friends.

As a sovereign state, Damascus might be willing to risk a confrontation to reassert its control. Iran, too, might be willing to play a dangerous game of chicken. The greatest danger likely is not an intentional war but accident and miscalculation. Given the dearth of serious American interests at stake in Syria, Washington would be risking much for little.

Syria was always beyond U.S. control. Of course, fans of intervention claim that if only America had done something earlier—criticized someone, supported someone, or attacked someone—the civil war would have ended, and a democratic, pro-Western Syria would have emerged.

This reminds one of Ronald Reagan’s doomed hopes when intervening in Lebanon’s bitter, horrid, confusing civil war. It also echoes the cakewalk promised by proponents of the Iraq invasion. But there are far too many contrary actors with far too many interests involved for Washington to have its way.

Whatever the United States hoped for in 2011 and 2012, that world disappeared long ago. Today the Trump administration looks desperate. It has neither leverage nor influence to change Syria and only hopes to affect events by risking a military confrontation with multiple hostile powers over minimal stakes. Candidate Donald Trump would never have agreed to such a policy. President Donald Trump needs to remember why he ran for president.

Doug Bandow is a senior fellow at the Cato Institute. A former special assistant to President Ronald Reagan, he is the author of Foreign Follies: America’s New Global Empire.

Via The National Interest

Liked it? Take a second to support The Duran on Patreon!
Continue Reading

Latest

Struggling US farmers worry about one thing: a resurgent Russia

Russian wheat exports are booming despite a crushing price slump, as the country’s farmers finally emerge from decades of neglect

Published

on

Via The Wall Street Journal

Otradnaya, Russia – Vladimir Mishurov transformed the remnants of the “Lenin’s Path” collective farm in this village into a profitable business. He also helped make Russia the world’s largest wheat exporter for the first time since the last years of the czars.

Over the past decade or so, Mishurov has changed the aging Russian machinery to dozens of modern machines from John Deere and other manufacturers and has begun to make extensive use of new efficient fertilizers and seeds. He bought and rented additional land from neighbors and relatives, bringing the area to 1,500 hectares – the benefit that in Russia the prices for it are relatively low.

Like many American farmers, he often worked days and nights and slept very little, especially during harvesting.

The main difference between Mishurov and the average farmer from the Great American Plains is that in Russia they are lower costs, and they are mostly in rubles , and from the sale of their products abroad, he gets a lot of money, because he sells it for dollars.

Against the backdrop of a long and serious decline in grain prices, Russian agriculture is flourishing. For the year ending in June, the country exported more than 40 million tons of wheat, which is 50% more than last year, and the highest among all countries in the world in the last quarter of a century. In 2016, Russia overtook the United States in terms of wheat exports and became the first in the world, and in 2018 it repeated this achievement.

The growth of Russian competitiveness is a serious problem that creates a threat to American farmers. The United States has closed the largest number of farms since the 1980s. Overproduction of grain in the world pushed prices down, and today they are half compared to the level of 2012 when the price peak was reached. For the same reason, it is difficult for US farmers to earn a dollar profit.

Because of US trade disputes with China and other countries, Russian wheat can become even more attractive if large buyers enter reciprocal duties on American grain. China increased them by 25%, but Chinese restrictions on imports from Russia prevented Moscow from taking advantage of the emerging advantage. This was told by Swithun Still, who is the director of the Solaris Commodities SA, a Swiss company that sells Russian grain.

While there is no “trade war, but laws of economics”, they help Russian wheat compete, and even in countries that are neighbors with the United States, say, in Mexico, noted Still. According to him, Russian grain has become more quality, and it is cheaper.

Russian farmers are moving ahead when export earnings are converted into rubles. The Russian currency has fallen in price, and the dollar exchange rate is now twice as high as in 2014. Russia has the same advantage in relation to the euro and other currencies. Its farmers cover the costs of the house, continuing to sow grain, and also defeating their western competitors by price indicators.

The growth in exports of Russian agricultural products, including grain, fish and meat, is an integral part of efforts to diversify the economy and eliminate its dependence on oil. Once, oil and gas gave half of the revenues to the federal budget. Now, when oil prices are 25% below the record level in 2014 (they rose significantly after more than 60% fall), oil and gas exports account for about 40% of budget revenues.

