Awakening a sleeping lion: The US-China Cold War is upon us

Darius Shahtahmasebi                                                                                                                                     29 Nov, 2018                                                                                                                  

 

        “China is a sleeping lion, ” Napoleon Bonaparte said. “Let her sleep, for when she wakes, she will shake the world.” A new Cold War is upon us, only this time the giant is no longer deep asleep; stirring as it begins to wake.

       “China is leveraging military modernization, influence operations, and predatory economics to coerce neighboring countries to reorder the Indo-Pacific region to their advantage, ” a recent summary of the 2018 US National Defense Strategy states. “As China continues its economic and military ascendance, asserting power through an all-of-nation long-term strategy, it will continue to pursue a military modernization program that seeks Indo-Pacific regional hegemony in the near-term and displacement of the United States to achieve global preeminence in the future. The most far-reaching objective of this defense strategy is to set the military relationship between our two countries on a path of transparency and non-aggression.”

       Interestingly enough, the Pacific region is a key location in which the US and China may eventually collide in an inevitable showdown, though the media appear to rarely focus on the topic. According to the National Defense Strategy, the Indo-Pacific region is number one in a three-region list of key areas the US will focus on competing in to “deter aggression.”

       Just how much of a threat does China pose to Washington and its allies?

       Well, if recent commentary is anything to go by, China is considered so much of a threat to the US and its allies in the Pacific region that Australia is lamenting its AUD$195 billion (US$143 billion) defense spending plan as being insufficient to combat China’s growing influence.

       Australia and its regional allies became alarmed earlier this year when reports began emerging that China was seeking a strategic military base in Vanuatu. Both China and Vanuatu heavily disputed the claim, and the issue appeared to fall off the media radar relatively quickly when the story could not be further substantiated.

       Then again, the Australian just recently reported that China has begun negotiating to fund the redevelopment of a coral-choked port in Samoa, a move which has only irked Australia even further due to its potential economic and strategic implications for both Canberra and Washington in the region. According to the Australian: “China’s involvement has raised red flags with military analyst­s, who warned that the port could lead to a ‘salient right through the heart’ of America’s defences in the South Pacific or threaten Australia’s east-coast trade routes to the US.”

       Has anyone ever wondered why America needs defenses in the South Pacific, given the thousands of miles of water that lie between the US and the South Pacific?

       Then again, in an effort to keep the US on its feet, earlier this month China managed to also cement a deal to build a multi-million dollar geostrategic port in Myanmar, in the Bay of Bengal.

       While the US has up to 1, 000 military bases worldwide, China currently only has one known base (in Djibouti, Africa). According to the Australian, some analysts worry that China will use the Djibouti example as a blueprint to turn the Samoan port into a base of its own and project its might into the South Pacific, though that would still be only two Chinese military bases up against approximately 1, 000 US military bases.

       Let us not forget that, while unsubstantiated rumours of China’s expanding military empire continue to instill fear in the hearts of many, it is indeed, again, the US who is openly talking about the development of a joint naval base with Australia on Papua New Guinea’s Manus Island.

       Who is the threat here, again? The corporate media may never question if China, or any other country for that matter, see such an act as an unwelcome form of aggression, because the US has an inherent right to go where no one else goes. According to the mainstream media, 1, 001 bases is not exactly a controversy, but the leap from one to two bases most certainly would be. Never mind that such a move by the US will push American military forces further south into the Pacific than they have been for decades, an action that appears on the face of it to be setting the stage for a global conflict, not reducing or deterring such a scenario.

       As far as the US is concerned, China still poses the biggest threat to American hegemony, and despite its vast military expenditure and ubiquitous military presence across the globe, the US appears to be struggling in its strategy of containing China.

       According to the recent report by the National Defense Strategy Commission, China is essentially on track to obtain peer military status with the US by the year 2050. The document said the US Department of Defense and the White House “have not yet articulated clear operational concepts for achieving U.S. security objectives in the face of ongoing competition and potential military confrontation with China and Russia.”

       The report claims that the goals of the American war machine are to serve as a deterrence, but should deterrence fail, the objective is to be prepared to win the war. (How do you win a nuclear war with China, exactly? )

       Even mainstream commentators dispute the idea that China would ever resort to using nuclear weapons to coerce any other state, due to its “no first use policy” on nukes. With this in mind, the report still claims that China “is a strategic competitor using predatory economics to intimidate its neighbours while militarising features in the South China Sea.”

       The document also makes it clear that the US has given up on its laughable claims to be concerned primarily in the fight against terrorism, and outright states that “inter-state strategic competition, not terrorism, is now the primary concern in US national strategy.” Washington’s “long-term strategic competitions with China and Russia, ” it admits, are the “principal priorities” of the US Department of Defense.

       Donald Trump’s trade war with China also signals a greater shift towards a US-China Cold War 2.0 scenario, and the stakes are even higher than we imagined.

       The aim of the US appears to be to change China for good (if not its attitude, then its regime) and build a new international framework which still puts Washington’s interests above that of its adversaries. Successfully doing so requires the US to retain and promote its more traditional allies, something which seems somewhat questionable in the age of Trump.

       In the meantime, Beijing announced this week that it is building its third aircraft carrier which will allegedly be “bigger and mightier” than its other two warships. The announcement seems to bear some resemblance to the matter at hand, namely that China is openly preparing its capability to operate far from its shores.

       “Shouldn’t an important US foreign policy goal of the next couple of decades be regime change in China? ” The Weekly Standard’s Bill Kristol asked his 411, 000 followers on Twitter.

       After failed regime change operations in Syria, Iraq, Libya, Afghanistan, and Iran, just to name a few, I think the answer to this question is quite clearly a resounding “no.”

       But perhaps covert regime change operations of the kind seen in Iran in 1953 are completely off the table with regard to Washington’s approach to combating China. After all, the US is continuing its somewhat secretive Marine build-up in Australia not for regime change, but for preparation of a sinister military confrontation in the South China Sea.

       Let’s face it, such a catastrophic scenario may be Washington’s only hope. The Chinese strategy is “long term” and “equally focused on using investment and trade as a tool of power projection, ” as noted by Washington-based global strategist, Jeffrey Borda. Just to illustrate one recent example, the Financial Times reported that European diplomats were fuming after the vice-president of Tonga was given precedence over European ministers at Shanghai’s import expo this month.

       The US and its allies cannot compete with this type of diplomacy without making severe changes to its treatment of smaller states. As one Australian commentator has observed, it is “shameful, of course, that Australia can only find the energy and interest to help upgrade PNG’s basic infrastructure under the goad of Chinese competition and US encouragement.”

       It is for this very reason that the Philippines’ president, Rodrigo Duterte, has admitted that the South China Sea essentially belongs to China now and called on “America and everybody else to realize it.”

       The US will never “realize it, ” and is indeed preparing strategies to ensure that such a Chinese-led victory will never ensue.

       While the long-term implications in this battle for hegemony are dangerous and more complex than most people are prepared to admit, the rest of us appear to be sleep-walking into what will eventually transform from a Cold War 2.0 into a global conflict of epic proportions.

 

Moscow urges Pentagon to reconsider its Syria strategy & INF Treaty withdrawal

16 Dec, 2018

 

    Russian Defense Minister Sergey Shoigu delivered a scathing criticism of the US policy in Syria and offered direct talks over the landmark 1987 Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces Treaty (INF).

       The situation in parts of eastern Syria, controlled by the US-backed and Kurdish-dominated Syrian Democratic Forces (SDF), remains “deeply concerning, ” Shoigu wrote in a letter to Pentagon chief James Mattis earlier this week.

       Washington does little to nothing to restore peace and help the devastated region to recover from the long war, while its airstrikes continue to rack up civilian deaths, the defense minister said. He noted that at least 1, 500 civilians have been killed in recent months as the SDF was clearing the last remaining pockets of Islamic State (IS, formerly ISIS) resistance.

       The Russian defense chief described the difficulties the US-led coalition experienced in the protracted battle near Hajin in the eastern Deir ez-Zor Province. It took the Pentagon-backed fighters six months to drive the militants out of the small town – only for them to regroup later in villages along the Euphrates River. In contrast, the Syrian government army has demonstrated its ability to liberate areas in two weeks’ time, Shoigu said.

       The minister also stressed that settlement and recovery in the war-torn nation is undermined by the smuggling of oil and petroleum products from the SDF-controlled areas. At the same time, the US military presence at the Al-Tanf airbase makes it harder to deliver aid into large refugee camp in Rukban, Jordan, which houses more than 50, 000 Syrian, Shoigu wrote. He also claimed that the airbase and the “armed gangs” around it prevent refugees from returning home.

       In a separate letter to Mattis, Shoigu offered to begin “open and meaningful dialogue” on the differences the nations have over the INF Treaty, which bans ground-based missiles with ranges of 500 to 5, 500km. Both sides accuse each other of violating the deal.

       Last week, US Secretary of State Mike Pompeo warned that Washington will scrap the deal altogether within 60 days if Russia does not “return to compliance.” Moscow, in turn, drafted a resolution to the UN Security Council in support of the INF deal.

       Shoigu emphasized that so far Moscow has received no official reaction from the Pentagon on its proposal to hold talks on the INF Treaty.

 

 

Russia introduces draft UNGA resolution to save INF Treaty

15 Dec, 2018

       In an attempt to salvage the cornerstone treaty limiting the deployment of nuclear missiles, which the US has decided to unilaterally suspend, Moscow has introduced a draft resolution to the United Nations General Assembly.

       The US decision to leave the Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces (INF) Treaty could seriously undermine international non-proliferation as well as arms control mechanisms, and would jeopardize world security, the Russian delegation said, presenting the draft to the UNGA.

       The resolution urges the parties to engage in consultations on strategic issues and key points of concern, in the hope that constructive dialogue will not only lead to compliance with the treaty but pave the way for further efforts in global arms reduction. The document also calls for additional ‘confidence-building’ measures, and urges the international community to safeguard the INF treaty.

       Washington has accused Russia of being in breach of the treaty and said it will unilaterally pull out in two months unless Moscow provides convincing evidence that it is compliant. While the US accuses Russia of building banned missiles, Moscow denies the claims and in turn says American missile defense systems in Europe, presumably designed to counter Iran and North Korea, could be used offensively against Russia. Moscow is also concerned about American heavy combat drones, which can perform the functions of ground-launched cruise missiles, in violation of the treaty.

       Russia has vowed to observe the INF treaty as long as the US does, and is trying to foster a dialogue to maintain the agreement. Signed between the US and the USSR more than 30 years ago, the non-proliferation treaty eliminated nuclear and conventional ground-launched ballistic and cruise missiles with ranges of 500 to 5, 500 kilometers. The document, however, did not cover air- and sea-based missiles, nor did it involve any other parties, some of which have since developed their own versions of such weapons.

 

Making Sense of the Kerch Strait Crisis

 

Russia needs a lever to negotiate an end to sanctions, and the Kerch Strait could be just the ticket.

 

Having been in Europe for some weeks, I’ve heard several people whose opinions I respect say two things since the incident in the Kerch Strait: that the Ukrainian government is faltering and that Russia is going to make a play for the Black Sea. That so many are talking this way means either they have fallen prey to a disinformation campaign of enormous size, or a new sense of reality is emerging in the region. It seems to me that one or both of possibilities need to be taken seriously. Opposing Interests Strategic depth is the basis of Russia’s national security, and it has been since the days of Napoleon. It was strategic depth, provided by buffer states, that enabled the country to absorb, weaken and destroy invading forces first from France and then twice more from Germany. For Europe – and its current security guarantor, the United States – the strategic depth Russia needs is a threat because it puts Russian forces deep in the European Peninsula. What Russia and what Europe need for their security are mutually exclusive. Since the fall of the Soviet Union, one set of buffer states, the Baltics, has joined NATO. Belarus has remained militarily neutral, insofar as there are no major Russian or European or American forces there. Ukraine, meanwhile, has shifted sides several times, most recently in 2014 when a pro-Western government replaced a pro-Russian government. The fear of a Russian invasion was real, but it overestimated Russian capabilities. By the same token, Moscow’s fear that the U.S. would arm Ukraine against it failed to materialize. The result was a vast buffer zone in which a relatively small number of Russian forces operated in the east, and Russia, entitled by treaty to a major naval base in Crimea, took control of the entire region. The effect was a fairly stable balance. The Russians maintained forces in the east that could not pose a military threat to Ukraine. And though the United States later began to amass forces in Poland and Romania, thus blocking the North European Plain and the southern Caucasus and creating a presence in the Black Sea, none of these forces posed a strategic threat to Russia.

 

At the time of the Euromaidan revolution in 2014, I expected Russia to try to destabilize Ukraine through covert means. That didn’t happen, in part because Russian intelligence lacked the ability to block regime change and was unlikely to be effective in Kiev for a while. But another reason was that Moscow thought the new government in Kiev would disintegrate because of its own internal tensions and ineptitude. From the Russian point of view, any action Moscow could take might provoke Washington – too great a risk given the relative power of the U.S. and the threat of sanctions. Russia got its buffer without paying the costs of occupation. The United States and Europe had their buffer, too. Ukraine was an issue, but it wasn’t a threat. Sure enough, the Ukrainian government has never quite gelled into a highly effective entity. The coming elections are an opportunity for more fragmentation. But it is not clear that Russia is benefiting from Kiev’s struggles. What it needs is a complete collapse in Ukraine that would allow it to move unopposed or even welcomed to the frontiers of Romania and near Poland. That kind of political collapse, in which a vast area loses all structure and coherence, is rare. The more likely outcome of a failure in Kiev would be the emergence of regional powers. Some of them might welcome the Russians, but many more would have local bosses eager to keep their newfound power. Rather than handing Ukraine to Russia on a platter, a collapse would create an even more complex environment for Moscow. Other Possibilities The Kerch affair is unlikely to break the Ukrainian government, if in fact it was Russia’s attempt to do so. It has given Kiev an excuse to institute martial law, thereby concentrating more power in the president’s hand and making that power easier to exert. One possibility in all this is that Ukraine initiated the Kerch Strait crisis. But the Germans and Hungarians have condemned Russia in the wake of the incident, and they flirt too much with Moscow to take Kiev’s side without some facts. That brings us to another rumor, that Russia plans to assert naval and air power in the Black Sea. On the surface, it makes sense. The U.S. is refurbishing an air base in Romania. Turkey is ill-prepared to resist the Russians. It is also unlikely to negate the nearly century-old Bosporus treaty by allowing major U.S. naval units into the Bosporus. If the Russians make a move, they must do so before the U.S. has its air power in place and before Turkey finds its balance. The Kerch affair could have been only a Russian initiative. Why? Start with the fact that prices for West Texas Intermediate oil are just over $50 a barrel, $30 dollars below where they were a short while ago, and well below the prices Russia needs to sustain its economy. On its own, the price of oil would be a problem for Moscow. Coupled with Western sanctions, it is ruinous. President Vladimir Putin is in a tight spot, reports of unrest are circulating, and he has to achieve something significant. Russia needs a lever, aside from appearing powerful, that it can use to negotiate an end to sanctions. One of the signs of its weakness is that it doesn’t have one. But Moscow – emerging from chaos in Ukraine, potential panic from eastern Europe, and a lack of U.S. force in the time and place of its choosing – may see the Kerch Strait as the lever it’s looking for. The events in the Kerch Strait might – might – trigger a broader crisis. Kiev is incapable of a military response, since the U.S. has not provided it the requisite weapons, giving factions in Ukraine a chance to drive the government to the wall. The Black Sea, moreover, is one of the worst places for the U.S. to confront Russia, in terms of geography and resources. As Russia increases its presence there – a presence facilitated by its naval base at the Crimean port of Sevastopol – to defend the Kerch Strait (officially), and the U.S. does not make a decisive move, it could shake Ukraine to the core. But a fight in Ukraine is out of the question, not only for military reasons but also because the chaos in Kiev would be an internal political matter, not the result of any overt Russian action. All of this comes from a basic read of geopolitics and the tenor of concerns in the region among people who tend to be rational but overanxious. Still, Russia seems to have seized the Ukrainian boats for no good reason, and Russia typically has good reasons for doing things.

 

⇐ Предыдущая567891011121314

Поделиться: