President Trump’s Strategic Statement Toward Beijing and Pyongyang…

One of President Trump’s more strategic messages within the State of the Union speech last night surrounds his statement toward China, Chairman Xi, and the proxy province of North Korea, Chairman Kim.  Emphasis mine:

[…]  “As part of a bold new diplomacy, we continue our historic push for peace on the Korean Peninsula. Our hostages have come home, nuclear testing has stopped, and there has not been a missile launch in 15 months.”

“If I had not been elected President of the United States, we would right now, in my opinion, be in a major war with North Korea. Much work remains to be done, but my relationship with Kim Jong Un is a good one. And Chairman Kim and I will meet again on February 27 and 28 in Vietnam.”

Beyond announcing the dates and location for the next summit between President Trump and Chairman Kim Jong-un; many domestic political opponents, and even some allies, might criticize the highlighted part of the statement from the position of self importance.

However, the key to understanding the geopolitical value is to stand back from U.S. and allied perspectives and look at the Trumpian statement from the position of Chairman Xi Jinping and Chairman Kim Jong-un:

President Trump says: “If I had not been elected President of the United States, we would right now, in my opinion, be in a major war with North Korea.”

Both Chairman Xi and Chairman Kim would be reviewing that message for the implied statement it contains; thinking to their collective and political-selves:  “Rut-roh, this American President was factually willing to go to war?”…

Yes, the implied message is rather stark.

Heck, from the position of Chairman Kim and/or Chairman Xi that implied message is actually stunning.  It forces both China and North Korea to recognize how close to the precipice things actually were.

If Beijing and Pyongyang thought their previous negotiations were cunning geopolitical contests, with the outlook of war as a long distant possibility adverse to the political interests of the United States, their internal disposition would be strengthened and more confrontational.  However, POTUS Trump just informed them: the military option wasn’t just on the table, it was ON THE TABLE and within reach.

Considering that USTR Ambassador Lighthizer and Secretary Mnuchin are heading to China to put the finer points on expected trade deliverables… well, that statement last night just reminds both Beijing and Pyongyang these negotiations have some very real implications if a deal is not reached…

Very smart message by President Trump.

This entry was posted in Big Government, Big Stupid Government, China, Donald Trump, Economy, media bias, Military, N Korea, President Trump, Secretary Pompeo, Trade Deal, Uncategorized, US Treasury, USA, USMCA. Bookmark the permalink.

106 Responses to President Trump’s Strategic Statement Toward Beijing and Pyongyang…

  1. Elections have consequences.

    Liked by 15 people

  2. thegoosefish says:

    Clinton I could see at war. Yelling charge from the rear as it always goes. Trump also mot d the potential loss of life, if I remember


  3. StuckInBlue says:

    I took that statement as meaning that HRC would have gotten us into a war.

    Liked by 20 people

    • Agreed, I’m not sure how Sundance gets “this American President was factually willing to go to war” out of what Trump said. Had Sundance said “this country” then of course whole different story.

      Sundance’s conclusion is still correct though that it was a smart statement on his part, potential exaggerated rhetoric aside.

      Liked by 3 people

      • trialbytruth says:

        Presidents don’t raise the specter of war at whim it is always a threat.

        Consider this the same reliable war mongers that would have supported a revitalization of an endless war in Korea, just voted to admonish Trump’s move to wind down Syria and Afghanistan.

        Taking that into consideration he just told Xi and Kim, ” I like you guys and am standing in the breach. When I am gone these guys are back in power we need to get this done”

        Liked by 21 people

      • alonzo1956 says:

        I believe that this American President IS STILL willing to go to war if he believes that there is a real and imminent threat to the American citizenry. It would be unwise IMO for a foreign adversary to test his will. President Trump has the trump card and I believe he will use it if needed.

        Liked by 2 people

      • flyinglandman says:

        Agreed. I don’t get there on Sundance’s statement.

        I take the comment to mean that if they don’t do a deal with Trump, the next president will likely push for war. They know Trump is there only temporarily and they know that there is a massive war industry in this country pushing for it.

