This perspective suffers really badly from Main Character Syndrome. The United States didn't win World War II by itself, nor did the Axis powers position themselves directly against the United States, but the article spends a lot of time acting like both of those are true. And then it talks about upcoming American decisions in a vacuum, as if it doesn't have current and potential allies who would be quite important in a world war scenario!
It also severely misrepresents the relationship between the USSR and Germany. Hitler made no secret of the fact that one of his chief aims was to destroy the Soviet Union. The Soviets feared a German invasion and pursued an alliance with France. The USSR wanted to intervene to prevent a German invasion of Czechoslovakia, but after the British and French signed the Munich agreement with Hitler, the Soviets feared the western powers would let the USSR and Germany fight it out and moved to make their own accommodation with Hitler. Both sides regarded that deal as temporary, and knew that it would come to war later. The Soviets wanted to buy time to build up the Red Army.
This narative omits the contradicting fact that Soviet Union decimated Poland and others it conquered in alliance with Germany. If the alliance was just to buy time for Red Army, then it would not make sense for Red Army to spend time massacring the elites and armies of conquered states [0] that could become their buffer against Germany or even become their allies. This narative, which I started hearing after the start of last Russian war, is therefore pretty naive attempt of current day Russia to spin the story of their initial alliance with nazi Germany which was definitely real.
I think USA now is in a very weak position, starting for their leadership and potential candidates. It is not acting as a world superpower which is to decide a course of action for the following decades and not oscillating or simulating that they are not a super power: the nuclear weapons, the F-35s, etc. Also, I don't think the new generations in USA could tolerate a war, educationally speaking. There will be massive peace protests around the country by people that never experienced a war like previous generations.
Iran could do whatever they want via proxies. China is making deals everywhere, and Russia continue to move forward while Europe... is sleeping.
Not sure Russia, China, North Korea, and Iran are really aligned.
China probably feels the same way about Vladivostok as they do about Taiwan, another territory lost in an "unequal treaty" during "a century of humiliation". They've been on the brink before
Anybody who neighbors Russia is concerned about being overrun with tanks and Spetznaz. Iran was a reliable anti-communist ally of the US in the time of the Shah because of the geopolitical situation of Iran.
All of those countries have an interest in the US and NATO being overstretched, but I don't think China really cares if Russia wins or loses in Ukraine and Russia does not really care if China takes Taiwan.
If China intends to take Taiwan and ultimately go beyond that into other parts of Asia, they have a strong interest in having parts of NATO's forces being tied down defending Europe and the Middle East. And vice versa. North Korea will presumably also help to tie down forces in South Korea.
China is not an expansionist imperial power as your comment seems to imply, quite the opposite, it always talks about how they have no intention to expand beyond its borders... but of course, it sees Taiwan as an internal affair (and most other countries in the world acknowledge it and accept its one-China policy). Taiwan was very much a part of China before the Japanese invaded it in 1895 [1] (though it had also been temporarily colonized by European powers before then), and again once the Japanese lost the war in 1945. Taiwan was then controlled by the Republic of China (ROC) "Party". When the civil war ended in 1949, the ROC lost to the Community party in mainland China and millions of its members fled to Taiwan[2] and hoped to later unify China with itself, but that obviously never happened. They continued to claim to be the legitimate government of all of China (and even parts of neighbouring countries), and apparently some of them still do!
From the Wikipedia article:
"The ROC was a founding member of the United Nations, and held the seat of China on the Security Council and other UN bodies until 1971, when it was expelled by Resolution 2758 and replaced with the PRC. Since 1993, the ROC has petitioned the UN for entry, but its applications have not made it past committee stage.[281][282] Due to the One China policy, most UN member states, including the United States, do not wish to discuss the issue of the ROC's political status for fear of souring diplomatic ties with the PRC."
I believe both sides actually want an eventual unification, Taiwan just doesn't want to lose all its autonomy and have a change of political system (it's a democracy, unlike mainland China).
Again, this assumes some kind of overarching relationship among these countries with a shared goal. But what does North Korea gain by, say, keeping South Korea busy while China invades Taiwan? It basically means Pyongyang is flattened by artillery fire and missiles, with a more-likely-than-not chance of regime change.
Taiwan is not a part of NATO. The US may, directly or indirectly, help to defend it, but it is not a military concern for other NATO countries.
But frankly, I find it very difficult to believe it could happen in the near future because Taiwan is already very well prepared for an invasion. So unless the Chinese leaders are as badly informed as the ones from Kremlin, they would not attempt a full-scale war over dead bodies and ruins. They attempt the opposite - to lure the Taiwanese, encourage friendly exchanges etc. A war would completely destroy everything. And I don't believe this is the Chinese aim (yet).
(I don't event mention Chinese loses because they can throw a lot of people and equipment just like Putin did and not care about huge loses.)
Beyond semantics though, russia would have been in much worse shape without iranian drones, nk ammo and chinese everything (no pure military gear yet, but plenty other material)
> "The enemy of my enemy is my enemy's enemy. No more. No less."
Politics makes strange bedfellows, as they say, and so does war.
The WW2 "alliance" between Germany and Finland ? Something along the lines of "The enemy of my enemy is not necessarily my friend, but we can do business".
China, historically, has for most part chose to not commit to any alliances -- out of fear of being dragged into an unwanted war. This is largely still true today with the exception of perhaps North Korea today and during the early part of the Mao era with the USSR. According to Kissinger, China instead uses a system of "parallel analysis" where if two parties look at the same facts and arrive at the same conclusion then they will act towards a common goal. This was what China did when it was in a quasi-alliance with the US during the Cold War after the Nixon trips. Something similar might be happening now with Russia in regards to both countries want to see the US attention occupied and resources stretched.
Furthermore, Russia is resource rich but industry poor. China is the reverse. This makes them ideal trade partners. As sibling comments have pointed out, the border disputes between the two countries are now resolved. I guarantee you the PRC does not feel the same way about Vladivostok as they do about Taiwan. Taiwan isn't even foreign in their eyes -- it's an unresolved issue from their civil war. Vladivostok is lost to another country and its loss has been accepted.
> I don't think China really cares if Russia wins or loses in Ukraine and Russia does not really care if China takes Taiwan.
I agree. I think China just wants the war over one way or another. That said, I think they would prefer it if Russia comes out of it with their prestige intact simply because China has so few partners as it is (because of their aversion to alliances).
Lastly, I would add that, if you imagine China abandoning Russia as the US and EU want them to, what would they gain in return? A pat on the head and then what? More requests to comply with the system of liberal democracies? China's foreign policy has a very strong realist bend and is driven by very concrete gains and losses calculations. They don't place as much value on softer things like good will. Why would they jeopardize their energy and resource security for something as nebulous as good will from the US and EU?
Maybe because russia has repeatedly signed then broken border agreements? What goes around comes around, there were statements about Alaska being rightfully russian too.
A return to isolationism would be best. The next 1000 years belong to China, for demographic reasons--this or that sort of "Great Game"-style meddling won't fix anything.
"It is worth recalling today, as Russia and China confront the United States, that the proximate reason for America’s entry into World War II was its determination to save those two countries from extinction."
Nonsense! Great powers act in their own interests. The US entered the war because of Pearl Harbor. Hitler welcomed the opportunity to wage unrestricted submarine warfare on the US shipping supporting UK & USSR in the struggle against Hitler; hence his declaration of war on the US. Above all the US did not want Nazi/Japanese dominance over Europe, Asia and the Pacific.
The US entered the war because of Pearl Harbor, but long before then, the US was working in favor of Great Britain as hard as possible short of war. They were also working against Japan.
And the Pearl Harbor attack was an attempt at a saving throw as the US had blockaded Japanese oil supplies as the latter's imperial expansion threatened the US colony of the Philipines.
(not trying to portray the US as the aggressor in any way, just agreeing that the author's model is utterly broken)
The US openly entered the war because of Pearl Harbor. But the US had already been secretly involved in the war for some time before that. And a major part of that was Lend-Lease aid to the Soviet Union.
The case for the US wanting to save Nationalist China from extinction is much less clear since US aid to them was much more lukewarm and inconsistent.
Also, it's kind of amazing that they consider that it's China who is "confronting" them. China has enormous trade with the US, it has not attempted in any way to diminish that, quite the opposite, it's been trying really hard to increase trade! What action has China taken that shows it wants to "confront" the US???
Haven't finished reading this but I do wonder about the (still fairly common?) belief that Russia and China very much distrust and despise each other. They're much different than they were in the middle half of the 20th century when their animosity towards each other was based on who they though should be the vanguard of the communist-socialist Leninists-Marxist world revolution.
And if people still believe in this split, incorrectly, will that cause people to incorrectly analyze the situation? As a general principle Russia and China are each untrustworthy of other countries so perhaps they're playing the "keep your friends close but your enemies closer" card. And it's at this point I start to feel that my analysis is too circular, and that China will continue to assist Russia only so long as it suits them (the self interest argument that someone else posted about).
In the medium term, the named states all see benefit in moving the world back towards a multi-polar environment with regional spheres of influence and richer individual sovereignty. That's the common cause that sees them coordinate, cooperate, and simply borrow from the windows of opportunity that each opens.
Further out, many can of course anticipate conflict with their neighbors and peers, but those challenges arrive in their own day, in their own way, and only after American influence gets pushed out from their purported domains.
Readit News
[0] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Katyn_massacre
It is important to also highlight that Russia was invaded while USA was far from the conflict.
Iran could do whatever they want via proxies. China is making deals everywhere, and Russia continue to move forward while Europe... is sleeping.
Today is day 814 of the russia invasion of ukraine, which mind you, they thought would take 2 days.
China probably feels the same way about Vladivostok as they do about Taiwan, another territory lost in an "unequal treaty" during "a century of humiliation". They've been on the brink before
https://nsarchive2.gwu.edu/NSAEBB/NSAEBB49/
Anybody who neighbors Russia is concerned about being overrun with tanks and Spetznaz. Iran was a reliable anti-communist ally of the US in the time of the Shah because of the geopolitical situation of Iran.
All of those countries have an interest in the US and NATO being overstretched, but I don't think China really cares if Russia wins or loses in Ukraine and Russia does not really care if China takes Taiwan.
From the Wikipedia article:
"The ROC was a founding member of the United Nations, and held the seat of China on the Security Council and other UN bodies until 1971, when it was expelled by Resolution 2758 and replaced with the PRC. Since 1993, the ROC has petitioned the UN for entry, but its applications have not made it past committee stage.[281][282] Due to the One China policy, most UN member states, including the United States, do not wish to discuss the issue of the ROC's political status for fear of souring diplomatic ties with the PRC."
I believe both sides actually want an eventual unification, Taiwan just doesn't want to lose all its autonomy and have a change of political system (it's a democracy, unlike mainland China).
This issue is really complicated.
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Taiwan#Japanese_rule_(1895%E2%...
[2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Retreat_of_the_government_of_R...
But frankly, I find it very difficult to believe it could happen in the near future because Taiwan is already very well prepared for an invasion. So unless the Chinese leaders are as badly informed as the ones from Kremlin, they would not attempt a full-scale war over dead bodies and ruins. They attempt the opposite - to lure the Taiwanese, encourage friendly exchanges etc. A war would completely destroy everything. And I don't believe this is the Chinese aim (yet).
(I don't event mention Chinese loses because they can throw a lot of people and equipment just like Putin did and not care about huge loses.)
They aren't "aligned" past the first step. They are aligned on "not the current US-dominated world order". Past that, they aren't aligned at all.
And they aren't friends. They are interested in using each other to help with the first step, and that is all.
Politics makes strange bedfellows, as they say, and so does war.
The WW2 "alliance" between Germany and Finland ? Something along the lines of "The enemy of my enemy is not necessarily my friend, but we can do business".
China, historically, has for most part chose to not commit to any alliances -- out of fear of being dragged into an unwanted war. This is largely still true today with the exception of perhaps North Korea today and during the early part of the Mao era with the USSR. According to Kissinger, China instead uses a system of "parallel analysis" where if two parties look at the same facts and arrive at the same conclusion then they will act towards a common goal. This was what China did when it was in a quasi-alliance with the US during the Cold War after the Nixon trips. Something similar might be happening now with Russia in regards to both countries want to see the US attention occupied and resources stretched.
Furthermore, Russia is resource rich but industry poor. China is the reverse. This makes them ideal trade partners. As sibling comments have pointed out, the border disputes between the two countries are now resolved. I guarantee you the PRC does not feel the same way about Vladivostok as they do about Taiwan. Taiwan isn't even foreign in their eyes -- it's an unresolved issue from their civil war. Vladivostok is lost to another country and its loss has been accepted.
> I don't think China really cares if Russia wins or loses in Ukraine and Russia does not really care if China takes Taiwan.
I agree. I think China just wants the war over one way or another. That said, I think they would prefer it if Russia comes out of it with their prestige intact simply because China has so few partners as it is (because of their aversion to alliances).
Lastly, I would add that, if you imagine China abandoning Russia as the US and EU want them to, what would they gain in return? A pat on the head and then what? More requests to comply with the system of liberal democracies? China's foreign policy has a very strong realist bend and is driven by very concrete gains and losses calculations. They don't place as much value on softer things like good will. Why would they jeopardize their energy and resource security for something as nebulous as good will from the US and EU?
Dead Comment
It didn't need to be this way, of course.
That is quite a bold claim. Care to elaborate?
Nonsense! Great powers act in their own interests. The US entered the war because of Pearl Harbor. Hitler welcomed the opportunity to wage unrestricted submarine warfare on the US shipping supporting UK & USSR in the struggle against Hitler; hence his declaration of war on the US. Above all the US did not want Nazi/Japanese dominance over Europe, Asia and the Pacific.
(not trying to portray the US as the aggressor in any way, just agreeing that the author's model is utterly broken)
Arguably tantamount to war.
The US openly entered the war because of Pearl Harbor. But the US had already been secretly involved in the war for some time before that. And a major part of that was Lend-Lease aid to the Soviet Union.
The case for the US wanting to save Nationalist China from extinction is much less clear since US aid to them was much more lukewarm and inconsistent.
And if people still believe in this split, incorrectly, will that cause people to incorrectly analyze the situation? As a general principle Russia and China are each untrustworthy of other countries so perhaps they're playing the "keep your friends close but your enemies closer" card. And it's at this point I start to feel that my analysis is too circular, and that China will continue to assist Russia only so long as it suits them (the self interest argument that someone else posted about).
Further out, many can of course anticipate conflict with their neighbors and peers, but those challenges arrive in their own day, in their own way, and only after American influence gets pushed out from their purported domains.
Dead Comment
Deleted Comment