Will there be a war between America and China. Sabotage on diversion, or will trump pull a "war on three fronts". Russia VS USA: sanctions as a way of reconnaissance and sabotage activities

Speaking in Singapore at a regional security summit, Pentagon chief James Mattis once again condemned Beijing's activities in the South China Sea (SCS). According to AFP, the US Secretary of Defense added that he did not rule out a confrontation with China. Mattis reproached Beijing for militarizing the situation, as well as for neglecting international law and the interests of other countries.

James Mattis
Reuters

"The scale and impact of China's activities in the South China Sea to build artificial islands is different from similar actions by other states," Mattis said.

Note that earlier with an alarming forecast of the situation in the South China Sea, senior adviser to Donald Trump Stephen Bannon made. In an interview with The Guardian, he predicted that the confrontation over the South China Sea would enter a hot phase within the next ten years.

Despite the fact that today a war between the United States and China seems unlikely, there are indeed prerequisites for such a scenario, and very serious ones.

Military presence

China and the United States regularly deploy their warships to the disputed area, but so far the parties have limited themselves to psychological pressure on each other. However, any misfire can turn the conflict into a phase of armed confrontation. To prevent accidental clashes, Beijing and Washington were forced to conduct joint exercises in 2015, during which a special code of conduct for the military of both countries in the South China Sea was developed.

Spratly archipelago in the southwestern part of the South China Sea
Reuters

Recall that the Paracel Islands and the Spratly archipelago, as well as their water area, are the subject of a territorial dispute between China, Vietnam, Brunei, Malaysia, Taiwan and the Philippines. Washington does not put forward its own territorial claims, but provides active support to its allies in the region. This provokes protest from Beijing, since the Chinese authorities consider it unacceptable for outside forces to interfere in a regional dispute. In 2014, the People's Republic of China officially announced its rights to the Spratly Islands, as well as its intention to start developing oil fields on the shelf of the archipelago. At the same time, China sent its warships to the disputed area.

In April 2015, Beijing began building artificial islands on the reefs of the archipelago, and in May, the PRC published its new military strategy. According to the document, the Chinese Navy is responsible for protecting the interests of the state on the high seas. Previously, the Chinese navy was supposed to protect only the near borders of the country.

Artificial island in the South China Sea
Reuters

Ignoring the indignation of Washington and its neighbors in the region, China continues the construction of artificial islands in the South China Sea at an accelerated pace. In May 2017, Beijing deployed missile launchers on the disputed Yongshudao Reef to prevent Vietnamese submarines from approaching the archipelago.

Washington's response was immediate: a few days later, the US Navy destroyer Dewey approached the Spratly Islands without notifying the Chinese side of its appearance.

US Navy destroyer Dewey
US Navy

Chinese Defense Minister Ren Guoqiang said that the Chinese Navy's URO frigates (frigates carrying guided missiles) demanded that Dewey leave the Spratly sea area. On May 26, another incident occurred between the military powers: two PRC J-10 fighter-bombers dangerously approached a US P-3 Orion patrol aircraft over the South China Sea. According to the ABC television channel, Washington assessed these actions of Chinese pilots as "unsafe and unprofessional."

key artery

Such close attention of the two powers to the South China Sea is explained by a number of factors. First, the sea is crossed by shipping routes that export energy resources from the countries of the Middle East to the United States, as well as to the states of the Asia-Pacific region. Through this corridor, in particular, China imports up to 40% of crude oil consumed in China. The US share in the transit flow through the South China Sea accounts for about $1.2 trillion.

In addition, rich hydrocarbon deposits were discovered on the shelf of the Paracel Islands and the Spratly Archipelago. To date, the amount of proven oil reserves in the South China Sea is approximately 11 billion barrels.

In 2016, the International Court of Justice in The Hague banned China from developing deposits in a number of areas of the South China Sea, but Beijing ignores this decision.

The Paracel Islands and the Spratly Islands also have serious military and strategic importance - the military presence here allows you to control most of the South China Sea from the air.

The birth of a maritime power

The Chinese are not only gaining a foothold in the archipelago, but also building up the potential of their naval forces. The course towards turning China into the strongest maritime power was taken by the authorities of the Celestial Empire in 2012. This, by the way, should reassure those Russians who fear some kind of “stab in the back” from the PRC. China's former military doctrine emphasized ground forces, an approach inherited from the feud between the USSR and the People's Republic of China, but this has changed in recent decades.

