by Michael Hollister
Published on May 06, 2026

3.382 words * 18 minutes readingtime

Part 7 find here:
The War Before the War

Containing Russia, Encircling China

A Coordinated Geopolitical Strategy or Emergent Logic?

I. Empires and the Fight for Time

The United States stands at a geopolitical crossroads. It still commands military superiority, an extensive network of alliances, and the dollar as the world’s reserve currency. Yet the underlying economic dynamics have shifted: China is no longer merely the world’s factory floor but a competitor closing the gap in high technology, space, artificial intelligence, and finance. For Washington, this may represent the greatest strategic challenge since the Second World War.

The central question is this: Are the various conflicts currently unfolding historical accidents – or building blocks of a larger strategy? The following analysis examines that hypothesis without claiming that all described developments are consciously orchestrated. What it does show is this: the structural pressures and observable patterns point in one unmistakable direction.

History offers a consistent lesson – empires never relinquish power voluntarily. Rome fought on multiple fronts for centuries; the British Empire pursued colonial wars to preserve its dominance. Since 1945, the United States has kept every potential rival in check through proxy wars, interventions, and economic sanctions – from Iran to Cuba, Iraq to Libya. Today, China is the rival that could, over the long term, contest American global primacy.

Washington’s think tanks speak of a window of no more than eight to ten years. The RAND Corporation concluded in its 2016 study “War with China: Thinking Through the Unthinkable” that the longer a potential conflict is postponed, the more unfavorable the military balance becomes. That assessment was made a decade ago.

The Center for Strategic and International Studies ran war games in 2023 under the title “The First Battle of the Next War,” simulating a conflict over Taiwan. The conclusion: the United States can defend Taiwan – but only barely, and only now. In five to ten years, China’s navy will be too strong.

This calculus may explain why the United States is currently managing several conflict zones simultaneously.

II. Ukraine – An Instrument With Multiple Functions

Viewed through the lens of geopolitical strategy, the Ukraine crisis serves several functions that benefit the United States – regardless of whether this was intended from the outset or emerged organically.

Function 1: Separating Germany from Russia

Germany’s energy dependence on Russian gas had been a source of anxiety in Washington for decades. Even during the Cold War, strategic planning documents recorded concern that an alignment between German technological expertise and Russian raw materials could produce an uncontrollable Eurasian superpower. The American geostrategist Zbigniew Brzezinski warned explicitly in “The Grand Chessboard” (1997) against a German-Russian axis as a threat to American hegemony.

Nord Stream 2 embodied exactly that concern. A pipeline supplying Germany with cheap Russian gas made German industry more competitive while simultaneously strengthening Russia’s position in Europe. For Washington, that was a double threat – economic and strategic.

The war in Ukraine has resolved that problem permanently. Germany now purchases American LNG at four times the price of Russian gas – according to the Federal Ministry for Economic Affairs, industrial energy costs rose by an average of 140 percent in 2022. BASF is relocating production to China and the United States. The chemical industry, Germany’s industrial backbone, is contracting. Thyssenkrupp, Volkswagen, Siemens – all are announcing plant closures and mass layoffs.

German industry is losing its competitive cost advantages. Russia is losing its most important European partner. The United States is gaining a market for expensive liquefied natural gas while simultaneously weakening an economic competitor.

Function 2: Keeping Russia Militarily Occupied

Ukraine has locked Russia into a state of permanent overextension. Hundreds of thousands of troops, billions lost to sanctions, political isolation – Moscow is pinned down at its western front. Even if the United States were to reduce its direct support, Russia would in all likelihood remain trapped.

This immobilizes a potential partner for China in Asia. In a real crisis, Russia could offer Beijing little assistance – not militarily, not economically, not diplomatically.

Function 3: Justifying European Rearmament

Ukraine serves as the justification presented to European publics for massive rearmament. As official NATO data confirm, European allies and Canada have steadily increased their collective defense investment – from 1.43 percent of their combined GDP in 2014 to 2.02 percent in 2024.

