Trump’s Inexperienced Cabinet Can’t Contain China

【This is the third article of our interview with Mr. Ron Unz. In the previous article, he Mr. Ron Unz delves into the growing wealth disparity in the United States over recent decades, the deep societal discontent it has sparked, and the potential for revolutionary upheaval. If you are interested, please read more here. 】

The neoconservationists, which have dominated American foreign policy for more than 30 years, are a very irrationally aggressive group. They’re not realists, they’re not rationalists. Basically, the wars in the Middle East, which cost Americans a gigantic amount of money, $7 trillion, were initiated under their influence. The wars destroyed so much of the Middle East.

Under their guidance, America orchestrated a coup in Ukraine, overthrowing its neutralist government. The subsequent discussion of positioning missiles—potentially first-strike missiles and anti-missile defenses—right on Russia’s border was utterly irrational.

During the 2014 Maidan Coup in Ukraine, U.S. Senator John McCain addressed the protesters, expressing support from America.

And now, America is fighting a proxy war against Russia on Russia’s own border. It has been providing the weapons to kill Russians, allowing Ukraine to fire US-made missiles into Russia’s territory. There is also evidence, as claimed by Russia, that America was establishing biolabs—potential biological warfare labs—near Russia’s border, allegedly preparing for potential biological attacks against the country. Steps like that are so irrationally aggressive that they really can lead to very counterproductive policies.

On November 19th, 2024, Ukraine fired U.S.-made longer-range missiles into Russia

The neoconservationists wrongly assumed that Russia and the Putin regime were far weaker than they were. They believed that provoking Russia into invading Ukraine would allow them to use economic sanctions to destroy Russia’s economy. This, in turn, they hoped, would lead to the collapse of Putin’s regime and its replacement with a leader more aligned with American interests—essentially a puppet. However, this strategy backfired. Russia’s economy has remained robust and performed unexpectedly well despite the sanctions.

What we’ve witnessed is that the Russian economy has demonstrated its ability to outproduce NATO and the U.S. combined in terms of military production. The West is running out of military supplies—tank shells, tanks, and armored vehicles—while Russia has managed to produce these in seemingly unlimited quantities.

A U.S.-made M1 Abrams battle tank at the Moscow expo which exhibited captured Western military hardware

This reveals that Russia’s industrial base is, in many ways, far stronger than the hollowed-out industries of the West. Furthermore, the sanctions have had little to no impact on Russia’s domestic economy, showcasing its resilience and strength despite Western pressure.

In fact, the sanctions have allowed Russia to gain tighter control over its economy. Many American corporations that entered Russia during the 1990s left due to Western sanctions, abandoning their operations. This enabled Russia to acquire their stranded assets at favorable prices, replacing them with domestic alternatives.

After MacDonald exited the Russian market because of the sanctions, Russia’s domestic company took over the remaining assets and renamed the brand as Vkusno & Tochka.

Simultaneously, Russia began importing consumer goods from countries like China and others, while continuing to sell its natural resources—oil and gas—even to Western countries, often through third parties. This adaptability has further strengthened Russia’s economic position. Russia has shown that its economy is much stronger than the neoconservationists of the West assumed. In fact, it was the West that suffered economically, facing inflation and other challenges caused by the disruption of trade with Russia. The neo-con geopolitical strategy resulted in a significant disaster, even before BRICS and the Russia-China coalition gained the considerable strength they now possess.

John Mearsheimer, a prominent realist in geopolitics, advocates for strategies to maintain American global dominance, including forming a balancing coalition to counter China. However, America did the exact opposite. Instead of fostering better relations with Russia to counterbalance China’s rise, it adopted an extraordinarily hostile stance toward Russia. This approach defies the logic of geopolitical realism as championed by Mearsheimer, undermining the very strategy needed to preserve American influence on the global stage.

Earlier this year, I wrote an article exploring why the U.S. adopted such a hostile stance toward Russia. The answer lies in the irrational worldview of neoconservationists in the United States, who have been antagonistic toward Russia for decades. They overestimated America’s power while underestimating Russia’s resilience.

The neoconservationists genuinely believed they could overthrow Putin, turning Russia into a vassal state or a puppet of the U.S., similar to its status during the 1990s under Boris Yeltsin. Instead, their approach pushed Russia further away, fostering deep hostility toward the U.S. This hostility ultimately drove Russia to form a strong alliance with China, particularly over the past decade following the U.S.-backed overthrow of Ukraine’s government in 2014.

The U.S. has effectively pushed Russia into China’s arms, creating a partnership so formidable that it significantly undermines America’s ability to assert global dominance. This coalition is rooted in a natural alignment of interests: China has the world’s largest industrial base and excels in advanced consumer technologies, while Russia possesses cutting-edge military technologies, including hypersonic weapons. Additionally, Russia holds the world’s most extensive natural resource reserves, supplying everything a major industrial power like China requires. Geographically, their complementarity further solidifies their partnership, making this alliance a powerful force that reshapes the global balance of power.

By collaborating closely, Russia and China have, to some extent, drawn India into their coalition, along with other nations through the BRICS alliance. This growing influence has prompted many Middle Eastern countries, such as Saudi Arabia and Iran, to recognize the rising power of BRICS and align themselves accordingly.

At the 2024 BRICS summit in Kazan, Iran, Argentina, Egypt, Ethiopia, the UAE, and Saudi Arabia first attended the meeting as full member.

With both Iran and Saudi Arabia moving in this direction, along with other regional players, the geopolitical landscape is shifting significantly, reflecting the expanding influence of this coalition beyond its original core members. BRICS now represents a coalition of states encompassing more than half of the world’s population and a combined economy that surpasses the G7. This sheer scale of economic and demographic power makes it an entity far too formidable for the United States to challenge.

The United States has alienated numerous countries, including Russia, China, India to some extent, and many Middle Eastern nations, while potentially risking another war in the Middle East against Iran. In a sense, what the neo-cons and some of the American geo-strategists have done is to undercut any chance of holding China at bay or successfully sort of containing China, which had been their goal. Future historians may view these decisions as one of the most irrational geopolitical strategies in centuries—actions that made no sense.

The Western alliance is also in an increasingly difficult position, largely due to its leadership’s failure to acknowledge and address these challenges caused by neoconservationists.

For example, in France, both left-wing and right-wing parties, which are notably more pro-Russian than Macron’s party, won the last election. However, Macron has refused to grant them control of the government, despite their electoral victory.

In Romania, a pro-Russian candidate was also close to winning the presidential election, while the government canceled the election entirely, which is unprecedented in a democratic system.

In Romania’s 2024 election, independent candidate Calin Georgescu, who was considered as far-right and pro-Russia, ranked the second. But the result was later canceled because the country’s top court thought the election was likely to have been orchestrated by Russia.

In Germany, there has been a significant decline in support for the mainstream, pro-American parties, accompanied by a sharp rise in support for fringe parties that adopt a more pro-Russian stance.

According to the polls done by Politico, AfD, which is considered far-right and pro-Russia, has become the second most approved party in Germany.

On the other hand, the destruction of the Nord Stream pipelines, which were crucial to Europe’s energy infrastructure, especially for supplying natural gas to Germany and much of the continent, was an unprecedented act of industrial terrorism. While it is widely believed that the United States was responsible, the global media dominance of America has ensured that the truth is suppressed. Few in Germany, Europe, or even the United States, are aware of America’s involvement. Media control remains one of America’s most powerful geopolitical assets, but the danger is that those in power believe their own propaganda.

I believe this is why America has taken such provocative actions against Russia and why it has pursued so many irrational policies—because the American government and its leadership are convinced by their own propaganda. This is a very dangerous position to be in.

Editor: Chang Zhangjin