Strategy for Engaging Russia-China Coalition

uftaipan · Aug 14, 2022

BigCypressGator1981 said: ↑

That’s fair. How about I’m not a fan of instigating any further conflict. Let’s keep the gas away from the fire.
Click to expand...

I safely infer that you did not vote for (since no one has) strategic withdrawal from out of the Russian and Chinese intended spheres of influence. So I assume you are not willing to pay any price for that peace we all want. Where would you say that red line is for you?

Presently, we are providing Ukraine (and Taiwan) with a plethora of weapons, and many Russians who otherwise would not be are dead now. I don’t personally consider that instigatory, since Russia started this, but I’ll bet Russia does. Should be stop, do less, do more?

Trickster · Aug 14, 2022

uftaipan said: ↑

In 1948, following the Berlin Blockade but before the Korean War, the Truman Administration was faced with a similar problem we see today: Russia and China had come out as clear adversaries with intentions that ran counter to Western interests. Further, the West itself was war weary and did not really want to deal with any potential Soviet or Chinese aggression. The Administration proposed four possible strategies to the President: 1. Do nothing; 2. Withdraw to the Western Hemisphere and leave Europe and Asia to their fates; 3. Draw a line around Western interests and defend them; or 4. Preemptive attack on the Soviet Union (presumably while the U.S. still held a nuclear monopoly). The Administration ostensibly ruled out 1, 2, and 4 (but essentially did #1 at first, because it could not get Congress to agree to build up the armed forces), and this is where the policy known today as Containment came from. The problem, as we know now, was that U.S. forces were insufficient to enforce Containment, and in fact military budget cuts continued all the way up until the outbreak of war in Korea, which changed the game.

Given our current problem set, which strategy would you advise? I have updated the choices for the current situation from least to most aggressive. No strategy below is comprehensive. Please vote on which one is most aligned with your thinking, then in your comments state what you would add to or subtract from what I wrote.

Withdrawal. Effectively moving our redlines back toward the U.S., well outside of any conflict with Russia and/or China, in order to reduce desired ends, bringing them in alignment with current and future means. In Europe, this would mean reaffirming agreements made with the former Soviet Union at Tehran, Yalta, and Potsdam (with the exception of agreements related to East Germany and Berlin), declaring that Eastern Europe is exclusively within Russia’s sphere of influence. This means renegotiating the North Atlantic Treaty so that all countries who have joined since 1991 (again, except reunified Germany) fall outside of Article V. All NATO missions and troop presences in Eastern Europe and the Balkans come to an end. The U.S. can help organize an alliance of all former NATO members and sell them weapons, but there is no guarantee of U.S. protection in the event of Russian aggression unless it manifests against Turkey, Greece, Norway, Germany, or any of the other pre-1991 NATO members. In Asia, the U.S. formally abrogates the Taiwan Relations Act and recognizes Chinese sovereignty over Taiwan and the whole South China Sea up to the territorial waters of the Philippines, Vietnam, etc. The positives of this strategy include that it probably pushes armed conflict with Russia and China at least a generation to the right; it allows the in-progress military cuts to continue without additional risk; it reduces Russian and Chinese incentives to interfere in our economy and elections. The negatives are that Ukraine, Moldova, the Baltics, and perhaps more of Eastern Europe will probably fall under Russian conquest one way or another, the same for Taiwan under China, and China will control unopposed a huge sea line of communication between Singapore and Japan; we probably irreparably damage relations with present allies; Russian and Chinese gains will make them more powerful militarily, economically, and politically; and historically, appeasing aggressors has only tended to make them more aggressive, so we should expect new Chinese and/or Russian demands within 10 years of making this move.

Status Quo. This is a more tactful way of saying, “doing nothing” as the Truman Administration understood it. This course of action maintains the current ends-means mismatch. We continue material support of Ukraine and other countries that come under attack but continue our own military cuts while not reducing any missions worldwide. The main positive is that it does not require any changes in policy. The main negative is that risk of general war steadily increases while our ability to effect a positive outcome in the event of general war steadily decreases. Effectively, we “hope” that everything works out on the current path.

