Transcript of Mnuchin and Tillerson Press Briefing – G20 and Beyond…

Secretary of State Rex Tillerson and Treasury Secretary Steven Mnuchin outline the past 48 hours of diplomatic discussions within the framework of the G20.

**Remember** as you read this transcript, e.v.e.r.y.t.h.i.n.g eventually boils down to economics and the seismic geopolitical shifts currently underway.  (See Bottom for Important Detail)

[Transcript] 7:18 P.M. CET – SECRETARY MNUCHIN: Hi, everybody. I just want to highlight very briefly, and then Secretary Tillerson will go on, and then afterwards we’ll both answer a few questions.

But President Trump has had a very, very significant few days. I think, as you know, we went to Poland on Wednesday. In Poland, he met with 12 different leaders. We had bilats with Croatia and with Poland, as well as 10 other leaders at the Three Seas Conference where we talked about energy — the importance of the energy markets, the importance of supplying independent energy, infrastructure and opportunities there. I think, as you know, the speech which was just incredibly well-received, is part of our “America First But America Not Alone.”

Then coming here, the President has had very significant meetings at the G20 already. Yesterday, we had the opportunity to meet with Chancellor Merkel and her team. It was a very, very productive and friendly meeting. There were lots of areas for us to collaborate on that were very clear. We talked about economic issues, we talked about trade.

We had a very productive dinner last night — Secretary Tillerson, myself, General McMaster — with President Moon Jae-in and Prime Minister Abe and their teams, discussing the importance of what’s going on in North Korea and the issues there. And then today we’ve had, already, several other bilats, and tomorrow we have another six.

The President also participated in a very important session today on trade and an important session on the environment and the economy. So I would just generally say we’ve had very productive economic meetings. There’s been very substantive issues discussed. The North Korea issue has been discussed very significantly, about the escalation in North Korea.

And with that, I will turn it over to Secretary Tillerson to talk about his meetings, and afterwards we’ll take some questions.

SECRETARY TILLERSON: Thank you, Steve, and thanks for staying with us late these evening.

President Trump and President Putin met this afternoon for 2 hours and 15 minutes here on the sidelines of the G20. The two leaders exchanged views on the current nature of the U.S.-Russia relationship and the future of the U.S.-Russia relationship.

They discussed important progress that was made in Syria, and I think all of you have seen some of the news that just broke regarding a de-escalation agreement and memorandum, which was agreed between the United States, Russia and Jordan, for an important area in southwest Syria that affects Jordan’s security, but also is a very complicated part of the Syrian battlefield.

This de-escalation area was agreed, it’s well-defined, agreements on who will secure this area. A ceasefire has been entered into. And I think this is our first indication of the U.S. and Russia being able to work together in Syria. And as a result of that, we had a very lengthy discussion regarding other areas in Syria that we can continue to work together on to de-escalate the areas and violence once we defeat ISIS, and to work together toward a political process that will secure the future of the Syrian people.

As a result, at the request of President Putin, the United States has appointed — and you’ve seen, I think, the announcement of Special Representative for Ukraine, Ambassador Kurt Volker. Ambassador Volker will draw on his decades of experience in the U.S. Diplomatic Corps, both as a representative to NATO and also his time as a permanent political appointment.

The two leaders also acknowledged the challenges of cyber threats and interference in the democratic processes of the United States and other countries, and agreed to explore creating a framework around which the two countries can work together to better understand how to deal with these cyber threats, both in terms of how these tools are used to in interfere with the internal affairs of countries, but also how these tools are used to threaten infrastructure, how these tools are used from a terrorism standpoint as well.

The President opened the meeting with President Putin by raising the concerns of the American people regarding Russian interference in the 2016 election. They had a very robust and lengthy exchange on the subject. The President pressed President Putin on more than one occasion regarding Russian involvement. President Putin denied such involvement, as I think he has in the past.

The two leaders agreed, though, that this is a substantial hindrance in the ability of us to move the Russian-U.S. relationship forward, and agreed to exchange further work regarding commitments of non-interference in the affairs of the United States and our democratic process as well as those of other countries. So more work to be done on that regard.

I’d be happy to take your questions. You’re going to referee, Sean?

♦ Q Mr. Secretary, Nick Waters (ph) from Bloomberg News. Can you tell us whether President Trump said whether there would be any consequences for Russia to the interference in the U.S. election? Did he spell out any specific consequences that Russia would face? And then also, on the Syria ceasefire, when does it begin? And what makes you think the ceasefire will succeed this time when past U.S.-Russian agreements on a ceasefire have failed?

SECRETARY TILLERSON: With regard to the interference in the election, I think the President took note of actions that have been discussed by the Congress. Most recently, additional sanctions that have been voted out of the Senate to make it clear as to the seriousness of the issue. But I think what the two Presidents, I think rightly, focused on is how do we move forward; how do we move forward from here. Because it’s not clear to me that we will ever come to some agreed-upon resolution of that question between the two nations.

So the question is, what do we do now? And I think the relationship — and the President made this clear, as well — is too important, and it’s too important to not find a way to move forward — not dismissing the issue in any way, and I don’t want to leave you with that impression. And that is why we’ve agreed to continue engagement and discussion around how do we secure a commitment that the Russian government has no intention of and will not interfere in our affairs in the future, nor the affairs of others, and how do we create a framework in which we have some capability to judge what is happening in the cyber world and who to hold accountable. And this is obviously an issue that’s broader than just U.S.-Russia, but certainly we see the manifestation of that threat in the events of last year.

And so I think, again, the Presidents rightly focused on how do we move forward from what may be simply an intractable disagreement at this point.

As to the Syria ceasefire, I would say what may be different this time, I think, is the level of commitment on the part of the Russian government. They see the situation in Syria transitioning from the defeat of ISIS, which we are progressing rapidly, as you know. And this is what really has led to this discussion with them as to what do we do to stabilize Syria once the war against ISIS is won.

And Russia has the same, I think, interest that we do in having Syria become a stable place, a unified place, but ultimately a place where we can facilitate a political discussion about their future, including the future leadership of Syria.

So I think part of why we’re — and again, we’ll see what happens as to the ability to hold the ceasefire. But I think part of what’s different is where we are relative to the whole war against ISIS, where we are in terms of the opposition’s, I think, position as to their strength within the country, and the regime itself.

In many respects, people are getting tired. They’re getting weary of the conflict. And I think we have an opportunity, we hope, to create the conditions in this area, and the south is I think our first show of success. We’re hoping we can replicate that elsewhere.

MR. SPICER: Abby.

♦ Q Mr. Secretary, you spoke, when you were speaking of the ceasefire, about they’re being detailed information about who would enforce it. Can you give any more information on what conclusions were reached? And you spoke of the future leadership of Syria. Do you still believe that Assad has no role in their government?

SECRETARY TILLERSON: I would like to defer on the specific roles in particular of security forces on the ground, because there is — there are a couple of more meetings to occur. This agreement, I think as you’re aware, was entered into between Jordan, the United States, and Russia. And we are — we have a very clear picture of who will provide the security forces, but we have a few more details to work out. And if I could, I’d like to defer on that until that is completed.

