 Forgive me, but when Zelensky appears every evening on TV news channels, one is reminded of the "Big Brother" big screen moment from the film adaptation of Orwell's "1984," with a listening crowd in front. (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KNyqyFNoHKw) This time though we have real demanding little Big Brother. With an aggressive but hesitant, slightly nervous and confusing Big Brother of our “Oceania” in the background providing material support. President Zelensky and his compatriots are constantly clamouring for more support. Their Christmas wish list contained Patriot air defense systems, ATACMS (the MGM-140 Army Tactical Missile System Missiles) with a range of 300 km for HIMARS and MLRS, armed MQ-1C Gray Eagle and MQ-9 Reaper drones, main battle tanks and Western fighter jets – and a constant supply of advanced munition. For Christmas President Zelensky apparently only got a Patriot System, which may become operational in Ukraine at some time next year, and more ammunition. But U.S. National Security Adviser Jake Sullivan has hinted that U.S. would not have anything against Germany supplying Ukraine with German Leopard main battle tanks. Christmas gifts to step up escalation One Patriot air defense battery. “a missile defense system consisting of radars, command-and-control technology and multiple types of interceptors, all working together to detect, identify and defeat tactical ballistic missiles, cruise missiles, drones, advanced aircraft and other threats” For an explanation of different versions of the Patriot system see CSIS Missile threat: https://missilethreat.csis.org/system/patriot/ 500 precision-guided155mm artillery rounds. Presumable the M982/Excalibur. A GPS guided 155mm round for the 155mm howitzers Ukraine has got from Western countries. It is supposed to have a CEP (Circular Error Probable) of around 5 meters. Meaning that is has a high probability of hitting withing a 5 meter radius of target. Ukraine had already got 4,200 of these rounds. See Raytheon Missiles & Defense: https://www.raytheonmissilesanddefense.com/what-we-do/land-warfare/precision-weapons/excalibur-projectile Precision aerial munitions. Is this the JDAM kits (Joint Direct Attack Munition)? It consists of a guidance tail kit to convert existing unguided free-fall bombs into accurate, "smart" munitions. See U.S. Air Force: https://www.af.mil/About-Us/Fact-Sheets/Display/Article/104572/joint-direct-attack-munition-gbu-313238/ Complete list of December 2022 assistance ”On December 21, as part of President Zelenskyy's visit to the White House, the Department of Defense (DoD) announced $1.85 billion in additional security assistance for Ukraine. This includes the authorization of a Presidential Drawdown of security assistance valued at up to $1 billion, as well as $850 million in assistance via the Ukraine Security Assistance Initiative (USAI). The Presidential Drawdown is the twenty-eighth such drawdown of equipment from DoD inventories for Ukraine that the Biden Administration has authorized since August 2021. Capabilities in this package include:” (Emphasis added). (https://www.defense.gov/News/Releases/Release/Article/3252782/). • One Patriot air defense battery and munitions; • Additional ammunition for High Mobility Artillery Rocket Systems (HIMARS); • 500 precision-guided 155mm artillery rounds; • 10 120mm mortar systems and 10,000 120mm mortar rounds; • 10 82mm mortar systems; • 10 60mm mortar systems; • 37 Cougar Mine Resistant Ambush Protected (MRAP) Vehicles; • 120 High Mobility Multipurpose Wheeled Vehicles (HMMWVs); • Six armored utility trucks; • High-speed Anti-radiation missiles (HARMs); • Precision aerial munitions; • Over 2,700 grenade launchers and small arms; • Claymore anti-personnel munitions; • Demolition munitions and equipment; • Night vision devices and optics; • Tactical secure communications systems; • Body armor and other field equipment. Under USAI, the DoD will also provide Ukraine with: • 45,000 152mm artillery rounds; • 20,000 122mm artillery rounds; • 50,000 122mm GRAD rockets; • 100,000 rounds of 125mm tank ammunition; • SATCOM terminals and services; • Funding for training, maintenance, and sustainment. ”Unlike Presidential Drawdown, USAI is an authority under which the United States procures capabilities from industry rather than delivering equipment that is drawn down from DoD stocks. This announcement represents the beginning of a contracting process to provide additional capabilities to Ukraine's Armed Forces. Russia's unrelenting and brutal air attacks against critical infrastructure have only reinforced the need to provide Ukraine with sophisticated air defense capabilities. At President