Containment. Addresses the ends-means mismatch by bringing up means consistent with desired ends. We formally declare our redlines, without respect to where Russia or China declare theirs, and then fortify them. This includes such actions as renegotiating the North Atlantic Treaty so that there are no more “goals,” only commitments. Any member state can leave immediately with no hard feelings, but continued membership means having a military manned, trained, and equipped consistent with GDP, and all member nations without a land or sea border with Russia or Belarus (U.S., U.K., France, Spain et al) must maintain an agreed percentage of forward deployed forces in the territory of a NATO border state (Poland, Baltics, Finland et al). This alliance may or may not include Ukraine (or more likely a Ukrainian rump state), Moldova, and any of the Caucasian states; it kind of depends on what happens over the next year. All Tehran, Yalta, and Potsdam understandings are null and void; Russia’s territorial gains since 1945 are no longer guaranteed. In Asia, the U.S. sponsors an alliance built on the foundations of NATO (bonus points for a cool name) with at least Japan, South Korea, Taiwan, Philippines, Vietnam, and Australia as members. Consistent with the same principle as Europe, member nations build fortifications and station troops in border nations, Taiwan especially. The positive is that this method best deters further Russian and Chinese overt aggression and, ironically, gives the best chance for avoiding general war indefinitely. Negatives are that it would be expensive (probably including a U.S. peacetime military on the order of the Reagan Administration), meaning higher taxes (which Republicans won’t like) combined with reduced social spending (which Democrats won’t like). It will involve taking strong, unpopular measures to protect our elections and economy. Solving the energy problems this method causes would also take mitigation measures that both sides would loathe for different reasons. This course of action takes a long time to implement and must be sustained for perhaps generations.

Initiative. Uses current means to expedite the defeat of Russia and deter China from ever making its move. Gradually but steadily increasing diplomatic, informational, economic, and military pressure on Russia while doing more in our power to reduce pressure on Ukraine. Avoiding direct armed conflict but not cowering from it either. The idea here is that China becomes convinced that any move against Taiwan presents an unacceptable risk of U.S. interference and postpones it for another generation. Not necessarily in this order and certainly not comprehensive, but these are examples of U.S. actions to increase involvement while managing risk:

Taking responsibility for all Ukrainian combat casualties: transporting them out of Ukraine, treating them in NATO field hospitals, and returning them to duty if possible; Ukraine maintains sole responsibility to treat Russian prisoners of war

Establishing a neutral sea lane between Odessa and Istanbul and enforcing a maritime exclusion zone with warships and submarines, the purpose of which is to allow Ukraine fair access to its sea trade and keep the grain flowing out.

Moving a SAM umbrella up to the NATO-Ukrainian border and shooting down any Russian cruise missiles that penetrate its max effective range, ostensibly protecting our depots and casualty-exchange points but actually protecting Lviv, Odessa, and other border population centers

Establishing a military assistance command with advisors at the general staff and operational command (corps, division) levels but not down to the tactical level (brigade and below)

Taking charge with NATO logistical troops of the Ukrainian supply chain from NATO depots to corps and division depots outside of 10 miles from the front; all deliveries within 10 miles of the front must be done by Ukrainian forces, but we at least are able to confirm that most of the supplies are roughly going where they are most needed

A no-fly zone patrolled by NATO aircraft over Ukrainian territory east of 10 miles from the front (to necessarily protect our logistical troops and advisors)

The positives are that this is the best means for Ukraine to achieve status quo antebellum (2014) without NATO intentionally and directly engaging Russian troops; this can be done quickly and with resources currently on hand; and presents the best opportunity to emasculate and cause the downfall of Putin’s regime. The clear negative is that it also presents the greatest risk of escalating into general war.
Click to expand...

