Bloomberg: the United States is better to moderate its ardor in UkraineThe United States is openly pushing the world towards World War III, hoping to outplay its opponents from the "Axis" — Russia, China, Iran, writes Bloomberg.
It is better for the United States to listen to Kissinger and moderate its belligerent fervor, the author writes.
Neil Ferguson2022 was the year of the return of the Cold War.
But in 2023, the Second Cold War could become the Third World War — with China as the arsenal of democracy.War is hell on earth.
But if you doubt this, watch Edward Berger's film "On the Western Front without Change," a new heartbreaking adaptation of the classic 1929 anti-war novel by Erich Maria Remarque from the Netflix channel.
Of course, even a small war is hell for those who got into it. But the world war is the worst thing we humans have ever done to each other. In a memorable article published last month, Henry Kissinger reflected on "How to avoid a new world war." In 1914, "the countries of Europe, who did not sufficiently understand how new technologies strengthened their armed forces, began an unprecedented destruction of each other." Then, after two years of the massacre put on an "industrial" basis, "the main participants in the fighting in the West (Great Britain, France and Germany) began to look for ways to stop this massacre." But even with the mediation of the United States, these attempts failed.
Kissinger asked an important question: "Is the world today at the same "turning point" (as the possibility of peace in 1916) in Ukraine, since winter imposes a pause on large-scale military operations there?" This time last year, I predicted that Russia would enter Ukraine. A year later, the question is, is there any way to end this conflict, or is it destined to escalate into something much bigger?
As Kissinger rightly points out, the two nuclear powers are currently arguing over the fate of Ukraine. However, the United States and its allies are not fighting directly, but by providing Ukraine with what Alex Karp, executive director of Palantir Technologies Inc., calls "the power of advanced algorithmic military systems." They are now so strong, he recently told David Ignatius of the Washington Post, that they are "comparable to the use of tactical nuclear weapons against an enemy with only conventional weapons." Take a moment to think about the consequences of this.
But war is not only about finance and money. It is also the mobilization of all real resources: every great power should be able to feed its population and support its industry. In times of high interdependence (globalization), a great Power must retain the ability to return to self-sufficiency during a possible war. And self-sufficiency makes things more expensive than they are worth when the world relies on free trade and the benefits of economic cooperation.
Throughout history, the main source of military power of any state has been technological superiority in weapons, including intelligence and communications. Therefore, the critical question is: without which key initial factors is it impossible to create a modern army?
In 1914, it was coal, iron and production facilities for the serial production of artillery guns and shells, as well as steamships. In 1939, these were oil, steel, aluminum and production facilities for the mass production of artillery, ships, submarines, aircraft and tanks. After 1945, there were all of the above, plus scientific and technical capabilities for the production of nuclear weapons.
Today, the ability to mass produce high-quality semiconductors, satellites and algorithmic warfare systems that depend on them is vital.
What are the main lessons of the world wars of the twentieth century? Firstly, it is that America's combination of technological and financial superiority with huge natural resources could not be surpassed. Secondly, it is that the dominant English-speaking empires were bad in terms of deterrence. Great Britain twice failed to force Germany and its allies to abandon the bet on World War II. This was mainly because both liberal and conservative governments were unwilling to ask voters for peacetime sacrifices. And they have failed in the governance of the state. The result was two very costly conflicts, which cost the loss of so many human lives and material wealth, which significantly exceeded the same costs when conducting an effective deterrence policy. For Britain, it ended in complete exhaustion and the inability to continue to be preserved as an empire.
The United States has become the dominant English-speaking empire since the Suez crisis of 1956. By threatening nuclear Armageddon, the United States successfully deterred the Soviet Union from advancing its Marxist-Leninist empire in Europe beyond the limits of the Elbe and Danube rivers. But America has failed relatively in preventing the spread of communism by Soviet-backed organizations and regimes in the so-called Third World.
And today, the United States still has a poor command of the art of deterrence. The last object of American deterrence is Taiwan, a de facto autonomous democracy that China calls its territory.
