RUSSIA-CHINA STRATEGIC ALLIANCE CAN BE UNRAVELED BY UNITED STATES IN ONE DIPLOMATIC MASTERSTROKE

The Russia-China 'Strategic Alliance' which post-Ukraine invasion generates serious concerns from Europe to Indo Pacific in terms of disruptive potential can be unraveled by the United States in one diplomatic masterstroke with Nixonian contours.

Russia and China are not inseparable strategic "Siamese Twins" joined at the hip. They seemingly stand glued at the hip due to convergent 'siege mentality' fears that the United States is intent on dismantling both these gigantic Communist States.

Russia would never have moved into the Chinese strategic embrace but for US 'Cold War Gladiators' on Capitol Hill in Washington. Even after the disintegration of Former Soviet Union they persisted in viewing enfeebled Russia as a 'Critical Threat' to US security interests and global influence.

It needs to be recalled that Russian Foreign Minister Kozyrev in the 1990s termed Russia as the 'Natural Ally' of the US & West.

United States narcisstic obsession with China which had its roots in the 1930s and earlier, in United States 'Threat Assessments' on Russia overlooked the looming and threatening 'China Threat' whose central thrust in late 1990s was an exponential buildup of China's military power unnerved by Gulf War I and US Humanitarian Interventions in Serbia,

Realistic US diplomatic and strategic planning then should have dwelt on a 'Spectacular Reset' of United States Russia Policy.

But that was not to be. Instead of besieging Russia by a 'NATO Creep' towards Russia's borders and allaying Russian strategic fears, the United States continued vainly for two decades to assist China to integrate itself into the world order. China double-timed the United States all along.

US diplomatic miscalculations have inflicted heavy strategic and geopolitical on American national security, especially in the Indo Pacific.

United States by not resetting its Russia policy in the first two decades of the 21st Century is now faced in 2024 with a US-created "Predatory Monstrous China" which has ensnared a strategically helpless and US-isolated Russia.

Concluding, all is not lost for the United States. The United States needs to take the diplomatic initiative for a bold and substantive political reachout to Russia.

If the United States by a Nixonian masterstroke could wean away Communist China from the Former Soviet Union, the United States has the diplomatic skills and leverage in 2024 to wean away Russia from the China-embrace and unravel the Russia-China Axis.

UNITED STATES A AND INDIA" ROBUST STRATEGIC PARTNERSHIP" AGAINST CHINA-THREAT: 21ST CENTURY GEOPOLITICAL IMPERATIVES

In my book 'China-India Military Confrontation: 21st Century Perspectives' published in 2015, the following excerpts resonate more loudly in 2024, when the China Threat to Indo Pacific security has acquired unprecedented threatening contours:

• "The evolving China-centric geopolitics dynamics of the coming decades of the 21st Century, especially in relation to   Indo Pacific Asia's security and stability, would compel the United States and India to finally take an unambiguous call on the China Threat that both tend to push under the carpet".
• "The robustness of the call that both the United States and India make on the China Threat would determine the future standings, one as the global Superpower, and the other as an 'Emerged Power' on its ascendancy as a global player or global power."

Continuing further on, before analyzing China Threat related postures of United States and India, following three more excerpts, are pertinent:

• "Is the United States uncertain about India's strategic directions or is it that United States planners are accustomed to deal with a country of India's size and potential only in adversarial equations? It is for United States to deal with its strategic dilemmas."
• "In the 21st Century, it is the United States which has the compelling imperatives to make a firmer call and make its strategic choices between India and China."
• "The United States in the 21st Century cannot keep maintaining that in its perceptions India is an existential counterweight to China strategically. If that counterweight is seriously threatened by China-Pakistan Axis then where does the United States get an alternative existential counterweight from within Asia? Does the United States have any credible answers to this critical question."

My observations on the crux points made above are briefly laid out below.

China Threat:Unambiguous Calls by United States and India

The United States and India both factor-in in the China Threat in their strategic and military planning. However, both shrink from declaring it as such in loud and vocally resounding tones.

