COLD WAR 2.0 ONGOING IN INDO PACIFIC WITNESSES EASTERN NATO AND EASTERN WARSAW PACT TAKING SHAPE

Cold War1.0 which ensued in Europe in the aftermath of Post-World War II spawned the creation of Nort Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) in 1949 with United States and Western Europe Nations as its members. NATO was forged by the United States and West as collective security response against the Former USSR having established Communist Republics in East Europe.

Warsaw Pact was established five years later in 1954 by USSR and its East European Communist Satellite nations. Warsaw Pact was a matching response to NATO whose founding was attributed to West Germany joining NATO.

Cold War 1.0 lasted from 1945 to 1991when the USSR disintegrated and with East European countries shaking off Russia's yoke, the Warsaw Pact became extinct.

NATO contrastingly survives till today with a double-sized spread now resting on Russia's contracted borders. Its latest members are Sweden and Finland. 

Military rise of China and its propensity to use military force to impose its will on its peripheries in Indo Pacific raised the scepter of an enlarging and escalating "China Threat"   whose tremors are now perceptibly felt beyond Indo Pacific confines.

 NATO Security Vision 1930 takes note of "China Threat" coupling it with the "Russia Threat" to Europe--the Russia-China Axis.

In 2024, Cold War 2.0 is visibly ongoing in Indo Pacific with China as the lead player and Russia post-Ukraine War now actively integrated in collective security exercises with China.

The recent massive China-Russia Joint Military Exercise involving over reported 400 ships & Fighter Aircraft participating in vicinity of Japan was demonstrated to show-off Russia-China Axis military might in war-time scenarios.

Obviously, this Russia-China Axis military response was to counter the US-led and US-crafted bilateral, trilateral and multilateral security groupings that have emerged more sharply since China under incumbent President Xi Jinping switched Chinna's strategies from 'Soft Power' to muscular 'Hard Power', creating multiple flashpoints in Indo Pacific.

Cold War 2.0, reminiscent of Cold War 1.0 in Europe, is now in full swing in Indo Pacific in 2024 which has emerged as a highly "Bipolar Polarized Region'.

Eastern NATO was a concept which kept surfacing from late 1990s is now being actively pursued. Realistically, while Eastern NATO may have not emerged on institutional pattern of NATO, but the US-led security architecture for IndoPacific Security against the "China Threat" is all but in name an Eastern NATO.

Eastern Warsaw Pact also has taken shape in Indo Pacific in wake of Cold War 2.0 when the security linkages of Russia-China-Norh Korea are added. 

Possible candidates as future members of Eastern Warsaw Pact can be assessed as Iran and Pakistan with one or two Central Asian Republics. The China-Pakistan Axis and China-Iran 25years Comprehensive Strategic Partnership are indicators.

Major Concluding observations that need to be made are that (1) Eastern NATO and Eastern Warsaw Pact predominating Indo Pacific security environment, all but as integrated institutionalized structures, is a 'given' (2) Indo Pacific cannot escape the strategic reality of intense military confrontation spawning opposing military alliances arising from bipolar geopolitics as confrontation intensifies (3) Indo Pacific as a highly surcharged explosive bipolar confrontation region would offer no bandwidth for practitioners of neutrality, fence-sitters or multipolarity.

Cold War 1.0 would historically remain as a mere shadow comparatively against Cold War 2.0 more incendiary conflictual flashpoints.  

The "China Threat" in Cold War 2.0 is more unpredictable and potent than what was the Russian Threat to Europe in Cold War1.0.

 

UMITED STATES STRATEGICALLY INSENSITIVE POLICIES IN 2024 RENDER INDIA'S EASTERN FLANK VULNERABLE

United States policies destabilizing Bangladesh and Myanmar in closing months of 2024 betray an utter 'Strategic Insensitivity" to India's critical strategic planning and defense postures against the 'China Threat'. 

The very fundamentals of US-India Strategic Partnership based on a convergence of strategic perspectives on the 'China Threat' are perceptionally knocked-out by recent US policies moves.

US strategic naivety is ruled out, simply, because surely, the US State Department and Pentagon cannot be oblivious to geopolitical stability of Bangladesh and Myanmar for US national security needs, even if India's strategic sensitivities are overlooked in some US greater power games,

Indian policy establishment needs to question its American counterparts as to US intentions when US current moves betray a curious coincidence with China's power-play to wean away Bangladesh and Myanmar from India's natural political and economic influence.

United States constantly proclaims that India is a 'Pivotal Partner' in Indo Pacific Security. Yet, in 2024 closing months, US flawed policies on Bangladesh and Myanmar, covering India's critical flank in relation to China Threat, have rendered India vulnerable.

United States policy planners in State Department and the Pentagon cannot be so strategically naive as to not to grasp the strategic significance of Bangladesh and Myanmar to India's war-waging capabilities against the China Threat to India's Arunachal Pradesh and India's Northeastern States bordering Northern Myanmar.

Northern Bangladesh abuts deep into India creating a slender thread strip between China's massed troop concentration in Chumbi Valley, noted known as the 'Siliguri Corridor' or 'Chicken's Neck'. India's vital road and rail links traverse this slender strip.

Pro-Chinese Bangladesh can militarily collude with China to exploit Indian vulnerabilities in this marrow strip.

Further, Eastern Bangladesh adjoins a number of sensitive Indian States of Northeast. Pro-China Bangladesh could facilitate intensified Chinese -aided insurgencies against India, going on for decades. 

Northern Myanmar critically covers India's Eastern Flank from the China-India-Myanmar Trijunction right down to Southern tips of Indian States of Tripura and Mizoram.

Realistically speaking, China in event of a China-India War could "Turn the Flanks" against India by outflanking India's Arunachal Force Deployments by a forcible drive via a number of laterals available to it in Northern Myanmar. In this scenario China could exert military pressure at multiple points on Myanmar-India borders.

Contextually, therefore, United States' "Destabilization" of Bangladesh and Myanmar multiplies India's military challenges both in Arunachal Pradesh and India's Eastern Flank resting on Myanmar-India borders.

Concluding, it needs to be over-emphasized that should United States policy planners do not initiate "Course-Corrections" in their ongoing flawed policies in Bangladesh and Myanmar, detrimental to Indian security interests, then India has the right to review the very fundamentals of US-India Strategic Partnership, notwithstanding the US rhetoric.

Strategic Partnerships entail a strong component of "Strategi Trust" and taking Strategic Partners into confidence, even if US has "compulsions" to strike convergences with China. 

India's strategic sensitivities in relation to combatting China Threat can be ill-ignored by the United States in the evolving geopolitics of Indo Pacific, as it is India that adds "Strategic Ballast" for United States embedment in this conflictual expanse.