“As oil prices fell, grain came on ahead. Grain is our oil , “said the then Minister of Agriculture, Alexander Tkachev, in 2016.

Cheaper wheat from Russia squeezes American and European grain from the markets of import-dependent countries in the Middle East and North Africa, where the Kremlin has in recent years been fighting to strengthen its military and diplomatic influence.

In 2017, exports of agricultural products amounted to $ 20.7 billion in monetary terms, outstripping arms exports and ranking second in revenue. Wheat is about a quarter in total.

According to the US Department of Agriculture, the crop area of ​​wheat in Russia as of June was almost twice as high as in the US. American farmers, not seeing the opportunity to earn, sowed the smallest area in wheat in the history of statistical observations. This year, the production of wheat in the US declined by 25%.

The farm Mishurova is located in the fertile steppe in the south of Russia. This region is the largest grain producer in the country. For the rich in minerals black earth and mild climate it has long been called the granary of Russia.

Mishurov today is 46 years old. In his youth he worked as a tractor driver, driving around on a roaring tractor, whose engine had to be repaired every year, which made his hands forever rough. Money was not enough, and the workers received wages in kind: sacks of flour, wheat and sugar. Drunkenness in the countryside was ubiquitous.

In the early twentieth century, Russia was the world’s largest exporter of wheat. The Soviets killed and threw in jail millions of people, including the most hard-working and successful farmers. They did this in an attempt to create a system of collective farms, which turned out to be ineffective. By the 1970s, the Soviet Union was forced to import grain.

After the collapse of the Soviet Union in 1991, the collective farms struggled, but continued to exist, and they were run by the same bosses who had neither business acumen nor money to invest .

“There was no master,” says Mishurov. “They could not adapt to a market economy.” They are accustomed to follow the instructions without thinking. ”

Farm workers came to work “to kill time, and waited for the end of the working day to go home,” says farmer Andrei Burdin, who lives in a neighboring village and cultivates land that once belonged to the collective farm “Dawn of Communism”. “Agriculture has reached a dead end,” he adds.

In the late 1990s, Russia allowed the sale of land, but new investors and their managers were far from agriculture and did not want to take risks.

Mishurov, who worked as the chief agronomist in a large multidisciplinary agricultural company, recalls how in the early 2000s he told one manager that if pesticides were used, the yield of barley could be increased by a quarter.

“No, Vova, that’s enough for us, too,” the manager replied. “Why should I try to persuade someone to earn more money?” – says Mishurov.

In the mid-2000s, he decided to start his own business. First he collected the land of his relatives and all the equipment he could find. Today, Mishurov grows wheat, barley, beets, corn, sunflower, peas and other crops.

43-year-old Burdin in 2005 began to cultivate about 100 hectares of land on his visionary tractor and seeder. The profit he invested in more efficient machinery and fertilizers, and then expanded the area of ​​his arable land, renting them from neighbors.

“When we earned the first money, I did not buy a Mercedes and an apartment ,” Burdin said. “I invested them in the next season.”

First he bought Russian equipment, but then switched to tractors and harvesters “John Deere”, which the Russians call “green technology.” According to Burdin, he tested the John Deere harvester in comparison with the Russian combine and found that from the same area it can grind a third more grain.

He also bought a precision seeder from the Swedish company Vaderstad AB, which plants seeds at optimum depth and at optimal intervals, which increases yields. Today, Burdin cultivates about 1,500 hectares.

Downloading seeds in April in the seed drill, he joked with his workers on the topic of old technology. Burdin recalled how he worked with a sprayer of pesticides, which permeated him with poisonous chemicals. According to the farmer, he worked on it no more than four hours a day, fearing for his own health. Now its installation itself measures how much to spray pesticides and where, which leads to cost reduction.

Voronezh, Russia. Tempo F8 plant corn and sunflower, Tempo R12 prepares the land for planting sugar beet.

The prices for land in the area where Mishurov and Burdin live are much lower than in many of the competing countries. On average, agricultural land in Romania, which is located on the Black Sea and is a member of the European Union, costs almost three times more than in Russia. And the land in Iowa and Kansas is more expensive than Russia’s more than five times, as evidenced by the research data of the Moscow firm SovEcon, which specializes in the analysis of agricultural markets, forecasts for Russian agriculture and consulting services.

