An economics, investment, trading and policy blog with a focus on Modern Monetary Theory (MMT). We seek the truth, avoid the mainstream and are virulently anti-neoliberalism.
Well it looks like he has bipartisan support for sure... when was the last time you saw such applause and standing Os in the Capitol on both sides of the aisle .... I'd say our government is fully committed to whatever our policy is for sure..... rsp,
I'm not sure they have thought this thing through. In either case, it is cause for concern.
Why is this so significant? Because China needs the natural resources of Russia. Russia and China together have the people, knowledge, resources, and reason to mount a challenge to Atlanticism that NATO cannot deal with without risking the nuclear destruction of Europe including the US and much of the US. So far, the result of this confrontation has been sealing the energy deal between Russia and China and talk of further cooperation, That deal had been hanging for some time owing to lack of agreement over terms when Putin decided to settle for less than he had been asking as he decided it was time to pivot East.
Russia and China have both signaled that they know neither of them can win separately in a conventional war with NATO and that any real threat to either of them will be answered with unconventionally. They could not win conventionally through a military alliance either. The PLA have already told the US that in a nuclear war, both countries will be destroyed but China will survive because it is less concentrated. The US won't.
A militarily allied Russia and China would present an unconventional threat that would make the NATO allies think seriously about confronting them.
Even Russia acting alone has the ability return Europe to the Stone Age for a thousand years that NATO cannot stop and Russia is already on the alert for a first strike in a pre-emptive war under the Bush doctrine.
The Western policy makers really need to think this through instead of rattling sabers in the face of bears and dragons.
On the other hand, there is a neocon policy cohort in Washington that believes that Russia and China must be "dealt with now" instead of letting them get so strong as to be out of reach. In that case the US is looking at a Chinese economy with military potential much greater than NATO can mount in the coming decades and allied with Russia, it would achieve global hegemony.
This thinking grows out of the view that the US made a grave error in allowing the USSR and China to grow into challengers post WWII. They argue that we should have learned out lesson and deal with Russia and China now as we are dealing with Iran as a potential nuclear power that could challenge US interests. But with Russia and China the potential challenge is not only to Western interests but US global hegemony.
Boils down to who is going to dominate globalization and emerge as the winner in a zero-sum game. It's all win-lose rather than win-win.
4 comments:
Bellicose.
Well it looks like he has bipartisan support for sure... when was the last time you saw such applause and standing Os in the Capitol on both sides of the aisle .... I'd say our government is fully committed to whatever our policy is for sure..... rsp,
I'm not sure they have thought this thing through. In either case, it is cause for concern.
Why is this so significant? Because China needs the natural resources of Russia. Russia and China together have the people, knowledge, resources, and reason to mount a challenge to Atlanticism that NATO cannot deal with without risking the nuclear destruction of Europe including the US and much of the US. So far, the result of this confrontation has been sealing the energy deal between Russia and China and talk of further cooperation, That deal had been hanging for some time owing to lack of agreement over terms when Putin decided to settle for less than he had been asking as he decided it was time to pivot East.
Russia and China have both signaled that they know neither of them can win separately in a conventional war with NATO and that any real threat to either of them will be answered with unconventionally. They could not win conventionally through a military alliance either. The PLA have already told the US that in a nuclear war, both countries will be destroyed but China will survive because it is less concentrated. The US won't.
A militarily allied Russia and China would present an unconventional threat that would make the NATO allies think seriously about confronting them.
Even Russia acting alone has the ability return Europe to the Stone Age for a thousand years that NATO cannot stop and Russia is already on the alert for a first strike in a pre-emptive war under the Bush doctrine.
The Western policy makers really need to think this through instead of rattling sabers in the face of bears and dragons.
On the other hand, there is a neocon policy cohort in Washington that believes that Russia and China must be "dealt with now" instead of letting them get so strong as to be out of reach. In that case the US is looking at a Chinese economy with military potential much greater than NATO can mount in the coming decades and allied with Russia, it would achieve global hegemony.
This thinking grows out of the view that the US made a grave error in allowing the USSR and China to grow into challengers post WWII. They argue that we should have learned out lesson and deal with Russia and China now as we are dealing with Iran as a potential nuclear power that could challenge US interests. But with Russia and China the potential challenge is not only to Western interests but US global hegemony.
Boils down to who is going to dominate globalization and emerge as the winner in a zero-sum game. It's all win-lose rather than win-win.
Post a Comment