Damn! Extremely informative post. Did you write that yourself?

duchen · Aug 14, 2022

uftaipan said: ↑

In 1948, following the Berlin Blockade but before the Korean War, the Truman Administration was faced with a similar problem we see today: Russia and China had come out as clear adversaries with intentions that ran counter to Western interests. Further, the West itself was war weary and did not really want to deal with any potential Soviet or Chinese aggression. The Administration proposed four possible strategies to the President: 1. Do nothing; 2. Withdraw to the Western Hemisphere and leave Europe and Asia to their fates; 3. Draw a line around Western interests and defend them; or 4. Preemptive attack on the Soviet Union (presumably while the U.S. still held a nuclear monopoly). The Administration ostensibly ruled out 1, 2, and 4 (but essentially did #1 at first, because it could not get Congress to agree to build up the armed forces), and this is where the policy known today as Containment came from. The problem, as we know now, was that U.S. forces were insufficient to enforce Containment, and in fact military budget cuts continued all the way up until the outbreak of war in Korea, which changed the game.

Given our current problem set, which strategy would you advise? I have updated the choices for the current situation from least to most aggressive. No strategy below is comprehensive. Please vote on which one is most aligned with your thinking, then in your comments state what you would add to or subtract from what I wrote.

Withdrawal. Effectively moving our redlines back toward the U.S., well outside of any conflict with Russia and/or China, in order to reduce desired ends, bringing them in alignment with current and future means. In Europe, this would mean reaffirming agreements made with the former Soviet Union at Tehran, Yalta, and Potsdam (with the exception of agreements related to East Germany and Berlin), declaring that Eastern Europe is exclusively within Russia’s sphere of influence. This means renegotiating the North Atlantic Treaty so that all countries who have joined since 1991 (again, except reunified Germany) fall outside of Article V. All NATO missions and troop presences in Eastern Europe and the Balkans come to an end. The U.S. can help organize an alliance of all former NATO members and sell them weapons, but there is no guarantee of U.S. protection in the event of Russian aggression unless it manifests against Turkey, Greece, Norway, Germany, or any of the other pre-1991 NATO members. In Asia, the U.S. formally abrogates the Taiwan Relations Act and recognizes Chinese sovereignty over Taiwan and the whole South China Sea up to the territorial waters of the Philippines, Vietnam, etc. The positives of this strategy include that it probably pushes armed conflict with Russia and China at least a generation to the right; it allows the in-progress military cuts to continue without additional risk; it reduces Russian and Chinese incentives to interfere in our economy and elections. The negatives are that Ukraine, Moldova, the Baltics, and perhaps more of Eastern Europe will probably fall under Russian conquest one way or another, the same for Taiwan under China, and China will control unopposed a huge sea line of communication between Singapore and Japan; we probably irreparably damage relations with present allies; Russian and Chinese gains will make them more powerful militarily, economically, and politically; and historically, appeasing aggressors has only tended to make them more aggressive, so we should expect new Chinese and/or Russian demands within 10 years of making this move.

Status Quo. This is a more tactful way of saying, “doing nothing” as the Truman Administration understood it. This course of action maintains the current ends-means mismatch. We continue material support of Ukraine and other countries that come under attack but continue our own military cuts while not reducing any missions worldwide. The main positive is that it does not require any changes in policy. The main negative is that risk of general war steadily increases while our ability to effect a positive outcome in the event of general war steadily decreases. Effectively, we “hope” that everything works out on the current path.

