AMERICA'S BIG MISTAKE IN UKRAINE AND TAIWAN///pART 2

By Hugh Murray 

 China just signed a deal with the Solomon Islands in the Pacific, not long after surprising America by signing another deal with Samoa.  China has cash to help build infrastructure, pay of bribes to politicians, and do other things, like perhaps construct a Chinese naval base located there.  The UP reports today that China is negotiating with 7 other island nations in the Pacific right now.  Well, it is a good thing the Hawaiian Islands are already American territory or perhaps China might soon have a base there.  Is Pearl Harbor up for sale now?  These new treaties will give China room to get to the other side of the Philippine Islands, possibly interfere with American shipping to Australia, Philippines, Vietnam, and if war comes, restrict our plans to defend Taiwan. 

 

     China was once the world's premier naval power.  But first an aside: during the American Revolutionary war, a young Andrew Jackson fought beside his brother against the British.  They were captured.  When a British officer commanded the 13-year-old Andrew to polish the gentleman's boots, the young Andrew refused.  The officer drew his sword, slashed Andrew's left hand to the bone and hit him on the head - leaving scars on both head and hand.  In the late 1300s, there were wars in China a leader of a Mongolian group killed in fighting the Chinese, and when his young son was questioned by his dad's opponents, the youth spoke defiantly.  He too was punished.  But there are cultural differences.  This youth was castrated, became a servant in the court of the victor's, and rose in rank.  By the early 1400s, this boy grown to manhood, becomes Admiral to the largest fleet ever to sail - some 28,000 sailors sailing from near Suzhou down the South China Sea, the Spice islands, India, Sri Lanka, even Arabia (Admiral Zheng He is a Muslim and goes to Mecca), and to East Africa.  They return to China with many goods and animals like giraffes that were unknown in the Middle Kingdom.  The Admiral, with several major expeditions to the Indian Ocean and Africa, may give the Chinese a claim to the South China Sea.  Compare his huge expeditions with those that came later: Magellan fewer than 300 men\; da Gama 170;  and Columbus, a mere 90 men.  Yet, which voyages changed the world?

     (One more aside: it is interesting to note that both He in China and Jackson in America begin on the bottom rungs of society, and in both lands, both rise to the top or near the top.  Andrew Jackson defeated the British in the Battle of New Orleans and was later elected American President; He in China fought in the military there and became the most famous Admiral or one of the largest fleets on  several successful expeditions.  But he never became emperor.  Both societies may have been more open to talent than we are aware of.) 

 Moreover, by 1433 China had a new emperor, and soon he decreed that there should be no more ocean-going ships to sail, or to be built, and all those in existence and all their plans should be destroyed!  Surely China did not dominate the South China Sea after 1450.  China ceased to be a naval power.  There are cultural differences, and often these have huge consequences.  In the 1890s China even lost a war to Japan, a nation only "opened" to the world by the American navy's Commodore Perry in 1853.  Japan then quickly sought to catch up with the west, learning from imported military figures from Prussia and naval ones from Britain.  When China lost to Japan, it had to cede Formosa (Taiwan) to the Japanese.  The island remained Japanese until 1945, when Japan lost WWII.

     Formosa, no longer Japanese would go to the official Chinese government, the one recognized by the new UN organization and all major powers, the Nationalist government headed by Chiang Kai-shek.

      In 1944 there was no A-bomb, and even as Nazi Germany seemed destined for defeat, America faced the huge problem of invading the Japanese home islands.  FDR made promises to Stalin in order to get him to declare war on Japan.  It was agreed he would do so within 3 months of the German surrender.  In August 1945 the US dropped 2 A-bombs on Japan, the Soviets entered the war against Japan, quickly over-running the depleted defense forces in Manchukuo,  Japan surrendered.  Soviet troops were in Manchuria, dismantling factories to bring them to the USSR, but taking the Japanese weapons, and instead of giving them to the "official" Chinese government, gave them to the Communist rebel regime of Mao Zedong.  A Nationalist faction under Wang Jingwei, that had collaborated with Japan was totally discredited, but civil war increased between the "official" Chiang Nationalists and Mao's Communists, now supplied with weapons by the Soviets.  American Pres. Truman sent Gen. George Marshall to end the conflict, and he demanded Chiang form a coalition with Mao, or Marshall said there would be no aid.  This policy allowed the Communists to conquer more of China.  Finally, Marshall okayed help for Chiang, but Communists in the FDR Administration, like H D White in Treasury, obstructed any real aid to Chiang.  The result - in 1949 Mao broadcast from Beijing the creation of the Peoples' Republic of China.  Chiang, with the remnants of his defeated army, fled to Taiwan, protected by the US Navy.  Taiwan became what was left of the Republic of China.  This was the origin of the 2-China policy.