Concrete figures underscore this trend: global military expenditure reached 2,718 billion dollars in 2024, a real increase of 9.4 percent over 2023 – the steepest rise since at least the end of the Cold War. Poland is investing more than 20 billion euros in new tanks and missile defense; Germany has approved a 100-billion-euro special fund; the Baltic states are raising their budgets to record levels.

To be able to produce independent analyses at this level of depth on a lasting basis, I need sustainable reader funding.

An alternative interpretation would hold that Europe is responding independently to Russian aggression and that the United States is simply fulfilling traditional alliance commitments. Yet the figures reveal a striking synchronicity: if European NATO members maintained the 2024 growth rate, defense spending would average three percent of GDP within five years and five percent within ten.

III. Europe as Military Pillar – The Transfer of Burden

The strategic objective – whether deliberately pursued or emergently arrived at – may be this: Europe, in the foreseeable future, absorbs the primary burden of keeping Russia contained.

The more the EU rearms, the more the United States can redeploy its forces from Europe toward the Indo-Pacific. The American Indo-Pacific Strategy, as documented, broadly aims to leverage the countries surrounding China to erode its influence.

The logic is compelling: if Europe can pin down Russia militarily, the United States has a free hand in Asia. The PESCO structures analyzed in the previous installment of this series lay exactly that foundation. Europe is building a military capable of independent operations – under NATO command, but without direct American troop presence on the ground.

What does this mean in practice? Europe becomes the frontline state against Russia. Europe bears the costs: deindustrialization through high energy prices, social cuts driven by rearmament, and the risk of direct military confrontation. The United States gains strategic flexibility.

IV. Preventing the Dangerous Axis – Russia and China

Even more problematic for Washington would be a firm alliance between Russia and China. The two already cooperate on energy, military affairs, and diplomacy. A coordinated response during a Taiwan crisis could cause the American strategy to collapse entirely.

From this perspective, it is logical to keep Moscow militarily occupied and economically tethered. One measure under discussion among specialists is the conditional release of frozen Russian assets worth approximately 300 billion euros – earmarked for investments that would bind Moscow to the West.

Such an arrangement might give Russia a stake in not escalating its conflict with the United States further. A tethered, economically dependent Russia is no reliable partner for China.

V. Taiwan – A Powder Keg on a Schedule

The Indo-Pacific is the decisive battleground of the future. Taiwan occupies a pivotal role within it:

Strategically: the “unsinkable aircraft carrier” positioned directly off China’s coast
Symbolically: a showcase model of Western democracy
Economically: home to the world’s leading semiconductor manufacturing (TSMC)

The CSIS war games of 2023 make clear that the probability of escalation is rising. Of 24 simulated scenarios, 18 ended in a US military victory – but only at enormous cost, and only under the assumption that Taiwan and Japan actively fight alongside.

The False Flag Dimension – History as Textbook

At this point the analysis becomes more speculative – though historically grounded. History offers documented cases in which incidents were staged or instrumentalized as pretexts for war.

Gulf of Tonkin (1964): On August 2, 1964, a genuine exchange of fire took place between North Vietnamese torpedo boats and the USS Maddox. Two days later, the Maddox reported another attack – one that never occurred. Radar interference and anxious crew members had generated phantom targets. The Pentagon knew. President Lyndon B. Johnson knew. The Maddox’s own commanding officer reported doubts. Nevertheless, Johnson used the “incident” to extract the Tonkin Resolution from Congress – a de facto declaration of war without a formal declaration of war. The Vietnam War escalated. 58,000 American soldiers died. Millions of Vietnamese lost their lives. Only in 2005 did the National Security Archives officially confirm: the second attack never happened.

The Incubator Lie (1990): On October 10, 1990, a 15-year-old Kuwaiti girl named “Nayirah” appeared before the US Congress. In tears, she described how Iraqi soldiers in occupied Kuwait had torn premature infants from incubators and left them to die on the cold floor. The story swept through every major media outlet. President George H. W. Bush cited it repeatedly. American public opinion was outraged. After the war it emerged that “Nayirah” was the daughter of Kuwait’s ambassador in Washington, coached by the PR firm Hill & Knowlton, which had received 10 million dollars from the Kuwaiti government for a pro-war campaign. The story was fabricated in its entirety. Not a single documented case was ever confirmed.

