NATO is developing multiple “land corridors” to rush US troops and armored vehicles to the frontlines of a potential future ground war with Russia in Eastern Europe, The Telegraph reported on Tuesday.
Current NATO plans involve US troops landing in ports in the Netherlands and then transported through Germany to Poland, but the alliance is looking to expand the potential routes for US troops to reach the borders of Russia and Ukraine.
Officials told The Telegraph that they want US troops to be able to travel through five different corridors:
- Landing in the Netherlands and traveling through Germany to reach Poland
- Landing in Italy to travel through Slovenia and Slovakia to reach Hungary
- Landing in Greece to travel through Bulgaria to reach Romania
- Landing in Turkey to travel through Bulgaria to reach Romania
- Landing in Norway to travel through Sweden to reach Finland
The Telegraph report said that under the NATO plan, US troops and vehicles traveling through these countries would not be restricted by local laws, so they could travel quickly. The report said France has complained about its tanks being stuck at foreign borders while trying to deploy to Romania due to bureaucratic processes.
Starting in 2023, NATO has been working on war plans for a potential future conflict with Russia for the first time since the Cold War. The alliance is planning for a possible ground war with Russia despite the obvious risk of any direct NATO-Russia clash quickly escalating into a nuclear exchange.
OK, so, phew, no need to worry about AI's wiping out humanity. Our own stupidity will do it first.
Well, you know the old saying goes: Stupid is as stupid does.
And there seems to be no end to any of this kind of stupidity. Ahem….
That's right, heedlessly run over the residents! Nothing is more iimportant than killing those Russkies!
Imagine a foreign country’s military plowing through American towns and cities with no restrictions. How does this crap fly in countries with memories of two world wars?
It does not. Colonies have no say in the matter. This type of announcement has a purpose. Insure colonies know their place.
Russia made it very clear that one of the reasons they would attack Ukraine was
"we will not allow NATO missiles to set-up in Ukraine and be aimed at Russia"
i bet that Russia has no interest in attacking eastern Europe and uncle sam's NATO is wishfully thinking that they would.
"Making plans" is how NATO brass justifies its posh existence.
Is this really 2024? Russia(not the evil empire of the soviet union) is going to invade europe???????????????
Who is stupid enough to believe this? Millions
Russia(not the evil empire of the soviet union) promised in the Budapest memorandum that they would respect the territorial integrity of Ukraine.
Russia(not the evil empire of the soviet union) promised as late as 2021 they were not going to invade Ukraine.
Perhaps people worrying about a possible Russian attack are not that stupid?
No, they indeed Are that stupid. This is, as always, just threat mongering for MIC profits and the MSM does its job well. They have had lots of practice.
You seem to have a bee in your bonnet when it comes to the power and the reach of the MIC:
It's the Russians doing the threatening – are they working for our MIC?
And just how the MIC if it has the power to influence such decisions would profit from the development of such land corridors is not clear at all.
Surely such land corridors would benefit local infrastructure developers – you know the ones who get to reenforce bridges and widen roads.
Possibly there would also be a bit of work for the civil servants redefining laws that govern such transports.
As the Complex wastes about a trillion $ of my taxes, creates tensions that may on purpose or by accident lead to nuclear holocaust, and is one of the biggest emitters of GH gases in the world, I’d say we all should be concerned.
In this case, it’s the threat mongering that is the concern. The so called land corridors are just an idiotic side effect. The very existence of nato is the main problem.
You naturally are entitled to your opinion – mine is that without the current rules based world order we'll see a lot more wars.
When others like e.g. China decides to redraw borders and minor players exploit the chaos following such actions to make their own land grabs.
Like Azerbaijan (and Israel) did just recently.
"we'll see a lot more wars". Hahahaha!
We already have – or is it that your ability to observe is so very limited?
That's what I'm saying. Recently we're seeing a lot more wars, and threats of more, because of our current actions.
No because of the breakdown of the belief in the rules based world order – which Russia/Putin has declared it is their intent to end.
Simply put that makes War a viable option far more often than it used to be – that is what you are observing.
Nope. We provoked Russia, we're trying to provoke China, we're complicit in genocide in Gaza. We're not following any rules-based order.
You are entitled to that view it likely agrees with how the Russians see it, however it is not compatible with respecting the independence and sovereignty of Ukraine as Russia had promised.
Ukraine was not on a path to NATO membership and the revolt in the Donbas was petering out.
What provoked the Russians so badly – in 2021???
Fomenting the coup, which started a civil war, and then not urging Ukraine to follow the Minsk accords, then refusing to assure Russia Ukraine would not be in NATO, then telling Zelensky not to make a truce because, as, Lloyd Austin said, we wanted to degrade Russia's capacity.
There simply is no proof that the Us started or even fomented a coup – once a coup was in the making they did back some people in preference to others but they also tried to get the people they backed to agree with Yanukovych on the proposal for new elections, and the people they backed signed that agreement with Yanukovych – only the people on the streets were not satisfied – so this devolved beyond the expressed wishes of even the US would have wanted.
Uh huh. Nuland's conversation with the ambassador took place three weeks before anyone else had any idea there was going to be a new government.
This just goes to show how little you have looked into the affair.
The Maidan protests took place between 21 November 2013 – 22 February 2014,
So this call is only evidence of Nuland voicing their view as to whom the US supposedly would prefer as prime minister if the opposition accepted Yanukovych's offer.
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/jan/26/ukraine-president-concessions-protests-violence
And we are following the rules based order’s most sacred principle i.e. do not start aggressive wars of territorial conquest.
Like we did in Afghanistan, Iraq, Syria, and Libya? Among many others. Oh, except for they're aggressive wars with the goal of leaving behind a failed state.
Did 'we' annex parts of ? Did 'we' annex any territory since the end of the cold war?
So no we did not break the cardinal rule – and none of the actions against Afghanistan, Iraq, Syria or Libya – would be repeated if we were presented with the option for a do-over.
I.e. they were all examples of failed wars – so very little fear of either contagion or anyone being able to argue that 'we' should do like we did in e.g. Afghanistan.
The 'we' being any of the NATO countries.
"Rules based world order" meaning "The U.S. is the big cheese and everything has to go the way they say."
No not even the US gets to annex territories – they too stick by the most important rule.
WTF are you talking about. Are YOU blind or just tuned out. There is a GENOCIDE GOING ON AND BIDEN IS SENDING U.S. BOMBS TO THE PERPETRATORS. IN DEFIANCE OF U.S. And UN LAW..There are no rules or order, just a ISRAELI/AMERICAN GENOCIDE OF MOSTLY INNOCENT WOMEN & CHILDREN…
That the US is dead wrong on Israel, does not mean that they are wrong every where else.
I don't know where they've ever been right, at least for the last 75 years, for sure.
There would be a lot of work clearing wreckage & smoldering equipment that would get destroyed on their trip to the front lines. That would be certaim.
Russia promised to respect the territorial integrity of Ukraine. Ukraine promised to be a neutral country. And NATO promised not to expand one inch to the East. Nobody kept their promises did they?
Correct
Where did you get that idea from – it is not in the Budapest memorandum – so where does this appear in any agreement?
No NATO did not Clinton mulled over the idea – it was in no treaty and no agreement – actually what sources we have say that Boris Jeltsin ended up accepting that this was not a point – against economic assistance.
So you see only Russia ended up breaking a promise they had signed agreements to keep.
Pffft.
Ukraine's declaration of independence from the USSR declared that it was "a permanently neutral state that does not participate in military blocs".
And yes, we did promise the Russians that we would not expand NATO one inch to the East if they agreed to German reunification — which they did, and then we double-crossed them by expanding NATO all the way to their border.
The transcripts of the meetings in which the promises were made have been published online:
https://nsarchive.gwu.edu/briefing-book/russia-programs/2017-12-12/nato-expansion-what-gorbachev-heard-western-leaders-early
That does not appear anywhere in the copy I have been able to track down – can you link your source?
https://static.rada.gov.ua/site/postanova_eng/Rres_Declaration_Independence_rev12.htm#:~:text=%2D%20Ukraine%20shall%20be%20declared%20an,on%20the%20territory%20of%20Ukraine.
From the source you provided:
Had there been an actual promise then the Russians would have made sure to get it in writing and codified in a treaty or agreement – they did not because they knew it was not a firm promise.
On Ukrainian neutrality see:
https://static.rada.gov.ua/site/postanova_eng/Declaration_of_State_Sovereignty_of_Ukraine_rev1.htm
Section IX
"The Ukrainian SSR solemnly declares its intention of becoming a permanently neutral state that does not participate in military blocs and adheres to three nuclear free principles: to accept, to produce and to purchase no nuclear weapons."
————–
On NATO expansion, the assurances are writing. Both sides made transcripts of the meetings. The transcripts produced by the US State Department and the transcripts produced by the Russians both contain a record of those assurances. The promises were made, and they were recorded in writing by both sides.
Thanks – I accept the point that the Ukrainians promised to be neutral.
But not signed as an agreement – moreover the point kept being brought up between Clinton and Yeltsin –
https://icds.ee/en/clinton-archives-confirm-the-need-for-nato-enlargement/
No, not as a signed agreement, but there were repeated verbal assurances from the highest levels of the United States and other NATO governments that NATO would not expand to the east — and those assurances were recorded by the United States and other NATO governments in the official transcripts and minutes of the meetings that they had with the Russians.
In spite of the assurances that we gave to the Russians, NATO was expanded to the east. Whether we put it in an official treaty document or not, we double-crossed the Russians and did exactly what we promised them we wouldn't do.
Whatever Bill Clinton did later on isn't here or there because the assurances were given in before he was elected.
As clearly indicated by the analysis of your first provided source – I quoted it above, but here it is again:
So no there was not a promise there was a lot of talk, and many words said, but no promise – which the Russians were quite aware of which is why the subject kept coming up in the following meetings as I have described above.
So no it kept being a subject exactly because there were no agreement and no assurances to be broken.
Had that been the case Yeltsin would not have been as willing to keep negotiating with 'agents' who obviously would not stick to firm agreements.
Perhaps the USA should respected Ukrainian sovereignty in 2004 and 2014? Long before the Russian invasian.
