Miscellaneous News

O

Overbom

Brigadier
Registered Member
Abominable said:
She's 100% right.
Biden (and Boris) are trying to brush this under the rug but it is a big deal if you're an American or Brit.

Trouble is, she is as much to blame.
Click to expand...
This is a natural progression. Antagonizing China + Russia means that the West (the US mostly) is losing its grip to its world hegemony.

Obviously with such strong opponents, the West is now unable to act the same way it did in the post-Cold War aftermath.

China's rise presents a country that is gradually more able to impose costs if the West wants to continue to "defend its values" (globally).
 
A

Abominable

Major
Registered Member
Overbom said:
This is a natural progression. Antagonizing China + Russia means that the West (the US mostly) is losing its grip to its world hegemony.

Obviously with such strong opponents, the West is now unable to act the same way it did in the post-Cold War aftermath.

China's rise presents a country that is gradually more able to impose costs if the West wants to continue to "defend its values" (globally).
Click to expand...
This has nothing to do with antagonising Russia and China, which the UK is the master at.

It's about the debacle that is Afghanistan. Her argument is that the mess Biden has created makes NATO look weak to Russia and China.

On that she is 100% on point. Several people here have pointed out (myself included) a Chinese invasion of Taiwan could lead to a similar collapse and abandonment. That is obviously influenced by recent events in Afghanistan.
 
O

Overbom

Brigadier
Registered Member
Abominable said:
It's about the debacle that is Afghanistan. Her argument is that the mess Biden has created makes NATO look weak to Russia and China.
Click to expand...
Agreed. The cost of a continued minimal US military presence in Afghanistan was vastly dwarfed by the benefits of placing a "nail" on China's backyard, able to block BRI expansion, ability to destabilise Pakistan and Russia (to a lesser degree) by sponsoring terrorism.

Strategic disaster for the US
 
plawolf

plawolf

Lieutenant General
Abominable said:
This has nothing to do with antagonising Russia and China, which the UK is the master at.

It's about the debacle that is Afghanistan. Her argument is that the mess Biden has created makes NATO look weak to Russia and China.

On that she is 100% on point. Several people here have pointed out (myself included) a Chinese invasion of Taiwan could lead to a similar collapse and abandonment. That is obviously influenced by recent events in Afghanistan.
Click to expand...
Agreed that that America’s withdrawal from Afghanistan had nothing to do with Russia or China.

Prances-through-fields over here is just mad because what Biden did was far worse than make NATO look weak to the world, he demonstrated beyond doubt that American international promises and commitments are a fart in the wind when placed next to American domestic expedience.

Looking weak militarily can be easily address through more defence spending, which is what America wants NATO to do anyways. Lack to credibility is far more damaging and harder to overcome.
 
K

KYli

Brigadier
Afghanistan doesn't have strategic value anymore. During the war against terrorism, the US rallied allies and got permission from Russia and China to topple the Taliban. Both central Asian nations and Pakistan were forced to cooperate and provide logistic support for the US military. However, Afghanistan is a landlocked country without a port or direct airspace corridor. Therefore, Afghanistan can't be a springboard for invasion. That's why the failure to topple Iranian government during the Arab Spring and losing the support from central Asian nations and Pakistan have doomed strategic value of Afghanistan.
 
O

Overbom

Brigadier
Registered Member
KYli said:
Afghanistan doesn't have strategic value anymore
Click to expand...
Disagree. While it doesn't have for benefitting the US itself. It has strategic value for being able to export terrorim to Pakistan if needed (blackmail), opening a new front against China if necessary (how about placing missiles and planes there if needed, and thus pressure China from Afghanistan).

Also the benefit for keeping some influence on the region and not surrendering it completely to China (this is what Biden has done now).

The benefit of stopping BRI expansion.
Benefit of stopping a possible oil pipeline from Iran to China, thus allowing China to break a possible naval oil blockade from the West.

I fundamentally disagree that Biden's withdrawal from Afghanistan was in the US's national interest. At recent years, the costs of a dozen thousand of troops, with almost zero casualties and relatively "low" financial costs, were giving Americans a huge benefit from a geopolitical perspective.

China is now getting strengthened for "free" after the US surrendering their influence on the region with Biden's withdrawal
 
K

KYli

Brigadier
Overbom said:
Disagree. While it doesn't have for benefitting the US itself. It has strategic value for being able to export terrorim to Pakistan if needed (blackmail), opening a new front against China if necessary (how about placing missiles and planes there if needed, and thus pressure China from Afghanistan).

Also the benefit for keeping some influence on the region and not surrendering it completely to China (this is what Biden has done now).

The benefit of stopping BRI expansion.
Benefit of stopping a possible oil pipeline from Iran to China, thus allowing China to break a possible naval oil blockade from the West.

I fundamentally disagree that Biden's withdrawal from Afghanistan was in the US's national interest. At recent years, the costs of a dozen thousand of troops, with almost zero casualties and relatively "low" financial costs, were giving Americans a huge benefit from a geopolitical perspective.

China is now getting strengthened for "free" after the US surrendering their influence on the region with Biden's withdrawal
Click to expand...
Funneling financial supports and material supports to the Pakistan extremists could be done through other channels. As for missiles and planes, if you got boxed in like Afghanistan, these missiles and planes are sitting ducks.

Afghanistan is not part of BRI or would not be part of BRI in anytime soon. It is just too unstable to be heavily invested in. Again, an oil pipe line would be too vulnerable to be considered within the next two decades. If Pakistan can put an end to its separatists, then it would be a more viable route than Afghanistan.

I think you have underestimated the Taliban. If the US wanted to stay, then the US needed another major surge of troops and a few military campaigns to stop the advance of the Taliban or even forced them to retreat again. Otherwise, the low cost, zero casualties model can only go so far. That means for every few years the US needed to send tens of thousands of soldiers and tens of billions and a few hundreds casualties to make Afghanistan viable and stable.

I do agree with the rest of your posts. It is just that this is an unwinnable war that we Chinese called "the taste is tasteless, it is a pity to abandon".
 
O

Overbom

Brigadier
Registered Member
KYli said:
I think you have underestimated the Taliban. If the US wanted to stay, then the US needed another major surge of troops and a few military campaigns to stop the advance of the Taliban or even forced them to retreat again. Otherwise, the low cost, zero casualties model can only go so far. That means for every few years the US needed to send tens of thousands of soldiers and tens of billions and a few hundreds casualties to make Afghanistan viable and stable.
Click to expand...
I concede this point. You are right on the Taliban being a much more potent force which would inevitably require another "surge" from the Americans

Well what happened, happened. The end result of this, is a win for China if it manages to stabilise Afghanistan. The whole region will be under its influence, forever locking out Western influence

The BRI and oil pipeline are also possible after Afghanistan start becoming a "normal" country after 10-20 years. Maybe by then China will not need it but who knows what the future entails
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top