The “Trump Doctrine” is all about the US’ continued military overmatch vis-à-vis China together with placing the US in a position where it can complementarily deny China access to the energy and markets that it requires to maintain its growth and thus its superpower trajectory.
This was an excellent analysis of the Trump Doctrine. However, both Russia and China would never compromise their security. It will be very interesting to see how Russia and China recalibrate their foreign policy initiatives in 2026.
The “ace up America’s sleeve” is LNG. So Putin invested in pipelines while America invested in LNG export terminals and LNG has won the day. Now Putin must wage war while losing his EU market share while investing in LNG terminals which are $10 billion a pop!! Good luck with that! 😉
This all makes perfect rational sense, however the Chump doctrine relies far too heavily on too many, if, and, or buts which neglect to mitigate human nature, in ensuring the success of his strategy.
What I mean, is that for Chump's doctrine to succeed he requires a multitude of factors to come together, and relies extremely heavily on every country acting as he "Hopes" they will, to his bullying and his ability to hide his end game from discovery to prevent China and others from pre-empting Chump's moves.
Chump also relies far to heavily on a military build up which requires mass military manufacturing in a country that is broke, and lacks the skllls to do so, and whike the argument might be that he will fund it through Venezuelan oil, Venezuelan production os dar too low, and will take far too long, at very high cost, to achieve high levels of production, for which Chump would have to find a market to sell to, not forgetting the potential for civil war and or sabotage in Venezuela when the people discover that their oil is being stolen.
Now take the potential for the failure of Chump's strategy in Venezuela, and add the same risks in Nigeria and Iran, and out that through a statistical probability for success analysis, and you come up with an exorbitantly high risk, and exorbitantly high pitential for failure, and a very low potential for success, and a mountain of new debt that will surely push the US into Default, even if they print money, which will exacerbate their problem given the US' current debt levels.
Further to this, China will undoubtedly introduce mitigation counter measures, which will further reduce the potential for success of Chump's greater doctrine strategy, which might even include EU co-operation as they fight for their own survival.
It is always good to see things from different angles, so this report is welcomed - thankyou!
The first problem is Bridge's strategy relies on partners, particularly those in East Asia, which was already difficult before Trump bullying them with e.g. tariffs. The second problem is such an anti-China strategy requires economical, industrial and (conventional) military overmatch - none is possible in the foreseeable future - in fact all are going backwards, never mind China has everybody by the short and curlies with just rare earths. We can also ask ourselves should Trump have picked Venezuela, which is practically inconsequential to China and its hydrocarbon endowment an illusion in any meaningful timeframe, when the world is going solar/renewables?
Don't you think arguments like McNair's are cope at best, lipstick on a pig at worst?
The analysis makes empirical sense. But the west continues to underestimate China by conflating it with the USSR. For one it is far more homogeneous. Secondly China has made massive strides in reducing its dependence on fossil fuel based energy while Trump is going in the opposite direction. That itself is a regressive approach which might pay off in the short run. Thirdly in spite of its domestic economic woes China has far less of debt encumbrance than the US and the West in general.
There was a debate, a hundred or so years ago, between Lenin and Kautsky, German Marxist.
Marxist dogma of the time was that "developed" (on the imperialist stage) capitalist countries will keep fighting each other for resources (including by military means), until the capitalist system collapses everywhere on Earth.
But then Kautsky suggested that it is possible, theoretically, that the "developed" capitalist countries might get organized in an "ultra-imperialist" cartel, and avoid endless infighting.
And Lenin thought that was nonsense.
So, that was the dispute, theoretical dispute.
For a while now, since WWII, with NATO, EU, G7, etc, it seemed that Kautsky was right. Ultra-imperialist cartel it is.
But nowadays, ...I don't know. Perhaps the post-WWII state of affairs was just a pause, a fluke.
Wait, "the US doesn't want" is not the right way to put it.
It's just that the US is the first one of them where "souvernists" came to power. In other countries -- Reform in the UK, National Rally in France, AfD in Germany -- it's just a matter of time.
Staline broke this dispute in stopping Komintern and concentrated on USSR state-nation.
Global capitalists worked for decades to weaken states.
It missed.
It missed because a part of those capitalists seemingly decided that the limits of globalism were reached and that without a big strong state frame to protect your wealth, you're nothing.
In Ukraine, the war is not between Ukraine and Russia, nor between West and Russia, it's a existential war between globalism against state-nation.
That explains the current position of USA: against Russia and China in strategic rivalry but in the same time ok with Russia and China against globalists.
Yes, make sense. In the globalist world, states just provide services and access to basic resources to multinational corporations. Like roads, labor, water, electricity, security. No other purpose.
But, so, what does it say about Lenin vs. Kautsky? Were they both wrong?
Bible says that God don't like the Babel towers and our constitutions say that individual property is the basis of our civilisation. This ancient wisdom perhaps mean that both were wrong: no capitalism will not fall and no ther will be no global trust of new aristocracy.
