The Mao-Kissinger Meeting of 1973 • Hacker News Board

Re: The Mao-Kissinger Meeting of 1973

#221

Post by hutzlibu » Sat, Jun 10, 2023, 7:50 PM UTC

CamperBob2 wrote: post #204

hutzlibu wrote: post #174

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"Russia can barely keep itself together at the moment." Which is the reason why they started the war in the first place. They feel cornered. And a smarter politics by the west, would not have pushed them so much. But I am all for self determination of even the smallest states. But I do not really see this as the goal or applied politics of the US, nor EU, nor obviously russia. It can happen as a side product, like wh…

"I only robbed your house because you threatened to join the neighborhood watch!" -- Russia Explain what "smarter politics" means in such a context.

For starters:

- not eroding and breaking international law by invading Iraq, setting a precedent cited by Putin

- not signing the Den Hague invasion act

- not getting involved in various "revolutions" in the east, like Ukraine

- not targeting all russian people with sanctions after 2014, but only those in charge

You know, in general leading by good example. If we want a international law forbidding countries to invade each other - it only works if the law applies to everyone. This I would consider smart politics.

Re: The Mao-Kissinger Meeting of 1973

#222

Post by hutzlibu » Sat, Jun 10, 2023, 7:55 PM UTC

qwytw wrote: post #195

hutzlibu wrote: post #174

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"Russia can barely keep itself together at the moment." Which is the reason why they started the war in the first place. They feel cornered. And a smarter politics by the west, would not have pushed them so much. But I am all for self determination of even the smallest states. But I do not really see this as the goal or applied politics of the US, nor EU, nor obviously russia. It can happen as a side product, like wh…

> They feel cornered They put themselves in that corner. > And a smarter politics by the west, Like allowing Russia to take half of eastern Europe. If anything Europe was way to soft with Russia, they should started moving away from their over reliance on Russian gas in the early 2000s.

"Like allowing Russia to take half of eastern Europe."

They already had it. And they gave up on it voluntarily. But they think they made a bad deal as it was simply considered a sign of weakness by certain hawks. So now they try the hard way again.

(obviously oversimplification, but the topic is full of it anyway)

Re: The Mao-Kissinger Meeting of 1973

#223

Post by simonh » Sat, Jun 10, 2023, 7:57 PM UTC

H8crilA wrote: post #124

Bronze_Colossus wrote: post #113

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

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.

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#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.

Re: The Mao-Kissinger Meeting of 1973

#224

Post by l3mure » Sat, Jun 10, 2023, 8:22 PM UTC

FreshStart wrote: post #186

l3mure wrote: post #177

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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.

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.

> 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_19...

Re: The Mao-Kissinger Meeting of 1973

#225

Post by fullspectrumdev » Sat, Jun 10, 2023, 8:25 PM UTC

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…

> US supported Maidan coup.

What a load of bollocks.

The Ukrainian people made a choice to topple their corrupt government and take control of their countries destiny. Which is an inalienable right.

Re: The Mao-Kissinger Meeting of 1973

#226

Post by chrysler » Sat, Jun 10, 2023, 8:38 PM UTC

lisasays wrote: post #220

chrysler wrote: post #211

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

I am referring to the 1997 Founding Act on Mutual Relations, Cooperation and Security between NATO and the Russian Federation. It was signed in May 1997 during NATO summit in Paris. At the next summit in July, the first former Warsaw Pact countries were invited into NATO. Official negotiations began in September.

I see no conflicts with commonly accepted definitions of conspiracy theory: "a theory that explains an event or set of circumstances as the result of a secret plot by usually powerful conspirators" (Merriam-Webster).

How did former Warsaw Pact countries end up in NATO?

According to conventional understanding, former Warsaw Pact countries seeked political, economic and military security through cooperation in international organizations ranging from Council of Europe to NATO.

According to the conspiracy theory, NATO and Russia made a secret deal to divide Europe, but the USA did not keep their side of the deal, intentionally misled Russia and forced Warsaw Pact countries into NATO in order to encircle, attack and destroy Russia.

Re: The Mao-Kissinger Meeting of 1973

#227

Post by lisasays » Sat, Jun 10, 2023, 9:12 PM UTC

chrysler wrote: post #226

lisasays wrote: post #220

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

I am referring to the 1997 Founding Act on Mutual Relations, Cooperation and Security between NATO and the Russian Federation. It was signed in May 1997 during NATO summit in Paris. At the next summit in July, the first former Warsaw Pact countries were invited into NATO. Official negotiations began in September. I see no conflicts with commonly accepted definitions of conspiracy theory: "a theory that explains an ev…

So ... again, you're splitting hairs here. And then some.

Official "invitations" to the first round countries (PL, CZ, SK, HU) were issued around 1997 -- but that's the last step in the process. Official "talks" began much sooner. Already the formation of Visegrád Group in 1991 (whose purpose was largely to get these countries ready to integrate into the EU and NATO).

Anyway by 1993 talk of these countries joining NATO was already all over the news (NYT: "Yeltsin 'Understands' Polish Bid for a Role in NATO").

So right there -- you're way off base. The Founding Act itself it pretty long-winded, but I'm not seeing any text that "greenlights" NATO expansion (other than by simply not mentioning the topic).

As to conspiracy theories: the whole point is, what you were referring to was a certain line of (dubious) argumentation or reasoning -- "relying on snippets of facts". Which is certainly very often an aspect of conspiracy theories, but nothing to do with the key substance of the term.

No one (except fully deluded Russian apologists by this point) believes in that particular theory you cite. I certainly don't, and don't feel I need to respond to any ridiculous insinuations that I do.

Anyway, look -- you're certainly quite adept yourself at pulling up snippets of fact. But across the board -- I'm just finding your thinking to be rather muddled; you extremify and hyperbolize a lot; and that you're just not seeing the forest for the trees (in addition to getting a lot of the "trees" themselves wrong). And as a result, this discussion just isn't very productive.

So I'm going to have to bow out at this point, and let you hash these topics over in the privacy of your own thoughts. Which is a pity, sort of (since it seems we would probably agree on a lot of basic things about this conflict that other people seem to be horribly confused about -- such as who the aggressor is, and why they started it).

But at the end of the day -- not really.

Re: The Mao-Kissinger Meeting of 1973

#228

Post by CamperBob2 » Sat, Jun 10, 2023, 9:45 PM UTC

hutzlibu wrote: post #221

CamperBob2 wrote: post #204

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"I only robbed your house because you threatened to join the neighborhood watch!" -- Russia Explain what "smarter politics" means in such a context.

For starters: - not eroding and breaking international law by invading Iraq, setting a precedent cited by Putin - not signing the Den Hague invasion act - not getting involved in various "revolutions" in the east, like Ukraine - not targeting all russian people with sanctions after 2014, but only those in charge You know, in general leading by good example. If we want a international law forbidding countries to invad…

[flagged]

Re: The Mao-Kissinger Meeting of 1973

#229

Post by gattilorenz » Sat, Jun 10, 2023, 9:56 PM UTC

qwytw wrote: post #192

gattilorenz wrote: post #137

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Stalin had no issue working with Hitler To be honest, the other european powers (France, but especially the UK) also had a big trust issue with Stalin, and provably had a big role in making the unthinkable (the communist-nazi alliance) happen.

> also had a big trust issue Stalin spent the last few years murdering millions of people. Without the benefit of hindsight Hitler clearly seemed like the more benign options prior to 1939..

Sad as it may be, I don’t think this has ever been a real problem for other countries. In the case of Stalin, the issue was lending credibility to socialism. Herr Hitler looked like a respectable man because he was very much against socialism, sending those filthy reds to a lager.

Re: The Mao-Kissinger Meeting of 1973

#230

Post by throw4847274 » Sat, Jun 10, 2023, 9:59 PM UTC

qwytw wrote: post #189

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.

> Mao is looking after [..] China's interests Yes, just like during the "Great Leap Forward" and the cultural revolution. Sure...

He was a complicated person and even in China people discuss his flaws. They see him similar to how we view George Washington.

Washington shaped the nation, but also massacred Native Americans and didn't free his slaves until after his death.

The Chinese see Mao as someone who gave them their pride back, but most of his socioeconomic policies were failures.

I'm not trying to do a "whataboutism" here, just trying to bring some perspective of how the average Chinese person thinks of Mao.