The Eagle Warns The Red Dragon…

POTUS direct confrontation is not reserved for domestic political enemies, it also applies to external nations threatening the U.S.  However, notice with each example there is an almost identical pattern: ♦An honest attempt at an open handed diplomacy; ♦a rebuke from the opposition in favor of the status quo; ♦a sincere appeal to reconsider; ♦time for reflection, contemplation and planning; ♦a final request not to engage in combat (today); ♦and then the hammer.

The sequence is always the same.

“foolish past leaders”“We will no longer allow”..

China, the Big Panda, chose the Red Dragon approach and is positioned to feel the big hurt if they don’t take action…

While in Warsaw Poland earlier in July President Trump was asked about possible action against North Korea:

“I have some pretty severe things we’re thinking about. Doesn’t mean we’re going to do them. I don’t draw red lines.” … “It’s a shame they’re behaving this way and they’re behaving in a very dangerous manner, and something will have to be done about it.” (link)

Three days later during a bilateral meeting with China’s President Xi Jinping President Trump reinforced the message:

President Trump, at the start of his meeting Saturday in Germany with Chinese President Xi Jinping, called the Asian nation a “great trading partner” and said the increasing North Korea nuclear threat will eventually be resolved “one way or the other.” (link)

One way or the other.” Where “one way” is China taking action to dial back the regime they control; and “the other” is Trump delivering a series of economic consequences upon China for their refusal.

What is increasingly clear is China enabling and utilizing North Korea as a proxy foil against President Trump’s intent renegotiate bilateral trade deals. However, big panda knows -albeit with an uncertainty to the severity- they are walking a tenuous tightrope given the intensity of President Trump to resolve those two issues simultaneously.


The media might be ignoring where this predictable path is leading for reason, but there is no doubt the U.S. is prepared to deliver substantive and actual economic consequences toward China for their unwillingness to stop Kim Jung-Un from advancing toward ever more threatening conflict.

[The G20] meeting also focused on trade between the two nations.

Trump said “many things have happened” that have created trade imbalances between the United States and China but “we’re going to turn that around.”

The president was flanked in the meeting room by about a dozen top administration officials including Secretary of State Rex Tillerson and adviser Jared Kushner. (more)

Notice the shift in Trump’s hand position?

Subtle nuances visible for anyone who has followed the negotiation practices of Donald Trump in business and in life.

As with the initial Mar-a-lago meeting in February, Donald Trump always takes the position of advanced partnership toward his encounters allowing the incoming party to define themselves as an honest negotiator or a duplicitous adversary.

Throughout his dealings, Donald Trump, now President Trump, doesn’t position the engaged participant as opposition; instead he establishes his own stake -openly- and then watches to see how the opponent defines the nature of the relationship going forward.

The entire dynamic of how President Trump has engaged with the Chinese delegation is a case study in how this takes place. However, if you follow this approach to its historic and natural conclusion, it generally doesn’t end up well for the participant who chooses the adversarial route.

CTH would not be at all surprised to see massive economic action take place within the next few weeks as a result of China playing trade leverage games and enabling N-Korea with such dangerous provocations. China might think they are being their customary sly and sneaky selves, however they would be well advised to notice this is not their traditional adversary.

Donald J Trump is not engaged in this political strategery as a matter of creating benefit to himself or his business enterprise. No, President Donald J Trump is approaching this relationship from a perspective of stewardship. President Trump will intensely protect America with the ferocity the same Donald Trump protects his family.

President Xi Jinping has no formative understanding of how this intensely American President views his role of national stewardship. This is not a political adversary Xi has ever encountered within the body of U.S. politicians.

President Trump is not a typical western politician from the perspective of self-interest. This president would grind the bones in his own hand to make his lady liberty a rib if that was what is necessary to generate a win for America. Believe it.

Pause – Repeat and Re-read as necessary.

There is no upper limit to the level of economic pain Team U.S.A. (America First) is willing to inflict upon China. There is no ending perimeter of action too far for President Trump to travel. Trump will battle his adversary far beyond traditional horizons and will follow them in retreat if that’s what it takes to ensure the safety of the our economic nation.

