The New Domino Theory: Assisting Ukraine May Cause Russia to Help China Take Control Over the South China Sea Region

There is this National Interest piece by Harry J. Kazianis, "Russia Could Make China King of the South China Sea"

***
Events thousands of miles away in Ukraine could set off a chain reaction that could see China become the undisputed ruler of this large body of water thanks to a large infusion of Russian weapons and technology— if the West starts arming Ukraine.
***
Imagine this scenario: The West decides that it is time to arm Ukraine. Russia decides it needs to strike back— and not just in Europe. President Putin pulls out his map of the globe and looks for a place where Russian power would best stick it to the United States. His eyes light up on the one area that could not only strengthen ties with a potential partner but do real damage to America’s efforts to “pivot” to that part of the world: the South China Sea.
***
While Russia might not be a superpower anymore, it does have the power to create lots of havoc for the United States and its allies all over the world. Such moves would then see the West again look to strike back at Moscow, creating a dangerous dynamic that would see the conditions ripe for a new Cold War that is in no ones national interest. This is all the more reason for all parties concerned when it comes to Ukraine to find a political settlement to the crisis.

So, under this new "domino theory" (for info on the old "domino theory" see here), the inter-connectedness of the former "communist" (read complete dictatorships) countries would allow Putin to "send a message" to the U.S. by agreeing to sell very modern arms to China, which can then use those to cement its position  as regional hegemonic demon over the South China Sea region. That is, unless, of course, the West agrees to cede all or part of Czechoslovakia Ukraine to Hitler Putin in some sort of "political settlement." We know from history how well such appeasement agreements have work out. See Munich Pact, for example.

However, the argument is that failure to give up bits and pieces of Ukraine will cause Putin to knock over a domino piece elsewhere, most specifically the China piece.

But, isn't China doing just fine without agreeing to buy more Russian equipment? What with stolen plans, weak sister neighbors and a somewhat flaccid U.S. response so far to it bullying and island grabs, what does it need Russia for?

If I were Putin and I was looking at arming China, I'd be worried about my resource rich eastern areas that are so very close to China and its
area of influence. A Chinese "invasion" of Siberia has been discussed for some time and also discounted (oddly, both linked articles look at demographics to make their cases).

Frankly, if the information on some number of Chinese emigrating to Siberia is true (and perhaps even if is not) Putin has, through his assertions of "protecting ethnic Russians" in his Ukraine push, provided the Chinese with an argument to take action in Siberia to protect "ethnic Chinese." I imagine someone in the U.S. world of think tanks might be looking at how a signal to the Chinese about such an action might be viewed by the West if Putin pushes harder in the west.

Further, there is this interesting look at U.S.-China relations from a former U.S. Seventh Fleet commander in this U.S. Naval Institute Proceedings opinion piece, "Storm Warnings?":

• According to The Washington Post , China has increased its use of oil at the average pace of 6–7 percent a year since 1990—more than 20 straight years! At this pace, the PRC will catch the U.S. rate of petroleum usage in just over 20 more years.

• By 2020, China is expected to import 7.3 million barrels of crude oil per day—one half of Saudi Arabia’s planned output, as reported in Foreign Affairs . By way of comparison, today the Chinese import 4.7 million barrels per day and the United States about 9.7 million.

• A recent article in the International Herald Tribune states the PRC is preparing to build three times as many nuclear power plants in the coming decade as the rest of the world. However, electrical demand is growing so rapidly in the PRC that even if that happens, they will generate only 9.7 percent of the country’s power.

• According to National Geographic Magazine , today China produces and consumes nearly one third of the world’s steel, more than long-time industrial powers Japan, Germany, and the United States combined.

• David Hale Global Economics indicates that China now consumes 25 percent of Australia’s exports, up from 12 percent just two years previously, and has invested $44 billion in Australia since 2007.

• According to the South China Morning Post , while the PRC accounts for more than 20 percent of the world’s population, it has only 7 percent of the world’s fresh water, and its vast system of 87,000 reservoirs is not in the best of shape; 43 percent are said to be in poor condition.

All of this is to say that China is facing serious natural-resource challenges, including the need to import an ever-increasing amount of raw materials.

VADM Crowder notes that these external resource dependencies would support a strong blue water navy to protect China's sea lines of communication.

Admiral Crowder makes several excellent points in the piece, not the least of which is the need for some plain speaking on the part of the U.S.:

In fact, if the United States were a lot more transparent about its concerns in the region with regard to China, it could probably reach a glide path that moves more toward cooperation than confrontation. But until the Chinese show us by their words, and more important, their deeds, that their naval buildup is not about coercing the nations of the region—particularly over resources—then we have to be capable of making such an outcome, quite simply, not worth the risk.

On the other hand, if there truly are vast resources of oil, gas, and iron just sitting outside China's border with Russia . . . and exploiting those resources would not require the use of vulnerable sea lanes . . . well, I suspect there are Chinese operation plans on just how grabbing a big chunk of Russia's "far east" might happen, especially if Putin gets Russian forces heavily engaged in the west.

The point is that while Putin might be tempted to tip some dominoes, he really needs to be very careful. The West/U.S. does not need to cede anything at all because it has its own domino strings to push.

"Soft Power" in Action: Saving generations in the fight against malaria

If there were a disease that affected over 200 million people annually and its most vulnerable populations were pregnant women and children under five years of age - of over 600,000 deaths, 80% (480,000) are children under 5 - wouldn't the fight against it be big news?

On last weekend's Midrats, I spoke with Tim Ziemer, coordinator of the President's Malaria Initiative about the important "soft power" effort of the U.S. to reduce the impact of malaria in Africa.

Check Out Military Podcasts at Blog Talk Radio with Midrats on BlogTalkRadio

We struggle with so many other "wars" around the world - cyber war, jihad, drug cartels, human traffickers, local actual or wanna-be hegemons, international looney tunes (PDRK, anyone), etc - that it is easy to forget the great battles against diseases that have been fought in the past and those which are on-going. Measles, small pox and yellow fever are mostly gone (yellow fever now strikes about 200,000 a year, mostly in Africa). Tuberculosis still kills about 1.5 million a year, "Tuberculosis (TB) is second only to HIV/AIDS as the greatest killer worldwide due to a single infectious agent." But we are fighting them.

As RADM Ziemer says during our conversation, reducing the incidence of malaria frees up local medical services to deal with other issues and also frees up populations to engage in productive work to improve their lot in life. I think he said something like, "Malaria is a disease of poverty."

A recurrent question in the show chat room during the live broadcast was whether the U.S. was getting "credit" for pouring $4 billion into this fight against malaria? Without asking some of the people whose lives have changed (or been saved) as a result of theses efforts, how do we measure "credit"?

I am reminded of the Aesop's fable of the lion and the mouse:

A Lion lay asleep in the forest, his great head resting on his paws. A timid little Mouse came upon him unexpectedly, and in her fright and haste to get away, ran across the Lion's nose. Roused from his nap, the Lion laid his huge paw angrily on the tiny creature to kill her.

"Spare me!" begged the poor Mouse. "Please let me go and some day I will surely repay you."

The Lion was much amused to think that a Mouse could ever help him. But he was generous and finally let the Mouse go.

Some days later, while stalking his prey in the forest, the Lion was caught in the toils of a hunter's net. Unable to free himself, he filled the forest with his angry roaring. The Mouse knew the voice and quickly found the Lion struggling in the net. Running to one of the great ropes that bound him, she gnawed it until it parted, and soon the Lion was free.

"You laughed when I said I would repay you," said the Mouse. "Now you see that even a Mouse can help a Lion."

A kindness is never wasted.

 How much is sparing several generations from malaria worth down the road?

The U.S. taxpayers are not alone in this fight. The World Health Orgaization (WHO) (U.S. taxpayers also contribute heavily to WHO (about 20% of WHO funding) and private foundations (again, mostly American like Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation). The United Kingdom is a large contributor. China is a player - see here:

To combat malaria, drugs are of vital importance. When a delegation of senior African government officials visited a Shanghai-based pharmaceutical company in 2005, they called on Chinese companies to set up branches in Africa for medicine production. DihydroArtemisinin, or “Cotecxin,” was first developed by Beijing Holley-Cotec in 1993. It was approved by the World Health Organization (WHO) as an effective anti-malaria drug. In 1996, China’s Ministry of Health designated Cotecxin as the required medicine for CMTs. It is also chosen many times as aid materials to Africa, either by governments or pharmaceutical companies. Another important measure is the set-up of anti-malaria centers in Africa, a direct result of 2006 Summit.

A Good Start to a Debate on Geopolitics

A couple of heavies fire broadsides in a discussion of geopolitics at Foreign Affairs:

First, Walter Russell Mead 's The Return of Geopolitics:

But Westerners should never have expected old-fashioned geopolitics to go away. They did so only because they fundamentally misread what the collapse of the Soviet Union meant: the ideological triumph of liberal capitalist democracy over communism, not the obsolescence of hard power.

Second, a reply from G. John Ikenberry in his The Illusion of Geopolitics: The Enduring Power of the Liberal Order:

But Mead’s alarmism is based on a colossal misreading of modern power realities. It is a misreading of the logic and character of the existing world order, which is more stable and expansive than Mead depicts, leading him to overestimate the ability of the “axis of weevils” to undermine it. And it is a misreading of China and Russia, which are not full-scale revisionist powers but part-time spoilers at best, as suspicious of each other as they are of the outside world.

I think Mead's piece is available without an account, but the Ikenberry bit may require a log in (which may be free).

Read them both, though. Thinking is good for you.

You can read about H. J Mackinder's "The Geographical Pivot of History" (of which the illustration at the top is a representation) here or read his original piece as a pdf here.

Your views may vary.