Getting Real About China

The Intel Roundup on Judge Nap’s show was a day early—yesterday instead of today. The Roundup was notable for the polite disagreement between Larry Johnson and Ray McGovern—diverging from the typical “I agree with you,” “No, I agree with you.” The source of the disagreement arose from the question of whether the US escalation in Kursk could—in light of Russian Foreign Minister Lavrov’s warning that the US is “playing with nuclear fire”—lead to a real nuclear confrontation, possibly even a preemptive strike by Russia.

LJ sided with Doug Macgregor, maintaining that there is a real risk of such a confrontation. McGovern persistently disagreed—meaning, he returned to the topic more than once to express his disagreement. And, in fact, he advanced some interesting arguments in support of his position that the risk of a nuclear confrontation is being overblown and is unlikely. My caveat regarding his arguments is that he may be underestimating the craziness of the Anglo-Zionists—that they may go so far in escalating that Russia will finally say, Enough is enough. In that regard, Danny Davis as well as LJ have both made the point that Lavrov specifically stated that the US should no longer consider itself “secure” or immune from direct attack just because America is bounded by two wide oceans.

That said …

McGovern’s first argument is that Russia has no reason to be provoked into escalating into a disastrous confrontation that in which there will be no winners. The fact is that Russia is winning the war, is in a commanding position. The Anglo-Zionists, on the other hand have suffered disastrous losses in Ukraine and are now embroiled in the Middle East in a war that is asymmetric and unwinnable. Putin is clearly angered but remains, as ever, rational. However …

McGovern did also maintain that Russia could take action, including military action, against NATO countries in Europe. He believes that could happen without the result rising to the level of a nuclear confrontation. Again, my caveat (above) applies. And I make that caveat in spite of the fact that McGovern is undoubtedly well acquainted at first hand with the craziness of the Anglo-Zionists.

Perhaps most interesting, however, is McGovern’s second argument. McGovern maintained that those who are playing up the threat of a nuclear confrontation between the Anglo-Zionist Empire and Russia are failing to take China into account. (Ha! You were probably wondering when China would get a mention?) Russia and China—thanks to the usual inept Anglo-Zionist strategery—are more closely aligned than ever. China is well positioned to cause the US serious problems in the Western Pacific and is well aware that any threat to Russia is, in the long run, an existential threat to China as well.

That, of course, brings us back to Jake Sullivan’s shambolic trip to Beijing to bully China into forsaking its relationship with Russia. As we detailed yesterday, the Chinese predictably, and quite publicly, flipped Sullivan off. Xi Jinping was polite as ever, but the Foreign Minister, Wang Yi, bluntly told Sullivan—in almost these words—to buzz off and mind his own business. Now, I say that Sullivan traveled to Beijing for the purpose of “bullying” China. I say that because just before this trip the US announced sweeping and aggressive new sanctions against China. Apparently the US idea of “diplomacy” is to deploy sanctions, then offer to ameliorate them if the other party kowtows. How the Anglo-Zionists ever came to the idea that this approach would work with China is anyone’s guess. It didn’t work, and Sullivan admitted that there had been “no progress”.

There are today several articles that go into a number of angles on this whole China question. First is this article which contains an article that was written before Sullivan trip to Beijing. I’ll excerpt it briefly:

Beijing and Washington Clash Over Russia Sanctions

Posted on August 30, 2024 by Yves Smith

Yves here. We’re posting an article from US propaganda information outlet RFE/RFL below as a critical thinking exercise. The piece does wind up highlighting how the US idea of diplomacy seems to equate to coercion. The US imposed yet more sanctions on China, of companies the US depicts as supporting Russia’s war in Ukraine, right before Jake Sullivan went to Beijing for a summit. That visit which included a meeting with President Xi Jinping.

Readers will note that the RFE/RFL account, consistent with the headline we have reproduced above, focuses on China not cooperating with US sanctions on Russia, which China correctly depicts as illegal (by virtue of not having been approved by the UN). It does not mention US economic sanctions on China, particularly on chips and EV tariffs, which look to be to be mainly to try to stymie Chinese development.

By contrast, the stories on the English language Chinese outlet, Global Times, don’t even dignify the US carping about Russia with a mention. That reflects the Chinese position that China’s dealing with other countries are none of the US’ business. 

Global Times is, in effect, an official or semi-official reflection of China’s position in English, so it carries weight in reflecting the Chinese view. Here are the bullet points from the cited RFE/RFL article:

• The US imposed sanctions on Chinese firms believed to be supporting Russia’s war effort, leading to a diplomatic dispute ahead of Jake Sullivan’s visit to Beijing.

• Sullivan’s trip aims to address a range of issues including tensions in the South China Sea, China’s cooperation with Russia, and the conflict in the Middle East.

