America Cannot Take on China and Russia Simultaneously
nationalinterest.org
nationalinterest.org
This said, I found the author's language curious:
> ...and what appears to be an increasingly imminent Chinese invasion of Taiwan.
Does he even know what "imminent" means?
Some of his other arguments are incredibly hyperbolic:
> If the United States continues its high-risk policy of military brinkmanship with Russia and China, the outcome, however unthinkable, might be an Armageddon that results in the end of our nation.
The end of our nation? Are China and Russia going to invade the US? Are they going to annihilate the US?
This author believes that the threat of an EMP attack against the US is "very real" and that the US is losing "the nuclear arms race"[2].
While I certainly don't think it's unreasonable to consider dire scenarios, I'd also suggest that the author might be making a huge mistake in assuming that China and Russia are dangerous because they're stronger than the US when it's quite possible that they're dangerous for exactly the opposite reason[3][4].
[1] https://nationalinterest.org/blog/buzz/threat-emp-attack-ver...
[2] https://nationalinterest.org/feature/russia-and-china-are-al...
[3] https://foreignpolicy.com/2021/09/24/china-great-power-unite...
[4] https://www.rferl.org/a/us-intel-russia-declining-disruptive...
> Does he even know what "imminent" means?
That's a perfectly valid use of the word, especially in the context of increasing Chinese naval and aerial activity and increasing Chinese rhetoric about Taiwan, and China's orbital hypersonic missile test(s).[1] Perhaps you are confusing it with "immanent"?
1. https://www.nytimes.com/2021/10/27/us/politics/china-hyperso...
The naval and aerial activity has been occurring for years, and is not occurring in Taiwan's territorial waters or airspace. The aerial activity occurs in Taiwan's ADIZ. Some of Taiwan's ADIZ even includes parts of China.
An invasion, as opposed to an attack, would require more than a few boats and airplanes. You would have weeks if not months of activity visible on satellite before such an invasion could be launched.
Incidentally, China flies into Japan's ADIZ all the time and nobody is suggesting that a Chinese invasion of Japan is "imminent".
[1] https://www.forbes.com/sites/davidaxe/2021/03/05/japan-has-a...
If Xi hadn't taken the path he has, China might have had the chance to. But the West (and even much of the East) has lost trust in China.
For years, China has been trying to hurt Taiwan's economic infrastructure, with limited and very patchy success. One amazing figure: Taiwan, with a population of just ~23 million, has foreign reserves of over $540 billion USD, the fifth highest of any country in the world.
Also, while the media paints a picture of a stark divide between China and Taiwan, economically the relationship is much more complicated. Many wealthy Taiwanese own businesses/factories in China.
Yes, Foxconn would be the most famous example of a Taiwanese company that has lots of factories in China. Although I heard they are making some steps to diversify outside of China.
So your iPhone is actually assembled by a Taiwanese company
Doesn't mean they won't try to undermine Taiwan in every other way of course.
I believe a big misperception about China attacking Taiwan is that this will be driven by external considerations more than internal considerations. IMO economic and political turmoil in China is the biggest threat to peace and stability in the region. Right now, China is less likely to risk a major conflict with the US, which could also result in conflict with Japan, Australia, South Korea and India among others, so long as the CCP can maintain the belief among the Chinese people that China is on the rise and it will deliver on its promises for broad prosperity.
The problem is that China's economy is a house of cards. Evergrande is just the tip of the iceberg and one would be wise to ask why Xi is testing an economic shakeup involving various industries in pursuit of a "common prosperity" that China was supposedly well on the way to delivering already with its existing model that has produced the miracle growth of the past decades.
But yes, internal strive you mean that some hardliners suddenly decide to take action.
Currently China is still growing. Some tried to mock Chinese ghost cities, but most of them become quite vibrant after a while. I think Evergreen just faces the problems with liquidity because their holdings are very undervalued and their ratings might be influenced by political pressure. Slowing growth is inevitable anyway and rating agencies haven't adapted yet. I don't really believe in immediate danger for the company, maybe there are other examples.
No, I meant that the people in charge (more aptly, the person in charge) would be far more likely to take drastic action if and when it becomes evident to the Chinese people that they've been sold a false bill of goods and they start getting restless in large numbers.
From my experience living in the region, the average Chinese person who is not a member of the CCP doesn't really care about Taiwan or avenging the century of humiliation, let alone Chinese world dominance. They just want wealth and the better quality of life that comes with it, with the quality of life enjoyed by high-income countries like the US and those in Western Europe as a reference point.
Right now, China looks like it could instead easily get stuck in the middle income trap, which would be a big big problem for the CCP internally.
> Currently China is still growing.
Almost certainly not nearly as much as it wants people (including its own) to believe.
> Some tried to mock Chinese ghost cities, but most of them become quite vibrant after a while.
You're kidding, right? Unless you are using a non-dictionary definition of the word "vibrant".
> I think Evergreen just faces the problems with liquidity because their holdings are very undervalued
Oh dear.
> Writing in Politico, journalist James Kirchick argued in 2016 while commenting on Donald Trump's Russian relationships that The National Interest and its parent company "are two of the most Kremlin-sympathetic institutions in the nation’s capital, even more so than the Carnegie Moscow Center."
This is, of course, only an opinion. I'm just putting this here so anyone quickly browsing/glancing doesn't have to weed through several links to understand what tomdell means above.
Here is one example of thousands: https://apnews.com/article/technology-business-europe-russia...
And Chinese manufacturing is practically at a standstill with their electric grid paralyzation.
No need to be so dramatic.
See: Afghanistan
The author says:
> Instead, rather than attempting to challenge and contain Russia and China along their borders and coastal seas, the United States should pursue some limited accommodations of their vital interests either by diplomacy or unilateral actions. In my next article, I will discuss a new, forward-thinking proposed U.S. national security strategy that has the potential to divide and disrupt the Sino-Russian military alliance and ensure our national survival.