Tag: perpetual war

Trump Must Not Let Washington’s Korea Hawks Intimidate Him Again

One of the great foreign policy disappointments of Donald Trump’s first term was the failure to advance his initial promising initiative to begin normalizing relations with the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea (DPRK).  Trump had abandoned the threats and bluster toward Pyongyang that marked his early months in office.  Instead, he moved to open a personal dialogue with North Korean dictator Kim Jong Un and facilitate productive negotiations on several important issues.  That approach led to an unprecedented U.S.-DPRK summit meeting in Singapore on June 12, 2018 and, later on, to a famous sight: the U.S. president crossing the Demilitarized Zone from South Korea into the communist North on June 29, 2019, to hold a brief chat with Kim.

Unfortunately, Trump failed to prevent hawks from both parties in Congress and in the overall national security establishment from sabotaging such conciliatory efforts.  Indeed, the president made a fatal blunder of his own by appointing the rabidly hawkish John Bolton as his National Security Advisor.  Congressional opponents of any meaningful relationship between the United States and the DPRK also excoriated Trump for moving to reduce Washington’s confrontational stance toward Pyongyang.

Indeed, hardliners in Congress and the broader policy community denounced the president for his willingness even to interact with Kim. The United States gave the odious dictator a huge boost in prestige, critics contended, merely by affording him a face-to-face meeting with the president and treating him as an equal. “In his haste to reach an agreement, President Trump elevated North Korea to the level of the United States while preserving the regime’s status quo,” intoned House minority leader Nancy Pelosi.

Despite that bruising political experience during his first term, Trump has indicated that he would be receptive to a new dialogue with the North Korean leader before the end of 2026.  “I get along with him well,” Trump stated.  “And you know what? The fact that I get along with him, that’s a very good thing, not a bad thing.”

On the delicate and difficult issue of relations with North Korea, Trump’s instincts are correct.  A new summit meeting would be a useful first step toward ending the dangerous policy rigidity that, except for Trump’s all-too-brief interlude, has plagued the U.S. stance toward North Korea for decades.

To achieve a constructive breakthrough, however, the president must go on the offensive against a host of vitriolic, often partisan, detractors.  Even his mild new outreach to Pyongyang is already drawing fire akin to the ideological and partisan attacks that doomed his efforts in 2018 and 2019.  The rhetoric of Sen. Jack Reed (D-RI) was typical. “Kim Jong Un is not, I think, terribly impressed with Donald Trump.  And withdrawing forces from Korea, canceling exercises, plays into his game.”  Trump in a Truth Social post the previous Sunday stated that he told Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth to “substantially reduce” planned joint military exercises alongside South Korean forces.

The Wall Street Journal’s editorial board echoed Reed’s opposition to Trump’s conciliatory gestures to Pyongyang. “President Trump is nothing if not impulsive, and his latest brainstorm is to rekindle his courtship of North Korean dictator Kim Jong Un.”  The Journal’s editors were especially annoyed that Trump had cited his “very good relationship” with Kim and had contended that U.S. military exercises with South Korea “send a signal that is totally inappropriate and hostile, to a Country that, as long as Donald J. Trump has been President, has been unthreatening and respectful.”

The editors expressed alarm at the president’s approach.  “This will reinforce the growing belief in Asia and Europe that the U.S. is becoming an unreliable ally,” they fumed.  “It may also increase the calls in the South for Seoul to develop its own nuclear deterrent.”

Despite the shrill criticism, Trump’s latest initiative actually is a cautious, overdue effort to jump-start meaningful diplomacy with Pyongyang.  The real danger is that such a modest, conciliatory effort will be too little, too late.

Keep reading

VoterGA: Declassified Intelligence Reveals Massive China Election Interference Cover-up

President Donald Trump delivered a primetime address from the White House on July 16, 2026, on the subject of US election security.

During the speech, Trump announced the declassification of intelligence documents and made a series of allegations involving China, the 2020 election, and a subsequent effort by intelligence officials to withhold information from him and from Congress.

As reported earlier by Patriot Perspective, one CIA report outlined China’s broader objective as leveraging domestic and foreign groups opposed to Trump to reduce his support, pressure him to resign, or stop him from winning another term.

Another report alleged that information collected from millions of TikTok users could be used to place authentic names, addresses, and identification numbers on the fraudulent licenses, making them more difficult to detect.

