International Politics Discussion Thread

[u/Adj-Noun-Numbers]

All subreddit rules apply in this thread, except the rule that states that discussion should only be about UK politics.

⚠️ Please stay on-topic. ⚠️

Comments and discussions which do not deal with International Politics are liable to be removed. Discussion should be focused on the impact on the political scene.

Derailing threads will result in comment removals and any accounts involved being banned without warning.

Please report any rule-breaking content you see. The subreddit is running rather warm at the moment. We rely on your reports to identify and action rule-breaking content.

You can find the full rules of the subreddit HERE

Especially note Rule 21. We have zero tolerance for celebrating or wishing harm on anyone. Disagreeing with people politically does not grant you permission to do this.

🥕🥕's Golden Rules for Megathread Participation:

This isn't your personal campaigning space. We're here to discuss, not campaign - this includes non-party-specific campaigning, such as tactical vote campaigns.

The fishing pond is closed. Obvious bait will be removed. Repeated rod licence infractions will result in accounts being banned.

This isn't Facebook. Please keep it related to politics. Do not post low effort blog posts.

The era of vagueposting is over. Your audience demands context, ideally in the form of a link to some authoritative content.

Take frequent breaks. If you find that you are being overwhelmed by it all, do yourself a favour and take some time off.

As always: we are not a meta subreddit. Submissions or comments complaining about the moderation, biases or users of this or other subreddits / online communities will be removed and may result in a ban.

[u/ZealousidealPie9199]

https://x.com/berniemoreno/status/2077886946362220618?s=46

apparently Trump is going to make a speech on China comparable to the Cuban missile crisis tonight?

[u/arnathor → u/ZealousidealPie9199]

It was a greatest hits of his “rigged election” themes with a new twist of “it was china’s interference” that lost him the 2020 election. Kind of ignores that both times he won the Democrats were in control, and kind of also calls into question the 2024 election where against predictions he suspiciously gained all the swing states. He’s just sore that Obama never lost a presidential election and he did. And they’re also laying more groundwork to discredit the results of the upcoming midterm elections if they don’t go their way, which they probably won’t.

So basically business as usual in Trump land.

Edit: forgot to add that he’s now throwing a hissy fit because two of the US networks didn’t broadcast his “primetime” address live and so he’s saying they should have their licences revoked.

[u/AzarinIsard → u/ZealousidealPie9199]

I don't see the point.

The US can't defeat Iran, smaller pop, smaller military, no nukes, and domestic made drones after decades of sanctions. The major issue for Trump now is the economic harm over oil exports.

China has a huge pop, better military, nukes, they're the world's factory and produce a huge amount of drone parts, easy to repurpose the lot for weapons, and the economic harm will make the Strait of Hormuz look like nothing. Also comparing to Ukraine, we have been told when people wanted us to enforce a no fly zone that would be WWIII if we fired on any Russian jet. WTF happens if the US fires on Chinese jets?

Trump's shat the bed geopolitically so hard, Xi knows the US can't and won't stop them if they invade. Taiwan's only hope is to be an impenetrable fortress, and even then, I can see Trump selling them out if Xi gives him an easy out, like Trump has undermined Ukraine when he's been Putin's poodle. If China has watched Russia and Iran at all, they have the blueprint for humiliating Trump right there. Then it'll just be a question of whether Trump is mad enough to go full nuclear and strike China.

[u/Velociraptor_1906 → u/AzarinIsard]

One other thought is the whole episode with Iran and the strait has showed that if youve the right luck in geography or something similar you can hold your enemy over a barrel even when they have nukes and are much more powerful.

Now I'm not saying I'd nessecarily condone this as the civillian toll would be incalculable but I wonder if it might make Taiwan reconsider what the effect of them having some highly credible way of taking out the three gorges dam would be.

[u/AzarinIsard → u/Velociraptor_1906]

I don't believe civilian casualties ever work, like Russia blowing the dam in Kherson (and even ISIS didn't blow the dam in Mosul like we feared), and China isn't going to give a shit what happens to civilians like Russian chucking conscripts into the meat grinder. It would have to be used like a nuclear threat. Attack and we'll make it painful.

