The only thing missing is China laughing in the image.
INDOPACOM is at war on two fronts, one against China and the other against CENTCOM
Israeli-Palestinian Conflict and other Related Conflicts in the Middle East (read the rules in the first post)
- Thread starter phrozenflame
- Start date
The only thing missing is China laughing in the image.
INDOPACOM is at war on two fronts, one against China and the other against CENTCOM
USAID had funded the "White Helmets"
A $30 million contract for the White Helmets has been terminated. While a $1.4 million contact for the organization is still active as it is deemed for “life saving programs”.
Attempts to raise funds from EU donors are underway but won’t be enough to fill the funding vacuum.
A $30 million contract for the White Helmets has been terminated. While a $1.4 million contact for the organization is still active as it is deemed for “life saving programs”.
Attempts to raise funds from EU donors are underway but won’t be enough to fill the funding vacuum.
96 ships deployed in the region, with another 70 underway, which would represent the equivalent of half of the US Navy's Battle Force.
Bruh... The Houthis are looking more and more like a side quest. You only need 166 warships if you're targetting a somewhat strong country... like Iran.
The US Navy has 295 ships, and according to USNI, 96 of them are deployed to the Middle East and Indian Ocean against Iran and Yemen. 25% of the US Navy was mobilized, and 26 ships were identified. Such a large-scale movement is not associated with simple tension or limited conflict. The US and Israel are preparing for a major war, and the first steps and tests of this process are happening during the current attacks in Yemen.
Currently, nearly a third of the B-2 bomber fleet, a quarter of the B-52 fleet and a tenth of the B-1 fleet are deployed in the Middle East, where the last such buildup took place after the invasions of Iraq and Afghanistan.
Well that should help stabilise the global capital markets.
When you play chess, your goal is to protect your King, so you only look at your King, Queen, and the two pawns in front of it. You don't look at what your Rook, Knight, Bishop or other pawns are doing, or your opponent's pieces, because once you start looking at the other squares on the board, you get dragged into a complicated web of unrelated problems. There are so many pieces on the board and diversity, it is too complicated for your brain to handle. Remember how your opponent moved his Knight one day, and then his Bishop the next day. The important piece one day becomes the unimportant piece the next day right? It gives you a headache and you need to lie down. Might as well forfeit the game if it's that complicated. Here is a glass of water.
This is stupid thinking. The U.S. has put a target on China's back and will try to recruit the entire world into the game. So the entire world is the chess board now. There is no deal to be had between China and the U.S. Whether China acknowledges it or not, or wants to or not, other people's problems are going to become China's problems now. That is what happens when you are competing for #1 in the globe, or are targeted by #1 in the globe.
This is dumb. If the US has the entire rest of the world besides China, and China has its own sovereignty, do you really think this is a win-win? What do you think the US will do next? It will use its strength as the leader of the entire world to get the rest of the world to gang up on China and crush its sovereignty. It will not just peacefully leave China alone. You are awfully naive. The U.S. will not make any "deal" with China, in the U.S. eyes, China is an adversary that must be crushed. That is why China cannot give the U.S. the entire world.
In the past, China was weak so it laid low to avoid notice and followed a non-interventionist policy. That is not possible now. China can lie down on the ground as low as it wants, but it will no longer escape notice because it is too strong now. The U.S. is coming for China whether it follows non-intervention or not, so non-intervention is just like trying to defend yourself with two hands tied behind your back.
china generaly followed a non interventionist / isolationist policy for the past few thousands of years so it is safe to say China will remain isolationist for the next few thousands of years to come.
and even when they would intervene they would only do it at their immediate borders in east Asia (eg: the Korean war) when the sovereignty of China was under a direct threat.
you don't need to intervene in far away regions to defend yourself, you just need to build a large strong military for that which is what China is building. personaly my issue is with these small countries volunteering to do what much bigger countries like China aren't willing to do. personaly I believe if you are a country that doesn't exist in east or central Asia or eastern Europe then you should automaticaly ally yourself with the west. don't try to be a hero by siding with Russia or China to try to change the world order or whatever other silly heroic goal.
personaly I always laugh when I hear some of these anti- NATO imperialism youtubers talking about how NATO is dying the EU is dying and BRICS is the future.
in reality the EU as a union proved itself to be far much more usefull than BRICS. the EU offers visa free travel, a unified currency and the ability to work in other EU countries. what does BRICS offer? nothing. if you are Indian can you work in China? are you free to travel to Russia or China or Brazil? what about unifying the currencies? I have been hearing about how BRICS is gonna create a unified currency for over a decade now yet there still is no unified currency and there will never be. there is no way India would accept this level of integration with China.
people here or on youtube talk about how the EU is dying. personaly I wouldn't even say BRICS is dying rather I would describe BRICS as a stillbirth. BRICS died before it was even born. it died the moment it was decided that a country that leans towards the west like India would join. and when a non interventionst / isolationist country like China joined. this only leaves Russia but Russia is not capable enough to change the world order.
then you have NATO which even though it has a very large number of members (30 nations) including some countries that hate each other like Greece & Turkey yet it has managed to unify the foreign policy of the organization not completely but still much more than BRICS or the SCO could ever dream of. not only that but offers actual real protection unlike the SCO which is just ink on paper. NATO even offers nuclear sharing agreements like what Turkey has for example.
remember Iran is a member of both BRICS and the SCO. so we will see just how irrelevent these two organizations are once the shooting starts against a fellow SCO/BRICS member. India will just express it's concern but do nothing. Brazil & South Africa will condemn but do nothing. and China will express it's concern and condemn but do nothing.
Iran chose the wrong path. a country like Turkey on the other hand chose the right path. if any country (even Russia) attaks Turkey then NATO will go to war to protect it's member. and yet some people with wild imaginations talk about how Turkey may leave NATO for the SCO.
personaly I believe if regime change in Iran happens and Iran is ruled by a pro west regime then Iran will eventually join NATO just like what Turkey did. and that will be a good thing for Iran.