 

ASIAN SECURITY 2024: THE IMPACT OF CHINA-GENERATED MILITARY BUILDUPS OF INDIA AND JAPAN

The Asian Security environment presents a grim picture in overall terms with the over-hang of the China Threat generated military buildup arms race induced by China's territorial disputes, on land and sea, with virtually all its 14 neighbors.

India and Japan as two major Asian Powers with territorial disputes with Communist China and contending to share Asian strategic space with China, could not have escaped a military buildup race with China. 

Explosive military flashpoints abound on China's peripheries extending from the Korean Peninsula, Japan, Taiwan, Philippines, Vietnam and India's Himalayan Borders with China Occupied Tibet.

Asia's maritime expanses extending from Western Pacific, South China Sea and the Indian Ocean, have emerged as confrontation expanses because of China's conflicting claims of sovereignty.

In its wake, to withstand China's belligerent political and military coercive strategies India and Japan, are engaged in a feverish buildup of their military and operational logistics capabilities.

The military buildups of India and Japan impact the overall geopolitical and strategic environment of Asian security with particular reference to Indo Pacific security.

 India and Japan not only add military ballast to the overall US-led security architecture crafted to impose deterrence on China's aggressive impulses but also as Asian Major Powers reinforce the impression that China is not confronted only by external Powers to the Region. 

Perspectives generated by India as a Strategic Partner of USA, and Japan as US Ally,, in relation to the widely perceived China need to be examined as follows: (1) Cold War 2.0 polarization (2) Salience of United States 'Countervailing Power' against China Threat (3) Diminution of China's asymmetrical military predominance over India and Japan (4) Nuclear Weaponization of Japan and South Korea (5) Overall Balance of Power, and (6)Eastern NATO possibility ?

Cold War 2.0 in effect has seamlessly emerged from Cold War 1.o in Indo Pacific with the China Threat replacing the erstwhile Soviet Threat. In 2024, Asian security is marked by intense geopolitical and military polarization with China opposing United States, US Allies and US, 'Stategic Partners'.

Cold War 2.0 in Indo Pacific is more intense than Cold War 1,0 which was Europe-centric. Conflictual flashpoints generated by China are more incendiary and could ignite with unintended consequences.

Salience of United States as "Countervailing Power" against the China Threat has perceptively increased.  Since India and Japan, by themselves could not ward off China's demonstrated aggressive provocations, reliance on United States is strategically logical.

The United States, conversely, has been actively assisting the military buildups of India and Japan, to impose deterrence on China till US military power comes into play. This arises from a dawning realization in United States that China can be confronted only with support by India and Japan.

Military buildup programs of India and Japan, ongoing and in the pipeline, will greatly off-set China's so far asymmetrical military preponderance over these two Asian Powers. 

The 'unsettling effect' of the above is visibly evident when China protests that United States is leading a 'China Containment Strategy' using India and Japan. 

The significant point to note here is that in tandem with their own military buildups, both India and Japan are engaged in military capacity buildups of smaller nations like Philippines and Vietnam, facing Chinese aggression.

Possible nuclear weaponization of Japan and South Korea, so far, has been dissuaded by the United States arising from its earlier China-policy formulations marked by over- sensitivity to Chinese strategic concerns.

With the Russia-China Axis in play in Indo Pacific, with North Korea in tow, (All Nuclear Weapons Powers), the nuclear weapons imbalance could prompt Japan and South Korea to build their own nuclear deterrence against the regional nuclear threat.

The 'Overall Military Balance of Power' against China and the manifested China Threat in 2024, rests largely with the United States, buttressed by India's and Japan's sizeable military buildups.

The 'Eastern NATO' precept against the persistent China Threat has gained currency lately with China's persistent belligerence showing no signs of abating.

 India seems to be reluctant to join such military alliances. Presumably, a hangover of Nehruvian Nonalignment policies.

 Japan already has in place strong institutional links with NATO for regular consultations and coordination. Japan is a regular invitee for NATO Summits.

India may shrink from Eastern NATO appellations, but the strategic reality is, that India in 2024, is strongly enmeshed in US security mechanisms and strategic partnerships with US and NATO Nations who are increasingly turning their gaze to Indo Pacific. This is necessitated by China now being perceived as a threat in NATO formulations too.

In China's perceptions, there is already an Eastern NATO in operation with India and Japan as leading Asian Powers being pivotal Powers in United States' Indo Pacific strategy.

Concluding, the brief sketch of the perspectives generated by accelerated military buildups of India and Japan, generated by the unabated China Threat, indicate a significant impact on China. China in 2024 is rattled with these two military buildups ranged against it. 

Consequently, in Indo Pacific Region, India and Japan are no longer perceived as 'Reluctant Powers' to confront the China Threat. In a sense military buildups by India and Japan are 'Game Changers' in the overall power tussle in Asia. 

 

INDIA'S UKRAINE PEACE OFFENSIVE 2024: GEOPOLITICAL AND STRATEGIC SPINOFFS

Indian PM Narendra Modi's unique stature in global diplomacy coupled with India's image in last ten years as a responsible stakeholder in global security, has enabled India to gain headway over China's early initiatives for peace in Ukraine.

Comparatively, China is not perceived as an 'Honest Broker' to achieve a breakthrough in Ukraine peace initiatives, simply because of its Russia-China Axis linkages, and due to Western perceptions that China due to strategic reasons is prolonging the Russian Invasion of Ukraine by underwriting it with military and logistics supplies.

India on the other hand, despite its perceived proximity to Russia, more today due to cheap oil supplies, does not carry the same baggage as China does.

Further, India's Comprehensive Strategic Partnership with United States, European Majors (NATO Allies) and US Allies in Pacific induces two sets of strategic confidences in India.

The first, India's above linkages, dispels the notion that India is sold out to Russia. 

Secondly, India's policy pronouncements by PM Modi on Russian soil that war is no longer an option in modern era and that peace can be achieved through dialogue and diplomacy, has added farther credibility of India being perceived as an 'Honest Broker' in mediating peace between Russia and Ukraine.

Contextually, therefore, it was logical for Ukraine President Zelensky to assert during PM Modi's path-breaking visit to Ukraine in August 2024 that India should "host" the Second Ukraine Peace Conference in New Delhi.

India's 'Ukraine Peace Offensive' evidenced by Indian PM Modi's historic visit to Ukraine, some six weeks after his meeting with Russian President Putin in Moscow, and the post-Ukraine visit telephonic discussions with US President Biden and Russian President Putin, highlights that India is in unique position to facilitate positive 'Face-to- Face' Meet between Russian President Putin and Ukraine President Zelensky in New Delhi.

Indian PM Modi's 'Peace Offensive' has generated approvals from the United States, European capitals yearning for peace in Europe and finds resonance in Russia.

China is the only exception reflected in Global Times that China viewed Indian efforts as unlikely to yield positive results.

