Because Putin doesn’t have the influence that the media suggests. Trump doesn’t bother to correct the left since it keeps them distracted from project 2025. Greenland and Canada wouldn’t matter if Russia were an ally.
Instead the war is continuing as before which could lead to the end of the Russian regime. China must prefer NATO troops on the Dnieper over NATO troops on the Amur.
Greenland and Canada aren’t about countering a Russian military threat. Both are NATO members with US bases in them. The Russian threat to the US was much larger during the cold war and yet the US didn’t annex them back then. This is about force projection in the arctic. Control of both the NW passage and the Panama canal would increase US leverage on the world stage, including on their so-called allies. Local resources are most likely of interst as well. Even then, I suspect that a large portion is just rhetoric to stoke up visions of grandeur and might among his supporters, since that would track pretty closely with how fascist regiemes have operated in the past.
I admit that “current de facto US ally #1” might be a bit strongly put, but it’s not like the bar would be too high at this point. They do get along well enough. Putin isn’t dumb enough to antagonize the US president who is more useful than any of his predesecors in a long time.
A NATO occupation of Russia, be that through overt means or a friendly coup, would still be incredibly expensive and thus politically unpopular across the board. Also Trump is all about pretending to be the peacemaker when it comes to Ukraine and Russia, so this would never go forward barring a major restructuring of NATO where the US is booted out or at least knocked down a peg from their current hegemonic position. Both seem unlikely to say the least.
The way I see it, China is just trying to position itself as a force for reason and making the most out of recent US shortcomings in soft power projection by exercising its own to fill that vacum.
No I do not believe that. I was talking about NATO troops in Russia, which could in theory also happen through a coup and a new government more alligned with the west. Even then I find it hard to believe that there would be “NATO troops on the Amur” as you put it.
For the sake of clarity I will say that I was referring to the hegemonic position the US has within NATO. This is the result of them simply being a trusted ally with the largest military on the planet. The latter isn’t about to change soon and the former would require very little effor, but the Trump adminstration seems to be doing it’s best to demolish the trust between the US and its allies. (Soft power protip #1: Don’t threaten your allies with invasion!)
Why would they wish to stabilize the current de facto US ally #1?
Because Putin doesn’t have the influence that the media suggests. Trump doesn’t bother to correct the left since it keeps them distracted from project 2025. Greenland and Canada wouldn’t matter if Russia were an ally.
Instead the war is continuing as before which could lead to the end of the Russian regime. China must prefer NATO troops on the Dnieper over NATO troops on the Amur.
Greenland and Canada aren’t about countering a Russian military threat. Both are NATO members with US bases in them. The Russian threat to the US was much larger during the cold war and yet the US didn’t annex them back then. This is about force projection in the arctic. Control of both the NW passage and the Panama canal would increase US leverage on the world stage, including on their so-called allies. Local resources are most likely of interst as well. Even then, I suspect that a large portion is just rhetoric to stoke up visions of grandeur and might among his supporters, since that would track pretty closely with how fascist regiemes have operated in the past.
I admit that “current de facto US ally #1” might be a bit strongly put, but it’s not like the bar would be too high at this point. They do get along well enough. Putin isn’t dumb enough to antagonize the US president who is more useful than any of his predesecors in a long time.
A NATO occupation of Russia, be that through overt means or a friendly coup, would still be incredibly expensive and thus politically unpopular across the board. Also Trump is all about pretending to be the peacemaker when it comes to Ukraine and Russia, so this would never go forward barring a major restructuring of NATO where the US is booted out or at least knocked down a peg from their current hegemonic position. Both seem unlikely to say the least.
The way I see it, China is just trying to position itself as a force for reason and making the most out of recent US shortcomings in soft power projection by exercising its own to fill that vacum.
You believe that NATO without the USA would fight a war against Russia?
No I do not believe that. I was talking about NATO troops in Russia, which could in theory also happen through a coup and a new government more alligned with the west. Even then I find it hard to believe that there would be “NATO troops on the Amur” as you put it.
How else could the USA preserve their hegemonic position?
For the sake of clarity I will say that I was referring to the hegemonic position the US has within NATO. This is the result of them simply being a trusted ally with the largest military on the planet. The latter isn’t about to change soon and the former would require very little effor, but the Trump adminstration seems to be doing it’s best to demolish the trust between the US and its allies. (Soft power protip #1: Don’t threaten your allies with invasion!)
What Trump is doing doesn’t make sense. But it also doesn’t make sense that the elite accepts the loss of softpower without organizing an impeachment.