I expect that will be completed within the next — less than a week. The talks are very active and ongoing.

And your second question again?

♦ Q Does the administration still believe that Assad has no role in the future government of Syria?

SECRETARY TILLERSON: Yes, our position continues to be that we see no long-term role for the Assad family or the Assad regime. And we have made this clear to everyone — we’ve certainly made it clear in our discussions with Russia — that we do not think Syria can achieve international recognition in the future. Even if they work through a successful political process, the international community simply is not going to accept a Syria led by the Assad regime.

And so if Syria is to be accepted and have a secure — both a secure and economic future, it really requires that they find new leadership. We think it will be difficult for them to attract both the humanitarian aid, as well as the reconstruction assistance that’s going to be required, because there just will be such a low level of confidence in the Assad government. So that continues to be the view.

And as we’ve said, how Assad leaves is yet to be determined, but our view is that somewhere in that political process there will be a transition away from the Assad family.

♦ Q Thank you. Demetri Sevastopulo, Financial Times. On North Korea, did President Putin agree to do anything to help the U.S. to put more pressure on North Korea? And secondly, you seem to have reached somewhat of an impasse with China in terms of getting them to put more pressure on North Korea. How are you going to get them to go beyond what they’ve done already? And what is President Trump going to say to President Xi on that issue tomorrow?

SECRETARY TILLERSON: We did have a pretty good exchange on North Korea. I would say the Russians see it a little differently than we do, so we’re going to continue those discussions and ask them to do more.

Russia does have economic activity with North Korea, but I would also hasten to add Russia’s official policy is the same as ours — a denuclearized Korean Peninsula.

And so I think here, again, there is a difference in terms of view around tactics and pace, and so we will continue to work with them to see if we cannot persuade them as to the urgency that we see.

I think with respect to China, what our experience with China has been — and I’ve said this to others — it’s been a bit uneven. China has taken significant action, and then I think for a lot of different reasons, they paused and didn’t take additional action. They then have taken some steps, and then they paused. And I think in our own view there are a lot of, perhaps, explanations for why those pauses occur.

But we’ve remained very closely engaged with China, both through our dialogues that have occurred face-to-face, but also on the telephone. We speak very frequently with them about the situation in North Korea.

So there’s a clear understanding between the two of us of our intent. And I think the sanctions action that was taken here just in last week to 10 days certainly got their attention in terms of their understanding our resolve to bring more pressure to bear on North Korea by directly going after entities doing business with North Korea, regardless of where they may be located. We’ve continued to make that clear to China that we would prefer they take the action themselves. And we’re still calling upon them to do that.

So I would say our engagement is unchanged with China, and our expectations are unchanged.

♦ Q And you haven’t given up hope?

SECRETARY TILLERSON: No, we have not given up hope. When you’re in an approach like we’re using — and I call it the peaceful pressure campaign. A lot of people like to characterize it otherwise, but this is a campaign to lead us to a peaceful resolution. Because if this fails, we don’t have very many good options left. And so it is a peaceful pressure campaign, and it’s one that requires calculated increases in pressure, allow the regime to respond to that pressure. And it takes a little time to let these things happen. You enact the pressure; it takes a little while for that to work its way through.

So it is going to require some level of patience as we move this along, but when we talk about our strategic patience ending, what we mean is we’re not going to just sit idly by, and we’re going to follow this all the way to its conclusion.

♦ Q Thank you. Mr. Secretary, I have issue — you just mentioned on the DPRK. We note China and Russia recently said — they asked North Korea to stop the — to freeze, actually, the nuclear activities, and also they asked the U.S. to stop the deployment of THAAD system. So did President Putin bring up his concern about the deployment of THAAD system? And also, what’s the expectation of President Trump on tomorrow’s meeting with President Xi Jinping, other than the DPRK issue? Thank you.

SECRETARY TILLERSON: The subject of THAAD did not come up in the meeting with President Putin.

In terms of the progress of North Korea and this last missile launch, again, those are some of the differences of views we have between ourselves in terms of tactics — how to deal with this. President Putin, I think, has expressed a view not unlike that of China, that they would support a freeze for freeze.

If we study the history of the last 25 years of engagement with various regimes in North Korea, this has been done before. And every time it was done, North Korea went ahead and proceeded with its program.

The problem with freezing now — if we freeze where they are today, we freeze their activities with a very high level of capability. And we do not think it also sets the right tone for where these talks should begin. And so we’re asking North Korea to be prepared to come to the table with an understanding that these talks are going to be about how do we help you chart a course to cease and roll back your nuclear program?

That’s what we want to talk about. We’re not interested in talking about how do we have you stop where you are today. Because stopping where they are today is not acceptable to us.

MR. SPICER: Margaret.

♦ Q Margaret Talev with Bloomberg. Mr. Secretary, could you give us a roadmap? Did you agree on a next set of talks between the President and Mr. Putin? And I guess I have kind of like a fluffy, color question on general impressions. We thought this was a 30-minute meeting. It ended up being 2 hours and 16 minutes. That’s a lot of time to watch those two leaders interact and also to just — whatever. Any insights on all those? Also, real quickly, any update on the dachas? Are they getting them back? And on Ukraine sanctions, any resolution or progress on those? Thanks.

SECRETARY TILLERSON: Okay, so the first question?

♦ Q Next talks.

SECRETARY TILLERSON: Next talks. There’s no agreed next meeting between the Presidents. There are agreed subsequent follow-up meetings between various working-level groups at the State Department. We agreed to set up a working-level group to begin to explore this framework agreement around the cyber issue and this issue of non-interference. So those will be ongoing with various staff levels.

♦ Q Who’s leading that? Is that Rob Joyce on the U.S. side?

SECRETARY TILLERSON: Well, it will be out of the State Department and —

♦ Q State.

SECRETARY TILLERSON: And the national security advisor’s office.

As to the nature of the 2 hours and 15 minutes, first let me characterize — the meeting was very constructive. The two leaders, I would say, connected very quickly. There was a very clear positive chemistry between the two. I think, again — and I think the positive thing I observed — and I’ve had many, many meetings with President Putin before — is there was not a lot of re-litigating of the past. I think both of the leaders feel like there’s a lot of things in the past that both of us are unhappy about. We’re unhappy, they’re unhappy.

I think the perspective of both of them was, this is a really important relationship. Two largest nuclear powers in the world. It’s a really important relationship. How do we start making this work? How do we live with one another? How do we work with one another? We simply have to find a way to go forward. And I think that was — that was expressed over and over, multiple times, I think by both Presidents, this strong desire.

It is a very complicated relationship today because there are so many issues on the table. And one of the reasons it took a long time, I think, is because once they met and got acquainted with one another fairly quickly, there was so much to talk about — all these issues.

Just about everything got touched on to one degree or another. And I think there was just such a level of engagement and exchange, and neither one of them wanted to stop. Several times I had to remind the President, and people were sticking their heads in the door. And I think they even — they sent in the First Lady at one point to see if she could get us out of there, and that didn’t work either. (Laughter.)