With Russia bogged down in a stalemate in its Ukraine Invasion and Ukraine Forces in a counter-offensive conquering nearly 450 sq km Russia Territory, war-weariness seems to be taking over Russia.

Ukraine devastated by wanton and reckless Russian bombings of its cities and infrastructure would also be yearning for peace to return and begin reconstruction of the nation.

The 'Ukraine Peace Offensive' by India surely would be a daunting task in terms of reconciling conflicting demands of Russia and Ukraine. But then, the first small but sure, steps taken by PM Modi could pave the way for peace, with both Russian President Putin and Ukraine President Zelensky reposing faith in India and PM Modi.

With widespread yearning forthcoming for the 'Peace Offensive' one can be optimistic that Indian PM would be able with his mediation skills and global stature be able to mediate a workable end to the Ukraine War.

The geopolitical and strategic spinoffs for India in the event of its successful outcome of its 'Ukraine Peace Offensive' are many. The notable ones are stated in brief below.

Geopolitically, India would be increasingly perceived under PM Modi as a responsible stakeholder in global peace and stability, capable of "Bridging Divides" in global fault-lines.

Geopolitically, India would be able to neutralize much of the false narratives on India generated by China and some segments of Western media.

Geopolitically, India would have a stronger imprint in both Western Europe and Eastern Europe.

Geopolitically, arising from the above, would be a reinforcing of India's pivotal stature in Indo Pacific security.

Strategically, the most significant spinoff for India would be that an end to the Ukraine War would possibly end China's strategic indispensability in Russia's calculations that emerged post-Ukraine War.

Russia's over-dependance on China has been a worrying factor for Indian policy establishment in terms of Russian attitudes in event of a China-India armed conflict. Weaning away Russia from over-dependance on China, which could not be achieved by Indian diplomacy, now could possibly be achieved by Ukraine Peace Offensive.

In terms of Indian defence equipment needs, Ukraine with improved relations with India, opens up an alternative source other than Russia. As it is Ukraine is the main supplier of gas turbines for Indian Navy warships. Ukraine during the Soviet era was the main powerhouse of Russian defence equipment production.

Concluding, that while peace is an elusive commodity in case of intractable armed conflicts, and especially where Global Majors are directly or indirectly involved, war -weariness does set-in when stalemates start overtaking. That is the tipping-point for peace offensives.

Contextually, India is well-placed to work that much harder on its Ukraine Peace Offensive, however intractable. If India succeeds, a Nobel Peace Prize would be a just reward for Indian PM Modi.

 

CHINA AS A 'SUPERPOWER ' MYTHIFICATION LOSES CREDIBILITY DUE UNFOLDING GEOPOLITICS AND GEOECONOMICS VISIBLE IN 2024

 China's mythification of being a "Superpower" was authored in the United States some two decades ago arising from strategic considerations of   its then "China Policy'. In 2024, unfolding geopolitical and geoeconomic developments have perceptionally robbed China of that much aspired 'honorific'.

Contextual observations on the myth of 'China as a Superpower' were made as far back as 2015 in my Book: "China-India Military Confrontation; 21st Century Perspectives".

Some pertinent observations made then and germane to the discussion in this Paper are reproduced and discussed below.

"Of course, there is no global mechanism that can afford the deferential status of Superpower but for the writings and utterances of officialdom in the United States. This should cease because China in the classical interpretation of the term 'Superpower' has none of the attributes that are attendant on it."

China in 2024, may have an outsized military machine and nuclear weapons armory, but it lacks two important ingredients of a Superpower, and that are global force-projection & military reach and geopolitical weightage to shape the global and regional environment, positively.

Addedly, follow-up pertinent excerpts from my Book adding context to the discussion are reproduced below.

"Geopolitical seismic changes as the one China seems to be generating in the 21st Century have created in its wake new strategic 'fault-lines', new political alignments and re-alignments and which are visible in 2015."

 "Going by historical lessons, also attendant in such strategic challenges by a 'revisionist power' rise two other realities of the coalescing of lesser powers around the power that is being challenged, as opposed to the 'revisionist power' and also the propensity of the 'revisionist power' boxing much above its true strategic weight. This factor leads to unintended strategic consequences."

China, unlike Former Soviet Union as the then contending Superpower of the United States has been unable to forge the equivalent of a Warsaw Pact Bloc of Communist countries alliance straddling Central Europe, which endowed Soviet Union geopolitical and geostrategic weight to earn the sobriquet of a Superpower.

China in 2024, with the exception of North Korea and Pakistan, has no line-up of 'Natural Allies' like US-led NATO or the interwoven US-led bilateral and multilateral security groupings in the Indo Pacific.

China does not 'straddle' IndoPacific. It not only has to contend with the United States but also to contend with two 'Major Contending Asian Powers', namely India and Japan. Both India and Japan have contentious boundary disputes with China.

The current crystalizing Russia-China Axis post-Ukraine has limitations when competing Russian and Chinese narratives surface in Central Asia and even in Iran.

China's political and military influence is felt and more acutely confined to its peripheries in Indo Pacific with remote sensing in Europe.

In terms of military and combat effectiveness, Russia draws a legacy inheritance from some of the bitterest fighting of World War II against blitzkrieg German military operations deep on Russian soil and the Soviet Army's later advances to Berlin.

Chinese Armed Forces have no comparable war and battle-hardened experiences except for the Korean War of early 1950s where Chinese 'Mass-Force' operations having over-run South Korea up to its Southern tip of Pusan were 'rolled-back' across the Yalu River in North Korea by US General MacArthur's application of modernized military machine. 

Chinese military power stood checkmated notably as far back as 1979 by Vietnam and effectively since 2020 by India along its Himalayan Borders with China Occupied Tibet.

Admittedly, China has at its command in 2024 massive conventional and nuclear weapons military machine. But China's much' mythicized ' Superpower military machine has not been battle-tested in prolonged modernized military operations like the ongoing Russo-Ukraine War.

Doubts on the Chinese military machine military effectiveness, the mainstay of China's mush aspired Superpower status, also arise from the deleterious effects of wholesale purges in its military hierarchy by incumbent President Xi Jinping. That it does have an impact is not debatable.  

Geopolitically, in 2024, China has by its self-inflicted aggressive impulses on its peripheries pushed itself into a corner. Indo Pacific as a virtual whole is deeply polarized against China. The resonance of this geopolitical cornering of China now extends all the way to Europe and NATO.

Geoeconomically, the very economic resurgence of China into double-digit growth and which financed its Hitlerian outsized military arsenal has now whittled down to single digits of 4-5% growth rates. Can China sustain this military machine and for how long?

China's economic superpower predominance in manufacturing and semi-conductors which prevailed for decades in American strategic calculations is now 'moth-eaten' by flight of foreign capital and increasing trade-barriers against China's lop-sided export trade surpluses.

