Showing posts with label Realism. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Realism. Show all posts

Friday, September 12, 2025

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 (逸待劳) against France and then the United States.

 

Wednesday, September 3, 2025

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.

 
See also:

Monday, September 1, 2025

Hybrid Warfare & Strategic Stalemate in China–US Competition | Jin Canrong

Structurally speaking, China–US relations are certainly not good. The logic is quite simple: the world is changing significantly, and China is the variable, while the US is the leader of the original order. Naturally, the US is not pleased. [...] Whether it's Biden or Trump, both consider China their only opponent. This is very critical. America’s power is still greater than ours.

Jin Canrong (金灿荣), leading scholar of China-US relations, American politics, and foreign policy;
CCP strategist; Professor and Associate Dean, School of International Studies, Renmin University of China.

[...] China–US relations entered full competition in late 2017, when the US began to wage a hybrid war against China. It is called a hybrid war because multiple tactics are employed: trade war; industrial war (denying chips and pushing Chinese companies to relocate industries); financial war (aggressive interest rate hikes to extract Chinese capital); legal battles; media campaigns (such as accusations of genocide in Xinjiang); and biological warfare allegations, including SARS and COVID-19 claims.

» Siding with the EU to split the West. «
The China-US Competition, Jin Canrong, August 19, 2025.

[...] There are also sovereignty issues concerning Xinjiang, Tibet, Hong Kong, Taiwan, and the East and South China Seas, as well as opposition to China’s Belt and Road Initiative (BRI) through new alliances, like AUKUS (US, UK, Australia) and the Quad (US, India, Australia, Japan).

[...] The first phase involved US offensives and China’s strategic defense; now, we have entered a strategic stalemate. The key to strategic alignment is domestic management. The US faces high debt, declining manufacturing, and internal challenges, while China confronts economic performance issues, social conflicts, and a rapidly falling birth rate. Addressing domestic challenges strengthens both nations’ positions abroad.

[...] The US strategy toward China involves territorial ambitions (Canada, Greenland, Panama Canal), aligning Russia, reorganizing allies (Europe, Japan, Canada), and increasing defense spending to ensure allies can act independently. China, meanwhile, has abandoned its low-profile policy, focusing on active defense and strategic deterrence.

[...] Since last year, China’s defense policy has changed. China has moved from passive strategy to assertive action. Strategic stalemate depends on addressing domestic issues first, then external threats. For external alignment, China should coordinate with the EU to balance the West, manage neighboring relations, and continue Belt and Road and BRICS initiatives. This roughly represents the current positions of both parties.
 

Saturday, August 23, 2025

The Game of Chess, and the Masters of the Board | The Honorable One

Chess can show you how the world is run, who is really in power, and how to break it. There are six types of people who run the modern world. First you need to understand who is at the bottom.
 
 » Someday, someone will return and flip the board. « 
 
Number one, the pawns—the masses. They follow orders, pay taxes, are predictable, and get sacrificed in each game. Without them, there is no game, no power, no state, no Suki system. They are the majority in every game, the foundation of all power, and yet they are too weak to realize it. 

Number two, the rooks—the 20% who do 80% of the work: long hours, efficient, diligent, straight shooters. They are like machines. But they get stuck when routines change, they are not flexible enough, and they are useless on their own. They need number three:

 
» Everyone is afraid of the queen. «  

The knights. For a long time they just sit. Then they leap over walls, surprising everyone. Their paths and creativity are unpredictable. They connect dots no one else connects. They are ahead of the curve and unplug first. They walk into uncharted terrain. But one wrong step, and they fall. 
 
Knights need number four by their side: A good bishop to protect them. He is a quiet planner, the one who can wait. He is patient and prepared with a plan to strike months or years from now. But bishops are nothing compared to number five:

» It's their game. « 
 
The queen can strike anytime, anywhere, in all directions. Everyone is afraid of the queen. Who are the queens of this world? Central Bankers, those who run the Suki agencies, the military—those who can take out anyone anytime anywhere. The rules and laws of pawns, knights, and bishops do not apply to them. 
 
