Throughout history, the world could be seen as a chess game--each country had it's own interests as well as its fears about the intentions of other nations. In general, no one nation has explicitly claimed to have a goal of "world domination". However, this was nevertheless seen as a transparent goal of Nazi Germany, Communist Russia and China, especially during the reign of Mao. However, even these countries based their own strategy on a perception that they needed to counter a perceived threat by the U.S. of world domination. While we in the U.S. might laugh at this view, the "desire of the U.S. for world hegemony" is not even questioned in most parts of the world. The unfortunate truth is that every country pursues a strategy based more on threats they perceive abroad than on a specific home-brewed "world domination" agenda. Even if an economically dominant country is not threatening its neighbors, it can still be seen as seeking "hegemony" and thus provide any regime an excuse for building up its military and spreading paranoia among its population. The sad part is, that strategy then looks to other countries very much like a world domination strategy, and it feeds on itself. Every country thus aims to "do unto others before they can do it unto us."
For this reason, I hesitate to characterize every major world power as having a "global domination strategy". However, every major power does have a strategy for preventing itself from being dominated. At the end of the day, these are effectively one and the same strategy.
Some people wonder if we are approaching Armageddon. I wonder about this myself. However, I realize that world powers have aligned themselves against each other and engaged in wars since the beginning of time, so yes, the end of the world might be nigh, or no, it might not be. The purpose of this post is not to alarm anyone, but rather to assess the strategic positions of the major powers and what might happen. Hopefully this remains merely the interesting intellectual exercise it was meant to be.
CHINA
China's strategy, according to the viewpoint of a visitor to China is to dominate the world economically rather than militarily. It is more than happy to allow the U.S. to weaken itself with foreign wars and debt accumulation while it gains in economic strength and technical prowess. It knows that, with 1.34 billion people, it will win an economic war, and it intends to dominate in computers and the internet, LEDs, Solar power, Wind power, high-efficiency, energy-saving technologies, and, according to its 5 year plan, cloud computing, bio-technology, high-end manufacturing including aerospace, smart grids, advanced materials and composites, and electric cars. China already has the fastest supercomputer in the world, and it already leads the world in clean technology. It graduates 8 times the number of University science and engineering students as the U.S.
UNITED STATES
The U.S. is following a global trend in the world, where nationalist paranoia, religious zealotry, atheist fervor and isolationism are gaining traction. Unfavorable demographic trends such as the aging of the baby boomers and a predominance of births to the poorest, least educated segments of society are also beginning to show their effects. Add to this a growing divide between the rich and poor, increasing hostility towards illegal immigrants, and economic disintegration, and you have a toxic recipe for government breakdown. The first major sign of this breakdown is the lack of political unity and political will to stop spending 175% of what our government takes in in taxes--or to increase taxes to cover the shortfall. (This is analogous to a household with an annual income of $55,000 per year, spending $96,500—$41,500 more than they make!) Disillusionment with political parties in general are resulting in fewer moderate candidates and more populist "banana republic" candidates running for office with promises such as "I'll bring back $2.00 gas".
RUSSIA
Vladimir Putin's overseeing of the return of order and stability, his legal, financial, educational and social reforms, his no-nonsense approach, his reasonable views on a variety of subjects, and his presiding over a period of increasing prosperity had won him popularity in Russia. Of course, oil and gas projects were primarily responsible for the robust economy, other industries being anemic. Alcoholism is unfortunately still rampant, and 100-150 thousand people have emigrated from Russia each year in recent years. A wikileaks cable indicated that a Spanish prosecutor and an expert on organized crime alleged that Russia was a virtual "mafia state", with extensive mafia ties to the Federal Security Service (FSB) as well as the Kremlin itself, which Putin most certainly controls. Wikipedia says Putin is alleged by credible sources to be the richest man in Europe, with successive off-shore funds and accounts in Switzerland, Zug and Liechtenstein worth multi-billions. He denies this. His "official" net worth released during the legislative election of 2007 is the equivalent of $150,000, with $80,000 in income in 2006.
