Comments by "Persona" (@ArawnOfAnnwn) on "The Return of the CENTRAL EMPIRE? How CHINA CHALLENGES the US military - VisualPolitik EN" video.
-
8
-
7
-
7
-
6
-
@toddbrackett4277 Consider military spending per capita. That adjusts for economy size, allowing nations with smaller economies to rise up and hence showing just how militarily inclined they really are. Well when you measure that you find that not only does the US have the highest total expenditure (by a huge margin, as shown in the video), but also it comes 2nd in the world in terms of per capita expenditure (only narrowly beaten by Israel, whose commitment to its army is far more understandable given its existential vulnerability). By contrast China comes in 58th place, behind Azerbaijan! For context, Russia comes in at 25th rank per capita. The US doesn't just have the largest economy - it really is VERY militarist. That's also why despite China, like most other strong nations, only having about half a dozen foreign bases, the US has over 800 of them. America spends lavishly on its military despite being in one of the safest geopolitical circumstances in the world (two massive oceans on either side, two weak neighbours above and below, and plentiful resources within) and having not experienced war in its heartland in over 150 years...
5
-
@andihuang8638 You don't understand it because you're blinded by that silly 'better country' rhetoric. You could make multiple countries better without any war with all that money. You don't engage in a war that's killed hundreds of thousands of people (Muslims btw, which puts the death toll far higher than China's death toll against Muslims in Xinjiang) and then pretend you're making a 'better country' lol. War has always sought to give itself some sort of moral legitimacy, and Afghanistan is no different. This is just the modern version of white man's burden, updated to suit modern sensibilities. No one just "kills everyone" lol! Not only would you be an international pariah, but what is the point? What do you gain out of that? War is about accomplishing political objectives, not just depopulating places. That just turns those regions into empty wastelands that serves no one's ends. That means that a key part of this war was winning the peace, not just the war. They needed to establish a new status quo.
The real reason they spent so much time and money there is to stabilize a client regime. That's hegemony 101. The US doesn't need territory, it needs client states. The USSR did the same. And the loss of said client state constitutes a loss on that strategic objective. Blaming the Afghans is just a way of avoiding owning up to that. The new govt. was set up by America. The new army was set up by America. Both collapsed. A leader is responsible for the things he sets up, he doesn't get to palm everything off onto others if things happen to go south. Which doesn't stop plenty of leaders from trying to do just that, as well entire states trying to do it as well in the case of Afghanistan.
The US failed to stabilize a new status quo. That is a clear strategic loss. And Afghanistan lost hundreds of thousands of people in the process, and ultimately wound up in the hands of the very people the US went in to oust. That is not better.
As for a war between the US and China, hardly likely to be an all out war. Neither country wants that, as it would decimate both and send the globe spiralling into chaos. More likely it'll be a naval conflict in the South China Sea, where the US has a superior navy but China has the home field advantage (as did the Taliban btw).
5
-
4
-
4
-
2
-
2
-
1