Today at Anti-War.com there were three items that, taken together, present a nice critique of the flawed geo-political thinking that has allowed the Neocons to perpetrate war after war around the world and has led America to the brink of nuclear war.
It is often advocated that Ukraine should not join NATO and remain neutral.
Why do I never hear the same argument, from the voices that advocate Ukraine's neutrality in order to guarantee peace, advocating about the need for Belarus to stay neutral. Russia used Belarus as a staging ground for invading Ukraine. Why is it ok for Belarus to be solidly in the Russian influence zone.? Why the difference?
If NATO should stay out of Ukraine, Russia stays out of Belarus. that would be fair, NOT?
BTW I liked Stockman's take on the German Greens: "That is to say, the road to "net zero" apparently wends its way through Moscow!"
Don't forget the attempted, and failed, "color revolution" in Belarus shortly before this war. Nuland only recently was bragging about her charge d'affaires having great contacts with the Belarus "opposition".
"And we use the term "non-Russian Europe" very precisely. What is the opposite of non-Russian Europe is the Russian-speaking precincts of Crimea, the Donbas and the Black Sea rim through Zaporizhzia, Kherson, and Odessa."
So, is the preferred outcome in the Ukraine conflict a split of Ukraine along the lines of the Stockman solution above? The entire Black Sea coast (including the still in Ukrainian control Odessa area), the Donbass and Crimea become part of Russia, the rest can be a sort of "independent" Ukraine, but neutral and no NATO involvement.
So, why would it not also be beneficial for the cause of Peace to de-conflict Belarus by requiring all Russian troops to leave Belarus permanently and require Belarus to be a non-aligned country, like Ukraine? It would create a combined neutral buffer-zone of Ukraine and Belarus between Western Europa and Russia, a good solution, no?
The fact is, the level of Russia‘s involvement / interference in Belarus and Ukraine has grown in direct proportion to NATOs eastward encroachment. The current war is but the logical conclusion of this process. Russia was not (and still is not) interested in directly ruling these dysfunctional states. But insofar as they represent a security threat by becoming pawns in the West’s geopolitical dream of destroying and dismembering the Russian Federation, the latter has had no choice.
You're not paying attention to history. Russia has been fighting off Western invasions since at least the Great Northern War, while at the same time fighting off the Tatars and Turks. That's why Russia wants the US to honor its guarantee that NATO--a supposedly defensive alliance--would not expand eastward after 1989. Every year since then the US has given Russia every reason to fear its intentions to encircle Russia and dismember it. That's what the attempted coups in Belarus, Kazakhstan, the attempted militarization of Georgia, the real coup in Kiev were all about. Russia would be foolish to accept your daft scheme, and Putin has explicitly stated that after years of trying he has come to the conclusion that the West--meaning, the US--will simply not keep its word. The attempted coup in Belarus illustrated the refusal of Neocons to stop meddling in Russian affairs, since it was clearly directed against Russian interests. The most recent example of the refusal of the US to honor agreements was the open statement by Merkel that the Minsk accords were simply designed to string Russia along, whereas Russia seriously sought to implement them. IOW, the Western commitments were lies, and it was all orchestrated by the US.
Belarus is a basically artificial creation as a nation, as is Ukraine in its post Cold War configuration. Belarus has never been "independent" prior to the end of the Cold War and is, in fact largely Russian speaking. Ukraine is also deeply divided and what we're witnessing is very much a civil war in which formerly Polish dominated areas are seeking to to impose their view of Ukrain-icity--by force of arms supplied by the US and in the service of a Nazi style ideology--on the rest of the lands that have largely been part of Russia as a matter of history.
Read some history. You may be surprised at what you learn.
A bit of perspective from my own experience growing up in the Netherlands in the 50's, 60's and early 70's:
I am often at a loss of words, after reading sentiments on this site by the author(s) as well as the commenters that Putin's demands are reasonable, that he tried to reason with the West and that he is a rational actor. Whereas everyone else from Ukraine to other European countries as well as the US are corrupt and liars and tied to NAZI's and they just don't understand that Russia had to invade Ukraine, because their National Security Preservation demanded it?
