Why a US War with Venezuela Would Benefit Russia | Dmitry Seleznyov

As cynical and crude as it may sound, a US war with Venezuela would benefit Russia. Venezuela could become America's "Ukraine," diverting US attention and resources away from our own conflict in Ukraine. The United States risks getting bogged down in a war it starts—especially if it launches a ground operation. In that case, Venezuela could turn into a second Vietnam for the US. Either way, South American countries would likely rally in solidarity to support it, uniting the continent in a fight against the "gringos." 

 

 » Uniting the continent in a fight against the "gringos." «

It won't be possible to tear the country apart with impunity; there won't be an easy walkover, and the US could face unacceptable losses. On the international stage, Russia and China would provide support—both politically and through hybrid means. On one hand, we'd be whispering sweet nothings to those Witkoffs or whoever's in charge in that administration, while on the other, quietly fueling Maduro's fire. Why not? If others can do it, why can't we? Of course, we'd offer help with the constraint that we're still tied down in Ukraine, but we'd do what we can.  

 

» Why not? If others can do it, why can't we? «

 

If things in Venezuela escalate to a hot phase and body bags start flowing back to Trump's "Great America," the MAGA electorate won't like it. Trump was elected to do the opposite. Fighting a war in Venezuela isn't just getting involved for Israel's sake or bombing Iran on the other side of the world—this one's right in America's backyard, with short supply lines. Not to mention that Trump would permanently lose his carefully cultivated image as a "peacemaker," the one he wants to be remembered for in history. A war in Venezuela would brand him forever as the man who tied a bloody ribbon of a second Vietnam around America's neck. Does Trump want that? Doubtful.

 

But Trump is pushing hard—he always plays the bluff game. Recently, Mr. Twitter declared a no-fly zone, and just the other day, he went even further with a full blockade. In effect, that's already a declaration of war. Will Maduro escalate? Sure, a direct conflict could end in different ways, but if Trump has already sentenced the Venezuelan president, what does he have to lose? Escalation often leads to de-escalation. Remember how young Kim Jong-un told Trump to get lost on surrendering nuclear weapons—and nothing happened; he ended up as a "good guy."
 

But for now, our friend Maduro is acting unconvincingly. Chanting "peace, peace, peace" won't stop an inevitable war. "You're only guilty of making me hungry," as the fable goes—red-haired Donnie's intentions are clear. So why wait? Look at the "barefoot" Houthis—they drove off American ships from clustering near their coast. And they're still standing strong. 

Or what—surrender?

Quoted from:
Dmitry Seleznyov (December 18, 2025) - Why a US War with Venezuela Would Benefit Russia.

(Чем выгодна России война США с Венесуэлой.) 

 

» The Pathetic Empire. «

Caracas, December 18, 2025: Venezuelan naval forces have begun escorting non-sanctioned oil tankers carrying petroleum derivatives, reportedly destined for China, in direct response to US President Donald Trump's December 16 announcement of a "total and complete blockade" targeting sanctioned vessels entering or leaving Venezuela. The escalation follows the US seizure on December 10 of the tanker Skipper, carrying approximately 1.9 million barrels of Venezuelan crude, which Trump indicated the US would retain. 

 

Venezuela has condemned these actions as aggression, requesting an urgent United Nations Security Council meeting to address perceived violations of international law. Domestically, PDVSA workers staged protests across multiple states in defense of national sovereignty, while Vice President Delcy Rodríguez reaffirmed the uninterrupted operation of the hydrocarbons sector. Amid the tensions, President Nicolás Maduro reported that Venezuela achieved 9 percent GDP growth in 2025 despite sanctions, with projections of at least 7 percent for 2026.

