Tag Archives: China

How Empires Fall

Posted on by

As the philosopher Plato (428-348 BCE) and the statesman/historian Polybius (200-118 BCE) knew very well, empires come and go. The Babylonian Empire rose and declined. The Persian Empire rose and declined. Alexander’s Macedonian Empire rose and broke up. By the first century BCE the idea that the Roman Empire, too, would one day decline and fall had become commonplace among its educated inhabitants; as one of them, the Roman historian Livy, wrote, the empire was “struggling with its own greatness”. However, there was no agreement as to when this would happen, let alone how.

Over time many different reasons were invented to explain the decline. Speaking of the Graeco-Roman world, perhaps the most common one was the idea that power and prosperity undermine themselves. The more powerful and prosperous an empire, the softer its citizens and the more addicted to wine, song and women and the less inclined to serve, fight and die they became. During the late Roman Empire this reached the point where soldiers mutilated themselves so as to avoid military service and, if brought to justice, might be burnt alive. Sooner or later the point was reached when those in charge had to turn to foreigners in order to defend the empire against its enemies. Sooner or later those foreigners would become a liability, either because they did not fight hard enough or because they turned against their employers.

Since then many other explanations have been put forward. Sin or, in most non-Abrahamic religions, insufficient attention to the kind of religious rituals that make the world tick, caused God to turn His face away. Civil war, often the result of religious differences or excessive taxation or both, caused public order to break down. Egoistically-minded people, especially those belonging to the upper classes, refused to have children and raise them, preferring to use contraceptives or engage in homosexual sex. “Imperial overstretch,” a term made popular by the historian Paul Kennedy in his 1987 volume, The Rise and Decline of the Great Powers, created a situation whereby the Empire’s resources, material and human, were inadequate to support its commitments. Excessive use and abuse of natural resources caused the deforestation and desertification, not to say poisoning, of entire districts, even countries. Natural disasters increased in frequency and severity. Often more than one cause, or set of causes, were involved—all mingled with each other and now reinforcing, now contradicting, each other.

Fast forward to the present. As George Orwell in Nineteen-Eighty Four foresaw with uncanny precision, the world in which we live is divided among three gigantic empires: the US and its vassals (Oceania), Russia (Eurasia), and China (Eastasia). The first is defined by its wealth, the liberal-democratic way of life on which its members pride themselves, and its willingness to foster and adopt scientific/technological progress. The second, by its sheer geographical size, its military power, and the ability of its inhabitants to endure and suffer. The third, by the vast number and sheer industry of its people which, some researchers feel, are also the most able of the lot on the average. Again all these factors mix with each other and reinforce each other in a myriad of different ways. Too many by far to allow much more than a bare mention in the present essay.

Now to the hundred trillion dollar ($ 100,000,000,000, the world’s annual GNP) question: since no empire lasts forever, which of them is likely to collapse first? My answer would be, Russia. First, its population of 143,000,000 is by far the smallest and shrinking fast. Second, slightly over a fifth of this population are non-Russian, non-Slav, and even non-Christian. Originally subdued by force of arms, given the right circumstances parts of it may rise against the center, Moscow, causing the empire to break up. In which case, to quote Ukrainian head of state Volodymir Zelensky, only Muscovy will be left.

Third, Russia is immensely rich in natural resources and possessed of a huge arms industry. However, for reasons ill-understood has never been able to develop a strong consumer-driven industry such as, starting in the nineteenth century, has formed the backbone of modern economies and the kind of prosperity they alone seem capable of generating. Fourth, it still lacks the kind of access to the sea, hence to world trade, which first Britain and then the US has enjoyed for centuries.

Last not least, geographically speaking Russia is stuck between the other two empires. At the moment those empires are bitter rivals, quarreling over almost everything from Ukraine in the West to Taiwan in the east. However, that was not always the case. Remember President Nixon’s “opening of China” back in the early 1970s. The Soviet Union’s fear of collusion between Washington DC and Beijing—the sort that could only be, and was, directed at Moscow—even played a role in the Soviet Union’s collapse less than twenty years later. Another such rapprochement constitutes Putin’s nightmare. Should the US and China join forces, as they did against Japan in 1941-45, then there will be little the Kremlin will be able to do about it except threaten others, and hence itself, with nuclear annihilation.

Next, the US. The US has about two and a half times Russia’s population. Add its NATO allies, and the difference amounts to almost six to one. Add Japan, South Korea and Australasia, and it grows to about seven to one. Practically all these people are where they are because, unlike those of Russia, they are willing. They are kept loyal by consent rather than by force; this being an advantage very few previous empires enjoyed.

True, American industry in particular is no longer what it was between about 1945 and 1970 when it easily overshadowed the rest of the world. But it still remains enormously capable in terms of innovation in particular. Attention should also be attracted to the fact that the core member of the Atlantic alliance, i.e the US, is a global island. On the positive side, this means that any attempt to invade the Continental US must remain a pipedream. On the negative side it means that, to complement its own resources and retain its global influence, the US depends on maritime communications. Not only are such communications more vulnerable than land ones, but America’s Navy is even now in the process of losing its supremacy in favor of China. The closer one approaches China’s own shores, the more true that is. Another one of America’s weaknesses is the horrendous deficits it has incurred both in terms of foreign trade and in terms of the budget. Deficits which, unless they are addressed, will surely end up by bringing on the economic collapse not only of the US but of much of the rest of the world as well.

Finally, China. As anyone who has traveled in China can easily see for him- or herself, China’s industrialization over the last decades is one of the greatest, perhaps even the greatest, miracles in the whole of history. During that period its share of world GDP (ppp-calculated) increased more than tenfold, from 2.26 in 1980 to 27 percent at present. The most important constraint on China’s ability to make its weight felt in the world is geography, especially maritime geography. Reaching out for the Pacific Ocean, Chinese merchantmen and men-of-war are flanked by Japan, Taiwan, and South Korea; reaching out for the Indian one, by the Philippines and the Strait of Sumatra. Each of these is an unsinkable aircraft carrier. Xi Jinpin himself is well aware of these facts. As proved, above all, by his launching of the so-called belts and roads initiative whose objective is precisely to bypass his country’s problematic maritime communications by going by land instead.

Furthermore, China’s ascent has led to a loose, US-led, coalition of other countries forming around its borders; whether through its own fault or that of others, Beijing now has territorial disputes with every one of its fourteen neighbors. Other weaknesses include a declining birthrate that will soon cause its population to be surpassed by that of India; following decades of a “one child” policy, a shortage of young people to man its industries and a corresponding increase in the number of old ones who have to be supported; horrendous ecological problems that led to a shortage of water and made the air of many cities unfit to breathe; and, judging by the ubiquitous and enormously expensive measures used to safeguard internal security, a widespread fear that the Communist regime may not last forever and that, breaking up, it will drag much of the country with it.

