You've mentioned NATO numerous times. Are you talking about the West in general because NATO is specifically an anti-Russian military alliance. What does NATO have to do with China? NATO is first and foremost about containing Russia. Their strength or lack thereof isn't immediately relevant to China. Not even the most subservient Atlanticist seriously thinks about invading China due to its logistical impossibility if nothing else. The West's strategy for containing China is through the three island chains (Taiwan, Okinawa, Japan, the Philippines, Australia, New Zealand). They already tried to have a NATO clone in Asia called SEATO which didn't pan out much in the end.

Like, you can't be this picky at my above comment while at the same time be this sloppy in your reply. Come on now.

[–] Tomorrow_Farewell@hexbear.net 2 points 1 month ago (1 children)

Are you talking about the West in general because NATO is specifically an anti-Russian military alliance

What NATO is de jure is irrelevant. De facto it is far from being 'specifically an anti-Russian military alliance'. I am going to remind you that it is the same gang of states that recently invaded Iraq and Afghanistan, which make sure that the genocidal project of Pissrael is completed, etc. Among other things, it is the same gang of states that is trying to make the PRC submit to it as a neo-colony.

What does NATO have to do with China?

Literally the enemy of the PRC today.

NATO is first and foremost about containing Russia

NATO is first and foremost a white supremacist organisation that has the maintenance and strengthening of colonial relations between itself and the rest of the world.

Their strength or lack thereof isn't immediately relevant to China

If you completely ignore their efforts to hurt and exploit the PRC, sure.

The West's strategy for containing China is through the three island chains (Taiwan, Okinawa, Japan, the Philippines, Australia, New Zealand)

Cool. And who's doing that? Is it not the gang of the usual suspects?

[–] AssortedBiscuits@hexbear.net 2 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago) (1 children)

NATO is distinct from the three island chains for the very simple reason that the US wants to futilely recreate the Sino-Soviet split (you know, the topic of this thread), so obviously they're not going to have the fuck Russia alliance (NATO) be operationally the same as the fuck China alliance (three island chains). Putting the two alliances under one operational structure would just bring Russia and China even closer together because they would now have an explicit common foe.

Like, there's also the fuck Iran alliance (the Zionist entity, comprador Arab regimes, Wahhabi terrorists, separatist movements within Iran), but you won't see NATO openly get involved in Palestine precisely because that would just bring Russia closer to Iran. Russia has been traditionally pretty pro-Zionist, but the Zionist entity's involvement in the Syrian civil war combined with that Ukrainian cokehead's dumbfuckery has pushed Russia away from the Zionist entity. So, you will have various NATO countries like Turkey and Spain pretend to be pro-Palestinian while other NATO countries like the UK ship weapons to the Zionist entity, but you won't see the entire alliance as a whole push to support the Zionist entity because if they do, Russia will counter this by deploying S-300s within the Axis of Resistance (Iran, Syria, Yemen). (Of course, the IOF foolishly poking the Russian bear by bombing a Russian base in Syria means that Russia is going to get involved anyways, which means NATO will also make moves within WANA as a counter to Russia).

We know they all have the same master in DC, but the agents within these formations themselves still get antsy when they are asked to step outside the scope of their organization. German troops aren't going to defend Taiwan in the same way Emirate troops aren't going to be shipped to Ukraine to retake Crimea. You might have Azov neonazis commit war crimes in Syria or show up in the Hong Kong protests, but actual state assets are reluctant to step outside.

[–] Tomorrow_Farewell@hexbear.net 2 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago) (1 children)

NATO is distinct from the three island chains for the very simple reason that the US wants to futilely recreate the Sino-Soviet split (you know, the topic of this thread), so obviously they're not going to have the fuck Russia alliance (NATO) be operationally the same as the fuck China alliance (three island chains)

All of these anti-Russia states are also anti-PRC and vice versa. They are bound by the same economic interests and collaborate in warfare, both economic and conventional.

Putting the two alliances under one operational structure would just bring Russia and China even closer together

Which is what has been happening lately, and which the PRC apparently failed to recognize last century. All of the relevant states are just free facto subjects of the US.

~~Don't have the time to engage with the rest of your content right this moment. Will Jane to do this later.~~

EDIT:

Like, there's also the fuck Iran alliance

Which also includes NATO.

but you won't see NATO openly get involved in Palestine

We see that every day. We see them run pro-genocide propaganda campaigns, we seem them supply weapons to Pissrael, we see them continuing to support Pissrael via trade in general, and so on, and so forth.

precisely because that would just bring Russia closer to Iran

Which is what seems to have been going on.

