Wanting Peace With Russia To Focus Aggressions On China Is Just Being An Imperialist Warmonger

Wanting Peace With Russia To Focus Aggressions On China Is Just Being An Imperialist Warmonger

by Caitlin Johnstone

Republican Congressman Matt Gaetz criticized the Biden administration’s dangerous escalations against Russia on the House floor on Monday, not because he thinks needlessly ramping up cold war brinkmanship with a nuclear-armed nation is an insane thing to do, nor because he believes the US government should cease trying to dominate the world by constantly working to subvert and undermine any nation who disobeys its commands, but because he wants US aggressions to be focused more on China.

Read More »

What Kind of Threat Is China?

Book review of “America and the China Threat: From the End of History to the End of Empire” by Prof. Paolo Urio

The “brutalist philosophy” of the US was made public (曝光) by Robert Daly, a former US diplomat stationed in Beijing, in 2015. Currently, he is the director of the Kissinger Institute on China and the United States. No diplomatic niceties here, Daly frankly states the policy of the US: China must never reach the level of the US.

What Kind of Threat Is China?

Australia is playing in the international greyzone: it is time to get out of our unthinking alliance with the US

The current animosity between the United States-led western world and strategic partners Russia and China is all about power. It is not about human rights, democracy, trade, intellectual property, the ‘rules-based international order’ or any of the other canards used by politicians, commentators and the media to describe current events.

The United States had for a historically brief period, after the collapse of the Soviet Union, a unipolar moment where it could largely do as it pleased in international affairs. That period of global hegemony is now history but the myth of US exceptionalism within the minds of its elites, and their acolytes, persists.

China and Russia on the other hand, both having learned the folly of empire, have rather more limited goals. But in a case of projection, Western powers assume Russia and China seek global domination. This is based on the fallacious logic, as argued by former US ambassador and Assistant Secretary of Defense Chas Freeman, that because the United States had the Monroe Doctrine and Manifest Destiny these countries must too.

At this point, it is highly unlikely that the United States along with any grouping of its allies can militarily defeat China and Russia in any plausible scenario. Thus, the conflict between these two poles is primarily informational and to a lesser extent economic (e.g. sanctions). In other words, this is a grey-zone conflict, otherwise known as political warfare.

Australia is playing in the international greyzone: it is time to get out of our unthinking alliance with the US

China Is a Challenge, But an Asian NATO Is Not the Answer

China Is a Challenge, But an Asian NATO Is Not the Answer

First, the US is not threatened militarily by China. No one imagines that a nonexistent Chinese carrier group is going to descend upon Hawaii, conquer the islands, and then head toward the West Coast. There is no evidence that the Chinese Communist Party has such ambitions. Anyway, Beijing would have little success even after an enormous military buildup. Such is the disparity in cost between projecting power across the Pacific and deterring such an attack. Which correspondingly limits Washington’s military options against the PRC.

At stake in East Asia is American influence rather than security. A challenge to the former is not unimportant but is very different than a military threat against the US proper. China poses no meaningful danger to America’s territory, population, prosperity, liberties, or constitutional order. Instead, Beijing is resisting Washington’s attempt to effectively impose the Monroe Doctrine in Asia, that is, to dominate the region up to China’s border.