Biden's direction, the United States has prioritized the provision of air defense systems to help Ukraine defend its people from Russian aggression. The Patriot air defense system in this security assistance package is one of the world's most advanced air defense capabilities. Once operational, it will add to a layered defense to counter the full range of threats currently menacing Ukraine's cities and civilians. The Patriot system will augment previous air defense capabilities the United States has provided Ukraine, which include NASAMs, missiles for HAWK air defense systems, Stingers, and equipment to counter the Russian use of unmanned aerial vehicles. In total, the United States has now committed more than $21.9 billion in security assistance to Ukraine since the beginning of the Biden Administration. Since 2014, the United States has committed approximately $24 billion in security assistance to Ukraine and approximately $21.2 billion since the beginning of Russia's unprovoked, full-scale invasion on February 24. Through PDA and USAI, DoD continues to work with Ukraine to meet both its immediate as well as its longer-term security assistance needs. To meet Ukraine's evolving battlefield requirements, the United States will continue to work with its allies and partners to provide Ukraine with key capabilities.”(https://www.defense.gov/News/Releases/Release/Article/3252782/).  A wary general’s warnings General Mark A. Milley is the 20th Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, the nation’s highest-ranking military officer, and the principal military advisor to the President, Secretary of Defense, and National Security Council (Dept. of Defense). On November 9, 2022 the General was speaking at the Economic Club of New York. Here are some of his comments based upon Twitter notes from a Washington Post journalist (@DanLamothe). Milley asked: Is the time right to consider diplomacy in Ukraine? Milley says "there has to be mutual recognition" that a true military win is not achievable. Draws comparison to World War I, where victory was not achievable after 1914. Millions more killed in next few years. Milley, asked if the time is right for negotiations between Ukraine and Russia, said that will require both sides to believe that a full military victory is not achievable. The winter months, when fighting will slow a bit, create an opportunity to do so. According to a later article in The Washington Post Gen. Milley also reconned that over 100,000 Russian soldiers had been killed or wounded the Ukraine War, and that a similar number of Ukrainian soldiers had “probably” also been killed or wounded. While 40,000 civilians may have died or been wounded, and up to 30 million had been forced to flee their homes. Later, a meeting of “The Ukrainian Defense Contact Group” on November 16, the general at first sounded somewhat more belligerent: “So, across the entire front line trace of some 900 or so kilometers, the Ukrainians have achieved success after success after success and the Russians have failed every single time. They've lost strategically, they've lost operationally, and I repeat, they lost tactically. What they've tried to do, they failed at. They started this war and Russia can end this war. Russia can make another choice, and they could make a choice today, to end this war. However, Russia is choosing to use their time to attempt to regroup their forces and they are imposing a campaign of terror, a campaign of maximum suffering on the Ukrainian civilian population in order to defeat Ukrainian morale.” (Transcript from the press conference). While this may sound as if the general is expecting the Ukrainian to win the war, and not seek an end to war through negotiations, the general also emphasised the heavy cost to the Ukrainians. “The Russians are striking throughout the depth and breadth of all of Ukraine with air-launched cruise missiles, with Kalibr sea-launched cruise missiles, and with other types of munitions. They are striking the Ukrainian civilian infrastructure, and it has little or no military purpose. … Basic human survival and subsistence is going to be severely impacted and human suffering for the Ukrainian population is going to increase. These strikes will undoubtedly hinder Ukraine's ability to care for the sick and the elderly. Their hospitals will be partially operational. The elderly are going to be exposed to the elements. In the wake of unrelenting Russian aggression and incalculable human suffering.” Even so the general thought that “at the end of the day, Ukraine will retain -- will remain a free and independent country with its territory intact.” Thus, upholding the official U.S. view. Then he was