4 ms·

All treaties, settlements and borders are subject to be changed. It's simply a fact. It is entirely possible that, in a war or as a settlement, or under pressu

All treaties, settlements and borders are subject to be changed. It's simply a fact. It is entirely possible that, in a war or as a settlement, or under pressure, or by sale/trade, or by volunteer Russia will give the Kurils to Japan, or the United States will revise its position on Taiwan or Hong Kong (you've already see a Trump Administration send the signal he's willing to do this). These relations are complicated, as various decisions made by different sovereignties will be replied to, can spoil relationships, can spoil trust, etc. A nation can also ruin its reputation by being 'too flippant' in recognizing territory until its not convenient to do so any more. There's a giant fuzzy 'you-have-to-be-able-to-tell-the-future' calculus that is done in simulating various choices on how to proceed with sovereign decisions, as effects can be quite wide ranging. America flipping its opinion on the sovereignty of the former British colony Hong Kong or on the civil war safehaven Taiwan, would represent a huge and damaging departure in relations with China. The United States may do such a thing, but would only do it if the 'realpolitik' calculus allowed it to risk - or wanted it to aggress - a war. There's never a simple thing in geopolitics. We can only look to history, to policies and treaties and to potential outcomes to explain and predict. The United States breaking with long standing treaties would be huge news in this regard.

majormajor 10y ago
> There's never a simple thing in geopolitics. We can only look to history, to policies and treaties and to potential outcomes to explain and predict. So doesn't this bring us to "it's news that China has started treating these waters differently" for objective reasons vs it only being an "American media bubble" thing?
- jwtadvice 10y ago
  Yes. I hope I did that. China is treating these waters differently today for National Security reasons, and because of a unique period of history in which Chinese growth and infrastructure development has skyrocketed (China has been successfully industrializing into a modern economy). I had said: "Today, China is trying to build infrastructure, shipping routes and naval security in this area. This is important to China because of its historical vulnerability to naval embargo, through the Strait of Malacca and elsewhere." The American media bubble is the narrative that China is being aggressive, that China is being unilateral, that China has no claims (especially vis a vis Philippines), that there is a unanimous interpretation in Asia, etc. The media bubble in this regard isn't "something has changed" but "this is what's changed and this is what's going on." It's a nice story about good versus evil and American freedom, sure, but that's only good for headlines and public consumption. It's not what is going to fill the history books.

majormajor 10y ago

> There's never a simple thing in geopolitics. We can only look to history, to policies and treaties and to potential outcomes to explain and predict. So doesn't this bring us to "it's news that China has started treating these waters differently" for objective reasons vs it only being an "American media bubble" thing?

jwtadvice 10y ago
Yes. I hope I did that. China is treating these waters differently today for National Security reasons, and because of a unique period of history in which Chinese growth and infrastructure development has skyrocketed (China has been successfully industrializing into a modern economy). I had said: "Today, China is trying to build infrastructure, shipping routes and naval security in this area. This is important to China because of its historical vulnerability to naval embargo, through the Strait of Malacca and elsewhere." The American media bubble is the narrative that China is being aggressive, that China is being unilateral, that China has no claims (especially vis a vis Philippines), that there is a unanimous interpretation in Asia, etc. The media bubble in this regard isn't "something has changed" but "this is what's changed and this is what's going on." It's a nice story about good versus evil and American freedom, sure, but that's only good for headlines and public consumption. It's not what is going to fill the history books.