• Thanks for stopping by. Logging in to a registered account will remove all generic ads. Please reach out with any questions or concerns.

The New World Order?

Kirkhill

Army.ca Relic
Subscriber
Donor
Reaction score
4,771
Points
1,060
Stepping back from fight for a minute




I spent some time looking at the map of Yeas, Nays and Runaways.

Some suggestions.

Russia has no friends - Belarus, Syria, North Korea and Eritrea don't count.

China has held its client base. And picked up a lot of Russian clients as well.

The Quad of the US, Japan, Australia and India - does not exist. India through its lot in with China.

The waters of the Indian and Pacific Oceans are Western. Full Stop. None of the islands broke ranks.

Vietnam has broken ranks with Malaysia, Singapore, Brunei and the Philippines and supported China.

The remainder of SE Asia, including Burma sided with The West.

The Arab world, including Lebanon, and despite Israel, have sided with The West.

China owns the Stans, including Pakistan and East Pakistan (Bangladesh) and India is more of a frenemy. Nepal and Bhutan are pro west holdouts in the Himalayas.

Aside from a few lodgements in Latin America China is locked out of the Western Hemisphere.

Africa is the battleground.



Pro Brit Propaganda from a Pro Brit.



Britain's independent alliance with both NATO and neutral states in the Baltic, its independent association with Poland and Ukraine, and its open lines of communication with Turks, Arabs and Jews present some opportunities. Especially if the US becomes more isolationist.

The Commonwealth seems to have largely held for The West.



Europe is divided along traditional lines. Baltic, Med, Rhineland, Danube. All bumping into the horsemen of the steps

Mediterranean Europe and North Africa share a lot in common.
 

FJAG

Army.ca Fixture
Reaction score
6,028
Points
1,040
The Quad of the US, Japan, Australia and India - does not exist. India through its lot in with China
I don't think that India threw in its lot with China. India threw in it's lot with India. India has a pretty strong relationship with Russia, particulalry for defence products and other elements of the economic sector. I would have been surprised if India had thrown its lot with the Ukraine.

I'd put some of the other countries, such as Pakistan into that as well. Pakistan had been warming up to Russia recently. Vietnam has a long history with Russia.

In short I see this less as any country siding with China but rather one of not offending Russia.

🍻
 

Kirkhill

Army.ca Relic
Subscriber
Donor
Reaction score
4,771
Points
1,060
I don't think that India threw in its lot with China. India threw in it's lot with India. India has a pretty strong relationship with Russia, particulalry for defence products and other elements of the economic sector. I would have been surprised if India had thrown its lot with the Ukraine.

I'd put some of the other countries, such as Pakistan into that as well. Pakistan had been warming up to Russia recently. Vietnam has a long history with Russia.

In short I see this less as any country siding with China but rather one of not offending Russia.

🍻

Having said that could any Western Oriented alliance that included India or Vietnam be considered economically sound? No problem trading with them. But can you rely on them?
 

GK .Dundas

Sr. Member
Reaction score
495
Points
730
Unless of course you happen to be Canadian because we are such wonderful people and gosh darn it people like us !
The number of times I have watched some Canadian government proposals floated to some other government get shot down and have someone look at me and say they don't understand it was perfectly reasonable. I pop up.with it wasn't in that Countries interest. More often or not I will be met with a blank stare.
 

Kirkhill

Army.ca Relic
Subscriber
Donor
Reaction score
4,771
Points
1,060
A great article contrasting the policies of John Quincy Adams and those of Woodrow Wilson.

 

FJAG

Army.ca Fixture
Reaction score
6,028
Points
1,040
Okay. I got this far and then I called "bullshit!".

Until 1765, frontier life in New England and New York also meant serving in militias to fight the Indian tribes that slaughtered, enslaved, and retreated behind France’s protection. In 1812, the local militia was not enough to prevent Indians armed by Britain from massacring the inhabitants of the Chicago settlement. So long as Spain held Florida, it enabled deadly Indian raids into the southern United States. In west-central Texas, the Comanche held up the frontier for a half century. President Lyndon Johnson’s mother narrowly escaped being murdered by them as a baby. Neither the British nor the French, nor the Spaniards who controlled the exit from the Mississippi, nor the Barbary pirates who ruled the Mediterranean, were going to be nice to impotent Americans.

It's like this never existed:

Manifest Destiny, a phrase coined in 1845, is the idea that the United States is destined—by God, its advocates believed—to expand its dominion and spread democracy and capitalism across the entire North American continent

:unsure:
 

FSTO

Army.ca Veteran
Reaction score
2,258
Points
1,210
Okay. I got this far and then I called "bullshit!".



It's like this never existed:



:unsure:
During the War of 1812, the Americans used Native "Massacres" (where actually the US Army got its ass kicked by the Natives) as a pretext to whip up the populace to destroy the natives in place. Hence treaty after treaty was broken as the Americans moved west. To our own shame we (our post 1812 ancestors) basically abandoned the Natives to their fates as our aims from the war were not reached and their usefulness to us waned.

 
Top