After confirming the pain points, it can only be considered as doing the top 10% of the work in a project report at most.

It’s like a patient going to see a doctor and the doctor figures out what disease he is.

The next step is to figure out where the cutting-edge efforts have been done.

It is equivalent to a doctor asking the patient what medicine he had taken before coming to the hospital.

In this regard, Gu Ao has a slight advantage over other graduate students.

Because other graduate students led by Kissinger were unable to access the inside information of the decision-making secrets of the US National Wu Hospital in recent years. So they would not know exactly how much medicine they had taken before coming to the hospital this time.

Gu Ao can at least see some hot topic analysis deciphered from later generations, so he can take fewer detours and do less repetitive work.

Of course, Gu Ao did not study this in his previous life, so he was just an amateur watching the fun and had some knowledge of the secret diplomatic incidents in the 1970s that had become a big deal.

He didn't know about the other 95% of small things.

The standard for whether it is a major event depends on whether the future generations are qualified to be mentioned by the talk show "Xiaoshuo" or enter the "Get" analysis course. Those who are not included are not known by Gu Ao who has never heard of it on the subway to and from work.

He was a coder in his previous life and was busy, so he didn't have time to learn useless trivial knowledge in liberal arts.

For example, from 1971 to 1972, Kissinger's efforts to establish the exchanges between China and the United States, as well as the secrets and confusion of "deceiving the superiors and concealing the subordinates" on both sides. This is a "big event", and Gu Ao knew some details.

But there is nothing to dig in this field.

In addition, internationally, Kissinger did a bigger thing that year was to sign the Anti-Missage Treaty with the Soviets (72 years) to restrict the development of ballistic missile defense systems between the two countries (30 years later, the Immortal President withdrew, and the United States launched nmd/tmd).

From this, Gu Ao can see that the predecessors have made as much effort as possible on the issue of "how to deal with Congress, they can only choose one of two". The main manifestations are "disguising the modifications as not like modifications, but clarifying and explaining, and deceived and messing with the senators in clarification and explanations."

There is no need to elaborate on the details of the Anti-Miles Million Regime Treaty, but after looking at the overall logic, you will know why this is a treaty that requires extremely secret diplomacy and deceives oneself people while signing.

Because this is actually a treaty of "using your country as a MT shield and helping your teammates with hatred". Like the Intermediate-Range Rail Treaty 15 years later, if the people and parliamentarians know the truth, it will definitely not be signed.

Coincidentally, after the Intermediate-Range Forces Treaty was signed during Li Gen's term, it also took effect for exactly 30 years, and was torn down by Donald.

The reason why Gu Ao is so clear about these is because when Donald later broke the "Intermediate-Range Forces Treaty", the online media was very popular. He read too many overwhelming analytical articles on those learning apps.

The technical logic that the two treaties are consistent is as follows: even if the anti-missile systems of the United States and the Soviet Union were developed, they would require extremely high reaction time. Therefore, even if they were successfully developed, they could only prevent the Soviet Union from destroying each other, but they could not prevent the Soviet Union from using nuclear bombs nearby to tackle Western Europe. Therefore, once the research and development begins, Western Europe will be more dangerous, becoming a meat shield that is placed in the front row after the enemy's range is limited.

The increase in the deployment of medium-range missiles is also the same reason: the Soviet Union's medium-range missiles can only be used to destroy Britain, France, Germany and Italy, and cannot attack the United States. Restricting the number of medium-range missiles is actually to allow the Soviet Union to tilt the same resources towards intercontinental missiles.

In other words, when the Americans sign the contract, it is equivalent to calling out to the Soviet Union: If you want to do it, just do it with me, don’t think about venting anger on your younger brother.

This is very similar to the 2010s when Americans shouted to the North Band: If you have a way to create a longer-range intercontinental missile, don’t always threaten you no matter who beats you, you will beat the South Band, the unarmed hostage.

These treaties were indeed helpful to the international environment of the United States at that time. They seemed to increase the proportion of the United States' hatred value, but they completely turned Western European countries into younger brothers.

The reason why Kissinger signed the Anti-Missage Treaty in 1972 was that in November 1970, French founding President De Gaulle died and Pompidou could completely get out of the shadow. When De Gaulle was alive, France was once neutral, had a good relationship with the Soviet Union, and also won over a small Eurasian country with a large middle-level position in the polls, and it was not the only one that the United States took the lead.