I was born and grew up in the Netherlands: 1953 -1976, after which I have lived in Canada and the US ever since.
I remember well the threat we lived under during that time, the sixties (Cuban Missile Crisis Time, I was nine years old at the time and remember sitting on the front steps of my house wondering if there would be a tomorrow? I was 15 when the Soviets in 1968 rolled their tanks into Prague and remember reading about it in the French newspapers during our summer vacation in Normandy), and the early seventies and the thought that the Soviets/Russians would eventually come for Rotterdam Harbor as they did not have an ice free one themselves. An uncle of mine even moved his whole family to Australia in the late seventies fearing Holland would be in the crosshairs if the Nukes started flying. Even in 1987 (2 years before the fall of the Berlin Wall) on a visit to family, a day before my flight back to the US, city-wide blaring alarms went off in The Hague for quite a long time, and I thought to myself: Jesus, here they (The Soviets/The Russians) come, and I will not be able to get my flight out tomorrow. It was a frightening thought.
The Soviets after WWII (and they basically are/were Russians and Putin is from the Soviet era) overstayed their welcome in Eastern Europe by about 45 years, and brutally so. So, the fact that many of those countries wanted to get the umbrella protection from NATO is the natural outflow of that brutal repression of the post WWII era. And yes, I will conflate the Soviets and the Russians here, they are somewhat different (a difference without a distinction), but still one and the same. Still an authoritarian dictatorship, Putin just ditched Marx/Lenin and Stalin for going to the Orthodox Russian Church at Easter and Christmas, that has good PR value and appeals to the ordinary Russian Psyche).
From my perspective, who the F#@% does Putin think he is, that he can even table such a demand that NATO pull back their extensions to pre-1997, especially since it is those countries like Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, Poland, Romania etc. who requested it.
Now Finland and Sweden are doing the same. Does Russia National Security Preservation demand he invade them as well. What kind logic is this?
Look, I am no lover of Biden, Blinken, Jake Sullivan and Nuland & Co, and throw in Angela Merkel for good measure, who sold Germanies Energy Dependence to Putin back in 2011, so Putin could hold Germany and by extension Europe hostage when that time came. (That time is here now)
But Putin wants to be the Czar of the Great Russian Empire, which includes large parts of Ukraine, Poland, Moldova, Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania. He pretty much laid it out in that video prior to the invasion of Ukraine. And the rest of Europe should just bend the knee to the Great Russian Empire and its Czar. He told the world so in his own words:
Ukraine is not a principal actor in this movie. They are playing the “cast of millions” part.
This is and always has been a power struggle between the current iteration of western empire and its favorite nemesis: Russia. That is the context in which it is being prosecuted, and defines the terms upon which it will be decided.
“Escalation” was always an essential parameter of the empire’s calculus. The dissolution and vassalization of continental Russia has never ceased to be the prime directive. The imperial suzerains simply failed to accurately perceive that the Russians possessed escalatory supremacy. They erroneously imagined themselves to be the irresistible force and dismissed the historical evidence that Russia is the immovable object.
I wonder how Wall Street is involved in all this activity - it can't be simply neocon delusions of adequacy running the show, considering Wall Street's role in both World Wars. The NSA has ears to hear, so NSA, what have you heard?
It's a real question. I've seen hints about that, but nothing solid. The expected big boost to energy and defense companies of all sorts would explain it.
Stockman’s hypothesis that the German Greens support war against Russia to push their green agenda using Russia as the scapegoat, and end cheap Russian energy, makes sense.
6. Law Firm specializes in appeals to very liberal 9th circuit
Author Bio:
Jim Jones is a Vietnam combat veteran who served eight years as Idaho attorney general (1983-1991) and 12 years as a justice on the Idaho Supreme Court (2005-2017). He is a regular contributor to The Hill.
