$700 x ~2000 Maui Household = $1.4 million lol.
Miscellaneous News
- Thread starter bd popeye
- Start date
$700 x ~2000 Maui Household = $1.4 million lol.
You making the same error that person before it. Russia imported huge amount of used vehicles. some maybe new but they classified most as used. Russia was forced not to rely on Bosch/Continental/BorgWarner/ZF G and any western branded tires in its vehicles. i am sure they have cut back on Apple products. Russia redirected majority of its European oil to India but imported products that are basically all non Indian and comes through countries that are not India. you just cannot send sanction products through so many countries unless there is much bigger incentive for those countries to stand up to west. In event of sanctions any country will likely have to conserve there foreign reserves just like they have to conserve Boeing/Airbus aircrafts for priority routes. when a country conserve stuff its standing in world goes down. It is not world of 1950s.
Well, the US has been very effective at getting its allies to sanction Russia and close off their markets to Russian exports. The US has also been great at getting them to send their older military inventory to Ukraine. Both of these should be expected in any conflict with China.
What isn't tested is the mutual defense treaties. Since Russia hasn't attacked the US or its allies directly. But in a conflict over Taiwan, most people seem to believe that an attack against US bases in Japan and potentially beyond is necessary. If so, they will certainly invoke Article 5, and then we'll see how well it holds up.
Russia is a Germany sized economy, a får cry from the largest and most influential economy in the world.
Anyways if US is gonna attack China, and they will, since that's the arena China has already goaded US towards, US better hope for anything better than some vague promises to close markets to China and a few hundred mraps from Europe lol. Because a few dozen Challenger 2s and some random rockets will not help US not get their invasion forces blasted by the PLA.
Japan will do it's own thing, but you think China doesn't want to go to war with Japan? Then you're mistaken, Japan needs to be put in their place, and goading them into a misguided attack on China is the way to achieve it.
Two things being different doesn't mean you can't compare them. In a conflict vs. the Western alliance, it is necessary to evaluate the strength of partnerships. The reason I cite Russia, Iran, and North Korea is because these are automatic partners, comparable to the US's direct allies. By contrast, a country like Saudi Arabia has one foot on both sides of the line and will go with wherever the wind is blowing. The Western alliance can coordinate sanctions - both massive ones like those vs. Russia, and smaller ones like the tech. embargo on China. It has collective defense agreements. It can coordinate to deliver arms to third party countries. Which one of these do you think Saudi Arabia will do for China?
You're citing the situation back during the 2010s. We're in the 2020s. What have the Central Asian republics done for Russia in the wake of the Ukraine War? All the training exercises and military sales and trade agreements prove nothing if they end up 1) following Western sanctions 2) opposing your territorial claims and 3) providing zero support for your war efforts.
The CSTO is an "alliance" only on paper. The Ukraine War proved that the US exercises immense power over its allies; while Russia can't even get the CSTO to recognize its basic political claims. Imagine if China's "partners" won't even recognize China's claim on Taiwan? With "friends" like that, who needs enemies?
Read Article 6 on what triggers Article 5
Article 5
“The Parties agree that an armed attack against one or more of them in Europe or North America shall be considered an attack against them all and consequently they agree that, if such an armed attack occurs, each of them, in exercise of the right of individual or collective self-defence recognized by Article 51 of the Charter of the United Nations, will assist the Party or Parties so attacked by taking forthwith, individually and in concert with the other Parties, such action as it deems necessary, including the use of armed force, to restore and maintain the security of the North Atlantic area.
Any such armed attack and all measures taken as a result thereof shall immediately be reported to the Security Council. Such measures shall be terminated when the Security Council has taken the measures necessary to restore and maintain international peace and security.”
Article 6
“For the purpose of Article 5, an armed attack on one or more of the Parties is deemed to include an armed attack:
- on the territory of any of the Parties in Europe or North America, on the Algerian Departments of France , on the territory of Turkey or on the Islands under the jurisdiction of any of the Parties in the North Atlantic area north of the Tropic of Cancer;
- on the forces, vessels, or aircraft of any of the Parties, when in or over these territories or any other area in Europe in which occupation forces of any of the Parties were stationed on the date when the Treaty entered into force or the Mediterranean Sea or the North Atlantic area north of the Tropic of Cancer.”
They’ll probably “amend” this, soon!
Your interpretation of who American partners are is generous. Plenty of US allies have refused to take the same position as America on multiple previous conflicts - see the wars of Iraq, Vietnam, Korea, etc.
US allies who are helping American with their position on the Ukraine do so because they feel it's in their interests (i.e. Europe). The vast majority of countries you considered to be American partners aren't following the American position against Russia. What makes you think they will do so against China?
The same can be said about NATO. Even moreso IMO.
The way I see it, both alliances are unfit for the modern world. At least with CSTO, Russia has had a historically close cultural and economic relation with its constituent members.
Not the purpose of a military alliance. Multiple NATO members have contradictory stance son various political positions, in many cases with each other.
For example, Spain doesn't recognise the UK's claim on Gibraltar. Doesn't mean they can't work together in the framework of NATO.
He seriously believes a Chinese attack on American bases in Japan will trigger article 5?
The stereotype about Americans being poor at geography proven correct once again...