I am as such against balkanization, especially for the purpose of weakening, disintegrating, harming and dividing & conquering, whether it is the USA, India, China, and elsewhere. The parts of China that includes Tibet, the region with the Uyghur people, and Mongolians, is not something I am against having their own 100% independent countries with no influence or control from China, but power play, intrigue, war, etc. for the purpose of weakening and possibly enslaving the Chinese is definitely something I am against. The biggest problem by far reg. China (PRoC) is communism, and a non-communist China would be very good as far as I can see.
India is a huge country, and I would expect that you are not against India nor the USA staying as they are (well, except possibly for the Muslims to leave India, especially after the genocide against non-Muslims in 1971 in Bangladesh...).
Small, weak countries are incredibly vulnerable to pressure, enslavement, dividing and conquering. There used to be lots and lots of small and weak countries - many of them got conquered and/or destroyed and/or other over time. Dividing a country into smaller pieces can make those people much more vulnerable. And if the USA was split into 50 (EDIT)independent countries(EDIT END), it would spell its death sentence - no, the USA SHOULD NOT be split up such that it can be conquered and destroyed.
Why would you have a problem with China being weaker?
Either way, isn't your entire theory completely disproven by the fact that NATO is the strongest military alliance in the world, and that China was once in the middle of a civil war, broken into multiple smaller territories, then paused it and formed a military alliance to fend off the Japanese?
Clearly smaller, independent countries are perfectly capable of maintaining military alliances and defending themselves without being subjugated under a single government. So, do you have another excuse?
Why would you have a problem with China being weaker?
Because I have problem with countries in general becoming weaker, including because countries that are weaker are in general much more susceptible to pressure, invasion, destruction, enslavement, corruption due to pressure, and the like. And I consider this potentially very bad for the human species overall.
I also hold the belief that a country succumbing to communism is not necessarily the fault of that country's people, and that effort should be made to help combat it and prevent it from occurring. As far as I have been told, a certain central large European country held in the 1930s ethnic Russians fully responsible for communism spreading in Russia, and used it for justification for various actions. I disagree 100% with that. And I likewise do not blame ethnic Chinese for communism spreading in China. I don't know much about the opium wars, but that has played a factor as well. The different peoples do of course have responsibilities of their own, but they do not always have 100% of the responsibility, and it is not necessarily right to use that as justification for various things. (this is also a bit about principles and precedents, because if communism being spread in a country can be used as justification against that country, then another country that wants to invade and conquer that country could get benefits from intentionally seeking to spread communism to that country, and that is an extremely horrible and evil incentive to enable as far as I can see - among others, would countries then begin spreading communism if they wanted more territory? And what could that potentially result in for the human species?).
(...) the fact that NATO is the strongest military alliance in the world, (...)
The phenomenon of military alliances is indeed a very good argument, but military alliances, depending on the various factors and issues involved, can be very fragile (or very robust, again depending on things). NATO is indeed very strong, but it is showing increasing cracks in certain regards, and while not the most fragile of alliances, it is not the most robust either. NATO includes both Greece and Turkey, which are not at all on the best of terms, and an argument could easily be made that Turkey has taken very hostile action towards the NATO members in Europe, including by helping immigration in EU. And Turkey is Muslim, which is another factor.
Furthermore, the USA is by far the strongest member of that alliance, and there are many member states in Europe that are not anywhere near paying their due diligence reg. the bare minimum of 2% of GDP on military expenditure, including smaller or even tiny countries, the ones that stand to benefit by far the most from such an alliance. For the smaller or tiny countries, this is complete, total and utter insanity. Trump is 100% right to pressure such countries, and if they were to be kicked out if they continue neglecting their most basic duties, it would be 100% right to do so, even if it turned out to spell doom for that neglecting country. (Trump, as he very often is, is being more than nice by giving extremely clear head-ups reg. this, which he didn't have to do. And some of those countries seem to be getting the message).
And all military alliances are not always that nice or benevolent for all parties in it, though again that very much depends on the military alliance, the members, their closeness, etc. Back when the deep state have much greater influence in the USA than now, there were various things happening, such as these:
Another possible issue with military alliances, at least those containing many smaller members instead of a few larger members, is that agreement, coordination, dealing, etc. can be much more difficult. Like a hydra spending more time fighting with itself than with the enemies that seek to harm some or all of it. That can be very vulnerable to Divide&Conquer. Having fewer and larger members can help robustness. Though, this does depend on the military alliance and how it is organized.
Why would you consider it bad for "the human species" if China becomes weaker?
Can you explain how any of the points you're making about NATO are relevant to the fact that it's a crystal clear example disproving your theory that smaller countries are automatically more vulnerable?
Or how those points would apply to China given the fact that its own recent history already categorically proves that not only are they capable of cooperating together in the face of foreign threats, but they're able to do so even when they'd just been in the middle of killing each other in a civil war?