These are serious problems that may well lead to the kind of crisis that has many predecessors in Chinese history and which, during the last 200 years alone, killed tens if not hundreds of millions of people. Still, what by now is a highly industrialized country of 1.3 billion—more than that of the US, the rest of NATO, and Russia combined—able and ambitious people will not be easily thwarted from pursuing its imperial goals.

Most important of all, China is and has always been not just the kind of political structure known as a state but a civilization. As such it is about as old as the pyramids; for that reason alone, there is a good chance it will last as long as they have done.

Tertius Gaudens

Posted on by

These days when everyone is talking about Chatgpt, I find myself thinking of Pablo Picasso. Computers, he is supposed to have said, are completely useless. They can provide answers, but they cannot come up with questions. That is why, this time, I have chosen to put my thoughts in a question/answer format.

What was China’s original stance vis a vis the Ukrainian war?

In February 2022, just before Russia’s invasion of Ukraine, Chinese Communist Party General Secretary Xi Jinping and Russian President Vladimir Putin proclaimed a “friendship without limits” which would bind their two countries together. One sign of this friendship is the fact that, during the first year of the war, Xi has spoken to Putin four times—but did not speak to Zelensky even once.

What came of it?

There has been some cooperation. But not as much as the above statement might imply. So far the most important form of aid China has given to Russia has been to act as a market for the latter’s exports. Including, besides minerals, oil (both crude and distilled), wood and wood products. Also, apparently, some dual use (military and civilian) technology. Also, political support at the UN, in the rest of the world, etc. Recently US Secretary of State Antony Blinken has raised Beijing’s ire by accusing it of preparing to provide arms to Russia. If the accusations are true, then that would mean a step closer towards direct intervention in the war. But whether they are true, and how extensive and significant the resulting aid would be, remains to be seen.

Why has China submitted a peace plan just now?

Hard to say. One thing is certain: it is not because of Xi’s tender, loving heart. One Chinese objective may be to save as much as possible from the general secretary’s belt and road initiative, which depends on peace in Eurasia and was disrupted by the war. Or simply because China, as a great power, feels it cannot afford not to submit some kind of plan for peace. Just as America did in 1905 (the Russo-Japanese War), 1917 (World War I) and 1974 (the Arab-Israeli War), to mention but a few.

God, Napoleon once said, resides in the details. So what are they?

China’s peace proposal consists of twelve rather general points that can be summed up more or less as follows. First, the need to “create conditions and platforms” for negotiations to resume, a process in which China is prepared to “play a constructive role.” Second, the need to avoid the threat or use of nuclear, biological and chemical weapons. Third, the need for all parties to exercise “rationality and restraint” by respecting international law, avoiding attacks on civilians or civilian facilities as well as women and children. Fourth, China hopes to avoid “expanding military blocs–an apparent reference to NATO–and urges all parties to “avoid fanning the flames and aggravating tensions.”

Why does the West oppose the plan?

First, because it does not trust Putin to carry out any agreement he may sign, especially in regard to withdrawing his forces from Ukraine so as to restore the latter’s territorial integrity. Second, in the case of Europe in particular, because allowing Putin to retain at least some of his conquests would mean the end of the post-1945 world order which was based, if on anything at all, on the non-use of force in order to change borders. Third, in the case of Washington, because it comes too early and would not lead to a decisive loss of Russia’s power.

How likely is it to succeed?

Not very. Not just because the details remain unknown. But because Zelensky insists, in my view correctly, on the Russians withdrawing their forces from every inch of his country before serious negotiations can get under way.

So what does the future look like?

As both sides gird their loins for a long war of attrition, we shall see blood, toil, tears and sweat. Ending, perhaps, in bankruptcy; as happened to Britain in 1945 and as may yet happen to both Russia (should if suffer from more Western sanctions) and the US (as a result of its huge balance of trade and current account deficits, which the current war does nothing to reduce). And the EU? Just type “EU” and “bankruptcy” into your Google, and you’ll get your answer.

And where does China fit into all this?

Tertius gaudens.

Thinking the Unthinkable

Posted on by

When a dictatorship is in trouble, ten to one that it will seek a way out in the form of war. Judging by China’s increasingly bellicose behavior in respect to Taiwan over the last few weeks, its dictatorship—and, yes, a dictatorship it is—ten to one that it is in deep trouble indeed. Consider:

  • After decades of sustained economic growth during which per capita GDP increased seventyfold, the point seems to have been reached where the formulae first put into place by Deng Xiaoping during the 1980s no longer work. In particular, as President Xi Jinpin himself is well aware, the gap between rich and poor has grown to the point where it threatens the stability of the regime—as it has done many times in the past. New methods are urgently needed. However, so far there is no sign that they are being discovered, let alone implemented.
  • In many places all over China, unbridled industrialization over the last four decades has resulted in ecological disasters without parallels in Chinese, and perhaps human, history. Unbreathable air. Undrinkable water. Vast quantities of poisonous materials seeping into the ground and reducing or eliminating its fertility.
  • China’s decades-long policy of one child per family has long led to a situation whereby fewer and fewer young people have to support more and more elderly ones, forming a major brake on productivity. So far, attempts to remedy the situation by relaxing some controls do not seem to be working.
  • By the best available evidence Corona originated in China. Next, its spread was encouraged by the Government’s reluctance to allow neutral observers to investigate the disease and do what had to be done. Combined with Beijing’s bullying behavior towards its smaller neighbors, this has caused its international credibility to suffer.

These are but a few of the challenges with which the Chinese Communist—in fact it is anything but Communist—Party has to cope. Whether or not they will actually drive the country to war over Taiwan is anyone’s guess; however, it is possible to say a few words about what such a war may look like.

