Stylistillusional [none/use name]

More than range of missiles, it’s the integration of weapons platforms with each other that’s the key. It’s not that the Chinese missiles or aircraft performed particularly well, but that those systems where fully integrated into an ecosystem of satellites and radars designed by the Chinese from the ground up to work together. As opposed to the hodgepodge of suppliers that make up the inventory of the Indian forces.

The platonic ideal European politician

Pakistan won’t reconsider their relationship with China. Not after the recent episode with India where China’s networked military systems proved their effectiveness. China showed up for Pakistan. The West is not going to sell them comparable capabilities. Even if they did, it would take decades to restructure the armed forces. After having just fought their neigbours, that’s not a risk any country is going to take.

Aren’t all those tariffs supposed to start again in about two weeks? Or at least the beginning of July?

Imagine the price of oil skyrocketing and all those tarrifs going into effect around the same time. What chaos that would create. Or is a war with Iran the off-ramp for those sanctions. I’m sure the Europeans would gladly join in a war on Iran in exchange for lifting of tariffs.

How is Iran China’s ‘second most important ally’? The Iranian economy is not that important to China, nor is their strategic cooperation particularly deep.

Hell, the Saudis are probably more important to China, yet they’re not really allies either.

I remember a war nerd episode where they were talking about how westoids say Russia is run by oligarchs, but that the SMO demonstrated that Putin is not wholly beholden to them. Most of the oligarchs got in line (or they got their shit confiscated). Imo, we are seeing a similar dynamic play out in the US.

Trump’s tarrifs are basically a fait accompli. What could the capitalist class do at this point to stop this? The cat’s out of the bag.

In my mind it’s really not that much of a mystery why Hezbollah didn’t go all-out. Yeah, they might have crippled Israel, but that would also entail the destruction of Lebanon, whether at the hands of the Americans or Israeli nukes. What good would that do for Hezbollah or the Palestinian people?

The only way for Israel to seize to exist, is for it to collapse under it’s own contradictions. As long as it has nukes, the resistance can only push up until just shy of all-out war.

I’d guess the main target of this operation is still Lebanon. They’re going to have another go at Hezbollah once they’ve consolidated their positions in Syria. Trying to take over Damascus at this time is pointless, they already seem to have the compliance of HTS.

I always try to keep a ‘wait and see’-approach but you were right about the assassination of Nasrallah and you were right about Syria.

It makes sense, unlike most of us, you actually know the region intimately. There’s good reason to take seriously your insights, particularly when it comes to the region in question. Your contributions to the news mega are invaluable if you ask me.

Alright, enough with the glazing. Like kittin said, hope you and yours are safe.

If there’s one thing this coalition isn’t going to collapse over, it’s being too racist.

I am once again and eternally embarrassed to be Dutch. A country filled with naive, pearl-clutching, know-it-all’s with a massive superiority complex.

Tbh, this sentiment about the libs being back in charge after a brief resurgence of Marxist seems like wishful thinking about China in the first place.

People can reasonably disagree on the extent to which China is committed to forming an alternative bloc to US imperialism. But it is ridiculous to make a conclusion either way based on a few years. Shit like that doesn’t happen in just a few years. It takes (at minimum) decades of carefull strategic maneuvering and risk taking. It’s not something you announce and then you just got to do it.

It’s like people being sad about whatever BRICS summit not announcing an immediate alternative to the dollar: you basically played yourself by getting excited and then disappointed over an unrealistic wish.

Personally, I’m getting pretty tired of people who most likely don’t live in the region criticising the parties doing the most to fight back against Israel for not doing enough because of some bad news of the day.

You don’t know what’s going on in Iranian government circles either and you’ve just come to this interpretation based on personalities.

What I’m saying is that there is still value in pursuing a ceasefire even if you believe there’s little chance of success.

Even if you believe war is inevitable, the Israeli position is being attrited more and more the longer all-out war doesn’t break out. But history is always still contingent and it would be irresponsible towards all the people living under your governance to just jump in head first just because you believe it is inevitable. That’s how fascists think.

The resistance knows better than us what is at stake and what an all-out war would look like. Although it almost certainly wouldn’t entail less Palestinians dying.

What’s been made clear again the last couple of days, is that it is a priority for Iran to go through the proper diplomatic channels before resorting to military means. Even if it is likely to get them nowhere (I.e. holding off on retaliation for the promise of a ceasefire).

They want to convey that they are rational and principled when they commit to violence. They give a heads-up precisely because it won’t stop a retaliation. They don’t want an all-out war but they have to respond.

The primary audience doesn’t even have to be Israel and the US, but also the rest of the world: Iran is better because it has justice on it side. Iran holds itself to a higher standard and acts accordingly.

i don’t believe Iran has avoided getting weapons out of a faith in the west or flawed understanding of what they would do to protect them, but because other priorities have been more pressing in recent years

In that regard being close to having nukes already gives you much of the leverage of having them. Countries don’t build nukes because they plan on actually using them. It’s about the threat, which still exists to a large extent if you are close to getting the bomb. But without the cost of maintaining nukes.

Investing in missile and nuclear technology is worth it because that tech can be used for other applications. Actual nukes just sit in a warehouse until they have to be replaced.

Maybe he should ask what he would do in that situation and then he’d have a pretty good idea of what Trump would do.

The only good ska punk artist

Thinking about it a bit more and I don’t see a direct value in taking Kharkiv considering the inevitable costs of urban warfare. The only thing Russia needs to continue doing is not overextend themselves. As longs as they do that, they won’t loose the initiative. Getting caught in a grinding fight in the city might be inadvisable.

Kharkiv oblast was not among those officially annexed by Russia so it is not as politically important as capturing the whole of Donbass. There is a political and military value in creating a buffer zone for the Belgorod region, but that goal does not necessitate the capture of Kharkiv city.

But ofcourse you’re right that the calculation changes when there’s very little resistance.

I keep hearing (in Western media) that Russia doesn’t have enough reserves to take Kharkiv. I guess we’ll find out if that’s cope, or if Russia is just trying to spread the Ukrainians out, especially in light of new ammunition deliveries from the US. Spreading the front will make it harder for Ukraine to use that ammunition to concentrate firepower and create tactical advantages.