Kot sem pisal včeraj, se Kitajska ne bo neposredno vmešala v morebitno ameriško – iransko vojno. Prvič, ker to ni v naravi te nekaj-tisočletne civilizacije s konfucijansko filozofijo in Sun Tzu vojaško-menedžersko strateško logiko. In drugič, zakaj motiti nasprotnika, ko dela fatalne napake?

Ameriški vojaški angažma v Iranu bo zelo drag. Odvisno od širine in globine penetracije in od dolžine angažmaja, vendar plavzibilne ocene na podlagi stroškov ameriškega angažmaja v Iraku in Afganistanu (cirka 3 bilijone dolarjev vsak) gredo v cifre, ki presegajo bilijon (tisoč milijard) dolarjev. Zakaj bi se Kitajska vojaško angažirala v proxy vojni z ZDA v Iranu, če se pa lahko izogne tem stroškom, pusti ZDA, da se izčrpavajo z nesmiselno vojno brez nekih strateških koristi, in hkrati z ekonomskimi in političnimi aktivnostmi še naprej trgovinsko in investicijsko (ter s tem politično) izriva ZDA iz držav “globalnega juga” (kjer živi 7 od 8 milijard ljudi)?

Spodaj imate dobro oceno Oriane Skylar Mastro, nekdanje strateške svetovalke v Pentagonu za Kitajsko in zdaj profesorice na Stanfordu, ki pravi, da so stroški ameriškega angažmaja samo v Afganistanu za 10-krat presegli “stroške” Kitajske za investicije v globalne transportne koridorje prek Belt & Road Initiative.

Ne pozabite enega izmed ključnih naukov vojaškega stratega Sun Tzuja iz Umetnosti vojne:

Najboljša zmaga je tista brez boja – Največji uspeh je premagati sovražnika brez neposrednega spopada, na primer z diplomacijo ali strategijo.

Kitajska bo zmagala v spopadu za globalno prevlado brez enega samega strela, ker izkorišča norosti dosedanjega globalnega hegemona in mu pusti delati fatalne napake. Medtem ko se ZDA izčrpavajo v vojnah, ustvarjajo sovražnike in zanemarjajo razvoj, Kitajska investira v razvoj, globalno infrastrukturo in globalna partnerstva. Kitajska že danes trgovinsko, tehnološko in sstrateško obvladuje svet – brez mineralov redke zemlje se večina sodobne industrije v svetu zaustavi. Jutri bo ta dominacija še večja prek tehnološke dominacije – zadnja kitajska strategija se imenuje Standards 2035.

Vsi imperiji se običajno sami uničijo in ZDA vlagajo maksimalne napore v lastni propad.

____________

I keep seeing scores of people saying that unless China intervenes in the Middle-East, it will somehow be their end.

Meanwhile, fascinatingly, here’s what Oriana Skylar Mastro, who used to be the Pentagon’s top strategic planner on China and is now a professor at Stanford, has to say about it

In a nutshell, she says that the U.S. would love nothing more than to “drag” China into conflicts like that with Iran – and she herself has “often tried to articulate recommendations” to trap China in that way – but China never takes the bait, which in her view shows that they’re “very strategically disciplined”.

It also reflects the fact that China, unlike the U.S. obviously, “do not believe in foreign military intervention as a tool of power”: they believe in “using political and economic tools.”

She asks rhetorically: “the war in Afghanistan cost the equivalent of 10 Belt and Road initiatives. So which one is more impactful on the world?”

She is adamant that the U.S.’s renewed involvement in the Middle East is an unequivocal mistake. As she explains, not only it will prevent once more the mythical “pivot to Asia,” which is obviously in itself in China’s interests, but it will only further deplete U.S. resources without much to show for it in the end.

Effectively, according to her, China gets exactly what they want: the U.S. repeatedly getting baited and exhausting itself into costly military interventions with little strategic rationale. As she puts it: “that’s how great powers decline.” In fact, it’s exactly the type of strategic overextension that led to the collapse of the Soviet Union.

So, who’s right? The Twitter crowd or Pentagon Oriana?

My answer to this very question in my new Substack article where I explain why I find myself surprisingly agreeing with a notorious Pentagon China hawk

Vir: Arnaud Bertrand