The United States has attempted smoothening the contours of the China Threat by use of nebulous terms like 'Engagement', 'Congagement' and now 'China is US Main Competitor' and De-Risking'as opposed to 'Delinking'.

India sends strategically ambiguous signals as it still cavorts with China-dominated anti-US groupings like Shanghai Cooperation Organization, BRICS and Rusia-India-China Trilateral unmindful that the China Threat is the prime and potent threat to India's security.

India also sends ambiguous signals when officially it keeps on harping on 'Multipolarity', and 'Multilateralism'. Both meaningless terms in a heavily polarized world generated by the China Threat.

Robustness of US-India Comprehensive Global Strategic Partnership

The "Robustness' of this pivotal partnership can be said to be in good health judging solely by over half a dozen institutionalized joint mechanisms established encompassing intelligence-sharing, communications and logistics. The number of joint military exercises have increased.

However, this "Robustness" comes under strain when US top officials make a beeline to Beijing instead of the other way around. Smacks of 'China Appeasement' instead of 'Cina Containment'.

India too must not emphasize only on the 'Boundary Disputes' with China but emphasize on the broader manifestations of China Threat in geopolitical terms.

The latter provides the bedrock of the geopolitical underpinnings of US-India Strategic Partnership.

United States Needs Realistic Appraisal of India's Strategic Directions in 21st Century

Admittedly, India makes the deciphering of India's 'Strategic Directions' by its foreign policy vocabulary and actions suggestive that India still does not trust the United States despite the robustness of the strategic partnership.

But then, United States on long term appraisal should rest assured that India will continue to be a vibrant democracy. India at no stage in the future could possibly align with Russia and China against the United States.

In my assessment, India's hangover of 'Strategic Ambiguity' is a 'transient phase' which will evaporate as China out of geopolitical compulsions emerges as more aggressive and predatory.

India will surely aspire to be a global Major Power but one working in consonance with United States and the West.

United States Should in its Diplomatic Handling of India Should Ensure 'Equitibility'

Point already stands made in my excerpts quoted above that United States foreign policy planners need being accustomed to deal with India's size and attributes of power not on adversarial terms like China.

This aspect stands most eloquently 

made by US Ambassador Eric Garcetti in a recent interview in New Delhi.

US Ambassador Garcetti stressed that United States should foster an 'Equal Partnership 'with India and in more telling terms advised that "United States foreign policy should liberate from Unconscious Paternalism".

Indians are a very sensitive people and Indian public opinion counts. Indian public opinion is not made in drawing rooms of Lutyens Delhi-- a fact that US should recognize.

United States has No Other Existential Counterweight to China in Asia but India.

There is a higher call on the United States to place implicit trust in India and its strategic directions in relation to the China Threat, simply, because no other Asian country offers to the United States an option of an alternative existential counterweight to China Threat.

India's national power attributes under PM Modi have blossomed in the last ten years both militarily and economically.

It was not for nothing that in the past the United Sates at highest levels asserted that the US was committed to assist India in emerging as a Major Power.

Concluding Observations

United States and India are best equipped to deal with the enveloping China Threat in IndoPacific despite power differentials.

In the American security template for Indo Pacific security, India has marshalled its resources to confront the China Threat on its Himalayan Borders and China's intrusiveness in the Indian Ocean.

India is in a unique position to tie down China both on land and sea unlike any other US Allies.

NATO and European Allies of United States are distant from Indo Pacific to effectively confront the China Threat.

India's emergence as a 'Robust Military Power' contributes handsomely to checkmate the China Threat.

At the turn of the Milennium, in my very first Paper on US-India Strategic Partnership, I had termed it as the "Advent of the Inevitable",

The United States and India should unreservedly bow to this "Inevitable" and nurture it to robustly checkmate the China Threat before it assumes Hitlerian proportions.

CHINA ENCASHES RUSSIA'S COMPICITY IN ITS TAIWAN INVASION PLANS: STRATEGIC IMLICATIONS

China after "No Limits" military and logistic support provided for Russia's faltering Ukraine invasion is now set to 'encash' as quid pro quo by Russia's military involvement and complicity in Chinese invasion plans of Taiwan.

