Since 9/11, America has squandered its dominant position in the world. When the Soviet Union fell in 1991, the political elites promised a peace dividend. And for a brief period in the late 90’s, it looked as though the Gingrich lead Republicans would finally downsize the central government1. However, instead of the sorely needed restructuring, Bush and the Neocons delivered endless deficits, endless bubbles, and endless wars. Sadly, Democrats have only been worse.
During the same period, the rest of the world began planning for the day when China would challenge the US for global influence. In 2009, China became the world’s largest exporter2. And they did this with huge trade surpluses. This means China grew richer every year, while IOYs continued to mount for America’s youth. China also launched the game-changing Belt and Road Initiative3. Between it and the war against Russia, economic power has shifted away from the West, towards East Asia.
Trade Routes
He who dominates trade, dominates the world. This was true during the Greek era and was the source of their vast wealth. When Marco Polo permanently shattered the Spice Trade monopoly of the Muslim world, economic and political power underwent a seismic shift in favor of European nations4. Now, China is the champion of trade. It seems like virtually all consumer goods are made in China. And, if not there, then likely somewhere else East Asia. But what does any of this have to do with Russia?
Raw materials are critical to trade. Food and energy are the two most important raw materials, both of which are abundant in Russia. As the world’s largest nation, Russia has vast natural resource reserves, most of which remains untapped. Whether those resources go east or west is a big deal. Russia’s natural resources fed the hungry German war machine at least, that is, until Hitler tried to take them for himself5.
The war in Ukraine threatens a permanent shift in global trade, with China the obvious winner. Europe and America have imposed extreme economic sanctions against Russia. It is highly doubtful these sanctions will go away, even after the war concludes. In the meantime, European sanctions hurts their own people and economies. While Russian exports of gas, oil and wheat to China continues to expand. And even if the sanctions went away, it’s not clear that Putin would be willing to trade with the EU ever again. As a result, China is awash in hydrocarbons, the primary weakness of its geography.
What’s the Big Deal
America doesn’t need Russia. That much is clear from this war. The US easily found new supplies for Russian goods (mostly oil). It turns out, however, that Europe’s economy was built upon cheap gas and oil from the Caucasus region. There are a myriad of pipelines running to Europe, but none are more controversial and productive than Nord Stream 1 and 26. From inception in 2011, the Nord Stream pipeline was controversial. Many claimed environmental or other BS excuses. The fact is the collective West didn’t want Russia to have economic control over Germany, Europe’s most powerful and productive economy.
I have absolutely no doubt that the EU’s cancelation of Nord Stream 2 was a large impetus of Russia’s invasion of Ukraine7. This second pipeline would have doubled the flow of natural gas directly to Germany. Instead, NATO and Russia are at war, and now both pipelines sit idle. Even worse, China and Russia are building a second pipeline, called the Power of Siberia 2, effectively displacing Europe8.
And all of this matters because now China has a long-term, reliable supply of natural resources. Any sensible foreign policy would recognize that China is only real threat to American dominance. The US should be doing everything it can to drive a wedge between China and Russia, like it did during the Soviet era9. Instead, America seems to take joy in provoking Russia. All of the US foreign policy moves in Ukraine since the Maiden Revolution have been colossal blunders.
Balance of Power
With China’s rise as an economic powerhouse, it is only a matter of time until they are also a military powerhouse. Its navy is already more numerous than the US, and they’ve invested heavily in the past couple of decades to modernize its fleet10. And China’s population is four times larger than the US, which means any ground conflict will be an impossible victory for the US. This is especially true if the conflict occurs in Asia, like the Korean War11.
Of course, China has a long way to go before they can challenge for global supremacy, yet alone regional hegemony. Several regional powers are American allies, like South Korea and Japan. Others like India and Philippines are neutral / nuanced, but fearsomely oppose a rising Chinese hegemon. So the point isn’t that China is ready to contend today, but they will be soon. When that time comes, would you rather have Russia on your side or on China’s?
Russia’s roll in the global balance of power is impossible to understate. Without the Red Army, Germany would have certainly won World War II. Even a less determined or divided Russia would have resulted in a German victory12. Russia played a similar roll against Napoleon when its winter and army annihilated the invading French forces13. And I have no doubt that Russia will vastly influence whether China or the US dominates the next 50 – 100 years of international politics.
Largest Blunder in my Lifetime
Fighting against Russia is a mistake. It is a largest foreign policy blunder of my lifetime. It is shortsighted and massively counterproductive. Russia may not be a natural ally to the West, but they aren’t a natural ally of China either. At a minimum, American foreign policy should try to encourage neutrality with Russia. As I’ve argued before, Putin sees the threats against Crimea as existential threats. The absolute last thing America should be doing right now is fighting against Russia. Even if it is a proxy war.
However this war ends, I fear America has burned all of its bridges with Russia. Why? Economics, of course. Europe is out. Russia simple can NOT rely on trading with Europe. Worse, Europe is out because of American foreign policy. NATO doesn’t exist without America14. And for what? What exactly does America gain by warring with Russia. Sure, NATO gained Sweden and Finland, but so what? Sweden and Finland were already aligned with the West and more than happy to balance against Russia15.
When the time comes that China turns aggressive, who will oppose them? Who will defend against China’s rise as a regional hegemon? Historically the answer would be Russia and Japan. But thanks to an absolutely retarded American foreign policy in Ukraine, China will be able to isolate opponents and rise virtually unopposed16. Worse, America neutered Japan’s military after World War II, so the whole region is devoid of any real opposition. India may step up, but I severely doubt they will intervene until directly threatened.
Conclusion
Looking forward, what does all this mean? First, America’s reign as the lone superpower will be shortened by our actions against Russia in Ukraine. Likely by a generation or two. Without Russia to check China’s rise, America will either have to accept their rise or directly intervene. As I’ve witnessed so many foreign policy blunders during my lifetime, I would put money on America’s political elites choosing the greater of two evils.
Second, when the world ultimately becomes multipolar, China will punch much higher on trade and economics. The result will be stronger currencies for those aligned with China, and therefore, cheaper goods and higher standards of living. The contrary will be true for those siding with the US. This is especially true for food and energy, two the largest expenses for most lower- and middle-class people. With Russia’s vast surplus of resources, China and her allies will greatly benefit over time, at the expense of the West.
Finally, Russia will continue its push West. Ukraine is only the beginning. With trade to Europe effectively off the table, Russia has nothing to lose. They are secure from nuclear counter strikes due to their vast array of first strike missiles and submarines. I believe Putin will try to pull countries like Hungary, Romania, Bulgaria, and Serbia into its sphere of influence. That seems unlikely now, but if America ever has to defending against a rising China, Russia will be in a perfect position to dominate Eastern Europe, much like the Soviets did after World War II.
Recommended Reading
Support my blog by sharing this post or subscribing to my newsletter. You may also support my blog with the purchase of one of these excellent books. I get a tiny commission from each purchase, but only if you purchase using one of the links below.
Also, you might like my other blog posts on foreign policy or politics.
Footnotes
- How the 1994 ‘Contract With America’ Led to a Republican
- China ‘overtakes’ US as world’s largest goods trader – BBC News
- China’s Massive Belt and Road Initiative | Council on Foreign
- Retelling the Spice Trade Story
- The Buildup of the German War Economy
- Nord Stream Gas Pipeline – Global Energy Monitor
- Germany freezes Nord Stream 2 gas project as Ukraine crisis
- Moscow says Power of Siberia 2 pipeline to China will ‘replace’ Nord
- Rupture between USSR and China grows worse – HISTORY
- China’s navy has more ships than the US. Does that matter?
- The Korean War: The Chinese Intervention
- Why Did Operation Barbarossa Fail – WW2 1941
- Why Napoleon’s Invasion of Russia Was the Beginning of the End
- Trump Discussed Pulling U.S. From NATO
- A Short History Of The ‘Winter War’ | Imperial War Museums
- Why is Ukraine the West’s Fault?