China has no cultural or political space between peace and war; they are a historic nation based on two points of polarity.  They see peace and war as coexisting with each other. China accepts and believes opposite or contrary forces may actually be complementary, interconnected, and interdependent in the natural world, and they may give rise to each other as they interrelate to one another.  Flowing between these polar states is a natural dynamic to be used -with serious contemplation- in advancing objectives as needed.

Peace or war. Win or lose. Yin and Yang. Culturally there is no middle position in dealings with China; they are not constitutionally capable of understanding or valuing the western philosophy of mutual benefit where concession of terms gains a larger outcome.  If it does not benefit China, it is not done. The outlook is simply, a polarity of peace or war.  In politics or economics the same perspective is true.  It is a zero-sum outlook.

Therefore, when you see China publicly use strong language – it indicates a level of internal disposition beyond the defined western angst.  Big Panda becomes Red Dragon; there is no mid-status or evolutionary phase.  Every American associated with investment, economics and China would be well advised to put their business affairs in order accordingly.

President Trump hasn’t been talking about this for three decades only to put limits on his approach; including daring this economic adversary, China, 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. From President Trump’s current perspective China is 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.

Favorable action, or unfavorable action, the U.S. wins in either scenario. But let their be no doubt, there will be action.

The Eagle and the Arrow – An Aesop’s Fable

An Eagle was soaring through the air. Suddenly it heard the whizz of an Arrow, and felt the dart pierce its breast. Slowly it fluttered down to earth. Its lifeblood pouring out. Looking at the Arrow with which it had been shot, the Eagle realized that the deadly shaft had been feathered with one of its own plumes.

Moral: We often give our enemies the means for our own destruction.

Again, we repeat for emphasis: 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.

This entry was posted in Big Government, Big Stupid Government, China, Deep State, Dem Hypocrisy, Donald Trump, Economy, media bias, President Trump, Trade Deal, Typical Prog Behavior, Uncategorized, US dept of agriculture, US Treasury, USA. Bookmark the permalink.

212 Responses to The Eagle Warns The Red Dragon…

  1. G. Combs says:

    In response to one Treeper’s question about whose is to blame. Background on how the USA ended up under the Thumb of China.

    If you want to know who to thank for the problems with China, look at England over the last 100 years (opium Wars) that lead to destabilizing China and the rise of the Communists. Lessons of history: China’s century of humiliation

    And then look at Commie lover, oil baron Armand Hammer and his puppets the Goresand by extension the Clintons.

    An interesting paragraph from the Washington Compost:

    “[…]After Gore Sr. was defeated, though — and dramatically declared in his fiery concession speech that “The truth shall rise again!” — he went to work for the oil baron Armand Hammer, whose Occidental Petroleum broke into the big leagues after it started doing business in Libya in 1965 — on visas then-Senator Gore had helped his old pal obtain. (Hammer, too, was convicted of making illegal campaign contributions [ $54,000 in campaign contributions.], to Gore’s old adversary Nixon, though he was eventually pardoned.)[…]”

    From the UK BBC:
    “[…]Richard Nixon’s 1972 visit to Communist China to meet Chairman Mao was a “geopolitical earthquake” according to former US diplomat Winston Lord, who attended the meeting between the two leaders.

    It ended several decades of wary relations between the US and China that had seen the two countries spar in the Korean and Vietnam wars.

    It also succeeded in creating a new balance in the Cold War that positioned China closer to the US.

    Equally, it began the long process of opening up China to the outside world after years of isolation, a process that has ultimately led to the emergence of China as a major world power.[…]” (wwwDOT)

    Kinda makes you wonder if Dr Hammer was whispering in Nixon’s ears on behalf of his Commie friends….

    Because less than a decade later, in 1982 Hammer-ing deal with China is Armand’s latest coup
    Two years ago, Deng Xiaoping of China said to Dr. Armand Hammer, “You were a friend of Lenin. You must come to China and help us, too!” Last month Hammer, the crusty chairman of Occidental Petroleum, was in Peking. With the help of China’s boss, he cut a typical “Occidental Deal.”

    Hammer is perhaps the world’s greatest romantic realist when it comes to business. He knows Communists have no qualms whatsoever about doing business with capitalists.

    He made his first deal with the Soviets in 1921, capturing the pencil manufacturing monopoly in Russia. Ever since, he has refused to let political problems interfere with commerce.

