Post AzkIBWa01Umhbtb960 by Crystal_Fish_Caves@mstdn.party
(DIR) More posts by Crystal_Fish_Caves@mstdn.party
(DIR) Post #AzgDJRBofcgio5Oumm by strypey@mastodon.nzoss.nz
2025-10-28T21:07:22Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
Like NZ, the Eurozone has been cosplaying at defence since WW2;https://www.rnz.co.nz/news/on-the-inside/575543/europe-worries-it-s-already-at-war-and-america-hasn-t-noticedBuying US cast-offs that aren't strategically useful in their context, and relying on the US as world police, never expecting to have to actually use them in a live defence situation.(1/2)
(DIR) Post #AzgDWEWp3Vg5IsKO7k by strypey@mastodon.nzoss.nz
2025-10-28T21:10:12Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
In case anyone hadn't noticed, Pax Americana is over. Buying expensive toys from the US as a way of currying favour with Empire serves no purpose, because that empire is crumbling and has been since 2008, if not much longer.Also the US has been preparing for a rematch of WW2 and their weapons systems - particularly the obsolete ones they sell to allies - are no longer suitable for the conditions of modern warfare.(2/?)
(DIR) Post #AzgDz1kLeo743jNtWi by strypey@mastodon.nzoss.nz
2025-10-28T21:15:26Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
The EU needs to completely rethink its defence needs for a 21st century context. And when I say defence, I mean defence. Unlike US hawks, I do not buy into the Han Solo principle, that the best defence is a good offence.First, the EU needs to secure their energy supplies. Moving as rapidly as possible to renewables. Even where that means using transitional tech like biofuels to keep existing equipment running until EoL. But also investing in post-fossil equipment for the future.(3/?)
(DIR) Post #AzgEZ0u4GmVbrw5euu by strypey@mastodon.nzoss.nz
2025-10-28T21:21:56Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
Second, the EU need to secure their digital networks. Particularly those related to energy grids, communications, health services, and other key infrastructure.All of these systems and more need to be rapidly rebuilt using audited Free Code software and digitally sovereign hosting. With no dependence on proprietary software and services, prone to rapid enshittification. Especially any controlled by US technofascists, whose loyalty is more likely to be with Putin than with EU nations.(4/?)
(DIR) Post #AzgEy7YcfPUrkJ219k by strypey@mastodon.nzoss.nz
2025-10-28T21:26:28Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
Third, the EU needs to analyse the types of attacks that have been used in the invasion of Ukraine, and brainstorm the cheapest piece of easily reproducible equipment that could hamstring each one. Again, using Free Code software and sovereign control systems, not technofascist bloatware. Making maximum use of materials and components that can be obtained within the EU, and from the few reliable allies remaining.(5/?)
(DIR) Post #AzgFlzfyFCaRmUFXt2 by strypey@mastodon.nzoss.nz
2025-10-28T21:35:29Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
One thing that would help the EU repel Putin's expansionism is if the people of the UK can defeat the US-backed fascists trying to cosplay the backstory of V for Vendetta. Then rejoin the EU.Either by rejuvenating the UK as a functioning constitutional monarchy with guaranteed protections for human rights and civil liberties. Or by overthrowing the UK and becoming independent democratic nations, each making its own decision about EU membership.(6/?)
(DIR) Post #AzgFtvskEZ8uKa0h6W by strypey@mastodon.nzoss.nz
2025-10-28T21:36:55Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
Britons have seen off the Romans, the Germans (at least 3 times), and the Norse (at least twice). Can they really be brought to heel by Sir Stammer and Nigel For-rage?Somehow I doubt it.(7/?)
(DIR) Post #AzgGN83e2lKeUX1xNw by strypey@mastodon.nzoss.nz
2025-10-28T21:42:11Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
Ironically, our best hope for a peaceful 21st century might be Pax Orienta. Despite claims to the contrary, the Chinese are not military expansionists. This is just the US projecting its own dark side onto China.The atrocities of Japan's invasion in WW2 still cast a shadow on their older generations, including their leaders. So they are certainly taking steps to protect their supply lines and their territorial integrity. And yes, in their minds that does include Taiwan, Tibet, etc.(8/?)
