Відео

Russia's grand strategy in the context of climate change and the warming Arctic revolves around leveraging the region’s economic, military, and geopolitical potential to its advantage while undermining the global power structure led by the United States and Europe. This strategy aligns with several key objectives, which I will detail below. 1. Subverting Global Shipping and Co-opting Trade Routes The Northern Sea Route (NSR), a shipping route along Russia’s Arctic coastline, is central to Moscow’s plan to disrupt global trade. As the Arctic ice melts due to climate change, this route is becoming increasingly navigable, offering a shorter alternative to the traditional routes through the Suez Canal or Panama Canal. This could divert significant portions of global shipping traffic between Asia, Europe, and potentially North America, giving Russia control over a critical chokepoint. (A.) Strategic Aim: By controlling the NSR, Russia could subvert the U.S.-dominated global trade network and financial system. This control would allow Russia to manipulate global supply chains and hold economic leverage over Europe and Asia. (B.) Long-Term Goal: Russia seeks to establish dominance over Arctic shipping, gradually replacing reliance on traditional routes controlled by Western-aligned nations​. 2. Straining U.S. Military Resources Russia's Arctic strategy aims to distract and tie up U.S. military resources by forcing the U.S. to respond to climate-related issues around its military installations. Rising sea levels, melting permafrost, and extreme weather events threaten U.S. coastal military bases, particularly those in the Pacific and Arctic regions. Strategic Aim in Straining U.S. Military Resources: By exacerbating the effects of climate change, Russia expects the U.S. to divert military and financial resources toward protecting domestic infrastructure, leaving fewer resources available for overseas operations and Arctic competition. 3. Creating Mass Migration Russia may benefit from accelerated global climate change, contributing to the potential for mass migration, particularly from Africa and the Middle East. Deforestation, soil degradation, and desertification in these regions could push millions to migrate, placing enormous pressure on Europe’s borders. Strategic Aim in Creating the Environmental Conditions for Mass Migration: Russia might exploit this situation by destabilizing Europe politically and socially, using migration as a weapon to weaken EU unity, strain social systems, and foster political polarization. Geopolitical Impacts for a Destabilized Europe: A destabilized Europe, overwhelmed by migration, would be less capable of challenging Russia’s regional ambitions​. 4. Agricultural Expansion in Warming Permafrost As permafrost thaws in northern Russia due to rising temperatures, vast areas of previously unusable land could become fertile. This could position Russia as an agricultural superpower, particularly as water scarcity affects traditional food-producing regions like the Middle East, Africa, and parts of the Americas. Strategic Aim for Expanding its Agricultural Capacity in a Warming Permafrost: By developing agriculture in newly arable regions, Russia could increase its food exports, gain economic power, and compensate for global food shortages caused by climate change. 5. Access to Hydrocarbon and Mineral Deposits The Arctic holds significant untapped reserves of hydrocarbons (oil and gas) and minerals (including rare earth elements and manganese nodules). The melting ice allows greater access to these resources. Strategic Aim in Supporting Global Warming to Gain Access to Hydrocarbon and Mineral Deposits: Russia views the Arctic as key to maintaining its status as a leading energy exporter. Control over these resources would bolster its economy and provide leverage in geopolitical negotiations, especially as fossil fuel reserves dwindle elsewhere. 6. Shorter Transit Routes for Asia Russia’s Arctic strategy also involves offering China, Japan, and other Asian nations a shorter, more efficient transit route to Europe via the Northern Sea Route. This would reduce reliance on Western-controlled shipping lanes, benefiting Russia economically and geopolitically. Strategic Aim in Developing New Transit Route Access into/from Asia: Russia can use this route to deepen ties with China, offering a faster alternative for exports to Europe, thus increasing trade volumes and strengthening Sino-Russian relations. Part-II. Military and Strategic Importance of the Arctic 1. Russia's Arctic Fleet and Arctic Military Presence Russia maintains a formidable Arctic fleet of nuclear-powered icebreakers and nuclear submarines, designed to assert control over the region. This fleet is crucial for ensuring access to the Northern Sea Route, defending Russian Arctic claims, and projecting power. 2. Russia's Nuclear Submarines: During the Cold War, Soviet submarines used the Arctic ice to hide from NATO detection sonar, enabling those Submarines to breach through ice sheets undetected and be able to launch ICBMs at targets in North America. This Cold War strategy persists, with Russia maintaining a robust submarine fleet capable of operating beneath the ice, providing second-strike nuclear capability. 3. Arctic Branch of the Russian Military: In recent years, Russia has built up its Arctic military infrastructure, including air bases and radar stations, and has established an Arctic command to protect its interests in the region. These forces are tasked with protecting shipping routes, securing resource extraction, and countering NATO operations. 4. Vladivostok and Upper Manchuria -- Russia-China Tensions The Russian Far East, including Vladivostok and Upper Manchuria, remains strategically important, both for its military assets and its economic potential. The Amur River serves as a natural boundary between Russia and China, and historical tensions over Upper Manchuria have shaped Sino-Russian relations. (A.) Historical Context: In the late 19th and early 20th centuries, Russia and China disputed control over Manchuria, culminating in Russian expansion into the region and the establishment of Vladivostok as a key military port. (B.) China’s Strategic Interests & Risks of Retaliation: While Taiwan remains China’s primary territorial focus, Upper Manchuria offers far greater strategic access to significant natural resources and greater access to longer term transit corridors opening up rapidly in the Arctic. While some may assess the invasion of Vladivostok as risking retaliation from a nuclear-armed Russia, an invasion of Taiwan may provoke an even more destructive attack on China's dam infrastructure and military responses by the US's vastly superior arsenal without the US-backed forces even needing to escalate a conflict. Taiwan may not offer as great of a strategic value long term due to the lessening strategic value of Suez-reliant transit methods as opposed to new transit corridors that would present China with the need to project power and protect critical choke points within. Thus Taiwan's may not be as strategically valuable as compared to Upper Manchuria which would grant China more legitimacy in being declared a true "Artic Nation" instead of it's current status as a mere "Near Arctic Nation" (see subsequent analysis posted after this one) 5. Impact of Russian Weakness in Ukraine on Eastern Flank Russia’s military struggles in Ukraine may expose vulnerabilities in its eastern defenses, particularly around Vladivostok. The depletion of Russian military resources in Ukraine could embolden China to consider asserting greater influence in the Russian Far East. 6. Risks for Russia: With its military stretched thin, Russia may struggle to defend its vast eastern territories if challenged by China or if significant unrest arises in the region. 7. Conclusion: Russia’s grand strategy involves leveraging the geopolitical and economic opportunities presented by climate change, particularly in the Arctic. By controlling new shipping routes, exploiting natural resources, and preparing for a warming world, Russia aims to weaken its adversaries and strengthen its global standing. The role of its Arctic fleet, combined with broader military and diplomatic efforts, underpins its ambitions, while challenges from China and vulnerabilities exposed by the Ukraine conflict add complexity to its strategic calculus.

