Tuesday 31 May 2022

Does Russia’s Ukraine Experience Increase or Reduce the Likelihood That China Will Invade Taiwan?


by  

There continue to be sharply competing narratives about what relevance Russia’s invasion of Ukraine might have for the Taiwan issue. One school of thought contends that Moscow’s flagrant violation of international norms against using force to deal with a territorial dispute might encourage the People’s Republic of China (PRC) to do the same to resolve the long-festering problem of Taiwan’s political status. That is especially true, proponents assert, if Vladimir Putin’s government succeeds in achieving its objectives: forcing Kyiv to renounce ambitions to join NATO, accept the territorial amputation of Crimea, and recognize the "independence" of the secessionist Donbas statelets.

The opposing thesis argues that because the Russian offensive has been slower, much more difficult, and more costly in both treasure and blood than the Kremlin ever imagined, those bitter lessons are likely to reduce any temptation that PRC leaders might harbor to adopt a similar aggressive strategy toward Taiwan. According to that reasoning, Russia’s failure to achieve a quick, decisive, and low-cost victory in Ukraine has caused Beijing to realize that attempting to conquer the island could be far more difficult and costly than previously thought. Therefore, an invasion of Taiwan has become less likely.

When considering the likely impact of the Ukraine war on Taiwan’s probable future it is imperative to recognize one important similarity between the two issues. In both cases, the great power involved made it clear that there were "red lines" that dare not be crossed. For Russia, it was the West’s continuing effort to make Ukraine a NATO military asset For the PRC, a key red line is any effort on Taiwan’s part to achieve formal independence. Indeed, Taipei’s continuing refusal to discuss unification with the mainland under Beijing’s formula of "one country, two systems" may ultimately prove to be a provocation sufficient to push matters over the edge.

Beijing’s warnings against Taipei’s persistent, sometimes bold separatist actions that have taken place during Tsai Ing-wen’s administration are becoming noticeably more emphatic. So, too, are the warnings to "outside powers" – principally the United States and Japan – against encouraging and facilitating such ambitions. Again, the similarities between the PRC’s posture and Putin’s steadily escalating warnings to NATO about Ukraine are striking.

Washington, though, has pressed ahead with its support for Taiwan, just as it blew through red light after red light regarding NATO’s expansion to Russia’s border. Throughout Donald Trump’s presidency, security cooperation between the United States and Taiwan increased to the point that it began to look like a full-fledged military alliance. Under President Biden, that trend has continued unabated. Biden’s repeated statements that Washington has an obligation to defend Taiwan from attack have generally been dismissed as gaffes from a notoriously gaffe-prone individual, since the U.S. commitment under the 1979 Taiwan Relations Act is far more limited and vague. However, US actions under both Trump and Biden suggest that that the president is accurately describing Washington’s actual policy.

PRC leaders likely would prefer to avoid resorting to force to deal with the Taiwan issue. However, Washington needs to understand that Taiwan is a vital interest to China, just as Ukraine was and is a vital interest to Russia. When vital interests are involved, great powers usually do not hesitate to use military force, if they believe that such a course has become necessary. US leaders need to take Beijing’s warnings about Taiwan much more seriously than they have to this point, or they risk making the same miscalculation that they did regarding NATO’s provocative relationship with Ukraine.

If peace breaks down in the Taiwan Strait, the crisis could prove even more disruptive and dangerous than the ongoing Russia-Ukraine war. Even the latter conflict has caused significant economic distress, as all such events tend to do. An array of economic sanctions that the United States and its allies imposed on Russia has caused additional dislocations. It is important to note that although Ukraine is a significant source of food and energy supplies, the country is not a major economic player in most other respects. Even so, the negative consequences of the war have been far from trivial.

