Why would anyone in a military conflict ally with the US anymore if all it takes is a couple corrupt dipshits in Congress to leave them all completely defenseless during their time of need.
Why should the US have any involvement with a conflict in the middle of africa?
Because we’re all human and protecting innocent lives shouldn’t end at one’s borders.
US and their funding is doing alot of “protecting” in Palestine
The US doesn’t care about Palestinians.
I’m not sure what your point is.
What did your comment say was the US’s reason for involving itself in conflicts on different continents?
Sorry, it’s clear you’re too far gone.
Goodbye. And seek help.
Gonna block you now.
That was a simple question.
Lmao, the irony of this comment when you have literally said nothing to support your reasons and when mildly questioned and asked for further clarification you block them because you are incapable of comprehending other views. Enjoy your echo chamber little brainwashed one.
The most obvious “I have no legsto stand on but I refuse to admit it” situation
It needs a ‘base’, at every part of the world, which would become a hub for any kind of future deployment. Anyway, it’s not just the US, it can be any powerful countries. It just matter of how they do it, nice or not so nice way, direct or indirectly. China does it through business, e.g. silk road.
Same reasons as EU, Russia, and China. Global economic/military partners rather than global competition/enemies.
Lmao is that why their entire existence is built on invading, coup’ing, and sanctioning countries that aren’t subservient to them?
Same can be said about most of Western Europe though.
Of course. All imperial core countries.
US’ entire existence is built on its intellectual capital.
Weird way to spell imperialism. Ig all the millions of victims of the US around the world can rest easy knowing their deaths made some capitalist richer.
When I think of imperialism, I think of colonies, which isn’t really applicable. But the US does make trade agreements that are often harsh and unfair.
Yeah. You’re too far gone.
Goodbye.
In other words, you have no argument.
Which part of my comment do you disagree with?
I’d say international trade
You mean on the intellectual capital of the nazi scientists US brought over after WW2?
Removed by mod
Let’s apply that question to the rest of the world. Why the Middle East? Why Eastern Europe? Why Asia? Why Latin America?
Uhm… Let’s see… Maybe…oil?
That’s… That’s not what’s happening here. The USA is a rapacious, murderous, destructive, extractive, abusive force. The only reason third-world countries ally with the USA is because the alternative is suffering constant harassment, invasion, terrorism, collective punishment, coup attempts, and civil strife. This has nothing to do with some people in the USA Congress acting as a lightning rod for public ire about defending Ukraine, because the USA defunds ALL of its proxies in ALL of its proxy wars across the history of proxy wars. No one except the American people are gullible enough to believe that the USA will actually back them up a conflict. Europe has been aware of this for probably 50 years, but the rest of the world has been aware for at least a century.
I don’t see how Russia would be a safer bet though. They’re not reliable at all right now.
It’s more because Russia’s interests and economy are Global South-oriented already and against imperial core countries, specially since the current war started. Though not as much as USSR-times when they used to fund Vietnam, Bangladesh, Korea, Palestine, Cuba, etc without the profit motive that is necessary under capitalism.
What do you mean imperialist core countries? Russia physically expanding their influence by invading seems pretty imperialist.
And who do you mean by global south? Are you including Australia, New Zealand, India, etc? Or is it just shorthand for the countries who aren’t as close to the US?
Are you saying that some countries want to play the superpowers off each other for maximum gain? If so, I agree with you. And more power to them to some extent, encourage both sides make you a good offer for their friendship.
I mean “Imperialism” in the materialist/marxist sense. Aka economic subjugation, unequal exchange or the import of raw materials from underdeveloped countries and “former” colonies and the export of capital. While not letting those countries be able to create their own advanced industries by sanctioning, embargo’ing (Cuba, DPRK, etc), coup’ing (Chile, etc), and invading (Libya, etc) those that try.
-
Unequal Exchange: A Study of the Imperialism of Trade by Arghiri Emmanuel
US has been the de facto leader of the Imperial core since WW2 (US imperialism); it was mainly the UK before.
Global South countries are those victims of imperialism, mostly former colonies and modern neocolonies. Naturally, Australia is not part of that since it’s now owned and run by those colonizers.
Russia though the Soviet Union also had a trade network and sphere of influence, would that have a similar situation? China is currently building a sphere of influence to leverage as well. Are those categorically different from imperialism as you define it?
I agree the US has had/still has unfair/unequal trade relationships. (I am against them) But I don’t think it’s uniquely or primarily the US and it’s friends problem. I think it’s what governments looking out for solely their own interest.
USSR did not practice imperialism in the Marxist/Leninist sense - ie. they did not export capital by keeping countries from industrializing, nor did they have a financial oligarchy like imperial core countries.
China does not enforce harsh austerity policies that the US does via neocolonial institutions like the IMF or World Bank, and loans for the infrastructure they build in partner countries which are necessary for industrialization are often straight up forgiven for long-term cooperation.
Even modern capitalist Russia does not have the global monopolies and complete control over the global financial system that the US does by its dollar hegemony.
the US has had/still has unfair/unequal trade relationships
This is… putting it very lightly. The US government literally coups, invades and destroys countries to keep them from industrializing and developing on their own.
It has waged countless wars across the Middle East and Asia (Iraq, Vietnam, etc), coup’ing Africa’s and Latin America’s governments (Chile, Congo, etc), keeping them unstable and unable to unite and stand on their own so they have no choice but to rely on those exploitative institutions, and brutally sanctioning and embargo’ing those that do manage to escape their grasp (Cuba, DPRK, Iran etc)
This isn’t an issue of the US government being more “evil” than others, it’s a systemic problem of capitalism and Europe and later Japan’s brutal colonization of the rest of the world for the last few hundred years.
they did not export capital by keeping countries from industrializing, nor did they have a financial oligarchy like imperial core countries.
Disagree. They definitely did repress the Soviet block counties for their own good. And they definitely had an oligarchy, though it wasn’t as straightforwardly financial.
But it sounds like you’re using definitions that try to exclude countries that are nominally communist from terms like imperialist, so I can’t really do much to argue with your definitions. I’d just say that your definitions aren’t what I use or what are commonly used.
Here is an alternative Piped link(s):
Why Do Poor Countries Stay Poor
Piped is a privacy-respecting open-source alternative frontend to YouTube.
I’m open-source; check me out at GitHub.
Russia isn’t considered part of the “core” in world systems theory - when labeled as imperialist in this regard, it is often as a heterodox faction. That opposition to the orthodox is why their near-term interests align with other non-core nations (whose interests are generally anti-hegemonic). I believe Russia is generally considered a periphery state based on trade flows.
But the scope of the term is limiting; it doesn’t include all nations that use imperial actions. It’s good for critiquing existing hegemonies, but not necessarily for aspiring hegemonies, which is where I expect you would categorize Russia. Nonetheless anti-hegemonic powers may see advantages in giving critical support to aspiring hegemonies over real ones.
Global south is a category defined by a UN body based on shared characteristics. NZ and Australia are not included. It considers things like development, growth rate, level of income, and quality of life. This is useful because we expect to see countries like the UK and Australia to interact as near-peers, while a country like Guatemala might have a disadvantage at the bargaining table (and less finance-based revenue streams).
The two terms often get used together because the theory and science say, for example, that the imperial core is disproportionately extracting value from the global south.
Are you saying that some countries want to play the superpowers off each other for maximum gain?
I don’t know if they were, but I’d say as much. (With the caveat that sometimes they still end up being the puppets.) I believe they’ll act according to the math, and the math says their interests lie in exploiting while challenging whatever hegemony currently exists. It’s not like they have a chance at being accepted as peers, so I can’t imagine asking them to do otherwise.
This is also where the US has/had the largest military drone base in the world.
Seems like a pretty big deal, specially with Burkina Faso seeming like it’s going in a socialist direction again.
Also Burkina Faso’s Ibrahim Traore: “Today, our relationship with Russia is primarily strategic. With Russia, there are no restrictions on the equipment we want to purchase. Others impose restrictions on us. They support us in terms of training, logistics, tactical training, and everything else. They provide support in these aspects."
Well no restrictions on what they can buy beyond the fact Russia has halted and redirected all major military equipment exports to Ukraine for the last three years beyond licensed production and even if the war ended tomorrow it would need to spend years restoring its own military before it could export anything of value.
Tieing the country’s ability to defend itself to a hypercapitalist far right government instead of a less ideologically driven nation like India or China is probably also an indication that the government isn’t very serious about going in a socialist direction so much as an indication that it is trying to whitewash its image with hollow rhetoric.
I mean i’d like to see a challenge to a capitalist dominated world, but this sure doesn’t seem to be one.
From one imperialist cradle to another
