theduran--2020-01-24--Russia’s skilled balancing in Asia and elsewhere

During a parliamentary debate on January 22nd , Japanese Prime Minister Shinzo Abe stated that 2019 had seen Russian-Japanese cooperative relations reach an “ unprecedented ” depth .
He alluded to the implementation of joint economic projects in the formally disputed Southern Kuril Islands , and told Yukio Edano , the leader of Japan ’ s opposition Constitutional Democratic Party , that “ Over the past year , the development of relations between Japan and Russia on the basis of agreements in Nagato ( in 2016 ) reached an unprecedented level.
” The Southern Kuril Islands were incorporated into the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ second world war , but their territorial status has been disputed by Japan ever since .
A process of formal peace-negotiations began in 1956 .
In November 2018 , President Putin and PM Abe agreed to accelerate the process of negotiations toward a formal peace treaty .
Over the previous 2 days , on January 20th and 21st , both ships and aircraft from the Russian Baltic Fleet and Japanese Maritime Self-Defence Force had completed their first ever joint-exercises in the Arabian Sea , geared toward countering piracy .
This is quite a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of 20th century Russo-Japanese relations .
Meanwhile , on January 21st , Russian ambassador to DPRK Alexander Matsegora held discussions with DPRK officials on joint-cooperation in the civil aviation sphere .
The simultaneous timing of these various cooperative exercises is quite deliberate .
To see what ’ s going on here , let ’ s reiterate the geo-strategic fundamentals of the East Asian theatre and from there attempt to surmise what Russian diplomacy is attempting to do .
Firstly , Japan ’ s history of expansionist impulses and territorial ambitions is rapidly becoming @ @ @ @ @ @ @ for multiple reasons .
In addition to the radical contraction of those territorial ambitions following the end of the second world war , the economic rise of China and Japan ’ s own severe contemporary demographic crisis simply makes it entirely unrealistic for Japan to continue to entertain imperial ambitions .
Secondly , the Atlanticist geo-strategic logic of deputizing Japan as a geo-strategic padlock to contain Eurasian expansion ( the provenance of which begins with Halford Mackinder at the beginning of the 20th century ) is also gradually becoming a less relevant geo-strategic @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , notwithstanding Japan ’ s recent purchase of the Aegis Ashore missile defence system from the United States and the deployment of MK-41 launch-pads at Japanese missile-sites .
Thirdly , Russia and China are jointly the de facto guarantors of the DPRK ’ s security , and both have played significant diplomatic roles in denuclearization negotiations between the United States and DPRK .
Fourthly , as the reach of the Atlanticist project has contracted , Japan ’ s economic orbit has inevitably become more Asia-centred .
Japan is set to participate in the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Korea , DPRK , Russia , China and Mongolia .
Hopes are high that this structure could gradually develop into a broader framework for East Asian economic integration , encompassing expanded trade , cooperation in the energetics-sector , and security-cooperation .
In this regard , we see something approaching a geo-political coup being pulled off .
Rather than playing the role of a geo-strategic “ padlock ” at the eastern extremity of the Eurasian land-mass in order to contain Eurasian expansion ( which Mackinder thought of , first and foremost , through the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ now playing the role of an active participant in Eurasian continental infrastructural development .
In addition , we should note that security-cooperation between nations which might simultaneously be geo-strategic rivals , or even classifiable as geo-strategic “ adversaries , ” has consistently been emphasized by the Russian Foreign Ministry as a necessary component of the global security architecture which has to be rebuilt in the wake of the Pax Americana ’ s demise .
In this regard , the recent joint naval exercise conducted by Russian and Japanese forces serves diplomatic and ideological @ @ @ @ @ @ @ purpose of joint security .
In a post-Atlanticist world , Japan ’ s only remaining reason to play the ( proxy- ) role of a geo-strategic rival to Russia disappears .
However , that does not solve the historical problem of Japanese-Korean relations .
As American hegemony contracts , Russia once again sees an opportunity to extend its sphere of influence through subtle diplomatic methods , by playing the role of broker .
We have seen this elsewhere , most notably in the contemporary Middle East , where Russia maintains a formal alliance @ @ @ @ @ @ @ strategic partnership with Iran , while simultaneously also maintaining quite friendly relations with Israel , and has not only militarily interceded in Syria but also attempted to moderate the Syrian conflict through Russian-Israeli diplomacy .
We need to remember that the historical episode of egregious American unilateral military adventurism in which we currently find ourselves was not geo-strategically possible before the dissolution of the Soviet Union .
Apart from small , localized excursions in the western hemisphere , the United States maintained a policy of militarily treading very carefully in the wider world @ @ @ @ @ @ @ circumstances , President Reagan disingenuously attempted to cast the United States in the role of “ honest broker ” in the Lebanese conflict , for example .
Today , Russia is growing into this “ brokerage ” role with far greater plausibility , as evidenced in its various diplomatic initiatives regarding Libya , Syria , and now East Asia .
What we might call the “ Pax Russica ” is a new kind of peace , based on diplomacy rather than global military dominance .
However , the broker nonetheless always collects a @ @ @ @ @ @ @

The statements, views and opinions expressed in this column are solely those of the author and do not necessarily represent those of this site. This site does not give financial, investment or medical advice.
Submitted by InfoBrics, authored by Padraig McGrath, political analyst…
During a parliamentary debate on January 22nd, Japanese Prime Minister Shinzo Abe stated that 2019 had seen Russian-Japanese cooperative relations reach an “unprecedented” depth. He alluded to the implementation of joint economic projects in the formally disputed Southern Kuril Islands, and told Yukio Edano, the leader of Japan’s opposition Constitutional Democratic Party, that “Over the past year, the development of relations between Japan and Russia on the basis of agreements in Nagato (in 2016) reached an unprecedented level.”
The Southern Kuril Islands were incorporated into the Soviet Union at the end of the second world war, but their territorial status has been disputed by Japan ever since. A process of formal peace-negotiations began in 1956. In November 2018, President Putin and PM Abe agreed to accelerate the process of negotiations toward a formal peace treaty.
Over the previous 2 days, on January 20th and 21st, both ships and aircraft from the Russian Baltic Fleet and Japanese Maritime Self-Defence Force had completed their first ever joint-exercises in the Arabian Sea, geared toward countering piracy. This is quite a noteworthy development when seen against the backdrop of 20th century Russo-Japanese relations.
Meanwhile, on January 21st, Russian ambassador to DPRK Alexander Matsegora held discussions with DPRK officials on joint-cooperation in the civil aviation sphere.
The simultaneous timing of these various cooperative exercises is quite deliberate.
To see what’s going on here, let’s reiterate the geo-strategic fundamentals of the East Asian theatre and from there attempt to surmise what Russian diplomacy is attempting to do.
Firstly, Japan’s history of expansionist impulses and territorial ambitions is rapidly becoming less relevant to the geo-strategic picture, for multiple reasons. In addition to the radical contraction of those territorial ambitions following the end of the second world war, the economic rise of China and Japan’s own severe contemporary demographic crisis simply makes it entirely unrealistic for Japan to continue to entertain imperial ambitions.
Secondly, the Atlanticist geo-strategic logic of deputizing Japan as a geo-strategic padlock to contain Eurasian expansion (the provenance of which begins with Halford Mackinder at the beginning of the 20th century) is also gradually becoming a less relevant geo-strategic factor as Atlanticist geo-strategic reach also contracts, notwithstanding Japan’s recent purchase of the Aegis Ashore missile defence system from the United States and the deployment of MK-41 launch-pads at Japanese missile-sites.
Thirdly, Russia and China are jointly the de facto guarantors of the DPRK’s security, and both have played significant diplomatic roles in denuclearization negotiations between the United States and DPRK.
Fourthly, as the reach of the Atlanticist project has contracted, Japan’s economic orbit has inevitably become more Asia-centred. Japan is set to participate in the East Asia Railroad Community initiative alongside South Korea, DPRK, Russia, China and Mongolia. Hopes are high that this structure could gradually develop into a broader framework for East Asian economic integration, encompassing expanded trade, cooperation in the energetics-sector, and security-cooperation. In this regard, we see something approaching a geo-political coup being pulled off. Rather than playing the role of a geo-strategic “padlock” at the eastern extremity of the Eurasian land-mass in order to contain Eurasian expansion (which Mackinder thought of, first and foremost, through the development of railways), Japan is now playing the role of an active participant in Eurasian continental infrastructural development.
In addition, we should note that security-cooperation between nations which might simultaneously be geo-strategic rivals, or even classifiable as geo-strategic “adversaries,” has consistently been emphasized by the Russian Foreign Ministry as a necessary component of the global security architecture which has to be rebuilt in the wake of the Pax Americana’s demise. In this regard, the recent joint naval exercise conducted by Russian and Japanese forces serves diplomatic and ideological purposes as much as it serves the purpose of joint security.
In a post-Atlanticist world, Japan’s only remaining reason to play the (proxy-)role of a geo-strategic rival to Russia disappears. However, that does not solve the historical problem of Japanese-Korean relations. As American hegemony contracts, Russia once again sees an opportunity to extend its sphere of influence through subtle diplomatic methods, by playing the role of broker. We have seen this elsewhere, most notably in the contemporary Middle East, where Russia maintains a formal alliance with Syria and a very strong informal strategic partnership with Iran, while simultaneously also maintaining quite friendly relations with Israel, and has not only militarily interceded in Syria but also attempted to moderate the Syrian conflict through Russian-Israeli diplomacy.
We need to remember that the historical episode of egregious American unilateral military adventurism in which we currently find ourselves was not geo-strategically possible before the dissolution of the Soviet Union. Apart from small, localized excursions in the western hemisphere, the United States maintained a policy of militarily treading very carefully in the wider world during the Reagan era. Under these circumstances, President Reagan disingenuously attempted to cast the United States in the role of “honest broker” in the Lebanese conflict, for example. Today, Russia is growing into this “brokerage” role with far greater plausibility, as evidenced in its various diplomatic initiatives regarding Libya, Syria, and now East Asia. What we might call the “Pax Russica” is a new kind of peace, based on diplomacy rather than global military dominance. However, the broker nonetheless always collects a small fee, a diplomatic dividend.
Read Later Add to Favourites Add to Collection Report


