5 ms·

Sweden was an unofficial NATO member anyways. Everybody knew this. They just didn't officially join in order to pretend to be a 'neutral' actor on the world sta

by qiskit 4y ago

Sweden was an unofficial NATO member anyways. Everybody knew this. They just didn't officially join in order to pretend to be a 'neutral' actor on the world stage, but anyone with a brain should know whose side they are on. In the modern world, there are only 4 independent states - US, china, russia and north korea. Everyone else is a vassal to some degree or another.

tablespoon 4y ago
> In the modern world, there are only 4 independent states - US, china, russia and north korea. Everyone else is a vassal to some degree or another. Wut? North Korea is the vassalist vassal that ever vassaled. Russia might be getting there.
- qiskit 4y ago
  No. They are the most indepedentest of the independent. They only serve one lunatic dictator and his family. And developed nuclear weapons against the wishes of US, china and russia. Can't get more independent than that. It's a country that literally starved itself to stay independent.
  - actionfromafar 4y ago
    NK exists at the behest of China. China wants a buffer between it and South Korea. If that wish were to change, I'd expect NK to be either gobbled up by China or allowed to rejoin with SK.
    - qiskit 4y ago
      > NK exists at the behest of China. No. China and NK was created with the backing of the soviet union. They were vassals of the soviet union until they decided not to be. Both china and north korea have been independent actors for a while now. Even before the soviet union collapsed. > China wants a buffer between it and South Korea. Why would china want a buffer between it and south korea? You mean between china and the US? > If that wish were to change, I'd expect NK to be either gobbled up by China or allowed to rejoin with SK. SK is a vassal of the US. You don't "rejoin" a vassal state. It'll be more likely north korea will one day liberate south korea than anything. South korea has a foreign occupation force. North korea doesn't. Think about it.
      - tablespoon 4y ago
        > It'll be more likely north korea will one day liberate south korea than anything. South korea has a foreign occupation force. North korea doesn't. Think about it. LOL. IIRC, about all North Korea has for it (militarily) is MAD with South Korea (thousands of bunkered artillery pieces aimed as Seoul and nukes). Russia's got a far better military than North Korea, and it's getting torn up in Ukraine. North Korea, in anything resembling its current state, is never going to "liberate" South Korea.
    - gwbas1c 4y ago
      > or allowed to rejoin with SK Who's preventing it from rejoining South Korea? I can infer that China wants it as a buffer to South Korea; but how can China disallow it from joining South Korea?
    - pydry 4y ago
      China wasnt at all happy about NK developing nukes. If they were a vassal they would have stopped that. They have influence but they dont control it.
  - jitl 4y ago
    North Korea is a China vassal in the same way any random dictatorship in South America is probably a US vassal. China has huge influence on NK as their largest economic partner.
    - qiskit 4y ago
      No. South korea is a vassal. A vassal of the US. It has american troops occupying it. North korea is opposite of what south korea is. They have no foreign troop occupying it. And if north korea was a chinese vassal, they wouldn't have nuclear weapons. It's funny how people want to ignore the obvious.
      - tablespoon 4y ago
        > South korea is a vassal. A vassal of the US. It has american troops occupying it. North korea is opposite of what south korea is. They have no foreign troop occupying it. That's one of your many misunderstandings. The presence of troops does not imply an occupation. If you mistakenly think it does, then (among other things) you'll be unable to perceive alliances.
        qiskit 4y ago
        > The presence of troops does not imply an occupation. 70 years "presence" of troops does. > If you mistakenly think it does, then (among other things) you'll be unable to perceive alliances. That's a nice way of saying vassalage. If it was china occupying south korea for 70 years, we'd call that occupation. If it was russia occupying south korea for 70 years, we'd call that occupation. Somehow, when we do it, it's an "alliance".
        tablespoon 4y ago
        Sorry dude. You keep using those words, but I don't think they mean what you think they mean.
        xxpor 4y ago
        Is the US occupied by France? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Allied_Command_Transformation https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Allied_Command_Transformation
- tut-urut-utut 4y ago
  North Korea is more independent than any European country except Russia.
deleted 4y ago
[deleted]
m00dy 4y ago
I'm sorry, I didn't know about this.
belltaco 4y ago
Which country or countries is India a vassal of?
- qiskit 4y ago
  India is still part of the british empire/commonwealth. They gained independence and left the british empire. A few years later, they rejoined it. They actually claim the british queen as their head of state - even if it is ceremonial only.
  - jahnu 4y ago
    The Republic of India definitely does not have the queen as head of state, ceremonial or otherwise.
    - qiskit 4y ago
      India is the most independent amongst the vassals. But it's not a fully independent nation like the US, russia, china or even north korea. No truly independent nation would be part of the commonwealth of nations. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Commonwealth_of_Nations https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Commonwealth_of_Nations Leaders • Head Queen Elizabeth II • Secretary-General The Baroness Scotland of Asthal • Chair-in-Office Boris Johnson
      - woahitsraj 4y ago
        I'm sorry but this is blatantly false also. The Commonwealth of Nations is a political association as stated in that article you posted but the member nations are not vassals and the queen does not serve as head of state for any of them except the UK
      - macintux 4y ago
        From your link: > Member states have no legal obligations to one another I would say that being a member of the UN is more problematic to sovereignty.
      - 4y ago
ddalex 4y ago
SpicyLemonZest 4y ago
This seems clearly false for any useful concept of vassaldom. Which of those states dictates the foreign and domestic policies of India, or Pakistan, or Saudi Arabia, or Nigeria, or...
prepend 4y ago
Brazil?

