If the split was "fake" -- which may be a poor analytical framing choice -- why then the contradiction as between your complaining of more trade and engagement on the one hand (presumably from at least 1980-2016 and again from 2021-2024) while simultaneously complaining of the Trump Administration's attempts to create or exasperate a split (2017-2021)?
Of post-cold war integration across Russia and China, you write:
" ... what was the response of the Americans? More trade and engagement. Fast forward to the 2020s and we continued to ignore the growing Sino-Russian threat. Most distressing was the Trump Administration’s strategy of looking for “splits” within the camp of our adversaries."
This is completely contradictory (one none too exceptional in this paper). The Trump Admin represented a unique break in US policy as regards a reversal at one degree or another of previous modes of engagement with China, premised on the goals of both freeing America from Chinese dependence and furthering any split that may exist as between Russia and China (and India). Why then is that a point of criticism with you, since you also criticize the previous 40-year policy stance as well, a largely bi-partisan one, which has resumed not by the way since Trump left office in measures at least (albeit some of the Trump tariffs remain in place, interestingly).
So which is it? You criticize both U.S. engagement towards integration as well as U.S. attempts to exploit differences across possible adversarial blocs and develop U.S. industrial independence.
Exploiting the split with China was a disaster. It should have never been considered, no matter the bona fides of the split. Applying the same model to our relations with Russia is making the same mistake all over again.
For the record, I mentioned that most probably the split was vastly overstated by the US and much of the political establishment at the time (egged on by big business).
I think it was very possible. I hesitate to say fully yes because I’m looking for smoking gun evidence. I try to be careful when tackling these controversial points. Goitsyn was 100% right about the split with Yugoslavia and Romania. I wrote papers on Substack on that point.
What you call complaining is in reality sounding an alarm regarding the degradation of our industrial capabilities. Top generals like John A. Wickham, Brig. Gen. John Adams, former SecDef Weinberger, and many others have sounded the same alarm. So to call it complaining is a bit of a pejorative and indicates that you may be trivializing an otherwise massive structural problem.
A semantic distinction without a difference as I far as I can tell. You prefer "sounding an alarm," or "yelling 'fire'," to "complaining." Okay, fine. Anyway, the alarm went off long ago, most prominently perhaps in the political arena by Pat Buchanan and then Trump. And still you didn't address my point -- you call Trump's policies "most distressing" when they represented a break -- a fire alarm pull itself (to use the analogy) -- on what had been more unfettered trade and engagement. Why are they "most distressing?" They are -- or should be, as far as you've articulated your view -- consistent with your view. Perhaps not far enough but if so that should not be described as "most distressing." It would make sense if you had written Trump didn't go far enough.
Well, that's open to interpretation. My interest here is in trying to understand your writing -- whatever opinion you may have. As I see it, you have lumped together the seemingly unfettered engagement with China on the one hand, from '72 first, then MFN status from '80 on, and as continued through and since PNTR in 2000, with -- finally, one might say, some push-back in the form of Trump tariffs and other policies on the other hand. The latter was a break from the former in significant degree but you don't acknowledge that as such in the piece. And it's unclear why the spectrum of policies isn't more delineated. That's the issue from my perspective.
My paper is on the Sino Soviet split and its relations with the Russian Federation and how the split was over exaggerated (at best). I’ll be discussing my views on Trump in a future paper.
Whatever. Distinctions evidently not your thing. For the last time, and we can leave Trump out of it, the introduction of tariffs viz-a-viz China after 2017 represented an acknowledgment of your alarm-ball sounding. Maybe not enough for you but it was a break in the past 40-plus years of China policy. Yet for some reason you call that "most distressing", above even the previous forty-plus years of unfettered giveaways to China. It doesn't make sense, your rhetorical logic.
The Sino-Soviet split, whether fake, alleged, exaggerated, understated or some combination or degree of distinction thereof, is irrelevant to this point.
India, China are burying the hatchet: A challenge for the US?
ET OnlineLast Updated: Oct 22, 2024, 01:29:00 PM IST
"...
A Russia-China-India alliance?
Will resolution of border dispute between India and China pose a challenge to the US of closer ties between Russia, China and India who could lead the Global South as a counterweight to Western hegemony? It could be too early to say that because India and China has agreed to disengage on the border while the differences over the border persist and China is known to be rigid about its border disputes. Moreover, an India and China have too much of distrust and past baggage to allow any kind of close cooperation that becomes a challenge to the US or the West.
