“Decent society” constantly discussed options and ways to deal with the million-strong armies of the east, which are about to rush to the Old World and start “roasting the meat of white brothers”.
However, no one explained why they should do precisely this and how to connect the “yellow danger” with the fact that a small expeditionary force from the troops of several European powers had just shattered the entire military power of China, suppressing the “boxer uprising” (and this was not the first time such an incident had happened in half a century). Nor did anyone tell the trembling public that the east was far from united and, before someone from there could threaten Europe, the Chinese must slaughter the Mongols, and the Japanese the Chinese (or vice versa).
In the end, even the Russo-Japanese war (the only victorious for the east) took place over Chinese territories.
The Japanese did not encroach on the European power itself, although after Tsushima their fleet absolutely dominated the sea and they could easily eliminate the small Russian garrisons in Kamchatka, replacing them with their own troops. It’s just that the Japanese never intended to go so far north. That is why they quietly left Siberia after the Russian civil war, without taking anything more than what the Russian Empire had ceded to Japan 15 years earlier in the Treaty of Portsmouth.
During the First and Second World Wars, the Asian powers also quarrelled with each other, and even cheerfully chased off the weakened European colonisers. The only countries with a population that is not European, but comes from it (Caucasoid), that are threatened by the “yellow danger” are Australia and the US, since they are located in the traditional zone of eastern expansion — the tropical zone of the Asia-Pacific region (APR) — in the so-called rice zone.
Asians are already even no longer interested in New Zealand as well as in the mainland of the US.
The first task of Asians is to create a Great Asian sphere of co-prosperity, which would unite all peoples (from Burma to Hawaii and from Japan to Australia) under the hegemony of one leader.
The second task is to undermine the political and economic power in the region of the US and India (and earlier the British Empire), as well as to consolidate a dominant position in the markets of Latin America.
It is in precisely this way, with the lowest resource costs, that all the problems of creating a closed Asian political and economic cluster, which is a natural competitor to the Euro-American one, are solved. At the same time, if Europe and the US traditionally consider Russia as a competitor, which must be maximally weakened and subordinated to its interests (but not destroyed, as many of our people think), then China and Japan (like any other potential Asian hegemon) consider the US and any European power that tries to gain a foothold in the Asian South Seas zone in the same way.
Russia is a natural ally for them, holding back European expansion and guaranteeing the availability of land trade routes from Asia to Europe. In fact, the presence of a neutral or benevolent Russia in relation to Asia makes it possible for the Asian hegemon to successfully compete with the Euro-American economy and not be afraid of a military invasion.
If we look at the map of Asia, we will understand that today even the first of the identified problems has not been solved — a single Asian hegemon has not been defined. China’s claims to this role are most relevant, but neither India nor Japan have accepted them at the moment. Ideally, it would take China at least a decade to become the undisputed hegemon in Asia. Only then will it be able to begin to solve the problem of finally ousting the US from the Asia-Pacific region.
In Washington, it is not children who sit and understand the situation perfectly. As I already wrote, the Americans realised that they are not capable of defeating Russia and China either by economic or military means and are concentrating on creating their own autarkic political and economic cluster, within which the Americans could rob as many economies as possible in their interests. trying to starve out Russia and China.
To solve this problem, they need to defend their positions in Europe from Russia (or at least minimise the Kremlin’s success in this area). Similarly, the US needs to minimise China’s gains in Asia.
With Europe, it is easier for them — they have almost the same civilisation with the EU, besides a fairly large number of eastern European states are mortally afraid of Russia and see the US as the only defender against the revived Russian power. Therefore, despite the obvious disadvantage of Euro-American economic cooperation, the US still manages to keep the EU in its sphere of influence with little blood.
If the Trump-Biden conflict between financial and industrial capital does not tear America apart like a pack of wolves, Washington should in principle have enough resources to keep Europe in its orbit of influence in the next three to five years (provided that it does not suffer a catastrophic defeat in other regions — in particular, in Asia).
That is precisely why the clash with China in Asia is becoming a priority for the US. This Trumpian thesis has already been adopted by the Democrats, so Biden will not change US policy towards China. In the Asia-Pacific region, Washington’s task is many times more difficult than in Europe. America has long lacked sufficient resource attractiveness for the countries of the region. In civilisational terms, it is also alien to everyone except Australia.
China loses only in the fact that Japan, India, and the Republic of Korea see it as an economic competitor, and also, along with other countries in the region, have unresolved territorial disputes with it.
However, the idea itself is close and understandable to them – the creation of their own Asian market, which will provide the Asian industry with at least a billion solvent buyers belonging to the middle class and the transfer of trade and economic relations with the rest of the world to their own (Asian) conditions. Since the conditions offered by the US are worse, the likelihood that the countries of the region will choose the Chinese version of the future is not just high, but very high.