theduran--2020-01-24--Three Years of Monroe Doctrine By Trump: What Has Happened in Latin America?

Submitted by InfoBrics , authored by Paul Antonopoulos , Research Fellow at the Center for Syncretic Studies… Against all mainstream media expectations , Donald Trump had defeated Hillary Clinton to the presidency of the United States in 2016 , and it was expected that the new president would take on a more isolationist policy and withdraw his country from many of the world ’ s hotspots .
However , after three years , this has proven to be incorrect with President Trump taking hard-line stance on approach to Latin America , and reviving the Monroe Doctrine .
The election of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Tropical Trump , ’ to the Brazilian Presidency in 2018 meant that Latin America ’ s largest country has been working towards the realignment Brasilia ’ s policies with Washington ’ s interests in the region .
It was unsurprising then that Brazil became a key South American country to go against Venezuelan President Nicolás Maduro , supporting neoliberal Mauricio Macri ’ s attempt to remain President of Argentina , and opposing Cuba forcing the Caribbean country to withdraw their doctors from helping Brazil ’ s poorest and most vulnerable .
Bolsonaro , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Christian Zionist Evangelical vote just as Trump did , also amended his country ’ s relations with Israel and even attempted to move Brazil ’ s embassy from Tel Aviv to Jerusalem , before succumbing to pressure from Arab states who buy a large percentage of Brazilian agriculture .
Despite Brasilia ’ s realignment with the U.S. and serving its interests in not only Latin America , but even in the Middle East , there was no reward for Brazil as Trump announced his intentions to put tariff ’ s on Brazil ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ requirement for Brazilian citizens despite Bolsonaro eliminating this procedure for American visitors , and not supporting Brazil ’ s admission into the Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development .
Meanwhile , under Trump , Washington has expanded the number of Cuban entities affected by the sanctions on three occasions that have been maintained since the success of Fidel Castro ’ s revolution in the 1950 ’ s .
He also made it extremely difficult for Americans to travel to Cuba by cancelling cruises that travel to the Caribbean country .
Trump believes that @ @ @ @ @ @ @ is also indirectly pressuring Venezuela too .
However , he has also employed other indirect and direct methods to pressurize Venezuela by applying sanctions against the country as early as May 2017 by freezing assets and banning financial transactions in the U.S. against eight members of the Venezuelan Supreme Court .
The financial sanctions also expanded , targeting more individuals and key industries .
The pressure only increased with U.S. Secretary of State Mike Pompeo and then-Defense Adviser John Bolton , actively backing support for opposition deputy Juan Guaidó on January 23 , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ legal basis .
However , these efforts failed with Maduro comfortably remaining in power and Guaidó utterly failing to get any major political or military support in Venezuela despite attempting to conduct a constitutional and military coup .
We of course can not forget Trump ’ s praise to Colombian President Iván Duque Márquez , claiming he was doing a great job by accepting Venezuelan migrants .
Really , Trump meant that Duque was making his best to consolidate Colombia ’ s vassal status to the U.S. by strengthening military ties and becoming @ @ @ @ @ @ @ war with the Bolivarian country .
The degree of cooperation appeared to be fully exposed in January 2019 when Bolton ‘ unintentionally ’ showed a note during a conference that read “ 5,000 troops to Colombia , ” although both the U.S. and Colombia quickly denied that American troops were being sent to the South American country .
Although Trump failed to remove Maduro from power through economic , constitutional and military attempts , he did find success in Bolivia where staunch ally of Venezuela and Cuba , President Evo Morales , was @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
The U.S. became the first country to recognize Evangelical Jeanine Áñez as Bolivia ’ s new president .
However , the next elections could potentially end this victory for Washington with strong indications that Morales ’ party , the Movement for Socialism , will be re-elected in May .
Moving to the southern land border with the U.S. , Mexico , it certainly has not worked the way that Trump anticipated despite the heavy emphasis on building a border wall .
The idea of building a wall on the southern border with @ @ @ @ @ @ @ entering the country was one of the most controversial points of his platform and , at the same time , one of the points with which he managed to attract the attention of a lot of the U.S. public .
However , financing the wall was one of the biggest headaches for the American leader , since his proposal was systematically rejected by the Democratic Party , which has a majority in the House of Representatives .
Of the $ 5.7 billion that Trump wanted to use for the wall , he only @ @ @ @ @ @ @ This is also coupled with the fact that Mexico has become one of the main defenders of Evo Morales , Venezuela and other progressive movements in Latin America .
How Trump responds to these continued setbacks in Venezuela , Mexico and Argentina off the back of minor successes in Brazil and Bolivia remains to be seen , especially as he has not achieved a final victory in these countries yet .
However , what is certain is that the Monroe Doctrine under Trump is well and truly back despite suggestions that his administration @ @ @ @ @ @ @ isolationism .

The statements, views and opinions expressed in this column are solely those of the author and do not necessarily represent those of this site. This site does not give financial, investment or medical advice.
Submitted by InfoBrics, authored by Paul Antonopoulos, Research Fellow at the Center for Syncretic Studies…
Against all mainstream media expectations, Donald Trump had defeated Hillary Clinton to the presidency of the United States in 2016, and it was expected that the new president would take on a more isolationist policy and withdraw his country from many of the world’s hotspots. However, after three years, this has proven to be incorrect with President Trump taking hard-line stance on approach to Latin America, and reviving the Monroe Doctrine.
The election of Jair Bolsonaro, dubbed as the ‘Tropical Trump,’ to the Brazilian Presidency in 2018 meant that Latin America’s largest country has been working towards the realignment Brasilia’s policies with Washington’s interests in the region. It was unsurprising then that Brazil became a key South American country to go against Venezuelan President Nicolás Maduro, supporting neoliberal Mauricio Macri’s attempt to remain President of Argentina, and opposing Cuba forcing the Caribbean country to withdraw their doctors from helping Brazil’s poorest and most vulnerable.
Bolsonaro, who had the backing of the powerful Christian Zionist Evangelical vote just as Trump did, also amended his country’s relations with Israel and even attempted to move Brazil’s embassy from Tel Aviv to Jerusalem, before succumbing to pressure from Arab states who buy a large percentage of Brazilian agriculture. Despite Brasilia’s realignment with the U.S. and serving its interests in not only Latin America, but even in the Middle East, there was no reward for Brazil as Trump announced his intentions to put tariff’s on Brazil’s steel industry, maintaining difficult visa requirement for Brazilian citizens despite Bolsonaro eliminating this procedure for American visitors, and not supporting Brazil’s admission into the Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development.
Meanwhile, under Trump, Washington has expanded the number of Cuban entities affected by the sanctions on three occasions that have been maintained since the success of Fidel Castro’s revolution in the 1950’s. He also made it extremely difficult for Americans to travel to Cuba by cancelling cruises that travel to the Caribbean country.
Trump believes that by maintaining pressure on Cuba, he is also indirectly pressuring Venezuela too. However, he has also employed other indirect and direct methods to pressurize Venezuela by applying sanctions against the country as early as May 2017 by freezing assets and banning financial transactions in the U.S. against eight members of the Venezuelan Supreme Court. The financial sanctions also expanded, targeting more individuals and key industries. The pressure only increased with U.S. Secretary of State Mike Pompeo and then-Defense Adviser John Bolton, actively backing support for opposition deputy Juan Guaidó on January 23, 2019 as president of Venezuela without any legal basis. However, these efforts failed with Maduro comfortably remaining in power and Guaidó utterly failing to get any major political or military support in Venezuela despite attempting to conduct a constitutional and military coup.
We of course cannot forget Trump’s praise to Colombian President Iván Duque Márquez, claiming he was doing a great job by accepting Venezuelan migrants. Really, Trump meant that Duque was making his best to consolidate Colombia’s vassal status to the U.S. by strengthening military ties and becoming a center for destabilizing Venezuela and threatening war with the Bolivarian country. The degree of cooperation appeared to be fully exposed in January 2019 when Bolton ‘unintentionally’ showed a note during a conference that read “5,000 troops to Colombia,” although both the U.S. and Colombia quickly denied that American troops were being sent to the South American country.
Although Trump failed to remove Maduro from power through economic, constitutional and military attempts, he did find success in Bolivia where staunch ally of Venezuela and Cuba, President Evo Morales, was removed from power through a military coup. The U.S. became the first country to recognize Evangelical Jeanine Áñez as Bolivia’s new president. However, the next elections could potentially end this victory for Washington with strong indications that Morales’ party, the Movement for Socialism, will be re-elected in May.
Moving to the southern land border with the U.S., Mexico, it certainly has not worked the way that Trump anticipated despite the heavy emphasis on building a border wall. The idea of building a wall on the southern border with Mexico to prevent “criminals” from entering the country was one of the most controversial points of his platform and, at the same time, one of the points with which he managed to attract the attention of a lot of the U.S. public.
However, financing the wall was one of the biggest headaches for the American leader, since his proposal was systematically rejected by the Democratic Party, which has a majority in the House of Representatives. Of the $5.7 billion that Trump wanted to use for the wall, he only got authorization for $1.37 billion. This is also coupled with the fact that Mexico has become one of the main defenders of Evo Morales, Venezuela and other progressive movements in Latin America.
How Trump responds to these continued setbacks in Venezuela, Mexico and Argentina off the back of minor successes in Brazil and Bolivia remains to be seen, especially as he has not achieved a final victory in these countries yet. However, what is certain is that the Monroe Doctrine under Trump is well and truly back despite suggestions that his administration would pursue a policy of withdrawal and isolationism.
Read Later Add to Favourites Add to Collection Report


