It follows that in the international state system, it is all about core goals and objectives. But when the goals and objectives of various states do not align with one another, they enter into a state of war. And as we mentioned or suggested before, the core goal or objective of the United States is “deterrence,” which basically translates into stopping others from doing what they wish to do. It is then obvious and common sense that other countries will enter into a war path vis-à-vis the United States. And at the rate and speed by which Russia colonized and modernized and expanded its territory in the 19th and 20th centuries and at the rate and speed by which China became a modern power in recent decades and years, it suggests that there was bound to be a counterbalance to the United States in the international system due to America’s core policy objective.
Recent history also shows us that Washington kept expanding its wars until they were hit with a response by Russia recently. Thus, Washington tends to expand its wars until they are hit with a response. Once hit with a response, Washington then scrambles to put an end to its ever-expanding limited wars. And with nuclear weapons in the picture, the imposition of war on Russia and China on the part of Washington will come at a very high cost for the United States. The goal for the United States has to change from “unconditional surrender” of the other side to something more “moderate.” To borrow from Kissinger: “The more moderate the objective, the less violent the war is likely to be.”
Kissinger also added: “An attempt to reduce the enemy to impotence would surely lead to all-out war.” And due to nuclear weapons and the level of destructiveness accompanied by today’s weaponry, all-out war has become superfluous or “useless” to borrow from Kissinger. All-out war would lead to social collapse and the end of European civilization. But limited war, as Kissinger noted, has been given a justification and explanation, in the sense that it aims at preventing Russian and Chinese expansion along their peripheries. But how do you turn Russia and China back from their peripheries when Russia and China are willing to push forward, as is the case with Ukraine and Taiwan today? As Kissinger wrote: “The Sino-Soviet bloc can be turned back short of general war in one of two ways: by a voluntary withdrawal or by an internal split. The former is unlikely and depends on many factors beyond our control, but the latter deserves careful study.”
Rapprochement in the 1970’s and early 1980’s with China did in fact achieve the American goal of prompting a Sino-Russian split, which then ended the Cold War in Afghanistan. Thus, there is no military solution to the Cold War between Washington and Moscow. There can only be a political solution. What inspires Washington more than anything else is forcing others to “reconsider the wisdom of being too closely tied to [Russia].” But as Kissinger also noted, the “charge” against Washington and other Western countries is colonialism and imperialism. And thus far, Washington is guilty as charged. Only political and diplomatic measures and initiatives which aim at placing the “risk” of limited war on Russia’s shoulders would enable Washington to dismiss this charge. Otherwise, the charge remains valid, and the other side will prosecute their war with both credibility and the balance of power on their side.
Adam A. Azim 