♦ Q Is that true?

SECRETARY TILLERSON: But — yes, it’s true. But it was —

♦ Q What was the timetable?

SECRETARY TILLERSON: Well, we went another hour after she came in to see us. (Laughter.) So clearly she failed.

But I think — what I’ve described to you, the 2 hours and 15 minutes, it was an extraordinarily important meeting. I mean, there’s just — there’s so much for us to talk about. And it was a good start.

Now, I will tell you we spent a very, very lengthy period on Syria, with a great amount of detailed exchange on the agreement we had concluded today — it was announced — but also where we go, and trying to get much greater clarity around how we see this playing out and how Russia sees it playing out, and where do we share a common view and where do we have a difference, and do we have the same objectives in mind.

And I would tell you that, by and large, our objectives are exactly the same. How we get there, we each have a view. But there’s a lot more commonality to that than there are differences. So we want to build on the commonality, and we spent a lot of time talking about next steps. And then where there’s differences, we have more work to get together and understand. Maybe they’ve got the right approach and we’ve got the wrong approach.

So there was a substantial amount of time spent on Syria, just because we’ve had so much activity going on with it.

MR. SPICER: Peter.

♦ Q Thank you very much. Mr. Secretary, can you say if the President was unequivocal in his view that Russia did interfere in the election? Did he offer to produce any evidence or to convince Mr. Putin?

SECRETARY TILLERSON: The Russians have asked for proof and evidence. I’ll leave that to the intelligence community to address the answer to that question. And again, I think the President, at this point, he pressed him and then felt like at this point let’s talk about how do we go forward. And I think that was the right place to spend our time, rather than spending a lot of time having a disagreement that everybody knows we have a disagreement.

MR. SPICER: Thank you, guys, very much. Have a great evening.

END TRANSCRIPT AND PRESSER – 7:41 P.M. CET  (Audio Here)

*Note* While this is happening Russia and China have blocked a U.S. led initiative to ramp up U.N. Security Council sanctions against North Korea.  SEE HERE This factually plays right into the hands of U.S. President Trump (and his beyond brilliant strategy).

The U.S. tried to go through the U.N., it didn’t work – but we tried, and the world is on notice having seen us try.  Now United States President Trump is free to directly confront trade and economic sanctions against China ‘unilaterally’.

There is no end to the level of economic pain Team U.S.A. (America First) is willing to inflict upon China, including bait.  Serious bait upon China pressuring them to strike back by nationalizing U.S. private corporate assets.

Can you think of a faster way to drive economic patriotism than for U.S. companies to see China lash out and seize U.S. assets? Think about how fast U.S. manufacturing would return if corporations had their manufacturing overseas assets frozen or nationalized by the Chinese government.

Everything centers around trade, the underlying economics, and the leverage.

China knows that renegotiated trade deals with the U.S. (via Trump) are looming on the horizon. China has a very weak hand in any discussion for all of the previously aforementioned reasons. Hence:

♦ What does China need?  Trade leverage.
♦ What does China have to leverage?  North Korea behavior.

See how that works?

But from President Trump’s current perspective he has China in a position where either action or inaction creates an economic win for the U.S.

If China takes action against North Korea, real and substantive action, they might retain some of the structural benefits currently allowed with their trade position in the U.S. market.  U.S. wins with binding Korean military issue now resolved.

If China doesn’t take action against North Korea, real and substantive action, President Trump begins a series of seriously punishing economic pressures against China that have almost no end.  The U.S. wins with tighter trade policy driving greater benefit to U.S. national manufacturing and our economic base.

Action, or inaction, U.S. wins.

Inasmuch as President Trump looks at the economics of any specific nation’s behavior, so too does China understand a current need to create leverage to keep it’s economic position. North Korea quickly became the proxy tool for China to negotiate trade benefits.

[…]  China has taken significant action, and then I think for a lot of different reasons, they paused and didn’t take additional action. They then have taken some steps, and then they paused. And I think in our own view there are a lot of, perhaps, explanations for why those pauses occur.

 

As you can see from Rex Tillerson’s quoted statement, President Trump knows China’s angle with North Korea.

Every action since Trump took office has been sequentially and painstakingly designed to end up confronting this dynamic.  When you understand the reason for China to be backhandedly positioning the DPRK, you begin to realize there is no fundamental reason to be overly concerned about the military angle. It’s all about positioning for upcoming economic agreements.

Donald Trump limits those who know the strategy to a select group he chooses; and even within that group each participant often doesn’t know the intent of their role in the larger dynamic.  However, he ensures each member has clarity of purpose in the specific action required. Action that he designs after a great deal of consideration.

There are not three aircraft carrier battle groups positioned off the coastal waters of Asia and North Korea because President Trump is positioning for military engagement, or positioning as a deterrent for DPRK military engagement. Thinking that’s the purpose is the popular review, but it, in the full scope of review, is incorrect.

Again, President Trump doesn’t bluff; he tells you openly what is the focus. President Trump has not mentioned one-single-word about using the military to engage the North Korean missile threat.

All of President Trump’s words are directed at the economics of the situation. All of them. Yet almost every review of analytical opinion of the situation is centered around the military. Why is that? Tradition? Traditional frames of reference?…

If the long-term strategy is economic, and with Trump almost everything is economic, the military inventories are more purposeful as enforcement mechanisms for a trade and mercantile blockade, not for military combat.

President Trump has positioned his advanced economic strategy to deal with the extremes.

President Trump knows the key to North Korea is China. Intellectual minds established in decades long perspectives of geopolitical events have not yet caught up to the reality of modern trade economics driving the behaviors of militaristic nations.

Those same minds are so entrenched in the larger, more popular, dynamic of advanced global logic, they can no longer contemplate national action shaped by anything other than applied force.

President Trump doesn’t apply force, he simply creates outcomes were the best alternative for the adversary is to change their approach according to their own best interests. Trump positions the interests themselves, he does not need the direct application of force.

President Trump doesn’t seek to apply force to the mouse running through the economic maze; he simply changes the location of the cheese, and the mouse’s travel responds accordingly.

China will take direct action to change the behavior of North Korea because it will be in China’s best interest to do so. Trump doesn’t bluff. Once he makes up his mind on a long-term strategy he simply works through each sequential move to obtain the objective.

There’s no limit to the economic squeeze President Trump is willing to apply toward China. The U.S. Treasury, the U.S. Dept of Commerce, the U.S. Dept of State, the U.S. Dept of Agriculture, these are all tools in the sequential approach that are far more powerful than bombs, planes and rockets.

 

 

Advertisements
This entry was posted in Big Government, China, Donald Trump, Economy, energy, Environmentalism, EPA, European Union, G20, media bias, President Trump, Russia, Secretary of State, Secretary Tillerson, Syria, Trade Deal, Uncategorized, US Treasury, USA. Bookmark the permalink.

121 Responses to Transcript of Mnuchin and Tillerson Press Briefing – G20 and Beyond…

  1. sundance says:

    Liked by 28 people

  2. Sylvia Avery says:

    God bless you, Sundance. Thank you for providing us with real information and analysis, and not fake news.

