Out Of The Frying Pan Into The Fire?

Civilized people have been celebrating the departure of a key Neocon, Victoria Nuland, from her position in the State Department. So far I’ve seen very little about who will replace Nuland. Today Geroman is claiming that Nuland will be replaced by a “China hawk”. The idea is that the Zhou regime is “pivoting to China” while trying to keep the war on Russia going by means of rhetoric and spending. Here’s what Geroman is saying—with some extra comments:

-- GEROMAN -- time will tell - 👀 -- @GeromanAT

Nuland was taken out for a reason - the new guy is a China hawk - Europe is now in full panic mode because they know that the war US=NATO has caused is now a European problem - good luck producing shells without cheap energy and basically zero own resources.

US used NATO to cut EU off cheap Russian energy - fertilizer - and other important resources.

To be a vassal of US regime comes with a price tag

Macron is afraid - like most of those "Western Leaders" in Europe - because US is shifting focus on China now - and the Russia / Ukraine project has failed epically - and now those idiots just learned that it is on them now to save the day.

Spoiler alert: NATO lost its dirty war… x.com/JBrowsing2023/…

1:45 PM · Mar 8, 2024

JuliusXXVI @JuliusXXVI

Tbh Nuland's replacement just happened to be down the list next in line. But he has a history of acting as the clean-up guy of failed US policies, if pattern is same that's what he'll do this time. US isn't even sending money anymore so project is over, they have no more policies

-- GEROMAN -- time will tell -  -- @GeromanAT

they could have chosen anyone but picked him - and yes - he is for the cleanup - but also a China hawk

You’ll notice that nobody is actually named. What I’ve read is that John Bass (also here) will be the interim replacement for Nuland, but Julianne Smith is being prepped to be the permanent replacement. Bass has a somewhat controversial record for aggressively interfering in the affairs of the countries he’s been stationed in, but I didn’t pick up any specific “China hawk” references.

There are some reasons to take Geroman’s thesis seriously, despite the increasingly bellicose anti-Russian rhetoric from Zhou and the collective West. For example, the US has closed a deal for basing in three Pacific island nations. This is not actually a sudden policy move—it was made possible long ago and the activation of this plan has been in the works for a while:

Five months behind schedule, the US Senate on Friday approved promised economic assistance for three allied Pacific island nations to blunt China's influence in the strategically vital region.

The delayed funding for the Marshall Islands, Micronesia and Palau under the Compacts of Free Association (Cofa) found its way through a US$460 billion appropriations package passed by the Senate hours before a midnight Friday deadline to narrowly avert a federal government shutdown.

…

First signed in the 1980s, the Cofa agreements provide the United States exclusive military access to strategic swathes of the western Pacific in exchange for economic help.

I wasn’t able to come up with a map that singled out these specific islands, but these two maps will give you an idea of what’s going on:

Basically, the US concept is to—optimally—blockade China inside the First Island Chain utilizing US bases and “allied” nations, stretching from Japan and Korea, Taiwan, the Philippines, and down to Malaysia. That first military chain of bases will be backed up by the Second and Third Island Chains further out in the Pacific. The need for the second and third island chains is dictated—as I understand it—by two factors. The first is to protect the US supply chain across the thousands of miles of the Pacific Ocean. The second is to intimidate Pacific island nations—the Solomon Islands come to mind—who might see their interests best served by establishing cordial relations with China. Predictably, China—which is heavily dependent on foreign trade and energy—isn’t inclined to sit back and allow the American Empire to establish a stranglehold over its economy, to be utilized at the pleasure of the US.

In other words, the American Empire is attempting to solve what is a fundamentally a trade and commerce problem caused by misguided US polices … by military force and intimidation. For the imperial mindset, every geopolitical issue has a military solution. Why not change the US policies that led to this, instead of blaming China? The ruling oligarchy of the American Empire—which enriched itself by outsourcing American industry—has simply too much money at stake. In essence, our ruling class wants to have its cake—obscene profits from our financialized economy—and eat it too—keep China in industrial servitude as the provider of inexpensive “stuff” that the US no longer makes. The interests of Americans, who are being gradually crushed by what the ruling class has done, are not a consideration for the ruling class. Nor is the increasingly obvious demoralization and decline of American society a consideration, since the ruling class feels secure in its own enclaves. This is what lies behind the American Empire’s pretty nakedly imperialistic adventures: enrichment of the ruling class through the projection of military force to control the world’s resources and trade routes. Virtually every military adventure you can name ultimately fits into this framework. And this is what accounts for the rise of BRICS.

Yesterday I briefly outlined my disagreement with Professor John Mearsheimer. Mearsheimer is of the view that the US should be on good terms with Russia—so that we can crush China without hinderance from stupid wars in Europe. In this view Russia would foolishly assume that, having crushed China, the American Empire would never pivot once again to crush Russia and loot it for its treasure chest of resources. YMMV, but I don’t think the Russians are that stupid—not even close. They’ve seen enough of our act. They get it that we can’t be trusted. Here’s what I wrote yesterday:

One thing I want to make clear. I don’t really agree with Mearsheimer regarding China. He characterizes China as a “peer competitor”. To the extent that China actually is such a competitor, however, I think that’s more due to America’s folly in pursuing the impossibility of becoming now and future World Hegemon. China has many problems that are at the core of its national existence. If America retrenches in the direction of pursuing its own limited national interests, China will end up not being anything like a “peer competitor.”

For that reason I also would take issue with the idea that America should regard China as a “threat”, as an “adversary”, or that “containing China [is] America's principal mission.” I can certainly agree that it’s foolish to push Russia into the arms of China. However, to the extent that China is perceived as a threat, I would maintain—as commenter Cassander did earlier today—that that is mostly do to the cynical and self interested policies of our ruling class in pursuing their own enrichment. Framing this issue as The China Threat simply diverts attention from the real issues and their real solutions.

Not long ago I heard Mearsheimer present his “optimistic” take on China US relations. He maintained that, by 2075, the US would be much more “powerful” than China. Why? Because, he said, the US population is growing while China’s is contracting. I was stunned at this statement, failing, as it did, to account for how America’s population is growing and the quality of the human capital that is causing that growth by walking across our borders.

Now, none of this is to say that the US should abandon all national security concerns with regard to China. However, I would suggest that national security for America begins at home. We are surrounded by thousands of miles of ocean. Rather than pursuing the impossible goal of projecting military might around the globe, we would be far better off scaling our objectives back to manageable proportions. That, and securing our home front against rampant foreign interests that are distorting our entire constitutional order. This is our true weakness. We need to build back the moral character of America if we want to influence the rest of the world, rather than relying on purely military force. Unfortunately, this sensible approach is opposed by our dominant ruling oligarchy. I’m not optimistic that the American people will be able to summon up the character to reclaim their country. Only a serious reverse on the foreign war and economic front may accomplish the needed turnaround.

Pivoting back, as it were, to our Euroweenie vassals, you have just shake your head at the stupidity they’re exhibiting. The UK continues to back attacks on Russia, Macron is drawing supposed “redlines” for Russia, and Poland’s new government, ignoring public opinion, is engaged in mindless provocation against its powerful neighbor. Read what Radek Sikorski (Mr. Anne Applebaum) said recently—presuming that Poland has total “asymmetric escalation” dominance over Russia, by keeping Russia guessing. Not kidding. Putin and Shoigu most be having a good laugh:

"In Korea in the 50s there was a coalition of UN countries that fought against aggression. So it can't be said that this is something unthinkable. So I appreciate the recent French initiative. Because there are good intentions behind it, namely, for the president of Russia to ask himself what our next step will be, so that he is not sure that we will not do anything creative, and therefore could not freely plan his scenarios. This ability of asymmetric escalation should also be on our side."

What comes through loud and clear is that the Globalist oligarchy gives not a fig for the subject population. Big Serge offered a humorous thread on this subject, with reference to Macron, but the same goes for the rest of these goofballs:

Big Serge @witte_sergei

The problem with bluffing is getting called.

Nothing about this threat even makes sense. If you think that Ukraine is worth fighting a war with Russia, you wouldn't set some weird redline where you pledge to intervene *after* Ukraine has been defeated.

The French Army has eight combat capable brigades (2 armored, 2 mech, 2 light armored, 1 mountain, 1 airborne). French force quality is fine, but this is an expeditionary force that's not built to slug it out in Eastern Europe.

One is reminded of Bismarck's famous quip that if the tiny peacetime British Army invaded Germany he would "simply have them arrested". Given immensely negative reaction from the rest of NATO to Macron's trial balloon, it's hard to see France trying to go it alone here.

The balance of things is that Macron is trying to make it look like he's taking a tough stance on Russia, knowing that the veto from Germany and America will prevent him from actually having to follow through. He can then say "I tried, but the Germans are cowards".

Threatening to enter the war if Russia gets to Odessa is basically like saying "you better not beat up my little brother, if you knock him unconscious I'm going to hit you." You wouldn't wait until your kid brother has already been pulverized to step in.