Q. Here's a chicken-or-egg question: The U.S. accuses both Russia and China of rapidly expanding their military capabilities, claiming its own posturing and increase in weaponry is a response to its hostile adversaries, Russia and China. Both Russia and China claim they are merely responding to intimidation and military threats posed by the U.S. What's your view? Do Russia and China have imperial ambitions or are they just trying to defend themselves against what they see as an increasingly aggressive U.S. military?
A. As I indicate, all three are acting out of aggressive designs of their own. China has been kept down for centuries by the imperial powers, and now seeks to restore what it views as its rightful role as the dominant power in Asia, and recover control over the rebel province of Taiwan. This appears "aggressive" to the US, but "natural" to the Chinese, and is no different than America's rise as a great power in the late 19th century. Likewise, Russia feels that it was taken advantage of by the Western powers when it was weak, in the aftermath of the collapse of the USSR, when NATO expanded eastward, right up to its borders, and now seeks to reverse that moment of weakness by restoring its dominance over its western neighbors. Again, this appears "aggressive" to the US, but "legitimate" to Russia.
Q. The U.S. always denies that it has imperial ambitions. Most unbiased experts say that by any objective standards, the U.S. is an empire indeed the most powerful, sprawling empire in history. Does the U.S. have to be an empire to be successful in the world and effectively protect and serve its citizenry?
A. Whether or not the US is an "empire" is a matter for historians and political scientists to debate. It is not an empire like the British or French or ancient Roman empires, under which it possesses and administers colonies for the purpose of resource extraction. It does, however, see itself as possessing a global world-shaping role - the "indispensable nation," as Madeleine Albright once put it. In addition, US military doctrine calls for fighting potential adversaries on their soil, not ours, so this requires maintaining bases all over the world, as this has an imperial-like character. The problem with this, as we discovered in Afghanistan and Iraq, as that the peoples in these countries would mostly prefer living without an American military presence, and are prepared to fight to keep us out - and the longer we stay, the more (lethal) resistance we encounter.
Q. The highest ranking commanders of the U.S. military recently sounded the alarm. They have concluded that the U.S. widely regarded as the most formidable military power in history can't defeat either Russia or China in a war. These military commanders are saying we need to dramatically increase our military capabilities. What do you make of this claim and the resulting demand for more DOD spending?
A. Talk to any American military officer in person and they will tell you that neither the Chinese nor the Russian military is any match for the US military. This is all about extracting taxpayer funds from Congress
Q. In 2009, Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton announced a reset with Russia, heralding greater cooperation and understanding. By 2014, Obama had made a sharp reversal. A sweeping regime of sanctions has since been imposed on Russia to cripple its economy. Hillary Clinton and the Democrats now relentlessly demonize Russia and Putin, blaming them for every imaginable ill. Both in the media and from official pronouncements by government officials, Russia has become the favorite whipping boy for both the U.S. and its "special friend", Great Britain. Why? What happened?
A. Well, the US foreign policy elite - the "blob" - views China, not Russia as America's leading adversary, and for a simple reason - they fear the rise of an equal military-economic-technological power that could challenge Washington's position at the head of the global rules-setting tables. As for Russia, they resent the fact that Moscow has not deteriorated into a backward Third World country, as they predicted in 1992, but is challenging the West in Europe and the Middle East.
(Note: You can view every article as one long page if you sign up as an Advocate Member, or higher).
4
2
2
