Thank you for re-iterating my point. China and Russia are not on good relations. They have both contested for the primary country in their relationship and neither agrees that they are on par. In fact, one of the reasons that Russia has not developed pipelines to China is because Russia was concerned that it would cause them to have a secondary position to China. You seem to be conflating 2 different concepts here. Global North/South is more a depiction of "Developed" vs "Developing" countries. What you're talking about is a multi-polar world with one pole being around the US and its allies, while China is trying to form another around it. Again, the problem here is that no one likes China. They absolutely splash cash around like no one's business, but countries have long realized that the cash China splashes rarely provides an economic benefit for them. Take the Belt & Road initiative. China is spending a ton of money building it, but it is Chinese companies with Chinese workers that are building the related infrastructure. Even after construction, any facilities that require ongoing staffing, like ports, are run by Chinese companies with Chinese workers.
<sigh> Just another reason why any list of US presidents that doesn't have Bush II at least in the bottom 5 is just the soft bigotry of low expectations. Well, actually, in 1945. Naked wars of aggression have been far less common since then than before.
This keeps getting overlooked in this fappery Generally states with good relations have convergent interests.. China and Russia don't have many areas where they can cooperate, or basis for partnership. In contrast, Russia has always looked west to europe because that is where its natural interests lie.
Up until recently, ofc. The Ukraine war has pretty much forced Russia to turn towards China and India, but that doesn't mean they are shifting out of the "Global North" concept, they are just shifting towards China's pole.
I went to law school with a guy whose family is from Bolivia (though he was born in LA). He told me that his uncle was in Bolivia when the Bolivian government killed Che Guevera, and was in Chile when Allende was overthrown. His uncle spent a lot of time "on business" in places like that. His mom was apparently friends with Pinochet's family, and she "worked for USAID". Interesting family history.
The problem for Russia is that its politicians can't grasp the concept of shared interests and alliances. They feel the need to dominate any country they deal with. So, of course to them NATO is nothing more than a bunch of puppets of the US, because that's what they would do in the situation if they were the US (look at the Warsaw Pact). The idea that, say, Canada is an independent country and doesn't always agree with the US, is impossible for someone like Putin to comprehend. In his worldview, you're either a top or a bottom, with no other options.
Yeah - rather they are a rogue nation now, which doesn't mean good things for their relationship to China
Outside of the morality part, It's 100% fair to say "if you want to use my system, these are the rules". However, the emergence of alternative systems should be equally acceptable for those opting out of it. The global south have been complaining for years about the status quo - no I don't feel sorry for them and they finally are organizing to do something about it. Play by our rules or leave - that's fine that at least I can respect
1950 China invaded Tibet 1950 NKorea invades SKorea 1956 USSR invaded Hungary 1968 North Vietnam invaded South Vietnam 1968 USSR invades Czechoslovakia 1974 Turkey invaded Cyprus 1975 NVietnam invade SVietnam (again) 1979 USSR invades Afghanistan 1980 Iraq invades Iran 1990 Iran invaded Kuwait 1991 US/World invades Iraq 2001 US/Allies invades Afghanistan 2003 US/Allies invaded Iraq I did not include any of the many Israeli/Arab invasions and counter investions I did not include any of the India/Pakistan invasions I did not include any US invasions of our CONCACAF brothers with apologies if I left out your favorite non-US invasion yes, the world was so peaceful and invasion free until 2004
You missed: 1978 Vietnam invades Cambodia 1979 China invades Vietnam Vietnam had a good run of winning wars in the 70s.
Probably. I just added them because they seemed to be most appropriate for the ongoing discussion about the US and China poles.
There are currently building a pipeline with parts of it operational and another one proposed going through Mongolia as well. As for their relationship, it's decades in the making since after the cold war. The first few NATO expansion made Russia look eastwards and sign treaties with China while settling their border disputes. You're not wrong about the part of both nations not seeing eye to eye about which country was the primary at that time but the failure of Hilary's Russia great reset policy leading to 2014 Ukraine / Crimea crisis while simultaneously antagonizing China with Obama's East Asia pivot policy contributed to push them into each other's arms - a contrast from the past when we made sure to they would stay at odd. There's no doubt that today they are as quoted in this article: 'Not allies, but better than allies' https://economictimes.indiatimes.co...than-allies/articleshow/84437525.cms?from=mdr Tons of warranted criticism towards the BRI, and you could even say that some of their terms are unpopular but the IMF is by far way more disliked by the global south than the BRI. You don't really see noticeable improvement in developing nations since the IMF investments (with loads of political and economical strings attached) prioritizes the repayment of debt to mostly western creditors which leaves very little capital for growth generating projects. The contrast is obvious if you look at what the BRI has done in Africa, parts of Asia and Latin America - they invest in the economy via infrastructure projects that significantly increases the odds of generating growth. They both have drawbacks if you can't payback. Mainly for the IMF it's mass privatization of a country’s assets then bought up by western companies at bargain prices making it even less likely they'll ever dig themselves out of their holes. The BRI takes ownership of assets if a country can't pay the loans. Yes, I agree with the "Trojan horse" analogy here where they get to be everywhere they want by giving loans they know countries can't repay but those assets can still stimulate economic growth and attract more foreign investments (roads, trains, airports, ports etc...) For the developing world - it's about picking their poison.