The disintegration of the Former Soviet Union as United States 'Contending' Superpower' was brought about by US Reaganisque dual policies of inflicting an arms race on the Soviet Union with a consequent stagnant economic decline.

China may have learnt all the lessons from the disintegration of the Former Soviet Union but as the policies underway in 2024 of China's President Xi Jinping indicate that the lessons learnt are now being "unlearnt"

Concluding, it is incumbent upon the United States which beatified China with the mythicized hallowed term of being a 'Superpower', to now revise such an assessment.

 China at best, in my assessment. is just another Major Power with an outsized military arsenal which has generated an arms race not only with the United States but also in Indo Pacific. The disintegration of Former Soviet Union due to arms race impact, is a grim pointer. 

 

UNITED STATES AND INDIA STRATEGIC INTERDEPENDENCE IN 2024 TRANSCENDS INDO PACIFIC SECURITY TEMPLATE

Global geopolitical dynamics and adversarial configurations affecting national security interests of United States and India in 2024, presage, that in the second decade of the 21st Century, the strategic interdependence of the United States and India, would transcend the Indo Pacific security template, even more markedly.

The 'China Threat' would continue to be the most potent and dangerous threat to both United States and India in the Indo Pacific security context.

The above assessment is a logical conclusion that arises from the adversarial trajectory that China has adopted towards the United States and India, which shows no signs of restraint, or reversal.

China on the contrary has moved to further reinforce the adversarial equations with the United States and India. China has forged the Russia-China Axis to counterbalance the United States. To offset India, China forged the China-Pakistan Axis, besides attempting to dilute Russia-India relations.

China has gridlocked itself in confrontation with the United States not only in Indo Pacific, but that hostility manifests itself, directly and by proxy, in the Middle East, East Mediterranean, South America, and the Oceanic Island States of the Southern Pacific.

In 2024, even Europe and NATO have not escaped the tremors of the unfolding and expanding China Threat transcending Indo Pacific confines.

China is locked with India in an intense military confrontation on the over 3,000 km length of India's Himalayan Borders with China Occupied Tibet. It is no longer a boundary dispute but has now accentuated geopolitical dimensions.

Reflected in my Book; 'China-India Military Confrontation: 21st Century Perspectives' in 2015 was "The unfolding China-India geopolitical rivalry in the 21st Century, notably, is underwritten by and accentuated by the mid-20th Century, China-India military confrontation whose seeds were sown by the forcible military occupation of Tibet by China."

Taking all of the above factors, and adding, China's strategic forays impinging on US security interests across the globe, and Chinese attempts to stamp on Indian security and influence interests in its neighborhood, the stage seems to be set for the United States and India to mould and integrate their 'Strategic Interdependence' in more substantive contours.

Pertinent, therefore, is the need to spell out briefly, the geopolitical, military and economic interdependencies of the United States and India.

Geopolitical interdependence between United States and India was recognized by United States and India, at the turn of the Millennium when the US-India Strategic Partnership was initially signed.

These geopolitical imperatives have multiplied in the last two decades as the China Threat magnified and the United States dispensed with its strategic ambiguities on China and the China-Pakistan Axis recognizing the futility of molding China to be a responsible stakeholder in global affairs.

In 2024, India figures high in United States global geopolitical perspectives, and vice-versa, too. This has led to both the United States and India elevating their Strategic Partnership to a 'Comprehensive Global Strategic Partnership'.

Militarily, the United States and India, having well-recognized their strategic interdependence have in place today institutionalized and integrated security mechanisms like BESA, LEMOA and COMCASA, which both in peace and moreso, in times of operational emergencies would enable effective military responses.

Miliary professionals can decode how the United States security architecture in Western Pacific and India's military deployments on China Occupied Tibet Borders and Indian Navy's predominance in Indian Ocean contribute to both Nations' interdependence.

India is well-poised to emerge as the 'Third Largest Economy ' in the world, with United States at 'Number One'. India's economic rise has arisen to this high point with infusion of FDI from the United States and its Allies, arising from the strengthening of the US-India Strategic Partnership.

In tandem, with India's current political fast-track measures on 'Manufacturing' and 'Semi-Conductors' being priority aims, the United States dependence on China in these two vital fields would be strategically reduced. US and Western major business interests are relocating to India from China.

The 'Strategic Interdependence' template of United States and India having been laid out, a crucial question that begs an answer would be the longevity of this 'Strategic Interdependence'. 

In my assessment, 'Strategic Interdependence' is unlike to reduce or be devalued, simply for the reason, that even with the possibility of 'China Threat' becoming non-existent, the unfolding geopolitical and geoeconomic factors would continue to sustain the bonds of the Global Stategic Partnership between the two countries.    

Concluding, it needs to be emphasized that that both the United States and India should endeavor to respect each other's strategic sensitivities on vital global and regional issues.

 Here, the call is much higher on the United States which at times lets political expediencies offering short-term tactical gains predominate the long-term perspectives of this vital 'Strategic Interdependence 'between the United States and India.

 

 

MIDDLE EAST EXPLOSIVE VOLATILITY IN 2024 IMPACTS HEAVILY ON INDO PACIFIC SECURITY

Contextually, the seismic events of Iran's unprecedented crossing 'Red Lines' by a 'Direct Attack' on Israel (read my Analysis of April 2024) and Israel liquidating Iranian Proxy Militia leaders of Hamas in Gaza and Hezbollah in Lebanon, have raised the stakes for the contending global powers in the inflammable Middle East.

The prospects of an Israel-Iran War are real. moreso, because Hamas political head Ismael Haniyeh was liquidated by Israel right in the heart of Iranian capital, Teheran. Iran's potent Proxy Armed Militias top leadership, Hamas in Gaza, and Hezbollah in Lebanon have been struck by fatal blows from Israel.

These two seismic events bring more proactively into play the ongoing simmering power-play in the Middle East between the United States confronted by Russia and China making strategic forays in the Region.

United States, under any political dispensation, is strongly committed to security and existence of Israel, as a Nation State, against threats from any quarter. Israel is assisted by United States with billions of dollars in military aid and hardware.

Iran's avowed aim is to destroy Israel, even more patently obsessive, than other Muslim Nations.

Russia and China have not publicly committed on protecting Iran against security threats emanating from Israel and United States.

China has already in existence a 25-Year Comprehensive Strategic Partnership Agreement with Iran. Russia is reported to be in the final stages of concluding a similar Agreement with Iran.

 Rusia was the initial military supplier to Iran but then China overtook Russia, with China not only assisting Iran with nuclear weapons technology, but also facilitated North Korean IRBM technology for Iran. 

In terms of perspectives, the United States with reduced dependencies on Middle East oil from about8% to 14, is now focused solely on security of Israel and overall regional security.

Russia and China's perspectives on Middle East are colored by the reality of using the Middle East as a "Strategic Pressure-Point" against the United States, to divert United States strategic attention from their military misadventures in Ukraine and in South China Sea. 

While Russia's counter-strategic pressure point of Middle East is more or less post-Ukraine development, China has long played this card in the Middle East against the United States.

Long observed by me has been China's propensity to play the 'Iranian Card' against the United States, whenever the United States tightens the screws against China on Taiwan or in the larger Indo Pacific.

In the final analysis, in terms of an all-out Iran-Israel War, while United States and NATO are likely to use their air power and naval deployments to limit Iranian missiles and drone strikes against Israel, as they did in April 2024, it is unlikely that China or Russia could do likewise.

However, Russia and China, can be surely expected to sustain Iranian war-waging capacity against Israel by supplies of missiles, arms and ammunition.

In the scenario of an Iran-Isael War, borrowing a leaf from the 1980s Iran-Iraq War, such a war could be of long duration, simply because in absence of geographical contiguity with Israel, Iran would have to restrict its war to missiles & drones' warfare, which Iran has plenty in terms of indigenous production.

Such a War in the Middle East would keep the United States "Strategically Distracted" from the Indo Pacific, wherein China resides as the 'Prime Threat' to United States national security interests and influence.

The United States paid a heavy price during the period the period 2001-10, when US 'Strategic Distractions' in Iraq and Afghanistan, enabled China to implement its RMA plans for Armed Forces, to create a Blue Water Navy and establish control over South China Sea,

Since then, China has assumed more belligerent postures in IndoPacific in relation to Taiwan, South China Sea and lately against the Philippines.

Since then, the Russia-China Axis has concretized in more integrated forms following Russian Invasion of Ukraine and China's sustenance of the Russian Invasion with military and logistic support.

The Russia-China Axis lately is more visible in Western Pacific with Russia-China Joint Naval Exercises and Joint Combat Air Patrols in the Northwest Qadrant of Indo Pacific.

Notably, Russia-China Joint Air Patrols have indulged in provocative air-maneuvers in proximity of US territory of Alaska.

The Indo Pacific thus emerges seriously impacted by the geopolitical and strategic inter-linkages that Middle East explosive volatility have on Indo Pacific security.

 Learning the bitter lessons from the 'Strategic Distraction "of 2002-10, which China exploited to its military advantage, it is hoped that the United States would this time ensure that no "Strategic Voids" are created in the Indo Pacific as a result of its strategic focus on the explosive Middle East.

 

CHINAS DECLINING TRAJECTORY UNDER PRESIDENT XI JINPING'S TWELVE- YEAR IRON RULE: A PREDICTIVE ANALYSIS

Perceptibly, Peoples Republic of China can be estimated to have struck a 'Declining Trajectory' under twelve years of ruthless iron rule of incumbent President Xi Jinping who fancies himself as Mao-Tse Tung 2.0.

Xi Jinping has been President of Communist China since 2013. Prior to that he was Secretary of Chinese Communist Party since 2012.  He also has been Vice President of China 2008-13.

In the first few years of his rule President Xi Jinping captured China's all three levers of power, namely, President of China, Secretary Chinese Communist Party and Chairman, Central Military Commission.

In the process, President Xi Jinping ruthlessly deposed /eliminated all opposition to him in the higher ranks of the Party, bureaucracy, and more notably, Generals in the Peoples Liberation Army.

China was at its peak in terms of geopolitical stature, economic strength and military power when President Xi Jinping assumed power in Beijing in 2013.

China's ascendant power trajectory was a heady mix of United States geopolitical permissiveness, massive flow of FDI from United States and China's creation of a 'Blue Water Navy in the years preceding 2013 due to American strategic distractions in Iraq and Afghanistan.

In 2013, with President Xi Jinping in power in Beijing, China switched from 'Soft Power' strategies to exercise of 'Hard Power', military brinkmanship and aggression from South China Sea to the Himalayan Heights of India's Northern Borders with China Occupied Tibet.

In the pursuance of his 'Great China Dream' and fancying himself as true inheritor of Mao Tse Tung, President Xi Jinping adopted a reckless geopolitical course of flexing military muscle on China's peripheries and thereby raising widespread strategic concern of a China Threat with Hitlerian impulses.

In 2024, major indicators of China's power profile lead towards a predictable estimate of 'Declining Trajectory' which with China's widening 'Strategic Vulnerabilities' may get more pronounced as years unfold.

As a matter of fact, in my earlier writings with South Analysis Group, since around 2015 or so, I have been emphasizing that China has glaring 'Strategic Vulnerabilities' which offer a window of opportunity to both United States and India. to exploit.

Briefly outlined below, is a focus on China's glaring 'Strategic Vulnerabilities' which are prompting world capitals to revise the American propagated 'Myth' that China is a Superpower, done more to squeeze funds for defense budget from US Congress.

Geopolitically, China in 2024, under President Xi Jinping has lost its geopolitical Lustre. With Russia-China Axis solidifying, China's 'geopolitical asset value' to United States and West, has virtually diminished.

Geopolitically, China today, can be estimated to be diplomatically isolated in Indo Pacific width deep polarization, heavily weighted against it.

Economically, under President Xi Jinping China has taken a virtual nose-dive. From double-digit annual growth rates hovering around 12.5 %, the growth rates have dropped to about 6 %.

China's major economic strength of global domination in 'Manufactures Strength' today stands whittled down with US & Western capital outflows to Vietnam and India.

China's housing sector is in a state of collapse with a million dwelling units lying unsold and infrastructure giants collapsing. It has a cascading effect on Chinese economy.

China's Provinces are heavily in debt forcing diversion of Central Budget to bail them out.

Reports suggest that there is widespread domestic unrest brewing which is being brutally suppressed.

Economically, China may have been an Economic Superpower, but that story is now past. Its trillion dollars economy is besieged with 'trillions of economic vulnerabilities'.

Undoubtedly, China has a massive military machine backed by Nuclear Weapons and ICBMs. China's military power stands concentrated in Occupied Tibet and Coastal Provinces on Pacific littoral.

In 2024, China's virtual military hegemony stands challenged by the military rise of India and Japan as 'contending Asian Powers' and both having territorial disputes with China.

In 2924, China has been stared back even by the Philippines in its South China sea disputes

The overall 'Balance of Power' against China in Indo Pacific is heavily weighted against it, by US-led security architecture resting on bilateral security alliances and multilateral security groupings like QUAD, SQUAD, AUKUS and the many Trilaterals with US of Western Pacific nations.

Importantly, China's Armed Forces despite their manpower dominance and technical advancements have never been tried and tested in combat.

Military purges and liquidations of Chinese military hierarchy including rent case of the Defense Minister by President Xi Jinping suggest both a backlash against Chinese President's imperial hold and dissension within ranks of Armed Forces.

