I feel like the word sovereignty is a bit odd in the modern world. Classically I believe it meant that a nation (etc) could stand alone and defend itself against reasonable (i.e. non suicidal) encroachments from its neighbors, and therefore it had sole discretion over policies within its borders. I think that is pretty clearly not the case today for most “sovereign” nations today? I wonder why the word took on a different meaning? Is it just rude to call someone a vassal state these days?
China’s Ambassador to France Says Ex-Soviet States Lack Basis for Sovereignty
31–40 of 46 posts
Re: China’s Ambassador to France Says Ex-Soviet States Lack Basis for Sovereignty
#32If he is also including Russia in this group then I would guess this might be the basis for China reclaiming lost territory from Russia after it loses the war. Today the Chinese are buying Natural Gas and Oil from fields that were once Chinese territory. I'm sure this must really hurt their pride, that Russia stole this land from them.
China deciding to invade Russia instead of Taiwan would be a quality and welcome plot twist.
Haha .. it's the geopolitical equivalent of confuse a cat (of Monty Python fame). Japan better watch out. They could be next. Meow indeed!
Re: China’s Ambassador to France Says Ex-Soviet States Lack Basis for Sovereignty
#33I feel like the word sovereignty is a bit odd in the modern world. Classically I believe it meant that a nation (etc) could stand alone and defend itself against reasonable (i.e. non suicidal) encroachments from its neighbors, and therefore it had sole discretion over policies within its borders. I think that is pretty clearly not the case today for most “sovereign” nations today? I wonder why the word took on a diff…
Afghanistan is a relatively poor, undeveloped country, yet they just demonstrated their sovereignty in your sense against the most capable country on earth. Of course, if the US wanted to they could have steamrolled afghanistan - but they didn't. What changed is that the willingness to destroy people in war evaporated, and so the ability in theory to conquer a country, and the willingness to do so given the costs it would entail diverged significantly. This might be particular to the west, and countries like china or russia don't care as much. But they are living in the world created by US hegemony, which in large part entails playing by the US' rules.
Re: China’s Ambassador to France Says Ex-Soviet States Lack Basis for Sovereignty
#34I'm not saying China = Nazi Germany, but I wonder if statements like this came up during the lead up to WW2? Did Von Ribbentrop make statements to the media that "the State of Austria lacks a basis for sovereignty" before Germany annexed the country? I imagine something similar? It often occurs to me to that when you start to put all the pieces together on China the situation is far more serious than most people appr…
Taiwan's fate seems to have been decided already from my POV
I agree 100%. Xi has already stated at the start of his 3rd term that the 10 year goal is reunification with Taiwan, peacefully or not.
Re: China’s Ambassador to France Says Ex-Soviet States Lack Basis for Sovereignty
#35I feel like the word sovereignty is a bit odd in the modern world. Classically I believe it meant that a nation (etc) could stand alone and defend itself against reasonable (i.e. non suicidal) encroachments from its neighbors, and therefore it had sole discretion over policies within its borders. I think that is pretty clearly not the case today for most “sovereign” nations today? I wonder why the word took on a diff…
Afghanistan is a relatively poor, undeveloped country, yet they just demonstrated their sovereignty in your sense against the most capable country on earth. Of course, if the US wanted to they could have steamrolled afghanistan - but they didn't. What changed is that the willingness to destroy people in war evaporated, and so the ability in theory to conquer a country, and the willingness to do so given the costs it…
> What changed is that the willingness to destroy people in war evaporated, and so the ability in theory to conquer a country, and the willingness to do so given the costs it would entail diverged significantly. This might be particular to the west, and countries like china or russia don't care as much.
The USSR tried to invade and occupy Afghanistan too. Lasted less than 10 years despite being next door.
Re: China’s Ambassador to France Says Ex-Soviet States Lack Basis for Sovereignty
#36Earlier quoted context omitted.
Afghanistan is a relatively poor, undeveloped country, yet they just demonstrated their sovereignty in your sense against the most capable country on earth. Of course, if the US wanted to they could have steamrolled afghanistan - but they didn't. What changed is that the willingness to destroy people in war evaporated, and so the ability in theory to conquer a country, and the willingness to do so given the costs it…
> What changed is that the willingness to destroy people in war evaporated, and so the ability in theory to conquer a country, and the willingness to do so given the costs it would entail diverged significantly. This might be particular to the west, and countries like china or russia don't care as much. The USSR tried to invade and occupy Afghanistan too. Lasted less than 10 years despite being next door.
Correction: The US has never tried to occupy Afghanistan. So there is no "too".
Re: China’s Ambassador to France Says Ex-Soviet States Lack Basis for Sovereignty
#37I feel like the word sovereignty is a bit odd in the modern world. Classically I believe it meant that a nation (etc) could stand alone and defend itself against reasonable (i.e. non suicidal) encroachments from its neighbors, and therefore it had sole discretion over policies within its borders. I think that is pretty clearly not the case today for most “sovereign” nations today? I wonder why the word took on a diff…
Afghanistan is a relatively poor, undeveloped country, yet they just demonstrated their sovereignty in your sense against the most capable country on earth. Of course, if the US wanted to they could have steamrolled afghanistan - but they didn't. What changed is that the willingness to destroy people in war evaporated, and so the ability in theory to conquer a country, and the willingness to do so given the costs it…
Yeah I’ll buy that, Afghanistan is sovereign. Terrain matters! Switzerland may be as well.
Re: China’s Ambassador to France Says Ex-Soviet States Lack Basis for Sovereignty
#38Earlier quoted context omitted.
> What changed is that the willingness to destroy people in war evaporated, and so the ability in theory to conquer a country, and the willingness to do so given the costs it would entail diverged significantly. This might be particular to the west, and countries like china or russia don't care as much. The USSR tried to invade and occupy Afghanistan too. Lasted less than 10 years despite being next door.
Correction: The US has never tried to occupy Afghanistan. So there is no "too".
Feels like you could make a case either way, like how "freedom fighters" or "resistance fighters" might be used for some groups vs "illegal combatants" for others... or even the same group at different times.
The US toppled the government and had troops stationed there for ~20 years.
I think depending on your political leanings you could reasonably frame that as a) police action and support for a fragile government, or b) an occupation propping up a puppet regime.
Re: China’s Ambassador to France Says Ex-Soviet States Lack Basis for Sovereignty
#39“Even these ex-Soviet Union countries do not have effective status, as we say, under international law because there’s no international accord to concretize their status as a sovereign country,” Mr. Lu said.
This sounds like China should be cool with Taiwan if there were an international accord to recognize its sovereignty.
Re: China’s Ambassador to France Says Ex-Soviet States Lack Basis for Sovereignty
#40“Even these ex-Soviet Union countries do not have effective status, as we say, under international law because there’s no international accord to concretize their status as a sovereign country,” Mr. Lu said. This sounds like China should be cool with Taiwan if there were an international accord to recognize its sovereignty.
I can already see China having a temper tantrum when those non-existent states will start recognizing some other certain non-existent state.
If China won't retract this statement, it is self sabotage of their own diplomacy after decades of trying to get those few remaining micro countries to stop recognizing Taiwan.