Comments by "" (@craigkdillon) on "CaspianReport"
channel.
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Have to disagree, at least a bit.
True, geography will impact mindset and world view.
However, so does culture and history.
The mindset and world view of Pakistan is far different than India, and that has nothing to do with geography.
For me, the biggest influence on the Russian mindset are two things --
1) the horror of the 150 years under the Tatar yoke. They were merciless, and they Russia to a bestial existence.
2) the heavy yoke of Tsarist rule, with imposed serfdom for 350 years.
Russia has only begun to experience normality only in the last few decades.
Russia has no experience or understanding of democracy. Do they even understand charity, or forgiveness? I wonder.
The paranoia of Putin and Russia's acceptance of his paranoia is amazing.
Europe and US were slowly demobilizing, until Putin resurrected Russian 18th Century foreign policy ideas.
But, the key thing was that Russia accepted this paranoia because, to them, it seems reasonable.
Therefore, they are as deluded, and ultimately as stupid as he is.
Putin is destroying Russia, with the cooperation of the Russians.
What idiots. Prisoners of their own misconception and misunderstanding of the world.
1
-
1
-
I don't think China's navy is tipping any balance.
If anything, China's navy is losing relative.
US, Japan, Australia, Philippines and India are growing closer together.
When conflict comes, it seems highly unlikely that China will have
only one opponent of its choosing.
If China takes on Taiwan, thinking that Taiwan will fight alone,
I think China will be surprised.
Japan cannot afford to let Taiwan fall to China.
So, Japan will definitely help. Japan has satellites that can help Taiwan target Chinese assets.
The US and Japan will keep the East Coast of Taiwan open, so arms and other aid can be supplied.
If Taiwan runs out of missiles, US will resupply her.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
China is already hated and opposed by everyone. If China does this (which it might already be doing on the Mekong.) I think it will pay a big price.
Seeing this, Vietnam, Laos, and Cambodia who rely on the Mekong will institute their won water management programs.
They will build their own reservoirs, to hold water for use when China holds back water.
Also, China cannot hold water forever. Its reservoirs fill up, and then they have to release it, whether they like it or not.
Countries downstream can have water management facilities to ease either China holding water, or releasing it in flood quantities.
And then, those countries will hate China forever.
Not good, if China wants to have productive trade relationships.
1
-
1
-
You focus on geography & military is imbalanced, IMO. First, true power, today, is determined by economic power. China's power was growing well, and power was accruing to it, as it grew. However, Xi's policies have put a nice end to that.
I agree with your analysis that China is heavily dependent on its exports to US & EU. It's exports to India were growing nicely, too.
The idiot, Xi, is putting an end to that. The South China Sea grab is causing the US and others to rethink their policies, including trade polices, towards China.
Trump's trade war would have happened anyway, no matter who is president. Notice how the Democrats don't criticize Trump on his China policy, even though they deeply disagree with everything else he does. (You won't find any Democrats wearing long red ties, that's for sure, LOL)
If China had stayed with Deng's policies, and furthered their cooperation with and integration into the international trade system, their future growth and power would have been assured.
1
-
1
-
1
-
After 9/11, the US should have just done a punitive attack to tell the Taliban Afghani government not to do that again. Something serious, like carpet bomb their training facilities.
I do mean "carpet bomb" with dumb bombs that are not very accurate.
Many collateral deaths. Maybe, 100,000 or so.
We lost about 3,000 in their attack.
We should pay back in much higher numbers.
It would be crude and cruel.
But I don't see any other alternative.
What we did made no sense.
Committing our military to try to nation build,
in a country that does not want to change.
Japan and Germany were already modern countries after WW2.
Changing them was rather simple, by comparison.
We really had no long term interests in Afghanistan, so
committing our military for a generation was idiotic.
Not, just merely wrong --- IDIOTIC.
Both D's and R's were responsible for the lunacy.
Thank you Biden, for getting us out of there.
1
-
1
-
Let's get this straight -- China is NOT becoming a world naval power. It takes more than ships to do that.
What made England a world naval power was it global base structure, not merely its ships.
Same with America today. Sure we have a lot of great ships.
But, without Subic Bay, Diego Garcia, Okinawa, Diego Garcia, Naples, ROK, and so many others scattered around the world, the US Navy would have a hard time projecting power.
To have bases around the world requires one very essential asset, which China does not have ----
FRIENDS.
We are welcome in places like UK, Italy, Japan, Philippines, Singapore, and so many others because we have friends. The US does its best to keep its friends. We treat them with respect. We help them after a hurricane or some other disaster.
Xi, though, has been following a different path -- making as many enemies as he can.
How many friends does China have?? I bet you won't need more than one hand to count them all.
No friends -- no global naval power.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
I hate it when people make assertions that are unsubstantiated and WRONG.
The coast of China was NEVER the wealthy area, until recently.
Why do you think all the capitals are inland??
Beijing, the latest, is the closest to the sea -- 90 miles away.
Chang'an was deep inland.
WHY??
Simple, trade until the Europeans, was over the Silk Road.
Wealth came overland, from the west.
When Europeans came, they reversed that.
So, Hong Kong, Macao, Shanghai, and other coastal cities
became the centers of wealth.
That has only been in the last 200 years.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
OK, lets forget the politics, and focus purely on the military.
Can China even hope to prevail?
Well, to do so, it must be able to function economically WHILE being at war.