(DIR) Post #AzgGqzPyjM1qNoiQgC by strypey@mastodon.nzoss.nz
2025-10-28T21:47:35Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
The Chinese certainly aspire to be a world power, both military and economically. But IMHO this is mainly a defensive play, and not one based on the Han Solo principle either.As the US empire continues its flamboyant spiral down the toilet, the Chinese Navy will likely become the world's most powerful. Just as the US Navy took preeminence from the British Empire, and the British from the Spanish.(9/?)
(DIR) Post #AzgHNJOA11JfaVHH4S by strypey@mastodon.nzoss.nz
2025-10-28T21:53:25Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
As the US crumbles, it wall fall to China to secure shipping lanes, as the US has done since WW2. Although less and less effectively, since about the time Dubya misinvested a huge chunk of their remaining military power in an unwinnable and never ending war in the Middle East.Fortunately for us, China is a manufacturer and exporter - like the US after WW2 - and securing global shipping serves their interest as much as it does everyone else.(10/?)
(DIR) Post #AzgI0Ujlkus24v4KTw by strypey@mastodon.nzoss.nz
2025-10-28T22:00:30Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
Securing global shipping requires more than just the military capacity to shut down piracy. It also requires all the global fleet to be transitioned to running on renewable energy. An area China is now a world leader in, witness the scaling up of sodium ion battery production.It also requires the securing of shipbuilding capacity, and port maintenance. Which are also affect by the renewables transition. Both in what kind of ships suit the available renewables, and how they're built.(11/?)
(DIR) Post #AzgIQ2VhKEne3yfSSm by strypey@mastodon.nzoss.nz
2025-10-28T22:05:08Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
So if I'm right that the Chinese leadership will continue to focus on doing what's good for China, IMHO that will benefit the rest of us too. And not only by keeping global trade possible in a world without Pax Americana and shipping powered by fossil fuels.China is part of the BRICS, which means they have a unique insight into Putin's plans for Russia. Because world war is bad for trade (unless you're an arms dealer like the US), the Chinese have an incentive to talk Putin down.(12/?)
(DIR) Post #AzgIzRSkXpfjaTAb6u by strypey@mastodon.nzoss.nz
2025-10-28T22:10:24Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
Someone is bound to ask why Chiba haven't done this already. Fair question. Simple; so far, it's not been in their interests.The invasion of Ukraine, for all its horror, has been contained enough to have no major impact on the Chinese. It's also kept the US distracted, and given them a boogieman to rattle their sabres at who isn't the Chinese. Without the Ukraine invasion, the only fodder for US war propaganda would be their brinkmanship in the South China Sea. Not good for China.(13/?)
(DIR) Post #AzgIzbj4O0fVPyslw8 by karel@union.place
2025-10-28T22:10:28Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@strypey I disagree slightly. The objectively better situation for ordinary people is not relying on the lack of expansionist policy of one big superpower. A multipolar world with multiple superpowers (such as the Cold War) is going to be a lot better for individual safety and freedom as it provides protection from a change in foreign policy of the “benevolent” superpower
(DIR) Post #AzgJI6X0ahY2Aj3pse by strypey@mastodon.nzoss.nz
2025-10-28T22:14:54Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
Let's be clear, I'm not spinning a yarn where Xi Jinping and the CCP are the good guys. The Marxist left made that mistake with that old fascist Stalin and the USSR, and it's not a mistake this old anarchist intends to repeat.What I'm saying is that Chinese foreign policy is self-interested, but *not* expansionist in a military conquest sense. This does not appear to have helped the people of Ukraine much. But in a world where Pax Americana is clearly over, it may be a ray of hope.(14/14)
(DIR) Post #AzgKgabKXn0mKsK036 by strypey@mastodon.nzoss.nz
2025-10-28T22:30:32Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
(1/2)@karel We actually agree on this as an ideal. But I'm speculating about the world as it is, not as we'd like it to be. In terms of naval power, haven't had a multipolar world for centuries. Not since the rise of the Spanish Armada.
(DIR) Post #AzgLMcWplfr2TaGCqO by strypey@mastodon.nzoss.nz
2025-10-28T22:38:08Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
(2/2)Looking beyond the maritime issues I was focused on here, what other world powers are there?* The US? A basketcase run by theocratic fascists* Russia? Same. Look how much it's puffing after failing to conquer one small country on its border. Like the USSR trying to invade Afghanistan* EU? UK? Coddled protectorate of the US. Will take decades to rebuild independend global-scale power* Brazil? India? Indonesia? Maybe, but we're clutching at straws nowWho else is there?
(DIR) Post #AzgWDuuFAc8OMYGKqu by karel@union.place
2025-10-29T00:39:46Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@strypey I see BRICS as a counterforce to NATO, though increasingly this is turning into US and allies vs China and allies. I would argue though that two morally questionable superpowers are better than one mega superpower that claims to be morally better, foreign policies can always change. For example, Burkina Faso was able to reject France and the US by relying on Russian Mercenaries. I’m no expert on naval geopolitics so you may be right about its monopolistic nature
(DIR) Post #AzgXvGJvWoHhBTVZ7A by strypey@mastodon.nzoss.nz
2025-10-29T00:58:51Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@karel Again, I agree that multipolar is better than unipolar. But if we're talking ideals, why stop there? Breaking up all empires into smaller, democratic nations is even more ambitious. With a functioning confederal system (UN-ish minus Security Council), it would be much less at risk of large-scale war, and much more able to discipline rogue states like Israel with no empire to block effective action.But in reality NATO is over, and who's the equivalent of the US in the BRICS? China.
(DIR) Post #AzhkYafDDehmBBwZA8 by Photo55@mastodon.social
2025-10-29T14:55:02Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@strypey Preparing to fight the previous war?One must be, but then one has equipment that is outdated, in the next war.As well as new stuff.
(DIR) Post #Azi8DInErdhnZd50kq by n_dimension@infosec.exchange
2025-10-29T19:20:07Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@strypey On #euro defence spend: To be fair Smart money was on no war. War is not good for prosperity. Any idiot can see that. But the wold created better idiots.On US weapon system trash: It was quite evident when US sent switchblades to #Ukraine.x10 times cost, single use drone, at the time whe Ukraine was getting 3 bombing runs missions from an OTS drone.The US bet on peace too. Developing weapon systems too expensive and too mission specific, reliant on superb logistics and quiescent staging areas for maintenance.I had a tiny glimpse at the US style weapons development process and it's a corporate welfare scam.The US department of war is getting back to basics now: riot shields and batons. Tells you who the new enemy is......since the US "leadership" looks up to dictators.
(DIR) Post #AziVHQFhN5qmoNKEgC by strypey@mastodon.nzoss.nz
2025-10-29T23:38:40Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@Photo55> Preparing to fight the previous war?Presuming Putin succeeds in conquering Ukraine and rolls on into Poland - I'm not convinced Russia has the capacity but the EU must prepare for the possibility - it's *not* the previous war. But a continuation of the same war.Also, the best way for EU nations to prevent that is to keep Putin bogged down in Ukraine (with no guarantee of US support), or even helps Ukrainians push his forces back into Russia. Again, current war, not previous war.
(DIR) Post #AzjEUvZSjhgBeANqpk by Photo55@mastodon.social
2025-10-30T08:05:17Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@strypey I trained, last century, for a part in fighting that* war.The front line would have started at the Inner German Border, and we thought as described in Red Storm Rising move towards the Atlantic.That war is being fought, initially with much of the same kit, with a front line well to the East, and Poland et al on this side of it. Which is better for us.Ukraine being the shield of Europe is appreciated, and helping them do it is sensible.* We got the Gulf instead.
(DIR) Post #AzkBbqU1wdS9BsPTbU by strypey@mastodon.nzoss.nz
2025-10-30T19:07:37Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
This analysis fits the pattern of a US whose power on the world stage is in decline, while China is ascendant. But just taking care of business, not showing any expansionist ambitions (unlike Putin);https://www.rnz.co.nz/news/on-the-inside/577355/trump-s-big-concession-to-xi-is-loaded-with-red-flags#geopolitics #trade #tariffs
(DIR) Post #AzkIBWa01Umhbtb960 by Crystal_Fish_Caves@mstdn.party
2025-10-30T20:21:17Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@strypey I would like to take issue with the statement that US is in decline (oh yes it very much is) but that it is "not showing any expansionist ambitions"He has threatened to invade Canada, Greenland, Panama, ...am I missing any?but that he is actively trying to expand the Presidency to Deity Enshrined Aristocracy and moving troops into blue states to terrorize citizens and prob take over the election, I believe fits the category of 'expansionist.'
(DIR) Post #AzkInrD9lPssbOBy08 by strypey@mastodon.nzoss.nz
2025-10-30T20:28:16Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@Crystal_Fish_Caves Read it again. The sentence after "China" refers to China. Make sense now?