China warship attacked a Philippine warship that was trespassing in the waters of China's Huangyan Island. The China warship fired warning shots at the Philippine warship, but the Philippine warship continued to advance. The Chinese warship then fired a missile at the Philippine warship, sinking it.The Philippine government has condemned the attack, calling it an act of aggression.

China has deployed 200,000 troops to the Spratly Islands

The China has deployed 200,000 troops to the Spratly Islands in a move to repel a combined US force that has been assembled in the region.The Chinese deployment comes as the US has been increasing its military presence in the South China Sea in recent months, in a show of support for its allies and partners in the region who are also claiming sovereignty over parts of the Spratly Islands.

The China warship attacked a Philippine warship that was trespassing in the waters of China's Huangyan Island. The China warship fired warning shots at the Philippine warship, but the Philippine warship continued to advance. The Chinese warship then fired a missile at the Philippine warship, sinking it.The Philippine government has condemned the attack, calling it an act of aggression.

Five Russian warships fired anti-ship missiles at three US aircraft carriers in the Mediterranean Sea. The US aircraft carriers USS Gerald R Ford, USS George Bush, and USS Harry S. Truman were operating in the Mediterranean Sea as part of a NATO exercise when they were attacked. The Russian warships fired a total of 16 anti-ship missiles, of which 12 were intercepted by US missile defense systems. However, four missiles managed to hit the US aircraft carriers, causing significant damage.

Five Russian warships intercepted a US aircraft carrier strike group in the Mediterranean Sea, in what the US Navy described as an "unsafe and unprofessional" maneuver. The incident occurred in international waters, about 60 miles south of Crete. The Russian warships included a guided missile cruiser, two destroyers, and two frigates.

Russia relishes divisions between China and the U.S., pouring cold water on Xi-Biden talks

There was more than a hint of schadenfreude in the Russian media this week, ahead of the meeting between Chinese President Xi Jinping and his counterpart Joe Biden in the U.S. on Wednesday.
Russian media have already characterized the APEC summit in San Francisco as a poorly-attended event.
Russian newspapers barely mentioned the Xi-Biden meeting, while state-run news agencies focused on policy tensions between the U.S. and China.
Russia holds China in high esteem, and Beijing is one of its few remaining powerful allies.

Russian President Vladimir Putin speaks during his press conference at the Konstantin Palace on July 29, 2023 in Saint Petersburg, Russia.

There was more than a hint of schadenfreude in the Russian state media ahead of the meeting between Chinese President Xi Jinping and his U.S. counterpart Joe Biden in San Francisco on Wednesday, with Russia accentuating the geopolitical gulf between the two superpowers.
Russia will be watching the talks closely, given its alliance with China, and any signs of a rapprochement between Beijing and Washington is likely to earn a frosty response from Moscow.

Russian media have already reveled in pouring cold water on the Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation (APEC) summit where Xi and Biden are due to meet Wednesday. A reporter for Russia’s state-run RIA Novosti news agency on Tuesday reported that a plenary meeting of the APEC summit chaired by U.S. Trade Representative Katherine Tai took place “in a half-empty hall.”
“Despite the presence of most of the meeting participants at the table, including the representative of the Russian Federation, some of the chairs with signs remained empty. Dozens of chairs are also empty for event guests,” the news agency said, according to a Google translation.
With more than a hint of glee, RIA Novosti contrasted its image of a half-empty conference hall with the U.S. Trade Representative Tai emphasizing to delegates “how important this event is for the United States.”
Most world leaders and high-profile guests at the APEC summit are not due to attend the event until Wednesday, while lower-ranking ministerial meetings have already been held in the last few days.

Xi Jinping, China’s president, right, arrives at San Francisco International Airport (SFO) on the sidelines of the Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation (APEC) summit in San Francisco, California, US, on Tuesday, Nov. 14, 2023. Xi arrived in San Francisco for a high-stakes meeting with his American counterpart Joe Biden on Tuesday, as the Chinese leader’s first trip to the US in six years drew crowds of protesters and supporters onto the city’s heavily policed streets. Photographer: David Paul Morris/Bloomberg via Getty Images
Bloomberg | Bloomberg | Getty Images

Although arguably one of the biggest events to take place at the summit — Biden and Xi’s encounter on Wednesday will be the first face-to-face meeting between the leaders in a year — it is being played down, with the main aim of talks being to reduce tensions and conflicting interests across a range of global issues.