» Families that cannot be named. « 

So why is number six, the king, in power, and not the queen? The king takes small steps in the back rows, unnoticed. Nobody fears him. He holds power through legacy. Queens wield power for decades; kings and their families hold it for centuries. Who are the kings of today's world? The families that cannot be named. They have trillions but don’t appear on Forbes lists. Money does not matter to them—they print it. Everyone plays chess, but they are the ones who provide the board. They decide how many fields the board has and how long the game will be played. 
 
» We are the oil in your dressing, the flour in your bread, the meat on your dinner table. «  
A largely unknown American family dynasty of 14 billionaires traces its fortune to William Wallace Cargill in 1865. The Cargill-MacMillan family business, Cargill Inc., became one of the world's largest private companies. With revenues of $177 billion, it controls 22% of US beef production, and its low public visibility stems from its dominance in the food supply chain, where it and three other firms handle 70–90% of the global grain trade.
 
It's their game, and it is hard to exit. But there is a way: You only win if you don't play. You stop paying, you stop playing. All the game is run by money—consumption, production, access, bureaucracy, taxes. If you stop the money flow, the game stops. Someday, someone who has stopped playing and walked away from the game will return and flip the board: Game over for all the kings and all their Suki helpers. Honor will come.
 
 

 “Suki,” Russian prison slang for traitors and bitches (сука/суки), denotes globalist elites, corporations, and establishment figures—who embody hypocrisy, manipulation, and betrayal. They uphold the “Suki system,” the oppressive order of financial dependency, surveillance, digital control, censorship, and cultural erosion. “The Grim” is the The Honorable One, and the adversary of the Suki. He stands  for growth, reliability, integrity, independence, incorruptibility. He rejects victimhood, consumerism, culture of comfort, indulgence, entitlement, materialism, and resists the Suki system mentally, emotionally, financially and spiritually.
 

See also:
 
了解你的敌人
Know your Enemies.
 

Friday, February 14, 2025

Vance, The Hammer | Constantin von Hoffmeister

JD Vance enters Munich like a Viking berserker in the heart of the Carolingian Empire, a man from the land of strip malls and cornfields, standing before the decaying architecture of European self-delusion. He does not ask for an audience with German Chancellor Olaf Scholz, because why negotiate with a ghost? A specter, soon to be forgotten, entombed within his own failed Zeitenwende, the epochal shift that never shifted. The Americans, brash and uncaring, march forward; they see no need for polite fictions. “We don’t need to see him; he won’t be chancellor long.” The brutality of truth, spoken without the diplomatic perfume that once masked the rotting corpse of Western liberalism.

 » America is no longer the enforcer of European delusions. «

[...] The Americans are no longer selling security blankets and fairy tales; they are demanding a reckoning. Europe, that withered lion that still imagines herself the arbiter of moral order, will be told: halt the migration tide, recognize the uprising, and admit that the people — the real people, the Volk — are not to be feared but heeded. 
 
[...] This is not a conference. This is not a debate. This is the moment when the mask slips and the battle lines are drawn. Vance, The Hammer of the new era, makes it clear: America is no longer the enforcer of European delusions. The order of the past is crumbling, and in its place, something harder, something truer, something real is emerging. The Munich Security Conference will not be the same again. The age of illusions is over. The great confrontation has begun.



See also:
 
了解你的敌人
Know your Enemies.

Thursday, October 3, 2024

Europe’s Catastrophic Russian Problem | Wang Xiangsui

Europe is becoming the biggest loser in the Ukraine conflict, despite having fostered closer ties with Russia following the collapse of the Soviet Union. Europe is now actively cutting these ties in an effort to align with the US policies aimed at punishing Russia. 
 
But the price is dear. The largest economy prior to the Ukraine war, Europe is now facing the prospect of political divisions and security threats. Its insensible actions are not only compromising Europe's autonomy and increasing its military reliance on the US, but also disrupting its energy supply chains, in which Russia played an important part. So what does the US stand to gain from this situation? 
 
 China called the Nord Stream pipeline blast of September 26, 2022 an 
'act of international terrorism' and an 'act of war against Germany and Russia'.

