For decades, both US and China stated they were anti-imperial. They were in fact anti British Empire for different reasons. Russia joined the anti-imperial camp while occupying East Europe.

As the word 'empire' is not used for their own interests, then the claim continues.  Gradually, the old compulsion is taking shape -
China in Tibet, north India and China Sea.
Russia in Crimea, Ukraine, Georgia and maybe Baltic areas.
The US has several Pacific territories and semi-territories world-wide.
Where these collide, the militaries are involved and battles of empires are seen in actions if not in names.  The European empires began as explorations, gold digging or spice-trading. They were commercial companies, then military expeditions and finally empires.  Events now may be the introduction to the next imperial conflicts while denying it's happening.

There is a shift in China's pressure.
'China also deposited to the UN the Statement on the Baselines of the Territorial Sea Adjacent to Huangyan Dao  on December 3.[Scarborough shoal].

"If the Philippines undertakes further provocative actions at Ren’ai Jiao [Thomas shoal] in 2025, the possibility cannot be ruled out that China may take measures such as removing the Philippine military vessel that has been illegally 'grounded' there for decades," said Wu. Dec 17.
--
Both shoals are within the EEZ 200 mile limit from the Philippines. China is now threatening a defined military action on Philippines property. This suggests it has calculated that the US will be inactive.

Quote:


Stating the bleeding obvious.

chimera wrote on Jan 16^th, 2025 at 11:10am:


The Tasman belongs to Tasmania!!! Australia has the two East Islands and the Cook Outcrop, the South Island and the Far South Island.. cold down there. Maybe we could re-possess - Putin and Xi style - our little outpost of empire to the north... start putting pressure on the Indos in West Papua.

The sky's the limit!!

On the China System, the US owns the sea between Alaska, Guam, American Samoa and California.  Any Chinese boats in North Pacific will be rammed.  This will be a Good Idea at the time.

They can't do that! 

That's the North Western Australian Sea!  We're disputing ownership with New Zealand!  They're not content with the East of Australia being The Kiwi Coast.... they want it all...

An American, A Russian and a Ukraine are on a train to Kiev ...

The American stands up and throws a gun out of the window into the snow....

Non-plussed – the others ask why?

He says - “In America we've got too many guns, I don't need that one!”

The Russian proudly stands up – takes out a bottle of the finest vodka – then throws it out the window into the snow!!

“In Mother Russia – we have too many bottles of vodka – I do not need this one!!”

The Ukraine stands up proudly!!  And then throws them both out the window into the snow...

chimera wrote on Apr 18^th, 2025 at 5:32pm:


Sounds like that claim then is a lot of bull in a China shopping list ...

This little pink is broken.

chimera wrote on Dec 12^th, 2024 at 10:51am:

The terms 'empire' and 'imperial' are impossible to avoid when characterising super-states such as the US and China, as their actions tend to be indistinguishable from those of self-declared empires, such as the British Empire.

All super-states do what they will, while the rest suffer what they must.

The US deflects from accusations of imperialism by claiming it's not an empire because it doesn't stay and administer/rule a foreign state directly.

But, as is historically well-known, super-states can rule just as effectively indirectly.

The US establishes military bases everywhere it can, which, when needed, are equipped to be fully operational as an advanced hub for prosecuting war or foreign state administration.

China establishes economic strangleholds on foreign states that bind them or give them little choice but to submit to its will.

The territorial claims of both these super-states, unlike traditional empires of history, however, are usually strictly limited to their region, using the history of their peoples' habitation there to support their claims - this being the basis of their claim that they are not imperial.

freediver wrote on May 10^th, 2025 at 9:37am:

Sure, if you lived before the 20th century.

States established themselves in outposts around the world before the 20th century because their projection of rule required them to - there being no rapid means of reaching them otherwise.

The US ended the 19th century on a path to becoming a traditional empire when it took the Philippines from Spain.

However, it walked away from traditional imperialism when it struck on a more effective means of imperialism, made possible by the massive advancement of transportation technology after WW2.

By establishing fully functional military bases in every country it ventured into, the US could effectively rule in an imperial sense in the same way as the British did.

To say it's not an empire is like a Mafia Don insisting he's not a criminal mobster, just an import-exporter of goods and personnel.

freediver wrote on May 10^th, 2025 at 9:55am:

Yes, they could, and do... at least when they wanted to up until 5 minutes ago, when the cost ran too high as it always does with empires.

