5 ms·

What you're describing is basically why Kissinger et al lobbied to kick out Taiwan from the UN, lobbied to shut down Taiwan's nuclear weapons program at the UN

What you're describing is basically why Kissinger et al lobbied to kick out Taiwan from the UN, lobbied to shut down Taiwan's nuclear weapons program at the UN and worked so hard to intertwine US and Chinese economies. It's also the reason why Kissinger had that speech and the WEF advising the political leadership of the west to change course. It doesn't really matter though, there seems to be no way to have a reasonable discussion on this topic without being attacked as a Putin sympathizer in most places of the "free world".

starkd 4y ago
In fairness, there are many who got it wrong on China. Not just Kissinger. Many made a lot of money off of China as an emerging market. Trying to calm the situation down in Ukraine is to his credit. Few seem to be calling for a ceasefire. On the contrary, they seem to doing all they can to scuttle any kind of agreement.
- jeromegv 4y ago
  A ceasefire only benefits Russia, because they are the ones that gained territory in eastern Ukraine and would serve them well to not have to fight for this territory and just make it under their umbrella. It's clearly what they want. I don't know who are the "they" that are trying to destroy any kind of agreement, but there hasn't been any type of close agreement as Ukraine made it very clear that they don't want anything else beside Russia leaving their territory. Any type of territory concession is a non-starter for any agreement on Ukraine side. I'm just going to assume that you are American. If Russia invaded Alaska.. would you advocate for a "ceasefire" and tell people they should negotiate an agreement... that would keep Russia on the sovereign territory of the US? I'm assuming no. Then why are you advocating for this?
- rjzzleep 4y ago
  I don't like the guy, and I absolutely don't agree with most of what him and his administration did. But the one thing that they got right(which every person outside of the collective west seems to understand) is that only a complete madman would throw the biggest nuclear power, the biggest natural resource country and the biggest missile manufacturer in the world right into the arms of the biggest manufacturing power in the world. They did what they did, so the decisions that are being done now need to be done with the current state of reality in mind.
  - KptMarchewa 4y ago
    >throw Russia is responsible for it's own action. It's not a weird state machine reacting to "western" actions and applying appropriate response. Russia was given everything they possibly could be given to become part of "the west" - growing, democratic nation, like many of the nation they formerly occupied. Instead they choose kleptocracy, mafia state ruled by the guy who bombed apartment buildings in his own country to become president - and it only went downhill from there.
  - The_Colonel 4y ago
    Do you believe that if we've let Russia to take Ukraine, Putin would become the West's best friend? Or maybe that's not enough and return to 1997 NATO borders would be necessary? Or perhaps that would not be enough and return to the 1988 geopolitical situation would be necessary to make Putin a friend of the West? What if even that wouldn't make Putin a western ally? Wouldn't we be just be letting our geopolitical enemy get stronger?
  - ptero 4y ago
    "Into the arms" is a pretty big overstatement. China is not a friend of Russia. It has its own goals and challenges. And many challenges they do have: China made a huge progress on industrialization, put some checks on corruption and conquered widespread hunger, but it is still a mostly poor, agrarian country with a rapidly aging population. They, absolutely rationally, jump at the option of cheaper energy import, but I would not read that as a long-term support of the Russian view of the world (which, I heard from several folks, they often despise). They pursue their own agenda. My 2c.
  - trasz 4y ago
    One logical solution is to make sure Russia is no longer an useful asset, by splitting off its colonies.
KptMarchewa 4y ago
>What you're describing is basically why Kissinger et al lobbied to kick out Taiwan from the UN, lobbied to shut down Taiwan's nuclear weapons program at the UN and worked so hard to intertwine US and Chinese economies. Which turned out to be worst of possible policies.
- kennend3 4y ago
  > Which turned out to be worst of possible policies. Depends on your metric. US companies gained the ability to outsource to low-cost china and this has been fantastically profitable for them. For the average US citizen, they did benefit from a massive influx of cheap goods and cheap debt at the expense of hollowing out the economy. As it says on the back of most Apple products - "designed in California made in China". Could be made in the US as well, but too many rules, too inflexible, too high labour costs. https://theweek.com/articles/478705/why-apple-builds-iphones-everything-else-china https://theweek.com/articles/478705/why-apple-builds-iphones... I'm certainly not picking on Apple, most US companies outsource but the Obama/Jobs question really hammers the point. Probably not a long-term sustainable strategy but i did work for many years.
- wil421 4y ago
  I don’t really think so. At the time Taipei was saying to not take them seriously and hopefully they would support dual representation seats in the UN soon. [1] Instead of having a Cold War with China and proxy wars, we intertwined our economies much like MAD except with mutually assured economy destruction. [1] https://www.taipeitimes.com/News/local/archives/2001/09/12/0000102595 https://www.taipeitimes.com/News/local/archives/2001/09/12/0...
  - deleted 4y ago
    [deleted]
  - KptMarchewa 4y ago
    The scenario with China is the same as Soviet Union in 20-30s, 60-70s and Russia in 00s-now, just not fully resolved yet. You prop up hard authoritarian or totalitarian government with trade. They get strong, and instead of "democratizing" they take a hard line and endanger democracies. Europe also had economic MAD with Russia, yet they did not care. Now they flare gas and destroy Ukrainian cities. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Albert_Kahn_(architect) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Albert_Kahn_(architect) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kamaz#History https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kamaz#History
trasz 4y ago
>What you're describing is basically why Kissinger et al lobbied to kick out Taiwan from the UN As much as I hate Kissinger, this is not what happened at all. This wasn't about "kicking Taiwan out", it was about acknowledging the fact that KMT no longer ruled China, Beijing did. Also, it was the seventies; at that time Taiwan was ruled by a fascist regime - those were the folks who had to flee continental China because they were even worse than Mao.

