Think of it as the most momentous military planning on Earth right now.
Who’s even paying attention, given the eternal changing of the guard at the White House, as well as the latest in tweets, sexual revelations, and investigations of every sort? And yet it increasingly looks as if, thanks to current Pentagon planning, a twenty-first-century version of the Cold War (with dangerous new twists) has begun and hardly anyone has even noticed.
In 2006, when the Department of Defense spelled out its future security role, it saw only one overriding mission: its “Long War” against international terrorism. “With its allies and partners, the United States must be prepared to wage this war in many locations simultaneously and for some years to come,” the Pentagon’s Quadrennial Defense Review explained that year.
Twelve years later, the Pentagon has officially announced that that long war is drawing to a close — even though at least seven counterinsurgency conflicts still rage across the Greater Middle East and Africa — and a new long war has begun, a permanent campaign to contain China and Russia in Eurasia.
“Great power competition, not terrorism, has emerged as the central challenge to U.S. security and prosperity,” claimed Pentagon Comptroller David Norquist while releasing the Pentagon’s $686 billion budget request in January. “It is increasingly apparent that China and Russia want to shape a world consistent with their authoritarian values and, in the process, replace the free and open order that has enabled global security and prosperity since World War II.”
Of course, just how committed President Trump is to the preservation of that “free and open order” remains questionable given his determination to scuttle international treaties and ignite a global trade war. Similarly, whether China and Russia truly seek to undermine the existing world order or simply make it less American-centric is a question that deserves close attention, just not today.
The reason is simple enough. The screaming headline you should have seen in any paper (but haven’t) is this: the U.S. military has made up its mind about the future. It has committed itself and the nation to a three-front geopolitical struggle to resist Chinese and Russian advances in Asia, Europe, and the Middle East.
Important as this strategic shift may be, you won’t hear about it from the president, a man lacking the attention span necessary for such long-range strategic thinking and one who views Russia’s Vladimir Putin and China’s Xi Jinping as “frenemies” rather than die-hard adversaries. To fully appreciate the momentous changes occurring in U.S. military planning, it’s necessary to take a deep dive into the world of Pentagon scripture: budget documents and the annual “posture statements” of regional commanders already overseeing the implementation of that just-born three-front strategy.
Yeah, good luck with that. I can't think of a single NATO country that would come along for America's wild ride. You would see America kicked out of Europe overnight.
Hunter Hall
The New Geopolitical Chessboard
This renewed emphasis on China and Russia in U.S. military planning reflects the way top military officials are now reassessing the global strategic equation, a process that began long before Donald Trump entered the White House. Although after 9/11, senior commanders fully embraced the “long war against terror” approach to the world, their enthusiasm for endless counterterror operations leading essentially nowhere in remote and sometimes strategically unimportant places began to wane in recent years as they watched China and Russia modernizing their military forces and using them to intimidate neighbors.
While the long war against terror did fuel a vast, ongoing expansion of the Pentagon’s Special Operations Forces (SOF) — now a secretive army of 70,000 nestled inside the larger military establishment — it provided surprisingly little purpose or real work for the military’s “heavy metal” units: the Army’s tank brigades, the Navy’s carrier battle groups, the Air Force’s bomber squadrons, and so forth. Yes, the Air Force in particular has played a major supporting role in recent operations in Iraq and Syria, but the regular military has largely been sidelined there and elsewhere by lightly equipped SOF forces and drones.
Planning for a “real war” against a “peer competitor” (one with forces and weaponry resembling our own) was until recently given far lower priority than the country’s never-ending conflicts across the Greater Middle East and Africa. This alarmed and even angered those in the regular military whose moment, it seems, has now finally arrived.
“Today, we are emerging from a period of strategic atrophy, aware that our competitive military advantage has been eroding,” the Pentagon’s new National Defense Strategy declares. “We are facing increased global disorder, characterized by decline in the long-standing rules-based international order” — a decline officially attributed for the first time not to al-Qaeda and ISIS, but to the aggressive behavior of China and Russia. Iran and North Korea are also identified as major threats, but of a distinctly secondary nature compared to the menace posed by the two great-power competitors.