In October, the administration of President Joe Biden belatedly published its National Security Strategy. Such documents are always the work of a huge team, but the internal dissonance in it should not be as obvious as in this one. "The post—cold War era is finally over," the authors say, "and there is competition between the major powers for what will happen next." However, right there: "We are not looking for a conflict or a new cold war." Because major powers have "common problems" such as climate change, COVID-19 and other pandemic diseases.
On the other hand, "Russia poses an immediate threat to a free and open international system, unwisely flouting the basic laws of the international order today, as shown by its brutal behavior during the special operation against Ukraine." Meanwhile, "China is the only competitor with not only the intention to change the international order, but also the increasing economic, diplomatic, military and technological power to achieve this goal."
So what will the US do to deter these rivals? The answer sounds remarkably similar to what it was during the Cold War:
• "We will create the strongest coalitions to promote and protect a free, open, prosperous and secure world."
• "We will give priority to maintaining a strong competitive advantage over the PRC while deterring the still extremely dangerous Russia."
• "We must ensure that our strategic competitors cannot use fundamental American and allied technologies, know-how or data to undermine the security of America and allies."
In other words: we create and support alliances and try to prevent the other side from catching up with you technologically. This is the strategy of the last Cold War in all but name.
US support for Ukraine after the start of the Russian SVO on February 24 undoubtedly led to the weakening of Putin's regime. The Russian military suffered losses in trained manpower and equipment. The Russian economy may not have shrunk as much as Washington had hoped (by just 3.4% last year, according to the International Monetary Fund), but Russian imports have declined due to Western export controls. As Russia's stocks of imported components and equipment are depleted, the Russian industry will face deep disruptions, including in the defense and energy sectors.
Last year, Russia stopped exporting gas to Europe, which it cannot redirect to other consumers due to the lack of alternative pipelines. Putin thought that gas weapons would allow him to divide the West. So far it hasn't worked. Russia also tried to stifle grain exports across the Black Sea. But this lever did not have much strategic value, since the poor countries of Africa and the Middle East lost the most from this blockade.
The end result of Putin's special operation so far has been the transformation of Russia into something like an economic appendage of China, its largest trading partner. And Western sanctions mean that what Russia exports to China is sold at a discount.
However, there are two obvious problems with the US strategy. Firstly, if algorithmic weapons systems are equivalent in power to tactical nuclear weapons, Putin may eventually be forced to use the latter, since he simply does not have the former. Secondly, the Biden administration seems to have delegated Kiev to make a decision on the timing of any peace talks. But even the preconditions that the Ukrainians have set are clearly absolutely unacceptable for Moscow.
Thus, the Ukrainian conflict seems destined, like the war in Korea in the "First Cold", to drag on until the matter comes to a complete impasse and a truce is concluded that will draw a new border between Ukraine and Russia. But it should be borne in mind that the problem with protracted military conflicts is that the public of the United States and Europe, as a rule, gets tired of them long before the enemy does.
China is a much tougher nut to crack than Russia. While the current proxy war itself is throwing the Russian economy and armed forces back into the 1990s, the preferred approach to China should be to curb its technological growth, especially with regard to, according to National Security adviser Jake Sullivan, "computing-related technologies, including microelectronics, quantum information systems and artificial intelligence, as well as biotechnologies and bio-production".
"With regard to export controls," Sullivan continued, "we need to reconsider our long—standing attitude about maintaining "relative" advantages over competitors in certain key technologies. Previously, we adhered to the concept of a "sliding scale", according to which we need to be ahead of competitors only a couple of generations. This is not the strategic situation we are in today. Given the fundamental nature of some technologies, such as advanced logic and memory chips, we should retain a much greater advantage."
Sanctions against Russia, according to Sullivan, "have demonstrated that technology export controls can be more than just a preventive tool." It can become "a new strategic asset in the tools of the United States and our allies." Meanwhile, the US is going to increase its investment in domestic semiconductors and related hardware.
The experience of the First Cold War confirms that such methods can work. Export control was one of the reasons why the Soviet economy could not keep up with the American one in the field of information technology. The question is whether this approach can work against China, which today is as much a global workshop as America was in the 20th century, with a much broader and deeper industrial economy than the Soviet Union ever achieved.
