The press in both the US and China seem to be doing their best in applying porcine maquillage to the meeting between Anthony Blinken and China’s foreign minister Qin Gang yesterday. The session ran to seven and a half hours, longer than planned, which is seen as a good sign since neither party emerged with visible bruises.
The appearance of momentum continued, with Blinken meeting with China’s top foreign official Wang Yi today.1 Blinken may see Xi Jinpeng later today, which is not something to which Blinken would seem to be entitled merely because he flew across the ocean. However, Xi recently met with Bill Gates, so not meeting with Blinken in light of that would come off as a snub. So Xi has wound up creating the conditions where he sort of has to see Blinken…or did so deliberately so as to have an excuse for this gesture?
But the Chinese and US readouts of the meeting tell a much less cheery story, and we were talking only very muted optimism to begin with.
The Chinese like expansive readouts, so the fact that theirs was very short by Chinese standards, particularly in light of the length of the meeting and didn’t include any of Blinken’s positions, suggests the Chinese didn’t want to dignify them by reciting them.
I’ll go through the Chinese one first. These Chinese statements often come off as trying to sound lofty and principled but instead seem preachy, assuming seniority when that’s not a given. Perhaps that is just an artifact of translation. From the Ministry of Foreign Affairs website:
Qin pointed out that the China-U.S. relationship is at the lowest point since its establishment. This does not serve the fundamental interests of the two peoples or meet the shared expectations of the international community. China’s policy toward the U.S. remains consistent and stable. It is fundamentally guided by the principles of mutual respect, peaceful coexistence and win-win cooperation put forward by President Xi Jinping. These principles should also be the spirit jointly upheld, the red line jointly defended and the goal jointly pursued by both sides. China is committed to building a stable, predictable and constructive relationship with the U.S. China hopes that the U.S. will adopt an objective and rational perception of China, work with China in the same direction, uphold the political foundation of China-U.S. relations, and handle unexpected and sporadic events in a calm, professional and rational manner. The two sides should deliver on the common understandings reached by President Xi and President Biden in Bali in letter and spirit, and work to stabilize and steer the relations back to the right track.
Now admittedly, it’s cheeky for China to present itself as the spokescritter for the international community. China is also glossing over the fact that it’s been annoying and worrying its neighbors via its territorial claims on those fake islands in the South China Sea. But again, the US hegemonically sticking its nose in is also a bit much, particularly since if it were going to Do Something, the opportune time would have been years ago.
However, the Biden Administration has been relentlessly eyepoking China. And you can see the thinly-veiled references to l’affaire balloon. If I were China, the significance extends beyond trying to elevate a nothingburger into a major security breach. It’s also that the US looks to be staring to message that China is the Great Yellow Peril, that Americans need to watch out for Commies in the air and airwaves. China managed to escape that due to Commie demonization for generations targeting the Soviets, and also the Yellow Peril role having been taken by Japan, at least until the 1970s when America fell for Japanese cars.2
If I were China, I would be taking worried note of how easily the West was able to turn protracted maligning of the USSR into full bore Russia hatred and would be working hard to prevent the planting of similar hate-seeds if I could.
Global Times, the Chinese government’s English language organ, explained the significance of the Bali “understandings”:
Despite very low expectations for any breakthroughs made during Blinken’s visit to China, there is still hope that both sides can maintain their “bottom line” in the relationship. Although the relationship is at its lowest point since the establishment of diplomatic ties, there are still some key issues on which both sides have consensus, otherwise Blinken’s trip would be impossible. These consensuses were collectively reflected in the Bali meeting between the leaders of China and the US in November last year, which are also the fundamental guidance for maintaining stability in the relationship between the two countries. Because of the guidance, the two countries are able to conduct constructive communication when bilateral ties are at their lowest point.
Before his visit, Blinken stated that “what we are working to do on this trip is to really carry forward what President Biden and President Xi agreed to in Bali.” It should be noted that whether it helps to push the China-US relationship back to the consensus reached by the two leaders in Bali will be the golden standard for judging whether Blinken’s visit is successful or not.
The bigger point is that even if China is lecturing, it has every right to. The US has behaved in a highly reckless, ill-tempered, immature manner.
Next section of the Chinese readout:
Qin expounded on China’s firm position and raised clear demands on the Taiwan question and other core interests and major concerns. Qin pointed out that the Taiwan question is the core of China’s core interests, the most consequential issue and the most pronounced risk in the China-U.S. relationship. The Chinese side urged the U.S. side to abide by the one-China principle and the three China-U.S. joint communiqués, and truly deliver on its commitment of not supporting “Taiwan independence.”
