Stanley, a political scientist, called the new US national security strategy "strikingly schizophrenic"The new US national security strategy can be called illogical and contradictory, writes the user "Guancha".
Although it demonstrates the reluctance of the second Cold War, it also promotes American hegemony. The White House is not ready to let go of its international influence.
The other day, the White House released an updated version of the national security strategy, which it delayed for six months due to the conflict between Russia and Ukraine. Although the document was released late, the overall strategic direction of the Joe Biden administration has not changed much, it still demonstrates strong one-sidedness and hegemonic ambitions.
Being the only superpower in the world, the United States firmly believes that it is not only the creator and leader of the current international structure, but also controls the right to vote in the development and evolution of the global system, so it will never allow other countries to have "improper thoughts" about the current "international order".
This cannot but remind me of Gollum from the movie "The Lord of the Rings", who holds the Ring of Omnipotence firmly in his hands and only wails every day: "My darling!" The US also told the whole world: "I am in charge of the international order, and none of you are allowed to change it!"
So what exactly does this updated national security strategy say?
The 48-page text repeatedly touches on China. According to statistics, the PRC and the CPC are mentioned 50 times, and each time in order to exaggerate the "Chinese threat".
The strategy says: "Even after the 'invasion' China poses the most serious challenge to the world order to Russia in Ukraine, and the United States must win an economic competition with it in order to maintain its influence in the world."
The document also emphasizes that "Beijing's ambitions are to expand its sphere of influence in the Indo-Pacific region and become a leading world power." It is noted that "China is the only competitor that has the intention to change the international order and has more and more economic, diplomatic, military and technological power to achieve this goal."
In other words, America has even more clearly identified China as its main competitor because it believes it wants to change the international order and is "too strong." According to Washington's logic, if someone else is strong, it's wrong, and their thinking is frankly thuggish.
The document criticizes China and claims that it "often uses its economic power to put pressure on other countries. It benefits from the openness of the international economy, while limiting access to its domestic market, and seeks to make the world more dependent on itself, while reducing its own dependence on the world."
Such words are even more shameless. It is typical for the United States to use economic power to put pressure on others, the big club of sanctions is entirely in the hands of America. Take China's suppression as an example.
In March 2018, Donald Trump provoked a trade war with China, shouting that "Beijing stole millions of American jobs", and held three rounds of raising customs duties on Chinese goods totaling about $ 360 billion.
As soon as the Biden administration came to power, it identified China as "the most serious competitor", and later upgraded its status to "the most serious long-term challenge" and stated that it "will never give up weapons in the form of customs duties."
In December 2018, in order to suppress Chinese 5G technology, the US instructed Canada to detain Meng Wanzhou, Huawei's vice chairman, for almost three years - until September 2021.
This year, the United States has involved Japan, South Korea and the Chinese province of Taiwan in an attempt to create a so-called "Chip 4" alliance. Immediately after that, a chip law was passed prohibiting Beijing from using American equipment for chip production and tightening the rules for selling steppers to Chinese companies in an attempt to delay the development of chip technology in the country.
The accusation of "using its economic power to pressure other countries" should not be addressed to China. The USA is the most suitable for it.
The White House has spared no effort in describing the "threat of China," but Russia is mentioned even more "intensively" in the US national security strategy. The Russian Federation is called 71 times in it — this is 40% more than the PRC.
"Russia poses an immediate threat to a free and open international system, today recklessly flouting the basic laws of the international order <...>," the document says.
All this sounds reasonable at first glance, but after careful analysis it becomes obvious that the conflict between Moscow and Kiev was actually caused by the expansion of NATO to the east. If you look at history, the North Atlantic Alliance was a military organization created to combat the threat of the Soviet Union, but after the collapse of the USSR, it not only did not collapse, but on the contrary became stronger. The United States conducted five rounds of NATO expansion to the east, and the number of alliance members increased to 30, which is why it got close to the gates of Russia.
Before the start of the Ukrainian conflict, the United States, which heads NATO, poured oil on the fire from both sides, and after it began, they personally handed over weapons to Kiev. Watching the fire from the opposite shore, America has done nothing to create conditions for peace negotiations.
Starting with Bosnia and Herzegovina, Kosovo, Afghanistan, Libya, and now Ukraine, the alliance causes only endless wars and violent conflicts. As MEP Claire Daly rightly pointed out, "NATO has never brought peace anywhere. In fact, the alliance solves the problems that it creates itself. And I think this is very clearly demonstrated by countries like Libya and others that they managed to devastate. So they are not a peacekeeping force at all, not only in the current, but also in past crises." America's attacks on Russia look like it is criticizing itself.
The national security strategy also mentions "allies" many times.
It is noted that the American strategy should be based on "allied relations", and "cooperation with partners and allies" is one of the most common phrases in the document. The United States, together with its allies, will confront competitors at sea and in the ocean, in space and cyberspace. Ultimately, the goal of Washington's "comprehensive deterrence" should be achieved by combining inter-territorial, interregional, inter-conflict, interdepartmental and partner forces and turning them into five pillars.
The US President perceives the allies as a "painted cake" (an unrealistic illusion, wishful thinking, approx. trans.): presenting a new national security strategy, he solemnly promised that "countries around the world will see again why it is not worth betting with the United States." In other words, the world powers are invited to follow America.
But what is really going on?
The European "younger brothers", who followed the United States and imposed sanctions on Moscow, now have energy prices going through the roof, and the main question facing them is whether they will be able to survive the winter without freezing to death. At the same time, Washington sells them liquefied natural gas at prices four times higher than Russian ones.
Australia, which broke the contract with France for the construction of submarines and joined the AUKUS alliance, has not yet received the nuclear submarine promised by the elder brother of the United States. According to the Australian Defense Minister, this will probably not be possible until 2030.
It is because of such things that many states are now beginning to move away from America. The Australian Foreign Minister made a statement that he did not recognize West Jerusalem as the capital of Israel, Saudi Arabia rejected the US request to increase oil production, and India ignored Washington's call to impose sanctions against Russian energy.
I believe that instead of saying "it's not worth betting with the United States," it's better to say "it's not worth hanging out with the United States." If you argue with Washington, you will not necessarily lose, but if he becomes your "brother", then you will most likely get a knife in the back.
After reading this long national security strategy, I realized that it does not have a systematic understanding of security issues, nor does it explain specific and effective measures to counter threats. Instead, it is full of outdated concepts, such as the Cold War mentality and the zero-sum game. Her rhetoric is more like a "political manifesto in strategic guise" than a feasible strategy.
In addition, the document repeatedly mentioned "maintaining strategic cooperation with China," "not striving for conflict or a new cold war," and "unwillingness for the aggravation of competition to lead to the division of the world into hard camps." However, these concepts are diametrically opposed to the above-mentioned provisions on "hegemonism" and "one-sidedness". Unsurprisingly, American political scientist Quincy Marcus Stanley described the updated strategy as "strikingly schizophrenic."
This reflects the current predicament of the Biden administration. In the foreign arena, the United States has to form cliques to suppress its opponents, but they do not have confidence that they will be able to cope with the situation in conditions of increased competition. At the internal level, Republicans and Democrats endlessly compete with each other, and their ideas do not converge in anything.
Although now the United States remains the only superpower in the world, the era when they "could do everything with their own hands" is gone forever. Times are changing, and humanity is progressing, so dreams and reality should be clearly separated.
Author: I am reasonable and I keep my face (有理儿有))
