Russia's Humiliation of the United States Military
By: Michael Ambrozewicz & Fiorenzo Arcadi
After the Second World War, Japan caught up with all the Western countries with its sophisticated approach to technology and education. Even with the collective approach to education, Japan suffers a high student suicide rate. It was funny reading China’s interpretation of the Japanese society: The People’s Daily of China stated, “Japan is a collectivist society, people who don’t act the same with others will be isolated.”
China, as a rising power, does have its attributes. That means resentment and jealousy will rise in the Japanese psychic. Even though Japan is China’s third-largest trading partner, it means nothing to Japan because that type of love underestimates the authenticity in how they view China; a nation built by undignified peasants.
Once a nation becomes accustomed with their economic power in a region, it is incomprehensible in how their admiration turns into anxiety. I have a sneaking suspicion that China’s central command was thrilled when Russian jets flew within 50 feet of a US destroyer. In fact, John Kerry described the behavior of the SU-24 pilots as irresponsible and provocative. Russia couldn’t care less since the US destroyer was in close proximity of a Russian naval base in the Baltic Sea.
China does understand how provocative democracy is at times because of Japan’s solicitation of the US to get involved in the rebalancing of the Asia-Pacific region by using freedom of navigation, international law, and human rights. China decides to call out the US human rights issues into question as a device to propagate its own interests and cement its dominance in the Asia-Pacific region.
The model the US is using is the freedom of navigation and human rights to legitimize their maneuvering in the Asia-Pacific region. It solidifies the bilateral relationship between Japan and the US to influence the region without having China breathing down their necks. Japan feels the Russian jet incident sends a clear message in the geopolitical world: if the US can not contain Russia, then how the hell are they going to contain China? That means Japan has to rely on the US to contain China and Russia in order to feel secure. For Japan, it is a game of mathematics. Their collective organization can not accept the #3 position in economic power while China creeps into the #2 spot.
China is eyeing US military plans to station six F-15 aircrafts in Finland and artillery in Norway; two nations sharing borders with Russia. China is one of the main sources of foreign direct investment in the world. Finland is seriously engaged with China and maintains good cooperative trade relations. Finland loves the way China has become a major powerhouse in Asia and a leading country globally. China emphasizes non-interference with Finland’s internal problems and focuses on improving economic relations with its checkbook mentality.
Russia’s and China’s military partnership has solidified. Russian foreign minister Sergey Lavrov stated, “Cooperation is extremely important at a time when outside interference in domestic affairs of sovereign states and attempts to impose on them ways to solve problems undermines stability of the international system, sometimes leading to chaos.” The stabilizing philosophy that China and Russia are talking about is that the US should not interfere with their military, and more importantly their economic ambition and global investment.
The beauty of international law is the one who can profit the most with military and economic expansion. International order and law is delusional because it has an invisible hand that often changes the advantage of the universal order. This universal order may trigger instability in the Asia-Pacific region in the way this region shapes its nations. This could further trigger a response from a dominant nation that has the image of being the most bankable economy in the world.
To decode physical ideologies between communism and democracy, one must understand the basic influence that competes with each other by the force of nature. Both ideologies believe to preserve the truth in the role they plan in stabilization. Remember, if democracy does not wage war on democracy, the philosophy itself tests our understanding that communist countries do not wage war with themselves. If the United States is viewed as a stable influence in the whole Asia-Pacific region, then it’s fair to say that China should not be viewed as a constructive power in Asia.
Russia’s economy is based on geopolitical oil. In their view, they want to remain an equal force to the United States even though they don’t have the viable economy that China, Japan, and the United States have. Their maneuvering is strategic in terms of influence; meaning they wait and become opportunistic by leading with example. Russian Energy Minister Alexander Novak indicated, “We don’t have facts confirming what you are talking about at our disposal”, referring to US and Saudi relations. The talks in Doha, Qatar reached no conclusion in the freezing of oil output.
This begs the question: If Saudi Arabia and the US have a close relationship, especially with oil, then who’s in charge of dictating the prices? When oil periodically rose to levels that threatened U.S. economic growth, certain Presidents could rely on Saudi Arabia to increase production and decrease the pain at the pumps. However, the ultimate paradigm is changing in terms of Saudi Arabia and Israel being in collusion with each other due to U.S. interest shifting to Iran. In economic circles, we also need to consider NATO's position and its strategic alliance with U.S. interests. Is NATO's interest the pivot to Asia? If so, are they taking into account religion, norms, historical alliances, and even how U.S. multinational companies work? Could the pivot of Asia be achieved with U.S. companies partnering up and investing their resources in China, Russia, Malaysia, Saudi Arabia, and so forth without the intervention of the U.S. government? OPEC has no bearing on a priori acceptance of perfect competition as opposed to imperfect competition.
A swing producer like Saudi Arabia needs a swing buyer to purchase their spare capacity. Raising capacity may have a short-term effect on U.S. production due to lack of investments in bringing new oil wells into production. However, Saudi Arabia's motives are quite different than what's happening in the U.S. oil renaissance. They know the U.S. oil trend is down. Their main pivot and goal in 2035 is the Asia-Pacific region whereby growth in terms of population and the urbanization of China is the source of OPEC's revenue growth. Saudi Arabia also feels that Russia plays an integral part in their growth prospects into this region. Just recently, and we need to decipher Russian propaganda and relevant news, newspaper TASS reported that Russian Energy Minister Alexander Novak relaxed his stance against Saudi Arabia and indicated that the drop of oil has nothing to do with the economic war against Russia. He simply stated that it is a temporary misbalance in oil.
OPEC is a shared monopoly that includes the participation of Russia and Brazil. That is why the price of oil is not as simple as supply and demand. My question is has this doctrine to the pivot to Asia manifested itself to become an oligopoly? Does China have the right to determine their own destiny in economic trade? Or, are we to contain China because of their ambition in the Asia-Pacific region? So why do the rules have to be determined in terms of economic trade in the Asia-Pacific region by the U.S.? This manifest destiny in the Asia-Pacific region is contrary to the fundamental beliefs in the stability of the global economy. Russia is also ideally placed to serve as an energy hub, sitting between the markets of Europe and Asia, with the latter expected to be the largest energy demand centre by far in the years ahead. The recent 30-year deal between Russia and China for Gazprom to deliver Russian gas to China is a clear sign that Asian demand will grow significantly in the coming decades.
Russia’s involvement in the Middle East is a sustainable process whereby they want to influence the region. However, underneath the veil of the meeting in Doha, Qatar was not so much of coming up with an agreement for oil, but for Russia to show their influence no matter how insignificant this meeting was. The real issue was the Russian jets and how they influenced China to assert their influence in the region and to not be provoked by dominant competitors.
What is strange is the humiliation; no different than a man getting slapped in the face. The problem with this is that the United States will be ready for China. A monkey can not slap a gorilla and get away with it; that’s simple Darwinist theory.