The first that will happen, IMO, is the cessation of maritime imports & exports to/from China.
Shipping companies won't risk their ships, and ship insurance will probably be too expensive or non-existent.
PLUS, US and other countries will implement a naval blockade.
India will likely stop all China trade through the Malacca Strait.
US will stop it across the Pacific.
Question: How long will China's economy and people be able to withstand a blockade??
Germany lost WW1 because of its blockade.
China, I think, is more dependent on overseas trade than WW1 Germany was.
Will China last 6 months? 12 months? longer?
1
-
1
-
1
-
@edenli9208 just noticed your reply. I am impressed. You countered me, point by point.
I think you are very wrong in most of them, but you state your position clearly, without being insulting or abusive. I appreciate that.
You are first pro-China person I have met on-line, where I feel, despite our very profound differences, would be able to have a long conversation into the night, drinking beer or wine -- and have a very good time.
BTW - US won't fall apart. We almost did during our Civil War, but that ended that idea. The political differences in the US are not of a nature to coalesce around rebellion. The US is very complex, and different from all other countries. Americans have a hard time understanding it. To foreigners, it is a mystery. Personally, I think it is the most complex nation in the world. Full of contradictions. It was created on a contradiction -- "All Men Are Created Equal" & Slavery. Can't get more contradictory than that.
In the name of "Peace", we start wars (see Vietnam). We can be very greedy, yet also very generous -- see Marshall Plan, and opening our markets to Japan, SK, and Germany - enabling them to become wealthy. If you try to find consistency in our behavior, you will fail.
Scotland will likely leave the UK at some point. For some reason, any vote to stay in the union is open for another vote. A vote to leave is permanent. So, eventually a vote to leave will happen. I think that is sad, but inevitable.
1
-
@edenli9208 In the American colonies at the time, "men" would have referred any homo sapiens. Europe had gone through the Enlightenment, and had moved away from classic monotheistic theology which put people into orthodox, heretic, and non-believer categories.
But, in Christianity, even non-believers were considered human. So, "men" would have included the people we call "men" today".
I don't know about Muslims, they don't seem to like anyone, even themselves.
You are cynical. You interpret everything negatively, even the Marshall Plan.
Did the Marshall Plan help the United States? Sure it did. But, it did so by helping others, who were in dire need. People were starving in Europe.
Did it have the effect of freezing Russia out of Western Europe? Yes. It was a reason we did it. But, we DID do it.
Russia could have done the same for Eastern Europe. But did not.
In fact, no nation in history was as generous as the US at that time.
The US did not act as a conquering nation, subjugating everyone. The US favored letting businesses in those countries start, and start building wealth.
You see, what differentiates the US from Russia & China, is that we don't see the world as a zero-sum game. We believe that as other countries get rich, they will buy more from us, and we both get richer.
We don't resent other countries getting rich.
The US did not resent China getting rich --- until it started using its wealth to bully others, threaten war, and claim rights and privileges not allowed by the UN.
When China started directly threatening the US and our friends, we knew we had to change policies.
Now the US is ending its trade relationship with China. Imports from China will shrink until they are are a tiny fraction of what they were. Other countries are following our lead.
China's power will fade as quickly as it rose.
1
-
1
-
What do you mean "the downfall of the US military"???
Our military is a reflection of our country and society.
It is created and sustained by our institutions, which includes the will of its citizens.
For the military to collapse or have a downfall, that would mean a collapse of our government.
Of all the countries in the world, the US is best situated geographically and politically.
For instance, lets assume that the oceans rise 50 feet (much higher than predicted).
Florida and other coastal areas would be submerged. The people of those areas will be welcome to relocate.
Many coastal countries do not have that ability for their citizens. Bangladesh, for instance, is surrounded by India which would not welcome its refugees.
China would be hard hit, as the Yellow and Pearl river deltas are low, and would cause the dislocation of about 200,000,000 people. China is not set up culturally or legally to allow for that much internal immigration. The US, on the other hand, allows and supports internal immigration.
The US will need to abandon many bases, like Diego Garcia, which are barely above sea level. Our naval bases will likely have to be relocated. But, that is merely an inconvenience.
There will be conflicts around the world. The US does not need to get involved in any of them.
BTW -- by 2040 or 2050, our economy will have moved to renewable energy, and away from oil. We won't need to care what happens in the Middle East or other areas, to ensure our energy supply. Oil resources has been a main driver of wars for 100 years now. That is coming to an end.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Current CO2 levels have already exceeded the CO2 levels of the Pliocene, 2.5mya, when seas were 25 meters deeper.
So, sea level rise will continue to at least that level.
Moreover, according to CO2.earth, CO2 was at 415.72 ppm 4/6/20, an increase over 411.33 ppm on 4/6/19. An increase of 4.39 ppm in just one year!!! That's incredible.
Can anyone really think we won't see 500 ppm by 2050, and 600 ppm by 2100???
Those levels of CO2 have not existed since the Cretaceous, when NO ICE existed on Earth.
Can anyone doubt that oceans won't continue to rise over the next few centuries??
And, that the rise will keep accelerating??
These massive dams would be obsolete and overwhelmed by further sea rise within 50 years, 100 years viability is probably too optimistic, IMO. But, even then, is it practical for Europe to rebuild them? or, to eventually abandon coastal Europe in the long run anyway??
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1