According to Burdin, Russian seeds and fertilizers are cheaper than Western seeds, although their quality has improved significantly in recent years. He buys semen from the State Institute of Agriculture, and can use the crop for seeding next season. Many US farmers use expensive and high-yielding patented seeds from companies such as Bayer AG and DowDuPont Inc.; but the crop obtained from them can not be used for planting, because of which farmers are forced to annually purchase fresh seeds.

Transportation costs in the region are also low. It is located near the Black Sea ports, and diesel fuel and gas there are much less than in Western Europe. Burdin and Mishurov own a fleet of trucks, on which they export grain to the port of Novorossiysk, located at a distance of 320 kilometers.

Private and state-owned companies in recent years have modernized grain terminals and increased their throughput. Farmers using the application in their smartphones can order a time interval for the delivery of grain by their trucks, so that cars are no longer waiting for days in the queue.

Record harvests create a serious strain on the infrastructure . Windows for grain discharge are dismantled very quickly, and farmers are often given time with a delay of several days, says Burdin.

Export could be further increased, they find the opportunity to ship more, he notes.

Russia views this as a priority task. President Vladimir Putin ordered officials to eliminate bottlenecks in the infrastructure, which hinder the increase in exports. In the interior of the country, long distances, as well as a shortage of wagons and elevators, is the main obstacle to supplying grain to the foreign market.

In one of Russia’s largest Novorossiysk terminal this year, modernization is being completed, and it will almost double its capacity. Other companies also plan to build and expand terminals on the Black and Baltic Seas, as well as in the Far East. According to officials, the expansion of ports is capable of increasing the export of grain by 50%, and by 2020 it can be brought up to 7.5 million tons per month.

The government in every possible way praises state subsidies, including inexpensive loans, which help farmers to change old equipment. Analysts and farmers note that the state’s efforts to support farmers are unsystematic and give variable success. Subsidies often fall into companies with the right connections, investments go to agriculture slowly, and bureaucrats and officials often wait for bribes.

“Farmers have found freedom and can do their work as they see fit and effective ,” said Andrei Sizov, director of the SovEcon Analytical Center. “The role of the state in the past ten years is very small, and this is good for the industry.”

Giant agricultural holdings, which are multidisciplinary companies created by wealthy tycoons and close to federal and regional authorities, operate on such a scale that Western farmers are looking like dwarfs against their backdrop. The share of private farms of more than 100 thousand hectares or thousands of square kilometers in Russia accounts for about 13% of all cultivated land, says Sizov.

Now Mishurov can afford such luxury as collecting and restoring old Soviet cars and rest in the Maldives or in Thailand. But he says he prefers to stay at home.

Here, poor villages depend on the generosity of wealthy farmers. Mishurov allocated money to repair the statue of Lenin and the monument to local residents who died during the Second World War, and Burdin paid for the repair of the local kindergarten.

Mishurov has 10 agricultural workers, three security guards and a cook preparing food for the workers. “It’s a lot for our squares, but we try to keep jobs in the countryside,” he says. One morning a man came to the house to ask Mishurov to ask for a bucket of corn for his hens. He was a former collective farm chairman.

CLICK HERE to Support The Duran >>

Liked it? Take a second to support The Duran on Patreon!
Continue Reading

Latest

Russia Gives Up on Trump and the West

In looking at America’s global commitments, greatly expanded since our Cold War victory, one word comes to mind: unsustainable.

Patrick J. Buchanan

Published

on

By the end of his second term, President Ronald Reagan, who had called the Soviet Union an “evil empire,” was strolling through Red Square with Russians slapping him on the back.

Bliss was it in that dawn to be alive.

And how have we husbanded the fruits of our Cold War triumph?

This month, China’s leader-for-life Xi Jinping stood beside Vladimir Putin as 3,000 Chinese troops maneuvered with 300,000 Russians, 1,000 planes, and 900 tanks in Moscow’s largest military exercise in 40 years.

It was an uncoded message to the West from the East.

Richard Nixon’s great achievement of bringing in Peking from the cold, and Reagan’s great achievement of ending the Cold War, are history.

Bolshevism may be dead, but Russian nationalism, awakened by NATO’s quick march to Russia’s ancient frontiers, is alive and well.

Moscow appears to have given up on the West and accepted that its hopes for better times with President Donald Trump are not to be.