Unsurprisingly enough, this shift will require not only greater spending on costly, high-tech military hardware but also a redrawing of the global strategic map to favor the regular military. During the long war on terror, geography and boundaries appeared less important, given that terrorist cells seemed capable of operating anyplace where order was breaking down. The U.S. military, convinced that it had to be equally agile, readied itself to deploy (often Special Operations forces) to remote battlefields across the planet, borders be damned.
On the new geopolitical map, however, America faces well-armed adversaries with every intention of protecting their borders, so U.S. forces are now being arrayed along an updated version of an older, more familiar three-front line of confrontation.
Europe likes to act like they're so much smarter than Washington D.C, but in reality they'll do anything they say as long as America force-feeds it to them in bite-sized digestible steps, only reluctantly.
Jayden Young
t. american
Luke Jenkins
In Asia, the U.S. and its key allies (South Korea, Japan, the Philippines, and Australia) are to face China across a line extending from the Korean peninsula to the waters of the East and South China Seas and the Indian Ocean. In Europe, the U.S. and its NATO allies will do the same for Russia on a front extending from Scandinavia and the Baltic Republics south to Romania and then east across the Black Sea to the Caucasus. Between these two theaters of contention lies the ever-turbulent Greater Middle East, with the United States and its two crucial allies there, Israel and Saudi Arabia, facing a Russian foothold in Syria and an increasingly assertive Iran, itself drawing closer to China and Russia.
From the Pentagon’s perspective, this is to be the defining strategic global map for the foreseeable future. Expect most upcoming major military investments and initiatives to focus on bolstering U.S. naval, air, and ground strength on its side of these lines, as well as on targeting Sino-Russian vulnerabilities across them.
There’s no better way to appreciate the dynamics of this altered strategic outlook than to dip into the annual “posture statements” of the heads of the Pentagon’s “unified combatant commands,” or combined Army/Navy/Air Force/Marine Corps headquarters, covering the territories surrounding China and Russia: Pacific Command (PACOM), with responsibility for all U.S. forces in Asia; European Command (EUCOM), covering U.S. forces from Scandinavia to the Caucasus; and Central Command (CENTCOM), which oversees the Middle East and Central Asia, where so many of the country’s counterterror wars are still underway.
The senior commanders of these meta-organizations are the most powerful U.S. officials in their “areas of responsibility” (AORs), exercising far more clout than any American ambassador stationed in the region (and often local heads of state as well). That makes their statements and the shopping lists of weaponry that invariably go with them of real significance for anyone who wants to grasp the Pentagon’s vision of America’s global military future.
Commanding PACOM is Admiral Harry Harris Jr., a long-time naval aviator. In his annual posture statement, delivered to the Senate Armed Services Committee on March 15th, Harris painted a grim picture of America’s strategic position in the Asia-Pacific region.
In addition to the dangers posed by a nuclear-armed North Korea, he argued, China was emerging as a formidable threat to America’s vital interests. “The People’s Liberation Army’s rapid evolution into a modern, high-tech fighting force continues to be both impressive and concerning,” he asserted. “PLA capabilities are progressing faster than any other nation in the world, benefitting from robust resourcing and prioritization.”
Most threatening, in his view, is Chinese progress in developing intermediate-range ballistic missiles (IRBMs) and advanced warships. Such missiles, he explained, could strike U.S. bases in Japan or on the island of Guam, while the expanding Chinese navy could challenge the U.S. Navy in seas off China’s coast and someday perhaps America’s command of the western Pacific. “If this [shipbuilding] program continues,” he said, “China will surpass Russia as the world’s second largest navy by 2020, when measured in terms of submarines and frigate-class ships or larger.”
To counter such developments and contain Chinese influence requires, of course, spending yet more taxpayer dollars on advanced weapons systems, especially precision-guided missiles. Admiral Harris called for vastly increasing investment in such weaponry in order to overpower current and future Chinese capabilities and ensure U.S. military dominance of China’s air and sea space. “In order to deter potential adversaries in the Indo-Pacific,” he declared, “we must build a more lethal force by investing in critical capabilities and harnessing innovation.”
