Sarah Beran: Both countries [US and China] are agreeing to a deal that is “tactical, not strategic, with a limited set of deliverables and an uncertain timeline.” on.ft.com/47We3Qf

"You shall know the truth, and the truth shall make you free." The Trump Administration is engaged in a comprehensive assault on the truth in an effort to influence what you think you "know." What does that tell you about Trump's intentions regarding freedom? Think about that.

On this Veterans Day we pay special tribute to those military officers whom Hegseth has dismissed from service for no good or apparent reason.

Beijing's reaction to Japanese PM Takaichi's comments on Taiwan has been obnoxious, but a central question is whether she has violated Tokyo's own "one China" policy. (Biden made similar comments that were widely viewed as transgressing Washington's "one China" policy.)

This spot-on analysis from Rush Doshi presents Washington with a choice:  either recognize the constraints of interdependence and pursue some form of cooperative coexistence with China, or reject/deny those constraints (in favor of belief in an existential ideological threat and

"It might be many months before a coherent, cohesive, and consistent China strategy begins to emerge from the White House."

Contrary to the prevailing view, "Trump Derangement Syndrome" is not an affliction of his critics. It's actually what mobilizes his supporters.

“Many commentators have readily characterized all this as a typically unreasonable Chinese overreaction to a relatively benign—even if ill-advised—Japanese statement. But the shadow of much history looms over this episode." nationalinterest.org/feature/how-to…

nationalinterest.org/feature/how-to…

Point #2 of the Ukraine peace plan: "A comprehensive non-aggression agreement will be concluded between Russia, Ukraine and Europe. All ambiguities of the last 30 years will be considered settled." All the ambiguities settled! Voila! Who knew it could be so easy?!

Yes, Chinese think tanks have "links" to the CCP. So . . . ? Does that mean Chinese scholars having nothing meaningful or valuable to say? Are outside scholars and officials incapable of engaging with them usefully without recognizing that filter?

"It remains to be seen how and how soon this bilateral crisis [between Japan and China] will be resolved. Given the relevant historical backdrop, it will not be defused by denying any validity to Beijing’s position."

Honestly, painful to read.

Whether you believe or not that Trump and Xi didn't talk about Taiwan during their meeting in South Korea, it doesn't matter any more. Xi called Trump today to talk about it.

A very useful primer on the history and details of the current Japan-China dispute over Taiwan: responsiblestatecraft.org/japan-china-ta…

Xi talks to Trump. Trump talks to Takaichi. Takaichi tries to walk back her remarks about Taiwan. Disregard the spin. Just do the math.

From Trump's new National Security Strategy: "We will also maintain our longstanding declaratory policy on Taiwan, meaning that the United States does not support any unilateral change to the status quo in the Taiwan Strait." No reference to a "one China policy"--only "our

In the current dispute between Japan and China over Taiwan, Washington and Tokyo are relying on a highly selective reading of history.  They are also obscuring the erosion over time of their positions on “one China.” nationalinterest.org/feature/why-ta…