theduran--2020-01-24--Twelve Questions For Donald Trump (Part 1)

You have claimed consistently and still do claim that America is the greatest country in the world .
Patriotism is a noble thing , but it should not blind us to the inadequacies and shortcomings of our nation , whatever that nation is .
1 ) How would you like to live in a nation in which there is no rule of law , where innocent citizens can be murdered by the police with total impunity ?
2 ) In which a police officer can kill an innocent man , shooting him in the back , and be rewarded for @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , even on occasion visibly pregnant women , are assaulted with impunity by uniformed thugs ?
4 ) In which police officers routinely seize money from innocent citizens ?
5 ) In which local authorities punish citizens financially for imaginary crimes ?
6 ) In which small business owners are persecuted for imaginary crimes , then are bullied and threatened with Draconian sanctions unless they plead guilty to them ?
7 ) How would you like to live in a nation in which the high and mighty are above the law when they @ @ @ @ @ @ @ held to account ?
8 ) In which government agents and the secret police spy on your every move , every word , every telephone conversation ?
9 ) How would you like to live in a nation where nothing is done to tackle homelessness , where people living on the street are a public health risk to themselves and others by spreading communicable diseases ?
10 ) How would you like to live in a nation in which corrupt lawyers are aided and abetted by an equally corrupt media to accuse celebrities @ @ @ @ @ @ @ imaginary crimes , and are never held to account for it ?
11 ) How would you like to live in a nation in which ordinary people are seriously assaulted purely on account of their political affiliations without their assailants being held properly to account ?
12 ) How would you like to live in a country which does not control its own currency , in which the right to print its own money has been usurped by a banking cartel that does so for private profit instead of public good ?
Here @ @ @ @ @ @ @ President , you do live in such a country , a country you claim is the greatest in the world .
Clearly such a country needs régime change .
You promised that when you were elected .
You ’ ve been doing good work , but you still have a long , long way to go .
Answers to the above questions in Part 2 .

The statements, views and opinions expressed in this column are solely those of the author and do not necessarily represent those of this site. This site does not give financial, investment or medical advice.
Hello Mr President,
You have claimed consistently and still do claim that America is the greatest country in the world. Patriotism is a noble thing, but it should not blind us to the inadequacies and shortcomings of our nation, whatever that nation is.
1) How would you like to live in a nation in which there is no rule of law, where innocent citizens can be murdered by the police with total impunity?
2) In which a police officer can kill an innocent man, shooting him in the back, and be rewarded for it?
3) In which women, even on occasion visibly pregnant women, are assaulted with impunity by uniformed thugs?
4) In which police officers routinely seize money from innocent citizens?
5) In which local authorities punish citizens financially for imaginary crimes?
6) In which small business owners are persecuted for imaginary crimes, then are bullied and threatened with Draconian sanctions unless they plead guilty to them?
7) How would you like to live in a nation in which the high and mighty are above the law when they endanger national security, and are not held to account?
8) In which government agents and the secret police spy on your every move, every word, every telephone conversation?
9) How would you like to live in a nation where nothing is done to tackle homelessness, where people living on the street are a public health risk to themselves and others by spreading communicable diseases?
10) How would you like to live in a nation in which corrupt lawyers are aided and abetted by an equally corrupt media to accuse celebrities and others in the public eye of imaginary crimes, and are never held to account for it?
11) How would you like to live in a nation in which ordinary people are seriously assaulted purely on account of their political affiliations without their assailants being held properly to account?
12) How would you like to live in a country which does not control its own currency, in which the right to print its own money has been usurped by a banking cartel that does so for private profit instead of public good?
Here’s the bad news, Mr President, you do live in such a country, a country you claim is the greatest in the world. Clearly such a country needs régime change. You promised that when you were elected. You’ve been doing good work, but you still have a long, long way to go.
Answers to the above questions in Part 2.
Read Later Add to Favourites Add to Collection Report


theduran--2020-01-24--Taliban Admits Peace Negotiations Are A Game

https : //www.longwarjournal.org/archives/2020/01/taliban-admits-peace-negotiations-with-u-s-are-merely-means-to-withdrawal-foreign-forces.php ?
fbclid=IwAR1XPxAFG-rlWWNMy9sozgVs8d9y4QtBeZqrwvAWuxUT-81_OBHSxiFbtUQ 1/24/20 – This article in the Long War Journal exposes what jezail.org has been reporting for years .
Now the Taliban admit it .
The Taliban delegation in Doha is not remotely serious about negotiating for peace .
When the US leaves Afghanistan , there will be no peace .
Moreover , there will never be a Taliban delegation that will be prepared to “ make a deal ” or make compromises to find peace .
They couldn ’ t if they wanted to .
Fighting in Afghanistan is for multiple reasons and objectives while @ @ @ @ @ @ @ sorting it out .
the Taliban are locked in a trap of their own .
This delegation from the Taliban is in no position to make any sort of agreement because they are an instrument of Pakistani foreign policy .
Now , it seems , the Taliban have confirmed this .
So as we have pointed out before , the Doha “ peace talks ” are theater .
All they do is keep Zalmay Khalilzad employed and waste American lives , loads of Afghan lives and heaps of American money .
The Taliban @ @ @ @ @ @ @ gains on the field .
If they decide to agree to a ceasefire , it is likely because they need some time to resupply without being interdicted by US air power .
But that ’ s about it .
Doha is useful for that as well as prisoner swaps and “ gestures of good will ” from the American side .
It is a joke .
But they don ’ t make any concessions other than a few hollow words so that Khalilzad can amplify them into something that they are not .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ Doha process .
It started as a prisoner swap .
But It was amplified by US officials , particularly Khalilzad , looking for some positive headlines .
So they amped up a prisoner swap into “ peace talks ” .
The Taliban delegation has been exploiting it ever since .
That keeps Khalilzad in a forever job .
That keeps the Taliban collecting funds from Pakistan through the US .
That keeps Pakistan on the US “ secret ” payroll .
Everybody ’ s happy .
It always was a racket and it @ @ @ @ @ @ @ entities that have prospered from this , times have changed .
The Afghan War has been , for the US , a hand that has been over played .
Regional partners are evaporating .
Other big players are becoming impatient .
The Chinese OBOR initiative is blooming .
The Saudis are widely believed to be in negotiation with Iran .
Tectonic plates of history are shifting .
The American diplomatic position has been to make false promises to virtually every player in the region making for very tenuous relations indeed .
US diplomats @ @ @ @ @ @ @ in the region are also aware that America no longer has the deep pockets it once did and can not indulge in multiple wars or a major war without inviting disaster .
A curious contradiction : the Russian military has , in Syria , given a glimpse of a more rational deployment that starkly contrasts the bloated contracting and slog approach to war that US military and political leadership is addicted to .
The Russians came to Syria , sorted out the situation , made real partnerships in the region and joined a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ did that .
They won .
Then , they did something remarkable .
They went home .
Jezail.org does not mean to advocate that the US follow the force projection part of the Russian action .
What we do wish to point is that the Russians know , from their experience in Afghanistan , if you want to get out of a war , you go home .
They learned that in Afghanistan .
Ask Gen. Gromov .
Ask any Soviet veteran of Afghanistan .
You just get out .
GTFO ( Get @ @ @ @ @ @ @ action , not a mouthful of empty words , press releases or fake negotiations .
What makes this situation even more vexing is that , from the standpoint of “ fighting terrorism ” there are options .
We will be writing about that in the future .
Keep up with us :

The statements, views and opinions expressed in this column are solely those of the author and do not necessarily represent those of this site. This site does not give financial, investment or medical advice.
https://www.longwarjournal.org/archives/2020/01/taliban-admits-peace-negotiations-with-u-s-are-merely-means-to-withdrawal-foreign-forces.php?fbclid=IwAR1XPxAFG-rlWWNMy9sozgVs8d9y4QtBeZqrwvAWuxUT-81_OBHSxiFbtUQ
1/24/20 – This article in the Long War Journal exposes what jezail.org has been reporting for years. Now the Taliban admit it. The Taliban delegation in Doha is not remotely serious about negotiating for peace. When the US leaves Afghanistan, there will be no peace. Moreover, there will never be a Taliban delegation that will be prepared to “make a deal” or make compromises to find peace. They couldn’t if they wanted to. Fighting in Afghanistan is for multiple reasons and objectives while the US never had a prayer of sorting it out. the Taliban are locked in a trap of their own. This delegation from the Taliban is in no position to make any sort of agreement because they are an instrument of Pakistani foreign policy. Now, it seems, the Taliban have confirmed this. So as we have pointed out before, the Doha “peace talks” are theater. All they do is keep Zalmay Khalilzad employed and waste American lives, loads of Afghan lives and heaps of American money.
The Taliban use the Doha charade to get small gains on the field. If they decide to agree to a ceasefire, it is likely because they need some time to resupply without being interdicted by US air power. But that’s about it. Doha is useful for that as well as prisoner swaps and “gestures of good will” from the American side. It is a joke. But they don’t make any concessions other than a few hollow words so that Khalilzad can amplify them into something that they are not. This has been the history of the Doha process. It started as a prisoner swap. But It was amplified by US officials, particularly Khalilzad, looking for some positive headlines. So they amped up a prisoner swap into “peace talks”. The Taliban delegation has been exploiting it ever since. That keeps Khalilzad in a forever job. That keeps the Taliban collecting funds from Pakistan through the US. That keeps Pakistan on the US “secret” payroll. Everybody’s happy. It always was a racket and it still is.
Unfortunately for the parasitic entities that have prospered from this, times have changed. The Afghan War has been, for the US, a hand that has been over played. Regional partners are evaporating. Other big players are becoming impatient. The Chinese OBOR initiative is blooming. The Saudis are widely believed to be in negotiation with Iran. Tectonic plates of history are shifting. The American diplomatic position has been to make false promises to virtually every player in the region making for very tenuous relations indeed. US diplomats have no credibility anywhere. All players in the region are also aware that America no longer has the deep pockets it once did and cannot indulge in multiple wars or a major war without inviting disaster.
A curious contradiction: the Russian military has, in Syria, given a glimpse of a more rational deployment that starkly contrasts the bloated contracting and slog approach to war that US military and political leadership is addicted to. The Russians came to Syria, sorted out the situation, made real partnerships in the region and joined a real coalition to defeat ISIL. They did that. They won. Then, they did something remarkable. They went home. Jezail.org does not mean to advocate that the US follow the force projection part of the Russian action. What we do wish to point is that the Russians know, from their experience in Afghanistan, if you want to get out of a war, you go home. They learned that in Afghanistan. Ask Gen. Gromov. Ask any Soviet veteran of Afghanistan. You just get out. GTFO (Get the Fxck Out) That is an action, not a mouthful of empty words, press releases or fake negotiations.
What makes this situation even more vexing is that, from the standpoint of “fighting terrorism” there are options. We will be writing about that in the future. Keep up with us:
Regards,
jezail.og on the web
and
jezail.org on FaceBook
Buy now
Read Later Add to Favourites Add to Collection Report


theduran--2020-01-24--U.S. ‘News’-Media Hide Truths So U.S. Public Supports Invasions

Iraqis are furious that the U.S. continues its military occupation — a continuation of the 2003 U.S. invasion — of their country , after the U.S. was finally ordered out by Iraq ’ s Government on January 5th .
U.S.-and-allied ‘ news ’ -media constantly lie about this and about anything else which reveals the ugly imperialist reality of U.S. foreign policy .
Americans are deceived , and kept in the dark , by ‘ our ’ ‘ news ’ -media .
First , the U.S.-and-allied ‘ news ’ -media lied and reported that U.S. troops were only ‘ requested @ @ @ @ @ @ @ s Parliament had unanimously voted for a resolution to demand the U.S. to leave , and Iraq ’ s Prime Minister supported it 100 % so that the entire Iraqi Government were demanding — not merely ‘ requesting ’ — the U.S. to leave .
Then , when the Trump regime refused to leave , a call went out by an opponent of the occupation , Muqtada al-Sadr , for Iraqis to march in Baghdad on January 24th to demand that the U.S. regime immediately comply with their Government ’ s demand ; @ @ @ @ @ @ @ January 24th , America ’ s AP ‘ news ’ agency bannered “ Iraqis rally against US troops , demanding they leave ” , and reported : “ Tens of thousands of Iraqis marched peacefully through Baghdad on Friday to demand the ouster of U.S. troops from their country .
… There were no official estimates of the turnout and organizers gave varying figures , but it clearly fell short of the ‘ million-man ’ march that had been called for by al-Sadr.
” That ’ s a lie , because there already @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the march showing that “ This is a Million-Man miracle for the largest human gathering in Iraq ’ s history .
This morning in the capital , Baghdad , struck by a two-million human-flood in a demonstration to expel American troops and to end their bases in Iraq.
” And : “ The Chief of Police in Baghdad just estimated the number of Iraqis protesting against the US ’ presence in Iraq today to be in excess of one million people.
” Photos like this were shown , which would never be shown @ @ @ @ @ @ @ And this tweet showed four such photos , and said , “ Over 8 Kilometres of packed streets with millions of Iraqis calling for FULL withdrawal of American forces from # Iraq.
” That ’ s 5 miles packed with people , which would be around two million people .
All of this was before the AP ‘ journalists ’ issued their ‘ news ’ -report saying “ Tens of thousands of Iraqis marched.
” The U.S. regime uses other countries ’ territory for its own purposes , regardless of what the residents @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
In the case of Iraq , the purpose of invading that land was theft of Iraq ’ s oil .
Until 2003 , Iraq ’ s oil had been nationalized — a national instead of private investor-owned asset .
George W. Bush cut U.S.-and-allied investors in on it .
( Donald Trump wants not only Iraq ’ s oil but Syria ’ s , and so U.S. taxes are funding propaganda to help steal that too for American billionaires . )
The U.S. regime had invaded Iraq on 20 March 2003 based @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and his Administration and the U.S.-and-allied ‘ news ’ -media , about “ Saddam ’ s WMD ” that they had no evidence existed and which actually did not exist , but the gullible U.S.-and-allied masses believed those lies and still believe the regime ’ s lies — and so supported U.S.-and-allied invasion-destruction of Libya 2011 , Syria 2012-now , Yemen 2015-now , and Iran-yet-to-come , and the leading U.S. Presidential candidates are Donald Trump and Joe Biden , both of whom are committed to those very same imperialistic ( or ‘ neoconservative @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to serve America ’ s billionaires , who own-control not just the ‘ news ’ -media but the Government , in this ‘ democracy ’ .
Investigative historian Eric Zuesse is the author , most recently , of They ’ re Not Even Close : The Democratic vs. Republican Economic Records , 1910-2010 , and of CHRIST ’ S VENTRILOQUISTS : The Event that Created Christianity .

