I don't see anything wrong with your idea about what the West's geopolitical plan should be for the region. South Africa government sympathies obviously lie with China, and there is no reason to assume that such sympathies will not increase as China grows more powerful, so supporting an independent Cape, which for pragmatic reasons will be pro-Western, is only logical. Reinforcing Mozambique as an ally also makes perfect sense. Supporting KwaZulu Natal independence, while more risky, also makes sense.
Because Cape is a multi-ethnic region, supporting that country's independence against a Chinese ally need not be embarrassing for liberals in the West. Liberal Westerners could just talk about the rights of minorities, the incompetence of the ANC government, and the like. Mainstream conservatives could talk about communism and the Chinese connection. It would be an easy justification.
The only impediment to such action by the West, are risk-averse elites. People may not realize this, but Western elites are extremely risk-averse to changing anything, and their weak support for Ukraine before the full invasion by Russia, shows how even in geopolitics, there is a lot of timidity, although the China angle in the case of South Africa can change things.
Don't count on much just yet. Washington and London lack basic competence and have no vision that is not hallucinatory. This may start to change after the humiliation in Ukraine becomes impossible to explain away. The top-level leaders are useless. But some of their successors will have already started thinking ahead.
The fragmentation of the global economy and the arms trace ensure that the US eventually takes action to secure trade routes, minerals and allies. You are well-placed. The despoilation of whites will continue a while longer, but state failure will constrain Pretoria's malice, while China has to rely on the ANC.
Humiliation in Ukraine? From whom? The US and UK are not directly involved, Russia is the supposed superpower having its unimpressive military dying to maybe, just maybe, take over some small towns in the Donbas.
Respectfully disagree with your take. The US and UK appear to be very heavily and directly involved. Ukraine is a proxy for NATO. It is financed, armed and its soldiers trained by NATO. U. forces served in Iraq and Afghanistan and were being integrated into NATO's force structure. The Ukraine assembled an army of 90,000 men trained to NATO standards by NATO officers and NCOs to attack Donbass in February 2022 (probably so that the US could put nukes in eastern U. under 8min flying time to Russia). The Ukraine received signals and satellite intelligence from the US. Most surviving Ukrainian fighter pilots flown by Western 'veterans' (serving NATO military on leave with a cover story).
The Donbass contains the hydocarbons (coal in the Donetsk basin, natural gas in the sea of Azov and northern Black Sea). The nearby Crimea (which U. wants back) has Sebastopol, key to projecting air-power over Russia, Central Asia and Middle East).
Russian air defense system kept NATO from declaring a 'no fly zone' and the hypersonic missiles have destroyed command posts as far the far western portions of Ukraine.
Of course it all depends who you chose to believe (I am a big fan of Andrei Martyanov at https://www.youtube.com/@smoothieX12 ) . We will see in 2023.
Yeah, respectfully, you're listening to extremely bad sources. The people promoting these Russian narratives are the same people who assert that Russia would not invade, and then that Russia would win in a week, and then that Russia would capture Odessa, and then that Russia would not lose any captured territory, and then that Russia would not lose Kherson, and so on.
Honestly, there are so many things wrong with these types of narratives that I don't even know where to start, but I guess I'll just point out a few things related to what you've written:
1. The idea that the US wanted to place nukes in Ukraine is ridiculous, for the simple reason that it is completely unnecessary and nonsensical. The US can launch nukes against Russia from the US itself. Nuclear warfare does not require countries sharing borders. That said, there are countries close to Russia that are part of NATO, so if for whatever reason the US wanted to place nukes on Russia's border, it would have done so with NATO countries, which now includes Finland. Finland was not part of NATO, but because of Russia's invasion, it is now.
2. Ukraine was not going to join NATO for the simple reason that France and Germany would veto it, not to mention Hungary or Turkey. Now Ukraine may possibly join NATO, but it is still unlikely.
3. Regarding Ukraine having a NATO trained army, that's just not true. There was an extremely small amount of training, but it is now that Ukrainian soldiers are being trained by NATO in any significant amount. Why do you think Ukrainian soldiers are in the UK and other countries for training in the midst of war? Obviously, because they hadn't already been trained.
4. The Donbas is a shithole. The idea that this war is over coal mines is pretty silly. Russia already has all the natural resources it needs, what Russia lacks is industrialization and technological modernization, which is the real problem with its economy and the reason for its weakness. Russia invaded to absorb Ukraine population into its East Slav union project, and Ukraine is fighting for nationalist reasons, they want a country of their own, not to be part of Russia.
5. All problems with these narratives aside, materially it is just absurdly obvious that Russia is the one that was harmed by this war, not the US. Russia is the one losing soldiers in the hundreds of thousands, Russia is the one suffering brain drain in the hundreds of thousands, Russia is the one that has had its already stagnant economy hurt even more, and so on. The US suffered nothing substantial from the war.
Brilliant piece of future history. Thanks Robert.
