I’ll be taking a bit of a mental health day, so to start things off I want to point to two not-too-long but insightful posts that discuss the dynamics of what Pelosi did, and its effects going forward.Thanks for reading Meaning In History! Subscribe for free to receive new posts and support my work.
The Russians and Chinese literally refuse to believe the American foreign policy establishment could be so stupendously stupid. Sounds like as good an epitaph for the Empire’s tombstone as I’ve heard so far.
In the above-linked article, Thomas L. Friedman of the NYT spins the Biden Administration's position on Mrs Pelosi's excellent adventure (published before she touched down in Taipei).
While Friedman’s article is mostly about the folly of Pelosi’s adventure in Taiwan, the article opens with a fairly straightforward and unambiguous outline of U.S. foreign policy. I found it fascinating, as it seemingly transparently describes our current over-arching foreign policy, presumably as informed directly by ‘senior U.S. officials’. Read on, and you can decide whether it is a policy based on reality, whether it is a policy likely to succeed, and whether it is a policy you can support based on your own view of the state of the world and its likely consequences.
Friedman reports that he has been told by ‘senior U.S. officials’ that the U.S.’s Number #1 foreign policy goal is to ensure that Ukraine is able to stop, and, if possible’, reverse, Russia’s ‘unprovoked invasion’ of Ukraine, which, it is claimed, poses ‘a direct threat to the stability of the whole European Union’. If this is true, I suppose the U.S. officials would have to view the Ukrainian conflict as also posing a direct threat to the stability of the entire world. Unsurprisingly, Russia’s view of the United States’ Ukraine policy is apparently not a factor in our policy.
Friedman reports that the U.S. and NATO are backing this effort by giving Ukraine ‘intelligence support and a significant number of advanced weapons’, which ‘have done serious damage’ to Russia’s military, which, he reports, leads to the possibility that Ukraine might eventually prevail, ostensibly because ‘Putin’s arsenal has been diminished by five months of grinding war’. There is no mention, of course, of the alternative view, espoused by observers like Alexander Mercouris and Douglas Macgregor that Ukraine is losing the war and that Russia retains sufficient economic and military resources to decisively win the war.
Notwithstanding our support, however, Friedman does warn that U.S. officials have advised him that there is apparently growing and ‘deep mistrust’ between the White House and Zelensky. He says that ‘[i]t is as if we don’t want to look too closely under the hood in Kyiv for fear of what corruption or antics we might see, when we have invested so much there.’ He also warns that the conflict is fraught with uncertainties, given that ‘dangerous surprises that can pop out on any given day’. And, U.S. officials further warn that Putin would ‘consider using a small nuclear weapon against Ukraine if he sees his army facing certain defeat’. Friedman does not explain how beneficial to the U.S. our support for Ukraine might turn out to be if it is sabotaged by Ukrainian corruption or ‘antics’ or results in dangerous surprises, including the possible use of nuclear weapons.
To further our policy goals Friedman reports that the crack U.S. foreign policy team of Joe Biden and Jake Sullivan have apparently recently held ‘a series of very tough meetings with China’s leadership’, where they have implored Beijing to help the US defeat Russia ‘by not providing military assistance to Russia.’ (Its hard to see how ‘tough’ these meetings could have been if we were ‘imploring’.)
To back up his entreaties, Biden apparently warned Xi that if China ‘enter[s] the war’ in Ukraine on Russia’s side, it would be risking access to its ‘two most important export markets — the United States and the European Union’. Friedman was apparently told that China has thus far not provided military aid to Putin – whether or not this is the result of Biden’s imploring is unclear. But he does not explain whether growing Chinese and Russian trade, and other indicia of Russian-Chinese cooperation is not in effect Chinese support for Russia and whether specific Chinese ‘military aid’ is something that Russia has actually requested or needs. Nor does he explain what leverage the U.S. has to impose trade restrictions on China given the enormous amount of current and necessary imports which the U.S. cannot source from any place other than China and especially given the looming impact of a global recession.
It is in the light of this foreign policy, Friedman writes, that Pelosi’s visit to Taiwan ‘against President Biden’s wishes’ and ‘is utterly reckless, dangerous and irresponsible’.
Since its my view that the Pelosi trip was nothing more than political theater for U.S. voter consumption, I’m not too concerned about the consequences of her visit for U.S./China/Taiwan relations. In my opinion, these will unfold in the coming weeks and months and years regardless of Nancy Pelosi. But I did find Friedman’s recitation of U.S. foreign policy as it relates to Ukraine sobering and chilling, since it suggests that we are indisputably in this war and we are in it, as Lindsey Graham has said, until the last Ukrainian dies or until Putin fires off a nuke, because, we are told, the stability of the European Union, and thus the world, is at stake. Even though we don’t trust the deeply corrupt government of Ukraine…or its ‘antics’, whatever that means.
Friedman's piece is thus very informative, and very disturbing.
Friedman is living in some alternative reality--not the one that exists on this planet.
1. If Europe really were in an existential war with Russia, as he says or repeats, Europe would be fighting for themselves or supplying Ukraine with weaponry. All accounts indicate that the US is the only country providing anything remotely like effective aid--and that in insufficient amounts. Other countries are largely dumping obsolete equipment (Polish T-72s, which are inferior to the Ukrainian T-62s, etc.) on the promise of updated US equipment in the future. Germany is reneging on the deal the Poles thought they had to replace the T-72s with Leopards 2s. Nothing has been done to challenge Russian air superiority.