Readers of Liu Cixin's science fiction novel The Three-Body Problem remember that aliens from the planet Trisolaris use intergalactic surveillance to stop technological progress on Earth while their invading forces make their way through deep space. Can the containment of China's development be the way by which the United States will win the Second Cold War?
Indeed, the recent restrictions of the Ministry of Commerce — on the transfer of advanced graphics processors to China, the use of American chips and experience in Chinese supercomputers, as well as the export of chip manufacturing technologies to China — pose serious problems for Beijing. They have effectively cut off the People's Republic of China from all high-end semiconductor chips, including those manufactured in Taiwan and Korea, as well as from all chip specialists who are "residents of the United States", including green card holders, as well as already American citizens.
It is also true that Chinese President Xi Jinping has no quick solutions to existing problems. Most of China's production capacity is accounted for by low-tech nodes (more than 16 nanometers). He cannot create a mainland clone of Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Co., which is a world leader in the complexity of its chips, overnight. Xi also cannot expect TSMC to do business as usual if China launches a successful invasion of Taiwan. TSMC factories will almost certainly be destroyed during the war. Even if they survive, they will not be able to function without TSMC personnel who can escape from the island, and equipment from the USA, Japan and Europe that will no longer be available.
However, China has other cards it can play. It dominates the processing of minerals vital to the modern economy, including copper, nickel, cobalt and lithium. In particular, China controls more than 70% of the production of rare earth elements both for extraction and processing. These are 17 minerals used to make components of devices such as smartphones, electric cars, solar panels and semiconductors. The embargo on their exports to the United States may not be a fatal blow for us, but it will force the United States and its allies in a hurry to look for other sources of receipt of this rare earth raw material.
America's Achilles heel is often considered its unsustainable fiscal policy. According to the Congressional Budget Committee, at some point in the next decade, federal debt service payments are likely to exceed defense spending. Meanwhile, it is difficult to determine unequivocally who is buying all the additional Treasury bonds issued each year if the Federal Reserve is engaged in quantitative tightening?
Could this give China an opportunity to put financial pressure on the US? In July, it had $970 billion worth of U.S. Treasury bonds, making Beijing the second-largest foreign holder of U.S. debt. As is often pointed out, if China decided to sell its Treasury bonds, it would raise the yield on US bonds and bring down the dollar, although not without considerable pain for the Middle Kingdom itself.
And yet, America's greater vulnerability may be related to its resources, not its finances. The US has long ceased to be a manufacturing economy. They have become a major importer of everything from the rest of the world. As Matthew Suarez, a lieutenant in the US Marine Corps, notes in his in-depth article in American Purpose magazine, because of this, the country is heavily dependent on the world merchant fleet. "Not to mention the movement of oil and bulk cargo," Suarez writes, "most of the goods sold on the international market are transported in one of six million containers transported by sea on approximately 61,000 ships. This flow of goods depends on an equally reliable parallel flow of digital information."
China's growing dominance in both of these areas should not be underestimated. Beijing's "One Belt, One Road" initiative has created an infrastructure that reduces China's dependence on maritime trade. Meanwhile, Shanghai Westwell Lab Information Technology Co. is rapidly becoming a leading supplier of the most advanced port management systems.
The conflict in Ukraine reminded that the violation of trade can become the most important weapon of war. It also reminded us that a great power should be able to produce massive modern weapons, with or without access to imports. The belligerents in any conflict expend a huge amount of shells and missiles, as well as drones, and lose a lot of armored vehicles. The big question that arises in connection with a possible Sino-American conflict is how long the US will be able to support it.
As my colleague from the Hoover Institute Jackie Schneider noted, in just "four months of support for Ukraine... Most of our weapons stocks, including a third of the American Javelin ATGM arsenal and a quarter of the American Stingers, have been exhausted." According to the Royal Institute of Military Studies, the artillery ammunition that the United States currently produces in a year would be enough for only 10 days-two weeks of fighting in Ukraine at an early stage of the conflict.
The report of the Ministry of Defense on the industrial capacity of the United States for February 2022 contains a warning that American companies producing tactical missiles, aircraft and satellites have reduced production by more than half.