    Liked by 38 people

  3. Paul Keller says:

    Again US media lost in the parking lot

    Liked by 21 people

  4. testpointwp says:

    T- Rex, you represent us with dignity, power and intellect. A stark contrast to the previous administration.

    Liked by 31 people

    • Landslide says:

      Blows my mind to think about the contrast. Tillerson’s wife was correct….everything else he has done in life was leading to this point. As I listened to the audio, I thought he would also make a great President. He commands the attention (and respect) in the room every time. What an awesome leader.

      Liked by 33 people

      • Budman says:

        Tillerson is in favor of the Paris accord, you do know this? As Sundance stated, if the Paris accord were being embraced by President Trump, our economic solutions would be vastly depleted. Yes he is doing a good job at SOS, but President? Not so fast

        Liked by 10 people

      • nuthinmuffin says:

        john kerry…remember him?

        Like

    • Tegan says:

      Thumbs up a hundred times! Every time one of these exceptional, astounding Cabinet members speak to “us” I am in such awe. Yes, indeed, what a difference from previous administrations…a Grand Canyon of difference. The time they give to us, the sacrifices made away from family (not to mention many foregoing any compensation or expectation of future wealth) is humbling.

      Liked by 8 people

    • T-Rex has incredible communication skills. What jumped off the screen for me was in reference to Syria, T-Rex said “Maybe they’ve got the right approach and we’ve got the wrong approach.” Spoken like a deeply sincere listener and negotiator. Put in likes T-Rex and I bet that helped immensely.

      What a brilliant way to avoid war and change the globalist agenda. I’m not afraid to admit that I’m addicted to CTH! Sundance has the most educational and interesting website ever!

      Liked by 17 people

    • kpm58 says:

      President Trump’s cabinet is like the League of Super Heroes.

      Liked by 2 people

  5. deplorabledaveinsocal says:

    History being made… Just plain ‘wow’… And it seems the meeting with resident Putin went well…
    “…Just about everything got touched on to one degree or another. And I think there was just such a level of engagement and exchange, and neither one of them wanted to stop. Several times I had to remind the President, and people were sticking their heads in the door. And I think they even — they sent in the First Lady at one point to see if she could get us out of there, and that didn’t work either. (Laughter.)

    ♦ Q Is that true?

    SECRETARY TILLERSON: But — yes, it’s true. But it was —

    ♦ Q What was the timetable?

    SECRETARY TILLERSON: Well, we went another hour after she came in to see us. (Laughter.) So clearly she failed.

    Liked by 7 people

  6. Cee says:

    Sundance–What an outstanding, logical dissertation. Bless you.

    Liked by 5 people

  7. georgiafl says:

    Do the figures for the EU represent a separate economy – or just the total of the member nations combined?

    Liked by 4 people

  8. G. Combs says:

    Here is a bit of background on Conservative vs Progressive thinking on war and economics.
    2014 Economic Interdependence and War: A theory of Tread Expectations

    Liked by 1 person

  9. alliwantissometruth says:

    Think about it, the meeting with Putin lasted almost three hours. People were trying to end it but the main “dudes” didn’t want to stop talking. Think about what that means. A true meeting of the minds

    Leaders who don’t want to waste their time on niceties & frivolous nonsense they know will never happen don’t sit for hours talking, & they certainly don’t let an opportunity to end the talk go by if they didn’t want it to continue

    This is the magic, the mojo, of President Trump & his team. Laying out specifics, putting the numbers up, bringing up the real consequences & shining the light on the rewards. The art of the deal

    You can just imagine the idiocy that took place with Obama in charge. The eye rolls, the awkwardness, the “I can’t wait to get out of here” looks

    But now? Three hours of intense talks, with all fully engaged. No one wanting to leave the table

    That’s leadership. That’s what we’ve been missing all these decades

    Liked by 25 people

  10. dginga says:

    Typical of the MSM to frame the very first question, in a press conference about an historic meeting between the U.S. and Russian Presidents, around the complete BS made up “issue” of Russian interference in the election that NEVER HAPPENED! They really do believe that if they tell the lie as often as they can it will someday magically become true.

    Liked by 8 people

  11. Remington..... says:

    “America First, but not America alone…’ Nice touch….Adults are in charge…

    Liked by 12 people

  12. testpointwp says:

    China takes action on North Korea then pauses, then constricts, then pauses, etc.
    Yeah, just like a boa constrictor. NK is taking its last breath.

    Liked by 5 people

  13. fedback says:

    They sent in the First Lady to stop the meeting. It failed…
    Brillant

    Liked by 5 people

    • KBR says:

      I wish they, including Tillerson, had reworded the part about the First Lady.

      She is no mere errand girl that whiny impatient press and unnamed officials can “SEND.”

      Perhaps they asked and she generously acquiesced, I could see that.

      And that “she failed” statement? No she did not “fail.” The two Presidents simply were not ready to leave the table: not the First Lady of the US “FAILED.” Except that the impatient ones failed to get their way.

      Disappointed in this portion of the statement. TRex, you can do better and show more respect for the First Lady!

      Liked by 2 people

    • whoseyore says:

      I kind of wonder if the First Lady didn’t step in to let her hubby know that she was safe. I am sure that he was concerned for her safety like we were when we heard they had her staying put.

      Liked by 2 people

  14. essential liberties says:

    Thanks for the transcript, Sundance!
    Question, and this pertains more to the future US-China relations. I believe that separating the USA from China economically is a good thing, and necessary for the future of our country due to the fact that we need our manufacturing base back and thriving. Does the heavy handed economic approach, should China prove to be inactive in their restraint of NK, set up the USA and China for war in the future?
    Today, China and the USA likely would not come to blows because of the degree to which our economies are intertwined. Now we have the potential for China to force our hand in tipping (or finally re-leveling…) the economic scales to bring our manufacturing capacity and companies back to our own shores, or at least a good portion of it, likely cutting China off at the knees. This would be a huge blow to China, and one I believe they would not forget. Should President Trump be successful in tearing back our manufacturing base from China (and I believe he will be), he effectively removes the largest suppressor of open, non-nuclear USA-China military conflict: our currently conjoined economies.
    If our economies are separated, does that take the gloves off between our two nations in terms of military conflict? Or would we have to then step beyond and start attacking/inhibiting their ability to import their raw resources to feed their manufacturing abilities before they would truly lash out at us militarily (I am thinking similar to US-Japan economic pressure leading up to WW2).
    Sorry, collecting my thoughts as I type, so hopefully the question has come across clearly.

    Liked by 2 people

    • G. Combs says:

      First China HATES the USA/UK

      See: Lessons of history: China’s century of humiliation: The repercussions of British opportunism in China during the Opium Wars can be felt in geopolitics even today By Chiranjib Sengupta

      China Picks at the Scab to Keep the Wound Fresh
      “[…] A passage from an essay by the Australian defense analyst Paul Monk is very telling on the subject of what President Xi intends for Asia’s near future:

      In any case, Xi Jinping, despite his genial smile, good English, and familiarity with the United States, is no reforming liberal. Shortly after assuming the presidency, he took all the members of his politburo with him to the bizarre museum the Party has built in Tiananmen Square – the museum of national humiliation and revival.[…]

      That does not give you the warm and fuzzies.

      Second the USA is a melting pot where the most aggressive, most creative and most intelligent came here and were honed during the settling of this country. The globalist since the 1970s have tried to dilute this strain of Alphas via war and immigration.

      The Chinese are a very old civilization where conformity keeps you alive. They can not create like we can. So they steal our ideas. (You can do a search on this yourself)

      So the question is, have we retained enough of our creative talent or have the Globalist succeeded in killing it off.
      See my comment with tons of links on The Drugging of our children. The drugs used alter the brain and are often applied to the more gifted Alphas starting as young as 7 or younger.

      Liked by 5 people

      • JAS says:

        ^^^^^THIS X 1000^^^^^

        Liked by 2 people

      • One more reason for charter schools. The public schools are abnormal environments with unrealistic expectations for children, especially boys. Children are mistreated and then medicated for convenience. We used to have daily gym, recess in the morning and after lunch. We learned more and earlier. Now children are expected to sit quietly and passively all day with gym once a week and no recess.
        That’s the NEA way and its criminal abuse.

        Liked by 7 people

        • G. Combs says:

          AMEN!!!
          Children were designed to RUN and we confine them to a school and then drug them when they won’t sit still… ARRRRGHhhhh!

          Seems running also makes tchildren ‘smarter’

          Yeah its Slade but the info is good. It explains how man is designed as a long distance runner and is tops over the long haul in hot savannah type conditions.

          “[…]Daniel Lieberman and University of Utah biologist Dennis Bramble.. jointly proposed in a 2004 paper that we’re superlatively endowed by evolution to go long.[…]

          […] Mark Mattson, a neuroscientist at the National Institute on Aging, has proposed that our kind evolved superior smarts partly because they helped us record and recall the complex details we encountered when running after food—landmarks, tracking clues, location of water sources, and so on. The fact that endurance exercise is known to stimulate neuronal growth in the brain’s memory-forming hippocampus suggests he’s right. A related recent study also suggests that natural selection endowed us with the ability to experience the “runner’s high,” wiring the brain so that endurance exercise lights up its “endocannabinoid” system in a pleasurable way to reinforce a tendency toward high-intensity running.[…]”Why nearly every sport except long-distance running is fundamentally absurd.

          Liked by 2 people

    • whoseyore says:

      WIN/WIN situation for United States.

      Like

  15. fleporeblog says:

    Just take a step back and realize how funny this whole Muh Russia has become! What our President has done in the first 5 and a half months of his Presidency is going to destroy the Russian influence (Energy) throughout Eastern Europe and other major parts of the world.

    Russia was hoping beyond hope that we would be dumb enough to remain in the Paris Accord. Not only would have it killed our economy, we never ever would be in the business of exporting gas, coal etc. throughout the world.

    I listened to the Three Seas Initiative Summit again.

    Our President thanked Bulgaria, Romania, Hungary and Austria for pursuing a pipeline from the Black Sea. He also complemented Greece and Bulgaria for an inter-connector pipeline between the 2 countries. He also complemented the President of Croatia for building a floating LNG terminal on the Croatian Island of Kirk.

    The President of Poland discussed the 40 million cubic meters of gas that is needed by the 11 Eastern European nations each year and the fact that the US is able to produce 180 million cubic meters of gas each year. This would absolutely take care of the needs of all 11 countries.

    Our President promised them that they never have to be forced into agreements out of fear of whether they will receive the required gas to power and heat their countries (Russia turned the flow off in the winter of 2009). Those 11 countries will purchase much of their energy needs from us because it will be a big FU to Russia but also an incredible assurance that the US won’t allow anyone to mess with them.

    Here is what happened in 2009

    http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1106382/Europe-plunged-energy-crisis-Russia-cuts-gas-supply-Ukraine.html

    From the article linked above:

    Russia cut gas exports to Europe by 60 per cent today, plunging the continent into an energy crisis ‘within hours’ as a dispute with Ukraine escalated.

    This morning, gas companies in Ukraine said that Russia had completely cut off their supply.

    Six countries reported a complete shut-off of Russian gas shipped via Ukraine today, in a sharp escalation of a struggle over energy that threatens Europe as winter sets in.

    Bulgaria, Greece, Macedonia, Romania, Croatia and Turkey all reported a halt in gas shipments from Russia through Ukraine.

    Russia has the natural resources to supply plenty of fuel to Europe. He was showing them that if they speak out against him and Russia, there is a price to pay. In this case he will close down the pipelines.

    That is why the Globalist wanted to do to Syria what was done in Libya. If they had been successful, they would have created the pipeline from the ME to Europe which would have destroyed Russia’s economy.

    What all of them never saw coming was our President and our Energy revolution. That is why the 11 Eastern European countries are so excited and doing their part to take LNG from the US.

    Yet Putin was all in on stopping HRC from becoming President. The same woman that would have kept us in the Paris Accord, put even more regulations on the energy sector, closed down all coal production and never ever would have made us independent on foreign oil. This is why their BS is so damn comical. I bet you Vlad isn’t laughing NOW!

    Liked by 12 people

  16. Alison says:

    Obviously T-Rex acquired his extensive knowledge about China’s economics during his Exxon years, and is in sync with President Trump on the leverage we hold over China for NK’s future behavior & access to missiles.

    I wonder if other CEOs with substantial operations in China are as astute about this leverage & what might be coming down the pike. Nationalizing property is always a calculated risk when operating on foreign soil, but it appears that risk is escalating as President Trump et al begin to squeeze China. How do we get a ‘read’ on their preparedness? Does WH/State have back channels working with those entities?

    It truly is complicated business!

    I am so grateful for your insights, Sundance. There are so few resources for this kind of geopolitical/geoeconomic coverage. I daresay many who have worked in those arenas for years couldn’t provide this clear & detailed analysis.

    Liked by 14 people

    • G. Combs says:

      Communists, especially when they run out of other people’s money ALWAYS nationalize corporate assets. (Think Venezuela) Whether China will do this, I think is an even bet although if I recall they just nationalized a bank recently (Via JoNova’s website)

      IF they do wholesale confiscation they lose the ability to entice businesses to China. But let’s say they do. What can Trump do.
      1. Get the value of the business losses from those who had assets confiscated
      2. Dock China for that amount of treasury bills.
      3. Let the companies write off that amount from their taxes over the next 10 or 20 years.
      In other words switch the US debt holder FROM China to a US company.

      Liked by 3 people

      • Maquis says:

        Excellent options! Messy, but this would resolve a great deal of our vulnerabilities via our indebtedness to China, and aid the manufacturing transition back to US soil. Great observations and deductions.

        Like

  17. MIKE says:

    I’m in awe of the perspective given here. But I am puzzled; would it be a good thing or a bad thing if chinese president Xi Ping read here @TCTH?

