this post was submitted on 08 Apr 2025
75 points (98.7% liked)

chapotraphouse

13784 readers
577 users here now

Banned? DM Wmill to appeal.

No anti-nautilism posts. See: Eco-fascism Primer

Slop posts go in c/slop. Don't post low-hanging fruit here.

founded 4 years ago
MODERATORS
 

The Soviet Union, nearly a century ago, signed a non-aggression pact with Nazi Germany.They knew that otherwise they would've risked the Western states aligning with the Nazis had they entered an earlier war with Germany, or generally been more aggressive in their foreign policy. It allowed them to diplomatically play the imperialist powers against eachother, dividing them, thus weakening them.

An analogy can be made regarding the strategy of China and the states loosely aligned with them. They've showed openness towards further cooperation with the European powers, possibly dividing them and the Americans, rather than adopting an aggressive posture and surely uniting the imperialist states in opposition to them. They, with the ever more erratic nature of the U.S., have an excellent opportunity to isolate Washington from the rest of the Western bloc. Why would we want them to throw away that opportunity? In fact, we must, in full force, support the furthering of diplomatic, economic and possibly military ties with each of the imperialist states, precisely in order to divide them. As with the strategy of V. Molotov and the Soviet Union more generally, this is not done out of some ideological affinity, but out of necessity.

Though in a weakened state, the forces of the West combined will prove formidable. Even if they lose their confrontation with China and the rest, they will have already done insurmountable amounts of damage, worse than anything humanity had seen prior.

Again, imagine if the Soviet Union, in their time, hadn't done what they did. If the Soviet Union, seeing the atrocities committed by the Fascist powers in both Germany and Italy and the petty dictatorships of Poland, the Baltics, Hungary, Austria, and the Balkan monarchies, had decided to strike first. To march to Berlin alone, it would've meant total destruction.

Operation Barbarossa would've undoubtedly been successful. Fronts would've been opened up by Iran and Afghanistan in central Asia, the far eastern parts of the Union by Japan and the U.S. and in the southern Caucuses by Turkey. The ill prepared armies of the Soviet Union would've been crushed and the land, along with its people, subjugated. Now, imagine how this would play out today.

China invades Taiwan, or Iran, along with its allies, starts a full scale war against Israel. All of the "non-aligned" states, (Saudi Arabia, India, Egypt, etc) immediately join the war on the side of the West. Thus potential allies are alienated, turning the tides of the conflict to be in favour of the Western powers, something that is completely avoidable. They would squander their opportunity to bide their time, develop relations, economic and political, that would entice Western allies and "non-aligned" states to side with them. I won't play out this conflict in its entirety, i am sure you already understand what I'm getting at here with this short introduction.

However ugly it is, to see the horrors committed by the West and stand by idly, to charge idealistically into battle, this would force on us even greater horrors. It would be a fatal error.

all 11 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] [email protected] 34 points 1 week ago (1 children)

This was made in response to a post made by Dirt_Owl and the recent debate in regards to the Eastern bloc taking a soft approach to diplomacy with the Western bloc.

This is my first semi-effort post on here, so expect to see me repeating myself and other such flaws in the writing. I hope I managed to get my argument across well enough.

Feedback is appreciated, and I am always open to hearing pushback on any of the topics I discussed in this short post ♥️

[–] [email protected] 16 points 1 week ago

Like Churchill was very willing to go to war with the soviets and the eastern bloc was destroyed and genocided by the recent world war. Even later the threat of MAD, which the americans have proven to be willing to ensure, gave the eastern bloc a RESPONSIBILITY to ensure that no such war could be caused by their negligence.

Modern socialist countries like the PRC not only do not have the ability to destroy and invade the empire, but still have an obligation towards their own residents to ensure their own well-being. The anti-empire forces cannot be made to compensate for failures and mediocrity of imperial core anti-imperialist.

[–] [email protected] 28 points 1 week ago* (last edited 1 week ago)

Totally logical and humane analysis

Only one nation has ever used atomic weapons on civillians. That nation has done that twice. And the same nation has a habit of threatening nuclear attack and also of carpet bombing.

U S S R(had), P R C and India have a No First use policy for atomic weapons. The nation I mentioned earlier and its allies don't have any such policy. Sure, one may say that No first use stuff is just sly behaviour, then why don't the other countries also do that? Because they want to dominate and control?

That itself shows the difference. Knowing that, this shows how they would rather avoid serious wars that lead to a loss of many lives, unless they are forced to.

[–] [email protected] 17 points 1 week ago

I dont think your analysis is wrong here. I do think your missing something tho. China is not just holding back to keep western powers from uniting. China genuinely hopes that this can be resolved without ww3. Now that isn't to say they are naive. They know war is possible and likely even, and are prepared. But that doesnt mean theyve given up on resolving things in a less direct fashion.

We are very close, and i mean very. To a time where most world economies will collapse. Climate change will soon reach a tipping point. If it hasnt already. A few more decades and the US will be too busy maintaining order in its own back yard to bother China. If China can delay long enough they can avoid a direct conflict entirely. Just let the US collapse on its own.

[–] [email protected] 16 points 1 week ago* (last edited 1 week ago) (1 children)

you don't help out indonesia, you get slaughter there, you don't help out greece or italy, and then 30 years later you are left alone with the west. Barbarossa was unique confluence of developing industry/empires jockeying.

And whatever else, china should be better that the west in other ways, in ways that porky cannot countenance, lower work hours (which they can do even rn), cleaner economy, accepting refugees (which is profitable even for porky, aside from moral reasons)

and iran and hezbollah indecisiveness may cost them everything

[–] [email protected] 6 points 1 week ago

accepting refugees

So, what you're saying is that, we can claim asylum in China?

Please, Xi...

[–] [email protected] 11 points 1 week ago* (last edited 1 week ago) (1 children)

Letting the US make the first strike against the EU or Canada (by acting on their annexation fantasies) would certainly be the correct option. The Chinese strategy here is correct to try to pry the EU away from the US.

However, why would this apply to Iran? What greater level of aggression does Israel have to display before the middle eastern comprador states somehow decide to side with Iran against the west?

In fact, the comprador states going to war with Iran to defend Israel would be a catastrophic error for them on a political level. It would be the PR equivalent of the EU deciding to help Russia in their campaign against Ukraine.

Furthermore, the US is actively gearing up to go to war with Iran, which places a severe time constraint on this strategy.

[–] [email protected] 9 points 1 week ago (1 children)

Unfortunately it's been demonstrated to this date that Israel's level of aggression towards the Palestinians and Arabs more broadly is not the primary concern amongst Western states. I think what this poster is getting at is that as the liberation movement continues to push back on the terror, the Israeli economy will be further disrupted, exports will fall, and Israel will have no alternative but to continue their Lebensraum towards Turkey in order to inject more money into their failing state. As they become more overtly expansionist and schizophrenic in their politics and their exports continue to fall, the EU will begin to lose incentive to associate with them, especially if their new trade partner China leans on them to dissociate. Is the theory at least.

[–] [email protected] 9 points 1 week ago

The problem for Iran is that

  1. The US wants to invade them ASAP
  2. No member of the imperialist bloc will conceivably help Iran in the near future

At best, you might have a back and forth of missle exchanges between Turkey and Israel that the imperialist bloc works to de-escalate (just like it did with Iran last year)

[–] [email protected] 10 points 1 week ago* (last edited 1 week ago)