9 ms·

US must coerce allies into accepting anti-China strategy - sieges do not work unless it is complete. Depriving China of the ability to advance technologically,

US must coerce allies into accepting anti-China strategy - sieges do not work unless it is complete. Depriving China of the ability to advance technologically, economically and militarily will ensure supremacy and the maintenance of the rule based order

peppertree 4y ago
It would have worked if China didn't have deep pool of engineers and fundings to backup multi decade R&D projects. We are going to look back at this and realize it's a strategic mistake.
oa335 4y ago
Whose rules?
- deleted 4y ago
  [deleted]
- hunglee2 4y ago
  the international community's
  - PKop 4y ago
    Is that what blowing up Nord Stream 2 was for, the benefit of "the community"? Sounds like a load of crap. Doesn't sound very rules based or orderly.
    - plushpuffin 4y ago
      Russia did that. They've damaged/destroyed their own pipelines before in order to avoid penalty clauses in contracts or to get out of a bad deal after the price changed out of their favor, and that's why they did it this time, too. https://www.forbes.com/sites/arielcohen/2022/09/29/russian-sabotage-of-the-nord-stream-pipeline-mark-a-point-of-no-return/?sh=3200d4005dba https://www.forbes.com/sites/arielcohen/2022/09/29/russian-s... https://www.reuters.com/article/us-russia-turkmenistan-gas-sb/turkmen-may-sue-russia-for-vacuum-bomb-pipe-blast-idUSTRE54S4TG20090529 https://www.reuters.com/article/us-russia-turkmenistan-gas-s...
      - PKop 4y ago
        No. The US (or some deputized vassal at the direction of US) did it to destroy German/European industrial power and sever any potential alliance of European industry and cheap Russian commodities/energy flowing through Euro denominated trade outside $ system, along with the massive geopolitical alignment changes this would bring threatening US power/hegemony. Peeling Europe away from a US alliance through energy partnership and trade, especially trade denominated in Euros which greatly benefited Europeans, was such a powerful lever to play in Russian geopolitical strategy that people claiming Russia blew up their own pipelines and threw this lever away have worms in their brain and simply haven't paid attention to the long term dynamics. Having Germany/Europe on your side, vs them being on your biggest adversary's side is such an order of magnitude net benefit than saving money on contracts, this is just ridiculous. Additionally, even if consideration of blowing up the pipelines ever made any sense whatsoever for Russia, blowing them up right now before winter, before further deterioration of Germany/European industrial economy, and before potential financial/energy crisis really bites right around the corner or next year is absurd. If this was a few years from now we could entertain theories of why not having the pipes and trade with Europe is better than having them (it still wouldn't make sense). But Russia "panic bombing" their own pipelines right before pressure on Europe is about to increase which would potentially get them to capitulate on their sanctions is silly. This is US propaganda and you bought it. Many different political leaders in congress, the white house, and the administrative state like Victoria Nuland, Ron Johnson, Ted Cruz, Joe Biden, Trump, Marco Rubio, Condoleeza Rice, Lindsey Graham just to name a few have for years attacked the project and promised destruction of Nord Stream. Anthony Blinken wrote a book in 1988 called "Ally vs Ally" that speculated about blowing up Soviet gas pipelines flowing into Europe, and discussed the Reagan administrations deep opposition to expanding energy trade between Europe and Russia. This is a long term existential threat to US hegemony and dominance of European affairs. If Russia maybe having to pay a few fees, which I'm sure they could just avoid if they wanted to, was more important than potential energy alliance between Russia and Europe, then multiple US administrations would not have talked and acted to end the project so intensely. This is another example of the all to common delusional thinking that for some reason, the world hegemon that controls financial system, trade lanes, has massive military power and spending advantage, whose empire is very dependent upon global reserve currency and influence of energy trade, won't actually act like a hegemon and apply their power to suit their interests and thwart rivals building their own power. What makes you think the US who promised Nord Stream would be stopped, wouldn't stop it with kinetic force and sabotage? This is the Occam's razor, "cui bono" explanation. Your article claims Russia hasn't called the attacks attacks. They have. Also, it correctly states that destruction of the pipelines "signals a point of no return". Yes, exactly, which is why it makes 0 sense for Russia to do it, and complete sense for US (either directly or through deputized vassals like UK) to do it. Why would Russia want to reach a point of no return on potential alliance with Germany/Europe against the US? See Mackinder's heartland theory on potential global power emanating from control of the "world island"/Eurasia: Who rules East Europe commands the Heartland; who rules the Heartland commands the World-Island; who rules the World-Island commands the world A particular path to this goal that he and many others leading US/NATO/UK security strategy saw was a German/Russia alliance, something US has wanted to prevent for over 100 years. Putin would never throw away potential for this, something he was building towards for decades, in a matter of weeks before circumstances could lead to its realization.
    - HyperSane 4y ago
      Russia obviously blew up Nord Stream 2. They are the only country that wouldn't care if they got caught. For anyone else the risk is just too great.
      - cute_boi 4y ago
        > Russia obviously blew up Nord Stream 2 Why? Why after pausing Nord 1? Please enlighten us if you are going to use "obvious" without any source. There is disadvantage to Russia from every perspective if they blew Nord Stream. To me it doesn't make any sense to commit suicide.
  - unity1001 4y ago
    The US, the UK and a dozen satellites of the US. Not even 20% of the world.
    - HyperSane 4y ago
      But 80% of the money.
      - unity1001 4y ago
