11-09-2024, 11:22 AM
This post was last modified 11-09-2024, 12:08 PM by UltraBudgie.
(11-09-2024, 10:47 AM)RussianTroll Wrote: By the way, what about the fairy tale about NATO being a purely defensive alliance?
It is called "defensive" for purposes both of vulgar simplicity and covert truth. Only the middle-ground cannon fodder who practice tribal warfare consider it ironic. That is most people, in both Russia and USA.
(11-09-2024, 10:47 AM)RussianTroll Wrote: Both Russia and China understand perfectly well that the Anglo-Saxons' dream is to drive a wedge into their relations. That's why I take your question about China and North Korea with humor. Do you really seriously think that the treaty between Russia and North Korea has not been agreed upon with China?
This is a good point to approach. Here is the public ulterior elite narrative currently:
Quote:This paper examines the state of cooperation between China, Russia, Iran, and North Korea, and identifies paths that could lead to their closer cooperation—and paths that would not.
...U.S. policymakers therefore need to monitor the signs of deepening cooperation between them, but they should also be careful not to overstate the group’s coherence and thereby encourage them to solidify into a real bloc. To the contrary, the aim of U.S. policy should be to divide them. Just as the United States managed to split China and the Soviet Union during the Cold War, and thus destroy the myth of “monolithic communism,” today it should aim to split this group and thereby defuse the threat that it could pose.
...China has a vested interest in propping up North Korea, no matter how difficult a partner it is. China would face a massive refugee crisis were the North Korean state to fall apart, not to mention the likely expansion of U.S. ally South Korea across the whole peninsula. The Chinese Communist Party’s legitimacy partly stems from its successful support of the north during the Korean War, and its leaders may also fear that a collapse would damage this legitimcy.
...The war in Ukraine and shared antipathy toward the United States has turned the once chilly relationship between North Korea and Russia toward pragmatic and growing cooperation. Pyongyang has supplied Moscow with much-needed munitions in exchange for cash, weapons-manufacturing supplies, the possibility of advanced military technology, and, in 2024, a rekindled security agreement.
...North Korea and Russia signed a treaty for comprehensive strategic partnership in June 2024. The treaty states that if “either side faces an armed invasion and is in a state of war, the other side will immediately use all available means to provide military and other assistance in accordance with Article 51 of the UN Charter and the laws of each country.” This has a foreboding sound to it, but does not necessarily mean security cooperation between North Korea and Russia will accelerate or that either side would actually do much to assist the other in wartime. “Military and other assistance” is a vague term, and Russia likely intentionally kept it so to ensure some flexibility in the event that North Korea gets itself into a war and invokes the treaty.
...China, Iran, North Korea, and Russia threaten the United States’ interests and complicate its statecraft in a number of ways. But this has been the case for several years. Sound policy should distingish between the challenge that existing forms of cooperation outlined above pose today and the threat that their cooperation would create were it to deepen. As of now, cooperation between these U.S. adversaries has created some problems, largely because of the support Russia has gained for its war on Ukraine.
https://carnegieendowment.org/research/2...ca?lang=en
Now, I believe we and many others are aware of the amount of cow excretions present there, but as a level of the narrative onion, it is at least somewhat tractable, both within the onion-domes and without. Certainly the interest beneath North Korea are now visible at the table, as China must step up at all costs to protect the tapestry that Kissinger so kindly wove. NATO, in this respect, is playing defense with its offense, as it is deeply committed in an existential way to certain status quos. China knows this, as does Russia, yet neither can form a coherent policy to extend this, without foot-shooting.
Let us say, then, Russia is a gas station owner who hates cars, and no one in BRICS can pedal a tandem bicycle, much less navigate.