asked this question: “A follow-up, sir, to your comments about -- earlier from last week about the possibility of discussions put on by -- a slowdown in the fighting, let's say, during the winter -- it sounds like the comments that you're making today about the winter are that the Ukrainians are going to continue very strongly. Is -- are you pulling back from your comments from last week, that you see an opportunity for negotiations with the Russians?” General Milley gave a somewhat hesitant answer, treading carefully: I think -- I think the Ukrainians should keep the pressure on the Russians, you know, to the extent that they militarily can, but winter gets very, very cold. And the natural tendency is for tactical operations are going to naturally, probably slow down. … And I think that, you know, President Biden and President Zelenskyy himself has said that there'll be a -- at the end of the day, there'll be a political solution. So, if there's a slow down in the actual tactical fighting, if that happens, then that may become a window possibly -- it may not -- for a political solution or a -- at least the beginnings of talks to initiate a political solution. So that's all I was saying.” Prodding the general with more questions relating to his comments at Economic Club of New York, the general first praised the amazing resilience of the Ukrainians (one might add, helped by tremendous amounts of weapons from the U.S. and others), before he returned to the question arguing: “In terms of probability, the probability of a Ukrainian military victory defined as kicking the Russians out of all of Ukraine to include what they define or what the claim is Crimea, the probability of that happening anytime soon is not high, militarily. Politically, there may be a political solution where, politically, the Russians withdraw, that's possible. You want to negotiate from a position of strength. Russia right now is on its back. … So, you want to negotiate at a time when you're at your strength and your opponent is at weakness. And it's possible, maybe that there'll be a political solution. All I'm -- all I'm saying is there's a possibility for it. That's all I'm saying.” Evidently General Milley is in some sort of quandary, supporting a the official “standing with Ukraine for as long as it takes,” while evidently having some misgivings about this view. Realizing the enormous cost it may have, the possible escalations, and perhaps even thinking that this is not where the U.S. ought to have its military focus, surely having his eye on the mighty challenges posed by China. And General Milley may not be alone with this view in the U.S. Military. A Defense Department official is quoted as saying “Why not start talking about [peace talks] before you throw another 100,000 lives into the abyss?” (politico.com). This is neither the official stance of the U.S. government nor of the U.S. Allies for that matter. The official stance of the U.S. and NATO is “to stand with Ukraine for as long as it takes” (Jens Stoltenberg). Ukraine will not be pushed to negotiate At a press conference on November 9 the very same day Milley was thinking aloud in New York, President Biden was asked what he meant when he had said “it remains to be seen whether or not, … Ukraine is prepared to compromise with Russia.” Biden, in his usual confusing way answered by saying: “No, I’m not say- — that’s up to the Ukrainians. Nothing about Ukraine without Ukraine. didn’t have any in mind. You have asked the question whether or not, if I recall — whether or not — what would happen if, in fact, after the — this — I think the context is that whether or not they’re pulling back from Fallujah [sic]. And the — I mean, from the — [Kherson was the city his thinking of]. Realising that Gen. Milley’s comments had caused consternation not the least in Ukraine, “The Biden administration is working to reassure the Ukrainian government, outside experts, and former US officials that it will not push Ukraine to imminently seek a diplomatic outcome to the war with Russia.” (CNN report). “One official explained that the State Department is on the opposite side of the pole from Milley. That dynamic has led to a unique situation where military brass are more fervently pushing for diplomacy than US diplomats.” (CNN). On the flight to the G-20 Summit in Bali National Security Advisor Jake Sullivan reiterated the U.S. position after General Milley’s remarks in New York. Sullivan argued that the U.S. would do everything possible to put Ukraine in “best possible position on the battlefield so that when they make their determination to proceed, they’re in the best possible position at the negotiating table.” (Politico). When