His budgetary wish list was impressive. Above all, he spoke with great enthusiasm about new generations of aircraft and missiles — what are called, in Pentagonese, “anti-access/area-denial” systems — capable of striking Chinese IRBM batteries and other weapons systems intended to keep American forces safely away from Chinese territory.
He also hinted that he wouldn’t mind having new nuclear-armed missiles for this purpose — missiles, he suggested, that could be launched from ships and planes and so would skirt the Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces Treaty, to which the U.S. is a signatory and which bans land-based intermediate-range nuclear missiles. (To give you a feel for the arcane language of Pentagon nuclear cognoscenti, here’s how he put it: “We must continue to expand Intermediate Nuclear Force Treaty-compliant theater strike capabilities to effectively counter adversary anti-access/area-denial [A2/AD] capabilities and force preservation tactics.”)
Finally, to further strengthen the U.S. defense line in the region, Harris called for enhanced military ties with various allies and partners, including Japan, South Korea, the Philippines, and Australia. PACOM’s goal, he stated, is to “maintain a network of like-minded allies and partners to cultivate principled security networks, which reinforce the free and open international order.” Ideally, he added, this network will eventually encompass India, further extending the encirclement of China.
A similarly embattled future, even if populated by different actors in a different landscape, was offered by Army General Curtis Scaparrotti, commander of EUCOM, in testimony before the Senate Committee on Armed Services on March 8th.
For him, Russia is the other China. As he put it in a bone-chilling description, “Russia seeks to change the international order, fracture NATO, and undermine U.S. leadership in order to protect its regime, reassert dominance over its neighbors, and achieve greater influence around the globe… Russia has demonstrated its willingness and capability to intervene in countries along its periphery and to project power — especially in the Middle East.”
This, needless to say, is not the outlook we’re hearing from President Trump, who has long appeared reluctant to criticize Vladimir Putin or paint Russia as a full-fledged adversary. For American military and intelligence officials, however, Russia unquestionably poses the preeminent threat to U.S. security interests in Europe. It is now being spoken of in a fashion that should bring back memories of the Cold War era. “Our highest strategic priority,” Scaparrotti insisted, “is to deter Russia from engaging in further aggression and exercising malign influence over our allies and partners. [To this end,] we are… updating our operational plans to provide military response options to defend our European allies against Russian aggression.”
I could imagine America being in NATO with just a couple of meme countries before America getting kicked out.
American leftists love to bash America right until the moment the future of the US military is mentioned, then they become retarded neocons who see no flaw in US plans (like the glaring fact America's position in Europe is becoming untenable, let alone able to stage WW3 from there).
Luke Thomas
what about the Artic Front?
David Morales
The cutting edge of EUCOM’s anti-Russian drive is the European Deterrence Initiative (EDI), a project President Obama initiated in 2014 following the Russian seizure of Crimea. Originally known as the European Reassurance Initiative, the EDI is intended to bolster U.S. and NATO forces deployed in the “front-line states” — Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, and Poland — facing Russia on NATO’s “Eastern Front.” According to the Pentagon wish list submitted in February, some $6.5 billion are to be allocated to the EDI in 2019. Most of those funds will be used to stockpile munitions in the front-line states, enhance Air Force basing infrastructure, conduct increased joint military exercises with allied forces, and rotate additional U.S.-based forces into the region. In addition, some $200 million will be devoted to a Pentagon “advise, train, and equip” mission in Ukraine.
Like his counterpart in the Pacific theater, General Scaparrotti also turns out to have an expensive wish list of future weaponry, including advanced planes, missiles, and other high-tech weapons that, he claims, will counter modernizing Russian forces. In addition, recognizing Russia’s proficiency in cyberwarfare, he’s calling for a substantial investment in cyber technology and, like Admiral Harris, he cryptically hinted at the need for increased investment in nuclear forces of a sort that might be “usable” on a future European battlefield.
lmao I'm not a neocon. I'm just not going to act like the US is somehow going to magically fail by the pure will of good people like some Hollywood movie.
