"Borrowed from twitter somewhere, a very accurate description of "little senator Marco"
Miscellaneous News
- Thread starter bd popeye
- Start date
IDK man, China won't fit.
Looks like the US is moving to force the Taiwan issue now that their decline is becoming obvious. The logic being that, in order for the hegemon to retain its position at the top of the pyramid, it must make a show of force to would be "traitors" like Brazil, Saudi Arabia, Mexico, and France that their patron, China, cannot stand against the "might" of the US.
We may be moving towards a great war whether we like it or not. These are signals that the US deep state is becoming desperate. And desperate men do dangerous things.
Is he volunteering for combat? If he is too old and infirm, maybe someone in his family could go in his stead? I would gladly go camping for 30 years if he or his family agrees to storm of the beaches of Hualien while recorded by livestream.
supercat
Colonel
Any Europeans worth their salt should understand that the US, which blew up Europe's NS pipeline, is not their real friend.
It's really arrogant to claim that French scholars know more about China than Chinese.
"Wolf-warrior diplomacy" is a hollow accusation.
Syria will rejoin the Arab League soon.
Today's fine example of Western values:
Japan is like one of the Girlfriends 7 (G7) in cult followings who never left instead, fall into deeper love and now having cult leader babies.
what's stopping them from doing it right now? fuck around and find out.
Rubio, Graham, Cotton, Hawley, Gallagher, Romney and Greene should lead the charge in F-35s.
Lethe
Captain
The problem with "strategic ambiguity" is that it is a work of realpolitik from the 1970s. The ambiguity was required because at the time Washington recognised the ROC itself as a potentially destabilising and disruptive actor. If Taipei were confident of America's support, they might be emboldened to declare independence which would sink the whole enterprise, i.e. Washington's attempt to re-engage with China under the PRC.
The problem in sustaining this is two-fold. First, it is simply discordant with generations of rhetoric and instinct on Washington's part. Public figures in Washington cannot now conceive of Taipei as a source of problems because of course a democratic society that wishes to be independent should be supported in that objective. Democracy is good, self-determination is good, America is good, therefore Washington must support Taiwan. These are the same ideological convictions that led Washington to support Kyiv in the path that led to war, rather than unilaterally make, and encourage Kyiv to make, concessions that may have averted it. Realists are much more comfortable talking about power and interests, but I think it is a mistake to ignore the ideological, indeed mythological aspects of these things. American rhetoric is not only a mask for the pursuit of American interests, to a considerable extent these people actually believe what they say.
The deeper, structural problem, one that realists would indeed recognise, is that Washington is increasingly uninterested in sustaining "strategic ambiguity" because it is increasingly uninterested in sustaining a relationship with the PRC. If you have come to view the PRC as an existential threat to be opposed on every front, "strategic ambiguity" starts to look less like a deft piece of realpolitik and more like craven submission to the enemy. And so Washington is walking away from "strategic ambiguity" and openly encouraging pro-independence sentiments in Taiwan. As with Ukraine and Moscow, most figures in Washington would say and believe that they do not actually want war. But they are not particularly interested in avoiding it either.
Last edited: