It's not stupid. It's bold and almost risk-free. The US aren't the only people allowed to do proxy wars.
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.
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.
Just those two factors amount to material risk.
Plus they would push western unity to an all time high. The US foreign policy would be perfectly aligned across party lines against China.
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.
Wouldn’t the article indicate otherwise?