Tag: war

Sea Power vs Land Power

Sea power tends to be more aggressive and expansive, but land power tends to last longer:

For over a century, two dead advisors have shaped the way great powers view the world.

On one side, we have Alfred Thayer Mahan—the American naval officer who believed sea power determined global supremacy. According to Mahan, controlling the oceans means controlling trade. If you control trade, you control wealth. If you control wealth… well, you get the picture.

On the other side is Halford Mackinder, the British geographer who argued the exact opposite. Forget the seas, he said. Whoever controls the “World Island”—Eurasia—controls the world. Railways, rivers, pipelines, and land empires are what count. Not frigates and aircraft carriers.

Mahan and Mackinder are no longer with us, but their ideas continue to influence the world today.

And we’re watching it unfold.

The United States and the United Kingdom—Mahan’s spiritual children—have long benefited from an ocean-based order. Ruling the waves built their prosperity and power. The British Empire’s reach was maritime. The U.S. Navy now patrols every major sea lane. The dollar reigns supreme because oil, commodities, and trade settle in greenbacks. That world—the Mahan world—is why Americans live like kings while land powers like Russia and China have spent decades playing catch-up.

But Mahan’s world has limits. Especially when you try to keep your rivals bottled up in theirs.

That’s precisely what the U.S. has tried to do with China.

If you look at ancient history, the rivalries between Athens and Sparta, and between Carthage and Rome, all ended the same way; with the land power eventually defeating the sea power. This is because sea power is intrinsically offensive, which means that it doesn’t have much in the way of defense in depth once its advantages are counteracted in one way or another.

It’s already apparent that either China or Russia can defeat the USA in a war. Which means that the US is an empire in decline, and the only real question is how fast it will collapse and how far.

DISCUSS ON SG

12 Days and Counting Down

Donald Trump made another move in his feckless game of global checkers today in Scotland, with the announcement that he is giving Russia a new, much shorter deadline—10 to 12 days from now—to end the war in Ukraine. Trump warned that if President Vladimir Putin does not reach a deal by around August 7–9, the US will impose new sanctions and “severe tariffs” on Russia and countries supporting its war effort. Trump’s new deadline elicited a collective yawn in Moscow.

Trump’s threat of new sanctions is just a blowhard bloviating… Ending shipments of fertilizers and precious metals is not going to hurt the Russian economy one bit. Thanks to the sanctions Biden levied in 2022, Russia’s economy grew to be the fourth largest in the world as measured by purchasing power parity. Western propaganda that the Russian economy is failing–citing current growth of 1.4%–ignores the fiscal policies that the Russian central bank put in place in 2024 to cool inflation. But those measures were only temporary, with the central bank announcing a two percent cut in interest rates late last week.

That means that Trump, if he is serious, will impose bone-crunching tariffs on China and India. Both countries appear unfazed by Trump’s bullying bluster. China in particular holds some very strong cards… Rare-earth minerals desperately needed by the US military industrial complex. I think this will be another Trump nothing-burger.

It’s obvious that more sanctions aren’t going to hurt Russia. Which raises the obvious question? Why the reduction of 38 days from the original deadline? Whatever the reason, it doesn’t smack of confidence, to the contrary, it reeks of desperation.

And when Putin ignores the deadline, what then? Threaten another one?

DISCUSS ON SG

What Strength?

The UK Defense Secretary apparently hasn’t kept up on his reading of Jane’s Fighting Ships:

The United Kingdom could resort to military force against China in the event of an escalation over Taiwan, British Defense Secretary John Healey has said, though he emphasized that London continues to prefer a diplomatic resolution. Speaking to The Telegraph during a visit to Australia, Healey said Britain would “secure peace through strength” if necessary – marking one of the clearest signals yet from a senior UK official regarding the possibility of direct confrontation with Beijing.

Healey made the remarks as the HMS Prince of Wales, a British aircraft carrier equipped with F-35 fighter jets, docked in the northern Australian city of Darwin. It is the first time in nearly 30 years that a British strike group has arrived in the region. The carrier is on a nine-month Pacific deployment, participating in Australia’s Talisman Sabre exercise and visiting ports in Japan and South Korea.

”If we have to fight, as we have done in the past, Australia and the UK are nations that will fight together. We exercise together and by exercising together and being more ready to fight, we deter better together,” Healey said when asked what London would do in case of an escalation around Taiwan.

What strength? The UK hasn’t been a major military power for 70 years! Forget the seas, Britain doesn’t even rule its own borders anymore. I’m not sure the Chinese would even notice if the UK actually went to war against them.

Clown Worlders are observably delusional in the extreme.