The Nord Stream Sabotage (2022): On September 26, 2022, both Nord Stream 1 and Nord Stream 2 pipelines exploded in the Baltic Sea. Who carried out the attack remains officially unresolved to this day. Sweden and Denmark closed their investigations without publishing findings. Investigative journalist Seymour Hersh accused the United States – Washington denied it. Yet the outcome is plainly visible: Germany buys American LNG, Russia loses its economic leverage, and Europe is energy-dependent on the United States. Whoever destroyed the pipelines, the strategic beneficiaries are not in doubt.

The Taiwan Scenario – How a Spark Becomes a Conflagration

At Taiwan, a similar pattern is conceivable. An incident in the Taiwan Strait – a purported attack on American reconnaissance aircraft, a Taiwanese vessel sunk, a missile strike against American allies – could serve as the pretext for military intervention.

Scenarios currently being discussed include:

Scenario 1: Collision on the High Seas. A Chinese warship collides with a US destroyer in international waters near Taiwan. American sailors die. Washington accuses Beijing of a deliberate ramming. China denies it. The evidentiary picture remains murky – but the escalation logic is activated.

Scenario 2: A Cyberattack With Casualties. A massive cyberattack takes down Taiwan’s power grid. Hospitals go dark, people die. The United States blames China. Beijing denies it. Here too: attribution in cyberspace is technically complex; accusations are politically driven.

Scenario 3: Blockade and “Accident.” China imposes a naval blockade on Taiwan, officially framed as a “military exercise.” A Taiwanese supply vessel attempts to break through. Chinese ships open fire. Taiwan appeals to the United States. Washington must decide: intervene or watch Taiwan fall.

To be able to produce independent analyses at this level of depth on a lasting basis, I need sustainable reader funding.

The goal would not be to defeat China – that is militarily impossible. China possesses nuclear weapons, a massive army, and the world’s largest navy by hull count. The goal would be to contain China through blockades, sanctions, and military presence – systematically, long-term, backed by Japan, South Korea, Australia, India, and the Philippines. The encirclement is already underway: AUKUS (Australia, UK, USA), the Quad (USA, Japan, India, Australia), an expanded military presence in the Philippines, new bases in Papua New Guinea. China is being systematically surrounded.

Critics argue that such speculation, absent concrete evidence, amounts to conspiracy theory. It is equally possible that China could provoke escalation entirely on its own initiative, without any American involvement. Xi Jinping has publicly declared that Taiwan is “a historic mission that cannot be passed on to future generations.” The danger is real – independent of who makes the first move.

The historical examples show, however, that incidents as pretexts for war are not fantasy but documented reality. And the strategic logic suggests that Washington may have an interest in containing China now – before it is too late.

VI. Containment Instead of Total Victory – The Logic of Shackles

The underlying strategic logic – if it exists – is this: the goal is not total victories but the creation of constraints.

Russia is pinned down in Europe – militarily through Ukraine, economically through sanctions and potentially through future investment arrangements
China is encircled in Asia – through military coalitions (AUKUS, Quad), technology embargoes (chips, AI), and economic blockades
Europe bears the costs – through deindustrialization, social cuts, and military rearmament

Washington buys time – the most precious commodity for an aging empire.

Counterarguments exist, however. The United States is itself weakened by domestic polarization, sovereign debt, and military overextension. It may be reacting to events rather than shaping them. The Foreign Policy Research Institute notes that the grand strategic shift to pivot to the Asia-Pacific from the Middle East took nearly a decade to implement due to various bureaucratic obstacles – a perspective more consistent with institutional inertia than brilliant planning.

VII. Europe’s Reset Question – A Systemic Consideration

A darker supplementary scenario, discussed in certain circles: the European Union faces a crisis of its growth model. Perpetual growth – the EU’s foundational premise – is approaching its limits. Germany is losing its role as economic engine through deindustrialization and the energy crisis. Social and fiscal pressures are mounting.

The structural problems are severe.

Demographic collapse: Europe’s population is aging faster than any other region except Japan. Pension systems are financially unsustainable. Debt is rising. Productivity is declining.

