5 ms·

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]

by 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
- js8 4y ago
  I think Russia actually does care - Putin recently said that closing the natural gas supply was in retaliation to EU's economic sanctions. Are you suggesting the West should deliberately keep countries poorer, in the fear of them becoming (more) authoritarian? I think that would be wrong (and also counterproductive) thing to do.
  - KptMarchewa 4y ago
    >keep countries poorer Keep hard authoritarian and totalitarian countries poorer. That's done with multiple countries right now, like North Korea, Iran, Cuba, Venezuela. Keep weak authoritarian (on a road to democracy) and democratic nations richer. EU and NATO expansion have been historic successes, with democracy extending farther than ever in the 90s and 00s. Moreover, US policy on India has been largest geopolitical tragedy of XX century. The largest democracy in the world is relatively hostile to "the west", despite being threatened by China. Opposite policies - keep enemies close - drastically failed in case of Russia and China, with both countries being especially bloodthirsty right now.
    - js8 4y ago
      How could you tell that Russia was "hard authoritarian" when Putin came to power? I don't think there is a meaningful distinction. I also think it's immoral to intentionally keep any country poor, whether authoritarian or not. I don't know where you live, but I would certainly not want Czechoslovakia to be intentionally kept poor during communist dictatorship just so that some Western politician could stroke his ego about how is he fighting against communism. I think that's very authoritarian and patronizing idea, to do so. It's just a double whammy for citizens of such countries.
      - KptMarchewa 4y ago
        >How could you tell that Russia was "hard authoritarian" when Putin came to power? He bombed his own people to come to power. If not then, then in 2008, when he invaded Georgia. Even if not then, then surely 2014 would be the final whistle, right? No. Nord stream 2 was started to be build 4 years later. >I don't know where you live, but I would certainly not want Czechoslovakia to be intentionally kept poor during communist dictatorship just so that some Western politician could stroke his ego about how is he fighting against communism. https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/a/a5/Pomnik_Ronalda_Reagana_w_Warszawie_2015.JPG https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/a/a5/Pomnik_R... This is Ronald Reagan monument in Warsaw. I, and many Polish people are thankful for his hardline stance he took against our occupiers, meaningfully contributing to crashing their economy, which ultimately made us free.
        js8 4y ago
        > I, and many Polish people are thankful for his hardline stance he took against our occupiers, meaningfully contributing to crashing their economy I think this is bordering on masochism. To me, hurting people (even economically) in order to make them "free" (which Reagan didn't, in fact) is just morally reprehensible, patronizing and authoritarian. I also think that you don't know much about Reagan. He supported policies that were explicitly against education of the middle class (trying to made universities into a pay model) and pro-segregation (like hard stance on drug war). He almost started a 3rd world war. This is all on record. That's the thing with authoritarians - they have many faces. They can be perceived very differently by different groups. That's why you cannot just to simplify it as you did. I am very skeptical when somebody says, we need to sacrifice lives of X people today in order for Y people (Y>X) have better lives in the future. I don't know of an example where there isn't a solution (although possibly slower) without the sacrifice, and often you can have both. Human live is precious and therefore we should value human lives now more than some kind of vague improvement in the future. We can always change society, but we cannot resurrect a dead person.

by wil421 4y ago

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

js8 4y ago
I think Russia actually does care - Putin recently said that closing the natural gas supply was in retaliation to EU's economic sanctions. Are you suggesting the West should deliberately keep countries poorer, in the fear of them becoming (more) authoritarian? I think that would be wrong (and also counterproductive) thing to do.
- KptMarchewa 4y ago
  >keep countries poorer Keep hard authoritarian and totalitarian countries poorer. That's done with multiple countries right now, like North Korea, Iran, Cuba, Venezuela. Keep weak authoritarian (on a road to democracy) and democratic nations richer. EU and NATO expansion have been historic successes, with democracy extending farther than ever in the 90s and 00s. Moreover, US policy on India has been largest geopolitical tragedy of XX century. The largest democracy in the world is relatively hostile to "the west", despite being threatened by China. Opposite policies - keep enemies close - drastically failed in case of Russia and China, with both countries being especially bloodthirsty right now.
  - js8 4y ago
    How could you tell that Russia was "hard authoritarian" when Putin came to power? I don't think there is a meaningful distinction. I also think it's immoral to intentionally keep any country poor, whether authoritarian or not. I don't know where you live, but I would certainly not want Czechoslovakia to be intentionally kept poor during communist dictatorship just so that some Western politician could stroke his ego about how is he fighting against communism. I think that's very authoritarian and patronizing idea, to do so. It's just a double whammy for citizens of such countries.
    - KptMarchewa 4y ago
      >How could you tell that Russia was "hard authoritarian" when Putin came to power? He bombed his own people to come to power. If not then, then in 2008, when he invaded Georgia. Even if not then, then surely 2014 would be the final whistle, right? No. Nord stream 2 was started to be build 4 years later. >I don't know where you live, but I would certainly not want Czechoslovakia to be intentionally kept poor during communist dictatorship just so that some Western politician could stroke his ego about how is he fighting against communism. https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/a/a5/Pomnik_Ronalda_Reagana_w_Warszawie_2015.JPG https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/a/a5/Pomnik_R... This is Ronald Reagan monument in Warsaw. I, and many Polish people are thankful for his hardline stance he took against our occupiers, meaningfully contributing to crashing their economy, which ultimately made us free.
      - js8 4y ago
        > I, and many Polish people are thankful for his hardline stance he took against our occupiers, meaningfully contributing to crashing their economy I think this is bordering on masochism. To me, hurting people (even economically) in order to make them "free" (which Reagan didn't, in fact) is just morally reprehensible, patronizing and authoritarian. I also think that you don't know much about Reagan. He supported policies that were explicitly against education of the middle class (trying to made universities into a pay model) and pro-segregation (like hard stance on drug war). He almost started a 3rd world war. This is all on record. That's the thing with authoritarians - they have many faces. They can be perceived very differently by different groups. That's why you cannot just to simplify it as you did. I am very skeptical when somebody says, we need to sacrifice lives of X people today in order for Y people (Y>X) have better lives in the future. I don't know of an example where there isn't a solution (although possibly slower) without the sacrifice, and often you can have both. Human live is precious and therefore we should value human lives now more than some kind of vague improvement in the future. We can always change society, but we cannot resurrect a dead person.