The US Plan for WW3: Strategic Sequencing

Summary

This video critically examines the challenges the U.S. faces in maintaining global dominance amidst rising threats from Russia and China. It explores how the U.S.'s strategy of sequencing conflicts—focusing on one adversary at a time—is failing, particularly with the ongoing war in Ukraine. China’s rapid military and economic growth, especially in comparison to the U.S., poses a dire long-term challenge. The video argues that if the U.S. cannot adjust its strategy to confront China, it risks losing its global leadership and facing a catastrophic multipolar conflict.

Takeaways

• 😀 The US is overstretched, trying to balance multiple global commitments while dealing with Russia, Iran, and the looming threat of China.
• 😀 Strategic sequencing, where conflicts are handled in a prioritized manner, may have failed in the current geopolitical situation.
• 😀 China’s rapid military and industrial expansion, especially its shipbuilding capacity, poses a significant challenge to US global dominance.
• 😀 Despite US efforts, China’s economy continues to rise, and it is now a dominant industrial power, dwarfing the US in certain sectors.
• 😀 The US is struggling to divert its focus from Russia and Iran to adequately prepare for potential conflict with China, especially regarding Taiwan.
• 😀 The US Navy’s report highlights China’s overwhelming shipbuilding capabilities, with China delivering 972 commercial ships in 2023 compared to just 7 by the US.
• 😀 The US is being pressed for time, with strategic deadlines such as 2027 (potential conflict with China) and 2035 (US military modernization completion).
• 😀 The Pentagon’s strategic goals are competing with the ongoing challenges posed by Russia’s success in Ukraine and the need to address Iran’s threats.
• 😀 Every setback in Ukraine, such as small territorial losses, costs the US valuable time that it cannot afford to lose in the broader geopolitical strategy.
• 😀 The failure of strategic sequencing could force the US into an all-out global war with Russia and China, or potentially accept a multipolar world order.
• 😀 If strategic sequencing fails, it could signal the possibility of a catastrophic global war, with industrialized powers on multiple fronts against the US and its allies.

Q & A

Why is the fall of Pakovsk considered significant in the context of the larger geopolitical situation?

Pakovsk is a key town in the Donetsk region of Ukraine, strategically placed along vital supply lines. Its loss could disrupt Ukraine's defense and supply lines, weakening its position and hindering the U.S. strategy of strategic sequencing, which aims to prevent simultaneous conflict with multiple powers.

What is 'strategic sequencing' and how does it relate to the U.S. foreign policy?

'Strategic sequencing' is a doctrine where the U.S. focuses on fighting one adversary at a time—starting with Russia, then moving to Iran and China—in order to maintain global dominance. It ensures that the U.S. does not overextend itself in multiple conflicts simultaneously.

How has Russia adapted its strategy in Ukraine after the initial setbacks?

Initially, Russia's military faced setbacks, but it adjusted by shifting to a war of attrition, which stretched its goals over several years. Instead of collapsing, Russia restructured its economy, deepened ties with China and Iran, and boosted domestic manufacturing, eventually strengthening its position in the war.

What is the primary reason the U.S. cannot fully commit to the war in Ukraine?

The U.S. military is exhausted from previous wars, and its economy is strained. This makes it difficult to fully commit to a long-term conflict in Ukraine without jeopardizing its ability to pivot towards China and Iran, the primary concerns for U.S. foreign policy.

Why is NATO's contribution to the Ukraine conflict insufficient, despite being a 32-nation alliance?

NATO's contribution is hindered by a lack of will from European members and by slow progress in meeting defense spending targets. Many members have failed to meet the 2% GDP pledge for defense spending, and even with a new target of 5%, there are concerns about inflation, economic decline, and political unrest, which makes sustained support challenging.

What is the issue with NATO's weapons production capacity?

NATO's weapons production capacity is insufficient to meet the demands of the Ukraine conflict. For example, the U.S. struggles to produce enough artillery shells and air defense missiles, and the gap in production between NATO and Russia is significant. This puts Ukraine at a disadvantage on the battlefield.

How has Russia managed to outpace NATO in artillery production?

Russia produces between 250,000 to 300,000 artillery shells per month at a fraction of the cost NATO incurs. In comparison, the U.S. can only produce 100,000 shells per month by the end of 2025, which creates a significant gap in firepower, allowing Russia to dominate the battlefield.

Why is the U.S. struggling with missile defense supplies?

The U.S. is running low on key missile defense systems like THAAD interceptors. The Israel-Iran conflict exposed vulnerabilities in U.S. missile supplies, as Israel used up a large portion of its THAAD stockpile. The U.S. now faces challenges in replenishing these stocks quickly, which affects its ability to support Ukraine effectively.

What is the dilemma for the U.S. regarding a ceasefire in the Ukraine conflict?

The U.S. is caught between pushing for a ceasefire that would freeze the conflict to reorganize and pivot towards Asia, and the need to prevent Russia from gaining a decisive victory. Russia is unlikely to accept a ceasefire unless it includes territorial concessions, which the U.S. is unwilling to provide.

How does the U.S. plan to reassert its global dominance amidst rising competition from Russia, Iran, and China?

The U.S. aims to reassert its dominance by sequencing its conflicts, focusing first on Russia, then Iran, and finally China. However, the failure to effectively manage the Ukraine conflict and the exhaustion of military and economic resources complicates this strategy, as the U.S. cannot afford to fight multiple major powers simultaneously.