Containment. Addresses the ends-means mismatch by bringing up means consistent with desired ends. We formally declare our redlines, without respect to where Russia or China declare theirs, and then fortify them. This includes such actions as renegotiating the North Atlantic Treaty so that there are no more “goals,” only commitments. Any member state can leave immediately with no hard feelings, but continued membership means having a military manned, trained, and equipped consistent with GDP, and all member nations without a land or sea border with Russia or Belarus (U.S., U.K., France, Spain et al) must maintain an agreed percentage of forward deployed forces in the territory of a NATO border state (Poland, Baltics, Finland et al). This alliance may or may not include Ukraine (or more likely a Ukrainian rump state), Moldova, and any of the Caucasian states; it kind of depends on what happens over the next year. All Tehran, Yalta, and Potsdam understandings are null and void; Russia’s territorial gains since 1945 are no longer guaranteed. In Asia, the U.S. sponsors an alliance built on the foundations of NATO (bonus points for a cool name) with at least Japan, South Korea, Taiwan, Philippines, Vietnam, and Australia as members. Consistent with the same principle as Europe, member nations build fortifications and station troops in border nations, Taiwan especially. The positive is that this method best deters further Russian and Chinese overt aggression and, ironically, gives the best chance for avoiding general war indefinitely. Negatives are that it would be expensive (probably including a U.S. peacetime military on the order of the Reagan Administration), meaning higher taxes (which Republicans won’t like) combined with reduced social spending (which Democrats won’t like). It will involve taking strong, unpopular measures to protect our elections and economy. Solving the energy problems this method causes would also take mitigation measures that both sides would loathe for different reasons. This course of action takes a long time to implement and must be sustained for perhaps generations.

Initiative. Uses current means to expedite the defeat of Russia and deter China from ever making its move. Gradually but steadily increasing diplomatic, informational, economic, and military pressure on Russia while doing more in our power to reduce pressure on Ukraine. Avoiding direct armed conflict but not cowering from it either. The idea here is that China becomes convinced that any move against Taiwan presents an unacceptable risk of U.S. interference and postpones it for another generation. Not necessarily in this order and certainly not comprehensive, but these are examples of U.S. actions to increase involvement while managing risk:

Taking responsibility for all Ukrainian combat casualties: transporting them out of Ukraine, treating them in NATO field hospitals, and returning them to duty if possible; Ukraine maintains sole responsibility to treat Russian prisoners of war

Establishing a neutral sea lane between Odessa and Istanbul and enforcing a maritime exclusion zone with warships and submarines, the purpose of which is to allow Ukraine fair access to its sea trade and keep the grain flowing out.

Moving a SAM umbrella up to the NATO-Ukrainian border and shooting down any Russian cruise missiles that penetrate its max effective range, ostensibly protecting our depots and casualty-exchange points but actually protecting Lviv, Odessa, and other border population centers

Establishing a military assistance command with advisors at the general staff and operational command (corps, division) levels but not down to the tactical level (brigade and below)

Taking charge with NATO logistical troops of the Ukrainian supply chain from NATO depots to corps and division depots outside of 10 miles from the front; all deliveries within 10 miles of the front must be done by Ukrainian forces, but we at least are able to confirm that most of the supplies are roughly going where they are most needed

A no-fly zone patrolled by NATO aircraft over Ukrainian territory east of 10 miles from the front (to necessarily protect our logistical troops and advisors)

The positives are that this is the best means for Ukraine to achieve status quo antebellum (2014) without NATO intentionally and directly engaging Russian troops; this can be done quickly and with resources currently on hand; and presents the best opportunity to emasculate and cause the downfall of Putin’s regime. The clear negative is that it also presents the greatest risk of escalating into general war.
Click to expand...

Really appreciate this thread. Thanks. Very thought provoking. Our approach historically to communism was a combination of 3 and 4. Sometimes containment and sometimes initiative, but initiative was usually against proxies. Today, we may not he able to engine in containment, because climate change (drought in Europe) May make the availability of Ukrainian farm products even more important. And the supply chain interruptions from COVID and other factors complicate our choices. We are too dependent on China and they on us for to undertake a full confrontational initiative. At least for now. We are beginning to move on from that dependence (the CHiP bill) but this is going to take time.

PerSeGator · Aug 15, 2022

l_boy said: ↑

Some combination of 3 and 4. I just don’t think withdrawing in any way is a viable scenario, and actually creates more danger of geopolitical conflicts.