Secretary Blinken was interviewed by the editor in chief of the Wall Street Journal on December 5. He was asked “Is there still any off-ramp for the Russians? Is there any even whisper of negotiations or any kind of discussion that could lead to negotiations right now that could somehow resolve the situation for the moment? Is there anything that you see out there?” (U.S. Department of State, December 5). When Blinken said “Well, in a sense there’s always an off-ramp and it’s very simple: President Putin started this war; he could end it tomorrow. That’s the —” he was interrupted by the interviewer interjecting “Yeah but realistically, though.” Blinken continued “… one of the things that you can imagine is the Russians trying to find an off-ramp that would be a phony off-ramp, by which I mean, oh, let’s have a ceasefire, let’s just freeze things in place, get a frozen conflict, never negotiate about the territory that they have seized and continue to hold; rest, refit, regroup, reattack. I think it’s important —” Interrupted again he continued: “Again, fundamentally, fundamentally, this is up to the Ukrainians. But I think – and you’ve heard President Zelenskyy put forward a 10-point proposal for how this can move forward, and Zelenskyy himself has said diplomacy and negotiations will be at the end of this. What’s happened as he was saying that? He put this before the G20 just a few weeks ago. As he was saying that, Putin doubled and tripled down on what he was doing in Ukraine. So the point is this: Unless and until Russia demonstrates that it’s interested in meaningful diplomacy, it can’t go anywhere. If and when it does, we’ll be the first to be ready to help out.” (U.S. Department of State, December 5). This is voice of the hawkish diplomat Secretary of State, Blinken, who apparently does not believe in diplomacy and negotiation. Strange that the U.S. and its allies thinks that it is up to Ukraine, read President Zelensky, alone to decide when to enter into negotiations, when the whole Ukrainian position relies on the military support of the U.S. and its allies, and the whole war essentially may be a U.S. proxy war against Russia carried on the back of Ukraine. Further steps up the ladder of escalation Russian attacks on the Ukrainian infrastructure with drones and missiles have had dire consequences for the civilian population and led to Ukrainian demands for more advanced air defence systems to protect their infrastructure. Foreign Minister Kuleba in late November again asked for deliveries of the U.S. made Patriot Missile system. At the Group of Seven’s (G7) virtual meeting on December 12 President Zelensky urged the leaders to supply Ukraine with modern tanks, long-range weapons and shells. If Ukraine were to get advanced Patriot systems and modern tanks, either German Leopards or U.S. made Abrams main battle tanks, it would represent major steps up the rungs of the escalation ladder. The reaction to the Ukraine’s demands. The G7 meeting first of all reiterated to the almost religious sounding vow: “Today, we reaffirm our unwavering support for and solidarity with Ukraine in the face of ongoing Russian war of aggression for as long as it takes.” But they in their statement they also dared to become slightly more concrete: “We will continue to coordinate efforts to meet Ukraine’s urgent requirements for military and defense equipment with an immediate focus on providing Ukraine with air defense systems and capabilities.” No words about Patriots or modern tanks though. The Biden administration is more active. On December 6 the FAZ, A German newspaper, could report that National Security Advisor Jake Sullivan had told an advisor to the German Bundeskanzler that the U.S. would welcome German deliveries of Leopard 2 tanks to Ukraine, also saying that it had to be seen as a German initiative: “Sullivan habe Plötner am Telefon gesagt, Amerika würde es begrüßen, wenn Deutschland den Leopard 2 liefere, doch solle das auf deutsche Initiative geschehen. Amerika fordere Deutschland zu solchen Lieferungen nicht auf.” (FAZ). Bundeskanzler Scholz is holding back, arguing that no other country had been willing to deliver modern tanks to Ukraine. Scholz evidently not wanting that Germany should be going alone and risk further escalation by providing the Ukrainians with the means to initiate new counter attacks. The opposition is more aggressive and argues for German deliveries. There has been talk of making deliveries in coordination with other countries, but no final decision has been reached. Meanwhile CNN and other media are reporting that Pentagon is preparing plans for sending Patriot systems to Ukraine. If the plans are approved by