by qiskit 4y ago

tablespoon 4y ago

> In the modern world, there are only 4 independent states - US, china, russia and north korea. Everyone else is a vassal to some degree or another. Wut? North Korea is the vassalist vassal that ever vassaled. Russia might be getting there.

qiskit 4y ago
No. They are the most indepedentest of the independent. They only serve one lunatic dictator and his family. And developed nuclear weapons against the wishes of US, china and russia. Can't get more independent than that. It's a country that literally starved itself to stay independent.
- actionfromafar 4y ago
  NK exists at the behest of China. China wants a buffer between it and South Korea. If that wish were to change, I'd expect NK to be either gobbled up by China or allowed to rejoin with SK.
  - qiskit 4y ago
    > NK exists at the behest of China. No. China and NK was created with the backing of the soviet union. They were vassals of the soviet union until they decided not to be. Both china and north korea have been independent actors for a while now. Even before the soviet union collapsed. > China wants a buffer between it and South Korea. Why would china want a buffer between it and south korea? You mean between china and the US? > If that wish were to change, I'd expect NK to be either gobbled up by China or allowed to rejoin with SK. SK is a vassal of the US. You don't "rejoin" a vassal state. It'll be more likely north korea will one day liberate south korea than anything. South korea has a foreign occupation force. North korea doesn't. Think about it.
    - tablespoon 4y ago
      > It'll be more likely north korea will one day liberate south korea than anything. South korea has a foreign occupation force. North korea doesn't. Think about it. LOL. IIRC, about all North Korea has for it (militarily) is MAD with South Korea (thousands of bunkered artillery pieces aimed as Seoul and nukes). Russia's got a far better military than North Korea, and it's getting torn up in Ukraine. North Korea, in anything resembling its current state, is never going to "liberate" South Korea.
  - gwbas1c 4y ago
    > or allowed to rejoin with SK Who's preventing it from rejoining South Korea? I can infer that China wants it as a buffer to South Korea; but how can China disallow it from joining South Korea?
  - pydry 4y ago
    China wasnt at all happy about NK developing nukes. If they were a vassal they would have stopped that. They have influence but they dont control it.
- jitl 4y ago
  North Korea is a China vassal in the same way any random dictatorship in South America is probably a US vassal. China has huge influence on NK as their largest economic partner.
  - qiskit 4y ago
    No. South korea is a vassal. A vassal of the US. It has american troops occupying it. North korea is opposite of what south korea is. They have no foreign troop occupying it. And if north korea was a chinese vassal, they wouldn't have nuclear weapons. It's funny how people want to ignore the obvious.
    - tablespoon 4y ago
      > South korea is a vassal. A vassal of the US. It has american troops occupying it. North korea is opposite of what south korea is. They have no foreign troop occupying it. That's one of your many misunderstandings. The presence of troops does not imply an occupation. If you mistakenly think it does, then (among other things) you'll be unable to perceive alliances.
      - qiskit 4y ago
        > The presence of troops does not imply an occupation. 70 years "presence" of troops does. > If you mistakenly think it does, then (among other things) you'll be unable to perceive alliances. That's a nice way of saying vassalage. If it was china occupying south korea for 70 years, we'd call that occupation. If it was russia occupying south korea for 70 years, we'd call that occupation. Somehow, when we do it, it's an "alliance".
        tablespoon 4y ago
        Sorry dude. You keep using those words, but I don't think they mean what you think they mean.
        xxpor 4y ago
        Is the US occupied by France? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Allied_Command_Transformation https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Allied_Command_Transformation
tut-urut-utut 4y ago
North Korea is more independent than any European country except Russia.

deleted 4y ago

[deleted]

m00dy 4y ago

I'm sorry, I didn't know about this.

belltaco 4y ago

Which country or countries is India a vassal of?

qiskit 4y ago
India is still part of the british empire/commonwealth. They gained independence and left the british empire. A few years later, they rejoined it. They actually claim the british queen as their head of state - even if it is ceremonial only.
- jahnu 4y ago
  The Republic of India definitely does not have the queen as head of state, ceremonial or otherwise.
  - qiskit 4y ago
    India is the most independent amongst the vassals. But it's not a fully independent nation like the US, russia, china or even north korea. No truly independent nation would be part of the commonwealth of nations. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Commonwealth_of_Nations https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Commonwealth_of_Nations Leaders • Head Queen Elizabeth II • Secretary-General The Baroness Scotland of Asthal • Chair-in-Office Boris Johnson
    - woahitsraj 4y ago
      I'm sorry but this is blatantly false also. The Commonwealth of Nations is a political association as stated in that article you posted but the member nations are not vassals and the queen does not serve as head of state for any of them except the UK
    - macintux 4y ago
      From your link: > Member states have no legal obligations to one another I would say that being a member of the UN is more problematic to sovereignty.
    - 4y ago

ddalex 4y ago

SpicyLemonZest 4y ago

This seems clearly false for any useful concept of vassaldom. Which of those states dictates the foreign and domestic policies of India, or Pakistan, or Saudi Arabia, or Nigeria, or...

prepend 4y ago

Brazil?