(This is a pay-site, so you can't really read this article, but The Hill article pretty much mirrored this sentiment)
The author of this Boston Globe piece is Phillip K Verleger Jr. Mr. Verleger is a Cambridge MA economist, well published and connected to established news outlets and institutions, not some outlier wacko. You can find his analysis at the Council of Foreign Relations, Bloomberg, the NYT, The Brookings Institute and many others.
Philip K Verleger’s Profile | The New York Times, Bloomberg News, Financial Times Journalist | Muck Rack
I am sure that many people in the Biden White House as well as the Congress read the "The Hill" as well as the "Boston Globe" and take the Climate Crisis angle seriously.
Biden ran on phasing out Fossil Fuel.
My Take of the Elitist mindset: Ok, war bad, Putin maybe not so nice and ill-advised, but this war is ultimately good for the Cause of the Climate Crisis. So, following this reasoning to a possible conclusion (my words), why not keep it going as long as is necessary to allow for the Energy Transition Phase towards Renewables (BBB etc.) to mature, it will serve an "an infinitely more important result — averting worldwide climate disaster " (quote from The Hill )
John Kerry, a week after the invasion wanted to still work with Putin and hoped the war would not interfere with solving Climate Crisis cooperation with Russia.
The Climate Crisis Hysteria angle is definitely part of every decision the Biden Admin makes!
The neocon axis of evil would rather rule over a pile of radioactive ash, than cede any part of the Earth to another power. Those foolish idiots could not understand that when the Soviet union dissolved a perfect opportunity existed that would have allowed the U.S.A. , Russia, India and Europe to live in peace and prosperity.
There is no path to war. In 1914 all Europe went to war with bands playing and flags flying. Four years later the monarchies that were, weren't. After the 2020 election, J6, a suspension of the rule of law and widespread dissatisfaction our 'woke' military will rally their few thousand faithful and go off on some adventurism overseas. Yeah, sure. Did we win the war of the balloons?
The media promoted Russian Hoax that began with Trump has done well in providing cover for the Red Chinese infiltration of the USA. Reporting, for what it is, highlights Chinese agents that have burrowed into our national politics, economics, universities, even land purchases. We never hear of Russians being credibly named in any of these same serious intrusions into US sovereignty. There is, however, a plethora of reporting on CCP infiltration: The Biden 'think tank' financing at Penn, Hunter Biden's shady dealings with CCP corporation front men, Senator Feinstein's longtime driver, Rep. Swalwell's honeypot, recent stories of real estate buys near sensitive US military facilities, etc. And these are just what we know about through open-source reports.
Red China, unlike Russia, has a much greater appetite and military capability for annexing resource rich territories to secure its future energy and economic requirements.
The very illegal campaign contributions by Chinese agents to the Clinton campaign bought much more influence that one would have expected, given the relatively small dollars involved. WEIRD?
I don't see how America has been trying to contain China since WWII.
Also, it's a mistake to lump Trump's China policy with Biden's. Trump sought to rectify the trade imbalance out of concern for everyday Americans. Biden seeks a smackdown of China simply because they've gotten uppity. The former sought a rational policy for the long-term benefit of both parties; the other is merely enforcing colonial might.
Biden’s China efforts seems to be smoke and mirrors. Trump was taking impactful actions against China. China owns, oops I mean influences, for a minor cost (invitation only deals for Feinsteins husband, etc), a huge part of the US establishment from universities to the press to our politicians. Fang Fang targeted Swallwell while he was still a mayor.
I acknowledge China's "influence" on our politicians, Biden included.
Nevertheless, I daresay Biden's actions have been more than smoke and mirrors. The chip sanctions are very serious and, if China didn't have a plan B in place (Taiwan?), those sanctions could be heavy hitting.