Delusional, China can easily make do with its own domestic oil production, plus Russia's, plus Central Asia. And its personal and commercial vehicle fleet gets more electrified every year.
Colby's overwhelming impact on Trump's policy goes unnoticed primarily due to Trump's absurd histrionics every hour of every day. This is an excellent analysis.
Andrew, I think you are moving on the right track to sort this out. I have just written a few days ago on another forum that Trump accumulated so many acts by now we can follow and read him like he was a black bunny running around in an endless Siberian snowfield. By the time we add up all the details of his acts his ideas become policies of a ‘mad genius’ who is struggling like Don Quixote in the novel by Miguel de Cervantes. While it is clear that grabbing the ownership certificates for the Venezuelan oilfields was a masterstroke, Trump, – just like Don Quixote – is still fighting with REALITY. Siberia and the Arctic is still likely hiding giant, undiscovered oil reserves, one of the unknown quantities in this game. He would need a nuclear war to herd Russia and China to toe his lines and the land has already shifted under his feet in India. It is getting to the point where proxy shopping is turning into a major problem in Asia.
‘Colby’s core claim is that U.S. strategy in the 21st century should aim to prevent China from achieving hegemony over Asia.‘
This is where Colby is climbing up the hill. The already major and soon overwhelming differences in industrial production favor China to a degree where Russia, Iran and North Korea will just keep course into the foreseeable future. America can construct a hundred million more pizza shops and dry cleaners and invite 200 million more from the third world, that will still not turn that nation into the No.1 Industrial Power of this planet. Trump or whoever follows him will have to settle over ruling the Americas, North and South and that spells regional hegemony, still on a reasonable scale but nothing more.
I f Trump were smart he would form an alliance with Russia. Russia+ USA have 90 % of the worlds nuclear weapons. USA has not won a war in the past 75 years, Russia has never lost a war over the centuries. USA has been at war with 10 counries but NEVER with RUSSIA. RUSSIIANS are Europeans just like 60 % of the American population. What are you waiting for Donald???
Sucker, forget it, it's useless. I already gave it this list long ago.
And you see that his answer is dumb. A bot?
Concerning the war of 1919, you falsify the historic reality (it's typical anglo-saxon, especially US) . It was not a war for spreading the revolution, it was a war for recovering the land which belonged to russian empire since 1795. That said, at this time Red Army had to face a terrible civil war and western agressions from everywhere.
Wally has significant dementia - 5 minutes with Google shows that. He's been a joo-despising, putin-worshipping russo-fellator for over a decade though. The loony-tunes, paranoid "Khazarian"-obsessed flavor.
People's personality traits really do seem to "come out" as their dementia advances and executive function is lost.
At least here in Andy-Land, Wally's rantings don't garner many "likes." Simpliciousville loves 💕 that stuff.
Smarty pants, which of these countries are in RUSSIA today???? NONE Would you have preferred the Democat candidate , a foreigh born female with a JEWISH husband??
Thanks for the reply, from your "memory care" facility Wally. Is your 84 year old retired physician wife, turned late-in-life pastor onboard with your incessant jooo-blaming? Presumably yes, because you've been spewing online for over a decade.
Kinda weird, since she's Unitarian Universalist clergy. Christian denominations don't get more liberal, tolerant and woke than UUs.
Kudos for putting it all out in the open - including your mother's name - "Semen."
Like the 90 millions who jump and cheer in crying proudly with US flag each time a US hero of USAF send a missile on a village in a shit hole wherever in the world? Those who applaud when a cop shot a woman in the head who move away from him? Those who say that Palestinians must be ousted or killed untill the last to allow Jesus to come back?
That train passed by in the 1990s and will not stop in Moscow in this century again. American foreign policy was sabotaged to the point of no return. (And one more minor detail, America is 45% White at the most already and large part of that 45% is hopeless libtards.) If Xi and Putin had a clear comprehension on how deeply the US population is damaged and polarized they would sleep far easier. Parasitical existence and infighting has taken this country to a place that has not been seen in modern times except in France and the UK.
Concerning the example of France, it will not reassure anybody. For remind, french revolution brought disorder, but also some new ideas: nation and conscription.
Conscription allowed France to have an absolutely unseen mass of soldiers. And France revolutionary, answering to the wars launched by neighbours were victorious everywhere. Then Napoleon was even worse.
20 years of hell for Europe...
All the English civil wars didn't made England less dangerous for France or Spain.
The big trouble of ending Roman Republic didn't prevent it to invade Gaul, Egypt and launched an multi secular mighty empire.
Revolution of 1917 in Russia, far from destroying it, launch the terrible USSR hugely more dangerous.
Idem for China.
Perhaps, the US crisis( which is a western crisis) will lead to a new kind of fascism( it's the most possible) with a new efficiency and a terrible agressiveness, kind of imperial moment.
Or a total chaos...with 6000 nuclear heads and a huge pile of weapons.
Stability of some are always better for others.