Preventing Empire Collapse | Alexander Mercouris and Alex Christoforou

The new 33-page US National Security Strategy, strongly shaped by Elbridge Colby and personally prefaced by President Trump, represents a partial yet still incomplete departure from three decades of neoconservative pursuit of hegemony. Officially released on December 4, it explicitly renounces any further quest for global domination, acknowledges that post-1991 globalism hollowed out American industry while delivering few benefits to ordinary citizens, and ultimately weakened the United States itself. It faults an over-reliance on allies and proxies that Washington could not fully control—pointedly implying Israel and European-driven adventures in Ukraine—for repeatedly pulling America into conflicts that did not serve its core interests.

 

» The unipolar era is over. « 

 

In place of hegemony, the document calls for aggressive domestic reindustrialization, technological supremacy, and a return to traditional spheres-of-influence politics. It resurrects an explicitly imperial interpretation of the Monroe Doctrine, insisting that no external great power may have any presence whatsoever in the Western Hemisphere and that the United States must maintain absolute predominance there. At the same time, it insists that America must remain the world’s foremost military and economic power and must permanently prevent any rival from ever attaining the degree of primacy the United States itself enjoyed in recent decades.

» Extraordinarily harsh toward European leadership and the EU. «

 

China continues to be treated as the sole peer competitor capable of achieving parity or even supremacy; opposition to Taiwan’s reunification with the mainland remains a clear priority, revealing no substantive softening despite changed rhetoric. Russia, by contrast, is now a power with which the United States must seek accommodation and continental stability. The document is extraordinarily harsh toward European leadership and the European Union, accusing Brussels of delusional thinking on Russia and Ukraine, economic self-destruction, creeping authoritarianism, and the erosion of European civilization itself. Stabilizing Europe, it argues, requires ending the Ukraine war in partnership with the continent’s other great power—Russia.

 

The new operating model abandons the image of America as a "weary Titan" bearing the world’s burdens alone. Instead, Washington will concentrate on its own hemispheric backyard while outsourcing or franchising security responsibilities elsewhere: Europe is expected to provide for its own defense, Asia will be handled by regional proxies, Africa reduced to transactional resource partnerships, and the Middle East treated as a complicated but no longer central theater. These partners will still answer to the United States and pay their dues, yet day-to-day management becomes their problem.

Historically, this precise pattern—admitting overextension, rejecting free-trade globalism, demanding allied burden-sharing while assuming continued overall control, and invoking the "weary Titan" metaphor—appeared during the terminal phases of both the British Empire under Joseph Chamberlain in the 1890s–1900s and the Spanish Empire under Gaspar de Guzmán, Count-Duke of Olivares in the 17th century. In both cases the reforms were offered as salvation but in reality signaled irreversible imperial decline.

» Explicitly imperial interpretation of the Monroe Doctrine. «

 

The strategy is riddled with contradictions. While calling for stabilization with Russia, Pentagon sources simultaneously press Europe to be combat-ready against Moscow by 2027; Europeans counter that 2030 is more realistic, and Viktor Orbán openly states that the official EU position is preparation for war with Russia by that later date. The unspoken American ultimatum to Europe is therefore: achieve full military self-sufficiency on Washington’s timeline or the United States will negotiate directly with Moscow over Europe’s head and end the Ukraine conflict on Russia’s terms. Given Europe’s incapacity to meet that deadline, the second path becomes the default—yet powerful entrenched forces in Washington, Brussels, and the broader transatlantic apparatus remain committed to perpetual confrontation with Russia and containment of Russia.

» Franchising security responsibilities elsewhere. «

 

The document is ultimately a fragile compromise between a small restraint-oriented faction and the far larger interventionist bureaucracy. History suggests the bureaucracy will prevail, just as it defeated Chamberlain and Olivares. Moscow and Beijing instantly recognize the contradiction of a United States that urges its vassals to keep fighting while posing as the reasonable party seeking stability; they will not be deceived. Russia, in particular, reads the American declaration that peace in Ukraine and stabilized relations with Moscow are now core US interests as confirmation that time is on its side, that it can stand firm on all demands, and that Washington will eventually concede because it is the United States, not Russia, that now needs the war to end.

Thus, while the 2025 National Security Strategy marks the intellectual arrival of restraint-oriented thinking inside parts of the American national-security establishment and constitutes an official admission that the unipolar era is over, its internal contradictions and the entrenched power of the old order make it unlikely to survive in anything like its present form. Like its British and Spanish predecessors, it may ultimately be remembered less as the blueprint for managed retrenchment than as one of the first formal acknowledgments that American hegemony has irrevocably ended.

 

Reference:

Alexander Mercouris and Alex Christoforou (December 8, 2025) - Preventing Empire Collapse. (video)

  

Professor Shen Yi, Director of the Center for BRICS Studies and Professor at the School of 

International Relations and Public Affairs at Fudan University, evaluating the 2025 US NSS.

 

See also:

 Serge Bernard (2016) - From Conquest to Affluence to Collapse: The 250 Year Empire Life Cycle.

William Strauss and Neil Howe (1997) - The Fourth Turning: An American Prophecy.  

Lieutenant-General Sir John Bagot Glubb (1978)  - The Age of Decadence.

Defeating the Enemy Without Fighting | Henry Kissinger

Rarely did Chinese statesmen risk the outcome of a conflict on a single all-or-nothing clash; elaborate multiyear maneuvers were closer to their style. Where the Western tradition prized the decisive clash of forces emphasizing feats of heroism, the Chinese ideal stressed subtlety, indirection, and the patient accumulation of relative advantage.

This contrast is reflected in the respective intellectual games favored by each civilization. China’s most enduring game is wei qi (圍棋, pronounced roughly “way chee,” and often known in the West by a variation of its Japanese name, go). Wei qi translates as “a game of surrounding pieces”; it implies a concept of strategic encirclement. 

The outcome of a Wei Qi game between two expert players.
Black has won by a slight margin.
David Lai (2004) - Learning from the Stones: A Go Approach to Mastering China’s Strategic Concept, Shi.

Carlisle, PA: US Army War College Strategic Studies Institute.

The board, a grid of nineteen-by-nineteen lines, begins empty. Each player has 180 pieces, or stones, at his disposal, each of equal value with the others. The players take turns placing stones at any point on the board, building up positions of strength while working to encircle and capture the opponent’s stones. Multiple contests take place simultaneously in different regions of the board. The balance of forces shifts incrementally with each move, as the players implement strategic plans and react to each other’s initiatives. At the end of a well-played game, the board is filled by partially interlocking areas of strength. The margin of advantage is often slim, and to the untrained eye, the identity of the winner is not always immediately obvious.

Chess, on the other hand, is about total victory. The purpose of the game is checkmate, to put the opposing king into a position where he cannot move without being destroyed. The vast majority of games end in total victory achieved by attrition or, more rarely, a dramatic, skillful maneuver. The only other possible outcome is a draw, meaning the abandonment of the hope for victory by both parties.

If chess is about the decisive battle, wei qi is about the protracted campaign. The chess player aims for total victory. The wei qi player seeks relative advantage. In chess, the player always has the capability of the adversary in front of him; all the pieces are always fully deployed.

» Ultimate excellence lies not in winning every battle but in defeating the enemy without ever fighting.

The highest form of warfare is to attack the enemy’s strategy itself. «

The Art of War, Sun Tzu.

The wei qi player needs to assess not only the pieces on the board but the reinforcements the adversary is in a position to deploy. Chess teaches the Clausewitzian concepts of “center of gravity” and the “decisive point”—the game usually beginning as a struggle for the center of the board. Wei qi teaches the art of strategic encirclement. Where the skillful chess player aims to eliminate his opponent’s pieces in a series of head-on clashes, a talented wei qi player moves into “empty” spaces on the board, gradually mitigating the strategic potential of his opponent’s pieces. Chess produces single-mindedness; wei qi generates strategic flexibility.

A similar contrast exists in the case of China’s distinctive military theory (中国军事思想). Its foundations were laid during a period of upheaval, when ruthless struggles between rival kingdoms decimated China’s population. Reacting to this slaughter (and seeking to emerge victorious from it), Chinese thinkers developed strategic thought that placed a premium on victory through psychological advantage and preached the avoidance of direct conflict.

 

» US imperialism is a paper tiger. «
 Mao Zedong, July 14, 1956.

 

On his secret mission to establish a US-China alliance against the Soviet Union, US National Security

 Advisor Henry Kissinger meets with Zhou Enlai (Premier of the PRC since 1949) in Beijing on July 9, 1971.

 

Chairman of the Chinese Communist Party Mao Zedong (founding leader of the PRC since 1949)

welcomes President of the United States Richard Nixon (1969-1974) in Beijing on February 21, 1972.

 

Xi Jinping, President of the People's Republic of China (since 2013), invites

94-year-old former US Secretary of State Henry Kissinger to Beijing on July 19, 2017. 

 

The seminal figure in this tradition is known to history as Sun Tzu (or “Master Sun”), author of the famed treatise The Art of War. Intriguingly, no one is sure exactly who he was. Since ancient times, scholars have debated the identity of The Art of War’s author and the date of its composition. The book presents itself as a collection of sayings by one Sun Wu, a general and wandering military advisor from the  Spring and Autumn period of Chinese history (770–476 B.C. ), as recorded by his disciples.

[…] Well over two thousand years after its composition, this volume of epigrammatic observations on strategy, diplomacy, and war—written in classical Chinese, halfway between poetry and prose—remains a central text of military thought. Its maxims found vivid expression in the twentieth-century Chinese civil war (人民战争) at the hands of Sun Tzu’s student Mao Zedong, and in the Vietnam wars, as Ho Chi Minh and Vo Nguyen Giap employed Sun Tzu’s principles of indirect attack and psychological combat (以逸待劳) against France and then the United States.

Quoted from:
Henry Kissinger (2012) - On China.

 

» And this is something you never understood, you Americans. « 

Q4 2025 Outlook: Geopolitics, Geoeconomics, and Investments | Simon Hunt

Amid a cascade of geopolitical and economic developments, the Shanghai Cooperation Organization (SCO) summit—along with bilateral meetings in Tianjin and Beijing—emerged as the pivotal moment. President Xi’s opening address concluded with a clear message: “It’s time for action.” 

 

Simon Hunt, British economist and CEO of Simon Hunt Strategic Services, is a veteran global 

strategist with 50+ years of experience advising governments and institutions on macroeconomics, 

copper markets, China, and geopolitical risk, and a pioneer in industrial metals intelligence.

Multipolar Ultimatum: SCO Summit Signals Global Realignment 

This marks a new era of geopolitical posture—one of confident unity among the East, and a tacit ultimatum to the West. BRICS is ready, but not seeking a fight. Despite the growing strength of this bloc, their message remains: “We don’t want war, we invite partnership. But if you refuse, we will proceed without you.” This stance was echoed during a high-profile military parade showcasing next-generation hardware (HERE, select English audio track). 

» The wars in the Middle East and in Europe will escalate. «

Simon Hunt, August 27, 2025.

 

The West has effectively pushed Russia and China together—and now India as well. This fulfills Brzezinski’s warning that a Russia-China alliance would mark a fatal blow to US global dominance. The realignment is now irreversible.

India, once diplomatically dancing between the West and the East, has now aligned itself firmly with BRICS. The SCO summit made this unmistakably clear through images and interactions between leaders. With China and Russia already unified, India’s inclusion forms a powerful axis comprising the world’s three largest countries by population and resource depth.

Within the SCO framework, India and Pakistan—traditionally adversarial—may find common ground. Russia maintains strong ties with India, while China supports Pakistan. Pakistan's historical alignment with the CIA may now be shifting toward China, driven by strategic and economic incentives. Even Pakistani defense leaders have acknowledged the transactional nature of their past Western alignment.

 

US Can Adopt Multipolarity Or World Will Split Into Two Blocs

The coordinated body language, messaging, and preparedness of Xi Jinping, Vladimir Putin, and Narendra Modi made it clear: Washington and its allies are being asked to join a multilateral world. Should they refuse, the world will split into two irreconcilable blocs.  

 

Historically, empires have accepted only victory or defeat, and the United States may not shift until crisis compels it. The refusal to accept a multipolar order will lead to escalating global tensions. The window for peaceful integration is closing.

 

BRICS Currency Incoming: Gold-Backed Alternative to Dollar Imminent

Within ongoing BRICS meetings, particularly between Russia and Brazil, a new currency is being discussed—one expected to be gold-backed. The Shanghai Gold Exchange is building vaults across BRICS countries, including Saudi Arabia, enabling energy trade in yuan and its conversion directly into gold, bypassing the dollar.
 

China is already settling oil trades in yuan, which Saudi Arabia converts into gold via the Shanghai exchange. A physical gold vault in Saudi Arabia would streamline this process, and with a narrowing trade imbalance, this yuan-for-gold mechanism is becoming systemic. Russia and China have already maintained such a balance for years via vaults in the People's Bank of China (PBOC).
 

Russia warns "US will use crypto to escape its $35 trillion debt". 

 

Gold at Record Highs: Short-Term Pullback Before Next Bull Leg

Gold futures reached $3,673, with silver touching $41.92. However, a short-term correction to $2,800 may occur due to the Treasury’s need to lower interest rates. This is seen as a deliberate move to accumulate gold cheaply before an eventual revaluation.

 

Silver Rising: Central Banks and BRICS Nations Accumulating

Saudi Arabia recently bought $20M worth of SLV shares. Russia has opened its first silver reserve. The US added silver to its official list of critical minerals, indicating institutional recognition of its strategic value alongside gold. The deeper message: central banks no longer trust paper assets.

 

Two-Tier US Currency Model Anticipated

The US is already in recession, and Europe is close behind. Real money supply is shrinking globally—one of the most reliable indicators of economic activity. Liquidity injections may not be enough to revive growth given looming structural banking pressures. 

 

A previously disclosed forecast from over a decade ago suggested the US could eventually introduce two dollars—a gold-backed domestic dollar and a floating offshore dollar. Technical models predict the DXY will fall to 50 by 2028, effectively doubling gold prices in dollar terms.

A potential short-term dollar rally—DXY rising from 98 to 103—could temporarily deflate gold prices. This would precede the next wave of the precious metals bull market. Treasury-driven rate cuts and liquidity injections will aim to stabilize the system ahead of 2028's deeper crisis.

American pension funds and institutions may be compelled to absorb US debt, given the exodus of foreign buyers like China. Watch India’s actions closely in this space—they will serve as a bellwether for BRICS monetary divergence. 

 

» The contrast between Chinese dynamism and the total rot and death cult of the West and its vassals defies imagination. «

Pepe Escobar, September 10, 2025. 

 

Ukraine Escalation Risk: EU3’s Miscalculated Strategy

The EU3—France, Germany, and the UK—appear poised to intensify the Ukraine conflict by inserting troops into the country, backed by US-supplied weapons and funded through European debt. This move, driven by strategic delusion, risks widening the war and deepening economic instability across Europe.

Should EU3 forces move into Ukraine, expect immediate capital controls in Europe, with global spillover via interconnected banking systems. This would shortcut any inflationary cycle and thrust the world directly into recession.

 

A leaked directive from France reportedly instructed hospitals to prepare for mass casualties in 2026, tied to potential direct conflict with Russia. Sources close to French military and intelligence circles confirm the plausibility of this scenario, citing deployments as “peacekeepers” that will effectively function as combat troops.

 

Iran-Israel Tensions Rising: Preemptive Strike Scenarios Loom

Parallel to Ukraine, the Middle East simmers. Iran is reinforcing its defenses with aid from Russia and China. Intelligence hints at potential preemptive strikes by Iran against Israel, marking a dangerous turning point. Iran’s foreign minister has dismissed negotiations with the US as traps, citing repeated betrayals masked as diplomacy.
 

» Globalization is coming to an end, the Spring and Autumn period is over, and the Warring States period is about to begin.

[...] From now on, the possibility of reconciliation between countries on this planet will increasingly cease to exist.

The entire Eurasian continent is about to engage in a battle royale, where every nation must firmly

choose sides in the process: either become a servant of the United States or be its enemy. 

[...] They can only choose to stand with us or face destruction. «

Chinese opinion regarding Israeli bombing of Qatar on September 9, 2025.

 

Despite its proximity to conflict, the UAE may be spared thanks to deep trade ties with Israel, cultural links with Iran, and the presence of a modern Iranian community. Any Iranian retaliation may be surgically limited to American military installations, avoiding broader damage in the UAE.

Climate Shift Confirmed: From Warming to Cooling

Melting Greenland ice is releasing cold freshwater into the Atlantic, disrupting ocean currents. Though silenced by institutions like NOAA, internal research suggests we are entering a cooling phase, not warming. The agricultural and economic implications are immense.

Food Inflation Crisis: Cold Weather, and Dust Bowl Patterns Collide

Food prices are already spiking. The FAO food index rose 7.6% YoY in July. Fertilizer shortages and extreme weather may cause one of the coldest winters in 50 years in the US Midwest. Add to this the return of the 90-year Dust Bowl cycle, and the outcome is severe crop failures and soaring food inflation.

 

Demographics vs. Growth: Global Economic Model Faces Existential Challenge 

The world's demographic peak (around 9 billion) and subsequent decline challenge the existing economic model based on infinite growth. However, this transformation will unfold over decades—not in the immediate 5-year cycle.

 

Short-Term Strategy: Long-Term Investment Now Extremely Risky

In the current fractured world order, long-term investments—by individuals or institutions—are hazardous. A global recession or depression is likely by 2028, with paper assets poised for a collapse. However, if geopolitical escalations are avoided, equities and base metals may experience a bull market from mid-2025 to 2028.

Hungary and Slovakia are likely to resist full EU alignment and avoid deeper conflict involvement. These countries, being semi-detached from Brussels, may serve as safe havens during broader European turmoil.

 

Individuals should prepare immediately. Stock deep freezers, convert garden space into vegetable beds, and plan for prolonged food cost spikes. This is a practical, immediate defense against inflation and disruption.

Reference:
Simon Hunt (September 9, 2025) - Elite Insiders Preparing For 2 MASSIVE Events Coming In Months (here's what they are).(video)

See also: 

Simon Hunt (January 12, 2025) - Markets Amidst Trump 2.0: Geopolitics & Geoeconomics in 2025. 

Simon Hunt (September 9, 2025) - 10-Year Treasury Yields over 10% by 2027. (video)
Simon Hunt (September 4, 2025) - Sobering Outlook on the next Global Reset: Crash before 2027. (video)
Simon Hunt (September 1, 2025) - Global Economic Outlook: Europe’s Destiny, British False Flag Event, and BRICS. (video)

Tecnología Futura (August 31, 2025) - China's new weapon that could destroy the US in seconds. (video)

The End of Western Dominance—US Lives in Mortal Fear | John Mearsheimer

Since 2017, when Trump entered the White House, the balance of power has shifted in China’s favor, though the United States remains the world’s most powerful state. China is rapidly closing the gap, particularly in cutting-edge technologies, which Washington fears could tilt global economic and military power. As China converts its economic strength into military might, it builds not just regional forces but also blue-water naval power and global projection capabilities linked to its Belt and Road Initiative. This imitation of US strategy alarms Washington and drives a bipartisan policy of containment.

John J. Mearsheimer, American political scientist and professor at the University of Chicago, best known for his work

on international relations theory, offensive realism, the US Zionist lobby, US–China rivalry and great power politics.

Initially, Chinese leaders argued that economic interdependence would prevent conflict, since prosperity required cooperation. However, survival—not prosperity—is the primary goal of states in an anarchic international system with no higher authority. As China’s economic rise translated into growing military capacity, American fear replaced optimism, triggering security competition in East Asia. Prosperity enriched both sides, but balance-of-power politics and survival imperatives outweighed economic interdependence theory.

» Great powers are ruthless, exploiting weaker rivals to secure survival and expand influence. «

John J. Mearsheimer's complete discourse video. 

Historical lessons reinforce this logic. Weak states like China during its “century of humiliation” (1840s–1940s) and Russia during NATO expansion in the 1990s suffered because they lacked power. Great powers are ruthless, exploiting weaker rivals to secure survival and expand influence. In this system, the optimal strategy is regional hegemony, dominating one’s neighborhood while preventing rivals from doing the same. The US has long acted this way, blocking Germany, Japan, and the Soviet Union from achieving dominance in Europe or Asia, while securing its own supremacy in the Western Hemisphere.

China’s trajectory fits this pattern. As its power has grown since the 1990s, Beijing naturally seeks to dominate East Asia. Yet the US cannot tolerate another regional hegemon, making containment inevitable. From Washington’s perspective, preventing Chinese hegemony is about survival, not choice. From Beijing’s perspective, seeking hegemony is equally rational. The result is a structural clash: both sides are locked in an intensifying security competition driven by the anarchic nature of the international system.

» The United States lives in mortal fear that the Chinese are going to dominate. «

China’s path to hegemony is more difficult than America’s was because regional powers like Japan, Australia, South Korea, and the Philippines—backed by the US—resist Chinese dominance. India participates in the Quad but is geographically and strategically less central to East Asian balance. Russia, meanwhile, has been pushed into China’s camp by the Ukraine war, eliminating a potential counterweight. This complicates US strategy: instead of balancing China together, Washington and Moscow are now aligned against each other.

 

The Ukraine war creates two major problems for the US: it prevents a full pivot to Asia and deepens the Sino-Russian partnership. Trump recognized this dynamic and sought rapprochement with Moscow to peel Russia away from China, but his chances of success are slim. Russia deeply distrusts the US, and Trump underestimated the difficulty of ending the Ukraine conflict. His instincts—to improve ties with Russia and focus on China—align with realist logic, but his reliance on instincts over experts undermines effective execution.

» It's only recently that Putin has brought the Russians back 

from the dead and we now consider Russia to be a great power. «

Since 2017, US policy has shifted decisively from engagement to containment of China, first under Trump and then reinforced, even hardened, under Biden. Yet American forces remain tied down in Ukraine and the Middle East. Deployments against the Houthis in the Red Sea and the prospect of war with Iran divert vital resources away from East Asia, just as China grows militarily stronger. Past US experiments in social engineering—in Afghanistan, Iraq, Libya—ended in failure, raising doubts about new entanglements that sap the capacity to counter China.

Facing escalating global uncertainties, Chinese President Xi Jinping said the SCO is increasingly

responsible for regional peace, stability, and member-state development, August 31, 2025.

 

Ultimately, the US–China rivalry reflects structural realities of power politics. Both states seek survival through maximizing power, and both see regional hegemony as the path to security. The United States, the sole global hegemon since 1900, refuses to share that status, while China, closing the gap, sees dominance in East Asia as essential. The result is an enduring, intensifying contest that economic interdependence or diplomatic optimism cannot erase.

Reference:
John J. Mearsheimer (September 2, 2025) - Lecture on the SCO Summit 2025: Why China is acting this way. (video)

 

See also:

Tecnología Futura (August 31, 2025) - China's new weapon that could destroy the US in seconds. (video)
 John J. Mearsheimer (2001) - The Tragedy of Great Power Politics.

Jin Canrong  (September 3, 2025) - China's Preparations for Reunification With Taiwan Around 2027.

Jin Canrong (September 1, 2025) - Hybrid Warfare & Strategic Stalemate in China–US Competition.

TPR (September 01, 2025) - SCO Summit Ushers in New Global Security Order and Development.

Ray Dalio (April 12, 2025) - Don't Think That What's Now Happening Is Mostly About Tariffs. 

Serge Bernard (2015)  - From Conquest to Affluence to Collapse: The 250 Year Empire Life Cycle. 

China's Preparations for Reunification With Taiwan Around 2027 | Jin Canrong

The Chinese government has consistently avoided setting a timetable for resolving the Taiwan question, emphasizing instead President Xi’s call for peaceful reunification with patience, sincerity, and effort. Despite this, American analysts frequently forecast 2027 as the likely point of resolution. Their view is shaped by China’s large strategic reserves, new industrial measures, and visible military procurement, all of which they interpret as signs of preparation for decisive conflict.

Jin Canrong (金灿荣), leading scholar of China–US relations, American politics, and foreign policy;

CCP strategist; Professor and Associate Dean at the School of International Studies, Renmin University of China.

From a military perspective, China faces few obstacles. A Taiwan operation could be carried out through blockade or direct combat, and success would likely come quickly. US intervention is not considered probable, making the true challenges economic and political rather than military or diplomatic. China’s main vulnerabilities are its dependence on imported resources, its lack of a fully unified domestic market, and the influence of elites with assets or family ties abroad. By contrast, Russia’s economy, though smaller, is buffered by its abundant resources, allowing it to withstand sanctions more effectively.

Among many other heads of states, Putin, Kim Jong Un, Park Geun-hye, ex-President of South Korea, and Masoud

Pezeshkian, President of Iran, joined Beijing’s historic victory parade on September 3, marking 80 years since

Japan’s WWII surrender, where China showcased its hypersonic missiles and nuclear triad. 
 

The government is taking steps to address these weaknesses. Grain reserves now exceed two years thanks to improved storage and expanded farmland. By 2027, new oil and gas discoveries together with Central Asian pipelines are expected to reduce import dependence. Coal-to-oil conversion and the spread of new energy vehicles will further narrow the energy gap. The more difficult issue lies in market access, as domestic circulation remains weak due to provincial barriers. Efforts to expand the Belt and Road initiative continue, though China lacks the military and cultural instruments historically used by the West to protect overseas investments.

» US intervention is not considered probable. «

Jin Canrong's complete discourse video.

 

Diplomatically, a resolution of the Taiwan issue would have far-reaching effects. ASEAN countries, seeing the United States as unreliable for security, would likely align with China, turning the South China Sea into an inland sea. Japan and South Korea, highly dependent on maritime trade and external resources, would also face strong pressure to yield. Once the Taiwan Strait and the South and East China Seas are secured, Shanghai and the eastern seaboard would be protected, creating what could be the safest period in Chinese history.

Welcome to the Eurasian Century.

 

Historically, China’s threats came from the north, but industrialization eliminated that danger. Today, the principal threats come from the sea, the heartland of Western industrial power. Once Taiwan is reclaimed and the maritime approaches are secure, China can focus entirely on internal development and raising living standards. The most serious obstacles to this outcome are economic fragility and political complications, not military or diplomatic resistance. The year 2027 therefore stands out as the most likely turning point, a moment that could bring short-term hardship but ultimately mark the beginning of a new and safer era for China.

Reference:
Awakening Richard (September 3, 2025) - Famous Chinese Professor on China's progress regarding war preparation. (video)

 

See also:

Samim Aktar (March 4, 2025) - Trump 2.0 and the China Containment Strategy.