Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

The Mao-Kissinger Meeting of 1973

gaodawei.wordpress.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

101–110 of 309 posts

Re: The Mao-Kissinger Meeting of 1973

#101

Post by licebmi__at__ »

FreshStart wrote: post #92
mytailorisrich wrote: post #89

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is normal pragmatism and real-politik. Mao is looking after his and China's interests. The public are usually fed simplistic, emotional propaganda by their governments, all of them: good vs evil, right thing to do, freedom, whatever. But in fact policies are based on interests and cold calculations.

[flagged]

I also agree with your hate of realpolitik excuse and comment; yet I have to ask... What is the alternative? idealism? a mix of both?

I find the idealist to be useful fools for propaganda. I find the mix of both even worse as it mostly becomes "it's right when we do it".

I guess in my view where I see these are the only alternatives, I just hate whoever disagrees with me and create a reason post-facto like [realpolitik cinicism/naive idealism/insert here qualifier].

But I try to be open to different alternatives if you can tell me.

Re: The Mao-Kissinger Meeting of 1973

#102

Post by hutzlibu »

ffgjgf1 wrote: post #85
refurb wrote: post #56

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"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.

> why it's funny to see people view the war Why? I mean you have a point about geopolitics. But it’s still about as stupid as someone saying the exact same words about Poland 1939.. You have a megalomaniac dictator waging an unnecessary imperialist war of aggression . That should make it pretty straightforward, no? > a lot behind the scene the average person doesn't see. the overall goals and interests of all sides s…

"You have a megalomaniac dictator waging an unnecessary imperialist war of aggression ."

Yes, one that was raised by the KGB, and his work possible consisting of coordinating left wing terrorists in the west.

"That should make it pretty straightforward, no?"

Sadly no. Because his character and the general political ideas and red lines of the russian establishment were known.

Ukraine was russias sphere of interest/domain.

So the west going into ukraine, helping with the coup and promising them EU and NATO, while knowing that russia can never accept it - was a clear path to war from the beginning.

Would the US tolerate mexico become a china military ally? Doubtful. One of the unwritten laws.

The geopolitical realities are, that it was known that going into ukraine would likely lead to some war.

Which is why most of the world considers this war a proxy war between Nato russia. And it partly is.

But yes, it is also a war for independence of a small nation against an evil empire. But the empires in the west seldom care about the actual people on the grounds. They care for their interests. And currently ukraines and Natos interests are mostly aligned, which is why they get support.

If china suddenly becomes a bigger problem and now there would be a need to play Putin against them - then Ukraine would be on their own very quickly.

It is already starting now, with the west medias more and more implying that it was indeed Ukraine that blow up north stream. Whether they did it, or not: this is a way of showing them, they can change the narrative in the west quite quickly. War is dirty. And also Ukraine has lots of dirt on their hands now. Showing some of that dirt will make the public change opinion. This is geopolitics in action.

Re: The Mao-Kissinger Meeting of 1973

#103

Post by redmorphium »

hutzlibu wrote: post #102
ffgjgf1 wrote: post #85

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> why it's funny to see people view the war Why? I mean you have a point about geopolitics. But it’s still about as stupid as someone saying the exact same words about Poland 1939.. You have a megalomaniac dictator waging an unnecessary imperialist war of aggression . That should make it pretty straightforward, no? > a lot behind the scene the average person doesn't see. the overall goals and interests of all sides s…

"You have a megalomaniac dictator waging an unnecessary imperialist war of aggression ." Yes, one that was raised by the KGB, and his work possible consisting of coordinating left wing terrorists in the west. "That should make it pretty straightforward, no?" Sadly no. Because his character and the general political ideas and red lines of the russian establishment were known. Ukraine was russias sphere of interest/dom…

> Would the US tolerate mexico become a china military ally? Doubtful. One of the unwritten laws.

Exactly. The Ukraine situation would be tantamount to Canada or Mexico entering into a military alliance with Iran -- not acceptable and a direct cause of war.

Re: The Mao-Kissinger Meeting of 1973

#104

Post by H8crilA »

tw1984 wrote: post #54
MichaelMoser123 wrote: post #32

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...

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

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.

Re: The Mao-Kissinger Meeting of 1973

#105

Post by quetzthecoatl »

_kbh_ wrote: post #87
refurb wrote: post #56

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"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.

> 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. This war is as clear as WW2 if you don’t see that then I don’t know what to say, it’s plain as day to most people.