Putin has undoubtedly done some good things for Russia. However, during the last 12 years, he has also implemented his own scheme for turning Russia back into a soviet-style dictatorship--whether this really was his own secret plan for self aggrandizement, or whether he saw this as the only means gaining sufficient power to push through his reforms. In any case, he has eliminated or emasculated most political threats to his absolute power--i.e., the oligarchs Berezovsky, Gusinsky, Khodorkovsky, all local governors (who are now appointed by him), the Russian Federal Council (now a puppet body), all TV stations, and nearly all opposing political parties except (shrewdly) a leftist party. He now has a virtual puppet government that does his bidding. Arrests of dissenters and denial of free assembly are characteristic of his administration. There's just one remaining problem: those protesters still in the streets.
Putin's United Russia party recently gained a slim majority in the last election, allegedly with the help of rampant voter fraud, and he is now back in power, having replaced both himself and Medvedev's offices with himself. Except now he is dealing with increasingly large crowds of protesters who are disputing the election and saying it is time for him to step down. So far, Putin's attempts to deal with the crowds has been clumsy. He told the people that the protesters were like pawns being moved around by their "American partners". He also claimed Russians needed "nationwide psychotherapy" to instill people with confidence in the future. He also jailed leftist protest leaders like Sergei Udaltsov. Fortunately, he knows better than to fire bullets into the crowds--this would irreparably damage his legacy. He also knows that these protests are the last major obstacle to his complete domination of political power in Russia.
While it might be foolish to try to read Putin's mind, one might guess that whatever Putin does on the international stage will be part of his scheme to fully consolidate his power as a dictator. In his narcissistic mind, he is perhaps the last and best hope for Russia's ascendancy--its saviour--and he wants to complete the job of "making Russia great", especially if it will place him into the pantheon of the world's greatest leaders. He has cultivated a macho, take charge, superhero image in the media, which might smack of Teddy Roosevelt were it not for his dictatorial style and the self-promoting nature of his photo ops. Perhaps Commodus would be a better comparison in this respect. In any case, Putin likely does not trust anyone else to lead Russia, and he already has virtually the power of a dictator.
So the world is left with few good options to contemplate. If Putin remains in control, he may shift further to despotism, using secret imprisonments, assassinations or purges to further consolidate his power. On the other hand, he may focus more on continuing his reforms and perhaps even promise to restore some greater level of democracy in the future--although this might be wishful thinking, as it would be rather unique in world history. In order to consolidate his power, Putin may attempt to divert attention to some international crisis--if necessary, of his own making. A crisis always serves to rally the people around their leader and to set aside aside grievances--he may hope. He has already sharply criticized the U.S.'s placement of missiles in Europe, and he could escalate this war of words. He could take a more strident position against the U.S. regarding Iran, a trading partner, and this most likely be his excuse for a military campaign. Anything to divert attention from his own "internal affairs" and rally the nation behind him. The sad part of all this, is that Putin might actually be the lesser of two evils. If Putin were to step down or were assassinated, who would replace him as a virtual dictator? A left-leaning ideolog? A member of his own "mafia" or security apparatus who might have fewer qualms about silencing dissent? By systematically dismantling democratic governmental and media safeguards, Putin may have painted himself, his government, and the Russian people...into a corner.
Last year, Russia surpassed the United States in the dirty business of arms deals with other countries. Russia increased arms shipments to countries like Iran, Venezuela and China. These are sophisticated weapons like surface-to-air missiles, tanks and the like. Sooner or later, many of these weapons end up in the hands of organizations like Hezbollah. Russia also sells gas, oil and nuclear technology, as well as many other, more mundane products to these countries. Countries like Iran would prefer to buy better, more up-to-date technology from the West, but sanctions prevent them from doing this and drive them into Russia's arms. Russia has exploited this phenomena for years. The common desire to limit the power and influence of the United States also makes for some strange bedfellows, with countries like Russia, China, Iran and Venezuela involved in mutual trade and diplomacy. Increased trade with Europe has nevertheless made Russia more receptive to the West and its concern about Iran's uranium enrichment program. In September 2010 Russian President Dmitry Medvedev signed a decree banning the delivery of S-300 missile systems, armored vehicles, warplanes, helicopters and ships to Iran. This may cause the loss of $13 billion in arms sales to Iran and force Iran to depend on China for arms in the future according to Igor Korotchenko. More likely, Iran's own missile systems are sufficiently advanced that this won't be necessary.
IRAN
Iran is a pariah as a result of the latest international sanctions, and it is under considerable pressure.
Iran's strategy, in a nutshell, has been this:
(1) They want to convincingly display the ability to make a nuclear strike on the United States at least once. In order to do this, they must develop enough nuclear-tipped missiles stockpiled in enough places that the U.S. and its Western allies will not be able to destroy them before it is too late to prevent a strike.
(2) They want to heavily influence Iraq, Syria and other Islamic states in the Middle East and Africa, not only for the purpose of maintaining control by Shia Islamists loyal to them, but to develop a powerful pan-islamic federation dominated by them--something that has been their dream for many years.
Russia will also attempt to use Iran as a pawn for its own interests. Therefore, any military confrontation between the U.S. and Iran could be extremely dangerous.
SUMMARY
It appears that countries like Iran and Venezuela are Russia's pawns. North Korea and some other neighboring countries are China's pawn. Afghanistan is Pakistan's pawn. Syria and Iraq are becoming Iran's pawn. It would be extremely difficult and challenging, if not impossible, to take any effective military action against a country like Iran or North Korea without igniting another proxy war like we currently have with Pakistan. The building of arms in all these countries also means that it will become increasingly difficult to avoid a provocation leading to war.
For this reason, I hesitate to characterize every major world power as having a "global domination strategy". However, every major power does have a strategy for preventing itself from being dominated. At the end of the day, these are effectively one and the same strategy.
Some people wonder if we are approaching Armageddon. I wonder about this myself. However, I realize that world powers have aligned themselves against each other and engaged in wars since the beginning of time, so yes, the end of the world might be nigh, or no, it might not be. The purpose of this post is not to alarm anyone, but rather to assess the strategic positions of the major powers and what might happen. Hopefully this remains merely the interesting intellectual exercise it was meant to be.
CHINA
China's strategy, according to the viewpoint of a visitor to China is to dominate the world economically rather than militarily. It is more than happy to allow the U.S. to weaken itself with foreign wars and debt accumulation while it gains in economic strength and technical prowess. It knows that, with 1.34 billion people, it will win an economic war, and it intends to dominate in computers and the internet, LEDs, Solar power, Wind power, high-efficiency, energy-saving technologies, and, according to its 5 year plan, cloud computing, bio-technology, high-end manufacturing including aerospace, smart grids, advanced materials and composites, and electric cars. China already has the fastest supercomputer in the world, and it already leads the world in clean technology. It graduates 8 times the number of University science and engineering students as the U.S.
In preparation for a U.S. currency collapse, China is using its dollar reserves to buy up real estate and natural resources around the world--everywhere but the U.S. In 2006, an article described China's vision to be the "powerhouse of the world" by 2050. Other articles state that China will achieve economic world dominance by 2016. A 2010 WSJ acticle stated this will happen in 2012. (Yes, 2012.) I suspect that if our currency devalues, China's real economic output will quickly dwarf our own. To put all this in a historical context, this will not be the first time China achieved technological and commercial preeminence---this occurred during the Tang Dynasty (618 to 907); at the time of Marco Polo's travels (1271-1295; especially compared to the middle ages in the West) and the Qing dynasty (1700's).
Our U.S. government's view is (not surprisingly) more focused on China as a military power--they are vastly expanding their military, and this is seen as a means to exert more control over their own people, over the region, and over the world. This more paranoid focus on their military is nevertheless based on much evidence, and some people believe China's plan for world domination is still consistent with that of Mao's plan, albeit more sophisticated. For instance, one view is that China has been winning the war for global domination using Sun Tzu's "conquer without a fight" strategy, i.e. by fighting a cyber war of computer system attacks, engaging in national and corporate espionage, and exploiting Intellectual Property through reverse engineering or outright counterfeit.
In terms of war game strategy, my guess is that China will refrain from outright war, but will naturally wait for the next major world crisis to shield it from scrutiny, during which time it will use more ham-fisted and threatening tactics to further consolidate its political control in the region. If there is a certain measure of urgency in China's strategic plans, it is because the Chinese have their own problems brewing on the horizon, and these will eventually catch up with them and possibly derail their progress. (An impending demographic crisis as well as other problems in China are already outlined in an earlier post.) China will also be very suspicious of any U.S.-led initiative against North Korea, its most important ally and economic partner. On the other hand, Wikileaks cables suggest that China is privately distancing itself from the North Korean regime, which senior Beijing figures regard as a "spoiled child". Based on the types of rumors seen, China would probably prefer to see a North Korean coup by someone who would quickly align themselves with China, rather than an outright reunification with South Korea. After all, a North Korean meltdown, in Beijing's eyes, might otherwise send a hoard of refugees into China and might also pave the way for a unified Korea under Seoul, with its strong alliance to the U.S., thus ensuring the loss of its buffer state. The only thing the U.S. can be sure of, is that China will not cooperate in any initiative involving North Korea. China is now the most starkly capitalistic country in the world, and moreover, they do not follow the same rules of moral conduct--such as a concern for human rights--that we do.