This section is testy. It suggests China reiterated its long-standing position on Taiwan and encountered resistance or non-responsive responses. In past China-US exchanges, for instance, Xi-Biden talks, Biden has given lip service to the one-China principle and then carries on fomenting Taiwan independence. Perhaps Qin called that out.
And that’s really it. Because they two met, they have to present some sort of agreement, and the rest of the readout shows how shabby that list is. More student visas? Restoring the flights that China shut down during zero Covid (and didn’t yet care to resume)? More “joint working groups”? “People to people exchanges”? In fairness, the US cancellation of Chinese student/researcher visas looked more punitive and xenophobic than driven by security concerns (which would take case-by-case investigation, as in work), so rolling that back may chalk up real points in China. But Chinese student enrollments in the US started dropping before Covid due to increased American hostility.
The most serious commitment seemed to be to more high level sessions:
Both sides agreed to maintain high-level interactions. Secretary Blinken invited State Councilor and Foreign Minister Qin to visit the U.S., and Qin expressed his readiness to make the visit at a mutually convenient time.
The US readout was just as bad, in its own way. US readouts tend to be telegraphic, but this one had some zingers. From the State Department website:
Secretary of State Antony J. Blinken held candid, substantive, and constructive talks today with People’s Republic of China (PRC) State Councilor and Foreign Minister Qin Gang in Beijing. The Secretary emphasized the importance of diplomacy and maintaining open channels of communication across the full range of issues to reduce the risk of misperception and miscalculation. The Secretary raised a number of issues of concern, as well as opportunities to explore cooperation on shared transnational issues with the PRC where our interests align. The Secretary made clear that the United States will always stand up for the interests and values of the American people and work with its allies and partners to advance our vision for a world that is free, open, and upholds the international rules-based order.
Blinken and US leadership generally appears to be blind to the fact that “rules-based international order” is acquiring negative connotations outside the Collective West. It’s understood as the means for implementing the US hegemony, and the rest of the world is done with that. For that phrase to have made is way into the readout suggest that Blinken harped on that in his meeting with Qin.
The rest of the thin US readout was on the very few next steps.
China’s posture, as reflected in the Global Times editorial, seems to be, “The US needs to stop acting as if talking will do, it needs to make some concessions”:
The US’ “positive attitude” toward Blinken’s visit to China is not only a public opinion war that aims to shift the blame on China, but also because to a considerable extent “there is no alternative.” Externally, the international community, including US allies, hopes that China-US relations will stop falling and stabilize, so as to avoid shaking the foundation of world peace and stability. This puts pressure on the US and forces the Biden administration to quietly adjust its tone, emphasizing “it is not forcing any country to choose sides” and “no decoupling.”….
Most of the difficulties encountered in China-US relations were due to Washington’s unilateral and erratic policies and actions. So naturally the US needs to do more to improve the bilateral ties. On many specific issues, the US can create considerable space for cooperation. For example, on the issue of fentanyl, which Americans are highly concerned about, the lifting of the unreasonable sanctions imposed on China by the US will obviously remove a major obstacle to cooperation between the two countries. In addition, in the field of economy and trade, although Washington’s suppression on China is crazy, the economic and trade relations between the two countries still show strong endogenous momentum, which means that there is huge room for mutually beneficial cooperation between the two countries, a reality that the US cannot avoid. In addition, in terms of people-to-people and cultural exchanges, both China and the US agreed to encourage the expansion of cultural and educational exchanges between the two countries, so the US should make concrete moves on issues such as visas and cancel its neurotic and allergic practices in the past.
The attitude of the Chinese toward Blinken’s visit to China has indeed changed, but this does not mean that China refuses to engage and improve China-US relations. On the contrary, the Chinese are more strategically determined and patient about the stabilization and improvement of China-US relations, and more emphasis is placed on the sincerity and concrete and effective measures from the US side.
Churchill said, “Jaw jaw is always better than to war war.” But the US and China are only tenuously at that level.
_____
1 Confusingly, at least from a protocol perspective, Qin is Blinken’s direct counterpart as head of the foreign ministry. But China just elevated the former Foreign Minister Wang Yi to the Politburo, making him a sort of super-minister.
2 My mother and her friends continued to regard the Japanese with considerable antipathy until their deaths.
40 comments
Comments are closed.
Isn’t Wang Yi still under US sanctions? If so I’m disappointed China allowed Blinken to come to China let alone meet with Wang until the sanctions are terminated. Practicing a strict and level per to per relationship based on equality is important.
IMO, the appropriate next for China is to impose China sanctions on Blinken. That would send the correct message and set an appropriate standard for a level playing field of fairness, equality, mutual reciprocated respect and establish an equal per to per relationship, and self esteem for China vs US.
Of course, it would have been far more appropriate and satisfying to impose Chinese sanctions on Blinken the moment he set foot on China territory. Then leave him stranded and left to his own devises getting a commercial plane back to where he came from. And to inform the airport worker bees to make very sure his visa is in order when they spend at half an hour checking it.
Don’t let the door hit you on the way out, Mr Blinken.
No, it’s not Wang Yi. It’s defense chief Li Shangfu. See: https://archive.ph/bSuy9#selection-4747.87-4747.97
I have to admit that I was looking forward to Blinken getting the Von der Leyen treatment. Probably not in the least bit responsible, but it would have been pleasurable to see him get smacked down in public. That face is just eminently slapable.
In the end, the refusal to set up a military hotline appears to be the core result of that trip.
https://thehill.com/policy/international/4056697-xi-rejects-us-offer-to-set-up-military-crisis-hotline-blinken-says/
There was also a blurb about Blinkin planning to talk to Xi about some scientific research cooperation. But not a hint of that here.
Realistically, whatever the Biden administration has Blinken doing is better than his usual primary activity of leaning hard on countries and trying to scrounge up whatever weapons and ammo he can scrape together to give to Ukraine.
Something is going on now as it was just on the news here that Blinken has just met with Xi Jinping himself. So maybe these initial talks with Li Shangfu were sounding Blinken out and seeing what his talking points were without tipping Xi Jinping’s hand first-
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2023/jun/19/antony-blinken-xi-jinping-beijing-china
As I said in the post, Xi pretty much had to see Blinken having seen Gates in the past week or so. It would be too much of a diss not to see Blinken when he’d given an audience to a mere important US citizen.
But Blinken did not see Li Shangfu. Li is the defense chief and not a counterpart to Blinken. Blinken met with Wang Yi, the most senior foreign service official, ranked over the foreign minister.
And as to the Guardian report, forgive me for reading this in terms of my priors, which may be disproven by the readouts.
35 minutes is longer than a handshake or a sidebar chat, but short enough to still make clear that this meeting was intended to be largely ceremonial and relationship-rebuilding rather than substantive. So my take is that Blinken was rude in using it to try to advance the US agenda in an aggressive manner. He’d had his 7 1/2 hours yesterday to make his points and the Chinese no doubt take excellent notes.
Perhaps other accounts will qualify or soften the “candid” part, but if not….
35 minutes is a meet and greet courtesy call. By the time everyone has come in and sat down, and bearing in mind the time-lag even if very good quasi-simultaneous interpreters are used, there’s not a lot of time for anything else than reading out prepared statements of position and having a few photos. For someone like Blinken, that is the least the Chinese could possibly get away with.
Or, Xi politely shook Blinken’s hand, grinned and handed him a note saying, “Here is a photo of your house we took from the balloon back in February. Nice pool! Shame if something were to happen to it.”
I’ll have to look later to see if Beijing even releases a readout of the meeting with Xi. Blinken is just about as atrocious a liar as Biden, so what he reports was said usually deviates from the real grit. This is extremely corrosive to conducting the business between nations. Even the Donald groks in business there are some, not many for him, relationships where you better not lie or mis-represent the other party.
https://www.gingerriver.com/p/chinese-readout-of-xi-jinping-anthony
Here is a report on it. Apparently Wang Yi also had an exchange.
https://www.pekingnology.com/p/chinese-readout-of-wang-yi-anthony
The China readout of Wang Yi and Blinken, compared to State Dept, it is as if the two men were in different rooms talking to astral projections.
Chinese language, and more importantly, culture, do not easily translate into American, and with 1.4 B people maybe that’s a good thing.
If this observation is in reference to: “This does not serve the fundamental interests of the two peoples or meet the shared expectations of the international community. ” then I would take it as reporting on what is said in it’s exchanges with embassies and visiting diplomats in Beijing as well as to its own ambassadors overseas.