2. There have been repeated *confirmed* reports of Ukrainian units refusing to fight and unilaterally pulling back because of lack of equipment with which to counter Russian artillery. That is not the sign of an army that's about to win--not now, not ever.
3. The true, and stated, US foreign policy is that the world should be a unipolar (US) rules based order. That unrealistic policy is what is the direct threat to stability. The engagement of US military officers directing strikes that include civilian targets--per Amnesty International--has been called out by the Russians. It's not smart but, yes, "we are indisputably in this war."
4. Meanwhile Ukrainian leadership is riven by multiple divisions and internal squabbles. There are disagreements over strategy between Zelensky and the military and between the military and NATO. We tried the strategy of replacing allied leaders during a war with Diem, and it didn't turn out well then--nor is it likely to turn out well now. The Europeans, now also including the UK, are finding ever more ways to gut the sanctions, while Russia for its part tightens the screws as multiple European governments topple.
5. The notion of China providing Russia military aid is utterly daft. Russia is the supplier of military aid to China. Russia has vast manufacturing capabilities in the military field and vast inventories of equipment and munitions--unlike the West.
6. If Russia were feeling pressure they'd be returning phone calls. Instead the US finds itself resorting to op-eds and unusual public states trying to elicit a response from Russia. Russia essentially ignores it all or provides only perfunctory responses that reject our premises.
Mark: I agree with everything you've said. I hope that's not surprising.
My point was that Friedman characterizes everything he wrote which I've summarized - everything - as the foreign policy of the United States as told to him by ‘senior U.S. officials’.
If this is accurate it is not Friedman who is living in some alternative reality, as you correctly put it, but the ‘senior U.S. officials’ who briefed him and presumably the President of the United States who has approved this policy.
If the policy and actions of the United States Government as summarized by Friedman is not accurate, then Friedman is lying.
Ok, off topic, but could someone explain to me how Chris Wray still has a job. I watched some of his testimony today, that is until I nearly smashed my phone! I mean the guy won’t answer a question of any kind and no one up there has the spine to call the guy out. And when Ted Cruz said that he didn’t think Wray personally subscribed to the current politicized nature of the FBI, I thought, well he’s the fricken director, how is that possible? It’s hard to watch this stuff and not lose your sanity.
Mark Twain was right when he described Congress a body with tongues so handy and information so uncertain.
The incompetent hoyden strikes again! So what if it’s destabilizing, so what if this bit of grandstanding makes it hard for Taiwan to function normally! She left and won’t be back, so it’s no skin off of her nose.
It absolutely terrifies me to think that this woman is anywhere in the line of succession.
Well, at least we know that the real reason the Chinese got so upset is because she’s a woman! Someone want to explain to me how she was able to make make that assertion? I didn’t think any democrat could define what a woman is. I’m confused.
A new Gallup poll has found that a mere 1 per cent of Americans view Russia as a major problem, with far more concern expressed about inflation, bad governance and the state of the economy. Shortly after Russia’s invasion, the issue was seen as a top priority, but now just 1 per cent of Americans believe it is the most important issue facing the nation. In contrast, 17 per cent of Americans see inflation as the most important problem right now, along with 17 per cent who say it’s bad government and 12 per cent concerned about the economy
A positive of the Assange / Bradley Manning / Wikileaks release of the secret us diplomatic cables, was it showed what the us said in public, it also said privately.
I’m still not understanding the why of the Pelosi visit. It seemed designed to deliberately embarrass China with the timing. My guess was Pelosi thought it would generate lots of positive press, and replicate her Kiev, Ukraine photo op.
Taiwan’s Green Party is happy to provoke China, and show how bad China is. And a positive of this snafu is Pelosi gets the blame. They figure China wants to take over Taiwan, and they are trying to prevent that from happening. So they are focused on quietly reducing economic ties to China, and building up the Taiwan military.
As I said on another thread a couple days ago, and firmly believe:
Cassander
Aug 2
And therein lies the purpose of Pelosi's visit. There are enough 'conservatives' out there who support the show of American 'power' in Ukraine and now Taiwan that a little tub thumping may earn her a few votes and mitigate the disaster facing Pelosi and Biden in November.
Remember: as Putin teaches us, all American politics is for domestic consumption.
Also, don't forget: China owns the Big Guy. He isn't going to ever rock that boat. Words for domestic political consumption...maybe...but outright harm to China? No way. They paid him far too much and they know far too much for that to ever happen. Imagine if the CCP ever told the world what they know about Hunter and the Big Guy.
Expanding on that comment, I would elaborate:
Pelosi's visit was entirely for US domestic political consumption. There was no geopolitical basis for it and the status of Taiwan, China and US relations is not - repeat, not - about to change. We are still far too dependent on commerce with China to start any kind of war with them. And China, for the time being, is too dependent on us. Taiwan is also too dependent on China and there is no immediate casus belli. It was all a lot of noise.
I have listened to Alexander Mercouris this morning on the subject. He believes Pelosi's clumsiness will ratchet up tensions in US/China/Taiwan relations. I'm not saying it won't, but I don't think it will materially affect these relations, especially in comparison to other geopolitical tensions arising from current US foreign policy.
I would add my strong belief that China owns Biden and he is not about to expose himself further on that score.
