Trump and the risk of war

Trump and the risk of war

As the inauguration approaches, it seems the increased risk of a large scale war, which will inevitably come with his Presidency, is forbidden territory for the commentariat. You can speculate on the reasons for this, but I am more interested in assessing the risk itself. War, of course, is already a reality in Syria and Iraq, but there is little risk of escalation there.

To understand the risk, it is necessary to understand Trump and his demonic nature. As an atheist I do not mean that he is actually possessed by supernatural evil beings, only that his actions are guided by ill will. Political leaders fall somewhere on a spectrum between those whose main concern is to improve the lives of their supporters and those whose main concern is to destroy their perceived enemies. Trump, all too obviously, falls towards the latter end of that spectrum, along with such historical disasters as Mao, Pol Pot, Hitler and Stalin.

In addition to this, behind the bluster and bullying, Trump is deeply insecure. Why else all those attack tweets stimulated by comments a more secure personality would simply ignore or laugh at? Given the frequency and intensity with which he has responded, it is impossible to imagine that he will not behave in a similar manner on the international stage. The greatest risk is that he will enter into a dispute with a leader of a similar demonic nature. Unfortunately just such a figure rules North Korea. Kim Jong-un.

The similarities between the two are significant. Both are the over-indulged children of powerful men and have grown up to have a bottomless sense of entitlement. Even the bouffant hairstyles speak to their anxiety to appear large and powerful. Both display signs of unstable high self-esteem. The reality of their powerful positions being constantly undercut by their doubts about their fundamental worth and status. Trump demonstrates this most clearly in his behaviour towards women. Men who are secure and confident of their sexuality do not need to grab women by the pussy, nor to boast about their sexual conquests. Kim Jong-un has demonstrated his insecurity in the brutality with which he has executed those who have opposed or displeased him.

Korea has nuclear weapons. It is not clear that they have the ability to deliver them by ICBMs, but it is not a point that anyone would want clarified by their deployment. It can be argued that North Korea has nothing to gain from a nuclear exchange since the superiority of the US nuclear arsenal could easily reduce the entire state to radioactive rubble, but this misses a critical point. Until now the regime could be confident that the US would not strike first. This is critical to understanding their deliberate provocation. Kim Jong-un has known he would receive an unambiguous signal, if his provocations became too extreme.

He can no longer be certain of that with Trump in the White House. Insecure personalities tend to escalate conflicts as their self-esteem is destabilised by anything that could be interpreted as weakness. International situations can rapidly move from provocation, to misunderstanding, to crisis. If we look back at the Cuban Missile Crisis, it is clear that probably the most important factor in its resolution was the character of the leaders, Kennedy and Kruschev. At the critical moment both chose to ignore the advice of their generals and seek a diplomatic solution. The fact that both had deep personal experience of the reality of war may have been decisive. A similar degree of conflict occurring now, with Trump and Kim Jong-un, would surely end in nuclear war.

The Doomsday Clock, which assesses the risk of nuclear war, currently stands at 3 minutes to midnight and the erratic and aggressive nature of Kim Jong-un is a significant factor in the risk being rated so highly. Given that the next US President will mirror the North Korean leader's temperament, there is much to fear.

Time will tell Blowin.

Blowin I had a Chinese bloke who works at the local Consulate around for a BBQ last week. Point being, don't worry about learning Mandarin, in the elite schools they all learn English from an early age. He is completely fluent in English and Japanese, as is his wife. So who do you trust a country which has invaded only one other country since WW2 or our current ally. Sorry but I have lost count of their military adventures.

Part Two

Despite the evidence of Russian influence in the US Presidential election, it is reported that they were surprised when Trump actually won. Even if that was the case, they would surely have anticipated the huge geopolitical advantages such a victory would hand to them. Given his adventurism in Ukraine and his posture towards the west, it has been clear for sometime that Putin has a definite agenda; to extend Russian hegemony to the borders of the old Soviet Union and to extend its sphere of influence, not merely into Eastern Europe but also, as events in Syria show, deep into the Middle East.

The great concern, following the events in Ukraine, has been that his next move will be into the Baltic States, Lithuania, Latvia and Estonia. A recent war game simulation of such an invasion by Rand Corporation indicated that, even with US participation, NATO could not realistically prevent it and would have no viable alternative but to renew the Cold War. Trump's election, by creating uncertainty about continuing US participation in NATO, changes the calculation drastically in favour of Russia and consequently makes such an invasion, if not inevitable, then many times more likely.

From Trump's statements, it is a reasonable inference that he has no intention of trying to prevent Russia from achieving the hegemony and influence Putin is so actively seeking. Faced with an invasion of the Baltic States NATO, without the support of its strongest member, would be little more than a spectator. The end result then would be a situation perilously close to that Europe faced in the late 1930s. Then, the United Kingdom and its allies, without US support, drew a line against Germany at the border of Poland. Following an invasion of the Baltic States, Russian forces would be at the northern end of the Polish border.

It is always a mistake to assume that the next war will mirror the last, but it is entirely reasonable to be aware of similarities. It is unlikely that Russia would invade Poland, but the Ukraine is another story. With Trump in power Russia has so little to fear from the US, either militarily or economically, that it will feel free to politically destabilise Ukraine and manufacture pretexts for further incursions into its territory. A full scale invasion may be less likely, but with nothing to lose Ukraine may escalate the conflict itself into a full blown war.

In those circumstances NATO would again be virtually powerless, since to throw its full military weight into the conflict would be both politically unacceptable and strategically unwise in terms of maintaining the security of its members. Regardless of the response, at that point Europe would be forced to massively rearm to ensure that Russian territorial ambitions would not extend any further.

At every step of this Russian expansion, there is the possibility of misunderstandings with the European remnants of NATO. With both sides possessing nuclear weapons the risk of an escalation to nuclear war will become significant. Widespread conventional conflict is probably more likely, since Russia will believe that it can defeat a disunited NATO, but the lesser of the two evils would still be disastrous. We live in disturbingly interesting times.

Part Three

In the build up to Trump's Presidency his aggressive attitude towards China attracted concern and comment. While Trump himself focused on trade more recent comments, by his nominee for Secretary of State Rex Tillerson, have threatened retaliatory actions against China over its construction of artificial islands in the South China Sea. It is to be hoped, most profoundly, that his threat to block China's access to the islands is only bluff, since any attempt to do so would almost certainly be interpreted as an act of war.

The rights and wrongs of the issue are less important than the potential consequences of escalating the dispute. In the past, in consideration of these consequences, it has been reasonable to assume that neither power would act impulsively or unwisely. Tillerson's comments throw grave doubt that this assumption will hold during a Trump Presidency.

Having wasted so many of its resources in destructive and destabilising wars in the Middle East, the US now finds that its influence is in decline, most notably in South East Asia where many nations are clearly reorienting their foreign policies away from the US and towards China. This recognises the geopolitical reality that, if it is not already, China soon will be the dominant regional power.

The danger will arise if the Trump administration fails to recognise the inevitability of their declining power in the region and provokes a serious conflict with China. Weakness and insecurity are frequent causes of aggression and few characters are as weak or as insecure as Trump. It is all too easy to imagine him, blinded by his own narcissism, pointlessly escalating a dispute otherwise easily resolved.

The best hope for avoiding this rests with China. They always play the long game so it is likely that they see the Trump for exactly what he is; a temporary and insubstantial obstacle to their increasing power. They will also see what Putin saw long ago, that he is foolish, and fools are easily manipulated. Agile Chinese diplomacy has the potential to side step Trump, to give him enough minor victories to satisfy his ego while taking their major victories quietly.

Yet China does not need to be passive. If the provocation is serious enough, or threatens their territorial integrity, including the artificial islands, they have the power to respond militarily. It is impossible to quantify the risks of this occurring, but easy to predict Trump's response - escalation, and with it the risk of nuclear war or a widespread conventional war.

War is seemingly ever present in our times, but not all wars are equal. Some are much more destructive of life and property than others. It is not to demean those who have died in lesser conflicts for us to fear greater ones. Estimates of the loss of life in World War 2 vary from 40 to 85 million. No war since has produced a remotely similar figure. Yet we know that nuclear armed nations have weapons whose use could kill many times that number in a time span so brief it could happen before half the world even knew there was a war. This is why it is so important for us to see that, in Trump, the US has produced a leader whose ignorance, arrogance and sheer blind stupidity could lead us into such a war. Let us hope for peace but be ready to respond should our own weak leaders acquiesce to his bumbling and incompetent leadership.

Blowin, the approved technique is to bend over, put your head between your knees and kiss your arse goodbye.

As I said before the rights and wrongs of China claiming those islands is not the issue. Great powers do what suits them within their own sphere of influence so China will not be dissuaded or intimidated. Their purpose in establishing military bases is straight forward. A huge percentage of their trade passes through those waters and they want to ensure that it cannot be blockaded or otherwise interfered with by rival powers. As noted above the US has numerous military bases in the area. In the great game China has just taken an obvious geopolitical move that, if anything, enhances the balance of power in the region. Is it right, just or fair? No. Can it be reversed? At this stage, not without a war. Is it worth going to war over the issue? Absolutely not. Both the Philippines and Malaysia are moving towards China anyway and, at this stage, are probably only protesting to extract some concessions from China in other areas. Beyond that it is really no-one else's business unless there is interference with peaceful shipping.

Realism, Blowin. I am not defending China specifically, just pointing out their motivations. You want morality? Forget politics, go chat to your local minister. Yeh I spent several hours with the cultural "cultural attaché" and discussed just about everything except politics, but I will be travelling with him through an area close to the disputed islands later this year, so maybe he will give me some insight.

My comments on Trump's character where all relevant to the issues. If I seem to favour China it is probably only that their side of the dispute is disregarded in most discussion of the issue. If the area was not already surrounded by US bases they would have had no reason to construct the artificial islands. Realpolitik Blowin, look it up.

As I have said, this is not about defending China. It is about realpolitik. If you cannot understand the geopolitics of the base, look it up. It goes beyond my current concerns.

Gaz I make no claim about China beyond it playing geopolitics for its own advantage........and the Chinese middle class don't work in factories, they own them. As for being too big for its boots.....well it is a big place with a huge population and has sustained a higher rate of economic growth than anyone thought possible for longer than anyone thought possible.......so maybe the exact opposite, they are just growing into some over sized boots.

Blowin if you want a response stay civil. I am over the petty irrelevant insults.

Indo, read the last paragraph of part 3.

Gaz, so China makes its money by making stuff and we make ours by digging up resources and selling to them so they can make stuff. Bottom line, we need them more than they need us.