Quite a lot. In a scenario where Europe is on friendly terms with Russia and economically, militarily, and politically strengthened, Europe poses too significant a challenge for the US to handle. Hence, the estrangement between Europe and Russia is one of the US's most crucial strategic goals. As anticipated, Europe is now gripped by fear of Russian expansion and Russia fears NATO's eastward movement. And this prisoner's dilemma is further exacerbated by US intervention. 
 
It is evident that the European leaders struggle to discern who their allies and rivals truly are. It is their crucial mistake to view Russia, a potential provider of economic strength and security assurances, as a threat, and the US, a saboteur of the Euro and Europe's regional stability, as a friend. The rationale behind Europe's alignment with the US stems from their belief that Europe holds a prominent position within the US-led uni-polar world.

But time and again, the US disregarded and even intentionally harmed European interests. Europe's political stage is now occupied by liberal leftists whose obstinacy to ideology and blind loyalty to the US have deprived them of strategic foresight. If Europe fails to awaken to the reality, more losses will inevitably befall the European people. Acting as a suicide bomber in the Ukraine conflict will achieve nothing but harm Europe itself. Europe's tragedy is rooted in its failure to recognize the significance of the Ukraine conflict. What we are witnessing is merely the precursor to a brand new world order, an order of multi-polarity which neither the US nor Europe can prevent.  
 

If the current situation continues, Ukraine's status as an independent country will be called into question. At first glance, the US appears to be the biggest winner. To avoid instability, numerous European financial assets and capital are now being redirected to the US, bolstering its pandemic-stricken economy and positioning it as the best-performing developed country. Additionally, Europe is once again brought under the American security umbrella, abandoning its pursuit of strategic independence. Furthermore, the US has profited during the war by selling its own energy at high prices to Europe through sanctions on Russia's energy exports. However, when considering the bigger picture in the long run, the Russia-Ukraine conflict significantly weakens the US-dominated world order and damages the credibility of the US. To many countries, the war exposed the unreliability of the US and the precariousness of the uni-polar world order it perpetuates. 
 
Russia, on the other hand, is making leaps and bounces despite its losses. It has already achieved the initial goals outlined at the beginning of the special military operation. By deepening cooperation with China, India, and the global south, Russia's economy was able to withstand the blow after decoupling from the West. Two years into the war and nearly 20,000 sanctions from 48 countries, Russia maintains relative political and social stability, even experiencing a 3.6% GDP growth in 2023. And most importantly, through this war, Russia is reshaping its image and status as a formidable major power in the emerging multi-polar order. Therefore, in the long run, Russia may emerge as the real long-term winner of this conflict; a conflict that draws the curtains on the hegemonic uni-polar world order dictated by the US.

 
Military strategist Professor Wang Xiangsui is a retired senior colonel in the People's Liberation Army. Wang's 1999 book 
'Unrestricted Warfare' reportedly shifted the views of former White House chief strategist Steve Bannon regarding China.

Wednesday, August 28, 2024

Facing Global System Change | Prime Minister Viktor Orbán of Hungary

It is a cliché that war is the continuation of policy with other means. It is important to add that war is the continuation of policy from a different perspective. So war, in its relentlessness, takes us to a new position from which to see things, to a high vantage point. And from there it gives us a completely different – hitherto unknown – perspective. We find ourselves in new surroundings and in a new, rarefied force field. In this pure reality, ideologies lose their power; statistical sleights of hand lose their power; media distortions and politicians’ tactical dissimulation loses its power. There is no longer any relevance to widespread delusions – or even to conspiracy theories. What remains is the stark, brutal reality. 
 
 » The war in Ukraine is our red pill. And now we must talk about reality. « 
Viktor Orbán - July 27, 2024.

[...] A change is coming, that has not been seen for five hundred years. This has not been apparent to us because in the last 150 years there have been great changes in and around us, but in these changes the dominant world power has always been in the West. And our starting point is that the changes we are seeing now are likely to follow this Western logic. By contrast, this is a new situation. In the past, change was Western: the Habsburgs rose and then fell; Spain was up, and it became the centre of power; it fell, and the English rose; the First World War finished off the monarchies; the British were replaced by the Americans as world leaders; then the Russo–American Cold War was won by the Americans. But all these developments remained within our Western logic. 
 

