- cross-posted to:
- worldnews@lemmy.ml
You must log in or register to comment.
LOL - fucken brazen. I cannot wait to see the libs twist themselves into knots trying to get upset at this without giving up their game.
idk a lot of them probably wouldn't even realize they're giving the game away and just get openly mad at it
There's no cognitive dissonance with the libs. They'll say it's okay when they do it because they're "protecting freedom and democracy," but if China and Russia are doing it it's "authoritarian aggression."
Now, I also think it's good when our side does it and bad when the other does it, but I don't pretend to be impartial.
I don't think it's all the same. Remember that China did not have a blue ocean navy in the 1800s, hence the century of humiliation. This may in fact be the first of a kind event and a further extension as China fully stands up.
How about do this but around Niger because the west is not far from invading them and if they manage to resist their ECOWAS pawns I suspect a freedoming from some western nation is coming. Doubt the US will want to launch a full scale invasion but they have troops there who refuse to leave and an assault on the leadership using special forces, drones, gunships? Seems plausible.
I know. Was a joke. Though I wouldn't be opposed to them someone putting wheels on their warships and moving them about on land. Should at the very least cause some NATO jaws to drop.
Of course, key context is date: 17 june 1917. By that time USA was fresh into the WW1, and the implication of the 3 years of naval warfare included the fact that predrednought battleships was all but useless - slow, weakly armed, and very vulnerable especially to mines. And US Navy had tons of those ships which were incredibly propagandised (like in case of Great White Fleet).
So the US jingos of 1917, differing very little from the US jingos of 2023, were choking hard on the pill that their very expensive toys are just scrap and that resulted, except the usual screeching you could expect from angry jingos, with ideas like this.
Ultimately Washington Treaty from 1922 (signed accompanied by incredible amount of screeching of jingos from all included countries) just send all that scrap to scrap.
The idea itself is of course completely unfeasible from the point of engineering and also tactical nonsense too, which make that right side text even funnier, as you can see not only jingos but journos too changed very little in last century.
God i can't wait for us to get our asses cratered. Something might actually change around here for once
Is it a good idea to poke at the only country in the world to have ever used nuclear weapons against people?
Yes actually. Russia and China are both nuclear powers and the US is arrogant but not completely ignorant of reality. They wouldn't dare use nuclear weapons on either. They don't even dare Russia to use theirs by getting directly involved in Ukraine with open NATO battalions as they would if Russia didn't have nukes. They're not going to commit suicide by using a nuclear weapon in anger over a transit or minor territorial violation.
With the kind of redacted running the show over there? I am no longer certain of it. We are dealing with people who deliberately organise massacres to prop up their bloated financial system for a few more years. I am no longer sure they quite understand the implications of a nuclear war. Or even a conventional one.
If they don't understand the implications of nuclear war- or if they don't care- so be it, tbh. Or is humanity to live forever in thrall to the imperialist genocide machine?
When the west plays its brinkmanship games- as it always does- it's business as usual- but the acts of Russia and China are the acts of states that have been antagonized further and further; one side seeks a good-faith middle ground, and the other seeks only the other's effective disintegration and has constantly proven itself an aggressor whose words mean nothing- what compromise can be made?
The actions of countries like Niger, Burkina Faso, Mali, etc. as well- these all are also the actions of countries which have done every measure short of willfully dismantling themselves for western exploitation, to prevent war- countries which have experienced generations of exploitation and living at metaphorical (or literal) gunpoint, and are saying "enough is enough." The same goes for much of the world, and it is the experience that has hardened the resolve of countries like North Korea, Iran, Venezuela, Bolivia, Cuba, etc...
At the end, all that can be done is to hope that the cogs in the western war machines are not suicidal- because ultimately, the elite caste of the imperialists have little to no fear of retribution themselves in this regard- even in the scenarios of economic collapse, nuclear holocaust, biowarfare, etc, should it go down, they certainly won't be in the fallout, but in their bunkers and private islands. That is the caste you describe- and they, like capital, have no true loyalties nor care in the world for anything but their own individual propagation (if even that, some will happily and hedonistically see the world burn), they know no borders, and are beholden not to any morality nor ideology, save for the accumulation and sustaining of wealth.
There's no true middle ground with the people you describe, the highest castes of the imperialists, and the essence of imperialism (capitalism). The rest of humanity could outright go extinct, and they would be alive and well (if less comfortable than before) in their bunkers, or trying to flee to Mars or build their own serfdoms in the ruins. The middle ground exists in the hope that there is sufficient enough, meaningful enough common sense in the imperial cores, that the engines of the war machines (which are, end of the day, maintained by labor first and foremost, not by capital) are halted when they see who their real enemies are, or understand that they and their descendants- unlike their leaders- must live with the fallout of their actions. Capitalism and its highest state- imperialism- have never simply fallen due to the "good-will, benevolence, and basic human decency" of the perpetrators.
Look, the US would not hesitate to nuke China/Russia or any real competitor state if they thought they could escape being destroyed by retaliation. So it's not that they're above it. Or that they're not deranged enough to try and find an excuse if they think they can come out of it ahead. It's just that patrols around their waters are not going to push them to do it. If they intend to do it because they're backed into a corner and think odds are good they'll do it, they won't use a patrol as pretext as that's weak even for them. So it won't tip the scales either way is what I'm saying.
The US does this to China every week. It's time China starts standing up to them.
The U.S. does something much more brazen -- sailing through the Taiwan straight despite formally recognizing the island as part of China.
What's the alternative, to just let US continue holding the whole planet hostage?
Let's see. Russia could do something about all the oligarch children living in USA (along with their oligarch parents sometimes). There was a bill introduced a couple of years ago that would forbid Duma membership for holders of foreign real estate and business (IIRC, I'll have to check specific wording of the proposal), plus bits about foreign citizenship. It was shot down.
China could start embargoes of their own. They've already started with the gallium export. Or do they honestly believe allowing a Tesla factory in China would translate to Musk lobbying the yankee government to go easy?
And you don't think that would antagonise the US as well? The US has gone on record saying that they will treat economic attacks as military action.
I’m excited in a terrified and actually not all that excited way for the “find out stage” of “fuck around and”
