"German port faces US sanctions over Russia" Topic

US is threatening sanctions on a German port that is involved in the construction of a massive pipeline that would double German gas imports from Russia

link

Not necessarily military but it shows how badly divided NATO is right now and how little the Germans care about Russian expansionism.

Hm, shouldn't the USA have sanctioned Boston Harbor first?
At least back in 2018?

Beside, Germany of course has perfected the art of the deal, so the USA could have made an offer the time NYDEC rejected a certification for a gas pipeline known as Valley Lateral…chuckle…

…
And for the records of the TMP moderators, I didn't start this fire.
Billy Joel – We didn't start this fire

Since the USA themselves didn't pull out there completely till now, they obviously like it there I suspect…

Putin, like Xi, has a plan.

Make them depend upon you for energy, and then you've got a lot of leverage, if not absolute control.

Hope they can get a volume discount on the Russian version of Babbel.

We are not really privy to what goes on behind the geopolitical curtain so to speak. So I'm not going to cry, "The Sky is Falling!" … at least not yet. Or probably anytime soon.

That being said, the US and the PRC and even Russia will work things out somehow. Before any shooting starts … It's not to any of the 3 nations' advantage to go wet.

The bottom line is still the bottom line … 💰💴💵💶💷💸💳 …

IMO … We need to be as concerned or more about Jihadis, Iran, etc. Albeit they still have the capabilities to kill small numbers in the West sadly. But hopefully they will keep it in their own backyards and fight among themselves over generations of religious, tribal and ethnic differences without affecting Europe or North America.

Unless one of these types gets a nuke, than all bets are off. I know of at least one case where the US managed to get a hold a missing/sold/stolen Russian(?) nuke. A few years after the "end(?)" of the Cold War.

Somewhere in the Mid East, last I heard it was in US hands/Camp in the Jordanian desert. US Hands = CIA, FBI, Spec Ops, RANGERs, USAF, etc.,. I'm sure it is long gone from there. A long time ago. To where … ? Few know I'm sure …

Again the World dodged a big bullet with the capture of that rogue nuke. But saying that … it may have happened on more than just that one occasion. And could again.

As I said we don't know what is going on "behind the scenes", "between the lines in between the lines". In a situation like this or with the geopolitical/Realpolitik going on.

, the US and the PRC and even Russia will work things out somehow. Before any shooting starts… It's not to any of the 3 nations' advantage to go wet.

Main purpose of military for a large power is not defence, it's power projection.

The application of military power is down to whether the aggressor believes that the risk of military failure is low.

In the old days of the Cold War there were plenty of hot actions be it slugfest over Korea, proxy wars in Vietnam, Afghanistan, Angola etc, shooting down western spy planes or launching artillery barrages at Taiwanese islands.

That was with 2 superpowers who had clearly established rules of engagement including ensuring other lesser powers were held in line (eg American humiliation of English and French over Suez Crisis).

The world is now more complicated than 1945-91.

- The US power is in decline especially in economic field.

- China's star is ascendant and it has clear ambitions.

- Russia is now a major agitator.

- EU is militarily weak and reliant on US for defence more than in 1945-91 period.

- Lesser powers such as Iran, Turkey, Saudi Arabia and India, South Korea are all trying to lay their claims to power and are often contradicting the major players (Russia and US).

- US power is viewed as waning in Asia.

- There are no rules of engagement and any that are are complicated by actions of minor players.

- Major European and US world views and policy direction is starting to oppose each other. This started over Russia before Trump came to power – western Europe still eagerly engages with Russia whilst the East and US have a more apprehensive attitude. It has since expanded to attitudes on Libya and Iran and at a more economic level, China.

- NATO is no longer that stable. In fact it appears to be at best inert and stagnating and at worst, starting to unravel.

- There do not appear to be any more clear triggers in terms of what would invoke a military response.

Sooo the opportunity for military escalation is probably greater than before and will be until a new paradigm is established. And if that new paradigm is multi-polar then we still risk conflict as it is well proven that conflict is more more probable in a multi-power paradigm than one dominated by single or dual players.

Main purpose of military for a large power is not defence, it's power projection.

Yes discussed that here:
TMP link

The application of military power is down to whether the aggressor believes that the risk of military failure is low.

As I said … It's not to any of the 3 nations' advantage to go wet.

The bottom line is still the bottom line … 💰💴💵💶💷💸💳 …

Plus the PRC's economy is not doing very well overall …

In the old days of the Cold War

I know I was there, '79-'90 on active duty. Panama, Korea and a short time in West Germany[who would have thought Germany would reunite without a huge loss of Blood & and even more treasure!].

The world is now more complicated than 1945-91.

Very much so. If for no other reason than there are a lot of players that have nukes. About 8 IIRC ? With more trying to get them. Again including Jihadis and Iran. Which I feel would be a bigger nuclear threat than any others. For obvious reasons …

The US power is in decline especially in economic field.