Washington cannot go to war with Beijing. Not only because Russia has made it clear which side it is willing to take, but above all because the US is well aware that Moscow will not launch a nuclear bombardment against America immediately after the latter’s attack on China. Russia will call for peace, offer mediation services, and happily watch the US military power burn out in this conflict. Ideally, Moscow will not even need to fight – when the US weakens enough, it will be possible to simply present an ultimatum (make an offer that cannot be refused).
A simultaneous attack on Russia and China would also be madness on the part of the US, since it would not leave them even a hypothetical chance to survive.
So, Washington can not expect to win in a civilisational or economic competition, but war for him is madness. Therefore, America needs China to go to war with someone else. They tried to drive Russia into a similar trap, consistently forcing it into a war with Georgia, then with Ukraine, then with the Baltic states, but it turned out that the Russian government reacts to such provocations flexibly, and the people believe Putin enough not to fall into hysterics about the fact that the tanks were not sent somewhere again.
The Americans do not give up trying to drag Russia into a big war in Europe, but without the same fanaticism. Now they are increasingly trying the same thing with weakly China. Given the peculiarities of eastern psychology, which not only does not allow “loss of face”, but in some cases specifically defines what a “loss of face” exactly is, it will be more difficult for the Chinese leadership to resist American provocations. Therefore, we can expect that in the coming years, if the US does not collapse under the weight of its own problems, Asia will be very restless.
At the same time, Washington is unlikely to seek an attack on former Soviet Central Asia. From the point of view of logistics, its position is important, but not unique (it can be bypassed by transport corridors). In strategic terms, it is completely controlled by Russia and China, which are able to jointly arrange a “Ukraine” (which was supposed to become a weight on Russia’s feet, but became a burden for the US) from any American project in Central Asia.
Washington will try, relying on local nationalists and the Islamic opposition, to pit Russia and China in the struggle for primacy in the region. However, it will be very difficult to do this. The fact is that Chinese borders (including in the northwest) have been stable for centuries. Sometimes there are minor advances, sometimes similar reductions, but then the Middle Kingdom returns to its borders.
Even in the first millennium AD, at the time of the greatest advance, the Chinese in Central Asia did not go further than Tashkent. Moreover, these were garrisons detached from the empire, whose task was to protect trade routes. With this task, they failed and the remnants were withdrawn back to China. In general, China has always preferred to rely on the fact that its important trade routes in the region will be guarded by a strong ally, for whom Chinese trade with the west will also be financially beneficial.
Russia today is just such an ally. Moreover, in Central Asia, as in eastern Europe, it has long been demonstrated in detail and popularly to everyone that neither Beijing with Moscow, nor Moscow with Beijing will aggravate relations because of post-Soviet ambitious nonentities. Russia and China are ready to take them into their company and also allow them to earn money, but they must behave exemplary in political terms, otherwise they will not even notice how they begin to have big problems, which only Moscow and Beijing can solve.
Russia today is just such an ally. Moreover, in Central Asia, as in Eastern Europe, it has long been demonstrated in detail and popularly to everyone that neither Beijing with Moscow, nor Moscow with Beijing will aggravate relations because of post-Soviet ambitious nonentities. Russia and China are ready to take them into the company and also allow them to earn money, but they must behave roughly in political terms, otherwise they will not even notice how they will start having big problems that only Moscow and Beijing can solve.
This alliance is so profitable and so self-sufficient that it will be very difficult to break it. Let me remind you that even in the critical year of 1941 for the USSR, Japan (then an ally of the Reich) attacked not it (which would have been natural), but the US. And even though Hitler immediately declared war on the US, hoping that Japan would declare war on the USSR and pull back at least some of the Soviet troops, Tokyo remained neutral in the north, preferring to develop expansion in the traditional direction (in the rice zone).
Meanwhile, then there was a war in which the USSR was an ally of the US, and Germany was an ally of Japan, occupying in Tokyo’s plans about the same place (the guarantor of Asia’s trade with Europe and a reliable rear) that Russia occupies today in Beijing’s plans.
So, like 100-150 years ago, the “yellow danger” of course exists, but it is a danger for the US. If the US disappears tomorrow, then you can easily guess to whom Japan, South Korea, and India will run to become strategic allies (Taiwan will capitulate immediately). However, I am afraid that even in this case they will meet a consolidated Russian-Chinese position, and the proposals that will be made to them will be strikingly different for the better from everything that they have heard or expected to hear from Washington.
Copyright © 2022. All Rights Reserved.