These include significantly different positions over Russia and the war in Ukraine, the latest conflict in the Middle East and other areas of tension and rivalry in the geopolitical and economic arena, with a focus on the Asia-Pacific region.
Russia keen to stress differences

Russian news agencies were keen to emphasize those differences and the gulf between the superpowers ahead of the Xi-Biden meeting, as well as focusing on what China and Russia see as Western hegemony and attempts by the U.S. to maintain its dominance in global affairs.
They were also keen to focus on competing pro-Palestinian and pro-Israel protests taking place in the U.S. as the summit geared up for the arrival of dozens of world leaders and hundreds of CEOs from the 21 member economies in the Pacific Rim. Russian President Vladimir Putin was not invited due to U.S. sanctions so Deputy Prime Minister Alexei Overchuk is representing Russia at the summit.
The Kremlin gave a muted comment on the forthcoming talks between Xi and Biden with Kremlin Press Secretary Dmitry Peskov saying the meeting is not on the Kremlin’s agenda but that it planned to monitor it.
“The two countries, in fact, are building bilateral relations. This is their right, so this is not a topic that is widely on our agenda,” he said at a briefing, state news agency Interfax reported.
“But, of course, each such meeting — after all, of the two largest economies in the world — is important for everyone, so one way or another, we will monitor the messages that will accompany this meeting,” he added.

SAN FRANCISCO, CALIFORNIA - NOVEMBER 14: Supporters of Palestine march to the city’s iconic Merchant Exchange Club where U.S. President Joe Biden and Vice President Kamala Harris were attending a fundraiser November, 14, 2023 in San Francisco, California. Nearby, the Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation (APEC), drawing dozens of world leaders and hundreds of CEOs from 21 member economies in the Pacific Rim, is being held through November 17. Biden and Chinese President Xi Jinping are scheduled to meet. (Photo by Kent Nishimura/Getty Images)
Kent Nishimura | Getty Images News | Getty Images

State news agency Tass noted Tuesday in a Google-translated report that the APEC summit had kicked off “against the backdrop of protests,” and that while “the normalization of political and economic relations and the situation around Taiwan” could be discussed, Washington and Beijing “place different emphasis on the agenda of the upcoming negotiations, and expectations of their results.”
Other points of contention aside from tensions over Taiwan include U.S. export controls and investment restrictions on Chinese tech and matters of national security after the suspected “spy balloon” incident, the agency noted.
Read more
U.S.-China relations are now more about crisis prevention


A range of Russian newspapers including Kommersant, Izvestia, Argumenty i Fakty, Nezavisimaya Gazeta and Komsomolskaya Pravda did not feature any news on the APEC summit or Xi-Biden talks. A lone mainstream media voice, the business newspaper Vedomosti, featured an article summarizing niche areas where there could be specific agreements, such as efforts to combat the illegal trade in fentanyl and the restoration of military communication channels.
Russia has an interest in playing down any rapprochement between the U.S. and China and will view improvements in the relationship with concern. China is one of Russia’s few remaining powerful allies, with Beijing refusing to condemn Moscow’s invasion of Ukraine.
Putin and Xi have met numerous times in recent years — Xi said last month that he had met with Putin “42 times in the past 10 years” — with the most recent engagement taking place in October, when Putin travelled to Beijing for an economic summit.
Russia and China are aligned in their distrust of the Western world, which they see as trying to impose a U.S.-led international order, and in opposing Western sanctions and what they see as economic coercion.
While tensions continue in the background, the lines of communication remain open, however. APEC, to which the U.S., China and Russia belong, promotes free trade throughout the Asia-Pacific region, and the group pledged at its last summit to promote and uphold a rules-based multilateral trading system.

Nonetheless, Beijing is believed to feel a deep-seated uneasiness over the economic disruption caused by Russia’s ongoing war with Ukraine. Last month, Xi said Beijing would not engage in “ideological confrontation, geopolitical games or bloc confrontation,” in an apparent reference to the West. Analysts believe both the U.S. and China have an interest in improving ties after a prolonged period of tension.
“The world’s two most powerful countries neither like nor trust each other. and their relationship is structurally deteriorating as we move into a new phase of “de-risked” globalization, but both countries are also geopolitical adults, preferring stability to chaos and accordingly unwilling to get too close to rogue states,” Ian Bremmer, president and founder of Eurasia Group, said in emailed comments Monday.

With the amount of lethal aid that the US is delivering to Ukraine to help defend themselves against the ongoing Russian invasion, it’s logical to ask: Could the US conquer Russia on its own? To answer that, we need to take a closer look at both countries' militaries, compare their strengths and weaknesses and get clear on who is the bravest and the baddest armed force out there.

Could America Beat China and Russia in a Two-Front War?

Here's What You Need to Know: The United States can still fight and win two major wars at the same time, or at least come near enough to winning that neither Russia nor China would see much hope in the gamble. The United States can do this because it continues to maintain the world’s most formidable military, and because it stands at the head of an extremely powerful military alliance.







