5 ms·

> Yes. China and Russia are the biggest geopolitical threats to the world. > I don’t know why anyone would be afraid to say this. Probably because it's not th

> Yes. China and Russia are the biggest geopolitical threats to the world. > I don’t know why anyone would be afraid to say this. Probably because it's not that they are afraid, they simply don't agree. For many people around the world, the US and Europe have inflicted far greater problems over the past 0-100 years.

chii 4y ago
and by defining their opinion on the past rather than the current geopolitical environment, they would be prone to fall prey to china and russian influence. If they've got to be under the thumb of some foreign power, they ought to choose the US over china or russia. At least in a democracy, there's ways to change the public opinion.
- lenkite 4y ago
  "and by defining their opinion on the past rather than the current geopolitical environment" Yeah, who cares about the bad stuff 3-5-10-20 years in the past! All those US wars and coups are not applicable since the USA has turned into a bright, shiny fairy now! "If they've got to be under the thumb of some foreign power, they ought to choose the US over china or russia." Yeah, the US holding a gun to your head and saying: You are either with us or against us. Many nations want to make their own independent sovereign choice. Your diplomats actually use this language when they feel they can push folks around.
  - arroz 4y ago
    Well if you put bad things in the past 3-5 years, China and Russia have a lot on their hands Russia: uses their natural resources as weapons, invaded Ukraine, supports dictatorship in Syria China: embargoes anyone that dares to have a relationship with Taiwan or talks bad about the CCP, provokes Taiwan like crazy, likely will invade it in the next 10 years This is just the recent stuff, China has invaded Vietnam and fought against UN coalition that was protecting South Korea against North Korea aggression Russia has done so much ** i am going to take too long to write And these are only what affect other countries, they have done horrible things to their domestic population as well…
    - klibertp 4y ago
      I suspect the US would not be very happy had one of its states unilaterally declared independence and claim they're the real US (of one). China views Taiwan as a separatist, secessionist province that would be long reclaimed if not for support from the foreign powers. Ukraine views Donetsk/Luhansk People Republics exactly the same. Why is Ukraine right and China not?
      - stackbutterflow 4y ago
        A tiny part of Taiwan was under Chinese rule for barely 2 centuries 400 years ago. Even at that time China never cared about it nor made an effort to develop it. China doesn't have more claim to Taiwan than any other similar colonizers that came and invaded Taiwan throughout the centuries. Japan was the first invader to achieve real control of most of the island. Eventually, beaten by Mao, Chiang Kai Shek and its army invaded Taiwan and claimed it theirs. The CCP never ruled the island of Taiwan. Your analogy is wrong and there's no really other country with a similar history in the world. The CCP loves making claims based on dubious (i.e false) historical basis.
        klibertp 4y ago
        Thanks, I took CCP claims at face value. I'll go read more on the topic. I was convinced that the Republic of China govt and army retreated to Taiwan, as in, it was already theirs. I didn't know it was conquest. Edit: > barely 2 centuries 400 years ago Wiki says it was 1683–1895, so 2 centuries but just 130 years ago. It was then ceded to Japan after China defeat in a war, so it had to be Chinese before that (otherwise, how could China cede it?). Edit: > [Wiki says:] In September 1945 following Japan's surrender in WWII, ROC forces, assisted by small American teams, prepared an amphibious lift into Taiwan to accept the surrender of the Japanese military forces there In 1945 the Chinese civil war was still ongoing, but WW2 has already finished, Japan lost, and ~300k Japanese residents of Taiwan were expelled from the island. There was no fighting during the takeover, so I don't think it can be called an invasion. There are important differences between that situation and Ukraine, but... I don't believe they are enough to invalidate the whole analogy. My understanding is that both PRC and ROC see themselves as continuation of imperial China, which means both have equal claim to Taiwan (and mainland). Taiwan was colonized by Japan for some 50 years, but I don't think that's enough to claim it's inherently Japanese (especially after the deportation of Japanese citizens). If not, then it has to be Chinese. So: there was a civil war in China, then because of unrelated happenings a part of China that was occupied by Japanese became Chinese again, and then an external power chose one of the warring sides in the civil war and unilaterally gave a part of Chinese territory to that side. Is this about right? If so - I see enough parallels to current Ukraine situation to say that I don't believe my analogy breaks down, as you said. Following 2014, there was a civil war in Ukraine (honestly, saying it was a "special anti-terrorist action" is as valid as calling Russian invasion "special military operation"). The insurgents did not get a newly reclaimed land to retreat to, so they stayed where they were. Then an external power chose one side of the civil war, and propped it up so that they won't fail. There was next to no fighting during proclamation of secession. A few years later, separatists backed by the external power were recognized unilaterally by that power as independent entities. It was even similar timeline: ROC went to Taiwan in 1945, but the island was officially recognized as not-Japanese in 1952. That's 7 years; in Ukraine it was 8 years (2014-2022). The more successful/bigger side of the civil war in both case never considered the other side anything other than rebels and terrorists. The less successful sides claim to be freedom-fighters trying to exercise their right to self determination. The only real difference is that the powers backing ROC didn't, for one reason or other, try to help them retake more of the territory of the more successful side - but they were arming that side for 70 years now. I really don't think the differences make the two situations incomparable.

chii 4y ago

and by defining their opinion on the past rather than the current geopolitical environment, they would be prone to fall prey to china and russian influence. If they've got to be under the thumb of some foreign power, they ought to choose the US over china or russia. At least in a democracy, there's ways to change the public opinion.

lenkite 4y ago
"and by defining their opinion on the past rather than the current geopolitical environment" Yeah, who cares about the bad stuff 3-5-10-20 years in the past! All those US wars and coups are not applicable since the USA has turned into a bright, shiny fairy now! "If they've got to be under the thumb of some foreign power, they ought to choose the US over china or russia." Yeah, the US holding a gun to your head and saying: You are either with us or against us. Many nations want to make their own independent sovereign choice. Your diplomats actually use this language when they feel they can push folks around.
- arroz 4y ago
  Well if you put bad things in the past 3-5 years, China and Russia have a lot on their hands Russia: uses their natural resources as weapons, invaded Ukraine, supports dictatorship in Syria China: embargoes anyone that dares to have a relationship with Taiwan or talks bad about the CCP, provokes Taiwan like crazy, likely will invade it in the next 10 years This is just the recent stuff, China has invaded Vietnam and fought against UN coalition that was protecting South Korea against North Korea aggression Russia has done so much ** i am going to take too long to write And these are only what affect other countries, they have done horrible things to their domestic population as well…
  - klibertp 4y ago
    I suspect the US would not be very happy had one of its states unilaterally declared independence and claim they're the real US (of one). China views Taiwan as a separatist, secessionist province that would be long reclaimed if not for support from the foreign powers. Ukraine views Donetsk/Luhansk People Republics exactly the same. Why is Ukraine right and China not?
    - stackbutterflow 4y ago
      A tiny part of Taiwan was under Chinese rule for barely 2 centuries 400 years ago. Even at that time China never cared about it nor made an effort to develop it. China doesn't have more claim to Taiwan than any other similar colonizers that came and invaded Taiwan throughout the centuries. Japan was the first invader to achieve real control of most of the island. Eventually, beaten by Mao, Chiang Kai Shek and its army invaded Taiwan and claimed it theirs. The CCP never ruled the island of Taiwan. Your analogy is wrong and there's no really other country with a similar history in the world. The CCP loves making claims based on dubious (i.e false) historical basis.
      - klibertp 4y ago
        Thanks, I took CCP claims at face value. I'll go read more on the topic. I was convinced that the Republic of China govt and army retreated to Taiwan, as in, it was already theirs. I didn't know it was conquest. Edit: > barely 2 centuries 400 years ago Wiki says it was 1683–1895, so 2 centuries but just 130 years ago. It was then ceded to Japan after China defeat in a war, so it had to be Chinese before that (otherwise, how could China cede it?). Edit: > [Wiki says:] In September 1945 following Japan's surrender in WWII, ROC forces, assisted by small American teams, prepared an amphibious lift into Taiwan to accept the surrender of the Japanese military forces there In 1945 the Chinese civil war was still ongoing, but WW2 has already finished, Japan lost, and ~300k Japanese residents of Taiwan were expelled from the island. There was no fighting during the takeover, so I don't think it can be called an invasion. There are important differences between that situation and Ukraine, but... I don't believe they are enough to invalidate the whole analogy. My understanding is that both PRC and ROC see themselves as continuation of imperial China, which means both have equal claim to Taiwan (and mainland). Taiwan was colonized by Japan for some 50 years, but I don't think that's enough to claim it's inherently Japanese (especially after the deportation of Japanese citizens). If not, then it has to be Chinese. So: there was a civil war in China, then because of unrelated happenings a part of China that was occupied by Japanese became Chinese again, and then an external power chose one of the warring sides in the civil war and unilaterally gave a part of Chinese territory to that side. Is this about right? If so - I see enough parallels to current Ukraine situation to say that I don't believe my analogy breaks down, as you said. Following 2014, there was a civil war in Ukraine (honestly, saying it was a "special anti-terrorist action" is as valid as calling Russian invasion "special military operation"). The insurgents did not get a newly reclaimed land to retreat to, so they stayed where they were. Then an external power chose one side of the civil war, and propped it up so that they won't fail. There was next to no fighting during proclamation of secession. A few years later, separatists backed by the external power were recognized unilaterally by that power as independent entities. It was even similar timeline: ROC went to Taiwan in 1945, but the island was officially recognized as not-Japanese in 1952. That's 7 years; in Ukraine it was 8 years (2014-2022). The more successful/bigger side of the civil war in both case never considered the other side anything other than rebels and terrorists. The less successful sides claim to be freedom-fighters trying to exercise their right to self determination. The only real difference is that the powers backing ROC didn't, for one reason or other, try to help them retake more of the territory of the more successful side - but they were arming that side for 70 years now. I really don't think the differences make the two situations incomparable.