Risky strategy puts the world at risk

My last letter said that it is going to be interesting to watch what the United States does in response to possible defeat to Russia in Ukraine. The outlines of what that response became clearer over the weekend of February 18-19 because of two developments: Vice-President Kamala Harris’ speech at the Munich Security Conference and Secretary of State Anthony Blinken’s warning/threat that China should not provide “lethal” military aid to Russia.

The war over Ukraine has always been about the United States’ objective of preventing “Eurasian Integration,” which would tie China, South Asia, Russia and Europe into one energytrading-investment bloc, linked by China’s infrastructural Belt Road Initiative. If that project were to succeed the United States would no longer be the world’s hegemon.

Thus, interpreting Harris’ and Blinken’s statements, it seems the next phase of United States’ strategy is to: 1.) further coerce Europe to continue its political capitulation to the United States’ project—as growing opposition among the populace there appears; 2.) deepen its involvement in the war over Ukraine, probably bringing in NATO technical personnel; and, 3.) intensify provoking China to militarily respond over Taiwan leading to a “proxy war” with Beijing—the same template used to provoke Russia to intervene into Ukraine.

The United States’ strategy is insanely risky, with the obvious possibility of a world war breaking out, leading to nuclear annihilation. But historically, declining empires have always been willing to commit political suicide, rather than cooperate and negotiate with emerging rivals.