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

211–220 of 309 posts

Re: The Mao-Kissinger Meeting of 1973

#211

Post by chrysler »

lisasays wrote: post #185
chrysler wrote: post #183

Earlier quoted context omitted.

My quote is from the same interview. I repeat: "The topic of ‘NATO expansion’ was not discussed at all, and it wasn’t brought up in those years." If that interview leaves anything unclear, then Spiegel tried to get a "yes, assurances existed" answer from foreign minister Shevardnadze from several different angles, but he replied to every attempt with a "No." Spiegel: https://www.spiegel.de/international/europe/interv…

Mmm -- my sense is that you're also "arranging scraps" here to get them to line up and support the narrative that you like. By my reading, Gorbachev's later statement -- "definitely a violation of the spirit of the statements and assurances made to us in 1990" (referring to NATO's decisive steps towards expansion starting in 1993) -- is more holistic, and seals the matter. Not that there was "conspiracy" to hoodwink…

And that's why I call it a conspiracy theory - it relies on a small number of select snippets, interpreted in the most favorable way possible, ignoring things like explicit statements to the opposite from the very same sources. A textbook example of conspiratorial thinking.

The facts are simple:

1. Possible NATO status of Warsaw Pact countries was never discussed.

2. There was no assurance from NATO to Soviet Union on possible NATO status of Warsaw Pact countries.

3. Key members of the Soviet leadership explicitly deny any such assurances.

4. Russia never brought up any such assurances when Warsaw Pact countries joined NATO.

5. Russia and NATO signed a treaty greenlighting NATO enlargement before any official talks with Warsaw Pact countries started.

What was discussed in 1990:

1. Integration of East German military into NATO structures.

2. Size and composition of German military after reunification.

3. Placement of NATO forces (that is, from the US, UK, and elsewhere) in East Germany.

This has nothing to do with NATO status of Warsaw Pact countries.

Placement of NATO troops (discussed) and potential members of NATO (not discussed) should not be confused.

Re: The Mao-Kissinger Meeting of 1973

#212

Post by CamperBob2 »

lenkite wrote: post #180
Lio wrote: post #140

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 aga…

"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 Ma…

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.

Re: The Mao-Kissinger Meeting of 1973

#213

Post by JPLeRouzic »

ffgjgf1 wrote: post #80
tumanian wrote: post #77

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I dont have the source at hand, but soviets also preffered republicans to the left, since they could always make a dral with republicans while the lwft was too ideological.

Depends on what do you mean by the ‘left’ bolsheviks often viewed social-democratic and (to a lesser extent) liberal parties as their greatest threats. They were all appealing to the same demographics but were diametrically opposed on certain core points (democracy, free speech, political oppression etc.) making any real cooperation impossible. The Weimar republic was a great example of that, the liberal/socialist go…

> "during the period western communist parties suddenly became rabidly pro-nazi."

Please could you provide some reference?

Re: The Mao-Kissinger Meeting of 1973

#214

Post by quetzthecoatl »

wwtrv wrote: post #198
quetzthecoatl wrote: post #151

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>By all means, please cite your sources for the pile of revisionist idiocy you just spewed. Ah yes, ignorance and white supremacist history is total bliss. Just because you think you are a hero doesn't mean you are one. The British caused famines during WW2 alone killed millions in India (estimates go from 1 to 6 million). That's just the famines. As for the rest of the total figures of british raj casualty - the est…

[flagged]

[flagged]

Re: The Mao-Kissinger Meeting of 1973

#215

Post by quetzthecoatl »

RealityVoid wrote: post #166
quetzthecoatl wrote: post #149

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>The Allies. > The Nazis, the ones committing genocide, they are the bad guys. Except, the allies killed way more people. They just happened to be non white. You are a white supremacist for downplaying it - essentially saying those genocides don't matter as it happened to brown and black people. >Are you seriously trying to tell me the Nazis/Axis powers where the good guys in WW2?. Do you have some serious reading co…

Can you please clarify who are the more people non-white people the allies killed? I am utterly confused. You are talking about WW2 here, right?

not just WW2, everything that lead to it, everything that the allies were involved in when WW2 was going on etc. I mean, most of the atrocities that the Nazis did were to the German Jews who were not part of the WW2 at all. Does this mean those doesn't count? This kind of logic stumps me.