Henry Ramirez
Between East and West: Central Command
Overseeing a startling range of war-on-terror conflicts in the vast, increasingly unstable region stretching from PACOM’s western boundary to EUCOM’s eastern one is the U.S. Central Command.
For most of its modern history, CENTCOM has been focused on counterterrorism and the wars in Iraq, Syria, and Afghanistan in particular. Now, however, even as the previous long war continues, the Command is already beginning to position itself for a new Cold War-revisited version of perpetual struggle, a plan — to resurrect a dated term — to contain both China and Russia in the Greater Middle East.
In recent testimony before the Senate Armed Services Committee, CENTCOM commander Army General Joseph Votel concentrated on the status of U.S. operations against ISIS in Syria and against the Taliban in Afghanistan, but he also affirmed that the containment of China and Russia has become an integral part of CENTCOM’s future strategic mission: “The recently published National Defense Strategy rightly identifies the resurgence of great power competition as our principal national security challenge and we see the effects of that competition throughout the region.”
Through its support of the Syrian regime of Bashar al-Assad and its efforts to gain influence with other key actors in the region, Russia, Votel claimed, is playing an increasingly conspicuous role in CENTCOM’s AOR. China is also seeking to enhance its geopolitical clout both economically and through a small but growing military presence. Of particular concern, Votel asserted, is the Chinese-managed port at Gwadar in Pakistan on the Indian Ocean and a new Chinese base in Djibouti on the Red Sea, across from Yemen and Saudi Arabia. Such facilities, he claimed, contribute to China’s “military posture and force projection” in CENTCOM’s AOR and are signals of a challenging future for the U.S. military.
This shit wouldn't be so god damn interesting if they didn't make it so fucking funny
Jackson Rivera
Lamo.
Levi Powell
Under such circumstances, Votel testified, it is incumbent upon CENTCOM to join PACOM and EUCOM in resisting Chinese and Russian assertiveness. “We have to be prepared to address these threats, not just in the areas in which they reside, but the areas in which they have influence.” Without providing any details, he went on to say, “We have developed… very good plans and processes for how we will do that.”
What that means is unclear at best. But despite Donald Trump’s campaign talk about a U.S. withdrawal from Afghanistan, Iraq, and Syria once ISIS and the Taliban are defeated, it seems increasingly clear that the U.S. military is preparing to station its forces in those (and possibly other) countries across CENTCOM’s region of responsibility indefinitely — fighting terrorism, of course, but also ensuring that there will be a permanent U.S. military presence in areas that could see intensifying geopolitical competition among the major powers.
Tbh, Europe will not support any conflict with China.
Nathan Russell
You mean like how there's no chance the USA is going to join WWII? They have no stake strategic or economic in posturing or even ending the war, in fact it's most reasonable they hold back and keep up the economic boom selling resources to both fronts.
One thing is absolutely certain: The USA will NEVER get involved in WWII.
Elijah Cox
The fact you think this is the situation proves that you've got the typical American military burgerbrains the whole country has. Whenever a topic like this comes up one of you starts disapprovingly cumming your pants about the 1000 year American Reich. Most of the time it's something like how much money the US spends, as if they aren't wasting a massive portion of it lining their pockets and that the world's largest economy's military spending made up of private enterprise coupled with corrupt politicians and lobbyists is comparable to the state owned MIC's of smaller economies. The same happens when US plans to invade the USSR come up, even though they would have got thoroughly fucked in the ass by the immediate launch of every Soviet ICBM followed by waves of mech infantry and chemical weapons.
America loses basically every war it engages in but for some reason American leftists always seem to be under the impression they'll win the next one they start and that other countries will humour them when they start it.
Ian Morales
Doesn't matter if our boys ran away limping like little bitches, we owned the entire country before we ever pulled out.
Nathan Miller
Information seems outdated.
Owen Taylor
This is your brain on America's cultural militarism.
Brody Myers
Good to know whose side you're on.
Dylan Allen
It's pathological in Americans. I first noticed it here ages ago when another fuckwitted US scheme was posted.
Caleb Perez
the cold war is over. get a grip.