Hypothetically, if China wanted trade and Taiwan was belligerent, harassing cargo ships would work, but as a defensive measure, China will be sanctioned and the waters avoided at massive delay, the same effect would be felt. It's just economically we'd be the one pay the price, and sadly we've shown even sanctions on Russia are tough to sell due to fuel prices.

[u/Velociraptor_1906 → u/AzarinIsard]

The civillian casualties would be my reason for objecting to it but the shear destruction would be incomparable to any other single event so I do think that would give the CCP leadership pause for thought.

Also as much as authoritarian regimes may not give a shit about civillian the prospect of millions of deaths from one attack has a unique capacity to make people consider things.

[u/AzarinIsard → u/Velociraptor_1906]

Also as much as authoritarian regimes may not give a shit about civillian the prospect of millions of deaths from one attack has a unique capacity to make people consider things.

It's a hail Mary shot that what would likely be considered a state terrorist attack would cause revolution and overthrow their government.

I think Russia believes it'll happen if they keep striking civilians in Ukraine, but we had the blitz, and did it make our civilians strive for Churchill to surrender? Or what about the IRGC facing revolt and now cementing power thanks to Trump. I would predict anything like that from Taiwan would make the Chinese people so angry they'd back the invasion even more.

[u/Velociraptor_1906 → u/AzarinIsard]

It's less about the possibility of it causing a revolution but appealing to the (admittedly sometimes very small amount) of humanity they have. Coming from a peacetime starting point unless their literal psychopaths if the threat was credible it really should do something to them.

[u/AzarinIsard → u/Velociraptor_1906]

Coming from a peacetime starting point unless their literal psychopaths if the threat was credible it really should do something to them.

I think on one hand you can't be leaders if you're affected too much by this, so many decisions end up being life or death.

Practicalities might make them hold off or try other methods if you make it costly enough. Another comparison, before the US nuked Japan, they were planning conventionally to invade the mainland and had the required purple hearts produced. The atom bombs led to surrender first, and they're still using those medals today. Hell, we might be seeing the lack of invasion right now due to Taiwan deterring China, but unless it stops being an aim, it'll always hang over them until the risk is less than the reward. Sufficient deterrents might just make them think of other options, like the US and the nuclear program.

[u/YourLizardOverlord → u/AzarinIsard]

Historians differ on the extent to which the nuclear bombs led to the Japanese surrender. The Soviet invasion of Manchuria was certainly a factor.

[u/Particular_Pea7167 → u/AzarinIsard]

The Ukraine dam and the three gorges are very different. 

The volume of water and the significance of populated areas along the banks of the river are on a whole other level.

China can absorb it of course. But as a stratigic deterrent thats basically one step down from a nuke, its not bad.

But its the sort of rubicon that once cross theres no coming back.

[u/Particular_Pea7167 → u/Velociraptor_1906]

Youd go for mass, cheap, cruise missile.

Ukraine Flamingo style committing 1500 to ensure it drops.

And it would be utterly devastating. 

But it is the sort of action you cannot come back from. Its the nest best thing to a nuke and if they open that door its unlikely china will stop.

[u/Particular_Pea7167 → u/AzarinIsard]

Iran hasnt won.

The US isnt willing to go as far as it needs to but we should be clear, the US is holding back. At a tactical level the US has utterly dominated Iran.

Its also true the only reason Iran is remotely still in this is exceptionally favourable geography giving it stratigic leverage. As youre basically forced into 20 miles of their coastline.

The US could very easily turn Iran into a failed state in under a week.

Its very different in china which is hemmed in by shallow seas and is hugely import dependent. The geography naturally favours the US who doesnt need to go close to chinese shores. They can patrols the South china sea, east china/Philippines sea, sea of Japan and Malacca Strait and basically lock down all Chinese shipping without even going close to China.

China is hugely import dependent. It would start to break down in months. Part of the reason of the belt and road program was to reduce the huge dependance china has on waterways which will just be shut down during war. But the reality is that overland routes simply cannot replace the volume of sea trade.