Let's build upon an assessment of the viability of China's invasion of Taiwan, considering Taiwan's doomsday plan (as reported by Caspian Report here: ua-cam.com/video/icSfjyIm_5w/v-deo.html) and the potential repercussions, here's an analysis that includes the proposed use of long-range missiles targeting China's critical dam infrastructure, the probable retaliation scenarios, and the context of Russia's position in case of a Chinese military action against a possible invasion and re-annexation of it's claims against Russian occupied Upper Manchuria: 1. Taiwan's Doomsday Plan and Impact on China's Invasion Viability Taiwan's doomsday plan involves the potential launch of bunker-busting long-range cruise missiles aimed at destroying China's critical dam infrastructure, particularly the Three Gorges Dam. This plan serves as an asymmetric defense strategy to deter a full-scale Chinese invasion, capitalizing on China's vulnerabilities in infrastructure that, if compromised, would lead to catastrophic flooding, potentially causing the deaths of millions (some estimates suggest over 400 million). 2. Consequences for China: (A.) Massive Civilian Casualties: The destruction of major dams would devastate large parts of China’s population and economy, especially in densely populated areas. (B.) Overwhelmed Defense Systems: China's missile defense systems could be overwhelmed by multiple waves of missile strikes, making it difficult to protect critical infrastructure. (C.) Destabilization of China's Core: The collapse of critical dams would not only affect civilians but would cripple China’s agricultural and industrial heartlands, destabilizing its domestic political landscape. 3. Risk of Retaliation Given Taiwan’s potential capability to deliver a doomsday strike that could result in significant loss of life and infrastructure in China, the retaliation scenarios are complex: (A.) Nuclear Retaliation: While China has a nuclear arsenal, the potential for nuclear retaliation against Taiwan is constrained by the global political fallout such an action would trigger. An unprovoked nuclear strike would isolate China diplomatically and economically. Additionally, the risk of U.S. intervention under the Taiwan Relations Act further complicates the viability of China's invasion due to its unclear ability to exercise nuclear options against Taiwan. (B.) Conventional Retaliation: China may attempt a full-scale conventional invasion or precision missile strikes aimed at neutralizing Taiwan's missile systems and military installations. However, Taiwan’s missile capabilities make this highly risky. 3. Russia's Strategic Position In the event of a Chinese invasion of Taiwan, Russia’s role would be uncertain. Historically, Russia has supported China’s rise generally, but it has always distrusted China's intent along is vast underdefended border with its neighbor. Given Russia’s weakened position following its war in Ukraine, several factors come into play: (A.) Russia's Nuclear Doctrine: If China were to face retaliation or an invasion of its own territory (such as Upper Manchuria), Russia’s willingness to escalate to nuclear weapons is unlikely. Russia is already stretched thin militarily and economically due to the Ukraine conflict and would not want to provoke a broader war involving four nuclear powers (the U.S., U.K., France, and China). (B.) Historical Claims in Upper Manchuria: China’s historical claims to Upper Manchuria (lost to Russia in the Treaty of Aigun in 1858) could resurface as a pressure point. Russia’s military is less capable of defending its eastern flank, and any attempt to hold Vladivostok or Upper Manchuria would require vast resources. 4. Comparative Assessment: Invasion of Upper Manchuria vs. Taiwan From China's perspective, the invasion of Upper Manchuria and Vladivostok would involve different risks and rewards compared to Taiwan: (A.) Invasion of Upper Manchuria and Vladivostok (Land Invasion): Risks of Retaliation: Lower risk of nuclear retaliation from Russia compared to a direct U.S. intervention over Taiwan. (i.) Projected Costs: Fighting Russia’s diminished forces would likely result in fewer costs and lives lost than confronting a Taiwan invasion supported by U.S. forces. (ii.) Viability of Securing Territory: More feasible due to Russia’s military weakness and the use of land rather than the need for amphibious assault. (iii.) Legitimacy of Historical Claims: China has historical legitimacy claims over Upper Manchuria. (iv.) Strategic Value: Gaining Vladivostok would provide China with an ice-free Arctic port and further territorial expansion in resource-rich areas. (B.) Invasion of Taiwan (Air and Amphibious Assault) (i.) Risks of Retaliation: High risk of U.S. intervention, global sanctions, and military pushback from allies like Japan and Australia. (ii.) Projected Costs: Extremely high due to Taiwan’s defensive capabilities, including its doomsday plan and U.S. support. (iii.) Viability of Securing Territory: Challenging due to Taiwan’s defenses and the complex logistics of an amphibious assault. (iv.) Legitimacy of Historical Claims: China has a long-standing claim on Taiwan, but the international community (including the U.S.) would likely side with Taiwan in the event of a military invasion and occupation of Taiwan. (v.) Strategic Value: Taiwan’s strategic location make it valuable for China’s global dominance, but the projected value of capturing semi-conductor technology from an invasion of Taiwan is unlikely due to established plans to destroy Semiconductor technology in the event of an invasion. Conclusion: The Caspian Report’s insights into Taiwan’s doomsday plan introduce significant new risks to a potential Chinese invasion. The possibility of Taiwan using long-range missiles to destroy key Chinese dams would cause catastrophic loss of life and infrastructure damage, possibly deterring China from a full-scale invasion. Additionally, the weakened state of Russia due to the war in Ukraine reduces the likelihood of Russian nuclear escalation in the event of an invasion of Upper Manchuria by China. Thus, China might view an invasion of Upper Manchuria as strategically more viable than an invasion of Taiwan, despite it's perceived near-term strategic value of Taiwan (Access to Deep Water Navy and a potential answer to the "Strait of Malacca Question"). The strategic value of securing Upper Manchuria would grant China far greater access to natural resources in the largely under utilized resource rich regions of Russia's occupied resource & mineral-rich deposits in Upper Manchuria.

