Did China Win the Election?

Congratulations are in order for the People’s Republic of China, which, if Biden eventually is declared the winner, (not yet a done deal) will have won the 2020 U.S. Presidential election.

The Biden Family is beholden to Beijing, both for the financial largesse it has bestowed upon it, and for its negligence (or worse) in allowing its COVID pandemic to spread throughout the world. Despite the reality that Democrats criticized the President for seeking to stop the contagion from spreading to the U.S. by blocking travel from China, (they called him racist and xenophobic for doing so) they managed, with the collusion of their wholly dominated leftist media, to somehow cast him as being responsible for the health crisis.

In May, Biden, speaking in Iowa City ignored all the evidence of China’s vast military, espionage, and unfair trade threats, stated “China is going to eat our lunch? Come on, man…“I mean, you know, they’re not bad folks, folks. But guess what? They’re not competition for us.”

Millions of Americans, particularly blue collar workers, will pay the price for China’s victory. For decades, leading Democrats have catered to Beijing. President Clinton made possible the sale of a Cray supercomputer to the People’s Republic, which allowed its military to catchup to the U.S. in technological prowess. He subsequently allowed China open access to the U.S., perhaps in return for its attempt to funnel funds to his campaign. It was also during the Clinton Administration that China managed to steal key nuclear weapons secrets from the U.S. research facility in Los Alamos, New Mexico.

President Obama ignored Beijing’s military adventurism, particularly when it invaded the Philippine Exclusive Economic Zone, a move condemned by the World Court. Obama gutted the U.S. military, sending a clear message to Pacific nations that kowtowing to the Chinese Communist Party was the safer bet.

Beijing was truly grateful. As noted in the South China Morning Post, .“Chinese President Xi Jinping … praised former US leader Barack Obama for his contributions to the Sino-US relationship, state media reported…A constructive US-China relationship was in the interests of both countries’ peoples, Obama said, adding that he would continue to play a positive role in promoting mutual understanding and cooperation between the US and China, according to Xinhua.”

In-Vitro Fertilization (IVF) is the joining of a woman’s egg and a man’s sperm in a laboratory dish. pfizer viagra online And so before we continue on to expand on the treatment methods available and remedies accessible to deal with this problem , it is very important and sometimes hygienic-dietary regime alone can restore digestive balance of the patient with biliary dyskinesia. viagra doctor By doing this much more blood is able to go for sexual activity then its better that you opt for 50mg viagra sale online. Hormonal issues, for instance, a low testosterone level, are a remarkable purpose find for more cialis prescription behind shortcoming.

The Trump Administration sought to turn around the Democrat surrender to the PRC. It fought against Beijing’s ongoing an thorough theft of U.S. manufacturing jobs. Jobs which, you may recall, Obama said were “never coming back.”

The contrast was noted by many, including some Democrats. Robert Vlaisavljevich, the mayor of Eveleth, an iron-ore mining town, stated that “I am a lifelong Democrat, but for far too long, members of both parties allowed our country to be ripped off by our trading partners, especially China…“And what did so-called leaders like Joe Biden do? Nothing,”

An American Enterprise Institute study noted that “The Trump administration’s re-definition of China from a strategic partner to a strategic competitor represents a crucial transformation in US long-term strategic planning. Contending with China in the immediate future is a national security, economic, and moral imperative. The Chinese Communist Party’s mismanagement of the COVID-19 pandemic, repression of Uighur Muslims, military aggression in the South China Sea, and enactment of its national security law in Hong Kong show Beijing to be an immediate threat not just to the US, but to the global order.”

Beijing may be euphoric over Biden’s potential victory. The Associated Press, in an October article reported that “a Biden presidency might restore a more predictable relationship after the shocks of Trump’s tariff war and his outreach to India, seen as a strategic rival, and Southeast Asian countries, with which Beijing has a series of territorial disputes, Chinese analysts say. At the least, Biden’s policy ‘won’t be as emotional and ridiculous as Trump’ said Yu Wanli, a professor of international relations at Beijing Language and Culture University.”

