On Thursday, April 7, 2022 at 12:05:31 AM UTC-4, stoney wrote:
On Thursday, April 7, 2022 at 4:27:22 AM UTC+8, ltlee1 wrote:
Hal Brands is well known as a strategic thinker. His had written for the Rand Corporation the article entitled "American Grand Strategy and the Liberal Order. "
He is also the author of a book entitled "What Good Is Grand Strategy?: Power and Purpose in American Statecraft from Harry S. Truman to George W. Bush".
Concerning the Ukraine situation, his current article has the title of Opposing China Means Defeating Russia in Ukraine"
https://foreignpolicy.com/2022/04/05/china-russia-war-ukraine/
In short, he considers China real strategic enemy. But the US has to defeat Russia in Ukraine before it could deal with China. So far so good.
Of course, the question is How?
Hal Brands' bright idea:
"Nor does this strategy require Washington and its allies to enter the fighting unless Putin, through unacceptable escalation, gives them a reason to do so. Rather, Ukraine’s brilliantly effective resistance allows democracies to pursue this
strategy by doing more of what they are already doing: chiefly, giving Kyiv, Ukraine’s capital, a never-ending supply of arms, money, intelligence, and training so that it can frustrate Russian advances, bleed an overextended invasion force, and
ultimately confront Putin with a choice between losing a war and losing his army."
To Hal Brands and his like minded, Ukraine presents an opportunity for the US to defend the "Liberal World Order." Just give Kyiv and never-ending supply of arms, money, intelligence and training. And Kyiv would defeat Moscow for good.
Bright strategic thinking?
Wishful thinking?
It is a strategic thinking of the West that by never-ending supply of advanced arms, intelligence, money, and training to Ukraine will encourage Ukraine and foreign volunteer fighters to fight and drag Russia for months until Russia is internally
weakened, opposed, and upturned by its people. When the West succeeded, they will then move on to upturn China. By this way, US will remain as US supreme power with its allies becoming more aggressive to China, Russia and other countries that are
opponents to them. They will force them into obedience.
Hal Brands is treating America's problem as a static and he sees a linear solution. That is first Russia
and then China. But international system have a lot of players and inherently non-linear. All nations want to
maximize their own gain. In addition, history also plays a significant role.
In some sense, India also has its China problem. However, opposing China certainly does not means defeating
Russia in Ukraine.
Short term wise, India gets an opportunity to buy Russia oil at a deep discount. It sees no reason to follow
U.S. mandate. It bought 13 million barrel of Russian oil in March in comparison of last year's total of
16 million barrels from Russia. More long term, the US is riddle with internal problems. And the White House
is likely to change its master 2 years from now. Biddle is Russophobic. In contrast, a GOP, let alone Trump
presidency is likely to be more Russian friendly. No reason to make decision between the US and Russia now.
To be sure, a weakened Russia allows the US to concentrate its effort to weaken China as much as possible. Is
such situation beneficial to India? Would the US not lean on India more and more and, if necessary, force India
to fight its proxy war against China?
In addition, India is not white like Australia. India, with its long history and large population, has little reason to
aspire to become another Japan or South Korea. Will the US not turn its head and find fault with India over its pro
Hinduism nation building policy. India could sit pretty as long as China and Russia are Enemy No.1 and No. 2. of US.
Without Russia on the US gun-sight and a weakened China, would India become the New China assuming it could
capitalize on Chinese weakness?
--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)