  •  As so often in the past, the war will be preceded by a period of intensified wireless activity, mobilization, troop movements, news-blackouts, etc.  In theory these and many other preparatory measures should be easily detected by the intelligence services of Taiwan and its allies (primarily South Korea, Japan, and of course the USA). But whether they will be detected, let alone believed and acted upon, is another matter altogether. Think of the German offensive against the USSR, think of the Japanese one against Pearl Harbor. In both cases plenty of warnings were available right under the intelligence services’ noses; yet when they came they did so as complete surprises.
  • As so often since 1939, any Chinese offensive is certain to start in the air with attacks on Taiwan’s headquarters, communication- and transportation centers, anti-aircraft defenses, airfields and missile bases. Taking into account numbers alone, the People’s Liberation Army should be able to win these early combat operations. But then numbers are not everything; Taiwan’s defenses are up to date and well trained. From what one reads it appears they are also prepared to fight.
  • The next stage will be fought primarily at sea. Early on the initiative will be in the hands of the Chinese Navy as it tries to blockade Taiwan and soften it up in preparation of the coming invasion. Taiwan, however, has it own anti-submarine forces and is certain to use them in a determined attempt to resist the aggressor and keep its lines of communication open.
  • Suppose which is by no means certain, that at this stage the PLA can prevail. In that case it will surely use its ships to mount a large scale invasion. That, however, does not mean its problems will be over and victory, automatic. As history shows, sea- to land operations are about the most difficult of all and require a high degree of expertise which the PLA, for lack of experience, does not have. The seas around Taiwan are choppy with strong tides and, during certain seasons, torrential rains; not for noting are they known as The Black Ditch. The coast itself is rockyand hard to navigate. Thus an invasion may fail before it even gets properly started—as twice happened to the Mongols when they tried to invade Japan in 1271 and 1284 and also, to use he most famous example of all, to the Spanish Armada in 1588.
  • A coup de main intended to win a war with a single blow may succeed. Or else, as Putin’s initial invasion of Ukraine showed once again, it may fail. In case it succeeds, little else will remain to be said. In case it fails, a prolonged campaign to break Taiwan’s by no means negligible land forces and subdue the island will ensue. The outcome of such a campaign will depend very largely on the joker on the pack, meaning the US and in particular, its navy. To avoid being trapped in the Strait, the US 7th fleet, which is based  in Japan, will be deployed not west of Taiwan, as  laymen might think, but to the east of it. From there it will send its aircraft in an attempt to stop the invaders either before they touch land or at a later point when it will be a question of keeping their supply lines open.

To sum up, the above difficulties notwithstanding a Chinese attempt to subdue  an isolated Taiwan would stand a reasonable, if by no means certain, expectation of success. However, launching it in the teeth of American military power, the greatest on earth, would be a very risky venture indeed. And this without even considering the ever-present threat of nuclear escalation, whether deliberate or accidental, which literally might bring about the end of he world.

Thinking the unthinkable, as 1960s-vintage strategists used to say.

Conspiracies

Posted on by

Historically, we are told, conspiracy theories are the outcome of stress. Each time things go wrong, or are perceived to be going wrong, some people will come up with all kinds of ideas as to why this happened and who is to blame. I hardly need to remind my readers that, with COVID-19 running amok over the world, conspiracy theories concerning the disease’s origin are floating around like confetti in air. The more so because the Net provides even the proverbial “common” man (or woman, I suppose, but this seems to be one male domain feminists are not in a hurry to invade) with an opportunity to spread his views. So I’ve done your work for you and collected some of the theories I could find.

  1. COVID originated in the Chinese city of Wuhan, long known to be a center of pharmacological as well as biological warfare research. At some point something went wrong. A virus escaped from the lab where it was being either manufactured or modified. Each virus measures about one 120 nanometers (one millionth of a millimeter) on the average. The outcome? Perhaps 5.5 million dead so far.
  2. COVID did originate in a lab. However it was not located in Wuhan. Rather, it was a Canadian lab which first came up with the virus, only to have it stolen by Chinese scientists who were working there and took it to Wuhan in order to continue their experiments with it. The scientists later had their license to work in Canada revoked. Too late.
  3. The virus was created by the CIA, or the US Army, or some other equally nefarious American organization. Special mention in this context was made of Fort Detrick, Maryland, where this kind of research is being conducted and which has sometimes been named in connection with Anthrax and similar nice diseases. However, up to 200 other US labs spread all over the world may also be involved. This, of course, is the mirror image of No. 1 on the present list.
  4. The virus was created and spread by Jewish/Zionist/Israeli organizations out to emasculate the world in general and the Islamic part of it in particular. As has also been the case in some other countries, an Israeli vaccine against COVID now under development is itself said to be part of this campaign.
  5. COVID is being deliberately spread by members of the Muslim minorities in such countries as India and Britain in order, ultimately, to depopulate those countries and take over.
  6. COVID is part of a global attempt by global governments to expand their control over the global population.
  7. 7. COVID is part of a global attempt by global corporations to prevent the billions of people under their rule from expressing their resentment and weaken them.
  8. 8. COVID is a global attempt by left wingers to do away with global corporations and their power over the people everywhere.
  9. COVID is being spread by fifth-generation cellphones. This theory is said to have led to at least twenty attacks on mobile phone masts in Britain alone, not counting thirty or so confrontations with the technicians who were trying to install them. Causation apart, the spread of electronic communications has been blamed both for alleged attempts to under-state the effects of COVID and to exaggerate them.
  10. COVID came to us riding piggyback on meteorites arriving from outer space. According to one variation of the theory, it is part of an attempt by extraterrestrials to take over the earth.

    11. However, the effectiveness of these oral drugs Kamagra has been tested over the years and across all levitra samples http://cute-n-tiny.com/cute-animals/koda-the-dwarf-miniature-horse/ age groups. It is advisable for patients that smoke to quit smoking. viagra sample free The reason why the blood does not pass to the cute-n-tiny.com viagra brand online penile organ in a sufficient quantity. We provide great cheapest cheap viagra service and soonest shipping process.

  11. Corona spreads by eating bats or snakes, both of which are sold for food in the abovementioned city of Wuhan.
  12. Bill Gates created COVID in order to sell more of the vaccines he and his corporations are developing.

All these theories, and many more like them, can easily be found on the Net. Many have been investigated at enormous length. No good evidence has ever been found for any of them, making them and their authors easy to debunk and ridicule. As a great many of them undoubtedly deserve to be.

Still I suggest you keep in mind two, and only two, sentences:

“Man is the conspiring animal” (John Larouche.)*

“No one believes there is a conspiracy to kill the emperor until he is killed” (the Emperor Domitian, before he himself fell victim to a conspiracy and was killed).

 

* A now deceased, self-appointed, leader of the Democratic Party and eternal candidate for US president who visited me at home when I lived in Germany.

Much Ado about Very Little

Posted on by

Ever since 1945 peace among the great powers, such as it is, has been guarded above all by nuclear weapons and their delivery vehicles. Weapons so powerful, and so hard to stop on their way to target, that, should they ever be used in any numbers, they can literally put an end to mankind. The balance of terror, as Winston Churchill and others called it.

The outcome was a nuclear arms race that, costing hundreds of billions, went on seven days a week, twenty-four hours a day. Here and there some attempts were made to slow it down; however, not one of them was able to change the situation in which any use of nuclear weapons might quickly end in suicide. At any one time, the leader of the pack was almost certain to be the U.S. And no wonder, considering that country’s wealth, technological prowess, and, starting soon after President Eisenhower warned his countrymen against “the military-industrial complex,” the “new militarism,” as it has been called.