I am as such against balkanization, especially for the purpose of weakening, disintegrating, harming and dividing & conquering, whether it is the USA, India, China, and elsewhere. The parts of China that includes Tibet, the region with the Uyghur people, and Mongolians, is not something I am against having their own 100% independent countries with no influence or control from China, but power play, intrigue, war, etc. for the purpose of weakening and possibly enslaving the Chinese is definitely something I am against. The biggest problem by far reg. China (PRoC) is communism, and a non-communist China would be very good as far as I can see.
India is a huge country, and I would expect that you are not against India nor the USA staying as they are (well, except possibly for the Muslims to leave India, especially after the genocide against non-Muslims in 1971 in Bangladesh...).
Small, weak countries are incredibly vulnerable to pressure, enslavement, dividing and conquering. There used to be lots and lots of small and weak countries - many of them got conquered and/or destroyed and/or other over time. Dividing a country into smaller pieces can make those people much more vulnerable. And if the USA was split into 50 (EDIT)independent countries(EDIT END), it would spell its death sentence - no, the USA SHOULD NOT be split up such that it can be conquered and destroyed.
Why would you have a problem with China being weaker?
Either way, isn't your entire theory completely disproven by the fact that NATO is the strongest military alliance in the world, and that China was once in the middle of a civil war, broken into multiple smaller territories, then paused it and formed a military alliance to fend off the Japanese?
Clearly smaller, independent countries are perfectly capable of maintaining military alliances and defending themselves without being subjugated under a single government. So, do you have another excuse?
Because I have problem with countries in general becoming weaker, including because countries that are weaker are in general much more susceptible to pressure, invasion, destruction, enslavement, corruption due to pressure, and the like. And I consider this potentially very bad for the human species overall.
I also hold the belief that a country succumbing to communism is not necessarily the fault of that country's people, and that effort should be made to help combat it and prevent it from occurring. As far as I have been told, a certain central large European country held in the 1930s ethnic Russians fully responsible for communism spreading in Russia, and used it for justification for various actions. I disagree 100% with that. And I likewise do not blame ethnic Chinese for communism spreading in China. I don't know much about the opium wars, but that has played a factor as well. The different peoples do of course have responsibilities of their own, but they do not always have 100% of the responsibility, and it is not necessarily right to use that as justification for various things. (this is also a bit about principles and precedents, because if communism being spread in a country can be used as justification against that country, then another country that wants to invade and conquer that country could get benefits from intentionally seeking to spread communism to that country, and that is an extremely horrible and evil incentive to enable as far as I can see - among others, would countries then begin spreading communism if they wanted more territory? And what could that potentially result in for the human species?).
The phenomenon of military alliances is indeed a very good argument, but military alliances, depending on the various factors and issues involved, can be very fragile (or very robust, again depending on things). NATO is indeed very strong, but it is showing increasing cracks in certain regards, and while not the most fragile of alliances, it is not the most robust either. NATO includes both Greece and Turkey, which are not at all on the best of terms, and an argument could easily be made that Turkey has taken very hostile action towards the NATO members in Europe, including by helping immigration in EU. And Turkey is Muslim, which is another factor.
Furthermore, the USA is by far the strongest member of that alliance, and there are many member states in Europe that are not anywhere near paying their due diligence reg. the bare minimum of 2% of GDP on military expenditure, including smaller or even tiny countries, the ones that stand to benefit by far the most from such an alliance. For the smaller or tiny countries, this is complete, total and utter insanity. Trump is 100% right to pressure such countries, and if they were to be kicked out if they continue neglecting their most basic duties, it would be 100% right to do so, even if it turned out to spell doom for that neglecting country. (Trump, as he very often is, is being more than nice by giving extremely clear head-ups reg. this, which he didn't have to do. And some of those countries seem to be getting the message).
And all military alliances are not always that nice or benevolent for all parties in it, though again that very much depends on the military alliance, the members, their closeness, etc. Back when the deep state have much greater influence in the USA than now, there were various things happening, such as these:
https://i.maga.host/GMd9PXk.png
https://i.maga.host/NWIEVuH.jpg
Another possible issue with military alliances, at least those containing many smaller members instead of a few larger members, is that agreement, coordination, dealing, etc. can be much more difficult. Like a hydra spending more time fighting with itself than with the enemies that seek to harm some or all of it. That can be very vulnerable to Divide&Conquer. Having fewer and larger members can help robustness. Though, this does depend on the military alliance and how it is organized.
Why would you consider it bad for "the human species" if China becomes weaker?
Can you explain how any of the points you're making about NATO are relevant to the fact that it's a crystal clear example disproving your theory that smaller countries are automatically more vulnerable?
Or how those points would apply to China given the fact that its own recent history already categorically proves that not only are they capable of cooperating together in the face of foreign threats, but they're able to do so even when they'd just been in the middle of killing each other in a civil war?
You don't believe your own answer here, communist shill, as usual. It was in many ways foolish of me to spend time on answering your reply.
What are your thoughts on these of your comrades?: https://i.maga.host/nq2Rlx1.jpg .