U.N. Ambassador Nikki Haley is berating Russia for secretly trading with North Korea in violation of U.N. sanctions, saying, “Lying, cheating, and rogue behavior have become the new norm of the Russian culture.”

Cold wars don’t get much colder than defaming another country’s culture as morally debased.

The U.S. has also signaled that it may start supplying naval and anti-aircraft weaponry to Ukraine, as Russia is being warned to cease its inspections of ships passing from the Black Sea through the Kerch Strait into the Sea of Azov.

The three-mile-wide strait lies between Crimea and Kerch Peninsula. In Russia’s eyes, both banks of the strait are Russian national territory.

With U.S. backing, Ukraine has decided to build a naval base on the Sea of Azov to “create conditions for rebuffing the aggressive actions of the Russian Federation in this region.”

Kiev has several patrol boats in the Sea of Azov, with a few more to be transferred there in coming months. Russia’s navy could sink those boats and wipe out that base in minutes.

Are we going to send our Navy across the Black Sea to protect Ukraine’s naval rights inside a sea that has been as historically Russian as the Chesapeake Bay is historically American?

Poland this week invited the U.S. to establish a major base on its soil, for which the Poles will pay $2 billion, to be called “Fort Trump.”

Trump seemed to like the idea, and the name.

Yet the Bush II decision to install a missile defense system in Poland brought a Kremlin counter-move: the installation of nuclear-capable Iskander cruise missiles in Kaliningrad, the former German territory on Poland’s northern border annexed by Stalin at the end of World War II.

In the Balkans, over Russian protests, the U.S. is moving to bring Macedonia into NATO. But before Macedonia can join, half of its voters have to come out on September 30 to approve a change in the nation’s name to North Macedonia. This is to mollify Greece, which claims the birthplace of Alexander the Great as it own.

Where are we going with all this?

With U.S. warships making regular visits into the Eastern Baltic and Black Sea, the possibility of a new base in Poland, and growing lethal aid to Ukraine to fight pro-Russian rebels in the Donbass and the Russian navy on the Sea of Azov, are we not crowding the Russians a bit?

And are we confident the Russians will always back down?

When Georgia, believing it could kick Russian peacekeepers out and re-annex its seceded province of South Ossetia, attacked in August 2008, the Russian army came crashing in and ran the Georgians out in 48 hours.

George W. Bush wisely decided not to issue an ultimatum or send troops. He ignored the hawks in his own party who had helped goad him into the great debacle of his presidency: Iraq.

So what exactly is the U.S. grand strategy with regard to Russia?

What might be called the McCain wing of the Republican Party has sought to bring Ukraine and Georgia into NATO, which would make the containment of Russia America’s policy in perpetuity.

Are the American people aware of the costs and risks inherent in such a policy? What are the prospects of Russia yielding always to U.S. demands? And are we not today stretched awfully thin?

Our share of the global economy is much shrunk from Reagan’s time. Our deficit is approaching $1 trillion. Our debt is surging toward 100 percent of GDP. Entitlements are consuming our national wealth.

We are committed to containing the two other greatest powers, Russia and China. We are tied down militarily in Afghanistan, Iraq, Syria, and Yemen, with the War Party beating the drums for another larger war with Iran. And we are sanctioning adversaries and allies for not following our leadership of the West and the world.

In looking at America’s global commitments, greatly expanded since our Cold War victory, one word comes to mind: unsustainable.

CLICK HERE to Support The Duran >>

Patrick J. Buchanan is the author of a new book, Nixon’s White House Wars: The Battles That Made and Broke a President and Divided America Forever. To find out more about Patrick Buchanan and read features by other Creators writers and cartoonists, visit the Creators website at www.creators.com.

Via The American Conservative

Liked it? Take a second to support The Duran on Patreon!
Continue Reading

JOIN OUR YOUTUBE CHANNEL

Your donations make all the difference. Together we can expose fake news lies and deliver truth.

Amount to donate in USD$:

5 100

Validating payment information...
Waiting for PayPal...
Validating payment information...
Waiting for PayPal...
Advertisement

Advertisement

Quick Donate

The Duran
EURO
DONATE
Donate a quick 10 spot!
Advertisement
Advertisement

Advertisement

The Duran Newsletter

Trending