> In that case it's super cheap.

It might be, but it's also pretty stupid to use that as a selling point to convince the west to welcome that play as something remotely in their best interests. It isn't.

The US has committed more than its fair share of war crimes and notably even voted against the 2025 UN resolution condemning Russia for the Ukraine invasion, while China abstained from the vote.

China may potentially be able to stop the war, but at what cost? They've been licking their wounds and rebuilding their nation at breakneck speed for the past century, and it's only recently that they've finally reached a critical stage with innovations on all fronts. Going against one of their two allies now would be pretty ill-advised.

The US has also been very erratic, while China's current goals seem to be fairly consistent: reclaim everything they lost during the century of humiliation.

> without west being united

If that is true, perhaps the US should stop destroying the western alliance.

> Right , just to remind that China is the country that supports Proxy wars with west (...)

The current US administration directly and very overtly threatens two NATO members with invasion and annexation.

I personally can't interpret Trump administration's insistence on supporting Russia on all fronts alongside its enthusiastic push to completely cut military support for Ukraine as anything other than something far more damaging to the collective west's protection than whatever support China or even North Korea is providing to Russia.

There is no way to spin this: the US is the biggest threat to the collective west, not only by reneging on their obligations towards their allies in general and NATO in particular but also by it's clear and very overt threats.

>collective west

Rossiya-1 viewer/bot sighted

> US has been a reliable partner post WWII for 95%+ of the time.

The current US administration has been threatening two separate NATO allies with invasion and annexation.

Not even Russia, with their daily Russian last warnings of nuclear Armageddon, dare being that hostile.

Yeah, that ship sailed the second time Americans voted for him.

You know the joke. You can build churches your entire life, but screw a goat once and that's how they are going to call you.

Trust is a funny thing like that. You do have to do it all the time, but if you fail even once without extremely good reason you lose it all.

Not in the most recent years though. People aren't saying that the US has always been unreliable, but that it is becoming more so.

Averaging over a large window while ignoring the trend is not reasonable.

Don't ever look into the US's involvement in Latin America if you want to keep believing this

But the signs are not good that the US will become more trustworthy again any time soon. The only back pressure on trump seems to be MAGA conspiracy theorists who look - if it’s possible - even less reliable than trump.

If you consider all US "friends", that is NOT the case. And not a Trump thing either, or even a Republican thing. USA is quite happy in screwing with "friends", if it will benefit some random lobby.

There is a quite long history of USA doing coups, sabotage, and so on, against its own "friends".

I don't think most people would contest the 100 years you mentioned.

If we look at the military investments US did since Clinton(so, last 30 years), you'll notice a trend of looking after it's own interests before the ones of the world. An example is the lack of investment in destroyers to patrol the seas, while at the same time the focus shifted to super-carriers which are good for one thing: obliterate a single, powerful country.

This is not just Trump, but everyone after Bush Sr.

Even under Trump, it's been a lot more words than action