“What’s that word again?”
Word of the day: Reunification. La Réunification, die Wiedervereinigung, Ühinemine, Перезлиття, Объединение, 重新统一 Free eBooks at the end of the post.
Economism and War:
Most people are self-interested. Many, probably the majority, are greedy, or even selfish. Such people misplace their values. They should value people more than things. Though: I do value victory more than life, since life must be worth living and life as a slave of any variety probably isn't worth living. One of the things that makes me hate slavery deeply is all the people who hoped to escape or be freed but never were. Ours is the side that hates slavery: ours is the side that ends wars. Since I value victory more than life I also value it more than money. This is why I win my wars. The people who value money more than victory deserve to lose, and they do.
Russias-army-is-learning-on-the-battlefield
U.S. makes treaties with Papua New Guinea, Micronesia, Palau.
THE CRITIQUE OF LIBERALISM
Liberals are polite, tight lipped, well dressed, neat, clean, tidy and often (usually?) some combination of liars, hypocrites, cowards. i don't see liberals as courageous. but they are experts at getting what the Leninists call "useful idiots" to do their dirty work.
I know the weapons of class war all right. Liberalism means scratch lotto gambling addiction, cigarettes, alcohol, and drugs. What a party! Funny, it just so happens to make the rich richer and kill the poor. Don’t believe me? Look around. It's not that I want to suppress other races/nations/religions. I don’t. Hell, I don't even necessarily want to suppress classes: enjoy your toys! Especially because, sadly, you’re probably gonna die one day, statistically speaking, so go have kids. Despite not wanting to rob the rich to feed the poor, which is a desperate move and does not work, I know the disgusting excesses of liberalism, the “I got mine fuck him” attitude, and making it at the expense of others. All that liberal freedumb just-so-happen to kill and enslave the poor. I guess we deserve it for being stupid / lazy / immoral, huh!
Liberalism gets some things, most notably economics basically right. But mostly it's a lazy default position for those who can't or don't want to fight their way through to the truth and to what is just. Their motto would be "in dubitas libertas" and they have a lot of dubitas, a lot of dubyas...
Most importantly: liberalism is a horribly bad way to fight open, i.e. overt war. Liberalism can't organize groups for mass killing. It’s a feature, not a bug: mass killing is what liberals and thugs like me want to suppress. Moreover, what has liberalism done for its weakest? I mean, other than exploit them with drugs, guns, liquor, gambling and “sin” taxes? How is liberalism working out back on the reservation? How is liberalism working out for black people? Or gypsies? Maybe it’s better for immigrants?
Liberalism as an economic theory can empower commercially minded people. Are poor people commercially minded? Most would love wealth but have no idea how to build and/or accumulate riches because most people live in the immediate moment, yolo. But yolo fails to build wealth and can lead to a broken short unhealthy early funeral.
People in fact are not fundamentally liberal: at best, at best we are live and let live. But fundamentally, when the chips are down, we’re all nationalists. We love our family first and foremost, then our clan, tribe, nation, race. IF we have brains, and most of us do, we figure out we must at least tolerate people who are different. We know most people have brains because Aristotle observed “all men, by nature, desire to know.” Even natural slaves, women, and children are fundamentally curious and desire knowledge. Thus they can, and largely do, get along, unlike humans and polar bears.
So I don't see "diversity" as a wonderful profit opportunity. I see it as necessary for self-defense in a hostile world. Tolerance and immigrants build bigger armies! Tolerance also builds a better army. Tolerance is also necessary for a market economy and wealth production. In turn, a well organized, prosperous, well armed State can take the risk of tolerance, and has no need to aggress or predate. Trusting others is dangerous and can be damaging, even deadly, if you trust the wrong thuggo at the wrong time, as experience shows. Try to learn from others’ errors.
People who push the idea that we must accept others are foolish. It's already tough just to get people to merely tolerate those who are very different. Tolerance is an attainable and desirable goal. Acceptance is not: it's illusory. Liberals and especially their ignorant puppets learn to mouth the pretty platitudes and as soon as the virtue signalers back is turned the dog whistles come out.