        I think he just put them on the clock.

        Liked by 4 people

    • Suzanne says:

      I’m certain that the military/industrial complex would have rewarded her handsomely via massive contributions to the Clinton Crime Foundation

      Liked by 1 person

    • lfhbrave says:

      It is not just his “opinion”. Connecting with what he said before that Obama told him on the inauguration day about N. Korea being the most urgent matter to be dealt with, I would say there was something more he saw. .

      Liked by 5 people

    • FrankieZee says:

      When he said that I swear I thought PIGLOSI was going to stroke out.

      Liked by 4 people

      • mvneeds2016 says:

        How would we have been able to tell…sick joke for a Wed morning


      • DGinGA says:

        You know, after all of her years in politics, you would think that Pelosi would realize that the images of her sitting behind the President making faces and chewing her cud will last forever. These are not flattering images and reflect badly on HER and her party, as she is considered a party leader. Trump didn’t look bad – SHE did!

        Liked by 3 people

    • dd_sc says:

      And a bit of a slap at the Swamp critters trying to tie his hands on troop removal from Syria and Afghanistan.

      Liked by 1 person

    • FYISAKI says:

      I didn’t read that as HRC would have gotten us into a war. I read it as: A President Hilary Clinton would have indicated to China great weakness and fecklessness in the US polity. That perception would have encouraged aggression against us.


    • porkyspen says:

      I agree, the statement by the President clearly means that Clinton would have started a war with NK. The entire premise of this article seems to be built on a misunderstanding of that fact.


      • Wookiebush says:

        I believe Cankles would have started a war to distract from all the crap pulled by the Klintoon Crime Family prior to the election. Distractions matter.



  4. Ken says:

    I took the message to mean that Hillary Clinton would have been a war monger.

    Liked by 9 people

  5. andrewalinxs says:

    interesting that the day after he announce the meeting Cohen magically is set to testify on the 28th.

    Liked by 4 people

  6. conservalicious says:

    Our POTUS is a genius on foreign policy. I think this was the biggest and most pleasant surprise of his presidency for me. I knew he was the man 👨 for the job on our economy but he has shown himself to be a masterful politician.

    Liked by 16 people

  7. Deplorable_Vespucciland says:

    Some may find it rather ironic for Washington to be negotiating peace talks in Vietnam to officially end the Korean War. Red China was America’s principal opponent in both conflicts though you wouldn’t know it according to leftwing academia and their mandatory K-12 education gulags. And yet here we are some 60+ years later . . . Capitalism wins & Communism loses, as always.

    Liked by 11 people

    • Beenthere says:

      There might be some meetings with the Vietnamese after NK’s meeting regarding more trade with USA.

      Liked by 2 people

      • Carolina Kat says:

        I think he’s signaling that Vietnam may get some benefits in the form of trade should Kim/Xi prove to be bad faith actors in the negotiations. We have other options…

        Staging is everything.

        Liked by 3 people

        • Lindenlee says:

          Many factories that used to make goods in China have moved to Vietnam, to cut costs. China is now in the unenviable position of having labor costs that are too high! Does n9t help with the slowdown in China.


  8. Doppler says:

    That was a very distinct change in tone in his speech, and, of course, now that you point it out, it is obvious that he is, in the blink of an eye, changing into negotiation mode with Xi and Kim, then just as swiftly, switches back to reporting to our nation. Once academia puts behind its Cultural Marxism deviation, this could become a classic speech worthy of study on many levels.

    Liked by 4 people

    • The Boss says:

      The audible reaction of the audience iinitially came across as “Trump’s full of crap”. But on reflection, the reaction could just have well as been “First Northam speaks the truth. Now Trump. We are so screwed”. I’m thinking more the second than the first.

      Liked by 2 people

    • Petrel says:

      Doppler — agree. There was a change in tone as the President ceased speaking only to America and opened a conversation with his counterparts in China and North Korea.