UNITED STATES
The U.S. is following a global trend in the world, where nationalist paranoia, religious zealotry, atheist fervor and isolationism are gaining traction. Unfavorable demographic trends such as the aging of the baby boomers and a predominance of births to the poorest, least educated segments of society are also beginning to show their effects. Add to this a growing divide between the rich and poor, increasing hostility towards illegal immigrants, and economic disintegration, and you have a toxic recipe for government breakdown. The first major sign of this breakdown is the lack of political unity and political will to stop spending 175% of what our government takes in in taxes--or to increase taxes to cover the shortfall. (This is analogous to a household with an annual income of $55,000 per year, spending $96,500—$41,500 more than they make!) Disillusionment with political parties in general are resulting in fewer moderate candidates and more populist "banana republic" candidates running for office with promises such as "I'll bring back $2.00 gas".
Because of its domestic problems and its recent disastrous wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, the U.S. will shift to a more isolationist stance in the world--just when its leadership is needed the most. The U.S. is too broke to fight another ground war in the interest of nation-building. Major intervention in the affairs of other countries such as North Korea and Iran will, by necessity, involve more unconventional warfare--i.e., cyber warfare, targeted assassination by drones, more robots and even....possible nuclear strikes. Instead of outright war between Russia, China and the U.S., there will be a renewed "cold war" using these stealth technologies.
The moral leadership of the U.S. (as seen by other nations) has been severely eroded as a result of lack of habeas corpus at Guantanamo, secret waterboarding torture locations, the previous administration lying regarding their own intelligence on Iraq's weapons of mass destruction, and the U.S.'s reluctance to sign the Kyoto protocol. As a result, the U.S. will have a very difficult time maintaining support from our allies for any sustained ground war effort--it may be easier and more effective to let the European Union or some other regional power serve in such a leadership role. This will naturally upset many Americans who still believe the U.S. is the best and most moral country on earth.
The moral leadership of the U.S. (as seen by other nations) has been severely eroded as a result of lack of habeas corpus at Guantanamo, secret waterboarding torture locations, the previous administration lying regarding their own intelligence on Iraq's weapons of mass destruction, and the U.S.'s reluctance to sign the Kyoto protocol. As a result, the U.S. will have a very difficult time maintaining support from our allies for any sustained ground war effort--it may be easier and more effective to let the European Union or some other regional power serve in such a leadership role. This will naturally upset many Americans who still believe the U.S. is the best and most moral country on earth.
From a war game strategy standpoint, the U.S. military likely understands that if we become involved with one country, several other countries will take this as their cue to make trouble as well. So, for instance, if North Korea initiates a conflict, Iran will deem this the perfect time to invade Iraq, bomb Israel, attack the U.S., or engage in other mischief. Likewise, Pakistan may have mischief up its sleeve as well. Military trouble always comes in bunches--we must be prepared to deal with at least two or three crises simultaneously. This happened very frequently with the Roman empire--it's the oldest concept in warfare. Both North Korea and Iran are potentially at a flashpoint. The most immediate problem is how to deal with these countries' provocations without starting another proxy war, or precipitating a flood of refugees. The U.S. may be forced to respond (or to participate in a response) if Iran follows through on its threat to close the strait of Hormuz, through which 40% of the world's tanker oil passes. This will be an excuse for Russia to advance its troops through Georgia, as they have already massed their troops along the Norther border of Iran. An attack on Iran is an attack on Russia and an excuse for them to make a land grab. Likewise, the U.S. may be put in a difficult situation if North Korea attacks another ship or something in order to demonstrate that the new leader is to be reckoned with--any substantial response by the U.S. could be openly or secretly countered by the Chinese.
NORTH KOREA
According to a think tank report, North Korea has a 1 million man army, a record number of tanks, warships and air defense artillery...It also has MIG29's, submarines, and nuclear weapons, with both a plutonium and a uranium enrichment program. Kim Jong-un, who is heading a third generation of dynastic rule in the North, will stick to his father’s militaristic approach. The North has threatened to turn the South’s capital, Seoul, into a “sea of fire” on numerous occasions, and continues to repeat this threat.
