An Analysis Of President Trump’s Proportional Response To The Use Of Chemical Weapons in Syria

A Proportional Response

The US attack on Syria last night was a proportional response. The West Wing TV show did a good explanation of what this is. In the following video footage the fictional President Bartlett is speaking against the virtue of a proportionate response. It must be noted here that he had lost a close friend in the attack that his generals are proposing to respond to. He is acting emotionally which is always dangerous whether you are fighting a duel or conducting international relations. In fact an emotional response will get you killed in a duel and could get you into a major destructive war when applied to international relations. In international relations rational and calculated action is usually the least dangerous approach.

An Anti Establishment Response

President Trump is vilified by the mainstream media because his vision for the world is different from that of the globalist establishment who own that media and use it as a propaganda tool to promote their interests. Those interests are global and therefore independent of any single country. In fact individual countries, especially democratic ones, are a serious impediment to the realisation of globalist policy goals.

President Trump has been friendly towards Russia because Russia also has a vision for the world that is different to the globalist establishment. That is also the reason that the mainstream media vilifies Russia and promotes war against it. I doubt the Trump vision and the Russia vision for the world are the same but the globalist establishment is the stronger and is perceived as the most dangerous player at the moment.

President Trump was manoeuvred into a corner by the globalist establishment and had to act to restore his control of the strategic environment. A proportional response was a way to forestall the establishment desire to promote serious hostility between Russia and the United States. He has now successfully restored his personal control to the situation for the following reasons:

  1. If President Assad did indeed order the chemical attack then it will deter him from doing so again. This gives President Trump the opportunity to demonstrate that he is not a Russian pawn. This strengthens his domestic position without giving in to demands to escalate hostility with Russia.
  2. If it was the rebels who staged the attack to secure a propaganda victory and provoke a disproportionate response then that now will not now happen. Action has been taken and a line has been drawn.
  3. The mainstream media and its globalist owners clearly want to provoke American involvement in full scale war in Syria. This proportional response will nullify their campaign at least for a while.

Globalist End Game Forestalled?

We have already seen how the result of similar globalist inspired strategies in Libya, Egypt, Iraq and indeed Syria itself was to empower ISIS and produce maximum instability in the region. We have also seen how this strategy has created the refugee crisis, which from a globalist perspective is not a crisis at all but an opportunity.

A conclusion that can be drawn from the desire to continue this strategy is that the globalists want to make things so bad in the region that people will be driven from their homes and effectively be forced to become refugees. If this conclusion is correct then it would appear that the globalist grand strategy may be to deliberately create a divide and rule situation in Europe and North America in order weaken the ability of public’s in those countries to oppose their brand of globalisation that seeks to lower business costs without giving the full benefits to those territories and their people.

In the meantime, the counties in the Middle East are robbed of their most talented people. They are left as a weakened and impoverished disaster zone that can be easily recolonised in the globalist interest at a later date once their European and North American base has been tamed.


President Trump has delayed what he would regard as the globalist advance. The globalists will adapt and attempt to continue their policy in the future, but President Trump has bought valuable time and room for manoeuvre.

It might seem counter intuitive but the proportional response is not only good for President Trump, it is good for Russia and the anti ISIS elements within Syria too. In some ways it could be regarded as a victory, or at least a stalemate, for Russia because the damage caused by the information warfare that being waged against it is the most dangerous to its interests. The cold information war was reaching the point where it could have turned hot. The temporary loss of a Syrian airfield is an insignificant price to pay for a lull in the information war and a return to a situation of relative strategic stability.

There will be some vocal protests from Russia at the UN, that will make it look like the attack was more significant than it was. However, this will also improve President Trump’s credibility. Their protests will be symbolic and it will be in their interests not to further escalate the situation. In the meantime, ISIS will not have the opportunity that would arise from the fall of the Assad regime. The heat will be taken out of the situation and it will be quietly kicked into the long political grass. Politics will resume its slow march forth.

The image that the media has been trying to create for Trump is one of the warmonger with his finger on the nuclear trigger. His measured, proportional response to this crisis suggests the opposite.


Trump’s One China Gambit and the Genius of Bargaining With Nothing!

New York Stock Exchange

Donald Trump claims that Mexico will pay for the boarder defences that he plans to build on his country’s southern border. Today we get a glimpse of Trump’s strategic thinking and deal making genius, that maybe, just maybe might be applied to his most noteworthy proposed building project.

A few weeks ago he caused a furore when he made a simple telephone call to the leader of Taiwan. This tiny act upset the diplomatic relations between China and the United States. Previous administrations had followed a policy of not officially recognising Taiwan as a truly independent nation. This was a wink and a nod to the Chinese claim that Taiwan is nothing more than a rebellious Chinese province, even though in every real sense Taiwan is a country like any other. Trump’s phone call implied that he would be willing to recognise Taiwan as a fully independent nation.

However, in recent remarks, President Elect Trump appears to be suggesting that the One China Policy will be left intact, but perhaps only if the Chinese make some reasonable minor concessions in trading arrangements. The subheading on an article posted today on The Guardian website makes this exact point: “President-elect also hints that Beijing will need to show good faith on trade practices for him to commit to ‘One China’ policy”

This “hint” by Trump about future US relations with China, also gives us a glimpse of Trump’s strategic thinking and deal making genius. By taking part in the telephone call he uses something that is supposedly settled, the One China Policy, disrupts it and then puts a price on returning it to a state of normality.

The costs are all on China’s side and the net benefits are all American. If the One China Policy is ended then China would lose face, something that no Chinese leader is keen to endure. It might also encourage instability in some of China’s currently “non rebellious” provinces. Trump has already resolved to adjust what he sees as unfavourable trading relations with China, what he has done now is given himself and extra bargaining chip and doing so for free. The chip doesn’t even need to be played, and probably shouldn’t be played, but nevertheless remains in play.

Trump’s One China Gambit, gives an insight into how he will make Mexico pay for “The Wall”. He has definitely mastered the art of using absolutely nothing as leverage. All I can say is that I wish that my own country had a leader with such gifts and such commitment to the national interest. But, you never know, Theresa May could still surprise us in her dealings with the EU!

Trump is showing he can play the game that China and Russia have themselves played and perfected over the years, and to do so with equal or perhaps even superior skill.