The
reactions of the U.S. polite to yesterday's press conference of President Trump
and President Putin are highly amusing. The media are losing their mind. Apparently it was Pearl
Harbor, Gulf of Tonkin and 9/11 all in one day. War will commence tomorrow. But
against whom?
Behind the
panic lie competing views of Grand
Strategy.
Rereading the transcript of the 45 minutes long press
conference (vid) I find it rather boring. Trump did not say
anything that he had not said before. There was little mention of what the two
presidents had really talked about and what they agreed upon. Later on Putin
said that the meeting was more substantive than he expected. As the two
spoke alone there will be few if any leaks. To understand what happened we will
have to wait and see how the situations in the various conflict areas, in
Syria, Ukraine and elsewhere, will now develop.
The
'liberal' side of the U.S. did its best to prevent the summit. The recent Mueller indictment was timed to
sabotage the talks. Before the meeting in Helsinki the New York Times retweeted its three weeks old homophobic
comic flick that shows Trump and Putin as lovers. It is truly a disgrace for
the Grey Lady to publish such trash, but it set the tone others would follow.
After the press conference the usual anti-Trump operatives went ballistic:
John O. Brennan @JohnBrennan - 15:52 UTC - 16 Jul 2018
Donald
Trump’s press conference performance in Helsinki rises to & exceeds the
threshold of “high crimes & misdemeanors.” It was nothing short of
treasonous. Not only were Trump’s comments imbecilic, he is wholly in the
pocket of Putin. Republican Patriots: Where are you???
Senator John
McCain released a scathing statement:
... “No prior president has ever abased himself more abjectly
before a tyrant. Not only did President Trump fail to speak the truth about an
adversary; but speaking for America to the world, our president failed to
defend all that makes us who we are—a republic of free people dedicated to the
cause of liberty at home and abroad. ...
These
imbeciles do not understand the realism behind Trump's grand policy. Trump
knows the heartland theoryof Halford John
Mackinder. He understands that Russia is the core of the Eurasian
landmass. That landmass, when politically united, can rule the world. A naval
power, the U.S. now as the UK before it, can never defeat it. Trump's opponents
do not get what Zbigniew Brzezinski, the National Security Advisor of President
Carter, said in his book The Grant Chessboard (pdf) about a
Chinese-Russian alliance. They do not understand why Henry Kissinger advised Trump to let go of Crimea.
Trump himself professed his view (vid) of the big
picture and of relations with Russia in a 2015 press conference:
"... Putin has no respect for President Obama. Big
Problem, big problem. And you know Russia has been driven - you know I always
heard, for years I have heard - one of the worst things that can happen
to our country, is when Russia ever gets driven to China. We have driven them
together - with the big oil deals that are being made. We have driven them
together. That's a horrible thing for this country. We have made
them friends because of incompetent leadership. I believe I
would get along very nicely with Putin- okay? And I mean where we have
the strength. I don't think we need the sanctions. I think that we
would get along very, very well. I really believe that. I think we
would get along with a lot of countries that we don't get along with
today. And that we would be a lot richer for it than we are today.
There are
three great geographic power-centers in the world. The
Anglo-American/transatlantic one which is often called 'the west'. Mackinder's
heartland, which is essentially Russia as the core of the Eurasian landmass,
and China, which historically rules over Asia. Any alliance of two of those
power-centers can determine the fate of the world.
Kissinger's
and Nixon's biggest political success was to separate China from the Soviet
Union. That did not make China an ally of the United States, but it broke the
Chinese-Soviet alliance. It put the U.S. into a premier position, a first among
equals. But even then Kissinger already foresaw the need to balance back to
Russia:
On Feb. 14, 1972, President Richard Nixon and his national
security adviser Henry Kissinger met to discuss Nixon’s upcoming trip to China.
Kissinger, who had already taken his secret trip to China to begin Nixon’s
historic opening to Beijing, expressed the view that compared with the
Russians, the Chinese were “just as dangerous. In fact, they’re more dangerous
over a historical period.”
Kissinger
then observed that “in 20 years your successor, if he’s as wise as you, will
wind up leaning towards the Russians against the Chinese.” He argued that
the United States, as it sought to profit from the enmity between Moscow and
Beijing, needed “to play this balance-of-power game totally unemotionally.
Right now, we need the Chinese to correct the Russians and to discipline the
Russians.” But in the future, it would be the other way around.
It took 45
years, not 20 as Kissinger foresaw, to rebalance the U.S. position.
After the
Cold War the U.S. thought it had won the big ideological competition of the
twentieth century. In its exuberance of the 'unilateral moment' it did
everything possible to antagonize Russia. Against its promises it extended NATO to
Russia's border. It wanted to be the peerless supreme power of the world. At
the same time it invited China into the World Trade Organisation and thereby
enabled its explosive economic growth. This unbalanced policy took its toll.
The U.S. lost industrial capacity to China and at the same time drove Russia
into China's hands. Playing the global hegemon turned out to
be very expensive. It led to the 2006 crash of the U.S. economy and its people
have seen little to no gains from it. Trump wants to revert this situation by
rebalancing towards Russia while opposing China's growing might.
Not everyone
shares that perspective. As security advisor to Jimmy Carter Brzezinski
continued the Nixon/Kissinger policy towards China. The 'one China policy',
disregarding Taiwan for better relations with Beijing, was his work. His view is still that the U.S. should ally
with China against Russia:
"It is not in our interest to antagonize Beijing. It is much
better for American interests to have the Chinese work closely with us, thereby
forcing the Russians to follow suit if they don’t want to be left out in the
cold. That constellation gives the U.S. the unique ability to reach out across
the world with collective political influence."
But why
would China join such a scheme? How would Russia be 'forced'? What costs would
the U.S. have to endure by following such a course? (Brzezinski's view of
Russia was always clouded. His family of minor nobles has its roots in Galicia,
now in west Ukraine. They were driven from Poland when the Soviets extended
their realm into the middle of the European continent. To him Russia will
always be the antagonist.)
Kissinger's
view is more realistic. He sees that the U.S. can not rule alone and must be
more balanced in its relations:
[I]n the emerging multipolar order, Russia should be perceived
as an essential element of any new global equilibrium, not
primarily as a threat to the United States.
Kissinger is
again working to divide Russia and China. But this time around
it is Russia that needs to be elevated, that needs to become a friend.
Trump is
following Kissinger's view. He wants good relations with Russia to separate
Russia from China. He (rightly) sees China as the bigger long term (economic)
danger to the United States. That is the reason why he, immediately after his election, started to
beef up the relations with Taiwan and continues to do so. (Listen to Peter Lee for the details).
That is the reason why he tries to snatch North Korea from China's hands. That
is the reason why he makes nice with Putin.
It is not
likely that Trump will manage to pull Russia out of its profitable alliance
with China. It is true that China's activities, especially in the Central Asian
-stans, are a long term danger to Russia. China's demographic and economic
power is far greater than Russia's. But the U.S. has never been faithful
in its relations with Russia. It would take decades to regain its trust. China
on the other hand stands to its commitments. China is not interested in
conquering the 'heartland'. It has bigger fish to fry in south-east Asia,
Africa and elsewhere. It is not in its interest to antagonize a militarily
superior Russia.
The maximum
Trump can possibly achieve is to neutralize Russia while he attempts to tackle
China's growing economic might via tariffs, sanctions and by cuddling Taiwan,
Japan and other countries with anti-Chinese agendas.
The U.S.
blew its 'unilateral moment'. Instead of making friends with Russia it drove it
into China's hands. Hegemonic globalization and unilateral wars proved to be
too expensive. The U.S. people received no gains from them. That is why they
elected Trump.
Trump is
doing his best to correct the situation. For the foreseeable future the world
will end up with three power centers. Anglo-America, Russia and China. (An
aging and disunited Europe will flap in the winds.) These power centers will
never wage direct war against each other, but will tussle at the peripheries.
Korea, Iran and the Ukraine will be centers of these conflicts. Interests in
Central Asia, South America and Africa will also play a role.
Trump
understands the big picture. To 'Make America Great Again' he needs to tackle
China and to prevent a deeper Chinese-Russian alliance. It's the
neo-conservatives and neo-liberals who do not get it. They are still stuck in
Brzezinski's Cold War view of Russia. They still believe that economic
globalization, which helped China to regain its historic might, is the one and
true path to follow. They do not perceive all the damage they have done
to 90% of the American electorate.
For now
Trump's view is winning. But the lunatic reactions to the press conference show
that the powers against him are still strong. They will sabotage him wherever
possible. The big danger for now is that their view of the world might again
raise to power.
Posted by b
on July 17, 2018 at 07:41 AM | Permalink