Therefore, when Kissinger died, he immediately promoted the Anti-missile Treaty to show goodwill to the entire Western Europe. Pompidou changed his previous "Charles De Gaulle's" diplomacy and turned to the United States.

The Americans' "bearing hatred" actually attracted a large number of horsemen internationally, and the Soviets had never really fired nuclear bombs, so the United States actually used nothingness to exchange for actual benefits. Later, the Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces Treaty in 1987 was even more so, greatly encouraging Europe and other countries around the Soviet Union, and insisting on their sluggish international oil prices for years, dragging down the Soviet economy. On the one hand, the Afghan War was bleeding, and the Soviet Union finally collapsed.

But it is precisely this kind of content that leads to the signing of these two treaties that the US signatories must carry out in secret and must not let the people in the country know the truth.

Otherwise, the people and the parliamentarians will find that "it turns out that your Secretary of State is raising hatred from the Soviets, and let the Soviets take allies that were flat to Britain, France, Germany and Italy, and be carried by the United States in exchange for France, Germany and Italy to be convinced and be your younger brother." Then the people will do whatever they want, and the parliamentarians will vote wildly to boycott.

But a treaty with black and white text always has to be voted in the end. How can this be secret?

There is a way.

It is just to take advantage of the fact that the senators are all liberal arts students and do not understand technology!

They obtained the large number of technical parameters on the Anti-Miles and Intermediate-February Treaty, and they didn't know what the restricted things were for and what the encouraged things were for.

In the eyes of liberal arts students, ballistic missiles and anti-missile systems with all parameters seem to look the same! It should be one purpose, right? What does it mean to limit one of them and encourage the other? It seems that it is not bad!

At this time, diplomats such as Kissinger, as well as the technical generals of the ballistic missile force who invited the hearing from the Pentagon, were responsible for accepting questions from the senators and helping them answer questions.

They can fool these technical details while answering questions.

The key lies in this "interpretation".

Then manage the media well and don’t let people who know the knowledgeable expose the interpretation articles within the signing period, and it’s fine.

(What I fear most at this time is that in a foreign journal, such as "Diplomatic Review", someone like Gu Ao came out to write an in-depth interpretation paper and sent it to the opposition think tank, and the fun was so big.

If someone can catch such an opportunity, then don’t be polite. After writing the article, either an American foundation will use tens of millions of dollars to tamper with you; or a Cia agent will try his best to kill you, and risks and opportunities coexist.)

In 1972, Kissinger made the case for the Anti-missile Treaty hidden from the truth.

After sorting out these lines, Gu Ao suddenly got some inspiration:

In real politics, it is impossible to vote by forcibly breaking through the voting stage stipulated by the Constitution, and this iron rule cannot be modified. It is impossible to compromise and obscure.

Because the Constitution stipulates this purpose to decentralize power and ensure that those who legislate only take charge of legislation, those who are executives only take charge of administration, and those who enforce the law only take charge of law enforcement.

This is the most basic requirement for the separation of powers. It concerns the American national system and cannot be shaken.

Otherwise, if you allow "triple-of-treasures", it is equivalent to allowing executive officials and secretary of state to provide instigative opinions or even misleading when Congress legislates.

This is like in any country with a two-instance final review system, the litigation law stipulates that "if the second instance finds errors in the value judgment and the application of the law, it can be directly changed. If the facts are not determined clearly, or there is new evidence that must be adopted, it should be sent back for retrial."

This is to prevent someone from sneaking into the second instance to use evidence to sneak attack without hiding important evidence, not giving the other party time to prepare and the chance to "do it again" after thinking it through, and to get through the final result.

Your Secretary of State and the President want to make corrections on the spot, what have you done long ago? You just don’t let you make corrections on the spot, and you won’t let you go while the members of the MPs are still confused. You must fight back, let the members read them fully, calm down, and vote again.

What the Secretary of State does is, "You listen to my explanation, but I didn't change it. Actually, I didn't want to change it. I'm just afraid that you won't understand it. Now I'm explaining it to you. This is an explanation, not a change."

Just sneak into the village and fire the gun, and see who is more insidious and vicious, and has a stronger ability to keep your brain awake for a long time, and finally deceive the other party.

Eight years ago, Kissinger did a good job. When he finally dealt with the internal enemy, he was ashamed of the 20 questions. He did not let them see the "help my brother bear the hatred" attribute of the Anti-missile Treaty. He was confused. When they later found out that the French came to surrender, they came back. The general situation was over and the treaty had already come into effect.

