3 ms·

I was not clear, I am not advocating for any of these countries to change the status quo, I'm just advocating for them to accept the status quo. That's why my

I was not clear, I am not advocating for any of these countries to change the status quo, I'm just advocating for them to accept the status quo. That's why my arguments look like shallow, it's because indeed it really is a shallow problem. Japan would gain everything to accept that these Russian-controlled islands are Russian after all, China would better accept that Senkakus are not Chinese, and so on. They do not loose anything, and they -- as I said -- gain the privilege to be able to spend their vacations there, buy resources extracted there, and many new friends as well as a largely more peaceful atmosphere towards their resident foreigners. The only reason they don't do that is an irrational one. As I said, again, it's just to not loose face. Lol.

themacguffinman 5y ago
> They do not loose anything Yes they do. Although the Senkaku Islands' "status quo" is controlled by Japan, China loses potential wealth if they cede control of the islands. Not gaining potential resources is practically indistinguishable from losing resources. Obviously you can't count everything as "potential wealth", but China evidently thinks it has a realistic shot at claiming the wealth of these islands and is rationally reluctant to lose such a practical opportunity.
- henearkr 5y ago
  This is an interesting conversation, thank you. You are considering what I say and replying to it rationally, that's refreshing, as it's rarer and rarer on HN for this kind of hot subjects. My point of view is that a change of the status quo is an outlandish impossibility. It would mean a really nasty, bloody conflict, and it is not even sure that anything good would result for the winner in total. This is based on this assumption that I only considered either 1/ they keep disputing the status quo (but not changing it) or 2/ they accept it and build on it. Maybe it is not very clear for the Senkakus example, as Japan is only "loosely" controlling it. But it's much more obvious for the Northern Territories, the islands North of Japan that are controlled by Russia: Russia has bases, even cities on it, and is plentifully in control.

themacguffinman 5y ago

> They do not loose anything Yes they do. Although the Senkaku Islands' "status quo" is controlled by Japan, China loses potential wealth if they cede control of the islands. Not gaining potential resources is practically indistinguishable from losing resources. Obviously you can't count everything as "potential wealth", but China evidently thinks it has a realistic shot at claiming the wealth of these islands and is rationally reluctant to lose such a practical opportunity.

henearkr 5y ago
This is an interesting conversation, thank you. You are considering what I say and replying to it rationally, that's refreshing, as it's rarer and rarer on HN for this kind of hot subjects. My point of view is that a change of the status quo is an outlandish impossibility. It would mean a really nasty, bloody conflict, and it is not even sure that anything good would result for the winner in total. This is based on this assumption that I only considered either 1/ they keep disputing the status quo (but not changing it) or 2/ they accept it and build on it. Maybe it is not very clear for the Senkakus example, as Japan is only "loosely" controlling it. But it's much more obvious for the Northern Territories, the islands North of Japan that are controlled by Russia: Russia has bases, even cities on it, and is plentifully in control.