      In 1950 North Korea invaded its southern neighbor; Truman decided to send American troops to aid the South, and the war was on.  Gen. Douglas Mac Arthur was able to land forces behind the lines of the invaders, encircling the North Communists, and soon the whole peninsula was in anti-Communist hands.  Then in cold winter, the Chinese Communist "volunteers" crossed the Yalu using their large numbers and enduring heavy losses, but pushing the anti-communists back to the approximate border of before.  And so it remains.

     Having been unofficially at war with the PR China, there were few relations between the 2 nations.  Then, the Vietnam war, found America in a difficult war.  Even though there were now many reports of a rift between the USSR and the PRC, America was on the outside.  Diplomat Henry Kissinger got Pres. Richard Nixon, a Republican, to try to put a wedge between those 2 Communist lands  Ping pong diplomacy.  The US urged less Chinese support for the Vietnamese, which did occur.  Under Pres. Carter, the US formally recognized a 1-China policy, and the Rep. of China was now simply Taipei.  The US overthrew the royal leader of Cambodia, Prince Sihanouk, who was soon replaced by the radical Khmer Rouge.  Both China and the US seemed happy with that, while Communist Vietnam (ally of the USSR) was furious that the Cambodians were murdering Vietnamese.  The Khmer Rouge then began a great extermination policy of its own people too, killing up to 2 million.  Anyone who had glasses was suspect.  To what extent did the US secretly work with the PRC in Cambodia?  As Vietnam was trying to overthrow the leaders of Cambodia?  China and Vietnam also had their own small war against each other along their common border.

      The late 80s, Tiananmen - the CP will continue to rule China.  But deals with the west for trade, very cheap labor assured will mean low prices in America.  Under Clinton and Bush, more trade deals, and China joins World Trade Organization, keeping its home market safe by requiring foreign corporations to  form partnerships (where Chinese can steal secrets on manufacturing).  When in the 1990s China cannot get missiles off the ground, the Clintons make deals, receive campaign "donations," and Chinese rocket problems are solved.  PRC makes honey deals with high ranking American politicians, the Biden family, the Clintons, Feinstein, Republican Senate leader McConnel.  The CPR leadership learns a weak link of democracy - corruption.

      Kissinger worked to separate Russia and China.  Biden, with his reaction to the 2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine, has made the Russo-Chinese relation ever closer.  Just as the Biden economic war against Putin may be making the US far weaker, the the ruble stronger today with the dollar than when Biden announced his policy.  Worse, the Biden, Democrats and Rhino Republican policies of giving Zelensky all he wants, simply keeps the war going in Ukraine.  Inflation is a problem in the US.  Now we just voted $40 billion more for that war.  UKRAINE IS NOT A DIRECT AMERICAN INTEREST.  Worse, we are facing a battle about Taiwan, which we need to win.  Will we have sufficient weapons?  Money?  Manufacturing capabilities for continued weaponry?  (Remember, we are dependent on Taiwan for the chips so necessary in the new weaponry.  If China attacks Taiwan, or merely surrounds it and blockades it, will the USA  be able to manufacture anything??  China has built up its navy so it is powerful.  Untested, yes, but are we up for the test ourselves?  China was testing hypersonic missiles last year - Gen. Milley called it a "near Sputnik moment."  The other day the US Air Force reported we too have had a successful test (after some failures).

       China ignores the World Court's decision on the South China Sea; the court denied it is China's.  China rejected the court's judgement and instead built up islands in the sea, then broke its word and militarized those islands.  China has signed contracts with 2 island groups in the Pacific since April 2022, and is trying for 7 more deals.  Will the Pacific be China's new lake??

     Some maintain that the recent virus lockdowns in Hong Kong, Shanghai, Xian, and even Beijing have nothing to do with any virus, but they are exercises in control in case there is a major war (with the USA).

If China were to strike first, and not just in Taiwan, but hit our shores too, Would we be able to respond AND WIN?  What about Chinese money near the Panama Canal?

