A community for discussing events around the World
Rule 1: posts have the following requirements:
Rule 2: Do not copy the entire article into your post. The key points in 1-2 paragraphs is allowed (even encouraged!), but large segments of articles posted in the body will result in the post being removed. If you have to stop and think "Is this fair use?", it probably isn't. Archive links, especially the ones created on link submission, are absolutely allowed but those that avoid paywalls are not.
Rule 3: Opinions articles, or Articles based on misinformation/propaganda may be removed. Sources that have a Low or Very Low factual reporting rating or MBFC Credibility Rating may be removed.
Rule 4: Posts or comments that are homophobic, transphobic, racist, sexist, anti-religious, or ableist will be removed. “Ironic” prejudice is just prejudiced.
Posts and comments must abide by the lemmy.world terms of service UPDATED AS OF 10/19
Rule 5: Keep it civil. It's OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It's NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
Rule 6: Memes, spam, other low effort posting, reposts, misinformation, advocating violence, off-topic, trolling, offensive, regarding the moderators or meta in content may be removed at any time.
Rule 7: We didn't USED to need a rule about how many posts one could make in a day, then someone posted NINETEEN articles in a single day. Not comments, FULL ARTICLES. If you're posting more than say, 10 or so, consider going outside and touching grass. We reserve the right to limit over-posting so a single user does not dominate the front page.
We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.
All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.
News !news@lemmy.world
Politics !politics@lemmy.world
World Politics !globalpolitics@lemmy.world
For Firefox users, there is media bias / propaganda / fact check plugin.
https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/media-bias-fact-check/
To give an idea of how batshit crazy China is being, the international waters they're claiming as their sole jurisdiction extend as much as if the US claimed the entire Gulf of Mexico as its territory.
There's really no defensible argument, so instead they're being belligerent and forceful. They know full well that they have no rightful claim.
China wants to close international shipping lanes in order to control the Asian market. Right now the United States Navy keeps those lanes open, but Chinese aggression is growing. It's similar to Japan in the 1930s in its threat to expand it's empire throughout the Pacific.
I think they’re probably worried about more than shipping lanes.
Their three island chain policy is mostly secured, in theory, by their A2/AD (anti-access area denial) strategy of land based anti-ship cruise missles and sea, air, and satellite ISR.
But yes, I agree that the ethos that underpines their perceived need of A2/AD is also what partially motivates these kind of moves.
Well, that and their inability to recognize that one the main factors of American power is our alliances, and ability to apply softpower pressure and true alliance benefits to other nations. We don't just ram our ships into there's to literally beat them into submission.
This doesn't mean that the dark parts of American neo-imperialism don't exist and aren't real, they do and they are, just that you can't be all bad bully all the time and still maintain those kinds of alliance based power structures which are necessary to be a true global superpower, or to at least a large enough regional power capable of dislodging America's role in the Pacific. The former being their long-term goal, and the latter their short to medium term objective.
At this point, all of their neighbors hate them. Not like how South American governments dislike the American government, but really really hate them. Many are building up their militaries and reaching out to America to strengthen their alliances, in anticipation of further Chinese aggression and expansion.
China's actions here are imperialism, of a kind. They're claiming "land" they have no right to, and controlling it at the expense of the smaller nations. They've rammed into fishermen boats even.
This is a land grab of international waters and subjugating the nations that use it.
Yes, but there is a rational to their concern around the three island chain. China is heavily import dependent, and a naval blockade would cripple them relatively quickly. They're a net importer of energy, and raw materials, both of which are vital inputs for a peacetime economy, much less a wartime economy. I believe they are also a net food importer as well.
But to your point, yes, instead of trying to bring their neighbors into a regional economic and military alliance, they've opted for the bullying and claiming others territory and territorial waters as their own, which has only pushed their neighbors to seek better ties with America and military armament from the West.
Although, I should add that Japan, South Korea, and Australia are also significant regional military powers and are also strengthening their own bi-laterial ties. Each are also being sought out for greater relations by the smaller Pacific counties as well. Which, again, is all a direct result of Chinese policy.
The irony in all of this, is that China has been the signal greatest benefactor of the post-WW2 globalization, which has been entirely underpinned by US Naval power projection.
Arguably they would be in a safer position if they didn't try to control those waters. A blockade would've stopped Chinese imports, yes, but it also would've stopped Chinese exports. And their exports play a significant role in the global economy and international trade. They really didn't need to secure the area militarily because they had economically guaranteed a blockade would be broken.
This is pure speculation, but I think their belligerence may be what prevents them from rising to a superpower.
This doesn't mean that the dark parts of American neo-imperialism don't exist and aren't real, they do and they are, just that you can't be all bad bully all the time and still maintain those kinds of alliance based power structures which are necessary to be a true global superpower, or to at least a large enough regional power capable of dislodging America's role in the Pacific. The former being their long-term goal, and the latter their short to medium term objective. At this point, all of their neighbors hate them.
This is what I try to explain to some of my tankie friends who myopically utilize Lenin's definition of imperialism, where imperialism can only be conducted by capitalist nations.
If the definition of imperialism you utilize completely precludes yourself from being labeled as an imperialist, despite having the same material motivation, and despite requiring the same actions and reactions........then you're just doing imperialism and calling it another name.