So why the noise? Pelosi and Biden are facing a disastrous wipeout in November. How to mitigate it? One way is to hustle up support from American 'patriots' who believe that US assertions of power are always justifiable. While its hard to believe the Dems can win this November on a Neocon platform there may well be individual races where a Dem can ward off defeat by claiming support for bellicose US positions in Ukraine, Taiwan, Kosovo, Afghanistan, etc.
I was struck by MAGA candidate Joe Kent's apparent loss on Tuesday in House District 3 in the State of Washington, where a Democrat may take anti-Trump Republican Jaime Herrera Beutler's seat in November. This is exactly the kind of race Pelosi might be looking at winning in November, and might well explain her apparent irrationality.
So Pelosi brings us a step closer to some kind of war just to save a few seats in November? The horrible truth is that she is evil and stupid enough to do just that.
Well...yes. Except IMO the Pelosi stunt was all Kabuki Theater for the easily impressed but low information American electorate. IMO the odds of any kind of hot war between the US and China, at least as far as Xi and Zhou are concerned, is...zero.
Don't you think Nutty Nancy and Xi and Zhou would readily do a little theater to incrementally minimize the MAGA crowd's success in November and in 2024? Which party do you think Xi would prefer to (retain) power in Washington?
PS -- in this respect Putin and Xi may have different preferences...
Yes, Trump gave them headaches and surely their complicity in Covid had the purpose of his removal.
But Trump brought the leviathan out of the shadows and it can't go back now. They want to subjugate the world to their techno-feudal dream. I don't know if China realized that or not..maybe they thought they had more time..whatever the case may be, I doubt they are trying to help Biden and his leviathan-handlers. But they are bound up in our economy and have a delicate path to tread before they are free of us.
That's basically my point. Short to medium term I don't see how the US and China can separate. Much less go to war. Longer term China's domestic markets will grow enormously and perhaps, eventually, far exceed ours. Then China may be able to 'subjugate the world' if that is in fact their goal.
Have you read Peter Zeihan's The Accidental Superpower?
Very plausible. However, China seems to have many goals: yes, keep Trump and Maga out, but also carry on with the overall aim of weakening America's economy.
I agree that China has many goals, including the ones you mention...as does Russia...and the EU...and the constituent parts of the EU...as does OPEC and OPEC+...and the BRICS...and the Moslem world. And the US. Etc.
Regarding China's failure to back up their immediate threats; I don't think anything the Chinese do is spontaneous, including the angry rhetoric we heard. It's entirely possible making such empty threats was a deliberate ploy to appear full of hot air while the real sucker punch will land some time from now when least expected. They've got plans afoot, of that there can be little doubt.
Thanks for the clarification, Amanda. The results will probably be more Chinese measures to hurt the US economy - something that both the CCP and the US Dems want.
Whether or not China can walk the talk is not for me to say. There's certainly reason to think they're not economically ready to divorce the US - Russia was ready.
But if the administration is looking for a Pearl Harbor moment and they do not receive it, then I consider that a victory, both for China and for American First.
On the one hand, China seems to pursue the silly zero Covid policy.
On the other hand, they famously used HCQ and counseled other nations to use is too, while on the other hand amplifying the deep state and mocking Trump for encouraging it.
"his military posturing will be aided by selected economic sanctions designed to remove the support for Taiwan's current pro-independence government:"
Economic sanctions rarely ever work. The sanctions against Russia have accomplished little, and I doubt anyone here is surprised by that. In all honesty, I doubt that China's sanctions on Taiwan over the visit by the old dingbat crazy lady will change a lot of Taiwanese minds.
The Pelosi visit was an act of folly and no responsible statesman would ever have condoned it. The Washington establishment simply lacks the basic diplomatic skills of conflict management that European statesmen had before World War I. back then it was understood that the goal was to manage Great Power disagreements in a manner that did not result in a Great Power War. This is like Beavis and Butt-Head playing with blasting caps. That said, I don't think China's response is likely to get them what they want, but we'll see.
Sanctions are a relative matter. While sanctions against Russia have accomplished little, that's because Russia isn't vulnerable to them. A relatively small island country like Taiwan is less able to establish economic independence like that of Russia and thus may be more vulnerable to targeted sanctions. Taiwan's economy, like that of SKorea and Japan, is highly dependent on China.
As for changing Taiwanese minds, China may not need to change that many minds. Polling on these issues suggests that the largest group of Taiwanese--perhaps a majority--simply would like to preserve the status quo:
As in other countries the polling results vary from poll to poll and from year to year, depending on a variety of factors. However, the status quo is exactly what Pelosi is upsetting. I'd also bet that neighboring countries such as SKorea, Japan, Philippines, Vietnam, Indonesia, Malaysia do not appreciate an increase in tensions.
BTW, you never responded when I provided links showing that Russia provides oil to China (in addition to gas) via two pipelines as well as by ship. And in large amounts. China also has huge storage capacity.
For some years now, China has thrown its weight around in ways that have increased the cohesion of its enemies, and I think this is likely to be another example. We'll see how this one goes. I expect it to backfire. If I'm wrong, and I have in the past not been infallible, you can have a big old gloat.