The Purported liberals ugliest hypocrisy is that they (sincerely) act tolerant, and even (foolishly or insincerely) claim to accept and “celebrate” others (life isn’t a giant party it’s a struggle to survive, maybe prosper). But then, when the chips are down when it matters most these supposedly tolerant ever polite and well dressed people expose, exploit, and destroy the weak. In peace time: "The Jews are my friends!" — until a serious crisis comes along and suddenly they are not, sometimes with deadly consequences, as history shows.
Militant tolerance, not kumbaya acceptance, is what will build strong families, clans, tribes, and nations. A well governed nation can defend itself, for it is in consequence strong, prosperous and thus will not aggress and can even risk being tolerant and benevolent.
China is currently totalitarian. We can help China transform itself from fearful, rigid, defensive totalitarianism into well-governed authoritarianism. We should remind the billionaires that a democratic nationalist China might well be ultranationalist and aggressive. Yet, a merely authoritarian isolationist China would be peaceful and productive. We garner Chinese support by recognizing where they are, showing them how to get where they would like to go, and thereby outmaneuver domestic opposition, the Niall Fergunson and Steve Walts, who blindly want to throw away 30 or more years of real progress in China.
These very “liberals” tried to turn Afghanistan and China into ... Sweden, the USA. That was foolish, hubris, even arrogant cultural imperialism. Those are all very different societies. Ignoring their fundamental differences (climate, geography, history, culture) meant any effort to work fundamental changes in a foreign country with a different culture and language was doomed from the start no matter how much money was wasted or which people were killed.
Rather than turn China into the USA we should turn China into a giant Singapore or, better, but less likely, a giant Hong Kong. Really though, it's a matter of helping the Chinese grow and reform into something they themselves want and would also preserve.
AUTHORITARIANISM
Most countries, not all, screw up authoritarianism.
Iran is a great example of ruined authoritarianism. They go too far, leaning toward totalitarianism, are extreme, overly violent: frequent failures of totalitarian governments result from a lack of democratic feedback and free speech. Liberalism often (not always) gets free speech right. The USA is a great example where they got it right -- until around 1960 -- and then screwed it up badly. People and peoples mostly misapprehend the proper relations between authority, democracy, law, free speech. They equate totalitarianism, which is just about always a really bad idea, with authoritarianism which is often a bad idea. Furthermore, they fail to recognize liberalism's errors and failures, which just-so-happens to enrich certain segments of society. Basically I argue for an authoritarian democracy with freedom of political speech and artistic expression, more or less what the USA had until around 1970. Nationalism as a rule, with internationalism as an exception built on top of that and out from it. It’s not merely your family you love also your world, just like that other thug.
All those drug addicts? Liberalism. All those guns and mass shootings? More liberalism. And the current U.S. Supreme court decided to ignore the words "well ordered militia", more or less dooming the USA to a great amount of internal violence. The idiots followed it up with "stand your ground" laws. But all that is more liberalism, more so-called “freedom”. The authoritarian responses? State regulated guns (militia clause), strict drug prohibition, like Singapore, and police patrols to make sure bad people with guns stop being people or stop having guns. It’s not like the USA had a gun ban in 1970. All these probably MSS black ops, certainly SRV black ops wrecking the USA’s back field are easily reversed if you just had one iota of courage.
I'm still wondering what exactly to do about the foolish self-destructive first amendment "interpretation" and the idiotic "stand your ground": but first, burn the traitors. Then purge the supreme court with a constitutional amendment and court packing: they went too far with their faux literalism masking interpretism. We ought not live in a judicial dictatorship run by unelected rich elites who all went to the same few schools. The xenophobic forces driving Trump will be suppressed, even without me. Liberals love to set up populist suckers let them do their dirty work, and then destroy them by encouraging their self destructive tendencies. I just plan to get to their destruction more quickly.
I'm an authoritarian democrat: I believe in democratic power ex ante, not elite legitimation ex post. However, as a default position and a method to organize society, liberalism is a tough thing to outmaneuver: they are slick liars. Furthermore, Liberalism is basically "I give up, do whatever" as governance, so it generates little resistance, even a great deal of legitimation. However, on its own terms, liberalism cannot marshal state power for any pro-active projects. I am not in any political party. By democrat I mean demos kratos, rule of the people, not the party of Lincoln. Though, Lincoln himself was an authoritarian democrat.
Russia is going to be destroyed economically and militarily, reduced.
China is a much tougher beast. Much better organized, consequently more productive. It simply merits better.
Russia will be made an example of, but that will not dissuade a popular dictatorship. I do not expect further liberal reform in China, though we should help China get out from under totalitarianism and move toward democracy and rule of law, which are goals the Chinese themselves want.
I'm not anti-liberal. I just understand the reasons for liberalism are: it enables trade among very diverse peoples and thus is vital to capitalism. Liberalism done properly fosters peace through tolerance and interdependence. Mearsheimer underestimates liberal peace theory. One of the reasons liberalism sometimes triumphs? It's no-cost to implement, or nearly so. Liberalism requires nearly no need for taxes or hard choices.
As a way to suspend conflict about what Connoly calls "essentially contested concepts" liberalism has much to offer. As a way to organize and direct society Liberalism has serious flaws and failings: drugs, alcohol, gambling, obesity and liberalism goes out the window like of Putin’s enemies once the shooting starts.
Liberalism cannot discipline itself, which is the one way dictatorships ever gain traction; that and the fact a small disciplined elite political faction / party can absolutely dominate a disorganized fractured majority.
This right here is just one example why I am not a liberal but instead am authoritarian. how-the-united-states-got-hooked-on-fentanyl.html
Guess where all that lax undisciplined anything goes leads to? X_X
So the Western billionnaires will finally get rid of Putin. The Russian economy will be ruined. Russia will be reduced to abject poverty and the plaything of Western oligarchs again, instead of Eastern ones.
This destruction of a potential ally in the coming cold war with China is not to be celebrated. Of course, the rump ruined Russian state will be driven into the arms of China. So China will finally acquire adequate jet engine technology for its jet fighters. The U.S. elites will see the coming victory over Putin and fall back into complacency about China. Liberals and capitalists will cheer as China and the USA return to Chinese sharp trading and U.S. naivete gutting American industry and turning former labor union workers into drug addicts.
I love Chinese culture and speak Chinese fluently. However, even China is not a kleptocracy: China is a state-capitalist mercantilist dictatorship pursuing an expansionist foreign policy which will inevitably clash with the USA as described in a neat little book or two, one being "Unrestricted Warfare". My betters should have figured that out a decade or two ago. Instead, they decided trying to reshape the entire middle east was other than a stupid unrealistic idea. Who can blame the neocons for intellectual dishonesty, given their strategic incompetence? After all, Their children weren't doing the fighting let alone the dying. That fatal burden would fall on brown people.
Unlike Russians, Chinese people are hard working, sober, inventive, not given to thievery. China’s only national vice is gambling. The new cold war will prove much harder than the last one.
The coming win in Ukraine will be an illusion, for it sets the stage for China to drift off into not really a problem for 10 or even 20 more years of expansion.
I don't predict the USA will win this new cold war with China. It can lose. China has 1.4 billion people. The USA is but 340 million, at most. China isn't an alcoholic kleptocracy trying to implement economic insanity. It’s larger, richer, better organized than the USSR. China today isn't the USSR. It is far more powerful, and thus more dangerous, but to present hasn't elaborated effective foreign policy.
UKRAINE
The Russians will be defeated. Ukraine today is not Hungary in 1956.
Reasons for the defeat:
1. lack of training, surprisingly.
2. corruption resulting in shoddy equipment
3. distrust between officers (who lie) and rankers (who see right through it) (and also lie!)
4. believing their own propaganda
5. inadequate logistic support
6. drones
7. western intelligence
8. good training and supply including resupply of Ukrainian military
Were Putin to order a nuclear strike he would likely be removed immediately in a palace coup.
I do not expect either side to compromise or surrender.
China will correctly see this as an opportunity to exert much greater influence over all the former Soviet central Asian republics AND as a chance to get Russian raw materials dirt cheap. There's really no down side for the CCP on this. In fact, Ukraine is a belt and road partner AND Russia is a Shanghai cooperation organization member. China is literally on both sides of this one and cannot lose. So China could try to negotiate a truce or cease fire, unlike the USA or any NATO Member State.
In the initial invasion I advised China to extricate their scholars in Ukraine who are frankly clueless about war and just how Russia wages it. More recently I am advising in no uncertain terms that China broker a peace. Two of my contacts agree China brokering a peace would be a massive diplomatic breakthrough, the third however was too stupid / arrogant to see it. Roll the dice? Low risk, low cost, possible huge upside so it’s worth a try.
China's only downside here is that invading Taiwan looks a lot tougher and Xi's concentration of all state power in his own hands is starting to look stupid too. Otherwise though it's cheap oil and lots of wheat.
Putin figured he could win his three day special military operation because of the ill organized U.S. withdrawal from Afghanistan. Putin is trying to boost Trump's chances for a come-back and ruin Biden's reelection. But Putin fucked up so badly thanks to wishful thinking that Putin's goose is cooked. Putin is finished, stick a fork in him, he's done.
CHINA:
大星如银河 When your counterpart starts wearing Your colours you know they want to meet you at least half-way. 您给我希望。C O N S T E L L A T I O N
China is in theory and practice totalitarian. The state has total control of all aspects of life, including the "private" aspects like family (e.g. the current 3 child policy).
However, knowing the support and legitimacy of the CCP is at times more than questionable the CCP exercises these total powers sparingly: for example, at Tiananmen in 1989 they shot a lot of people dead. Having seen the backlash from this, in the more recent Hong Kong protests the CCP did not use overt deadly force. Instead, the CCP limited its repression to career constraints, jail time, political disqualification and, maybe torture or rape but if so: always, always behind the scenes.
The People’s Republic of China is a totalitarian people's dictatorship, which thus seeks legitimation by provision of public goods to the masses. Westerners want democracy in China. The CCP also wants that. But, oh, when China actually gets democracy — and it turns out to empower nationalism or even ultra nationalism — expect the Westerners to whine and moan mightily!
China "can't win for losing": it's a dictatorship, and even totalitarian, but wants to be better, which is why we tolerate their efforts to outgrow their own self-imposed mal-governance. However, I am 100% certain as China grows more powerful, more democratic, more liberal in expression — in a word more efficient — all those whites will go on from "China can only copy" and "Chinese goods are shoddy" to flip into their usual savage "Chinese are evil" "godless" "pagans" eat cats, smell bad in short: yellow peril. If you doubt me I could list similar historic calumnies, whether against Chinese or Jews or Gypsies. Some people are bullies, more are fearful, and liberals desired diversity is, to many people, a direct threat to their livelihood or even their life.
Jews thus may have ideas about how to reign in the worst of xenophobia, which results from jealousy and stupidity, in the face of an intelligent prosperous alien race, a strange religion, a different culture. I exaggerate the Jew-Christian Jew-European splits to make the similar Sino-Euro dynamic clear and expose how vile it is, where it can lead to.
China is a totalitarian dictatorship. The only thing saving it from my wrath is the Chinese people, their culture, and their capacity and desire to self-reform: civilized, optimistic, hard working common people recovering from centuries of constant famines and civil wars. All the people whining about Chinese governance today are ignoring or ignorant of what China used to be. This prediction may not come true but I predict the people’s dictatorship will tranform itself into a popular democracy.
China is not paradise or perfect but could be far worse, can improve, and has shown repeatedly and consistently a desire to improve. China’'s proper comparitor is ...India. China is 10x richer than India, per capita. How did that happen hm?
Smallpox 2.0: An Indian is You
Often, Westerners claim biological warfare is foolish, counterproductive. They seem to ignore these facts. 1) The black death got its start from the Mongols practice of catapaulting shit, corpses, and carcasses into cities they besieged to cause diseases. This tactic actually worked. It also very likely caused the black plague. 2) When the plague resistant Europeans landed on what is now North America they brought various pathogens with them, not just smallpox, a whole host of diseases which resulted from humans living in close proximity with domesticated farm animals. Since few animals were domesticated in what was once and sometimes still called Turtle Island The People did not have natural immunity to many diseases. These diseases spread, more often unintentionally but sometimes intentionally, decimating entire native nations. The Chinese Communst Party knows about the sordid history of diseases used to intentionally kill first nations in what is now known as North America. Finally 3) in World War 2 the Japanese used various bioweapons to attack the Chinese, to try to exterminate the Chinese. The idea the Chinese government was not and is not researching biological weapons is patently ridiculous given these historic facts. Consequently:
1. The U.S. is and will keep developing more, and more effective, prevention and treatments. China will probably just lie in wait, hoping to steal them somehow.
2. The U.S. should regard SARS II as a leaked bio-weapon, which it is, because China did a very bad job at containing the virus, for it was more interested in obscuring its weapon's origins than in international cooperation to remedy their lab leak. Even if it were not a biological weapon that escaped from the lab China's actions thereafter did nothing to contain the virus. A few half-hearted warnings, and two cover-ups. One, by the local party leadership, to hide the outbreak from the national government. Then, when the national government discovered the outbreak (to their horror) another to hide the outbreak's origins from the rest of the world and the Chinese people. At least it wasn’t an intentional attack, which explains the USA’s measured response. Though, China’s government feared a retalitory war. That, and profiteering, also explain China’s disinformation efforts and other disease prevention errors.
I do not anticipate further iterations of lab grown variants. The omicron variant may well have been genetically engineered to infect the entire planet with a much weakened version and force vaccinate the globe.
The U.S. vaccines are significantly more effective than the Chinese ones. Though the weapon targets Westerners by blood type and obesity, China has at least some people who are susceptible. China can't gain anything more from a bio-war on these terms. It's attempts to portray itself as savior of the world, and the better organized society appear to have failed, because of their efforts to obscure the true origins of the virus.
It's not that SARS II will be eliminated, or has run its course. Instead it will become endemic. Keep in mind this disease attacks the blood, heart muscle, and lungs (at least! "multiple organ failure"...). It is remarkably deadly: because it's a weapon. Viruses generally attack the respiratory system, rarely do they attack the circulatory system. I know of no other examples of a virus that target both the circulatory and respiratory system. That it is so highly transmissible and deadly is remarkable because viruses generally are not deadly, which also points to the obvious: it's a weapon. People with nothing to hide don't do cover-ups. It's remarkable that it is both deadly and so highly contagious because an effective parasite doesn't destroy its host. SARS II, thanks to China's efforts to cover-up its origins -- and a lot of wishful thinking and lack of discipline elsewhere, is here to stay. However, treatments and vaccines will improve. But they never cured the common cold or influenza, which are also corona viruses, so don't expect miracles.
Economic Implications of SARS II:
Decoupling and internal circulation, which is the same thing, may accelerate. China wants economic autarky with regard to the USA, at least, but to trade especially with potential allies. China will still try to lure in foolish western investors to copy all their i.p., "lure, trap, kill". Some will still fall for it.
I don't think the US can stop the Belt and Road Initiative, which creates a logistic network which China could use in the event of any war to ship all supplies troops and wounded to and from the theater of operations. It is very tough to stop people who want to do business together. Napoleon and Russia in 1811 is an example: Napoleon wanted to force Russia to stop trading with Britain. You probably know well how that worked out... If you do not for some reason: Napoleon invaded Russia and was utterly defeated, suffering enormous casualties.