      Instead of bowing to Zelensky's demands, we should tell him to make a deal and end the war, while we prepare for our own defense.  To the Chinese we seem at a weak point - an elderly, maybe senile leader, high crime rate, inflation, instability, and general confusion, more worried about proper pronouns than how effective is your missile.  They want Taiwan by 2049, but why wait?  Especially if the balance of power has changed, if the most advanced nation is the Middle Kingdom, which rests between heaven and earth?  Perhaps they will conclude this year is the time for the Middle Kingdom to take its rightful place.  Are we prepared to shatter that "cultural difference," and prove that their proper place is NOT a superior one to all the rest of the earth.  Are we prepared to prevent a modernized, 1984 one-party state from becoming a modernized one-party world?  Our democratic republic has its flaws, but it is the last best hope for humanity. 

 

     To prepare for the big one, let us end the Ukraine war now.

AMERICA'S BIG MISTAKE IN UKRAINE///TAIWAN pART 1

   RFLECTIONS ON THE WAR AND THE BIGGER ONE COMING by HUGH MURRAY

 Ukraine's Vlod Zelensky is the well known leader who heads his nation in time of war.  The former television comedian is transformed into the new Churchill, urging his nation to fight on against the foreign invaders.  The media shows him as the man of the hour, the man of courage.  Or, is he simply the Greta Thunberg of Ukraine?

      Greta Thunberg began her activism for the environment at age 15, and her demands that adults see the necessity of protecting the environment, as she sees it, made her into a media spokes girl in the left wing media.  Her demands that governments do as she says is almost laughable, but since her message is that of the left, the media promote her, and legislators throughout the world listen to her and try to accommodate her demands.  If she were not presenting the left-wing message in a new package, the left-leaning media would never have promoted her.  She is the same old green message in a new, Swedish wine bottle.  Still trying to shame, insult, bully nations into doing what she wants.  Even in failure, she gets the publicity for her left-wing message.

     Zelensky is the latest version of Thunberg, accusing, shaming, demanding, that nations support his nation financially, legally, and militarily.  He is very popular in the US with Democrats and Rhino Republicans.  No matter his packaging, is Zelensky correct in his message?

     Ukraine was one of the provinces of the Czarist Russian Empire.  Allied with Britain, France, and the other allied nations in "the Great War" (WWI), Russia did poorly, and in early 917 there was a revolution that brought a Western type government to power, until the fall when Lenin and the Bolsheviks seized control.  German armies continued to invade while the Reds sought to expand their internal control in a civil war.  Forced to sign a peace treaty, Red Russia ceded chunks of territory to newly independent countries, like Ukraine, which were to become German satellites.  Half year later, Germany and the Central Powers surrendered to the Allies, and Germany had to withdraw from all its gains in the East.  Soon after, the Communist led Ukraine requested to join the Soviet Union.  Under Stalin the Reds sought to collectivize agriculture, and use crops to get funds to industrialize.  Ukraine, the traditional "bread basket" of Europe, became the center of a war against the successful farmers (kulaks), whose crops were taken, and whose family members starved or were sent to Gulags (to freeze or starve).  The policy led to the deaths of millions of Ukrainians, the first of many Communist experiment in economics that led to millions more deaths under Mao and the Khmer Rouge.  But as the left reasoned, to make an omelet one has to break a few eggs.

    During WWII, when the Germans invaded the Ukraine, many natives were happy to see the end of Stalin's rule.  The choice was between Hitler and Stalin, 2 monsters.  For the Jews of Ukraine, Hitler meant death, so they had no choice.  Others did; and there were those who sympathized with and even fought along side the German invaders during WWII.  For a movie depiction of the division, see "Europa, Europa," for Poles fleeing the German invaders.  Then news that the Soviets have invaded Poland from the East, and many Poles turn around to run toward the Germans, while others were still running away.  In the West it is easy for us to condemn those who chose one or the other, but we did not have to choose between 2 monsters, one worse than the other.  Our leaders, far from perfect, have generally avoided such savagery on such mass scales.

      After WWII, there was a kind of civil war in Poland and Ukraine for a few years before the Communists could regain complete control.

     After Stalin's death, Khruschev became the next leader of the USSR.  A Ukrainian, he changed to border of Ukraine, giving it Russian territory.  This made little difference as they were all part of the USSR.  Then Reagan and Gorbachev, the Wall falls, and so does the USSR.  The enlarged Ukraine becomes independent, with a large Russian speaking population.  Indeed, in all ot the break-away nations of the USSR, Russian minorities were suddenly stranded in places like Turkmenistan.  Ukraine was close to Russia, and had a corrupt, pro-Russian elected government, until a Western led coup in 2014.  To protect the Russian naval bases, Putin invaded the Crimea, and some eastern parts of the Ukraine declared their independence from that nation and looked to Russia.  Kiev has never recognized these Russian enclaves, even though a Minsk Agreement was supposed to do so.  The new Ukraine government continued some aspects of the old - like corruption.  But now US military sponsored scientific labs in Ukraine and other former Soviet lands.  The US was very worried that these labs would fall to Russian troops with the invasion this year.  Russia alleged they were scenes of biological and chemical warfare.  The US denied the allegations.  But why was the US military sponsoring these labs?

      Why is the US subsidizing the war in the Ukraine?  Without American backing, Zelensky would have to go to the negotiating table and make a deal.  Without the support of the Democrats (and its media) and the UniParty Republicans (mainly Rhinos), (and major support from most of Fox News) Ukraine would sue for peace.  America mobilized all its allies to get on board the train to Ukraine.  NATO (North Atlantic?), and for the economic war against Russia, even Japan.  India and a few others have resisted America's attempt to isolate Russia, diplomatically, and especially economically.

     Democrats and Rhino Republican maintain that the border of Ukraine is sacrosanct and must be maintained against the Russian invasion.  Yet, Democrats and many Rhino Republicans support the invasion of the border of the US by those crossing in from Mexico.  Pres. Biden and his Administration collude with pro-invasion organizations who teach foreigners how to lie so they will seem like legitimate refugees.  Groups like the American Civil Liberties Union and various NGOs and religious organizations all partake in this fraud.  Some gain considerable US federal dollars by "helping" the refugees.  Lately, I think it is near a thousand a day who come across the border.  Some have links to drug cartels, some are returning after having been deported, a few are potential terrorists.  It is clear that neither Democrats nor Rhino Republicans care at all about America's southern border, but they are cheerleading the efforts to defend that of Ukraine.

      The Ukraine is corrupt, and according to Panama Papers Pres. Zelensky has many off-shore accounts too.  More important, American weapons manufacturers can make a mint if the US subsidizes the war in Ukraine, as it did in Afghanistan, as it did in Iraq, as it did in Vietnam, etc.  So left-wing ideas about flooding the US with refugees (and the donor class Republicans favor cheap labor which comes with the thousands of illegal aliens(, and Uniparty (Dems and Rhinos) may get a% of the military contracts so they cheeer the blue and yellow flag and are delighted when Zelensky "speaks truth" that he needs more money and military aid.  Why, Zelensky is better than Thornberg in shaming us into doing what we already want to do.

       The problem is - the US has no real national interest in Ukraine.  Worse, a war is on the horizon in which we have vital interest, and we are ruining our own economy, sending military materiale to Ukraine, forcing Putin into China's arms, when we are about to face a conflict with the People's Republic of China. 

              END OF PART 1

Prof. Jason Jellison on Pat Buchanan and Russian leader Vladimir Putin

 (A friend who works in Asia had a different view of the Ukrainian war.  You might find it interesting.)  