Moving to the more unquantifiable element of 'National Cohesion' it can be asserted that the above discussed factors coupled with restiveness in China's outlying Western Frontiers of Occupied Sinkiang and Occupied Tibet, China has a fistful of Internal Security challenges. No wonder that the budget for Chinese Armed Police tasked for internal suppression, some say, outstrips that of the Chinese Army.

Concluding, the following major observations sustain the prediction that China is plunging into a 'Declining Trajectory' under the 12 -year iron rule of President Xi Jinping: 

• China's geopolitical weightage has considerably whittled down. China is no longer viewed in world capitals as a responsible stakeholder in upholding regional and global peace and stability.
• China's long-vaunted economic strengths stand greatly diminished by China's trillions of economic problems discussed above and rise of India's manufacturing strengths.
• Militarily, the Balance of Power' is heavily weighted against China by two successive US Presidents 'Hard Line' policies on China, crafting a host of security groupings to combat the unfolding China Threat.
• Military rise of India and Japan and their contributions to building military capacity of Western Pacific nations is a serious challenge to China's unquestioned military dominance so afar.
• China's military budget cannot escape cuts due to China's slow- down of economy.

 China's 'Strategic Vulnerabilities' can be expected to grow as any 'Reverse Gears' by President Xi Jinping are predictably unthinkable.

Predictably, the other monolith Communist Power that is Former Soviet Union disintegrated under weight of economic vulnerabilities, domestic discontent and ethnic restiveness in 1991 after 72 years of Communist rule, Can Communist China with glaring 'Strategic Vulnerabilities' last longer?

History provides no evidence of 'Totalitarian States' lasting for a Century or beyond. Can Communist China emerge to the contrary? 

 

UNITED STATES CAN ILL AFFORD TRANSACTIONAL STRATEGIES AS OPPOSED TO NURTURING OF STRATEGIC ALLIANCES/PARTNERSHIPS

United States can ill-afford transactional strategic relationships demanding "Protection Money" for US security guarantees to its long- standing military alliances or implied assurances to its valued strategic partners like India.

This issue cropped up recently when in the ongoing US Presidential campaign, the Republican candidate, Former US President Trump seeking re-election, warned Taiwan that if it wants United States to protect it against China, then Taiwan must pay for it.

The United States must guard against such rhetoric as it endangers United States recognized status as guarantor of global security. 

The above not only shakes strategic trust and confidence in US Allies of long standing and time-tested Alliances but also sows doubts in Nations in process of evolving credible strategic partnerships with the United States.

Lying at the core of this issue is the simple question and that is whether US Allies need 'security alliances' with the United States "more", than the other way around?

The answer too is simple. In today's unpredictable and uncharted geopolitical scenarios when the Russia-China Axis is solidifying and drawing more adherents to its side, the United States can ill-afford to loosen or shake its 'Security Alliances' by its Presidential contenders' intention to call for 'Protection Money' for security provided.

The United States should not unlearn the bitter lessons of its 'Transactional Strategic Relationships' record. Pakistan is the prime example. Pouring in billions in military aid to Pakistan in transactional strategies failed to secure Pakistan as a 'trusted Ally' of the United States. Pakistan today lies squarely with China which is the United States prime threat and enemy.

Security of Homeland United States rests critically on United States security relationships with NATO in terms of European security against the Russian Threat and on its spider-web of bilateral Mutual Security Treaties in Western Pacific against the China Threat with Japan, South Korea, Philippines and Taiwan.

Admittedly, the point is well taken that the United States economically cannot shoulder the burden of stationing US Forces in thousands in Forward Military Presence in Jaan and South Korea or elsewhere. Japan and South Korea as economically vibrant nations pay for hosting US Forces on their soil. The quantum of Host Nations shouldering the financial burden is mutually negotiated out of glare of publicity.

However, to make outlandish statements demanding 'Protection Money' from Philippines or Taiwan even in the heat of election campaign rhetoric is demeaning for United States stature as the global predominant Power.

Concluding, it needs to be stressed that if the United States intends to retain its decades-old global strategic predominance and secure Homeland USA, its top-most priority needs to be to "Nurture" its Strategic Alliances/ Partners and not demand "Protection Money' so that the element of 'Strategic Distrust' does not creep-in and dilute these strategic relationships.

The United States needs NATO solidarity and Western Pacific US Allies solidarity more than ever before.

 

 

UNITED STATES AND INDIA'S DIFFERING POLICY PERCEPTIONS ON RUSSIA: IMPLICATIONS ANALYSED:

United States and India in 2024 bonded together by a vibrant Global Strategic Partnership, however, now face a piquant situation, where their differing policy perspectives on Russia, is causing irritable strains, and which could raise unintended implications.

United States and India's differing policy perceptions on Russia have come into sharper focus with Indian PM Narendra Modi's recent visit to Moscow where for optical reasons, Russian President Putin, displayed more than usual effusive bonhomie.

The above contextually viewed with India's abstention on US-sponsored UN Resolution calling on Russia to cease the war in Ukraine, has drawn American criticism.

United States in 2024 perceives Russia, after Russian Invasion of Ukraine, as a potent threat to European security and a threat to Indo Pacific security, when viewed in the Russia-China context.

India in 2024, weighed down by multilateralism foreign policy prescriptions, and with the historical record of Russia-India Strategic Partnership, predating the US-India Strategic Partnership, by decades, is loath to outrightly jettison this relationship.

The above Indian policy perception prevails despite that Russia in 2024 is strategically closely tied to India's arch-enemy China.

In terms of implications, India stands to lose more geopolitically, than United States, if both India and the United States cannot overcome the strain caused in their differing policy perceptions on Russia.

The irrefutable fact is that India's considerable weightage in global geopolitics power-play surfaced only with US-India "Estrangement" of the last century having been transformed into "Active Engagement" in the last ten years.

The above set in motion a strategic re-evaluation of India in the foreign policy calculations in Major Powers capitals.

The United States has been accommodative of India's differing policy perceptions on Russia and Iran for the last many years.

However. in 2024, when the World Order is heavily polarized, reminiscent of Cold War 1.0 vintage, and with Russia-China Axis in active play in the Ukraine War, the United States, West, and US Allies in the Pacific, including countries like Japan, may not be all that accommodative of India's perceptions of Russia.

Visible recently, as a result of the above, possibly, are the United States to forge a newer set of strategic groupings superimposed on the existing security architecture in Western Pacific. India does not figure in them.

So, what are India's options to restore the vibrancy in US-India Strategic Partnership?

While I am not suggesting that India should jettison its long-standing relations with Russia, it is also incumbent on India not to give the impression that it is playing the 'India Card' with more than protocol diplomacy.

Contextual geopolitical landscape of a heavily confrontationist bipolar world in 2024, as repeatedly stressed by me earlier, does not offer India the bandwidth of Nehruvian foreign policy stances, juggling Non-alignment with Multilateralism.

