Strategy&Future

We can no longer be sure that the United States and China will be able to manage their bilateral relations based on a rational calculation of their own national interests, or even want their relationship to be based on mutual benefit. Lee Hsien Loong, Foreign Affairs, July 2020.

Perhaps the greatest operational advantage of the USA over the Chinese side is the possibility of waging a modern submarine war in conditions of domination over the enemy, both in terms of combat technology and training of the crews. Submarines are great for breaking China’s A2AD strategy. Especially in the early stages of the conflict, nuclear strike submarines and cruise missile carriers will be the first offensive option for the US Navy’s operations deep in Chinese-controlled waters (hitting inland targets, mining ports, combating communications and Chinese ships, and destroying Chinese air defence positions). Despite nuclear propulsion, American ships have operational limitations: above all, a limited ammunition slope that cannot be replenished on the high seas. Hence the operational dilemmas.

In the US plans for a war with China, Australia plays the role of a base for peripheral operations in the Indian Ocean and in the Indonesian straits.

The continued growth of China’s power raises a fundamental question: what next, especially in the longer term? What exactly will China’s growth mean for the future of the region and the world? Will China and the US become open enemies, or will they come to an agreement? Unfortunately, history teaches that competition in the race for economic hegemony turns into fierce strategic competition, and this very often into a war for domination.

The Last 21 Years: (2)011

Jacek Bartosiak of Strategy&Future, Warsaw and Velina Tchakarova of AIES, Vienna debate the great power competition in Eurasia, connectivity supply chains, EU-China deal and the future of Europe.

“The numbers tell us this was a debate between change and experience, and change won.” CNN’s Bill Schneider was referring to the Iowa Democratic Primary on 3rd January 2008 won by Barack Obama (38%), followed by John Edwards 30% and Hillary Clinton 29%. On the Republican side, the winner was Mike Huckabee (34%), followed by Mitt Romney (25%), Fred Thompson (13%), John McCain (13%) and Ron Paul (10%). “People really are more important than the purse,” said Huckabee (in reference to Romney’s well-funded campaign), “and what a great lesson for America to learn.” But there was still a long way to go in both races.

Ukraine’s Search for security: from NATO and PESCO to bipartisan relations with independent players (the US, the UK, Turkey). Part 2

Jacek Bartosiak, Scott LaFoy and Nicholas Myers debate the missile warfare, post-INF world, Russian, US and Chinese cruise, ballistic and hypersonic missile capabilities.

“Every once in a while, a revolutionary product comes along that changes everything.” Normally we might be inclined to ignore Steve Jobs’ sales patter but here, on 9th January 2007 unveiling the first-generation Apple iPhone, he was – as they say – on point.

In the 31st January 1907 edition of Le Matin, under the headline Paris-Pékin Automobile: Un défi prodigieux, there was a really remarkable story which looked set to define what we now think of as the first era of globalisation. And since 2006 happens to be the year that Google Translate was launched, it shouldn’t pose too many problems for S&F readers if we re-publish the original text here:

The theory of global free trade is fashionable now, just as it was before the First World War. According to it, different parts of the world develop differently, depending on the possibilities and resources. But at the same time, by specialising in a given field of industry or service, they naturally produce a division of tasks over time. It was once believed that in this way the peace, development and brotherhood of mankind would be ensured.