It's the dunk tank.
This is where you come to post big-brained hot takes by chuds, libs, or even fellow leftists, and tear them to itty-bitty pieces with precision dunkstrikes.
Rule 1: All posts must include links to the subject matter, and no identifying information should be redacted.
Rule 2: If your source is a reactionary website, please use archive.is instead of linking directly.
Rule 3: No sectarianism.
Rule 4: TERF/SWERFs Not Welcome
Rule 5: No ableism of any kind (that includes stuff like libt*rd)
Rule 6: Do not post fellow hexbears.
Rule 7: Do not individually target other instances' admins or moderators.
Rule 8: The subject of a post cannot be low hanging fruit, that is comments/posts made by a private person that have low amount of upvotes/likes/views. Comments/Posts made on other instances that are accessible from hexbear are an exception to this. Posts that do not meet this requirement can be posted to !shitreactionariessay@lemmygrad.ml
Rule 9: if you post ironic rage bait im going to make a personal visit to your house to make sure you never make this mistake again
China is probably not yet ready to mount a complex air-sea invasion of Taiwan, with the mighty USA at its back. But it would have no real difficulties making land invasion into Russia.
Taiwan.. not yet, too hard, but Russia is officially a GO opines our dunk tank subject, further free military advice for China can be found in the article
Got downvoted to hell on .world the other day for saying "maybe, hear me out, China doesn't consider invasions because it's not a militaristic, expansionist country?"
I think it probably could be fairly defined as either but I would also grant you that they could be considered to have much different goals as a whole than Western militaristic and expansionary endeavours and that, generally speaking, they balance those goals against a wider group or population than you would see the West doing.
Are they happy to expand into contested zones? Absolutely. Will they make shows of force to do so? Absolutely. If it means a protracted military solution though then that's not going to happen, they're not interested. They will attempt to find a commercial solution or they will just wait for an opportunity over a very long period of time.
Isn't that... the definition of contested zones? Like, Morocco contests Ceuta and Melilla, Spain contests Gibraltar... and there's endless political tension from these issues.
Doesn't this go against the definition of militarism?
"War, trade, and piracy together are a trinity not to be severed."
90% of wars are for commercial interests, and the rest are sus too.
Wars being for commercial interests, doesn't imply that engaging in trade makes you militaristic
But it is not opposed to it, and in fact often correlates with it.
Yeah but china isn't a country known for engaging in military action
Yes, but pointing at commercial interests is not helping this case at all.
Imperialism, the Highest Stage of Capitalism