DISCUSS ON SG

Clown World Calls Time

The Black Rider has no more use for Zelensky and presumably will be throwing him from the horse this autumn:

For Ukraine’s sake, Zelensky must now step aside

Volodymyr Zelensky was once Ukraine’s saviour. In the first hours of the Russian invasion, as Putin’s paratroopers advanced on Central Kyiv with specific orders to kill him, Zelensky refused to evacuate.
Instead, he rallied his people to a heroic resistance that surprised the world – and Ukrainians themselves. It was thanks to Zelensky’s relentless lobbying and inspiring showmanship that Western nations were cajoled into sending rockets, artillery and tanks where once they had offered helmets and bandages.

But those times are gone. Zelensky is no longer part of the solution to Ukraine – he is part of the problem. Over the last year Zelensky has used emergency wartime powers to exile, investigate and jail many leading political opponents and critics. Opposition media have been shut down, and thousands of businesses have been seized by Zelensky cronies under the pretext of alleged links to Russia.

Zelensky has played an epic role in saving his country from destruction. Now there is a danger of his imitating his corrupt predecessors, and he should step aside, for Ukraine’s sake.

If a headline article in The Daily Telegraph is not a very clear signal for Zelensky to resign and run for one of his mansions in Florida or Tuscany while he still can, I don’t know what is. Short of Boris Johnson showing up in Kiev and telling him “it’s over” to his face, this is about as direct an order as Clown World ever gives.

This doesn’t mean the neoclowns have gotten any more realistic about what it will take to convince Putin to call off the Russian Army. The problem is that since the proxy war has gone global, it’s not just about what former Ukrainian territory will be transferred to Russian sovereignty, it’s also about ending the West’s economic war on Russia and its partners.

DISCUSS ON SG

Someone is All Talk

The question is, is it Iran or is it Israel?

Former Israeli Defense Minister Yoav Gallant: “Iran is preparing for a large-scale preemptive strike against Israel. We have no choice but to strike Iran again.”

Iran: “Iran has officially stated that if Israel carries out an attack or any terrorist action this time, it will be considered an official declaration of war. This time Iran will not accept any truce and will show no mercy — the strike will be delivered in such a way that nothing but ruins will remain of Israel.

Given that both sides are given to nonsensical rhetoric, it’s hard to take either side very seriously. But on the balance of things, and given the obvious imbalance of size and military power, one tends to suspect that it’s Israel. Iran has no need to prepare for a large scale preemptive strike since it was already exhausting Israel’s air defenses before the ceasefire, therefore it is likely that Gallant’s claim is false and intended to justify another preemptive strike by Israel.

Although given the complete failure of the first one, one wonders what they think they’re going to accomplish this time around.

DISCUSS ON SG

Japan Opts Out

In which /pol/ summarizes a paywalled Financial Times article on the Japanese government making it clear to Japanese companies that it has no intention of antagonizing China over Taiwan island.

Japanese government officials are telling companies they would be “on their own” if they needed to evacuate staff from Taiwan in case of a Chinese attack, according to people familiar with the matter, a message that has hit one of Taiwan’s largest sources of foreign direct investment. Tokyo’s warning highlights the practical and political difficulties for governments and companies in the region of preparing for a potential cross-Strait war. Beijing claims Taiwan as part of its territory, and has threatened to take it by force if Taipei refuses indefinitely to submit to its control.

The US military has been discussing operational plans for such a scenario with its allies, but obtaining political commitments has proven more challenging. The Financial Times reported last week that the Pentagon had pressed Japan and Australia to clarify what role they would play in a US-China war over Taiwan, frustrating Tokyo and Canberra.

Two Japanese officials told the FT that, under the country’s pacifist constitution, its military could only be deployed abroad with approval from a host government. Given that Japan does not recognise Taiwan diplomatically — as with all but 12 countries in the world — there “is no government in Taiwan from our viewpoint”, one of the officials said. They added that China was unlikely to grant the Japanese military approval to conduct evacuations.

Although the Japanese government has never confirmed this line as its official position, companies have been receiving the warnings for about three years, diplomats and corporate executives said. Japanese diplomats told company risk officers that “you are on your own if you put significant assets in Taiwan”, said one person present at one of the conversations.

While the new LDP leader has made noises about modifying Japan’s constitution to permit more aggressive foreign policy and military actions, the longtime ruling party isn’t in a very strong position as a new nationalist party founded in 2020, Sanseito, is rapidly rising thanks to the LDP bowing to Clown World’s demands that it relax Japan’s once-formidable barriers to immigration.

In a recent Kyodo News poll conducted from July 5–6, the party ranked second in proportional representation support, behind only the ruling Liberal Democratic Party (LDP). For a group that was initially dismissed as fringe, the rise is both dramatic and deeply concerning to many observers. With rhetoric that echoes Trumpism and European ultranationalism, it has become the most talked-about — and most unsettling — dark horse in Japanese politics.

