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.
Short term this would wreck western economies worse than the 2007 crisis.
Long term, it would be the end of China and give a massive boost to western economies. In the mainland it would mean massive stagnation/industry collapse as manufacturing is moved to pro-western southeast Asian countries. Millions of unemployed and unmarried (thanks to out of control population control policies) aggressive young man roaming the country with no hope to emigrate thanks to sanctions. Add food insecurity to the mix, since some countries exporting food to China might re-consider their allegiances not to get sanctioned as well and it would spell disaster for the regime.
High net worth individuals getting their foreign assets seized for double allegiance in the west would provide relief to native home buyers and free so much capital to be spent on consumptions good, to soften the blow of higher production costs because of re-shoring.
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 situation from the perspective of a hypothetical Chinese military planner. A destabilised Russia would potentially have a colour revolution leading to a US encirclement on 3 compass points. China would therefore have no choice but to support the war effort against Ukraine.
What US-Friendly states are between Russia and the Donbass then?
And Kazakhstan. And Mongolia. And North Korea. And Belarus.
> And Mongolia
https://www.state.gov/u-s-relations-with-mongolia/
> Bordered by Russia and China, Mongolia describes the United States as its most important “third neighbor.” In 2019, the United States and Mongolia upgraded their bilateral relationship to a Strategic Partnership.
> Mongolia deployed troops to Iraq from 2003 through October 2008. In Afghanistan, Mongolian soldiers supported Coalition operations for 18 years, with withdrawal underway in 2021 in coordination with the planned exit of U.S. forces. Training and equipment provided by the U.S. government support the professionalization of Mongolia’s defense forces and their continued engagement in United Nations peacekeeping operations. The United States military also regularly participates in Mongolia-hosted peacekeeping and humanitarian relief exercises, including the annual Khaan Quest exercise.
Seems like an "ally" to me.
> Kazakhstan
And while not as close, still maybe an "ally"?
https://www.state.gov/u-s-relations-with-Kazakhstan/
> In the years since Kazakhstan’s independence, the two countries have developed a strong and wide-ranging bilateral relationship, jointly referred to as an enhanced strategic partnership since 2018.
> Kazakhstan’s military participates in U.S.-funded military exercises like Steppe Eagle, Viking, Eager Lion, and Shanti Prayas.
---
> North Korea
The Russian border with North Korea is about 20 miles long.
Just like surrounding, the meaning of ally needs changing to accommodate one's world view.
https://www.nytimes.com/2021/10/26/world/middleeast/iran-tal...
> For 20 years, Iranian officials have said they wanted the U.S. military out of Afghanistan. Iran supplied Afghan insurgents with weapons to use against American soldiers. It sheltered Al Qaeda’s top leaders in Tehran. It courted the Taliban with diplomatic visits, covertly and then publicly.
The best I can find is an "enemy of my enemy" relationship, which has never been considered an alliance.
https://www.usip.org/publications/2018/06/iran-and-afghanist...
>For decades, Tehran has supported the Hazara, a Shia minority and the third largest ethnic group in Afghanistan. In the 1990s, the Taliban government repressed the Hazara—excluding them politically, isolating them economically, and killing more than 1,000—during the civil war that erupted after the 1989 Soviet withdrawal. Tensions heightened in 1998, when the Taliban killed nine Iranian diplomats working at a consulate in northern Mazar-i-Sharif. After the 9/11 attacks and the U.S. invasion of Afghanistan, Iran worked closely with the United States and regional powers to establish a new Afghan government free of the Taliban.
> Iran’s relationship with the Taliban shifted, however, as U.S. and NATO forces stayed in Afghanistan. Tehran viewed the Taliban as a useful tool to counter U.S. influence on its borders. It provided Taliban forces with enough military equipment to pressure the United States but not enough to generate American military retaliation. In 2016, the Taliban chief, Mullah Akhtar Mansour, was killed in a U.S. drone strike as he returned from a secret visit in Iran to his sanctuary in Pakistan. By 2017, Russia reportedly used Iran to funnel weapons to the Taliban.
Prior to the war, Ukraine sought entry despite ongoing conflicts, claiming "NATO is the only way to end the war in Donbas".
Since the start of the war, Former US Ambassador to NATO and others have called for Ukraine to be offered membership, despite territorial conflicts.
