📖Putin's a thug. Here's how to Deal with thugs...🔪
Response to Condoleeza Rice.
I want to start this with a punchy analogy: if you've ever been in a street fight this is obvious. What do you do when you face a gang of four guys, ready, willing and able to beat you to death? Ask the Watertown Police Department exactly what I did. It's all on video. I know exactly what I am talking about.
You hit the biggest threat first, as hard as you can, without reservation, grim though it be.
Why?
Because most of the weaker ones will run like hell once you take down the biggest one. And if any of them remain, rinse, wash, repeat, working your way down. The lowest tiers will run.
The USA needs to start doing some rinse, wash, repeat.
Condoleeza Rice is arguing that the USA should drive Russia, China, Iran, and North Korea together. I guess she would prefer to be in a four on one fight instead of a one on one fight. She might be a world class figure skater, a hard nosed entrepreneur, and an oil tycoon, but I'm gambling she's never been in a gang fight. She's mistaken. Taking her advice would be costly, arduous, and unnecessarily so.
For exactly the same reason you hit the biggest, baddest thug first as hard as possible -- to split the gang up, so you can issue any other necessary beat-downs without getting a beat-down in return -- the USA must seek to split China and Russia from each other. For exactly the same reason we want to make the thug Putin have no friends, not even China, and we want to have as many friends as possible, yet to be able to win without them. We must presume a U.S. war with China we would be unescorted by willing well-armed competent allies: that’s just basic military thinking. Plan for the worst, hope for the best.
See, just like the thug’s henchman can turn chicken — the friends you bring to the fight might just back out, which is why you must lead by example and take every risk. Oh, sure, I would love to have the NATO alliance just do whatever Madame President desires. I also want a pony and ice cream.
Which is easier? To fight one-on-one? Or to fight outnumbered four-to-one? Split Russia and China. Easy. Sensible. Effective!
This logic, mano a mano, is exactly why the USA should focus on splitting Iran, North Korea, China, and Russia rather than try, as Condoleeza Rice mistakenly desires, to drive them together. Just because the thug’s friends might turn out to be chickens doesn’t mean we can plan on that. Plan for the worst, hope for the best.
Apparently 20 years of defeat after defeat were not enough for some people: they want more mission impossible instead of a simple straightforward decisive victory. One-on-one, one by one is the way to go, not four on one. In case it’s a math issue: For of them and only one of you.
The United States is at a critical juncture in its foreign policy, facing significant challenges from China and Russia. Each of them poses challenges, but the challenges they pose are distinct and different from each other. A carefully crafted strategy can help the U.S. maintain its global leadership without becoming entangled in endless conflicts.
The rest of this article outlines a comprehensive approach, focusing on splitting China and Russia, decisively defeating Russia, and containing China militarily. It will be couched in terms suitable for rarified air breathers who already stopped reading several paragraphs ago because they never had to wear a uniform, get in a street fight, or be confronted by the fact they are mistaken. When they get mugged they just give it up, easy pickings. Too bad some criminals finish what they started dead witnesses are no witnesses. But don't worry, the rarified air breathers know everything and never lie. They will get to reread this article, one way or the other.
China and Russia's partnership is built on quicksand, with no trust, loyalty, or depth. Beijing sees exactly what Russia is - an incompetent kleptocracy, a bully, led by a war criminal. China will exact the maximum benefit from Russia's collapse it can, and we can hasten Russia's defeat by encouraging China to right the wrongs inflicted on China by Russia throughout history. Russia and China's relationship is opportunistic, and driven by shared opposition to U.S. influence and Western liberalism, but their long-term objectives diverge significantly. A lot of what is now Russia ... used to be China. Maybe China wants Siberia back? Hint: Yes. Now you know how to get the panda to club the bear to death.
The threats Russia poses and the challenges China presents are different. China seeks economic dominance and expansion through initiatives like the Belt and Road Initiative: an economic challenge. Russia aims to reassert itself as a global military power, particularly in Europe and the ex USSR. Russia poses a serious military threat. These are qualitatively different problems. Chinese foreign policy has not engaged in proxy wars, state-sponsored terrorism, or direct military intervention. In principle, we could ultimately cooperate with Beijing, if only we understand when to lay the hammer down. This is not the case with Russia, where we have no choice but to rip the Russians to shreds, strip them of their internal colonies, and treat them much like Rome treated Carthage, and for the exact same reasons.
Splitting China and Russia
By exploiting the tensions in the China-Russia relationship, the U.S. can decisvely defeat Russia, making it an object lesson for China, constraining Chinese ultra-nationalists from provocative military misadventures. Russia's economic and military vulnerabilities make it susceptible to U.S. efforts to drive a wedge between any country that seeks deep cooperation with Russia and we should do exactly that: Chop off the head, and the rest of the snake dies. If you are having trouble figuring out where the snakes head is, look where it’s biting.
Through economic engagement with China the U.S. can reduce China's cooperation with Russia. This economic engagement should be balanced with clear military containment, signaling that any aggressive moves by China will be met with decisive overwhelming force.
The Indirect Approach: Defeating Russia Without Direct Intervention
Russia's military adventurism in Ukraine, Syria, Africa, and the Middle East poses a significant threat to global security. However, Russia's economic fragility and outdated military infrastructure constrain its ambitions: Russia could not invade Europe, so now is the time, as they say, to "Finish him!". A wounded beast is most dangerous, and even if it goes back to its cave it will just lick its wounds and come back even hungrier for more, more, more: such is the rapacious logic of dictators.
By arming and aiding all forces opposing Russia and especially those forces opposing Putin, the U.S. can continue to sap Russia's strength leading to Ukrainian victory without committing to direct military intervention. Elsewhere, the USA must limit its application of military force to air strikes and missile attacks to avoid the tendency to get sucked into endless unwinnable land wars in Asia.
The indirect approach involves supporting all of Russia's enemies by giving them arms, ammunition, and supplies, allowing them to push back against Russian aggression as they see fit since they are the ones doing the actual fighting and thus they are in the better position to judge where best to apply deadly force. Expanding this approach by aiding nations on Russia's periphery will stretch Russia's military capabilities and force it to defend on multiple fronts. Limited airstrikes and missile strikes on other threats elsewhere can also be employed to degrade Russia's capabilities.
Economic Engagement, Military Containment
China's economic rise is undeniable. The U.S. must recognize that. Trying to cripple China's economy or, even more foolishly, provoke hopeless domestic uprisings in China would be devastating and counterproductive leading to the outcomes the USA wishes to avoid. Instead, the U.S. should focus on containing China militarily through clear military deterrence, while maintaining robust but conditional economic engagement: carrots and sticks work much better than all sticks, no carrot.
Militarily, the U.S. should strengthen its alliances in the Indo-Pacific region, ensuring that China's expansionist ambitions are met with firm resistance. Continued freedom of navigation operations and joint military exercises will signal to China that its military expansion will be countered decisively.
Economically, the U.S. should continue to engage with China, to influence Chinese behavior. Engagement on trade, technology, and climate change conditioned on Chinese compliance with sensible U.S. goals, will allow the U.S. to maintain influence over China, while military containment ensures that China does not feel emboldened to challenge the U.S. militarily, especially seeing Russia as a negative example.
Selective Intervention
The U.S. must avoid the pitfalls of overreach and isolationism. Interventionism, as seen in Iraq and Afghanistan, drained resources and weakened U.S. standing globally, which was Bin Laden’s goal, and China’s too. However, a retreat into isolationism would cede global influence to rival powers, allowing them to reshape the international order, eventually leading to another world war, as happened twice before because of U.S. neutrality. Back then because foreign powers did not know how the USA would react to their wars, so they gambled at war. Some of them lost their bet. Neutrality is the opposite of deterrence and ,paradoxally, can lead to war.
Yet, the U.S. should intervene militarily only when necessary and with overwhelming force. A stand off (and shoot) approach to conflict zones offers a way to project power without becoming entangled in endless unwinnable prolonged conflicts. Providing military aid, conducting limited airstrikes, and leveraging economic and diplomatic pressure allow the U.S. to remain engaged globally without large-scale military deployments.