Both Taiwan and the PRC are much more important to the global economy. Taiwan is a major semiconductor production center, and the island is the leading supplier of the most advanced microchips. Overall, Taiwan ranks as the world’s 22nd largest economy, measured by size of Gross Domestic Product, while the PRC as the world’s second largest economy is even more important. Even a conflict confined to those two belligerents would cause a massive global economic upheaval. If the United States, Japan and other major countries were drawn into the fighting, as is all-too-likely, the economic impact alone would be horrid.

Add the very real danger that a direct military clash between the United States and the PRC could escalate to the nuclear level, and the magnitude of the risk for utter catastrophe is apparent. The nuclear threat with respect to the Russia- Ukraine war is worrisome enough, as the United States and its NATO allies continue to pour weaponry into Ukraine and share military intelligence with Kyiv, despite rising warnings from Moscow. The risk of a war between a U.S.-led alliance in East Asia and the PRC spiraling to the nuclear level would be even greater.

The difficulties that the Russian military has encountered in Ukraine, combined with the diplomatic and economic price Russia is paying overall, should produce greater caution on the part of PRC about using force against Taiwan. At the same time, though, for all the talk in the West about Ukraine being able to "win" the war, the reality is that the Russian invasion continues to make progress – albeit of a slow, grinding nature.

That realization should cause sober reflection in Taipei about the dubious wisdom of pushing the envelope on independence. By adopting the "porcupine" strategy that Kyiv is using to delay and inflict damage on invading Russian forces, Taiwan undoubtedly could make a PRC invasion a nightmare. Nevertheless, Taiwan would likely lose in the end, even with US military assistance – and the loss would come at a horrible cost in blood and treasure. The overpowering lesson of the Ukraine tragedy for Beijing, for Taipei, and for a meddlesome United States should be that everyone would lose, and lose big, in such a war.

Ted Galen Carpenter, a senior fellow in defense and foreign policy studies at the Cato Institute, is the author of 12 books on international affairs, including America’s Coming War with China: A Collision Course over Taiwan (Palgrave Macmillan, 2005).             

https://original.antiwar.com/Ted_Galen_Carpenter/2022/05/30/does-russias-ukraine-experience-increase-or-reduce-the-likelihood-that-china-will-invade-taiwan/ 

Top US general suggests how Ukraine conflict should end

 

Peace talks between Moscow and Kiev would be a “logical choice,” the Joint Chiefs of Staff chair says

Top US general suggests how Ukraine conflict should end

Negotiations between Russia and Ukraine would be a “logical choice” to end the conflict, General Mark Milley, Chairman of the US Joint Chiefs of Staff, said on Tuesday.

In an interview with Fox News, Milley was asked about likely outcomes of the fighting between Moscow and Kiev.

“Now you’ve got a very significant operational fight going on in the Donbass between the Ukrainian and the Russian militaries. How that shapes up in the next few weeks will probably in large part shape the outcomes of what will happen,” he said.

According to the general, the conflict “could end up as a grind and go on and on; [it could end up in] a stalemate; it could end up with one side or the other having a decisive victory; it could end up in a peace negotiation.”

Milley later insisted that “a negotiated outcome is a logical choice, but both sides have to come to that conclusion on their own.”

“There's always a possibility of escalation. And we have to closely manage the escalation... and prevent this thing from expanding into something much more horrific than it already is,” he warned.

The general was also asked to comment on his recent statement that it was up to Kiev to decide how to eventually settle its differences with Moscow.

“This is a war between Ukraine and Russia. How this ends on the battlefield is going to be determined by President (Volodymyr) Zelensky and President (Vladimir) Putin,” he said.

Washington has been actively backing Kiev during the conflict, supplying it with weapons, funds and intelligence. Earlier the month, US President Joe Biden approved a $40 billion aid package for Ukraine.

Moscow says US assistance to Kiev has only escalated and prolonged the fighting. Last month, Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov described the conflict in Ukraine as a proxy war waged by the US-led NATO alliance against Russia.