Depending on the routes Russia takes to get materials and troops into the Donbas, and to protect other routes into the Donbas, we have:
Turkey - blocking entry of north seas warships into the Black Sea / Sea of Azov.
Ukraine itself, which can send missiles onto the Russian roads currently funneling troops into the Donbas region.
Based on the way you write it seems you think this is problematic.
Do you?
It isn't a moral statement, just one realistic scenario that China is afraid of.
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 clamoring to join the Warsaw Pact or kowtow to China.
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
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
Though ultimately this is of China’s own doing. They broke the “don’t interrupt your enemy while they are making a mistake” rule with respect to the US and very rapidly turned the tide against themselves and now find that they are the ones making the mistake and seemingly unaware.
The mistake being supporting Putin, taking over Hong Kong prematurely, and pissing off the Philippines and Japan for no good reason. This has caused Pacific national to rally around America and has caused an American-skeptic Europe to unite strongly under NATO and turn China-skeptic. The whole “wolf-warrior” diplomacy thing was a massive fuck up.
And Vietnam, and India, and every country that borders the South China Sea. It’s like a kid who goes school and buys everyone gifts to make friends but still treats everyone like crap.
Following this then it would make sense for both China and Russia to feel threatened and react accordingly. I would expect the US to react even harder if any of their "enemies" would setup a missile base in Mexico or Canada.
The U.S. and Russia both made security guarantees to remove nuclear missiles from Ukraine following the breakup of the USSR. The closest-to-Russia NATO member with forward-deployed US nuclear weapons is Turkey, and it's been a NATO member since 1952. https://www.newsweek.com/nato-us-nuclear-weapons-europe-site...
The cold war never got hot with US nuclear missile subs in Russian waters, and vice versa with Russian nuclear missile subs in US water.
Additionally, when it comes to geopolitical power things are much more complex than you make them to be. I suggest reading this publication[0] to understand better what's going on.
A few points:
> Moscow claims that missile defenses represent an American perception of threats from Russian nuclear missiles. Therefore these defenses aim to neutralize them in potential conflict. Either Russian missiles would be attacked by a conventional air and space first strike, possibly involving these networks in Europe, or else these missile defenses would frustrate a retaliatory second strike leaving Russia defenseless.
> While these missile defenses in and of themselves are no threat, they represent the first stage of a planned or potential U.S. buildup of a missile network in Europe that could then neutralize Russia's first and/or second strike capabilities as cited above and shift the burden of war to Europe.
> If missile defenses were stationed at these bases, it would create a pretext for stationing offensive missiles there. This would force Moscow to assume the worst case scenario and could cause Russia to attempt to shoot them down leading to a conflict with America.
> These defenses and whatever may follow them rupture the fabric of strategic stability where neither side has the freedom of action or margin of superiority that might encourage it to think it could employ coercive diplomacy or military force with impunity. That strategic stability equation is of critical importance to Russia because otherwise Washington might be tempted to think it could strike at Russia with relative impunity.
> Finally, there is a fifth, and always unstated but critical aspect here. These defenses entrench the United States in Europe's military defense and foreclose any prospect of Moscow's being able to intimidate or reestablish its hegemony over Eastern and Central Europe, and even possibly the CIS. If missile defenses exist in Europe, Russian missile threats are greatly diminished if not negated. Because empire and the creation of a fearsome domestic enemy are the justifications for and inextricable corollary of internal autocracy, the end of empire allegedly entails Russia's irrevocable decline as a great power and, (the crucial point) generates tremendous pressure for domestic reform.
.0: https://www.wilsoncenter.org/publication/352-missile-defense...
As is the standard playbook of dictator/authoritarian apologism, you completely reverse causality here and deny non-authoritarian countries self-determination. The US isn't "executing a strategy" or "surrounding [Russia/China]", it's that Russia and China are engaging in terrifying behavior, attacking and undermining their surrounding countries, promoting a pure might-makes-right and historical grievance narrative, making vast claims over neighboring countries sovereignty with their "spheres of influence" and China's ludicrous ocean claims, and on and on. And as a direct result their neighbors are banging on the door to get into Western security agreements they see as being able to defend them! NATO was falling apart. European military capability has massively decayed. Much of Europe was completely content to make occasional noises but otherwise pursue economic integration above all else. What has changed everything has been Russia and China's actions.
