13 ms·

Looks like some game of chess: China stopped supporting North Vietnam, but that didn't stop North Vietnam from invading South Vietnam, after the pullout. Howeve

Looks like some game of chess: China stopped supporting North Vietnam, but that didn't stop North Vietnam from invading South Vietnam, after the pullout. However at that point no one in the US cared about any domino theory, because the US was now friends with China against the Soviet Union. I wonder what the chess pieces were all thinking...

seanmcdirmid 3y ago
The Chinese split from north Vietnam is just a consequence of the sino-Soviet split that began under kruschev. However, the Vietnamese did help with Soviet tech to preserve and display Mao’s body, at least.
- MichaelMoser123 3y ago
  both China and the Soviet Union were supporting North Vietnam at the same time - up until 1968 (when they had this war over an island). The Sino Soviet split happened much earlier, in 1961. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/China_in_the_Vietnam_War https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/China_in_the_Vietnam_War The great friendship between China and the USA started after that border conflict in 1968, as China was looking for a counterweight. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sino-Soviet_border_conflict https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sino-Soviet_border_conflict I mean Mao was playing Nixon and Kissinger against Brezhnev. The funny part is where Kissinger is taking all of the credit for the US China rapprochement.
  - seanmcdirmid 3y ago
    But 1973 things were falling apart, they would last until the war end with America (otherwise Mao wouldn’t have gotten his crystal casket), but by the late 70s Vietnam and china were at war.
- refurb 3y ago
  China and the USSR never quite "split" from North Vietnam until well after the end of the war in 1975 (the Sino-Vietnamese war in 1979 was the China aplit which was mended in the 80's). The Sino-Soviet split had already happened (as you mentioned) and North Vietnam played China and the USSR off against each other "who can be the best friend of an important communist revolutionary government?". It wasn't until the US engaged both China and the USSR in detente, and the war had progressed to such an extent it was obvious the US was leaving, that Vietnam moved way down the list of priorities for both the USSR and China. Both countries continued to support North Vietnam, but it was heavily tempered by what they might lose with the US.
CamperBob2 3y ago
The Sino-Soviet split came to mind when listening to Xi swear to be Putin's BFF and blood brother forever. Is Putin really stupid enough to fall for that? He will be polishing Xi's boots with his tongue soon enough.
- MichaelMoser123 3y ago
  Depends on what Xi is planning over Taiwan, that is where things get complicated. They are all trying to build alliances for that contingency.
  - Lio 3y ago
    It also depends on if Xi is planning to take Primorsky Krai from Russia in the future or not. When Russia celebrated its 160 year anniversary of taking Vladivostok from China, there were descenting voices in Beijing calling to reverse another so called "humiliation". Countries are allied until they are not. Putin signed a treaty to protect Ukraine, it didn't stop him from attacking them in 2014 or escalating that again last year.
    - lenkite 3y ago
      "Every country protects in established order of the rights of its citizens living in another country, in accordance with commitments to documents of the Organization for Security and Co-operation in Europe and other universally recognized principles and norms of international law, agreements within the Commonwealth of Independent States." Ukraine stopped following the contents of that treaty after the US supported Maidan coup.
      - CamperBob2 3y ago
        Ukraine stopped following the contents of that treaty after the US supported Maidan coup. Sounds like the Ukrainian people should have harbored a lot of resentment against the US for interfering with their democratic process, if true. Was that the case? In any event, what concern was this of Russia's? Russia has problems of its own, and for a nuclear-armed nation, external threats are a long way down the list. Maybe they should worry more about how to improve their own country and less about how to wreck everybody else's.
refurb 3y ago
"We have no eternal allies, and we have no perpetual enemies. Our interests are eternal and perpetual, and those interests it is our duty to follow." This is why it's funny to see people view the war in Ukraine as a "good guy vs bad guy". The geopolitics are incredibly complicated and there is a lot behind the scene the average person doesn't see.
- MichaelMoser123 3y ago
  the war in Ukraine is not funny at all, it has all the potential to turn into WW3.
- dralley 3y ago
  The problem with that view of geopolitics is that not all leaders or states (and in the case of dictatorships these are the same) are rational about their interests. Sometimes you're dealing with a Hitler, and you cannot deal with those in terms of "interests", and the interests of the dictator may differ from the interests of the state. Such is the case with Putin. This invasion was not in the interests of the state. It was in his own interests, but he is dictator, so his interests win out.
