SCO do something?
The State Department hatches the idea of quarreling Russia with its neighbors.
The anniversary summit of the Shanghai Cooperation Organization (SCO), founded in 2001, is scheduled to be held September 16-17 in Dushanbe, the correspondent of The Moscow Post reports.
The regional international association includes Russia, China, India, Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, Pakistan, Tajikistan, Uzbekistan. The observer status is Belarus, Mongolia, Iran, Afghanistan. Armenia, Azerbaijan, Cambodia, Nepal, Turkey and Sri Lanka have the status of partners in the SCO dialogue. This year's presidency is moving from Russia to Tajikistan.
It is clear that for the summit participants the central issue will be the situation in Afghanistan. It is also logical to assume that the participation in the SCO of such powers as Russia, China and India, as well as Pakistan, will give special weight to the 20th session of the SCO. In the mosaic of sometimes complex relations between countries in this "square," the ties between Russia and China are distinguished by stability and a high level of political confidence. And this is very worrying for Washington, as well as Brussels and Tokyo.
Dozens of analysts in the capitals of the collective West are seriously engaged in developing scenarios for undermining these ties. These ties are believed to threaten the strategic interests of "democracies." It is no coincidence that EU High Representative for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy Josep Borrel said recently that the European Union should not allow Russia and China to take control of the situation in Afghanistan.
Aaron Mitchell, former assistant secretary of state for European and Eurasian affairs in Donald Trump's administration after his resignation in 2019, continues to think about the influence of Russia and China in international affairs. There is a demand for such reflections. In particular, from the analytical department of the Pentagon. Generously paid service reports develop into articles.
One version of Mitchell's revised report was recently published in The National Interest magazine. The fact that the author decided to set out in the article "A Strategy for Avoiding Two-Front War" may provide an idea of how the brains of former high-ranking government officials with "access to the ears" of those who make decisions in Washington are arranged.
Patience cannot be destroyed
So, it all depends on the comma! Undermining the strategic partnership between Russia and China is becoming a priority goal for Washington. If you like, an obsession, a dilemma, a task that Washington does not know how to solve. It is believed that these two countries are the main threat to the interests of the United States in Europe and Asia. Even without entering into allied relations, Moscow and Beijing may threaten American interests, the author believes.
Concern is also heightened by the fact that during the second half of the last century the United States exceeded its potential opponents in terms of production volumes, military potential and the "range" of its armed forces. These tools have blunted over time, America's military-economic capabilities are no longer the same. Oceans and friendly countries at the borders of the United States no longer give a sense of invulnerability. In weapons systems, there is a lag behind Russia. In relations with China, decisive economic superiority has been lost.
What to do when Russia, in the author's opinion, is too hostile (read strong) to lure it to its side. And China has gone too far in its rise to be deterred. For a classic confrontation with both powers at the same time, America may not have enough strength, and this is risky!
And then there is the failure in Afghanistan, which added uncertainty to Washington, undermined the confidence of NATO allies, sympathetic countries. Obviously, the Mitchell report, commissioned by the Pentagon, and an article for the magazine that appeared in August, were being prepared before the chaotic evacuation from Kabul. This flight has changed a lot in the United States itself.
How the "sick" portrayed the "doctor"
Excluding nuclear war, Mitchell writes, the main threat to the United States is the problem of "contemporaneity," namely a hypothetical war on two fronts with the leading powers of Eurasia. Hence the main goal of the strategy is to prevent such a war. Already not bad, if you put emphasis on "prevent"! But the author goes further, his advice is far from pacifism, and rather close to schizophrenia. He addresses examples from history and states that Russia should be forced to détente with the collective West on "Western" conditions.
According to the author, the pandemic COVID-19 increases the imbalance between the Russian Federation and China in the economy. Western sanctions lead to increased dependence of the Russian Federation on Chinese finance and markets. The goal should be to sharpen the "fear problem" of China and lead the Russian leadership to defuse relations with the West.
If we had not seen this publication ourselves, we thought that the text was taken from the history of schizophrenic disease.
And then, according to the author, since Washington has nothing tangible than he could bargain, a way should be found to time the confrontation with China and Russia.
Did the train leave or leave?
The problem with former US Deputy Secretary of State Aaron Mitchell, proposing options for an active strategy to undermine the strategic partnership between Russia and China, is that he does not take into account the changes taking place in both Russia and China. And his knowledge of the history of Europe can hardly serve as a key to understanding the peculiarities of the policies of the great powers in an environment of interdependence.
Mitchell does not take into account the internal state of America. The task of the ruling elite of the United States today is not to choose between an active and passive strategy to "drive a wedge between Russia and China." In the face of internal system failures, Washington can and should postpone the task of "breaking through" non-existent threats. The US also does not need to spend forces on a strategy of "preventing war on two fronts," unless they themselves risk starting one. Recently, American politicians have been running far ahead of the "steam locomotive" of real national defense needs.
The scandalous conclusion of the "Afghan mission" added explosive material to the internal schism exposed by the Trump presidency. The split deepened with his expulsion from the White House. And Joe Biden's order to withdraw troops from Afghanistan was "one of the worst foreign policy decisions in American history." This assessment was given by the leader of the Republicans in the US Senate Mitch McConnell.
The UN Security Council held a meeting on the situation in Afghanistan. The Shanghai Cooperation Organization is likely to deal with the post-war settlement in that country.
European NATO countries will switch to hydrogen. Everyone will do their own thing. In the US itself, internal problems, including public debt, racism, homeless people, crime, health care and others, are on the line. Someone suggested that Washington "invade" America itself to solve at least some of them.