The statements, views and opinions expressed in this column are solely those of the author and do not necessarily represent those of this site. This site does not give financial, investment or medical advice.
Eric Zuesse
Iraqis are furious that the U.S. continues its military occupation — a continuation of the 2003 U.S. invasion — of their country, after the U.S. was finally ordered out by Iraq’s Government on January 5th. U.S.-and-allied ‘news’-media constantly lie about this and about anything else which reveals the ugly imperialist reality of U.S. foreign policy. Americans are deceived, and kept in the dark, by ‘our’ ‘news’-media.
First, the U.S.-and-allied ‘news’-media lied and reported that U.S. troops were only ‘requested’ to leave — though Iraq’s Parliament had unanimously voted for a resolution to demand the U.S. to leave, and Iraq’s Prime Minister supported it 100% so that the entire Iraqi Government were demanding — not merely ‘requesting’ — the U.S. to leave.
Then, when the Trump regime refused to leave, a call went out by an opponent of the occupation, Muqtada al-Sadr, for Iraqis to march in Baghdad on January 24th to demand that the U.S. regime immediately comply with their Government’s demand; and, on the morning of Friday January 24th, America’s AP ‘news’ agency bannered “Iraqis rally against US troops, demanding they leave”, and reported: “Tens of thousands of Iraqis marched peacefully through Baghdad on Friday to demand the ouster of U.S. troops from their country. … There were no official estimates of the turnout and organizers gave varying figures, but it clearly fell short of the ‘million-man’ march that had been called for by al-Sadr.” That’s a lie, because there already had been tweeted photos and videos of the march showing that “This is a Million-Man miracle for the largest human gathering in Iraq’s history. This morning in the capital, Baghdad, struck by a two-million human-flood in a demonstration to expel American troops and to end their bases in Iraq.” And: “The Chief of Police in Baghdad just estimated the number of Iraqis protesting against the US’ presence in Iraq today to be in excess of one million people.” Photos like this were shown, which would never be shown in U.S.-and-allied ‘news’-media. And this tweet showed four such photos, and said, “Over 8 Kilometres of packed streets with millions of Iraqis calling for FULL withdrawal of American forces from #Iraq.” That’s 5 miles packed with people, which would be around two million people. All of this was before the AP ‘journalists’ issued their ‘news’-report saying “Tens of thousands of Iraqis marched.”
The U.S. regime uses other countries’ territory for its own purposes, regardless of what the residents in the invaded/occupied land want or need. In the case of Iraq, the purpose of invading that land was theft of Iraq’s oil. Until 2003, Iraq’s oil had been nationalized — a national instead of private investor-owned asset. George W. Bush cut U.S.-and-allied investors in on it. (Donald Trump wants not only Iraq’s oil but Syria’s, and so U.S. taxes are funding propaganda to help steal that too for American billionaires.)
The U.S. regime had invaded Iraq on 20 March 2003 based entirely on lies by the U.S. President and his Administration and the U.S.-and-allied ‘news’-media, about “Saddam’s WMD” that they had no evidence existed and which actually did not exist, but the gullible U.S.-and-allied masses believed those lies and still believe the regime’s lies — and so supported U.S.-and-allied invasion-destruction of Libya 2011, Syria 2012-now, Yemen 2015-now, and Iran-yet-to-come, and the leading U.S. Presidential candidates are Donald Trump and Joe Biden, both of whom are committed to those very same imperialistic (or ‘neoconservative’) foreign policies, in order to serve America’s billionaires, who own-control not just the ‘news’-media but the Government, in this ‘democracy’.
—————
Investigative historian Eric Zuesse is the author, most recently, of They’re Not Even Close: The Democratic vs. Republican Economic Records, 1910-2010, and of CHRIST’S VENTRILOQUISTS: The Event that Created Christianity.
Read Later Add to Favourites Add to Collection Report


theduran--2020-01-24--Adam Schiff stuns Senate, reveals Russia set to attack U.S. mainland (Video)

The Duran ’ s Alex Christoforou and Editor-in-Chief Alexander Mercouris examine Adam Schiff ’ s stunning day two impeachment claim that “ the United States aids Ukraine and her people so that we can fight Russia over there , and we don ’ t have to fight Russia here.
” Schiff later called for a congressional coup stating , “ the president ’ s misconduct can not be decided at the ballot box , for we can not be assured that the vote will be fairly won.
” Subscribe to The Duran on YouTube – Find us on BitChute .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ Soundcloud – Subscribe on iTunes .
House Democrats launched into lengthy arguments that broke little ground , if any , in President Trump ’ s impeachment trial Wednesday — as the head impeachment manager , California Rep. Adam Schiff , suggested that Russians could attack the U.S. and insisted that removing Trump from office was necessary because the integrity of the 2020 election could not be “ assured.
” Trump ’ s lawyers sat by , waiting their turn , as the president blasted the proceedings from afar , threatening jokingly to face @ @ @ @ @ @ @ “ sit right in the front row and stare at their corrupt faces.
” The challenge before the House managers has been clear .
Democrats were given 24 hours over three days to prosecute the charges against Trump , trying to win over not just fidgety senators sitting silently in the chamber but an American public , deeply divided over the president and his impeachment in an election year .
Most senators sat at their desks throughout the day , as the rules stipulated , though some stretched their legs , standing behind @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of the chamber , passing the time .
Visitors watched from the galleries , one briefly interrupting in protest .
Almost immediately after Chief Justice John Roberts gaveled in Wednesday ’ s session , bored and weary senators started openly flouting some basic guidelines .
The Associated Press reported that a Democrat in the back row leaned on his right arm , covered his eyes and stayed that way for nearly a half-hour , and some lawmakers openly snickered when Schiff said he ’ d speak for only 10 minutes .
“ I @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a break , ” freshman Rep. Jason Crow , D-Colo. , one of the House prosecutors , said mid-speech at the center podium .
“ I probably have another 15 minutes.
” “ You just have to stretch and you just got to stand .
Those chairs , they look nice , [ but ] they are not comfortable chairs , ” Sen. Lisa Murkowski , R-Alaska , a key swing-vote moderate , said of the restlessness while Schiff spoke .
The previous day of the trial lasted for more than 12 hours @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a testy note as Roberts admonished both sides for their conduct .
On Wednesday , Murkowski slammed Democratic impeachment manager Rep. Jerry Nadler , D-N.Y. , for arguing the previous evening that senators who didn ’ t vote for immediate subpoenas were defying their oaths of office : “ As one who is listening attentively and working hard to get to a fair process , I was offended , ” Murkowski said .
Perhaps sensing the ennui in the chamber on Day 2 of the trial , Schiff , the chairman of the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the stakes high .
He suggested at one point that military aid to Ukraine was essential so the U.S. would not have to fight Russians at home , as soldiers did in the videogame “ Call of Duty : Modern Warfare 2.
” “ As one witness put it during our impeachment inquiry , the United States aids Ukraine and her people so that we can fight Russia over there , and we don ’ t have to fight Russia here , ” Schiff said , drawing rebukes from commentators across the political @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , however , for later making the head-turning argument that Trump must be removed from office by the Senate — rather than by voters in the 2020 election — because it is impossible to be sure the 2020 election won ’ t be compromised .
“ The president ’ s misconduct can not be decided at the ballot box , for we can not be assured that the vote will be fairly won , ” Schiff remarked .
He did not elaborate .
Constitutional scholar Alan Dershowitz , who will speak against impeachment @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Senate that removing a president is a fundamentally undemocratic remedy that requires “ criminal-like ” conduct — a standard he will argue is not met by Democrats ’ two articles of impeachment , which do not allege federal crimes .
But , both Republicans and left-of-center commentators didn ’ t wait long to deride Schiff ’ s incendiary arguments in more direct terms .
“ And right here is proof of the Democrats ’ plan all along , ” Trump campaign director of communications Tim Murtaugh said in response .
“ Every moment @ @ @ @ @ @ @ toward interfering with the 2020 election .
Schiff is preemptively calling into question the results of an election that is still more than 9 months away.
” And during the proceedings , Trump retweeted a post from Kentucky GOP Sen. Rand Paul : “ The more we hear from Adam Schiff , the more the GOP is getting unified against this partisan charade.
” Trump added , “ True !
” Meanwhile , the Republican House leader , California Rep. Kevin McCarthy , suggested during the day that Schiff should be censured by @ @ @ @ @ @ @ by apparently misrepresenting key documents from Lev Parnas , a Giuliani associate .
Schiff , though , was undeterred .
Attempting to underscore the human cost of Trump ’ s temporary aid holdup , Schiff further asserted that the money was “ designed to help Ukraine defend itself from the Kremlin ’ s aggression ” and that “ more than 15,000 Ukrainians have died fighting Russian forces and their proxies.
” Republicans erupted when Schiff made a similar argument during last year ’ s House impeachment probe .
Trump ’ s lawyers were @ @ @ @ @ @ @ s their turn to present arguments — in part because former President Obama provided less aid to Ukraine than the Trump administration has .
Additionally , Republicans have pointed out that the temporary lack of aid has not been directly linked to any casualties , and that the U.S. can not reasonably be held responsible for the actions of Russian-backed militants in Ukraine .
Schiff also repeatedly made the false claim that White House chief of staff Mick Mulvaney had said people should “ get over ” the idea that Trump was tying @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , in fact , had remarked only that politics and foreign policy sometimes overlap .
Schiff , who had previously claimed to have evidence that the Trump campaign secretly colluded with Russia , was outlining what the Democrats contended was the president ’ s “ corrupt scheme ” to abuse his presidential power and then obstruct Congress ’ investigation .
He called on senators not to be “ cynical ” about politics , but to draw on the intent of the nation ’ s Founding Fathers who provided the remedy of impeachment .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ will present to you—and to the American people—the extensive evidence collected during the House ’ s impeachment inquiry into the president ’ s abuse of power , ” Schiff argued .
“ You will hear their testimony at the same time as the American people .
That is , if you will allow it.
” The proceedings were unfolding at the start of an election year , and there have been few signs that Republicans were interested in calling more witnesses or going beyond a fast-track assessment likely to bring a quick vote @ @ @ @ @ @ @ dealings with Ukraine .
Some Democrats sounded a note of concern that Republicans haven ’ t expressed much interest in crossing the aisle concerning witness and document requests .
“ I can only speak for myself : strikingly little , ” Sen. Chris Coons , D-Del.
, said after the proceedings adjourned , when asked how much Republican outreach he has seen .
The trial has marked just the third time the Senate has weighed whether an American president should be removed from office .
Democrats argued Trump abused his office by asking @ @ @ @ @ @ @ while withholding crucial military aid , and also obstructed Congress by refusing to turn over documents or allow officials to testify in the House probe .
Republicans have defended Trump ’ s actions and cast the process as a politically motivated effort to weaken the president in the midst of his reelection campaign .
Specifically , Republicans have pointed out that Ukrainian leaders said they felt no undue pressure ; that the longstanding constitutional executive privilege shielded the White House from having to respond to comprehensive subpoenas ; and that the Democrats ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Trump ’ s legal team also has argued that Democrats ’ impeachment case couldn ’ t be as “ open-and-shut ” as advertised given the apparently urgent need for new evidence even after the House impeachment inquiry .
In any event , the White House has said Trump ’ s suggested probe into Biden was appropriate .

