Mr. Mitchell fails to explicitly account for the fact that both Russia and China are nuclear powers, and therefore a direct conflict between the US and any/either of them is impossible. And attempting to inflict a strategic defeat on their border(s) risks nuclear armageddon in any case, even in wars fought by proxies (though the "proxy" façade is wearing VERY thin). And the breakup of the USSR was not singularly driven by events in Afghanistan, a major driver was the western promise of peace, cooperation, integration, inclusion, which many believed...all of those promises were broken by the US. And after that, and everything that has transpired since (quite a lot!), Russia has less than zero trust in the west, it is a very different context from the late 1980s-early 1990s. Basically, his most fundamental premises are completely flawed, and it is impossible to take him seriously...
Can we get that Mitchell out of the Pentagon first?
This is yet another case of smart people thinking they outsmart everybody else just like they think they can beat the crap out of everyone. The way Mitchell talked is no different from how the mustached man talked before attacking Russia. The US is not only in financial bankruptcy, but also shows a severe deficit in national strategic thinking
Yet at the same time, these people may have overestimated China. Russia is self-sufficient; China is not. Russia has complete competency in all defense-related technology; China does not. Russia has been better managed under Putin for 25 years, China has been poorly managed under Xi for 12 years. Russia accelerated the pace of MIC modernization since the Maidan incident in 2014. China started modernization earlier but was catching up from far behind. After withdrawing from Afghanistan, Russia still has a few military engagements, although not quite in the exact form of the Ukraine War. But I believe Russians made successive improvements after post-mortem analysis. China had a sharp but brief war with Vietnam using 70s weaponry and 50s tactics. That war did trigger some serious thoughts and efforts to prepare for modernization. However, due to budget issues, China's military modernization began slowly. China is also weaker in morale because the rhetoric from a parading mob or talking heads is very different from the morale of soldiers facing potential death.
Therefore, Russia is the senior partner in the Russia-China couple, not the other way around. China started courting the USSR after Mao's death and learned serious lessons in the USSR's dissolution (not necessarily the right ones). Due to China's repeated cloning without licensing, Russia has been reluctant to sell high-end weaponry to China. Without the Ukraine War, I think Putin was not ready to tilt to China so prominently for everyone to see. By 2023, Putin had seen the mistake and started various diplomatic maneuvers to strengthen Russia's relationship with ALL of China's neighbors. NK got nuclear warhead technology and ICBM; Vietnam got MIG-29 and ships/subs; India had been in joint weapon development with Russia since before the Ukraine War, including the hypersonic weapons. However, the Ukraine War has given China 3 extra years in preparation, not just militarily but also economically. China's coastal cities living on exports do look bad, but they would look even worse without the trade wars launched in Trump's first term.
Adding all of the above together, even if the US successfully made Russia neutral in the coming China-USA military war, the US does not have a sure win. And for every day before that conflict, China is likely getting stronger militarily (albeit weaker economically). The US is getting weaker on most fronts unless Trump turns his mind to what he set out to do originally: clean up the swamp. Instead, it looks more like the swamp is stripping him naked. Had the US elites focused the national energy on internal self-renewal since 1991, the US would probably continue its hegemony well into the 21st century. A confrontation with China in trade or military in the current shape of the US will severely hurt China, but probably doom the chance for the US to achieve self-renewal successfully. The US simply does not have that much "energy" in reserve and should use it wisely.
To the earlier excellent comments I add only that Mitchell makes no mention of either BRICS or the Shanghai Cooperation Organisation, whose explicit purpose since being launched in 2001 is to get US hegemony out of Asia. Following the arrogance of the Clinton administration during the Asian crisis of 1997/8, there was a lot of appetite for this kind of policy, as explained in detail by Chalmers Johnson in "Blowback".
Putin has been very deliberately creating exit ramps and development opportunities for Russia ever since becoming president in 2000. The overlapping array of cooperation forums interlinking the Eurasian land mass are increasingly interlocking and mutually supporting, helped along by the juvenile "strategising" of US policy elites whose arrogance rests on training that appears to be mostly playing the board game Risk.
Mitchell does mention Belt and Road once.
TNI was once an interesting read, featuring authors like Chalmers Johnson and Anatol Lieven. Under Dubya it was colonised by neocons and has never recovered.