        Fake money that is created and kept over the inflated stocks and financal sector. A house of cards that is pending crashing at any point if any Jenga block that holds it up is pulled out. Like how we seen in the recent months, after various countries stopped using dollar as foreign exchange currency for international trade, sending inflation skyrocketing in the US and other countries. In contrast, that other side of the world has actual products, resources and services backing their money and wealth. They dont allow shenanigans like how Wall Street does to invent new 'derivatives' to bloat the financial sector even more and increase its disconnect from the actual physical economy. As of this moment, the US government is busy pumping dollars into Ukraine to take them out of circulation to combat inflation by getting it channeled back to the US defense sector to be racked up as profit and stock value. The wealth that was generated in the Angloamerican West is so weakly supported by the physical sectors of the economy that it requires such things to keep it from crashing down. I intentionally singled out the Angloamerican countries. Because these countries are the ones who allow practically unregulated financial sectors to bloat their economy. The regulations are more strict everywhere including Europe, and neither stock values nor the financial economy are so bloated like in the US.
        HyperSane 4y ago
        The rest of the world thinks the money is real enough https://www.wita.org/ustrade/us-trade-trends/the-us-trade-deficit/ https://www.wita.org/ustrade/us-trade-trends/the-us-trade-de...
        unity1001 4y ago
  - oa335 4y ago
    China + Russia + other pariah countries >= 25% of the world's population. Are they inside or outside this international community?
    - kelnos 4y ago
      I think it's hard to use population numbers here, as in many of those countries, the population has little meaningful control over their government.
- pessimizer 4y ago
  The US. The "international community" that is against China is the same noxious lineup that we put together to attack Iraq. So, the US, Australia, NZ, Britain, the EU, and Japan (whose constitution was written by the US.) Also of course the Saudis, but amusingly, not Israel. India's support will be dependent on us ignoring when they start to put Muslims into concentration camps, which we will be happy to do. "The good guys"
  - csunbird 4y ago
    “Our guys” is more appropriate.
PKop 4y ago
Always the promotion of abstraction over concrete identification of interests and power. Who is in charge? "The rules, the rules are in charge". No, it is US world domination and hegemony, plain and simple. Which is fine, but it's always couched in layers of bs because it allows for the propaganda of "liberal democracy" values of US to obscure good old power and dominance and maintain moral superiority.
- ETH_start 4y ago
  The US had the power to conquer much of the world at the end of WW2, but instead promoted self-determination and a global security framework based on rules that are applied to all countries, weak and strong, equally.
  - manuelabeledo 4y ago
    South and Central America would like a word about that.
  - PKop 4y ago
    They did conquer much of the world and Europe as a result of WW2, and then the rest of the world post cold-war. It doesn't have to imply a draconian or complete absence of benevolence in their conquest. They have military bases all over Europe, and rest of world, they control the global financial system especially amongst their "allies" and have dominant world reserve currency. They sanction and invade countries and leaders that go against their interests. NATO: "To keep the Americans in, the Russians out, and the Germans down". Always they are suppressing and sowing conflict amongst rival powers especially on "world island" / Eurasia. And this makes perfect sense, but to not call it a conquest is silly. >self-determination Just to take a recent example, they absolutely did not allow Germany and Russia to make an alliance over energy trade through Nord Stream pipelines, sanctioning all involved players and companies for many years, and making dozens of promises to destroy the project. They also banned Huawei and demanded Western allies comply, not permit self-determination to do business of their own regard. You'll say something to the effect of "well when the rules are broken..". Yes being able to write your own rules and have your vassals comply is called conquest.
loandbehold 4y ago
US like to talk about "rule-based order" but ignores those rules when it's not convenient. United Nations Security Council voted against invasions of Yugoslavia and Iraq.
deleted 4y ago
[deleted]
publicola1990 4y ago
US routinely target and kill people inside other sovereign nations borders during peacetime, with scant regards for any "rules-based-order". Not to mention not being a signatory to major treaties and conventions that are are part of that "rules based order", like UNCLoS, ICJ, ICC and also hasn't ratified significant components of the Geneva Convention.
- randomopining 4y ago
  Routinely?
nivenkos 4y ago
I find it hilarious they still call us allies. The US is pushing Europe into complete destitution. it's the furthest from an ally imaginable, just by subtle economic warfare.
- 4gotunameagain 4y ago
  "To be an enemy of the US is dangerous, but to be a friend is fatal" Henry Kissinger, Nobel Peace Prize recipient, United States Secretary of State, war criminal.
- HyperSane 4y ago
  "The US is pushing Europe into complete destitution" How so?
  - ShivShankaran 4y ago
    blowing up the norstrom, decoupling russia from gas, maintaining USD hegemony, selling natural gas for 5x the price, forcing EU to join them in war, forcing EU to sanction China... remember the EUR was envisioned when the gold standard was dropped by USD because the Europeans knew the USD would become the defacto global standard which is bad for their economy. EU is a beautiful concept. Unfortunately they are unable to make their own independent decision and will always be a gutless spineless laptop to American military industrial complex. Only this time taking on Russia and China at same time is going to be a bigger bite than they can chew. EU is already getting closer to China and US doesnt like this one bit. Colonization finally coming home to roost.
    - HyperSane 4y ago
      "blowing up the norstrom" Russia did that. The US would never risk getting caught doing that but Putin doesn't give a fuck. "forcing EU to join them in war" Actually they are sensibly opposing Putin to prevent future threats. It would be insane to just let Putin do whatever he wants, it would just embolden him. Historically the US hasn't been that big on Colonization.
    - 4y ago
Synaesthesia 4y ago
You sound like a comic book bad guy.

