Comments by "Alan Friesen" (@alanfriesen9837) on "Defense Politics Asia (DPA)"
channel.
-
4
-
This is no invasion. This is nonsense. We could absorb ten times the immigration levels that we have today and it wouldn't hurt us at all. In fact, it would make the country a much better place. The people that are making the effort to get into the United States are people with a strong will, a fantastic work ethic, and a fundamental desire to participate in the American dream. We didn't even have a restrictive immigration policy until 1890 when we passed the Chinese Exclusion Act. Our first immigration policy was blatantly racist, and every one since has been racist as well.
I could see an argument that those that want to enter should enter at the assigned entrance locations, but only if those that wanted in were allowed in. Sure, if someone is a fugitive or a criminal then we'd have grounds for keeping them out. But once a background check produces no red flags, just tell them that they can't work for less than minimum wage, they have to pay the proper taxes once they get a job, they have to register for selective service, and let 'em in. If we need to disperse the population of newcomers so that the entire burden doesn't fall on Texas and California, fine, spread the wealth.
Immigrants don't hurt this country; they make this country.
3
-
I see three possibilities here that I will rank from least evil to most evil. The first is that it was a mistake—either a targeting mistake or an intelligence error. I haven't seen any sign of Ukrainian artillery going off-target before, especially regarding the HIMARS system, if that is what indeed hit the instalation and DPA says that the existence of the POW prison was common knowledge, but who knows? The second is that the Ukrainians believed that the facility was being used to store or hide Russian assets. This was the argument made by Russia when they attacked Ukrainian malls and hospitals, and in at least some cases there appeared to be pretty solid evidence that this was indeed the case. If this is the case then either Russia was hiding assets at the prison or Ukraine had an ingtelligence failure. The third possibility is that either Ukraine or Russia destroyed the facility with the intent of blaming the other side in hopes of demonstrating how evil the other side is. This is the only scenario I can think of where the Russians (or their allies) might be to blame. The fact that there were well over a hundred casualties among the prisoners and only eight among their captors seems a bit suspicious to me, but I don't know anything about running a prison so maybe I'm out of line on that suspiscion.
Outside of the successful false flag expectation, whether perpetrated by the Russians or the Ukrainians, I don't see how benefits could possibly outweigh the costs of such a strike. Unfortunately, with this event and all others like it, we're never going to get an unbiased investigation, so I guess people will believe what they want to believe.
3
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
1
-
The Straits of Malacca is the most problematic chokepoint in the world. Because of this, everybody's behaving badly. China is determined to control access to the straits so that nobody can blockade their trade. They don't trust the United States (why would they?) or any of their allies. Of course, if China has control of the straits that leaves Japan, Korea, Vietnam and the Philippines at China's mercy. Nobody trusts a China that's not counterbalanced by the United States, so the East Asian countries can't afford to cooperate with China to expel the United States from the SCS.
China feels like they can't show any weakness regarding territorial claims. Most other actors in the region are unwilling to show any movement in their claims, lest China takes advantage.
I don't know if China feels as strongly about the SCS as they do about Taiwan. I have my doubts, but I could be mistaken. I know they'll never give up on Taiwan, but I think an arrangement could be made with other southeast Asian countries on management of the seas once Taiwan is retaken, but it would have to be part of an image of Chinese magnanimity, which might be more than the other countries could stomach.
1
-
1
-
1
-
Both would dominate because they would be the largest and most influential members by a long shot. If you have an organization with one superpower in it, that superpower will dominate all of the decision making (see NATO). It wouldn't be because Russia has evil intentions necessarily, but because Russia would feel compelled to promote the interests of their people over that of others, and they'd have the heft to do so.
Right now in the European Union, Germany has an outsized influence because they are the biggest dog in the yard. This sometimes chafes the other members who feel like their interests are neglected when they don't align with the Germans, and they're correct. If Russia were brought in, it would be at the extreme expense of Germany and France.
Your read on China is simplistic and stupid. China is one of the least aggressive and least restrictive global influencers the world has seen in the last half-century. Certainly they are for their size and strength. In fact, it's fair to criticize them for not being active enough internationally, and many do criticize them for this very reluctance. They are opportunistic and if you don't negotiate skillfully with them they will take advantage of it, but they have no intention of enslaving anyone, or even forcing ideological requirements. They do intend to dominate their region, like the United States does in the Western hemisphere and like Russia is currently trying to do in the current conflict, but that is only natural for a great power. It's not overly invasive.
If you're a small weak country, it's absolutely imperative that you accommodate your stronger neighbors for the betterment of your people. Sometimes you can play two strong neighbors off of each other, but you need to be aware of their red lines, and you need to make sure you don't cross them.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1