The kurds were in Turkeys Whey so a deal had to be done.
The kurds were in Turkeys Whey so a deal had to be done.
Translation: Gotta do what you gotta do in the Middle EastThe Kurds have the problem of having simotainious beef with the Iraqis, Iranians, and the Turks.
Any time you want to make a deal with any of these 3 countries you have to toss the Kurds under the bus. A shitty thing to do but that's middle eastern politics.
Sure but now that the sleepers have been jolted awake and are actually getting more serious about Europe's defense again, why do you consider the next few years a likely time for NATO to collapse when it failed to do so before? Or am I misreading your talk of wells being poisoned? I'd think the coming decade would be something of a renaissance for NATO, unless it runs into very strong headwinds—if the EU collapsed, for example, there would certainly be repercussions in NATO and, without considering the hypothetical at length, I couldn't say with confidence whether it would come out of that stronger or weaker.And now that the russian bear awoke a lot of us are like "We litterally warned you guys 20 years strait"
So you can see after 30 years of this shit how we would be a little pissed off that europe has to play catch up again...
Sure but now that the sleepers have been jolted awake and are actually getting more serious about Europe's defense again, why do you consider the next few years a likely time for NATO to collapse when it failed to do so before? Or am I misreading your talk of wells being poisoned? I'd think the coming decade would be something of a renaissance for NATO, unless it runs into very strong headwinds—if the EU collapsed, for example, there would certainly be repercussions in NATO and, without considering the hypothetical at length, I couldn't say with confidence whether it would come out of that stronger or weaker.
NATO is NOT going to implode.A dead cat bounce is really something.
Russia is the thing holding nato together, not deeper bonds, when Putin dies its likely the place falls apart and once that happens the US is going to want to bounce and deal with internal isssues and much of the rest of nato has internal fuckery too.
Aren't you forgetting a certain massive rising power in Asia?A dead cat bounce is really something.
Russia is the thing holding nato together, not deeper bonds, when Putin dies its likely the place falls apart and once that happens the US is going to want to bounce and deal with internal isssues and much of the rest of nato has internal fuckery too.
Even in the worst case for Russia, it's not going to just disappear in a puff of smoke. If your expectations for NATO collapse are based on NATO lacking any external issues to hold it together, I think your expectations of Afro-Eurasian tranquility are wrong.A dead cat bounce is really something.
Russia is the thing holding nato together, not deeper bonds, when Putin dies its likely the place falls apart and once that happens the US is going to want to bounce and deal with internal isssues and much of the rest of nato has internal fuckery too.
Japan joining NATO makes sense after the horrific assassination of former Japanese Prime Minister Shinzo Abe on July 8thAren't you forgetting a certain massive rising power in Asia?
NATO isn't.
Japan to join NATO summit for first time as China challenge looms
NATO has invited to the gathering the leaders of Japan, South Korea, Australia and New Zealand, which the Brussels-based organization views as its Asia-Pacific partner countries.www.japantimes.co.jp
Japan joining NATO makes sense after the horrific assassination of former Japanese Prime Minister Shinzo Abe on July 8th
We're gonna find out soon enoughUntil NATO says it's elligible.
More a matter of "until NATO makes it eligible", since the missing qualifiers are near-exclusively Russia and China being assholes about territorial claims.Until NATO says it's elligible.
More a matter of "until NATO makes it eligible", since the missing qualifiers are near-exclusively Russia and China being assholes about territorial claims.
Why exactly should we fight China over a bunch of islands in the South China Sea, anyway? Taiwan I can understand since they built a decent, functioning, prosperous democracy, but why the South China Sea islands?
This is a map of China's claims, if they actually got everything they claimed everything in the red would be their exlusive economic zone. That means all of those islands china from the spratly islands they could create air and missle bases that could threaten vietnam, Malaysia, Brunei, Indonesia and the Philipines, their claims allow them to have a missle base that threatens the philitpine capitial directly.
This also gives them most control over a strategic trade choke point used by multiple countries which is why the US has told them to get fucked.
Now another reasion you will notice that the area they are claiming to the south has some of the largest provable oil reserves in the region. If their claims win all of that oil goes to china if they fail then the oil goes to Malasia and Brunai. From an economic, miltary and resource level pushing your claims as far as possible makes sense.
The problem is by doing this China pisses off mutliple countries who now all have a reason to unite against china with outside forces to knock them down a peg.
Because they are strategic holdouts for the fight for Taiwan.Why exactly should we fight China over a bunch of islands in the South China Sea, anyway? Taiwan I can understand since they built a decent, functioning, prosperous democracy, but why the South China Sea islands?
Back in the old days that wasn't called hypocrisy, only self-interest. My ally expands influence? Good. My enemy expands influence? Bad. The only difference is that in some parts of the West national self-interest is something dirty that isn't supposed to be admitted, and everyone else is eager to exploit such silly ideas for own benefit.That makes sense; thank you. Also, I find it ironic that Russia is complaining about allegedly "predatory" NATO expansion into its backyard while having no problem with predatory Chinese expansion into other countries' backyards. Hypocrisy much?
Because they are strategic holdouts for the fight for Taiwan.
Back in the old days that wasn't called hypocrisy, only self-interest. My ally expands influence? Good. My enemy expands influence? Bad. The only difference is that in some parts of the West national self-interest is something dirty that isn't supposed to be admitted, and everyone else is eager to exploit such silly ideas for own benefit.
That's the thing, though--from the West's self-interest, it makes perfect sense to support Ukraine and to aim to expand the Western sphere of influence to include Ukraine:
Contra Hanania on Russia/Ukraine
There is both a moral and practical case for helping Ukrainepontifex.substack.com
Back then USA was not one of the West's leading powers. UK and France were, and Russian Empire was not getting along with them nicely.America and Russia got along just fine before the russian revolution, there were disagreements but the two got on all right.