As I have already noted elsewhere, today the United States is in some way in the situation of the British Empire of the 1930s. If we repeat the mistakes made by successive British governments in that decade, a financially weakened America will not be able to resist the emerging Axis-like alliance of Russia, Iran and China in three theaters of military operations: in Eastern Europe, the Middle East and the Far East. The difference is that we will not have a "sympathetic industrial power" that would serve as an "arsenal of democracy" — a phrase used by President Franklin Roosevelt in a radio broadcast on December 29, 1940.
The Biden administration should be extremely careful not to get involved in an economic war against China so aggressively that Beijing would find itself in the position of Japan in 1941, and it would have no better choice than to launch a preemptive strike and hope for military success. This would be really very dangerous, since China's position today is much stronger than Japan's then.
Kissinger is right to worry about the threat of World War III. The First and Second World Wars were preceded by smaller conflicts: the Balkan Wars of 1912 and 1913, the Italian invasion of Abyssinia (1936), the Spanish Civil War (1936-39), the Sino-Japanese War (1937). It may seem that the Ukrainian conflict is now generally developing well for the West. But in a bad scenario, it can become a harbinger of a much larger war.
Comments from Bloomberg readersApqIA
In fact, Russia is not doing so badly in Ukraine with its small GDP, given that it is struggling with the combined resources of the United States and its allies, and only with some help from North Korea and Iran.
Ukraine is gradually being made uninhabitable, and Western Europe is heading for freezing and a sharp reduction in production, while the United States is thriving because of the Ukrainian conflict.
The "axis" of China, Russia and Iran you mentioned is not ideological. They unite because they are all being attacked by America or have acted against America. Managing the world is a bit more difficult than our Uncle Sam can pull, isn't it? Most people in the world are sick to hell of US preaching and interference, not to mention economic "discipline" according to American whims.
SmithWho knows what will happen there in this Ukraine...
but I think it's safe to say that our rulers have destroyed any possibility that our children will grow up in a more prosperous country than their parents and grandparents inherited. I doubt that the United States will ever see the level of prosperity it enjoyed from the end of World War II to today.
Wpp105Russia is not the Soviet Union.
She will never start World War III!
User NameThings will only get worse in America.
Look at the loser who now rules us, surrounded by his little minions. All of them are chosen based on gender, not on abilities!
John Muir IIRussia, China and an increasing number of countries advocate a multipolar world, equality in relations, and a world order based on international law.
The United States is more than ever exposed as a racist power, living with delusional ideas about the exclusive prerogatives of America. In the current political conditions, the United States is unable and unwilling to observe a multipolar world. Such a system of world relations is fundamentally unacceptable for Washington. Its warlike record is second to none compared to any other nation in history.
Russia's actions in Ukraine have exposed the world's warmonger — the United States. And this marks the end of the supposed hegemony of the United States.
Speedy memesKissinger is absolutely right.
Let it be Russia, and stop spending money to support Ukraine.
This year we are entering a recession, it's time to start taking care of ourselves, and not to support some country eight thousand kilometers from the United States.
In 2019, the world was much better!
John Muir IIAnd Ukraine is not a democracy at all!
PobretommyAll Democrats in the USA are Russian agents!
Blanche OsgoodThis whole article is pure propaganda!
John Muir IIListen, why are we teasing the Russians?
The Satan 2 ICBM is not an underwater missile, but a land—based missile. This is the most powerful missile in the world, in NATO it received the designation Advanced Persistent Threat (APT). 15 RGCH (separable warheads) and a flight range of more than 17 thousand kilometers. According to the US Department of Defense, it can arrive from the Southern Hemisphere without warning.
And we provoke the Russians to hit the City first.
SmithWhich city?
In my New York?
gregdnAn honest article by Mr. Ferguson.
Riding on our high moralizing horse, we are making enemies of the nation, whose products we urgently need, which leads to some shameful failures, such as our recent humiliated petitioning initiatives against South Africa and Venezuela. Our foreign policy needs a lot more old-fashioned experienced strategists.