Did we have Ukrainian complaints that the US did not? As far as I remember not even Yanukovych made any such complaints while in office.
Tell that fable to the victims of the Odessa massacre.
That fable was told to the people of Odessa and they by and large accepted that the 46 deaths was a small price when held up against the thousands that have died in the Donbas.
Being under Kyiv administration has not led them to economic misery or insufferable levels of discrimination so they are much happier with the situation as it became rather than suffering the poverty inducing communist levels of poor administration that there has been in the peoples republic of Donetsk.
But that is not to deny that there were months of problems with no central control of the actions of individual groups in Ukraine following the February ousting of the legitimate government of Yanukovych – that is as is often the case the price in the shape of chaos when a government loses control and a new has to be created on the fly.
“That fable was told to the people of Odessa and they by and large accepted that the 46 deaths was a small price when held up against the thousands that have died in the Donbas.”
Thousands killed as a result of a civil war started after a foreign power instigated a coup in Kiev. The almost daily shelling by the Kiev puppet regime had a bit to do with the misery in the Donbas. As far as Odessa goes? I’m sure they wanted to be second class citizens under a puppet government.
Your depiction of the 46 Odessens murdered by neo-nazis as a “small price to pay” instead of thousands killed by the Kiev regime in the Donbas for resisting the coup regime is pretty telling.
No started by the Russian interference – by their own admission!
The point being that it was not a puppet regime there were democratic elections in the fall or late summer of 2014 and again in 2019, where in 2019 one of those you call second class citizens won.
The people who died were killed not by a neo-nazi regime but a brawl connected to a football match, the anti Maidan protesters fired first and were protected by the local police.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2014_Odesa_clashes
So as so often the story you have back to front!
“Perhaps people worrying about a possible Russian attack are not that stupid?”
"Stupid"? Ignorance more like. As in the Cold War – the military industrial complex is a root cause of the widespread fantasy of Russian military invasion of ‘the west.’
Why? US democratic political discourse is not so degenerate that you can just tax citizens billions on weapons – so politicians eager for weapons lobby money have to justify spending – justifications readily taken up by a mainstream press raised on Cold War attitudes.
Thus – re Russia’s criminal invasion of Ukraine – the ignorant claim that it was “unprovoked.” When in fact seasoned US Cold Warriors warned for decades that NATO and US military expansion – above all into Ukraine – would ultimately lead to a military reaction…
…warnings largely ignored by mainstream press, leaving citizens ignorant, and w/the ignorant fallback idea that 'what else could it be but expansionist Russian agression?'
You seem to believe the military industrial complex have powers it does not – since 1992 the military industries have lost territory to other sectors to such a remarkable degree that the combined profits of the remaining 5 big contractors was hardly even as big as that of Proctor and Gamble.
Your explanation also fail to cope with the long period from 1992 where the non US NATO countries have dramatically reduce their defense spending.
So no it is not the MIC is not what has driven this in Europe – and the MIC is not going to benefit from this infrastructure project.
On a final note yes the attack on Ukraine would have been provoked if Ukraine was set on a path to join NATO in 2021 – but it was not demonstrably not.
You seem to forget the 2014 U.S. coup that put NAZIS in power in Ukraine
Yes because it was never a US coup and they held several elections after that date so even had it been a foreign backed thing it bears no consequences for the administration of 2022.
It caused a civil war.
No Russian agents caused riots to escalate to a civil war – we have the admission of one of their top agents as proof of that.
"the attack on Ukraine would have been provoked if Ukraine was set on a path to join NATO in 2021 – but it was…demonstrably not."
1/ Many US Cold Warriors warned NATO expansion – east generally, Ukraine especially – would be seen by Russia as a 'provoking' security threat.
I cited/linked Cold Warriors the first time I posted you on this, 2 yrs back. Don't engage their arguments and evidence? Then yr assertion Ukraine was "demonstrably not" "on a path to join NATO"…is just an assertion.
2/ Again: my present argument is not that Russia's invasion of Ukraine was provoked, but concerns why most Americans remain ignorant of the provocations:
Warnings of 'provocation' by Perry, Burns, Kennan post-invasion? How often covered in mainstream press? Or this comment of Stoltenberg's eg:
"'Putin declared in [fall] 2021, and…sent a draft treaty that they wanted NATO to sign, to promise no more NATO enlargement. That…was a pre-condition to not invade Ukraine….So, he went to war to prevent NATO, more NATO, close to his borders.'" Sept 2023
https://www.nato.int/cps/en…
An assertion I can however backup – they were not on path to NATO membership as both Germany and France were against and had been so since at least the Bucharest summit in 2008.
Do you need the link to prove this?
I cannot answer for why the Americans are unaware of the provocations that we make to the Russians by respecting the sovereignty of the former soviet states?
If you actually respect the sovereignty of such countries and stand by the values we have then you cannot make an agreement with the Russians that these countries should never be allowed to apply for membership of a defensive alliance.
That said Germany and France not to mention Hungary and Turkey would never have allowed Ukraine or e.g. Georgia to join.
If that was Putin's goal he went to war to prevent an event that was somewhere between exceedingly unlikely and impossible – and achieved that he got two arguably more important neighbors to join NATO (Sweden and Finland).