  - ffgjgf1 3y ago
    > This invasion was not in the interests of the state. Well a significant proportion (the majority?) of Russians don’t really agree with that and I bet there would be close to zero opposition to the war had Russia actually managed to win in the first few months. Likewise very few Germans didn’t support Hitler when they defeated France and again there was basically no serious internal opposition until Germany started losing the war.
    - peterfirefly 3y ago
      Germany absolutely had a great casus belli against France. France had treated Germany horribly (and invaded Germany first). Very different situation from Russia/Ukraine.
tw1984 3y ago
> I wonder what the chess pieces were all thinking... talk to those in ukraine and taiwan now.
- throwaway290 3y ago
  But since you are the one speaking, what are your thoughts as a pawn?
- H8crilA 3y ago
  It's pretty clear, no? Ukrainians seek the destruction of Russia as the political system that we know today, Taiwanese seek maintaining the status quo.
  - Bronze_Colossus 3y ago
    Can't say I can speak for Ukraine and Taiwan as you do but I would imagine Taiwan wouldn't want a status qou with missiles striking Taipei on an almost daily basis.
    - H8crilA 3y ago
      No missiles are striking Taipei. "Keep status quo" means keep everything as it is now. It might be short-sighted, but opinion polling and foreign policy are more or less clear on this point.
      - simonh 3y ago
        I think Taiwanese are being pretty long sighted. Sentiment has been steadily shifting in favour of eventual full independence for a long time, but the consensus is still clearly to defer it, perhaps indefinitely. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Taiwan_independence_movement#Opinion_polls https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Taiwan_independence_movement#O... I also reject the characterisation of Ukraine or Taiwan as chess pieces. In both cases the western policy is not to push either country towards this or that decision, or this or that status. The policy is to support the self determination of Ukrainians and Taiwanese respectively. The trigger for the 2014 Russian invasion of Ukraine was not any statement or decision made in the west, it was the policies of the Ukrainian parliament supported by popular demonstrations of ordinary Ukrainians in Kyiv. Likewise China isn't concerned about any US inciting action in respect of Taiwan, it's worried about Taiwan itself choosing to declare independence.
l3mure 3y ago
> because the US was now friends with China against the Soviet Union The US also got the anti-communist genocide and friendly dictator it desired in Indonesia, which was considered a major win for its interests in the region.
- FreshStart 3y ago
  It was mostly anti-Han resentment of the empires citizens and collaborators that last conquered them. The average citizen is very unidrologic during a genocide, mostly in it for discrimination - revenge or profit.
  - l3mure 3y ago
    > mostly anti-Han resentment Lying. [1] > An estimate is that around 2,000 Chinese Indonesians were killed (out of a total estimated death toll of between 500,000 and 3 million people), with documented massacres taking place in Makassar, Medan and Lombok island. [...] Ethnic Balinese and Javanese made up the vast majority of people who were massacred. --- > the average citizen Killings were primarily directed by the army, which did so with an explicitly anti-communist bent facilitated by the US. [2] > With very few exceptions, the killings were not spontaneous but carried out with a high degree of organisation. Most of the victims were also detainees of the Indonesian Army, making the killings summary executions. > Despite a consensus at the highest levels of the U.S. and British governments that it would be necessary "to liquidate Sukarno", as related in a CIA memorandum from 1962, and the existence of extensive contacts between anti-communist army officers and the U.S. military establishment – training of over 1,200 officers, "including senior military figures", and providing weapons and economic assistance – the CIA denied active involvement in the killings. Declassified U.S. documents in 2017 revealed that the U.S. government had detailed knowledge of the mass killings from the beginning and was supportive of the actions of the Indonesian Army. U.S. complicity in the killings, which included providing extensive lists of PKI officials to Indonesian death squads, has previously been established by historians and journalists. [1][2] - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indonesian_mass_killings_of_1965%E2%80%9366 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indonesian_mass_killings_of_19...

seanmcdirmid 3y ago

The Chinese split from north Vietnam is just a consequence of the sino-Soviet split that began under kruschev. However, the Vietnamese did help with Soviet tech to preserve and display Mao’s body, at least.