However, this kind of unpleasant experience of being humiliated has more or less accumulated a lot of "anger" for the people of the people's MPs who later criticized Nixon for stepping down. This is a story later.

Until the above, Gu Ao has figured out what medicines this patient had taken before coming to the hospital this time."

...

Next, there is "presentation of new drugs".

Theory is theory, and deceiving practice is deceiving practice.

In actual implementation, whether you are making "compromising/substantive modifications" to the secret contract or just providing "question/answer" is far more difficult to judge than the metaphysical deduction of legal principles.

Theoretically, everything involving "factual judgment" cannot be more worthy, and things involving "value judgment" can be explained.

But what is considered "facts" and "value"? The truly top international pharaoh can definitely make all the senators dizzy, let alone ordinary people.

Let me give you an inappropriate but helpful example. On this side of the ocean, the laws are established by the Congress, and there is no doubt. But the highest judicial organs can issue "judicial interpretation". How much room is there for "interpretation"? As long as those who have studied the law know it in their hearts.

"So, the core idea of ​​Kits protecting secret diplomatic achievements is to disguise ‘substantive modification’ as ‘non-substantive modification’, and even disguise ‘modification’ as ‘clearance/explanation’, and pass the Senate questioning.”

To sum up this point, Gu Ao is really tired.

He had already written more than a dozen pages of drafts, and had also rubbed seven or eight of them, and he gained a lot in his heart.

He can figure out the truth, but the more thorough he thinks it, the more he discovers that he really doesn't want to learn this skill.

Because it will be useless to him for the rest of his life.

He just came to the United States to study, not to be an official in the United States.

This set of spicy chickens will be useless in the future!

He kneaded the last piece of deduction waste paper into a ball, threw it into the fireplace, and sighed: "Oh, it's still true: the biggest disadvantage of Western civilian pig politics is that leaders have to lie in order to cater to the people and their representatives!

What is the use of practicing this skill? As long as it is beneficial to the country, you should concentrate your efforts on major tasks. Why do you think about how to deceive the parliamentarians?

As for the eloquence of cheating leeks, it is even more useless. You should carry out in-depth and meticulous ideological education for leeks to enhance their political awareness of dedication.”

No matter how much he complains, he is now on the verge of the arrow. The preparations have been done so far. Gu Ao can only treat it as a "brainstorm" and exercise his intellectual game.

What is important in life is not the stock of knowledge, but the ability to learn and think. If you study it once, no matter whether the conclusion is useful or not, it is at least a training of your brain.

"The biggest risk of such behavior of disguising 'modification' as 'explanation' is that once the opponent exposes your attempt to get away with it in a short period of time, the parties responsible for providing questioning and explanations will have great risks. So much so that they don't dare to talk lies with their eyes open, for fear of hitting ghosts if they walk too much at night in the future.

In the United States, perjury and other similar crimes of attempting to obstruct justice/legislative notarization are very serious. And at present, these crimes tend to be over-abuse. This is also a side reason why the Brzezinski era dare not be as arrogant as the Kissinger era…”

Gu Ao reasoned down the line. When he thought of this step, it was already the second half of the night. In fact, he took many unfeasible detours in the middle, so I won’t go into details.

After thinking of this, he knew that all his research results today would probably not be included in academic journals.

Because if there is any real information, Kissinger will definitely not allow the publication, but will secretly issue it secretly and only show it to the president, secretary of state, core archives and others in this essay.

Because, in this aspect, the prosecution and defense have always been a rising trend. The reason why I was afraid of the lies during the Brzezinski era was that the lies of the Kissinger era gradually came back to the politicians.

It's not easy to cheat.

"It's really the same as the world is getting worse, and the world is getting worse. Do it! By the way, in 1986, how did Li Gen cover up the bad influence of the secret transaction of the "Iran Gate"? I can't remember it very clearly, but it seems to be a failure.

During Clinton's tenure, how did he cover up the charge of "perjury" in the "zipper door" (Lewinsky case)? Well, this seems to be a bit of an impression. I read a report in my previous life... "

The legal principles of dealing with "perjury" and dealing with "providing false inquiries" should be the same, right?

The former is summarized as "obstructing judicial justice" in the US legal system, while the latter is summarized as "obstructing legislative independence."

From the perspective of legal benefits, we can compare this.

"We must quickly find out the verdicts and interpretations of the cases of perjury and non-crime crimes in recent years!"
Chapter completed!