the administration, Patriot batteries could be shipped quickly, with Ukrainian personnel being trained to use the complicated system at the US. Base and training ground at Grafenwöhr in Germany. The Patriot plans have immediately led to warnings from Russia, with former president Medvedev warning the Patriot batteries would become legitimate targets. Judging from the aggressiveness shown by the Biden administration’s hawks the Russian warning are not likely to prevent the delivery of Patriot Batteries to Ukraine. Apparently, the administration believes that Russia is not able do much about it. Others want to contribute with a less dangerous step up the escalation ladder. Minister of Foreign and European Affairs of the Slovak Republic, Rastislav Káčer, recently announced that Slovakia was ready to provide Ukraine with Russian made MIG-29s: "We have not yet provided you with MiG-29s. But we are ready to do it. We are talking with our NATO partners about how to do it. And today [December 8], we had a very meaningful conversation with your President. My [Slovak] Minister of Defense explained to your President how we can do this. And I think that a Ukrainian delegation will come to Slovakia in the coming weeks and we will work together with our American friends to make this a reality." (Interfax-Ukraine). When Ukraine surprised the Russia with long range drone attacks on airfields hundreds of kilometres from the Ukrainian border, they apparently used left over Russian Tu-141 drones of 1970s vintage. Leaving observes astounded over the Ukrainian prowess and ability to convert and use Russian built drones to attack airfields deep into Russia. While others have speculated that to hit Russian bases with precision using old drones Ukraine must have been helped. Contrary to to Blinken’s statement: “We have neither encouraged nor enabled the Ukrainians to strike inside of Russia.” Asia Times reports that “Multiple military sources in NATO countries as well as Russia contradict him, reporting that the reconditioned Russian Tu-141 drones that Ukraine launched at Russian air bases downlinked US satellite GPS data to hit their targets.” If correct the U.S. is providing the Ukraine with a long-range strike capability. Something the U.S. have hitherto said they wanted to avoid. Thus, marking another step up the rungs of the escalation ladder. Russia’s answer has been more drones and missile attacks on Ukrainian infrastructure, and verbal rattling of the nuclear sword. Administration hawks overruling wary generals The Biden administration with the hawkish and undiplomatic pair of Sullivan and Blinken seem determined to defeat the Russians in the U.S. proxy war, by continuing to escalate their military support whenever it may look as if the Ukraine might be in dire straits. While the military, not the least personified in General Milley seem to be growing warier, aware that a continued escalation might lead to the risk of a direct war between Russia and NATO, while weakening the U.S. military stance in the Pacific, making the U.S. unable to represent a credible deterrence against China. At the moment though the hawkish views of Biden and his trusty compatriots Blinken and Sullivan are certainly prevailing, resulting in continuous support for the proxy war in Ukraine. They are also prodding U.S. allies in Europe in order to have them to follow the U.S. up the escalation ladder. Especially the reluctant Germans are under pressure from both the U.S. and the Ukrainians. Snap shot of U.S. military assistance The most recent U.S. fact sheet showing the assistance to Ukraine was published on December 12, and contains this list (defense.gov): Fact Sheet on U.S. Security Assistance to Ukraine December 9, 2022 In total, the United States has committed more $20 billion in security assistance to Ukraine since the beginning of the Biden Administration, including more than $19.3 billion since the beginning of Russia’s unprovoked and brutal invasion on February 24. United States security assistance committed to Ukraine includes: · Over 1,600 Stinger anti-aircraft systems; · Over 8,500 Javelin anti-armor systems; · Over 46,000 other anti-armor systems and munitions; · Over 700 Switchblade Tactical Unmanned Aerial Systems; · 142 155mm Howitzers and up to 1,004,000 155mm artillery rounds; · 4,200 precision-guided 155mm artillery rounds; · 9,000 155mm rounds of Remote Anti-Armor Mine (RAAM) Systems; · 36 105mm Howitzers and 180,000 105mm artillery rounds; · 276 Tactical Vehicles to tow weapons; · 22 Tactical Vehicles to recover equipment; · 38 High Mobility Artillery Rocket Systems and ammunition; · 20 120mm mortar systems and 135,000 120mm mortar rounds; · 1,500 