MichaelMoser123 3y ago
both China and the Soviet Union were supporting North Vietnam at the same time - up until 1968 (when they had this war over an island). The Sino Soviet split happened much earlier, in 1961. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/China_in_the_Vietnam_War https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/China_in_the_Vietnam_War The great friendship between China and the USA started after that border conflict in 1968, as China was looking for a counterweight. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sino-Soviet_border_conflict https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sino-Soviet_border_conflict I mean Mao was playing Nixon and Kissinger against Brezhnev. The funny part is where Kissinger is taking all of the credit for the US China rapprochement.
- seanmcdirmid 3y ago
  But 1973 things were falling apart, they would last until the war end with America (otherwise Mao wouldn’t have gotten his crystal casket), but by the late 70s Vietnam and china were at war.
refurb 3y ago
China and the USSR never quite "split" from North Vietnam until well after the end of the war in 1975 (the Sino-Vietnamese war in 1979 was the China aplit which was mended in the 80's). The Sino-Soviet split had already happened (as you mentioned) and North Vietnam played China and the USSR off against each other "who can be the best friend of an important communist revolutionary government?". It wasn't until the US engaged both China and the USSR in detente, and the war had progressed to such an extent it was obvious the US was leaving, that Vietnam moved way down the list of priorities for both the USSR and China. Both countries continued to support North Vietnam, but it was heavily tempered by what they might lose with the US.

CamperBob2 3y ago

The Sino-Soviet split came to mind when listening to Xi swear to be Putin's BFF and blood brother forever. Is Putin really stupid enough to fall for that? He will be polishing Xi's boots with his tongue soon enough.

MichaelMoser123 3y ago
Depends on what Xi is planning over Taiwan, that is where things get complicated. They are all trying to build alliances for that contingency.
- Lio 3y ago
  It also depends on if Xi is planning to take Primorsky Krai from Russia in the future or not. When Russia celebrated its 160 year anniversary of taking Vladivostok from China, there were descenting voices in Beijing calling to reverse another so called "humiliation". Countries are allied until they are not. Putin signed a treaty to protect Ukraine, it didn't stop him from attacking them in 2014 or escalating that again last year.
  - lenkite 3y ago
    "Every country protects in established order of the rights of its citizens living in another country, in accordance with commitments to documents of the Organization for Security and Co-operation in Europe and other universally recognized principles and norms of international law, agreements within the Commonwealth of Independent States." Ukraine stopped following the contents of that treaty after the US supported Maidan coup.
    - CamperBob2 3y ago
      Ukraine stopped following the contents of that treaty after the US supported Maidan coup. Sounds like the Ukrainian people should have harbored a lot of resentment against the US for interfering with their democratic process, if true. Was that the case? In any event, what concern was this of Russia's? Russia has problems of its own, and for a nuclear-armed nation, external threats are a long way down the list. Maybe they should worry more about how to improve their own country and less about how to wreck everybody else's.

refurb 3y ago

"We have no eternal allies, and we have no perpetual enemies. Our interests are eternal and perpetual, and those interests it is our duty to follow." This is why it's funny to see people view the war in Ukraine as a "good guy vs bad guy". The geopolitics are incredibly complicated and there is a lot behind the scene the average person doesn't see.