But here is another difference between Trump and Biden: Trump used our economic muscle the way it ought to be used, to attempt to rectify the trade imbalance and address the industrial self-sufficiency side of serious national security concerns - an act of gamesmanship. Biden is using the computer chips as an asset in an undeclared military conflict - an act of brinkmanship.
My gut feeling is if they were too painful for China, they would have been gutted.
Chips are fungible. China has their semiconductor industry, not as advanced as Taiwan. But just knowing what is possible is huge for catching up. And the major semiconductor machine lithography manufacturer hq in Denmark, has been heavily spied on by China.
And part of the reason Taiwan has such a huge semiconductor industry, is us financials punishes investing in factories/ capital. Better to buy, than make. No capital costs.
“I note the exception of the current American regime that seems to want to destroy itself in order that its members may ascend to the status of global rulers, in company with the European elites, and traditional America be damned“ I’ve often wondered about such a suicidal lust in the mixed bag of Neocons, from the Clintons on down thru the Bush/O/Zhou regimes. Because what is the objective? Bear hugs w Zelensky? Stirring the pot in…Moldova? It’s beyond comprehension, and very scary, as Zhou’s dementia and accompanying hysteria and vitriol aint gonna get any better. Maybe Milley is losing sleep - per Breitbart he just acknowledged “negotiations, if we’re lucky..”
It is often advocated that Ukraine should not join NATO and remain neutral.
Why do I never hear the same argument, from the voices that advocate Ukraine's neutrality in order to guarantee peace, advocating about the need for Belarus to stay neutral. Russia used Belarus as a staging ground for invading Ukraine. Why is it ok for Belarus to be solidly in the Russian influence zone.? Why the difference?
If NATO should stay out of Ukraine, Russia stays out of Belarus. that would be fair, NOT?
BTW I liked Stockman's take on the German Greens: "That is to say, the road to "net zero" apparently wends its way through Moscow!"
Don't forget the attempted, and failed, "color revolution" in Belarus shortly before this war. Nuland only recently was bragging about her charge d'affaires having great contacts with the Belarus "opposition".
From the Stockman article:
"And we use the term "non-Russian Europe" very precisely. What is the opposite of non-Russian Europe is the Russian-speaking precincts of Crimea, the Donbas and the Black Sea rim through Zaporizhzia, Kherson, and Odessa."
So, is the preferred outcome in the Ukraine conflict a split of Ukraine along the lines of the Stockman solution above? The entire Black Sea coast (including the still in Ukrainian control Odessa area), the Donbass and Crimea become part of Russia, the rest can be a sort of "independent" Ukraine, but neutral and no NATO involvement.
Is that the solution for an enduring Peace?
Conceivably, yes.
Ok, got it.
So, why would it not also be beneficial for the cause of Peace to de-conflict Belarus by requiring all Russian troops to leave Belarus permanently and require Belarus to be a non-aligned country, like Ukraine? It would create a combined neutral buffer-zone of Ukraine and Belarus between Western Europa and Russia, a good solution, no?
The fact is, the level of Russia‘s involvement / interference in Belarus and Ukraine has grown in direct proportion to NATOs eastward encroachment. The current war is but the logical conclusion of this process. Russia was not (and still is not) interested in directly ruling these dysfunctional states. But insofar as they represent a security threat by becoming pawns in the West’s geopolitical dream of destroying and dismembering the Russian Federation, the latter has had no choice.
You're not paying attention to history. Russia has been fighting off Western invasions since at least the Great Northern War, while at the same time fighting off the Tatars and Turks. That's why Russia wants the US to honor its guarantee that NATO--a supposedly defensive alliance--would not expand eastward after 1989. Every year since then the US has given Russia every reason to fear its intentions to encircle Russia and dismember it. That's what the attempted coups in Belarus, Kazakhstan, the attempted militarization of Georgia, the real coup in Kiev were all about. Russia would be foolish to accept your daft scheme, and Putin has explicitly stated that after years of trying he has come to the conclusion that the West--meaning, the US--will simply not keep its word. The attempted coup in Belarus illustrated the refusal of Neocons to stop meddling in Russian affairs, since it was clearly directed against Russian interests. The most recent example of the refusal of the US to honor agreements was the open statement by Merkel that the Minsk accords were simply designed to string Russia along, whereas Russia seriously sought to implement them. IOW, the Western commitments were lies, and it was all orchestrated by the US.
