231–240 of 452 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
No foreign policy expert but it seems more complicated than that. China still does recognise Ukraine as independent in the sense it continues to push for respect of "territorial integrity". It's a key part of Chinese foreign policy, and is what China uses to maintain its false claim over Taiwan (which it sees as Beijing territory, notwithstanding that Taiwanese people see themselves as independent). Yet it still refu…
> notwithstanding that Taiwanese people see themselves as independent. It isn’t that cut and dry. Most Taiwanese people prefer the status quo, surely by no small measure due to the fact that an outright declaration of independence would provoke China, but still, people who paint the picture as black and white like you have are either advancing an agenda or simply ignorant of the facts on the ground in Taiwan.
The status quo is that they are independent, see themselves as independent, but simply haven't made some outright declaration.
It can both be true that they see themselves as already being independent, and also that they don't want to make an outright declaration.
Specifically, the ruling party has said that they don't need to make an outright declaration, because they are already independent.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
In the bigger context, we always did and still do. Even going so far to actively support some of them and not just tolerate. Especially when they were supposed to keep "communists" in check. Just some examples. Those lists are for the US but of course by no means is it exclusive to the US. - https://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2014/02/americas-mos... (linked for the list, not for "Obama" - obviously it is indepen…
> In the bigger context, we always did and still do. Even going so far to actively support some of them and not just tolerate. Especially when they were supposed to keep "communists" in check. And the West may need get more comfortable with doing that, since we've seen some of the consequences. IMHO, sanctions against Belarus were probably a significant contributing factor to this war (i.e. they put Belarus in a posi…
Ultimately, democracy isn't just a way of organizing politically, it requires a culture that values/expects/demands democracy. If people don't value or demand democracy, then perhaps no amount of sanctions or toppling dictators is going to result in a reasonably democratic government, but conversely sanctions and toppling dictators probably isn't worsening the democratic prospect either (contrary to anti-Western propaganda and criticism).
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> They seem to point to medical research to fight against diseases, rather than “biomilitary activities”. They are dual use research. Just like research for nuclear energy is the same as research for nuclear weapons. Research for rockets is the same for icbms. It's why we are so keen on preventing iran from developing their nuclear energy program. It's why we are worried about north korea's "space" program. The same…
Researching viruses in general is not a dual-use activity. Most viruses spread everywhere when they get out. Pathogens like anthrax can't spread from human to human, making them plausible weapons and proportionally decreasing the urgency of researching them. (The labs may have been researching anthrax but the odds are fair that none of their research involved anything that could be a weapon.) Edited to replace virus…
Unless your primary concern is defensive against biowarfare rather than natural outbreaks...which is indeed a priority for military research h.
>Good WSJ article on Russia vs. China. In a nutshell, China miscalculated the situation. They will likely look to limit their bet (on Russia) for fear of becoming Russia 2.0 to the West. [1] The tweet is from Neil Cybart and WSJ. You may know him as one of the more accurate Apple analysts. And most people still to this day think either China miscalculated it, or China's official stance is somewhat unclear. ( Paul Gra…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Researching viruses in general is not a dual-use activity. Most viruses spread everywhere when they get out. Pathogens like anthrax can't spread from human to human, making them plausible weapons and proportionally decreasing the urgency of researching them. (The labs may have been researching anthrax but the odds are fair that none of their research involved anything that could be a weapon.) Edited to replace virus…
> proportionally decreasing the urgency of researching them Unless your primary concern is defensive against biowarfare rather than natural outbreaks...which is indeed a priority for military research h.
>Good WSJ article on Russia vs. China. In a nutshell, China miscalculated the situation. They will likely look to limit their bet (on Russia) for fear of becoming Russia 2.0 to the West. [1] The tweet is from Neil Cybart and WSJ. You may know him as one of the more accurate Apple analysts. And most people still to this day think either China miscalculated it, or China's official stance is somewhat unclear. ( Paul Gra…
> And as usual, Benedict Evans has much better take on the situation. Mostly likely because of his major in History. Which is?
That's Twitter for you...
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> And here’s CGTN’s article on “biolabs” in Ukraine, citing Russia media outlets and official There are biolabs in the Ukraine, as confirmed by Nuland in the Senate hearings. Whether they have bio-weapons or medical research, who knows, but you can perhaps understand that the Russians might be concerned? What's really amazing about this story that only days ago it was painted as a Q-anon theory. Turns out it was real…
There's a reason "dual purpose" exists as a term. Most American grade schools have "hacking devices", should we define that to be any computer. And at this point, the Russians have demostrated a clear willingness to lie about anything in pursuit of their geopolitical agenda (see: months of explicit denial of preparing for a Ukrainian invasion, by all levels of their government, in official statements).
US history says the DOD, Pentagon, & the CIA are just as willing, if not more.
>Good WSJ article on Russia vs. China. In a nutshell, China miscalculated the situation. They will likely look to limit their bet (on Russia) for fear of becoming Russia 2.0 to the West. [1] The tweet is from Neil Cybart and WSJ. You may know him as one of the more accurate Apple analysts. And most people still to this day think either China miscalculated it, or China's official stance is somewhat unclear. ( Paul Gra…
Those cancerous Twitter login modals are not letting me read the whole thread but I don't agree that China has much to lose here. They get a far weaker Russia much more dependent on them now economically. Russia is rich in fossil fuels which China lacks and has some advantages in defence and space tech which China can easily get their hands on. CCP might not be that confident about taking Taiwan now but they get a ma…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Well, I read your comment, I look around me, I see no item that is not "Made in China". There is no way China gets sanctioned for barely anything without years (decades ?) of re-industrialization of the west. Well, at some point, I even think that China could make the entire west civilization collapse just by stopping their exportation.
For consumer goods, sure. But much of that is not what makes up the entire west civilization, imho
At least it would push us to take reusing more seriously. Brutal decoupling from China could be really, probably extremely hard, but in a lot of aspects, intellectually interesting to watch.
How Europe will react to adapt the current crisis regarding fossils will also be really interesting. I'm just hoping that it will accelerate the de-carbonation of our energy sources. But it's just that, hopes.