Mr. Mitchell fails to explicitly account for the fact that both Russia and China are nuclear powers, and therefore a direct conflict between the US and any/either of them is impossible. And attempting to inflict a strategic defeat on their border(s) risks nuclear armageddon in any case, even in wars fought by proxies (though the "proxy" façade is wearing VERY thin). And the breakup of the USSR was not singularly driven by events in Afghanistan, a major driver was the western promise of peace, cooperation, integration, inclusion, which many believed...all of those promises were broken by the US. And after that, and everything that has transpired since (quite a lot!), Russia has less than zero trust in the west, it is a very different context from the late 1980s-early 1990s. Basically, his most fundamental premises are completely flawed, and it is impossible to take him seriously...
Can we get that Mitchell out of the Pentagon first?
This is yet another case of smart people thinking they outsmart everybody else just like they think they can beat the crap out of everyone. The way Mitchell talked is no different from how the mustached man talked before attacking Russia. The US is not only in financial bankruptcy, but also shows a severe deficit in national strategic thinking
Yet at the same time, these people may have overestimated China. Russia is self-sufficient; China is not. Russia has complete competency in all defense-related technology; China does not. Russia has been better managed under Putin for 25 years, China has been poorly managed under Xi for 12 years. Russia accelerated the pace of MIC modernization since the Maidan incident in 2014. China started modernization earlier but was catching up from far behind. After withdrawing from Afghanistan, Russia still has a few military engagements, although not quite in the exact form of the Ukraine War. But I believe Russians made successive improvements after post-mortem analysis. China had a sharp but brief war with Vietnam using 70s weaponry and 50s tactics. That war did trigger some serious thoughts and efforts to prepare for modernization. However, due to budget issues, China's military modernization began slowly. China is also weaker in morale because the rhetoric from a parading mob or talking heads is very different from the morale of soldiers facing potential death.
Therefore, Russia is the senior partner in the Russia-China couple, not the other way around. China started courting the USSR after Mao's death and learned serious lessons in the USSR's dissolution (not necessarily the right ones). Due to China's repeated cloning without licensing, Russia has been reluctant to sell high-end weaponry to China. Without the Ukraine War, I think Putin was not ready to tilt to China so prominently for everyone to see. By 2023, Putin had seen the mistake and started various diplomatic maneuvers to strengthen Russia's relationship with ALL of China's neighbors. NK got nuclear warhead technology and ICBM; Vietnam got MIG-29 and ships/subs; India had been in joint weapon development with Russia since before the Ukraine War, including the hypersonic weapons. However, the Ukraine War has given China 3 extra years in preparation, not just militarily but also economically. China's coastal cities living on exports do look bad, but they would look even worse without the trade wars launched in Trump's first term.
Adding all of the above together, even if the US successfully made Russia neutral in the coming China-USA military war, the US does not have a sure win. And for every day before that conflict, China is likely getting stronger militarily (albeit weaker economically). The US is getting weaker on most fronts unless Trump turns his mind to what he set out to do originally: clean up the swamp. Instead, it looks more like the swamp is stripping him naked. Had the US elites focused the national energy on internal self-renewal since 1991, the US would probably continue its hegemony well into the 21st century. A confrontation with China in trade or military in the current shape of the US will severely hurt China, but probably doom the chance for the US to achieve self-renewal successfully. The US simply does not have that much "energy" in reserve and should use it wisely.
To the earlier excellent comments I add only that Mitchell makes no mention of either BRICS or the Shanghai Cooperation Organisation, whose explicit purpose since being launched in 2001 is to get US hegemony out of Asia. Following the arrogance of the Clinton administration during the Asian crisis of 1997/8, there was a lot of appetite for this kind of policy, as explained in detail by Chalmers Johnson in "Blowback".
Putin has been very deliberately creating exit ramps and development opportunities for Russia ever since becoming president in 2000. The overlapping array of cooperation forums interlinking the Eurasian land mass are increasingly interlocking and mutually supporting, helped along by the juvenile "strategising" of US policy elites whose arrogance rests on training that appears to be mostly playing the board game Risk.
Mitchell does mention Belt and Road once.
TNI was once an interesting read, featuring authors like Chalmers Johnson and Anatol Lieven. Under Dubya it was colonised by neocons and has never recovered.