I’ve always thought that if you switch America and Russia/China in most events, it would better fit the narratives.
For example:
America brokered peace between Iran and Saudi Arabia.
America opened up factories in Afghanistan to provide jobs for the locals who are recovering from a war with China.
America is supporting their ally in Syria and combating terrorists supported by Russia.
Russia went to war with Iraq and killed a million people and destroyed all their infrastructure.
The incarceration rate in China is the highest in the world.
China accused America of spying on them with a weather balloon.
Russia overthrew the Libyan government, spiraling the wealthiest African country into a civil war.
Like seriously, switch the stories around and it better fits the narrative we’re constantly being fed. With the view that libs have of Russia, China and America, events would literally have to play out like this if their view was correct.
America is an endless expansionist that has illegally invaded multiple neighbours by force while calling it a “military exercise”.
America has a semi dictator that gave themselves full unlimited power after being elected once and has since then meddled in every election in order to win
America is an endless expansionist that has illegally invaded multiple neighbours by force while calling it a “military exercise”.
Yes?
America has a semi dictator that gave themselves full unlimited power after being elected once and has since then meddled in every election in order to win
The US literally overthrew their democracy, and then when elections took place within a bourgeois ‘democracy’ interfered in those too. Russia post-overthrow of USSR could never have become a democracy, the US wouldn’t have allowed it.
Also Texas and California. If we change the point of view of what constitutes power in USA this days from precidency to wealth, both questions are easily answered, specially considering all the elections USA or money coming from USA has meddled with (Chile for starters, Mexico, Honduras, Argentina, Guatemala, Cuba, Libya, Iran, …).
The “territory” you’re looking for is called NATO.
Its members totally join on their own free will, please ignore the regime changes that happen almost always before a country joins.
The only things forcing countries to join NATO are the aggressive invasions of countries like Russia.
They either get invaded (see Crimea, Chechnya, Georgia, …) or join the defensive alliance of NATO so they get to keep at least a semblance of individualism.
NATO wouldn’t be needed if Russia kept to itself.
If you want forced regime changes, just look at all the territories before they were invaded by Russia.
Ah yes, famous invasions during the 90s. Where NATO expanded a shitload after promising not to.
Also your knowledge of these events is lackluster. Gerogia attacked Russia, not the other way around (one couldsay Russia over reacted, but that does not change the fact who initiated hostilities). Chechnya was a civil war (a country can’t invade itself). Crimea seceeded. So all of your examples are wrong.
Oh and Russia asked to join NATO in the eaely 2000s. Got denied.
IF you want to go further back it gets even better. NATO was founded before the Warsaw Treaty Org, the latter was founded after the USSR asked to join NATO and was denied.
You are correct that NATO is a anti soviet/anti russian alliance, but not for the reasons you think.
I’ve always thought that if you switch America and Russia/China in most events, it would better fit the narratives.
For example:
America brokered peace between Iran and Saudi Arabia.
America opened up factories in Afghanistan to provide jobs for the locals who are recovering from a war with China.
America is supporting their ally in Syria and combating terrorists supported by Russia.
Russia went to war with Iraq and killed a million people and destroyed all their infrastructure.
The incarceration rate in China is the highest in the world.
China accused America of spying on them with a weather balloon.
Russia overthrew the Libyan government, spiraling the wealthiest African country into a civil war.
Like seriously, switch the stories around and it better fits the narrative we’re constantly being fed. With the view that libs have of Russia, China and America, events would literally have to play out like this if their view was correct.
Russia is killing people and destroying infrastructure, though. Do you not mind it happening if it’s in Ukraine?
America is an endless expansionist that has illegally invaded multiple neighbours by force while calling it a “military exercise”.
America has a semi dictator that gave themselves full unlimited power after being elected once and has since then meddled in every election in order to win
Hmm, not really
Yes?
The US literally overthrew their democracy, and then when elections took place within a bourgeois ‘democracy’ interfered in those too. Russia post-overthrow of USSR could never have become a democracy, the US wouldn’t have allowed it.
Also Texas and California. If we change the point of view of what constitutes power in USA this days from precidency to wealth, both questions are easily answered, specially considering all the elections USA or money coming from USA has meddled with (Chile for starters, Mexico, Honduras, Argentina, Guatemala, Cuba, Libya, Iran, …).
This post expresses it better https://lemmy.dbzer0.com/comment/9082580
America is when Russia
What
Which do you think applies? The US hasn’t added any territory lately that I’m aware of.
The “territory” you’re looking for is called NATO. Its members totally join on their own free will, please ignore the regime changes that happen almost always before a country joins.
The only things forcing countries to join NATO are the aggressive invasions of countries like Russia.
They either get invaded (see Crimea, Chechnya, Georgia, …) or join the defensive alliance of NATO so they get to keep at least a semblance of individualism.
NATO wouldn’t be needed if Russia kept to itself.
If you want forced regime changes, just look at all the territories before they were invaded by Russia.
Ah yes, famous invasions during the 90s. Where NATO expanded a shitload after promising not to.
Also your knowledge of these events is lackluster. Gerogia attacked Russia, not the other way around (one couldsay Russia over reacted, but that does not change the fact who initiated hostilities). Chechnya was a civil war (a country can’t invade itself). Crimea seceeded. So all of your examples are wrong.
Oh and Russia asked to join NATO in the eaely 2000s. Got denied.
IF you want to go further back it gets even better. NATO was founded before the Warsaw Treaty Org, the latter was founded after the USSR asked to join NATO and was denied.
You are correct that NATO is a anti soviet/anti russian alliance, but not for the reasons you think.
Do you believe history is driven by people and ideas, or material conditions and the interests that arise from them?
Marx reeling rn