The release by the US government in July, via an earlier TGP report by Patriot Perspective, revealed China’s massive, multi-year US election interference campaigns.

The documents depict a foreign adversary determined to exploit America’s political divisions.

The most alarming material concerns the collection of Americans’ personal information.

Keep reading

Zelensky Appoints Key Azov Commanders to Lead Defense of Last Strongholds in Donetsk – MSM Tries To Whitewash Their Nazi Ideology

The board is set, the pieces are moving for the battle for the last fortified bastions of Ukrainian control in Donetsk Oblast.

We have been reporting here on TGP on the impending major battle that will decide the fate of the Donbas, the cradle of the Ukraine war.

While the Luhansk region has already been fully conquered by Russia, there are still a cluster of fortified towns in northern Donetsk that have been holding since 2014.

But now, the advancing Russian forces are just a few miles from the Slavyansk-Kramatorsk ‘agglomeration’, and the fight for the ‘fortress belt’ is about to begin.

RT reported on Telegram:

“Four kilometers [2,4 miles] are left to the eastern outskirts of Slavyansk — [Russian] Chief of General Staff [Valery] Gerasimov.

Russian advance groups of assault units are fighting on the territory three kilometers from the outskirts of Kramatorsk.

Keep reading

Moscow Warns It Could Target British Military Facilities In Unprecedented Statement

From the very start of the Ukraine war, the United Kingdom has consistently been among Kiev’s most open and ardent military supporters, time and again transferring heavy weaponry, including cutting edge long-range missiles like the Storm Shadow.

At the start of this week, Britain announced it plans to provide Ukraine with classified technology to allow for the country’s own manufacturing of the British/French-designed SCALP air-launched cruise missile (which in the UK is known as the Storm Shadow). The allies expect to set up a production line in Ukraine as soon as year’s end.

Already, Ukraine has used its domestic-made and designed Neptune cruise missile to strike oil refineries and military sites deep inside Russian territory. A domestic-made SCALP would present the likelihood of Ukraine then using this Western-designed missile to directly attack Russia, which only increases the chances of an eventual Moscow-NATO clash. Ukrainian forces already appeared to have used the missile on Donetsk and other locations closer to front lines in the Donbass.

On Thursday the Kremlin has issued one of its strongest warnings and threats aimed at London to date, accusing the UK of “fully taking part in the war on Kiev’s side” – and thus thwarting any chance of peace talks while adding fuel to the fire.

Moscow is now saying that the UK’s own military facilities could become fair game for direct attacks.

Kremlin spokesperson Maria Zakharova said in a Thursday press briefing, “We have repeatedly warned that the response to Ukrainian strikes using British weapons against Russian territory could be directed against any British military facilities and equipment in Ukraine and beyond.”

Zakharova urged “all residents of the United Kingdom to think about the inevitable, catastrophic consequences of the hostile steps taken by their own authorities.” She also laid out:

“We propose that the British leadership once again carefully analyze the situation and immediately, in the most resolute and unequivocal manner, abandon the hostile, aggressive line, which can only… create the risk of the conflict escalating to an entirely new level.”

Ironically this comes just on the heels of a rare visit of the CIA Director to Moscow. US officials claim the Tuesday meeting between John Ratcliffe and top Kremlin intelligence officials was to convey a warning to President Putin to not attack any NATO member. However, many analysts are skeptical that this was the official reason.

Keep reading

The War Hawks’ Predictions Have Aged Like Milk

When Donald Trump launched the Iran War on February 28, the usual suspects were in full support. From the moment the conflict ignited, many couldn’t help but immediately express admiration for the president, saying that only a brave, noble, and strong leader would’ve had the courage to do what Trump did here. For weeks, we heard that this war was essential, that we would be better off as a result, and that to be unsupportive was to be siding with the IRGC.

As weeks went by, however, it became apparent that the rosy picture that had been painted in the war’s infancy was not based in reality. One month turned into two, and then three, and here we are now about six months later, with none of the war’s stated objectives having been achieved. Because of the historic nature of this defeat, it is important to reflect on how we got here.

Who were the voices cheering the administration on as it led us down this dark path?

Why did they have such hatred for those of us who opposed the war?

Most importantly, who can’t we trust going forward?

Ben Shapiro

Among the war’s top early cheerleaders was Ben Shapiro. From the first moments of the conflict, Shapiro was praising Donald Trump’s decision to launch the war.