“Soft Allies” is annoyingly relevant here. My girlfriend is an officer in the Philippine Air Force. She was denied a U.S. tourism visa twice to come visit me. In the meantime, half of her unit was just sent to Hawaii for a multi month joint training exercise. So she can’t come here to travel and try American food with me or go to Disney World or whatever, but at any point she could be sent to a military base here for defense purposes.
That's very frustrating, but a military training appointment is much different than a holiday trip
They are different, yes. One could make the case that if you're willing to give your life fighting to defend a foreign ally's country they should celebrate you and welcome you to visit their country as well
I think it's totally sensible to give military members of allied nations permanent visas for the US, for exactly why you say.
No... that's not realistic.
There are visa requirements and exclusions for reasons. Being an enlisted soldier in a foreign army can't, and shouldn't, make you automatically exempt from them, simply because that country is an ally.
You're assuming that something about being a soldier makes you above the law, or precludes them from having any quality that a foreign county would feel makes them ineligible for visa entry.
I'm not saying that America's immigration system isn't flawed, or that this one guys GF isn't getting a raw deal. Just that you don't know the details of this case, and you definitely shouldn't assume that every soldier in a foreign military is someone who should automatically be granted visa entry simply because their country may have some sort of military alliance with your country.
Yeah I don’t think in any way she should automatically be granted a permanent visa. It’s just frustrating because she checks all the boxes they are looking for.
She’s never committed a crime, has plenty of money to fund her trip here, owns property in the Phillipines, has elderly parents, siblings, pets, she cares for back home that rely on her. She’s demonstrated strong ties to her home nation with those things and her decade long service in the military. So she clearly has intention to come visit here and then go back home before her tourism visa expires.
When they deny you, you just get a sheet of paper with like 50 possible reasons you could have been denied without saying which one(s) it is, and there’s no appeal process, you just have to schedule another appointment, pay the US gov hundreds of dollars to apply again, and then wait another 9 months for an appointment to open up.
Dude that's so frustrating, that sucks. Is the wait for an interview for a visitor visa to the US still like 9 months?
I was in a similar situation for a while. It sucks.
I’m not sure at this point. I’ve been to the Phillipines to visit her a few times, and we’re not planning on going the tourist visa route again. We are planning a trip to Japan early next year, and I’ll propose to her there. From that point we’ll begin the K1 visa process
Is it about the shipping lanes or keeping US Navy out?
It's not about keeping the US navy out, it's about having an open lane for Chinese ships to get into the Pacific. The entire Chinese cosst is boxed in by islands (and South Korea) that are staunchly pro-US. World powers have always been willing to fight in order to secure their access to foreign markets and secure trade routes.
What's crazy is they didn't need to do any of this to get that. They could've opted for peaceful cooperation and diplomacy. But instead, they're using force. Their neighbors loathe them for it, and they're turning to the US for help. They have created a situation where the countries nearest to them are firmly on their rival's side.
Putin made this exact same mistake. Instead of trying to build friendships with the countries he wanted to stay in the Russian sphere of influence, he chose to force them into submission.
It would be great for everyone if The USA and China didn't go to war.
It would also be great if China stopped fucking around.
If the good folks on Lemmygrad or Lemmy.ml could read they would be very upset at this comment.
If there's one thing you can never accuse a tankie of it's being illiterate, because they'll gladly write an essay on why you're a Nazi sympathizer for saying it.
Fuck around is done, soon they're gonna be finding out
Don't worry, the last time we pledged to defend the Philippines it turns out we lied.
I dunno, maybe we hit the old reset button. This shit (life in general on Earth) has gotten a bit out of control and stale at the same time.
Source?
Ultron, I believe, is his source.
There's too many assholes.
After binge watching Madam Secretary, a 4+ year old prime time CBS drama, which itself is based on events about 15 years ago, it's hard to parse what's real and what's based on real events when things that happened in the show happen in reality so much later. The show got sooo much wrong, but when it lines up with real events it makes my brain itchy.
This is the best summary I could come up with:
President Ferdinand Marcos Jr. called an emergency meeting with the defense secretary and other top military and security officials to discuss the latest hostilities in the disputed waters.
After the meeting, Defense Secretary Gilberto Teodoro blasted China in a news conference for resorting to “brute force” that he said endangered Filipino crew members and for twisting the facts to conceal its aggression.
Beijing is hosting the three-day negotiations starting Monday, two Philippine officials told The Associated Press on condition of anonymity because of a lack of authority to publicly discuss details of the talks.
The Chinese coast guard on Sunday blamed the Philippine vessels for causing the collisions and said the Filipinos were carrying construction materials to strengthen their outpost at the shoal.
Washington renewed a warning that it’s obligated to defend the Philippines under a 1951 Mutual Defense Treaty if Filipino forces, ships and aircraft come under an armed attack, including “those of its coast guard — anywhere in the South China Sea.”
It blamed the dangerous maneuvers by China’s ships for the collisions and added that they “violated international law by intentionally interfering with the Philippine vessels’ exercise of high seas freedom of navigation.”
The original article contains 873 words, the summary contains 196 words. Saved 78%. I'm a bot and I'm open source!
Time to deploy the USS Put That Thing Back Where It Came From Or So Help Me
The musical? We still need ushers.
We're spreading ourselves thin.
Our overbloated defense budget was designed for this exactly
No they aren’t
I guess after leaving Afghanistan we've been too long without going to a war.
Statements like this don’t encourage war, they prevent it