India till 2047, needs a' Countervailing Power' as a standby to face a highly belligerent China in no mood to settle issues with India.

The choice for India is between United States and Russia. Russia does not have the geopolitical weight and strategic potential to be one.

United States provides a good option to be India's Countervailing Power against China. It needs to be recalled that in 1962, Nehru was ultimately forced to enlist United States assistance to countervail China.

India needs to prudently make its 'Strategic Choices' as to who serves India's national security interests more effectively.

 

  

TIBET THRUST INTO GLOBAL GEOPOLITICAL COSCIOUSNESS BY UNITED STATES LEGISLATION DEBUNKING CHINA'S CLAIMS OVER TIBET

The United States bowing to geopolitical imperatives, in a significant Congress Legislation, has pushed China Occupied Tibet into global consciousness which not only defines Tibet's geographical boundaries but also debunks China's 'historical claims' of sovereignty over Tibet.

In a bipartisan move, passed overwhelmingly by both Houses of the US Congress the "Promoting a Resolution of the Tibet-China Conflict Act 2024" milestone and historic.  The Bill now has gone to President Joe Biden for signature,

The Act is exhaustive, and for purposes of this Paper, the most significant observations which have geopolitical consequences, have been lifted from the Act, and produced verbatim:

• "Tibet including those areas incorporated into the Chinese provinces of Sichuan, Yunan, Gansu and Qinghai, is an Occupied Territory, contrary to principles of international law".
• Tibet's true representatives are the Dalai Lama and the Tibetan Government-in-exile as recognized by the Tibetan people".
• Tibet has remained throughout history, a distinctive and sovereign national, cultural and religious identity, separate from that of China except during short periods of illegal occupation, has maintained a separate and sovereign political and national identity."
• "The United States Government has never taken the position that Tibet is part of China since ancient times or that the means by what the Government Peoples Republic of China came to exert effective control over Tibet was consistent with international law or included the force of meaningful consent of the Tibetan people."

Further emphasis on the above is stated in Section 4 "Sense of the Congress' which states: 

• Claims made by the officials of Peoples Republic of China and the Chinese Communist Party that Tibet has been a part of China since ancient times are false."
• The Government of Peoples Republic of China has failed to meet the expectations of the United States to engage in meaningful dialogue with the Dalai Lama or representatives towards a peaceful settlement of the unresolved conflict between Tibet and the Peoples Republic of China."
• "United States public diplomacy should counter disinformation about Tibet from the Government of Peoples Republic of China and the Chinese Communist Party, including disinformation about the history of Tibet, the Tibetan people and the Tibetan institutions, including that of the Dalai Lama."

The 'Resolution of Tibet-China Conflict Act 2024" once signed by President Biden, is a quantum jump by the United States over the 'US Tibet Policy Act 2002' , both in terms of 'statutory definitions' of Tibet and United States policy assertions on Tibet, which would form the basis of  'Reset of US Tibet Policy' for the future. 

The significant policy assertions made by United States on Tibet, as passed by the US Congress are as follows:

• Tibet's territorial and international status as Tibet is not confined to what China Terms as Tibet Autonomous Region but extends to include Tibetan Areas in China's neighboring areas stated above. 
• Tibet throughout its history (excepting spells of Chinese Occupation) has remained a distinctive political 'sovereign' entity.
• United States 'has never taken position that Tibet is part of China' as claimed by China and Chinese Communist Party. US dismisses China's historical assertions in this regard. (US documents from 1919 to date have been cited)
• United States long-standing policy that Tibet-China Conflict has to be resolved by China in negotiations with The Dalai Lama or his representatives, 'without any pre-conditions.' 

It needs to be recalled that China has not entered into any negotiations with the Dalai Lama, or his representatives, since 2010 asserting that Dalai Lama is not the representative of the Tibetan people.

United States now forcefully asserts that The Dalai Lama d the Tibet Government-in-exile are the true representatives of the Tibetan peoples. This is a politically heavily loaded challenge for China. 

China has been put on notice on Tibet's future by the United States by unambiguous policy declarations,

 not made so explicitly before.

Expectedly, US Allies and strategic partners would take the lead provided by United States in "Reset" of their policy stands on Tibet, now that the United States has thrust Tibet into global conscience. 

Finally, it needs to be stressed that the latest US Bill's policy assertions reinforce the fact that Tibet is presently, "China Occupied Tibet", as I have maintained in my writings for two decades and that China's historical claims are 'fabricated claims' which are illegal. 

INDIA'S PERCEPTIBLE GEOPOITICAL PUSH-BACK AGAINST CHINA ON ITS 'CORE ISSUES' 2024 ANALYZED

India's perceptible and calibrated geopolitical 'China Push-Back' strategy, in a game of counter-pressure points against China, is perceptibly visible in 2024 with India's recent moves on China's 'Core Issues' of Tibet, Taiwan and South China Sea.

China has designated Tibet, Taiwan and South China Sea as 'Core Issues' for China's national security and its sovereignty claims over these three entities. China has also asserted that China is willing to go to war, in case Chinses sovereignty claims over these three is threatened from any quarter.

India's geopolitical push-back against China on its three 'Core Issues' is therefore a welcome departure from long years of Nehruvian Indian 'China-Timidity' policies whose legacy hangover was pervasive in India's Foreign Office Mandarins, even in the initial years of Modi Government.

India's renewed vigor to indulge in a game of counter-pressure points against China emerges from a combination of global geopolitical factors in India's favor and India's vigorous over-drive in the last 10 years under present political dispensation led by PM Modi to reduce India's war-preparedness asymmetries against China Threat to India, emanating from over-militarized China Occupied Tibet.

India's Tibet-policy has undergone a change in recent years. India now is no longer apologetic that a 'Tibet Government-in -Exile' functions from the border Indian State of Himachal Pradesh. 

Recently last month was the conspicuous visit of a US Congressional Delegation comprising senior political leaders for talks with HH The Dalai Lama and the Tibet-Government-in-exile at Dharamsala

Talks focused on Tibet's self-determination and the forthcoming legislation passed by US Congress on Tibet's political future.

Notable was also the fact that the 10Member US Congressional Delegation made an official call on Indian PM Narendra Modi in New Delhi.

China officially protested on the above developments. That it did so, is obvious that the geopolitical message has gone home.

Taiwan and India in recent years have seen remarkable political and trade inter-actions. These extend from India permitting Taiwan to open additional Trade Offices in India, an euphemism for Consular Offices and collaboration in 'Chip-Manufactures' critical for advanced military systems.

Some time ago, India's three Former Service Chiefs were permitted to travel to Taiwan to participate in a Taiwan think-tank 'Security Seminar'.

Significant, is the enlarged Taiwan-India negotiations and steps towards Taiwan's participation in India's ambitious program of setting up global scale semi-conductors 'chip manufacturing' in India. Taiwan leads the global trade in chips-manufactures.