James Price
Shut the fuck up
Josiah Howard
Joke: starting a one-front war Broke: starting a two-front war American: starting a three-front war
Dylan Gray
Those two countries America can't get support over? I am convinced. Russia and China are finished. He says, as he disapprovingly cums his pants over a US-Euro invasion of Russia.
Angel Green
So Maoism-Third Worldism is,at least partially right?
Nicholas Diaz
the eu buying all the usa soy china didn't should tell you something. as things stand the eu is under the usa's thumb.
Juan Diaz
I think they're just uniquely conditioned that way. I doubt they're even aware it's always the Americans that knee jerk disapproving support for this kind of stuff which will never fly anywhere outside of the US, even among their foreign warmongering counterparts. It's so strangely unique to them I've had to just make up the term "disapproving support" for this behaviour.
EU confirmed for INTERNATIONAL SOYBOYS
Carson Sanders
wew lad there's so much projection in this post. Syria is literally balkanizing as we speak. why wouldn't the same thing happen to Iran?
Evan James
I don't think you know what this word means. This doesn't really have much to do with the idea that Europe is on board with the totally retarded plan of starting WW3 because America would like them to (which as I've already pointed out only Americans seem to believe at face value).
Bentley Flores
we can bash the fashies after ww3. once they've expended their fashy dollar$ on the war, it will be ripe for the taking and we can lead the workers to unite under a singular communist banner in the final days of humanity before we all die in the nuclear winter
Adrian Gomez
80% of Europe's political landscapes are NATO bootlickers, from center-left to far-right (whether they admit it or not). For Europe to not go along with this, you would need actual popular revolutions.
Evan Hughes
no, I do. it means you're bootlicker projecting your bootlicking personality onto burgers because that's what you europoors are trained from birth to do. but you've been on board with literally all of America's other bullshit so far. why would anything change? there would have to be a direct cause.
Colton Gomez
You can guarantee the moment Europe has potential nuclear war on its doorstep patience for Americans and politicians that support them would reach zero. Even Macron and Merkel are dropping every hint they can towards American withdrawal from Europe. This plan exists solely in the liquefied brains of some senile Pentagon neocons.
Oh, you're projecting projection onto me. How meta. Your replies are becoming increasingly incoherent.
Kayden Anderson
Different poster, but as an American I find this plan to be highly incredulous. Even in the most Trump cucked part of the the year, American could hardly do jack fucking shit to any threat at all and just continued on it's downward decline from power. Hell porky couldn't even get enough people to stop fucking Obamacare, the thing that they have been REEEEing over despite it being literally been written for. I have no faith in America actually being able to threaten anyone at all, and I'd believe that America would lose to fucking Venezuela even if the Americans themselves went down there to aid Colombia and Brazil.
Jonathan Howard
my position hasn't changed since . I just re-worded my thesis.
Aaron Scott
The US can't even get Europe to back it in bullying Iran, and they were getting told to fuck off as early as "Syrian intervention", they're out of their fucking minds if they think the EU would pick a nuclear war with the RF and PRC to… bolster the American arms industry and global power? Absolutely delusional. The EU has already signaled it's interested in creating its own army separate from NATO and there's zero interest in buying American gear because of that. America has been cucked to hell by the French and Germans. I think this plan may just be evidence of the Pentagon suffering from hypernormalisation.
Imagine being this shitfaced in the afternoon. I'm jealous.
Logan Morris
And every time you try to "reword your thesis" you only succeed in making it sound even more ridiculous.
That's neither how you spell oil or opium, or petrodollar, or intelligence dominated black market. OK THAT'S FINE Let me tune my whistle to fit your narrative; you lads are just as bad as the faggots on Zig Forums.
That means that the USA sent soldiers to their miserable deaths intentionally and are horrible people, exactly like you want the narrative to be presented to you.
It however does not mean the American incursion into Vietnam was not a resounding success. Go look at Afghanistan, thousands of troops dead for "seemingly no reason" LOL WE LOST GUYS MAKE SURE YOU TELL CHINA WE LOST LOL
Lincoln Cruz
You don't have to respect the fact that I'm right bro, I'll still respect the fact that you're GAY
Caleb Torres
I'm mocking the post before me lol
Adrian Edwards
Macron's approval rating is in the shitter and Merkel is retiring.
