Well, the United States go to war over oil among other resources. Oil is a very important resource, but it’s only one part of an economy. Or rather think of it this way: if oil tycoons are powerful enough to get wars started for oil, aren’t other capitalists powerful enough to get wars started for their own sector?

I think regarding China the US and NATO allies aren’t really sure how to go about it. Certainly if they could get the oil in Xinjiang for themselves (can be as “simple” as securing a 99-year lease on the deposits) they would do it. But China is the first/second largest economy (depends how you calculate), soon to be the first superpower. It’s not as simple as invading it like they once did (the century of humiliation, which included American troops invading China).

For now they are manufacturing consent, or inventing reality as we prefer to say lol, so that they can justify their actions more easily. I can’t count the amount of outright lies they peddled – this includes the media stoking hate towards Asians and then the same media wonder why hate crimes has increased 1600%.

It shouldn’t come as a surprise then that unfavourable views towards China have skyrocketed in the last couple of years, and that most people didn’t even know a region called Xinjiang existed (much less where it was located) before the CIA latched on to Zenz to talk about it 24/7.

There are various advantages to these destabilisation campaigns. With the boycott of cotton in Xinjiang, the region is losing a ton of money. There are no well-meaning sanctions, and this boycott among other sanctions are directly impacting the Chinese people. If you work on a cotton farm in Xinjiang even as a mere employee and the farm has to close down because there’s no customers, then you’re out of a job.

So are they building towards a war? Maybe it was evoked in an internal document, and maybe they’ve drawn up a whole strategy for an invasion just in case they have to use it. Who knows. I think the American Empire has showed however that they will not stop at anything to secure capitalism, and war is not off the table if they thought they could win. In typical American fashion they probably made their cost-benefit calculations and estimated the cost would outweigh the benefits lol.

That territory is probably going to stay Chinese no matter how many attrocities are advertised

I think so too, but because China is able to exert authority over the region and is stopping extremism by educating people (whereas in France for example they bomb their countries and make them live in studio apartments without any prospects, then just shoot them during the attack and then wonder why that keeps happening). The US took ETIM out of their terrorist organisations list saying it “didn’t exist anymore”. As if it suddenly disappeared… but they have been drone bombing them between 2010 and 2019 in Pakistan. So who exactly were they bombing in Pakistan (apart from american citizens) in 2019?

You made a good observation about nuclear weapons. They are used as a deterrent. We have seen that “enemies” to the US without nuclear weapons get invaded, whereas “enemies” with weapons get “softer” intervention (sanctions, propaganda, etc). Remember there is one country in the world that has used nuclear weapons and it’s neither the DPRK nor China. That same country, the United States, also wanted to use nuclear weapons in Korea. They wanted to sell some to the French in Vietnam. They threatened to use them against the USSR, more than once – the cuban missile crisis only started after NATO stationed nukes in Turkey (and when Khrushchev took the weapons out of Cuba, Castro had some very unsavoury words for him lmao)

They are the only country that flat out refuses to sign a no-first-use policy (meaning they pledge not use nuclear weapons so long as the other party does not). Why? Because if they did, then they couldn’t threaten to use them to strongarm weaker nations into accepting American capital (and capitalism).