Not to mention that he actually now faces the prospect of Ukraine joining if he cannot take the whole country.
So by your account he must be one of the worst leaders of Russia.
"I cannot answer for why the Americans are unaware of the provocations that we make to the Russians"…"by respecting the sovereignty of the former soviet states"?
1/ Too late to weasel out of the plain meaning of "provoke" you began with when you wrote, "the attack on Ukraine would have been provoked if Ukraine was set on a path to join NATO."
It is that 'security threat' meaning of "provoke" that a signifcant minority of Cold Warriors warned Russia would see in NATO expansion.
2/ The question remains: why are Americans largely ignorant of that major dissent within the foreign policy community?
A dissent that – were it better known – would open to meaningful debate your 'aggression' and 'open door' views.
One answer, I suggested, is that – following the lead of foreign policy politicians – a complaisant mainstream press rarely exposes Americans to that dissent.
Is it weaseling out to claim that the US invading Cuba before the Cuba crisis would not be provoked?
Is it weaseling out to claim that the US invading Cuba in the 1970'ties would not be justifiable because they were provoked (in 1962)?
You have a strange definition of a provoked war if you apply this kind of filter.
Or to put it so it is clearer – there was no new security threat to Russia in 2021 – and there was no urgency or need to act on the potential future threat of Ukraine joining NATO in 2021/22 – i.e. no new provocation by Ukraine or the Biden administration.
Not sure what you are suggesting here.
Judging by what you wrote initially:
You seem to suggest that NATO should have agreed to this 'deal', I should remind you that this deal also included the following:
Naturally NATO declined this deal – I would have it no other way, given Russia's history of getting 'provoked' into having to engage its military on the territories of it's neighbors since Putin came into power.
"there was no new security threat to Russia in 2021"
Actually – besides numerous Cold Warriors warning a long term security threat would culminatively provoke Russian aggression – there were "new" short-term threats.
(Linked some 2 yrs ago, won't redo that labor.)
Thing is, where you are concerned, as you make clear: though you deny there were provocations, you don't actually care if there were. In fact, you support – as a single and absolute right – 'expanding NATO in the name of the right to choose alliances,' irrespective of whether Russia sees it as 'provocative' or 'threatening.
Whereas…for citizens for whom 'choosing alliances' is not a single and absolute basis for US action…
…the warnings of Cold Warriors actually can change minds re NATO expansion…
…But only insofar as citizens are exposed to those voices.
Upshot? I think you know this. And I think that is why, despite yr indifference to NATO expansion as provocative – you are simultaneously anxious to deny that it has been provoked:
because – like MIC-aligned think tanks and likeminded journalists – you recognize the obvious political value of representing Russia as aggressive and Eastern Europe as therefore not only entitled to, but needing NATO.
So no new threats that you can easily find with a simple google search!?
And yes I do support the right of independent states to make the sovereign decision to join a defensive alliance, if I did not then I would not be treating these nations as independent and sovereign – I also support the Cuban’s right to join whatever defensive alliance they need to keep the US out.
A provocation would only be a provocation in my view if we/they placed nukes on their territory – simply put Russia does not enjoy human rights that exceed those of other nationalities – you appear to not believe that all humans deserve equal rights – is that the case?
Your problem is NATO is not expanding, but NATO is being joined by more nations who by themselves decide that they want to join, they are not being forced in and they can at aby time leave if they so wish.
Your problem is that it is so easy to portray Russia as a bully that we need no propaganda – Putin delivers it all by his actions. Neither Finland nor Sweden felt the need to join NATO even through all the propaganda saturated years of the cold war – but post 2022 they did – and that without any NATO propaganda in those countries.
Try to explain that, and you may see that this is not me seeing a political value in portraying Russia as aggressive – I actually was not portraying Russia as that before 2008/2014 – I was all for the much lower defense spending up until then – events not political motivation changed my mind.
1/ More of yr weaseling.
First, "the attack on Ukraine would have been provoked if Ukraine was set on a path to join NATO in 2021."
Second, "there was no new security threat to Russia in 2021" – forget NATO's upgrade of Ukraine to Enhanced Opportunities Partner (that was way back in 2020), or inclusion of Ukraine in its 2021 annual Trident exercises.
And now? Third? Moving the bar again – "A provocation would only be a provocation in my view if we/they placed nukes on their territory."
2/ "yes I…support the right of…states to make the sovereign decision to join a defensive alliance"
a/ Again: Many Cold Warriors – who'd faced off against the SU for decades – warned against NATO expansion as provocative post SU – even wrote an open letter warning of it.
b/ A number of factors caused the US to drive NATO expansion anyway – causing exactly the right wing nationalism Cold Warriors warned of.
c/ After the 2020 upgrade, the US clearly grasped the Russian negative reaction to "this latest indication of strengthening NATO-Ukraine ties –
"Russia has long bristled at the military alliance’s growing post-1991 presence in Central and Eastern Europe, with expansion into strategically and symbolically important Ukraine identified as a red line by the Kremlin."
https://www.atlanticcouncil…
– like you, ignoring earlier Cold Warrior warnings.
d/ Since Russia's invasion, propaganda has denied that past – claimed it wasn't about NATO expansion – even as – in the name of 'right to apply' – NATO openly admits the main reason Russia invaded was the Ukraine "red line": Putin "went to war to prevent NATO, more NATO, close to his borders."
