2 ms·

> We will soon notice whether the populist West will support government with the consent of the governed or stand by while Taiwan is thrown under the bus. That

by kace91 8y ago

> We will soon notice whether the populist West will support government with the consent of the governed or stand by while Taiwan is thrown under the bus. That's unfair, I think. There's a huge gap between "I don't agree with what's happening" and "I'm willing to risk nuclear war defending this cause".

candiodari 8y ago
But the west didn't just agree to risk nuclear war defending Crimea, the west actually agreed to cause nuclear war to defend Crimea, if necessary: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Budapest_Memorandum_on_Security_Assurances https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Budapest_Memorandum_on_Securit... Hell, Russia went as far as to actually raise the issue in the UN general assembly that the west hasn't lived up to it's obligations under that treaty. So not only has the west proved it won't defend anyone, it has shown no diplomatic assurances of western states (or at least of the US, UK, France and China, and of course of the United Nations) are of any value whatsoever to smaller countries. The only open tactic remaining is for all states that fear territorial annexation is to develop first strike capability with nuclear weapons. If you don't have that, you're at the mercy of Russia, and frankly, China and any western country. If one of them decides to attack, no help will be forthcoming, not even a UN security council protest. All the comments here forget one very basic thing: if you aren't willing to serve in a war with China, you don't recognize Taiwan sovereignty. It doesn't take 2 countries to go to war, after all, it only takes one, and China is.
- dragonwriter 8y ago
  > But the west didn't just agree to risk nuclear war defending Crimea, the west actually agreed to cause nuclear war to defend Crimea, if necessary: No, it didn't; the only thing Western powers (as well as Russia!) promised (per your own source) to do to defend the territorial integrity of Ukraine was “Seek immediate United Nations Security Council action”. Which the Western Powers did (Russia, of course, vetoed the action supported by 13 of 15 UNSC members.) They did not promise to use military force, much less nuclear arms—especially not outside of the context of UN action—in the event of an attack. Now, admittedly, given that any problem any of states protected by the Budapest Memorandum would face would almost certainly also involve a deadlock between permanent UNSC members who were signatories of the agreements, it should probably have been an obvious critical defect that there was no fallback position besides mutual consultation in the event of UNSC deadlock; particularly, the protected states could have demanded that the guaranteeing states each individually committed also to seek UNGA action under the Uniting for Peace (A/RES/377A) umbrella in the event of UNSC deadlock. > Hell, Russia went as far as to actually raise the issue in the UN general assembly that the west hasn't lived up to it's obligations under that treaty. Different obligations than the (weak tea) defensive one.

by kace91 8y ago

candiodari 8y ago

But the west didn't just agree to risk nuclear war defending Crimea, the west actually agreed to cause nuclear war to defend Crimea, if necessary: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Budapest_Memorandum_on_Security_Assurances https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Budapest_Memorandum_on_Securit... Hell, Russia went as far as to actually raise the issue in the UN general assembly that the west hasn't lived up to it's obligations under that treaty. So not only has the west proved it won't defend anyone, it has shown no diplomatic assurances of western states (or at least of the US, UK, France and China, and of course of the United Nations) are of any value whatsoever to smaller countries. The only open tactic remaining is for all states that fear territorial annexation is to develop first strike capability with nuclear weapons. If you don't have that, you're at the mercy of Russia, and frankly, China and any western country. If one of them decides to attack, no help will be forthcoming, not even a UN security council protest. All the comments here forget one very basic thing: if you aren't willing to serve in a war with China, you don't recognize Taiwan sovereignty. It doesn't take 2 countries to go to war, after all, it only takes one, and China is.

dragonwriter 8y ago
> But the west didn't just agree to risk nuclear war defending Crimea, the west actually agreed to cause nuclear war to defend Crimea, if necessary: No, it didn't; the only thing Western powers (as well as Russia!) promised (per your own source) to do to defend the territorial integrity of Ukraine was “Seek immediate United Nations Security Council action”. Which the Western Powers did (Russia, of course, vetoed the action supported by 13 of 15 UNSC members.) They did not promise to use military force, much less nuclear arms—especially not outside of the context of UN action—in the event of an attack. Now, admittedly, given that any problem any of states protected by the Budapest Memorandum would face would almost certainly also involve a deadlock between permanent UNSC members who were signatories of the agreements, it should probably have been an obvious critical defect that there was no fallback position besides mutual consultation in the event of UNSC deadlock; particularly, the protected states could have demanded that the guaranteeing states each individually committed also to seek UNGA action under the Uniting for Peace (A/RES/377A) umbrella in the event of UNSC deadlock. > Hell, Russia went as far as to actually raise the issue in the UN general assembly that the west hasn't lived up to it's obligations under that treaty. Different obligations than the (weak tea) defensive one.