National Geographic has a video that gives an idea of what it's like to live in North Korea, with its description of concentration camps, government minders, a "god King", pervasive fear, brainwashing and hatred of the Americans.
War game strategy is likely to be the personal strategy of the 28 or 29 year old Kim Jong-un, perhaps in "consultation" with his obsequious advisers, who will not dare to give a differing opinion. So there is no particular logic that we can use to determine if, what, when or why Kim Jong-un's military does something in the interest of peace or provocation or outright war. However, assuming (or hoping) he is has relatively coherent thinking ability, he will quickly realize that any all out war, while possibly doing much damage to South Korea, would not be winnable at any cost. As long as he is relatively sane, his strategy might be to continue a cycle of periodic provocations, followed by insincere negotiations, retrenchment and more provocation--in the hope that he can keep keep up the illusion of diplomatic engagement until he has a sizable nuclear arsenal. As a god-king, he might find it difficult to continue to restrain himself indefinitely, though.
In the final analysis, North Korea is still a pawn of China.
War game strategy is likely to be the personal strategy of the 28 or 29 year old Kim Jong-un, perhaps in "consultation" with his obsequious advisers, who will not dare to give a differing opinion. So there is no particular logic that we can use to determine if, what, when or why Kim Jong-un's military does something in the interest of peace or provocation or outright war. However, assuming (or hoping) he is has relatively coherent thinking ability, he will quickly realize that any all out war, while possibly doing much damage to South Korea, would not be winnable at any cost. As long as he is relatively sane, his strategy might be to continue a cycle of periodic provocations, followed by insincere negotiations, retrenchment and more provocation--in the hope that he can keep keep up the illusion of diplomatic engagement until he has a sizable nuclear arsenal. As a god-king, he might find it difficult to continue to restrain himself indefinitely, though.
In the final analysis, North Korea is still a pawn of China.
Vladimir Putin's overseeing of the return of order and stability, his legal, financial, educational and social reforms, his no-nonsense approach, his reasonable views on a variety of subjects, and his presiding over a period of increasing prosperity had won him popularity in Russia. Of course, oil and gas projects were primarily responsible for the robust economy, other industries being anemic. Alcoholism is unfortunately still rampant, and 100-150 thousand people have emigrated from Russia each year in recent years. A wikileaks cable indicated that a Spanish prosecutor and an expert on organized crime alleged that Russia was a virtual "mafia state", with extensive mafia ties to the Federal Security Service (FSB) as well as the Kremlin itself, which Putin most certainly controls. Wikipedia says Putin is alleged by credible sources to be the richest man in Europe, with successive off-shore funds and accounts in Switzerland, Zug and Liechtenstein worth multi-billions. He denies this. His "official" net worth released during the legislative election of 2007 is the equivalent of $150,000, with $80,000 in income in 2006.
Putin has undoubtedly done some good things for Russia. However, during the last 12 years, he has also implemented his own scheme for turning Russia back into a soviet-style dictatorship--whether this really was his own secret plan for self aggrandizement, or whether he saw this as the only means gaining sufficient power to push through his reforms. In any case, he has eliminated or emasculated most political threats to his absolute power--i.e., the oligarchs Berezovsky, Gusinsky, Khodorkovsky, all local governors (who are now appointed by him), the Russian Federal Council (now a puppet body), all TV stations, and nearly all opposing political parties except (shrewdly) a leftist party. He now has a virtual puppet government that does his bidding. Arrests of dissenters and denial of free assembly are characteristic of his administration. There's just one remaining problem: those protesters still in the streets.
Putin's United Russia party recently gained a slim majority in the last election, allegedly with the help of rampant voter fraud, and he is now back in power, having replaced both himself and Medvedev's offices with himself. Except now he is dealing with increasingly large crowds of protesters who are disputing the election and saying it is time for him to step down. So far, Putin's attempts to deal with the crowds has been clumsy. He told the people that the protesters were like pawns being moved around by their "American partners". He also claimed Russians needed "nationwide psychotherapy" to instill people with confidence in the future. He also jailed leftist protest leaders like Sergei Udaltsov. Fortunately, he knows better than to fire bullets into the crowds--this would irreparably damage his legacy. He also knows that these protests are the last major obstacle to his complete domination of political power in Russia.