    Liked by 7 people

    • sundance says:

      Trust me, I struggle with that question more than you could imagine.

      Liked by 21 people

      • G. Combs says:

        Yeah, It is a very tough call.

        Liked by 1 person

      • trapper says:

        I don’t think it would make any difference, because an Asian mindset cannot stop being an Asian mindset, even if it sees the American approach laid out before it. The response will still be in essence an Asian response, not a Western one. The hesitation is not by design, it is by nature, just as the Japanese hesitated after Pearl Harbor. You cannot help being what your culture makes you.

        Liked by 5 people

      • kiskiminetas says:

        If it was about economics I think he would have no problem with it. Having spent 5 years in the Far East, many of the Chinese liken themselves to Jews. To them it’s all about the Benjamins.

        Like

      • Kaco says:

        Makes me wonder if I should give my further thoughts. As in the American corporations aren’t going to go with economic sanctions against their manufacturing bases.

        Liked by 1 person

        • wolfmoon1776 says:

          If you play the Chinese game, by defending in their style of hiding the truth, they win, because you become like them. This is why I brazenly put the truth in their face. Both to fight them, and to not be like them.

          -Wolf Tzu

          Liked by 2 people

          • Kaco says:

            I understand, what I mean is the global American corporations using Chinese manufacturing for their profits. Will they become patriotic and care more about the NK situation or push back against PT’s sanctions because of their established businesses there and collude with the Chinese against the administration?

            Liked by 1 person

            • wolfmoon1776 says:

              If they’re weak, they’ll fold and be minions for Beijing. If they’re strong, they’ll do the right thing. Wheat and chaff, separated.

              I’ve seen the chaff up close, hence my disdain.

              Like

      • wolfmoon1776 says:

        The way to fight China, which will not only read your words, but learn how to change their tactics because of what they read, is to use that to force them to read the truth – about us –
        about themselves – about everything. They cannot then adapt to truth, without accepting truth at some level. As long as we are allied with truth, we hold the upper hand, because truth holds the upper hand.

        Liked by 1 person

  18. trapper says:

    Holy smoke, Kurt Volker?!?! This Trump team moves its pieces brilliantly. Every move either cancels past moves or blocks future moves of multiple opponents, domestic and international. I love watching this game.

    Liked by 3 people

  19. quintrillion says:

    Kurt Volker is the Director of the McCain Institute
    https://www.mccaininstitute.org/staff/kurt-volker/

    Liked by 1 person

  20. NJF says:

    Amazing remarks. Tfp, SD

    Like

  21. Stringy theory says:

    Very impressive press briefing and Sundance’s explanatory analysis is amazing. President Trump and his team of varsity all Stars are amazing. America is already becoming great again!!

    Liked by 2 people

  22. SeekerOfTruth says:

    ♦ Q Thank you very much. Mr. Secretary, can you say if the President was unequivocal in his view that Russia did interfere in the election? Did he offer to produce any evidence or to convince Mr. Putin?

    SECRETARY TILLERSON:
    ==> The Russians have asked for proof and evidence. I’ll leave that to the intelligence community to address the answer to that question.

    And again, I think the President, at this point, he pressed him and then felt like at this point let’s talk about how do we go forward. And I think that was the right place to spend our time, rather than spending a lot of time having a disagreement that everybody knows we have a disagreement.

    AP reports:
    AP reports that the Russian president asked for “proof and evidence” of Moscow’s alleged interference in the 2016 election which Russia denies. The request was made after Trump confronted Putin about Moscow’s election meddling during their first face-to-face meeting in Germany on Friday, according to Rex Tillerson who was present in the meeting. The secretary of state told reporters afterward that Trump opened the conversation by “raising the concerns of the American people regarding Russian interference in the 2016 election.”

    Putin once again denied Russian involvement, Tillerson said, but Trump “pressed” him on the matter “on more than one occasion.”

    ‘President Putin denied such involvement as I think he has in the past,’ he continued.

    ==> The Russians, speaking after the meeting, claimed that Trump accepted the denial – but Tillerson did not. Instead he said the issue may simply be an ‘intractable disagreement.’ Tillerson ==> also said the Russians pushed Trump for proof and evidence of meddling, something which the president himself had doubted in public as recently as Thursday.

    “The president at this point pressed him and felt like at this point, let’s talk about how do we go forward,’ Tillerson said.

    Trump and Putin agreed to explore a “framework” around which they can work to better understand these types of cyberthreats, the U.S. diplomat said.

    “The two leaders agreed that this is a substantial hindrance on the ability of us to move Russian-U.S. relationships forward and agreed to exchange further work ?regarding commitments of noninterference in the affairs of the United States and our democratic process as well as those of other countries,” Tillerson said. “So more work to be done in that regard.”

    Russian foreign minister Sergei Lavrov, who was in the meeting, said afterward that Trump accepted Putin’s assurances that Russia didn’t interfere in the election. But Tillerson, who has publicly called out Russia for election interference in the past, said he was ‘not dismissing the issue in any way’ and did not echo that language.

    The secretary of state acknowledged that Putin’s insistence that Russia did not interfere would leave the two countries at an impasse, at least for now. “It’s not clear to me that we will ever come to some agreed-upon resolution of that question between the two nations,” he said.

    Bottom line:
    DNC server? anybody? anybody?

    Liked by 4 people

    • Covfefe-USA says:

      Will one of you Treepers please answer:
      1. Why is our Pres now in agreement – or acknowleding – that Russia “meddled” or “interfered” with our election? What is behind this – what is this based on, when so much seems to indicate this meme was contrived and no proof/evidence has ever existed or been presented?
      2. How is “meddling” or “interference” defined?
      3. With our Pres now in agreement that there was some sort of “interference”, doesn’t that bolster the libbys BS that the election was ‘stolen’, or that this Pres is illegitimate? Why would our Pres do this, if that’s the case?
      4. How did the ‘interference’ or ‘meddling’ actually happen?
      5. What, if anything, is the upside of all of this to our Pres.?

      Like

      • JustSomeInputFromAz says:

        Liked by 2 people

      • wolfmoon1776 says:

        Will one of you Treepers please answer:

        OK. This is how I see it. Your mileage may vary.

        1. Why is our Pres now in agreement – or acknowledging – that Russia “meddled” or “interfered” with our election? What is behind this – what is this based on, when so much seems to indicate this meme was contrived and no proof/evidence has ever existed or been presented?

        Notice how you immediately have all these detailed questions, now that a very generic and almost harmless admission is made? The worst consequence of which is, should there be no meddling (impossible), that Trump would have admit to being deceived by his enemies?

        2. How is “meddling” or “interference” defined?

        Great question! Trump has no obligation to answer. LOL. Maybe the Democrats will take the shovel and dig the hole deeper. Trump is offering!

        3. With our Pres now in agreement that there was some sort of “interference”, doesn’t that bolster the libbys BS that the election was ‘stolen’, or that this Pres is illegitimate? Why would our Pres do this, if that’s the case?