Deindustrialization: An energy transition without cheap energy renders European production uncompetitive. BASF is building in China, not in Ludwigshafen. Tesla is building in Texas, not in Brandenburg. Europe’s industrial base is eroding.

Social pressure: Migration, inflation, declining real wages – the middle class is shrinking. Populist parties are gaining ground. Political stability is fraying.

Fiscal limits: Italy’s sovereign debt stands at 140 percent of GDP, Greece’s at 170 percent. The ECB is holding the eurozone together through bond purchases – but for how much longer?

Throughout history, such crises have often been “resolved” through war – 1914 brought the destruction of old empires, 1945 enabled the construction of a new order. The Marshall Plan, European reconstruction, the founding of the EEC – all of it emerged from the rubble of war.

Could a large-scale conflict in Europe also serve as a systemic reset? Destruction, followed by reconstruction financed by cheap capital, new infrastructure, new debts that no one need repay because they dissolve in the rebuilding. Politically, such a process might even provide the impetus for a new stage of integration – a “United States of Europe,” born of the necessity of common defense and common reconstruction.

This speculation is deeply controversial and lacks any concrete evidence. No politician would publicly describe a war as a “solution” to structural problems. But it illustrates how severe the crisis of the European growth model has become – and how desperately some are searching for a way out.

The historical parallel: after 1945, Europe was destroyed – but also freed of debt, renewed, integrated. The Cold War imposed unity. Economic necessity forced reform. From the rubble emerged the most successful peace project in history.

Could Europe not merely suffer a war but instrumentalize it to refound itself? The question is a dark one – but it is being asked.

VIII. Counterpositions and Alternative Explanations

In fairness, alternative interpretations must be acknowledged.

1. Reactive strategy: The United States is responding to Russian and Chinese aggression rather than provoking it. NATO enlargement followed the legitimate security needs of smaller states, not American planning.

2. Economic interests: Trade conflicts arise from competition, not geopolitical design. Corporations drive decisions, not strategists.

3. Institutional inertia: Different US agencies pursue different, sometimes contradictory objectives. The “Pivot to Asia,” as one Asia Times analysis argues, was sold as America’s recognition that the future lies in Asia – the reality, however, was far messier.

4. China’s own responsibility: China could move against Taiwan independently, without American provocation. Beijing’s ambitions are real, not constructed.

These objections are legitimate. The truth almost certainly lies between the two extremes – between brilliant planning and opportunistic reaction.

IX. Conclusion – The Question That Changes Everything

The pieces form a pattern – but is it conscious strategy, emergent logic, or interpretation visible only in retrospect?

The facts are unambiguous:

Ukraine separates Germany and Russia, pins Moscow militarily, and justifies European rearmament
Europe is becoming an armaments bloc expected to absorb the Russia-containment burden long-term
Russia is being economically tethered, potentially to prevent a firm alliance with China
China is being contained through Taiwan tensions, military coalitions, and technology embargoes

The outcome would not be a final victory – it would be a postponement. Time that the United States may desperately need to extend its dominance. But the bill is paid by others: Europe loses its industrial base, Russia its strategic freedom, China its global integration.

Whether this is the result of brilliant strategy, fortunate circumstance, or emergent logic remains open. One thing, however, is clear: Washington is not footing the bill.

But what happens if this scenario actually unfolds?

If Russia is locked down in Europe – militarily, economically, politically. If the United States contains China in the Pacific – through blockades, sanctions, military presence. If Europe pours its resources into armaments rather than its economy.

If all three major powers are simultaneously so consumed by these entanglements that they have no capacity left for anything else.

What consequences would that hold for the world?

In the final installment of this series, we will examine exactly that question.

I can tell you already: I have never in my life hoped so strongly that my analysis turns out to be wrong.

Michael Hollister
is a geopolitical analyst and investigative journalist. He served six years in the German military, including peacekeeping deployments in the Balkans (SFOR, KFOR), followed by 14 years in IT security management. His analysis draws on primary sources to examine European militarization, Western intervention policy, and shifting power dynamics across Asia. A particular focus of his work lies in Southeast Asia, where he investigates strategic dependencies, spheres of influence, and security architectures. Hollister combines operational insider perspective with uncompromising systemic critique—beyond opinion journalism. His work appears on his bilingual website (German/English) www.michael-hollister.com, at Substack and in investigative outlets across the German-speaking world and the Anglosphere.