As to 4 I generally like the sound of that, I am kind of let’s shit or get off the pot. At this point if we were to aggressively defend Ukraine I’m not sure Russia is in a position to really do anything about it, and it sends a message to China re Taiwan.
Click to expand...

Russia isn't in a position militarily or economically to stop us from doing much of anything. The issue is how far can we push them before they start deploying their nuclear deterrent. I tend to doubt they would do so unless we started a full-scale invasion of Russia proper. But as the consequences of being wrong is total world annihilation, and cornered animals are unpredictable and illogical, we have to proceed cautiously.

China is a different story IMO. It seems very unlikely that the world's oldest civilization, famous for their long-term thinking, is going to usher in armageddon except as an absolute last resort. That gives us more clearance to engage them militarily if they invade Taiwan or another neighbor. The downside risk there being that they actually have a carrier-killing hypersonic missile. Losing a capital ship to China would usher in a whole new world in the Pacific. Plus we have enormous economic entanglements, to the point that halting trade with them could cripple our economy. So we'll likely do everything we can to avoid a direct confrontation.

BigCypressGator1981 · Aug 15, 2022

PerSeGator said: ↑

Russia isn't in a position militarily or economically to stop us from doing much of anything. The issue is how far can we push them before they start deploying their nuclear deterrent. I tend to doubt they would do so unless we started a full-scale invasion of Russia proper. But as the consequences of being wrong is total world annihilation, and cornered animals are unpredictable and illogical, we have to proceed cautiously.

China is a different story IMO. It seems very unlikely that the world's oldest civilization, famous for their long-term thinking, is going to usher in armageddon except as an absolute last resort. That gives us more clearance to engage them militarily if they invade Taiwan or another neighbor. The downside risk there being that they actually have a carrier-killing hypersonic missile. Losing a capital ship to China would usher in a whole new world in the Pacific. Plus we have enormous economic entanglements, to the point that halting trade with them could cripple our economy. So we'll likely do everything we can to avoid a direct confrontation.
Click to expand...

Pretty much my exact sentiments.

uftaipan · Aug 15, 2022

Trickster said: ↑

Damn! Extremely informative post. Did you write that yourself?
Click to expand...

Yes. The thoughts have been swirling around for some time, but I was finally able to punch them out during a flight to Cabo for family vacation.

wgbgator · Aug 15, 2022

How about we contain American aggression first

Trickster · Aug 15, 2022

uftaipan said: ↑

Yes. The thoughts have been swirling around for some time, but I was finally able to punch them out during a flight to Cabo for family vacation.
Click to expand...

Impressive!

uftaipan · Aug 15, 2022

citygator said: ↑

I feel like our goal should be to draw out the Ukrainian war as long and as expensively for Russia as possible without drawing the US into combat. Russia’s economics is its weakness. That’s basically #2 with more money flowing into Ukraine than currently is going. I’d directly sell weapons. I might give up something China wants to pull them away from Russian markets.

Only reason to pause on that is Russians show a knack for suffering over rebellion making the economic assault only so effective.

Russian Economy Contracts Sharply as War and Sanctions Take Hold
Click to expand...

I, too, want Russia to bleed politically and economically, but not for as long as possible, only for as long as it takes for Putin’s government to fall. I worry about the effect this war has on our allies if it extends into winter, which it looks like it will. And while I want progressively increased domestic political resistance in Russia, I also don’t want to see Russia collapse into another revolution. The variables there are too horrifying to contemplate, and the only real winner would be China.

l_boy · Aug 15, 2022

uftaipan said: ↑

I, too, want Russia to bleed politically and economically, but not for as long as possible, only for as long as it takes for Putin’s government to fall. I worry about the effect this war has on our allies if it extends into winter, which it looks like it will. And while I want progressively increased domestic political resistance in Russia, I also don’t want to see Russia collapse into another revolution. The variables there are too horrifying to contemplate, and the only real winner would be China.
Click to expand...