You can bet on disorder in a tiny or weak country. Not on a major one like USA.
'You can bet on disorder in a tiny or weak country. Not on a major one like USA.'
They just might be walking toward 1861 again. Extreme polarization and connected aggressiveness and violence is already present. Just like during the decade before 1861.
Yes and then, big disorder of Civil War and after that , it's the true birth of USA and Uncle Sam. Thirty year of incredible growth with a terrible aggressiveness untill total occupation of territory and USA began to eat the world.
Some chaos are creative.
I don't bet against USA for some good reasons. People is generally more brave than in Europe. People is more faithful than in Europe. People is more positive than in Europe. People is more creative than in Europe. People is more tough than in Europe. You can't bet against this kind of people.
I know that USA has big problems but I say to my son , a highly graduate engineer, that if he have an opportunity to put his luggages in USA with his wife and his ongoing child and even become American citizen, he must do it. I still believe in USA. No more in France nor Europe.
The "Strategy of denial" is nothing new either as a general strategy of empires or as a specific strategy against the Tsardom/USSR/RF/etc.:
* The English Empire worked hard to deny the tsardom access to warm seas, allying with the Ottoman Empire to prevent the Tsardom to take Constantinople and playing the Great Game in central Asia to prevent the Tsardom to get to the Indian Ocean via Persia or Baluchistan.
* In WW1 Germany and Austria were defeated by a blockade of food supplies (etc.) and in WW2 Germany and Japan were defeated by a blockage of oil supplies (etc.).
* In 1940 the Council for Foreign Relations did the "War and Peace Studies" programme and part of that was to plan how the USA Navy would take control of all major worldwide sea route choke points from the English Empire.
* After 1950 the USSR was subject not to "sanction" packages but to a total block of trade where specific trades had to be authorized rather than the reverse.
* For the past 40-70 years Curba, Iran, Korea-north have been subject to the same policy of total denial of resources.
What is somewhat new is that the subjects have changed:
* The USA government is pursing as always a patient strategy of dismembering rival empires by surround, isolating and breaking them up when they are weak enough.
* The current target of that strategy is the PRC empire: the USA already control all the sear routes through which the PRC can import fuels and food (thus the several policies of Xi to reduce dependency on imported energy and food), and would also like to control the sources of those imports that it does not already control as an overt naval blockade would be a drastic step and it would be much easier to deny purchases than to block shipping.
* The USA purchased for very little money all the USSR secrets and most of their cadres in the 1990s and figured out that the USSR was a lot weaker, and that the RF is much smaller in resources, population, technology, industry than the USSR, so they consider it a "gnat on the butt of an elephant" still.
* Some USA oligarchs think that the Cold War 1 was good the the USA and want to recreate a new Iron Curtain around the PRC, and the smaller the number of vassal states the PRC can acquire the better and the l less the PRC has access to oil and food exporters the betters.
* The USA oligarchs already control the main oil exporters (USA, Arabia, North Africa, Canada, Brazil, Norway, Nigeria, ...).
* The USA already control the main food exporters (USA, Brazil, Argentina, Australia, Ukraine, Thailand, ...).
* What they are missing: the RF, Venezuela, Kazakhstan, Iran. There is a pattern there...
* If the USA oligarchs can "color revolution" the RF and Kazakhstan they can also be "invited" to establish a chain of DoW and CIA bases and biolabs on the north and west borders of the PRC and finance, train and arm many brigades of "freedom fighters" inside the PRC.
Te latter is what the Ukraine conflict has always been meant to achieve.
"Opening and dividing China", The World Today, May 1992:
«Needless to say, not all these regions are like to have the same views on foreign policy questions. Coastal regions would be less willing to see relations with the United States deteriorate, or take a hard line with Hong Kong or Taiwan.»
1) "military overmatch vis-à-vis China": There is a constant mention of the US vs. China "match" in all geopolitical essays that I have recently come across, at least since Trump came to power. I think this is fundamentally wrong. China is NOT alone: there is a relationship between Russia and China that is "more than an alliance", as it was explicitly said several times during the Sino-Russian highest-level meetings (Xi - Putin). To this, one has to add the unbreakable link between Russia and India dating back to 1947, India's independence, as well as the unrelenting Russian diplomatic efforts to clear up the fog between her two big friends. Hence, if we talk about "military overmatch" we need to refer to a China-Russia "more than an alliance" rather than China and a neutral but Russia-friendly India.
2) "a resource-centric strategic partnership with Russia at the expense of its security-related goals in Ukraine" : When looking at the recent US-Russia meetings, I would be unable to guess if Trump tried to cajole Putin into some kind of resource deal OR Putin played along and obtained a clear indication of the accelerating dissociation of interests within the Atlantic alliance. Russia will never enter into any partnership with any Western entity, US, EU, or other, not anymore! The feelings of the Russian people have changed to such an extent that, for many generations to come, no Russian leader will be able to establish relevant links with the West.