Chinese army nuclear submarine
globallookpress.com
Li Gang

Now the Chinese military department is building additional submarines, despite the fact that China already has a large submarine fleet of 75 submarines. For comparison: the US Navy is armed with 70 ships. The Chinese fleet is noticeably inferior to the United States fleet in terms of the number of aircraft carriers: the PRC has two such ships in service, and the United States has ten. However, now China's shipyards are building three more floating airfields. These preparations cannot be called redundant - the interests of China and the United States have diverged too much lately.

New Chinese aircraft carrier
U.S. Department of Defense

Even Donald Trump's plans to reduce US dependence on hydrocarbon imports by developing the American shelf will not help reduce the level of tension in relations with Beijing.

“The United States has always been an energy-deficient country, and at the same time it holds the first place in the world in hydrocarbon imports. Even the reopening of all American fields will not solve the problem - the United States will still be forced to import oil and gas, and shale oil will not help, ”political scientist Leonid Krutakov said in an interview with RT.

Therefore, the White House's interest in the sea route through the South China Sea will not weaken over time.

Experts believe that another factor of uncertainty is the policy of the US regional allies, whose interests are formally defended by Washington in the South China Sea. For example, the President of the Philippines, Rodrigo Duterte, has managed to change his attitude towards the problem of the disputed islands several times in recent months. At first, the politician threatened to send troops to the area and promised to personally raise the Philippine flag on one of them. Then, rather unexpectedly, the president revised his plans, declaring that he had met Beijing halfway in order to strengthen good neighborly relations. But in May, Duterte again made a sharp maneuver and began the redeployment of the Philippine military to the disputed island of Thitu. Manila still cannot decide with whom it is more profitable to cooperate - with Beijing or with Washington. It should be noted that a few years ago such a choice was out of the question.

“China’s influence is growing so fast that the United States is increasingly turning on itself economically,” Alexander Lomanov, chief researcher at the Institute of the Far East of the Russian Academy of Sciences, explained in an interview with RT. - Washington will find it increasingly difficult to find allies among countries with a low level of economic development: they are all interested in attracting Chinese investment. Probably, only Japan will soon be a reliable ally of the United States, and maybe also South Korea.

Pforesight of a great war

Experts believe that it is impossible to exclude the transition of the Chinese-American confrontation into a hot phase, and Stephen Bannon's words about the coming big war are not an exaggeration.

“The fact that the world today is on the verge of a third world war was said not only by Steve Bannon, but also by Jacob Rothschild. Too serious contradictions have accumulated in the world economy - even deeper than the contradictions that existed on the eve of World War II. The main deterrent today is nuclear weapons,” Krutakov said.

According to the expert, the confrontation between China and the United States will only grow, and both sides are preparing for a possible war. One of the steps in this direction by the United States can be considered the deployment of THAAD anti-missile systems in South Korea under the pretext of the North Korean threat. Beijing has no doubt that these missile defense systems are not directed against the DPRK, but are designed to stop the possibility of a Chinese retaliatory strike during Doomsday.

Anti-missile complex THAAD
Reuters

In addition to the fact that both countries have nuclear weapons, a deterrent factor in this situation is the strong trade and economic ties between China and the United States. China is the leading trading partner of the United States, and the rupture of ties will lead to a shortage of goods in the United States and an overproduction of goods in China, and the consequences of the crisis of the world's two largest economies will negatively affect the global economy. However, no matter how afraid Chinese and American politicians are of provoking an economic collapse in their countries, military-political factors may overcome these fears.

“Mutual dependence generates not only attraction, but also additional threats. As long as China did not show political ambitions, there was no confrontation. But now Beijing is making it clear that it has plans not only for economic but also political dominance. It is difficult for two different political strategies to exist in the same economic field. The issue of national interests and security is always higher than issues of profit,” Krutakov said.

According to Lomanov, historical experience shows that the existence of economic ties between countries has never been a guarantee of peace.

“Otherwise, there would be neither the First nor the Second World Wars,” the expert concluded.

Until recently, the conversations of military analysts and experts were mainly focused on the threat of terrorism, wars and the collapse of countries in the Middle East, but more and more often the topic of a possible war between the leading powers of the planet emerges in the media.

