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?
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.
It's simple, if the US stopped, the empire would fall, and then the evil China takes over. Silly tankie.
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.
Thank you to my high school modern history teacher who was also the football coach for telling my about the Turkey nukes during the unit on the cold war, and also for showing us how to flick a coin like a tiny frisbee
It's fine when we do it but not when they do it.
Western brain in action.
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.
“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 🤔
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
"don't overcoming to ukraine and spread yourself too thin"
Site tagline and Volcel bit quote all in one!
Pretty shitty to have to admit autocorrect punched up my comment.
All hail the robot overlords.
like everything else. Usians unironically believe that simce the US is always invading (or "intervening") other countries. They just assume its normal.
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.
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.
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.
ISW is staffed almost entirely by washed-up Iraq war ghouls like Liz Cheney and David Petraeus, looking to quench their bloodthirst with another imperial adventure.
So yes, they are naturally in favor of shutting the southern border.
"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.
"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
This is a real nothingburger article. It's literally just "The US was hoping it would win this war it started, because losing will cost them more."
And of course they throw in China there, which gets barely a mention in the article (they even accidentally admit that the only reason Taiwan hasn't reunified is because of US meddling.) It's just bog standard "think tank" stuff of "You'd better give the MIC more money, we're experts, so give them more money, they need more money. More."
EDIT: I guess it does detail the US's overall plans once they lose. They will probably make Europe pay huge amounts for "advanced" and very expensive weapons, seems like they'll be pushing all the losses onto Europe. Sounds like Europe's going to have to make some "austerity measures" of their own so the ghouls in Washington can continue to exploit someone.
I expect Europe is very much getting fucked here. I also get the impression that once project Ukraine collapses, then US is planning to refocus on trying to start shit with China. And this is really what these types of articles are laying the ground for. I bet the narrative is going to be that US can't lose Taiwan like Ukraine, so there has to be unlimited military support for it.
Most likely. The difference is that China's government isn't reactionary like Russia's government, so they won't fall for the US's obvious traps. The only way the US can really escalate things in the region is if they cross China's red line, which even their most hardcore allies will find hard to justify (not to mention, it would need to be done without the approval of the people of Taiwan, who wouldn't want to be pulled into a major war with with the mainland)
I guess it'll come down to them either assuming they can handle Taiwan exactly like Ukraine (and fail) or act like China is exactly the same as it was 30 years ago (and fail) I can't see them pressing this issue any other way, because if they did, they wouldn't be pressing it at all.
I'm not really seeing a good strategy for US here as well. China realizes that time is ultimately on their side. In the long run, it's almost certain that reunification will happen peacefully. As you point out, the only scenario where China would react militarily is US crossing China's red lines which will be politically difficult to do. I think the other aspect people tend to forget is all the ways China can retaliate economically against the US.
Would be awkward for the US to start a war with China only for China to cut off the vast majority of US supply chains. Only reason they haven't attacked China so far, they can't actually decouple their economy, despite their best efforts. Capitalism sows the seeds of its own destruction.
Exactly, if there was an actual war between US and China then US economy would collapse overnight. They've been yammering about decoupling for years now, but the reality is that there's no path towards it. What's worse from US perspective is that countries they might realistically move production to are becoming increasingly hostile towards the US as well.
What countries that the U.S. wants to turn to but are becoming hostile to it are? I know that Amerikkkan politicians for decades have talked of moving production out of China into places like India, Malaysia, Indonesia, Thailand, but what countries specifically and what recent developments? I'd love to do some reading.
India and Mexico are the two big ones. US has been trying to position India as a counterbalance to China for a while, but now the relations between US and India are quickly starting to deteriorate. One big driver of that has been US trying to pressure India to stop trade with Russia which infuriated India. Recently US and Canada were trying to put political pressure on India by making public accusations of India carrying out assassinations on Canadian and US soil. India has reacted to this as negatively as you'd expect.
Meanwhile, AMLO has been very critical of US while further strengthening relations with China. US politicians have now even started making noises about US having to go to Mexico to "fight cartels".
India did do those assassinations, but yeah the US and Canada wouldn't have made a stink if they didn't want something out of it
Right, and lots of countries do these kinds of assassinations all the time. The only time it's brought up in public fashion this way is for political pressure.
As excited as I want to be, I advise extreme caution. The Amerikkkan Empire is great at playing the long game, even if not to the same extent as China and Russia. The U.S. is like a fucking cockroach (and that's an insult to cockroaches) that just won't fucking die up until you set your house on fire. A seemingly wounded gazelle is still extremely dangerous.
Dying empires do have a very nasty habit of getting embroiled in huge, long devastating wars, you're absolutely right.
