Discussing Biden's Potential China Policy

  • Thread starter Deleted member 15887
  • Start date

Bellum_Romanum

Brigadier
Registered Member
Can anyone explain to me what the hell happened to the thinking of H.R. McMaster? The dude badly wants a war with China and Russia.

U.S. Restraint Has Created an Unstable and Dangerous WorldDecades of ignoring the menaces posed by Russia and China has led the West to a precipice.

Even before the Berlin Wall fell in November 1989, Russian and Chinese militarism and belligerence were evident. In June of that year, Chinese tanks put down peaceful protests in Beijing’s Tiananmen Square, killing thousands of people. In late 1995 and early 1996, Beijing tried to intimidate Taiwan in the run-up to its first democratic election, firing missiles into Taiwanese territorial waters. In April 2001, a Chinese fighter jet rammed a U.S. reconnaissance aircraft in international airspace, forcing the naval airmen into an emergency landing in China, where they were detained for 10 days. Moscow engaged in two brutal wars against Chechnya and launched an assassination campaign against political opponents that continues to this day. In 2004, the Kremlin nearly killed then-Ukrainian presidential candidate Viktor Yushchenko in an attempt to secure victory for its preferred candidate. In 2006, a Russian agent poisoned and killed Alexander Litvinenko, a former Russian spy who had defected, and Anna Politkovskaya, an investigative journalist, was assassinated for opposing Putin’s wars. From the killing of Boris Nemtsov, a liberal critic of Putin, in 2015 to the poisoning and incarceration of dissident Alexey Navalny in 2020 to the most recent imprisonment of Russian opposition politician Vladimir Kara-Murza, Putin and his thugs have worked tirelessly to extinguish any criticism of, let alone challenge to, his iron rule.

Russia and China were emboldened, in part, because the United States undertook the greatest military drawdown since the collapse of the British empire.

Washington still did not waver from its predisposition toward restraint. Even after Putin made plain his goal of undermining the United States and the West at the 2007 Munich Security Conference, the U.S. military drawdown from Europe and Asia continued. The United States welcomed Russia into the G-7 in 1998, turning it into the G-8. China and Russia became part of the G-20 in 1999 and the World Trade Organization in 2001 and 2012, respectively. Putin’s 2008 invasion of Georgia was even rewarded with a positive “reset” of relations. The 2010 U.S. National Security Strategy called for a “stable, substantive, multidimensional relationship with Russia, based on mutual interests” and sought “Russia’s cooperation to act as a responsible partner in Europe and Asia.” Similarly, even as Chinese ships began clashing with those of their neighbors, even as China built and militarized 27 artificial islands and other outposts in the South China Sea, and even as Beijing claimed sovereignty over the sea and established air and sea superiority in an area where one-third of global trade passes, Washington remained withdrawn. The 2015 U.S. National Security Strategy “welcome[d] the rise of a stable, peaceful, and prosperous China” and sought “to develop a constructive relationship with China that delivers benefits for our two peoples and promotes security and prosperity in Asia and around the world.”

Instead, the two autocracies’ belligerence has only expanded. In 2014, Russia invaded, occupied, and annexed parts of Ukraine, initiating a long war it has now expanded. The following year, Russian troops propped up the murderous dictatorship of Syrian leader Bashar al-Assad, and soon thereafter, Putin sent his private mercenary army, the Wagner Group, into Libya. In 2016, Russia interfered in elections in Europe and the United States, exploiting domestic political divisions to sow discord and mistrust in the democratic process. Not to be outdone, the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) launched a genocide of its own citizens, imprisoned 1.8 million Uyghurs and other ethnic minorities in concentration camps and forcing them to undergo compulsory sterilization, forced labor, medical experiments, mass rape, torture, renunciation of their religious beliefs in favor of the Communist Party, cutting and selling of their hair, and organ harvesting. In 2020, Beijing cracked down in Hong Kong in direct contravention of the “one country, two systems” policy it had committed to by international treaty. Chinese soldiers also attacked Indian troops across their disputed border, initiating skirmishes leading to several dozen deaths. As if that was not enough, Beijing’s deceit, dishonesty, and dissimulation about the nature and origin of COVID-19 helped transform a local and possibly containable outbreak into a horrific global pandemic that has cost more than 15 million lives so far.