Tube-Launched, Optically-Tracked, Wire-Guided (TOW) missiles; · Four Command Post vehicles; · Eight National Advanced Surface-to-Air Missile Systems (NASAMS) and munitions; · Missiles for HAWK air defense systems; · Four Avenger air defense systems; · High-speed Anti-radiation missiles (HARMs); · 20 Mi-17 helicopters; · 45 T-72B tanks; · Over 1,000 High Mobility Multipurpose Wheeled Vehicles (HMMWVs); · Over 100 light tactical vehicles; · 44 trucks and 88 trailers to transport heavy equipment; · 200 M113 Armored Personnel Carriers; · 250 M1117 Armored Security Vehicles · 440 MaxxPro Mine Resistant Ambush Protected Vehicles; · Mine clearing equipment and systems; · Over 11,000 grenade launchers and small arms; · Over 104,000,000 rounds of small arms ammunition; · Over 75,000 sets of body armor and helmets; · Approximately 1,800 Phoenix Ghost Tactical Unmanned Aerial Systems; · Laser-guided rocket systems; · Puma Unmanned Aerial Systems; · 15 Scan Eagle Unmanned Aerial Systems; · Two radars for Unmanned Aerial Systems; · Unmanned Coastal Defense Vessels;  At their recent meeting of Xi Jinping and Joe Biden agreed that the United States and China must manage the competition responsibly and keep lines of communication open to ensure that competition does not veer into conflict. In reality both countries are in involved in complicated but spiralling arms race including U.S. rearmament to deter the Chinese, while China is modernising and enhancing its military capabilities to such an extent that the U.S. fears to be outpaced in the arms race. In this essay we discuss the U.S. fears and U.S. strategies to alleviate these fears and stay ahead, not the least in relation to a China-U.S. conflict over Taiwan. Due to the length of the essay, it has been divided into three parts published separately: Part 1 Declining power of the U.S. The U.S. not prepared for the big one Playing war games and losing A U.S. military in decline Part 2 Preparing for the big one Vague “National Strategy” of deterrence Renewing nuclear armament Building a stronger missile defence Part 3 Questioning U.S. Strategy Peace rhetoric while preparing for war? War over Taiwan? Should allies question U.S. strategy? War over Taiwan neither in the best interest of Europe nor the U.S Part 3 Questioning U.S. Strategy Peace rhetoric while preparing for war? After President Xi Jinping and President Joe Biden met for more than three hours during the G 20 summit in Bali Chinese media wrote that their meeting had injected “a certain degree of positivity into bilateral relations, which have entered a downward spiral due to the US' ever widening containment strategy against China, and especially after the provocative visit by US House Speaker Nancy Pelosi to the island of Taiwan.” According to the White House readout from the meeting President Biden had reiterated that the competition between the U.S. and China “should not veer into conflict and underscored that the United States and China must manage the competition responsibly and maintain open lines of communication.” The two leaders promised to maintain communication and deepen constructive efforts on outstanding issues through joint working groups and key senior officials. Thus, Secretary of State Blinken will visit China to follow up on their discussions. According to Global Times the two leaders talked nuclear issues relating to Ukraine and North Korea. They agreed that nuclear weapons must not be used, that nuclear wars cannot be fought and that nuclear crises should be prevented in the Eurasian continent. The rhetoric may signal peace and cooperation and regard for each powers red lines etc. but the talks also revealed their deep disagreement in many areas, not the least the Taiwan question. In reality both countries are involved in a complicated but spiralling arms race including continuing U.S. rearmament of Taiwan, to deter a Chinese invasion, while China is modernising and enhancing its military capabilities to such an extent that the U.S. fears to be outpaced in the arms race as we have seen the previous discussion. One may be reminded of the arms race that led up to the First World War in which Germany and Great Britain competed in the race to build battleships. Germany to break a possible British Blockade and Britain to make sure that Germany would never be able compete with the British fleet. We know how it ended. Perhaps what we are seeing in the U.S.