Milley isn’t the only notable Western figure to call for a negotiated solution to the Ukraine conflict in recent days, amid a steady Russian advancement in the Donbass and claims by Ukrainian officials that the situation on the ground is “extremely bad” for Kiev.

On Monday, EU foreign policy chief Josep Borrell said the bloc should increase deliveries of weapons to Ukraine and apply even more sanctions against Russia to help Kiev gain the upper hand in future peace talks with Moscow. Just over a month ago, Borrell was insisting that “this war must be won on the battlefield” by Ukraine.

Russia attacked Ukraine in late February, following Kiev’s failure to implement the terms of the Minsk agreements, first signed in 2014, and Moscow’s eventual recognition of the Donbass republics of Donetsk and Lugansk. The German- and French-brokered protocols were designed to give the breakaway regions special status within the Ukrainian state.

The Kremlin has since demanded that Ukraine officially declare itself a neutral country that will never join the US-led NATO military bloc. Kiev insists the Russian offensive was completely unprovoked and has denied claims it was planning to retake the two republics by force.

https://www.rt.com/news/556376-ukraine-negotiations-milley-us/

Zelensky aide pressures US

 

Presidential aide Alexey Arestovich has threatened Washington with an ‘exemplary tantrum’ over non-supply of rocket artillery systems

Zelensky aide pressures US

Kiev will resort to hysterical outbursts, if the US fails to deliver multiple rocket launchers to fight Russia, an aide to President Volodymyr Zelensky said on Monday. Alexey Arestovich was responding to remarks by US President Joe Biden, who said the US won’t send to Ukraine long-range rockets that can hit Russia.

Washington is reportedly on the brink of stepping up the arming of Ukraine with heavier weapons. Arestovich, a key figure in Ukraine’s messaging on military affairs, outlined Kiev’s response to a scenario, in which the weapons are not delivered as expected.

“The decision about the systems is coming soon, and we will understand whether they will supply them or not,” he said. “If they don’t, we’ll have an exemplary tantrum.”

The US is expected to deliver two kinds of rocket systems to Ukraine, the M270 Multiple Launch Rocket System (MLRS) and the M142 High Mobility Artillery Rocket System (HIMARS). Both can launch tactical ballistic missiles with a range of up to 300km, but the more affordable type of munitions for them are shorter-range rockets that can be fired in barrages.

Biden said on Monday that the US was “not going to send to Ukraine rocket systems that can strike into Russia”. He didn’t elaborate, but many people, Arestovich included, believe he was referring to the munitions, not the launchers.

“Seventy kilometers is more than enough for us,” he said, referring to the range of the smaller projectiles.

Media reports said US officials were reluctant to supply the longer-range missiles that could be used to attack targets in Russia due to concerns that Moscow would perceive it as a major escalation. Russia has blamed Ukrainian forces for several cross-border incidents that hurt civilians and caused damage inside Russia. Kiev has neither claimed credit nor denied responsibility for them.

Ukraine has Soviet-made multiple rocket launchers in its arsenals but claims that the American systems would give it an advantage on the battlefield. Ukrainian troops have been retreating in the east this month, ceding territory claimed as their own by Russian-backed republics in the Donbass region. Kiev also suffered a setback in Mariupol, where over 2,000 troops surrendered to Russian forces after spending weeks under a blockade.

Russia attacked the neighboring state in late February, following Ukraine’s failure to implement the terms of the Minsk agreements, first signed in 2014, and Moscow’s eventual recognition of the Donetsk and Lugansk People’s Republics. The German- and French-brokered protocols were designed to give the breakaway regions special status within the Ukrainian state.

The Kremlin has since demanded that Ukraine officially declare itself a neutral country that will never join the US-led NATO military bloc. Kiev insists the Russian offensive was completely unprovoked and has denied claims it was planning to retake the two republics by force.

https://www.rt.com/russia/556369-ukraine-rocket-launchers-tantrum/

The Eurasian Economic Union Steps Up

  MAY 27, 2022 

The first Eurasian Economic Forum, in Bishkek, Kyrgyzstan, took place this week at a very sensitive geopolitical juncture, as Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov keeps stressing that, “the West has declared total war against us, against the entire Russian world. Nobody even hides this now.”

It’s always important to remember that before Maidan in 2014, Ukraine had the option to become a full member of the Eurasian Economic Union (EAEU), and even balance it with a loose association with the EU.

The EAEU comprises five full members – Russia, Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, Belarus and Armenia – yet 14 nations sent delegations to the forum, including China, Vietnam and Latin American nations.

There was much rumbling that the proceedings would be jeopardized by the serial sanctions packages imposed on Russia by the collective West. There’s no question that some EAEU members – such as Kazakhstan – seem to be more worried about the effects of the sanctions than about fine-tuning business with Russia. Yet that’s not the point.

The crucial point is that by 2025 they have to harmonize their legislation concerning financial markets. And that’s directly connected to what the executive body of the EAEU, led by Sergey Glazyev, is working on, extensively: designing the lineaments of an alternative financial/economic system to what the West would rather coin as Bretton Woods 3.

The Eurasian Economic Forum was established by the Supreme Eurasian Economic Council explicitly to further deepen economic cooperation between EAEU members. No wonder the official theme of the forum was Eurasian Economic Integration in the Era of Global Shifts: New Investment Opportunities, focusing on strategic development in the industrial, energy, transport, financial, and digital areas.

So Many Converging Strategies

President Putin’s speech to the plenary session was quite revealing. To really appreciate the scope of what’s implied, it’s important to remember that the Greater Eurasian Partnership concept was presented by Putin in 2016 at the St. Petersburg Economic Forum, focused on a “more extensive Eurasian partnership involving the Eurasian Economic Union” and including China, Pakistan, Iran and India.

Putin stressed how the drive for developing ties “within the framework of the Greater Eurasian Partnership” (…) “was not the political situation but global economic trends, because the centre of economic development is gradually – we are aware of this, and our businesspeople are aware of this – is gradually moving, continues to move into the Asia-Pacific Region.”

He added, “in the current international conditions when, unfortunately, traditional trade and economic links and supply chains are being disrupted”, the Greater Eurasian Partnership “is gaining a special meaning.”

Putin established a direct connection not only between the Greater Eurasian Partnership and EAEU members but also “BRICS members such as China and India”, “the Shanghai Cooperation Organization, ASEAN and other organizations.”

And that’s the core of the whole, ongoing, multi-layered process of Eurasia integration, with the China-led New Silk Roads intersecting with the Eurasia Economic Union, the SCO, BRICS+, and other converging strategies.

Lavrov this week said that Argentina and Saudi Arabia want to join BRICS, whose next summer in China is being meticulously prepared. Not only that: Lavrov mentioned how quite a few Arab nations want to join the SCO. He was careful to describe this process of converging alliances as “not antagonistic”.

Putin for his part was careful to define the Greater Eurasian Partnership as “a big civilizational project. The main idea is to create a common space for equitable cooperation for regional organizations”, changing “the political and economic architecture on the entire continent.”

Thus, the necessity to “draft a comprehensive strategy for developing large-scale Eurasian partnership”, including “a roadmap for industrialization”. That translates in practice as developing “engineering centers and research centers. This is inevitable for any country that wants to increase its economic, financial, and ultimately political sovereignty. It is inevitable.”

Yaroslav Lissovolik at the Valdai Club is one of the top analysts tracking how this convergence may profit the whole Global South. He stresses that among the “variability and diversity in the platforms that may be launched by Global South economies, the most sizeable and comprehensive of which could include the aggregation of CELAC (Latin America), African Union (Africa)”, and the SCO in Eurasia.

And an even more diverse set of “regional blocs that targets deeper integration could feature a BRICS+ platform that comprises the South African Development Community (SADC), MERCOSUR, BIMSTEC”, the China-ASEAN free trade agreement, and the EAEU.

The Eurasian Economic Forum has shown once again that this high-speed – economic integration – train has already left the station. It’s quite enlightening to notice the sharp contrast with the endless doom and gloom afflicting a collective West prone to inflation, energy shortages, food shortages, fictional “narratives” and the defense of neo-Nazis under the banner of liberal “democracy”.

(Republished from Strategic Culture Foundation by permission of author or representative) 
  https://www.unz.com/pescobar/the-eurasian-economic-union-steps-up/

A World at War?

Biden lashes out against “enemies” as our country declines

One recalls that when war fever surged demanding intervention by Imperial Britain in the Russo-Turkish War of 1877, a song became popular in the music halls which included “We don’t want to fight, But by Jingo if we do, We’ve got the ships, we’ve got the men, we’ve got the money too.” If the refrain sounds familiar, it should as the United States has been experiencing extreme “jingoism” since 2001. Any rejection of the “rules based international order” established and policed by “leader of the free world” Washington has resulted in immediate punishment by sanctions followed by threats of military intervention. In some cases, as in Afghanistan, Iraq, Libya and Syria, the actual armed intervention seeking regime change has been the end result. And it is all done to spread “freedom” and “democracy,” a claim that might be disputed by the millions of dead mostly Muslims who have had to suffer the consequences.

So the United States of America has been a country, like its best friend Israel, that seems to be perpetually at war…so what else is new? What’s new is that under President Joe Biden there has been zero diplomacy and almost reflexive reliance on wielding the “big stick.” To quote another bon mot from one of my favorite authors Raymond Chandler, creator of private eye Philip Marlowe, “…when in doubt, have two guys come through the door with guns.”

Don’t worry, Chandler’s two guys and many more like them are now in Ukraine under cover and in mufti training Ukrainians to use all the nifty Raytheon and Lockheed toys Uncle Joe has sent them. They are working together with the largely neocon advisers coaching Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky, who is guarded by British and US special forces, on what to say and do during his increasingly strident international calls to widen the war. If they are successful and manage to sink another Russian ship or two using harpoon missiles, which Zelensky is threatening to do, the proxy US war with Russia could quickly become for real. Zelensky’s family meanwhile is reportedly safely ensconced in an $8 million villa in Israel. He also has a multi-million dollar villa property near Miami and another in Tuscany. Who would have thought that being president of the poorest country in Europe could bring such material rewards?

Australian journalist Caitlin Johnstone, who has a huge worldwide audience, opines that Biden is possibly the worst US president ever, worse even that his consistently denigrated predecessor and media punching bag Donald Trump. Her recent article succinctly addresses what makes Biden’s egregious failure both different and incredibly dangerous. She writes “Preventing nuclear war is a US president’s single most important job. It’s so important you shouldn’t even really have to talk about it, because it’s so self-evidently the number one priority. And this administration is just rolling the dice on nuclear conflict with increasing frequency every day. Even if humanity survives this standoff (and the one with China that’s next in line), Biden will still have been an unforgivably depraved president for allowing it to get this close. There’s no excuse whatsoever for just casually rolling the dice on all terrestrial life like this.”

Indeed, Joe Biden’s latest tricks include declaring that the US will go to war with China to protect Taiwan if Beijing should prove so bold as to want to take control of its wayward province. But the US established policy is to maintain “strategic ambiguity” about China/Taiwan, a diplomatic solution crafted in 1979 to help prevent any provocations by either party that would lead to the situation developing into a shooting war. Joe seems to have missed that point, if he ever understood it in the first place, and certainly his advisers appear to be no more savvy than he is, though the White House quickly issued a correction on the apparent gaffe in the form of a statement that automatic defense of Taiwan is not official policy. Yet.

But my favorite move by the Biden Administration, if one might be so bold as to suggest that it is actually capable of administering anything more kinetic than a hot dog stand, is the latest pander to Israel. The recent murder by military sharpshooter of Palestinian/American journalist Shireen Abu Akleh followed by a humiliating spectacle of police violence at the funeral as well as subsequently at a second Palestinian funeral, actually found some administration flunkies and congress critters calling for a full investigation by Israel. The Israeli government and army refused to do so and the White House has pretended that there is no longer anything to see or consider. Israeli Defense (sic) Minister Benny Gantz recently visited Washington but the issue of a murdered American was not even raised as top official tried to outdo each other in expressing both their love for and fealty to the Jewish state, which Biden will soon be visiting. The US president will ignore the fact that Israel is celebrating his visit with its greatest eviction of Palestinian residents in twenty years.

That the United States has been a major source of money, weapons and political cover for Israel since 1967 if not before is indisputable, the result of corruption of America’s government at all levels by the groups and billionaires euphemistically described as the “Israel Lobby.” War criminal Israeli leaders like Ariel Sharon and Benjamin Netanyahu have boasted about their control over Congress and the White House as well as the media and every time Israel does something atrocious the only US response has been to give it more money. Israel would sorely love to have the United States fights its wars, most prominently by attacking Iran, but somehow that military intervention and regime change, apart from a number of assassinations, has not yet taken place.

But now all of that might be changing due to a combination of the Biden regime’s recklessness and Israel’s genuine contempt for the American people, who they have been parasitically feeding off of since their settler state was founded. The US has, for the first time, participated in a large-scale military exercise with Israel on May 18th which was designed to simulate an attack on Iran using American Air Force refueling planes to enhance the ability of Israel to keep its jets flying to maintain air superiority over the Persians. It was a war game in the most literal sense even though the tanker aircraft did not actually refuel any Israeli planes and it basically commits the United States to be a dedicated participant if the Israelis should throw the dice and chance on a military attack on Iran’s presumed nuclear and air defense sites.

I also smell a possible false flag if the exercise is repeated, as it surely will be. What if one of the US planes taking part in a future exercise were to be shot down in an incident staged by Israel that might plausibly be attributed to Iran? As the exercises will presumably take place over the Mediterranean Sea in the coastal waters part of which Israel has inter alia stolen from Gaza and controls, bringing Iran into the equation would be difficult but possible to manage with enough cleverness combined with hubris, which the Israelis have in plentiful supply. That Israel would without hesitation shed American blood if it were to advance its own perceived interests should not be doubted by anyone. Look only at the two Israel false flag attacks against the US, the Lavon bombing incident in 1954 and the bloody assault on the USS Liberty in 1967, which killed 34 American sailors and injured more than a hundred others in an attempt to sink the ship and kill all its crew. That is the Israel America has grown to love and nourish, a viper in one’s bosom, always willing to strike the body that feeds it.

But to return to Caitlin Johnstone’s observation, America is in deep trouble. Its economy is visibly sinking while standards of living are dropping and will decline further as military spending grows while both the increasingly “woke” educational system and industrial base are no longer competitive. We have a plausibly psychopathic government that is bringing us to the brink of war with several nuclear powers. What we Americans need is not another war, but rather an end to war, particular those wars that can somehow kill most or even all of us. Instead, help build pressure to wind down the Ukraine war through negotiations, stop feeding Zelensky with weapons and money. Leave China alone and stop being Israel’s patsy against Iran and inside Syria. Try to get along with competitors. It would indeed be a Brave New World, wouldn’t it? A country at peace with itself and working to benefit the American people – something that we have rarely seen since 1945.


Philip M. Giraldi, Ph.D., is Executive Director of the Council for the National Interest, a 501(c)3 tax deductible educational foundation (Federal ID Number #52-1739023) that seeks a more interests-based U.S. foreign policy in the Middle East. Website is councilforthenationalinterest.org, address is P.O. Box 2157, Purcellville VA 20134 and its email is inform@cnionline.org.

https://www.unz.com/pgiraldi/a-world-at-war/