I can imagine there are a lot of countries in the balance of the world who are worried sick about the possibility of a war between the two and the famine/instability that would result just from a sanctions regime, much less a hot war blocking shipping lanes. Some, Like France and Germany, must have to pretend to be friends with USA because they fear the agents seeded throughout their society by NED/CIA proxy money, but they also don’t want to be lynched by an angry hungry mob. Many of these nations are probably pressing on Beijing that every time they try to talk to Washington Blob about their worries they get threats instead of assurance, and China is simply reporting this pressure. One would think the Washington Blob would have the same worry, but their eyes are fixed on the prize the MIC-IMATT keeps waving in front of their glazed eyes. Everyone pressures the rational actor if a fight breaks out because blaming the irrational actor is useless. Putin is starting to learn to act a tad bit angry, I hope China doesn’t.
France and Germany are not pretending to be friends of the US. They are vassal states. They do not have freedom of action. Readers can correct me, but my understanding is the UK and Continental press are more rabid on the subject of Ukraine than the US, despite a fair bit of domestic discontent in Germany over the costs (energy, de-industrialization, refugees). They are way more worried about the Collective West losing its relative position. That’s why they are still willing to fund this war.
The ones that are seriously upset and worried are poor countries hurt by the fall in grain and fertilizer.
‘my understanding is the UK and Continental press are more rabid on the subject of Ukraine than the US’
Alexander Mercouris, who lives in the UK, has noted that the UK media are in virtual lockstep in their support for the Ukraine and dissent is not tolerated there.
The UK media lockstep on Ukraine has got to be see to be believed. (I wasn’t really paying attention during the run-up to the Iraq War, so I don’t know if it was as bad then.) It’s always “Ukraine says …” versus “Russia claims, without evidence, …”
The Guardian Sports Section, for instance, ran an interview with a Ukrainian footballer who plays for Arsenal, giving his view on the war which was, understandably, anti-Russian, but under the headline “I will not be silenced.” Which was weird, because nobody is trying to silence pro-Ukrainian views. (Half the Guardian columnists seem to publish nothing else.)
Had he held the opposite view, he could have refused to be silenced as much as he wanted, and we’d never know about it, because he would have been … silenced.
An illustration of the above is a news-snippet on Dutch radio yesterday. “An independent Russian news-agency….” Has found that alcohol consumption in the Kremlin has soared since the beginning of the SMO. The Dutch anchor said, in the wake of this news, he was surprised to see Putin in his last meeting with the international business crowd in St. Petersburg, holding a glass of champagne….
Anything that discredits, ridicules or undermines all of Russian presence in this world is steadily fed to the audience.
Maybe it was a factual description. “I will not be silenced, someone else will be.”
The ones that are seriously upset and worried are poor countries hurt by the fall in grain and fertilizer.
That’s a point I initially meant to emphasis but got distracted. Beijing has a full Embassy in every nation and gives embassy buildings to the poor ones in Beijing ( except those that recognize Taipei as the capital of China). There are a lot of nations where the USA doesn’t even bother to open an embassy. There was a recent kerfuffle when it turned out the Solomon Islands did not have a US Ambassador or any State Department rep (but did have an NED agent handing out cash to agent provocateur’s to stand in). Beijing is often their only voice outside the UN to reach other nations.
I can recall two + years ago a delegations of African nations sent their parliaments equivalents to speaker of the house to Washington’s Africa summit and they asked to meet Nancy Pelosi, who refused. This would never happen in Beijing.
Yes. Zbig B.called these countries vassals in his infamous Grand Chessboard. (1997)
The fate of vassals are tied to the imperial overlord. It seems the Mass Media Cartel in the US and vassal states are all rabidly Russophobic, with the UK as chief propaganda pushers.
(I would say the UK is more than a vassal, they are Jr. Partners in Crime. The US continues a long tradition of UK foreign policy)
“Half a league, half a league,
Half a league onward,
All in the valley of Death
Rode the six hundred. […]
Their’s not to make reply,
Their’s not to reason why,
Their’s but to do and die:
Into the valley of Death…
“shared transnational issues with the PRC where our interests align”. i think the only issue fitting to this definition is the ukraine war, as suggested by andrei martyanov in his blog
No, they don’t agree on that at all. The US wants China to tell Russia to pull out (or its new only slightly less unrealistic demand, of agreeing to freeze the conflict so the US and NATO can rearm), which China is na ga do.
I assume that is economic interests, but that is still questionable since the US wants to “de-risk” as in reduce dependence on China.
of course i assumed that the usa requests of talking were tied to the bad results of ukraine offensive, so the requests could be more realistic. i understand that any association between the notion of realism and this usa administration seems to be ossymoric at best. but also in case of escalations i think some kind of talking, especially about red lines and such topics, could be necessary. and anyway i think that in other issues, like security and economic relations usa-china, the respective positions are too much distant. there are the elections incoming, so i think it would pay more a deescalation of the european conflict than a softening in the stance with china, but i admit that i don’t understand the mentality of usa elites, so i may be wrong.
Relations are at their lowest since formal diplomatic relations were established in 1979 but still nowhere as bad as during the Korean War when US and Chinese soldiers were shooting at one another and MacArthur was calling for Chinese cities to be nuked. Not a high bar, I know.
Andrei Martyanov (http://smoothiex12.blogspot.com/) had a post yesterday where he commented on a comment made by Major General Bakshi, that Blinken went to China to ask them to act as a mediator with Russia in regards to settling the Ukraine SMO. The US couldn’t be seen doing this directly. Maybe that’s why Xi agreed to meet with Blinken. However, given Putin’s recent remarks, I don’t believe any type of “truce” or cease fire will occur unless the US/Ukraine is willing to make substantial concessions. Putin publicly told the US to ****-off (family blog) and intimated he was going to be prepared to attack air bases wherever F-16’s were launched from into the Ukraine. These two items are just a few among many remarks made by Putin recently that tend to point to a hardening of the Russian position.
Oh, now I see where this comes from.
The US is absolutely never never never never never going to have China be a mediator. We see China as our biggest geopolitical threat. We would NEVER elevate them in eyes of the rest of the world this way.
We are just barely on speaking terms with China, separate from the above problem. You don’t ask parties with whom you have very badly damaged relations to act as a trusted ally, which is what being an intermediary requires.
We’d use Turkiye or Israel.
We have instead been trying to get China to quit supporting Russia, even philosophically, so as to isolate Russia and reduce its material backing (which is a lot less than the US fantasizes).
Blinken is stupid enough to think the Chinese are stupid, but (I hope) Blinken isn’t stupid enough to think the Chinese are so stupid that they would want to help the USA stop HIMARS, Patriots, and other stand off weapons burn up in Ukraine so that the USA/NATO can begin to accumulate them for use against China.
Exactly my take on it. Appear to be willing to mediate peace but more than happy to see US/NATO bleed out.
I don’t buy the idea of Chinese mediation, still less of the US asking for it. I think this may be a garbled version of two strands of argument (1) the US is still hoping that China will put pressure on the Russians in some form, and so part of Blinken’s remit may have been to try to get a sense, through his discussions, of how the Chinese saw things, and whether they might be talking to Moscow and (2) the Chinese can function as a mechanism for passing messages that the US doesn’t want to be seen to be passing directly, and somewhere in all of this there may have been a hope that they would agree to do this.
Was it not Putin who said that you do not know who you are dealing with in the USA?
China has every reason to be very, very wary. Case in point: https://libertarianinstitute.org/news/indopaccom-chief-the-us-is-ready-to-fight-and-win-a-war-with-china/
Considering how aggressive public u.s. rhetoric is in setting the stage for war with China, I imagine that it’s much worse in private, and that China must be privy to at least some of that private rhetoric.
I can’t see what use China could have in these meetings with Blinken, except to maybe find out some information strategically from the interaction, or to maybe make clear threats of some sort. There was recently that information that came out about the threat MbS made to Biden.
I really don’t think China trusts the u.s. at all anymore by now, or at least in my humble and pessimistic opinion they really shouldn’t. It seems the only approach to dealing with the u.s. is damage control.
“to prevent the planting of similar hate-seeds”.
Those horses have left the barn a very long time ago.
Of import:
– China has not agreed of reopening military talking channels with the US. I guess that will last as long as Li will be under sanctions. And the US will not lift the sanctions.
– Elections in Taiwan are around the corner. Them seeing Ukraine being slowly blown apart will not endear the voters to side with DPP. What will the US do if KMT regain power in Taiwan? Threaten them with war? Sanctions?
Chase-Manhattan’s largest shareholders use to be the power brokers of the KMT, in particular Madam CKS’ relatives. They have a lot of assets in USA, many of which were purchased with money defrauded from China government as well as USA, sometimes in partnership with poohbahs in the nascent CIA. Most of them have a lot of points of pain the USA can press, and these days the dirty laundry blowback risk would be laughed off.
Some the assets are quite humorous https://www.houstonarchitecture.com/Building/2124/The-Westlin-Bunker.php
The continued refusal re-open the military lines of communication due to the Li sanction is very important. That would be the one the US would most want to have open.
Agreed I should have mentioned your second point. Not on top of polls in Taiwan but some suggest there is a real risk the current pro-US government will be voted out. And that would look terrible for Team Biden. You can hear the Rs now about how they lost Taiwan. So it seems awfully likely that the US will go full Yeltsin in terms of efforts to influence that election.
I’m not particularly well versed in Taiwanese politics. Is the discussion that the Pan Green movement may underperform being calculated by a strong rise in the relatively new Taiwan Peoples Party? Doesn’t look like the Kuomintang and the rest of the Pan-Blue movement are doing much better than they usually do.
I live in Taiwan and although I don’t really follow the day to day politics of this island, a couple of Taiwanese friends have told me that they are not expecting anything to change significantly no matter who is in control, and by that they mean if the island were to fall to the hands of Mainland China, they don’t expect their lives to get better or worse.
A couple of months ago, when the fervor arising from Madam Speaker’s visit could still be felt, occasionally I would see a news article or two about local Taiwanese women training to use firearms, but nowadays even that zeal has cooled down by quite a bit. The hottest news nowadays revolve around the sudden explosion of the #MeToo movement in Taiwan, which has caused the resignation of a number of politicians, including President Tsai Ing Wen’s national policy advisor. Seemingly every couple of days, someone would write an article on Facebook, either directly accusing or insinuating someone famous for committing sexual harrasment, hence the apology from a famous comedian today.
I love tonight’s read-outs in Global Times — Xi Jinping casually sitting as equals with Bill Gates on one day; today at the head of the table lecturing down at that schmuck Blinken, who must grovel at the subordinates side-table. Tony got spanked real good by MBS the other day as well, but he’s getting used to it — just like mommy treated daddy!
Let’s get real. The Clintonistas and their Reaganite co-conspirators gave China American hegemony on a platter in order to screw the deplorables out of their union benefits. Fentanyl is a feature, not a bug. The neocons can blow on their racist dog-whistles all day long but they ain’t making America great again. Ever.
Though it’s not inevitable, the US is on course for war with China. Blinken’s visit was to gauge the likelihood of extracting meaningful concessions from China short of war.
China’s continuing economic growth and global influence raises the question among US elites as to whether or not the American style of Capitalism can continue to function in its current form. A consensus is building that it can’t and that compromises needed to coexist with China, such as moving to a more self contained economy, are unacceptable.
The Chinese leadership, for their part, must determine what are the minimum concessions, if any, they can make to satisfy the US to keep the peace; but this also seems unlikely.
It should be easy for most Americans to understand that, from the perspective of the Chinese leadership, the US is a grave threat. The US has a predatory capitalist economic system, especially a predatory financial, healthcare, education, and consumer debt system. Moreover, whereas the Chinese leadership maintains control over banks and the economy, the US business elite run roughshod over the government, the regulatory agencies, and the economy.
Thus, the Chinese understand, if this is how the US business elites treat their fellow Americans, they can’t expect to be treated better when those same elites are allowed greater access to the Chinese economy; think how Big Pharma exploits Americans.
Of course, the US doesn’t want war but it surrounds China with military bases. The US doesn’t want war but it coerces other countries to avoid business with China. The US doesn’t want war but it promotes a military alliance with Pacific countries. Once again, there will likely be war.
Actually, I think the U.S. does want war with China. It just doesn’t want to have to fight the war itself; it wants to use the Japanese, Taiwanese and South Koreans as cannon fodder, and the Indians too if possible. Unfortunately the U.S. can’t quite figure out how these small nations are going to win the war, or how the Indians would be stupid enough to get into an unwinnable war with China, and the U.S. also cannot work out how to avoid getting recognised as the cause of the war, in which case it would have to come in, in any case, and probably get bloodily defeated.
It’s a contradiction between the ends desired and the means available, basically. Much like the policy of the Ukrainian government.
Agree on the big picture, though look at how many USians don’t get that the US more or less engineered the conflict in the Ukraine, grooming and enabling the hard-right nationalists for years, etc.