Given a choice between supporting Ukraine against Russia and supporting Taiwan against China, which should the U. S. choose?
If your answer is both, you need to explain how we’ll do that with our present industrial base and fiscal situation. What do you plan to cut from the budget? If you don’t plan to cut anything, how will you realize enough revenue—just raising marginal tax rates is not enough. The federal government is already at WWII levels and there are limits to how much can be extracted from the private economy.
Update
Possibly a pretty timely first question given this report by Jeremy Herb and Zachary Cohen at CNN:
US Director of National Intelligence Avril Haines told Congress Wednesday that Chinese President Xi Jinping is likely to press Taiwan and try to undercut US influence in the coming years as he begins a third term as president.
While Beijing has stepped up its public criticism of the US, Haines told the Senate Intelligence Committee that the intelligence community assesses that China still believes it “benefits most by preventing a spiraling of tensions and by preserving stability in its relationship with the United States.â€
I have no idea what “press” means in this context or what President Xi is likely to do. Russian President Putin had Russia’s military invade Ukraine shortly after his 71st birthday. How old is Xi Jinping? 69? These milestones have a way of focusing the mind.
Taiwan. C’mon.
The way Washington is conducting foreign policy right now vis a vis China and Russia, the choice is both.
Don’t forget Iran too, or North Korea.
I thought the answer is obvious; we’ll do it via Uncle Jerome. Money printer go brrrrr…… That’s partially how WWII was funded.
The public debt in 1941 was 44% as a percentage of GDP. Running the printing press was not as poor a strategy then as now.
I have posted this before quite recently, but it bears repeating (from al Jazeera, but all over the internet):
“The United States and China are destined for conflict if Washington refuses to “hit the brakes†as it “speed[s] down the wrong path†of engagement with Beijing, China’s new Foreign Minister Qin Gang said Tuesday during his first media appearance in the role.”
That’s Qin’s very first press statement in his new role. If that is not a war warning, I don’t know what is. Do we need a nuke on Yokohama or San Diego? This administration desperately needs an intervention. It needs to stop the drugs and get a grip. Russia gave us a war warning a year ago, before the SMO.
For me, it wasn’t the quote from the foreign minister that raised eyebrows (the FM is only on the central committee, which is more the equivalent to the deputy secretary of state).
It was the quote from Xi stating, “Western countries, led by the United States, have implemented all-round containment and suppression of China, which has brought unprecedented severe challenges to the country’s development”. It is a marked change of tone for Xi to say this so directly.
I interpret it as having analogues with Putin’s speech at the Munich security conference in 2007. That unless the “West” / “US” adjust the current trajectory of relations and figure out a way for both sides to accommodate the others red lines, hot conflict will occur.
Just as a point of reference. I am not a fan of the Chinese communist party; and Xi has a giant role for where things are, but US policy has been extremely aggressive towards China over the past 3 years.
As a point of reference. China’s policy and actions to date with respect to Ukraine has been the same as India and the Arab world (neutrality, no weapon supplies, and growing trade with Russia). Yet only China has been sanctioned and called out for supporting Russia.
Or the sanctions on China’s semiconductor industry. It was unpleasant but survivable when EUV technology exports was banned, but the banning of DUV technology exports that has been exported to China for 15 years and attempts to collapse homegrown efforts recalls the withdrawal of Soviet advisors prior to the Sino-Soviet split.