"Russia Will Nuke Germany & UK if Ukraine War Persists" | Sergey Karaganov

"We are fighting Europe once again—the continent that has consistently been the source of all ills and evil in the history of humanity, including, of course, world wars, racism, and colonialism." Sergey Karaganov’s perspective on Europe and its relationship with Russia is defined by his belief in the urgent necessity of a definitive civilizational break from the West.

 

 » The source of all ills and evil in the history of humanity. «

 Zelensky, Starmer, Macron, and Merz coordinating their seizure of Russian assets, December 8, 2025.

He views the current conflict between the US-EU-NATO and Russia in Ukraine as a historical repetition, noting that "Europe has been several times invading us" and that "last time was in 1941–1945 when Western European countries came here under the banners of Hitler [Operation Barbarossa]." Karaganov asserts that "unbelievably after all their defeats they haven't learned the lesson" and "they are still pushing for a big war."
 

He warns that Europe’s "strategic parasitism" and "loss of the fear of God and nuclear war" make them "dangerous idiots that are pumping up hatred towards Russia like mad. Even in Hitler's Germany, the level of anti-Russian propaganda was maybe weaker than what is happening in Europe now." He argues that "they do not understand anything but physical pain," suggesting that Russia will be forced to "punish them severely" with "waves of nuclear strikes" should they continue fueling the war in Ukraine and threatening to directly attack Russia.

 

How far are we from Russia using nuclear weapons against Europe? "Two years, maybe one year. I've been calling on my government to escalate earlier. But President Putin is very religious and cautious." Karaganov specifies that "my choice would be Britain and Germany" and "Germany should be nuked first because it is the source of the worst in European history."

  

» Germany should be nuked first because it is the worst. «

Sergey Karaganov, January 14, 2026.

 

"I beg the Almighty that won't happen. I have a lot of friends in Europe, but I have no contact with them because they are banned by their elites from talking to us. These elites are preparing them for war, though they cannot comprehend that if a real big war is unleashed, there will be nobody in Europe left to talk to. I pray that we won’t have to make this decision."

 

Regarding the decline of European elites, Karaganov argues that under its current leadership, Europe "became anti-European and even anti-human." He characterizes these leaders as "complete failures on all counts—moral, political, economic," and bluntly asserts that "Europe is going down." He further contends that "never in the history of Europe have we had such a low level of intellectual capacities in the leadership of most European countries," noting that while this applies to "not all but almost" every nation, the overall decline is undeniable.

European elites "understand that their Golden Age is finished and they are desperate," primarily because they realized "they cannot live on others' money nor on the cushion of US protection any longer." Ultimately, he suggests that "everybody in the world now laughs at Europe," observing that a continent which "used to be one of the core centers of world power" has now been reduced to "a joke."

 

On the relationship between Russia and Europe, Karaganov believes "our European journey which Peter the Great started is over" and "it should have been over 150 years ago." He expresses a sense of liberation from Western influence, saying, "we are not European, thanks God" and "we are returning back to where we belong—to become the Eurasian nation... We have done away with "comprador" elites and thrown away the "fifth column." We are returning to our Russian soul. The only problem is that we have to pay for it with the lives of our best men. But other than that, Western sanctions have been a blessing. Russia, when threatened, is again a nation of warriors."

 

Reference:
Tucker Carlson Interview with Sergey Karaganov, January 14, 2026.

 

See also:

Sergey Karaganov (January 27, 2025) - Russia Must Help Overthrow Europe's Dangerous Elites.

Sergey Karaganov (May 3, 2024) - Russia Needs to Change Its Nuclear Doctrine. 

Sergey Karaganov (2023) - Russia’s Policy Towards World Majority (aka Karaganov Doctrine). 

Emmanuel Todd (2024) - The Defeat of the West. 

Samuel P. Huntington (1993) - The Clash of Civilizations: The Rest Against The West. 

Russian Orthodox Monk Avel performs

George Frideric Handel's "Passacaglia," 2025.

 

 » Every European state present here has deep historical relations with Russia. 

I’d like to believe that with time our countries will return to normal constructive conversation. «
Vladimir Putin, January 15, 2026.

Sergey Karaganov is a Russian political scientist, Professor Emeritus, and Supervisor at Moscow's Higher School of Economics. A long-standing personal friend and advisor to President Vladimir Putin—and formerly Boris Yeltsin—he is the honorary chairman of the Council on Foreign and Defense Policy. Architect of the "Karaganov Doctrine" and Russia’s Eurasian pivot, he advocates for an assertive foreign policy, interaction with the non-Western World Majority that has no binding relationships with the US and the organizations it patronizes, as well as for a radical civilizational break from the West.

US Decapitation Operation "Absolute Resolve" in Venezuela | Ron Aledo

The operation in Venezuela is a multi-agency effort aimed at regime change, intended to install a pro-US, easily controlled government and eventually take indirect control of the country's oil. This is designed to maintain the US dollar's status as the world standard for global oil transactions. 

 

 

Venezuelan President Nicolás Maduro kidnapped in US military strike,

Caracas, January 3, 2026, 4:30 AM local time.

 

In recent years, China, Russia, and other BRICS nations have attempted—with some success—to shift global oil transactions away from the US dollar toward the Chinese Yuan. Trump views this as a threat to the strength of the dollar and US global hegemony. This operation against Venezuela makes such a move away from the dollar more difficult.

