Doubling Down On Defeat?

What’s the likely outcome when any power undertakes a two front war and discovers, too late, that it wasn’t actually prepared for either front? Right. Defeat on both fronts. I’ve been reading several articles on this topic over the last few days. While signals are somewhat mixed, it appears that there is a growing realization among at least some elements of the US Deep State that the American Empire needs a strategy to extricate itself from its two front war—taking on Russia and China at the same time. The strategy apparently was to take on each of Russia and China separately, seriatim, but in typical Neoconnish fashion our Ruling Elite drove Russia and China together. While the US conflict with China is mostly hot on a rhetorical level, make no mistake about it—the Chinese know that they’re in a war with America just as much as Russia has been at war with the US since about 2008. Both wars were instigated by the Neocons.

Stephen Bryen is someone whom I would generally classify as definitely Neoconnish in orientation. Nevertheless, for months now Bryen has been sounding the drums of concern over looming disaster. An article he wrote in April (he writes regularly at Asia Times) regarding the dismal prospects for the Ukrainian Spring Offensive that became the June Offensive paints the prospects for the US in equally stark terms. And he extends that pessimism to our vassal states in both Europe and Asia. Bryen—already back in April—was calling for a negotiated settlement pretty much ASAP. The title and the concluding paragraphs say it all:

Ukraine’s spring offensive a likely death trap for US, NATO

Leaked Pentagon documents indicate Ukraine lacks the armor and air defenses needed to succeed

…

US opposition to a negotiated deal with Russia appears to amount to a big strategic security risk, with little possibility for improvement even if Ukraine somehow was able to gain some ground in its late Spring offensive.

The more prudent course of action would be to push for negotiations with the Russians. That won’t be easy, because the Russians probably won’t agree to any standstill or ceasefire, and probably will demand that US and EU sanctions be lifted.

Nonetheless, unless the Biden administration changes course, they will continue to play Russian roulette with all the chambers full.

Death trap? Russian roulette with all chambers full? It doesn’t get much grimmer than that.

Bryen clearly sees that the Russians are in the driver’s seat. The reality is that Russia has always been in the driver’s seat—as Putin made clear as far back as 2018. Wars of attrition are, by their nature, drawn out affairs, but Russia is winning this one and Bryen sees nothing that the US can do to change that dynamic. (Cf. this recent article by Simplicius for a detailed explanation for the seemingly slow pace, especially in the second half: Dissecting West Point Think-tank's New Analysis of Russia's Military Evolution.) In between beginning and end, Bryen lists, in detail, all the familiar reasons why Ukraine simply can’t win:

• Russia is massively out-producing the collective West in war materiel—much of it of superior quality.

• Ukraine is facing critical shortages of trained manpower.

• The West cannot make up for shortages in artillery, missiles, and—critically—air defense. Timelines for resupply are now stretching out to two years, and time is on Russia’s side.

None of this has changed in any substantive way since Bryen wrote in April. But Bryen, like others, also saw how this would inevitably affect the second front, the one that the Neocons have been forcing on China since Zhou was installed in the White House:

NATO is nearly out of ammunition and supplies and even pro-Ukraine European politicians are starting to get skittish over the war.

Add to this the fact that the US has put almost all its ELINT, COMINT and Imaging resources into supporting Ukraine, taking a risk that trouble could come elsewhere in Europe or in the Pacific.

… the US has little in the cupboard to supply Taiwan, Japan or South Korea. Taiwan, ... has requested US weapons it isn’t getting because of the war in Ukraine.

Even new F-16s, promised to Taiwan, are not being delivered on schedule. If anything like deliveries to Bulgaria, the delay is at least two years. America’s Asian allies, who also read the leaked material from the Pentagon, have to be worried.

A steady flow of leaks from Pentagon sources support Bryen’s concerns. These regular leaks suggest a defense establishment that is desperate to find a way to stop the slide into wider war, brought on by the Neocons’ refusal to negotiate their way out of the corner they’ve painted the American Empire into. Consider this:

Matt Stoller

@matthewstoller

Greg Hayes, chief executive of Raytheon, said the company had “several thousand suppliers in China and decoupling . . . is impossible”. Insanity. Basically the outcome of a war with China will rest on whether China decides to supply us with ammunition.

Raytheon boss says complete decoupling from China is ‘impossible

Greg Hayes says aerospace and defence group can de-risk but has thousands of suppliers in the country

11:02 AM · Jun 20, 2023

This may be news to many members of the American public, but it’s surely not news to the Russians or the Chinese. They must be scratching their heads over the Neocon saber rattling and constant escalations and provocations.