The U.S. will at some point probably try, but likely fail, to get many other countries to boycott China, China. I don't think a U.S. boycott will happen but maybe!
The USA will try and probably succeed at setting up a NATO for East Asia.
Because of the suppression of Hong Kong the idea of “one country two systems” is dead. Consequently so is any hope of peaceful reunification of the mainland PRC and ROC Taiwan.
The US ought, but will not, recognize Taiwan and conclude a defensive alliance. It ought do so if only to forestall Taiwan's nuclear arms program. China will scream, but will be unable to oppose it currently. One day, maybe in a decade or two, that will change and the PRC is doing all it can to make that day -- yesterday. The U.S. Should, and might, ditch "strategic ambiguity", since that is the opposite of effective deterrence. "We might do something" is the opposite of clear deterrent signalling.
The US is seriously constrained by greed on Wall Street and Silicon Valley where liberal elites with zero patriotism or regime loyalty have again and again proven all too willing to screw over american workers and outsource jobs to keep their sweet stock market bubble growing and growing. This is how China played the USA like a fool, by infiltrating and finding key partners in all fields, not just high finance and technology but all of them, including law.
China will continue to refrain from sponsoring terrorism. That's bad for business. Instead, China will continue to happily ship all the precursor chemicals to various criminal drug dealers, mostly in Mexico. Expect China's revenge for the opium wars to continue: murrica loves self-indulgence.
Despite this, the USA will not try to splinter China internally along ethnic class and religious lines to spark yet another Chinese civil war with consequent deaths of millions. Chinese history is more or less a long string of civil wars invasions and famines. The USA could provoke another one, but shouldn't.
The first US-China coups / proxy wars / revolutions / wars will be in areas with large Chinese exclaves: these will be China's first objectives.
Thailand
Malaysia
Burma
I think the USA probably already lost Burma, China has a powerful incentive to be there (Oil, Ethnic Chinese) the USA and Europe do not. I don't think we can keep Thailand from doing whatever it wants with Beijing. In other words I don't think we can win Thailand. Malaysia is a toss-up and will probably go with whichever proves better at appealing to and appeasing Muslims, since Malaysia is a Muslim majority country: it could go either way, in other words China can win there, for there is a large ethnic Chinese community living in Malaysia and it borders Singapore which has in fact a majority of ethnic Chinese as its populace.
Singapore will try to do business with and placate the PRC while maintaining lots of security ties with Israel, USA and UK. They will try to have it both ways.
Australia and Canada, like the US, have large Chinese exclaves but strong stable democracies.
I don't expect China to invade Taiwan this year, or next, or even the year after. Probably not this decade. They can see what happened when Russia invaded, and don’t want to kill off a bunch of Chinese people.
Japan and then the USA will base troops, ships, supplies in the Japanese Ryuku islands.
I don't think Iran can do much for China beyond selling oil, likewise Pakistan is only useful to defend China against India. Because China needs oil very badly it will never break ties with Iran.
I think North Korea is much more China's puppet than Russia's now.
I don't anticipate a Russo-Chinese split. Russia in fact has much more in common with the West culturally, much greater trade, but China doesn't seem to want to annex parts of Russia -- not yet, not for now -- China is claiming to be an arctic power. Russia should shut that down but probably can’t. That will be especially true once Vladivostok is again ruled from Beijing.
China currently lacks the institutional and intellectual structures needed to exercise even regional hegemony. Currently. Basically Chinese international relations consist historically of tributary relations, paternalism, and all as extensions of family and clan and thus as personal relations. Using relationships, family ties, as political glue can't work internationally so China -- like the US -- is basically more involuted than extraverted and has a natural tendency to isolationism. Western foreign policy can and should take advantage of that fact.
Xi clearly intends to change that as seen by belt and road, string of pearls, 9 dash line, 3 island chins, and a navy build up, now rockets are also being built.
Studying Dostoyevsky’s “Crime and Punishment” in Chinese without hanzi.
China is fostering Russian pacifism and sorting out which Russians are in fact criminal. 他们真是匈奴!