      Coming immediately after the Senate’s war-mongering vote, President Trump was effectively saying to President Xi that Chinese support for the CoC, GOPe, Business Roundtable and such could rebound with a war-inclined new president, willing / ready / eager to launch foreign wars — based on the “composed intelligence” of 4 – 10 – 17 – 1,999 agencies.

      Liked by 2 people

  9. Publius2016 says:

    yes…nuclear war was baked in! Crooked and her band of demons looked to militarily engage one of the most economically powerful areas of the world to advance Globalism!

    Liked by 2 people

  10. G3 says:

    Why the undermining at home continues….“In the interests of the investigation, Michael Cohen’s testimony has been postponed until February 28th,” the committee’s chairman, Rep. Adam Schiff, D-Calif., said in a statement.


  11. I.......... says:

    I took his statement to mean “We’d be at war with a HC President”. Not that he was willing to go to war. I could be wrong

    Liked by 2 people

  12. President Trump understands that it is far better for opponents to be cognizant of the full range of options…and not to take for granted what we (the US) might do.
    Obama was a far less able poker player–heck he didn’t just hint at what he’d do–he told our enemies what he’d do! And just as bad, he threatened and then did not follow through.

    Liked by 4 people

  13. babrightlight says:

    I admit I flinched on this remark by the President and I see your angle on why he said it, but it contains a logical fallacy. If Trump had not been elected president, then HRC would be our president and I doubt she would have gone to war with North Korea. Rather, she would have pursued some weak, typical Democrat response of appeasement. Maybe Trump should have said something like, “Had we not negotiated…” or “Had circumstances not changed…then we would have gone to war” type of statement.


    • Carolina Kat says:

      I think it’s fair to assume linear projection on the path HRC’s State Dept would have taken – that would indeed have ended in war. The evidence backs up his statement or that’s all we would be hearing today.


    • RJones says:

      I think he was saying, ” your ( NORK, backed by China) behavior was so aggregious there is little doubt any American admin would have fallen back on war to end it.

      Whether that is true of another admin or not is besides the point, since Trump is declaring himself to be among the sane. Therefore, under Trump, both NORK and China can rest assured the US will not stand idly by if they resort to their former bad behavior.


  14. trialbytruth says:

    Great analysis Sundance.

    One other thing stood out to me.

    The location of the meeting supports his position on endless.wars. Endless Korean conflict, endless Vietnam war.

    Thank you God.

    Liked by 4 people

  15. CountryDoc says:

    War is a very undesirable option. He has made that clear. He also, however, sees the destructive gravity beyond just economic consequences of the cancer this country has become infested with by the Uniparty (He doesn’t hold China responsible, he holds U.S. leaders responsible). China is not the enemy of the people. Our U.S. leaders have become the enemy.

    But he means business, and he intends to make the rest of the world know — you do not mess with the United States. Yes we are negotiating for real with a master negotiator who has assembled a team of master negotiators who are kicking but all over the world. But take note — it is not just words and business deals on the table. Some of our enemies are now gone or neutralized (and he listed them, some from WWII on). And yes, war is still on the table.

    The world is watching, and cheering for us, and what the United States stand for. They are watching our current President and his leadership. But the most important entity that the world is paying attention to is not an individual….

    The greatest power in the world, whether they understand it or not, is the people who make up our Republic. Our great Lion made some masterful progress toward healing and unification of the people of the United States. There is much cancer to debulk, chemotherapy, and dead tissue to excise. Eating habits and exercise (I am speaking figuratively) need to improve in our economy, government, and function as a country. But most important, we as a country need to again recognize that blueprint we must follow is that of our Creator, who designed the DNA in every cell of our body, our brains, our spirits, this great land we are stewards of, and our government. I think his last words were, “Under God”.

    Liked by 5 people

    • Ospreyzone says:

      The “blueprint” you refer to is effectively memorialized at the “Monument to Our Forefathers,” near Plymouth Rock Massachusetts. The five virtues symbolized on that granite monument were practiced by America’s earliest settlers and serve as pathway to liberty, or roadmap if you will, for Americans to preserve their constitutional republic.

