Re: Nikolai's warfare scenario for XXI

Thu, 10 Apr 1997 15:47:17 +0100
Richard K. Moore (

Nikolai wrote:
>2015-30. China turns to the North: Mongolia, Middle Asia, Primorie (last 2
>were annexed by Russia only 130 years ago)
>US and G7 observe calmly the fight of giants - Russia and China
>(just as Russia and Germany in WWI and WWII)
>(one can expect
>here parallel geopolitical press on Russia from Islam on Caucasis,
>Estonia and Finland in the North-West, Afganistan in the South, Japan in
>Kurils and Sachalin, growing separatism in Tumen, Primorie, Iakutia, Tuva,
>Altai, escalation of elite conflicts in Moscow, following Russian defeat to
>China that can provoke Moscow to use nuclear weapon)

An interesting analysis. Allow me to suggest that the scenario
presented by Nikolai harkens back to the WW-I situation as much as to that
of WW-II. The collapse of the Soviet & satellite system creates a power
vacuum much like that of the collapse of the Turkish empire, and again
various players are vying to structure the filling that vacuum.

And as in the WW-II scenario the West may, as Nikolai suggests,
allow some powers to play out their rivalries and then take decisive action
at a timely moment to determine the ultimate outcome. Armed periphrery
conflict between China and Russia would indeed be highly convenient in this

But, and I agree here with Austin, the globalist system is now much
more integrated than in either of the two previous eras: the game now
includes profoundly different elements and the global escalation potentials
are extrememly volatile. Russia is in such a weakened state, for example,
that it would need to turn to nukes very early in any armed conflict with
China. I suspect that this scenario may be too messy for current Western
global planners, although it has surely been given serious consideration.

For those reasons, I continue to believe that a direct US
techno-war confrontation with China is the preferred globalist scheme for
taming China if engagement fails, and that the evidence shows this is the
scenario being prepared. Preliminary conflicts would make the situation
more volatile without signficantly simplifying the ultimate US mission,
which would in the end still be necessary.