MeisterEckhart wrote on May 10^th, 2025 at 9:57am:


So tell me, how much tax revenue does the US collect from its 'empire'?

At what rate are Americans settling this 'empire'?

Or do you think the British established an empire for the sole purpose of giving free military aid?

Having lost its grip on America, Argentina and other parts of the world.
The Media Empire now has Australia under its control as a last bastion

MeisterEckhart wrote on May 10^th, 2025 at 10:34am:

The cost was fighting Nazism, not the cost of colonial public service.  France, surrendering to Germany pronto, did not lose its empire at the end of the war.

Decolonisation after 1945 was a natural continuation of fight for liberation from Nazi Germany in Europe spreading to the rest of the world, as liberation from various, now-liberated colonial powers like Britain, France, Belgium, and Germany itself.

The decolonisation of British settler countries like Canada, Australia, NZ and the US,  of course,  began much earlier. How ready the coloured chappies of Africa and Asia were for independence is another question, still debatable today.

Frank wrote on May 10^th, 2025 at 2:11pm:

The inevitable crushing cost of running its empire dawned on the British establishment by the mid-19th century, which is the primary reason why the colonies in Canada, Australia, New Zealand and the Union of South Africa were granted dominion status.

The US agreed to British demands that its empire be returned to it after WW2 with one unegotiable condition: that it grant independence to every colony and possession that demanded it.

Churchill, himself, was contemplating reneging on the promise of Indian independence, but he was quickly disabused of that notion.

Whitlam's paranoia that the CIA was plotting to overthrow his government was not unfounded. He was vociferous against US interference in Australia's internal affairs, and Nixon had left no doubt in his mind that the US would not tolerate Australian independence from US policy in Southeast Asia under any circumstances.

It led to Carter's curious assurance to Australia that the CIA would 'never again' interfere in Australia's internal affairs.

MeisterEckhart wrote on May 10^th, 2025 at 2:57pm:



So if it was so crushngly costly for Britain to bring civilisation to every corner of the globe, it should demand compensation from India, Africa, Asia, the Americas.

Frank wrote on May 10^th, 2025 at 3:31pm:

Yep, well, try running that by the indigenous populations!

The fact is that India, in particular, was so stacked with riches, the British establishment would rather have cut off their own balls than lose it.

To this day, the gold Indic peoples accumulated over thousands of years of trade is still largely in private Indian hands... the British literally could not bleed the country dry, and not from want of trying.

Britain's resentment at having to relinquish its possessions in India has long been suspected by Indians (and it's largely their firm belief) to be the real reason why Britain partitioned the subcontinent - the world's most egregious act of spite.

Quote:


No Meister, that is not it.

Keep trying though. Maybe you will figure it out.

How much tax revenue does the US collect from its 'empire'?

At what rate are Americans settling this 'empire'?

Or do you actually think the British established an empire for the sole purpose of giving free military aid?

As Jeffrey Sachs commented recently, "If Canada and Mexico think they're truly independent from the US, let them invite China to establish military bases on their respective territories... Let me advise them... don't try it."

Frank wrote on May 10^th, 2025 at 4:20pm:

It was getting to the riches that became problematic to the British in India... initially easy, it soon got real hard... Indic peoples had thousands of years of experience hiding their wealth.

Reunite? India has never been a united country or people... How else do you think a pathetically small nation relative to size and population to India managed to rule so much of it?

Modi believes he's been ordained by god to create a singular national Indian identity...

India is the most diverse nation by every measure than anywhere else in the world.

Private wealth needs to be extracted from very powerful people... just confiscating it won't work unless you don't mind being bludgeoned to death on the way to Parliament.

Frank wrote on May 10^th, 2025 at 4:55pm:

I didn't say India should have been partitioned at all, nevermind wasn't partitioned enough...

If it were partitioned on ethnic lines, it would have looked like a map of Aboriginal traditional tribal lands, with some 'principalities', with their own Raja and royal family, not much bigger than a city block.

But, on that, there are plenty of Sikh separatists who would agree with you. The so-called Khalistani separatists want the state they were promised when East and West Pakistan was created.

That's another feature of imperialism...