This is not the case now, however, and this is what we must face up to; because the Western world is not challenged from within the Western world, and so the logic of change has been disrupted. What I am talking about, and what we are facing, is actually a global system change. And this is a process that is coming from Asia. To put it succinctly and primitively, for the next many decades – or perhaps centuries, because the previous world system was in place for five hundred years – the dominant centre of the world will be in Asia: China, India, Pakistan, Indonesia, and I could go on. They have already created their platforms, there is this BRICS formation in which they are already present. And there is the Shanghai Cooperation Organisation, in which these countries are building the new world economy.


I think that this is an inevitable process, because Asia has the demographic advantage, it has the technological advantage in ever more areas, it has the capital advantage, and it is bringing its military power up to equilibrium with that of the West. Asia will have – or perhaps already has – the most money, the largest financial funds, the largest companies in the world, the best universities, the best research institutes, and the largest stock exchanges. It will have – or already has – the most advanced space research and the most advanced medical science. In addition, we in the West – even the Russians – have been well shepherded into this new entity that is taking shape. The question is whether or not the process is reversible – and if not, when it became irreversible. I think it happened in 2001, when we in the West decided to invite China to join the World Trade Organisation. Since then this process has been almost unstoppable and irreversible.
 
[...] What is the European response to global system change? We have two options. The first is what we call “the open-air museum”. This is what we have now. We are moving towards it. Europe, absorbed by the US, will be left in an underdeveloped role. It will be a continent that the world marvels at, but one which no longer has within it the dynamic for development. The second option is strategic autonomy. In other words, we must enter the competition of global system change. After all, this is what the USA does, according to its own logic. And we are indeed talking about 400 million people. It is possible to recreate Europe’s capacity to attract capital, and it is possible to bring capital back from America.

Friday, March 22, 2024

500 Years of Western Dominance - What Comes Next | Glenn Diesen

Felix Abt: A great European religious war and the first pan-European conflict over superpower status came to an end in 1648. After 30 years of devastating wars and chaos, especially on German soil, with millions of deaths and shattered economies, the Peace of Westphalia brought a new, rules-based order to Europe, as the Western political class would call it today. This included the inviolability of borders and non-interference in the internal affairs of sovereign and equal states; it is regarded as a milestone in the development toward tolerance and secularization. How did this affect the new powers that emerged afterward and their quest for hegemony?

Glenn Diesen: The lesson from the Thirty Years War (1618-1648) was that no one power could restore order based on hegemony and universal values, as the other states in Europe would preserve their own sovereignty and distinctiveness by collectively balancing the most powerful state. This was evident when Catholic France supported Protestant Sweden to prevent the dominance of the Catholic Habsburgs. The Peace of Westphalia in 1648 gave birth to the modern world order, in which peace and order depend on a balance of power between sovereign states. The Westphalian system prevents hegemony as other states collectively balance the effort of an aspiring hegemon to establish economic and military dominance, and universal values are rejected to the extent they are used to reduce the sovereignty of other states.

» The Westphalian system prevents hegemony. « 
The 1648 peace treaty between the parties in the Thirty Years' War established the Westphalian system.
 
The principle, known as the Westphalian principle of sovereignty, prohibits interference in the internal affairs of another state, and every state is equal before international law, regardless of its size. Thus, every state has sovereignty over its territory and its internal affairs, to the exclusion of all external powers. But when the European colonial powers used violence to impose their will on other continents, they violated this ideal. Was this the beginning of this principle’s demise?
 