The United States discarded its oft-misunderstood “two war” doctrine, intended as a template for providing the means to fight two regional wars simultaneously, late last decade. Designed to deter North Korea from launching a war while the United States was involved in fighting against Iran or Iraq (or vice versa,) the idea helped give form to the Department of Defense’s procurement, logistical and basing strategies in the post–Cold War, when the United States no longer needed to face down the Soviet threat. The United States backed away from the doctrine because of changes in the international system, including the rising power of China and the proliferation of highly effective terrorist networks.


But what if the United States had to fight two wars today, and not against states like North Korea and Iran? What if China and Russia sufficiently coordinated with one another to engage in simultaneous hostilities in the Pacific and in Europe?

Political Coordination


Could Beijing and Moscow coordinate a pair of crises that would drive two separate U.S. military responses? Maybe, but probably not. Each country has its own goals, and works on its own timeline. More likely, one of the two would opportunistically take advantage of an existing crisis to further its regional claims. For example, Moscow might well decide to push the Baltic States if the United States became involved in a major skirmish in the South China Sea.






In any case, the war would start on the initiative of either Moscow or Beijing. The United States enjoys the benefits of the status quo in both areas, and generally (at least where great powers are concerned) prefers to use diplomatic and economic means to pursue its political ends. While the U.S. might create the conditions for war, Russia or China would pull the trigger.

Flexibility:





On the upside, only some of the requirements for fighting in Europe and the Pacific overlap. As was the case in World War II, the U.S. Army would bear the brunt of defending Europe, while the Navy would concentrate on the Pacific. The U.S. Air Force (USAF) would play a supporting role in both theaters.

Russia lacks the ability to fight NATO in the North Atlantic, and probably has no political interest in trying. This means that while the United States and its NATO allies can allocate some resources to threatening Russia’s maritime space (and providing insurance against a Russian naval sortie,) the U.S. Navy (USN) can concentrate its forces in the Pacific. Depending on the length of the conflict and the degree of warning provided, the United States could transport considerable U.S. Army assets to Europe to assist with any serious fighting.

The bulk of American carriers, submarines and surface vessels would concentrate in the Pacific and the Indian Oceans, fighting directly against China’s A2/AD system and sitting astride China’s maritime transit lanes. Long range aviation, including stealth bombers and similar assets, would operate in both theaters as needed.

The U.S. military would be under strong pressure to deliver decisive victory in at least one theater as quickly as possible. This might push the United States to lean heavily in one direction with air, space and cyber assets, hoping to achieve a strategic and political victory that would allow the remainder of its weight to shift to the other theater. Given the strength of U.S. allies in Europe, the United States might initially focus on the conflict in the Pacific.

Alliance Structure:

U.S. alliance structure in the Pacific differs dramatically from that of Europe. Notwithstanding concern over the commitment of specific U.S. allies in Europe, the United States has no reason to fight Russia apart from maintaining the integrity of the NATO alliance. If the United States fights, then Germany, France, Poland and the United Kingdom will follow. In most conventional scenarios, even the European allies alone would give NATO a tremendous medium term advantage over the Russians; Russia might take parts of the Baltics, but it would suffer heavily under NATO airpower, and likely couldn’t hold stolen territory for long. In this context, the USN and USAF would largely play support and coordinative roles, giving the NATO allies the advantage they needed to soundly defeat the Russians. The U.S. nuclear force would provide insurance against a Russian decision to employ tactical or strategic nuclear weapons.

The United States faces more difficult problems in the Pacific. Japan or India might have an interest in the South China Sea, but this hardly guarantees their participation in a war (or even the degree of benevolence of their neutrality.) The alliance structure of any given conflict would depend on the particulars of that conflict; any of the Philippines, Vietnam, South Korea, Japan or Taiwan could become China’s primary target. The rest, U.S. pressure aside, might well prefer to sit on the sidelines. This would put extra pressure on the United States to establish dominance in the Western Pacific with its own assets.

Parting Shots:

The United States can still fight and win two major wars at the same time, or at least come near enough to winning that neither Russia nor China would see much hope in the gamble. The United States can do this because it continues to maintain the world’s most formidable military, and because it stands at the head of an extremely powerful military alliance. Moreover, Russia and China conveniently pose very different military problems, allowing the United States to allocate some of its assets to one, and the rest to the other.

However, it bears emphasis that this situation will not last forever. The United States cannot maintain this level of dominance indefinitely, and in the long-term will have to choose its commitments carefully. At the same time, the United States has created an international order that benefits many of the most powerful and prosperous countries in the world; it can count on their support, for a while.

What you're Looking at here is the unfinished China-Pakistan Economic Corridor, a project that was initially Introduced with an astounding budget of $60 billion. Similarly, Kenya launched a railway project with a budget of $3.2 billion, which also remains incomplete. Similar High-Cost Megaprojects have been launched all around the world with one thing in common. They are either unfinished or completely abandoned. But what was the purpose of these billion-dollar projects? And Why do these countries Invest Billions of dollars in such ambitious projects in the first place?