It was the US which built both the first atomic bomb and its bigger brother, the first hydrogen bomb. It was the US which built the first intercontinental bomber. The first tactical nukes (warheads small enough to be used in the field), the first atomic cannon, the first nuclear submarine, the first sea-launched ballistic missiles, the first MRVed and MIRVed ballistic missiles (which enabled several warheads to be put on top of a single missile, thus making interception enormously more difficult), and the first cruise missiles were all American inventions. Only occasionally did the Soviet Union, take the lead; and even when it did so, as in the case of intercontinental ballistic missiles and satellites in 1957-58, its supremacy was usually either quite short-lived or completely imaginary.

Each time the US seemed to gain an advantage it was said to signal a victory for the flag, freedom, democracy, etc. On the rare occasions when the Soviet Union did so, invariably the outcome was to make war more likely. In reality, none of the technological advances mattered very much. Whichever side got ahead, the balance of terror remained intact. As a result, no major clash of arms between nuclear powers—not just the US and the USSR but the US and China, the USSR and China, China and India, India and Pakistan—has ever broken out. Depending on whom you believe, no such a clash was ever even close to breaking out.

This effective solution has been sildenafil levitra greyandgrey.com launched in market under the fractional values of 10, 20, 40 and 80mg packs. Generally, suppliers that supply really low Herbalife Malaysia price can provide you fewer successful items. levitra online order For further information discount viagra uk visit us:- / This is the factor that will determine whether or not you will become at ease with that particular person. Partial and final examinations are expected to hit the doughnut hole this year, and many will face unpalatable choices: Do without viagra prices basics or do without medication. Just what the new Chinese missile, or satellite, or spaceship, is all about is a closely guarded secret. Apparently it is only about half as fast as ballistic missiles are; on the other hand, being maneuverable it can be re-targeted in mid-flight. Above all, being air-breathing it has practically unlimited range. These qualities enable it to reach US targets not only across the Pacific, which is old hat, but by following any trajectories the people in Beijing may choose. Including, above all, such as are beyond the reach of America’s existing anti-missile defenses. Secret? Yes, but no more so than the American X (for experimental) 37-B spacecraft which has now been around for a number of years and about whose mysterious missions hardly anything has been released. Potentially destabilizing? Not necessarily, since all it does is to make the nuclear balance between the two powers, which from 1963 (the year when China tested its first bomb) until recently was completely one sided, a little less so. Nor is Beijing the only one to engage on an arms race. Even as these words were being written, the world was told that the Pentagon is preparing to build something called a Space Superhighway as a first step towards using the moon to defend against China.

This raises the question, why all the brouhaha? That the US should take the necessary steps to counter the new Chinese missile is unquestionable. That, given the history of nuclear weapons and their delivery vehicles since 1945, the new missile is not going to upset the balance of power to the point of making a nuclear war much more likely is almost equally unquestionable.

It was US nuclear superiority that enabled it to use the bombs in war, the only country which has ever done so. It was US nuclear superiority, too, which explains why, right down to the present day, the US has always refused to promise they would not be the first to use the bomb. In this, incidentally, it differs from China. In the words of one Western source writing in 2017, “the most remarkable feature of China’s nuclear doctrine is its consistent no first-use policy. In other words, China pledges ‘not to be the first to use nuclear weapons at any time or under any circumstances’.”

Absent war, what have previous generations of nuclear weapons and their delivery vehicles achieved? Very little. What will the present Chinese one achieve? Almost certainly, very little. To be sure, nukes are terrifying monsters, but they do have one advantage. If they are not used, there is no reason to worry; if they are used, there won’t be any reason to worry either.

Focus on Taiwan

Posted on by

Now that China’s star seems to be on the ascendant and that of the US, following its withdrawal from Afghanistan, on the decline, many people around the world wonder whether a military clash between the two behemoths and their allies is likely. And, if so, how it might come about, what it might look like, and what the outcome might be. The following represents a short attempt to answer these questions.

How did the current rivalry between China and the US originate?

Between the two world wars China and the US were actually allies, albeit very unequal ones. What kept them together was their common fear and hatred of Japan which invaded Manchuria, considered by many an outlying region of China, in 1931, and China itself six years later. True, prior to Pearl Harbor the US never officially declared war on Japan. But it did provide China’s ruler, General Chiang Kai-shek, with money, advisers, training, weapons, and the nucleus of a small air force (General Chennault’s Flying Tigers).

As World War II ended and it became clear that Mao and his communist legions would win China’s ongoing civil war, the US did what it could to prevent such an outcome. To no avail. By the end of 1949 Mao, actively supported by the Soviet Union, was in control of the whole of China. Whereas Chiang and his remaining adherents fled to the island of Taiwan, off China’s coast, where he and his successors enjoyed strong American support.

What happened next?

As long as the Soviet Union continued to exist, the US regarded Moscow as its own main rival. By comparison China, large but underdeveloped, was secondary. The Korean War having ended in 1953, now the US treated China as the Soviet Union’s most important ally; now it tried to exploit emerging differences between the two communist powers. As, for example, the Nixon administration did in 1969-72.

Following the Soviet collapse in 1990-91, it looked as if the US had no “peer competitors” (as the phrase went) left. This so-called “unilateral moment” lasted until about 2010. On one hand there was China’s economic and military power, which kept growing at a phenomenal rate. On the other, long before Washington withdrew from Iraq (2020) and Afghanistan (2021) it began to show signs of weakness in Afghanistan and Iraq. Though no shots were exchanged, before long the two behemoths, China and the US, found themselves locked in a struggle not unlike the Cold War of old.

Let’s stop here. Where does Taiwan fit into all this?

Over the years, the role played by Taiwan has changed. At first, following Chiang’s flight, it presented the Chinese people with an alternative model and focus of loyalty that might one day take over. True, this line of thought was never very credible; how can a flea swallow an elephant? However, there could be no doubt about the island’s strategic importance.

Taiwan is a critical link in a series of strongholds. They are, from north to south, Japan, South Korea, Taiwan, and the Philippines. Together they block China’s access to the Pacific, much in the same way as the British Islands used to block the access of Germany and, before Germany, France, to the Atlantic and the world’s trade routes in general.

To make China’s position more difficult still, there are the Straits of Malacca which sit across its communications with the Indian Ocean, southeast and south Asia, and Africa. Including the Middle East, which now accounts for fifty percent of China’s oil imports. The recently announced Belt and Road Initiative notwithstanding, these five strongholds can be used by whoever owns them in order to control a huge chunk of China’s foreign trade. On which much of the country’s economic performance, and with it its political stability, depends.

What you are saying is that re-possession of Taiwan is critical to China’s future as a global superpower.

That’s right.

