Realizing China’s competition, the US has adopted a containment approach in an attempt to cut off the exchange of talent with China. Washington has blocked cooperation between American universities and Huawei, and has taken extremely strict restrictions on China-US technology exchanges. The number of international student visas has sharply dropped in the past few years – the biggest decline in visa approvals in 2017 was seen among students from China and India, according to CNN. This technology cold war approach goes against the trend of cooperation in globalization. It made China more aware of the importance of talent, both domestic and overseas. High-end talent is the key for a country to take the lead in future competition in innovation, and vying for more talent could be a theme. China will not only cultivate its own world-class talent by means of international interactions, but also to allow more overseas personnel to take root in China. As the saying goes, talent is the most valuable resource in the 21st century.

“Acting” Shanahan has been in charge since Jim “Mad Dog” Mattis – the original butcher of Fallujah in 2004 – resigned last December. His former employer happened to be Boeing. The Pentagon’s inspector general is still investigating whether Shanahan was in fact acting as a no holds barred Boeing commercial asset whenever he met the Pentagon top brass. It’s essential to remember that Mattis and Shanahan are the main authors of the National Defense Strategy adopted by the Trump administration which accuses China of striving for “Indo-Pacific regional hegemony in the near-term and displacement of the United States to achieve global pre-eminence in the future.”

For Italy, the question of foreign investment is still very acute. And no one except China is able to provide them in due measure. Especially when there is an infrastructure crisis in the country. Let us recall at least the collapse of the bridge in Genoa last August, when it became obvious to everyone that a lot of engineering structures in Italy — bridges, roads, and so on — need urgent repair. There is no money for infrastructure rehabilitation in the country’s budget.

think that Yevgeny Maksimovich was the central figure that made the transition from “perestroika” to the shootout and the current situation. I believe that Boris Yeltsin and Gorbachev were secondary people. It was an external picture. But the real mechanism that controlled the whole process — before perestroika, during perestroika, and after perestroika, when all sorts of Austrian institutions were formed, was tied to Primakov and other heirs of the Andropov plan.

Las sesiones parlamentarias chinas han echado el freno al entusiasmo irreprimible de los últimos años, marcados por la inminencia de la realización del sueño chino. Eso sí, aunque parezca un contrasentido, oficialmente se hace para seguir avanzando, es decir, para acelerar las reformas en ámbitos clave. El diagnóstico de la situación por parte del primer ministro Li Keqiang evidenció la magnitud de la preocupación de las autoridades por los elevados riesgos que asedian la evolución económica. Y también la política.

US,and Russian military leaders are set to meet Monday in Vienna to discuss operations in Syria, where the Pentagon has decided to leave a residual force to support its Kurdish allies. “The two military leaders will discuss the deconfliction of coalition and Russian operations in Syria, plus exchange views on the state of US-Russia military relations and the current international security situation in Europe and other key topics,” Ryder said. Since Russia entered the Syrian conflict in 2015, Moscow and Washington have worked out their respective areas of operation against ISIS, giving each other advance warning of planned air missions to avoid contact.

The INF Treaty was signed by the US and the Soviet Union. It was a compromise between the two superpowers with the same level of military power to ease their confrontations. Although China is now much stronger than it was in the past, its nuclear power and comprehensive military strength are far from being equal to those of the US and conducting negotiations on an equal footing. The Europeans are clear that the US withdrawal from the INF Treaty is part of its America First agenda and an abandonment of its international obligations. It is natural that Europeans consider more of their own interests, but they should stick to justice in major affairs otherwise double standards will prevail. Europe is not the source of China’s security pressure. But Germany has dragged China into its own security plight, which not only damages China’s interests, but also leads Europeans in the wrong direction for their security concerns. As the world’s second largest economy, China needs defense capabilities which should be more powerful than it has now so as to build peace in the Asia-Pacific region and beyond. A peaceful and stable Asia-Pacific region will benefit Europe.

Ante la agresión de un enemigo mucho más fuerte que nosotros es crucial ‎identificar sus objetivos y entender los métodos que utiliza. Sólo tienen posibilidades de sobrevivir ‎quienes sean capaces de prever los golpes que van a recibir.

Es una posibilidad a la que Trump contribuye activamente, pero la pregunta es qué habrá después de ese papel de “ayudante del Sheriff”. No me hago muchas ilusiones. Visto lo visto, en Libia, en Afganistán, en Siria, en Ucrania, en Yemen… lo que se dibuja en el horizonte podría ser la ambición de una Europa convertida en matón autónomo. Los alemanes empiezan a discutir la conveniencia o no de dotarse del arma atómica -lo que es anticonstitucional- o de socializar la bomba francesa convirtiéndola en un recurso nuclear “europeo”. También proponen que el puesto de Francia como miembro permanente del Consejo de Seguridad de la ONU sea convertido en un puesto “europeo”, cosa que suavizan diciendo que su representante sea un francés… La pregunta es: ¿soberanía europea en defensa para hacer qué?

Pienso en general, pero también en España. El 90% de la producción anglosajona sobre Rusia y China, trátese de publicística, academia o labor de “expertos”, es muy poco independiente. Y esa es la fuente en la que beben nuestros editores y periodistas en España. Dentro de ellos hay un sector que son verdaderos pajes y asistentes a sueldo de la OTAN y sus Ong’s. Tenemos periodistas que han participado en campañas directamente pagadas y orquestadas por los gobiernos atlantistas y expertos que, por ejemplo, han cobrado de George Soros por confeccionar listas de periodistas “pro rusos” durante la crisis de Ucrania. Esto son cosas sabidas y publicadas, pero, naturalmente hay mucho más en la sombra.