Getting close to the definition of "kooky." Any wonder why a global coalition against the US is building?
The advanced stage of discussions in US foreign policy circles over the pursuit of an ever-more aggressive policy toward China has been revealed by the recent release of a chilling report under the auspices of the influential Council on Foreign Relations.
Entitled “Revising US Grand Strategy Toward China,” the report is nothing less than an agenda for war. It is authored by Robert D. Blackwill and Ashley J. Tellis, both of whom have close connections to the US State Department and various American foreign policy think tanks.And the Council on Foreign Relations is considered centrist in comparison with the neocons. whom even signer of the original PNAC document Francis Fukuyama abandoned after Iraq.
WSWS
Proposed US Strategy for Dominating China
Steve Lendman
This is where the really hardliners are going.
Steve Lendman
This is where the really hardliners are going.
First up is Dr. Michael Pillsbury’s The Hundred-Year Marathon (Henry Holt and Co., 2015). Let me begin by noting that this is a highly engaging and thought-provoking read. It does what few books do well, and that is to mix scholarship, policy, and memoir-style writing in an accessible but still intellectually rich fashion. Pillsbury, senior fellow and director for Chinese strategy at the Hudson Institute, presents a straightforward thesis. In its most bald form, he argues that China has a long-term marathon strategy to supplant the United States as the sole superpower by 2049. If successful, Pillsbury argues that China will reshape the world into one that will “nurture autocracies,” “rewrit[e] history to defam[e] the West and prais[e] China,” sell its own highly polluting development model to other countries, and constrain the political space for international organizations (195).The Diplomat
China’s Secret Plan to Supplant the United States
Elizabeth C. Economy
The predictable reaction, which will just increase US paranoia and aggressiveness. This is spiraling downward fast.
If Moscow and Beijing have taken the extraordinary step of organizing live-fire exercises off the coast of Europe, however, this is to send Washington and its European allies a political signal. US-led policies of strangling Russia’s economy with financial sanctions and seeking to topple Russian President Vladimir Putin, or isolating China through the US “pivot to Asia,” pose the threat of all-out war.
Chinese commentators indicated the Mediterranean exercises were also Chinese President Xi Jinping’s response to US-Japanese military deals in the Asia-Pacific, agreed between Obama and Japanese Prime Minister Shinzo Abe during Abe’s visit to Washington this week.
“Russia wants to show the United States it is not isolated and can launch exercises near Eastern Europe. And as a result of Abe’s visit to the United States and the upgraded Japan-American military relationship, Xi wants to show the United States he has good relations with Russia,” said Shi Yinhong, a professor of international relations at Renmin University in Beijing.
James Hardy, Asia-Pacific editor of IHS Jane’s Defense Weekly, said the exercises marked a new stage in the development of the Chinese navy’s fighting capabilities and would be seen as a challenge by ruling elites in the NATO countries.
“The geopolitical significance of its exercising along Russia will not be lost on the US and NATO, although it would be churlish of anyone in the West to complain about it, given the number of joint drills the US and its allies conduct in China’s near seas,” he told the New York Times .
The greatest danger facing the world’s population is that the risk of world war is largely hidden from the working class internationally. However, military standoffs such as the US threat to arm the far-right regime in Kiev against pro-Russian forces in east Ukraine, or the Japanese standoff with China over the Senkaku/Diaoyu islets, could erupt into all-out wars threatening the very survival of humanityWSWS
Russia, China announce joint naval exercises in the Mediterranean
By Alex Lantier
9 comments:
Bill Kristol NEVER tweets about China....
I think it is not just like Russia. China is a rising power, and you can compare them to Germany in the late 19th century. You can compare them to Japan in the late 19th and early 20th century, and they have the characteristics of rising powers—which is that they are rising into a world order that was not made for them and that they did not make. Therefore, you are faced with two choices: you can integrate yourselves in that world order or you can attempt to reshape it.
I think what you are seeing with China right now is that they want to have it both ways. They want to enjoy the benefits they get from integration, which are substantial economically. At the same time, getting to muscle their way into controlling the South China Sea, the East China Sea, being a regionally hegemon. So our task is to say, “We welcome your rise, we welcome your economic integration.”
The worst thing you can do in these situations is leave doubt in the mind of a potential aggressor—so they are not sure whether you have the capacity or the will to resist them. It is much better to say, don’t worry about it. If you do this, we are going to respond. That’s healthier for everybody. And that is something I think we have learned through bitter experience. And I don’t want us to learn through another bitter experience.
Uncommon Interview: Robert Kagan Feb. 19, 2015
http://chicagomaroon.com/2015/02/19/uncommon-interview-robert-kagan/
Translation: Play by our rules, or else.
Tom the only thing the neocons think about wrt China is cheap labor for the US..... perhaps they would like to jab a sharp stick in the eye of China if China is dealing with Iran....
Neocons prioritize the US and Israel.... Kagan and his wife are off the reservation....
Your opinion, Matt.
Obama meets with Kagan and then spouts the neon line about the US making the rules, not a country like China.
"When 95 percent of our potential customers live abroad, we must be sure that we are writing the rules for the global economy, not a country like China."
Is that Obama speaking, or Kagan? What's the difference?
Drills and Exercises aren't a negative or even a threat to stability. They help the various military study one another, how they operate and react, what their capabilities are. They probably PREVENT accidents, really and are a great source of intelligence on weapons systems.
Wait until China starts conducing drills and exercises off the West Coast, or Russia off the East Coast, or both in the Arctic as a response to US drills in the South China Sea and the Black Sea.
Russia has regular nuclear armed submarine and long range bomber patrols along the east and west coast to ensure an effective nuclear deterrent.
A couple weeks ago, they did large scale exercises with venezuelan military, China and a few other regional militaries from the region in the Gulf and Caribbean. Every couple years they do it, fairly standard as they like to maintain operational capability in the region. Altogether maybe 15000 troops involved along with ships, planes and various systems that Russia and China have sold their defense network partners throughout the western hemisphere. Russia has been establishing ports in Nicaragua, Cuba, Venezuela, Vietnam, Singapore, Seychelles and elsewhere to contain US and Chinese threats. At the same time Russia has been expanding their regional cooperation of their Federal Narcotics Service of Russia to provide training and assistance to Nicaragua, El Salvador, Panama, Honduras, and the Dominican Republic in fighting the scourge of drugs trafficking. They've found great success where the United States has failed. Last they've signed agreements for use of ports and airfields with Peru, Argentina and even Brazil while providing large arms exports to all.
I think they might be a more formidable adversary than you usually present them as an underdog against a goliath US-UK hegemony: to me that is hard to square with reality. Russia likes to say they don't have bases around the world, which is technically true, they have instead treaties to use airfields, ports, fueling, supplies, military and cooperation. It's less expensive and more powerful in many ways than maintaining their own outposts. I certainly wouldn't under estimate their abilities, given the small size of their economy and population, they are far more powerful & effective than China or the US in projecting power abroad.
I think they might be a more formidable adversary than you usually present them as an underdog against a goliath US-UK hegemony: to me that is hard to square with reality.
I actually agree with that.
If one examines the history of warfare, it's a record of weapons being developed to counter the introduction of new weapon technology by potential opponents, as well as actual ones.
The race is now on between the US and NATO and its potential adversaries, especially Russia, and China to increase "preparedness" technologically — as well as upgrade the "doomsday" option, where submarines play an important role. Almost certainly Russia keeps enough subs within range of CONUS to level US capability strategically.
The USA CANNOT win a war against Russia or China, and less even both combined. The opposite is also true.
The militaries know this. Only idiot politicians would think than this is possible. And the worst case scenario is a nuclear winter and the Northern Hemisphere and part of the Southern destroyed.
It's all "tough talk", maybe they can open up the Congress pockets to the MIC and do some applied MMT for their corporation friends. Some of that MMT we are used to see in action (only when it suits them ;)
Post a Comment