Belarus is a basically artificial creation as a nation, as is Ukraine in its post Cold War configuration. Belarus has never been "independent" prior to the end of the Cold War and is, in fact largely Russian speaking. Ukraine is also deeply divided and what we're witnessing is very much a civil war in which formerly Polish dominated areas are seeking to to impose their view of Ukrain-icity--by force of arms supplied by the US and in the service of a Nazi style ideology--on the rest of the lands that have largely been part of Russia as a matter of history.
Read some history. You may be surprised at what you learn.
Thank you for the explanation.
A bit of perspective from my own experience growing up in the Netherlands in the 50's, 60's and early 70's:
I am often at a loss of words, after reading sentiments on this site by the author(s) as well as the commenters that Putin's demands are reasonable, that he tried to reason with the West and that he is a rational actor. Whereas everyone else from Ukraine to other European countries as well as the US are corrupt and liars and tied to NAZI's and they just don't understand that Russia had to invade Ukraine, because their National Security Preservation demanded it?
I was born and grew up in the Netherlands: 1953 -1976, after which I have lived in Canada and the US ever since.
I remember well the threat we lived under during that time, the sixties (Cuban Missile Crisis Time, I was nine years old at the time and remember sitting on the front steps of my house wondering if there would be a tomorrow? I was 15 when the Soviets in 1968 rolled their tanks into Prague and remember reading about it in the French newspapers during our summer vacation in Normandy), and the early seventies and the thought that the Soviets/Russians would eventually come for Rotterdam Harbor as they did not have an ice free one themselves. An uncle of mine even moved his whole family to Australia in the late seventies fearing Holland would be in the crosshairs if the Nukes started flying. Even in 1987 (2 years before the fall of the Berlin Wall) on a visit to family, a day before my flight back to the US, city-wide blaring alarms went off in The Hague for quite a long time, and I thought to myself: Jesus, here they (The Soviets/The Russians) come, and I will not be able to get my flight out tomorrow. It was a frightening thought.
The Soviets after WWII (and they basically are/were Russians and Putin is from the Soviet era) overstayed their welcome in Eastern Europe by about 45 years, and brutally so. So, the fact that many of those countries wanted to get the umbrella protection from NATO is the natural outflow of that brutal repression of the post WWII era. And yes, I will conflate the Soviets and the Russians here, they are somewhat different (a difference without a distinction), but still one and the same. Still an authoritarian dictatorship, Putin just ditched Marx/Lenin and Stalin for going to the Orthodox Russian Church at Easter and Christmas, that has good PR value and appeals to the ordinary Russian Psyche).
From my perspective, who the F#@% does Putin think he is, that he can even table such a demand that NATO pull back their extensions to pre-1997, especially since it is those countries like Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, Poland, Romania etc. who requested it.
Now Finland and Sweden are doing the same. Does Russia National Security Preservation demand he invade them as well. What kind logic is this?
Look, I am no lover of Biden, Blinken, Jake Sullivan and Nuland & Co, and throw in Angela Merkel for good measure, who sold Germanies Energy Dependence to Putin back in 2011, so Putin could hold Germany and by extension Europe hostage when that time came. (That time is here now)
But Putin wants to be the Czar of the Great Russian Empire, which includes large parts of Ukraine, Poland, Moldova, Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania. He pretty much laid it out in that video prior to the invasion of Ukraine. And the rest of Europe should just bend the knee to the Great Russian Empire and its Czar. He told the world so in his own words:
Will Schryver today:
https://imetatronink.substack.com/p/the-ontological-incoherence-of-american
Ukraine is not a principal actor in this movie. They are playing the “cast of millions” part.
