241–250 of 270 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
And that in turn might cause them to start a war... Because when the regime has nothing to lose all bets are off, even though it makes no sense whatsoever. They will have to distract from their culpability somehow.
I really wish we wouldn't speculate about China starting a war. It's completely baseless and comes across as some sort of china-man-bad xenophobia.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
And that in turn might cause them to start a war... Because when the regime has nothing to lose all bets are off, even though it makes no sense whatsoever. They will have to distract from their culpability somehow.
I really wish we wouldn't speculate about China starting a war. It's completely baseless and comes across as some sort of china-man-bad xenophobia.
In no way was the comment china-man-bad xenophobia.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
And that in turn might cause them to start a war... Because when the regime has nothing to lose all bets are off, even though it makes no sense whatsoever. They will have to distract from their culpability somehow.
I really wish we wouldn't speculate about China starting a war. It's completely baseless and comes across as some sort of china-man-bad xenophobia.
Why xenophobic? America man invaded Iraq on a whim, and Russia man invaded Ukraine after having a policy of reunification
Countries are exerting might-is-right
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The point that roenxi made is that color revolutions in Russia and Kazakhstan would encircle China from the West and North in addition to the existing U.S. allies Japan and South Korea from the Southwest. It isn't a moral statement, just one realistic scenario that China is afraid of.
You’ve pretty much eliminated all agency that exists in those countries and their people. This is the only way to support Russia and China today. By using a “Great Power” theory which pretends smaller countries have no agency and their people have no value, other than how they affect the interactions of those larger countries. The U.S. is also surrounded by a bunch of countries. Somehow those countries aren’t clamori…
If there was an equivalent south American power, you might see Mexico and central American countries looking to escape American influence, but no such power exists
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> A few weeks ago I was pretty sure that Beijing would not be that stupid... The US is executing the same broad strategy against both China and Russia - surrounding them with US-friendly states who then get military support. It seems to be working extremely well against Russia since they can barely get Russian troops into the Donbass safely. While I, personally, agree that it would be stupid I can certainly see that…
Were the countries around China coerced to be friendly with America somehow? I’m pretty sure the CIA do a lot of evil shit to maintain American power around the world but I’m really not sure they are this omnipotent. I think these countries are simply more scared of China than they are the US, until that changes China will be surrounded by US friendly countries.
That doesn't mean that dealing with the US isn't better than dealing with China, of course, but the US military bases are there to ensure that the empire stays intact, both from external attacks and internal division
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> A few weeks ago I was pretty sure that Beijing would not be that stupid... The US is executing the same broad strategy against both China and Russia - surrounding them with US-friendly states who then get military support. It seems to be working extremely well against Russia since they can barely get Russian troops into the Donbass safely. While I, personally, agree that it would be stupid I can certainly see that…
The obvious question should be is why states around Russia and China choose to be U.S. friendly, whereas states around the US also choose to be US friendly. For example, why does Canada KK pose restrictions on China despite them investing a ton of money in Canada, and the Philippines, barring a short neutrality under the ridiculous Dutarte also chooses to impose restrictions on China, and be closer to the U.S., despi…
The broader answer is because PRC hasn't (had chance to) done what the US did, kick the shit out of their neighbours or exploit shit kicked countries near their adversaries and coerced geopolitical compliance that over generations becomes ingrained on a cultural level. PH/JP/SKR/TW are structurally coupled to US post WW2, and all had very strong anti-US sentiment across society and politics earlier on in their existence, but lacked power to kick US out and generations of US influence and increased dependence in more than just economics now makes them bias compliance towards US interests.
Canada good example, used by British to wage existential war on US, and US seriously considered annexing Canada until British was comprehensively defeated and Canada stopped becoming geopolitical threat. Even then Canadian domestic politics was antiUS project until well into the 70s, meanwhile anytime Canadian leadership tried to depart from US strategic interests, it gets reigned in. Ditto with Mexico, and rest of Americas via Monroe Doctrine.
The TLDR is US empire wasn't built on friendship, it was built on opportunistically ruining / exploiting ruined countries and turning them into vassels structurally to be friendly, until over generations, people start drinking the koolaid and the cause becomes reversed. Alternatively, like in South America, beatings will continue until geopolitical compliance improves. Money and influence ops is rarely enough to dislodge such alignment. Which raises the unpleasant implication that countries around PRC won't be friendly until PRC successfully asserts regional hegemony and it can't convincingly do that without basically kicking US out of east Asia forcefully. Sometimes the only way to win over geopolitical "friendships" is by kicking the old friend out and demonstrating implications of trying to remain unfriendly.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
If they were really scared of more NATO invading Ukraine is the fastest way to get a larger border with NATO (win or lose).
"Russia only feel their borders are safe when there are Russian soldiers on both sides of them" is a saying I read recently.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
That possibility makes me really nervous. A few weeks ago I was pretty sure that Beijing would not be that stupid, and simply stick with sending tons of dual-use goods, to keep up the plausible deniability. But Chinese rockets hitting Ukrainian kids in Kyiv/Europe? That would trigger dramatic sanctions. I don't think that is priced into the current world stock market.
> A few weeks ago I was pretty sure that Beijing would not be that stupid... The US is executing the same broad strategy against both China and Russia - surrounding them with US-friendly states who then get military support. It seems to be working extremely well against Russia since they can barely get Russian troops into the Donbass safely. While I, personally, agree that it would be stupid I can certainly see that…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It’s definitely the end of the US dollar as the global reserve currency, but you’re acting as if we had a choice when idiot dictators are committing shortsighted mayhem. Decoupling will be painful, but not as painful to the US as it will be to China.
It'll be painful for the entire world including US citizens which elect future presidents.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It's not stupid. It's bold and almost risk-free. The US aren't the only people allowed to do proxy wars.
> It's not stupid. It's bold and almost risk-free. It's stupid and risky for either the US or China to escalate a war that threatens to become a global conflict between nuclear powers. I wish saner heads urging restraint would prevail.
If we are going to play this game, let's have it all out now, because that's no way to live. We all agreed a long time ago that this is not what nukes are for, and if someone wants to lay new rules, they should be ready for what's coming.