peppertree 4y ago

It would have worked if China didn't have deep pool of engineers and fundings to backup multi decade R&D projects. We are going to look back at this and realize it's a strategic mistake.

oa335 4y ago

Whose rules?

deleted 4y ago
[deleted]
hunglee2 4y ago
the international community's
- PKop 4y ago
  Is that what blowing up Nord Stream 2 was for, the benefit of "the community"? Sounds like a load of crap. Doesn't sound very rules based or orderly.
  - plushpuffin 4y ago
    Russia did that. They've damaged/destroyed their own pipelines before in order to avoid penalty clauses in contracts or to get out of a bad deal after the price changed out of their favor, and that's why they did it this time, too. https://www.forbes.com/sites/arielcohen/2022/09/29/russian-sabotage-of-the-nord-stream-pipeline-mark-a-point-of-no-return/?sh=3200d4005dba https://www.forbes.com/sites/arielcohen/2022/09/29/russian-s... https://www.reuters.com/article/us-russia-turkmenistan-gas-sb/turkmen-may-sue-russia-for-vacuum-bomb-pipe-blast-idUSTRE54S4TG20090529 https://www.reuters.com/article/us-russia-turkmenistan-gas-s...
    - PKop 4y ago
      No. The US (or some deputized vassal at the direction of US) did it to destroy German/European industrial power and sever any potential alliance of European industry and cheap Russian commodities/energy flowing through Euro denominated trade outside $ system, along with the massive geopolitical alignment changes this would bring threatening US power/hegemony. Peeling Europe away from a US alliance through energy partnership and trade, especially trade denominated in Euros which greatly benefited Europeans, was such a powerful lever to play in Russian geopolitical strategy that people claiming Russia blew up their own pipelines and threw this lever away have worms in their brain and simply haven't paid attention to the long term dynamics. Having Germany/Europe on your side, vs them being on your biggest adversary's side is such an order of magnitude net benefit than saving money on contracts, this is just ridiculous. Additionally, even if consideration of blowing up the pipelines ever made any sense whatsoever for Russia, blowing them up right now before winter, before further deterioration of Germany/European industrial economy, and before potential financial/energy crisis really bites right around the corner or next year is absurd. If this was a few years from now we could entertain theories of why not having the pipes and trade with Europe is better than having them (it still wouldn't make sense). But Russia "panic bombing" their own pipelines right before pressure on Europe is about to increase which would potentially get them to capitulate on their sanctions is silly. This is US propaganda and you bought it. Many different political leaders in congress, the white house, and the administrative state like Victoria Nuland, Ron Johnson, Ted Cruz, Joe Biden, Trump, Marco Rubio, Condoleeza Rice, Lindsey Graham just to name a few have for years attacked the project and promised destruction of Nord Stream. Anthony Blinken wrote a book in 1988 called "Ally vs Ally" that speculated about blowing up Soviet gas pipelines flowing into Europe, and discussed the Reagan administrations deep opposition to expanding energy trade between Europe and Russia. This is a long term existential threat to US hegemony and dominance of European affairs. If Russia maybe having to pay a few fees, which I'm sure they could just avoid if they wanted to, was more important than potential energy alliance between Russia and Europe, then multiple US administrations would not have talked and acted to end the project so intensely. This is another example of the all to common delusional thinking that for some reason, the world hegemon that controls financial system, trade lanes, has massive military power and spending advantage, whose empire is very dependent upon global reserve currency and influence of energy trade, won't actually act like a hegemon and apply their power to suit their interests and thwart rivals building their own power. What makes you think the US who promised Nord Stream would be stopped, wouldn't stop it with kinetic force