I'm aware that Russia provides China with oil. I do not believe that Russia can supply enough oil or grain to replace what China gets from all other sources. In my view, China has no credible military options against America or Japan, and an invasion of Taiwan would be something of a gamble, even if America stayed out. I think the danger of war with China, while greater than zero, is overstated. This does not, repeat not, constitute an endorsement of what passes for American policy these days.
One additional comment. Taiwan has been slack and negligent in preparing for its own defense. If Taiwan will not require military service of its youth, then I doubt the average American would be willing to send American kids to do the dying.
I don't know why the image of me gloating keeps coming up in your comments. Whatever ...
"I do not believe that Russia can supply enough oil or grain to replace what China gets from all other sources."
Sources? Russia is the largest exporter of grain in the world. China is a very large producer. Among grain importing countries China ranks #3, at about 4.6%, down among countries with a fraction of its population. Similarly with oil. Russia has large reserves--much larger than the US--but consumes only a tiny fraction of what we do. Russia was #2 exporter of oil to China last year, probably #1 this year. You suppose that the US can enforce a world oil embargo on China. I think that's a major stretch, given that we can't even keep the EU in line with oil sanctions against Russia. As I said before, a US-China war would harm our "allies" as much as it would harm China. Doesn't mean it wouldn't happen, but would likely be our choice.
"China has thrown its weight around in ways that have increased the cohesion of its enemies"
But the US has thrown its weight around in ways that have increased the cohesion not only of Russia and China--which certainly outweighs our allies--but also has drawn other major countries away. After a brief flirtation under Trump, India has returned to Russia as its major arms supplier. Turkey is drifting away from NATO--buying arms from Russia. Iran is moving into alignment with Russia. KSA and Egypt are also moving in that direction. Meanwhile the EU is fragmenting.
True, but not relevant to the point I was making. Taiwan had to expect some sort of reaction from China to the Pelosi visit, but they went ahead anyway, and what we've seen so far doesn't strike me as something that would make Taiwan regret its actions. Being deprived of sand is a hardship, I suppose, but it strikes me as a violation of Machiavelli's warning about doing a man a small injury. (True of most sanctions, actually.) Ineffective sanctions, which is what I suspect these are, may have the effect of hardening Taiwan's resolve, just as ineffective sanctions on Russia likely hardened their resolve.
Partly disagree. I think the opposition to China is not cohesive; it's ambivalent at best. Many countries are forced to trade with China but don't like her. Others recognize that China is the new superpower and play along. Yet other nations like the fact that China is peeing off the US. As for war, China can defeat America without it. Like Putin, all they have to do is wait while the US (and the West in general) disintegrates under its own insanity.
Taiwan is politically divided, and the major Taiwan media is aligned with the KMT / Blue Party. And foreign media gets its news from the local major media. It’s very incestrious.
And rumor is China has through various means, good access into the local large media.
China has already played the sanctions card on Taiwan under a previous President, so there was not much left.
The alternate media, youtube etc., is big in Taiwan. Lots of talk shows, Green Party.
Nevertheless, if you look at the total popular votes for Pan Green (pro Taiwan Statehood) v. Pan Blue and others that support either status quo or some type of reunification (i.e., oppose statehood) you'll find that the popular division is not nearly as lopsided as one might suppose from the Yuan seat counts. In fact, you might find that the popular vote mirrors most of the polls.
The state of opinion is not simple, and certainly not simply pro-statehood/independence. It depends and is more likely subject to very pragmatic considerations, as one might expect.
The Taiwan pro unification faction took a huge blow with China’s actions in Hong Kong, as well as Chinas other bullying activities, such as having Who ostracize them.
The only faction overwhelmingly favoring fighting China if attacked, are the Greens. Yet, the Military historically is allied with the Blue (KMT) party.
My take is the Taiwan President is the super star of her party.
I’m surprised Taiwan is still in Covid Hysteria mode.
Absolutely spot-on, especially the part about Neocon "diplomacy." It's almost as if our entire leadership never learned their schoolyard lessons of working things out in a chaotic world so we can all get along. Indeed, Tony Blinken and crew strike me as precisely the types who stayed indoors with the teacher at recess because the boys were "roughhousing." Zero real-world skills.
Enjoy your mental health day. Well-earned, as it's a boost to my own mental health knowing there are still sane, clear-eyed analysts out there.
It's hardly surprising that there are so many conspiracy theories in the air. Surely they can't be this stupid, is what most people think. There has to be some secret plan!
Point 3 is the key one. Most of our antibiotics are produced in China, as are a whole host of other vital things. A key diplomatic goal of the West should have been tattooed on the heads of its leaders: don't piss off Russia or China!
The Russians and Chinese literally refuse to believe the American foreign policy establishment could be so stupendously stupid. Sounds like as good an epitaph for the Empire’s tombstone as I’ve heard so far.
https://archive.ph/FCytl#selection-325.0-325.3
In the above-linked article, Thomas L. Friedman of the NYT spins the Biden Administration's position on Mrs Pelosi's excellent adventure (published before she touched down in Taipei).
While Friedman’s article is mostly about the folly of Pelosi’s adventure in Taiwan, the article opens with a fairly straightforward and unambiguous outline of U.S. foreign policy. I found it fascinating, as it seemingly transparently describes our current over-arching foreign policy, presumably as informed directly by ‘senior U.S. officials’. Read on, and you can decide whether it is a policy based on reality, whether it is a policy likely to succeed, and whether it is a policy you can support based on your own view of the state of the world and its likely consequences.