“President Trump is the most courageous commander-in-chief in modern American history,” Shapiro excitedly said. “What he just did is the bravest move by a president of the United States of my lifetime, bar none, without a doubt.”

Shapiro also immediately made it his mission to smear the war’s critics. Doing his best play on David Frum’s 2003 article “Unpatriotic Conservatives,” Shapiro began labeling some of the most prominent anti-war voices – including libertarian Dave Smith – “America-haters.” In a March 4 episode of “The Ben Shapiro Show,” Shapiro makes some very bold – and uninformed – predictions for how the war would play out.

Addressing concerns early on in the war about U.S. munition stockpiles, Shapiro urged his audience to ignore the naysayers, and rest assured that “ we do have significant stockpiles.” To build on his narrative, he claimed that the Iranian’s were “running out of missile launchers.” “This is a major problem for them,” he emphasized.

“The status is pretty good,” Shapiro told his podcast listeners, “things are moving pretty well.”

Shapiro’s blind faith in the government narrative was not enough to will the U.S. to victory, however. His uncritical rereading of Trump’s Truth Social post – in which he claims that we have a “virtually unlimited supply” of munitions – may have convinced his audience to get on board with the war, but this trust in the administration eventually crashed against the rocks of reality.

The U.S. does not have “unlimited” munitions. The Iranian’s ability to launch missiles has not been effectively degraded. This war has not gone as the administration intended, and the biggest proof of this is the conflict’s length. The war was originally sold as a weeks-long offensive, but it turned out to be a drastically larger undertaking than the White House anticipated, and one that has engulfed the Trump presidency.

Keep reading

US Officials Reveal Reason For CIA Chief’s Surprise Moscow Visit

The Wall Street Journal has late in the day Wednesday revealed the reason for CIA John Ratcliffe’s surprise visit to Moscow yesterday where he met with top Kremlin intelligence leaders, citing officials. It was to warn against attacking NATO countries, says the Journal:

The surprise visit by the director of the Central Intelligence Agency to Moscow this week was to deliver a warning to Russia not to attack NATO countries, according to people briefed on the visit.

The trip was spy-agency chief John Ratcliffe’s first publicly known visit to the Russian capital. It followed new U.S. intelligence assessments, reported earlier by The Wall Street Journal, that Russian President Vladimir Putin could try to test the resolve of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization with a limited assault on an allied country in the next few years.

U.S. officials are concerned that Putin, squeezed in Ukraine and under pressure at home, could launch an assault ranging from a cyberattack to a small-scale land incursion, likely on a Baltic nation, the Journal reported. 

Some pundits have suggested a weaker Baltic nation like Estonia, which has long issued provocative anti-Moscow statements of its own, could come under some kind of limited attack.

The report further suggests Putin could be ready to seize on NATO’s munitions supply weakness – given the drain amid the Iran war and after over four years of constantly supplying Ukraine.

“A shortfall in critical Western munitions, driven by expenditures in the Iran war, also could factor into Putin’s thinking,“ the report continues. “The U.S. has degraded its stockpile of certain weapons because of transfers to Ukraine after Russia’s 2022 invasion, as well as the Iran conflict.”

Keep reading

US Universities Had Extensive Ties With Chinese Defense Research Labs, Air Force Study Finds

Thirty U.S. academic institutions have until Aug. 31 to examine specified foreign research ties or risk losing eligibility for future federal research funding.

Seven days after the Pentagon ordered the reviews, an Air Force-affiliated institute published a study cataloging 204 interactions involving U.S. institutions and laboratories at the center of China’s defense research system.

The Aug. 24 study by the China Aerospace Studies Institute (CASI) found more U.S. institution-level interactions with China’s Defense Science and Technology Key Laboratories than those involving institutions from any other country.

CASI describes the Defense Science and Technology Key Laboratories as China’s highest level national laboratory network for military research. The contacts it identified ranged from academic visits and conferences to coauthored technical research and formal joint laboratories in fields including aero-engines, underwater sensing, hyperspectral target detection, advanced communications, and aerospace materials.

CASI described interactions between Western researchers and Chinese military laboratories as “at the very least problematic,” saying even seemingly benign exchanges could give Chinese defense researchers access to knowledge and technology useful to the People’s Liberation Army.

CASI Director Brendan Mulvaney told The Epoch Times that institutional collaborations-including joint laboratories, long-term partnerships, and mutual study or training agreements-were the most concerning because they represented sustained cooperation rather than one-off encounters.

