Earlier quoted context omitted.
[flagged]
Are you really trying to ‘both sides’ WWII?
He's a Hindu nationalist. So yeah of course he is.
The Mao-Kissinger Meeting of 1973
121–130 of 309 posts
Re: The Mao-Kissinger Meeting of 1973
#122Earlier quoted context omitted.
Aha, gotcha. Still awkward joke.
Not really. He just meant that old people find it hard to learn to speak Mandarin, even if they can read the Chinese script (which is the same for all Chinese languages). He likely saw this as a major obstacle to his vision of a grand, unified China. He's also responsible for the simplified Chinese script, which was introduced everywhere but in Hong Kong and Taiwan. They are still very mutually intelligible, from wha…
Just to touch on this - Cantonese is not really mutually intelligible with modern Chinese, that's CCP propaganda. They're big on the idea that there's only one Chinese language, and there are "regional dialects" but...those dialects meet an awful lot of criteria for being a different language. It's very similar to their push to make all Chinese culture and history Han Chinese.
The mandarin spoken in Taiwan is 1:1 with that in Beijing (minus the accent) but the characters for the language are radically different, to the point where someone knowing simplified Chinese is essentially illiterate in Taipei and vice versa.
Re: The Mao-Kissinger Meeting of 1973
#123Earlier 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]
> They killed more Indians (than the 6 million Nazi figures) in WW2 period alone
Did they?
Re: The Mao-Kissinger Meeting of 1973
#124Earlier quoted context omitted.
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.
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.
Re: The Mao-Kissinger Meeting of 1973
#125Earlier quoted context omitted.
>> That USA would in fact tolerate chinese military in mexico? This is such a poor rhethorical question. Why play with hypothethicals like Mexico and China, if Europe already has direct Russian nukes in Kaliningrad enclave in the middle of Europe with constant threats of destroying Warsaw and London? And yet, that's tolerated, unlike what people like you suggest and imagine. Relevant maps: https://www.washingtonpost.…
I happen to live in europe, so I am quite aware of our situation. But europe is not the US, as far as I know. And the US diplomatic stance towards EU inofficially was something like "fuck the EU". I also know how "the west" moved further east step by step. Which is in general very fine by me, as I do prefer living by western standards (and I was born in the east). So I certainly would not stand in the way, if Ukraine…
>> But europe is not the US, as far as I know.
Doesn't really change anything in the equation. Russian missiles in Kaliningrad can hit key US military installations like Ramstein AFB and RAF Lakenheath with practically no warning. They are a direct threat from a hostile country that keeps making threats about using them, this is far more serious than any imagined Mexican alliance.
And yet, the reaction is... what? Where are B52s bombing Kaliningrad?
>> I also know how "the west" moved further east step by step.
I am sure you do. Can you tell me why Russian apologists always phrase it as if a shadowy cabal in Washington forced countries into international cooperation, instead of portraying as it actually was?
Re: The Mao-Kissinger Meeting of 1973
#126Earlier quoted context omitted.
> 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.
> 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. How is it any different to Finland joining NATO? (which they just did).
The difference is the shared history and language.
(also true for border regions with finnland, but way less overall as finnish is a different language family)
Russian nationalism consideres Kiev the root of the russian culture (but they might change that narrative soon).
Also, they are really not happy about it.
Re: The Mao-Kissinger Meeting of 1973
#127Earlier quoted context omitted.
I happen to live in europe, so I am quite aware of our situation. But europe is not the US, as far as I know. And the US diplomatic stance towards EU inofficially was something like "fuck the EU". I also know how "the west" moved further east step by step. Which is in general very fine by me, as I do prefer living by western standards (and I was born in the east). So I certainly would not stand in the way, if Ukraine…
>> But europe is not the US, as far as I know. Doesn't really change anything in the equation. Russian missiles in Kaliningrad can hit key US military installations like Ramstein AFB and RAF Lakenheath with practically no warning. They are a direct threat from a hostile country that keeps making threats about using them, this is far more serious than any imagined Mexican alliance. And yet, the reaction is... what? Wh…
"Can you tell me why Russian apologists always phrase it as if a shadowy cabal in Washington forced countries into international cooperation "
Because it was verbally promised by different high ranking officials, that the NATO would NOT move further east.
This does not create trust.
Re: The Mao-Kissinger Meeting of 1973
#128Earlier 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]
By all means, please cite your sources for the pile of revisionist idiocy you just spewed. The British killed more people than the Nazis during WW2? I'd love to see the source for that in particular at least. Yes, there was the Bengal famine of 1943, and Churchill's callous initial response to it, but this was not a deliberate attempt at starving 3 million bengalis to death. That doesn't excuse it, but there is a difference between a country deliberately targeting for extermination and then exterminating 11 million+ people with gas chambers, death squads and intentional mass starvation campaigns, and another country, pressed to the bone by the burdens of war, badly fucking up on food provision to a part of one of its colonies.
Yes, the allied powers during the war were far from perfect (excluding from this the murderous USSR), but to say they were comparable to the Nazis is grotesquely absurd and shows a breathtaking lack of perspective or deliberate mendacity about motives and outcomes..
Re: The Mao-Kissinger Meeting of 1973
#129Earlier quoted context omitted.
> 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. How is it any different to Finland joining NATO? (which they just did).
The difference is the shared history and language. (also true for border regions with finnland, but way less overall as finnish is a different language family) Russian nationalism consideres Kiev the root of the russian culture (but they might change that narrative soon). Also, they are really not happy about it.
> The difference is the shared history and language.
I don't think a language matters with a war with NATO.
> Also, they are really not happy about it.
Yet there is no war, shows you that NATO really works as a deterrence to Russia and that it had nothing to do with Ukraine being close to Russia and in NATO.
Re: The Mao-Kissinger Meeting of 1973
#130Earlier quoted context omitted.
>> But europe is not the US, as far as I know. Doesn't really change anything in the equation. Russian missiles in Kaliningrad can hit key US military installations like Ramstein AFB and RAF Lakenheath with practically no warning. They are a direct threat from a hostile country that keeps making threats about using them, this is far more serious than any imagined Mexican alliance. And yet, the reaction is... what? Wh…
"Can you tell me why Russian apologists always phrase it as if a shadowy cabal in Washington forced countries into international cooperation " Because it was verbally promised by different high ranking officials, that the NATO would NOT move further east. This does not create trust.
>> Because it was verbally promised by different high ranking officials, that the NATO would NOT move further east.
Not according to the Soviet foreign minister at the time. He also explains why this conspiracy theory is nonsense: at the time when that verbal promise was allegedly given, no-one could even imagine that Warsaw Pact would cease to exist. According to him, NATO status of Warsaw Pact countries was not discussed with Western officials, not discussed within Warsaw Pact, and not within Communist Party circles in Moscow either.
https://www.spiegel.de/international/europe/interview-with-e...
Nor did you answer my question. Why do Russian apologists try to word this as NATO was somehow forced upon Eastern Europe instead of integration into international institutions being their own long-term goal?