The other day Larry Johnson engaged in a long discussion of similar issues with the guys at The Duran. Out of an hour and a half, I culled these excerpts. You’ll see that much of the focus of these excerpts is on Tony Blinken’s humiliating trip to China. This trip, and the commitments that Blinken publicly made—repudiating the entire thrust of the Zhou regime’s war mongering China policy over the past two years—has to be seen as a major defeat, and LJ and Alexander Mercouris are at pains to point this out. However, mixed in is also discussion about the US disconnect from the reality of Russia:

The big counteroffensive pause? w/Larry Johnson (Live)

The disconnect from reality. We talk about Russia being backward, yet for the last ten years we relied on them to carry our astronauts to and fro. It's the US that has lost capabilities that the Russians handle easily.

Lots of talk about escalation. The offensive is being "paused" because they need air cover. Are they gonna wait for worn out early model F-16s, will NATO provide air cover, what's going on?

Is the US political system capable of adjusting when its ideology runs up against reality?

LJ: We're as broken here as is the UK. It's shocking--there's no serious voice able to message how foolish this war is. They're all afraid of being tarred as a Putin lackey. I'm worried about escalation--even Russian attacks on the US mainland in response to things the US is doing or may do. US and NATO forces, personnel, are actually operating weapons systems inside Ukraine.

I don't see Russia wanting to take a "pause" AT ALL. I think Russia will escalate its attacks on decision making centers. If you've ever seen tactical operations centers. You have television screens covering the front wall and you have upwards of a hundred, two hundred, people who could be crammed in there with rows of desks and computers, from different services and intel agencies. It's all designed to integrate information. I'm SURE NATO has two or three of these operating in Ukraine. When the Russians spoke the other day about taking out a decision making center, that's exactly what they were talking about. I think Russia will continue to destroy decision making centers, because once you destroy the leadership you make it impossible for Ukraine to carry out any kind of military operations on the ground. There's no incentive for Russia to back off, given what is being said and done by the West, both in terms of hostile comments and continued escalation in bringing more sophisticated military equipment into Ukraine.

AM: Putin's meeting with the African nations was very important because Putin basically said, Look, I'm not averse to talking about peace, but here's the draft treaty that we signed off on with Ukraine, and then they backed out. Fool me once ...

Re Blinken in China--read what the Chinese are saying. They're saying Blinken was told, We don't trust you but we'll try one more time to have a dialogue with you--but don't kid yourself that we're going to soften our position on anything. You're saying you don't want to escalate, so we're going to see whether you deliver on that. If you don't deliver, then that's the end.

Blinken was taken through the mill. He had 7-1/2 hours with the Chinese foreign minister in a "candid discussion". You know what that means. Then he's hauled off to meet the Politburo head of foreign policy, Wang Yi, and gets put through it all again. That was shorter, but the Chinese readout of that meeting is even more scorching. Then he's brought in to see the Big Man, Xi Jinping himself, who tells him, Look, we're ready to work with the US, but it can't be the way it was before. They also told him, China will protect its core interests, and Taiwan is the core of our core interests. There will be no negotiations or compromise re Taiwan.

Just as Putin has had enough, so too have the Chinese.

LJ: The One China Policy has been US policy for 52 years. How can people in the US be saying that Blinken somehow "sold out" or "blinked" in the face of Chinese demands. We're the ones who were trying to unilaterally change agreements we had entered into.

Blinken followed up on all this by quickly changing the State Department’s page on China policy—changing it back to conform with the One China Policy—and also publicly reaffirmed US adherence to the One China Policy. But then some genius seemingly thought that domestic dissent and criticism could be damped down by having Zhou call Xi Jinping a “dictator”. That wasn’t smart—it simply ensures that the Chinese will remain p*ssed off and makes any sort of cooperative relationship well nigh impossible:

And Then Biden Blew It ...

The talks Secretary of State Anthony Blinken had in China were somewhat useful. …

'We do not support Taiwan independence,' America's top diplomat said in Beijing after meeting with Chinese president Xi Jingping.

The U.S. had practically begged for the meeting and that it took place is itself a small success:

Then, within just 24 hours, President Biden blew it …

US President Joe Biden has called Chinese President Xi Jinping a dictator at a fundraising event in California.

The Chinese government was not amused:

China's foreign ministry spokeswoman Mao Ning called Mr Biden's remarks "extremely absurd and irresponsible". Speaking at a regularly scheduled press conference on Wednesday, she said that the comments were "an open political provocation" that violated diplomatic etiquette.

Just to remind China that the US can’t be trusted? Not smart, but, well, you knew that. Interesting take:

Hu Xijin 胡锡进

@HuXijin_GT

Knowing how to respect other countries is a basic quality that a political leader should have, and PM Hipkins' response showed such quality. I think Biden is senile. He lost control in language, just like some old people suffering from incontinence.