Last week, the RAND Corporation published a report on how the war between China and the United States would theoretically play out. To begin with, it is stipulated that although such a war is unlikely, nevertheless, both powers have plans for its conduct. The authors of the report believe that the war will not turn into a nuclear one, but will have the character of a conventional (conventional) war, since even in the event of fierce hostilities, the prospects for complete victory are illusory, and both countries will not consider their losses so serious as to expose themselves under nuclear attack.

RAND analysts believe that in the event of war, China will suffer incomparably more significant losses than the United States, but by 2025 the gap in projected losses will begin to narrow. The figures for the loss of manpower are not mentioned. There is a possibility that at the beginning of the war the US will lose an aircraft carrier and several ships, which will lead to the loss of several thousand people, but then the US will eliminate the fleet and missile forces of China and begin to bomb mainland China. One way or another, most likely, the war will eventually be protracted and bitter and will not bring a quick victory to either side.

Context

World War III: in the command center

BBC 02/27/2016

Who will win the US Navy?

The National Interest 06/27/2016

Denying the possibility of a first strike is nonsense

The National Interest 08/05/2016

War between China and the US is inevitable?

Atlantico 01.11.2015
It is believed that the economic consequences for China will be more serious, as China will lose access to energy supplies delivered by sea, lose trade routes, internal political contradictions in the Middle Kingdom will escalate, and the entry into the war of Japan can greatly affect the outcome of hostilities. A year-long war would cut US GDP by 5-10% and China's GDP by 25-35%.

It is assumed that in the event of a war between China and the United States, Japan, such regional allies as Australia, New Zealand, the Philippines, and the general support of NATO will be on the side of the United States, while Russia and North Korea may come out on the side of China. The reason for the war could be China's underestimation of the US determination to support Japan or other countries in the region in the event of aggressive actions against them by China.

Not everything is so simple, however, with the rejection of a nuclear strike. Reuters writes that although there is no evidence that China has adopted Russia's idea of delivering one demonstrative nuclear strike on the West in the event of war in order to shock the enemy and force him to de-escalate the conflict, nevertheless, it cannot be discounted that during the war with the United States, China decide to take this step.

China quickly responded to the RAND Corporation report with an article in the Global Times. And according to the Chinese, it is not they who will suffer the most from the war, but the Americans. There are several reasons. China is more determined to fight to the bitter end and is ready to endure and suffer significant losses for this, unlike the United States. RAND believes that China will have internal political problems in the event of a war and the country may fall apart, but the Chinese themselves think that the United States is more exposed to domestic political risks and that Americans should be wary of problems at home.

Traditionally, the Zero Hedge resource, which abundantly quotes Chinese sources, also inflames passions. For example, that China's exercises in the East China Sea are aimed at preparing for a "sudden, brutal and short" war against a potential adversary, and that China needs to prepare for war at sea.

The Chinese newspaper Global Times is also quoted by Business Insider, reporting that in an editorial note, the Chinese media directly calls for revenge on Australia for supporting the decision of the court in The Hague on China's activity in the South China Sea (the Permanent Court of Arbitration in The Hague ruled on July 12 that China does not have grounds for territorial claims in the South China Sea within the "nine-dotted line") and strike at Australian ships if they appear in this sea. Global Times calls Australia not even a "paper tiger", but a "paper cat".

Reuters notes that although China does not show that it is ready to respond with force to the court's decision, but based on interviews with several sources associated with the military and with the leadership of China, there is an opinion that self-confidence in the military tops is ripening in the Middle Kingdom (as one from Reuters sources - “the army is ready!”) and the Chinese military is pushing politicians to an armed conflict with the United States and its allies.

Translated from Russian-language sources into English and dispersed over the network are the words of Chinese President Xi Jinping, which frighten the Western layman, said back in July: “The world is on the verge of radical change. We see how the European Union is gradually collapsing, how the US economy is collapsing, all this will end with a new world order. It will never be like before, in 10 years a new world order awaits us, in which the key will be the union of China and Russia ... We are now witnessing aggressive actions by the United States, both in relation to Russia and China. I believe that Russia and China can form an alliance against which NATO will be powerless and this will put an end to the imperialist aspirations of the West.”

In light of these statements about the alliance of Russia and China against NATO, the joint Russian-Chinese exercises planned for September in the East China Sea are perceived as a threat to the United States. Commander of the US Navy's Pacific Fleet, Admiral Scott Swift, said that these exercises could take place elsewhere and that such behavior by China and Russia would destabilize the situation in the region.

The materials of InoSMI contain only assessments of foreign media and do not reflect the position of the editors of InoSMI.