The Importance of Overwhelming Force in Decisive Interventions
When the U.S. does decide to intervene, it must do so with overwhelming force to quickly and decisively achieve its objectives. History has shown that half-measures and prolonged engagements are counterproductive. The decisive use of force, as seen in the Gulf War of 1991, can quickly accomplish military goals and establish deterrence only if the the U.S. avoids being dragged into occupation. Go in, kill the bad guys, and get out: Rinse. Wash. Repeat.
In the event of Russian aggression against a NATO ally, the U.S. must respond with overwhelming air and missile strikes to cripple Russian military capabilities and force a withdrawal. Similarly, if China attempts to invade Taiwan or assert control over the South China Sea, the U.S. must respond with overwhelming naval and air power to repel Chinese aggression.
Conclusion: A Strategy for U.S. Leadership in the 21st Century
The U.S. faces a complex and dangerous world, but retreating into isolationism is not the answer. Instead, the U.S. should pursue a strategy of splitting China and Russia, defeating Russia through an indirect approach, and containing China militarily while maintaining economic engagement. This approach allows the U.S. to project power and maintain its global leadership without becoming entangled in endless conflicts.
By intervening only when necessary and with overwhelming force, the U.S. can avoid the entanglements of overreach while ensuring it remains the preeminent power. An indirect stand back approach offers a practical way to achieve sensible foreign policy goals, keeping America engaged and secure in an increasingly multipolar world.
Harris:
Surprisingly, race turned out to be less of a barrier than sex to becoming President. Harris will win, and Trump will take the L, or face serious jail time -- or worse. See, people who try to run a coup, and fail, they meet their fate. I don't know how smooth or rocky the Harris administration will be. I do think the democrats will have a lock on the white house for the next ten years. Whether they can rebuild something like the roosevelt coalition has yet to be seen. The Bush faction already positions itself to take back the republican party, but I expect they are too discredited for that, so are the nixons. I simply see no effective and electable republican candidates on the horizon. It's not merely demographic transformations but also past governance failures and new challenges. A paralyzed or effective Harris administration is possible.
this week’s free eBooks
https://www.amazon.com/dp/B0D79QY928
Contract Law For German Jurists
CHINESE VOCABULARY
Quizmaster Point Of Law: Civil Procedure
Word of the Day
Here are the translations for the word "Bluff" and the provided sentence:
- English: Bluff (n/v/adj)
- French: Bluff (n/m) / bluffer (v)
- Spanish: Farol (n/m) / Farolero (n/m) / Farolera (n/f) / Farolear (v)
- German: Bluff (n/m) / bluffen (v)
- Estonian: Bluff (n)
- Russian: Блеф (n/m) / Блефовать (v)
- Ukrainian: Блеф (n/m) / Блефувати (v)
- Mandarin Chinese: 虚张声势 [xū zhāng shēng shì] (idiom) / 虛張聲勢 [xū zhāng shēng shì] (idiom)
Sentence translations:
- English: Putin makes nuclear threats, again and again, but he is bluffing because he knows it would be suicide and his staff will disobey.
- French: Poutine fait des menaces nucléaires, encore et encore, mais il bluffe car il sait que ce serait un suicide et que son personnel désobéira.
- Spanish: Putin hace amenazas nucleares, una y otra vez, pero está faroleando porque sabe que sería un suicidio y su personal desobedecerá.
- German: Putin macht immer wieder nukleare Drohungen, aber er blufft, weil er weiß, dass es Selbstmord wäre und sein Personal ihm nicht gehorchen würde.
- Estonian: Putin teeb üha uusi nukleearseid ohtuandeid, kuid ta bluffib, sest ta teab, et see oleks enesehävitamine ja tema personal ei kuuletu.
- Russian: Путин снова и снова делает ядерные угрозы, но он блефует, потому что знает, что это будет самоубийством, и его сотрудники ослушаются.
Final line: The world is a complex stage, and language is our tool to navigate it. (English)
Le monde est une scène complexe, et la langue est notre outil pour la naviguer. (French)
El mundo es un escenario complejo, y el lenguaje es nuestra herramienta para navegarlo. (Spanish)
Die Welt ist eine komplexe Bühne, und die Sprache ist unser Werkzeug, um sie zu navigieren. (German)
Maailm on keerukas lava, ja keel on meie vahend selle navigeerimiseks. (Estonian)
Мир — сложная сцена, и язык — наш инструмент для ее освоения. (Russian)