My ex has an uncle who was a fairly high ranking judge under Pinochet. As she explained, half her family was pro-Pinochet, half was pro-Allende. People in her mom's family were friends of Allende, though her mom was not. Still, mom and new husband decided they needed to split immediately after the coup.
I read what @song219 said as "big" meaning powerful. Thus, some of the following don't count IMO. From the 1950s to 1991, there were 2 "powerful" nations - the US and USSR. China doesn't really show up, IMO, until the 1990s (give or take. I don't know their technological development history). And while some of the "Nos" do have the backing of the USSR and China (powerful via numbers, not skill or technology), they were not powerful countries, themselves. It also needs to be in context that that, in both 1956 and 1968, the USSR didn't invade like we invaded Afghanistan in 2001 or Iraq in 2003. In both those cases, they showed up to support the existing government and put down protests. Also, we invaded Afghanistan with, what many could say, was a reasonable purpose to capture OBL and sack the Taliban. Neither could be said to be successful, and in large part that would go down to the failures of the Bush admin (and our over excitement to use violence). What Russia's invasion of Ukraine is most closely related to is our invasion of Iraq. IMO. Of course, YMMV.
Yes, and his cousin's daughter is an amazing writer. The way Pinochet came to power is surreal. The top military officer under Allende was General Carlos Pratt, who was a strong proponent of keeping the military away from political matters. But a very odd traffic incident resulted in General Pratt having to resign, which led to an opportunity for the hard-liners who supported military intervention to take over and eventually led to Pinochet’s coup d’état. Here’s a link to Wikipedia’s version of what’s called “the Alejandrina Cox Incident”. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alejandrina_Cox_incident
You're quoting two wars that had different intentions. The invasion of Cambodia (which was sharply condemned by European countries/rightwing parties paying lip service to the USA as Vietnam after the war fiasco was the bad boy) was to liberate the Cambodian people from the murderous almost genocidal Red Khmers. These were some sort of protégé of China. China invaded Vietnam in respons to that. Iirc Vietnam slaughtered 200,000 Chinese soldiers in the battle in North Vietnam. China didnot care, they just wanted to show Vietnam that whatever they did, China still has the manpower to hurt you if needed.
Most of those were not wars of aggression. They were ideological. Was the US Civil War a war of conquest? Of course not. All of the Israeli wars were about religion, not territorial expansion. The first two USSR wars don’t fit. Reality still has a liberal bias.
As Dave said, if a war wasn't conducted to add territory, it is should not be listed. You might condemn the war for other reasons but is nevertheless is not comparable to Russia - Ukraine.
This leaves out our own bombings in the name of peace all over the world. Well some are now arguing only "powerful" counties count. If we just say any invasion for land. China took over Tibet. Both Iraqi invasions were for land. Some where land changed were civil wars like Vietnam and Korea. But even in the example given by the original post (US invasion of Iraq) it was not a war for land, so that one would not qualify. Overall the point is true that the USA becoming the world police has definitely reduced the number of large conflicts all over the world compared to historical normal. Even if we had to bomb a few countries here and there to make the point. This is one of the points that Steven Pinker makes in his book, relatively speaking we are living in a peaceful period in human history. https://www.politifact.com/factchec...-wars-fewer-people-dying-wars-now-quite-some/
”Liberate” by turning Cambodia into a puppet state fir the next decade. Heh. Vietnam did not invade Cambodia to liberate the people from the Khmer Rouge. They invaded because after the drove out the US, the Vietnamese and Cambodian communists decided that they no longer needed to be allied and started shootings at each other. Yes. Khmer were Pro-China and Vietnam was pro-Soviet at a time where China and USSR were having pissing matches over who was the correct form of communist. That is what China says.. Real reason is China wanted to overthrow Vietnam’s government and install it with a pro-China government because they were afraid of being surrounded by pro-Soviet countries. It was only after their iffensive stalled out that they said it was just punitive.
Yes, religion played a big part in the causes... but are you telling me that the Israeli wars were not about territory? ? the first two USSR do fit... if it wasn't for territory then why did they invade? reaping that 'reality ... liberal' garbage does not make it so, no matter how many times you say it