"Our goal should be to never go to war with China"
— That's what John E. Hyten, vice chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, said recently.
John E. Hyten
On September 13, the Brookings Institution, a well-known think tank in the United States, invited Haydn to discuss the defense status of the United States and military modernization. Stressing that both Russia and China are "pacing threats," Haydn said, "Our goal should be to never go to war with China."
He gave the example of the Cold War: the United States and the Soviet Union, two of the great powers of the time, had their worst confrontation, but there was no large-scale war between the two sides "because we have always maintained deterrence and have not crossed the line." In the discussion on the same day, Haydn could say that he was repeatedly emphasizing that the United States and China should not go to war, and the United States and Russia should not go to war.
In addition, Haydn has stressed more than once the importance of dialogue with China. "We do have a fundamental common goal despite our differences, which is to never go to war with each other, because nuclear war is a bad thing," he said. ”
Because he emphasized nuclear war in the discussion, some people interpreted that some time ago, the United States successively "discovered" large -- "nuclear missile launch sites" in Gansu, Xinjiang, and Inner Mongolia in China, which made the United States afraid, afraid, and sober.
I don't think that the "nuclear missile launch site" has "stunned" and "frightened" the Americans, so let's put it aside. "Ensuring that there is no war between China and the United States" is actually a "common sense" and a consensus that needs no further words, whether it is the academic circles and policy circles of China and the United States.
Now, people in the military circles have come out to repeatedly emphasize this point, which is actually a bit "funny." Because, this may show that the American academic community has no longer dared to speak out on this. More importantly, some people in the policy community, while frantically testing the bottom line, have forgotten where the real bottom line is.
As everyone knows, the Financial Times recently reported that the US Government is seriously considering Taiwan's request to change the name of its representative office in Washington from "Taipei Economic and Cultural Representative Office in the United States" to "Taiwan Representative Office". This report does not seem to be completely unreliable. The report quoted a number of people who are aware of the discussions within the U.S. government and pointed out Campbell's support for the name change.
Kurt Campbell
Who is Campbell? Kurt Campbell is the "Indo-Pacific Coordinator" of the National Security Council, nicknamed "Indo-Pacific Tsar," meaning that he has significant authority in the field of U.S. Indo-Pacific strategy and related policies. Saying that, it is not easy to say how much power he has.
The characteristics of the Biden administration, so to speak, are the "Democratic Smorgasbord." In addition to "Socialist" Sanders, Biden has recruited all kinds of forces and people in the Democratic Party into the government. Diplomatically, Biden promoted his long-time "little follower" Blinken to secretary of state — Blinken's qualifications are actually unqualified. Campbell was also appointed "Indo-Pacific Coordinator". Campbell is actually Hillary's man. During the Obama era, Campbell served as Secretary of State Hillary Clinton's top official in charge of Asia and was the architect of the "Pivot to Asia" policy, earning him the nickname "Mr. Asia in Washington." After entering the Biden administration, this "Mr. Asia" was promoted to "Indo-Pacific Tsar", and since he became the "Tsar", this boy seems to want to play the game of "unknowable, unpredictable" - really take himself seriously!
Campbell, who had not yet become "tsar" a year ago, actually proposed to "stop the downward spiral of U.S.-China relations" and came up with a concrete idea: take one step back, and then, each one step further. This idea, in fact, is still possible. What he meant was: in confrontation, each one step back; then, in cooperation, each one further.
He also declared that the biggest question is not "whether China will rise," but "whether the United States can still play a historical role in the region." "We must approach the domestic challenges we are facing with extraordinary humility," he said, and "a workable strategy of balance between the United States and China is our own success." ”
Being able to say these words shows that he still has a brain. However, after becoming the "Indo-Pacific Tsar" of the United States, he began to "perform". The main program of his performance is called "strategic blur" or "repeated horizontal jump" - the two are the same thing: "repeated horizontal jump" is the form, and "strategic blur" is the substance.
He flaunted that he "fully understood and understood the sensitivity of the Taiwan issue"; however, he always "arched" on this issue. He has expressed his support for the Taiwan authorities on many occasions, but at the same time he has affirmed that he does not support Taiwan independence. Some people in the US academic and policy circles have called for "strategic clarity" toward Taiwan, but he is explicitly opposed, claiming that there are "major drawbacks" in this practice.
Strategic ambiguity is really dangerous.
Now, the Financial Times says Campbell supports the renaming of Taiwan's U.S. office — and whether that's true or not is still impossible to judge. Because, after all, the Financial Times is also "heard". The media in the United States and Britain sometimes "leak secrets according to orders", or are used by people, let go of the wind, test a water or something, and play 666.
What needs to be pointed out is that taiwan's institutions in the United States have changed their names, and this wind has been released, and it is not necessarily necessarily that they really want to make trouble in this regard. Nor does it be ruled out that the Americans are "attacking the west with their voices." Some time ago, there was a series of exchanges between China and the United States, including phone calls between the top leaders. But the US side does not seem to get what it wants, and some people say that the US side has touched the "soft nail".
We have little way to confirm this statement.
However, Biden is said to have proposed a summit of U.S.-China leaders when he was on the phone. A reporter asked the Foreign Ministry spokesperson about this matter, "What is China's attitude?" When Zhao Lijian replied, he did not directly respond to the "Sino-US summit".
Everyone tastes - the taste is rich and long.
It was also on the second day of the first call between China and the US dollar that the Financial Times reported on the so-called renaming of Taiwan's institutions in the United States.
Everyone tasted again - spicy and sour are gradually blooming in the taste buds.
Therefore, with regard to the issue of changing the name of Taiwan's institutions in the United States, we can say that this is actually a kind of political manipulation by the United States. As for what is its real purpose? We are to stabilize God and observe again. However, if the US side wants to test anything, it must tell the US side that the "name change" is explosive and may lead to war between China and the United States. Because China wants to safeguard the unity of the country, to safeguard territorial integrity, to safeguard sovereignty and dignity – on these issues, China cannot retreat.
When the United States says that China is a "pacing threat," it is really a matter of extreme confusion and reversal of black and white, which is really a big fool in the world, and the United States is the party that is "pressing forward step by step" against China. While American politicians are talking nonsense, people in the U.S. military are saying, "Our goal should be to never go to war with China."
To be honest, I don't think there's any need to understand this as "America is afraid." But it can be understood that the American military still has a little rationality. And someone like Campbell, he may feel that he can control the consequences of his "repeated jumps", but in fact, once he gets out of control, the consequences are extremely serious.
So, will military personnel be more reliable than politicians? Let's briefly talk about two news:
What a long time to live! We have suddenly discovered in the past two days that we have "someone" in the Pentagon, and that this person is actually Mark Milley, chairman of the US Joint Chiefs of Staff.
Mark Millie
Prominent U.S. investigative journalists Bob Woodward and Robert Costa broke the news in a new book to be released, saying that before Trump stepped down, Milley had twice contacted Chinese officials privately because he was worried that former US President Trump might "go to war" with China.
Bob Woodward
We don't know if this is true or not. However, Millikin has now been accused of "treason" anyway. We don't care about the domestic political struggle in the United States. However, from this incident, it can be seen that the US military still attaches great importance to the "no accidents" between the United States and China, and still tries to avoid misjudgment. This is actually rational. This is actually a responsibility to the United States and to the world.
Wanting to rely on "brinkmanship" and play the "blink game" to extract the greatest strategic benefits seems rational, but it is actually crazy!
Sadly, the United States, a country where "civilian officials govern the military," actually relies on military personnel to take unconventional actions to ensure that there will be no accidents between China and the United States -- the problem is indeed very serious. However, Americans themselves may not know.
Another one is the nuclear missile silo. Recently, Charles A. Richard, the commander of the US Strategic Command, was asked in an interview whether China's "nuclear missile silo" is real. This commander, on such a major issue, actually played "strategic ambiguity." U.S. Strategic Command, he said, "doesn't produce intelligence, it only reads intelligence." Confirming (satellite photos are not nuclear missile silos) is someone else's job. ”
Charles a. Richard
- You're the Commander! Is it a nuclear missile silo, you can't see it? Can't your staff see it? Is the entire U.S. Strategic Command a "read only report, no photo" rice bucket?
Although the host kept asking questions, Richard went around and couldn't say why, and finally, Richard told the truth, saying that some of the analysis and reports were "very interesting" and "some aspects were quite funny.". Later, he said, "It can be seen that there are few expert opinions on military and strategic deterrence left in the Ministry of Defense and even in the government as a whole." This sometimes affects analytical reports, which have not been conducted by force commanders or combatants. ”
These are the words of the Commander.
It should be said that it is of course very important whether or not nuclear missile silos can be recognized; however, in terms of strategy and policy, it is even more important to maintain rationality and be measured.
Nuclear missile silos are not meant to be funny; however, the Americans have made this a "funny" thing -- it is really ridiculous, speechless!