These three areas present somewhat uniquely different problems. For example:
1. Europe presents the complexity of the EU and its overly bureaucratic governances as well as its dependence on a US supported NATO system. Ironically Poland has one of the strongest military institutions. Poland is adjacent to Belarus which is in a sense a captive state of Russia and a buffer zone that Russia feels comfortable with. NATO was formed to address the Soviet threat coming from a Stalinist regime. It is an amalgam of European forces, often poorly trained and organized, and underpinned by massive US forces, technology and dollars. One should really examine the need for NATO, especially a US backed and facilitated one. NATO was formed before the EU was created. The EU now has a larger population than the US and perhaps they should consider their own defense, perhaps allied with the US, but not led by the US. The current EU is all too often a sinecure for military and politicians as a transit to post political life in some lucrative manner.
2. Russia is a vast territory whose economy is dominated by arms and extraction. It provides oil and gas, minerals, and other related resources and is a major seller of arms to a wide collection of buyers. Russia has ocean ports only on the eastern side on the Pacific and on the west, it has precarious access via the Baltic and the Black Sea. Russia views its adversaries to the west. Perhaps its eastward adversaries are neglected due to its massive loss in the war with Japan a century ago. In contrast to China, Russia does not hold claim to the Pacific. The Pacific is a protection for Russia from the west. Russia has no substantial consumer goods. It is not akin to China, where massive manufacturing of consumer products prevails. Russia also has an ongoing mentality of being threatened by remote neighbors. Thus, Russia seeks to have buffers between its territories and its putative adversaries. In a sense Belarus serves the purpose. Ukraine is a threat, especially if it were joining NATO. Ukraine can become a major flashpoint, dragging the US into a conflict of which it truly has no interest. A neutral Ukraine is a stable point. A NATO Ukraine is a stick in the eye of the Bear.
3. China is a global threat. It has taken a while for many US politicians to recognize this. They are a threat because they want global hegemony via economic power. The economic power starts with manufacturing but moves on to bio technology. Yes, China can manufacture cheaply, just go to Walmart. No Russia products but tons of Chinese. Yet that is but a start. The true mover is the massive progress and advances China has and is making in biotech. One need just read the scientific literature and it shouts dominance. Yet this dominance is a double-edged sword. China can produce advanced therapeutics but it lacks the basic quality controls we demand in the west. Shar practices is de regur for all Chinese producers. The US now imports well over seventy percent of its over the counter drugs from China. One has no ideas as to their quality of safety. If China wanted to assert itself it could do so via ibuprofen and acetaminophen. The recent pandemic is a clear example of all of the above. Millions dead, economies smashed, and politics distorted. China does not fear neighbors. The neighbors fear them.
Overall, these three issues should be re-examined. NATO should become an EU force, allied with but not supported by the US. Russia must be understood by its basic fear of intrusion and thus needing safe buffers. China must be seen as a threat not due to nuclear weapons but due to its ever-expanding biotech expertise and global reach. China, lacking the checks and balances insuring safe and quality biotech products, presents the most significant flash point in the decades to come.
Posts