Friedman reports that he has been told by ‘senior U.S. officials’ that the U.S.’s Number #1 foreign policy goal is to ensure that Ukraine is able to stop, and, if possible’, reverse, Russia’s ‘unprovoked invasion’ of Ukraine, which, it is claimed, poses ‘a direct threat to the stability of the whole European Union’. If this is true, I suppose the U.S. officials would have to view the Ukrainian conflict as also posing a direct threat to the stability of the entire world. Unsurprisingly, Russia’s view of the United States’ Ukraine policy is apparently not a factor in our policy.
Friedman reports that the U.S. and NATO are backing this effort by giving Ukraine ‘intelligence support and a significant number of advanced weapons’, which ‘have done serious damage’ to Russia’s military, which, he reports, leads to the possibility that Ukraine might eventually prevail, ostensibly because ‘Putin’s arsenal has been diminished by five months of grinding war’. There is no mention, of course, of the alternative view, espoused by observers like Alexander Mercouris and Douglas Macgregor that Ukraine is losing the war and that Russia retains sufficient economic and military resources to decisively win the war.
Notwithstanding our support, however, Friedman does warn that U.S. officials have advised him that there is apparently growing and ‘deep mistrust’ between the White House and Zelensky. He says that ‘[i]t is as if we don’t want to look too closely under the hood in Kyiv for fear of what corruption or antics we might see, when we have invested so much there.’ He also warns that the conflict is fraught with uncertainties, given that ‘dangerous surprises that can pop out on any given day’. And, U.S. officials further warn that Putin would ‘consider using a small nuclear weapon against Ukraine if he sees his army facing certain defeat’. Friedman does not explain how beneficial to the U.S. our support for Ukraine might turn out to be if it is sabotaged by Ukrainian corruption or ‘antics’ or results in dangerous surprises, including the possible use of nuclear weapons.
To further our policy goals Friedman reports that the crack U.S. foreign policy team of Joe Biden and Jake Sullivan have apparently recently held ‘a series of very tough meetings with China’s leadership’, where they have implored Beijing to help the US defeat Russia ‘by not providing military assistance to Russia.’ (Its hard to see how ‘tough’ these meetings could have been if we were ‘imploring’.)
To back up his entreaties, Biden apparently warned Xi that if China ‘enter[s] the war’ in Ukraine on Russia’s side, it would be risking access to its ‘two most important export markets — the United States and the European Union’. Friedman was apparently told that China has thus far not provided military aid to Putin – whether or not this is the result of Biden’s imploring is unclear. But he does not explain whether growing Chinese and Russian trade, and other indicia of Russian-Chinese cooperation is not in effect Chinese support for Russia and whether specific Chinese ‘military aid’ is something that Russia has actually requested or needs. Nor does he explain what leverage the U.S. has to impose trade restrictions on China given the enormous amount of current and necessary imports which the U.S. cannot source from any place other than China and especially given the looming impact of a global recession.
It is in the light of this foreign policy, Friedman writes, that Pelosi’s visit to Taiwan ‘against President Biden’s wishes’ and ‘is utterly reckless, dangerous and irresponsible’.
Since its my view that the Pelosi trip was nothing more than political theater for U.S. voter consumption, I’m not too concerned about the consequences of her visit for U.S./China/Taiwan relations. In my opinion, these will unfold in the coming weeks and months and years regardless of Nancy Pelosi. But I did find Friedman’s recitation of U.S. foreign policy as it relates to Ukraine sobering and chilling, since it suggests that we are indisputably in this war and we are in it, as Lindsey Graham has said, until the last Ukrainian dies or until Putin fires off a nuke, because, we are told, the stability of the European Union, and thus the world, is at stake. Even though we don’t trust the deeply corrupt government of Ukraine…or its ‘antics’, whatever that means.
Friedman's piece is thus very informative, and very disturbing.
Friedman is living in some alternative reality--not the one that exists on this planet.
1. If Europe really were in an existential war with Russia, as he says or repeats, Europe would be fighting for themselves or supplying Ukraine with weaponry. All accounts indicate that the US is the only country providing anything remotely like effective aid--and that in insufficient amounts. Other countries are largely dumping obsolete equipment (Polish T-72s, which are inferior to the Ukrainian T-62s, etc.) on the promise of updated US equipment in the future. Germany is reneging on the deal the Poles thought they had to replace the T-72s with Leopards 2s. Nothing has been done to challenge Russian air superiority.
2. There have been repeated *confirmed* reports of Ukrainian units refusing to fight and unilaterally pulling back because of lack of equipment with which to counter Russian artillery. That is not the sign of an army that's about to win--not now, not ever.
3. The true, and stated, US foreign policy is that the world should be a unipolar (US) rules based order. That unrealistic policy is what is the direct threat to stability. The engagement of US military officers directing strikes that include civilian targets--per Amnesty International--has been called out by the Russians. It's not smart but, yes, "we are indisputably in this war."
4. Meanwhile Ukrainian leadership is riven by multiple divisions and internal squabbles. There are disagreements over strategy between Zelensky and the military and between the military and NATO. We tried the strategy of replacing allied leaders during a war with Diem, and it didn't turn out well then--nor is it likely to turn out well now. The Europeans, now also including the UK, are finding ever more ways to gut the sanctions, while Russia for its part tightens the screws as multiple European governments topple.
