Thursday, May 17, 2018

This One's For Andrei - Some Musings From An Inexperienced Onlooker

Adolf saw an interesting opinion piece the other day, on the possibility of a rapprochement between the USA and Russia. 

Later in another piece, there were a couple of phrases which, as I like to say, fell out and clattered onto the floor.

"......The Geneva Agreement had all the underpinnings of the Munich Agreement. The comparison is apt. Just as Munich gave Hitler more time to build up his Panzers, the Geneva Agreement gave the mullahs ten years to build the bomb.

Just as in 1930s the world failed to stop Hitler, while the viper was still in its crib, and tolerated Germany's violations of the Treaties of Versailles to allow her to rearm, the world de facto allowed Iran to ignore United Nations Security Council resolutions and continue the development of a nuclear weapon. Just as Britain sold Czechoslovakia out in 1938 to appease Hitler, the United States sold Israel out in 2013 to appease Iran........"


"Western democracies that failed to prevent two world wars suffer historical amnesia and appear to be unconcerned with the replay of Munich. Feeling safe under the American military umbrella, the leaders of the UK, France, and Germany have been imploring Trump to salvage the accord with Iran. Just as in the 1930s, the slippery slope of greed and appeasement is driving Europe toward more disasters. Paraphrasing Lenin, they are vying with each other for the rope contract."

For some time now I've wondered about these and other similarities between geo-politics of the late 1930s and those of the present day.   Some of the similarities are, I think, remarkable.

The two Asian super-powers of their respective times, Imperial Japan and Communist China both were remarkably short of strategic resources.  Things like coal, oil and iron ore back then and now.  China uses it's economic strength to buy what it needs while Japan used it's military strength to steal what it needed.

Japan made plenty of noise about its military strength and was able to conquer many smaller and weaker nations and later eject the naive and foolish British from Singapore. However, when push came to shove Japan was defeated by the might of the US economy.  Yamamoto predicted as much straight after the pearl Harbour raid.

I suggest that is where China sits currently.

Today, China makes makes a prick of itself in the South China Sea while Japan, South Korea,The Philipines and others try to look the other way, as if to say "Well we can't do much about it, so why worry?"

I suggest once Iran has been settled down by Israel, the US and their friends, the next venue for competition will be Asia with China as the centerpiece.   One sees little commentary on the relationship, if any, between China and Russia but with such a long mutual border there is potential for mischief from either side of it.  (Would China invade Russia?  Possibly.  There's a  hell of a lot of oil and agricultural potential to be had.)

At one stage I wondered if we might wake up one morning to find Putin and Xi had done a Molotov/Ribbentrop deal.  But then, if you take that analogy a step further, you would not be surprised to see shortly thereafter, Russia, The US and Western Europe in an alliance, albeit tense, taking on Red China.

For me, the enigma in the whole shebang is trying to work out 'What is China's game?   What is it really after?

('Some Musings' is what happens when you come out of hospital and have a day for the anesthetic to wear off.)


Anonymous said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
Psycho Milt said...

The idea that Iran has a nuclear weapons programme so it can embark on a war of conquest is moronic. The reason it has a nuclear weapons programme is so that the US and Israel would have to think twice about attacking it. And if you don't believe Israel and the US would do that, you don't know Iranian history at all. Iran lost a huge number of people when it was invaded by US proxy Iraq in 1981, and it's not about to let that happen again. If you want parallels with the 1930s, look to the demagoguery currently personified by the orange blowhard.

Adolf Fiinkensein said...

Milt, you have excelled yourself today. You appear to seriously believe those nice old Mullahs would NEVER use nukes to destroy Israel.

David said...

Guess who:

Tried to overthrow more than 50 governments, most democratically elected.

Interfered in democratic elections in over 30 countries.

Attempted to assassinate more than 50 foreign leaders

Dropped bombs on 30 countries.

Attempted to suppress populist or nationalist movements in 20 countries.

Hint - Not Russia, Iran, North Korea.

Oderint dum metuant is US Foreign Policy.

Andrei said...

You know Adolf at this point in history I don't think either Russia or China trust the USA to keep its word over anything

The number of treaties and agreement they resile from or just plain ignore is a legion, whether it be the disowning of the Iran deal, the violation of the Black Sea treaties or the agreemnt to not expand NATO in exchange for allowing Germany to reunify all those years ago

NATO had 16 members in 1990 and today has 29 and for what?

And how many people have been killed by NATO interventions since 1990 and how many Nations destroyed? Quite a few

Psycho Milt said...

You appear to seriously believe those nice old Mullahs would NEVER use nukes to destroy Israel.

I wouldn't rule it out, but then I also wouldn't rule out Israel or the US using their nukes to destroy Iran. The one isn't obviously more likely than the other. That humongous elephant in the room seems to be ignored by the right whenever they bray about the Iranian "nuclear threat."

Post-Gaddafi, both Iran and North Korea have very strong and justifiable incentives to acquire nuclear weapons ASAP, in fact their governments would be failing in their duties if they didn't pursue it. It would be nice if we could take away their reason for needing nukes, but that's not going to happen.

david said...

Milt, stop making sense, you'll make Adolf's head explode. :-)

paul scott said...

poor Psycho > he just doesn't get anything ever > he wants to believe Iran has peaceful intentions > it's a condition he has >

Andrei said...

OK Paul Scott - remind us all who Iran has attacked?

Any time over the last century will do

Another interesting intellectual exercise might be to compare Iran's military budget with that of Saudi Arabia's or Israel

It is funny kow in the public mind that Iran is frequently associated with Islamic terrorism and yet the real source of that scourge is a Middle Eastern nation with a far larger military expenditure than Iran's which also happens to be closely allied to the West, the USA in particular.

And I am prepared to bet Pauls Scott's response to these questions will be deafening!

Anonymous said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
Adolf Fiinkensein said...

Some people are just too stupid for words.

".....for some reason that escapes me...."

Get a dictionary, one with a very large font size, and look up 'banned.'

The Bunbury Baker said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
Anonymous said...

From Bill Gates..........In another anecdote about one of his meetings with the president, Gates said: “When I walked in, his first sentence kind of threw me off. He said, ‘Trump hears that you don’t like what Trump is doing’. And I thought, ‘Wow, you’re Trump!’.”

Who does that sound like? HoHoHo

Rupert Bear