Blake Jones
Macron's approval has always been shit, he still became president or whatever the French have. wrt Merkel, are you going to tell me the CDU or SDP won't engage in profitable shittery?
Matthew Anderson
SDP has more or less became dethroned in the recent years. The issue is with AfD and Grune.
God forbid the CDU deal with a reaction to their stupid attempts to fix their population crisis.
Gavin Davis
wait hold up they actually said a lot of this shit yeah this isn't going to turn out well
Austin Hall
The EU and UK are definitely not down to fuck. The EU wants its own army to make itself independent of the USA and the UK would riot tomorrow if WW3 was declared. It's a joke plan.
Kayden Davis
Yeah, the british elite massively underestimate how non-interventionist the british public is: even the reactionary gammon are against aggressive military conflicts. It's literally only the liberals that want wars.
Andrew Gonzalez
They just about pushed through drones for killing British terrorists in ISIS held Syria, to much outrage.
Jose Reyes
Neoliberalism is not threatened in any way in its hegemony yet. There is no debate in the political environment or the media. The faces are irrelevant.
Camden Ward
Oh hello public. Here are our OC military plans for global war to raze the Earth for the charred remains to be colonized by elite interests. Pls don't steal or show to chinese ppl
Winning wars is bad, you stop making money. Permanent Warfare is the key.
Aaron Miller
Enjoy your halal holiday season faggots.
Michael Thompson
This is article not about waging war against China and Russia but about contamination of Russia and China to weaken their position and to deter any future conflicts with them. And to keep Pacific, European and Middle Eastern vassal states under American control by playing Eurasian countries against each other instead of them uniting against USA hegemony.
Anthony Howard
This is why nations need to be abolished and world government be established with a global military which can crush any little appearance of divisive tribalist garbage.
Brandon Peterson
The Grand Chessboard: American Primacy and Its Geostrategic Imperatives (1997) is one of the major works of Zbigniew Brzezinski. Brzezinski graduated with a PhD from Harvard University in 1953 and became Professor of American Foreign Policy at Johns Hopkins University before becoming the United States National Security Advisor during 1977–81 under the administration of President Jimmy Carter.
Regarding the landmass of Eurasia as the center of global power, Brzezinski sets out to formulate a Eurasian geostrategy for the United States.
In particular, he writes, it is imperative that no Eurasian challenger should emerge capable of dominating Eurasia and thus also of challenging America's global pre-eminence.
Much of his analysis is concerned with geostrategy in Central Asia, focusing on the exercise of power on the Eurasian landmass in a post-Soviet environment. In his chapter dedicated to what he refers to as the "Eurasian Balkans", Brzezinski makes use of Halford J. Mackinder's Heartland Theory.
It would be better than WW3 nuclear war but its wishful thinking that this will happen any time soon. Maybe after WW3 when only one superpower emerges victorious it can force everyone else under its rule. From a communist perspective the preferable option would be China.
Austin Reyes
that seems like global warming would make this even more true.
Of course, I'd prefer to merely be a free human being and equal world citizen in a free world state, however it's unlikely in this century. It's morbidly humorous though that we've gotten to a stage where instead of imagining utopian futures, talk about which hell we'd rather be in.
Owen Phillips
can we make this a thing?
Blake Jones
Liberal fake news. Barring corrupt execs from luxury goods and services is not totalitarianism, it's common sense.
They don't have to, they've already bullied all the European corporations to back out. Unless the EU can make magic work with it's vague special investment vehicle that has yet to be set up despite Trump being in office for almost two tears now, the damage will be done.
Jaxon Gray
I'd like to think Debord may be relevant here "once the running of a state involves a permanent and massive shortage of historical knowledge, that state can no longer be led strategically."
The Pentagon repeats the same exact schtick as 50+ years ago, but without any of the old substance or real understanding. Making a conflict like this needs a lot more bodies, and Americans are increasingly becoming, dare I say, degenerate. The ones who go into these "“heavy metal” units: the Army’s tank brigades, the Navy’s carrier battle groups, the Air Force’s bomber squadrons, and so forth" are braindead and poor and not much better than mercs. Even the 'best and brightest' who would work for CIA/NSA stateside see the gap between them and the working poor decreasing. I see this as America heaping up its funeral pyre, they will drive its military machine to collapse from stress and then Amerigans have nothing.
