To be fair, many of the imperialist wars in the middle east have been joint military operations of a certain NATO members. They have not really been sanctioned NATO operations though, with quite a few in NATO in opposition to the wars.
That being said, the distinction may seem meaningless when NATO resources are used by the imperialists anyway. However, the level of material support for the US agression towards Iran has been less than before, maybe even remarkably so.
The point is to be historically precise so that we can identify the development of the fracture of US domination within the imperial core.
Absolutely unrelated, but I love the username, should we get a dwarffortress community going? (unless that’s already a thing and I’m just missing out lol)
Ahh yes, “liberating” a population by bombing them. A policy shared by both NATO and Russia. Both should look at China’s example for an alternative path.
the difference is in why they’re bombing and what they’re bombing – nato/ukraine are bombing the same way the us is bombing iran.
And yet China manages to take the high road with Taiwan, Japan, India, etc.
The difference is not a matter of moral fiber but strategic positioning. The western part of Russia is surrounded by NATO countries over land borders. The capitalist bloc simply can’t threaten China in the same way, and if they could then we would be seeing a similar response.
China made trade groups with their regional rivals, so no, we do not see a similar response. China’s response is rooted in win-win diplomacy that improves the material conditions of all parties involved. It is less a moral calculation and more a material one that creates a moral authority.
Russia was trading (on preferrential terms) with Europe and on especially preferrential terms with Ukraine before the West decided to put up Nazis in power in Ukraine. Then Euros voluntarily cut themselves off from that fountain of wealth in hopes of getting ALL of it through war.
China is the factory of the world, and even then they’re constantly told they’re bad, and that they should be destroyed, etc. The difference is that they’re the most industrialized and well organized country out there so they can call the bluff.
Yes and that is a winning strategy. As another ml account highlighted, war with the global north did not end well for the USSR, which comparatively speaking was much more a peer in terms of power than the current Russia. China’s strategy is the one that recognizes that the tactics available flow down stream from material conditions.
madelinte pendelton postulated that china’s foreign relations strategy is to avoid war at all costs with the global north since they saw how they strangled the soviet union into non-existence and it explains why they’re willing to accept all the pain and simply walk away from all of their investments in latin america despite having the power to push back like the united states does.
Isn’t Brazil part of BRICS? Their strategy isn’t just to avoid war, they are building soft power at a time when the USA is burning goodwill for short term gain (though with Iran the only gains seem to be oil profits).
it is part of the brics, but the united states and isreal have been throwing their weight around in latin-american to reverse the soft power gains that china has made by rigging the electronic voting systems and the election in brazil is already 50/50.
that’s why brazil banned american “election officials” from entering their country a few days ago and the americans hit back w sanctions and obstructing the election campaign on facebook and other social media platforms.
their goal is to get bolsonaro’s son elected so that they can isolate mexico and totally reverse the leftwards shift that latin-america has been going towards for the last 20-ish years.
Actually Russia’s first solution was the Minsk agreement, then their second solution was the second Minsk agreement, then they had a war and during the war they agreed to a negotiation with Ukraine (early on into the war) which America and Britain proceeded to have thrown out
Ooh the libs don’t like people shitting on NATO it seems.
“oh, the middle east? idk why you care about it because there’s wars there all the time for some reason”
I’ve literally seen libs, who when questioned why African countries shouldn’t receive the priority on aid as Ukraine, responded with “I don’t really care about dictatorships”, WHICH LIKE IF YOU DON’T THEN KEEP THE MILITARY OUT AND LEAVE THEM ALONE
Libs will call Sahel states “juntas” “dictatorships” and so on the second they hear Russia is helping them decolonise, not to mention Ukraine is also sending soldiers to help recolonise them.
Invading other countries isn’t bad when WE do it
When we force other countries to invade for self defense, its good to convince our people that other country is the bad one.
All countries are bad. Nation states are imaginary monsters.
Perfect comment for people from both sides to think it is about them, fuck wars
