When you have not thought it out — as American leadership never does — should you really be provoking more wars?

23 December 2021

Today, I link to two astute geopolitical essays . . .

. . . so as to give readers a chance to see what potential messes the United States is provoking — with its hostile bluster regarding Russia (about Ukraine) and China (about Taiwan).

The first article . . .

. . . takes on US and NATO warmongering with respect to Russia's communicated refusal to tolerate NATO's presence in Ukraine.

The below-cited essay is by a Russian heritage geopolitical analyst, whose pen name is "The Saker". Over the years, I have found Saker's analyses to be historically accurate and strategically prescient.

His below-cited musing regards Russia's recent ultimatum about NATO's incessant (US-instigated) encirclement attempt.

Saker points to 15 retaliatory Russian options. All of which would put egg (and perhaps blood) on NATO and American faces.

He begins his list, this way:

The predictable thing about Putin is that he only uses force when there is no other option left.

The very unpredictable thing about Putin is how and where he is willing to use force.

The second essay . . .

. . . takes on American blustering, as it challenges China's long-term statement — that it will eventually reincorporate Taiwan into the People's Republic's jurisdiction.

This one is by Fred Reed. Reed is a flamboyantly provocative, perspicacious, vociferously politically incorrect, (wounded) Vietnam War (Marine) veteran.

Reed's long running commentary about China (which he has visited) is much more deeply insightful, than the overwhelming majority of ignorantly obtuse American analysts.

Here is what he said (this month) — my comment in bracketed italics:

First, overconfidence is an occupational disease of militaries and militarists.

Wars very often fail to proceed according to the expectations of the aggressors and not infrequently end in catastrophe.

[You can see where that historically accurate observation is headed.]

Like Saker with regard to Russia, Reed overviews China's options in responding to American trash talk and trash actions.

The moral? — Thinking realistically about probabilities and consequences . . .

. . . is a good thing to do, before one starts wars with America's two most capable alleged adversaries.

Of course, I predict (on the basis of a lifetime of experience) that US leadership will honor this most fundamental aspect of Sun Tzu and Clausewitzian war-making — by ignoring it.

Hostile dullards tend to remain so.

Especially, when and where the prospect of still more war profiteering is concerned.

It will not be our warmongering leaders, whose blood will splatter. Which explains why this 'stuff' never ends.

Maybe a bit of societal self-protection is in order?

PeteFree.com

When you have not thought it out — as American leadership never does — should you really be provoking more wars?