Comments by "Ralph Bernhard" (@ralphbernhard1757) on "Binkov's Battlegrounds" channel.

Japan making the same mistake as they already did in 1902. Snuggling up to a faraway empire which needed them as a tool to balance out Russia. After fighting Russia (1905) and WW1 (1914-18), the British Empire dumped them like an old useless tool. This time around Japanese leaders thinking that "snuggling up" to the USA and spending billions on arms will actually make them popular with Washington DC.
5
The War will spread. Every nutcase with a cause with take to arms, and neighboring states like Pakistan, and the entire Caucasus will fall into a state of civil proxy war, just like Iraq and Syria turned into sh*tholes after the 2003 invasion.
5
They always promise us a better world, after the next "little war over by Christmas", but first we have to kill a few million others who don't see things my way...
4
@miguelzeballos4269 NATO is a defense pact. NATO has no obligation to assist the USA if the USA starts a war of choice.
4
@cia5946 It would be far cheaper to accept their historical guilt for events like the Rape of Nanking, pay reparations, and build up better relations to their neighbours. If they prefer ignoring their historical guilt, or using a false "friendship" with the USA in order to skip over that unfortunate part of history, they'll have to face the consequences later. The turncoat Washington DC will dump them just like they dumped "little friends" throughout history: Vietnam, or the recent "Kurdish friends" in Syria, or their "Afghan friends" just few weeks ago... Or, just like GB/Empire dumped Japan after they've served a useful purpose after WW1. I'm not telling them what to do. That will be their own choice. Just this much: they shouldn't whine if they end up spending billions on "a defense" instigated and kickstarted by Washington's encirclement strategy of Washington's main rival. They will get dumped when it suites Washington DC.
3
@heinzriemann3213 Yup. Tools of empires. The geopolitical implications of trying to "cordon off" rivals are strikingly similar... In the late-19th Century, France fought back against the German attempts to isolate it politically, by cordoning off Germany and the Central Powers with a ring of alliance partners. France, in the west, a hostile Russia (as the "dissed girlfriend") in the east. GB's RN in the position to cut off the north, in case of war. That only left a small corridor of access either through Serbia, or Austria-Hungary's ports in the Adriatic (threatened by British hegemony over Greece). Today, we see a similar strategy concerning China, or "Chy-naaah", as some say (LOL). Japan, Taiwan, and the Philippines controlling sea access to the east. Trump playing it nice with Putin/Russia at the time, apparently didn't work out. Shame. Of course, Russia would have cut off the north-west/north-east. A more hostile India, will cover the south-west sector...almost there. That only leaves a narrow corridor of access to the south, in the South China Sea. The Sprattly Islands... History might not always be 100% the same, but it certainly rhymes. Let's see if the effects are going to be the same... The failing American Century is looking for "useful tools" to cordon off its rising rival. Just like GB did 100 years ago when they were "the alpha". Picking up "tools" when it suited them, and dumping "tools" when they had served their purpose. Back then "the game" was played with battleships. Today, with nukes. Good thing for "empires" is that most humans are emotionally steered. Unable to reason, or use logic to realize where they fit into the big picture.
2
@alanjassybayev2428 From wiki (sources are at the bottom of the page) After WW1: " Meighen [Canadian PM], fearing that a conflict could develop between Japan and the United States, demanded the British Empire remove itself from the treaty to avoid being forced into a war between the two nations. The rest of the delegates agreed that it was best to court America and try to find a solution that the American government would find suitable, but only Meighen called for the complete abrogation of the treaty.[20] The American government feared that the renewal of the Anglo–Japanese Alliance would create a Japanese-dominated market in the Pacific, and close China off from American trade.[21] These fears were elevated by the news media in America and Canada, which reported alleged secret anti-American clauses in the treaty, and advised the public to support abrogation.[22] The press, combined with Meighen's convincing argument of Canadian fears that Japan would attack imperial assets in China, caused the Imperial Conference to shelve the alliance.[23]" [End of quote] It was London (in conjunction with the Imperial Council) which dumped Japan, because the alliance stood in the way of closer ties to Washington DC.
2
@shazzatulanam6680 Yes, like throughout history. There are "alphas" and "betas". Alphas have the (historically validated) propensity to clash. Betas have the (historically validated) propensity to either unite for mutual strength, or to "snuggle up" to an alpha for protection.
1
@Anonymous Why should Japan have played a bigger role in a European war of rival dominance? Aren't you grateful for their contribution? (effect of the Japanese entry = allowing GB to "set forces free to serve in Europe")
1
@alanjassybayev2428 The idea of the centralized "Afghan state" was folly from from the start. Traditionally Afghanistan is a tribal society, not centralized. Trying to impose a central government from the top down (foreign pressure) was like trying to knock a square peg into a round hole. End effect? 1,2 Trillion Bucks down the drain. I could have told you this (and I did in debates at the time) in 2005-10.
1
Russia and China have started military cooperation. Google the crisis in South Korea just today, when a combined Russian/Chinese air patrol was intercepted by South Korean fighters planes.
1
If America wants to rule the world, they should go ahead and try... https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Century Peace loving nations should stay out of it. NATO is a defense pact. In 2003 when the US wanted to invade Iraq, only pathetic lapdog GB joined in, and see what that lead to... Every other major NATO power said "screw you", and rightly so. Now they apparently want another war in the ME? Well, the answer is the same: "screw you". The world is getting tired of America's constant war mongering, sowing death and destruction, creating terrorists and refugees others then have to deal with... Last week the USA asked for German troops to fight in Syria....the answer was: "screw you". They didn't get any. If the USA is attacked without due cause, NATO will come to its aid. IF the USA starts yet another dumb war of choice....the answer is: "screw you". Rant over :-)
1
@JustMikuMiku Yup. Google "the bandwagon effect". Just like ww1, it could spread and engulf the entire region...
1
They always promise us a better world, after the next "little war over by Christmas", but first we have to kill a few million others who don't see things my way...
1