MichaelMoser123 3y ago
the war in Ukraine is not funny at all, it has all the potential to turn into WW3.
dralley 3y ago
The problem with that view of geopolitics is that not all leaders or states (and in the case of dictatorships these are the same) are rational about their interests. Sometimes you're dealing with a Hitler, and you cannot deal with those in terms of "interests", and the interests of the dictator may differ from the interests of the state. Such is the case with Putin. This invasion was not in the interests of the state. It was in his own interests, but he is dictator, so his interests win out.
- ffgjgf1 3y ago
  > This invasion was not in the interests of the state. Well a significant proportion (the majority?) of Russians don’t really agree with that and I bet there would be close to zero opposition to the war had Russia actually managed to win in the first few months. Likewise very few Germans didn’t support Hitler when they defeated France and again there was basically no serious internal opposition until Germany started losing the war.
  - peterfirefly 3y ago
    Germany absolutely had a great casus belli against France. France had treated Germany horribly (and invaded Germany first). Very different situation from Russia/Ukraine.

tw1984 3y ago

> I wonder what the chess pieces were all thinking... talk to those in ukraine and taiwan now.

throwaway290 3y ago
But since you are the one speaking, what are your thoughts as a pawn?
H8crilA 3y ago
It's pretty clear, no? Ukrainians seek the destruction of Russia as the political system that we know today, Taiwanese seek maintaining the status quo.
- Bronze_Colossus 3y ago
  Can't say I can speak for Ukraine and Taiwan as you do but I would imagine Taiwan wouldn't want a status qou with missiles striking Taipei on an almost daily basis.
  - H8crilA 3y ago
    No missiles are striking Taipei. "Keep status quo" means keep everything as it is now. It might be short-sighted, but opinion polling and foreign policy are more or less clear on this point.
    - simonh 3y ago
      I think Taiwanese are being pretty long sighted. Sentiment has been steadily shifting in favour of eventual full independence for a long time, but the consensus is still clearly to defer it, perhaps indefinitely. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Taiwan_independence_movement#Opinion_polls https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Taiwan_independence_movement#O... I also reject the characterisation of Ukraine or Taiwan as chess pieces. In both cases the western policy is not to push either country towards this or that decision, or this or that status. The policy is to support the self determination of Ukrainians and Taiwanese respectively. The trigger for the 2014 Russian invasion of Ukraine was not any statement or decision made in the west, it was the policies of the Ukrainian parliament supported by popular demonstrations of ordinary Ukrainians in Kyiv. Likewise China isn't concerned about any US inciting action in respect of Taiwan, it's worried about Taiwan itself choosing to declare independence.

l3mure 3y ago

> because the US was now friends with China against the Soviet Union The US also got the anti-communist genocide and friendly dictator it desired in Indonesia, which was considered a major win for its interests in the region.

FreshStart 3y ago
It was mostly anti-Han resentment of the empires citizens and collaborators that last conquered them. The average citizen is very unidrologic during a genocide, mostly in it for discrimination - revenge or profit.
- l3mure 3y ago
  > mostly anti-Han resentment Lying. [1] > An estimate is that around 2,000 Chinese Indonesians were killed (out of a total estimated death toll of between 500,000 and 3 million people), with documented massacres taking place in Makassar, Medan and Lombok island. [...] Ethnic Balinese and Javanese made up the vast majority of people who were massacred. --- > the average citizen Killings were primarily directed by the army, which did so with an explicitly anti-communist bent facilitated by the US. [2] > With very few exceptions, the killings were not spontaneous but carried out with a high degree of organisation. Most of the victims were also detainees of the Indonesian Army, making the killings summary executions. > Despite a consensus at the highest levels of the U.S. and British governments that it would be necessary "to liquidate Sukarno", as related in a CIA memorandum from 1962, and the existence of extensive contacts between anti-communist army officers and the U.S. military establishment – training of over 1,200 officers, "including senior military figures", and providing weapons and economic assistance – the CIA denied active involvement in the killings. Declassified U.S. documents in 2017 revealed that the U.S. government had detailed knowledge of the mass killings from the beginning and was supportive of the actions of the Indonesian Army. U.S. complicity in the killings, which included providing extensive lists of PKI officials to Indonesian death squads, has previously been established by historians and journalists. [1][2] - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indonesian_mass_killings_of_1965%E2%80%9366 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indonesian_mass_killings_of_19...