3) ‘Fortress America’ : I dare say, Trump will never live to see it with his own eyes, ever! To keep a very long comment short, I would note that Venezuela, Cuba, Mexico, Nicaragua, Iran, Armenia, Kazakhstan have some important traits in common: Russia-friendly governments and, for some, direct borders with Russia. To me this looks like an attempt to "phagocytize" Russia while she is busy with Ukraine. The attempt to inflict a strategic defeat has failed, but the objective stayed. This new way of fighting Russia will buy China many more years before a frontal attack on her.
Superiority of USA. Perhaps. And only if China and USA would fight together....in Africa.
But if it's a matter of USA attacking China in China there is no more superiority at all. One consider that three time more power is required for an attacker. Even with AUKUS+, USA will never more be able to set three time more military forces than China.
And we know that now, big carriers are lame-ducks like heavy battleships in 1943.
I should add that Russia has a strong relationship with many Sahel countries (Mali, Niger,Burkina Faso, Guinea) as well as with the Central African Republic. Ethiopia is a full BRICS member. The French influence has been well contained within these countries, and in a relatively short time. South Africa is a BRICS founding member. I do not see the US having the weight to develop its relationships with Africa, to explore and develop the Arctic, to snatch Greenland from the Danes and develop it, to reindustrialize the US itself and to contain both Russia and China.
Not possible until the EU elections shift the bloc to the right. Then agree common security framework with Russia a la going back to 1991. Prosperity in Europe, cheap energy, Russia rehabilitated might tempt Russia away from China. Anything less forget about it. Trump’s waiting for EU elections and saying Russia has to compromise on Ukraine for now, but maybe in a year with France that could change somewhat if it goes to the right. Trump gets Latam, they share Europe, and letting up on Russia brings India, and China is isolated. Otherwise it’s not possible.
Andrew - excellent article, but I disagree with "Russia relegated to a junior partner" - Russia has a lot more value as a trusted trading partner, and I have seen comments that I believe the new trading blocks will be Russia, India, Japan, Saudi Arabia, and the US - with some other countries in there as well. As soon as we can get the war in Ukraine ended. Russia has a lot to offer and President Putin did show up to Alaska to do a deal. Deals and trade will be great between the US and Russia.
Outstanding summary of what is going on. So completely fed up with all the lying and media propaganda and idiotic youtube analysis. Nothing shines brighter than the actual truth.
And looking ahead, the US challenge includes balancing its ongoing ability to finance massive debt with the need to grow military spending to $1.5T while competing for funding the on-shoring of manufacturing and funding an enormous AI infrastructure buildout. All while avoiding a recession and giving the Chinese adversary about $1T/yr in foreign exchange earnings.
Hard to see the debt being managed without a lot of inflationary QE unless AI productivity gains kick in faster than expected.
Now you can understand why the various anti-US forces within are trying to spark off a civil war with affordability narratives, outrage porn fed to radicals on both sides of a deep cultural divide, and rioting over the death of a nut-job protestor.
Capt Trump calling down to the engine room: "Scotty, we need moreee power!"
No idea how all this ends up being resolved. I personally favor a peaceful divorce. I think the entire Russian adventure was an enormous unforced error and I grieve for what we've done to decent, honorable people of Russia. At the same time, I have no reason to think a world consumed by China will be any better, and some reasons for thinking it might be just as bad or worse, than the one now consumed by US.
While the US ideals, the ones handed to us through our Constitution and those I absorbed as a kid now seem long forgotten, many of us Americans still cling to them and long for leadership that embraces them. Sadly, it all seems to be going up in smoke, overcome by greed, hubris, and all manner of corruption.
We all need to pray this doesn't end in a flash. .
Funny: just today, on the Global Times of Asia( official media of PCC- English version of Voice of People), an article speaks about trading negotiations between China and UE.
What is delicious is when the article describes China and UE as( thanks for USA), I quote "the world's two major economies).
Seemingly, China doesn't consider USA as the first economy in the world. Not even the second. But only the third.
This was an excellent analysis of the Trump Doctrine. However, both Russia and China would never compromise their security. It will be very interesting to see how Russia and China recalibrate their foreign policy initiatives in 2026.
.
Contain or Control China's Oil Supply
Whether Country or Shipping Route
By Land or By Sea
Or Go Broke Tryin'
.
The “ace up America’s sleeve” is LNG. So Putin invested in pipelines while America invested in LNG export terminals and LNG has won the day. Now Putin must wage war while losing his EU market share while investing in LNG terminals which are $10 billion a pop!! Good luck with that! 😉
This all makes perfect rational sense, however the Chump doctrine relies far too heavily on too many, if, and, or buts which neglect to mitigate human nature, in ensuring the success of his strategy.
What I mean, is that for Chump's doctrine to succeed he requires a multitude of factors to come together, and relies extremely heavily on every country acting as he "Hopes" they will, to his bullying and his ability to hide his end game from discovery to prevent China and others from pre-empting Chump's moves.