This is and always has been a power struggle between the current iteration of western empire and its favorite nemesis: Russia. That is the context in which it is being prosecuted, and defines the terms upon which it will be decided.
“Escalation” was always an essential parameter of the empire’s calculus. The dissolution and vassalization of continental Russia has never ceased to be the prime directive. The imperial suzerains simply failed to accurately perceive that the Russians possessed escalatory supremacy. They erroneously imagined themselves to be the irresistible force and dismissed the historical evidence that Russia is the immovable object.
I wonder how Wall Street is involved in all this activity - it can't be simply neocon delusions of adequacy running the show, considering Wall Street's role in both World Wars. The NSA has ears to hear, so NSA, what have you heard?
It's a real question. I've seen hints about that, but nothing solid. The expected big boost to energy and defense companies of all sorts would explain it.
Stockman’s hypothesis that the German Greens support war against Russia to push their green agenda using Russia as the scapegoat, and end cheap Russian energy, makes sense.
Interesting article in The Hill form 12/26/22 along the same line of thinking:
"However, Putin’s ill-advised war may actually produce an infinitely more important result — averting worldwide climate disaster.""
From: https://thehill.com/opinion/energy-environment/3788025-the-war-in-ukraine-may-help-the-world-save-itself-from-climate-ruination/
What a strange article and author.
1. Accuses Putin of genocide
2. Seems to back the climate change narrative
3. Author is pro Biden
4. Author was treasurer for a Democratic ag candidate
5. Seems very eGOP and unhappy with “extreme” gop types. https://takebackidaho.com/about-take-back-idaho-pac/
6. Law Firm specializes in appeals to very liberal 9th circuit
Author Bio:
Jim Jones is a Vietnam combat veteran who served eight years as Idaho attorney general (1983-1991) and 12 years as a justice on the Idaho Supreme Court (2005-2017). He is a regular contributor to The Hill.
@Ray-SoCa
Indeed strange but not rare among the leftist Elite. Here is more along those lines from the Boston Globe:
"Putin may save us from global warming"
This is a headline in the Boston Globe from 03/03/22 by Phillip K Verleger Jr. (a mere 10 days after the invasion):
https://www.bostonglobe.com/2022/03/03/opinion/putin-may-save-us-global-warming/
(This is a pay-site, so you can't really read this article, but The Hill article pretty much mirrored this sentiment)
The author of this Boston Globe piece is Phillip K Verleger Jr. Mr. Verleger is a Cambridge MA economist, well published and connected to established news outlets and institutions, not some outlier wacko. You can find his analysis at the Council of Foreign Relations, Bloomberg, the NYT, The Brookings Institute and many others.
Philip K Verleger’s Profile | The New York Times, Bloomberg News, Financial Times Journalist | Muck Rack
I am sure that many people in the Biden White House as well as the Congress read the "The Hill" as well as the "Boston Globe" and take the Climate Crisis angle seriously.
Biden ran on phasing out Fossil Fuel.
My Take of the Elitist mindset: Ok, war bad, Putin maybe not so nice and ill-advised, but this war is ultimately good for the Cause of the Climate Crisis. So, following this reasoning to a possible conclusion (my words), why not keep it going as long as is necessary to allow for the Energy Transition Phase towards Renewables (BBB etc.) to mature, it will serve an "an infinitely more important result — averting worldwide climate disaster " (quote from The Hill )
John Kerry, a week after the invasion wanted to still work with Putin and hoped the war would not interfere with solving Climate Crisis cooperation with Russia.
The Climate Crisis Hysteria angle is definitely part of every decision the Biden Admin makes!