Russia in normal course should have kept itself distant from any involvement in China's invasion plans for invasion of Taiwan as such a misadventure risks United States military intervention to protect Taiwan.

The ensuing US-China armed conflict in content and dimensions would ordinarily be limited and confined to China-centric dimensions. It would not impact or impinge on Russian national security interests in its Far East territories or Pacific.

Russian complicity and assisting China in its Taiwan invasion plans 'enlarges and escalates' the dimensions to the level of an armed conflict between the China-Russia Axis versus United States & Allies. Severe global and regional strategic implications ensue in its wake.

Can Russia back-out from the eventuality of involvement in China's Tiwan invasion plans? This is highly unlikely due to Russia's geopolitical and strategic compulsions and total dependence on China economically and militarily.

That this contingency is a strategic reality is borne out by recent testimonies by highly placed Pentagon and CIA officials in US Congressional hearings last week. They asserted that the United States Administration was seized with assessments of an eventuality of a 'Two Front' War' scenario with China in Western Pacific and Russia in Europe.

United States strategic concerns arise from a spate of Joint China-Russia Navy and Air Force exercises in Western Pacific simulating amphibious warfare of the type that would be employed by China for Taiwan invasion.

China's recent surge to hoard strategic Materiels from oil, gas, military hardware war wastage reserves and gold & silver to tide over global economic sanctions that would accrue in case of Taiwan invasion

Russia is unlikely to assist China with provision of active Russian Army troops for invasion of Taiwan. But Russian Navy and Russian Air Force missions in Western Pacific providing cover to China's invasion of Taiwan cannot be ruled out.

Russia could as a prelude to Chinese invasion of Taiwan could undertake diversionary provocations military operations in Europe to divide attention and focus of United States and NATO. Finland and even Poland could be targets of Russian diversionary attacks.

To limit Japan's participation in any US military intervention to defeat Chinese invasion of Taiwan, Russia could escalate by military deployments and provocations against Japan's Northernmost Island Hokkaido.

The Korean Peninsula also offers China and Rusia as a theater of diversionary attacks using North Korea as proxy.

The extensive geographical contiguity that exists between China and Russia enables them to provide 'strategic depth' to each other in a war-scenario and also to protect each other's Rear Flanks'.

Strategic sanity should rule out any Chinese misadventure of invading Taiwan and Russia being actively complicit in it. Simply, because the overall 'Balance of Power' would be heavily weighted against China and Russia.

China and Russia, singly, cannot militarily prevail over United States and its Allies. Hence, for sheer survival compulsions these two Communist autarkies are forced to band together. 

But then, with two megalomanic Communist Dictators sitting in power in Beijing and Moscow with a propensity for armed conflict to stay in power, reinforced with their unbridled military and nuclear arsenals, 'Strategic Sanity' cannot be dreamt of.

Prudence is the batter part of valor and hopefully comes into play to avert what could evolve into a horrendous World War III !!

JAPAN AND INDIA'S MASSIVE MILITARY BUILDUP GENERATES STRATEGIC IMPLICATIONS FOR CHINA

China's switch from 'Soft Power' policy approaches to 'Hard Line' strategic postures with the advent f incumbent President Xi Jinping in Beijing in 2012 took time to be registered in strategic calculations of Japan and India.

It was only in second term of Chinese President Xi Jinping after he had manifested his aggressive impulses on India in Eastern Ladakh and in South China Sea dominance, threatening Japan's survival, that Japan and India belatedly recognized that the 'China Threat' was real.

Infamously, then Indian Defence Minister Pranab Mukherjee declared from the steps of Japanese Defence Agency in Tokyo that India did not consider 'China as a Military Threat'.

Japan also at that time was vocally muted in its assertions of China Threat in line with then US policy perspectives on China.

Fast forward to 2024, the 'China Threat' now surfaces as a 'Major Threat', a perception reinforced by China's brinkmanship and propensity to use force to settle disputes, both against Japan and India.

Evident in 2024 markedly, is that both Japan and India have embarked on a robust and massive military buildup which in terms of force-structures and weapons upgradation is 'China-Centric' in content and end-aim.