The Westphalian system should in principle be based on sovereign equality for all states. However, it originated as a European security order that later laid the foundation for a world order. Under the original Westphalian system, the Europeans claimed special privileges and the principle of equal sovereignty for states did not apply to everyone. Sovereignty was deemed to be a right and a responsibility assigned to civilized peoples, a reference to the Europeans as white Christians. The international system was divided between the civilized and the barbarians. There was one set of rules for the Europeans in the civilized garden, and another set of rules when the Europeans engaged with the so-called despotic barbarians in the jungle. The interference in the internal affairs of other peoples and the development of vast empires was framed as the right and the responsibility of civilized states to guide the barbaric peoples towards universal values of civilization. This responsibility to govern other peoples was termed the white man’s burden and the civilizing mission.

 » The gardeners have to go to the jungle. «
Josep Borrell's universal mission.

In our current era, we have abandoned the civilized-barbarian divide, but we have replaced it with a liberal democracy-authoritarian divide to legitimize sovereign inequality. The West can interfere in the domestic affairs of other states to promote democracy, invade countries to defend human rights, or even change the borders of countries in support of self-determination. This is the exclusive right and a responsibility of the West as the champions of the universal values of liberal democracy. As the EU foreign policy chief Josep Borrell explained:
The gardeners have to go to the jungle. Europeans have to be much more engaged with the rest of the world. Otherwise, the rest of the world will invade us.

International law in accordance with the UN Charter defends the principle of sovereign equality for all states. The so-called
rules-based international order is based on sovereign inequality, which introduces special privileges under the guise of universal liberal democratic values. For example, the West’s recognition of independence for Kosovo was a breach of international law as it violated the territorial integrity of Serbia, although it was legitimized by the liberal principle of respecting the self-determination of Kosovo Albanians. In Crimea the West decided that self-determination should not be the leading principle, but territorial integrity. The US refers to liberal democratic values to exercise its exclusive right to invade and occupy countries such as Iraq, Syria and Libya, although this right is not extended to countries in the jungle.  

» The so-called “rules-based international order” is based on sovereign inequality, 
which introduces special privileges under the guise of universal liberal democratic values. «
In 1945 fifty countries established the United Nations System. With the help of this supra-national governance
system the Anglo-Frankish-Zionist-Dönmeh-Wahhabi-Takfiri elites of the UK, France, Turkey, Saudi Arabia, the US and
some others, expected to secure their hegemonies beyond the foreseeable demise of traditional colonialism
The Bretton Woods conference, World Bank, IMF, nuclear bombing of Japan, dividing Korea 
and creating the State of Israel in Palestine are early show cases of what Pax Americana and UN are all about.

[...] The Ukrainian conflict is essentially an extension of American geopolitics, which aims to carry out Mackinder’s aforementioned stanza, He who rules Eastern Europe rules the world. What are your thoughts about it?

Preventing Germany and Russia from controlling Eastern Europe means that much of the Eurasian continent becomes landlocked. US control over Eastern Europe implies that Russia can not bridge Europe and Asia, but rather becomes an isolated land-locked region at the dual periphery of Europe and Asia.

Brzezinski outlined the strategy for developing and preserving US global primacy, which relies on the age-old wisdom of divide-and-rule. Brzezinski wrote that the US must
prevent collusion and maintain security dependence among the vassals, to keep tributaries pliant and protected, and keep the barbarians from coming together. Historically, the British and the Americans have worked to prevent Germany and Russia from coming together as it would form an independent pole of power. Hegemony requires conflict between Germany and Russia, as Germany becomes a dependent ally and Russia is weakened. This logic is also applied to why it is beneficial to perpetuate tensions between the Arabs and Iran, or between China and its neighbors. The US has been very concerned about the economic integration between the Germans and Russians, which is why the US was so hostile to the Nord Stream pipelines and most likely was behind the attack on these pipelines. 
 
 Anka Feldhusen, a fine example of a German Neonazi apparatchik of the 21st century.
March 22, 2023.
 
 Wehrmacht 2.0 south of Kiev. 
There will be hell to pay.
March 22, 2024.


The problem is that the world is no longer Western-centric and by pushing Russia away from Germany, the US has pushed Russia towards China – a technological and industrial power much greater than Germany. In the mid-19th century, the British fought against Russia in the Crimean War with the explicit purpose of pushing Russia back into Asia, where it would remain technologically and economically backward and stagnant. NATO’s war in Ukraine is a repeat of the efforts to push Russia back into Asia, although this time Asia is much more dynamic than the West. The failure of the West to adjust our grand strategy to this new reality has been a mistake of immeasurable proportions. We have not subordinated Russia, rather we ended Russia’s 300-year-long Western-centric policies in which Moscow looked to the West for modernization.