        That’s a bit of a logical leap. Let’s let the Democrats make it first. 😉

        4. How did the ‘interference’ or ‘meddling’ actually happen?

        Great question! See above.

        5. What, if anything, is the upside of all of this to our Pres.?

        “OK! I’ll sign the pledge! See? I’m signing it! Here! Take pictures! See? Here’s the signed pledge, held up high!” Now, ask yourself – what happened to all of Trump’s enemies after he signed the pledge? THEY reneged. Trump won, they lost. So expect similar results here. The media and Democrats will lose credibility and suffer.

        Here is the truth. If you want to define interfering in other countries’ elections as ANYTHING which has any impact whatsoever, then all countries interfere in the elections of all other countries BY DEFINITION. So Trump has admitted to nothing more than reality. Under Obama, WE interfered in elections FAR worse than Russia did, IMO. And what if Russia actually tried to help Hillary? Still a possibility. Or what if they tried to weaken BOTH outcomes? That’s possible too. Every government has trolls on the web, and Russia is no exception. Their influence is pretty small, but they’re part of the game. Once you know that reality, you HAVE to say that Russia interfered. And they will interfere in the next election, and the next election, and the one after that. It will never stop. EVER. And we will do the same thing, too. It’s the nature of governments and the internet. And we have CIANN, which interferes all over the planet – even in OUR elections.

        Trump basically said “the wind is blowing”. Technically, it’s always true. Trying to DENY that the wind is blowing is always wrong. The wind is never completely still. So he baited the media with months and months of “will Trump admit that the wind is blowing?” OH, NO, HE FINALLY DID.

        Great. Next move, media. Who is still stuck exactly where they were, holding a nothingburger, only looking 1000 times as stupid as they did before.

        And now Podesta! Gut-hooked in ONE TWEET. All of that build-up to the backfire.

        Hope that makes sense.

        Liked by 2 people

        • Maquis says:

          Hellz yeah it makes sense!

          A refusal to ask the question would only strengthen the hand of the muh Russia liars.

          Asking it doesn’t imply a righteous anger over the top attack, it’s simply playing the game, getting it over with as he creates pressure for the fool-believers to get over it.

          A perfect mini-dissertation on the ubiquity of election “interference.” Trump did not state or imply that any interference redounded to his benefit, and still holds the option of asserting that any such interference was intended to boost the weakest candidate, the proven murderous failure on tbe global stage, Hillary Clinton. Access to the DNC server could have been the equivalent of peeking at someone’s Rolodex, calendar, and their game plan, in order to better AID her campaign.

          Podesta! Sweet. What malignant truths was he hiding by using hired Globalist Corrupt-o-Techs to fake an investigation instead of letting Obama’s Pros do it? Isn’t then the real conspiracy that of the DNC laying the groundwork for their own failure candidate back up plan? What a Tweet that could make! I think we are only a little bit away from that…perhaps, maybe, a Special Counsel is in order?

          “The wind is blowing.”
          -Tzu Wolf

          Maquis

          Like

  23. CustomsBrokerNAFTA_SME says:

    I’ve been lurking here for quite some time, first post.

    In addition to the spot-on analysis SD lays out above, I’d like to know how many jpg’s were reviewed before this specific selection was made – The look on TRex’s face with Pres Xi in the foreground speaks volumes.

    He looks like he just swallowed the canary and Xi hasn’t a clue.

    Winning Bigly, indeed.

    Liked by 12 people

  24. MaineCoon says:

    “can you say if the President was unequivocal in his view that Russia did interfere in the election? Did he offer to produce any evidence or to convince Mr. Putin?
    SECRETARY TILLERSON: The Russians have asked for proof and evidence.”

    IMO, this is why President Trump blurted out that Podesta tweet. Where’s the server, Podesta, dude? Where’s the proof? P45’s tweet serves two purposes, one of which is P45 gives credibility to Putin’s word. Whether Putin is lying or truthful, by taking someone at their word, P45 negotiates a strong relationship henceforth; thus the tweet. Where’s the evidence, dude? Pedo-Podesta is hung out to dry in front of the entire word.

    That Trump-Putin handshake is very telling. Trump gives the 2-handed shake. Pays a lot of respect to Putin. Putin look is telling. He likes Trump. This relationship will be built on trust, albeit competitive. As competitors, they both will probably enjoy the contest.

    I am very glad Russian has no business with NoKo. I personally do not want to see the Russian people suffer any more economically. I wish them no ill will. I don’t believe Trump wants to harm other countries either, but he does want America first in all he does.

    Actually, that should have been the perspective of the last 4 presidents also.

    Liked by 13 people

    • G. Combs says:

      AND that is how Trump neutralizes Mueller and his gaggle of Demonrats. Snicker

      NOW the investigation has to be WHERE’S THE PROOF???

      ======> DNA SERVER <==========

      And WHO searches it? Trump’s NEW FBI director.

      Liked by 4 people

    • 2x4x8 says:

      yep right on with Pedo-Podesta

      i can see Putin saying, “what are you coming to me with this, I told you we had nothing to do with it, give me proof, Putup or shut-up, are you believing the MSM you call Fake News, Evidence and Proof talks, Bull#hit walks”

      Russia borders North Korea and has trade with them!!!!!!

      I can see Putin saying, “why have all the US military’s Tanks been deployed to Eastern Europe, my supposed friend?”

      http://www.reuters.com/article/us-nato-russia-idUSKBN14Q1VC

      Liked by 1 person

  25. Owlen Rose says:

    “Peaceful Pressure Campaign”. Love it. A euphemism for tightening the economic screws on China.

    Liked by 2 people

  26. JAS says:

    In another six months or less the opposing camps, especially within the GOPe are going to be extremely well defined. Just in time for the start of the 2018 campaigns.

    Liked by 1 person

  27. shannynae says:

    Once again I had a wonderful day at the University of Sundance! After reading his (Sundance) lecture on how economics is fighting the battle with NK and China and technically the world, I understand now the genius of POTUS and his brilliance in surrounding himself with this particular team of economic geniuses. It is so fun to learn and watch everything play out. Thanks Sundance, you are my favorite professor.

    Liked by 3 people

  28. David R. Graham says:

    Sundance, the economics road to defeating the Kim family is in fact classical military doctrine: pinch off an enemy’s supply lines, don’t attack them directly, hold them in front but attack their war-making capacity, their rear, and that means everything that comes to make up their economy. Hold them by the nose and kick them in the pants. Ancient doctrine.

    China deserves to get hurt badly in this affray. She killed a lot of American Soldiers in an unannounced attack on victorious American forces at the Yalu and farther south.

    A prediction: at the end of this, GOA MacArthur will be vindicated: you cannot contain an enemy, you have to defeat him by receiving his unconditional surrender.

    Containment doctrine, even aggressively as Kennan meant it — and was NOT in fact executed — does not solve the problem posed by a belligerent. GOA MacArthur was right all along and in everything he did and advocated. Truman was wrong and left us with this headache on the Korean Peninsula. Talk about kicking cans down the road!

    Liked by 5 people

  29. MrE says:

    “For to win one hundred victories in one hundred battles is not the acme of skill. To subdue the enemy without fighting is the acme of skill.”
    ~ Sun Tzu

    Liked by 5 people

    • El Torito says:

      Which is exactly what Xi thinks he is doing to DJT. In reality though it’s the same old delay and deflect using diplomacy.

      Like

  30. Papoose says:

    Look Ma! Nary a word about Theresa May so far! Pffffft

    Like

  31. daughnworks247 says:

    Read the whole thing and thank you.
    It’s important that we get our info from people in the room instead of pundits revisionist history.
    Thank you Sundance and crew!!

    Liked by 1 person

  32. A2 says:

    What a way to wake up in the morning and read the superlative coverage on CTH, Thank you Sundance.

    Sec Tilleson and Mnuchin have a firm grasp of the mentalitie and modus operandi of those they are dealing with and the skill to tailor US response.Thank you Pres Trump.

    Some bits and bobs observations:

    The Telegraph outdid themselves with the clip of Inspector Clouseau sneaking about and positioning himself next to the President. Hilarious. The Brits do the best satire of the French. They should. They have had lots of practice.

    They also added to the merriment by writing up the much anticipated handshake between the President and Putin.
    http://www.telegraph.co.uk/men/the-filter/trump-vs-putin-anatomy-underhanded-handshake/

    Finally, I noticed that when the G20 photo-op. I think before the concert, President Trump is shaking hands as he moves down the line and then just walks past Pres Xi and wife and takes up his spot behind them. Big-time snub. Can you hear us now President Xi?

    It was also reported (on Flight Tracker) that Putin had his flight rerouted to avoid Polish and Baltic airspace on his way to the G20.

    I.m having a laugh.

    Liked by 1 person

  33. “The U.S. Treasury, the U.S. Dept of Commerce, the U.S. Dept of State, the U.S. Dept of Agriculture, these are all tools in the sequential approach that are far more powerful than bombs, planes and rockets.”………beyond brilliant indeed.
    Most excellent class today Sundance.

    Liked by 1 person

  34. I enjoy the trolls today. (I do!) I firmly believe, that given the level of intellect in the articles and comments here from Sun Dance and treepers, that the information provided will eventually steer them to question and then wonder on if some of the information they’ve believed has been purposefully provided – and if so why – and from whom.
    It certainly helped me – and I was a die-hard democrat for decades – fighting against ‘the man’ and for the ‘little guy’, in my mind. Waking up from that was difficult. Perhaps, perhaps, some will step back and say, wait…what? And that, my fellow treepers, is the first step.

    Liked by 2 people

    • Maquis says:

      I was an Agnostic politically as a young man in ’81, Reagan won me over with Truth, good-natured Humor, and Results.

      I think you are correct regarding ambivalent or mis-guided libs, but trolls? Not so confident in their conversions, though they have obviously been battling the Truth and can only avoid recognizing and accepting it by appealling to dark corners of their souls…and darkness only do they shovel our way.

      Liked by 1 person

  35. Kristin says:

    ❤️❤️❤️ Our Team USA!!!

    Like

  36. Somewhere in Dixie says:

    Another outstanding analysis Sundance. Nobody does it like you.

    Like

  37. harrietht3 says:

    ” . . . our resolve to bring more pressure to bear on North Korea by directly going after entities doing business with North Korea, regardless of where they may be located.”

    It occurs to me that as long as NKorea is the super-bad boy in the Asian Pacific and both China and Russia are major trading players with it that these two are not inclined to change that dynamic. Once NKorea is neutralized as a nuclear threat, suppliers from other nations are likely to move in and wipe-out the near monopoly held by C and R.

    It wouldn’t surprise me if C and R suspect the US of eyeing some share of the profits from the consequent easing of sanctions on NKorea. It’s enough of a dent if numerous nations step up to the now-opened trough, but it’s likely to rankle China and Russia more than a little if the US benefits.

    Liked by 1 person

    • Trish in Southern Illinois says:

      I’m waiting on the thread for the “dummie bombs” on the NK DMZ.

      Just caught an alert on Fox about it.

      Wonder if this was a test run to see if ol kim can be hit without our being detected. Or maybe its to make Un start scrambling his assets so we’ll be able to watch and learn more what he has at the ready.

      Liked by 1 person

      • Maquis says:

        Possibly your last suggestion, to stir their defenses to aid in their detection. As well as messaging, if course.

        Unfortunately, there is enough conventional artillery and rocketry trained on Seoul to inflict massive destruction of human life before those weapons could he taken out. They have a gun to their head, essentially.

        In my Korean tours I toured a North Korean tunnel dug until just past the dmz, waiting to ferry men to war; there are many such found and sealed, many large enough for military vehicles and artillery, and it is believed certain that a great many more are unfound and in work. They have a.lot of mines in NK, they are comfortable building underground passages and complexes, including to my understanding an entire air base carved into a massive mountain, complete with an active runway.

        I saw, when I wandered to the East coast of the peninsula, a captured NK submarine that was soley built for inserting commandos. They were said to have the largest submarine force in the world, numerically, all, until recently, aimed at an invasion of South Korea.

        The preparations, the risks and threats, are innumerable. I pray war can be averted.

        Like

    • Maquis says:

      I think our man is magnaminous enough to allow R and C’s concessions to resume when NK is defanged. He knows he needs carrots with the sticks, he can’t succeed if the players cannot see an upside to cooperation as well as they will the downsides of resistance.

      The Nork’s are trained from birth to be reflexively anti-American. Perceived American “Bastards” aren’t likely to appeal as trading partners, and NK is actually quite resource rich, and we have only a small manufacturing base, are quite far away, and are not prepared to trade away high-technology to a rogue regime, even if reforms are in work. It would take a massive social sea-change for us to be engaged in significant commerce there, I believe.

      Also, NK will be reminded by the Russians that when we defeated the Soviet Union we did not create a new Marshall Plan and lift them up as we did Germany and Japan. We sent a few “democracy advisors,” and corporate raiders that weakened their economy and nascent faith in capitalism. This is a big bone in the craw of Russians; they will both C and R prefer to try to oversee their transformation. Not that we shouldn’t try, in a cooperative manner with NK’s neighbors, especially South Korea.

      I highly recommend reading “In order to survive,” by Yeonmi Park, a NK refugee / defector. Wonderful perspective from a young woman who suffered much escaping her homeland, but still loves it and is proud. This served as my wake up call to the humanity of the suffering people of North Korea.

      Maquis

      Like

  38. carrierh says:

    A great businessman who has a very successful business background appointed excellent, intelligent and great Americans and sets this off, like any great manager or CEO, to do their job! What a concept! What I like about Trump, he sits down and scrutinizes the face, eyes, etc. of the person with whom he is talking and also listens to how their body and voice react as well. Trump is astute and well qualified to do this. I also like everyone is good, doing a great job, etc., when all the time he is really dissing them but not actually making them dislike or hate us more, i.e., Macrone and Merkel, etc. He baits them, they bite, we win. Teaches me daily more about the art of the deal!

    Like

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s