NATO in Ukraine – just what Ukraine negotiators now say was the central issue for Russia in March '22, btw.
3/ East-Europe-mindset Russophobes like you want it both ways – 'Expansion at any price!…But We never provoked them!'
But the more mainstream Americans are exposed to the original Cold Warrior warnings, and learn about the MIC lobby, the more they're likely to question the US's latest proxy war.
Is there an argument for your position hidden somewhere in there?
Yes this was a provocation – one that could justify exercises in e.g. Belarus as the Russians indeed did – but how does this justify an invasion???
No this is not moving the goal posts it is distinguishing between provocations (of which we have many) and provocations that can be justifications for invasions.
Can any provocation according to the 'world order' you suggest be used as a justification for military invasion?
Sure but NATO was manifestly not being expanded into Ukraine – so again not a provocation which could justify the SMO.
The problem with this claim is that the Clinton was demonstrably pushed to accept the e.g. the application of Poland and the countries which joined at the same time – so not expansion pushed by the US but pushed by the applicants!
No i see it for what it is/was i.e. the natural response to the Russians breaking the Budapest memorandum – specifically without taking steps that could justify more explicit annexations of Ukrainian territory by Putin.
Again you seem to believe that the Russians have the right to annex territory because of such provocations is that your position???
No this was specifically debates at least in Europe – when Putin 'offered' peace conditioned on NATO being rolled back to before 1991 – we did not hide that Putin made this offer we did however reject it.
But NATO was not set to accept a Ukrainian application – so they may say what they want this was not a threat the Russians needed not invade to prevent what was not going to happen.
The East European are afraid of the Russians as Germany's neighbors were afraid of Germany – that does not mean that we do not provoke them, it does mean that such provocations never rise to the levels that would justify invasions.
Then you should be happy – it is not how I see it but then I'm living on a different continent.
Should Trump win and the US back out of funding the Ukrainian struggle for political independence then the Europeans will have to finance the war together with the rest of the anti-new world order coalition.
As they did during the Mike Johnson induce pause on most US aid – and the Europeans will do so – because the Europeans are genuinely afraid of Russian hegemony in Europe.
This is moronic. How do they think US troops and vehicles are going to reach Europe in the first place. All NATO airfields will be destroyed and all US cargo ships sunk by Russian subs long before any significant number of US troops can arrive. This is not WWII – and even then German subs wreaked havoc – and they didn't have hypersonic missiles.
Another problem they have is that European roads and bridges are not designed to hold the weight of US Abrams tanks and tank carriers. Every bridge and roadway on these "corridors" have to be rebuilt – on the EU's dime – to make them capable of transporting heavy vehicles.
This is another example of what Andrei Martyanov points out is the US military's complete incompetence and inability to comprehend how to fight a war against a peer enemy. The US military has actually forgotten everything it knew back in the 1980's and now has only the "organizational memory" of the last twenty years fighting poorly equipped Third World armies and insurgents. They go up against Russia, they will have to resort to nukes because otherwise they'll get ripped to shreds.
Most western European bridges can carry the weight of the Abrams, but further east you are right this is a problem – but rather than concluding that this illustrative of
You might conclude that the Abrams which was designed in the 1970'ties was designed to fight a defensive war – yet an other indication that NATO never intended to invade neither the USSR nor Russia.
Back in the 1970's, NATO didn't intend to invade – because they knew they would lose and that it would go to nuclear war and everyone would lose.
Today, the morons running the US and NATO DO intend to invade Russia – or destroy it without invading by proxy and economic sanctions. Unfortunately for them, they failed miserably and thus are now escalating out of panic, heedless of the risk that every NATO member knew back in the 70s.
In other words, that was then, this is now.
Very true – and it is still the firm belief in NATO as far as I know.
Not by invasion Russian weapons may be bad – they may not live up to what we expect, but no one is in doubt that they will be able to land at the very least 10+ percent strikes.
With the number of nukes they have that would make any invasion a very poor choice.
No they did not fail it took a lot longer to end the Soviet Union – the sanctions will end Russia's ability to project power beyond their borders in less than two decades maybe a lot faster.
In other words, that was then, this is now.
"in less than two decades" lolol! In less than one, the U.S. will be isolated from most of the rest of the world, if they continue as they are.
You appear to know very little about economics – the US and the western coalition are responsible for the vast majority of the worlds demand – isolating the US and presumably destroying the European markets – will in and by itself cause economic misery in China and Russia.
You have no idea what you're talking about.
If that was the case you could easily counter my arguments with actual arguments of your own supported by evidence as I do it.
You might want to look up how much of Chinese production is now kept in China.
You no doubt have looked it us so why did you not put it here? China is a very large economy so a good lot should be kept at home as it is for the US.
For China it is about 20% of GDP, while that figure is 11 for the US.
https://data.worldbank.org/indicator/NE.EXP.GNFS.ZS?locations=CN
https://data.worldbank.org/indicator/NE.EXP.GNFS.ZS?locations=US
So yes China is still deeply dependent on exports – especially now that the housing market is in crisis.