For the record, i responded your question almost instantly and HN didn't let me post. Got an error saying i am typing too fast.

Re: The Mao-Kissinger Meeting of 1973

#217

Post by hayst4ck »

seanmcdirmid wrote: post #206
contrarian1234 wrote: post #150

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Interesting stuff. I won't pretend to understand the inner workings of the party haha. I have heard they very aggressively rotate party members so that they don't establish deep rooted regional networks - and that you aren't ever assigned from the region you're from. So that seems to be in line with what you illustrate. I also know they have intense quotas for minorities and affirmative action - but with the demograp…

I think the ethnostate label isn’t really accurate in China. Paternalistic state is more accurate, Confucian values still hold. The goal isn’t create a monoethnic state, rather the Han see themselves as best apt to govern and guide the other ethnic groups. A lot of the ethnic tension simply comes from minorities seeing such paternalism as condescending.

Paternalism is just a different word for oppression. It encodes the power relationship, but with the implication of care.

Ask the Uighers, Tibetans, and the Hong Kongers, or even the Taiwanese what they think of china's "Paternalism," or if they feel China is a caring "parent."

> A lot of the ethnic tension simply comes from minorities seeing such paternalism as condescending.

This is an equivocated way of saying ethnic minorities feel oppressed by the ethnic ruling class.

> the Han see themselves as best apt to govern and guide the other ethnic groups

This statement seems like barely concealed "Han supremacy".

Your words say the architecture of china is an ethnostate while the phrasing is a facade of benevolence.

Re: The Mao-Kissinger Meeting of 1973

#218

Post by JPLeRouzic »

addcommitpush wrote: post #117
cryptonector wrote: post #49

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Zhou might have meant something important by that. If you think that La Terreur set the pattern for many other terrors since, then the fact that the struggle against La Terreur hadn't (probably hasn't) finished quite yet might make that retort quite frank and meaningful.

Side note - I always wondered why English speakers tend to 1. keep the original language article and 2. capitalise it even though it is not in the original language. Why is it “La Terreur” and not “la Terreur” or “the Terreur”?

English is not my native tongue but I believe that in English "the" preceding a name means something specific, something near a proper name, while the absence of "the" means something common.

"they were all struck by lightning but John was killed by _the_ final lightning*"

Re: The Mao-Kissinger Meeting of 1973

#219

Post by [deleted] »

chrysler wrote: post #211
lisasays wrote: post #185

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Mmm -- my sense is that you're also "arranging scraps" here to get them to line up and support the narrative that you like. By my reading, Gorbachev's later statement -- "definitely a violation of the spirit of the statements and assurances made to us in 1990" (referring to NATO's decisive steps towards expansion starting in 1993) -- is more holistic, and seals the matter. Not that there was "conspiracy" to hoodwink…

And that's why I call it a conspiracy theory - it relies on a small number of select snippets, interpreted in the most favorable way possible, ignoring things like explicit statements to the opposite from the very same sources. A textbook example of conspiratorial thinking. The facts are simple: 1. Possible NATO status of Warsaw Pact countries was never discussed. 2. There was no assurance from NATO to Soviet Union o…

[deleted]

Re: The Mao-Kissinger Meeting of 1973

#220

Post by lisasays »

chrysler wrote: post #211
lisasays wrote: post #185

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Mmm -- my sense is that you're also "arranging scraps" here to get them to line up and support the narrative that you like. By my reading, Gorbachev's later statement -- "definitely a violation of the spirit of the statements and assurances made to us in 1990" (referring to NATO's decisive steps towards expansion starting in 1993) -- is more holistic, and seals the matter. Not that there was "conspiracy" to hoodwink…

And that's why I call it a conspiracy theory - it relies on a small number of select snippets, interpreted in the most favorable way possible, ignoring things like explicit statements to the opposite from the very same sources. A textbook example of conspiratorial thinking. The facts are simple: 1. Possible NATO status of Warsaw Pact countries was never discussed. 2. There was no assurance from NATO to Soviet Union o…

Russia and NATO signed a treaty greenlighting NATO enlargement before any official talks with Warsaw Pact countries started.

Which can't possibly be the CFE - so which treaty (and which specific provisions of that treaty) are you referring to?

Your notion of "conspiracy theory" is plainly at odds with the commonly accepted definition of the term, BTW. But we'll move past that for now.

Post reply on HN