The Pentagon’s Aug. 17 order directs 30 U.S. institutions to review academic, financial, and research relationships with foreign entities of concern and report what action they have taken by Aug. 31.

The Pentagon did not publicly identify the schools. According to a list DefenseScoop obtained from a U.S. official, Harvard University, MIT, the University of California-Berkeley, Duke University, Penn State, the University of Texas at Austin, New York University, and the University of Southern California are among institutions on that list that also appear in CASI’s records.

The Pentagon has not said that the relationships identified by CASI prompted the Aug. 17 notices.

Purdue and Beihang Built Joint Research Labs

In 2011, Purdue and Beihang formally established the BUAA-Purdue Joint Laboratory on Energy Systems and the BUAA-Purdue Joint Laboratory on Low Emissions Combustion.

Then-Purdue President France Córdova and Beihang President Huai Jinpeng signed the agreements.

The energy laboratory paired Purdue’s computational modeling with Beihang’s experimental capabilities. The combustion laboratory focused on low emission gas turbine combustors used in aircraft and power generation.

Beihang records also describe the two laboratories as formal joint research arrangements and say the universities discussed broader scientific research, teaching, and faculty and student exchanges.

Beihang later described the combustion laboratory within a research program that also undertook Chinese National Defense 973 projects, a state-backed basic research program supporting its defense science and technology.

CASI identified Beihang’s thermal engineering department-which oversees a Defense Science and Technology Key Laboratory for aero-engine aerodynamics and thermodynamics-as having established a joint combustion research team with Purdue.

Beihang is now on the Pentagon’s Section 1286 list of foreign institutions subject to tighter research security restrictions.

Keep reading

Bessent Suggests Economic Warfare Against Iran Could ‘Blow Up the Global Financial System’

With the United States unable to militarily defeat Iran in President Donald Trump’s illegal US-Israeli war of choice, Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent on Monday escalated the administration’s economic attacks on Tehran, warning countries and companies around the world that continuing to do business with the nation could expose them to punitive sanctions.

“Let there be no ambiguity as to the position of the United States,” Bessent said during a news conference unveiling what the Trump administration is calling Operation Economic Outcast. “An economic engagement of any kind with this murderous regime will expose those responsible to the full reach of American power.”

The “economic D-Day” campaign targets five sectors – technology, gold, aviation, shipping, and digital assets – and is intended to choke off virtually every remaining source of hard currency for Iran.

Bessent warned that it is “no longer acceptable to operate in the gray spaces” of US policy. The secretary said he anticipates the announcement of sanctions against a major financial institution as soon as next week.

Asked if Chinese banks that do business with Iran would be sanctioned, Bessent replied that “no one is above the reach of US sanctions.”

While Bessent did not say which countries would likely be targeted, China, Türkiye, and the United Arab Emirates are Iran’s biggest trading partners.

The secretary was also asked why sanctions aren’t being imposed immediately.

“Well, we are giving everyone the opportunity to remedy bad behavior,” he replied. “Why would I want to blow up the global financial system?”

“We believe that it is important to level set and give people a cure period, but they should know that that will move very quickly and that we are serious,” Bessent added. “So we believe that a warning shot and a level set of expectations is appropriate, and if people do not want to meet our expectations, then we expect – and they should expect – that they will leave the dollar system.”

Iranian officials largely scoffed at Bessent’s “economic D-Day” threat. Deputy Iranian Foreign Minister Kazem Gharibabadi asked on social media, “Is this a victory or an admission of America’s failure!?”

“You say Iran’s military capability has been ‘dismantled,’ 100% of its military factories ‘destroyed,’ and its nuclear program ‘buried’; but for this very Iran, the ‘largest financial assault in history’ and the mobilization of ‘all US institutions and authorities’ have been necessary!” he mocked.

While Trump has said the war is “over” or nearly over dozens of times, Iran currently appears to have the upper hand, as shipping has overwhelmingly avoided the US-supported route through the Strait of Hormuz, with most vessels using a course set by Tehran or avoiding the waterway altogether.

Trump’s war on Iran is proving costly not only in Iranian lives and US taxpayer dollars, but in the increasingly strained budgets of American families. Disruptions to oil shipments through the Strait of Hormuz have pushed gasoline prices above $4 a gallon nationally – roughly a dollar more than a year ago. Trump has dismissed Americans’ concerns about high fuel prices, saying $4 is “not very high” and vowing to “never apologize” for the economic pain his actions are inflicting.