You are missing the fact that Western countries are dependent on Chinese goods as shown by trade imbalances. Without those goods from China, inflation in Western countries would be well in the double digits. So, again, who is dependent again?
No, I’m not missing this – you are correct that we would face inflation, but we are in the process of weaning ourselves of the Chinese products – the US just recently put tariffs of 100% on EV’s – but it is a process.
So if push comes to shove we will have to cope with a significant amount of inflation – the Chinese will not be limited to significant levels of inflation – they will have a deep crisis – indeed they are already on the brink of such a crisis (stagflation).
Now who is dependent – both parties – but while inflation is bad stagflation is much worse, and the west faces inflation either way – as the west would not accept being dependent on Taiwanese products post a Chinese invasion of Taiwan, and as Taiwan produces the vast majority if ‘processors’ that implies a very significant reshoring of that production – which will alone by itself cause very significant inflation.
Or to put it in other words either we stop this new world order before it leads to Taiwan becoming a prat of mainland China or we face even higher costs in the shape of bad economic times than we’d face by supporting Ukraine and applying tariffs (or even sanctions) on the Chines if they do not play ball.
The New World Order is Western hegemony. Nothing new about it. Dominance of Washington, DC. The EU countries are vassal states. This isn’t beneficial to any but a tiny portion of the Western countries’ population.
As far as tariffs? Those hurt prosperity.
China: For 2024, the IMF expects a GDP growth rate of around five percent.
The EU growth of under 1% for 2024 isn’t showing that the EU is being particularly well managed.
As far as the EU being re industrialized? That ship sailed along with cheap resources from Russia. Especially energy. A lot of those resources are now going to China. Brilliant idea those sanctions were. Euroidiotcrats. Of course, that won’t effect them or their masters . The regulators and greens will subvert any attempts.
As you say nothing new about it, it has lasted since about WWII, the new about it was that aggressive wars of territorial conquest were frowned upon (sanctioned most often) and that not even the hegemons were making such wars.
Which makes the trade wars that Washington has lost (or at the very least not won) hard to explain in your world.
Which makes the development since the end of the cold war very difficult to explain in your world.
If this was true why has so much of the development been happening in the third world! Why did the west outsource so many jobs to them????
Yes – indeed they do but a small price to pay to be able to resist the much more hurtful future of having to take commands from the Chinese.
No showing that the Chinese are growing from a much poorer level and that EU is an aging population which is not too well managed.
No that is not what killed that option, what killed it is that EU if by and large xenophobe and has failed to keep birthrates high enough for the next generation to take on that challenge.
This can only happen in the US (Canada and Mexico) or in a very limited scale in Europe.
You are only partially right – energy prices are now down below the 2021 level and yes the Chinese can buy cheap Russian oil to the extend the Russians can export it, EU only needs to follow the US example of applying tariffs to Chinese products to level the playing field.
We shall see very shortly – the greens are not overly enthusiastic about importing stuff from the other side of the globe produced very CO2 costly.
I’ll just cover one of these logical fallacies:
My comment: “This isn’t beneficial to any but a tiny portion of the Western countries’ population.”
Your reply: “Which makes the development since the end of the cold war very difficult to explain in your world.”
Not hard at all. You seem assume that any progress or development is due to the ruling establishment order. The real question is how much further we might be without the drain on progress by, what is, essentially a kakistocracy. Advancement has occurred despite wasted resources. The giant broken window fallacy of wars as an example. One can argue that wars generate advances in technology. But if those brains, hands and muscles were used productively, the results would be different and accumulate not subtractive and destructive.
Think of a parade where a figure jumps out in front of the parade and pretends to lead it. That’s what we have. People taking credit who had nothing to do with it. Frédéric Bastiat explained that in The Law. The political means to wealth rather than the productive means. Essentially, those that engage in the political means are parasitic. History shows that when parasitic parts of a civilization reach a certain stage it causes a economic, political or social decline and eventually a collapse.
Your arguments are establishment in nature. Pretty much pure propaganda. Doctrine. Easily countered. Just not worth the effort.
You wrote:
Which is quite obviously wrong as the lowering of tariffs and control over the sea trade has made the massive outsourcing possible and hence fueled economic growth in the third world.
QED
"….. that was then, this is now.".
In the 1970's Western countries dominated in industry and technology. That isn't the case in the 2020's. Russia can get anything it needs from countries that ignore sanctions…. without the US middleman.
The remaining US power to employ sanctions successfully WAS in finance via the dollar's dominance in international trade. That is rapidly being eroded. Overplayed sanctions has backfired. Also because of paying for military debacles
and funding defense of " allies".
Sanctions have failed. Even when applied when the US was dominant they failed in Iran. Russia is much stronger than Iran. Sanctions against Russia have cemented the Sino-Russian Alliance.
Exactly.
So that explains why Russian planes are facing 2 to 3 times as many 'incidents' in 2023 as they did in 2019 – or why the new Russian cars come without most modern equipment!?
Dropping Indian imports of oil would seem to suggest that they do fear secondary sanctions – just wait and see.
Sanctions have been a significant success already – naturally this depends on what you think a success is, I go by the fact that the Russian economy is seriously weakened as indicated by the loss of foreign trade the consumption of rainy day funds and the inability to produce modern equipment at scale.
Sanctions on Iran did much the same – i.e. Iran is today much much poorer than it would have been without sanctions.
I notice you didn’t have much to say about the US funding defense of “allies”. To wit countries like your own. I hear a lot from you on the US not sending more to Ukraine to defend Europe. Nonsense, of course. But let’s take a look at Denmark as an example. Your debt to GDP is 29%. The US is 130%.
Denmark spends about 1.4% of it’s GDP on defense. US? Around 4.5% when VA costs and Nuclear arms expenses are included.
Your countries defense spending would pay for less than 19 hours of the US defense spending.
The US adds a trillion dollars in debt every 90 days. For every working American family that’s $30,000 per year and growing far faster than the US economy.
You might want to think about the implications of this. You might also think about why an increasing number of Americans resent Europeans like yourself constantly badgering for more aid for Ukraine.
You are absolutely right – Denmark and a lot of European countries have been free riding on the US spending – but you are also partially ‘wrong’ when it comes to the the implied necessary need for spending – as in neither the US nor Denmark needed spend more than 2% of GDP to deter the Russians.
Or to put it a different way the huge US spending is because the US wishes to not only deter an attack by it’s enemies but also be able to threaten ‘non cooperative’ countries to ‘cooperate’ or face the music – that capacity is much more expensive.
This is not the same as not supporting Ukraine – that could easily be done within a 2% budget – it is the maintenance of all the over seas bases and 10+ carrier strike groups which blows the budget out of control. Finally it is not the US defense spending that leads to the debt to GDP ratio – even a defense spending of 4.5% could be maintained without borrowing.
We agree then. the US should scrap it’s overseas bases and aircraft carriers. Leave NATO. The EU should defend itself.
Now, was that so hard?
We should also cancel all the free stuff going to Ukraine!
I’m actually for the US doing most of that – by all means even let the Europeans pay for the weapons going to Ukraine – it is that way the wind is blowing anyway.
I’d suggest walking slowly out the door however for the following reasons
– US defense costs will go up otherwise (as they alone will have to finance each new item)
– US exports will suffer dramatically as the world economy takes a very hard hit (so many resources being spend on military build up to fill the power vacuum).
– US imports will get very much more expensive (for the same reasons as the exports will suffer)
– there will be a huge number of local conflicts as wars of territorial conquest will no longer be preventable (costs for all trade)
But if the US citizens no longer wants to be the policemen of the world the I can understand why, I do not think it’ll bring about a situation they’ll like but then they are able to live pretty isolated from most of the worst of the consequences.
It's like nuclear weapons don't really exist.
And that Russia has more of them than any other country (I read the other day).
Me too.
“Land corridors?” I mean, Really??
Any such preidentified paths would be excellent targeting opportunities for Russians, don’t you think?
This is just posturing to keep the Europeans onboard the hopeless disaster that is nato …
yes, Baltics, we’re right behind you … thousands of miles behind you and helpless to act against anything Russia can do (other than end the world with nukes, which we won’t do for you) to you if they really want to.
"This is just posturing to keep the Europeans onboard the hopeless disaster that is nato"
Yea, 'alliance building' – or to rephrase, the US gladly promotes the politically self-serving fantasy that only an armed to the teeth NATO can keep Russia from rolling across Europe.
"It's now or never guys (and gals). Let's DO this!" Say the war pig psychopaths.
Any U.S. troops moving through Europe toward the Ukraine front lines would be apt to grt a tactical surprise just as Russian troops traveling through Mexico toward the U.S. border would likely get.
The last time this was done was desert storm, and from anyone who was actually involved in the movement, it was an eye opener. It took MONTHs to move the required forces to theater, sort out everyone's equipment and get it to the right owner, stage them in the desert, properly organized and supplied, and then go on the attack. We had the benefit of an immense open playing field to assemble on, with a host who could supply all the fuel in the world, with an enemy far too passive and weak to do anything to hinder the movement, and it was still a colossal shit show.
In fact, the enemy was so passive and incapable that the FIRST combat resupply of VII Corps was planned to occur AHEAD of the front lines, by parking immense quantities of supplies in what we would call in Ukraine the "gray zone" between the two armies; then, when the assault began, the attacking elements actually moved INTO (not away from) their supply points. We did this because we lacked the necessary HEMMTs to bring the supplies up cross country behind the advancing elements.
Good luck trying that attacking into Ukraine, or any drone rich ISR environment.
These sorts of "stunts" worked because Iraq never stood a chance and we knew they were powerless. Against any kind of real, aggressive and competent enemy, we could have been in serious trouble.
Yet, compared to the army of Desert Storm, our current army's leaders are infant no-nothings, who grew up as "combat leaders" believing that "logistics" just happen, that civilian contractors magically appear at forward bases in combat areas to fix broken stuff, that the bad guys have no air power, that we outgun them at all times.
Like a child believing Santa will bring him a pony; until Christmas, when he realizes Santa let him down.
I'm sure there's loads of old-timers reading these plans and getting all grumpy. "No, no, that's not the way at all. Here's what you want – you take Route 9a east, not the 433 or the D-5. Then you'll exit by Old Man Smolenski's farm, he built that barn in 1950 don't'cha know, and follow it about 3, 4 miles and bear right onto EU-17 NORTH, not EU-17 WEST, and when you see Nikos Gallini's gas station, he married Frank Cvesik's daughter, oh what was her name….?… and you're most'the way there. 20 minutes quicker'n if you listen to them NATO nitwits, I tell you what."
The insanity of the sophomoric American leadership is breathtaking.
Any port in Europe used to land American troops will quickly cease to exist if an ultimate war happens with Russia.
Clickbait; much ado about absolutely nothing.
All these routes, at least from the USA to the old Iron Curtain borders, already exist; using and proving them out was the whole point of the old "Reforger" (return of forces to Germany) exercises. That these routes, with the required logistical infrastructure supporting them, may no longer exist would be a travesty and an indictment of the imbeciles running NATO. The only thing that would be "new" would be the extension of the old routes from their old termini in Norway, Germany, Italy, Greece, or Turkey to the new NATO borders, but if the "new NATO" host countries haven't done that already, at their own dime, as the minimum price for being part of NATO would just show what a colossal pack of incompetent imbeciles are running that alliance.
Here's how it is supposed to work: Cargo ships, usually Ro/Ro's, arrive at the port of debarkation; the equipment is unloaded, and, if moving by road, put on HETS (supplied by the host country! We can't be bringing them with us, we need the ship space for the combat units), which travel down established routes, with FREQUENT stops for refueling, and the infrastructure, for fueling up to 1000 heavy equipment haulers near simultaneously needs to already be in place; at some point, close but not too close to the border, the equipment is unloaded, married up with its crew, fueled and loaded with ammo, organized into combat units, which then move to their jumping off points and await the signal to GO.
The HETS then go back the other way to pick up another wave, but may not be able to use the same route in reverse, if a second wave is already on the road coming up behind. So that's another set of ROM (refuel on the move) points that need to be set up, guarded and supplied.
This is a HUGE logistical undertaking. Massive amounts of (the right kind) of fuel, fueling infrastructure, and ammunition need to be assembled (and guarded) by the host nations, at the right points, at the right times, in order to service the arriving units with absolutely minimal delay.
My suspicion is that NATO hasn't done this; "new NATO" simply can't do it because they lack the training, the money, and the logistical infrastructure, can't afford to do it; and is too stupid to do it, and MOST US generals are too ignorant to realize what needs to be done (never underestimate the innate stupidity of a US 3 star general and his sycophantic staff).
So, war or no war, this sort of planning is something that must be done; without it, the "alliance" is a non-functioning sham.
Purge the DC GHOULS before they kill us all!!! WTF!
There are parallels to handling of Gaza crisis and Ukraine. Seems that what seems obvious -/ is the hardest to notice. Presudent Biden has cognitive issues. And for a while now, it is the the inner circle around the president that has been carrying on duties of the presidency. Biden is kept informed, but hecis not the center of decision making. He cannot be. He had difficulty delivering the presumed Israeli “proposal” that now nobody owns. Whike it us clear that some meetings were held, Israel serms to deny it. Almost as if aware that people simulating presidency are not the real thing. Kamala Harris is kept out of the loop to avoid any suggestion that she is informally standing in for the president,
This should explain the disjointed decisionmaking, communications — and above all, INDECISEVENESS on Gaza. Vascilating, making decisions, reversing, cease fire plan that nobody owns.
Just as bad on Ukraine. Looks like the Team Biden decided to go with “play tough”, that is escallate without next step. Just use whatever weapons on Rusdia’s territory. And hope this will take some time simulating action till elections. This is incoherent under circumstances. And it is sending dangerous signals to Russia. This incoherence that gives too much leeway to an actor playing presudent — who is because of his lack of accountability given the power to provike Russia. Just as we have inadvertently turned ovet presidency to Netanyahu,
Nothing is well considered, nothing consiistent. A product of a committee.
I expect Israel will now go for maximum. There is make-believe decisionmaking. And Netanyahu knows this for sure now. This may involve invasion of Lebanon. And open door to wider war.
Situation with Russia has been changed from manageable to erratiic. I can easiky imagine a team if decisionmakers not wanting to appear weak, even though situation is dire. A half baked plan to give Zelenski power to shoot anywhere he pleases into Russian territory. None of it will change the situation in tge ground, but the recklessness of this “plan” can result in Russia raising its command deck to the level of strategic defense. Given unpredictability — risk of unintended consequences has just jumped manifold,
The reason there is no communication with Russia on any level is – group decision making by a team not used to — or even capable of strategic decisionmaking. Yet it is unthinkable to come just out and say -/ we have no leader to discuss the priblem oir solutions, Election is riding on this.
Democratic party is in a precarious situation.
In the neantime — it is Christmas in Congress. Running around like kids after presents. Just please donors, no constraints, Netanyahu is coming to check us out in person, and walk away with the clear knowledge of limits, if any.
And Russia would not have the ability to block these "land corridors", right?
Well as much as Russia has been able to block the land corridors that are used by the Ukrainians to funnel western material from the Polish border to the frons I guess.