So is China going to invade Taiwan?

discount generic cialis amerikabulteni.com Never gives advice to anybody about the usage of this drug shortly after the dosage. Some of the amerikabulteni.com cost cialis viagra important shackles which are represented by Saudi Dutest are Screw pin Bow shackle, Nut and bolt shackle, screw pin D shackle, nut and bolt D shackle are some of the important factors for reducing the risk of ED (Erectile Dysfunction). Or watch any televised sporting event and you’ll see buy viagra online the medicine taking effects after a few hours. One more thing I noticed is that as the number of males cialis samples free who need this continue to spike up. That is the 100 trillion dollar question. The Chinese position, which has remained more or less the same for decades, is that Taiwan is an integral part of China. Such being the case, China is determined to bring about its “reunification” with the mainland. Even, as its leaders have repeatedly said, by using force if necessary.

Had it been simply a question of China versus Taiwan, and given the (im)balance of forces between those two, such a war could only have one outcome. Taiwan, however, has long received strong support from the US which does not want the island to fall to Beijing.

Suppose China does gird its loins and invades. What would the ensuing war be like?

Taiwan is an island. Accordingly, China’s first move would be to impose an air and naval blockade. If necessary, capturing or sinking a couple of Taiwanese ships so as to show it means business. Supposing Taiwan does not surrender, China might follow up with an air and missile strike aimed at its enemy’s air force, anti-aircraft defenses, and navy. That done, Beijing might use amphibious forces to invade. Or it might simply sit and wait for its quarry to surrender.

It is also possible, though less likely, that, to retain surprise, China would strike Taiwan’s defenses before imposing a blockade. However, such a move would be extremely risky and the principle of the thing would remain more or less the same.

But you have just said that Taiwan is not on its own.

That is correct. In such a war, everything would depend on the US. Initially the latter’s most likely move, perhaps joined by a few others such as South Korea and Australia, would be to send in a couple of carrier strike groups. The objective would be to break the Chinese blockade without actually firing. In case it works, fine. In case it does not, God knows what will follow.

Suppose such a war gets under way and escalates; who wins?

In such a war, China will be operating close to its own shores whereas America’s lines of communication would stretch all the way across the Pacific. As a result, for China to build up a local superiority will be relatively easy. The more so because some of America’s forces, especially the navy, will probably be tied up elsewhere. As a result, I’d put the chances of a Chinese victory—whatever that may mean—at over 50 percent.

However, there is an elephant in the room. Faced with the fall of Taiwan, at some point the US might threaten the use of nuclear weapons. For example, in case something goes wrong and a carrier with its 90 aircraft and 5,000 or so crew members is lost.

But China’s nuclear arsenal, complete with the necessary delivery vehicles, is growing. Do you really believe the US will put San Francisco and Los Angeles at risk in order to rescue Taipei?

Do you really believe China will put Beijing and Shanghai at risk in order to seize Taipei?

So what is your prognosis?

As you know, no nuclear weapon has been used in anger from 1945 on. Not during the 1948-49 Berlin Crisis. Not during the 1958 Quemoy Crisis, not during the 1962 Cuban Missile Crisis, and not during any number of other, less acute, crises both between the Superpowers and between other nuclear countries (e.g. India and Pakistan). Based on this record, it seems to me that both sides are far too aware of the dangers of nuclear war to risk one such breaking out. More likely the Chinese, in the hope that their rivals will be the first to blink, will go on putting as much pressure on Taiwan as they think they can away with. But without actually opening fire.

Guest Article: The China Threat

Posted on by

By

William S. Lind*

The December 4 Wall Street Journal’s op ed page headlined a piece by John Ratcliffe, U.S. Director of National Intelligence, titled “China is National Security Threat No. 1”.  Mr. Ratcliffe concluded his op ed by writing,

This is a once-in-a-generation challenge.  Americans have always risen to the moment, from defeating the scourge of fascism to bringing down the Iron Curtain.  This generation will be judged by its response to China’s effort to reshape the world in its own image and replace America as the dominant superpower.  The intelligence is clear.  Our response must be as well.

As is usually the case with op eds signed by prominent federal officeholders, the purpose of this piece is budget justification: intelligence agencies recently received a big budget boost for spying on China.  And Mr. Ratcliffe is right with respect to some aspects of our relationship with China.  It is an economic competitor, one that has pitted the enriching economics of mercantilism against the impoverishing economics of free trade.  More the fools us for allowing it to do so.

But on the whole, Mr. Ratcliffe and the rest of the dragon puffers are wrong.  They are wrong not because of bad intelligence about China, but because they miss the fact that for all Great Power rivalries, the context has changed.  Contests between Great Powers are no longer the primary force shaping the world.  Rather, what now shapes the world is the growing weakness of most states as the state itself faces a crisis of legitimacy.  Great Power contests now take place within this context, which means such contests are themselves counter-productive to all involved because they further weaken states, certainly the loser and often the winner too.  In effect, victories in state vs. state contests will henceforth almost always be Pyrrhic.

Just as Washington does not get this change in strategic context, neither does Beijing.  For China, which is, as Mr. Ratcliffe writes, attempting to become the top Great Power, the new context has at least three major implications:

  • First, as it penetrates other parts of the globe through initiatives such as its “Belt and Road” project, it will find its presence there undermined and its goals blocked by increasing disorder.  As states weaken, Fourth Generation war spreads, and Chinese efforts in the face of constant attacks by non-state elements will simply become unprofitable.  This mirrors the European colonial experience but will occur much faster.  In fact, it is occurring now, as China’s penetration into much of sub-Saharan Africa finds its efforts swallowed by spreading disorder.  Where states are weak or merely fictions, one gang among many, efforts by outside powers will produce only a bottomless investment pit.  The cost/benefit calculation will be as red as the east.
  • Second, where states are struggling to hold on to at least some shreds of legitimacy, an increasingly obvious Chinese role will threaten that legitimacy.  This, again, is already happening, especially in Africa.  Because one of the main factors driving Chinese expansionism is the need to provide jobs for Chinese people, Chinese projects hire little local labor.  That, plus a general resentment against outsiders, will also bog down, then reverse Chinese penetration.  The ugly Chinaman will get booted out, just as were the ugly American and ugly European.
  • Third, because the legitimacy of rule by the Chinese Communist Party depends on rapid economic growth in China, China too may suffer a crisis of legitimacy of the state.  Like most authoritarian regimes, China’s Communist government is strong but rigid.  It will seem impervious to disorder right up to the point where it collapses.  China seems to think it has tamed the business cycle, but neither it nor anyone else has done so.  History’s rule seems to be that if a government can prevent frequent, fairly small economic downturns, it gets less frequent but larger ones instead.  Anyone looking at the house of cards that is China’s public and private debt can see what is coming.  And China has a long history of internal fractioning.  No Chinese state can assume it will always hold together.  Were the Chinese state to fracture, that would not only be a disaster for China but for the rest of the world as well, including the United States.  Once again, the new context touches and changes everything.

The name might be difference but the main medicine of this type of disease is appalachianmagazine.com canada pharmacy viagra. You sildenafil bulk can place order for Kamdeepak capsules and Mast Mood capsules to get rid of the sexual weakness. Kamagra Fizz has been authorized by the Food & Drug Administration has approved this viagra generico mastercard ingredient as a safe medication that surely helps to treat erection issue. Depending on the cause and harshness of your erectile dysfunction and any fundamental health circumstances, you might have various purchase cheap viagra treatment options.
China appears to be repeating the mistake Japan made in the 1930s.  Japan attempted to build an empire just as European states had done, by conquest, but that era had passed.  China now seeks in similar fashion to become the top Great Power when that position has lost much of its meaning and will soon lose the rest.  Spreading state failure endangers the state system itself, and a successful defense of that system requires an alliance of all states, an alliance that must begin with the three current Great Powers, the United States, China, and Russia.  Russia acts as if it may have at least some understanding this is the case, while Washington and Beijing show none.  Nor does Mr. Ratcliffe, the Director of U.S. National Intelligence.  Is there in fact any intelligence in U.S. National Intelligence?

 

*William (”Bill”) S. Lind is the author of the Maneuver War Handbook (1985) and the 4th Generation Warfare Handbook (2011) as several other volumes that deal with war. This article was originally published on traditionalRight on 25.1.2021.

Russia and the West

Posted on by

7 Jan. 2021

With Karsten Riise*

MvC:

Mr. Riise, in your opinion, what will be the effect of the new American administration on US-Russia relations?

Karsten Riise:

Biden will probably believe himself and the US to be so important that he can speak “pressure” and promise nothing concretely to Russia. This will be delusionary. Hence, Russia will continue to largely ignore the US and deepen cooperation with China in new areas.

Over time, Biden will find it difficult to restore previous US policies with both friends and perceived foes. Then perhaps, Biden will recognize a US need for a comprehensive understanding with Russia which can open new possibilities for both sides. Trump never had any vision for how he saw a US-Russia relationship and Trump did not have the political support of the US Congress or the EU to make deals with Russia. Biden is the candidate of the US establishment. He will have critical views on Russia, but he can make deals with it.

The best possibilities for Russia with the USA will involve the EU. Peace in the Ukraine. De-escalation and cooperation in the Baltic. Belarus. The West Balkans. And Syria. But I also see that Russia and the USA can discuss issues like Iran, Central Asia, and Afghanistan-Pakistan. Together with the EU and the USA, Russia can be included in a much-needed Pakistan-India peace deal.

MvC:

Please tell me a little more about the way you see EU involvement in all this.

Karsten Riise:

The EU has learned from decades of serious US vacillations. Bill Clinton worked closely with Europe, but the next US president Bush II tried arrogantly to dictate the Europeans, only to find out in his last years that even the US needs partners. Then Obama followed Bush II. The Europeans greeted Obama like a saviour and Obama worked to restore the US-Europe relationship which Bush II had broken down. But the cycle repeated: Obama the “restorer” was again followed by a new breaker. Trump even more adamantly than Bush II broke US partnerships with Europe. Now Biden believes that he like a “second Obama” will meet hordes of US-partners and be hailed to restore US relationships which were broken by his predecessor. It will just not work like that anymore. The EU has also seen that being friend of the USA is often not rewarded and can even be punished. The US imposed cross-sanctions against Airbus, though Boeing enjoys the similar state advantages to what the US accuses Airbus of. Connected with breaking the JCPOA, the US attacked EU firms with secondary sanctions. In the last US deal with China (the “Phase One” deal) the USA in practice agreed that China should push out USD 200 billion of European imports and replace them with American products. And on top, the EU was punished additionally with direct trade-tariffs by the USA. Biden may believe the world starts anew with him 20 January 2021. But not so. The EU has begun to see US presidents as just temporary vacillations. Biden is already surrounding himself with neoconservative foreign policy hawks. Trump demonstrated that strategic EU and American interests may diverge substantially. Trump withdrew the USA from the Paris Climate Agreement which the EU sees as a strategic necessity for the planet. The EU has a strategic need for stability in the Middle East for the free flow of oil from the Middle East. The USA, in contrast, is nearly self-supplied with oil and therefore can take more chances with Middle East stability. The EU is investing heavily in China, the USA not. On the Palestinian issue, Trump also revealed strategic differences between the EU and USA. With Biden, the EU will continue a close trans-Atlantic cooperation, but not like earlier. Once and for all, the EU has realized that the EU must establish more Strategic Autonomy from the USA. Therefore, the EU is beginning to make its own deals with China, deliberately disregarding Biden entering office on 20 January 2021.

MvC:

Looking back on the Trump years, how do you see his foreign policy?

Karsten Riise:

Trump laid bare to the EU, how unreliable and self-absorbed the USA can be as a partner. The JCPOA agreement with Iran was a legally binding deal involving USA’s closest partners, the EU. The USA just broke the JCPOA and sanctioned EU firms for upkeeping it. The USA also just broke the Paris Climate agreement. The Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) trade deal was fully negotiated, and the USA just smashed it. Likewise, in the Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership (TTIP) the EU had invested 5 years of difficult negotiations with the USA – that was all simply thrown into the US wastebin overnight. And Biden may not reverse this: Instead of Trump’s “America First”, Biden says “Buy American”. The best thing about Trump’s years is that he did not start any new wars – no small feat for a US president.

MvC:

And the future?

Karsten Riise:

EU-USA relations will continue to be close, but the EU is no longer infatuated with the USA. The EU will increasingly take strategic action regardless of Biden and the USA, like we just saw in the EU-China investment deal 30 December 2020. The EU needs to make things work with Russia including the Nord Stream gas project, which the USA wants to block. There is no fundamental contradiction between the EU and Russia.

MvC:

Let’s go into a little more detail, if you do not mind. First, the situation in the Ukraine.

Karsten Riise:

The EU and Russia both agree that the Ukraine should continue as a bridge between east and west. Situations like the one on the Crimea have been resolved elsewhere before. The EU must accept that Crimeans can decide for themselves. Even in another referendum on Crimea’s future, I am sure, Crimea will stay Russian, and the EU must accept that.

Still, these drugs are found safe downtownsault.org viagra levitra and effective for both young and old people alike. They have a happy, healthy relationship and have nurtured three beautiful children. downtownsault.org levitra prescription It is enriched B12, iron and zinc. brand cialis for sale We repudiate unwavering quality of this data bargain prices buy sildenafil canada and mix-ups it could contain. The situation in Luhansk is comparable to the one in Northern Ireland. The Good Friday agreement, signed in 1998 by the Republic of Ireland and the UK, ended a much longer conflict in Northern Ireland. That Good Friday model can be applied in Luhansk. Let the people of Luhansk have a vote where they want to belong. The West could accept that for Kosovo, so why not in Luhansk? If the people of Luhansk choose to continue as part of the Ukraine, then Russia (just like the Republic of Ireland in Northern Ireland) should have a structured cooperation with the Ukraine on Luhansk. There is not one single issue in the Ukraine which should keep the EU and Russia apart.

MvC:

I see. Now, the Baltic.

Karsten Riise:

In the Baltic, NATO membership of the three Baltic countries has destabilized security there. It is vital for Russia that the Baltic countries never become a staging area for NATO troop-concentrations directed against Russia, and Estonia is only 130 km from St. Petersburg. We need a treaty which limits the number and composition of NATO troops in the Baltic countries to what they are now, and simultaneously limits Russian heavy troops within (say) 20 km of the Baltic borders. Taking care of both sides’ interests. Practical and straightforward.

MvC:

And Belarus? The EU sees it as a bête noire and seems determined to destabilize it as much as it can.

Karsten Riise:

The situation in Belarus is similar. It has in many ways managed a very successful development, with a basic level of living, high level of education, social services etc. Belarus is ready to continue her own life and Russia is open to that. Belarus will become an enormous success when she gains access to the EU market. Russia just need to secure that NATO will not afterwards turn Belarus into an in-official NATO partner against Russia.

MvC:

I am sure you have your views about the rest of the world as well.

Karsten Riise:

In Syria, the EU has neither the capacity nor the appetite to take over. Human rights are terrible in Syria, but Russia avoided a complete collapse in Syria like the one NATO created in Libya. And Russia supports holding elections once the situation stabilizes in Syria. Fundamentally the EU must be relieved that Russia has taken this responsibility and got this far with Syria.

The planet is shrinking – even Afghanistan is no longer far away from Europe. The EU needs to invest a lot more energy in the EU’s two Mega neighborhoods: Africa and Eurasia, stretching from the Ukraine to Afghanistan and Pakistan. But the EU does not have neither the physical capacity nor the intellectual capability to deal in politics and security in the vast area of Eurasia. Nor has the USA been any more successful at it. Russia simply has got unique insights, relations, capabilities, and connectivity in Eurasia. The EU critically needs Russia as the only possible EU-partner which can help the EU manage all the issues of a Eurasia which includes Turkey, Iran, and Pakistan.

MvC:

Recently there has been some talk about America’s plans for Greenland.

Karsten Riise:

Greenland has got 56,000 people and 2 million km2 of soon-to-be ice-free territory. Greenland has a coastline of no less than 44,000 km with lots of fish and natural riches, and as the ice melts, soon busy sea-lanes to Asia. Tourism is growing with 24% a year, with a steep increase in air traffic and already many cruise ships, which in future may have as many as 2,000 passengers on board. Who has got the capability to assist Greenland in case of airport terrorism? Or in case a cruise ship catches fire or hits an iceberg? Or if two oil-tankers crash? Even the USA cannot manage all that alone since Greenland will not be their territory. Greenland needs deep cooperation with all its neighbors: EU, USA, Canada, and Russia. NATO analyses demonstrate that Russia has a defensive posture in the Arctic. There is scope for cooperation and a new big role for Russia in the Arctic.

MvC:

Finally, China. The elephant in the room.

Karsten Riise:

After the end of Biden’s first term, China will overtake the USA as the biggest economy in the world. China is already a strategic trading-partner which many US friends cannot afford to ignore. Soon, the USA will often only be second trade-partner after China. Biden and the US do not fully understand the implications. China will also be the country with the biggest military-industrial potential. Biden may dream of containing China, but he will not succeed. China is not the Soviet Union. China is too strong, tech-savvy, too many depend on China, and China gets resources from Russia. Absent military blockade and decades of hot and cold war, the US cannot stop China. Such a US “alliance” against China will be split from the beginning. Biden does not seem to have recognized this yet. The US has a rather narrow margin to influence China, mostly to open-up trade. What the US needs is to establish more equal cooperation all around, also with Russia. This includes Central Asia, where China is expanding Belt-and-Road infrastructure and Chinese security interests. Russia will continue a deeper cooperation with China, but Russia will also know how to make use of any US need for strategic Russian cooperation. If the USA at one point becomes willing to offer Russia something very substantial in return for cooperation, Russia will be able to balance relationships with China and the USA in a new way that will be profitable for everyone.

 

* Karsten Riise is Master of Science (Econ) from Copenhagen Business School and has university degree in Spanish Culture and Languages from University of Copenhagen. Former senior Vice President Chief Financial Officer (CFO) of Mercedes-Benz in Denmark and Sweden with a responsibility of US Dollars 1 billion. At time of appointment, the youngest and the first non-German in that top-position within Mercedes-Benz’ worldwide sales organization.

Guest Article: The View from Olympus: The North Korean Threat to China

Posted on by

By William S. Lind

America’s fixation on the threat from North Korea’s missiles and nuclear weapons evinces the usual American dive into the weeds.  If we instead stand back a bit and look at the strategic picture, we quickly see that the North Korean threat to China is far greater than its threat to us.

North Korea is unlikely to launch a nuclear attack on the United States.  However, if North Korea retains its nuclear weapons, it is likely to lead South Korea, Japan, and possibly Taiwan, Australia and Vietnam to go nuclear themselves.  From the Chinese perspective, that would be a strategic catastrophe. 

China has never sought world domination, nor is it likely to do so.  Its distaste for barbarians, who include everyone not Chinese, is such that it wants to maintain its distance from them.  However, maintaining that distance requires a buffer zone around China, which historically China has sought and is seeking again now.

At present, the main obstacle to creating that buffer zone of semi-independent client states is the United States.  That is a strategic blunder on our part.  Such a buffer zone is no threat to the U.S. or to its vital interests.

However, China knows American power is waning and the American people are tired of meaningless wars on the other side of the world.  Despite America, China’s influence on the states in her proximity is rising.  She can afford to be patient.
The blood also is getting the muscles levitra price of the reproductive organ gets lots of energy that is helpful to make the organ erect for longer time and allows one to have a successful and pleasurable sexual activity. Other Possible Benefits of Botox Medical professionals are viagra cheap price hopeful that Botox may prove to be a useful treatment of arthritis pain. Erectile dysfunction can occur because of poor erection quality? Many men are suffering from erectile dysfunction or impotency, you should not give up. tadalafil india cialis http://cute-n-tiny.com/cute-animals/baby-aligators/ ReloraMax is one of the best anti-stress herbal supplements. viagra cheap india
In contrast, if the states on China’s periphery get nuclear weapons, her quest to dominate them is permanently blocked.  An American presence is no longer required to balk her ambitions.  Even weak states such as Vietnam can stop her cold if they have nukes.  Her border states, instead of serving as a buffer, become dangerous threats sitting right on her frontiers.  Even if she should defeat one of them, the damage she would suffer in a nuclear exchange would knock her out of the ranks of the great powers and might cause her to come apart internally, which is the Chinese leadership’s greatest fear because it has so often happened throughout her history. 