Yes, I am advocating a return to a combination of American School and New Deal forms of capitalism which emphasizes production over financial speculation or what Michael Hudson has referred to as rentier capitalism. (As an aside, Dr. Hudson comes from a completely different political and economic tradition than I do).
Second -- Soviet Union helped Vietnam of course in it's war of national liberation, as did the Chinese, to a point, until they invaded Vietnam (yet again, and again unsuccessfully).
My “problem” (and America's problem) at the moment is that you and millions of other Americans have been zombified by 60-plus years of KGB* disinformation (e.g., “The Vietnam War was all about the CIA’s heroin trade and American defense contractors' making oodles and gobs of money from the murdering of people of color!!!,” “Clay Shaw was a highly paid CIA contract source — (whatever that is) — and masterminded the JFK assassination!!!,” “Oswald was just a patsy!!!,” ”9/11 was an inside job!!!,” the CIA created AIDS to decimate homosexuals!!!,” the CIA created the crack cocaine epidemic to decimate Blacks!!!,” the DNC hack was an inside job!!!,” and Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes!!!!! -- Russiagate Was A Deep State Hoax!!!!!!!"), active measures,” and “inside man” / “outside man” strategic deception counterintelligence operations waged against us and our NATO allies.
If the split was "fake" -- which may be a poor analytical framing choice -- why then the contradiction as between your complaining of more trade and engagement on the one hand (presumably from at least 1980-2016 and again from 2021-2024) while simultaneously complaining of the Trump Administration's attempts to create or exasperate a split (2017-2021)?
Of post-cold war integration across Russia and China, you write:
" ... what was the response of the Americans? More trade and engagement. Fast forward to the 2020s and we continued to ignore the growing Sino-Russian threat. Most distressing was the Trump Administration’s strategy of looking for “splits” within the camp of our adversaries."
This is completely contradictory (one none too exceptional in this paper). The Trump Admin represented a unique break in US policy as regards a reversal at one degree or another of previous modes of engagement with China, premised on the goals of both freeing America from Chinese dependence and furthering any split that may exist as between Russia and China (and India). Why then is that a point of criticism with you, since you also criticize the previous 40-year policy stance as well, a largely bi-partisan one, which has resumed not by the way since Trump left office in measures at least (albeit some of the Trump tariffs remain in place, interestingly).
So which is it? You criticize both U.S. engagement towards integration as well as U.S. attempts to exploit differences across possible adversarial blocs and develop U.S. industrial independence.
Exploiting the split with China was a disaster. It should have never been considered, no matter the bona fides of the split. Applying the same model to our relations with Russia is making the same mistake all over again.
For the record, I mentioned that most probably the split was vastly overstated by the US and much of the political establishment at the time (egged on by big business).
Do you think Golitsyn over-exaggerated?
It’s hard to tell. I think Golitsyn was more on target on China than Nixon, Kissinger, Bush etc.
Rephrased:
Was Golitsyn wrong when he said the Sino-Soviet Split was a hoax?
I think it was very possible. I hesitate to say fully yes because I’m looking for smoking gun evidence. I try to be careful when tackling these controversial points. Goitsyn was 100% right about the split with Yugoslavia and Romania. I wrote papers on Substack on that point.
Thanks for writing the comment. A few points:
What you call complaining is in reality sounding an alarm regarding the degradation of our industrial capabilities. Top generals like John A. Wickham, Brig. Gen. John Adams, former SecDef Weinberger, and many others have sounded the same alarm. So to call it complaining is a bit of a pejorative and indicates that you may be trivializing an otherwise massive structural problem.
A semantic distinction without a difference as I far as I can tell. You prefer "sounding an alarm," or "yelling 'fire'," to "complaining." Okay, fine. Anyway, the alarm went off long ago, most prominently perhaps in the political arena by Pat Buchanan and then Trump. And still you didn't address my point -- you call Trump's policies "most distressing" when they represented a break -- a fire alarm pull itself (to use the analogy) -- on what had been more unfettered trade and engagement. Why are they "most distressing?" They are -- or should be, as far as you've articulated your view -- consistent with your view. Perhaps not far enough but if so that should not be described as "most distressing." It would make sense if you had written Trump didn't go far enough.
It’s distressing because we never seem to learn from our colossal foreign policy mistakes.
Well, that's open to interpretation. My interest here is in trying to understand your writing -- whatever opinion you may have. As I see it, you have lumped together the seemingly unfettered engagement with China on the one hand, from '72 first, then MFN status from '80 on, and as continued through and since PNTR in 2000, with -- finally, one might say, some push-back in the form of Trump tariffs and other policies on the other hand. The latter was a break from the former in significant degree but you don't acknowledge that as such in the piece. And it's unclear why the spectrum of policies isn't more delineated. That's the issue from my perspective.
My paper is on the Sino Soviet split and its relations with the Russian Federation and how the split was over exaggerated (at best). I’ll be discussing my views on Trump in a future paper.
They are all the logical succession of the policies of appeasement.
And you do realize that Graves, whom you thanked for writing on Schecter, is an unabashed Marxist, yes?
Whatever. Distinctions evidently not your thing. For the last time, and we can leave Trump out of it, the introduction of tariffs viz-a-viz China after 2017 represented an acknowledgment of your alarm-ball sounding. Maybe not enough for you but it was a break in the past 40-plus years of China policy. Yet for some reason you call that "most distressing", above even the previous forty-plus years of unfettered giveaways to China. It doesn't make sense, your rhetorical logic.
The Sino-Soviet split, whether fake, alleged, exaggerated, understated or some combination or degree of distinction thereof, is irrelevant to this point.
And from today's news:
India, China are burying the hatchet: A challenge for the US?
ET OnlineLast Updated: Oct 22, 2024, 01:29:00 PM IST
"...
A Russia-China-India alliance?
Will resolution of border dispute between India and China pose a challenge to the US of closer ties between Russia, China and India who could lead the Global South as a counterweight to Western hegemony? It could be too early to say that because India and China has agreed to disengage on the border while the differences over the border persist and China is known to be rigid about its border disputes. Moreover, an India and China have too much of distrust and past baggage to allow any kind of close cooperation that becomes a challenge to the US or the West.
..."
Read more at:
https://economictimes.indiatimes.com/news/india/india-china-are-burying-the-hatchet-a-challenge-for-the-us/articleshow/114432536.cms?utm_source=contentofinterest&utm_medium=text&utm_campaign=cppst
To put it more bluntly: Are you advocating for a "protectionist," "America-First" policy? That would seem to be the direct implication of this paper.
Yes, I am advocating a return to a combination of American School and New Deal forms of capitalism which emphasizes production over financial speculation or what Michael Hudson has referred to as rentier capitalism. (As an aside, Dr. Hudson comes from a completely different political and economic tradition than I do).
Dear Grasshopper,
Did the USSR help China and North Vietnam defeat the U.S. in 1975?
Your Mentor,
-- Tom
First -- U.S. was not defeated.
Second -- Soviet Union helped Vietnam of course in it's war of national liberation, as did the Chinese, to a point, until they invaded Vietnam (yet again, and again unsuccessfully).
Of course!!! Humanitarian and freedom-loving country that the USSR / Russia was (and still is), it supported “self determination”!!!
(sarcasm)
Which?
Self-Determination was Marx at the First Communist International, 1865. Brought into the League of Nations by Woodrow Wilson.
Is it your problem that Russia isn't Marxist enough? (I think it is.)
My “problem” (and America's problem) at the moment is that you and millions of other Americans have been zombified by 60-plus years of KGB* disinformation (e.g., “The Vietnam War was all about the CIA’s heroin trade and American defense contractors' making oodles and gobs of money from the murdering of people of color!!!,” “Clay Shaw was a highly paid CIA contract source — (whatever that is) — and masterminded the JFK assassination!!!,” “Oswald was just a patsy!!!,” ”9/11 was an inside job!!!,” the CIA created AIDS to decimate homosexuals!!!,” the CIA created the crack cocaine epidemic to decimate Blacks!!!,” the DNC hack was an inside job!!!,” and Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes!!!!! -- Russiagate Was A Deep State Hoax!!!!!!!"), active measures,” and “inside man” / “outside man” strategic deception counterintelligence operations waged against us and our NATO allies.
*Today’s SVR and FSB