It all boils down to the survival of the fittest. Yesterday Europe, today Russia and tomorrow China. No one can stop that
Not exactly the fittest nor really that into survival (suicidal masochism would be a better description)
The West can't even handle China's junior, North Korea.
Maybe because “the West” doesn’t want to “handle” North Korea (whatever that means)?
I’m sorry but I really don’t understand what are you trying to say..
I don't but the ongoing war is for more land
>> Maybe because “the West” doesn’t want to “handle” North Korea (whatever that means)?
NK is propped up by China to distract USA and it's allies. As planned it's worked and USA has no answer to that problem and yet makes bold promises to Taiwan.
I'm just trying to say that strongest country wins no matter what. It's nothing to do with morals. Better strengths ones country in good times.
I don’t think more land per se is the objective.
> As planned it's worked and USA has no answer to that problem
What problem is that? I don’t think US pays that much attention to NK.
From that perspective US has been much more successful than China. The existence of Taiwan as an independent state is a much, much bigger issue for for them than NK is for US.
> I'm just trying to say that strongest country wins no matter what.
Wins what? We’re not living in a grand strategy video game.
Americans in general (and the US mainstream media in their coverage) frame deaths emanating from the US (and it’s close allies) as collateral damage, killed terrorists, eliminated insurecctionists or mistakes or just even ignore it by omissions. From other countries that are not “allies” they are victims or murdered innocents or massacres or genocides etc… Just look at the favorable coverage of Madeleine Albrights death who said in her very own words that she owned to killing 500,000 Iraqi babies and children and said it was well worth it.
https://www.newsweek.com/watch-madeleine-albright-saying-ira...
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gallic_Wars
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Bibracte
https://jacobin.com/2022/01/sanctions-financial-assets-afgha...
Churchill could likely have saved 100’s of thousands, but I seriously doubt he could have dropped deaths to zero in the middle of WWII. England was forced to ration food domestically, they didn’t have some great surplus to distribute. That 50,000 tons mentioned could have saved lives but wouldn’t have even come close to solving the problem.
That’s the nuance of history, people could have done more which would have helped though not actually solving the problem. All those shipments sunk by U-Boats were destroying part of a finite pool of food produced which had already shrunk as economies mobilized for war. Eventually you simply hit a breaking point.
In Winston Churchill's case there is a lot of evidence which suggests that due to WW2 priorities he let a few million people in India starve. In any case he did not have any love for Indians and considered them to be inferior race anyways.
Just because famines have happened in India before, no way does that mean that the damage due to certain famines in British empire could've been reduced especially given that India was the crown jewel in British empire providing so many inputs to the British industrial empire.