So what do you see as a plausible resolution for Russia / Ukraine? While anything is possible I don’t see Putin govt falling any time soon. Perhaps eventually his health will fail but we are talking years not months.

uftaipan · Aug 15, 2022

l_boy said: ↑

So what do you see as a plausible resolution for Russia / Ukraine? While anything is possible I don’t see Putin govt falling any time soon. Perhaps eventually his health will fail but we are talking years not months.
Click to expand...

I would say there is a whole spectrum of plausible outcomes, with different degrees of likelihood depending on what we in the West do or fail to do. I understand that isn’t much of an answer. I, too, don’t see Putin’s regime falling any time soon on the current trajectory. But since that’s probably the only way we achieve anything that looks like a desirable end state, one of strategic lines of effort should be to continuously undermine him with his people and his generals.

chemgator · Aug 15, 2022

l_boy said: ↑

So what do you see as a plausible resolution for Russia / Ukraine? While anything is possible I don’t see Putin govt falling any time soon. Perhaps eventually his health will fail but we are talking years not months.
Click to expand...

I would like to see Biden persuade countries like Poland to join the fight in Ukraine. Point out that Poland may be next, and if they allow Ukraine to fall without punishing Russia, Russia will be that much stronger when they invade Poland. Poland and Ukraine together, with NATO and U.S. logistical support, would probably make quick work of Russia. Form the RDTO, or Russian Defense Treaty Organization, from the former Soviet block states, and give Russia one month to get out of Ukraine and Crimea, or everyone attacks. The stated goal of the RDTO would be to defend Russia's neighborhood from Nazis, with a poster of Putin wearing a Hitler mustache and hairstyle exemplifying a Nazi. It would be very unlikely that Russia would use nukes on any of these countries, unless they threatened to invade Moscow.

uftaipan · Aug 15, 2022

chemgator said: ↑

I would like to see Biden persuade countries like Poland to join the fight in Ukraine. Point out that Poland may be next, and if they allow Ukraine to fall without punishing Russia, Russia will be that much stronger when they invade Poland. Poland and Ukraine together, with NATO and U.S. logistical support, would probably make quick work of Russia. Form the RDTO, or Russian Defense Treaty Organization, from the former Soviet block states, and give Russia one month to get out of Ukraine and Crimea, or everyone attacks. It would be very unlikely that Russia would use nukes on any of these countries, unless they threatened to invade Moscow.
Click to expand...

But all of those former Warsaw Pact states are part of NATO now. Countries such as Portugal would have a real problem with NATO members potentially dragging the alliance into war. To your point, I think that Poland, the Baltics, and probably Romania would be doing a lot more for Ukraine, but the U.S. is discouraging it.

l_boy · Aug 15, 2022

chemgator said: ↑

I would like to see Biden persuade countries like Poland to join the fight in Ukraine. Point out that Poland may be next, and if they allow Ukraine to fall without punishing Russia, Russia will be that much stronger when they invade Poland. Poland and Ukraine together, with NATO and U.S. logistical support, would probably make quick work of Russia. Form the RDTO, or Russian Defense Treaty Organization, from the former Soviet block states, and give Russia one month to get out of Ukraine and Crimea, or everyone attacks. It would be very unlikely that Russia would use nukes on any of these countries, unless they threatened to invade Moscow.
Click to expand...

Putting Poland directly in the fray absolutely would put the US in the middle of the war because as soon as Russia responds to Poland then we must get involved. Seems like it would be more effective to up our involvement, but stay far enough out such that Putin avoids attacking us or going nukes.

uftaipan · Aug 15, 2022

l_boy said: ↑

Putting Poland directly in the fray absolutely would put the US in the middle of the war because as soon as Russia responds to Poland then we must get involved. Seems like it would be more effective to up our involvement, but stay far enough out such that Putin avoids attacking us or going nukes.
Click to expand...

How do you feel about some of the measures I listed above that increase our involvement without directly engaging the Russians?

chemgator · Aug 16, 2022

l_boy said: ↑

Putting Poland directly in the fray absolutely would put the US in the middle of the war because as soon as Russia responds to Poland then we must get involved. Seems like it would be more effective to up our involvement, but stay far enough out such that Putin avoids attacking us or going nukes.
Click to expand...