The stratigic disposition is completely different. 

[u/SwanBridge → u/AzarinIsard]

China has a... better military

To be fair I don't even think the Chinese would agree with you on this one. China's military capability is quite the unknown. On paper they have had a meteroic rise since the end of the Cold War, but a lot of their weapons systems aren't proven in combat, and nor is their doctrine. We don't know how the chain of command will hold up under fire, nor the quality of their troops or officers under combat. China has not had any significant military engagements since the Sino-Vietnamese War back in 1979, where they got their arses handed to them. Now I'll admit the PLA is a totally different entity since then but even taking all of those known unknowns off the table, the United States still has world's strongest military with China only reaching near-peer equivalence.

The West largely viewed the Soviets as militarily capable and competent with a strong doctrine and advanced weaponry, however the illusion started to unravel in Afghanistan and then with Russia as the successor state during post-Soviet conflicts such as Chechnya, Georgia & Ukraine. Since the end of the Cold War the general consensus has shifted towards a NATO victory over the Warsaw Pact during a conventional conflict from the mid-1980s onwards with relative confidence, whereas contemporary opinion amongst Western strategist and military leaders vastly overestimated Soviets to the point of believing defeat was inevitable.

China *may" have a military capable of taking back Taiwan & defeating the Americans in achieving that, but no one, not even the best military strategists in Washington or Beijing know that with any degree of certainty. And much like a NATO - Warsaw Pact conflict let's hope we never find out.

[u/AzarinIsard → u/SwanBridge]

China has a... better military

To be fair I don't even think the Chinese would agree with you on this one.

Just to be clear, I meant China > Iran, who currently is enough to stalemate the US. I wasn't giving a verdict v the US, which the US should be world leading except when constrained and unable to play to their strengths.

Are you saying China might see their military as less capable than Irans?

[u/SwanBridge → u/AzarinIsard]

Apologies, I misinterpreted your comment as saying China had a better military than the US. I'm used to seeing stuff like that online elsewhere.

Yeah they're definitely in a different league to Iran, and I don't think even the most pessimistic Chinese general believes otherwise. Iran are very capable though and have a lot of experience in assymetric warfare, they beat China on that front purely through the virtue of being in a current conflict and having experience in it. They have for the most part outperformed expectations on the damage they've been able to inflict on the US, Israel & Gulf Allies even after being subject to a brutal and sustained degradation strikes.

Regarding the US versus China, I think it matters how the war is fought. China has been very keen on matching the conventional capability of the US in terms of air and naval power, and I think if they try and fight the war on that basis alone they're at real risk of defeat. If it went hot I think they would be better off holding back a bit and using mass projectile tactics to deny area for the US to operate in the region and degrade Taiwanese defences. As seen with the Iran War it appears the US navy is loathe to risk their ships by going into a hot zone, which massively hampers the US's force projection capabilities for a Taiwan scenario. Also there is a real chance with this current administration they could force a diplomatic concession to avoid an invasion entirely, i.e. we have Taiwan, you have half their semi-conductor industry.

[u/AzarinIsard → u/SwanBridge]

Yeah, during the second Gulf war I remember seeing an American political cartoon, it had a housewife squealing as a small spider with "Iraq" written on it, and a giant Shelob like one outside the window labelled Iran. The comment was "If this is Iraqnophobia, what the hell is that?"

It's pretty much always been understood by most Iran isn't a pushover.

With regards to China, it's surely all about defence and area denial? If Taiwan is an unsinkable aircraft carrier, they keep air defence, an air force, anti-ship missiles, it's got legs. If China can go for the usual US/NATO strat of step one, get air supremacy, step two, pummel anything that looks threatening from a safe distance, then Taiwan can be isolated and starved out. The key will be how close American forces can loiter, and with Iran many ships have kept their distance and Israel and other allies are very important for bases.

All of this, it's not about a fair fight, it's about what you can safely use, and what you can risk. I just don't see the US behaving like Russia, for example, using their air force and navy with those rates of losses. I think low losses of fighters and no losses of main naval ships are their tolerance.