5. The notion of China providing Russia military aid is utterly daft. Russia is the supplier of military aid to China. Russia has vast manufacturing capabilities in the military field and vast inventories of equipment and munitions--unlike the West.
6. If Russia were feeling pressure they'd be returning phone calls. Instead the US finds itself resorting to op-eds and unusual public states trying to elicit a response from Russia. Russia essentially ignores it all or provides only perfunctory responses that reject our premises.
Mark: I agree with everything you've said. I hope that's not surprising.
My point was that Friedman characterizes everything he wrote which I've summarized - everything - as the foreign policy of the United States as told to him by ‘senior U.S. officials’.
If this is accurate it is not Friedman who is living in some alternative reality, as you correctly put it, but the ‘senior U.S. officials’ who briefed him and presumably the President of the United States who has approved this policy.
If the policy and actions of the United States Government as summarized by Friedman is not accurate, then Friedman is lying.
Neither result is good.
Right. I wasn't disagreeing with you.
Ok, off topic, but could someone explain to me how Chris Wray still has a job. I watched some of his testimony today, that is until I nearly smashed my phone! I mean the guy won’t answer a question of any kind and no one up there has the spine to call the guy out. And when Ted Cruz said that he didn’t think Wray personally subscribed to the current politicized nature of the FBI, I thought, well he’s the fricken director, how is that possible? It’s hard to watch this stuff and not lose your sanity.
Mark Twain was right when he described Congress a body with tongues so handy and information so uncertain.
The incompetent hoyden strikes again! So what if it’s destabilizing, so what if this bit of grandstanding makes it hard for Taiwan to function normally! She left and won’t be back, so it’s no skin off of her nose.
It absolutely terrifies me to think that this woman is anywhere in the line of succession.
Well, at least we know that the real reason the Chinese got so upset is because she’s a woman! Someone want to explain to me how she was able to make make that assertion? I didn’t think any democrat could define what a woman is. I’m confused.
https://redstate.com/streiff/2022/08/04/south-korean-president-snubs-nancy-pelosi-as-us-power-in-the-pacific-drains-away-n606892
We Can Shut Down Churches and Schools For a Virus, But Not Bathhouses?
https://redstate.com/kiradavis/2022/08/04/we-can-shut-down-churches-and-schools-for-a-virus-but-not-bathhouses-n606931
A new Gallup poll has found that a mere 1 per cent of Americans view Russia as a major problem, with far more concern expressed about inflation, bad governance and the state of the economy. Shortly after Russia’s invasion, the issue was seen as a top priority, but now just 1 per cent of Americans believe it is the most important issue facing the nation. In contrast, 17 per cent of Americans see inflation as the most important problem right now, along with 17 per cent who say it’s bad government and 12 per cent concerned about the economy
A positive of the Assange / Bradley Manning / Wikileaks release of the secret us diplomatic cables, was it showed what the us said in public, it also said privately.
I’m still not understanding the why of the Pelosi visit. It seemed designed to deliberately embarrass China with the timing. My guess was Pelosi thought it would generate lots of positive press, and replicate her Kiev, Ukraine photo op.
Taiwan’s Green Party is happy to provoke China, and show how bad China is. And a positive of this snafu is Pelosi gets the blame. They figure China wants to take over Taiwan, and they are trying to prevent that from happening. So they are focused on quietly reducing economic ties to China, and building up the Taiwan military.
As I said on another thread a couple days ago, and firmly believe:
Cassander
Aug 2
And therein lies the purpose of Pelosi's visit. There are enough 'conservatives' out there who support the show of American 'power' in Ukraine and now Taiwan that a little tub thumping may earn her a few votes and mitigate the disaster facing Pelosi and Biden in November.
Remember: as Putin teaches us, all American politics is for domestic consumption.
Also, don't forget: China owns the Big Guy. He isn't going to ever rock that boat. Words for domestic political consumption...maybe...but outright harm to China? No way. They paid him far too much and they know far too much for that to ever happen. Imagine if the CCP ever told the world what they know about Hunter and the Big Guy.
Expanding on that comment, I would elaborate:
Pelosi's visit was entirely for US domestic political consumption. There was no geopolitical basis for it and the status of Taiwan, China and US relations is not - repeat, not - about to change. We are still far too dependent on commerce with China to start any kind of war with them. And China, for the time being, is too dependent on us. Taiwan is also too dependent on China and there is no immediate casus belli. It was all a lot of noise.
I have listened to Alexander Mercouris this morning on the subject. He believes Pelosi's clumsiness will ratchet up tensions in US/China/Taiwan relations. I'm not saying it won't, but I don't think it will materially affect these relations, especially in comparison to other geopolitical tensions arising from current US foreign policy.
I would add my strong belief that China owns Biden and he is not about to expose himself further on that score.
So why the noise? Pelosi and Biden are facing a disastrous wipeout in November. How to mitigate it? One way is to hustle up support from American 'patriots' who believe that US assertions of power are always justifiable. While its hard to believe the Dems can win this November on a Neocon platform there may well be individual races where a Dem can ward off defeat by claiming support for bellicose US positions in Ukraine, Taiwan, Kosovo, Afghanistan, etc.
I was struck by MAGA candidate Joe Kent's apparent loss on Tuesday in House District 3 in the State of Washington, where a Democrat may take anti-Trump Republican Jaime Herrera Beutler's seat in November. This is exactly the kind of race Pelosi might be looking at winning in November, and might well explain her apparent irrationality.
So Pelosi brings us a step closer to some kind of war just to save a few seats in November? The horrible truth is that she is evil and stupid enough to do just that.
Well...yes. Except IMO the Pelosi stunt was all Kabuki Theater for the easily impressed but low information American electorate. IMO the odds of any kind of hot war between the US and China, at least as far as Xi and Zhou are concerned, is...zero.
Don't you think Nutty Nancy and Xi and Zhou would readily do a little theater to incrementally minimize the MAGA crowd's success in November and in 2024? Which party do you think Xi would prefer to (retain) power in Washington?
PS -- in this respect Putin and Xi may have different preferences...
I'm not so sure about that.
Yes, Trump gave them headaches and surely their complicity in Covid had the purpose of his removal.
But Trump brought the leviathan out of the shadows and it can't go back now. They want to subjugate the world to their techno-feudal dream. I don't know if China realized that or not..maybe they thought they had more time..whatever the case may be, I doubt they are trying to help Biden and his leviathan-handlers. But they are bound up in our economy and have a delicate path to tread before they are free of us.
That's basically my point. Short to medium term I don't see how the US and China can separate. Much less go to war. Longer term China's domestic markets will grow enormously and perhaps, eventually, far exceed ours. Then China may be able to 'subjugate the world' if that is in fact their goal.
Have you read Peter Zeihan's The Accidental Superpower?
https://www.amazon.com/Accidental-Superpower-Generation-American-Preeminence/dp/1455583685
Its not at all clear that long term world subjugation will be either our or China's goal.
Very plausible. However, China seems to have many goals: yes, keep Trump and Maga out, but also carry on with the overall aim of weakening America's economy.
I agree that China has many goals, including the ones you mention...as does Russia...and the EU...and the constituent parts of the EU...as does OPEC and OPEC+...and the BRICS...and the Moslem world. And the US. Etc.
I guess that's what keeps Mark in business. :-)
Sadly true. For US politicians there's nothing to lose, personally, and likely something tangible to gain by bashing foreign boogeymen.
Regarding China's failure to back up their immediate threats; I don't think anything the Chinese do is spontaneous, including the angry rhetoric we heard. It's entirely possible making such empty threats was a deliberate ploy to appear full of hot air while the real sucker punch will land some time from now when least expected. They've got plans afoot, of that there can be little doubt.
From the MoA article and Mark's summary, I think the Chinese are actually backing up their words.
I was referring their warnings regarding Pelosi's flight and threats of forcing it to land etc. But you're right - they're ramping up now.
Thanks for the clarification, Amanda. The results will probably be more Chinese measures to hurt the US economy - something that both the CCP and the US Dems want.
Having worked Chinese matters for about 12 years, I agree. The Chinese are not inclined to ad lib.
Whether or not China can walk the talk is not for me to say. There's certainly reason to think they're not economically ready to divorce the US - Russia was ready.
But if the administration is looking for a Pearl Harbor moment and they do not receive it, then I consider that a victory, both for China and for American First.
Another interesting strand is the new Wuhan lockdown. Maybe they are trying to ween themselves off the US markets and screw the US economy too.
Interesting..
On the one hand, China seems to pursue the silly zero Covid policy.
On the other hand, they famously used HCQ and counseled other nations to use is too, while on the other hand amplifying the deep state and mocking Trump for encouraging it.
Clearly they are pursuing their own agenda.
"his military posturing will be aided by selected economic sanctions designed to remove the support for Taiwan's current pro-independence government:"
Economic sanctions rarely ever work. The sanctions against Russia have accomplished little, and I doubt anyone here is surprised by that. In all honesty, I doubt that China's sanctions on Taiwan over the visit by the old dingbat crazy lady will change a lot of Taiwanese minds.
The Pelosi visit was an act of folly and no responsible statesman would ever have condoned it. The Washington establishment simply lacks the basic diplomatic skills of conflict management that European statesmen had before World War I. back then it was understood that the goal was to manage Great Power disagreements in a manner that did not result in a Great Power War. This is like Beavis and Butt-Head playing with blasting caps. That said, I don't think China's response is likely to get them what they want, but we'll see.
Sanctions against Russia worked very well - for Russia.
Sanctions are a relative matter. While sanctions against Russia have accomplished little, that's because Russia isn't vulnerable to them. A relatively small island country like Taiwan is less able to establish economic independence like that of Russia and thus may be more vulnerable to targeted sanctions. Taiwan's economy, like that of SKorea and Japan, is highly dependent on China.
As for changing Taiwanese minds, China may not need to change that many minds. Polling on these issues suggests that the largest group of Taiwanese--perhaps a majority--simply would like to preserve the status quo:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Taiwan_independence_movement#Opinion_polls
https://www.taipeitimes.com/News/front/archives/2021/12/30/2003770419
As in other countries the polling results vary from poll to poll and from year to year, depending on a variety of factors. However, the status quo is exactly what Pelosi is upsetting. I'd also bet that neighboring countries such as SKorea, Japan, Philippines, Vietnam, Indonesia, Malaysia do not appreciate an increase in tensions.
BTW, you never responded when I provided links showing that Russia provides oil to China (in addition to gas) via two pipelines as well as by ship. And in large amounts. China also has huge storage capacity.
For some years now, China has thrown its weight around in ways that have increased the cohesion of its enemies, and I think this is likely to be another example. We'll see how this one goes. I expect it to backfire. If I'm wrong, and I have in the past not been infallible, you can have a big old gloat.
I'm aware that Russia provides China with oil. I do not believe that Russia can supply enough oil or grain to replace what China gets from all other sources. In my view, China has no credible military options against America or Japan, and an invasion of Taiwan would be something of a gamble, even if America stayed out. I think the danger of war with China, while greater than zero, is overstated. This does not, repeat not, constitute an endorsement of what passes for American policy these days.
One additional comment. Taiwan has been slack and negligent in preparing for its own defense. If Taiwan will not require military service of its youth, then I doubt the average American would be willing to send American kids to do the dying.
Why do you say China has no credible military options against America and Japan?
Like a comment below, I don't think China needs a war, and I'm confident that they know it.
But do you really think they can't fight us?
I don't know why the image of me gloating keeps coming up in your comments. Whatever ...
"I do not believe that Russia can supply enough oil or grain to replace what China gets from all other sources."
Sources? Russia is the largest exporter of grain in the world. China is a very large producer. Among grain importing countries China ranks #3, at about 4.6%, down among countries with a fraction of its population. Similarly with oil. Russia has large reserves--much larger than the US--but consumes only a tiny fraction of what we do. Russia was #2 exporter of oil to China last year, probably #1 this year. You suppose that the US can enforce a world oil embargo on China. I think that's a major stretch, given that we can't even keep the EU in line with oil sanctions against Russia. As I said before, a US-China war would harm our "allies" as much as it would harm China. Doesn't mean it wouldn't happen, but would likely be our choice.
"China has thrown its weight around in ways that have increased the cohesion of its enemies"
But the US has thrown its weight around in ways that have increased the cohesion not only of Russia and China--which certainly outweighs our allies--but also has drawn other major countries away. After a brief flirtation under Trump, India has returned to Russia as its major arms supplier. Turkey is drifting away from NATO--buying arms from Russia. Iran is moving into alignment with Russia. KSA and Egypt are also moving in that direction. Meanwhile the EU is fragmenting.
"But the US has thrown its weight around"
True, but not relevant to the point I was making. Taiwan had to expect some sort of reaction from China to the Pelosi visit, but they went ahead anyway, and what we've seen so far doesn't strike me as something that would make Taiwan regret its actions. Being deprived of sand is a hardship, I suppose, but it strikes me as a violation of Machiavelli's warning about doing a man a small injury. (True of most sanctions, actually.) Ineffective sanctions, which is what I suspect these are, may have the effect of hardening Taiwan's resolve, just as ineffective sanctions on Russia likely hardened their resolve.
Partly disagree. I think the opposition to China is not cohesive; it's ambivalent at best. Many countries are forced to trade with China but don't like her. Others recognize that China is the new superpower and play along. Yet other nations like the fact that China is peeing off the US. As for war, China can defeat America without it. Like Putin, all they have to do is wait while the US (and the West in general) disintegrates under its own insanity.
Taiwan is politically divided, and the major Taiwan media is aligned with the KMT / Blue Party. And foreign media gets its news from the local major media. It’s very incestrious.
And rumor is China has through various means, good access into the local large media.
China has already played the sanctions card on Taiwan under a previous President, so there was not much left.
The alternate media, youtube etc., is big in Taiwan. Lots of talk shows, Green Party.
Nevertheless, if you look at the total popular votes for Pan Green (pro Taiwan Statehood) v. Pan Blue and others that support either status quo or some type of reunification (i.e., oppose statehood) you'll find that the popular division is not nearly as lopsided as one might suppose from the Yuan seat counts. In fact, you might find that the popular vote mirrors most of the polls.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Politics_of_the_Republic_of_China#Legislative_elections
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_political_parties_in_Taiwan#Parties_with_national_or_local_representation
The state of opinion is not simple, and certainly not simply pro-statehood/independence. It depends and is more likely subject to very pragmatic considerations, as one might expect.
The Taiwan pro unification faction took a huge blow with China’s actions in Hong Kong, as well as Chinas other bullying activities, such as having Who ostracize them.
The only faction overwhelmingly favoring fighting China if attacked, are the Greens. Yet, the Military historically is allied with the Blue (KMT) party.
My take is the Taiwan President is the super star of her party.
I’m surprised Taiwan is still in Covid Hysteria mode.
Absolutely spot-on, especially the part about Neocon "diplomacy." It's almost as if our entire leadership never learned their schoolyard lessons of working things out in a chaotic world so we can all get along. Indeed, Tony Blinken and crew strike me as precisely the types who stayed indoors with the teacher at recess because the boys were "roughhousing." Zero real-world skills.
Enjoy your mental health day. Well-earned, as it's a boost to my own mental health knowing there are still sane, clear-eyed analysts out there.
It's hardly surprising that there are so many conspiracy theories in the air. Surely they can't be this stupid, is what most people think. There has to be some secret plan!
Point 3 is the key one. Most of our antibiotics are produced in China, as are a whole host of other vital things. A key diplomatic goal of the West should have been tattooed on the heads of its leaders: don't piss off Russia or China!
Yves Smith was quite vocal yesterday (?) about the many vital "choke points" that China possesses vis a vis the US.