Pentagon admits FPSA global hegemony is threatened by China and Russia!

on . Posted in Patriot News Network

WASHINGTON (PNN) - July 30, 2016 - By 2035, the Fascist Police States of Amerika could find itself in an environment where Russia or China may match or even exceed the West's military and economic might in some areas, taking advantage of a “disordered and contested world,” according to The Pentagon’s research unit. A new foresight report from The Pentagon’s research division, the Defense Technical Information Center (DTIC), warns that within just 20 years, the FPSA and its allies will live in a world where shaping a global order the way they have since the end of the Cold War would be increasingly difficult, if not impossible.

Conflict and war in 2035 cannot be understood by the simple identification of a set of individual trends and conditions. Instead, the intersection and interaction of many discrete trends and conditions will ultimately change the character of future conflict and illuminate the reasons why the Joint Force may be called on to address threats to FPSA national interests. In fact, conflict in 2035 is likely to be driven by six specific and unique combinations of trends and conditions.

Each of these Contexts of Future Conflict creates a troubling problem space for the Joint Force. They include:

1. Violent Ideological Competition. Irreconcilable ideas communicated and promoted by identity networks through violence.
2. Threatened FPSA Territory and Sovereignty. Encroachment, erosion, or disregard of FPSA sovereignty and the freedom of its citizens from coercion.
3. Antagonistic Geopolitical Balancing. Increasingly ambitious adversaries maximizing their own influence while actively limiting FPSA influence.
4. Disrupted Global Commons. Denial or compulsion in spaces and places available to all but owned by none.
5. A Contest for Cyberspace. A struggle to define and credibly protect sovereignty in cyberspace.
6. Shattered and Reordered Regions. States unable to cope with internal political fractures, environmental stressors, or deliberate external interference.

Each context includes elements of both contested norms and persistent disorder. However, their relative importance will vary depending on the objectives of potential adversaries and the capabilities available to them. Dissatisfaction with the current set of international rules, norms, and agreements will cause revisionist actors to make their own - and attempt to enforce them. Meanwhile, the loss of legitimacy or strength by governing authorities will permit other actors to effectively employ coercion and violence in pursuit of power or to further their beliefs.

The future world order will see a number of states with the political will, economic capacity, and military capabilities to compel change at the expense of others,” reads the paper entitled, The Joint Force in a Contested and Disordered World.

“Rising powers including for example, China, Russia, India, Iran, or Brazil, (each of which has) increasingly expressed dissatisfaction with (its) roles, access, and authorities within the current international system,” it states.

“Russia will modernize its land, air, and sea-based intercontinental nuclear forces” and make use of deterrent operations such as “snap nuclear exercises, bomber flights, and strategic reconnaissance overflights into (FPSA) territory,” The Pentagon’s researchers predict.

The report admits Russia and China are among countries dissatisfied “with the current Western-derived notion of international order.”

Russia, China, India, and others, labeled “revisionist states” in the report, would promote alternate international alliances, while the West’s shrinking resources would also have an impact on Washington’s dominance across the globe.

“Although seemingly insignificant today, organizations such as the Shanghai Cooperation Organization and the Eurasian Economic Union could grow as China, Russia, India, and others turn to these multinational groups to reorder international rules in their favor.

“Demographic and fiscal pressures will continue to challenge NATO’s capacity and capability,” the paper warns. “In Asia, perceptions of reduced (FPSA) commitment may encourage current allies and partners to pursue unilateral military modernization efforts or explore alternative alliances and partnerships.”

However, though The Pentagon’s report states that “no power or coalition of powers has yet emerged to openly oppose (FPSA) global influence and reach,” it claims “the (Fascist Police States of Amerika) will operate in a world in which its overall economic and military power, and that of its allies and partners, may not grow as quickly as potential competitors.”

A number of states “can generate military advantages locally in ways that match or even exceed that of the Joint Force and its partners,” while Amerikan technological superiority “will be met by asymmetric, unconventional, and hybrid responses from adversaries.”