Admittedly, both Japan and India, with present military build-ups cannot match China's asymmetric preponderant military power but the process of reduction of differentials is in process.

Significantly, while India is engaged in reinforcing both its nuclear and conventional deterrence against China, the core thrust in Japan is presently perforce based on sizeable conventional deterrence against China.

Japan has made significant policy deviations in terms of defence buildup. Japan has breached the erstwhile limit of 1% of GDP on defence expenditure, deployment of Japanese Forces in 'out of area' operations, conversion of its two Helicopter Carriers to full-fledged Aircraft Carriers with Vertical Take Off' Fighter Planes, and more significantly, planning acquisition of long-range missiles which can hit targets in China. 

The present geopolitical environment despite United States' spasmodic "Reset" flirtations with China now actively supports the massive defence build-ups of Japan and India.

Japan and India are both now intimately integrated in United States security architecture of Indo Pacific. This becomes a 'Force Multiplication' factor for both Japan and India.

With such momentous military processes in motion, obviously, strategic implications arise for China, and which China can ill- ignore.

Geopolitical implications that arise for China, in brief can be stated as under:

• China's over-preponderance geopolitical weight backed by massive military power in Indo Pacific gets diluted.
• China is geopolitically diminished with the rise of Japan and India as 'Contending Major Powers'.
• China thus far was not willing to share Asian strategic space with Japan and India as 'Contending Powers'. Now China will be forced to grudgingly share Asian strategic space with both Japan and India.
• With military rise of Japan and India, the countries of Indo Pacific, notably, Southeast Asia, will that much be less fearful of China. 

In military terms, the implications for China can be briefly summed as under:

• Japan and India now impose sizeable DETERRENCE on China's unrestrained aggressive impulses.
• Japan and India with their missile capabilities to hit targets in China's heartland will limit China's political and military coercion.
• Japan's and India's sizeable 'Naval Buildup' in terms of long-range operations and strike capabilities limit China's 'Naval Threats' in Pacific Ocean and Indian Ocean regions.
• Japan and India concurrently with their own military buildups are also engaged in 'military capacity buildups' of countries like Philippines threatened by China.

Of serious strategic concern for China is that Japan and India are members of US-led QUAD and United States is seriously considering adding Japan to AUKUS. Both these groupings are China Threat-centric.

Concluding, it does not need much emphasis, that with Japan and India actively engaged in massive military buildups of their Armed Forces, complimented with their inter-woven security relationships with United States, the 'China Checkmate Template' is firmly in place, limiting China's propensity to use force to impose its will in Indo Pacific.

IRAN'S DIRECT MILITARY ATTACK ON ISRAEL UNLEASHES DANGERS OF WIDER MIDDLE EAST OR GLOBAL CONFLICT

Iran's unprecedented direct military attack on Israel on night 13/14 April with over 300drones and missiles is pregnant with dangers of a wider Middle East conflict which could acquire contours of global conflict also.

Till date, Iran's policy of wiping out Israel was confined to use of Iranian proxy militias operating from Gaza, Lebanon and Yemen, mainly. Israel's confined its ripostes to Iran in terms of cyberwarfare and even political assassinations within Iran of its military commanders and nuclear scientists.

Iran and Israel both scrupulously refrained from not crossing the 'Red Line' of a direct military attack on each other's territory.

Iran by breaching this 'Red Line' has ignited the explosive Middle East powder-keg and thereby setting in motion unpredictable regional and global strategic and military dynamics.

Thus, it becomes pertinent to analyze various aspects of Iran's motivations and compulsions for its direct military attack on Israel. This follows below.

Iran's Direct Attack Israel:Retribution or Svaing Face?

On the face of it, the direct attack by Iran on Israel seems more like 'Saving Face' due to domestic political compulsions and regional impact.

Iran by lack of geographical contiguity with Israel is robbed of any effective military attack on Israel.

Iran is separated from Israel by 570 km with Arab nations interspersed in between.

