| | | “Decolonized Russia" is over the top (although in some ways less than "denazify Ukraine"). But being seriously weakened is not a rare result from fighting an enemy that you can't just walk over conventionally and get ether a quick victory
You may have misread Secretary Austen, Tim. He meant “weakening” as “decolonizing”. He meant destroying - totally wrecking - like we and NATO wrecked Libya. We and NATO just walked over it, very conventionally - we had their leader torn into pieces by a mob (We came, we saw, he died… cackle cackle cackle). Yeah, a very cackle worthy event. Complete decolonization. Of course, Kaddafi warned that if his regime is destroyed, millions of Africans would migrate to Europe - and they did. But It wasn’t Kaddafi’s worry anymore. It kind of seems like nobody’s too worried. They advised the Free Press to STFU - and voila! The problem is no more.
Since we really had zero interest in Libya, we simply walked away from the chaos. Russia and her former component colonies would be a different story. There would be resources to develop, insurrections to fight - after all, we can’t just let them coalesce back into an empire, the way they’ve been for centuries. Enough of their conspiracies! We may even have to restore the Gulag - on a temporary basis, of course. Local nazis could help maintain discipline.
While all this would be happening, China would discover that there is no more intellectual property to steal - so, they’d have to get off their butts and start inventing their own, for real.
I could go on. It’s funny how just a few words, casually uttered, can make a person think. |
|