You're right. The Russians aren't aggressive. They're too afraid of conflict because they know that their emaciated Russian bodies (or what little military-aged males that are still alive), rusting 1950's firearms, self-immolating tanks, non-existent logistical capabilities, corrupt and incompetent flag officers and military officials, all-bark no-bite pussified generation of idiots would make an unprovoked act of aggression against a better trained, better equipped, well funded military simply a non-starter. Putin wouldn't be stupid enough to get himself involved in a protracted expensive and costly war on his Western most flank bordering a non-aggressive State with no intent to invade Russia. I mean no one would be stupid enough to expend what little military resources and collapsing population of military aged males that Russia has left to defend a much more invasion risk exposed south eastern flank bordering a country that has demonstrated an actual intent to reclaim its territories through the application of military force. No one would be that dumb, surely.

The “enemy within” is slowly but surely getting corrected to check their greed due to greater foreign enemies that’s why politics is such a mess right now… this specific video is to focus on our lack of presence in the arctic that we desperately need to address if you want America to stay #1, and if you want America to stay #1 then whoever you claim are the enemies within will do a lot more harm to foreigners than to us

jet fuel

thank you! any other feedback?

If you look closely, you can see that it's actually the personal banner of Tang Jingsong, the president of the short-lived Republic of Formosa. So, it's not the same Tang as the Tang Dynasty. You can see the words "Taiwan" in Chinese characters along the top of the banner as well.

Noted! Thank you 😊

And China should stay out of Taiwan’s business. Double standards

I thought the professor got it wrong too. He said hK was a British colony and that he would not have given it back. HK is owned by China not Britain they had a 99 year lease on it and what else could they do but return it to their rightful owners when the lease was up? The comment shows a certain disregard for the law of the land. China was bullied by Bbritan into having a lease on it in the first place.

All the more reason for a strong deterrence force.

Beijing became the capital around 1420, being moved from Nanking by Emperor Yonglo, the Ming’s greatest emperor.