Good Morning Hugh, As is so often the case, I strongly agree with Pat Buchanan.  What not only American leaders, but even American society is doing to Russia is very, VERY dangerous.  From my Far Eastern vantage point, I would warn any American/Westerner who would listen that WE (America & Western Europe) are backing a wounded Russia into a corner and I will warn anyone that even the most benevolent and loving of wounded wolves- once backed into a corner with few options- eventually has no choice but to finally bring out the teeth, claws, and eventually strike back.  From my side of the pond, what America is doing with Russia is utterly insane and truly redefines the word 'stupid.'  [One does not play games with, or insult, a superpower who possesses 6,900 nuclear warheads and better missiles than almost anything America reliably has on hand.] Also, Hugh, to be totally frank, the hypocrisy which America has fallen into simply stuns me.  Back in the Kennedy years, we nearly had a nuclear holocaust when the Soviets were caught installing nuclear missiles in Fidel's Cuba; a mere 90 miles from Florida (in our own backyard).  Yet, even on Fox News or The American Thinker, nary a word has been printed about the U.S. manufactured missile systems which we had quietly installed inside of Chernobyl's nuclear exclusion zone [which is also something like only 100 miles away from Russia's back doorstep].  Thus, the USA has fallen into such dramatic moral decay that we [several successive Presidential Administrations & Congresses spanning all major American political stripes] seemed to have not a care at all about funding somewhere between 25-30 biolabs which we 100% know for certain were continuing to research USSR-era biopathogens which were supposed to have been destroyed all the way back in the mid-1990's; and those same biolabs were almost certainly involved in some kind of Gain of Function [Wuhan-style] research for purposes whose final aims were probably far less than anything but Godly or Holy.  (I sincerely doubt our untrustworthy U.S. Federal Government funded those 25-30 biolabs because they wanted to help make sure the Russians did not come down sick with the flu or a light case of the sniffles.) So, to conclude my response, while I am largely neutral in this Civil War, I wish both Russia and the Ukraine Territory well.  However, Russia's military blunders in staging their Security Action (war) within the Ukraine were not just stunning and not just a geopolitical embarrassment, but also indicate that the entire Russian Military will need a complete overhaul before Russia even thinks of managing anything beyond the most elementary of basic national security measures. [...as in arresting illegal migrants &/or illegal trespassers.]  This was a military DISASTER & HUMILIATION FOR RUSSIA WHICH SEVERELY HARMED RUSSIA'S STANDING ON THE WORLD STAGE, no matter how one tries to spin it.  Bluntly, Russia was about as effective in the Ukraine Invasion as America has been effective in keeping illegal aliens from swimming over to our shores.  [UTTER DISASTER.] Hugh, I strongly respect President Putin as well as his government.  But, Mr. Putin's administration screwed up the Ukraine Affair six ways to Sunday.  As of the time of this writing, I will simply dispassionately state that the cost of this fiasco is somewhere between 20,000 to 25,000 dead Russian soldiers, two very badly wounded countries, organized campaigns of sexual violence on both sides and- for Russia- the former U.S.S.R. may soon largely lose a war which they should have easily won within a matter of only days.  Russia was incompetent & easily should have overpowered both the Ukraine, as well as its cowardly Western Godfathers who yank all of Zelenskyy's strings. After all, only one week after Trump was deposed in a stolen election, on February 1st, 2021, the Tatmadaw [Burmese Army] seized Burma and accomplished most of President Putin's kind of dreams in less than merely 4 hours because the Tatmadaw runs a competent, well-trained military.  Yet, as of the time of this writing, it may be months or even years before President Putin can secure & rule the Ukraine; at which point the Ukraine will be little more than a pile of smoking ruin which the Russians will have to rebuild at the cost of one big heap of Russia's very own Rubles.  They will also predictably face many years of a domestic insurgency so, even if Russia 'wins' this crazy thing called the Ukraine, I believe President Putin will find that just as soon as he erects a grand new building, it shan't be long before domestic Ukrainian resistance fighters find a creative way to crash all his new buildings straight to the ground. Okay.  I'll simply wrap up by stating that I will forward my ad hoc military analysis of Russia's profound strategic errors to you later today.  I actually am quite supportive of Russia but, to be totally honest, Hugh, either Putin himself (or his generals) not only screwed up a war which they very easily should have won, but now may largely lose the war.  Of course, in the event of a loss or some kind of stalemate, Russia might parade the U.S.-manufactured missile systems which the Russians dug out of the ground at Chernobyl & maybe also parade some of our U.S.-funded biolab concerns out in the streets for all of the world to see.  ...but at the cost of 20,000 to 25,000 dead Russian soldiers [so far] and a devastated Ukraine [the heartland of Russia], well, much as Sun Tzu warned over 2,000 years ago in The Art of War, that's not much for the Kremlin to gloat about. So, I guess I shall close by simply saying this:   For President Putin, he is about to potentially lose a war or preside over a disaster.  If I could have the honor of advising him at this particularly late hour in a fight which the Russian President CHOSE to start, I'd tell him either go all the way & finish what President Putin chose to start, or prepare to pay the consequences for a lost war.  (...and when you lose a war which you chose to start, the consequences of such a loss are simply not predictable.) Keep in touch, Hugh.