      Liked by 1 person

      • CountryDoc says:

        Ospreyzone, I looked up the Monument to our forefathers” at I tried to pull out the points you wanted to make from that article.

        1. .Faith – God and the Bible
        2. Morality – prophet and evangelist (Embarcation)
        3. Law – Justice and Mercy (Treaty)
        4. Education – Youth, Wisdom (Compact)
        5. Liberty – Tyranny overthrown, Peace (Landing)

        Can you elaborate? Links to resources that further elaborate?

        Tea Party, MAGA, Patriots: We need a clear set of foundational principles that we can organize and rally around, deliver a simplified message to the people of the republic and our representatives and those we elect to lead.


  16. Kenji says:

    The Generals in attendance at the SOTU were all wearing their resting bitch faces during PDJT’s speech. Seems they don’t like getting their LOSING WARS taken away.

    Liked by 1 person

    • CountryDoc says:

      The did not seem to clap either, about any of the points in the speech. Only to people/guests in the balcony. I think I saw tears well in the face of the Joint Chief.


      • Bull Durham says:

        How did any of them earn a 4th Star? Or those chest full of ribbons?

        Do we have ribbons for each disaster they oversee?

        They have been in perpetual wars (scores of these wars “secret”) and we have not benefited except for weapons manufacturing jobs.

        They also oversaw 18-22 suicides per day on average since 1999 (VA statistics).
        That is over 100,000 KIAs (delayed but caused by war).

        They enable a robust heroin trade.
        They also have massive collateral casualties in all these wars they can’t win.
        Millions of dead and wounded civilians in these “limited” wars.

        Maybe they get ribbons for all these achievements.

        It would be nice if we had a common sense military doctrine.
        What does America First mean when projected as military action?

        Who is the enemy?
        How do we win?
        When do we leave?

        These are finite metrics that should be announced at the getgo.

        Korea and Vietnam taught us nothing.

        Liked by 1 person

        • CountryDoc says:

          I wonder about that. And things like- should we protect the farmers in africa, somalians, etc.

          What Trump has shown us, however, is that our economic power is more valuable than 5 aircraft carriers, if we can be united and keep our own bankers and corporations from buying off our government. His actions and the intent of his actions are undeniable. Who he is fighting for, is becoming more and more apparent: Blexit, minorities poll numbers going up, because they are prospering and experiencing freedom. Witness the awkward dance the ladies in white did: Did the continue to sit and scowl at his speech. His economic policies have done more in two years for “woman’s suffrage” than decades of their manipulative use of victimhood and anger. It was inappropriate to sit and scowl — they had to dance. But Trump took credit for it, and they could not deny it.

          Liked by 4 people

        • Pancho says:

          It’s not the Generals responsible, imho, it’s the CIA. They are part of the Deep State Globalist oppression. CIA wants wars for their drugs, and pedo trafficking.


        • tomf says:

          Vietnam taught me plenty, Bull.


        • Carson Napier says:

          Vietnam did teach us something, but we forgot. They did anyway.


    • Og Oggilby says:

      There is nothing new under the sun….

      “War is a racket. It always has been. It is possibly the oldest, easily the most profitable, surely the most vicious. It is the only one international in scope. It is the only one in which the profits are reckoned in dollars and the losses in lives. A racket is best described, I believe, as something that is not what it seems to the majority of the people. Only a small ‘inside’ group knows what it is about. It is conducted for the benefit of the very few, at the expense of the very many. Out of war a few people make huge fortunes.”

      Summary of a 1935 short book written by Smedley D. Butler, a retired USMC Major General and two-time Medal of Honor recipient:

      Liked by 2 people

    • safvetblog says:

      FYI, active duty military are prohibited from participating in any political activity while in uniform. Regardless of what they were thinking, the officers were just following the rules. They were there representing the DOD and not to advocate any policy.

