China's strategy in Afghanistan.

Hendrik_2000 said:

That is not what history tell us from Pax Romano to Pax Britannica once a country wasted their treasury on frivolous war it always end up with the dissolution of decline of that country!
Rome still exist 200 years after sacking by the German tribe. But eventually it is gone!

Click to expand...

Neither Rome nor Britain fell because of frivolous wars.

British empire fell because primarily because britain and the parts of the empire it was willing to develop was small, and it was not able to, or not far sighted enough to attempt to, make the sacrifices required to fully leverage the potential of its rest of its empire to counter much larger and more potent foes.

Rome got past britain’s problem in a way britain never did, but was not able to maintain sufficient internal political stability to resist the pressure of continent wide popukation movement across the interior steppes of Euroasia.

Richard Santos said:

Neither Rome nor Britain fell because of frivolous wars.

Click to expand...

Yes it is! After WWII british basically empty their coffer and has to retreat from their colony

Richard Santos said:

For states which have reasonably stable government largely in control of its own resources, that thinks its own fundamental foreign policy problems are ultimately susceptible to solution by either being on the winning side of a conventional war, or can be solved by someone deterring such a war by conventional military means, America’s withdrawal from Afghanistan would make america a more focused and thus more reliable player.

Click to expand...

Who said the issue American protectorates have is worrying about American focus rather than the shifting balance of power?

Richard Santos said:

British empire fell because primarily because britain and the parts of the empire it was willing to develop was small, and it was not able to, or not far sighted enough to attempt to, make the sacrifices required to fully leverage the potential of its rest of its empire to counter much larger and more potent foes.

Click to expand...

Once again, you're spreading the myth that the question is one of will rather than raw power. Britain fell because it simply wasn't powerful enough to forestall its fate.

Richard Santos said:

There is no doubt whatsoever that America’s fundamental strategic position in East and Central Asia is strengthened, not weakened, by abandonment of Afghanistan

Click to expand...

This is peak western copium.

The US withdrawal from Afghanistan is a strategic disaster for it.

By having a presence there, it had placed a solid unmovable "nail" on China's backyard, firmly blocking it by extending its BRI there and consequently increasing its influence to the whole region.

By leaving Afghanistan it means that China can start including Afghanistan to its plans in order to reach Iran (and later on, Turkey). This is a very important gain for China. Ofc China wont easily trust Taliban so that plan is not happening now but it will definetely be realised in some years with the whole region influencing Taliban to soften their stance and change them from fighters to civilian administrators

Abominable said:

Do you write scripts for tech support scammers?

Click to expand...

What's up with the question

Hendrik_2000 said:

Yes it is! After WWII british basically empty their coffer and has to retreat from their colony

Click to expand...

WWI and WWII were absolutely not frivolous. They were existential for britain.

Basically Britain’s empire was neither a match for a germany that dominates western and central Europe, nor can british sustain event its reduced circumstances without free access to European market that a dominant Germany could easily cut off. So it was existentially important for Britain to prevent German domination of central and western europe by any means necessary.

what did britain in was ultimately, was the core of the empire upon which the sub never sets is still just about 45 million people of British isles extraction. it didn’t try to expand its real population based by incorporating its 300 million subjects on a equal footing to match the population or Germany, let alone the US or Russia. this is why comparing pax britannica to pax Romana as the british are wont to do is such bullshit.

Richard Santos said:

The problem is America is a rich country, the casualties it incurs with its misadventure is fundamentally negligible for a country of 350 million people. it’s real strategic position after Vietnam really does not depend on success in any of these adventures, and a sufficient part of its populous is intellectually irresponsible. So one might say these wars are more like a somewhat irresponsible person spending a bit too much on frivolous entertainment at a moderate cost to family finances, but it is not causing real pain or real financial sacrifice.

where it hurts, from american perspective, is not it is threatening to make america indigent, but it is detracting from america’s ability to invest wisely to keep up with the joneses.

Click to expand...

I beg to differ. America was a rich country during WWII and during the same time as Vietnam, America was fully committed to the Cold War in Europe were casualties projections were made in the millions.

The fundamental issue with western casualty aversion with Asian military adventures isn’t because the west is rich, it’s because it is racists and thinks one white life > many coloured lives.

no, western casualty aversion was just good domestic politics.

The reason why cold war projections runs into the millions is because that was being realistic and there was widespread agreement that putting itself at some risk of such casualty figures was a necessary price to pay for the goal at hand.

the reason why the west is so causality sensitive in small wars or because there is no widespread agreement that the goal at hand is worth a high causality figure, but exlerience has accustomed the west to expect it can achieve many goals without suffering many casualties because their military capabilities allow them to extract a lopsided causality ratio when confronting non-westernized opponents.

Overbom said:

This is peak western copium.

The US withdrawal from Afghanistan is a strategic disaster for it.

By having a presence there, it had placed a solid unmovable "nail" on China's backyard, firmly blocking it by extending its BRI there and consequently increasing its influence to the whole region.

By leaving Afghanistan it means that China can start including Afghanistan to its plans in order to reach Iran (and later on, Turkey). This is a very important gain for China. Ofc China wont easily trust Taliban so that plan is not happening now but it will definetely be realised in some years with the whole region influencing Taliban to soften their stance and change them from fighters to civilian administrators

Click to expand...

No need to accommodate the Taliban unless they undisputably win. If the old secular government abandoned by the US starts winning we should back it on the condition that they take Chinese interests into special consideration. It's much easier working with seculars than extremists.

Basically, pull an Iran and turn a puppet government into an ally. Today Iraq is pretty much run from Tehran despite how the lives and money the US poured in.

you need to accommodate them so you don’t burn bridges in case they keep power.