The problems with China, began decades ago when it was assumed by the US government that normalizing trade relationships would eventually bring about a change in their totalitarian/communist regime. Didn’t happen. Instead, US corporations relied on cheap foreign/slave labor for the production of a variety of goods and services as we were in direct competition with the growth of the Japanese economy and dominance in certain industrial sectors (autos, business machine, photography, etc.). Twenty years ago everyone was worries about Japanese dominance. Global trade has not turned out to be the panacea envisioned. It is just another word for global socialism.
With regard to your argument above, the US should have been backing Ukrainians 10 years ago when Russian “terrorists” took over Crimea and started in on eastern Ukraine. Without Ukraine, Russia does not have any food resources to export. Without easy access to the Black Sea, they have no viable trade/shipping routes. Ukraine should have been admitted to NATO years ago, but the US capitulated to Russian influence and threats. No legitimate nuclear threat exists amongst any of the countries that possess those weapons. Their own instincts of self preservation make this a veiled threat and boast to be ignored.
You also reference Ukraine as if it is not a country that deserves to defend itself and does not deserve or warrant support from the West. A country of 40 million plus people. If it was not for the geographical benefit of the land (access to a warm water port, being the breadbasket of Europe and possessing all the mineral/coal/oil riches wthin its border) which resulted in the many prior attempts of annihilation and conquest, Ukraine would probably have a population of 2-3 times as many today. Millions dead in WWI. The Holodmor of 1932-3 instituted by Stalin to “collectivise” (socialize) all the farms under government control which led to another 7-9 million dead, never acknowledged by the US/West until years later secondary to Stalin’s control of the press. Routine purges by the Soviets and the NKVD (Russian secret police) leading up to WWII. Ukrainians lost more people during WWII than 90% of the other countries involved in the war COMBINED, most of them civilian. Between 8-12 million lives in total (more than 25% of the total population). In contrast, the US lost about 300,000.
How and why?
Let’s start first with Stalin who was purging any antigovernment/perceived German sympathizers and the intelligensia, viewing them as enemies of the state. Second, people forget WWII was essentially started with Hitlers vision of colonizing Ukraine and exterminating its inhabitants and eliminating its culture and language. That is why a disproportionate number of civilians vs military were killed. He viewed Ukraine as a great place for German citizens “rest & relax” on the Black Sea, creating a monstrous agricultural machine (just as Stalin was doing) and accessing all those resources in eastern Ukraine. He viewed Ukrainians (just as he did the Jews) as “subhumans” who were to be used as slave labor for those farms and the industrial war machine back in Germany or be killed. Directors of the “Reichskommissariat” in Ukraine were instructed to either enslave or kill as many Ukrainians as possible. Also, as Germany attacked, Stalin took everything not nailed down in Ukraine back to Russia and destroyed the rest, not wanting to leave anything for the Germans. Third, Ukrainian’s were fighting for their own freedom with the UPA (Ukrainian Insurgent Army), fighting both the Russians and Germans, depending who was occupying the Ukraine between 1938-1945. They were of course treated like terrorists and insurgents, by both sides, using them only when it served one side of the other. Fourth, Germans took this same scorched earth policy to Ukraine when they retreated in 1943-4. Fifth, many Ukrainians fought for Russia in the Red Army. Who do you think made up the majority of the army along the southern half of the Front? Lastly, the Allies “gave Ukraine back to Stalin and the USSR”, not realizing (or not caring) that it was the Ukrainians who also “greatly sacrificed” to bring about a defeat of the Germans on the Eastern front.
Today it is impossible to get through any recounting of WWII without discussing the Holocaust, but if you add up all the Ukrainian Jews and other Ukrainians killed during WWII, there is no comparison. Yet, the Ukrainian’s never get similar deference or discussion with regard to their contribution to the resolution of the war. The Holocaust is constantly discussed with the idea “that this atrocity” should never happen again.