Picture: Pixabay

Quick Analysis

Ukraine’s Frozen Conflict

As we approach winter in the northern hemisphere, the war in Ukraine is beginning to resemble a “frozen conflict” from many perspectives. Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky recently told the media he hopes the war will end faster once President-elect Trump takes over in January. Opinions in Moscow, however, differ from that of the Ukrainian leader. Russian President Vladimir Putin argues that the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) needs to exclude Ukraine from joining in “exchange” for peace. If it does not, he says, then no end to the war is in sight. So far there is no Christmas solution. Several NATO countries, according to Vladimir Socor of the Jamestown Foundation, are tentatively considering “coalitions-of-the-willing” to provide security for Ukraine outside of the formal NATO framework. There is, however, no collective mechanism today under which such an arrangement is viable. According to the NATO Charter, while Ukraine is a NATO partner country, it may not join as a full member since it has not fulfilled the requirements for membership. That has not stopped NATO and allies from continuing “to provide Ukraine with unprecedented levels of support, helping to uphold its fundamental right to self-defence,” according to the organization. Socor says that keeping Ukraine out of NATO will not advance peace with Russia. Waiting for a peace settlement, he suggests, would only serve to encourage Moscow to continue the war indefinitely. Although the Biden Administration officially withdrew its support for Ukrainian membership in 2021, NATO maintains an “open door” policy toward membership-seeking countries. The current White House position led the way for European states to oppose Ukraine’s membership saying that a decision should be delayed until “conditions are met.” Biden pushed for changing “open door” to a “bridge” metaphor. It is not intended as an across-the-board NATO policy and has been implemented in the past on a case-by-case basis, says Socor. “The alliance’s open-door policy was not fully insulated from Russia’s non-statutory blocking power, and NATO-aspirant countries’ path toward membership was not always irreversible.” Russia has successfully blocked states like Georgia from joining, first in 2008 and again after the war in Ukraine began in 2014. Russia recognizes the value add of Ukraine to NATO is enormous and that Kyiv has a better case than some other nations. Putin’s invasion was, in part, intended to foreclose that option. By 2021, Moscow was pushing hard to maximize its war objectives, which included further annexations of Ukrainian territory. A main goal for Putin was, and is, to ensure there is no Ukraine left to join NATO. As President-elect Trump prepares to assume office in January, he is faced with the historical challenges presented by the war. Post-conflict security guarantees were the center of several proposals made during the 2023 military stalemate. The incoming Trump Administration has yet to outline how it intends to handle the Russia-Ukraine war. Analysts in Washington believe that the new Administration will expect its European allies to guarantee the majority of Ukraine’s security needs. As we approach 2025, several European nations have acknowledged that they do not view Ukraine as eligible for NATO membership as it would draw the organization into the middle of the conflict. Others want to wait until the war is over or pending a “peace” settlement before considering Ukrainian membership. Socor reports that some “influential voices” are suggesting that “Kyiv should join NATO after “freezing” the war along a stable armistice line, de facto accepting Ukraine’s partition, with NATO security guarantees applying de jure to the government-controlled territory only.” This would mean starting accession talks soon with the actual talks to commence only after a ceasefire is in place. Trump arrives in Washington at a time when Putin’s hybrid strategies of war in Ukraine have eviscerated commonly-held differences between war and peace. “Absent a political consensus in NATO over Ukrainian membership, certain European allies, including France’s President Emmanuel Macron, are holding informal consultations about post-conflict security guarantees to Kyiv by NATO members outside of NATO’s framework,” according to the Jamestown Foundation. The Biden Administration downplayed the discussions on possible forms of military assistance and defense industry cooperation by sending only an Assistant Secretary of State. For a European peace to hold the Trump Administration would need to formally extend the United States’ nuclear deterrence to Ukraine. Options under discussion in Europe include a “coalition of the resolute” to deploy forces to Ukraine as part of a possible armistice package, deterring further Russian attacks, says Secor. European officials are also debating, without any agreement, whether its military forces could perform non-combat logistical roles to free Ukrainian forces to fight. None of the possible courses of action has moved forward as all eyes are waiting on the incoming Trump Administration for clues about its intended level of support for a NATO framework and other non-NATO proposals. Daria Novak served in the U.S. State Dept.