Iran Had Other Options Than Direct Military Attack on Israel

Iran's retaliation against Israel for bombing of Iranian Consulate in Syria and eliminating top military commanders could have been confined to similar attacks on Israeli embassies in the world.

Iran could have intensified its attacks on Israeli assets by its proxy militias.

That Iran chose the option of 'Direct Military Attack' on Israel seems a 'calculated gamble'.

Iran intended to signal both Israel and United States that it is ready to strike back against both of them.

Iran Falls Into Israel & US Trap

So far United States and Israel have refrained from any direct military attack on Iran and it could have continued that way.

But Iran by its strategic over-reach has opened the floodgates for similar actions by Israel tacitly supported by United States and NATO.

Calls by United States for Israeli restraint against retaliation is only "rhetorical".

Mark the words used by US President Biden: 'We shall not be part of any Israeli retaliatory offensive'. Yet United States has asserted that US guarantees for Israeli security are "Ironclad".

Iranian Drones & Missiles Attack Neutralized by Isreali Sophisticated Air Defence System and Air Forces of US, UK &France

Iran's attack was preponderantly by over 300 drones and included 36 cruise missiles and 10 SSMs.

No major losses accrued to Israeli military assets as 99% were neutralized by Israeli 'Iron Dome' and associated air-defence network.

A large number of drones were shot down by Air Forces of US, UK &France operating in the region, before they could even reach Israeli airspace,

Notably, even Jordan as an Arab Nation shot down some Iranian drones Some reports indicate that even Saudi Arabia shot down Iranian drones.

Reason for above is that Iranian launches were picked up on firing and time taken to traverse 570 km to Israel enabled timely destruction.

Israeli Retalaition Against Iran Direct Attack o Israel:Options

Israel never in is military history has not retaliated with force against any military provocations to its sovereignty.

Military logic dictates that Israel will not refrain from retaliatory strikes against Iran especially when Iran has dared to subject Israel to direct military strikes by Iranian military drones and missiles.

The question is not 'if' but 'when'?

Israel's marked superiority in terms of Israeli Air Force strike capabilities and Iran's not to so effective air-defence network offer many options.

Israel's cyberwarfare superiorities enable it to launch an "Electronic Pearl Harbor" attack paralyzing military network, missile launches networks, petrochemical industry and even banking and trade and commerce networks.

Cruise missiles attacks from its naval submarines against major Iranian naval and petrochemical installations along its littoral on North Arabian Sea offer Israel by Iran's default attractive options.

Lastly, Israeli Special Forces deep within Iran cannot be ruled out.

Iran's Geopolitical & Military Downsizing: Strategic Convergance Between Israel, United States,NATO and Major Arab Nations

Israel by Iranian default of launching a Direct Attack on Israel has become the beneficiary of a "Strategic Convergence" between Israel, United States, NATO and Major Arab Nations.

All of them have a strong convergence on neutralizing the 'Iranian Threat' to Middle East and global stability. These Nations may not be vocal on declaring this aim, but this is how the dynamics can be expected to work behind the scenes.

Early indicator of the above could be seen in the involvement of United States, Britain, France, Jordan and Saudi Arabia shooting down Iranian drones launched against Israel.

Russia-Iran-China Trilateral in Full Srategic Play

Some weeks back I had highlighted on this site the activation of this Trilateral in wake of Ukraine War and war i Gaza.

This is now on display with China declaring that irrespective of the regional and global geopolitics, China intends to stand by Iran. Russia also followed suit soon after with similar assertions.

While China and Russia may not openly indulge in 'acts of war; against the Western Bloc but one can expect that in event of a full-blown war between Israel and Iran, the two Major Communist Nations China and Russia will sustain Iranian war effort.

Concluding Observations

The spiral of retaliation and counterretaliations between Iran and Israel can only be put to an end by direct and robust military intervention by United States supported by NATO Nations and Major Arab Nations.

In a highly polarized world, which has emerged after ascension of Chinese President Xi Jinping into power, the evolving conflict in Middle East benefits China.

India too will be forced to make hard decisions as it would not have the luxury of balancing rope tricks.

The scepter of a global conflict overhangs now.