• Azerbaijan is strengthening ties with China through strategic partnerships and seeking membership in the Shanghai Cooperation Organization and BRICS group.

Sullivan made “no progress”—and it’s notable that that encompasses both Russia and the Middle East, because Russia and China have jointly reaffirmed their support for Iran. That means that any move against Iran will be a move against Russia and China. The point about Azerbaijan is also a setback for Anglo-Zionist efforts to use Azerbaijan against Russia.

The next two articles speak to Anglo-Zionist overreach in largely military terms. Again, I’ll excerpt briefly. Note the emphasis on the over focus on the Middle East which greatly weakens any pressure on China—well, we are talking about Anglo-Zionists, right?

America’s Enemies Have More Missiles Than U.S. Navy Warships Can Stop

The U.S. Navy faces a growing threat from anti-ship ballistic missiles (ASBMs) deployed by adversaries like China. These missiles, combined with swarm tactics, could overwhelm U.S. naval defenses, especially as the Navy remains overstretched with deployments primarily focused on the Middle East.

by Brandon J. Weichert

Summary and Key Points: The U.S. Navy faces a growing threat from anti-ship ballistic missiles (ASBMs) deployed by adversaries like China. These missiles, combined with swarm tactics, could overwhelm U.S. naval defenses, especially as the Navy remains overstretched with deployments primarily focused on the Middle East.

…

As military expert Harry Kazianis observed way back in 2013, when the anti-ship ballistic missile threat that America’s enemies posed to the Navy’s surface fleet was a fraction of what they pose today, “Think about it—could we someday see a scenario where American forces at sea with a fixed amount of defensive countermeasures facing an enemy with large numbers of cruise and ballistic weapons that have the potential to simply overwhelm them? Could a potential adversary fire off older weapons that are not as accurate, causing a defensive response that exhausts all available missile interceptors so more advanced weapons with better accuracy can deliver the crushing blow?”

That’s exactly what Iran and Hezbollah have done in their “demonstration” strikes on Israel—but without attempting a “crushing blow.”

Math always wins. America’s enemies have figured this out. China doesn’t need to match the U.S. Navy ship-for-ship. Indeed, that would be a waste of precious resources. Instead, China can seek to draw the U.S. Navy into a fight near its own anti-ship systems and U.S. warships with missile swarms.

The Navy, meanwhile, has become fixated on deterring an Iranian strike on Israel. It has deployed the bulk of its forces to the Greater Middle East. Although, but it is keeping a paltry two destroyers near the Red Sea.

Larry Johnson, humorously, likened the likely futility of the US effort to maintain a perpetual high alert surrounding Israel to use of Viagra.

The next article is briefer, and I’ll confine the excerpt to the conclusions:

Let’s Be Honest About Taiwan

The time in which we could have prepared to contest the island by force has passed.

The author begins by taking note of the various debates about whether or not China is a “threat” that must be “dealt with”. He concludes that these debates are largely irrelevant, simply because the US is not in any position to wage a conventional war against China. He goes on to discuss the woeful state of our Navy and also of our Merchant Marine—specifically in comparison with China. He then summarizes the position, hinting that it’s time to just get over Taiwan:

China-watching is a game for fools and fortune-tellers, but the word on the street is that Xi Jinping means to take Taiwan by the end of the decade—2027 gets thrown about a fair bit, with some of our professional seers saying the blow will come as early as 2025. If we accept this broad five-year range as something like the truth, it doesn’t matter whether the United States wants to go to war or not; we simply will not be able to. It isn’t merely a matter of the certain decline that attends a power entering a war for which it is fundamentally unprepared, a la the British Empire in 1938. The invasion will be over by time we put sufficient assets in the neighborhood—or even by time we have assets to put in the neighborhood. To contest the matter on the field of battle, we would have had to begin serious preparations the better part of a decade ago, and we are simply out of time.

The question then is how to reduce the upside for China and the downside for the U.S. The American classics, sanctions and proxy war, will get trotted out. Sanctions do not have what you’d call a track record of success in accomplishing their stated policy goals, and, unlike Russia, China is in a position to levy actually painful countersanctions against the U.S. Proxy wars have their own risks, and the American arsenal is significantly thinner than it was in 2022. Nor does it look as if it will replenish meaningfully as we continue our escapades in Eastern Europe and the great, blood-drenched sandbox of the Middle East. 

The inertia and dysfunction of the American defense establishment have proven insurmountable; it is not clear that anyone in that establishment is especially interested in trying something new. At this writing, roughly a third of American naval assets are in the Middle East, and there is not a single aircraft carrier in the Western Pacific—a nice snapshot of existing priorities and readiness.

American policymakers should begin to consider policies to ameliorate the effects on the U.S. of a Taiwan invasion. Acting as if war is a viable policy is fantasy, nothing more or less.