Maybe …but still is the largest economy only rivaled by the PRC. The US state of California has the 8th largest economy in the World. That is pretty big considering there are about 195 nations on the planet. With 193 being in the UN.

China's star is ascendant and it has clear ambitions.

That has been going on for quite sometime really. The still "want to rule the world", if what analysis, Intel, etc., say is accurate, and I believe it is for the most part.

Russia is now a major agitator.

Yes and has been a few short years after the Cold War was over. The old hard line Nationalists, i.e. Communists regained power. So to speak. They know they can't really compete military on a large scale or economically for that matter. Their economy is not doing that well either.

EU is militarily weak and reliant on US for defence more than in 1945-91 period.

Very true … they don't see the Russians as that big a threat if at all. And in reality the USSR during the Cold War really wouldn't/couldn't cross the IGB without WWIII and probably some NBC coming into play. And again that is to one's advantage. They would have be very lucky to even get near the Rhine, with even a much less chance of getting to the Channel. And again to what end ?

It was said at a round table discussion at my alma mater I was invited to attend a few years ago. "Russian wants to destroy us and the Chinese want to own us." … I think that is still a pretty good evaluation.

Have any read or heard Gordan Chang speak in the media? A US China expert, very knowledgeable. And seems to me pretty accurate on this topic. link

US power is viewed as waning in Asia

And yet the US Military has troops, ships and aircraft on the seas and thru out the region.

Sooo the opportunity for military escalation is probably greater than before and will be until a new paradigm is established.

Disagree … especially if you are talking about the 3 major powers going to war among themselves … Minor players, jihadis, etc. the chance of some bloodshed there is still present. But in many places in the Mid East, Africa, etc. is back to being, if it ever left, "brushfire wars". Places like Syria, Iraq and A'stan will remain to be backwaters that will spend most of their time fighting among themselves etc. Over their usual centuries old reasons, e.g. religion, ethnicities, tribalism, etc. With the major powers getting involved only on a very low level. E.g. Russia selling/giving weapons to the Taliban. Business as usual … again …

And yet the US Military has troops, ships and aircraft on the seas and thru out the region

Power is more than just military. There is diplomatic and economic power and USA is losing here. And without those military power is itself a moot point and often unsustainable.

The US alliance system in SE Asia is no longer existent. Philippines and Thailand are increasingly closer to China, Malaysia and Indonesia are stubbornly independent and the Malaysians pander to China when it economically suits them.

That leaves Singapore, a city state with no strategic depth.

Even Australia is unwilling to get involved in the region as much as it used to. They just refused to conduct freedom of navigation excercises in the SC Sea yet up to the 1980s maintained permanent fighter deployments in the area and rotated infantry units.

Disagree … especially if you are talking about the 3 major powers going to war among themselves …

It is commonly held political science theory that large scale conflict is more likely to arise in a multi-polar world.

Look at any of the major global conflicts – 100 Year War, 7 Years War, Napoleonic Wars, WWI, WWII. All during periods of multipower competition.

Stability comes in uni-polar or bipolar worlds – Britain's utter dominance for most of 19th century stopped major conflict as did the bipolar world of the Cold War and unipolar world of the USA (1991-2012).

In multipolar environments there's no one strong enough to force peace nor is there any consensus on rules of engagement nor is there any one clearly dominant power.

Power is more than just military. There is diplomatic and economic power and USA

Yes I've said that before …

And yes much of the countries in SE Asia don't really want or have the power to get into a war with the PRC as US allies. That is almost a given. And like in most cases the UN will be next to useless. But may email "a harshly worded letter to the PRC/CCP leadership" … 😆

It is commonly held political science theory that large scale conflict is more likely to arise in a multi-polar world.

I'm not a political scientist, but I still think a major war breaking out among the US, PRC and or Russia is very limited.

In multipolar environments there's no one strong enough to force peace nor is there any consensus on rules of engagement nor is there any one clearly dominant power.

That may very well be the case, but again I don't think the US, PRC and Russia will go to war, anytime soon if ever, IMO.

There is the chance of the lose of too much blood and treasure. Of course in the past both the PRC and USSR/Russia were more than willing to take high losses to achieve their goals, etc.

That may very well be the case, but again I don't think the US, PRC and Russia will go to war, anytime soon if ever, IMO.
There is the chance of the lose of too much blood and treasure. Of course in the past both the PRC and USSR/Russia were more than willing to take high losses to achieve their goals, etc.

I agree the likelihood of war now is limited albeit growing.

But we are at the start of a monumental shift in power (and even that took 40 years). And as the US continues to decline relative to China, I think the chances for conflict will grow ever more likely especially as other powers attempt to throw their weight.

At some point too nuclear weapons will be used in anger again. It is impossible to stop that from happening.

as the US continues to decline relative to China,

I tend to disagree, don't underestimate the USA … but I'll admit I'm biased.

At some point too nuclear weapons will be used in anger again. It is impossible to stop that from happening.

I think the probably is very small, with the possibility being from a rogue player, e.g. jihadis, etc.

Regardless I hope you are wrong.