    Whether dealing with Lenin, Stalin, Khrushchev or Brezhnev, Hammer has been singleminded in his purpose of developing the Russian connection. What is significant about the Chinese deal is that he apparently first checked it out with Russia.

    The Soviets voiced no objections. That may be an important factor in the future trend of Soviet-Chinese relations, especially because of the Reagan administration’s difficulties over arms policy toward Taiwan.[…]

    Occidental’s subsidiary, Island Creek Coal, will invest $230 million in developing the world’s largest coal mine in the Pingshuo area of Shanxi province, 300 miles west of Peking. Hammer describes the deal as “money in the bank.”

    The mine is expected to reach 15 million tons in April 1986. Profits will be divided evenly until Occidental recovers its $230 million. After that, the Chinese will get 60 percent of the profits.

    Hammer expects production to reach 45 million tons by 1981 twice the output of Island Creek Coal at its 35 different mines.

    Peking has asked Hammer to have Occidental bid on seven of the eight South China Sea concessions which will be auctioned in July and August.[…]”

    How Bill Clinton Sold the USA to China for thirty pieces of silver link

    Liked by 1 person

    • Jimmy Jack says:

      Great post and welcome insight.

      I agree with you that to really understand China you have to look at their colonial history and the rise of Red China. It is a very unique situation.


  2. MVW says:

    No one will believe Trump until he establishes the final hammer part of the sequence as inevitable.

    To establish the final hammer as inevitable a big hammer event is required, and some Tomahawk missiles is not sufficient for that.

    This is clear. The powers that put Xi in place won’t believe anything from words or small missiles. They gave Trump some beef imports for political face saving instead. Kind of them. Pragmatic. Hillary would have taken $10 million to the Clinton Foundation.

    Liked by 2 people

    • Jimmy Jack says:

      I have read in a few places that Xi is a CIA connected guy, that his daughter was allowed to attend college here (Harvard I think) under a fake name. That would have taken assistance from the gov. Your comment brought this to mind.


  3. Tom S says:

    mvw “no one will believe Trump” I believe President Trump right now !!!! FU and the soros you rode in on.


  4. joshua says:

    question IS….is Trex on board with Trump on all of this?


  5. Some Old Guy says:

    Curious to what extent the timing of this more aggressive approach with China established a deadline for dealing with the “leakers” inside the WH? I assume the President especially prefers the Administration’s views not be an open book during this dance with China.


  6. zephyrbreeze says:

    Finally, someone who is willing to stand up for US.


  7. TwoLaine says:

    NK Statement by U.N. Amb Nikki Haley

    Liked by 1 person

  8. jUST ASKING….i KNOW THAT Israel HAS WHAT IS CALLED “The Iron Sheild”. This shield is to be able to shoot the missiles out of the sky. Now I know ICBM’s are different than the missiles regularly shot into Israel, but, can we do this? Also, we have great internet capabilities, can we not interfere in the missiles signal (or am I watching too much TV?).
    It just seems to me, that since this is 2017, are we not able to stop Nort Korea’s missiles from ever hitting the USA, by either redirecting, destroying or making inert?
    And if not, why not…If so, well a whole lotta saber rattling going on, and maybe we should be working on these alternatives.


    • Barnacle Bill says:

      The US has developed anti-ICBM capabilities over the years. All those Soviet ICBMs pointed at the US were motivation. Problem is that even if a Nork ICBM were intercepted it would very likely start a series of responses from the US that would get messy in lots of ways for a lot of people and get countries other than the US and N. Korea involved. Better to nip it in the bud, or better yet get China to nip it in the bud, than risk Fatty Kim starting World War 3.


  9. Larry says:

    The way I see it is that this is close to a no win situation. I certainly don’t know for sure, but if this is a full scale conflagration with a N. Korean response I’ve read that there is a possibility of thousands and thousands of S. Korean casualties.

    I hope Pres.Trump is getting accurate information from his advisors – we’ve been burned on this before (e.g., WMDs).

    If there has to be a strike on N. Korea, let’s hope the locations, the date and time aren’t leaked and then published by WAPO, NYT, CNN or others even slimier – and this amazing to say but even members of congress. I actually believe they might do it, even risking American casualties – anything to destroy Trump.


Leave a Reply

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

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

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google 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 )

Connecting to %s