RUSSIA
Russia has only about 300 front line fighter aircraft. They have lost around 1/3 of them. Other Russian fixed wing aircraft losses are frogfoot air support and transports. Russia also lost around 100 helicopters.
Russia appears to have lost at least 1000 main battle tanks, so many that they are reportedly activating mothballed and outdated T-62 tanks and even T-55s (dating respectively from 1962 and 1955).
Russia's losses of armored transporters like BTR and BMP are large but these are really no better than armored off road trucks. Russia may have lost around 2000 or so of these, but they are not decisive. Aircraft are decisive.
Sanctions are hobbling Russia’s capacity produce missiles, replace tanks and repair aircraft. Once Russia has used up all its precision guided munitions, rockets, and jets, that's it. There are no replacements.
Progressive should aim at U.N. 2.0, Marshall Plan 2.0. Russia is finished. It’s will be treated better than Carthage was. How much better depends on how Putin’s successor(s) act.
Russia is a mafia state run by literal war criminals. The USA and its allies will simply shatter the criminal regime. Its nothing I could stop -- even if I wanted to, and I don't. Russia will be ejected entirely from all Ukraine, it's air force depopulated and deplaned. You should not interfere or stop that horrible criminality kleptocracy masquerading as religious nationalism. We must destroy Russia’s government to save the Russian people. Putin is doomed. Yet, the oligarchs need Putin, but Putin doesn't need the oligarchs. They all know that. The number of dead oligarchs shows it, so do the numbers of exiled former oligarchs. Russia was and is "winner take all" like most kleptocracies, but more savagely violent than most, worse than Chicago in the 1930s.
GLOBAL PEACE THEORY
I think I figured out how to build world peace. Hopefully that thought helps you feel all our efforts finally proved successful.
deterrence + collective security + free trade + cross border investment + human rights + functionalism (aka liberal international institutionalism) = world peace.
Each of several competing theories of International Relations has at least one but not all the elements of the formula for world peace.
This will obviously require a book to elucidate. I am open to reasonable offers for a resarch chair to implement that.
I expect the U.S.-China conflicts to intensify. They have different ideologies and consequently different structures. China is basically a mercantilist state capitalist dictatorship. The US is a liberal free trading democracy. The only thing they have in common is greed: they both want riches. At some point, probably already, the US will notice China not only ate your lunch, it also is arms-racing.
CONCLUSION: COALITION STRATEGY & REJECTING BALANCE OF POWER
England never had sufficient population or military might to occupy and dominate Western Europe. So it adopted a policy of balancing European powers against each other, to keep any one power from emerging dominant on all Europe, for such a continental power would inevitably seek to conquer England. England’s “balance of power” policy led to a few world wars. British imperialism thus ultimately proved unsustainable.
Those who advocate "balance of power" politics don't understand what Britain's balancing was all about: playing off one European country against another, the latter being any potential continental hegemon. Such a strategy is not the way forward.
British balancing was inherently unstable. It led to several global wars. So we don't want a balance of power. We want alliance institutionalism to foster hegemonic dominance of the alliance to create a system whereby wars are transformed into politics, and politics is transformed into economics: Transformationism. We are taking negative sum games and turning them into zero sum games, and we are then taking zero sum games and turning them into positive sum games. This is why our system is powerful, attractive self-enforcing, self-replicating, sustainable. Ultimately, China will willingly further participate in it for economic benefit. China will also self-reform its domestic governance to make China and the CCP stronger. Be careful what you wish for?
Some governance models are sustainable: democracy, rule of law for examples. Russia's corruption-as-governance isn’t However, great Russian nationalism might have been, but ultimately they were unable to avoid being a Russian variant national socialism as a charade to cover up the mafia state.
Which is too bad, but that explains why Russia was allowed to go too far.
What China wants to improve relations with U.S. and why it may be a tall order
China presses Dutch minister for access to chipmaking tech blocked on security grounds
Cathay-Pacific-apologises-after-passenger-alleges-discrimination
FREE eBOOKS