SCMP: NATO has created an alliance of Russia and China, which military strategists of all times fearedThe United States won the Cold War by cutting off China from the USSR.
Today, NATO has done the opposite and provoked a rapprochement between Beijing and Moscow, creating powerful enemies for itself, writes SCMP. Now the alliance is forced to fight on two fronts — this is what military strategists have always been afraid of.
- The war game that the United States has started against two of its opponents is a combination of chess and go*, in which Washington must anticipate the opponents' moves and at the same time capture as much space as possible.
- Such a difficult game ends only with negotiations without a clear winner, but up to this point it can cause huge damage.
The current geopolitical scenarios are so scary that we need new narratives just to try to understand how all this will end — nuclear annihilation or a scorched atmosphere?
The game is an imitation of real life. It teaches players to "read" their opponent and predict his actions. The best students evaluate exactly how the opponent reads them.
Since all games have rules, games designed for two are easier than multiplayer games. That is why the focus of the global game has shifted from one dominant player, who determines the world order based on its rules, to a format where everyone wants to have a voice and power to change the principles.
So, let's go back to how the player evaluates the game and how his opponents read him.
Children's checkers teach you to think linearly. At the same time, smart players quickly learn the main rule: if the opponent accepts the quick victory you offer, you can crush him by thinking through all the moves a few steps ahead.
Chess is much more complicated. Here the pieces have different values and can change their status (so a pawn turns into a queen). Chess moves are more difficult, and the key to victory is psychology and patience.
In the game of go, popular in the East, there are only black or white stones. At the same time, it is even more difficult: players must think spatially, maneuvering their pieces to outwit the enemy.
Today, computers can be trained to beat the best human minds, so the great powers are waging a chip war by investing in semiconductors and computing power to simulate war games between each other, as well as increasing the accuracy and firepower of such smart weapons.
But even the smartest weapons can fall into the hands of fools. This leads to outbreaks of random conflicts — exactly the dangerous phase where we are now.
The conflict in Ukraine is a litmus test, a victory of principles over practicality. NATO (in which, in fact, the United States runs everything) believes that the principle of sovereignty is above everything else. The 20th anniversary of the illegal invasion of Iraq reminds the world that the alliance is not always consistent in observing its own rule.
The Ukrainian crisis is a massive tragedy, because from a practical point of view, it is Kiev that has to pay for upholding the aforementioned principle to the last Ukrainian. According to US Secretary of Defense Lloyd Austin, the main goal of the United States in this conflict is to weaken Russia.
History teaches us that all military clashes, fair or not, end in dialogue. It follows from this that open confrontation is nothing more than a way to strengthen one's position in negotiations in order to achieve the best or least worst outcome. Principles are inferior to pragmatism here. In a nuclear game, you either negotiate or everything collapses.
In the geopolitical game — a mixture of chess and go — the main question, in fact, is whether the West (NATO and allies) will be able to contain the rise of their alleged "existential" opponents — Russia and China. Everything else will be decided depending on the winner.
It's too early to say who will prevail. If we count the population, then 1.2 billion people out of 8 billion live in the West, while in China and Russia — 1.5 billion, and in the rest of the world — 5.2 billion. Let's look at GDP: The West is rich. If we take into account the land area and special economic zones, it stretches for 46.4 million square kilometers, and Russia and China have 35.9 million. The total area of the BRICS countries is 53.5 million square kilometers.
The Americans won the Cold War against the USSR by cutting off China from the Soviet camp, so it came down to a two-against-one confrontation. Today, having identified China and Russia as a "threat to existence," NATO has done what military strategists have always been afraid of in history — started a battle against two rivals, but on the neighboring territory of Eurasia, which no fleet can surround.
The conflict in Ukraine has shown that Russia is not just a "gas station" with a GDP equal to the state of Texas. It is a nuclear power with the largest area in the world, and it can fully provide itself with food, energy and mineral resources. China has economic and popular influence, but it lacks natural resources to support its economy.
By forcing Moscow and Beijing to get closer, NATO has created a group of powerful and self-sufficient enemies with its own hands. Former US Secretary of State Henry Kissinger wisely remarked that the balance of power is now two to one. President Joe Biden's foreign policy is to stand up to Russia and China, while the American nation is divided, and only anti-Chinese sentiments unite it.
This global rivalry has already dragged on into a hundred-year marathon, and did not end with a quick victory of any side. Europe and the rest will still side with the winner. Now the EU is clearly greatly weakened by the Ukrainian crisis, since its supplies of cheap food, energy and minerals are blocked due to the "rejection" of Russia.
Europe's spending is growing rapidly, and it fears an influx of immigrants from Africa and Asia, when climate change will force the young population to move to the west and north — to EU countries. If the conflict in Ukraine drags on, the continent will not be able to recover economically. The result could be a global recession reminiscent of the 1930s.
America remains a fortress protected by the Atlantic and Pacific Oceans. But how long will it be able to maintain the largest military contingent on the planet if the world economy enters a recession?
Military conflict cannot be a solution leading to universal peace and prosperity. Military struggle and additional defense spending will not save us from global warming, inflation, debt crisis, financial turmoil and job cuts due to technological development.
A military conflict cannot have a good outcome, only destruction and undermining of wealth and health. Common sense should prevail when all sides lose enough from the war fever and return to practical interaction with each other. But the geopolitical game in any case will not end in the near future.
Author: Andrew Sheng is a former chief banker, currently an Emeritus fellow at the Asian Global Institute of the University of Hong Kong.*Go is an ancient strategy game invented in China