      Liked by 2 people

    • olderwiser21 says:

      Kenji! I noticed that as well – they looked like a sorry bunch of sad sacks, even when the President walked by and shook hands. I thought, well, there’s a bunch of never-trumpers if I have ever seen any! Pathetic. BTW, I love “resting BF”. I use it often now in my daily life…hahahahah….it seems so appropriate on so many occasions:)


  17. Justice Warrior says:

    So grateful for his brilliance!

    Liked by 1 person

  18. Bucky Badger says:

    I am pretty sure VSG Trump sent a clear military message to Chairman Xi when he launched an array of Tomahawks at Syrian airfields while he asked Xi to pass the butter at the dinner table.

    Also, back when Rocketman was performing up to his namesake, each time he fired off a rocket, Trump increased the financial pain on China. Rocket, tariff. Rocket, tariff. Rocket? Tariff! No Mo Rocket.

    Clearly, Trump is using the Rocket Man, Xi, Tariff paradigm once again by scheduling his meeting with Chairman Kim at almost the same time that Chairman Xi needs to put up or shut up. These are all intrinsically linked.

    Liked by 2 people

  19. Fools Gold says:

    No doubt about that. Little Kim is not getting nukes in Trumps tenure.

    Liked by 1 person

  20. bkrg2 says:

    There is no doubt in my opinion that Obozo was preparing for war. Crooked would have pulled the trigger. And the UniParty neocons would all br celebrating now.
    Im confident in the UniParty prediction as evidenced by the vote of perpetual war in Afganistan.

    Thank god for President Trump not spilling blood all over the planet.

    Liked by 1 person

  21. bkrg2 says:

    There is no doubt in my opinion that Obozo was preparing for war. Crooked would have pulled the trigger. And the UniParty neocons would all br celebrating now.
    Im confident in the UniParty prediction as evidenced by the vote of perpetual war in Afganistan.

    Thank god for President Trump not spilling blood all over the planet.


    • GB Bari says:

      IMHO, I don’t see how one can believe Obozo was willing to go to war considering that Obozo was the one who was deliberately letting the military TO/E rot in place and starve it from funds to replace the aging and worn out equipment.

      Obozo was anything BUT frioendly to the military. He wanted it’s male testosterone-driven “machismo” significatly weakned by forcing social experimentation (stacking it with gays and trannies). He continued to let the ME wars rage on without sufficient funding. That is why PDJT wanted the large DOD budget and was willing to sign the unnecessarily YUGE “Porkulus III” bill last year.


      • lumoc1 says:

        You do not believe that “Obozo was willing to go to war” maybe because you, like most normal people consider going to war synonymous with trying to win, how about if Obozo’s most likely aim was to lose ? 😉

        Liked by 2 people

        • GB Bari says:

          Maybe Obozo might have personally desired to do that (I think its still pretty slim possibility other than to a muslim nation) but he’d never get anywhere with his generals OR the NeoCons and Deep State. THEY would want to fight to a stalemate at the very least (to keep the dollars coming and their careers relevant). But I cannot see any bona fide military flag officers willing to lose to an enemy like China or NoKo.

          Plus I dont think China is a cooperating participant in the Globalist Financial Cabal (Rothschilds et al). China wants it all for themselves.


          • Rhoda R says:

            I expect that Obama was planning to use his BLM-type agents to generate massive unrest in the US to force his globalist agenda with a war – preferably a nuclear war – as the excuse.


          • lumoc1 says:

            Probably, It would have been clearer and closer to the truth for me to say that Obozo’s principal aim was to humiliate and diminish the USA, instead of saying that Obozo’s most likely aim was to lose a war; an eventual stalemate like all the wars since 1945, would certainly not increase the prestige of the US and would serve the purpose of the Globalist Financial Cabal

            Liked by 1 person

  22. Jederman says:

    The immature, ill-mannered empty suit that occupied the WH for eight years prior to PT was not respected. Period. He was not capable of mano a mano discussions. Hence no significant foreign policy objectives met (to the extent they actually had any, aside from doing all possible to her the Iranians).

    Only serious people can have serious discussions.

    Liked by 2 people

  23. The chairman kim should working with President Trump,right now
    kim has better opportunity for he’s country and He’s people,
    Matter fact That He’s poor people are still living hungry,
    as a leader he got to do Better for N/korean people,I hope,

    Liked by 2 people

  24. Curt says:

    I’m still furious over McConnell’s treachery over pulling the troops out of Afghanistan. 17 years is long enough. Trump is 100% correct here. I believe history, if it is honestly told and not revised, will confirm that President Trump’s position on this matter was the correct one.

    Liked by 1 person

    • CountryDoc says:

      Slowly, slowly, the sunlight shines on those living off the American workers, and slowly the voters are waking up. How can McConnell’s move against the President and pulling out of Afghanistan and Syria be seen as good?

      I have to admit, however, when Barry O did it, I did not trust him and felt he was giving the county away. Those of us watching Trump today, however, can see he is also intending to keep our enemies at bay, and hold other nations accountable for cost and participation in the safety of their own regions. The people in all countrys, though, are all watching closely and seeing how a real leader cares for his nation.

      Liked by 1 person

    • RJones says:

      Yes. Completely agree. I think this and immigration and the whole impeachment nonsense ought to be enough to get us to throw on the green jackets and head to DC. I would join up in a minute.

      First, the Tea Party took over the House, then Republicans took over Congress. Still not enough so then we elected Trump. When will these a$$hats start listening to we voters? Seems we need to deliver the message in person.


      • CountryDoc says:

        First we need a CLEAR message, and consistent, and one that makes sense. Then it has to be believed, supported, and insisted upon by a critical mass of the voters/republic so that all branches of government support it: congress, president and LEO/Military, DOJ; as well as the media and deep state. And then the education of our children and colleges need to be in line with these principles.


  25. G. Combs says:

    Remember what President Trump’s FIRST meeting with President Xi was like.

    He served the bombing of Syria with Desert!

    Fast forward to this week.
    The Senate majority leader calls a vote where the Senate DEMANDS President Trump stays in Afcrapistan.

    Remember what Sundance pointed out to us a couple of years ago:

    Who wags Afghanistan’s tail? — Pakistan

    Who wags Pakistan’s tail? — China

    Like North Korea, Afghanistan is really another Chinese proxy.

    So yes, Sundance is correct. This whole scenario is a subtle threat. President Trump is saying, I, President Trump am standing between YOU and the War Mongers. Now let’s talk.

    Liked by 4 people

    • olderwiser21 says:

      Hey, G. – I think you meant “dessert” – not desert, right? Although I guess there can be a double meaning in there.:)


  26. President Trump just MULTIPLIED the SCENARIOS for China & NK to Game-Out

    • DEMOCRAT Obama had announced “NORTH KOREA our GREATEST THREAT”
    • DEMOCRAT Hillary would have “GONE to WAR”
    • DEMOCRAT Crazed-POTUS in 2020 could readily “START a WAR”
    • UNIPARTY voted yesterday on Syria-Afghanistan to “PERPETUATE WAR”
    • TRUMP reminded how American Military Might in WWII “WON the WAR”
    • NATO boosted Defense Spending $100 B to “PRECLUDE a WAR”
    • TRUMP boosted Defense Spending to $716 B to “WIN a WAR”
    • TRUMP created Energy Independence and Exports to “THRIVE in WAR”
    • TRUMP announced our Space Force to “DOMINATE in WAR”
    • TRUMP just exited the INF Treaty to “PREPARE for WAR”
    • TRUMP’s military strikes on ISIS, Syria, Russia & Pakis say “READY for WAR”

    • DEEP STATE and Military-Industrial Complex all “WANT a WAR”
    • RUSSIAN interests in Venezuela & Mideast would “RELISH a CHINA-USA WAR”
    • CHINA Island-Construction & Saber-Rattling could “TRIGGER a WAR”

    • TRUMP’s massive Sanctions on Iran and Venezuela could “AVOID a WAR”
    … just as USA-EU Sanctions on China could “SUBSTITUTE for WAR”

    • CHINA IP Theft & Corporate Infiltration could “INVITE a TRADE WAR”
    • CHINA’s Cyber Spying & Telecom Entanglement could “REQUIRE a TRADE WAR”
    • CHINA’s Trade Surplus & Debt Exposure could “LOSE a TRADE WAR”
    • CHINA’s Food & Energy Import Dependency could “TRIGGER REBELLION”

    NK and China have a shot before March to “AVERT a WAR”
    … Or NOT.
    … Feel Free to sweat it out for 2021.
    … Good luck Gaming this one!
    [Zippo still TWIRLING]

    Liked by 7 people

  27. FYISAKI says:

    BOY, was I wrong.

    But I think I was right on the money about a year ago when I wrote:

    God called and called and called and called.
    Donald listened and listened and listened and listened.
    FINally, Donald heard and responded; and now
    THE Donald is OUR Donald.

    God Bless and Keep You and Yours, President Trump.
    And Thank You !!

    Liked by 2 people

  28. FYISAKI says:

    Black Knight’s recap is gone. Bring it back.


  29. WHY NO Trade Deals with Japan, Vietnam, Philippines and India:
    • Is POTUS deferring deals until/as they COMPETE to displace China Exports-to-USA?
    • Is POTUS deferring deals until China sets the TRADE DEAL TEMPLATE?


  30. James W Crawford says:

    As President, Hillary Clinton would have perpetuated lunacies such as inciting the Arab Spring that destabilized the Middle East and the incitement of the coup in Ukraine which has brought US-Russian relations to the lowest point since the fall of the Berlin Wall. Trump is reminding Kim and Xi that he has used diplomacy backed by military power to deescalate the conflict over North Korea. In spite of its trade surplus and recent military procurements, China’s nuclear forces are pathetic. The US could dstroy most of China’s nukes in a first strike using non-nuclear cruise missiles and have a credible chance of intercepting any surviving missiles. Just one nuke on the Three Gorges Dam would devastate China’s economy.

    Liked by 1 person

  31. kltk1 says:

    I’m gonna watch it again to be sure, but, did I see Mitch McConnell sitting while everyone else was applauding, and giving a standing ovation to POTUS’ remarks regarding the strong tariffs imposed on China? If I remember correctly, his sister in law is a big shot at a bank and a member of the communist party in China.


  32. cripto says:

    This hearing should be interesting tomorrow at the
    Hearing on “What Keeps Xi Up at Night: Beijing’s Internal and External Challenges”
    Thursday, February 7, 2019 Dirksen Senate Office Building, Room 106 Washington, DC 20002

    The agenda and speakers are listed here.’s-internal-and-external-challenges


  33. cripto says:

    The National Interest just posted 76 different ideas about how the Vietnam summit may work out, from experts on NK, some of whom worked on previous negotiations or sanctions. You may agree or disagree with the estimations, but it is a good primer of a variety of perspectives, US, SK, China, Japan, European. Also perspectives from various areas of expertise such as arms control, diplomatic, government, Human Rights, economics and so on. An interesting read if you have time. Bur at the end of the day, they are speculative, informed opinions.’s-second-summit-we-asked-76-experts-predict-results-43787


  34. Can you name one successful foreign policy of the Clinton/Obama regimes? Successful for America, I mean.

    I can’t.


  35. Pyrthroes says:

    Trump didn’t say that he would “go to war” (because he manifestly hasn’t), but that a feckless rollover MzBill Administration would have defaulted to zero, inciting East Asian hostilities as a geopolitical extortion exercise offering “peace in our time” in exchange for TPP dagger thrusts at America’s already Gangrenous-drained economy.

    As MzBill waddled off to Buffalo, taking the path of least resistance in exchange for Uranium One-type compensation, Hsi and Kim would be doing nip-ups in Tienanmen Square while Mario Draghi’s Brussels enarques licked their chops.


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