Those weren't necessarily nukes. Most Russian commenters said they were Kinzhals, Hypersonic non-nuclear intended to sink both carriers should we use them.
China has always had world dominance on its dance card. All naive attempts to bring it into a world system the West could live with have failed. Offshore government was a delusion but it was rationalized as serving bringing China into a peaceful world. Rationalized because it made a lot of money while average Americans in places like Ohio paid the price. There was no way they would not use industrial capacity to become militarily dominant. Give me an example in history where sustained economic dominance did not facilitate military dominance.
Deterrence and Restraint, between the two of them, have a losing record lately. The three unpleasant situations recently would be Russia/Ukraine, Armenia/Azerbaijan, and Israel/Palestine. Armenians in NK were spared the bloodletting due to Pashinian simply giving up (with US encouragement) and accepting ethnic cleansing.
Arguably, US policy believed each time in a benefit from escalating to armed movement. So deterrence was not in play, and where there was something that looked like restraint, it was really just rhetorical fig-leaf. (the Blinken state dept in particular has a potentially confusing style with lots of headfakes, feinting compromise one week and escalating the next. could be the result of having its bluff called too frequently, btw)
And then there's ... Israel. Special, as it is a top tier stakeholder in the US political process. Darling of both parties. Whatever you hear, don't be confused. Netanyahu has the same blank check as many times before. This includes expelling the population of Gaza city, and destroying it such that they cannot live there anymore. The latter is the direct long term strategic objective there.
The consequence for the global majority bloc led by China, is that they can use the coming years to cement soft-power links everywhere in the "global South", now that they solidly own public opinion in Islamic countries. The consequence for US is going to be to double down on the self-contradictory "escalate to de-escalate" theory - i.e. start more wars and hope future US administrations can capitalize on the chaos.
Some nits to pick (Hamas and Hezbullah are not exactly buds) but the basic point stands: Israel wants the US to fight Iran on its behalf.
The irony being that Iran is not a natural ally with Russia, and, to a lesser extent, China, but that American aggression has pushed them together.
The other irony is that, of all the people of the middle east, the Persians are arguably the most open to western ideas and thinking. America refuses to make Iran a friend, lest it offend Israel.
Those weren't necessarily nukes. Most Russian commenters said they were Kinzhals, Hypersonic non-nuclear intended to sink both carriers should we use them.
e.g. https://simplicius76.substack.com/p/sitrep-101823-israel-ukraine-war
China has always had world dominance on its dance card. All naive attempts to bring it into a world system the West could live with have failed. Offshore government was a delusion but it was rationalized as serving bringing China into a peaceful world. Rationalized because it made a lot of money while average Americans in places like Ohio paid the price. There was no way they would not use industrial capacity to become militarily dominant. Give me an example in history where sustained economic dominance did not facilitate military dominance.
Not offshore government rather offshoring
Deterrence and Restraint, between the two of them, have a losing record lately. The three unpleasant situations recently would be Russia/Ukraine, Armenia/Azerbaijan, and Israel/Palestine. Armenians in NK were spared the bloodletting due to Pashinian simply giving up (with US encouragement) and accepting ethnic cleansing.
Arguably, US policy believed each time in a benefit from escalating to armed movement. So deterrence was not in play, and where there was something that looked like restraint, it was really just rhetorical fig-leaf. (the Blinken state dept in particular has a potentially confusing style with lots of headfakes, feinting compromise one week and escalating the next. could be the result of having its bluff called too frequently, btw)
And then there's ... Israel. Special, as it is a top tier stakeholder in the US political process. Darling of both parties. Whatever you hear, don't be confused. Netanyahu has the same blank check as many times before. This includes expelling the population of Gaza city, and destroying it such that they cannot live there anymore. The latter is the direct long term strategic objective there.
The consequence for the global majority bloc led by China, is that they can use the coming years to cement soft-power links everywhere in the "global South", now that they solidly own public opinion in Islamic countries. The consequence for US is going to be to double down on the self-contradictory "escalate to de-escalate" theory - i.e. start more wars and hope future US administrations can capitalize on the chaos.
Some nits to pick (Hamas and Hezbullah are not exactly buds) but the basic point stands: Israel wants the US to fight Iran on its behalf.
The irony being that Iran is not a natural ally with Russia, and, to a lesser extent, China, but that American aggression has pushed them together.
The other irony is that, of all the people of the middle east, the Persians are arguably the most open to western ideas and thinking. America refuses to make Iran a friend, lest it offend Israel.
Arguably all of our ME misadventures are at the behest of Israel. https://edisciplinas.usp.br/pluginfile.php/4969992/mod_resource/content/1/Israel%20Lobby%20-%20LRB%20-%20Mearsheimer%20Waltz.pdf
There is a case to made that the rise of Neoliberalism never would have happened but for stagflation, courtesy of oil embargos in response to Israel.