Russia has been traditionally pretty pro-Zionist

Can't really comment on if that is true, apart from Russia supplying the Palestinian resistance without a demand from the UN during this escalation, but I am going to note that you previously praised the PRC for being 'closer than ever' with this Russia that you claim to be pro-zionist.

So, you will have various NATO countries like Turkey and Spain pretend to be pro-Palestinian while other NATO countries like the UK ship weapons to the Zionist entity

So, you admit that NATO is also a 'fuck-Palestine' alliance? That weakens your claim that NATO is somehow separate from all those other 'anti-X' alliances.

but you won't see the entire alliance as a whole push to support the Zionist entity

Except, we see exactly that.
Name any de facto NATO state that has provided support for the resistance against the genocide. By your own admission, it's not Spain, it's not Turkey, and we also know that it's not Norway (which is at the very least a known supplier of weapons used in the genocide), it's not the US, not Germany, not the UK, not France. Who?

We know they all have the same master in DC

Which means that these alliances are not separate and that your attempts to deny their geopolitical interests of colonial domination over the rest of the world as being shared is rather silly.

but the agents within these formations themselves still get antsy when they are asked to step outside the scope of their organization

Doesn't matter if they do so.
Also, the scope of the organisation is colonial dominance over the world. It's obviously not a specifically anti-Russia alliance.

German troops aren't going to defend Taiwan

Yes, they are. The moment their USian masters tell them to, they are going to.

but actual state assets are reluctant to step outside

Notably, I do not see you provide any evidence for this claim.

[–] AssortedBiscuits@hexbear.net 2 points 1 month ago (1 children)

All of these anti-Russia states are also anti-PRC and vice versa. They are bound by the same economic interests and collaborate in warfare, both economic and conventional.

This wasn't really true for the EU until recently. The EU wasn't that anti-China and is still digging their feet to join the anti-China crusade. Just look how divided they are when discussing the car tariffs.. Traditionally, they make a lot of noise about being anti-China and pro-human rights while doing fuckall from the perspective of actually anti-China countries like Japan and the ROK. Of course, when push comes to shove, they'll do as they're told in the end.

Which is what has been happening lately, and which the PRC apparently failed to recognize last century. All of the relevant states are just free facto subjects of the US.

They simply made the correct assessment that the US cared more about the Soviet Union than China because Soviet Union was far more economically developed with a much scarier military on top of having status as the world's first worker state. Meanwhile, China then was poor as fuck with a GDR per capita lower than most African countries.

Don't have the time to engage with the rest of your content right this moment. Will Jane to do this later.

I think we just disagree too much to have a productive conversation at this point. I don't think it will be a fruitful use of your time to engage with my points since I would most likely disagree with it anyways.

[–] Tomorrow_Farewell@hexbear.net 1 points 1 month ago

I have updated the previous comments.

This wasn't really true for the EU until recently. The EU wasn't that anti-China and is still digging their feet to join the anti-China crusade

By the same logic, it's also not true that NATO is an anti-Russia alliance, given that, until relatively recently they were fine with Russia. In particular, they even controlled Russia in the 90s, and were fine exploiting Russia as their neo-colony with as little disturbance as possible until 2022.

Just look how divided they are when discussing the car tariffs

Do you call this 'divided'? 10 in favour, 5 against, with the only prominent member of NATO voting against being Germany.

Traditionally, they make a lot of noise about being anti-China and pro-human rights while doing fuckall from the perspective of actually anti-China countries like Japan and the ROK

Except for attempting to dismantle the PRC's access to a market that is important to the PRC and preventing the PRC from destroying NATO's manufacturers while Japan and the RoK keep doing what, exactly?

Of course, when push comes to shove, they'll do as they're told in the end

Meaning that they are in an anti-PRC alliance, contrary to your prior claims.

They simply made the correct assessment that the US cared more about the Soviet Union than China

And the evidence for the correctness of that assessment is what, exactly?
Also, how does it follow from that assessment that the PRC should have sabotaged both the USSR and other countries anti-colonial struggles?

Meanwhile, China then was poor as fuck with a GDR per capita lower than most African countries

Yes, that's kind of an expected consequence of decades of warfare, genocide, and victimisation by colonialism.
Notably, the PRC sabotaged other countries struggle against colonialism and genocide. Not sure how that was supposed to help the PRC with the problem you just outlined.