The statements, views and opinions expressed in this column are solely those of the author and do not necessarily represent those of this site. This site does not give financial, investment or medical advice.
The Duran’s Alex Christoforou and Editor-in-Chief Alexander Mercouris examine Adam Schiff’s stunning day two impeachment claim that “the United States aids Ukraine and her people so that we can fight Russia over there, and we don’t have to fight Russia here.”
Schiff later called for a congressional coup stating, “the president’s misconduct cannot be decided at the ballot box, for we cannot be assured that the vote will be fairly won.”
Support Free Speech:
Subscribe to The Duran on YouTube – Find us on BitChute.
The Duran Audio Podcast:
Follow on Soundcloud – Subscribe on iTunes.
Via Fox News…
House Democrats launched into lengthy arguments that broke little ground, if any, in President Trump’s impeachment trial Wednesday — as the head impeachment manager, California Rep. Adam Schiff, suggested that Russians could attack the U.S. and insisted that removing Trump from office was necessary because the integrity of the 2020 election could not be “assured.”
Trump’s lawyers sat by, waiting their turn, as the president blasted the proceedings from afar, threatening jokingly to face off with the Democrats by coming to “sit right in the front row and stare at their corrupt faces.”
The challenge before the House managers has been clear. Democrats were given 24 hours over three days to prosecute the charges against Trump, trying to win over not just fidgety senators sitting silently in the chamber but an American public, deeply divided over the president and his impeachment in an election year.
Most senators sat at their desks throughout the day, as the rules stipulated, though some stretched their legs, standing behind the desks or against the back wall of the chamber, passing the time. Visitors watched from the galleries, one briefly interrupting in protest.
Almost immediately after Chief Justice John Roberts gaveled in Wednesday’s session, bored and weary senators started openly flouting some basic guidelines. The Associated Press reported that a Democrat in the back row leaned on his right arm, covered his eyes and stayed that way for nearly a half-hour, and some lawmakers openly snickered when Schiff said he’d speak for only 10 minutes.
“I do see the members moving and taking a break,” freshman Rep. Jason Crow, D-Colo., one of the House prosecutors, said mid-speech at the center podium. “I probably have another 15 minutes.”
“You just have to stretch and you just got to stand. Those chairs, they look nice, [but] they are not comfortable chairs,” Sen. Lisa Murkowski, R-Alaska, a key swing-vote moderate, said of the restlessness while Schiff spoke.
The previous day of the trial lasted for more than 12 hours, and ended well past midnight on a testy note as Roberts admonished both sides for their conduct. On Wednesday, Murkowski slammed Democratic impeachment manager Rep. Jerry Nadler, D-N.Y., for arguing the previous evening that senators who didn’t vote for immediate subpoenas were defying their oaths of office: “As one who is listening attentively and working hard to get to a fair process, I was offended,” Murkowski said.
Perhaps sensing the ennui in the chamber on Day 2 of the trial, Schiff, the chairman of the House Intelligence Committee, sought to keep the stakes high. He suggested at one point that military aid to Ukraine was essential so the U.S. would not have to fight Russians at home, as soldiers did in the videogame “Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 2.”
“As one witness put it during our impeachment inquiry, the United States aids Ukraine and her people so that we can fight Russia over there, and we don’t have to fight Russia here,” Schiff said, drawing rebukes from commentators across the political spectrum.
*****
Schiff attracted the most criticism, however, for later making the head-turning argument that Trump must be removed from office by the Senate — rather than by voters in the 2020 election — because it is impossible to be sure the 2020 election won’t be compromised.
“The president’s misconduct cannot be decided at the ballot box, for we cannot be assured that the vote will be fairly won,” Schiff remarked. He did not elaborate.
Constitutional scholar Alan Dershowitz, who will speak against impeachment, is expected to argue before the Senate that removing a president is a fundamentally undemocratic remedy that requires “criminal-like” conduct — a standard he will argue is not met by Democrats’ two articles of impeachment, which do not allege federal crimes.
But, both Republicans and left-of-center commentators didn’t wait long to deride Schiff’s incendiary arguments in more direct terms.
“And right here is proof of the Democrats’ plan all along,” Trump campaign director of communications Tim Murtaugh said in response. “Every moment of the impeachment sham has been geared toward interfering with the 2020 election. Schiff is preemptively calling into question the results of an election that is still more than 9 months away.”
*****
And during the proceedings, Trump retweeted a post from Kentucky GOP Sen. Rand Paul: “The more we hear from Adam Schiff, the more the GOP is getting unified against this partisan charade.” Trump added, “True!”
Meanwhile, the Republican House leader, California Rep. Kevin McCarthy, suggested during the day that Schiff should be censured by the House for constantly lying, including by apparently misrepresenting key documents from Lev Parnas, a Giuliani associate.
Schiff, though, was undeterred. Attempting to underscore the human cost of Trump’s temporary aid holdup, Schiff further asserted that the money was “designed to help Ukraine defend itself from the Kremlin’s aggression” and that “more than 15,000 Ukrainians have died fighting Russian forces and their proxies.”
Republicans erupted when Schiff made a similar argument during last year’s House impeachment probe. Trump’s lawyers were likely to fire back when it’s their turn to present arguments — in part because former President Obama provided less aid to Ukraine than the Trump administration has.
Additionally, Republicans have pointed out that the temporary lack of aid has not been directly linked to any casualties, and that the U.S. cannot reasonably be held responsible for the actions of Russian-backed militants in Ukraine.
Schiff also repeatedly made the false claim that White House chief of staff Mick Mulvaney had said people should “get over” the idea that Trump was tying foreign aid to political investigations. Mulvaney, in fact, had remarked only that politics and foreign policy sometimes overlap.
Schiff, who had previously claimed to have evidence that the Trump campaign secretly colluded with Russia, was outlining what the Democrats contended was the president’s “corrupt scheme” to abuse his presidential power and then obstruct Congress’ investigation.
He called on senators not to be “cynical” about politics, but to draw on the intent of the nation’s Founding Fathers who provided the remedy of impeachment.
“Over the coming days, we will present to you—and to the American people—the extensive evidence collected during the House’s impeachment inquiry into the president’s abuse of power,” Schiff argued. “You will hear their testimony at the same time as the American people. That is, if you will allow it.”
The proceedings were unfolding at the start of an election year, and there have been few signs that Republicans were interested in calling more witnesses or going beyond a fast-track assessment likely to bring a quick vote on charges related to Trump’s dealings with Ukraine.
Some Democrats sounded a note of concern that Republicans haven’t expressed much interest in crossing the aisle concerning witness and document requests. “I can only speak for myself: strikingly little,” Sen. Chris Coons, D-Del., said after the proceedings adjourned, when asked how much Republican outreach he has seen.
The trial has marked just the third time the Senate has weighed whether an American president should be removed from office. Democrats argued Trump abused his office by asking Ukraine to investigate political rival Joe Biden while withholding crucial military aid, and also obstructed Congress by refusing to turn over documents or allow officials to testify in the House probe.
Republicans have defended Trump’s actions and cast the process as a politically motivated effort to weaken the president in the midst of his reelection campaign. Specifically, Republicans have pointed out that Ukrainian leaders said they felt no undue pressure; that the longstanding constitutional executive privilege shielded the White House from having to respond to comprehensive subpoenas; and that the Democrats’ case was based largely on hearsay.
Trump’s legal team also has argued that Democrats’ impeachment case couldn’t be as “open-and-shut” as advertised given the apparently urgent need for new evidence even after the House impeachment inquiry.
In any event, the White House has said Trump’s suggested probe into Biden was appropriate.
Read Later Add to Favourites Add to Collection Report


theduran--2020-01-24--US-China phase one trade deal. Trump scores political win, China wins time (Video)

The Duran ’ s Alex Christoforou and Editor-in-Chief Alexander Mercouris breakdown the US-China phase one trade deal .
Who came out ahead ?
Will there be a phase two deal ?
Subscribe to The Duran on YouTube – Find us on BitChute .
The Duran Audio Podcast : Follow on Soundcloud – Subscribe on iTunes .
I was very skeptical when U.S. and Chinese officials announced the two nations had reached a “ Phase One ” trade deal last December .
Neither country released any details regarding the agreement .
Chinese officials have been exceptionally muted since the announcement , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ remove a number of tariffs , without mentioning any commitments China had made .
Neither the United States nor China even articulated a specific dollar amount of the additional U.S. farm products China pledges to purchase .
Last week , both the White House and the U.S. Trade Representative ’ s Office posted the full text of the agreement , immediately after Chinese representative Liu He and President Donald Trump signed it .
Upon reviewing the 96-page document , I have to admit , I was wrong .
This Phase One deal , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , is a much better deal to the United States than I initially thought .
The mainstream media has been focusing on the additional amount of U.S. goods and services China has committed to purchase as the highlight of the agreement .
However , they have missed the point .
This agreement doesn ’ t start with China ’ s additional purchasing commitment , but with two top concerns in American businesses : intellectual property rights theft and forced technology transfer .
The way this agreement is structured illustrates that , despite Trump @ @ @ @ @ @ @ he values the ability to protect U.S. intellectual property rights and technology more than America ’ s additional exports .
The first chapter of the agreement is on intellectual property , and at 20 pages long , it is by far the longest chapter .
It is incredibly detailed and covers a wide spectrum of topics , including trade secrets , confidential business information , pharmaceutical data , patents , piracy and counterfeiting on e-commerce platforms , manufacture and export of pirated and counterfeit goods , etc .
Within each item is a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ United States has to do is to “ affirm that existing U.S. enforcement procedures permit action by right holders.
” This phrase is repeated throughout all enforcement sections .
Without a doubt , the burden of action falls mostly on the Chinese side .
For example , under the trade secret misappropriation section , once the rightful owner of a trade secret provides “ preliminary evidence that measures were taken to keep the claimed trade secret confidential ” and “ evidence that its trade secret ( s ) were misappropriated by the accused @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the Chinese side has to bear “ the burden of proof or burden of production of evidence.
” The agreement also eliminates “ any requirement that the holder of a trade secret establish actual losses as a prerequisite to initiation of a criminal investigation for misappropriation of a trade secret.
” Furthermore , it speeds up the criminal proceeding for intellectual property rights violations .
These changes are a tremendous relief for American businesses because they are the ones currently bearing the burden of proof for any trade secret misappropriation , and are @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a prerequisite for any criminal proceedings .
Numerous American businesses handle their losses resulting from intellectual property theft quietly because bearing the burden of proof and establishing actual loss are both a costly and time-consuming endeavor .
Besides holding Chinese businesses accountable , the agreement also spells out how to hold the Chinese government and government employees accountable , stating , “ China shall prohibit the unauthorized disclosure of undisclosed information , trade secrets , or confidential business information by government personnel or third party experts or advisors in any criminal , civil @ @ @ @ @ @ @ at either the central or sub-central levels of government in which such information is submitted.
” Furthermore , the agreement stipulates China can not “ require or pressure ” U.S. businesses to transfer their key technology in exchange for market access .
This is a huge improvement from the status quo , in which Chinese government officials often demand that American businesses hand over key technological know-how when they apply for licenses to operate in China or conduct other investment activities .
Chinese government officials are also known to demand that American businesses @ @ @ @ @ @ @ visits to business sites in China .
China hasn ’ t historically lived up to its enforcement commitments , so this agreement stipulates very specific deadlines for various targets .
For example , under the section on counterfeit medicine , the agreement requires that China publish “ online annually , beginning within six months after the date of entry into force of this Agreement , the data on enforcement measures , including seizures , revocations of business licenses , fines , and other actions taken by the National Medical Products Administration , Ministry @ @ @ @ @ @ @ any successor entity.
” There are many similar deadlines within the agreement , and some are as compact as 20 work days .
Before the contents of the trade deal became public , the media reported only that China would increase its imports of U.S. agriculture produce to about $ 40- $ 50 billion over two years .
This led many to question whether President Trump started his trade war with China and put the global economy through more than 18 months of uncertainty only for soybeans .
Now we have learned China @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
In fact , China has committed to increase imports of U.S. goods and services by no less than $ 200 billion over the course of two years , between Jan. 1 , 2020 , and Dec. 31 , 2021 .
According to the trade agreement , the purchase increase will come from four industries : $ 77.7 billion worth of manufactured goods , $ 52.4 billion worth of energy , $ 32 billion in agriculture , and $ 37.2 billion in services .
Moreover , the agreement expects such increases to “ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ” Keep in mind that before the U.S.-China trade war started , U.S. exports to China were only about $ 130 billion in 2017 .
Expansion of U.S. exports to China , as the trade deal mandates , is unprecedented and will be a huge boost to the U.S. economy for several years to come .
If China fails to deliver , the agreement says the United States will unilaterally reimpose tariffs on Chinese goods .
Economists and China ’ s other trading partners , such as countries in the European Union , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ will have to reduce purchases from all other trading partners in order to fulfill their new trade obligations to the United States .
Besides increasing exports and strengthening intellectual property rights protection , other achievements of this trade agreement include making China lift its bans on genetically modified U.S. farm products , and opening China ’ s financial sector for U.S. financial institutions , such as banks , insurance companies , and credit-rating agencies .
It is also worth pointing out that the Trump administration is able to achieve all of the above @ @ @ @ @ @ @ relatively small price .
The Trump administration stopped calling China a currency manipulator .
The United States agreed not to impose new tariffs on the $ 156 billion in consumer goods that were going to take effect this past Dec. 15 .
The United States will also cut the tariffs on the $ 120 billion in Chinese imports imposed last September from 15 percent to 7.5 percent .
But for now , the United States maintains the 25 percent tariffs on a separate $ 250 billion in Chinese imports as an incentive for @ @ @ @ @ @ @ talks .
Overall , the average tariff for Chinese imports is 19 percent , significantly higher than the average 3 percent tariff on imports China used to enjoy before the trade war .
The U.S. Won this Battle , but the Trade War Continues Of course , the devil is always in the implementation .
Whether China will actually deliver and the enforcement mechanism will work as planned are big questions .
Still , this deal on paper is the best the U.S. government has achieved in several decades of any trade negotiations @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Chinese government has kept quiet about the details of the Phase One agreement since the December announcement about the deal being reached .
China also waited eight hours after last week ’ s deal-signing ceremony to publish an abbreviated version of the deal ’ s text in both English and Chinese .
In contrast , the White House posted the full text of the agreement immediately after the signing ceremony .
While I applaud President Trump for making such an important breakthrough in the U.S.-China trade relationship , I remain convinced that a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ even slow the strategic competition and confrontation of the two nations .
This Phase One deal leaves many U.S. strategic goals out , including addressing the Chinese government ’ s enormous subsidies to state-owned enterprises .
The two countries have such different economic and political systems and , more importantly , such different sets of values that we may have to settle our differences through other means , far beyond a trade agreement .
China ’ s vice chair and chief trade negotiator , Liu He , said he hopes China ’ s @ @ @ @ @ @ @ technology transfer , and financial markets will incentivize Chinese firms to innovate and develop “ made-in-China ” solutions that someday won ’ t rely on foreign companies .
His words are a reminder that the United States shouldn ’ t be complacent after winning the first round of the trade war .
China is a formidable strategic competitor and will remain so for many years to come .

The statements, views and opinions expressed in this column are solely those of the author and do not necessarily represent those of this site. This site does not give financial, investment or medical advice.
The Duran’s Alex Christoforou and Editor-in-Chief Alexander Mercouris breakdown the US-China phase one trade deal.
Who came out ahead? Will there be a phase two deal?
Support Free Speech:
Subscribe to The Duran on YouTube – Find us on BitChute.
The Duran Audio Podcast:
Follow on Soundcloud – Subscribe on iTunes.
Via The Federalist…
I was very skeptical when U.S. and Chinese officials announced the two nations had reached a “Phase One” trade deal last December. Neither country released any details regarding the agreement. Chinese officials have been exceptionally muted since the announcement, only emphasizing that the United States would remove a number of tariffs, without mentioning any commitments China had made. Neither the United States nor China even articulated a specific dollar amount of the additional U.S. farm products China pledges to purchase.
Last week, both the White House and the U.S. Trade Representative’s Office posted the full text of the agreement, immediately after Chinese representative Liu He and President Donald Trump signed it. Upon reviewing the 96-page document, I have to admit, I was wrong. This Phase One deal, although still leaving many strategic goals unfulfilled, is a much better deal to the United States than I initially thought.
The mainstream media has been focusing on the additional amount of U.S. goods and services China has committed to purchase as the highlight of the agreement. However, they have missed the point. This agreement doesn’t start with China’s additional purchasing commitment, but with two top concerns in American businesses: intellectual property rights theft and forced technology transfer. The way this agreement is structured illustrates that, despite Trump’s rhetoric on trade imbalance, he values the ability to protect U.S. intellectual property rights and technology more than America’s additional exports.
Strong Intellectual Property Protection and Enforcement
The first chapter of the agreement is on intellectual property, and at 20 pages long, it is by far the longest chapter. It is incredibly detailed and covers a wide spectrum of topics, including trade secrets, confidential business information, pharmaceutical data, patents, piracy and counterfeiting on e-commerce platforms, manufacture and export of pirated and counterfeit goods, etc.
Within each item is a clearly identified enforcement mechanism. All the United States has to do is to “affirm that existing U.S. enforcement procedures permit action by right holders.” This phrase is repeated throughout all enforcement sections.
Without a doubt, the burden of action falls mostly on the Chinese side. For example, under the trade secret misappropriation section, once the rightful owner of a trade secret provides “preliminary evidence that measures were taken to keep the claimed trade secret confidential” and “evidence that its trade secret(s) were misappropriated by the accused party,” the accused party on the Chinese side has to bear “the burden of proof or burden of production of evidence.”
The agreement also eliminates “any requirement that the holder of a trade secret establish actual losses as a prerequisite to initiation of a criminal investigation for misappropriation of a trade secret.” Furthermore, it speeds up the criminal proceeding for intellectual property rights violations.
These changes are a tremendous relief for American businesses because they are the ones currently bearing the burden of proof for any trade secret misappropriation, and are required to establish an actual loss as a prerequisite for any criminal proceedings. Numerous American businesses handle their losses resulting from intellectual property theft quietly because bearing the burden of proof and establishing actual loss are both a costly and time-consuming endeavor.
Besides holding Chinese businesses accountable, the agreement also spells out how to hold the Chinese government and government employees accountable, stating, “China shall prohibit the unauthorized disclosure of undisclosed information, trade secrets, or confidential business information by government personnel or third party experts or advisors in any criminal, civil, administrative, or regulatory proceedings conducted at either the central or sub-central levels of government in which such information is submitted.” Furthermore, the agreement stipulates China cannot “require or pressure” U.S. businesses to transfer their key technology in exchange for market access.
This is a huge improvement from the status quo, in which Chinese government officials often demand that American businesses hand over key technological know-how when they apply for licenses to operate in China or conduct other investment activities. Chinese government officials are also known to demand that American businesses disclose information about key equipment during routine visits to business sites in China.
China hasn’t historically lived up to its enforcement commitments, so this agreement stipulates very specific deadlines for various targets. For example, under the section on counterfeit medicine, the agreement requires that China publish “online annually, beginning within six months after the date of entry into force of this Agreement, the data on enforcement measures, including seizures, revocations of business licenses, fines, and other actions taken by the National Medical Products Administration, Ministry of Industry and Information Technology, or any successor entity.” There are many similar deadlines within the agreement, and some are as compact as 20 work days.
Huge Increase of U.S. Exports
Before the contents of the trade deal became public, the media reported only that China would increase its imports of U.S. agriculture produce to about $40-$50 billion over two years. This led many to question whether President Trump started his trade war with China and put the global economy through more than 18 months of uncertainty only for soybeans.
Now we have learned China pledges to purchase way more than soybeans. In fact, China has committed to increase imports of U.S. goods and services by no less than $200 billion over the course of two years, between Jan. 1, 2020, and Dec. 31, 2021. According to the trade agreement, the purchase increase will come from four industries: $77.7 billion worth of manufactured goods, $52.4 billion worth of energy, $32 billion in agriculture, and $37.2 billion in services. Moreover, the agreement expects such increases to “continue in calendar years 2022 through 2025.”
Keep in mind that before the U.S.-China trade war started, U.S. exports to China were only about $130 billion in 2017. Expansion of U.S. exports to China, as the trade deal mandates, is unprecedented and will be a huge boost to the U.S. economy for several years to come.
If China fails to deliver, the agreement says the United States will unilaterally reimpose tariffs on Chinese goods. Economists and China’s other trading partners, such as countries in the European Union, have already raised questions about whether China will have to reduce purchases from all other trading partners in order to fulfill their new trade obligations to the United States.
Besides increasing exports and strengthening intellectual property rights protection, other achievements of this trade agreement include making China lift its bans on genetically modified U.S. farm products, and opening China’s financial sector for U.S. financial institutions, such as banks, insurance companies, and credit-rating agencies.
It is also worth pointing out that the Trump administration is able to achieve all of the above for U.S. businesses, while paying a relatively small price. The Trump administration stopped calling China a currency manipulator. The United States agreed not to impose new tariffs on the $156 billion in consumer goods that were going to take effect this past Dec. 15.
The United States will also cut the tariffs on the $120 billion in Chinese imports imposed last September from 15 percent to 7.5 percent. But for now, the United States maintains the 25 percent tariffs on a separate $250 billion in Chinese imports as an incentive for China to engage in phase two trade talks. Overall, the average tariff for Chinese imports is 19 percent, significantly higher than the average 3 percent tariff on imports China used to enjoy before the trade war.
The U.S. Won this Battle, but the Trade War Continues
Of course, the devil is always in the implementation. Whether China will actually deliver and the enforcement mechanism will work as planned are big questions. Still, this deal on paper is the best the U.S. government has achieved in several decades of any trade negotiations with China.
This explains why the Chinese government has kept quiet about the details of the Phase One agreement since the December announcement about the deal being reached. China also waited eight hours after last week’s deal-signing ceremony to publish an abbreviated version of the deal’s text in both English and Chinese. In contrast, the White House posted the full text of the agreement immediately after the signing ceremony.
While I applaud President Trump for making such an important breakthrough in the U.S.-China trade relationship, I remain convinced that a trade deal won’t change or even slow the strategic competition and confrontation of the two nations. This Phase One deal leaves many U.S. strategic goals out, including addressing the Chinese government’s enormous subsidies to state-owned enterprises. The two countries have such different economic and political systems and, more importantly, such different sets of values that we may have to settle our differences through other means, far beyond a trade agreement.
China’s vice chair and chief trade negotiator, Liu He, said he hopes China’s commitments on intellectual property rights protection, technology transfer, and financial markets will incentivize Chinese firms to innovate and develop “made-in-China” solutions that someday won’t rely on foreign companies. His words are a reminder that the United States shouldn’t be complacent after winning the first round of the trade war. China is a formidable strategic competitor and will remain so for many years to come.
Helen Raleigh is a senior contributor to The Federalist. An immigrant from China, she is the owner of Red Meadow Advisors, LLC, and an immigration policy fellow at the Centennial Institute in Colorado. She is the author of several books, including “Confucius Never Said” and “The Broken Welcome Mat.” Follow Helen on Twitter @HRaleighspeaks, or check out her website: helenraleighspeaks.com
Read Later Add to Favourites Add to Collection Report