starkd 4y ago

In fairness, there are many who got it wrong on China. Not just Kissinger. Many made a lot of money off of China as an emerging market. Trying to calm the situation down in Ukraine is to his credit. Few seem to be calling for a ceasefire. On the contrary, they seem to doing all they can to scuttle any kind of agreement.

jeromegv 4y ago
A ceasefire only benefits Russia, because they are the ones that gained territory in eastern Ukraine and would serve them well to not have to fight for this territory and just make it under their umbrella. It's clearly what they want. I don't know who are the "they" that are trying to destroy any kind of agreement, but there hasn't been any type of close agreement as Ukraine made it very clear that they don't want anything else beside Russia leaving their territory. Any type of territory concession is a non-starter for any agreement on Ukraine side. I'm just going to assume that you are American. If Russia invaded Alaska.. would you advocate for a "ceasefire" and tell people they should negotiate an agreement... that would keep Russia on the sovereign territory of the US? I'm assuming no. Then why are you advocating for this?
rjzzleep 4y ago
I don't like the guy, and I absolutely don't agree with most of what him and his administration did. But the one thing that they got right(which every person outside of the collective west seems to understand) is that only a complete madman would throw the biggest nuclear power, the biggest natural resource country and the biggest missile manufacturer in the world right into the arms of the biggest manufacturing power in the world. They did what they did, so the decisions that are being done now need to be done with the current state of reality in mind.
- KptMarchewa 4y ago
  >throw Russia is responsible for it's own action. It's not a weird state machine reacting to "western" actions and applying appropriate response. Russia was given everything they possibly could be given to become part of "the west" - growing, democratic nation, like many of the nation they formerly occupied. Instead they choose kleptocracy, mafia state ruled by the guy who bombed apartment buildings in his own country to become president - and it only went downhill from there.
- The_Colonel 4y ago
  Do you believe that if we've let Russia to take Ukraine, Putin would become the West's best friend? Or maybe that's not enough and return to 1997 NATO borders would be necessary? Or perhaps that would not be enough and return to the 1988 geopolitical situation would be necessary to make Putin a friend of the West? What if even that wouldn't make Putin a western ally? Wouldn't we be just be letting our geopolitical enemy get stronger?
- ptero 4y ago
  "Into the arms" is a pretty big overstatement. China is not a friend of Russia. It has its own goals and challenges. And many challenges they do have: China made a huge progress on industrialization, put some checks on corruption and conquered widespread hunger, but it is still a mostly poor, agrarian country with a rapidly aging population. They, absolutely rationally, jump at the option of cheaper energy import, but I would not read that as a long-term support of the Russian view of the world (which, I heard from several folks, they often despise). They pursue their own agenda. My 2c.
- trasz 4y ago
  One logical solution is to make sure Russia is no longer an useful asset, by splitting off its colonies.

KptMarchewa 4y ago

>What you're describing is basically why Kissinger et al lobbied to kick out Taiwan from the UN, lobbied to shut down Taiwan's nuclear weapons program at the UN and worked so hard to intertwine US and Chinese economies. Which turned out to be worst of possible policies.

kennend3 4y ago
> Which turned out to be worst of possible policies. Depends on your metric. US companies gained the ability to outsource to low-cost china and this has been fantastically profitable for them. For the average US citizen, they did benefit from a massive influx of cheap goods and cheap debt at the expense of hollowing out the economy. As it says on the back of most Apple products - "designed in California made in China". Could be made in the US as well, but too many rules, too inflexible, too high labour costs. https://theweek.com/articles/478705/why-apple-builds-iphones-everything-else-china https://theweek.com/articles/478705/why-apple-builds-iphones... I'm certainly not picking on Apple, most US companies outsource but the Obama/Jobs question really hammers the point. Probably not a long-term sustainable strategy but i did work for many years.
wil421 4y ago
I don’t really think so. At the time Taipei was saying to not take them seriously and hopefully they would support dual representation seats in the UN soon. [1] Instead of having a Cold War with China and proxy wars, we intertwined our economies much like MAD except with mutually assured economy destruction. [1] https://www.taipeitimes.com/News/local/archives/2001/09/12/0000102595 https://www.taipeitimes.com/News/local/archives/2001/09/12/0...
- deleted 4y ago
  [deleted]
- KptMarchewa 4y ago
  The scenario with China is the same as Soviet Union in 20-30s, 60-70s and Russia in 00s-now, just not fully resolved yet. You prop up hard authoritarian or totalitarian government with trade. They get strong, and instead of "democratizing" they take a hard line and endanger democracies. Europe also had economic MAD with Russia, yet they did not care. Now they flare gas and destroy Ukrainian cities. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Albert_Kahn_(architect) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Albert_Kahn_(architect) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kamaz#History https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kamaz#History

trasz 4y ago

>What you're describing is basically why Kissinger et al lobbied to kick out Taiwan from the UN As much as I hate Kissinger, this is not what happened at all. This wasn't about "kicking Taiwan out", it was about acknowledging the fact that KMT no longer ruled China, Beijing did. Also, it was the seventies; at that time Taiwan was ruled by a fascist regime - those were the folks who had to flee continental China because they were even worse than Mao.