More than 3,000 kilometres north of the nation’s capital, soldiers, ships and aircraft of Canada’s Armed Forces gathered this week in one of the most remote areas of the country to answer one question: How would they board a foreign vessel that neither wanted to be seen, nor stopped.
What if the crew of that ship was near sensitive military sites in the North?
It may seem far-fetched. But vessels run routinely through the north with their transponders switched off — largely invisible to other ships, and not necessarily seen by Canada’s satellite and surveillance systems.
The annual exercise is known as Operation Nanook, and took on particular significance this year with a collision of geopolitical changes: China’s growing ambition in the Arctic, Prime Minister Mark Carney’s plans to substantially increase the capabilities of the military and the newly recognized value of minerals in the North.
…
Canada’s traditional adversaries have shown growing interest in the North’s rich deposits of critical minerals. Not to mention the opening of new, shorter shipping routes between Asia, North America and Europe through the Northwest Passage as climate change makes for an increasing number of ice-free days.
“That would be Russia and, increasingly, China,” said Stephanie Carvin, a former national security official and now an academic with Carleton University in Ottawa.
…
@Kinperor@lemmy.ca
I guess you know the term “whataboutism”, right? It’s very widespread here: -)
@AGM@lemmy.ca
I’llreply here again on the irony of accusations of propaganda coming from an account with 850 posts in 7 months seemingly non-stop driving the same agenda.
Funnily enough, whataboutism is exactly the same accusation Hotznplotzn brought up in the last thread on this type of topic where we interacted a few days ago, Hotznplotzn being another account created 7 months ago with 3,200 posts in that time also driving the same agenda.
Almost like you guys are reading from the same manual.
Accusations of “whataboutism” get thrown around by people taking a particular approach any time someone raises a point that isn’t just expanding on the specific focus the accuser wants the interaction to stay on.
So, keep your accusations of “propaganda” for yourself and let some people who aren’t driving an agenda have a normal interaction.
Explain to me what is “whataboutism” here.
Source
My post is very clear. China has no history of oversea military operation. You can argue about creeping boat operations in its own sea, but there is no reasons for us to get in a military conflict with China. I follow up the point with an actual credible threat that is more worthy of discussion than a country is 1. distant & 2. that got a massive economy without getting into any wars.
You’re not making any point here, just crying whataboutism.
How would you explain Chinese activity in the south china sea? Particularly in Philippine territorial waters?
Since you are referencing a specific incident, it would appear you are more familiar with it than me, and I will yield the opportunity to explain it.
China is conducting overseas military operations in the south china sea, contrary to the statement you made above.
I did reference their operations in the south china sea, though.
Did China invade any of those countries? Are they at war with any of the other country?
Yes, China is actively invading Philippine territory.
They are also planning on invading Taiwan and that will truly be a dark time for humanity.