Yet, here we go again. This time it is Russia, not Germany, attempting to conquer and destroy Ukraine. Forced colonization and occupation. All those years of Russification (another form of colonization) during the Soviet Era failed. Only this time, England and France did not declare war on Germany when they attacked Poland (simply with the goal of proceeding straight through to Ukraine) in 1939. Russia invaded Crimea in 2014 and shortly thereafter, Eastern Ukraine. Use whatever euphemism you want – annexed, acquired, occupied, captured, seized. Bottom line, they invaded and started an undeclared war. Ukraine has been at war with Russia since 2014. Then, as the rest of the world looked on, Russia built up troops at the border and did it gain in a coordinated attack, once again an undeclared act of war, attempting to acquire the rest of Ukraine. How many thousands of Ukrainians have to die, for the rest of the Western world to take this seriously. The Ukrainians, as history has shown time and time again, are suffering a tremendous loss of human life and capital, in an effort to remain independent and continue to be buffer for the rest of Europe. They are not even asking anyone to declare war or provide troops to facilitate their sovereignty, just access to weapon systems that would allow them to defend themselves and push the Russians back out the their territory. The US lost 7000 troops in the Middle East over 20 years. Ukraine has lost more than that in less than a year. Once again, Ukraine and its countrymen are being asked to bear the brunt of unprovoked hostile aggression by a brutal dictator. The US, as well as the rest of the world, has learned nothing from history or past mistakes. Whether it is China or Russia, dictators need to dealt with early, harshly and without hesitation. Mao Zedong was estimated to be responsible for 40-80 million deaths and Stalin for 20-40 million deaths. Xi Jinping and Putin need to be stopped before they end up with similar numbers.
Ukraine made a big mistake by giving up all the nuclear weapons positioned on its soil in the1990s. If they had not capitulated to US, UK and Russian pressure, we would not be dealing with this situation today. In exchange, the U.S., the U.K. and Russia would guarantee Ukraine’s security in a 1994 agreement known as the Budapest Memorandum. Where are the US and UK now?
Adrian,
Good post. I agree with you that the Ukrainian people have suffered tremendously. That can not be disputed. Further, I believe all nations should be able to defend themselves from invasion, which I believe I’ve made clear in my numerous posts about foreign policy, especially with regards to Ukraine. In several posts, I’ve suggested that the collective West has NOT done enough to end this war. And I completely agree that aggressive nations / dictators should be stopped as early as possible.
Once war has begun, everything must be done to end it / win it. I feel very strongly that Europe has an enormous responsibility to help Ukraine, but has only offered marginal help. Instead, the European powers are happy to defer to the US and let the American people shoulder the burden. This is wrong and extremely foolish. As I wrote in the post, Putin / Russia will not stop with Ukraine, especially if the war ends in their favor. European nations *should* know better. Any one of them could be next. They have a clear and obvious interest in stopping Putin.
However, my main point of this post is the overall strategy that provoked Russia in the first place. Putin *clearly* threatened that offering Ukraine NATO membership was a redline. The West didn’t believe him, and I have no idea why. He also said that Georgia membership was a redline. I was actually in Russia just days before they invaded Georgia, and I remember that war vividly. So there was no reason to think that Putin was bluffing about Ukraine. Of course, Ukraine is vastly different than Georgia, but there are a tons of parallels.
The only real disagreement I have with your reply is that I don’t think it would have been smart to admit Ukraine earlier despite Russian threats. Just like China shouldn’t sign a mutual security pact with Mexico or Canada. Both would be considered acts of aggression by the US. And I really want to stress that the Russian military sees Crimea as indispensable. It should be clear in hindsight that they are willing to go to war to protected access to the Black Sea.
Finally, keeping their nuclear warheads was never on offer. After the Soviet Union fell apart, Ukraine was in no position to oppose the West to keep their bombs. There is absolutely no doubt that Ukraine would be in a big position with nukes, but the major powers would have never allowed it. They would have preferred Ukraine stay a part of Russia than to be independent with their own nuclear arsenal.
Rudy.