mekka okereke 

"Well, now China can just invade people!🤡" is the wrong take, and is again, completely US-pilled.

It's centered on the idea that China can't think of what to do on its own, or considers itself limited to the set of rules determined by the US. It does not.

China gained in much more important ways.

What do you think the heads of state of Mexico, Denmark, Nigeria, Canada, South Africa, and Somalia are thinking this morning?

This is important because again, there are rare earth and other mineral negotiations going on right now that will determine the path that the next 25 years will take.

Jan 3 at 1:46pmWeb
Show threadCharo del GenioJan 3
@mekkaokereke exactly! I keep saying that, to me, Trump seems to be favouring much more China than Russia, with his policies.
Show threadColletteJan 3
@mekkaokereke I think it's that "New Monroe Doctrine" I've read about, and the fact that oil runs our country
Show threadMichael RobertsJan 3
@mekkaokereke I *hope* they're thinking that direct action against foreign heads of state is back on the table. Sauce for that gander.
Show threadMichael KranzJan 3
@mekkaokereke this is it right here. China now has an even more powerful opportunity to stake out space as maybe the only major power supporting an international rules-based order, especially with the EU swiftly falling in step with the US after this escalating string of illegals violence against Venezuela
Show threadUnredacted Epstein files nowJan 3
@mekkaokereke I’m hoping that China ends the age of oil.
Show threadcraignicolJan 3
@pedrobizbikedu @mekkaokereke it's very much in China's interests do to so. Weakens USA, EU and Middle East power.
Show threadSteff 🏳️‍⚧️ 🏳️‍🌈Jan 3
@mekkaokereke
I think it's foolish to suggest that the actions by the US, Russia, and Israel don't send a global signal to China that imperial expansion is a national strategy. Certainly, Mexico, Cuba, Greenland, etc should be concerned, but this will only force China to act to secure what it believes should be it's territories


https://apnews.com/article/china-xi-jinping-new-year-address-taiwan-56761d92abff5a95f8ff7fd2fb791678
Xi delivers New Year's Eve address with praise for China and Taiwan promise

Chinese President Xi Jinping has hailed his country’s technological progress in areas such as artificial intelligence and semiconductors. Xi also renewed promises to annex self-ruled Taiwan during his New Year’s Eve address broadcast by state media Wednesday. Xi's speech reiterates Beijing’s annexation threats toward the self-ruled democracy that China sees as a breakaway province. Xi's addresss also has praised the country’s advancements in key sectors including military tech and space exploration. Images ranging from humanoid robots performing kung fu to new hydropower projects rolled on the screen as he spoke. China is preparing to discuss its new five-year plan at the upcoming legislative session in March.

AP News
Show threadmekka okereke Jan 3

@Steve

I think you're foolish to interpret what I said:
1. China makes its own decisions.
2. China already wins more without being impulsive and violent and silly

As

"US actions don't send a global signal"🤡

Now that we've both clearly said what we think is and is not foolish, perhaps we can both tone it down and just say what we agree and don't agree with?

Or we can keep calling each other fools. I'm good either way. Just let me know.

And more to the point: of course US actions send a global signal. You think China hasn't already noticed the strikes on Iran, and Nigeria, and Iraq, and Syria, and Yemen, and the military contractors in Africa, and the "visits" to Greenland, and the threats against Canada? You think they suddenly snapped up in bed, and said "ZOMG! The new admin is expansionist!"🤡

Show threadmekka okereke Jan 3

@Steve

Pick up a history book, and look over the past 50 years at:

1) How many countries has the US invaded or conducted military strikes against.

2) How many countries has Russia invaded or conducted military strikes against.

3) How many countries has China invaded or conducted military strikes against.

Seriously, this is not a rhetorical. Go look it up and come back with an actual number.

The point: if China was waiting for US or Russian violence and expansionism to reset some rules to be more invade-y? That would have happened already.

The whole point is that China is winning the century without firing a single shot. Because the rules for being a successful superpower in 2100, are different than in 1900, and the US and Russia haven't picked up on that yet, but China has.

The US and Russia are trying to bully Ukraine and Nigeria and Denmark and South Africa and even Canada into submission, and China is instead seducing its trading states with economic prosperity, stability, and respect of their sovereignty.

People prefer it when you throw silver at them rather than lead. "Plata *no* Plomo."

Show threadSteff 🏳️‍⚧️ 🏳️‍🌈Jan 3
@mekkaokereke
My apologies, I did not mean to imply you were foolish, but the notion that China is uninfluenced by global events is foolish.

The conquering of Venezuela is a clear and material escalation of imperial nationalism. Like the invasion of the Ukraine or Gaza, this is not a short-term event or a single act, but an ongoing conquest. It's a definitive change to post WWII strategy which now rejects alliances in favor of unilateral conquest for resource extraction. As a policy, it now requires other powerful states to secure any desired possessions before someone else does. It's 19th century expansionism - in my opinion.
Show threadmekka okereke Jan 3

@Steve

It's an escalation, yes of course.

But where I disagree is in how other superpowers will respond in terms of defending what they see as their own.

China was already doing what they thought necessary. They don't need to change their strategy. They already knew Trump was expansionist.

Suppose that you are the head of state of Nigeria or South Africa. You just saw what happened to Venezuela. You now have definitive proof that there is essentially nothing between Trump's impulses, and military action against you and your wife. Not Congress. Not 80% of the American people. Not the Supreme Court. Not NATO. Not the UN. Nothing. He's effectively a supreme leader, a Fuhrer.

