A War on Two Fronts

Brain-dead Biden and his gang of neocon controllers are on course to destroy the world in a nuclear war. A provocative policy toward Russia alone would be bad enough. So would a provocative policy toward China. But taking on both of these powerful nations at the same time is madness. As Ron Unz says, “Thus, our own actions have forged a strong China-Russia alliance that seems likely to displace America from its dominant global position. Such an outcome would be an event of historic proportions, comparable in magnitude to the collapse of the Soviet Union three decades ago.”

Graham Allison, a leading foreign policy expert at Harvard, explains how the Biden gang’s policies have done this, in an article he wrote in Foreign Policy March 23: “Chinese President Xi Jinping’s decision to visit Moscow this week in his first trip abroad since his reelection comes as no surprise to those who have been watching carefully. When one steps back and analyzes the relationship between China and Russia, the brute facts cannot be denied: Along every dimension—personal, economic, military, and diplomatic—the undeclared alliance that Xi has built with Russian President Vladimir Putin has become much more consequential than most of the United States’ official alliances today.

Furthermore, while many Americans discount Sino-Russian military cooperation, as a former Russian national security advisor has put it to me, China and Russia have the ‘functional equivalent of a military alliance.’ China regularly participates in joint military exercises with Russia that dwarf those the United States conducts with its much more publicized ‘strategic partner,’ India. It sent soldiers to Russia’s annual Vostok exercises in September and conducts joint air and naval exercises on a near-monthly basis. Russian and Chinese generals’ staffs now have candid, detailed discussions about the threat U.S. nuclear modernization and missile defenses pose to each of their strategic deterrents. While, for decades, Russia was careful to withhold its most advanced technologies in arms sales to China, it now sells the best it has, including S-400 air defenses. The two countries share intelligence and threat assessments as well as collaborate on rocket engine research and development. More recently, Beijing and Moscow have collaborated to compete with Washington in a new era of space competition. 

Their diplomatic coordination has also ramped up as Xi and Putin become increasingly convinced Washington is seeking to undermine their regimes. The two countries almost always vote together in the United Nations Security Council and reinforce each other’s political narratives. For instance, China has repeatedly refused to call Russia’s invasion of Ukraine a war, instead labeling it an ‘issue,’ ‘situation,’ or ‘crisis.’ Its diplomats and propaganda megaphones echo even Russia’s most extreme claims about the war, blaming NATO for ignoring Russia’s ‘legitimate concerns’ and suggesting the United States wants to ‘fight till the last Ukrainian.’

Neither leader has made a secret of his ambitions to end U.S. hegemony and create what Xi called on Monday a ‘new model of major-country relations.’ Their success in forming new alignments of nations—including the so-called BRICS bloc and the Shanghai Cooperation Organization, whose citizens make up two-thirds of the world’s population—demonstrates that their declarations are not merely aspirational. While U.S. talking points highlight the world’s condemnation of Putin’s invasion, Chinese and Russian diplomats note that many countries have not joined in, including the world’s largest country, the world’s largest democracy, Africa’s leading democracy, and most nations in the global south. 

An elementary proposition in international relations 101 states: ‘The enemy of my enemy is my friend.’ By confronting both China and Russia simultaneously, the United States has helped create what former U.S. National Security Advisor Zbigniew Brzezinski called an ‘alliance of the aggrieved.’ This has allowed Xi to reverse Washington’s successful ‘trilateral diplomacy’ of the 1970s that widened the gap between China and the United States’ primary enemy, the Soviet Union, in ways that contributed significantly to the U.S. victory in the Cold War. Today, China and Russia are, in Xi’s words, closer than allies.

Since Xi and Putin are not just the current presidents of their two nations but leaders whose tenures effectively have no expiration dates, the United States will have to understand that it is confronting the most consequential undeclared alliance in the world.”

Let’s look at how the Biden neocon gang has threatened each of this countries. First, Russia. Talk of nuclear war is not scaremongering. As Manlio Dinucci of Global Research explains: ““’Russia will deploy its tactical nuclear weapons in Belarus at Minsk’s request,’ President Putin announced.

‘In reality – he clarified – we are doing everything that the United States has been doing for decades’.

Moscow points out that the United States has placed its tactical nuclear weapons in Europe, in six NATO countries: Italy, Germany, Holland, Belgium, Turkey, and Greece (they are not currently in Greece, but there is a depot ready to receive them).

The B61 nuclear bombs – in Italy they are located in the bases of Aviano and Ghedi – have now been replaced by the new B61-12, and the US Air Force is already transporting them to Europe.

Their characteristics make them much more lethal than the previous ones: each bomb has 4 power options depending on the target to be hit, is directed to the target by a satellite guidance system, and can penetrate the ground to destroy enemy command centre bunkers. The US will probably deploy the B61-12 also in Poland and other NATO countries even closer to Russia.

Three NATO nuclear powers – USA, Great Britain, France – and four US nuclear-armed NATO countries – Italy, Germany, Belgium, and the Netherlands – participate in the Baltic Air Policing operation in the Latvia, Lithuania, Estonia, and Poland airspace, with aircraft that can carry tactical nuclear weapons. In addition to these aircraft, U.S. B-52H strategic bombers Air Force carry on nuclear warfare training missions in the Baltic region, and other European areas bordering Russian territory.

The European Allies have made 19 airports available for such missions. The United States, having torn up the INF Treaty, is also preparing intermediate-range nuclear missiles to be deployed in Europe.

To this offensive deployment, the bases and ships of the Aegis ‘missile defence’ system deployed by the US in Europe are added. Both ships and land-based Aegis installations are equipped with Lockheed Martin Mk 41 vertical launchers which – the manufacturer itself documented – can launch not only interceptor missiles but also cruise missiles armed with nuclear warheads.

After the US and NATO rejected all Russian proposals to stop this increasingly dangerous nuclear escalation, Russia responds by deploying nuclear bombs and intermediate-range missiles in Belarus close to US-NATO bases in Europe ready to be armed with nuclear warheads.”

Now let’s look at China. Finian Cunningham points out: “The Biden administration this week brazenly announced its intention to walk over China’s red line warning on Taiwan. The move by the US is a recklessly provocative step that dares an inevitable military response from Beijing.

If that happens then all bets are off for a full-scale military confrontation between the United States, its allies, and China. It is not alarmist to say such a clash would escalate into World War III.

Australia and Britain are explicitly committed to a military alliance with the United States in the Asia-Pacific through the recently formed AUKUS pact. Russia will be obliged to defend China.

The date in question is December 9-10 [2021] when the Biden administration plays host to a so-called ‘Summit of Democracies’. This week the State Department announced a list of ‘participants’ that include 110 countries. China and Russia are not invited, among other excluded nations.

Most provocatively, the separatist Chinese territory of Taiwan is invited to attend the video conference. The US is careful to refer to Taiwan as a ‘participant’ not as a ‘nation’. Nevertheless, this semantical device aside, the invitation is a blatant violation of China’s sovereign claim of authority over Taiwan.

China’s claim to Taiwan as being a part of its integral territory is recognized by the United Nations and, at least in theory, by the United States with its One China Policy since 1979.

The island of Taiwan has existed as a self-governing territory since China’s civil war ended in 1949 with communist victory. The nationalist opponents fled to Taiwan. China retains the right to reunite Taiwan under governance from the mainland. Beijing has warned it will do so by military force if Taiwan ever declares independence.

Washington maintains a position of ‘strategic ambiguity’ whereby it acknowledges a One China Policy while also simultaneously offering US commitments to help Taiwan with military defence.

Since Joe Biden took the White House in January, his administration has taken this ambiguity to dangerous levels. At one point, Biden has overstepped policy by explicitly stating the US would defend Taiwan in the event of a confrontation with China.”

Pat Buchanan spells out the hostile Biden policy toward China: “Said [Defense Secretary Lloyd] Austin: ‘Beijing’s claim to the vast majority of the South China Sea has no basis in international law. … We remain committed to the treaty obligations that we have to Japan in the Senkaku Islands and to the Philippines in the South China Sea.’

Austin went on: ‘Beijing’s unwillingness to … respect the rule of law isn’t just occurring on the water. We have also seen aggression against India … destabilizing military activity and other forms of coercion against the people of Taiwan … and genocide and crimes against humanity against Uyghur Muslims in Xinjiang.’

The Defense secretary is publicly accusing China of crimes against its Uyghur population in Xinjiang comparable to those for which the Nazis were hanged at Nuremberg.

Austin has also informed Beijing, yet again, that the U.S. is obligated by a 70-year-old treaty to go to war to defend Japan’s claims to the Senkakus, half a dozen rocks Tokyo now occupies and Beijing claims historically belong to China.

The secretary also introduced the matter of Taiwan, with which President Jimmy Carter broke relations and let lapse our mutual security treaty in 1979.

There remains, however, ambiguity on what the U.S. is prepared to do if China moves on Taiwan. Would we fight China for Taiwan’s independence, an island President Richard Nixon and Henry Kissinger said in 1972 was ‘part of China’?

And if China ignores our protests of its ‘genocide’ and ‘crimes against humanity’ against the Uyghurs, and of its human rights violations in Tibet, and of its crushing of democracy in Hong Kong, what are we prepared to do?

Sanctions? A decoupling of our economies? Confrontation? War?

This is not an argument for threatening war, but for an avoidance of war by providing greater clarity and certitude as to what the U.S. response will be if China ignores our protests and remains on its present course.

Some of us can still recall how President Dwight Eisenhower refused to intervene when Nikita Khrushchev ordered Russian tanks into Budapest to drown the 1956 Hungarian revolution in blood. Instead, we welcomed Hungarian refugees.

When the Berlin Wall went up in 1961, President John F. Kennedy called up the reserves and went to Berlin to make a famous speech, but did nothing.

’Less profile, more courage!’ was the response of Cold War hawks.

But Kennedy was saying, as Eisenhower had said by his inaction in Hungary, that America does not go to war with a great nuclear power such as the Soviet Union over the right of East Germans to flee to West Berlin.

Which brings us back to Taiwan.

In the Shanghai Communique signed by Nixon, Taiwan was conceded to be a ‘part of China.’ Are we now going to fight a war to prevent Beijing from bringing the island home to the ‘embrace of the motherland’?

And if we are prepared to fight, Beijing should not be left in the dark. China ought to know the risks it would be taking.

Cuba is an island, across the Florida Strait, with historic ties to the United States. Taiwan is an island 7,000 miles away, on the other side of the Pacific.

This month, Cubans rose up against the 62-year-old Communist regime fastened upon them by Fidel and Raul Castro.

By what yardstick would we threaten war for the independence of Taiwan but continue to tolerate 60 years of totalitarian repression in Cuba, 90 miles away?”

We should heed the wise counsel of Colonel Douglas Macgregor: “Moscow will not put up much longer with Washington’s aggressive actions to stymie Russia in Ukraine. Moscow is not in the grip of Hitlerian lust for conquest, but Washington’s weaponization of Ukraine is an existential threat to Moscow.

To paraphrase former Secretary of Defense Bob Gates, any American president or politician who is willing to risk a high-end conventional land war with Russia should have his head examined, or at a minimum, deserves serious psychiatric care. The same must be said of anyone in Washington who wants to engage in nuclear brinksmanship with Moscow.

It is time to choose again. What kind of Republic do Americans want? What kind of foreign policy do Americans want?”

Let’s do everything we can to stop the neocon warmongers and return America to the non-interventionist policy of peace defended by Murray Rothbard and Ron Paul.

The post A War on Two Fronts appeared first on LewRockwell.

Leave a Comment