What if Poland sent troops in unofficially? Let them volunteer to fight in Ukraine? Citizens of a variety of countries are fighting in Ukraine right now. A couple hundred thousand Polish troops, dressed as tourists with heavy weapons, should do the trick.

uftaipan · Aug 16, 2022

chemgator said: ↑

What if Poland sent troops in unofficially? Let them volunteer to fight in Ukraine? Citizens of a variety of countries are fighting in Ukraine right now. A couple hundred thousand Polish troops, dressed as tourists with heavy weapons, should do the trick.
Click to expand...

I don’t have a problem with it, but some of the NATO leaders (including our President) would have a huge problem with it.

chemgator · Aug 16, 2022

uftaipan said: ↑

I don’t have a problem with it, but some of the NATO leaders (including our President) would have a huge problem with it.
Click to expand...

They should just send a few divisions of troops on vacation to Kiev, and have them listen to a Zelensky pep talk, and see what happens.

I don't know why NATO or Biden would be against it, especially if you sent them in a few hundred at a time, through different entry points. At the very least, they should be able to send in military doctors and corpsmen, as well as supply personnel. They wouldn't be on the front lines, so it should take longer for Russia to realize they are there.

duchen · Aug 16, 2022

chemgator said: ↑

What if Poland sent troops in unofficially? Let them volunteer to fight in Ukraine? Citizens of a variety of countries are fighting in Ukraine right now. A couple hundred thousand Polish troops, dressed as tourists with heavy weapons, should do the trick.
Click to expand...

Then they lose Geneva Convention protection. Not that the Russians honor it.

duchen · Aug 16, 2022

uftaipan said: ↑

I don’t have a problem with it, but some of the NATO leaders (including our President) would have a huge problem with it.
Click to expand...

Any thoughts that expanding NATO will limit its ability to act now and in tie future because of too many diverse interests as a result of expansion?

Log in

Welcome home, fellow Gator.

The Gator Nation's oldest and most active insider community

Strategy for Engaging Russia-China Coalition

What strategy should the U.S. and our allies follow to best deal with Russian and Chinese aggressio?

Withdrawal

Status Quo

Containment

Initiative

uftaipan GC Hall of Fame

Trickster VIP Member

duchen VIP Member

PerSeGator GC Hall of Fame

BigCypressGator1981 GC Hall of Fame

uftaipan GC Hall of Fame

wgbgator Premium Member

Trickster VIP Member

uftaipan GC Hall of Fame

l_boy 5500

uftaipan GC Hall of Fame

chemgator GC Hall of Fame

uftaipan GC Hall of Fame

l_boy 5500

uftaipan GC Hall of Fame

chemgator GC Hall of Fame

uftaipan GC Hall of Fame

chemgator GC Hall of Fame

duchen VIP Member

duchen VIP Member

Log in

Chat

Forums

Insiders Only

Free Sports

Plaza

Members

Welcome home, fellow Gator.

The Gator Nation's oldest and most active insider community

Strategy for Engaging Russia-China Coalition

What strategy should the U.S. and our allies follow to best deal with Russian and Chinese aggressio?

Withdrawal

Status Quo

Containment

Initiative

uftaipan GC Hall of Fame

Trickster VIP Member

duchen VIP Member

PerSeGator GC Hall of Fame

BigCypressGator1981 GC Hall of Fame

uftaipan GC Hall of Fame

wgbgator Premium Member

Trickster VIP Member

uftaipan GC Hall of Fame

l_boy 5500

uftaipan GC Hall of Fame

chemgator GC Hall of Fame

uftaipan GC Hall of Fame

l_boy 5500

uftaipan GC Hall of Fame

chemgator GC Hall of Fame

uftaipan GC Hall of Fame

chemgator GC Hall of Fame

duchen VIP Member

duchen VIP Member