When the imperial world order changes or realigns, it's gold that the remaining super-states turn to in order to preserve and hoard their wealth, to prepare themselves for the upcoming jostle for a slice of world power and resources, which is what we're seeing today.

The great contenders are, of course, the US and China, with Russia scrambling to be third. As historically usual, India, that, admittedly, has never been a contender for world dominance as a single entity before in its history, seems happy to sit on the sidelines for now.

It's not for no reason that Trump recently and publicly quoted the adage, 'he who has the gold makes the rules'.

freediver wrote on May 10^th, 2025 at 7:07pm:

Of course... imperialism is about wealth, resources and power... as it was since tribes could control vast lands and as it is today with super-states.

Do you think empires need red uniformed soldiers and generals and colonels issuing TFNs to nations, or do they sell their debt, collect protection money in the form of, say, submarine deals where the buyer state pays but does not commit the seller to delivery at all, or overthrows hostile governments and installs dictators and extracts the wealth of these foreign states as 'tributes' from the installed government, or dictates foreign policy to foreign states?

Or do you think the US sails the ocean doing good deeds like Grasshopper?

As Jeffrey Sachs commented recently, "If Canada and Mexico think they're truly independent from the US, let them invite China to establish military bases on their respective territories... Let me advise them... don't try it."

MeisterEckhart wrote on May 10^th, 2025 at 7:27pm:


How much 'tributes' revenue does the US collect from its 'empire'?

At what rate are Americans settling this 'empire'?

Or do you actually think the British established an empire for the sole purpose of giving free military aid?

You keep ceding points about how America's empire does not do the key things past empires did that made them empires. But you are yet to give a concrete example of how it is similar. Selling military equipment to us does not cut it. If the US does not occupy it's empire in the conventional sense, does not colonise it's empire in the conventional sense, and does not extract revenue from it's empire in the conventional sense, then perhaps the empire is all in your imagination? You have made an absurd leap from disagreeing with our federal government's relationship with the US to concluding that we are part of their empire. You cannot see the wood for the trees.

So its an Empire because Niall said it is, in the title of his book?

MeisterEckhart wrote on May 11^th, 2025 at 7:56am:

To extend Ferguson's comment further, imperial powers do not need to ask to be invited, nor wait for an invitation, to determine their initial physical presence/direct influence, or any extension/contraction of their physical presence/direct influence anywhere within their reach.

To summarise Sir Niall Ferguson’s book, Colossus: The Rise and Fall of the American Empire, Ferguson argues that the United States has become a global empire, comparable to the British Empire, by, among other things, establishing global trade and world markets with itself at the centre, using military projection of power, but lacks the long-term commitment of personnel and resources needed to manage its empire.

That, while the American empire has a colossus of potential, it is also at significant risk of self-inflicted overreach and decline.

Presciently, he warned that domestic financial problems, rather than external threats, would be the primary cause of the US empire's downfall.

MeisterEckhart wrote on May 11^th, 2025 at 10:30am:


You must have misunderstood him. It sounds like you are saying America has become a global empire by, among other things, not being a global empire.

MeisterEckhart wrote on May 11^th, 2025 at 10:30am:

The issue Sir Niall Ferguson highlights with the US administration of its empire is that, unlike the British, who had the Scots and Celts willing to leave Britain and live permanently in imperial outposts, Americans expect to be back stateside after they've completed their relatively short tours of duty.

That, while it has fully-equipped foreign-soil bases capable of prosecuting a major war and governing a foreign country, US personnel's desire to return after only a couple of years means that it's less effective at establishing stable, long-term US-friendly political systems and regimes. US individual personnel just do not spend enough time in US outposts to become as effective local administrators as the British.

This is evidenced by American impatience with Iraq. After the Iraqi defeat and the US decapitation of the Baath Party, Americans expected Iraqis just to get on with it alone and establish a Western-style democracy - a task that might take 50+ years, if at all.

Then in Afghanistan, where the US just walked away, having muddled through for 20 years in a country that has a historical reputation of being unconquerable... and nevermind even being there for 50 years.

Fergusson has paralleled Caesar Trajan's imperial overreach in Mesopotamia (Iraq), and Hadrian's withdrawal, having acknowledged that overreach, with the US invasion of and its disillusionment with Iraq.