Chump also relies far to heavily on a military build up which requires mass military manufacturing in a country that is broke, and lacks the skllls to do so, and whike the argument might be that he will fund it through Venezuelan oil, Venezuelan production os dar too low, and will take far too long, at very high cost, to achieve high levels of production, for which Chump would have to find a market to sell to, not forgetting the potential for civil war and or sabotage in Venezuela when the people discover that their oil is being stolen.
Now take the potential for the failure of Chump's strategy in Venezuela, and add the same risks in Nigeria and Iran, and out that through a statistical probability for success analysis, and you come up with an exorbitantly high risk, and exorbitantly high pitential for failure, and a very low potential for success, and a mountain of new debt that will surely push the US into Default, even if they print money, which will exacerbate their problem given the US' current debt levels.
Further to this, China will undoubtedly introduce mitigation counter measures, which will further reduce the potential for success of Chump's greater doctrine strategy, which might even include EU co-operation as they fight for their own survival.
It is always good to see things from different angles, so this report is welcomed - thankyou!
The first problem is Bridge's strategy relies on partners, particularly those in East Asia, which was already difficult before Trump bullying them with e.g. tariffs. The second problem is such an anti-China strategy requires economical, industrial and (conventional) military overmatch - none is possible in the foreseeable future - in fact all are going backwards, never mind China has everybody by the short and curlies with just rare earths. We can also ask ourselves should Trump have picked Venezuela, which is practically inconsequential to China and its hydrocarbon endowment an illusion in any meaningful timeframe, when the world is going solar/renewables?
Don't you think arguments like McNair's are cope at best, lipstick on a pig at worst?
A man struggling wildly in quicksand?
The analysis makes empirical sense. But the west continues to underestimate China by conflating it with the USSR. For one it is far more homogeneous. Secondly China has made massive strides in reducing its dependence on fossil fuel based energy while Trump is going in the opposite direction. That itself is a regressive approach which might pay off in the short run. Thirdly in spite of its domestic economic woes China has far less of debt encumbrance than the US and the West in general.
There was a debate, a hundred or so years ago, between Lenin and Kautsky, German Marxist.
Marxist dogma of the time was that "developed" (on the imperialist stage) capitalist countries will keep fighting each other for resources (including by military means), until the capitalist system collapses everywhere on Earth.
But then Kautsky suggested that it is possible, theoretically, that the "developed" capitalist countries might get organized in an "ultra-imperialist" cartel, and avoid endless infighting.
And Lenin thought that was nonsense.
So, that was the dispute, theoretical dispute.
For a while now, since WWII, with NATO, EU, G7, etc, it seemed that Kautsky was right. Ultra-imperialist cartel it is.
But nowadays, ...I don't know. Perhaps the post-WWII state of affairs was just a pause, a fluke.
What you think?
Kautsky was right, and ultraimperialist cartel was formed in the Second World War
Yes, I know, that's what I said, but isn't it, like, 'all bets are off' now? The US doesn't want to be part of this cartel anymore.
Wait, "the US doesn't want" is not the right way to put it.
It's just that the US is the first one of them where "souvernists" came to power. In other countries -- Reform in the UK, National Rally in France, AfD in Germany -- it's just a matter of time.
There is capitalists, oligarchs, plutocracy (WEF)
And you have state-nations.
They have not the same agenda.
Staline broke this dispute in stopping Komintern and concentrated on USSR state-nation.
Global capitalists worked for decades to weaken states.
It missed.
It missed because a part of those capitalists seemingly decided that the limits of globalism were reached and that without a big strong state frame to protect your wealth, you're nothing.
In Ukraine, the war is not between Ukraine and Russia, nor between West and Russia, it's a existential war between globalism against state-nation.
That explains the current position of USA: against Russia and China in strategic rivalry but in the same time ok with Russia and China against globalists.
Yes, make sense. In the globalist world, states just provide services and access to basic resources to multinational corporations. Like roads, labor, water, electricity, security. No other purpose.
But, so, what does it say about Lenin vs. Kautsky? Were they both wrong?
They analysed with their time.
Bible says that God don't like the Babel towers and our constitutions say that individual property is the basis of our civilisation. This ancient wisdom perhaps mean that both were wrong: no capitalism will not fall and no ther will be no global trust of new aristocracy.
Delusional, China can easily make do with its own domestic oil production, plus Russia's, plus Central Asia. And its personal and commercial vehicle fleet gets more electrified every year.
Colby's overwhelming impact on Trump's policy goes unnoticed primarily due to Trump's absurd histrionics every hour of every day. This is an excellent analysis.
Andrew
excellent work, explaining the real world geopolitics.
Sincerely appreciated.