On the third China's Core issue of South China Sea. India has come a long way ahead when an Indian Naval Chief was asked to resign by the previous political dispensation for remarks on South Cina Sea disputes.

PM Modi's 'Act East' policy is not only limited to political relations with East Asian countries but also geopolitical moves of rotational deployments of Indian Navy in South China Sea for exercises with friendly Navies,

India's most significant geopolitical move in relation to China's South China Sea 'Core Issue' has been the sale of three batteries of BRAHMOS Cruise Missiles to the Philippines. India-Philippines security cooperation is on the increase.

Philippines recently has come under intensified Chinese military coercion and aggression in South China Sea.

China rightfully has no grounds to protest against India when for decades China had been indulging in heavy arms-buildup of Pakistan Army against India.

Finally, in the 21st Century, where short of war, where China has been long playing power-games of creation of strategic pressure-points against its adversaries like India, extending from Pakistan to its 'String of Pearls' strategy in Indian Ocean, India's geopolitical push-back against China on its critical 'Core Issues' is a welcome policy development, under present political dispensation.

India has belatedly recognized after decades of 'China Timidity' policies that China's aggressive moves against India can be checkmated only by creation of Indian geopolitical counter-pressure points against China's 'Core Issues' and which finds resonance both at the global level and also more pointedly at the Indo Pacific level.

lcome

CHINA'S MEDDLING IN UNITED STATES PRESIDENTIAL ELECTION 2024 AGAINST HIM CONFIRMED BY PRESIDENT BIDEN: MY PREDICTION MARCH 09, 2924, VINDICATED

 Predicted in my article of March 09, 2024 "China Reverses its Preferences in United States Presidential Elections 2024" was that China would go all out to get President Joe Biden defeated in forthcoming elections by use of Influence Operations/Hybrid Warfare.

The prediction made now stands vindicated with President Biden in recent interview with Editor-in-Chief, TIMES Newsmagazine, carried in latest June issue, quoted as asserting that "The meddling is now visible". TIMES also reported that White House officials were concerned and monitoring the Chinese trend.

Hammered in my writings for over two decades was a singular reality that the United States, so well versed in 'realpolitiks', should recognize that Communist China is an inveterate enemy of the United States. 

The United States consciously ignored such reality checks on China and wasted the first quarter of this Century in molly-coddling China in the vain hope that Chia could be regained as a strategic asset against Russia.

In this quarter of a century, flawed US policies facilitated China's un-checkmated exponential expansion of its Armed Forces and China's propensity to use "Force" against its neighbors from India's Himalayan Borders with China Occupied Tibet to South China Sea and US Allies in the Pacific.

The belated process of checkmating China was initiated by President Trump and followed up more assiduously by President Biden.

As highlighted by me in my March 09,2024 post was that in the forthcoming US presidential elections the choice facing China was in choosing between "Two Devils", the characteristic portrayal of all demonized US Presidents. 

China seems to have opted for the 'Lesser Devil' in its revised assessment of President Trump if he is successful in his re-election bid in 2024.

China's famous "Swing Strategy" which earlier oscillated between United States and Former Soviet Union now extends to 'Switching Preferences" in US presidential elections.

China seemingly fails to realize that in 2024, the widely held perception within US policy establishment and public opinion is that China is intent on undermining United States global predominance.

With the above bipartisan mood in the United States could President Trump, if he wins the election, soften US 'Hard Line' stances against China? Seems unlikely.

Finally, with geopolitics stacked against China currently, China can be expected to intensify its "meddling in US presidential elections against President Biden" to reach an all-time high. 

CHINA'S GLOBAL DISRUPTIVE STRATEGIES 2024 MERITS IMPOSING COSTS BY UNITED STATES, EUROPE & INDO PACIFIC POWERSS

Conspicuously standing out in 2024 is Communist China's disruptive strategies spanning Europe, Middle East and Indo Pacific. The picture emerges more sinister when in its diabolical strategies, China has now prevailed over Russia to join its disruptive strategies due Russian strategic compulsions post-Ukraine War.

China has thus far managed to continue unimpeded in destabilizing all these strategically vital regions largely due to political permissiveness of United States and Europe.

United States adopted misperceived and ill-advised strategies on China clouded by its obsession to play the China Card against Russia. Lucrative China markets for US hi-tech business giants was an irresistible attraction.  

Major European countries--France, UK, and Germany specially crafted their permissive policies on China solely determined by the vast Chuna market.

In 2024, it has finally dawned on United States, Europe and Indo Pacific Powers that China was not a 'benign power' which could contribute to global and regional stability. China is now perceived as a 'disruptive power'   duplicitously intent on undermining the security interests of United States, NATO and US Allies/Strategic Partners.

In 2024, when China and the Russia-China Axis, rightly now to be read as China-Russia Axis figures as topmost threat perception amongst all these Powers the vexing challenge is as to how 'short of war' can the China Threat be neutralized.

United States, Europe, and Indo Pacific Powers now need to impose heavy costs on Communist China where it hurts China the most.

Communist China must be denied access to all the markets in United States, Europe. Japan, India and Australia. China's unrestricted access to 'Free World's' markets not only made China's economic boom but also provided vast funds for China's exponential expansion of its armed forces and its aggression.

China needs to be denied access to 'Advanced & High Technologies' of United States and the West. Chinese industrial espionage should be swiftly and heavily punished.

China needs to be 'diplomatically isolated' at all international forums. United States should set an example in this direction by not even giving the faintest semblance of China Appeasement, China Hedging and Risk Aversion.

China's genocide in Occupied Tibet and Occupied Sinkiang should now be vocally pursued in world's capitals to show up the 'Darker Deeds' of China against Occupied Territories. United States has done well to pass a Congressional Bill on Tibet's self-determination.

Only the barest of diplomatic protocol be maintained with China. This applies pointedly to India also where Indian trade with China is heavily lopsided in favor of China. 

The shortest way to end the Ukraine War in which China is heavily involved in "Sustaining & Prolonging" Russia's Invasion of Ukraine by arms, military equipment and buying Russian oil, is to impose "Heavy Costs" on China's involvement.

Russia without Chinese war-waging sustenance would end up with inability to wage war in Ukraine and lead possibly to an unconditional Russian exit from Ukraine.

United States and its Allies, if they execute the strategy of imposing heavy costs on China could profitably end up with killing two birds with one stone.

Rusia enfeebled, would be no strategic asset for China in Indo Pacific and China faced with a 'United Response and Determination' to impose heavy costs on China for its strategic delinquencies would be deterred from its predatory designs on its peripheries and South China Sea in IndoPacific.

Finally, would economic costs that would be inflicted on China be effective and work? They would work as China's economy is now sluggish, US & Western businesses are relocating from China and Foreign Direct Investment in China is drying up. In its wake, a domestic upheaval could be in the offing.

na