That pain doesn’t stop at the pump. More expensive gasoline and diesel ripple through the economy, raising the cost of transporting food and other goods while keeping inflation elevated.

The pain is far worse for the people of Iran. Trump administration’s escalation comes as Iran’s currency, the rial, has plunged to record lows amid an economic crisis largely caused by the war and years of preceding US-led sanctions.

Keep reading

Netanyahu: ‘No Deal Possible With Iran’s Savages’ — Backs Trump’s Economic Siege As Operation Economic Outcast Goes Full Force

Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu said on Wednesday night there can be no agreement with Iran’s leadership, describing the regime’s rulers as “savages.” The comments by Netanyahu came as the Trump administration launched a wide-ranging campaign of economic pressure against Iran.

Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu told an event held by Israeli settlers in the West Bank on Wednesday night that he doubted an agreement could be reached with Iran’s leadership. “I doubt an agreement can be reached with that group there, with those savages. I tell you – an agreement cannot be reached,” he said.

His remarks came as the Trump administration’s new campaign to squeeze Iran economically, dubbed “Operation Economic Outcast” by Secretary of the Treasury Scott Bessent, went into full force. Every last dime that Iran normally makes from exporting oil and shipping it around the world, from its banking system to front companies that do business on its behalf around the globe, would be targeted by the unprecedented effort to economically strangle Iran.

During his White House visit in July, Netanyahu urged Trump to “tighten the siege” on Iran. Now, the Israeli PM is reinforcing his previous position, saying that the Iranian leadership must fundamentally change or be strangled economically for good.

The Iranian maritime blacklist of 45 vessels that have allegedly flouted its rules for navigation in the Strait of Hormuz is already having an impact on global shipping. Three major Indian refineries and one global energy major told Reuters on Wednesday that they will no longer use vessels listed on the Iranian maritime black list for crude oil imports, citing security reasons.

Keep reading

Hidden In Safes: Pentagon Uncovers Classified Documents On 5th Anniversary Of Abbey Gate Massacre

Five years ago today, 13 American service members were killed at Abbey Gate in Kabul, Afghanistan. Now, the investigation into what really happened — and who tried to bury the truth — may finally be blowing open.

Sean Parnell, Chairman of the Afghanistan Withdrawal Special Review Panel and Senior Advisor to Secretary of War Pete Hegseth, dropped a bombshell on the fifth anniversary of the August 26, 2021 attack. His team has uncovered classified documents that had been deliberately hidden — “stashed and hidden away in safes where they would not be found.” After reviewing them, Parnell said it “became clear why someone tried to hide them” — but he declined to release the contents publicly until the investigation is complete.

The 13 Americans killed at Abbey Gate gave everything. Sgt. Johanny Rosario Pichardo. Sgt. Nicole L. Gee. Staff Sgt. Darin T. Hoover. Cpl. Hunter Lopez. Cpl. Daegan W. Page. Lance Cpl. Humberto A. Sanchez. Lance Cpl. David L. Espinoza. Lance Cpl. Jared M. Schmitz. Lance Cpl. Rylee J. McCollum. Lance Cpl. Dylan R. Merola. Lance Cpl. Kareem M. Nikoui. Hospital Corpsman Maxton Soviak. Staff Sgt. Ryan C. Knauss. Their families have waited five years for answers.

Parnell made clear his panel is not interested in giving Americans a “convenient version of the truth.” The panel has already reviewed more than nine million documents — compared to roughly 3,000 documents examined under the Biden-era review. This administration is not looking the other way.

Secretary of War Pete Hegseth participated in a Pentagon ceremony today to upgrade valor awards for service members who defended Abbey Gate, correcting what Parnell described as the “inappropriate downgrading” of those honors under the previous administration. These were Americans who ran toward the bomb and saved lives. They deserved better recognition then, and they are getting it now.

One of the most consequential and least-scrutinized decisions of the entire debacle was the U.S. military’s reliance on the Taliban — including the Haqqani Network — to provide perimeter security at the airport during the evacuation. The previous investigation concluded the attack “could not have been prevented at the tactical level.” The new panel is not accepting that answer on faith.

Washington made the decisions in Afghanistan. Americans carried the consequences. What is in those safes may finally tell the families — and the country — what their government chose to hide.

Keep reading