» Trump knows who butters his bread. «

 

Operation "Absolute Resolve" was a multi-agency effort involving US intelligence agencies, the military, law enforcement, and the Department of Justice. The steps of the operation were likely as follows:
 

1. CIA and DIA Intelligence Covert Actions: The intelligence agencies recruited dozens of Venezuelan military personnel, primarily Generals and Colonels in charge of Nicolás Maduro’s security and the air defenses of Caracas. Additionally, the CIA, DIA, and NSA provided real-time intelligence for the military operation, including the locations of air defenses, military leaders loyal to Maduro, and the movement of bodyguards and security systems. 

 

The US war machine struck Venezuela just hours after President Maduro met

Chinese envoy Qiu Xiaoqi on January 2 to renew 600 bilateral trade deals.

 

2. Military Action: The US military destroyed multiple targets, likely air defense systems and command-and-control centers manned by military and political elements loyal to Maduro. This was a massive attack that neutralized all air defenses in the area and disabled military units that could have protected Maduro. US Delta Force arrived via helicopter at Maduro's location; facing neither bodyguards nor defenses, Maduro and his wife surrendered. They were then transported via helicopter to the USS Iwo Jima, a US Navy amphibious assault ship. As of 17:30 ET, Maduro arrived in New York escorted by civilian officers from the Department of Justice (DEA, US Marshals, and FBI). This is significant for Trump, as it depicts the mission as a "police/law enforcement" and "counternarcotics" operation.

 

» For Venezuela, we are prepared to give even our own blood! «

Cuban President Miguel Díaz-Canel, La Habana, January 3, 2026. 

 

3. Transfer to the Department of Justice: The US military transferred custody of Nicolás Maduro to law enforcement officers to maintain the appearance of a legal operation against an indicted narcotics trafficker. This provides legal authority to the mission and protects the Trump administration from future court challenges or potential impeachment attempts by a Democratic-controlled Congress following the November 2026 elections. This phase mirrors the actions taken against the former ruler of Panama, General Noriega.

 

» We are going to run the country. «

 Genocide Ziocon MIGA Don, unhinged 'like never seen before', Mar-a-Lago, January 3, 2026.

 

4. Transition Inside Venezuela: The Trump administration will likely negotiate with the Vice President—now President—Delcy Rodríguez to complete a transition to a new pro-US government. While María Corina Machado is a potential candidate for the presidency, Trump may appoint someone more widely accepted by the Venezuelan military to reduce the risk of a counter-coup in the immediate future.

 

Large pro-Maduro rally in Caracas, January 4, 2026.

 

Armed citizen militias were deployed in Aragua state and 

other areas, including the center of the capital Caracas.

 

As the Maduro government remains in charge—at least in appearance—via Delcy Rodríguez, the possibility of escalation remains high. If Trump negotiates a peaceful transition with Rodríguez, the crisis may be resolved without violence. However, if Rodríguez resists due to pressure from pro-Maduro military elements or Cuban intelligence officers in Caracas, violence is likely. Trump may then push for a military coup against Rodríguez using CIA-recruited officers, supported by US airstrikes on the command posts of pro-Maduro generals.

» An attack of this nature undoubtedly has a Zionist tinge. «

Vice President Delcy Rodríguez got straight to the point, Caracas, January 3, 2026.

 

Alternatively, Trump may leave Rodríguez as the nominal President if she agrees to follow all directives from the administration. However, the potential for unrest and armed resistance from segments of the population remains possible under all options.

 

» Trump's Plan A is the less bloody one. The people change 

hats very easily. The king is dead, long live the king. «

Ron Aledo on US Plans A and B for Venezuela, January 4, 2026.

 

Real Reason for the Operation: The primary motivation is likely an attempt to slow the efforts by Russia and China to replace the US dollar as the universal currency for oil transactions. Global oil trade is conducted in US dollars, which bolsters the dollar's strength and US global trade dominance. Recently, Russia, China, India, and other BRICS nations have challenged this by moving toward the Chinese Yuan. Trump views this as a threat to US dominance. By executing regime change, the US aims to install a friendly, manageable government in Venezuela and secure indirect control over its massive oil reserves, thereby reinforcing the dollar's position.
 

» Relationship between Venezuela, Russia, and China  is one of

the most significant geopolitical realignments of the 21st century. «

» Vassalize Mexico, to complete a North American internal

economic circulation, replacing China in its supply chain. «

Secondary Objectives: A secondary goal is the defeat of the Cuban regime. By cutting the flow of Venezuelan oil and funding to Cuba, the regime will likely collapse within a year, potentially leading to a negotiated transition and a new pro-US government on the island.

» Happy New Year to every Mossad agent walking beside them... «

 

It is important to note that Tulsi Gabbard and Vice President J.D. Vance were likely not active participants in this operation. The primary driver was Marco Rubio, who has long promised the fall of the Venezuelan and Cuban governments. Rubio views this as a "victory card" for a 2028 vice-presidential or presidential bid, potentially replacing J.D. Vance on the ticket.

 

Ron Aledo, Former CIA Analyst (ctr), US Army Veteran, Joint Staff Ops, January 3, 2026.

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.

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.