From Berlin to Washington, from Moscow to Tokyo, the True Right is inevitable.

For decades, Japan’s stagnant wages, aging population and growing inequality have bred quiet despair. Conventional parties like the Liberal Democratic Party (LDP) and the Constitutional Democratic Party (CDP) are widely viewed as corrupt, stale and incapable of offering real change. Into this void stepped Sanseito.

The LDP and the CDP are not merely “widely viewed” as “corrupt, stale and incapable of offering real change”, like their counterparts in every Western nation, they are corrupt, stale, and incapable offering real change. Which is why their eventual replacement, one way or another, is inevitable.

DISCUSS ON SG

On Self-Determination and Failed Rhetoric

We are told that Taiwan is an international flash point and the USA is honor-bound to defend Tawian against reunification with the mainland because, and I quote: “Taiwan’s 23 million people deserve self-determination”.

Why didn’t the 9,103,332 people of the Confederate States of America deserve self-determination?

Why don’t the 4,543,126 people of Palestine deserve self-determination?

Why didn’t the 10.3 million people of the separatist oblasts of Ukraine deserve self-determination?

Why don’t the 8,012,231 people of Catalunya deserve self-determination?

Self-determination is just another Enlightenment inversion. It means that Clown World will claim it is a casus belli whenever it wants a war, and use military force to deny whenever it fears losing control. Unless the USA is going to go to war with Israel, Ukraine, and Spain, and permit the former-Confederate states to depart the Union in peace, it has absolutely no business claiming any right or responsibility to “defend” one part of China from the rest of it.

DISCUSS ON SG

Iran and the 5D Chess

Larry Johnson contemplates Iran’s new stance on nuclear negotiations:

A senior Iranian political figure has told Iranian Press TV that Iran is rethinking its approach to nuclear negotiations and will not enter new talks using the same framework or agenda.

Referring to the U-S request to resume negotiations, the source emphasized that any talks must align with the real security dynamics of the region. He expressed skepticism about the US intentions for peace, stating that the goal of Washington is to disarm Iran to compensate for Israel’s weakness in the next potential war. The political figure added any new negotiations must include serious and practical guarantees including scrutiny of Israel’s nuclear and WMD programs, credible punishment of the regime (i.e., Israel) and compensation to Iran. He stressed in the absence of these conditions, negotiations will merely serve as a prelude to war. He added Tehran is willing to “offer another opportunity” but requires evidence that U.S. negotiator Witkoff is pursuing peace rather than escalation.

There you have it. Iran is willing to talk but only if the conditions outlined above are met by Washington. This means there will be no further negotiations and that Iran will busy itself preparing for the next US/Israeli attack. Iran’s requirement that Israel be subjected to the same type of scrutiny of its nuclear program as Iran is a new, but not surprising, demand. While Iran’s demands are reasonable, I cannot imagine any scenario where Trump would agree.

This is where the rubber meets the road. The Short Trump certainly appears to be in Netanyahu’s pocket. But if – and only if – the USA agrees to Iran’s conditions and forces Israel to be subject to the same inspections of its nuclear capabilities by neutral international parties for the first time, we have to at least be open to the possibility that there is some sort of more complicated scenario in play.

DISCUSS ON SG

They Hate Their People

Between Angela Merkel blessing the third world invasion of her country and her current successor in the Chancellorship, Friedrich Merz, promising German-assisted long-range missile strikes on Russia, it’s eminently clear that the German politicians hate the German people.

If Germany provides weapons (Taurus) and material assistance to Ukraine to target inside Russia (The Kiev Dictatorship can’t operate these missiles without German direct input). There is a real possibility that Russia will strike weapons production and transit sites in Germany.

Fortunately, Vladimir Putin is a patient man and he is unlikely to target civilian centers in Germany. Unfortunately, he has shown real restraint in not taking out the enemy political elites that are so willing to sacrifice the masses.

DISCUSS ON SG

The Wrong Lesson

The grand strategery of Clown World is quite possibly going to get an enormous number of soldiers killed because their abject retardery knows no bounds. This is what purports to be a military history piece encouraging direct US and European intervention published a year ago by the director of something called “Lazard Geopolitical Advisory” which makes an excellent case for never taking the advice of Lazard Geopolitical Advisory:

Northern Russia must have felt bitterly cold to U.S. soldiers, even though nearly all were from Michigan. On Sept. 4, 1918, 4,800 U.S. troops landed in Arkhangelsk, Russia, only 140 miles from the Arctic Circle. Three weeks later, they were plunged into battle against the Red Army among towering pine forests and subarctic swamps, alongside the British and French. Ultimately, 244 U.S. soldiers died from the fighting over two years. Diaries of U.S. troops paint a harrowing picture of first contact:

We run into a nest of machine-guns, we retire. [Bolsheviks] still shelling heavily. Perry and Adamson of my squad wounded, bullet clips my shoulder on both sides. … Am terribly tired, hungry and all in, so are the rest of the boys. Casualties in this attack 4 killed and 10 wounded.