- China competition just now is the realisation that neither is ready for a serious conflict over Taiwan and other issues, and instead are catching their breath and keep up the rhetoric of friendly competition. While actually are doing everything they can to strengthen their respective positions. War over Taiwan? A previous commander of the U.S. Indo-Pacific Command in 2021 told the Senate Armed Services Committee that there was risk of possible Chinese military actions against Taiwan in the next six years. “Taiwan is clearly one of their ambitions. ... And I think the threat is manifest during this decade, in fact, in the next six years” (Admiral Philip Davidson). The admiral also said “I worry that they're [China] accelerating their ambitions to supplant the United States and our leadership role in the rules-based international order.” His successor, the present commander of the Indo-Pacific forces, Admiral Aquilino have uttered similar stern warnings. “I think the [Chinese] goals are to supplant U.S. security leadership in the region overall, whether they be in the South China Sea or on the northern border of India, and generate a change to the international rules beyond what the nations all agree to, under the 1982 UNCLOS treaty, and ultimately to change those rules to the benefit of the PRC. Ultimately, it would change the view of the region from those who believe in a free and open Indo-Pacific to those that might want a more authoritarian might-equals-right closed Indo-Pacific.” (Admiral John C. Aquilino). In his view the “Indo-Pacific is the most consequential reason for America’s future and remains the priority theater for the United States. Residing here are four of the five security challenges identified in the Department of Defense —China, Russia, North Korea, and violent extremist organizations.” Adding “I think the main point that comes out is China is a global problem.” At the Senate Armed Services Committee hearing Senator Cotton wondered about the importance of Taiwan: “Admiral ... I want to hear from you about why Taiwan is so critical from a military and strategic standpoint. Why would Beijing so desire to have Taiwan annexed to the mainland, and how would it complicate your military planning if Beijing did invade and annex Taiwan? ... From a military and strategic standpoint, why is it so important to Beijing that they annex Taiwan? (Senator Tom Cotton). In the admiral’s answer we may finally find the reason why the U.S. is so preoccupied with the Taiwan question that they seem to be prepared to take on China to defend the present status of Taiwan. Admiral Aquilino: “They [China] view it as their number one priority. The rejuvenation of the Chinese Communist Party is at stake, very critical as they look at the problem. From a military standpoint, the strategic location of where it is, as it applies to the potential impact of two-thirds of the world’s trade, certainly a critical concern. Additionally, the status of the United States as a partner with our allies and partners also is at stake, should we have a conflict in Taiwan. So those two reasons are really the strategic main concernsthat I would see.” But why would a Chinese occupation actually hinder trade in those areas, as it would also be problem for China’s own trade. Or is the real reason for the U.S. position represented by the second part of his argument. That the U.S. would be seen to lose its hegemonic position vis a vis China in the eyes of the World. Seeing this as so important that they would rather take on China in a what might turn out to become at major battle. A battle that according to the games played would risk crippling U.S forces or even lead to their defeat. To the admiral the greatest danger for the U.S. in the competition with China would be the erosion of conventional deterrence. He therefore argued that “A combat-credible, conventional deterrent posture is necessary to prevent conflict, protect U.S. interests, and to assure our allies and partners.” A credible of U.S. deterrent in the Indo-Pacific area would be depend on the ability to achieve these four objectives:
First and second island chain (Stiftung Wissenschaft und Politik):  Should allies question U.S. strategy? Perhaps it worthwhile to look for possible alternatives to U.S. and Western positions in general viz a viz China and Taiwan. From what we have seen the U.S. does not really care about possible and alternative views from its allies, neither in the relation to Indo-China nor in Europe. It is almost as if it takes it for granted that they all will follow and support the U.S. position willingly and without any real discussion of the U.S. position and the U.S. Strategies we have been discussing. In a way the allies are also in a very weak position relying themselves absolutely on U.S. military power, so they may not even be able to disagree with the U.S. without losing the deterrence the US provides, not the least in relation to Russia. At the moment it looks as if the allies with their limited means are following with their timid steps in the large American footsteps. Accepting restrictions for exporting to China, preventing Chinese takeover of key industrial companies, keeping Chinese firms and communications equipment out of critical infrastructure, to a degree at least. Although some southern and eastern European countries are grateful for Chinese investment. Some allies even try to support U.S forces in the Indo-Pacific area. France perhaps more than others because it has important interests in the Pacific. The U.K. perhaps still clinging to the view that they are the most trusted military partner of the U.S., demonstrating it by sending a carrier and other warship to the far East. Even Germany makes a small contribution by having a frigate showing the flag in the East. The German newspaper Tagesspiegel arguing that the German Frigate Bayern supports Japan and others threatened by Chinese activities no less: „Die Mission der Fregatte "Bayern" ist ein wichtiger Schritt für die deutsche Sicherheitspolitik Begründet wird der Einsatz damit, man wolle die internationale Zusammenarbeit stärken, also Partner wie Japan unterstützen, Länder, die sich durch China bedroht sehen. Die Regeln der internationalen Ordnung müssten durchgesetzt und außerdem die Seewege freigehalten werden.“ War over Taiwan neither in the best interest of Europe nor the U.S Take Germany. In 2021 the trade turnover with China (export plus imports) statistics measured in euros, was larger than it was with the U.S. For this and other reasons Germany or any other country in Europe does not have any real interest in a conflict with China over Taiwan, the Chinese dominance of the South China Sea, or the Uyghurs. Chips produced in large fabs in Taiwan are found in all advanced electronic products. Especially notable is Taiwan’s leading position in the fabrication of the most advanced leading edge semiconductor chips. In the fabrication the of sub 10 nm (nanometre) semiconductor chips Taiwan has a share of 92 percent, while South Korea is sitting on the rest. Just an example, the new iPhone 14 pro is built with chips using a 4 nm process made in Taiwan. (See previous essay “The US-China war on chips”). For these reasons it evident that a conflict over Taiwan would be major blow not only to the Europe but to the whole Western World. Even if the Chinese just blockaded Taiwan it would mean serious problems for Europe and the U.S. If the large fabs in Taiwan were to bombed and damaged it would to very serious shortage of advanced semiconductor chips for a long time, as it would extremely difficult to establish similar fabs elsewhere. “It takes two-to-three years to build a semiconductor plant from scratch. Replacing lost manufacturing capacity would be extremely expensive — a new semiconductor factory costs tens of billions of dollars and it is extremely knowledge intensive; indeed, TSMC dominates at the cutting edge because of its technological lead” (Japan Times). A full-blown war over Taiwan would not only cut off exports from Taiwan but lead to reciprocal sanctions on Chinese and European goods, and probably a closing of the South China Sea shipping routes. Therefore, it would certainly not be in Europe’s interest to get involved in a conflict with China over Taiwan. The problem is that a conflict between China and the U.S. would have detrimental consequences even if Europe opted to stay out of the conflict. The question does the U.S. actually have any interest in getting involved in a conflict or war with China over Taiwan? When asked if the U.S. would defend Taiwan against China, President Biden said: "Yes, if in fact, there was an unprecedented attack." (Reuters). Perhaps Biden’s insistence on defending Taiwan just shows that he still believes it is possible for the U.S. to be the ultimate arbitrator in the World based on its previous hegemonic might. Remember admiral Aquilino’s part of argument for defending Taiwan: “the status of the United States as a partner with our allies and partners also is at stake, should we have a conflict in Taiwan.” Perhaps showing that the most important reason for going to war over Taiwan would be seen as an attempt to preserve the U.S. hegemony and its standing in rest of the World, and not really a concern for Taiwan and its people. Is war over Taiwan for this reason really worth it? Risking as we have seen that a stalemate, and maybe even defeat. Or even worse risking a nuclear war that cannot be won. Perhaps the time has come the think the unthinkable, even for hawks like Biden, Blinken and Sullivan, that the weakening of U.S. hegemony is irrevocable, while China’s hegemony is on the rise. |