Taking that and reversing it into a "woe is me why is everyone so mean" story is gross.
>While I, personally, agree that it would be stupid I can certainly see that situation from the perspective of a hypothetical Chinese military planner. A destabilised Russia would potentially have a colour revolution leading to a US encirclement on 3 compass points. China would therefore have no choice but to support the war effort against Ukraine.
Here's an alternative thought: Russia just fucking LEAVES UKRAINE. Stops committing mass murder, rape, genocide, child abduction, theft, purposeful destruction of civilian infrastructure, and war crimes in general. That China NOT invade an independent democratic country like Taiwan. That they stick to international treaties and norms and focus on making themselves rich and happy. That ever occur to you? Apparently not. Hopefully "Chinese military planners" aren't quite so evil and blind but of course in dictatorships that tends to not be the case.
You're giving an extremely dramatized version of what China has actually been doing.
> attacking and undermining their surrounding countries
China hasn't fought a foreign war in over 40 years. That's actually pretty incredible, when you think of the fact that most major powers have fought many wars in that same timespan.
> promoting a pure might-makes-right and historical grievance narrative
I have never seen China promote a "might-makes-right" narrative. China consistently states that the United Nations framework is the basis for international relations. That's why, for example, China has never recognized Russia's occupation of Crimea - it's contrary to the UN Charter.
> making vast claims over neighboring countries sovereignty
China's territorial claims haven't expanded in many decades - since its founding. In fact, the PRC has reduced its claims over time. It inherited a bunch of border disputes from the previous government (the ROC), some of which is has resolved through negotiation (for example, with Mongolia, Vietnam and the USSR/Russia).
If you look at the South China Sea dispute, for example, you might be surprised to learn that Taiwan (a.k.a., the ROC) has nearly identical territorial claims as the PRC. I say "nearly" identical, because the PRC has settled some aspects of the dispute with Vietnam through negotiation. Taiwan actually occupies the largest, most valuable island in the South China Sea.[0] The reason why China has been pouring cement on reefs is because it is a latecomer to the scramble for the South China Sea islands, and all the largest islands and reefs are already occupied by other countries, as you can see from this list: [1].
All of the countries bordering the South China Sea have extensive, overlapping claims. The US strategy is fairly successful because it comes in and offers to help various countries enforce their claims versus China. The downside for these countries is that they risk worsening their relationship with China, which is the most important economic partner for every country in the region, and that they might get dragged into a military conflict between the US and China. That's why countries in the region have gone back and forth between cozying up to the US and China.
0. Taiping Island: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Taiping_Island
1. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_maritime_features_in_t...
For example:
> As is the standard playbook of dictator/authoritarian apologism, you completely reverse causality here...
You don't actually know the causality, because it cannot be known, it can only be predicted and believed. I think it may also not be possible to not do this, depending on the individual and their cultural/educational background.
> Stop committing mass murder, rape, genocide, child abduction, theft, purposeful destruction of civilian infrastructure, and war crimes in general.
You first lamow.
It's usually fairly easy and non-controversial to stay grounded when one is working with computer systems (or similar), but when working with large biological systems it can be much harder to remember, which is kind of counterintuitive considering the complexity of the systems is infinitely larger. I think if one is embedded within a system, that might be the differentiating psychological factor?
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., despite China also investing a ton of money in them and being closer to them.
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.
Wouldn’t the article indicate otherwise?
Mexico is optimally aligned, with a shared historical/cultural ethos, and desire for NA stability, too.
Also, it solves a problem; one cannot wage war without pants.
Well, unless you are General Buck Naked...
But my point is, manufacturing is returning to the West, which also has low cost production zones. And imagine, a revitalized Mexico, with the cartels broken, and a very strong middle class.
And I said made in, not assembled in.
I was merely providing additional data, my pants were made on China, now the label says Mexico! Same style/brand.
Where China has an oversized impact is our trade deficit and consumer goods which makes them seem vastly more important than they are. However, that’s also the most flexible with south east asia replacing Chinese manufacturing as Chinese workers become more expensive.
Our trade deficit with China isn’t as bad as it seems because we export goods to countries China then imports from. Hong Kong for example is a 25.8B trade surplus and really should be included in Chinese trade numbers.