These unlucky souls represented just one prong of the sprawling and ill-fated Allied intervention in the Russian civil war. From 1918 to 1920, the United States, Britain, France, and Japan sent thousands of troops from the Baltics to northern Russia to Siberia to Crimea—and millions of dollars in aid and military supplies to the anti-communist White Russians—in an abortive attempt to strangle Bolshevism in its crib. It’s one of the most complicated and oft-forgot foreign-policy failures of the 20th century…

Despite the current pall of pessimism pervading Western capitals, today’s war in Ukraine presents some of the more propitious circumstances a policymaker could hope for—unlike those faced by the Allies during the Russian civil war. Ukraine is a worthy and competent ally, fighting to defend its territory with a highly motivated population behind it. The Ukrainian cause is a righteous one, with a Manichean quality to it easily explained to Western publics. While Putin’s personal will to win is strong, it’s clear by his actions and hesitancy to fully mobilize Russian society that he senses a ceiling on what he can ask from his population. Though Russia’s manpower and materiel are larger than Ukraine’s, the amount needed to keep Ukraine armed and in the fight is completely manageable. A $60 billion aid supplement from the United States—currently held up by far-right Republicans in the House of Representatives—is a pittance compared with the returns: holding the line on international norms; standing up for the Ukrainians and, in doing so, Western values; bogging down Russia in a strategic sinkhole and reducing its capacity to threaten the rest of NATO’s eastern flank; and fortifying the trans-Atlantic alliance. Today, Western capitals are much more united than they were in 1918, and defense coordination among them is strong. Though they can sharpen the shared sense of an endgame in Ukraine, everybody knows that the conflict will end in some sort of negotiated settlement—the questions will be on whose terms.

If the United States and its allies can avoid the pitfalls of the Western intervention in the Russian civil war—developing a clear long-term strategy, continuing to coordinate closely, and reinforcing domestic support by making the case to their own populations—then they have a real shot of prevailing over Putin. 

Despite the current pall of pessimism pervading Western capitals, today’s war in Ukraine presents some of the more propitious circumstances a policymaker could hope for—unlike those faced by the Allies during the Russian civil war. Ukraine is a worthy and competent ally, fighting to defend its territory with a highly motivated population behind it. The Ukrainian cause is a righteous one, with a Manichean quality to it easily explained to Western publics. While Putin’s personal will to win is strong, it’s clear by his actions and hesitancy to fully mobilize Russian society that he senses a ceiling on what he can ask from his population. Though Russia’s manpower and materiel are larger than Ukraine’s, the amount needed to keep Ukraine armed and in the fight is completely manageable. A $60 billion aid supplement from the United States—currently held up by far-right Republicans in the House of Representatives—is a pittance compared with the returns: holding the line on international norms; standing up for the Ukrainians and, in doing so, Western values; bogging down Russia in a strategic sinkhole and reducing its capacity to threaten the rest of NATO’s eastern flank; and fortifying the trans-Atlantic alliance. Today, Western capitals are much more united than they were in 1918, and defense coordination among them is strong. Though they can sharpen the shared sense of an endgame in Ukraine, everybody knows that the conflict will end in some sort of negotiated settlement—the questions will be on whose terms.

If the United States and its allies can avoid the pitfalls of the Western intervention in the Russian civil war—developing a clear long-term strategy, continuing to coordinate closely, and reinforcing domestic support by making the case to their own populations—then they have a real shot of prevailing over Putin. 

This is totally insane advice. In addition to the obvious fact that a) there is zero domestic support for war with Russia in any country outside of the Baltics and Finland, b) the Russian industrial advantage with regards to weaponry, vehicles, missiles, and ammunition is insurmountable, and c) Russia’s global allies outproduce, outnumber, and outgun the entire forces of the West, the historical invaders had one massive advantage that Russia’s current enemies lack.

The Western forces of 1918 had the ability to transport and stage their troops without fear of being attacked. In 2025, any trans-oceanic transports carrying men and materials to invade Russia will be sunk with hypersonic missiles long before they come anywhere close to the Russian coast. Not only that, but the entire logistics line leading all the way back to factories in Dusseldorf and Columbus, Ohio is similarly vulnerable to complete destruction.

The inability of Clown World’s elite to understand that it is no longer 1950, much less 1918, is truly remarkable. Andrei Martyanov is absolutely right to denigrate and disregard the military doctrine of the Western militaries, because their grasp on the history of warfare and how it applies to the present appears to be nonexistent.

DISCUSS ON SG