US Air Force Secretary Frank Kendall gave a 30-minute speech at a conference about the US Air Force's response to threats from China. He claimed that China has spent more than 20 years optimizing its military power to compete with great powers and win over the United States in the Western Pacific.
To that end, he suggested that the U.S. Air Force must make the same change, prepare for war with China, and conduct operations to deter or defeat China. This remark has raised questions from many that the United States should focus more on striking *** rather than pointing the finger at China.
Speaking at the 2023 Air, Space and Cyber Conference, Kendall stressed that we must prepare for a possible war and adapt to competition between great powers.
He hinted that the United States still faces threats from terrorist groups and that the United States will respond quickly. He noted, however, that the main challenge for the United States today is China, despite its distance from the United States in the Pacific Ocean and its lack of military presence around the United States.
He questioned why China had become a threat to the United States, since it had never taken the initiative to provoke a war.
Kendall's remarks are pure nonsense, and the purpose of China's military optimization is to defend national sovereignty and security and maintain regional peace and stability. Over the past 20 years, China has struggled to develop its military capabilities to meet a variety of security challenges.
And the military power of the United States has long gone beyond the scope of defending national sovereignty and security, but is aimed at expanding its military influence and containing the development of other countries.
Therefore, the United States should reflect on its own behavior and not shift the blame to China.
To address the so-called "threat," Kendall proposed that the U.S. Air Department must be reformed. However, what he called "preventing China from going to war against the United States" is actually a diversion of attention, because the United States itself is a country that seeks war all the time, because the United States is in a state of continuous war, which is "unlimited war".
An infinite war is not the same as a traditional conventional war that brings expected gains and positive results to the initiating country, nor does it have to be fought continuously. On the contrary, an infinite war is a war in which there is no certainty in terms of duration, end, means, and spatial impact, and its greatest feature is its indefinite and continuous nature, which is also the new normal of today's imperialism.
Since the beginning of the Cold War, the United States has been engaged in "unlimited war", and even after the collapse of the Soviet Union, the United States, as the sole superpower, did not stop the state of unlimited war.
They have invested a lot of money and resources to maintain their military strength, and even if the so-called "end of history" in Fukuyama really comes, the United States will not stop the pace of military construction and strengthen its hegemony.
Although the Soviet Union no longer exists, its former allies will certainly threaten the interests of the United States, the war will continue, and the United States must maintain its hegemony over its allies and other countries for a long time, especially military hegemony, in order to maintain a strong confrontation capability against possible threats.
The core idea of the United States is to maintain sufficient deterrence to launch military strikes against any country or region as long as it feels necessary. This is not only due to a real military threat, but also to prevent future dangers.
However, it took only more than 20 years for China to achieve a qualitative leap, and both the army and the rocket force have the ability to compete with the United States. Although individual ** equipment may be backward, it will not take a few years to make up for this shortcoming.
The United States has tried to suppress China, but it has never been able to do so. They believe that China has challenged their hegemony and therefore accuse China of undermining the global order. The United States seeks ways to limit China's rise and maintain its global dominance, while China resolutely resists American repression.
Europe could have remained neutral, but the Europeans eagerly joined the bandwagon, following the United States in blaming China and sanctioning China, even though they knew that China had no intention of hegemony under US surveillance.
Obviously, nothing good will come of following a declining hegemon, but China's rapid rise has caused Europe to feel a deep panic.
The European Union recently conducted a "countervailing investigation" on China's new energy vehicles, believing that China's new energy vehicles are lower because they are subsidized by the state, breaking the so-called "fair market" in Europe.
Is a fair market real in Europe? Is the reason for China's global popularity of new energy vehicles due to state subsidies? The answer is clearly no. China's new energy vehicles are popular in the world, because China has accumulated for decades and carried out scientific and technological innovation, forming an incomparable advantage.
Europe's traditional automakers have failed to innovate and have been defeated by the competition, but they have found this despicable excuse to suppress China's new energy vehicles.
Automobile is an important industry in some European countries, and if China's new energy vehicles gradually occupy market share, it will deal a devastating blow to the European economy.
Although Ukraine is exploited and oppressed by the United States, and even needs assistance from bringing its own dry food, they only know that they want money and goods, and they are not willing to accept suggestions. However, some leaders of the European Union are "happy to do it".
In general, European countries should put aside their prejudices and see the advantages of China's new energy vehicles, rather than suppressing China through such unfair means.
Historically, China has tried to confront the United States with the EU as a whole, but the internal contradictions of the EU countries and their dependence on the United States led to the eventual failure of this plan.