While it might be foolish to try to read Putin's mind, one might guess that whatever Putin does on the international stage will be part of his scheme to fully consolidate his power as a dictator. In his narcissistic mind, he is perhaps the last and best hope for Russia's ascendancy--its saviour--and he wants to complete the job of "making Russia great", especially if it will place him into the pantheon of the world's greatest leaders. He has cultivated a macho, take charge, superhero image in the media, which might smack of Teddy Roosevelt were it not for his dictatorial style and the self-promoting nature of his photo ops. Perhaps Commodus would be a better comparison in this respect. In any case, Putin likely does not trust anyone else to lead Russia, and he already has virtually the power of a dictator.
So the world is left with few good options to contemplate. If Putin remains in control, he may shift further to despotism, using secret imprisonments, assassinations or purges to further consolidate his power. On the other hand, he may focus more on continuing his reforms and perhaps even promise to restore some greater level of democracy in the future--although this might be wishful thinking, as it would be rather unique in world history. In order to consolidate his power, Putin may attempt to divert attention to some international crisis--if necessary, of his own making. A crisis always serves to rally the people around their leader and to set aside aside grievances--he may hope. He has already sharply criticized the U.S.'s placement of missiles in Europe, and he could escalate this war of words. He could take a more strident position against the U.S. regarding Iran, a trading partner, and this most likely be his excuse for a military campaign. Anything to divert attention from his own "internal affairs" and rally the nation behind him. The sad part of all this, is that Putin might actually be the lesser of two evils. If Putin were to step down or were assassinated, who would replace him as a virtual dictator? A left-leaning ideolog? A member of his own "mafia" or security apparatus who might have fewer qualms about silencing dissent? By systematically dismantling democratic governmental and media safeguards, Putin may have painted himself, his government, and the Russian people...into a corner.
Last year, Russia surpassed the United States in the dirty business of arms deals with other countries. Russia increased arms shipments to countries like Iran, Venezuela and China. These are sophisticated weapons like surface-to-air missiles, tanks and the like. Sooner or later, many of these weapons end up in the hands of organizations like Hezbollah. Russia also sells gas, oil and nuclear technology, as well as many other, more mundane products to these countries. Countries like Iran would prefer to buy better, more up-to-date technology from the West, but sanctions prevent them from doing this and drive them into Russia's arms. Russia has exploited this phenomena for years. The common desire to limit the power and influence of the United States also makes for some strange bedfellows, with countries like Russia, China, Iran and Venezuela involved in mutual trade and diplomacy. Increased trade with Europe has nevertheless made Russia more receptive to the West and its concern about Iran's uranium enrichment program. In September 2010 Russian President Dmitry Medvedev signed a decree banning the delivery of S-300 missile systems, armored vehicles, warplanes, helicopters and ships to Iran. This may cause the loss of $13 billion in arms sales to Iran and force Iran to depend on China for arms in the future according to Igor Korotchenko. More likely, Iran's own missile systems are sufficiently advanced that this won't be necessary.
IRAN
Iran is a pariah as a result of the latest international sanctions, and it is under considerable pressure.
Iran's strategy, in a nutshell, has been this:
(1) They want to convincingly display the ability to make a nuclear strike on the United States at least once. In order to do this, they must develop enough nuclear-tipped missiles stockpiled in enough places that the U.S. and its Western allies will not be able to destroy them before it is too late to prevent a strike.
(2) They want to heavily influence Iraq, Syria and other Islamic states in the Middle East and Africa, not only for the purpose of maintaining control by Shia Islamists loyal to them, but to develop a powerful pan-islamic federation dominated by them--something that has been their dream for many years.
Russia will also attempt to use Iran as a pawn for its own interests. Therefore, any military confrontation between the U.S. and Iran could be extremely dangerous.
SUMMARY
It appears that countries like Iran and Venezuela are Russia's pawns. North Korea and some other neighboring countries are China's pawn. Afghanistan is Pakistan's pawn. Syria and Iraq are becoming Iran's pawn. It would be extremely difficult and challenging, if not impossible, to take any effective military action against a country like Iran or North Korea without igniting another proxy war like we currently have with Pakistan. The building of arms in all these countries also means that it will become increasingly difficult to avoid a provocation leading to war.
No comments:
Post a Comment