Sources

RAND Corporation – David C. Gompert, Astrid Stuth Cevallos, Cristina L. Garafola: “War with China: Thinking Through the Unthinkable,” Research Report RR-1140-A, 2016: https://www.rand.org/pubs/research_reports/RR1140.html
Center for Strategic and International Studies – Mark F. Cancian, Matthew Cancian, Eric Heginbotham: “The First Battle of the Next War: Wargaming a Chinese Invasion of Taiwan,” January 2023: https://www.csis.org/analysis/first-battle-next-war-wargaming-chinese-invasion-taiwan
RAND Corporation: “The U.S.-China Military Scorecard: Forces, Geography, and the Evolving Balance of Power,” 2015 (updated 2023): https://www.rand.org/pubs/research_reports/RR392.html
RAND Corporation: “Implementing Restraint: Changes in U.S. Regional Security Policies to Operationalize a Realist Grand Strategy of Restraint,” 2021: https://www.rand.org/pubs/research_reports/RRA739-1.html
Center for Strategic and International Studies: “Forecasting Change in Military Technology, 2020–2040”: https://www.csis.org/search?keyword=Forecasting+Change+in+Military+Technology%2C+2020-2040
Foreign Policy Research Institute, April 2025: “Charting the End State for US Strategy Toward China”: https://www.fpri.org/article/2025/04/charting-the-end-state-for-us-strategy-toward-china/
NATO, February 14, 2024: “Secretary General welcomes unprecedented rise in NATO defence spending”: https://www.nato.int/cps/en/natohq/news_222664.htm
NATO, 2024: “Defence Expenditure of NATO Countries (2014–2025)”: https://www.nato.int/en/news-and-events/articles/news/2025/08/28/defence-expenditure-of-nato-countries-2014-2025?selectedLocale=
SIPRI, April 28, 2025: “Unprecedented rise in global military expenditure as European and Middle East spending surges”: https://www.sipri.org/media/press-release/2025/unprecedented-rise-global-military-expenditure-european-and-middle-east-spending-surges
SIPRI, April 2025: “Trends in World Military Expenditure, 2024,” SIPRI Fact Sheet: https://www.sipri.org/publications/2025/sipri-fact-sheets/trends-world-military-expenditure-2024
Al Jazeera, July 11, 2024: “How much is each NATO country spending on its military in 2024?”: https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2024/7/11/how-much-does-each-nato-country-spend-in-2024
Euronews, March 28, 2025: “How much do NATO members spend on defence as threat perceptions rise?”: https://www.euronews.com/my-europe/2025/03/28/how-much-do-nato-members-spend-on-defence-as-threat-perceptions-rise
Wikipedia: “United States foreign policy toward the People’s Republic of China”: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_foreign_policy_toward_the_People%27s_Republic_of_China
Strafasia: “The Western Containment Strategy: The US and Allies Against China’s Rise”: https://strafasia.com/the-western-containment-strategy-the-us-and-allies-against-chinas-rise/
Asia Times, 2025: “US ‘pivot to Asia’ never happened and likely never will”: https://asiatimes.com/2025/01/us-pivot-to-asia-never-happened-and-likely-never-will/
Wikipedia: “East Asian foreign policy of the Obama administration”: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/East_Asian_foreign_policy_of_the_Obama_administration

© Michael Hollister – All rights reserved. Redistribution, publication or reuse of this text requires express written permission from the author. For licensing inquiries, please contact the author via www.michael-hollister.com.

🇩🇪 Deutsch: Verstehen Sie geopolitische Zusammenhänge durch Primärquellen, historische Parallelen und dokumentierte Machtstrukturen. Monatlich, zweisprachig (DE/EN).

🇬🇧 English: Understand geopolitical contexts through primary sources, historical patterns, and documented power structures. Monthly, bilingual (DE/EN).

PDF 📄

Buying Time at Any Cost – Part 8