Andrew, I think you are moving on the right track to sort this out. I have just written a few days ago on another forum that Trump accumulated so many acts by now we can follow and read him like he was a black bunny running around in an endless Siberian snowfield. By the time we add up all the details of his acts his ideas become policies of a ‘mad genius’ who is struggling like Don Quixote in the novel by Miguel de Cervantes. While it is clear that grabbing the ownership certificates for the Venezuelan oilfields was a masterstroke, Trump, – just like Don Quixote – is still fighting with REALITY. Siberia and the Arctic is still likely hiding giant, undiscovered oil reserves, one of the unknown quantities in this game. He would need a nuclear war to herd Russia and China to toe his lines and the land has already shifted under his feet in India. It is getting to the point where proxy shopping is turning into a major problem in Asia.
‘Colby’s core claim is that U.S. strategy in the 21st century should aim to prevent China from achieving hegemony over Asia.‘
This is where Colby is climbing up the hill. The already major and soon overwhelming differences in industrial production favor China to a degree where Russia, Iran and North Korea will just keep course into the foreseeable future. America can construct a hundred million more pizza shops and dry cleaners and invite 200 million more from the third world, that will still not turn that nation into the No.1 Industrial Power of this planet. Trump or whoever follows him will have to settle over ruling the Americas, North and South and that spells regional hegemony, still on a reasonable scale but nothing more.
I f Trump were smart he would form an alliance with Russia. Russia+ USA have 90 % of the worlds nuclear weapons. USA has not won a war in the past 75 years, Russia has never lost a war over the centuries. USA has been at war with 10 counries but NEVER with RUSSIA. RUSSIIANS are Europeans just like 60 % of the American population. What are you waiting for Donald???
Broken Record Wally, warped to begin with, "Russia has never lost a war over the centuries ..." - In what universe?
Crimean War (1853-1856)
Russo-Japanese War (1904-1905), Baltic Fleet sailed halfway around the world only to be destroyed in hours.
Directly contributed to the 1905 Revolution.
Battle of Tannenberg (1914) - One of the most lopsided defeats in modern warfare.
Entire Russian Second Army destroyed
~170,000 casualties or captured
Gross intelligence and command failures
Germany humiliated Russia in weeks.
Russo-Polish War (1919-1921)
Afghan War (1979-1989)
First Chechen War
Would you like some more, Wally? Should I rank them by most humiliating defeats? Or by most strategically damaging defeats?
Sucker, forget it, it's useless. I already gave it this list long ago.
And you see that his answer is dumb. A bot?
Concerning the war of 1919, you falsify the historic reality (it's typical anglo-saxon, especially US) . It was not a war for spreading the revolution, it was a war for recovering the land which belonged to russian empire since 1795. That said, at this time Red Army had to face a terrible civil war and western agressions from everywhere.
Spare me the messy details. No one sane agrees with, "Russia has never lost a war over the centuries." Or with "USA has never lost a war," or UK, etc.
Are you dumb? I say to you that I already gave the list of russian lost war and you react like that? It seems you're not different than Walter.
Wally has significant dementia - 5 minutes with Google shows that. He's been a joo-despising, putin-worshipping russo-fellator for over a decade though. The loony-tunes, paranoid "Khazarian"-obsessed flavor.
People's personality traits really do seem to "come out" as their dementia advances and executive function is lost.
At least here in Andy-Land, Wally's rantings don't garner many "likes." Simpliciousville loves 💕 that stuff.
Smarty pants, which of these countries are in RUSSIA today???? NONE Would you have preferred the Democat candidate , a foreigh born female with a JEWISH husband??
Thanks for the reply, from your "memory care" facility Wally. Is your 84 year old retired physician wife, turned late-in-life pastor onboard with your incessant jooo-blaming? Presumably yes, because you've been spewing online for over a decade.
Kinda weird, since she's Unitarian Universalist clergy. Christian denominations don't get more liberal, tolerant and woke than UUs.
Kudos for putting it all out in the open - including your mother's name - "Semen."
At least Trump is a WHITE CHRISTIAN.
Not in my dictionary.
Like the 90 millions who jump and cheer in crying proudly with US flag each time a US hero of USAF send a missile on a village in a shit hole wherever in the world? Those who applaud when a cop shot a woman in the head who move away from him? Those who say that Palestinians must be ousted or killed untill the last to allow Jesus to come back?
Darras, you are full of excrement. from a 95
year old man who has been around for a long time.
Respect to old timers. I'm perhaps full of shit, but it's a fine and nice shit. Just kidding. Sorry If I wounded you.
That train passed by in the 1990s and will not stop in Moscow in this century again. American foreign policy was sabotaged to the point of no return. (And one more minor detail, America is 45% White at the most already and large part of that 45% is hopeless libtards.) If Xi and Putin had a clear comprehension on how deeply the US population is damaged and polarized they would sleep far easier. Parasitical existence and infighting has taken this country to a place that has not been seen in modern times except in France and the UK.
Concerning the example of France, it will not reassure anybody. For remind, french revolution brought disorder, but also some new ideas: nation and conscription.
Conscription allowed France to have an absolutely unseen mass of soldiers. And France revolutionary, answering to the wars launched by neighbours were victorious everywhere. Then Napoleon was even worse.
