I don’t believe I’ve ever linked to Tucker Carlson before let alone embedded a video of his like the one above but I found his interview of George Friedman very interesting. I listened to about 20 minutes of it and then downloaded the transcript and read that. I recommend you read the transcript. If, like me, you read a lot faster than they talk you can get the information from it without investing as much time as you would in listening to the interview.
I found Dr. Friedman’s remarks very interesting and, indeed, very closely aligned with my own views. They included:
- U. S. security is founded on naval power
- The U. S. dominates space
- The outcome to date of the war in Ukraine has largely been the consequence of intelligence derived by the Ukrainians from the U. S., which I found somewhat surprising
- However many ships the Chinese have China does not present a tactical vulnerability to the U. S. because they are, essentially, bottled up which I also found surprising
- The dependence of U. S. companies on Chinese industrial production is a major tactical and strategic vulnerability
Listen to or read the whole thing.
I’m not as convinced as Dr. Friedman is that President Trump is a structurally significant president in the way that Jackson, Lincoln, T. Roosevelt, and FDR were. As I’ve said before I think Trump is his own worst enemy, particularly his shooting off his mouth and his ignorance of (and lack of patience with) the way things work in the federal government. We will see.
American strategists are fixated on the idea they can impose a blockade on China, with impunity, and not involve anyone else. But look at the map. Such a blockade also shuts down trade with Vietnam, Malaysia, Taiwan, and South Korea, and it greatly reduces trade with Japan and the Philippines. The vast bulk of all those countries trade is with Europe and the Middle East; trade with the US is relatively minor.
Moreover, the BRI was created for just such an action by the US, and China can get adequate supplies of energy, food, and other resources via its Eurasian network of highways, railroads, pipelines, electrical networks, airports… So closing the various straits actually hurts American allies more than China.
Then there is the issue of who is involved. A war on China is, of necessity, a war on Russia and North Korea, too. A US attack on China is an existential threat to them, also. It is absolutely certain they will engage the US.
China, Russia, and North Korea all have missiles and submarines that can reach the US, so the US West Coast and inland as far as the Mississippi can and will be attacked. Russia and China also operate heavy bombers with the range and payload to attack all American bases in the Pacific.
Of course, with Russia involved, this is WW III, it is an Atlantic and Pacific war, an Asian war, a European war, and a Middle East war.
Russia submarines would operate off the Atlantic Coast and in the Caribbean. Oil shipments from the Middle East would be cutoff, and Europe would be pretty much shutdown.
It is hard to see how such a war, worldwide in scope, would not go nuclear.
By the way, the US air and naval war on the Houthis is relevant here. The US Navy and Air Force have been unable to open the Red Sea for Israeli shipping, despite massive air and missile attacks on suspected Houthi installations. The Houthis have downed at least 21 MQ 9 Reapers (at $30 M per) and caused directly or indirectly the loss of three F-18’s. Three carrier strike groups have been employed, and each has had to withdraw after exhausting their air defense missiles. There are rumors that some of the ships involved have suffered damage, but the Navy is silent on that matter.
So, if the US Navy and Air Force cannot defeat the Houthis, why does anyone expect them to succeed in a war against China, especially since that is also a war against North Korea and Russia?
Do you thing the US Navy and Air Force can defeat North Korea? Really?
Very interesting. Thank you for bringing it to our attention, Dave.
Only one observation. Trump may or may not be structurally significant. But as I have said for years, he is a disruptor and threat to the establishment. That’s why TDS exists, and why the left believes he must be destroyed at all costs. The grift is threatened.