Today, the biggest concern is the situation around the tiny Spratly Islands, where the interests of China, on the one hand, and the United States and its allies, on the other, clashed.

If the parties to the conflict do not show wisdom and caution, the confrontation can easily escalate into a world war.

The stakes are high. The disputed islands are located in the heart of one of the key shipping routes. It is also a major fishing area with likely rich offshore oil fields to boot.

For decades, China, the Philippines, Vietnam, Malaysia, Taiwan and Brunei have been arguing over the ownership of the islands or parts of them, but recently the conflict has reached critical levels. China has begun the process of large-scale construction in the disputed territory, creating airfields and military bases. The United States, in turn, expresses deep concern. Last week, the Pentagon sent an observation plane to one of the islands. Not so long ago, Washington announced its intention to send warships and aircraft to the 12-mile zone around the new Chinese military base.

Obviously, the situation needs to be resolved diplomatically as soon as possible, because if China ignores the presence of US warships, a further escalation of the conflict will inevitably occur.

Does the US have the necessary funds to prevent China from delivering construction materials to the islands? Is it possible that warplanes will simply destroy ships with materials, as many American politicians insist on?

Soros: The threat of world war is becoming real

American billionaire George Soros recently warned of a high probability of a new world war, which could start as a conflict between China and the United States, and then involve the military partners of these countries - Russia and Japan.

According to Soros, if the United States does not make "serious concessions" by allowing the yuan to enter the IMF currency basket, then "there is a real danger of China's rapprochement with Russia politically and militarily, after which the threat of world war will become real."

"If a conflict arises between China and one of the US military allies, such as Japan, it would not be an exaggeration to say that we are on the verge of a third world war," Soros said.

And yet, it should be noted that the likelihood of a "classic" confrontation between the US and China is quite low, because both countries understand how much damage they can cause to each other.

Today's China is still inferior to the United States in terms of military development, but nevertheless, Beijing can detonate a nuclear bomb off the coast of the United States, turning them into dust. Not to mention the fact that the United States itself is able to do the same with respect to China. And each side of the conflict understands this.

The most likely scenario is an increase in clashes in the form of civil wars, such as those currently shaking the Middle East. Some analysts are discussing the possibility of a strike on Russian territory from Afghanistan through the Central Asian republics.

Of course, in such clashes, China will try to help defeat forces loyal to Beijing, and the US, for its part, will do the same. This is the very likely development of the confrontation between Washington and Beijing.

Is the US ready to attack China?

The current situation represents a new stage in the global confrontation, which was especially clearly shown by the Victory Parade in Moscow, in which the Chinese and Indian military took part. This was a clear demonstration that the BRICS is starting to turn from an exclusively economic union into a military-political, and anti-Western, direction.

There is already a BRICS bank and agreements on interstate trade without the use of the US dollar. And the US has no choice but to express concern that large countries are leaving the "dollar zone".

And yet, China is the second (after Canada) US trading partner; annual turnover between countries reaches 500 billion dollars. This mutually beneficial trade is also a deterrent, making the situation highly controversial.

China does not make any claims to world leadership, but the way of thinking of the Chinese is very similar to that of the West. They believe that China is the central empire, the center of the world, while the rest of the countries are in various stages of barbarism. This idea is not officially expressed by Chinese politicians, but can often be heard from Chinese foreign policy experts.

What is worse for Europe - US duties on steel or Chinese duties on consumer goods and electronics?

In fact, the President of the United States is already starting to have problems with the war he started with China on the trade and economic front. Apparently, the intensification of visits to America by the leaders of European powers is not least connected with this.

Let me remind you that both French President Macron and (three days later) German Chancellor Angela Merkel are in line, whom Trump, figuratively speaking, threatens to cut off oxygen by introducing new tariffs on steel imports. The Europeans hope that the American president will agree to delay the introduction of new tariffs for his allies and friends (tariffs are already in place for China).

True, the Western mass media name another reason for such hasty visits by European leaders. The fact is that on May 12, the very 120 days that the US gave the Europeans to "improve" the terms of the nuclear deal signed with Iran expire, otherwise the Americans threaten to withdraw from it.

Europe does not like this alignment very much, and first of all (no matter what they say) for purely pragmatic, economic reasons. European business really wants to quickly turn the so-called "sanctions" page of their relationship with Iran and start trading. Buy energy, agricultural products, sell high-tech goods, aircraft, machine tools, and so on.

Both Macron and Merkel, most likely, hope to convince Trump that there is no need to single-handedly withdraw from the deal, and that Iran’s “ballistic” ambitions do not threaten them (and the Europeans, and Israel, which is most feared in Washington). Most likely, the emphasis will be on the fact that the trade and economic war with China, in which Europe could help the United States, is more important.

Will it succeed? It may well be, since the conflict with China is indeed entering a new round. Now we are talking about two new lists of newly taxed goods, on each side - duties for about 60 billion a year. And against this background, even the war that America is waging on the other front may fade. Ideological. With Russia.

Russia VS USA: sanctions as a way of reconnaissance and sabotage activities

To call the war that the Americans are waging with the Russians on the political stage, simply ideological - the language does not turn. There, rather, there is a war of sabotage. And sabotage is no longer only and not so much of an ideological nature. This is a real trade and economic war. The Skripal case is not the only real sabotage that has already been resorted to in this war.

In general, since the summer of 2014, the relationship between the two world superpowers - the Russian Federation and the United States has become a complete sabotage. Enumerate, apparently, superfluous - in the modern world everyone knows everyone about everyone. In Ukraine, in Syria, in the Baltic states and beyond, the special services of both countries are trying to bite each other more painfully, to trip each other up.

And the US sanctions policy towards Russia all these years is an inseparable part of the very sabotage war in which both states primarily use their special services.

The scandal with the mutual expulsion of Russian diplomats on specific lists could be considered an exception if the Americans themselves did not admit that they had expelled consular and embassy workers who were considered involved in the special services. And the corresponding mirror response was expected from Russia.

Well, today's new sanctions list, which was announced by the Americans, once again confirmed what everyone already understands and knows. How else can one explain that the list includes Russian Interior Minister Vladimir Kolokoltsev, Director of the Foreign Intelligence Service Mikhail Fradkov, Chairman of the Federation Council Committee on International Affairs Konstantin Kosachev and Secretary of the Russian Security Council Nikolai Patrushev? What is this if not a desire to transfer the already utterly heated relations between the two superpowers precisely on the rails of the struggle of the special services?

And yet, to understand the scale of the concentration of aggressiveness towards Russia, one should mention such characters from among Russian top managers, businessmen and oligarchs, such as, for example, Alexey Miller, Oleg Deripaska, Suleiman Kerimov, Andrey Kostin and Sergey Fursenko.

What it all might eventually turn into, no one can say. However, the fact that the relationship between the two world superpowers has moved to a new round of escalation is a fact.

Combat, military "sanctions" of NATO against NATO?

Well, the Middle East should be considered the third front for Trump today. More specifically, Syria, where, it seems, it comes to the point where sometimes only a hair separates the personnel units of the Russian and American troops from a direct clash.

Now, when Trump first announced that it was time to withdraw American troops from Syria, and then, having sharply changed his mind and talked with Macron, he announced that he remained until the complete victory over the Islamic State (a terrorist organization banned in Russia and in a number of other countries ) there are much more questions regarding the future of this long-suffering country.

Moreover, additional forces are being transferred to the points of alleged future battles not only by the United States, but also by France and Britain. So to speak - the Western anti-terrorist coalition in all its glory immediately after its leader - the United States - announced his imminent departure.

It is not for nothing that just the other day Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov spoke sarcastically about the negotiability of the United States, which easily violates major international agreements. For example, on Iran's nuclear program, on the UN decision on a settlement in the Middle East, on the Paris climate declaration, on the basic principles of the WTO...

However, in any case, one should not underestimate what the Russian Aerospace Forces and detachments of Iranian volunteers are capable of in Syria. After all, it turns out that there, in Syria, the only combat-ready allies of the Americans - the Kurds - have their hands tied by Turkey. Apparently, Damascus also counted on this a little, which, although it protested against the Turkish operation "Olive Branch", did it somewhat, let's say, sluggishly ...

And who the Western coalition will protect today from the army of the legitimate government of Syria (which relies on the support of both Russia and Iran) is not entirely clear. Terrorists, right?

If the Kurds, then the NATO troops of America, France and Britain will have to fight with the NATO army of Turkey. Nonsense? Certainly.

Whether the policy pursued by the United States in the international arena will withstand such trade, economic, ideological and military upheavals is a big question. And this question is connected with those who will lose their nerves first.

Newsweek traces the beginning of the aggravation of relations between the United States and China over the South China Sea (SCS) with the death of a Chinese pilot who died in a collision with an American reconnaissance aircraft 15 years ago. It is not surprising that when two Chinese fighter jets almost collided with a reconnaissance aircraft in approximately the same place in May, the Chinese remembered the events of a decade and a half ago.

"Most Chinese hope that next time a Chinese pilot will shoot down a spy plane," wrote the CCP's official English-language mouthpiece Global Times after the incident.

Newsweek claims that many senior Chinese officials have long believed that war between China and America is inevitable. The new rising power always comes into conflict with the old dominant power, which is suspicious of the newcomer's rise. This is precisely the situation that has now developed in relations between the United States and China in the Pacific region as a whole and especially in the South China Sea, a strategically important body of water through which $5 trillion worth of cargo and goods annually passes and which, moreover, is rich in minerals. China claims almost 80% of the water area of the South China Sea. The United States is located thousands of kilometers from this sea, one of the "hottest" regions of the planet, and for this reason cannot put forward territorial claims. Instead, they support other states in the region: Vietnam, Taiwan, Malaysia, the Philippines and Brunei in their territorial disputes with China over the South China Sea. In addition, in recent months they have increasingly sent American warships and aircraft to patrol the South China Sea and explain this by the need to protect trade routes.

Washington protested when the Chinese built artificial islands in the South China Sea and created infrastructure on them, including piers and airstrips, which can be used in the event of an armed conflict. Beijing claims that they intend to develop tourism on the disputed islands, in particular on the Spratly archipelago, and that already in 2020 the first liner with Chinese tourists will go there. In Washington and the capitals of the South China Sea states, they do not believe in the tourist "legend" and consider the disputed islands to be strongholds created in case of a possible war.

Of course, most analysts believe that a military conflict between the US and China is impossible because of the scale and consequences. It certainly will not be like the recent Indonesian warship attack on a Chinese trawler that was fishing in Indonesian waters that Beijing considers, if not their own, then at least neutral. America and China are nuclear powers, and this should a priori put an end to any armed conflicts between them. On the other hand, starting a war is not difficult at all. It may erupt due to some minor conflict, such as a collision of military aircraft or ships of the parties, similar to the recent meeting of Chinese fighters and an American reconnaissance aircraft. Or the very possible collision of Chinese warships with two American aircraft carriers, which the Pentagon sent to the disputed region. By the way, Washington's dispatch of the aircraft carriers John Stennis and Ronald Reagan with escort ships to conduct training exercises in the region east of the Philippines caused sharp criticism of another mouthpiece of the CCP - the People's Daily newspaper: "China is not the country with whom you can play games like this…

The reaction of the American side to such a harsh statement was not long in coming, according to Reuters. The head of the US Pacific Command (PACOM), Adm. Harry Harris, said it was a signal to China that the US was determined to strengthen the region's security. The American admiral expressed the hope that American ships would interfere with anyone who wants to destabilize the situation in the region.

Aircraft carriers with star-striped flags ended up in the Philippines in the second half of June, not by chance. Very soon, in the first days of July, the Permanent Court of Arbitration (PCA) in The Hague will start considering Manila's complaint against Beijing, which hosts the SCS like at home. Despite the fact that the decision of this court is only advisory and non-binding, and Beijing has already stated that it will not obey it, it is quite important for the country's image in the international arena. So, in addition to the desire to show China that the Americans intend to continue to support the allies, aircraft carrier exercises may well put some pressure on the PCA judges. By the way, Beijing is also not sitting idly by, and it is clearly no coincidence that right now it is going to send nuclear submarines to the South China Sea for the first time.

Speaking about the inevitability of war between America and China, Newsweek emphasizes that the disputes over the South China Sea, despite all their significance, are still not the main contradiction between the two main economies of the planet. The main thing, as noted above, is the conflict between the two superpowers: the new one, which is gaining strength, and the old one, which does not want to give up its dominant position. The conflict, at least at this stage, is that China has become the leader in the Pacific region, and America continues to believe that it is still the main policeman in this part of the planet, as well as in all others, by the way.

Of course, the price of the conflict between the US and China is very high, and sober heads, who, fortunately, are much more numerous in Beijing and Washington than hawks, understand this. But such provocative actions as sending aircraft carriers to the red-hot region and the appearance of Chinese submarines with nuclear missiles in it further increase the level of confrontation, escalate the situation and increase the likelihood of a military clash between the US and China.