[flagged]

Re: The Mao-Kissinger Meeting of 1973

#106

Post by woodpanel »

the_af wrote: post #64
woodruffw wrote: post #3

The memcon between Nixon and Mao (with Kissinger present) is also pretty interesting[1]. [1]: https://digitalarchive.wilsoncenter.org/document/memorandum-...

It's very interesting how Mao claimed he preferred "rightists" in power in the West, because leftists were usually pro-Soviet. > Mao: That is to say, I voted for you [Nixon] during your election. [...] I like rightists. People say you are rightists, that the Republican Party is to the right, that Prime Minister Heath is also to the right. [...] They also say the Christian Democratic Party of West Germany is also to t…

Along those lines runs the delimiter of the often times blurry spectrum of today's western-leftism: The Pro-Soviet western marxists of the past often became today's western pro-Russian "populists", while the western Maoists of the 1968s became today's Pro-NATO "progressives".

Re: The Mao-Kissinger Meeting of 1973

#107

Post by HellDunkel »

hutzlibu wrote: post #102
ffgjgf1 wrote: post #85

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> why it's funny to see people view the war Why? I mean you have a point about geopolitics. But it’s still about as stupid as someone saying the exact same words about Poland 1939.. You have a megalomaniac dictator waging an unnecessary imperialist war of aggression . That should make it pretty straightforward, no? > a lot behind the scene the average person doesn't see. the overall goals and interests of all sides s…

"You have a megalomaniac dictator waging an unnecessary imperialist war of aggression ." Yes, one that was raised by the KGB, and his work possible consisting of coordinating left wing terrorists in the west. "That should make it pretty straightforward, no?" Sadly no. Because his character and the general political ideas and red lines of the russian establishment were known. Ukraine was russias sphere of interest/dom…

I tried to figure out if this reasoning is plausible by reading a few history books on the subject predating 2021- just to be sure i would not be sucked into group think. Turns out ALL historians tend to disagree heavily (Kappeler, Applebaum, Plokhy.. Checked on their national background too) Problem with these self proclaimed realists you are referring to is they dont have any solutions, never had (see 1993), have been wrong in the past, continue to be so… most reasonable among them is Kissinger, and even he is very much on the moderate side. It is up to you to reconsider or make yourself comfortable with Tucker Carlson.

Re: The Mao-Kissinger Meeting of 1973

#108

Post by kachnuv_ocasek »

woodpanel wrote: post #106
the_af wrote: post #64

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's very interesting how Mao claimed he preferred "rightists" in power in the West, because leftists were usually pro-Soviet. > Mao: That is to say, I voted for you [Nixon] during your election. [...] I like rightists. People say you are rightists, that the Republican Party is to the right, that Prime Minister Heath is also to the right. [...] They also say the Christian Democratic Party of West Germany is also to t…

Along those lines runs the delimiter of the often times blurry spectrum of today's western-leftism: The Pro-Soviet western marxists of the past often became today's western pro-Russian "populists", while the western Maoists of the 1968s became today's Pro-NATO "progressives".

None of what you wrote makes any coherent sense in this world. I don't even know where to start…

Re: The Mao-Kissinger Meeting of 1973

#109

Post by hutzlibu »

HellDunkel wrote: post #107
hutzlibu wrote: post #102

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"You have a megalomaniac dictator waging an unnecessary imperialist war of aggression ." Yes, one that was raised by the KGB, and his work possible consisting of coordinating left wing terrorists in the west. "That should make it pretty straightforward, no?" Sadly no. Because his character and the general political ideas and red lines of the russian establishment were known. Ukraine was russias sphere of interest/dom…

I tried to figure out if this reasoning is plausible by reading a few history books on the subject predating 2021- just to be sure i would not be sucked into group think. Turns out ALL historians tend to disagree heavily (Kappeler, Applebaum, Plokhy.. Checked on their national background too) Problem with these self proclaimed realists you are referring to is they dont have any solutions, never had (see 1993), have b…

Historians disagree on what exactly?

That USA would in fact tolerate chinese military in mexico?

"It is up to you to reconsider or make yourself comfortable with Tucker Carlson"

And strong disagree. I don't have to make myself comfortable or align with any character or movement, just because most of the world wants only to think in black and white.

Re: The Mao-Kissinger Meeting of 1973

#110

Post by foldr »

quetzthecoatl wrote: post #105
_kbh_ wrote: post #87

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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. This war is as clear as WW2 if you don’t see that then I don’t know what to say, it’s plain as day to most people.

[flagged]

Are you really trying to ‘both sides’ WWII?
Post reply on HN