Cold War 2.0 opposing power bloc lineup in 2021 – Analysis – Eurasia Review
On the eve of 2022, where omens indicate that Communist China will challenge and militarily test the United States’ resolve to defend Taiwan, where Communist China is apparently embroiled in a major escalation of the conflict with the Nations of the QUAD Security Dialogue led by the United States – India, Japan and Australia, and where the Communist China-Russia Strategic Nexus is unmistakably provocative in a power play – what is blatantly exposed is a Cold War 2.0 alignment of two “power blocs” »Opposites.
Cold War 1.0 was the result of the former USSR as a Communist military juggernaut occupying all of Eastern Europe in the final stages of World War II victory alongside the United States and the Allies. Cold War 2.0 is once again inflicted by another Communist giant – Communist China with an oversized Hitler military machine created in the first two decades of 21st Century because of the failure of the United States to be distracted in Iraq and Afghanistan. Communist China under President Xi Jinping is obsessed with imposing a Chinese ordinance on the Indo-Pacific at the expense of the United States and the great Asian powers like India and Japan, Australia as well.
A strategic commentary in Western democracies fueled by Communist China on its intentions for a peaceful rise would howl at my assertion that in 2021, due to the military adventurism of Communist China, the world community is currently divided into two “blocs of power ”opposites reminiscent of the cold war 1.0.
The harsh strategic reality is that at the end of the second decade of the 21st Century, the Indo-Pacific has established itself as the center of gravity of the global dynamics of geopolitical and strategic rivalries. The harsh reality is also that in the Indo-Pacific are the most glaring fault lines and incendiary flashpoints where even a slight, miscalculated strategic overtaking of Communist China can trigger World War III.
Let it be recorded for history that if Communist China had been foiled by the United States and the great powers over its exponential military accumulation during the years 2001-20, Communist China would not have emerged as the “main military threat” to the United States. Note also that it was the greed of the American industrial giants to exploit the vast Chinese market that led to a large-scale infusion of American FDI into China, which not only fueled the phenomenal economic growth of Communist China, but also provided vast funds to subsidize Communist China. exponential military rise.
The United States created Communist China as the Indo-Pacific’s “most menacing tiger” and ironically in 2021 it has now swooped down on the United States in coalition with the great powers for ” contain and tame ”this threatening tiger of Communist China.
As 2022 dawns, it would be relevant to analyze the available indicators of the Cold War 2.0 geopolitical alignment and focus on Communist China-centric security of opposing nations – the overtly Communist bloc with Communist China leading the way. and the US-led group. Coalition of Democracies ”.
The strategic China-Russia link, which can be described as a Communist bloc of the Cold War 2.0, has been taking shape since the mid-2000s. Russia, pushed by the absence of a substantial reset of American policies towards from Russia by successive US administrations gravitated towards Communist China for geopolitical and economic reasons.
Russia might not have turned to Communist China, despite the failure to reset US policy, if major European powers like Germany and France had made Russia part of the European geopolitical dynamic.
Apparently, at that time, Russia appeared to be Communist China’s B Team due to China’s economic strengths. At the end of 2021, with the decline of the economic dominance of Communist China, the China-Russia strategic link has become a more balanced strategic equation. The strategic power of the strategic link of the Sino-Russian Communist Bloc rests on two major factors in relation to the “Coalition of Democracies” led by the United States.
China and Russia have at their disposal two oversized military machines backed by comparable nuclear weapons, ICBMs and nuclear attack submarines. Communist China and Russia both have significant Blue Water air forces and navies.
The multiplication of forces takes place for the strategic China-Russia link when the geographic extent they encompass from the Eurasian core is added to their military machines.
Due to the above two factors, coupled with the past positions of the United States on “hedging against China” and marked “risk aversion” on Communist China during the years 2001-2016, Communist China emboldened to indulge in predatory military adventurism from eastern Indian Ladakh to the Japanese Senkaku Islands. and “Full Spectrum Dominance” of the South China Sea.
Today, in a pure military balance of power, Russia is more and more embedded in the Sino-Russian strategic link. This Nexus in 2022 must be, for all intents and purposes, be seen as a full-fledged “military alliance” through the intensity of joint Sino-Russian naval exercises in the Sea of Japan and joint Sino-Russian combat air patrols – – all militarily provocative activities against US Leaf Anchor of Western Pacific security, namely Japan.
Russia’s shift in geopolitical stance in South Asia against India with its comprehensive comprehensive strategic partnership between the United States and India is provocative against India. Russia’s marked tilt towards Pakistan and the studied silence over Communist China’s continued military aggression on India’s Himalayan borders with China’s occupied Tibet are worrying signals. The same is true of Russia’s sustained efforts to keep India out of all of its talks in Afghanistan – something I have called in recent years the China-Pakistan-Russia trilateral.
Today’s Coalition of Cold War 2.0 Democracies can be exemplified by the resurrection of the dormant QUAD security dialogue of 2007 and the recent AUKUS – the evolving Trinity of nuclear submarine nations. The semantics and the division of the hair on the intention of QUAD and AUKUS do not make strategic sense.
In strategic and military terms, QUAD and AUKUS are China-centric security groups – QUAD with a larger geopolitical web allowing the future absorption of fence guards like ASEAN and AUKUS, a decidedly nuclear deterrent. for submarines that will roam China’s seacoast.
NATO and the European Union can be seen as potential entities to be incorporated in various combinations into QUAD or AUKUS in the not too distant future.
Analysts estimate that AUKUS would not be fully operational for 10 years before Australia is equipped with its six yet to be built nuclear submarines. As has often happened in history, would it take a long time for the United States to transfer certain nuclear-powered submarines to “lease” if China’s provocations in the Western Pacific became more threatening?
In terms of the balance of military and economic forces, it can be safely said that the Sino-Russian strategic link or the communist bloc is counterbalanced by the coalition of democracies.
Notably, Communist China has no “natural allies” other than Pakistan and North Korea. Russia is likely to lose even its traditional satellites to the Central Asian republics simply because of Russia’s propensity to China’s strategic priorities in its confrontation with the United States. NO accretion can be expected for the China-Russia Strategic Nexus.
Comparatively, as noted above, the Coalition of Democracies exemplified by QUAD and AUKUS can expect voluntary increases both in the Indo-Pacific like ASEAN and in the Middle East and Europe.
In conclusion, historical analysis of the lessons of Cold War 1.0 would indicate that Communist China stands no chance against the Coalition of Democracies. China’s impending political and economic implosion should logically stop Communist China from what is obviously a path of destruction and disintegration like the former Soviet Union during Cold War 1.0. But then, like Hitler, the megalomaniacal president of Communist China, Xi Jinping, can be expected to challenge “strategic logic” in pursuit of his “Grandiose Great China Dream.”
Russia’s withdrawal from the strategic China-Russia link could help contain Communist China. But will Russia do it, is it the million dollar question?