20 years of hell for Europe...
All the English civil wars didn't made England less dangerous for France or Spain.
The big trouble of ending Roman Republic didn't prevent it to invade Gaul, Egypt and launched an multi secular mighty empire.
Revolution of 1917 in Russia, far from destroying it, launch the terrible USSR hugely more dangerous.
Idem for China.
Perhaps, the US crisis( which is a western crisis) will lead to a new kind of fascism( it's the most possible) with a new efficiency and a terrible agressiveness, kind of imperial moment.
Or a total chaos...with 6000 nuclear heads and a huge pile of weapons.
Stability of some are always better for others.
You can bet on disorder in a tiny or weak country. Not on a major one like USA.
'You can bet on disorder in a tiny or weak country. Not on a major one like USA.'
They just might be walking toward 1861 again. Extreme polarization and connected aggressiveness and violence is already present. Just like during the decade before 1861.
Yes and then, big disorder of Civil War and after that , it's the true birth of USA and Uncle Sam. Thirty year of incredible growth with a terrible aggressiveness untill total occupation of territory and USA began to eat the world.
Some chaos are creative.
I don't bet against USA for some good reasons. People is generally more brave than in Europe. People is more faithful than in Europe. People is more positive than in Europe. People is more creative than in Europe. People is more tough than in Europe. You can't bet against this kind of people.
I know that USA has big problems but I say to my son , a highly graduate engineer, that if he have an opportunity to put his luggages in USA with his wife and his ongoing child and even become American citizen, he must do it. I still believe in USA. No more in France nor Europe.
' I still believe in USA. '
Just keep dong that.
In fact, I believe in the people of USA.
The "Strategy of denial" is nothing new either as a general strategy of empires or as a specific strategy against the Tsardom/USSR/RF/etc.:
* The English Empire worked hard to deny the tsardom access to warm seas, allying with the Ottoman Empire to prevent the Tsardom to take Constantinople and playing the Great Game in central Asia to prevent the Tsardom to get to the Indian Ocean via Persia or Baluchistan.
* In WW1 Germany and Austria were defeated by a blockade of food supplies (etc.) and in WW2 Germany and Japan were defeated by a blockage of oil supplies (etc.).
* In 1940 the Council for Foreign Relations did the "War and Peace Studies" programme and part of that was to plan how the USA Navy would take control of all major worldwide sea route choke points from the English Empire.
* After 1950 the USSR was subject not to "sanction" packages but to a total block of trade where specific trades had to be authorized rather than the reverse.
* For the past 40-70 years Curba, Iran, Korea-north have been subject to the same policy of total denial of resources.
What is somewhat new is that the subjects have changed:
* The USA government is pursing as always a patient strategy of dismembering rival empires by surround, isolating and breaking them up when they are weak enough.
* The current target of that strategy is the PRC empire: the USA already control all the sear routes through which the PRC can import fuels and food (thus the several policies of Xi to reduce dependency on imported energy and food), and would also like to control the sources of those imports that it does not already control as an overt naval blockade would be a drastic step and it would be much easier to deny purchases than to block shipping.
* The USA purchased for very little money all the USSR secrets and most of their cadres in the 1990s and figured out that the USSR was a lot weaker, and that the RF is much smaller in resources, population, technology, industry than the USSR, so they consider it a "gnat on the butt of an elephant" still.
* Some USA oligarchs think that the Cold War 1 was good the the USA and want to recreate a new Iron Curtain around the PRC, and the smaller the number of vassal states the PRC can acquire the better and the l less the PRC has access to oil and food exporters the betters.
* The USA oligarchs already control the main oil exporters (USA, Arabia, North Africa, Canada, Brazil, Norway, Nigeria, ...).
* The USA already control the main food exporters (USA, Brazil, Argentina, Australia, Ukraine, Thailand, ...).
* What they are missing: the RF, Venezuela, Kazakhstan, Iran. There is a pattern there...
* If the USA oligarchs can "color revolution" the RF and Kazakhstan they can also be "invited" to establish a chain of DoW and CIA bases and biolabs on the north and west borders of the PRC and finance, train and arm many brigades of "freedom fighters" inside the PRC.
Te latter is what the Ukraine conflict has always been meant to achieve.
https://blissex.wordpress.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/07/poliusadonatethecontras-1985.png
https://blissex.wordpress.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/07/poliusadonatemujaheddin-1981.png
https://www.jstor.org/stable/40396396
"Opening and dividing China", The World Today, May 1992:
«Needless to say, not all these regions are like to have the same views on foreign policy questions. Coastal regions would be less willing to see relations with the United States deteriorate, or take a hard line with Hong Kong or Taiwan.»
