86
Almost as if the interests of the American people would be better served if America didn't feel compelled to interject itself in every conflict in the world.
Yea the really easy answer to this is "don't overcoming to ukraine and spread yourself too thin"
But I want America to fail so hopefully that really obvious answer remains an impossibility
load more comments
(2 replies)
Again threatening us with a good time, but unfortunately this is probably worth as much as the pile of manure western think tanks were feeding the world in Ukraine topic before.
So i read it and yup, the exact same manure and it's still sprinkled with copium
It would give China the green light to flex its power over a weakened US and cost US taxpayers an "astronomical" sum to pay for beefed-up defense spending.
"Such an outcome would bring a battered but triumphant Russian army right up to NATO's border from the Black Sea to the Arctic Ocean,"
That would mean that the US would be forced to deploy a "sizable portion" of its ground forces to Eastern Europe
Literally every paragraph is crybullying and saberratling. They really get paid heavy money for that regurgitated nonsense?
expand NATO to meet Russia's borders
cry that the russian army is right up to NATO's border
???
Just like when they cried that the USSR put nukes in Cuba after the US already put nukes in Turkey, and a shit load of other countries right next to the USSR. But it's the Russians that are aggressive and militaristic.
load more comments
(1 replies)
It's fine when we do it but not when they do it.
Western brain in action.
load more comments
(1 replies)
What I love the most about these articles is how they just treat the idea that US needs to dominate the world militarily as being axiomatic. It's never explained why this is in the interest of American people, it's just a given that US will have to keep expanding the military at the cost of the standard of living of its people because reasons.
Imperialism is non-negotiable.
It's simple, if the US stopped, the empire would fall, and then the evil China takes over. Silly tankie.
load more comments
(3 replies)
It would give China the green light to flex its power over a weakened US and cost US taxpayers an "astronomical" sum to pay for beefed-up defense spending.
So the excessive military spending by the US empire is China's fault somehow.
load more comments
(1 replies)
“Such an outcome would bring a battered but triumphant Russian army right up to NATO’s border from the Black Sea to the Arctic Ocean,”
Wasn't that exactly what they promised Ukraine lol?
“Such an outcome would bring a battered but triumphant Russian army right up to NATO’s border from the Black Sea to the Arctic Ocean,”
I wonder if not expanding the de facto NATO-Russia border might have prevented the expansion of the NATO-Russia border 🤔
load more comments
(1 replies)
Oh noooo ahahaha don't do that your so sexy ahahahaha
This article feels extremely dogmatic to me. I fail to see how a renewed investment in the war effort in Ukraine doesn't pose the same problem, stretching defence resources thin, that this think tank is fear mongering over. Hell, sending more weapons to Ukraine would likely be worse since many of them will likely go "missing" anyway and Ukraine doesn't have enough men to arm with them.
Right, it's not really clear what the argument here is even. To actually win in Ukraine would also require a phenomenal investment, and frankly it's pretty clear that US doesn't have a path to win in Ukraine regardless how much money it dumps into this war at this point. So, if US can't win in Ukraine then the article is really just setting up the narrative that US now has to spend untold billions on its military going forward because US wants to have a war with China next.
If the US can't win in Ukraine how will it ever win in Taiwan? China will mop the floor with it, specially if it continues to be distracted by God and oil in the Middle East. Evangelicals will drop everyone and keep propping up Israel until the US goes broke.
I don't understand what they're hoping for there either to be honest. Any adult with a functioning brain can see that starting shit with China would be an utter disaster for US.
If they turn the country into a war machine they give themselves a chance to reset the board like they did in the 40s. It is deeply ingrained in the US zeitgeist to think this way. It is both profitable for the MIC and synergizes with settler nightmares and our expectations of the US being the preiminent, sovereign, and morally legitimate civilization in the world. The benifit is as much spiritual as it is anything else but the material gains may be more than we think because the only way to bring back a golden age is to, as usual, make someone else pay for it. I hear it from people that don't agree with the US government about much of anything that they are willing to participate in nationalism if it means the US keeps its place on top. We will likely have to find out just how anti imperialist US citizens really are and I assume there will be some disappointment.
Thing is that doing that would require massive government intervention, and that's just not possible in the current political climate. Just look at how the whole CHIPS act is going, rebuilding domestic industry to support a MIC that could take on China would require an effort that's orders of magnitude bigger than that. On top of that, there are demographic limitations here as well. You need an education system that can produce skilled workers, you need people who can operate factories, engineers, scientists, etc. It will literally take decades to create the workforce able to build the infrastructure necessary.
Don't they understand that the US already gave China everything that it needs to thrive? All of their current political objectives can be accomplished without invading a dying empire. They don't need to be the perfect trading partner, just better than the US/EU. They have developed their productive forces to be a high quality goods manufacturer.
The US and NATO also drove Russia straight into China's arms for the foreseeable future, securing much of China's raw materials via transit routes that are exceptionally hard to interdict either politically or militarily.
I think that's precisely where the panic comes from. Neocons are starting to realize that China is pulling ahead of the US economically, and it's now a more important trading partner than US for majority of the world. US is frantically trying to find a way to derail China's progress in any way possible.
load more comments
(1 replies)
So in essence, this "Institute for the Study of War" is cudgeling the Democrats to give the Republicans exactly what they want, and totally shut down the southern border so that materiel can resume and continue flowing into ukronazi hands; otherwise "muh China". Am I missing anything here? Seriously, I feel like I'm watching the mask slip off the uniparty's face as the two hands bicker amongst each other.
load more comments
(2 replies)
"If we stop funding Ukraine, Putin will take over the whole country!"
Yeah, that's why the Russians are digging in and consolidating their gains instead of pushing forward. I guess they're planning on walking through those fields they just mined to hell and back... also "muh Taiwan!"
Reading articles from the western liberal press is like stepping into an alternate dimension.
load more comments
(2 replies)
"China could invade another country"
Either they're clueless about the fact that a PRC ROC war would be a civil war according to international law, or they're trying to act like China is going to invade... idk, India? Vietnam? Singapore? Makes zero sense
I don't think making sense is the goal of that article.
load more comments
(3 replies)
The geopolitics of
📽️
What do they mean "if"?
load more comments
(1 replies)
275 (206 New)
Lib wandered in again I see
load more comments
(14 replies)
view more: next ›
this post was submitted on 14 Dec 2023
86 points (94.8% liked)
Death to NATO
1651 readers
43 users here now
For posting news about NATO's wars in Ukraine, Serbia, Kosovo, and The Middle East, including anywhere else NATO is currently engaged in hostile actions. As well as anything that relates to it.
Rules:
-
Follow Site Rules
-
No support nor defence of Western-backed governments, NATO or Western Imperialism
founded 3 years ago
MODERATORS