Quote Tweet

Reuters:

New Zealand PM disagrees with Biden, says Xi Jinping not a 'dictator' http://reut.rs/43THWMJ

11:25 AM · Jun 22, 2023

The Duran discussion then moves on to the possibility of ending the war on Russia:

AM: Is there any opposition building within the Deep State to the Zhou regime's war policies?

LJ: The short answer is, Yes.

LJ then goes on to extrapolate from the same data that Bryen was looking at and provides the longer answer. While opposition is building, the Neocons who control the policy levers—above all, Victoria Nuland—still have their heels dug in. They’re holding out for some sort of “frozen conflict” that would change Ukraine’s status, bringing it closer to NATO. LJ, on the other hand, sees no way this war can continue indefinitely, as Nuland has maintained.

LJ: There's a failure to appreciate how this war could unfold.

There's a debate whether this thing can drag on for a year or two. I personally don't see how that's possible. The idea that the war can be dragged out indefinitely rests on three assumptions that are all highly questionable:

• 1. that there's a manpower base in Ukraine that continue to feed bodies into the meat grinder;

• 2. that there's infrastructure for training and sustaining the effort;

• 3. most importantly, that US and NATO checkbooks will remain open and they'll find the magic factories to produce the weapons. The West cannot sustain this war economically.

Which leads to the question: If what LJ is saying is true, if the conflict cannot and will not continue indefinitely, then what comes after what looks like the inevitable Russian victory? Does the American Empire and its Ruling Class have a plan for that? There’s a pretty short answer for that question, too: Not really. Which makes the situation all the more dangerous.

Moon of Alabama has an excellent summary of this doubling down on defeat, this two front failure. I urge you to read the entire post, which cites numerous pretty mainstream sources in support of Bernard’s thesis. Here’s the basic idea, which I find persuasive, even compelling:

U.S. Admits Defeat In War On Russia And China

Confronted with the realities of life the Biden administration has in the last days acknowledged defeat in two of its most egregious and delusional foreign policy games.

The Ukrainian counter-offensive has failed. Its army is getting slaughtered on the battlefield. The 'counteroffensive' of the 'NATO trained' Ukrainian brigades has made no real progress on any front. The high level of losses of men and material make it impossible that it will ever again regain the initiative.

The U.S. aim was to integrate the Ukraine into NATO. It would then have been able to station U.S. troops in Ukraine and to put its weapons into reach of Moscow so that any independent Russian move could be countered with a threat of imminent annihilation.

After more than 20 years of pursuing that aim the U.S. threw the towel:

President Biden on Saturday said he won’t make it easier for Ukraine to join NATO, adding that the country at war with Russia has to meet the requirements to be a member.

…

And yes, that is a change. A big one:

Biden has reportedly previously expressed that he is open to removing the Member Action Plan hurdle for Ukraine to join NATO, which requires countries that want to join the alliance make reforms militarily and democratically.

…

The other U.S. defeat was acknowledged by U.S. Secretary of State Anthony Blinken at the end of his trip to Bejing:

The United States will not support Taiwan breaking away from China, Secretary of State Anthony Blinken has said, amid a series of confusing statements by Joe Biden on the issue.

'We do not support Taiwan independence,' America's top diplomat said in Beijing after meeting with Chinese president Xi Jingping.

This was more than a verbal change in Blinken's pronouncements:

The US State Department has updated its fact sheet on Taiwan again to reinstate a line about not supporting formal independence for the Chinese-claimed, democratically governed island.
...
“We oppose any unilateral changes to the status quo from either side; we do not support Taiwan independence; and we expect cross-Strait differences to be resolved by peaceful means,” according to the document, referring to the strait separating the island from the Asian mainland.

Last month, the State Department changed its website on Taiwan, removing wording both on not supporting Taiwan independence and on acknowledging Beijing’s position that Taiwan is part of China, which angered Beijing.

Blinken's change of heart [not to say a somewhat dizzying volte face] came after an extremely short meeting with President Xi which had followed a series of lectures by other high ranking Chinese officials:

The standing of the American Empire around the world has been seriously impaired by Neocon actions and by the Ruling Class’ insistence on installing the buffoonish Zhou in the White House—at least on weekdays. Some may cheer that development, others may disagree, but it remains a fact. Moreover, it has started a process that is not about to come to a halt anytime soon—the decisions of key Middle Eastern countries, like Saudi Arabia, were not lightly taken, and will not be lightly reversed. Bryen is surely correct that the US needs to talk its way out of this corner, but it’s not as sure that the Neocons will be able to see their way to performing that trick. It doesn’t seem to be in their makeup.