6 ms·

> If US allies are doing a full 180 because a democratic country elected someone a bit different (...) The Trump administration is threatening countries with a

> If US allies are doing a full 180 because a democratic country elected someone a bit different (...) The Trump administration is threatening countries with annexation and retaliation. Elections isn't a magic powder that you sprinkle onto anything to make it good. Even Hitler was elected. And so was Trump. If you elect a fascist dictator who threatens multiple neighbors with annexation and war, specially staunch allies, of course that the whole world automatically grows cold on you. You are a threat and you are threatening everyone.

roenxi 2y ago
You'll notice the election of Hitler didn't have much of an effect on German relations either; they re-fought the same war that they'd been fighting 20 years earlier. The big change was just that the Nazi edition German army was wildly effective compared to the version sent out in WWI. The US launching random and unprovoked invasion or destabilising their neighbours is normal behaviour. Look at the Afghanistan/Iraq wars for example; or their strategy of provocation leading to the ongoing eventual proxy war against Russia. If Canada or whoever think they're immune to that because ... who knows what reason makes sense to them then they are being aggressively stupid. They aren't magically immune to US military pressure. The way to achieve safety from the US is trying to convince their military to be less expeditionary, not to adopt appeasement strategies like the US's inner circle of allies tend to do. Although realistically I don't think the US is going to be invading anyone they are close to. The reason these countries are held closely is because when things get serious they tend to fold under US pressure without too much resistance.
- motorest 2y ago
  > The US launching random and unprovoked invasion or destabilising their neighbours is normal behaviour. It is not. In which parallel reality do you live where this is normal behavior? > Look at the Afghanistan/Iraq wars for example; Are you referring the multi-nation coalitions that built a consensus on military intervention? Heck, the first gulf war was a coalition of 42 countries which follow a UN resolution after the Iraqui regime invaded a neighboring country. Is this your term of comparison? And what are you talking about proxy war? Russia, much like Iraq, is trying to annex a neighboring country. If anything, the response is timid. > If Canada or whoever think they're immune to that because ... What the hell are you even talking about? Are you comparing Canada with Saddam Usein's Iraq? Are there UN resolutions targeting the Canadian government? What can possibly go through anyone's mind to even suggest there are parallels? Are you trolling?
  - roenxi 2y ago
    > Are you comparing Canada with Saddam Usein's Iraq? Are there UN resolutions targeting the Canadian government? Yes & http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/3661134.stm http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/3661134.stm - I don't know why UN resolutions would be a factor here. The UN was pretty up front that the invasion was illegal. The US doesn't have time for paperwork. There aren't major differences here. Both Canada and Iraq are sovereign countries, neither done anything to morally justify an invasion. The US has just as much right to go into either of them and if they care about outcomes they should avoid using the military. > Are you referring the multi-nation coalitions that built a consensus on military intervention? Yes. And having a gang assist doesn't justify a crime. > And what are you talking about proxy war? Russia, much like Iraq, is trying to annex a neighboring country. If anything, the response is timid. After 30 years of provocation as the US geared up for war with a country that is, we might note, a neighbour. And we see in the aftermath why the Russian military had real concerns. The Ukraine invasion should have been a close parallel to Iraq. A vicious assault; local government folds and then everybody moves on and lets civilians start trying to pick up the pieces. Instead it turns out that this was indeed something that the US was aiming for and they started ramping up the slaughter because they want to destabilise the Russians. If the US had a history of trying to promote peace and stability among their neighbours then a lot of that bloodshed would never have happened. We're lucky to have Trump back in the big seat pointing that out too. A lot of nervous warmongers in a shambles over that. > Are you trolling? Far worse; I'm empathetic with the poor people who were on the receiving end of US policy and and interested in moral consistency. I don't like casual hypocrisy that gets people killed.
    - mopsi 2y ago
      > Instead it turns out that this was indeed something that the US was aiming for and they started ramping up the slaughter because they want to destabilise the Russians. The US has been the main stabilizing force for Russia in this war, ensuring that Ukraine does not lose while also preventing Russia from disintegrating - driven by the same misguided and exaggerated fears that the US government had when the USSR was collapsing.[1] Had the US wanted to destabilize Russia, it would have had a long list of steps to take to make the city-state of Moscow lose control over its colonized regions, primarily through economic sanctions to prevent Moscow from flooding the rest of the country with oil money to buy loyalties. When the USSR became unable to provide essentials like food and fuel to its population in the early 1990s, every major city and region took matters into its own hands, established local councils to manage essential needs, and outright ignored orders from Moscow until the central government became entirely impotent and ceased to exist in any meaningful way. From this grassroots level, they built a new Russian central government to replace the Soviet one. In the end, the USSR had shrunk to a few office blocks in central Moscow, while the populace had established a new country - the Russian Federation - everywhere around it. The US tried to prevent the USSR's disintegration into self-governed regions then and is repeating the same mistake now by doing everything it can to keep the Russian federal government in control of the entire country. The narratives about the US "destabilizing Russia" are completely disingenuous fiction, hollow accusations with no substance. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chicken_Kiev_speech https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chicken_Kiev_speech