Russia and China were emboldened, in part, because the United States undertook the greatest drawdown of military power since the collapse of the British empire. In 1990, the U.S. military had about 266,000 service members stationed in Europe; by the end of 2021, it was only about 65,000 service members. In 1989, the U.S. Army had 5,000 tanks permanently stationed in West Germany alone; by 2014, there were zero on the entire continent. In 1990, the United States had 5,000 nuclear bombs forward deployed in Western Europe; today, it has around 150 nuclear bombs. Until the 2014 start of Russia’s war in Ukraine and despite NATO enlargement, not a single U.S. service member was permanently stationed farther east than during the Cold War. In Asia, where the Chinese People’s Liberation Army has more than 2 million ground force personnel and the Chinese navy is now the largest in the world, the United States’ active-duty Army has been cut by one-third since 1990. The U.S. Navy has 40 percent fewer sailors in Asia and will soon have only half the number of active warships it had stationed there in 1990. In 2019, China conducted more ballistic missile tests than the rest of the world combined. Recent reports show that China is expected to quadruple the size of its nuclear arsenal by decade’s end.

The policy of restraint continues to limit the U.S. defense budget. At the close of the century, China and Russia together spent 13 percent of what the United States spends on defense. Today, that number is 67 percent. Whereas U.S. defense spending fluctuated between 4.5 percent and 11.3 percent of GDP during the Cold War, Biden’s budget request for 2022 would have put defense spending at less than 3 percent of GDP—the lowest level since 1940, when Washington was still trying its best to stay out of international affairs. And while the White House’s recently released 2023 budget request contains a small nominal increase, rampant inflation makes it another de facto cut. By comparison, the Chinese defense budget—which is chronically understated by the CCP and does not include, for example, what local authorities spend on military bases or investments in research and development—grew 7.1 percent in 2021. And lest you be impressed by the still-ample size of U.S. spending, keep in mind that Washington spreads its military thinly, whereas Russia and China have a laser-like focus on dominating their neighbors and regions. U.S. armed forces are not only too small to deter or respond effectively to aggression, but the services have also incurred significant deferred modernization due to inadequate and unpredictable defense budgets as well as the U.S. Defense Department’s dysfunctional acquisition and procurement system. The United States is weaker, less secure, and less prepared to fight and win than at any time since the beginning of the Korean War.

Consequently, Putin launching the largest war in Europe since World War II should not have come as a surprise. For over three decades, Moscow and Beijing have eroded, flouted, mocked, and assaulted the order the United States and its allies built. Restraint encouraged that agenda as the United States and its allies dismantled the ramparts that had been vital to preserving peace and protecting the sovereignty of nations on the peripheries of two revanchist powers. And the drawdown continues—even as Russia continues its brutal invasion and China lays claim to Taiwan and the South China Sea. In its new national defense strategy, the Biden administration uses the term “integrated deterrence” to create the illusion that better coordinated policies can be substitute for modernized, ready, forward-positioned forces capable of operating at a sufficient scale to deter conflict and, should that deterrence fail, fight and win.


 

Bellum_Romanum

Brigadier
Registered Member
Consequently, Putin launching the largest war in Europe since World War II should not have come as a surprise. For over three decades, Moscow and Beijing have eroded, flouted, mocked, and assaulted the order the United States and its allies built. Restraint encouraged that agenda as the United States and its allies dismantled the ramparts that had been vital to preserving peace and protecting the sovereignty of nations on the peripheries of two revanchist powers. And the drawdown continues—even as Russia continues its brutal invasion and China lays claim to Taiwan and the South China Sea. In its new national defense strategy, the Biden administration uses the term “integrated deterrence” to create the illusion that better coordinated policies can be substitute for modernized, ready, forward-positioned forces capable of operating at a sufficient scale to deter conflict and, should that deterrence fail, fight and win.



The United States must end its unilateral restraint vis-à-vis Russia and China and be realistic about the nature of the adversaries it faces. First, the United States must rearm, and the defense budget must increase. It must pay for new capabilities that counter and exceed those China and Russia have invested in. The Joint Forces must be substantially bigger to deter Russian and Chinese aggression as well as be able to respond to multiple, simultaneous contingencies. In today’s dollars, achieving even the Cold War-era floor of spending 4.5 percent of GDP on defense would mean a $1.2 trillion budget. Second, the United States must end its diplomatic restraint. Where it can, it should counter Beijing’s and Moscow’s efforts to subvert and co-opt international institutions and turn them against their purpose. If some of those institutions are beyond rescue, the United States and likeminded partners should form new groupings to advance the originally intended values and principles. In these cases, new institutions should prove more resilient and effective than the current ones plagued by discord and corruption. The Biden administration must stop describing Russia and China as partners in arresting nuclear proliferation, combatting climate change, and curbing pandemics.

Finally, the United States must end its economic restraint against the predatory practices and outright criminal behavior of the Chinese regime. U.S. policymakers should not tolerate violations of bilateral and international trade agreements, the use of forced labor and other inhumane labor practices, and supply chains that leave U.S. national security vulnerable. Free trade only works among free people.


The United States must end its unilateral restraint vis-à-vis Russia and China and be realistic about the nature of the adversaries it faces. First, the United States must rearm, and the defense budget must increase. It must pay for new capabilities that counter and exceed those China and Russia have invested in. The Joint Forces must be substantially bigger to deter Russian and Chinese aggression as well as be able to respond to multiple, simultaneous contingencies. In today’s dollars, achieving even the Cold War-era floor of spending 4.5 percent of GDP on defense would mean a $1.2 trillion budget. Second, the United States must end its diplomatic restraint. Where it can, it should counter Beijing’s and Moscow’s efforts to subvert and co-opt international institutions and turn them against their purpose. If some of those institutions are beyond rescue, the United States and likeminded partners should form new groupings to advance the originally intended values and principles. In these cases, new institutions should prove more resilient and effective than the current ones plagued by discord and corruption. The Biden administration must stop describing Russia and China as partners in arresting nuclear proliferation, combatting climate change, and curbing pandemics. Finally, the United States must end its economic restraint against the predatory practices and outright criminal behavior of the Chinese regime. U.S. policymakers should not tolerate violations of bilateral and international trade agreements, the use of forced labor and other inhumane labor practices, and supply chains that leave U.S. national security vulnerable. Free trade only works among free people.

Putin’s latest assault on the free world—and Chinese leader Xi Jinping’s threats to do so himself—have the capability of resuscitating Washington from its comatose policy of restraint. The longer the United States operates under the delusion that restraint will appease authoritarian regimes that have made their hostile intentions abundantly clear, Russia and China will become bolder and the risk of a catastrophic war—which Ukraine was the prelude for—will only grow. In a world created by U.S. restraint, democracy, prosperity, and peace are on the decline. As Putin’s brutal war has reminded the world, weakness is provocative. Strength is the best way to preserve peace and secure a better future for generations to come.

The rest of his rant can be read on the link below and it's a doozy.

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!


 

daifo

Captain
Registered Member
Cause its Murica and propaganda means $$$$$ so you can never tell, HR McMaster probably gets paid 500k+ if not 1 million a year by the military contracting companies or think tanks to write stuff like this. I would write China BAD if you gave me that money lol
 

Nobo

Junior Member
Registered Member
Can anyone explain to me what the hell happened to the thinking of H.R. McMaster? The dude badly wants a war with China and Russia.
He doesn't. If you read his article, then most of his article revolves around the word "budget".
The fake role playing amrikans are second best role players in the world, behind only indians.
He is simply trying to assert something non-existent, "the order the United States and its allies built." , to get more budget.
Since second world war due to lack of opposition, West & Utopian States thought every fantasy they bred is actually real & accepted. Unfortunately, this is planet earth, not zootopia.
the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) launched a genocide of its own citizens
CCP should have launched genocide of other citizens in Iraq, Syria. Afghanistan, like the naughty amrikan People of USA did?

One thing he said i agree completely with
weakness is provocative. Strength is the best way to preserve peace and secure a better future for generations to come.
Nobody knows that better than us who went through genocide of western empires.
Nobody reminds us this better than extinct generation of natives & aboriginals.

We have no interest in relation with Euro bred role playing vermin. There is only way to deal with them. Putin & Xi shows exactly how to deal with convict "free" people of west, who just try to "help" others.

We don't go to war to pose in movies, but when we do, regardless of what happens to us, we will lay waste to those who dares to breath in the way we don't like.

Utopia & it's people will bow to the law of world. If they don't, then we must prepare to Americanize the US properly, sending them to real americans. No amount of free speech, voting & chosen governments can save them.
 

AssassinsMace

Lieutenant General
Can anyone explain to me what the hell happened to the thinking of H.R. McMaster? The dude badly wants a war with China and Russia.
He's probably a lobbyist for the military industrial complex. It's not US restraint. It's cowardice. McMaster is a simpleton who thinks because Ukrainians are supposedly doing well fighting against Russia, that must mean the US can easily handle both Russia and China at the same time. How about the Ukrainians are just better than the US? I'll have to repeat myself and point to Afghanistan. The US trained them like they claim they trained Ukrainians. The Afghan army folded the second the US abandoned ship. The US should go do it and then go bankrupt like the Soviet Union that ended the Cold War. Americans have gotten literally dumber through the years. I didn't really see anything in that article that mentions the US should enter the war against Russia. It seems to be all about building up the US military. You just look at those Jan 6th insurrectionists crying to be let out of jail because people there were being mean to them. They wouldn't survive a POW camp. They look like a bunch of Rambos to you? Or how about Uvalde, TX? What happened to that bad ass Texas law enforcement told of in stories?
 

emblem21

Major
Registered Member
Consequently, Putin launching the largest war in Europe since World War II should not have come as a surprise. For over three decades, Moscow and Beijing have eroded, flouted, mocked, and assaulted the order the United States and its allies built. Restraint encouraged that agenda as the United States and its allies dismantled the ramparts that had been vital to preserving peace and protecting the sovereignty of nations on the peripheries of two revanchist powers. And the drawdown continues—even as Russia continues its brutal invasion and China lays claim to Taiwan and the South China Sea. In its new national defense strategy, the Biden administration uses the term “integrated deterrence” to create the illusion that better coordinated policies can be substitute for modernized, ready, forward-positioned forces capable of operating at a sufficient scale to deter conflict and, should that deterrence fail, fight and win.



The United States must end its unilateral restraint vis-à-vis Russia and China and be realistic about the nature of the adversaries it faces. First, the United States must rearm, and the defense budget must increase. It must pay for new capabilities that counter and exceed those China and Russia have invested in. The Joint Forces must be substantially bigger to deter Russian and Chinese aggression as well as be able to respond to multiple, simultaneous contingencies. In today’s dollars, achieving even the Cold War-era floor of spending 4.5 percent of GDP on defense would mean a $1.2 trillion budget. Second, the United States must end its diplomatic restraint. Where it can, it should counter Beijing’s and Moscow’s efforts to subvert and co-opt international institutions and turn them against their purpose. If some of those institutions are beyond rescue, the United States and likeminded partners should form new groupings to advance the originally intended values and principles. In these cases, new institutions should prove more resilient and effective than the current ones plagued by discord and corruption. The Biden administration must stop describing Russia and China as partners in arresting nuclear proliferation, combatting climate change, and curbing pandemics.

Finally, the United States must end its economic restraint against the predatory practices and outright criminal behavior of the Chinese regime. U.S. policymakers should not tolerate violations of bilateral and international trade agreements, the use of forced labor and other inhumane labor practices, and supply chains that leave U.S. national security vulnerable. Free trade only works among free people.


The United States must end its unilateral restraint vis-à-vis Russia and China and be realistic about the nature of the adversaries it faces. First, the United States must rearm, and the defense budget must increase. It must pay for new capabilities that counter and exceed those China and Russia have invested in. The Joint Forces must be substantially bigger to deter Russian and Chinese aggression as well as be able to respond to multiple, simultaneous contingencies. In today’s dollars, achieving even the Cold War-era floor of spending 4.5 percent of GDP on defense would mean a $1.2 trillion budget. Second, the United States must end its diplomatic restraint. Where it can, it should counter Beijing’s and Moscow’s efforts to subvert and co-opt international institutions and turn them against their purpose. If some of those institutions are beyond rescue, the United States and likeminded partners should form new groupings to advance the originally intended values and principles. In these cases, new institutions should prove more resilient and effective than the current ones plagued by discord and corruption. The Biden administration must stop describing Russia and China as partners in arresting nuclear proliferation, combatting climate change, and curbing pandemics. Finally, the United States must end its economic restraint against the predatory practices and outright criminal behavior of the Chinese regime. U.S. policymakers should not tolerate violations of bilateral and international trade agreements, the use of forced labor and other inhumane labor practices, and supply chains that leave U.S. national security vulnerable. Free trade only works among free people.

Putin’s latest assault on the free world—and Chinese leader Xi Jinping’s threats to do so himself—have the capability of resuscitating Washington from its comatose policy of restraint. The longer the United States operates under the delusion that restraint will appease authoritarian regimes that have made their hostile intentions abundantly clear, Russia and China will become bolder and the risk of a catastrophic war—which Ukraine was the prelude for—will only grow. In a world created by U.S. restraint, democracy, prosperity, and peace are on the decline. As Putin’s brutal war has reminded the world, weakness is provocative. Strength is the best way to preserve peace and secure a better future for generations to come.