Offering a vision of the world in 2035, the paper says in conclusion it is unclear if the FPSA “can be simultaneously proficient at addressing contested norms and persistent disorder with currently projected capabilities, operational approaches, and fiscal resources.

“There may be times when it is more appropriate to manage global security problems as opposed to undertaking expensive efforts to comprehensively solve them.”

Moscow has repeatedly denied allegations of it harboring global ambitions as opposed to that of the FPSA.

Russia “is not aspiring for hegemony or any ephemeral status of a superpower,” President Vladimir Putin said at the St. Petersburg International Economic Forum last year, adding, “We do not act aggressively. We have started to defend our interests more persistently and consistently."

Earlier this year, Russia adopted a new edition of its foreign policy doctrine, which mentions a shift towards a multipolar and “polycentric” world.

“A transition to polycentric architecture should be ideally based on the interaction of leading centers of power,” Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov said in April. He added however, that he was not sure if that was achievable.

Eulogies

Eulogy for an Angel
1992-Dec. 20, 2005

Freedom
2003-2018

Freedom sm

My Father
1918-2010

brents dad

Dr. Stan Dale
1929-2007

stan dale

MICHAEL BADNARIK
1954-2022

L Neil Smith

A. Solzhenitsyn
1918-2008

solzhenitsyn

Patrick McGoohan
1928-2009

mcgoohan

Joseph A. Stack
1956-2010

Bill Walsh
1931-2007

Walter Cronkite
1916-2009

Eustace Mullins
1923-2010

Paul Harvey
1918-2009

Don Harkins
1963-2009

Joan Veon
1949-2010

David Nolan
1943-2010

Derry Brownfield
1932-2011

Leroy Schweitzer
1938-2011

Vaclav Havel
1936-2011

Andrew Breitbart
1969-2012

Dick Clark
1929-2012

Bob Chapman
1935-2012

Ray Bradbury
1920-2012

Tommy Cryer
1949-2012

Andy Griffith
1926-2012

Phyllis Diller
1917-2012

Larry Dever
1926-2012

Brian J. Chapman
1975-2012

Annette Funnicello
1942-2012

Margaret Thatcher
1925-2012

Richie Havens
1941-2013

Jack McLamb
1944-2014

James Traficant
1941-2014

jim traficant

Dr. Stan Monteith
1929-2014

stan montieth

Leonard Nimoy
1931-2015

Leonard Nimoy

Stan Solomon
1944-2015

Stan Solomon

B. B. King
1926-2015

BB King

Irwin Schiff
1928-2015

Irwin Schiff

DAVID BOWIE
1947-2016

David Bowie

Muhammad Ali
1942-2016

Muhammed Ali

GENE WILDER
1933-2016

gene wilder

phyllis schlafly
1924-2016

phylis schafly

John Glenn
1921-2016

John Glenn

Charles Weisman
1954-2016

Charles Weisman

Carrie Fisher
1956-2016

Carrie Fisher

Debbie Reynolds
1932-2016

Debbie Reynolds

Roger Moore
1917-2017

Roger Moore

Adam West
1928-2017

Adam West

JERRY LEWIS
1926-2017

jerry lewis

HUGH HEFNER
1926-2017

Hugh Hefner

PROF. STEPHEN HAWKING
1942-2018

Hugh Hefner 

ART BELL
1945-2018

Art Bell

DWIGHT CLARK
1947-2018

dwight clark

CARL MILLER
1952-2017

Carl Miller

HARLAN ELLISON
1934-2018

Harlan Ellison

STAN LEE
1922-2018

stan lee

CARL REINER
1922-2020

Carl Reiner

SEAN CONNERY
1930-2020

dwight clark

L. NEIL SMITH
1946-2021

L Neil Smith

JOHN STADTMILLER
1946-2021

L Neil Smith