1) "military overmatch vis-à-vis China": There is a constant mention of the US vs. China "match" in all geopolitical essays that I have recently come across, at least since Trump came to power. I think this is fundamentally wrong. China is NOT alone: there is a relationship between Russia and China that is "more than an alliance", as it was explicitly said several times during the Sino-Russian highest-level meetings (Xi - Putin). To this, one has to add the unbreakable link between Russia and India dating back to 1947, India's independence, as well as the unrelenting Russian diplomatic efforts to clear up the fog between her two big friends. Hence, if we talk about "military overmatch" we need to refer to a China-Russia "more than an alliance" rather than China and a neutral but Russia-friendly India.
2) "a resource-centric strategic partnership with Russia at the expense of its security-related goals in Ukraine" : When looking at the recent US-Russia meetings, I would be unable to guess if Trump tried to cajole Putin into some kind of resource deal OR Putin played along and obtained a clear indication of the accelerating dissociation of interests within the Atlantic alliance. Russia will never enter into any partnership with any Western entity, US, EU, or other, not anymore! The feelings of the Russian people have changed to such an extent that, for many generations to come, no Russian leader will be able to establish relevant links with the West.
3) ‘Fortress America’ : I dare say, Trump will never live to see it with his own eyes, ever! To keep a very long comment short, I would note that Venezuela, Cuba, Mexico, Nicaragua, Iran, Armenia, Kazakhstan have some important traits in common: Russia-friendly governments and, for some, direct borders with Russia. To me this looks like an attempt to "phagocytize" Russia while she is busy with Ukraine. The attempt to inflict a strategic defeat has failed, but the objective stayed. This new way of fighting Russia will buy China many more years before a frontal attack on her.
You are right.
Superiority of USA. Perhaps. And only if China and USA would fight together....in Africa.
But if it's a matter of USA attacking China in China there is no more superiority at all. One consider that three time more power is required for an attacker. Even with AUKUS+, USA will never more be able to set three time more military forces than China.
And we know that now, big carriers are lame-ducks like heavy battleships in 1943.
I should add that Russia has a strong relationship with many Sahel countries (Mali, Niger,Burkina Faso, Guinea) as well as with the Central African Republic. Ethiopia is a full BRICS member. The French influence has been well contained within these countries, and in a relatively short time. South Africa is a BRICS founding member. I do not see the US having the weight to develop its relationships with Africa, to explore and develop the Arctic, to snatch Greenland from the Danes and develop it, to reindustrialize the US itself and to contain both Russia and China.
Not possible until the EU elections shift the bloc to the right. Then agree common security framework with Russia a la going back to 1991. Prosperity in Europe, cheap energy, Russia rehabilitated might tempt Russia away from China. Anything less forget about it. Trump’s waiting for EU elections and saying Russia has to compromise on Ukraine for now, but maybe in a year with France that could change somewhat if it goes to the right. Trump gets Latam, they share Europe, and letting up on Russia brings India, and China is isolated. Otherwise it’s not possible.
Andrew - excellent article, but I disagree with "Russia relegated to a junior partner" - Russia has a lot more value as a trusted trading partner, and I have seen comments that I believe the new trading blocks will be Russia, India, Japan, Saudi Arabia, and the US - with some other countries in there as well. As soon as we can get the war in Ukraine ended. Russia has a lot to offer and President Putin did show up to Alaska to do a deal. Deals and trade will be great between the US and Russia.
Outstanding summary of what is going on. So completely fed up with all the lying and media propaganda and idiotic youtube analysis. Nothing shines brighter than the actual truth.
And looking ahead, the US challenge includes balancing its ongoing ability to finance massive debt with the need to grow military spending to $1.5T while competing for funding the on-shoring of manufacturing and funding an enormous AI infrastructure buildout. All while avoiding a recession and giving the Chinese adversary about $1T/yr in foreign exchange earnings.
Hard to see the debt being managed without a lot of inflationary QE unless AI productivity gains kick in faster than expected.
Now you can understand why the various anti-US forces within are trying to spark off a civil war with affordability narratives, outrage porn fed to radicals on both sides of a deep cultural divide, and rioting over the death of a nut-job protestor.
Capt Trump calling down to the engine room: "Scotty, we need moreee power!"
No idea how all this ends up being resolved. I personally favor a peaceful divorce. I think the entire Russian adventure was an enormous unforced error and I grieve for what we've done to decent, honorable people of Russia. At the same time, I have no reason to think a world consumed by China will be any better, and some reasons for thinking it might be just as bad or worse, than the one now consumed by US.
While the US ideals, the ones handed to us through our Constitution and those I absorbed as a kid now seem long forgotten, many of us Americans still cling to them and long for leadership that embraces them. Sadly, it all seems to be going up in smoke, overcome by greed, hubris, and all manner of corruption.
We all need to pray this doesn't end in a flash. .
Funny: just today, on the Global Times of Asia( official media of PCC- English version of Voice of People), an article speaks about trading negotiations between China and UE.
What is delicious is when the article describes China and UE as( thanks for USA), I quote "the world's two major economies).
Seemingly, China doesn't consider USA as the first economy in the world. Not even the second. But only the third.
Hard time for USA.