Read Liebknecht
"I wish I could sit around and think about utopia but instead I have to settle for thinking about killing everyone who disagrees with me" Everyone's favorite leftist
Caleb Hernandez
Rather not. They arrest communists and are stooges for Chinese capital with false promises of Socialism. Say, you're not a dangist are you?
Nolan Rivera
No im not a dengist but i was assuming that communists will choose the most leftist side if they have to choose between America/its puppets and China.
Jacob Thompson
You don't understand. When faced with the choice "War or Decline", capitalist-imperialist powers always chose war.
The war has already started, war in the 21st century has no bounds, and the Americans are already at a pitfall with how the people that would support Donald trump are the few people that would support such military antics again
Blake Ward
High command making changes to war plans and chaining operational procedures according to it hardly accounts for war preparation but simply updating of strategic preparedness. Equating updates to these plains as actively seeking out war is the same as in the context of 1930`s American war plans red and green being acts of war against the UK and Mexico.
Thomas Anderson
I'm just saying the perception the cold war ever ended is wrong, and history is going to spank some liberals again
Andrew Cook
ahhh, yes, war between three nuclear powers. Im sure it wont end badly
This. They would have to start first with Iran separately, but they aren't even finished with Syria in the region. Their regional ally, Israel, is still surrounded by enemies, while their ties to Saudi-Arabia (bogged down in a non-ending, 'conceptless' war in Yemen) are weakening.
The whole thing has so many moving parts that starting it either immediately turns into nuclear holocaust or a complete farcical shitshow.
Brandon Hall
americans are way fatter and stupider than they were during ww2. Also identity politics and racial demographic changes are leading to intense tribalism and low social cohesion . Finally if we learn anything from history…….dont go to war in russia. So unless the american government is going to break out the hyper experimental black budget roswell alien technology. This war would be suicidal for many reasons
Sebastian Sanders
The lands of Russia (i.e. Kievan Rus) was successfully conquered by the Mongol Horde and to this day the modern Russian Federation is the descendant of this conquest.
Are you a bad enough khan to fight and win ?
Zachary Foster
I` m so fucking tired of this Russia never lost a defensive war meme. They fucking surrendered during ww1, lost to the Japanese in addition to being conquered by Mongols and even Polish-Lithuanian commonwealth at one point. Hell they even lost to Prussians in 7 years war and Austrian succession war. They lost the war of the north against Swedish in 1788.
Carson Taylor
Besides both Quantifiably and qualitatively in terms of troops,equipment and reserves Russian federation is worse of than USA. This can be seen the absolute mayhem that their war with Georgia was in addition to current fighting in Ukraine. Hell, EU alone has Twice the number of men in its reserves and in active duty compared to Russian federation.
Samuel Nelson
Hei socdem user, oot ystävälline tyyppi. Miks et oo radikaali ? kapitalistinen järjestelmä mee helvettiin ja tuo ilmastoo sen kanssa mut sosiaalidemokraattinen demokratia ei pelasta sitä
Cameron Richardson
ach, sosiaalidemokratia* oon väsynyt
Josiah Foster
what will be our leftist strategy?
Lincoln Myers
Liityn välittömästi radikaalimpaan vasemmistoon kun olosuhteet ovat poliittisesti sille suotuisia mutta en näe tällä hetkellä johonkin pienempään ryhmittymään kuulumisen olevan yleisesti hyödyllistä työväenliikeelle. Mielestäni on paljon järkevämpää rakentaa niitä työvälineitä esimerkiksi ammattiliitoja ja nykyisiä poliittisia järjestöjä valmistautuen luokkataisteluun kun kapitalismin kriisi saavutaa huipunsa.
Nathan Ramirez
Ah kiitii hyvästä vastauksesta. Ymmärrän mitä sanot. Sun pragmaattinen asemasi on nyt mulle järkevä :-)