and sabotage? This is the Occam's razor, "cui bono" explanation. Your article claims Russia hasn't called the attacks attacks. They have. Also, it correctly states that destruction of the pipelines "signals a point of no return". Yes, exactly, which is why it makes 0 sense for Russia to do it, and complete sense for US (either directly or through deputized vassals like UK) to do it. Why would Russia want to reach a point of no return on potential alliance with Germany/Europe against the US? See Mackinder's heartland theory on potential global power emanating from control of the "world island"/Eurasia: Who rules East Europe commands the Heartland; who rules the Heartland commands the World-Island; who rules the World-Island commands the world A particular path to this goal that he and many others leading US/NATO/UK security strategy saw was a German/Russia alliance, something US has wanted to prevent for over 100 years. Putin would never throw away potential for this, something he was building towards for decades, in a matter of weeks before circumstances could lead to its realization.
  - HyperSane 4y ago
    Russia obviously blew up Nord Stream 2. They are the only country that wouldn't care if they got caught. For anyone else the risk is just too great.
    - cute_boi 4y ago
      > Russia obviously blew up Nord Stream 2 Why? Why after pausing Nord 1? Please enlighten us if you are going to use "obvious" without any source. There is disadvantage to Russia from every perspective if they blew Nord Stream. To me it doesn't make any sense to commit suicide.
- unity1001 4y ago
  The US, the UK and a dozen satellites of the US. Not even 20% of the world.
  - HyperSane 4y ago
    But 80% of the money.
    - unity1001 4y ago
      Fake money that is created and kept over the inflated stocks and financal sector. A house of cards that is pending crashing at any point if any Jenga block that holds it up is pulled out. Like how we seen in the recent months, after various countries stopped using dollar as foreign exchange currency for international trade, sending inflation skyrocketing in the US and other countries. In contrast, that other side of the world has actual products, resources and services backing their money and wealth. They dont allow shenanigans like how Wall Street does to invent new 'derivatives' to bloat the financial sector even more and increase its disconnect from the actual physical economy. As of this moment, the US government is busy pumping dollars into Ukraine to take them out of circulation to combat inflation by getting it channeled back to the US defense sector to be racked up as profit and stock value. The wealth that was generated in the Angloamerican West is so weakly supported by the physical sectors of the economy that it requires such things to keep it from crashing down. I intentionally singled out the Angloamerican countries. Because these countries are the ones who allow practically unregulated financial sectors to bloat their economy. The regulations are more strict everywhere including Europe, and neither stock values nor the financial economy are so bloated like in the US.
      - HyperSane 4y ago
        The rest of the world thinks the money is real enough https://www.wita.org/ustrade/us-trade-trends/the-us-trade-deficit/ https://www.wita.org/ustrade/us-trade-trends/the-us-trade-de...
        unity1001 4y ago
- oa335 4y ago
  China + Russia + other pariah countries >= 25% of the world's population. Are they inside or outside this international community?
  - kelnos 4y ago
    I think it's hard to use population numbers here, as in many of those countries, the population has little meaningful control over their government.
pessimizer 4y ago
The US. The "international community" that is against China is the same noxious lineup that we put together to attack Iraq. So, the US, Australia, NZ, Britain, the EU, and Japan (whose constitution was written by the US.) Also of course the Saudis, but amusingly, not Israel. India's support will be dependent on us ignoring when they start to put Muslims into concentration camps, which we will be happy to do. "The good guys"
- csunbird 4y ago
  “Our guys” is more appropriate.

PKop 4y ago

Always the promotion of abstraction over concrete identification of interests and power. Who is in charge? "The rules, the rules are in charge". No, it is US world domination and hegemony, plain and simple. Which is fine, but it's always couched in layers of bs because it allows for the propaganda of "liberal democracy" values of US to obscure good old power and dominance and maintain moral superiority.

ETH_start 4y ago
The US had the power to conquer much of the world at the end of WW2, but instead promoted self-determination and a global security framework based on rules that are applied to all countries, weak and strong, equally.
- manuelabeledo 4y ago
  South and Central America would like a word about that.
- PKop 4y ago
  They did conquer much of the world and Europe as a result of WW2, and then the rest of the world post cold-war. It doesn't have to imply a draconian or complete absence of benevolence in their conquest. They have military bases all over Europe, and rest of world, they control the global financial system especially amongst their "allies" and have dominant world reserve currency. They sanction and invade countries and leaders that go against their interests. NATO: "To keep the Americans in, the Russians out, and the Germans down". Always they are suppressing and sowing conflict amongst rival powers especially on "world island" / Eurasia. And this makes perfect sense, but to not call it a conquest is silly. >self-determination Just to take a recent example, they absolutely did not allow Germany and Russia to make an alliance over energy trade through Nord Stream pipelines, sanctioning all involved players and companies for many years, and making dozens of promises to destroy the project. They also banned Huawei and demanded Western allies comply, not permit self-determination to do business of their own regard. You'll say something to the effect of "well when the rules are broken..". Yes being able to write your own rules and have your vassals comply is called conquest.

loandbehold 4y ago

US like to talk about "rule-based order" but ignores those rules when it's not convenient. United Nations Security Council voted against invasions of Yugoslavia and Iraq.

deleted 4y ago

[deleted]

publicola1990 4y ago

US routinely target and kill people inside other sovereign nations borders during peacetime, with scant regards for any "rules-based-order". Not to mention not being a signatory to major treaties and conventions that are are part of that "rules based order", like UNCLoS, ICJ, ICC and also hasn't ratified significant components of the Geneva Convention.

randomopining 4y ago
Routinely?

nivenkos 4y ago

I find it hilarious they still call us allies. The US is pushing Europe into complete destitution. it's the furthest from an ally imaginable, just by subtle economic warfare.

4gotunameagain 4y ago
"To be an enemy of the US is dangerous, but to be a friend is fatal" Henry Kissinger, Nobel Peace Prize recipient, United States Secretary of State, war criminal.
HyperSane 4y ago
"The US is pushing Europe into complete destitution" How so?
- ShivShankaran 4y ago
  blowing up the norstrom, decoupling russia from gas, maintaining USD hegemony, selling natural gas for 5x the price, forcing EU to join them in war, forcing EU to sanction China... remember the EUR was envisioned when the gold standard was dropped by USD because the Europeans knew the USD would become the defacto global standard which is bad for their economy. EU is a beautiful concept. Unfortunately they are unable to make their own independent decision and will always be a gutless spineless laptop to American military industrial complex. Only this time taking on Russia and China at same time is going to be a bigger bite than they can chew. EU is already getting closer to China and US doesnt like this one bit. Colonization finally coming home to roost.
  - HyperSane 4y ago
    "blowing up the norstrom" Russia did that. The US would never risk getting caught doing that but Putin doesn't give a fuck. "forcing EU to join them in war" Actually they are sensibly opposing Putin to prevent future threats. It would be insane to just let Putin do whatever he wants, it would just embolden him. Historically the US hasn't been that big on Colonization.
  - 4y ago

Synaesthesia 4y ago

You sound like a comic book bad guy.