I think it's a major mistake to talk about any country as if it's one homogenous, unanimous entity. There are those in the US, and elsewhere, who stand to make a great deal of out of money from war.
2. US helped orchestrate the 2014 coup that overthrew a democratically elected but Russian friendly government.
3. Ukraine, being a US client state, refused to uphold the Minsk peace agreements.
4. Immediately prior to the invasion the US/Ukraine side of the proxy war escalated shelling of Russian leaning parts of Ukraine crossing known red lines.
5. Ukraine has outlawed Russian language, culture, religion, political parties, and jail those who practice them. Which we all know is how democracies function /s
Extreme corruption and mismanagement had a much larger influence on the ‘coup’. I’m not saying that the current gov is clean, but that’s what leads to regime change. Also the election you were referring to was a complete sham, which is common with most Russian supported governments
> Ukraine has outlawed Russian language, culture, religion, political parties, and jail those who practice them.
This happened after the 1st invasion, and not prior to that
However, the US government certainly signed off on pre-war decisions to extend Nato into Ukraine, paying to modernize the Ukrainian military, and Joint military exercises in the Black Sea.
Not being part of these decisions, You and I can only speculate on how they fit into overall US strategy and how the risk-rewards were weighed.
My concern as a US citizen is that the current war in Ukraine seems to be a great benefit for the USA in almost all regards. I am skeptical but would hope this was not a factor in the decisions leading up to the war.
All of this occurred after 2014. What happened in 2014? Everything that is happening in that region is due to Putin and Russia’s own actions.
This is not a great benefit to the US whatsoever. It takes attention away from Asia. The US has been reaching in to its stockpiles and coffers to make sure Russia doesn’t get what it wants.
A revolution in Ukraine where a pro-Russia government was removed and a pro-NATO one came to power. This is extremely relevant.
>Everything that is happening in that region is due to Putin and Russia’s own actions.
To be clear, I am not denying Russia's agency and aggression. Similarly, I don't think it is realistic to say that the US has made zero decisions, has zero influence, has zero power, and zero interests in the region.
>This is not a great benefit to the US whatsoever.
This war has imposed real costs to Russia and has a real chance of destabilizing Russia for the foreseeable future, perhaps breaking it. It is extremally cheap compared to other wars and being fought without loss of American lives. The conflict is taking nothing away from US efforts in Asia.
Honest question: If you were a US military strategist, would you sacrifice Ukraine to destroy Russia? Would you sacrifice Ukraine to simply damage their military?
> I think it's a major mistake to talk about any country as if it's one homogenous, unanimous entity
Not to mention mind reading! It's become so common and acceptable in our culture, we don't even realize when we're doing it anymore.
I swear, this simulation is becoming so bizarre it wouldn't even shock me if one day flood lights came on and we discovered we've been on a giant TV set this whole time.
On the brighter side though: what a show! How will it all end I wonder.
Yes, rarely a day goes by without me coming across a story entitled "Gen Z is $foo" or "Gen Z doesn't $bar" or similar.
> and acceptable [..]
Not sure about that, I stop reading as whenever I encounter such lazy writing!
Somehow we're hearing and making more noise than ever about diversity and inclusion, yet we've collectively forgotten what diversity actually means...
Lazy writing is an assumption, and I don't think it is a remotely safe one.
Keep in mind that there is a difference between the state of mind a person is in at the time they were writing a comment, and the state of mind they are in when they get called on what they say in their comment.
Just those two factors amount to material risk.
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.
The only question now is whether NATO is going to escalate to global thermonuclear war over some foreign country. Seriously doubt they care that much.
Plus they would push western unity to an all time high. The US foreign policy would be perfectly aligned across party lines against China.
Morality.
Sending military aid to a country to defend themselves is not the same as sending aid to a country to invade another.
If this doesn't resonate, maybe this analogy does: giving a gun to a murderer is different to giving a gun to someone who is going to be murdered.
Decoupling will be painful, but not as painful to the US as it will be to China.
Why? We haven't sanctioned the US for the children killed by Ukraine with US weapons in the Donbass.
(And at least here at HN you avoid the most obvious propaganda cliches) https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Where_have_you_been_for_eigh...