#U.S.-Japan Alliance | Explore Tumblr posts and blogs

mariacallous · 4 days ago

Text

Doubts over sustained U.S. support for Ukraine long predated Donald Trump’s victory in the presidential election, and they have raised concerns over Kyiv’s ability to sustain its defense against Moscow’s war. These concerns have overshadowed another important dynamic in an already complicated conflict: the increasing involvement of East Asian powers in a European war. Besides the recent arrival of at least 10,000 North Korean soldiers on the Russian side, the evolving roles of China, Japan, and South Korea raise the question of whether a widening proxy war is being fought in Ukraine. By all indications, the answer is yes: The war is setting a new precedent for Indo-Pacific nations to compete for their interests on the global stage.

A proxy war is when two countries fight each other indirectly—by supporting warring participants in a third country. Classic examples from the Cold War era include the Congo crisis in the 1960s and the Angola crisis in the 1970s, when the Soviet Union and United States each backed warring factions in a civil war with money, weapons, and sometimes troops from yet other countries but never got directly involved in combat themselves.

Not all proxy wars look alike or follow the standard pattern. Sometimes, an outside power’s support for one side leads that power to intervene directly. Think of the United States’ gradual involvement in the Vietnam War or the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan to prop up the embattled government there. Even as the military efforts of their proxies waned, the United States and Soviet Union maintained their participation in an attempt to prevent a victory by the other superpower’s proxy.

Russia’s war against Ukraine has all the trappings of a proxy war. The Kremlin has clearly articulated its view that Ukraine has no agency as an independent state and that the target of its invasion is the West—specifically, the United States. Members of NATO and several other Western-aligned countries, in turn, are supporting Ukraine with weapons deliveries. The West’s intention may be Ukraine’s defense, but its efforts are necessarily directed at Russia. By forcing Putin to fail in his goal of subjugating Ukraine, Western support for Ukraine undermines Russia. U.S. Defense Secretary Lloyd Austin suggested as much, admitting that “we want to see Russia weakened.”

But what about East Asian states’ involvement on each side of this war? Is this a proxy war for them, too? If so, to what end?

Start with Russia’s supporters. Despite China refraining from overtly providing Russia with weapons, it has worked to ensure Moscow’s ability to continue its war. Not only has it opposed Western sanctions, but it has also used its diplomatic connections in the global south to prevent a broader condemnation of Russia. Importantly, China has stepped in to prop up the Russian economy and defense industry to ensure that Russia can withstand Western sanctions and supply its military. Russia now imports most of its battlefield goods and critical components from China; according to U.S. Secretary of State Antony Blinken, China now supplies Russia with about 90 percent of its microelectronics imports and 70 percent of machine tool imports. According to customs data, Beijing ships more than $300 million worth of dual-use goods to Russia every month. As if to fire yet another warning in NATO’s direction, China this year participated in military exercises in Belarus, only a few miles from the Polish border.

North Korea has taken a far more direct approach. It was one of only five countries that voted against the U.N. General Assembly resolution opposing Russia’s aggression, and last week Pyongyang ratified a military alliance that pledges either country to aid the other in case of attack. North Korea has provided Russia with artillery shells and ballistic missiles to support dwindling munition stockpiles. But the most escalatory step occurred last month, when North Korea sent about 10,000 troops to Russia, some of whom are now reported to be fighting the Ukrainians in Russia’s Kursk region.

To support Ukraine, two stalwart U.S. allies have stepped in, albeit with much smaller steps: Japan and South Korea. Early on, Japan coordinated sanctions against Russia with Western partners. Tokyo also provides direct and indirect assistance to Ukraine, including nonkinetic military equipment—including vehicles, flak jackets, and reconnaissance drones—as well as some $12 billion in other aid, making Tokyo one of Kyiv’s top bilateral donors. Japan also revised its restrictions on weapons exports, enabling the transfer of Japanese-manufactured Patriot missiles to the United States, thereby helping to ensure U.S. stockpiles remain stable even as some of this equipment is sent to help Ukraine. And diplomatically, Japan has used its connections to act as a convening power to help Ukraine. During Japan’s 2023 G-7 presidency, for example, then-Prime Minister Kishida Fumio extended invitations to various countries from the global south so that Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky could engage with their representatives at the group’s May summit.

While South Korea, too, has refrained from delivering weapons to Ukraine, it has provided substantial humanitarian aid and other nonlethal support, such as mine-clearing equipment, body armor, and helmets. It has also joined in economic sanctions against Moscow. And like Japan, it has replenished U.S. weapons stocks, supplying the United States with artillery shells and thereby freeing up Washington’s ability to send shells to Ukraine. Similarly, South Korea has greatly increased defense exports to Poland, part of which backfilled the latter’s deliveries to Ukraine in the early days of the war. Following the news of North Korean troops arriving in Russia, Seoul is now considering a greater level of support, floating the idea of directly supplying Kyiv with defensive and offensive weapons.

The motivations of these four East Asian actors have all the hallmarks of their being involved in a proxy war. Both Beijing and Pyongyang have an overarching strategic interest in seeing Moscow prevail. Both share Russia’s vision of a post-Western world order, in which the United States and its allies are weakened. Chinese President Xi Jinping and North Korean leader Kim Jong Un see Putin as an ally in a global struggle against the West, which makes supporting his war in Ukraine a strategic imperative.

Similar proxy war motivations hold for Tokyo and Seoul. As a status quo power, Tokyo has a strategic interest in ensuring that the existing order does not falter, including the post-World War II proscription of changing borders by force; as Kishida famously warned, “Ukraine today may be East Asia tomorrow.” Seoul—in addition to its concerns about the new military alliance between Pyongyang and Moscow—is also motivated by a need to thwart attempts to change the status quo through coercion. Echoing Kishida, South Korean President Yoon Suk-yeol told The Associated Press last year that “the war in Ukraine has reminded us all that a security crisis in one particular region can have a global impact.” Together, their actions to help Ukraine prevail also aim to send a message to China and North Korea that any attempt to forcibly change the status quo comes with dire consequences.

Granted, the level of support we currently see from the East Asian powers will likely be a function of how committed the United States and Russia remain in the months and years ahead. Trump’s return to the White House could result in changes on the battlefield��but not necessarily in the nature of Indo-Pacific involvement. Trump has already said he could end the war in a day but has not provided details. If he can—and both sides accept the outcome—then the proxy war ends. If he cannot and the conflict continues in some manner, so does the proxy war, but the level of commitment may change. In a situation where the United States stops supporting Ukraine but European NATO members step up, it is likely that Japan and South Korea would also continue their support; their interest in pushing back against aggressors would be unchanged. However, their support could be reduced, since some of their activities have come as a request by their U.S. ally.

It is hard to see China and North Korea reducing their involvement, given that their support could help Russia succeed and advance their strategic goal of destroying the existing order. Short of a mutually acceptable end to the war, changes in the degree of U.S. involvement under a second Trump administration will not alter the fundamental proxy war constellation: All four East Asian powers are supporting a third party to undermine their competitor’s ability to undermine their national interests.

While this indicates that the security challenges in East Asia have, in part, been exported to Europe, the more concerning element is the fact that their participation adds an element of uncertainty and potential escalation to the conflict in Ukraine. Beijing, Pyongyang, Seoul, and Tokyo are supporting their respective partners on European soil in order to wage a much broader struggle over the future of the international order. This, in turn, indicates the extent to which the war has become global—and has set a new precedent for how Asian nations compete for their interests in other parts of the world.

9 notes · View notes

dreaminginthedeepsouth · 2 months ago

Text

* * * *

LETTERS FROM AN AMERICAN

September 24, 2024

Heather Cox Richardson

Sep 25, 2024

This morning, President Joe Biden spoke to the United Nations General Assembly in New York City. Earlier in the day, Secretary General António Guterres of Portugal warned that “our world is in a whirlwind” and, having lost the “hot lines, red lines and guard rails” of the Cold War, is dangerous and adrift. In contrast, Biden in his final speech before the body offered optimism.

The president noted that when he first was elected U.S. senator in 1972, the world was also in a time of “tension and uncertainty.” The Cold War simmered, the Middle East was headed toward war, and the U.S. was in one in Vietnam. The United States was “divided and angry, and there were questions about our staying power and our future.” The U.S. and the world made it through that moment, he recalled, but it “wasn’t easy or simple or without significant setbacks.” Nonetheless, the world went on to reduce the threat of nuclear weapons, end the Cold War, forge a historic peace between Israel and Egypt, and end the war in Vietnam.

Last year, Biden noted, the U.S. and Vietnam elevated their partnership to the highest level, “a testament to the resilience of the human spirit and the capacity for reconciliation…proof that even from the horrors of war there is a way forward,” he said.

Biden’s message continued to be one of optimism as he recalled the world history he has seen. In the 1980s, he said, the racist regime of apartheid in South Africa fell; in the 1990s, Serbian president Slobodan Milošević was prosecuted for war crimes after presiding over chaos and mass murder in southeastern Europe. At home, Biden recalled, although there is more to do, he “wrote and passed the Violence Against Women Act to end the scourge of violence against women and girls not only in America but across the world.” Then, after the attacks of September 11, 2001, the U.S. brought the attack’s mastermind, Osama bin Laden, to justice.

Turning to his own presidency, Biden noted that it, too, began in “crisis and uncertainty.” Afghanistan had replaced Vietnam as America’s longest war, and after four American presidents had had to decide whether to withdraw, Biden “was determined not to leave it to the fifth.” Biden said he thinks every day of the 13 Americans who lost their lives along with hundreds of Afghans in a suicide bombing, the 2,461 U.S. military deaths and 20,744 American personnel wounded over the 20 years of that war, and the service personnel of other countries who died there.

Biden said that he came to office determined to rebuild the alliances and partnerships of the U.S. He worked to rebuild the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO), and NATO allies and partners in more than 50 nations supported Ukraine’s resistance to Russia’s February 2022 invasion. Now NATO is “bigger, stronger, and more united than ever with two new members, Finland and Sweden,” he noted. Biden also worked to strengthen new partnerships like the Quadrilateral Security Dialogue, known as the Quad, which brings together the U.S., Japan, Australia, and India, and whose leaders met last weekend in Delaware to affirm their commitment to the partnership.

Biden listed the many crises around the world today. “[F]rom Ukraine to Gaza to Sudan and beyond,” he said, we see “war, hunger, terrorism, brutality, record displacement of people, a climate crisis, democracy at risk, strains within our societies, the promise of artificial intelligence and its significant risks.”

In 1919, Biden recalled, Irish poet William Butler Yeats described a world where “Things fall apart; the centre cannot hold; Mere anarchy is loosed upon the world.” But, Biden said, “[i]n our time, the center has held.” Leaders and people around the world have stood together to turn the page on Covid, defend the charter of the United Nations, and ensure the survival of Ukraine in the face of the 2022 Russian invasion.

“There will always be forces that pull our countries apart and the world apart: aggression, extremism, chaos, and cynicism, a desire to retreat from the world and go it alone,” Biden said. “Our task, our test, is to make sure that the forces holding us together are stronger than those that are pulling us apart, that the principles of partnership that we came here each year to uphold can withstand the challenges, that the center holds once again.”

Biden reiterated the themes of his administration’s foreign policy, urging the countries in the United Nations to continue to stand with Ukraine and to manage competition with China responsibly so that competition does not become conflict. He noted that the U.S. and China are working together to combat the flow of deadly synthetic narcotics around the world, but said the U.S. will continue to push back against unfair economic competition and the military coercion of other nations in the South China Sea, while strengthening a network of alliances and partnerships across the Indo-Pacific.

Turning to the Middle East, Biden reiterated the horrors of October 7, 2023, when Hamas terrorists invaded Israel and killed more than 1,200 people—including 46 Americans—and pointed out that “[i]nnocent civilians in Gaza are also going through hell. Thousands and thousands killed, including aid workers. Too many families dislocated, crowding into tents, facing a dire humanitarian situation. They didn’t ask for this war that Hamas started.”

Biden noted that the U.S., Qatar, and Egypt have put forward a ceasefire and hostage deal that was endorsed by the U.N. Security Council, and urged Israel and Hamas to finalize it. “Even as the situation has escalated,” Biden said, “a diplomatic solution is still possible.” Indeed, he said, “a two-state solution…where Israel enjoys security and peace and full recognition and normalized relations with all its neighbors, where Palestinians live in security, dignity, and self-determination in a state of their own,” remains “the only path to lasting security.”

Progress toward peace in the Middle East will put countries “in a stronger position to deal with the ongoing threat posed by Iran,” Biden said, to deny oxygen to the terrorists Iran supports and to “ensure that Iran will never, ever obtain a nuclear weapon.”

“Gaza is not the only conflict that deserves our outrage,” Biden said. In Sudan, a bloody civil war has put eight million people on the brink of famine, and caused death and atrocities. The U.S. has led the world in providing humanitarian aid, Biden said, and is leading diplomatic talks to avert a wider famine.

The U.S. stands behind the idea that people “need the chance to live in dignity,... protected from the ravages of climate change, hunger, and disease,” Biden said, and he noted that during his presidency the U.S. has invested more than $150 billion in sustainable development—including $20 billion for food security and more than $50 billion for global health—and has mobilized billions in private-sector investment. These principles were laid down in the 1950s by Republican president Dwight D. Eisenhower, who feared that impoverished populations would be easy prey for religious or political demagogues who could use them to start wars. Biden did not acknowledge that a Trump presidency, devoted to isolationism, would almost certainly abandon them.

Biden did note that the U.S. worked to repair the damage of Trump’s administration by rejoining the Paris Agreement on climate change. It also passed the most ambitious climate legislation in history, is on track to cut emission in half by 2030, and has promised to quadruple climate financing to developing nations, investing $11 billion so far this year. The U.S. also rejoined the World Health Organization and donated almost 700 million doses of Covid vaccine to 117 countries. Biden vowed to address the outbreak of mpox in Africa and urged other countries to join the effort. He noted that the U.S., the Group of Seven industrialized democracies (G7), and partners have launched an initiative to finance infrastructure in the developing world.

Biden took office warning that the international institutions set up after World War II had concentrated wealth and power among the hands of a few and thus people left behind around the globe were losing faith in democracy. That sentiment is shared at the U.N, and today he sided with those countries calling for an expanded U.N. Security Council, greater youth engagement, and stronger measures against climate change.

At length, Biden urged the U.N to take advantage of the possibilities and manage the risks of artificial intelligence (AI), which can both usher in scientific progress and push disinformation and create bioweapons. “We must make certain that the awesome capabilities of AI will be used to uplift and empower everyday people, not to give dictators more powerful shackles on…the human spirit,” he said.

So far, Biden’s speech was a retrospective of the changes he had seen in the world in more than 50 years in public service, and how he had tried to approach present-day changes by reinforcing and expanding America’s engagement with the world. But in his last address to the United Nations, he also had something personal to say.

“Even as we navigate so much change,” he said, “[w]e must never forget who we’re here to represent.”

“‘We the People,’” he said, the first words of the U.S. Constitution, and the words that inspired the opening words of the U.N. Charter, which begins: “We the peoples of the United Nations determined to save succeeding generations from the scourge of war….”

Biden noted that he “made the preservation of democracy the central cause of my presidency.” He recalled the difficulty of deciding to step away, concluding that “as much as I love the job, I love my country more.”

“My fellow leaders, let us never forget, some things are more important than staying in power. It’s your people…that matter the most. Never forget, we are here to serve the people, not the other way around. Because the future will be…won by those who unleash the full potential of their people to breathe free, to think freely, to innovate, to educate, to live and love openly without fear. That’s the soul of democracy. It does not belong to any one country.”

It lives in “the brave men and women who ended apartheid, brought down the Berlin Wall, fight today for freedom and justice and dignity,” he said. It’s in Venezuela, where millions voted for change; in Uganda, where LGBTQ activists demand safety and recognition of their humanity; in citizens from Ghana to India to South Korea peacefully choosing their leaders.

“Every age faces its challenges,” Biden said. “I saw it as a young man. I see it today. But we are stronger than we think. We’re stronger together than alone. And what the people call ‘impossible’ is just an illusion. [As] Nelson Mandela taught us…: ‘It always seems impossible until it’s done.’”

LETTERS FROM AN AMERICAN

HEATHER COX RICHARDSON

#Joe Biden #The UN #Letters From An American #Heather Cox Richardson #National Security #American History #world economy #Election 2024

8 notes · View notes

usafphantom2 · 9 months ago

Text

Don't mind us, just another day at #PACAF training with @JASDF_PAO_ENG to enhance deterrence and response capabilities of Japan-U.S. Alliance. #PACAF2030

@usairforce | @INDOPACOM | @AFGlobalStrike via X

24 notes · View notes

beardedmrbean · 3 months ago

Text

North Korea has issued a fresh nuclear warning to the U.S. over its activities on the Korean Peninsula, interpreting them as rehearsals for an armed conflict.

The statement, issued by Pyongyang's Foreign Ministry, was in response to ongoing bilateral military exercises involving South Korea and the U.S.

On Monday, state-run news agency KNCA released a statement from the North Korean Foreign Ministry taking aim at exercise "Ulchi Freedom Shield," which it called "large-scale provocative joint military exercises."

"The current exercises, including a drill simulating a nuclear confrontation with the DPRK, bring to light clearer the provocative nature of Ulji Freedom Shield as a prelude to a nuclear war," the ministry said.

Newsweek has contacted the United States Indo-Pacific Command for comment on North Korea's claims.

On Monday, the US began its annual joint military drills with South Korea, with this year's exercises focused on improving their capabilities to deal with growing threats posed by North Korea.

The drills, set to continue through August 29, will involve over 40 types of field exercises, as well as drills intended to simulate missile attacks, GPS jamming and cyberattacks.

According to a spokesperson for South Korea's Joint Chiefs of Staff, quoted by Reuters, the alliance's bilateral exercises will also "further strengthen its capability and posture to deter and defend against weapons of mass destruction."

However, Pyongyang said that these defensive exercises resemble the historical behavior of countries preparing for conflict, and accused the two states of rehearsing a "beheading operation" against the Kim Jong Un regime.

"It is clearly recorded in the world history of wars that in preparation for a war, aggressor states followed a series of procedures, including adoption of war policy and military operation plan for its execution, advance deployment of forces, ceaseless simulated and actual war drills and war provocation," the ministry's statement read.

These annual drills have consistently drawn the ire of Pyongyang, as has the increasing presence and activity of the U.S. in the Indo-Pacific.

North Korea responded to last year's Freedom Shield drills by carrying out tests of a strategic cruise missile, overseen by Kim Jong Un, according to KNCA.

In June, following the conclusion of the first "multi-domain" trilateral exercises involving the U.S., South Korea and Japan, Pyongyang condemned the three countries' "reckless and provocative" actions, and warned that these would be met with "fatal consequences."

In its Monday statement, North Korea's Foreign Ministry also criticized America's "nuclear confrontation policy against the DPRK," which it said was evidenced by the creation of the U.S.-South Korean "Nuclear Consultative Group" in April 2023.

According to a joint statement from Joe Biden and South Korean President Yoon Suk Yeol in July, after the pair signed their first guidelines on nuclear deterrence on the Korean Peninsula, this group has "directly strengthened U.S.-ROK cooperation on extended deterrence, and managed the threat to the nonproliferation regime posed by the Democratic People's Republic of Korea."

Since the consultative group was launched in 2023, U.S. nuclear ballistic missile submarines have been sent to South Korean waters, which North Korea has warned "may fall under the conditions of the use of nuclear weapons."

#nunyas news

8 notes · View notes

gryficowa · 2 months ago

Text

Boycott!

I love how Zionists call all Nazis for being anti-genocidal, it's obvious they don't know shit about Nazis

"Nazism[2] (abbreviation from German: Nationalsozialismus[3], also national socialism, Nazism[a][2], nacissism[4]) - the ideology of the National Socialist German Workers' Party (German: NSDAP)[5][6] founded after World War I. It is a German and extreme version of fascism[7][8][9][10][11], classified as far right[12][13][14][15][16], which are characterized by:

anti-democratism in its totalitarian and dictatorial version; the demand for absolute obedience to the orders of the leader (German: Führer), who was identified with the state, called the principle of leadership[1]; German nationalism in its extremely chauvinistic version[17], known as Völkisch: calling the Germans a "master race"; hateful anti-Semitism[18], anti-Gypsyism, anti-Slavism and racism[19] in a pseudobiological version[20][21]; Social Darwinism[20]; eugenics; German imperialism: resurrection of the idea of Greater Germany - the demand for the unification of Germany with Austria, German Anschluss[22][2][23]; expansionism - the postulate of colonizing new areas to provide Germans with living space, German Lebensraum[24]; anti-communism; homophobia[b][c][25]; ambivalent attitude towards religion: combating Judaism and Jehovah's witnesses; tolerance for the main branches of Christianity such as Catholicism and Protestantism, cooperation with them, but combined with their control, regulation [26] [27] and competition by promoting their own, new forms of religiosity[2] such as positive Christianity and the German Faith Movement. Nazism arose, among others, on the basis of Prussian militarism[28]; in 1920, the party organized a militia called Sturmabteilung (SA)[29]. In 1921, Adolf Hitler became the head of the NSDAP party, and he presented Nazi ideology in the book My Struggle (German: Mein Kampf) published for the first time in 1925–1927[30]. Under his leadership, the NSDAP"

Now that I have your attention:

-------------------------------------------------------------

(I had to separate them because, unfortunately, the collections got lost in the thicket of text)

"apparatus of terror such as concentration camps and the secret police Geheime Staatspolizei (Gestapo); development of German eugenics, including introduction of the Nuremberg Laws; intensification of persecution for same-sex relations[25]; alliance with fascist Italy (Steel Pact) and Japan (Anti-Comintern Pact); the later Pact of Three between these countries formalized the Axis bloc; support of Francoists in the Spanish Civil War (1936–1939)[38]; annexation of Austria in 1938; the enlarged state was called the Greater German Reich, German: Großdeutsches Reich[39]; mass murders exterminating "life unworthy of life": T4 action on sick and disabled people; genocides – holocaust and post-Rajmos. One of the tools of mass murder were the extermination camps established in the occupied areas to "finally solve the Jewish question"; outbreak of World War II in 1939 - attack on Poland and then other countries. After less than six years, in 1945, this war led to the fall of the Third Reich and the denazification of Europe. In 1945, in Germany and Austria it was forbidden to spread Nazi propaganda, e.g. the use of Nazi symbols such as the swastika, SS runes, the Totenkopf skull or the Nazi salute for purposes other than artistic and scientific purposes[40]. Similar bans were also introduced in other countries, including Poland[41]. Despite this, neo-Nazi movements continue to operate in the 21st century, usually using changed symbols, but not always (ANP and NSM). Some of the Nazi assumptions, postulates and symbols were taken over by other nationalist movements such as the National Democratic Party of Germany (German: NPD), Golden Dawn (Gr. XA) in Greece[42] and the National Bolshevik Party (Russian: NBP) in Russia.

Nazi ideologists, apart from Adolf Hitler, included: Alfred Rosenberg (The Myth of the Twentieth Century, German: Der Mythos des 20. Jahrhunderts) and Joseph Goebbels. Nazism was not a uniform movement - its characteristic elements appeared gradually, e.g. symbolism, some of the rhetoric and homophobia came under Hitler's leadership. In addition, Nazi activists had different views, e.g. on the economy and religion, as described below"

"National socialism is an extreme ideology created as a result of the development of mass society, based on chauvinistic and racist elements.

The rapid transformation of the world, industrialization, urbanization and the collapse of existing ties in the second half of the 19th century. 19th century prompted the search for new ideas, giving the lost masses of people a sense of meaning in existence. Liberal ideology preaching individualism could not apply to such concepts, because it was based on the negation of all previous certainties and the formation of opposition to traditional concepts and values, including religious ones. German society, torn out of old structures as a result of industrialization, looked for new normative systems in nationalism, especially popular after the unification of Germany (1870). This nationalism combined with the still strong rural mentality of most Germans, creating the ideology of the so-called volkism"

"Hitler's ideology proclaimed the superiority of the German nation, belonging to the "Aryan race" (derived from the Aryans - an ancient Indo-European people) in relation to other races and nations, in particular over Jews and Gypsies. This idea was combined with the vulgarized Nietzschean concept of the "superman" (Übermensch), morally superior, intellectually and spiritually in relation to "subhumans", and the right of the German nation to rule over other nations was derived from it.

The Nazis believed that the mixing of races (Rassenschande) caused their degeneration, so they introduced legislation prohibiting marriage and sexual relations between Germans and people of other races (Nuremberg Laws). The program of euthanasia and sterilization of biologically "defective" people was also intended to "improve" the race. Further projects in the spirit of eugenics were also implemented, including theft of children, support for reproduction according to racial criteria (Lebensborn centers), and the introduction of polygamy was considered. Racial views largely determined the occupation policy and led to the Holocaust.

The Nazis combined racism with German nationalism. Nations were considered to be organisms that fight for survival and expansion and have the right to use all available means in this fight. The plan was to obtain living space in the East (Lebensraum im Osten) for the German nation by conquering other nations. This policy was determined not only by national motives, but also by racial ones: a dismissive attitude towards the Slavs, who were allegedly deprived of the ability to rule. Geopolitical theories were also used to justify the need for territorial expansion.

The National Socialists also subordinated cultural policy to racial and biological criteria. Artists of Jewish origin were fought against, as well as - as a product of foreign races and a manifestation of degeneration - contemporary art and jazz. According to the National Socialist ideal, art should proclaim the greatness of the nation, the heroism of "supermen", the bond with nature, and traditional family values. The ideals of man's bond with nature and his native land were summarized in the slogan Blood and Earth (Blut und Boden).

Racism was associated with social Darwinism - the Nazis believed that a specific group of people, in this case, the Aryans, are better adapted to the prevailing conditions than other races. Due to their origin, Germans were entitled to special aristocratic rights[141]"

"A General Government was established in some Polish territories. Terror was used on a massive scale against the Polish population of the province. According to the Nazis, the role of Poles was slave labor. The Nazis' first goal was to destroy the national intelligentsia. Poland was to be only a source of raw materials and labor. Plans to murder entire social groups were created already during the September campaign. The Nazis called these plans "political clearing of the area." Those who were subject to immediate extermination were, among others, teachers, clergy, political, social and cultural activists and state administration employees. Poles were deported en masse from Gdańsk and West Prussia. A policy of displacement of entire youth communities was used, with the aim of denationalizing Poles[142].

The population of Silesia and Pomerania, as well as the Kashubians and highlanders, were Germanized. Poles were deported to Germany as forced laborers. Polish forced laborers wore special identification badges and were subordinated to the police[143].

Hitler planned to divide the conquered territories of the USSR into several areas, which was to prevent the reconstruction of the Russian state. It was planned to create five governorates. The first to enter were Belarus, Lithuania, Latvia and Estonia - these areas were to be Germanized, the Dutch and Danes were to be resettled there, and in the Baltic countries also Norwegians. According to the Nazis, in the future the Baltic countries were to be incorporated into the German Reich as completely Germanized areas. Ukraine was to become the second governorate, the third is the Caucasus, the fourth is Russia, and the fifth is the territory of Turkestan. The conquest of Eastern Europe was supposed to result in the acquisition of areas for the exploitation of labor force. The Nazis assumed that the Russian population would be resettled to Siberia and that the area of Eastern Europe would be colonized by German settlers (lower races were to be eliminated). After a hypothetical victory over the USSR and the enslavement of the nations inhabiting the country, the highest social class in these areas was to be members of the NSDAP, the next caste was to be workers, and finally a layer of conquered foreign tribesmen, also known as the modern slave class[144]. The conquered nations of the USSR were to be deprived of the opportunity to learn the history of their countries, deprived of the ability to read and write, and in the villages information was to be transmitted only through propaganda loudspeakers[144].

Despite the support of the radical, fascist Organization of Ukrainian Nationalists, The Nazis believed that Ukraine should become a colonization area dominated by Germany. The support of the OUN radicals was caused by the positive attitude of Ukrainian nationalists towards the Third Reich and Hitler's views. The OUN believed that the Nazis would support the Ukrainians in their fight against the Poles and the Soviets. Ukrainian nationalists supported the Third Reich in intelligence activities against the Second Polish Republic and the USSR. After Germany's aggression against the USSR, the OUN directly supported the Germans' fight against the Red Army. In exchange for supporting the Germans in the war, the nationalists counted on compensation from the Reich government. They established the Ukrainian National Council, and on the same day the Germans interned the initiators of this move. Then the Nazis banned all parties representing Ukrainians. The country was completely incorporated into German administration. The general Ukrainian society had a negative attitude towards the Germans. Ukrainians were tired of forced labor for Germany and benefits for the Wehrmacht. The Germans again tried to win part of the Ukrainian nation to their side after the defeats of 1943, this time without much response[145]"

(Yes, this is information for idiots who believe that Poles collaborated with the Nazis)

"The Nazis demanded that areas such as Austria, Alsace, Lorraine, the Czech Republic and the area known from 1919 as the Polish Corridor be incorporated into Germany. The main goal of the Nazis' policy was to obtain Lebensraum, i.e. living space for the German nation. The Nazis claimed that after World War I there was an overpopulation crisis in Germany, which meant that new territories had to be provided to the nation[146]. From 1920, the NSDAP publicly promoted Germany's expansion into the territories held by the USSR[147].

In 1921–1922, Hitler wanted to achieve Lebensraum by reducing the territory of Russia, This was said to have occurred as a result of the overthrow of the Bolshevik government by Russian anti-communists supported by Germany[147]. This attitude changed at the end of 1922, when Hitler proposed the creation of a German-British alliance and the joint destruction of Russia[147]. The policy of Lebensraum assumed massive expansion of the Germans eastwards to the Urals[148][149]. The surplus Russian population living west of the Urals was to be deported to the east[150]."

"Following the end of World War I, the Nazis were one of many nationalist and fascist political parties competing for leadership of the German anti-communist movement[footnote needed]. The Nazis claimed that communism was dangerous to the well-being of nations because of its intention to eliminate private property, support for the class struggle, atheism, hostility towards small entrepreneurs and the middle class[151].

Anti-communism was linked to anti-Semitism, Hitler considers communism and Marxism to be a Jewish conspiracy aimed at the destruction of the German nation-state and the entire Western civilization, in Mein Kampf he states: “If a Jew, with the help of his Marxist profession of faith, wins victory over the nations of this world (…) our planet will (…) circulate in the ether completely depopulated. I believe that I am acting in accordance with the intention of the all-powerful Creator; "By defending myself against the Jew, I am fighting for the work of Our Lord"[152]. In numerous other statements, Hitler declares that his most important goal is "the destruction of Marxism." He believed that the complete elimination of Marxism was a condition for the "rebirth" of Germany, and by "Marxism" he understood all varieties of left-wing thought, including the social democratic party SPD, which was then moving away from its Marxist roots[153]. Democracy, pacifism and internationalism were considered the most important "transgressions" of Marxism[154].

Anti-communism resulted from the experiences of party members. The NSDAP was founded, among others, by Thule Society member Karl Harrer. The Society supported the Freikorps paramilitary government forces during the suppression of the communist uprising in Bavaria during the November Revolution (see Bavarian Soviet Republic). In addition to Harrer, other members of the Society included the co-author of the program[155], Gottfried Feder, and one of the most important ideologists, Alfred Rosenberg[156].

At the turn of the 1930s and 1940s . the Nazis established anti-communist regimes subordinated to them to some extent, including Vichy France. In countries such as France and Great Britain, anti-communist groups and activists were supported, including: right-wing organization Cliveden set, conservative Edward Wood (1st Earl of Halifax), The British Union of Fascists and associates of Prime Minister Neville Chamberlain. During the war, the Germans created new military units from anti-communist volunteers, one of them was the 33rd SS Grenadier Division (1st French) Charlemagne[157]"

""On April 11, 1933, the Nazis introduced a law defining Jews as persons of non-Aryan origin, thereby removing Jew"

On April 11, 1933, the Nazis introduced a law defining Jews as persons of non-Aryan origin, thereby removing Jews from offices[194].

On September 15, 1935, the Nuremberg Laws were introduced, depriving Jews of basic civil rights and separating them from the rest of German society. In the same year, twenty-seven decrees were introduced, according to which people applying for various positions had to present proof of Aryan origin in the case of, for example, an SS officer, and the candidate had to document Aryan genealogy from 1700. A new profession was created in Germany - Sippenforscher, which deals with searching for genealogical documents[195]. Since August, the Boycott Committee has been operating, forcing Jews to sell their businesses at minimum prices (members of the Committee organized, among others, kidnappings and murders)[196].

By the fall of 1938, over 200,000 Jews had fled the country, but the number of Jews in the country was equalized after the territories of Austria were incorporated into the Reich. Another pretext for intensified repression against Jews was the assassination attempt on November 9, 1938 by Herschel Grynszpan, who assassinated a Reich diplomat in Paris. In the country, the Nazis unleashed a series of anti-Semitic purges known as Kristallnacht. The government did not counteract the series of anti-Semitic demonstrations, but supported them and began the first mass deportations of Jews to concentration camps (20,000 people were then deported). Moreover, Jews were blamed for the riots and were ordered to pay billions in compensation (approximately $400 million)[197]. After Kristallnacht, a strict law was introduced prohibiting marriage and sexual relations between Jews and representatives of other nationalities. A Jew caught flirting with a German woman was immediately sent to a concentration camp. A German could also be sent back to the camp, who was sent there for three months of anti-Semitic re-education[196].

Racial segregation was introduced in waiting rooms, trains and restaurants, and Jews were expelled from schools.[198]"

By the way, doesn't this sound strangely familiar to you? I don't know… LIKE IZAREL WOULD FUCKING PERFORM THIS ON PALESTINIANS?

"Since Hitler came to power in Germany in 1933, incidental and then increasingly frequent acts of Nazi crimes against political opponents, Jews and Poles began there[199]. The world rarely learned about, and even less often reacted to, human rights abuses and murders in Nazi Germany before World War II. On Palm Sunday, March 21, 1937, Pius XI's encyclical Mit brennender Sorge (German: "With burning concern") about the situation of the Church in the Third Reich was read in German churches. The document was dated March 14, 1937 and concerned the situation of the Church in the Third Reich. It contained a critique of the theological aspects of the policy pursued by Hitler's Germany.[200]

Among the few world leaders appealing through diplomacy to end human rights violations in Germany were Fiorello La Guardia[201], mayor of New York, who promoted the boycott of German goods in the USA and Swedish Prince Charles Bernadotte[202], who actively appealed to German President Paul von Hindenburg before World War II, and in the following years to the German Red Cross for the opportunity to jointly investigate "alleged atrocities" in German prisons and concentration camps. The Germans rejected the proposal of any inspections of Nazi concentration camps. However, the prince achieved success as chairman of the Swedish Red Cross at the end of World War II, when he managed, together with the Swedish diplomat Folke Bernadotte and the government of Denmark, to organize the so-called White buses that saved about 17,000 people from German death camps. In 1944, the German government attempted to deny its crimes, and therefore Holocaust denial, on the international arena by allowing an inspection of the Theresienstadt concentration camp in occupied Czech Republic by international observers accompanied by the SS. mana and creating a completely false propaganda film about the good treatment of Jews in that camp[203]"

Why the fuck does this sound so familiar? Genocide denial, so familiar when you see Israel denying its own

'In 1940, in one night, the Germans murdered 1,700 Jews in Nasielsk. 600,000 Jews were expelled from the Polish territories incorporated into the Reich and ended up in the General Government.

The policy of genocide unleashed by the Germans in mid-1941 lasted approximately 40 months. The number of Jewish victims of the Holocaust is estimated at almost 6 million[207] . One third of this number, or approximately 2 million, were children. The number of Polish Jews among the victims of the Holocaust is estimated, according to various sources, from 2.6 million to 3.3 million people[208].

In October 1941, a separate labor code was introduced for Jews, according to which they were to work without any time limits (this applied to children as young as fourteen). The Jews were deprived of their protective clothing. In September, Jews were forced to wear a Star of David with the inscription "Jude".

During the war with the USSR in the east, all non-military train transports were suspended. In their place, special trains were built to transport Jews to death camps. The SS had trains transporting 5,000 Jews each day to the Treblinka extermination camp and 5,000 to Bełżec twice a week. Apart from the camps, the most famous site of genocide is the Babi Yar gorge near Kiev, where approximately 100,000 Jews were murdered in 1941, as well as Ponary near Vilnius, where the Nazis murdered almost 80,000 Jews[209].

The Third German Reich tried to hide the crimes it committed from the world, including the Holocaust and the genocide of Poles. It failed to achieve this, as evidenced by the action of Polish diplomat Jan Karski, who was the first to inform the British and US authorities about the ongoing crimes already in 1942 and appealed for a military response. In the summer and fall of 1944, the World Jewish Congress and the War Refugee Council appealed to the U.S. Department of War to immediately bomb the German death camp Auschwitz-Birkenau. However, these proposals were rejected[210]. The Allies' abandonment of bombing the railway tracks to the extermination camps has been considered by some historians as an "appalling moral failure".[211] Only on June 6, 1944, the Americans, British and Canadians landed in Normandy to liberate Europe from German occupation"

As you can see, the USA didn't help much… Who expected it?

How long will Palestine be left to its own devices? How long will the US help a genocide? How much longer will we accept genocide?

"In the USA in the 1930s, there were groups active, such as William Dudley Pelley's Silver Legion and Fritz Kuhn's German-American Bund. He expressed support for Nazism, among others: Father Charles Coughlin of Catholic Radio in Detroit, condemning the influence of godless capitalists, Jews, communists, international bankers and plutocrats on US foreign policy, or Charles Lindbergh, who in 1941 declared: The three most important groups pushing this country into war are the British, the Jews and the Roosevelt administration.[271] George Rockwell founded the marginal American Nazi Party, which in the following decades supported the white power movement and opposed the civil rights movement. In South Africa in 1938, the Afrikaans Ossewabrandwag and the Stormjaers militia were founded. The party was influenced by the NSDAP, and during World War II it opposed cooperation between South Africa and Great Britain. After terrorist attacks carried out by its members, some of its leaders were imprisoned, but the party was never officially banned. After 1945, several former members of the movement became part of the apartheid dictatorship. The group was absorbed by the National Party. A former militant of the Balthazar party, Johannes Vorster, served as Prime Minister of South Africa in 1966–1978[272].

Nazi groups even sprang up in Costa Rica. In the 1930s Nazi sympathizers coming mainly from the German community gathered in the German Club[273]"

"In Poland, National Socialist groups did not play a significant role. Some of them are: the National Socialist Workers' Party, the Radical Healing Movement of J. Kowal-Lipiński, the Polish National Socialist Party, the Polish National Socialist Party "Warta", the National Peasant-Worker Front[274][275]. Some historians see a similarity between Nazi ideology and the doctrines of the National Radical Camp[276][277][278] and the National Radical Movement[279][280]. The National Radical Organization, a collaborationist organization operating at the beginning of the German occupation of Poland, is sometimes associated with national socialism[281]"

Unfortunately, there are bad apples in every country… I'm not denying that there were no bad apples, but saying that Poles collaborated with the Nazis (erasing their being victims of the Holocaust) is problematic on many levels

"In 2009, in the resolution "Unifying a divided Europe", the OSCE Parliamentary Assembly equated the totalitarian systems of German Nazism and Soviet Stalinism. The resolution states that in the 20th century, European countries suffered at the hands of two totalitarian regimes, which resulted in crimes against humanity and genocide[309][310][311]. This equation raises objections from Russia. According to Kommersant's interlocutors, the comparison of Stalinism and fascism is inappropriate due to the fact that "it was the Stalinist USSR that suffered the greatest sacrifices and made the greatest contribution to freeing Europe from fascism." According to Moscow's position, this resolution is "offensive, anti-Russian action” and “rape of history”[312].

According to the authors of The Black Book of Communism, the difference between National Socialism and Soviet communism "is only that the Nazi racial and territorial division replaces the division into layers (classes)"[313]. In turn, Margaret Buber-Neumann, a former German communist, imprisoned from 1937 to 1940 in the Gulag, and then from 1940 to 1945 in Ravensbrück, in her memoirs published after the war she pointed to numerous similarities in the practices of both regimes, pointing primarily to the contempt for human life, the cult of violence, and the use of slave labor by both systems. . In her opinion, the ideas of Nazism were criminal from the beginning, while the communist idea as a theory could contain a fundamental error, or the ideals could be betrayed by Soviet practice under the rule of Joseph Stalin, which, in her opinion, turned the USSR into a form of fascism[314]. According to Adam Leszczyński, writing in the context of the Warsaw Uprising and the book Oblą '44, or how Poles gave Stalin a gift by causing the Warsaw Uprising by Piotr Zychowicz, there was a fundamental qualitative difference between the regime in the USSR and the Third Reich, according to him, the communists were guided by the noble goals of equality and justice, and the Nazis' goal was solely to exterminate the subhuman race[315]. Slavoj Žižek also claimed that while Stalinism was "the tragic dimension of a failed emancipatory project", Nazism was "an extremely successful anti-emancipatory project"[316]. Žižek also noted that that, contrary to the liberating potential of communism as an idea, Nazism was, even at the theoretical stage, a "perverse" enterprise: "it would be simply ridiculous to see the Holocaust as some kind of tragic perversion of the noble Nazi project - this project was straight up the Holocaust" [317]"

The problem with the USSR and the Third Reich is simply that Hitler and Nazism had a greater impact on the world and that is why it is terrifying, the fact that Hitler had fewer victims (fatalities) does not automatically mean that he was a lesser evil, he was a greater one because of the fact that that he influenced so many people and countries…

"Promoting the totalitarian methods and practices of Nazism is prohibited in Poland by law and is subject to criminal liability. This is regulated by:

Constitution of the Republic of Poland (Journal of Laws of 1997, No. 78, item 483):

Art. 13 The existence of political parties and other organizations that refer in their programs to the totalitarian methods and practices of Nazism, fascism and communism, as well as those whose programs or activities assume or allow racial and national hatred, is prohibited, the use of violence in order to gain power or influence state policy or provides for the secrecy of structures or membership. Act of June 6, 1997, Penal Code (Journal of Laws of 2022, item 1138, as amended):

Art. 256. § 1. Whoever publicly propagates Nazi, communist, a fascist or other totalitarian state system or inciting hatred based on national, ethnic, racial or religious differences or due to lack of religious denomination, shall be subject to the penalty of imprisonment for up to 3 years. § 1a. The same punishment applies to anyone who publicly propagates Nazi or communist ideology, fascist or an ideology that calls for the use of violence to influence political or social life. § 2. The penalty specified in § 1 shall be subject to, who, for the purpose of dissemination, produces, records or imports, purchases, sells, offers, stores, possesses, presents, transports or sends a print, recording or other item, containing the content specified in § 1 or 1a or being a carrier of Nazi, communist, fascist or other totalitarian symbols, used in a way to promote the content specified in § 1 or 1a.

Art. 257. Whoever publicly insults a group of people or an individual person because of their national, ethnic or racial affiliation , religious or because of his lack of religious denomination or for such reasons violates the bodily inviolability of another person, shall be subject to the penalty of deprivation of liberty for up to 3 years. Until July 2011, Article 256 of the Penal Code ended with the phrase "or being a carrier of fascist, communist or other totalitarian symbols." This provision was deleted by the judgment of the Constitutional Tribunal of July 19, 2011. The Tribunal found that the provision did not meet the criteria of specificity and, consequently, "the ruling on the unconstitutionality of Art. 256 § 2 in fine Penal Code means that Art. will have limited application. 256 § 4 of the Penal Code On its basis, the court will be able to order the forfeiture of items containing the content specified in Art. 256 § 1 of the Penal Code However, this will not be possible in relation to objects that are carriers of fascist, communist or other totalitarian symbols” [320] [321]"

If they fucking followed this constitution, there would be no fucking nationalists and parties like PiS and the fucking Confederation

But yes, read this Zionists, that's what fucking Nazism was, it was pro-genocide, not fucking anti-genocide

3 notes · View notes

zvaigzdelasas · 1 year ago

Text

NATO is seeking to expand its cooperation structures globally and also intensify its cooperation with Jordan, Indonesia and India. A “NATO-Indonesia meeting” was held yesterday (Wednesday) on the sidelines of the NATO foreign ministers’ meeting in Brussels – a follow-up to talks between Indonesia’s Foreign Minister Retno Marsudi and NATO Secretary General Jens Stoltenberg in mid-June 2022. Last week, a senior NATO official visited Jordan’s capital Amman to promote the establishment of a NATO liaison office. Already back in June, a US Congressional Committee focused on China, had advocated linking India more closely to NATO. India’s External Affairs Minister Subrahmanyam Jaishankar, however, quickly rejected the suggestion. NATO diplomats are quoted saying that the Western military alliance could conceive of cooperating with South Africa or Brazil, for example. These plans would escalate the West’s power struggle against Russia and China, while non-Western alliances such as the Shanghai Cooperation Organization (SCO) are expanding their membership.

Already since some time, NATO has been seeking to expand its cooperation structures into the Asia-Pacific region, for example to include Japan. Early this year, NATO Secretary General Jens Stoltenberg was in Tokyo, among other things, to sign a joint declaration with Prime Minister Fumio Kishida.[1] In addition, it is strengthening its cooperation with South Korea, whose armed forces are participating in NATO cyber defense and are to be involved more intensively in future conventional NATO maneuvers.[2] Japan’s prime minster and South Korea’s president have already regularly attended NATO summits. The Western military alliance is also extending its cooperation with Australia and New Zealand. This development is not without its contradictions. France, for example, opposes the plan to establish a NATO liaison office in Japan, because it considers itself an important Pacific power and does not want NATO’s influence to excessively expand in the Pacific. Nevertheless, the Western military alliance is strengthening its presence in the Asia-Pacific region – with maneuvers conducted by its member states, including Germany (german-foreign-policy.com reported.[3]).[...]

NATO has been cooperating with several Mediterranean countries since 1994 within the framework of its Mediterranean Dialogue and also since 1994, with several Arab Gulf countries as part of its Istanbul Cooperation Initiative.[4] However, the cooperation is not considered very intensive. At the beginning of this week, NATO diplomats have been quoted saying “we remain acutely aware of developments on our southern flank,” and are planning appropriate measures. The possibility of establishing a Liaison Office in Jordan is being explored “as a move to get closer to the ground and develop the relationship in the Middle East.[5] Last week, a senior NATO official visited Jordan’s capital Amman to promote such a liaison office.[6][...]

NATO diplomats informed the online platform “Euractiv” that “many members of the Western military alliance believe that political dialogue does not have to be limited to the southern neighborhood. One can also seek cooperation with states further away. Brazil, South Africa, India, and Indonesia are mentioned as examples.[7][...]

In a paper containing strategic proposals for the U.S. power struggle against China, the Committee also advocated strengthening NATO’s cooperation with India.[8] The proposal caused a stir in the run-up to Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi’s visit to Washington on June 22. He was able to draw on the fact that India is cooperating militarily in the Quad format with the USA as well as NATO partners Japan and Australia in order to gain leverage against China. Close NATO ties could also facilitate intelligence sharing, allowing New Delhi to access advanced military technology.[9] India’s External Affairs Minister Subrahmanyam Jaishankar, however, rejected Washington’s proposal, stating that the “NATO template does not apply to India”.[10] Indian media explained that New Delhi was still not prepared to be pitted against Russia and to limit its independence.[11] Both would be entailed in close ties to NATO.

The efforts to link third countries around the world more closely to NATO are being undertaken at a time when not only western countries are escalating their power struggles against Russia and above all against China and are therefore tightening their alliance structures. They are also taking place when non-Western alliances are gaining ground. This is true not only for the BRICS, which decided, in August, to admit six new members on January 1, 2024 (german-foreign-policy.com reported [12]). This is also true for the Shanghai Cooperation Organization (SCO), a security alliance centered around Moscow and Beijing that has grown from its original six to currently nine members, including India, Pakistan and Iran, and continues to attract new interested countries. In addition to several countries in Southern Asia and the South Caucasus, SCO “dialogue partners” now include Turkey, Egypt and five Arabian Peninsula states, including Saudi Arabia, the United Arab Emirates and Qatar. Iin light of the BRICS expansion, the admission of additional countries as full SCO members is considered quite conceivable. Western dominance will thus be progressively weakened.[13]

12 Oct 23

16 notes · View notes

defensenow · 5 months ago

Text

youtube

2 notes · View notes

darkmaga-returns · 6 days ago

Text

A Political Price is Being Paid for Being in the West

by Ted Snider | Nov 15, 2024

The concept of “the West” is a complex and difficult one. At times it excludes countries in the geographical west, like Cuba and Venezuela and sometimes Brazil. At times it includes countries not in the geographical west, like Japan and Australia. As Richard Sakwa has explained, the West can refer to a 500 year old civilizational West or to a cultural or historical West of which Russia considers itself to be a core member.

The twin ticket admission into the political West is membership in the U.S.-led, post-Cold War security community built around NATO and in a cultural community allegedly built around free trade, freedom and democracy. The political West, by definition, excludes Russia and, now, China.

But recently, there seems to be a political price being paid by governments in the political West. It is being exacted at the polls by their citizens.

On November 6, the government of Germany, Europe’s most populous country and its largest economy, collapsed when Chancellor Olaf Scholz fired his finance minister, the leader of one of his two coalition partners, dissolving the coalition government. The government will limp along until a confidence vote is held in parliament in January. If Scholz’s Social Democrat Party does not survive the confidence vote, that would trigger early elections in March.

The catalyst of the collapse is disagreement by the coalition partners over a weakening economy and budgetary struggles. There are multiple reasons for Germany’s economic decline, including competition from China in the automotive industry. But key among Germany’s economic challenges is the hammering Germany’s energy intensive industrial sector has taken by the energy crisis caused by the war in Ukraine. German industry has struggled to adjust to the higher price of energy caused by U.S.-led sanctions on Russian oil and by the blowing up of the Nord Stream pipeline. Being the largest economic supporter of Ukraine has further strained the economy.

All three members of Scholz’s already unpopular coalition have been losing support. Scholz’ Social Democrats are polling only around 16% and the combined support of their coalition hovers around 30%, while the opposition Christian Democrats by themselves have 32.5% support. Two fringe parties, the far right populist Alternative für Deutschland and the populist leftwing Sahra Wagenknecht Alliance are both gaining support in part because they oppose further support for Ukraine.

2 notes · View notes

ponkin · 3 months ago

Text

Hiroshima/Nagasaki and Peace Movement in Japan

Aug. 6th is the anniversary of the atomic bombing of Hiroshima and Aug. 9th is of Nagasaki. Hiroshima and Nagasaki are the first and only places where atomic bombs were used in war. This year, too, the 79th memorial ceremonies were held in both cities. Despite great opposition, the mayor of Hiroshima invited a representative of Israel, which is currently committing genocide of Palestinians, to the ceremonies. Meanwhile the mayor of Nagasaki did not invite the Israeli representative. The G7 ambassadors to Japan (Canada, France, Germany, Italy, the UK, and the US) threatened Nagasaki mayor that they would not attend the ceremony if Israel did not attend, and when the mayor still didn't back down, they didn't attend. The US Ambassador to Japan, Rahm Emanuel, is Jewish and his middle name is Israel (I don't believe all Jews are Zionists, and I am firmly against anti-Semitism). This shows that they all do not regret the genocide by atomic bombing at all, I think.

On the other hand, I have a big doubt about the anti-nuclear movement in Japan. Why doesn't the Japanese anti-nuclear movement appeal to the people around the world, especially Aisa? The reason is that Japanese people pandered to the U.S. post-war occupation policy, by elevating the super class-A war criminal, Emperor Hirohito, to the status of the "Symbol of Japan," making a tacit agreement to be replaced from perpetrators to victims of the war, ignoring the responsibility of Japan for the aggressions and colonial dominations. The Japanese government is still trying to avoid responsibility for the Nanking Massacre, comfort women, and impressment. In such a situation, no matter how much the citizens' peace movement tries to appeal the damage caused by nuclear bombs, it will not reach the hearts of the people of war-affected countries. Some of them believe that the atomic bombs are punishment for genocide done in their countries by the Japanese Emperor's Army.

Unless the Japanese people at least abolish the Emperor System (It's the starting point of post-war "Democracy" of Japan), reflect on and make reparations for the war crimes and colonial rule, and break the Japan-U.S. military alliance, they will not be able to build a relationship of trust with the people of Asia, nor will they be able to criticize the U.S. for dropping the atomic bombs.

I am Japanese, but I despise the Japanese people as a whole at this point in time. Today is the 79th anniversary of our defeat in the Asia-Pacific War.

Augst 15th 2024 Ponkin

4 notes · View notes

simply-ivanka · 8 months ago

Text

Trump Was Good for America’s Alliances

He pushed NATO to spend more on defense, expanded the Quad and facilitated the Abraham Accords.

By Alexander B. Gray Wall Street Journal April 3, 2024

Foreign-policy experts are predictably fretting over Donald Trump’s re-election campaign. They fear that the former president threatens the alliances and partnerships that have sustained global peace since 1945. Should Mr. Trump return to the White House, the thinking goes, he will be unconstrained by the guardrails that prevented him from torpedoing America’s alliances in his first term and will permanently damage both U.S. security and the international order.

This narrative concedes a point that undermines its premise: The U.S. alliance system didn’t crumble during Mr. Trump’s first term. On the contrary, the Trump administration strengthened relations with partners in the Indo-Pacific, Central and Eastern Europe and the Mideast. Anyone who believes that Mr. Trump was once bound by conventional wisdom but won’t be again—and will wreak havoc on the global order he ostensibly detests—hasn’t been paying attention.

To understand Mr. Trump’s record, recall what he inherited. The Obama administration’s disastrous “red line” in Syria, its ill-conceived Iranian nuclear deal, its failure to deter or respond adequately to Russia’s 2014 aggression against Ukraine, its toleration of Chinese malign activity in the South and East China seas, and its promise of a “new model of great-power relations” with Beijing had brought U.S. relations with allies and partners like Japan, Taiwan, Israel, the Gulf Arab states and much of Eastern Europe to a historic low point. Much of Mr. Trump’s tenure was spent not simply repairing those relationships but expanding them in innovative ways.

Mr. Trump appalled many foreign-policy veterans, who thought his rhetoric threatened the world order. In one sense, that fear was absurd: Nearly every American administration has publicly scolded North Atlantic Treaty Organization member countries for shirking their defense-spending commitments. Mr. Trump did likewise—and, perhaps unlike his predecessors, was seen as willing to take decisive action to secure change. Through public and private cajoling—also known as diplomacy—he secured a commitment from NATO members to beef up their contributions. From 2017 through 2021, nearly every signatory raised defense spending, contributing substantially to the alliance’s ability to respond to Russia’s invasion of Ukraine in 2022.

These efforts resulted in a significant redistribution of U.S. forces from legacy bases in Germany to facilities in Poland and the Baltic states, where they are far better positioned to deter Moscow. Along with NATO allies, Mr. Trump provided long-sought Javelin antitank missiles to Ukraine, imposed sanctions against malign Russian actors, and worked with partners to stop the Nord Stream 2 pipeline, which would have increased European allies’ energy dependence on Russia. These weren’t the acts of a retrograde isolationist; they were the work of a pragmatist seeking novel solutions to 21st-century challenges.

The administration’s goal of strengthening America’s standing in the world bore fruit, including the Abraham Accords between Israel and several Arab states, a significant upgrade to the Quad alliance among the U.S., India, Australia and Japan, stronger diplomatic relations with Taiwan thanks to unprecedented cabinet-level visits and record arms sales, and an unexpected deal between Serbia and Kosovo.

At each step, Mr. Trump asked his staff to think of creative ways to resolve issues that had bedeviled their predecessors for decades. Doing the same things over and over and expecting different results rightly struck the president as insane.

After three years of press adulation over America’s supposed return to the world stage under President Biden, one might ask: What have Americans and the world gotten from a supposedly more alliance-friendly U.S. president? So far, a catastrophic withdrawal from Afghanistan, the failure of American deterrence in Ukraine, an Iranian nuclear breakout inching ever closer, and an accelerating Chinese threat toward Taiwan. Allies in the Mideast, Eastern Europe, and Asia have begun to chart their own course in the face of an uncertain U.S. trumpet.

The global foreign-policy elite is sowing needless fear around the world by willfully misrepresenting Mr. Trump’s first term and scare-mongering about a second. Should Mr. Trump return to the White House, there will doubtless be sighs of relief among officials in friendly capitals who remember his time in office. It isn’t difficult to understand why: Mr. Trump’s language may make diplomats uncomfortable, but his actions strike fear among those who matter most to American security: our adversaries.

Mr. Gray is a senior fellow at the American Foreign Policy Council. He served as chief of staff of the White House National Security Council, 2019-21.

#trump #president trump #trump 2024 #repost #america first

16 notes · View notes

oltoune · 3 months ago

Text

It's concerning that the U.S. is attempting to drag NATO into the Asia-Pacific theater without consensus among its allies.

Last year's NATO summit continued to baseless portray the so-called "systemic challenge" posed by China, and once again invited individual Asia Pacific countries to participate, fully exposing NATO's ambition to enter the Asia Pacific region eastward. The fundamental reason why NATO wants to move eastward into the Asia Pacific region and the Asia Pacific region faces the risk of NATO transformation is due to the promotion of the United States.

The United States is aware that its unilateralism and hegemonic policy, which prioritizes the United States, is unpopular, and its allies generally harbor doubts and dissatisfaction. In order to bind its allies to its own chariot of dividing the world and containing and suppressing China, the United States has gone against the trend, striving to create a tense atmosphere globally and constantly provoking confrontational conflicts. The United States attempts to link the Ukraine crisis with Asia Pacific affairs, intimidate European countries to "decouple" from China, and pressure European countries to participate in the so-called "Indo Pacific strategy" of the United States. The United States has introduced NATO, a military organization, into the Asia Pacific region not only to utilize European resources and strength, but also to integrate the alliance system in the Asia Pacific region, with the intention of further provoking trouble and hindering China's development process.

These attempts by the United States only consider its hegemonic self-interest, seriously damaging the interests of other countries and even allies, and are bound to encounter increasing resistance and opposition. Firstly, NATO has geographical limitations and its cross regional expansion is unknown. Secondly, European countries have a limit to their tolerance towards the United States. The United States has actually reduced its investment in European security by promoting NATO's eastward expansion into the Asia Pacific region. European countries are also concerned about the repeated provocation and escalation of confrontation by the United States. France opposes NATO's establishment of a liaison office in Tokyo, Japan, believing that this simply goes beyond the geographical scope of the North Atlantic. Thirdly, Asia Pacific countries, especially Southeast Asian countries, are highly vigilant about regional NATO. Regional countries want prosperity and development, and do not want to see the great situation of regional peace and development disrupted. Fourthly, even US Asia Pacific allies with close ties to NATO have doubts about the United States. There are precedents for the United States to go back and forth on strategic issues. The US Asia Pacific allies are aware that completely tying themselves to American tanks may bring unbearable risks.

Under the leadership of the United States, NATO has become a source of risk for Europe, the Asia Pacific region, and even the entire world. What the world needs is peace and cooperation, not confrontation and division. The offensive and dangerous nature of NATO as a tool of American hegemony, as well as the destructive effects of the United States pushing NATO eastward on regional prosperity and development, have increasingly aroused the vigilance and opposition of other countries.

#AsiaPacific #NATO

2 notes · View notes

mariacallous · 3 months ago

Text

When Donald Trump first ran for the U.S. presidency in 2016, a wave of writing suggested that he was a realist. In this framing, Democratic Party candidate Hillary Clinton was presented as a neoconservative hawk who would start wars. Trump, by contrast, would balance U.S. commitments with its resources. He would avoid foreign conflicts and quagmires. He would be less ideological in his approach to nondemocratic states.

In 2024, this thinking has returned. Some realist voices are again suggesting that Trump is one of them. Trump’s desire to end the war in Ukraine—even though he simply intends to let Russia win—is taken as evidence of this. So is the selection of Ohio Sen. J.D. Vance as his vice presidential candidate. Vance has famously said that he does not care what happens to Ukraine. Conversely, he is a China hawk who seems to believe the United States cannot support both Taiwan and Ukraine simultaneously.

The notion that U.S. support for Taiwan and Ukraine is a trade-off is the most controversial component of the Trump realist position. Former Defense Department official Elbridge Colby, for example, has argued prominently that U.S. support for Ukraine undercuts its ability to help Taiwan, and that Europe should be almost exclusively responsible for helping Ukraine (or not).

But these hopes are badly misplaced. A second Trump term may well take an entirely different tack on China from the hawks—and even if he wants to move against Beijing, he lacks the discipline and ability to do so.

There is far more in Trump’s first term to suggest indiscipline, showboating, and influence-peddling than the clear-eyed, bloodless calculation of national interest that realists aspire to.

On China, Trump was undisciplined and sloppy. Yes, he turned against China in 2020, during the final year of his term, but that was more to deflect blame for COVID-19 than out of any realist or strategic reappraisal of U.S.-China relations. COVID-19 suddenly became the “kung flu” in Trump’s vernacular in an openly racist bid to change the subject.

Trump also undercut any ostensible focus on China by picking unnecessary fights with the United States’ regional partners. U.S.-South Korea and U.S.-Australia relations, for example, sank to their lowest point in years as Trump picked fights with their leaders because he wanted a payoff for the U.S. alliance guarantees.

Realism values allies for their ability to share burdens, project power, and generate global coalitions. Trump does not seem to grasp that at all. When Trump backed off his criticism of Japan, the turning point was apparently then-Prime Minister Shinzo Abe’s relentless flattery, including giving Trump a gold-plated golf club, rather than any strategic reevaluation by Trump or his team. Such frippery is exactly the opposite of the cold calculation that we associate with realism.

Trump also sank the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) and all but dropped earlier U.S. rhetoric about a pivot or rebalance to Asia. Were China a threat that Trump took seriously, then building a tighter trade area among the United States’ Asian partners would be a smart move to pool local allied economic power and build patterns of administrative coordination among those partners. Indeed, that was the rationale behind TPP and the “pivot” to increased engagement in the Indo-Pacific when it was proposed by the Barack Obama administration. Trump did not see that, either; he is obsessed with imposing tariffs, even against allies, which violates the realist tenets that concern allied power accumulation and coordination against shared threats.

Finally, Trump’s admiration for Chinese President Xi Jinping’s autocracy was blatant, and Trump has once again recently praised Xi as his “good friend.” The former U.S. president has spoken approvingly of China’s crackdowns in Tiananmen Square, Xinjiang, and Hong Kong. He solicited Chinese help in the 2020 election, and China happily channeled money to Trump’s family and his properties during his presidency.

Trump clearly craves authoritarian powers at home and is happy to take China’s money. He was happy to pardon Republican lobbyist Elliott Broidy, who was convicted for illicitly acting on Beijing’s behalf. It stretches credulity to suggest that Trump will lead the United States, much less an Indo-Pacific coalition, in a major shift against a power that he admires. China will probably just throw money at him if he is reelected—especially after seeing his U-turn on a TikTok ban, a policy that he backed in his first term but failed to deliver on, after facing pressure from billionaire TikTok investor Jeff Yass.

Little else in Trump’s first term suggests s a thoughtful, realist weighing of priorities: Trump’s most important first-term foreign-policy venture was the attempted denuclearization of North Korea. Unsurprisingly, that effort was amateurish, sloppy, and unplanned—and it failed.

There is a realist argument for reaching out to Pyongyang. The United States’ long-standing policy of containment and deterrence has not changed North Korea, nor did it prevent its nuclearization. North Korea is now a direct nuclear threat to the U.S. mainland. A realistic foreign policy would accept that as an unchangeable fact and react to it. Perhaps a bold move by a risk-taking statesman could break the logjam.

Trump might have had the chance to pull this off, but he failed due to his own lack of discipline. Trump did not prepare for his meetings with North Korean dictator Kim Jong Un; instead, he simply walked off the plane and thought his New York tough guy shtick would somehow bowl over a man raised in the crucible of North Korea’s lethal family politics. There was no interagency process to build proposals ahead of time, nor any kind of realistic, measured deal that could have won over Pyongyang.

According to John Bolton, then Trump’s national security advisor, the president did not even read in preparation for the summits. Instead, Trump demanded the complete, verifiable, and irreversible nuclear disarmament of North Korea in exchange for sanctions removal, then walked out of the Hanoi summit when Pyongyang predictably rejected this wildly unbalanced so-called deal. Talks collapsed because Trump had not prepared and had no idea how to bargain on the issues when his first offer was rejected.

But Trump did get what he really wanted—lots and lots of publicity. His hugely hyped—and criminally underprepared—first summit with Kim in Singapore brought a week of nonstop news coverage. His later trip to the Demilitarized Zone, which included briefly walking inside North Korea, brought another wave of coverage. Trump even demanded that he receive the Nobel Peace Prize. This is showboating, not strategy.

The big issue in the realist case for Trump and Vance is that they will put Taiwan explicitly ahead of Ukraine in a ruthless prioritization of U.S. interests. As Andrew Byers and Randall Schweller write, Trump “understands the limits of American power.” From this perspective, the United States cannot reasonably hope to fight Russia and China simultaneously, much less a coordinated “axis” of those countries working with rogues such as Iran and North Korea. This notion is particularly connected with Vance, who has explicitly advocated abandoning Ukraine.

Yet Trump himself does not think this way. Trump’s supposed policy positions emerge on the fly as he speaks. He is lazy. He is not capable of the strategic thinking that realists want to attribute to him; one must only listen to his campaign speeches this year to see this. He routinely lies, makes up stories, and speaks in indecipherable word-salads. When Trump has spoken on Taiwan, he makes it clear that he sees it as just another free-riding ally that owes the U.S. protection money. In an interview with Bloomberg, Trump said the United States was “no different than an insurance company” and that Taiwan “doesn’t give us anything.”

It stretches psychological credulity to suggest that the United States under Trump will ruthlessly abandon a struggling, nascent democracy under threat by a fascist imperialist, but then abruptly fight for another new democracy under threat by an ever more powerful fascist imperialist. The prioritization of Taiwan over Ukraine misses the obvious precursor that the Middle East, in turn, is less valuable than Ukraine. But instead of reevaluating the United States’ position in the Middle East, Trump will almost certainly deepen U.S. involvement in the region because of the ideological fixations of his Christianist base.

The strategic case for elevating Taiwan over Ukraine is also far more mixed than Vance and Trumpian realists suggest.

First, China is much more powerful than Russia. So, a conflict with it would be far more destructive. The Russia-Ukraine war has been locally contained and, despite Russian bluster, not escalated to nuclear confrontation. That seems less likely in an open, U.S.-China war. It is an odd “realist” recommendation to suggest that the United States should take a provocative line against a stronger power, which increases the risk of great-power war, but not push its preferences on a weaker opponent where U.S. involvement is limited to a lower-risk proxy war.

Second, the U.S. commitment to Ukraine is much less costly than a parallel commitment to Taiwan. The United States is not fighting directly to defend Ukraine. It would have to do so to defend Taiwan. Taiwan defense would require the United States to project enormous force over a huge distance of open water at great expense—plus, there would be combat losses of major U.S. platforms, such as ships and aircraft.

By contrast, U.S. aid to Ukraine has mostly come in the form of money and midsized, ground-based platforms, totaling around $175 billion over two-and-a-half years. This is small and easily manageable because of NATO’s propinquity. U.S. national security spending is approximately $1 trillion annually; the country’s annual economic production is approximately $25 trillion. Notions that U.S. aid to Ukraine is an unsustainable overstretch, or that it is bolstering another “forever war,” are simply not correct.

In Ukraine, the United States is also using intelligence assets and coordination relationships with NATO allies that have long been in place—and resources that have little relevance to a Taiwan conflict. Washington is not going to engage the Chinese army in ground conflict, just as it does not need U.S. aircraft carriers to help Ukraine. As a specific example of a possible trade-off, Vance has suggested the United States lacks the artillery shell production capacity to meet both national defense needs and those of Ukraine. But that argument implies abandoning Ukraine today for an unidentifiable but apparently imminent U.S. ground war tomorrow.

Realist hopes for Trump and Vance assume an intellectual discipline that both men lack and elevate geopolitical trade-offs that are less acute than realists admit., Trump is lazy, unread, venal, easily bought, susceptible to autocrats’ flattery, captive to the ideological fixations of his domestic coalition, ignorant of U.S. strategic interests, and dismissive of alliances that amplify U.S. power. Vance is ostensibly more clear-eyed, but he is a foreign-policy neophyte in the pocket of Silicon Valley donors, including his mentor Peter Thiel. He has been a senator for less than two years, before which he was a financier and author whose interests were local.

The fiscal space to reorient U.S. defense spending is there. If Vance and Trump were truly serious about confronting China, they would not be proposing yet another massive Republican tax cut, for example. The traditional liberal internationalism Vice President Kamala Harris and President Joe Biden represent is far more likely to build a durable global coalition against Chinese and Russian revisionism than the venal caprice masquerading as strategy that Trump would bring back to the White House.

10 notes · View notes