What is driving this stunning anti-Chinese obsession in the United States against a country that upholds the principle of non-interference in other countries, that used its mighty navy only for trade and not for gunboat politics when it was a superpower in the past, and that follows the millennia-old concept of “Tianxia” (天下), which literally means “everything under heaven”, that is, an inclusive world full of harmony for all?

China does not threaten the US, but it threatens US dominance as the foundation for the unipolar world order established after the Cold War. The US is currently attempting to weaken China through economic warfare, convincing its allies to decouple from the Chinese economy, and knocking out Russia in Ukraine as a vital partner of China. If the US fails to achieve its objectives, then it will likely stoke conflicts between China and its neighbors to make the neighbors more dependent and obedient, and also create instability for the Chinese that will bleed it of resources. The ideal would be greater tensions between India and China, as India would have to make itself more reliant on the US and it would be an important ally to weaken China. If all fails, then the US could also fight an indirect war through a proxy similar to the way they are using Ukrainians to fight Russia – by for example pushing for Taiwan’s secession. Besides securing its supply chains and building a military for deterrence, China should prioritize resolving its disputes with India as any friction with China can be exploited.

» This is a Westphalian system with Eurasian characteristics. « 
Since 2009 BRICS is establishing a Multipolar World Order based on Westphalian principles and controlled by the 
Eurasian great powers China, India and Russia. Egypt, Ethiopia, Iran and the United Arab Emirates joined BRICS
on January 1, 2024. To date 15 more countries have formally applied to join.

Finally, in your new book you say that a new Westphalian world order is reasserting itself, albeit with Eurasian characteristics. Can you explain this in more detail?

We are returning to a Westphalian system based on a balance of power between sovereign states. However, the former Westphalian system was based on sovereign equality among the Western powers while the barbarians or despots outside the West were not deemed to be qualified for the responsibility of sovereignty. It was a dual system of collective hegemony of the West, with sovereign equality between the Western states. In the new Westphalian system, there are several powerful states that are not Western, with China as the leading economy in the world. The Eurasian powers such as China, Russia, India and others are developing the economic foundations for this system with new technologies, transportation corridors and financial instruments. The Eurasian powers are more prepared to include the Global South as sovereign equals. The Eurasian powers reject the so-called rules-based international order based on sovereign inequality, as Western dominance should not be legitimized by a civilized-barbarian or liberal democracy-authoritarian divide.

The Western powers over the past centuries have had an inclination for dominance and empire by controlling limited maritime corridors. Russia’s Eurasianism in the 19th century was a hegemonic strategy by dominating the Eurasian landmass through land corridors, although under the multipolar distribution of power the Russians do not have the capability or intentions to pursue hegemony. Instead, Eurasian integration entails moving from the dual periphery of Europe and Asia, to the center of a new Eurasian construct. Even China as the leading power does not have the capability or intention to pursue hegemony. Countries like Russia are content with China being the leading power, although they would not support China if it demanded dominance and hegemony. The Chinese demonstrate that they are not attempting to limit Russia’s economic connectivity with other states to make itself the only center of power. In the Global Civilization Initiative, the Chinese are also advocating for respecting civilizational differences and that all states have their own path to modernity, which implies that China is not claiming to represent universal values that legitimizes interference into the domestic affairs of other states. The West assumed that the Russia-China partnership was a marriage of convenience and that they would clash over influence in Central Asia, but this never happened because neither side demanded hegemony. Instead of sabotaging each other’s relations with the region, China and Russia harmonized their interests in Central Asia. China, Russia, India and other Eurasian powers have different visions and interests in terms of Eurasian integration, but they all need each other to realize their goals and pursue prosperity. Hegemony is not an option. This is a Westphalian system with Eurasian characteristics.

Quoted from:
 

See also: