Is it the same “taiwan has mountains in the middle of the island making the invasion hard” and “we can always nuke the three gorges dam and collapse the ccp” rhetoric strategies?
That shit has been Taiwan tabloid tv level geopolitical strategy.
Part of me has to wonder: what are the impacts on national self-identity of being utterly reliant on a third-party for defense against the historical opposing nation? It has to be one of those things nationalists shove under the rug, right?
Like how Texans ignore they lost the war with Mexico so hard they’d be part of Mexico again/still if they didn’t beg to become a state.
Or how Americans pretend the French didn’t win the bourgeois revolution for us.
tbh, any national right wing capitalist states from the modern era are mostly propped up by imperial powers. The nationalistic narratives is mostly for local consumption and a way to discipline the population.
Any actual nationalistic aspiration is viable if it is Left wing and anti-capitalist because its main goal is to break away from the imperial system.
Texans ignore they lost the war with Mexico so hard they’d be part of Mexico again/still if they didn’t beg to become a state
what are you talking about, they won the war & were independent the better part of a decade before joining the US. it was a lucky break that they captured Santa Anna and they probably would have lost without that, but they did.
Yeah I am really confused by this. Part of the fucked up nature of the Mexican-American war was that the US had agreed NOT to annex Texas. Direct fighting had ended but the Republic of Texas has to remain out of US hands.
Is it the same “taiwan has mountains in the middle of the island making the invasion hard” and “we can always nuke the three gorges dam and collapse the ccp” rhetoric strategies?
That shit has been Taiwan tabloid tv level geopolitical strategy.
It’s like the Asian version of British chuds harping on about the all-powerful Royal Navy when they don’t even know how to steer a ship
Shoutout to the HMS Shittington and that other ship
Their brand new carrier on cinder blocks being stripped for parts will never stop being funny.
They heard the Chinese
slavescleaners were being replaced by a not-as-delectable underclass, so they decided why even botherThey don’t need to have a navy. The strategy implies that the US would step in.
So you know the rammification
Part of me has to wonder: what are the impacts on national self-identity of being utterly reliant on a third-party for defense against the historical opposing nation? It has to be one of those things nationalists shove under the rug, right?
Like how Texans ignore they lost the war with Mexico so hard they’d be part of Mexico again/still if they didn’t beg to become a state.
Or how Americans pretend the French didn’t win the bourgeois revolution for us.
Remember the Alamo, just not its context
tbh, any national right wing capitalist states from the modern era are mostly propped up by imperial powers. The nationalistic narratives is mostly for local consumption and a way to discipline the population.
Any actual nationalistic aspiration is viable if it is Left wing and anti-capitalist because its main goal is to break away from the imperial system.
what are you talking about, they won the war & were independent the better part of a decade before joining the US. it was a lucky break that they captured Santa Anna and they probably would have lost without that, but they did.
Yeah I am really confused by this. Part of the fucked up nature of the Mexican-American war was that the US had agreed NOT to annex Texas. Direct fighting had ended but the Republic of Texas has to remain out of US hands.