CSIS War Game: US vs China over Taiwan - Provoking War to Preserve US Primacy
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fyAq8xAhmSI
https://www.zerohedge.com/political/are-reparations-part-american-rescue-plan-cities-say-yes-and-plan-use-federal-funds
The neocon axis of evil would rather rule over a pile of radioactive ash, than cede any part of the Earth to another power. Those foolish idiots could not understand that when the Soviet union dissolved a perfect opportunity existed that would have allowed the U.S.A. , Russia, India and Europe to live in peace and prosperity.
There is no path to war. In 1914 all Europe went to war with bands playing and flags flying. Four years later the monarchies that were, weren't. After the 2020 election, J6, a suspension of the rule of law and widespread dissatisfaction our 'woke' military will rally their few thousand faithful and go off on some adventurism overseas. Yeah, sure. Did we win the war of the balloons?
The media promoted Russian Hoax that began with Trump has done well in providing cover for the Red Chinese infiltration of the USA. Reporting, for what it is, highlights Chinese agents that have burrowed into our national politics, economics, universities, even land purchases. We never hear of Russians being credibly named in any of these same serious intrusions into US sovereignty. There is, however, a plethora of reporting on CCP infiltration: The Biden 'think tank' financing at Penn, Hunter Biden's shady dealings with CCP corporation front men, Senator Feinstein's longtime driver, Rep. Swalwell's honeypot, recent stories of real estate buys near sensitive US military facilities, etc. And these are just what we know about through open-source reports.
Red China, unlike Russia, has a much greater appetite and military capability for annexing resource rich territories to secure its future energy and economic requirements.
The very illegal campaign contributions by Chinese agents to the Clinton campaign bought much more influence that one would have expected, given the relatively small dollars involved. WEIRD?
I don't see how America has been trying to contain China since WWII.
Also, it's a mistake to lump Trump's China policy with Biden's. Trump sought to rectify the trade imbalance out of concern for everyday Americans. Biden seeks a smackdown of China simply because they've gotten uppity. The former sought a rational policy for the long-term benefit of both parties; the other is merely enforcing colonial might.
Biden’s China efforts seems to be smoke and mirrors. Trump was taking impactful actions against China. China owns, oops I mean influences, for a minor cost (invitation only deals for Feinsteins husband, etc), a huge part of the US establishment from universities to the press to our politicians. Fang Fang targeted Swallwell while he was still a mayor.
I acknowledge China's "influence" on our politicians, Biden included.
Nevertheless, I daresay Biden's actions have been more than smoke and mirrors. The chip sanctions are very serious and, if China didn't have a plan B in place (Taiwan?), those sanctions could be heavy hitting.
But here is another difference between Trump and Biden: Trump used our economic muscle the way it ought to be used, to attempt to rectify the trade imbalance and address the industrial self-sufficiency side of serious national security concerns - an act of gamesmanship. Biden is using the computer chips as an asset in an undeclared military conflict - an act of brinkmanship.
I’m not sure on the sanctions effectiveness.
My gut feeling is if they were too painful for China, they would have been gutted.
Chips are fungible. China has their semiconductor industry, not as advanced as Taiwan. But just knowing what is possible is huge for catching up. And the major semiconductor machine lithography manufacturer hq in Denmark, has been heavily spied on by China.
And part of the reason Taiwan has such a huge semiconductor industry, is us financials punishes investing in factories/ capital. Better to buy, than make. No capital costs.
Thanks.
“I note the exception of the current American regime that seems to want to destroy itself in order that its members may ascend to the status of global rulers, in company with the European elites, and traditional America be damned“ I’ve often wondered about such a suicidal lust in the mixed bag of Neocons, from the Clintons on down thru the Bush/O/Zhou regimes. Because what is the objective? Bear hugs w Zelensky? Stirring the pot in…Moldova? It’s beyond comprehension, and very scary, as Zhou’s dementia and accompanying hysteria and vitriol aint gonna get any better. Maybe Milley is losing sleep - per Breitbart he just acknowledged “negotiations, if we’re lucky..”