I don't see anything wrong with your idea about what the West's geopolitical plan should be for the region. South Africa government sympathies obviously lie with China, and there is no reason to assume that such sympathies will not increase as China grows more powerful, so supporting an independent Cape, which for pragmatic reasons will be pro-Western, is only logical. Reinforcing Mozambique as an ally also makes perfect sense. Supporting KwaZulu Natal independence, while more risky, also makes sense.
Because Cape is a multi-ethnic region, supporting that country's independence against a Chinese ally need not be embarrassing for liberals in the West. Liberal Westerners could just talk about the rights of minorities, the incompetence of the ANC government, and the like. Mainstream conservatives could talk about communism and the Chinese connection. It would be an easy justification.
The only impediment to such action by the West, are risk-averse elites. People may not realize this, but Western elites are extremely risk-averse to changing anything, and their weak support for Ukraine before the full invasion by Russia, shows how even in geopolitics, there is a lot of timidity, although the China angle in the case of South Africa can change things.
Don't count on much just yet. Washington and London lack basic competence and have no vision that is not hallucinatory. This may start to change after the humiliation in Ukraine becomes impossible to explain away. The top-level leaders are useless. But some of their successors will have already started thinking ahead.
The fragmentation of the global economy and the arms trace ensure that the US eventually takes action to secure trade routes, minerals and allies. You are well-placed. The despoilation of whites will continue a while longer, but state failure will constrain Pretoria's malice, while China has to rely on the ANC.
My money is going on you long-term.
Humiliation in Ukraine? From whom? The US and UK are not directly involved, Russia is the supposed superpower having its unimpressive military dying to maybe, just maybe, take over some small towns in the Donbas.
Respectfully disagree with your take. The US and UK appear to be very heavily and directly involved. Ukraine is a proxy for NATO. It is financed, armed and its soldiers trained by NATO. U. forces served in Iraq and Afghanistan and were being integrated into NATO's force structure. The Ukraine assembled an army of 90,000 men trained to NATO standards by NATO officers and NCOs to attack Donbass in February 2022 (probably so that the US could put nukes in eastern U. under 8min flying time to Russia). The Ukraine received signals and satellite intelligence from the US. Most surviving Ukrainian fighter pilots flown by Western 'veterans' (serving NATO military on leave with a cover story).
The Donbass contains the hydocarbons (coal in the Donetsk basin, natural gas in the sea of Azov and northern Black Sea). The nearby Crimea (which U. wants back) has Sebastopol, key to projecting air-power over Russia, Central Asia and Middle East).
Russian air defense system kept NATO from declaring a 'no fly zone' and the hypersonic missiles have destroyed command posts as far the far western portions of Ukraine.
Of course it all depends who you chose to believe (I am a big fan of Andrei Martyanov at https://www.youtube.com/@smoothieX12 ) . We will see in 2023.
Yeah, respectfully, you're listening to extremely bad sources. The people promoting these Russian narratives are the same people who assert that Russia would not invade, and then that Russia would win in a week, and then that Russia would capture Odessa, and then that Russia would not lose any captured territory, and then that Russia would not lose Kherson, and so on.
Honestly, there are so many things wrong with these types of narratives that I don't even know where to start, but I guess I'll just point out a few things related to what you've written:
1. The idea that the US wanted to place nukes in Ukraine is ridiculous, for the simple reason that it is completely unnecessary and nonsensical. The US can launch nukes against Russia from the US itself. Nuclear warfare does not require countries sharing borders. That said, there are countries close to Russia that are part of NATO, so if for whatever reason the US wanted to place nukes on Russia's border, it would have done so with NATO countries, which now includes Finland. Finland was not part of NATO, but because of Russia's invasion, it is now.
2. Ukraine was not going to join NATO for the simple reason that France and Germany would veto it, not to mention Hungary or Turkey. Now Ukraine may possibly join NATO, but it is still unlikely.
3. Regarding Ukraine having a NATO trained army, that's just not true. There was an extremely small amount of training, but it is now that Ukrainian soldiers are being trained by NATO in any significant amount. Why do you think Ukrainian soldiers are in the UK and other countries for training in the midst of war? Obviously, because they hadn't already been trained.
4. The Donbas is a shithole. The idea that this war is over coal mines is pretty silly. Russia already has all the natural resources it needs, what Russia lacks is industrialization and technological modernization, which is the real problem with its economy and the reason for its weakness. Russia invaded to absorb Ukraine population into its East Slav union project, and Ukraine is fighting for nationalist reasons, they want a country of their own, not to be part of Russia.
5. All problems with these narratives aside, materially it is just absurdly obvious that Russia is the one that was harmed by this war, not the US. Russia is the one losing soldiers in the hundreds of thousands, Russia is the one suffering brain drain in the hundreds of thousands, Russia is the one that has had its already stagnant economy hurt even more, and so on. The US suffered nothing substantial from the war.