roenxi 2y ago

You'll notice the election of Hitler didn't have much of an effect on German relations either; they re-fought the same war that they'd been fighting 20 years earlier. The big change was just that the Nazi edition German army was wildly effective compared to the version sent out in WWI. The US launching random and unprovoked invasion or destabilising their neighbours is normal behaviour. Look at the Afghanistan/Iraq wars for example; or their strategy of provocation leading to the ongoing eventual proxy war against Russia. If Canada or whoever think they're immune to that because ... who knows what reason makes sense to them then they are being aggressively stupid. They aren't magically immune to US military pressure. The way to achieve safety from the US is trying to convince their military to be less expeditionary, not to adopt appeasement strategies like the US's inner circle of allies tend to do. Although realistically I don't think the US is going to be invading anyone they are close to. The reason these countries are held closely is because when things get serious they tend to fold under US pressure without too much resistance.

motorest 2y ago
> The US launching random and unprovoked invasion or destabilising their neighbours is normal behaviour. It is not. In which parallel reality do you live where this is normal behavior? > Look at the Afghanistan/Iraq wars for example; Are you referring the multi-nation coalitions that built a consensus on military intervention? Heck, the first gulf war was a coalition of 42 countries which follow a UN resolution after the Iraqui regime invaded a neighboring country. Is this your term of comparison? And what are you talking about proxy war? Russia, much like Iraq, is trying to annex a neighboring country. If anything, the response is timid. > If Canada or whoever think they're immune to that because ... What the hell are you even talking about? Are you comparing Canada with Saddam Usein's Iraq? Are there UN resolutions targeting the Canadian government? What can possibly go through anyone's mind to even suggest there are parallels? Are you trolling?
- roenxi 2y ago
  > Are you comparing Canada with Saddam Usein's Iraq? Are there UN resolutions targeting the Canadian government? Yes & http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/3661134.stm http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/3661134.stm - I don't know why UN resolutions would be a factor here. The UN was pretty up front that the invasion was illegal. The US doesn't have time for paperwork. There aren't major differences here. Both Canada and Iraq are sovereign countries, neither done anything to morally justify an invasion. The US has just as much right to go into either of them and if they care about outcomes they should avoid using the military. > Are you referring the multi-nation coalitions that built a consensus on military intervention? Yes. And having a gang assist doesn't justify a crime. > And what are you talking about proxy war? Russia, much like Iraq, is trying to annex a neighboring country. If anything, the response is timid. After 30 years of provocation as the US geared up for war with a country that is, we might note, a neighbour. And we see in the aftermath why the Russian military had real concerns. The Ukraine invasion should have been a close parallel to Iraq. A vicious assault; local government folds and then everybody moves on and lets civilians start trying to pick up the pieces. Instead it turns out that this was indeed something that the US was aiming for and they started ramping up the slaughter because they want to destabilise the Russians. If the US had a history of trying to promote peace and stability among their neighbours then a lot of that bloodshed would never have happened. We're lucky to have Trump back in the big seat pointing that out too. A lot of nervous warmongers in a shambles over that. > Are you trolling? Far worse; I'm empathetic with the poor people who were on the receiving end of US policy and and interested in moral consistency. I don't like casual hypocrisy that gets people killed.
  - mopsi 2y ago
    > Instead it turns out that this was indeed something that the US was aiming for and they started ramping up the slaughter because they want to destabilise the Russians. The US has been the main stabilizing force for Russia in this war, ensuring that Ukraine does not lose while also preventing Russia from disintegrating - driven by the same misguided and exaggerated fears that the US government had when the USSR was collapsing.[1] Had the US wanted to destabilize Russia, it would have had a long list of steps to take to make the city-state of Moscow lose control over its colonized regions, primarily through economic sanctions to prevent Moscow from flooding the rest of the country with oil money to buy loyalties. When the USSR became unable to provide essentials like food and fuel to its population in the early 1990s, every major city and region took matters into its own hands, established local councils to manage essential needs, and outright ignored orders from Moscow until the central government became entirely impotent and ceased to exist in any meaningful way. From this grassroots level, they built a new Russian central government to replace the Soviet one. In the end, the USSR had shrunk to a few office blocks in central Moscow, while the populace had established a new country - the Russian Federation - everywhere around it. The US tried to prevent the USSR's disintegration into self-governed regions then and is repeating the same mistake now by doing everything it can to keep the Russian federal government in control of the entire country. The narratives about the US "destabilizing Russia" are completely disingenuous fiction, hollow accusations with no substance. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chicken_Kiev_speech https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chicken_Kiev_speech