Knowing this, and knowing that he wants your country's resources like he wants Venezuela's oil, what would you put between your family and his intrusive thoughts? How would you keep things peaceful and deter military action against you? For most nations "Develop Nukes!" can't happen in a short enough timeframe to be a deterrent rather than a reason to be attacked. "Partner with someone strong enough to discourage US intervention!" is the easier option.

Again, looking at history books, as an African nation, your choices are Russia or China. You're either inviting in the Wagner Group, or the Red army, or choosing to take your chances and go it alone.

What would you choose?

Again, not rhetorical. What would you do?

Show threadmekka okereke Jan 3

@Steve

And no, invading Venezuela for oil is not a clear "escalation of imperial expansion."

What's escalated is that Trump could do this without even pretending to get support from Congress or the US people, or other allied nations.

Most countries and most people on earth don't see a difference between going to Iraq for oil, or Syria for oil, or Venezuela for oil. They don't.🤷🏿‍♂️

Question Time was released back in 2017.

"🎼🎶The irony is that we have no business in Syria
But kids are getting killed for all the business in Syria
And then they try and tell you that 'It's ISIS! It's ISIS!'
But in their attempts at killing it, how many civilians died?

So what's the difference between us and them?
When you got drones killing kids just touching ten?
Then when a bomb goes off, every politician's lost
Like that last strike, it didn't kill a hundred men.

No, you ain't the same as them.
But all that fuel for the fire, is what you gave to them
And what you take from them."

Dave - Question Time
[CW: anti-war and anri-corruption rap song]
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=4ff6CjYBhoI

Dave - Question Time

YouTube
Show threadSteff 🏳️‍⚧️ 🏳️‍🌈Jan 3

@mekkaokereke As I’ve said, the differences are 1) pure nationalism. 2) a complete claim of political authority - not unlike 19thC nationalist expansions into Africa and SE Asia, and 3) utterly unilateral. I am hard pressed, outside of the Ukraine, Crimea, and maybe 1-2 more to recall when one state asserted full sovereignty over another’s territory with complete unilateral military force in recent times.

I feel like there’s a weird impulse to simply dismiss all fascistic events which have occurred in the past year or so, as some normal continuation of the “bad” which feels like an attempt to lighten the gravity of events and discourage action. Certainly, the US has always had imperial ambitions and taken actions to support those, but at what point does an act become unacceptable? Or are we simply to sit back and say, “well, it’s always been this way” and dismiss and pretext of order or sovereignty?

Show threadmekka okereke Jan 3

@Steve

I literally said in the post that you replied to that the difference is that this time, Trump did this as a Fuhrer.

What part of anything I've ever posted suggests that this full-fash government is just a continuation of normal? It's not.

I'm drawing a distinction between horrific oil wars and exploitation, which the US has always done, and the fact that there are now no longer any checks and balances at all on the alt-right, which is new.

The whole point of my thread is that this change means that China is winning the world without firing a shot. They don't have to follow the US down the cul-de-sac of mindless violence. They are better served by not doing that.

Show threadSteff 🏳️‍⚧️ 🏳️‍🌈Jan 3
@mekkaokereke I don’t completely disagree with this assessment; however, the fact that China continues to increase sabre-rattling over Taiwan suggests that a seizing of territory and resources is certainly possible. If/when this occurs, the notion of Chinese “soft power” will quickly disappear. Feckless and fawning alliances are inevitable, but these will only exist for extractions and will only benefit the wealthiest of those countries, leading to more civil conflicts.
Show threadmekka okereke Jan 3

@Steve

🤔People will still focus on China "sabre rattling," the morning after the US took its sabre out of its sheath, and repeatedly stabbed someone else in the face with it.

That asymmetry has never made sense to me.🤷🏿‍♂️

And no, China's soft power in Africa would not disappear, unless China also starts invading and exploiting African countries. China won't do that, so their soft power in Africa would remain.

There's a fundamental and pervasive inability to see the world through the eyes of an African nation, that is causing the West to lose Africa for century.

Show threadSteff 🏳️‍⚧️ 🏳️‍🌈Jan 3
@mekkaokereke I am not focused on China, but they are a major player, and thus their actions are interesting. Russia is bogged down in Ukraine. Trump is focused on the Americas and Greenland. Thus, the only superpower left, to act is China. It’s more of a curiosity then a focus. If I were Xi, I would certainly be considering my options - particularly considering the economic pressures that are currently befalling my country.
Show threadmekka okereke Jan 3

@Steve

Then I guess I'm glad for Africa, that you are not Xi.

Xi is going to keep selling solar cells, and EVs, and vaccines, and building sea ports and train stations and airports, and providing economic incentives, and buying tons of rare earths at fair market prices, in Africa.

He's going to continue displacing US and European interests in Africa. And he's going to do it without overthrowing any governments, or invading anyone, or causing any genocides, or getting bogged down in pointless and expensive wars.

And Western people are (still) genuinely going to wonder how he was able to accomplish all this. Some will say that Africans are foolish for trusting China. They will say this completely unironically, while knowing that Trump is the US president now, and knowing what the US did in Africa in the 50s, 60s, and 70s. They'll say this knowing that in the early 2020s, the US had the opportunity to do exactly what China is doing... And chose to go the opposite direction and DOGE'd instead.

Show threadBakunin BoysJan 4
@mekkaokereke "threat" and "attack" are two sides of the same coin. I think everyone understands that China will employ the "kind word with a gun", but the point is that the orientation of arms aligns trade. I'm not sure if people ever actually *liked* the US given how selfish it has been throughout history. They just have the kind word and a gun, and the issue is that they no longer have a kind word.