President Trump will soon be visiting China.  If he and those around him ask the all-important question, “What would Bismarck do?”, they should be able to motivate China to finally do what is necessary with North Korea, namely give it an offer it cannot refuse.

The script runs roughly like this.  President Trump makes the case about the need to restrain North Korea’s nuclear program.  Instead of threatening trade or other measures if China refuses, he simply says, “If North Korea retains its nukes and delivery systems, we can no longer advise our allies in Asia not to go nuclear.  We will of course regret such nuclear proliferation, but we will also understand why they have to develop their own nuclear weapons.  In some cases, we may find it necessary to assist them with delivery systems such as missile-equipped submarines.  Of course, nuclear weapons in the hands of our allies are not a threat to the United States.”  He need not add that they will be a threat to China.

Nation’s foreign policies are not motivated by other nation’s needs.  Beijing does not care about the threat North Korean nukes pose to the U.S.  But nations are motivated by their own interests, and if we put North Korea’s nukes in this context, the context of the strategic threat reactions to them pose to China, that is a different kettle of fish.

In turn, we need to remember Bismarck’s dictum that politics is the art of the possible.  North Korea is unlikely to give up all its nuclear weapons.  However, at the demand of Beijing, Pyongyang can probably be brought to limiting their number and the range of their delivery systems.  Beijing could also offer to put an anti-missile system such as the Russians’ S-400 on North Korea’s border to shoot down any South Korean first strike.  North Korea could still use its few nukes to deter an American first strike, even if they could not reach beyond South Korea.

Are the Pentagon, State Department, and White House capable of Bismarckian Realpolitik? President Trump’s own instincts lead him that way.  Whether his administration can follow is open to doubt.

And Pray, Sir, What Does Italy have to Offer?

Posted on by

What has not been said about President Obama’s failure to deal with Pyonjang and its ballistic missiles? That he did not have what it takes. That he was hesitant. That he was unsure of himself. That he was weak, weak, weak. Too weak for this particular job, too weak for holding the presidency in general.

After January 20th 2017, we were told, all that would change. A new and decisive, albeit mentally somewhat disturbed, president would take over in the oval office. He would not allow his hands to be tied by political correctness. To provide advice, he would surround himself not by nancy-pancy Department of State types but by tough, no-nonsense, former generals (including one who had been nicknamed “Mad Dog” by his fellows). He would disregard diplomatic niceties. He would call a spade a spade, and a punk a punk. And he would take action, decisive action. Including, if nothing else worked, military action.

Two thirds of a year have passed. Kim-Jong un has continued to “provoke the world” by testing his ballistic missiles. Here it may be worth mentioning, in parenthesis, that there is really no reason why North Korea, a sovereign state that has long been under siege, should not own and do what other states, the U.S included, have owned and done for several decades. Also that, for a small state like North Korea, virtually the only way to defend itself against the great bully, the U.S, is to acquire nuclear weapons and their delivery vehicles.

After each test headlines were broadcast or printed, screaming that “a crisis” was at hand. Each time “top level” conferences were hurriedly organized and held. The armed forces of several countries were put on alert, and militarily units made to maneuver as close to the demilitarized zone separating the two Koreas as safety would allow. And then, nothing except, earlier this month, yet another round of sanctions that everyone knows will achieve nothing.

The immediate reason why so little has happened, of course, is North Korea’s armed forces. By using his conventional artillery Kim-Jong il could inflict enormous damage on Seoul. By using his ballistic missiles, assuming they carry nuclear warheads, he could inflict much greater damage still on South Korea as well as Japan, a key U.S ally, and perhaps at least parts of the U.S as well.

Faced with nuclear weapons in particular, no wonder President Trump, for all his professed love for grabbing women by the genitals, has found himself castrated. A fate that often overcome many other rulers, both American and foreign, over the last seventy-two years. And one which, almost regardless of any developments that may still take place in the field of anti-ballistic missile defense, is likely to be shared by many future ones as well.
When a man is going through the condition, he seems physically fit no rx levitra and gets stimulated by touching his partner or thinking about an intimacy. The manifestations beneath ought not tadalafil uk to be taken by individuals who consume other nitrates, for example, nitroglycerin, as this may bring about a serious and possibly deadly drop in circulatory strain. Although many people call watermelon viagra cheap price or an alternative to kamagra and other ED tablets, the story is about friends who go for a vacation to their old party spots and the situations they face when they discover that there are many changes that have happened. It increases the blood flow to insure that once the course is over, you have to appear price of sildenafil for an examination and once you clear it, you’ll receive the license.
In- and out of the administration, quite some people put their hope in China. Beijing, they say, has what it takes to bring its troublesome client to heel. By applying serious economic sanctions such as North Korea, which has few other major trading partners, could hardly survive. Or massing troops on the border and make them engage in maneuvers. Or even launching a limited strike (limited it would have to be, or else it might lead to a nuclear exchange). Briefly, anything that might pull Washington D.C’s chestnuts out of the fire for it.

Sounds nice. But what could the U.S offer China in return? Several options exist. Perhaps a withdrawal, partial or complete, of its troops from South Korea. Or perhaps a loosening of ties with Taiwan (instead of selling it weapons, as Trump has recently announced he would do). Or making concessions in the South China Sea, an area which China, not without some reason, sees as historically its own and strategically vital to its future development.

So why doesn’t the U.S, with Trump at is head, pursue this option? Presumably there are many reasons; presumably one of them is that Trump, as a self-declared He-man, cannot afford the damage to the image of himself he has tried so hard to cultivate.

All this reminds me of an old story told about another self-declared he-man, Benito Mussolini. In November 1922 the newly appointed, young—he was just 39 years old—Italian prime minister went to Territet, near Montreux in Switzerland. There he, the son of a small-town blacksmith, one time day laborer, agitator, and recent goon-in-chief met with British foreign secretary Lord Curzon, 24 years his senior. As ancient, as well-heeled, as courteous, and as flinty a representative of Britain’s ruling aristocracy as there used to be.

Mussolini opened by discussion by announcing that he had come up with “a new principle in diplomacy: nothing for nothing.” “Very interesting, very interesting,” Curzon is supposed to have answered. “And pray, Sir, what does Italy have to offer?”