The rest of his rant can be read on the link below and it's a doozy.

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
One must wonder if this person realizes that the USA is in no position to start another fight but I guess at the end of the day, the USA has the most to lose. I wonder if they realize that most of the damage done to the USA is mostly self inflicted but then again most of these leaders are either too old to think out side the box or simply plain stupid
 
Last edited:

FairAndUnbiased

Brigadier
Registered Member
Americans have gotten literally dumber through the years. I didn't really see anything in that article that mentions the US should enter the war against Russia. It seems to be all about building up the US military. You just look at those Jan 6th insurrectionists crying to be let out of jail because people there were being mean to them. They wouldn't survive a POW camp. They look like a bunch of Rambos to you? Or how about Uvalde, TX? What happened to that bad ass Texas law enforcement told of in stories?
this might not be so far off the mark. I deal with many white American boomers at work. they're actually not so bad, most seem quite levelheaded and rational. its not just due to being in a liberal state either, I also deal with post 80/90 generation white Americans and many of them have unfortunately brought that 'edgy' 4chan/Reddit talking style into real life.
 

Bellum_Romanum

Brigadier
Registered Member
Breaking News. The former National Security Advisor for Trump hates China. Come back tomorrow for the weather report.
Look, H.R. McMaster when he was in uniform wasn't known as an ideologue or even a raving lunatic a.k.a. warmongering asshole like he is now. He first gained his military reputation when he served under then Major Douglas Macgregor at the Battle of 73 Easting. Macmaster went on to gain further acclaim as a warrior scholar with his scathing treatise on the failure of Generalship (Leadership) during the Vietnam War called Dereliction of Duty. Then U.S. Army Service Chief Gen. Denis Reimer distributed his book to his generals as a must read. He then went on to serve with distinction when he served in Iraq post War phase and his methods in handling the nascent Iraqi insurgency was hailed by the American media as one worth emulating from the sea of failures by the U.S. Army. He then subsequently gained advancement after advancement until he reached the rank of Lt.General and capping his military career with a stint at as the National Security Advisor for Donald Trump. He couldn't return back to his military uniform and gain a 4th star so instead he chose to accept an academic role and a position with the Hudson Institute which is a known right wing think tank in America.

So based on his military career and comments made both by his admirers and critics there was no clear idea or picture that would give many people an indication that the man was and is a raving madman; a hypocrite of the highest order, which means he's just a snake oil salesman no better than the ambulance chasers who essentially whore their profession to the highest bidder.
 

Bellum_Romanum

Brigadier
Registered Member
Look, H.R. McMaster when he was in uniform wasn't known as an ideologue or even a raving lunatic a.k.a. warmongering asshole like he is now. He first gained his military reputation when he served under then Major Douglas Macgregor at the Battle of 73 Easting. Macmaster went on to gain further acclaim as a warrior scholar with his scathing treatise on the failure of Generalship (Leadership) during the Vietnam War called Dereliction of Duty. Then U.S. Army Service Chief Gen. Denis Reimer distributed his book to his generals as a must read. He then went on to serve with distinction when he served in Iraq post War phase and his methods in handling the nascent Iraqi insurgency was hailed by the American media as one worth emulating from the sea of failures by the U.S. Army. He then subsequently gained advancement after advancement until he reached the rank of Lt.General and capping his military career with a stint at as the National Security Advisor for Donald Trump. He couldn't return back to his military uniform and gain a 4th star so instead he chose to accept an academic role and a position with the Hudson Institute which is a known right wing think tank in America.

So based on his military career and comments made both by his admirers and critics there was no clear idea or picture that would give many people an indication that the man was and is a raving madman; a hypocrite of the highest order, which means he's just a snake oil salesman no better than the ambulance chasers who essentially whore their profession to the highest bidder.
Or perhaps the dude, like any other American overhyped product, was just that, overhyped. All shit and no beef or something like that. The media in America has been creating the narrative that this dude was a maverick, a truth teller to power...LOL sure...and it seems to me that a lot of these American retired general officers ain't that bright as they have been advertised. Their combat record in strategic victory or lack thereof for the past 4 wars starting with the Korean War all the way to the Afghanistan War have been abject failures.
 
Top