141–150 of 151 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
They are neutral, but that doesn't mean they are on Russia's side. See China, for example - of course they can't officially join American sanctions, but Huawei is closing down its Russian stores anyway.
Follow the money (who's buying Russian commodities?).
Follow the money, though: who is _investing_ in Russia?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> But have you considered the Russian war technique of Maskirovka and military feints? From what information I was able to absorb about the start of the campaign, I think that Putin indeed was planning to take Kiev and Kharkiv in less than a week, and then suppress the riots there using riot police - as evidenced by him bringing in riot police troops equipped to disperse unarmed mobs, not to fight am army. Regarding…
Possibly; it could have been a type of feint/maskirovka or simply an attempt to scare the Zelenski administration into an early agreement. Either way, it was never enough forces to actual subdue a city the size of Kiev. But it certainly distracted a lot of Ukrainian forces away from the main front. I sure hope that it stops at Donbass (and that this nightmare ends asap). But if western weapons keep pouring into Ukrai…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
it would be true if countries are really "independent". What China sees is the first island chain made by the US. China sees "China Containment".
Once again, China doesn’t have to fight.
1) politicians see unifying China as their life goal for historical reasons, from Republic of China to People's Republic of China, it is something colonizers do not understand. I don't understand why people paying a high price to buy some old artifacts stolen from China back, but apparently for something, it is about pride. I believe the government would fall if they declare no interests on Taiwan.
2) strategically, Taiwan's location is important, having a foreign power influenced island (especially the US), is a lock on Chinese Navy, that's why it is called the first islands chain. China has to go beyond to protect its trade and energy routes.
Given the fact that US is all about containing China now, there will have to be a lot power play in Asia now, which is to US's advantage, since US is far, and China will suffer more from the war (trade routes and so on). I don't know how this will play out.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Anything Russia does to other states has got absolutely nothing to do with it. Your comment was excellent, and helpful to me. Thanks. I do disagree that China isn't watching US reaction through a million lenses to see how they can best increase their odds rolling over Taiwan with minimal damage. My strongest evidence? Political changes in Hong Kong.
China is definitely watching the US, but I don't think it's for the reason you imagine. China prefers peaceful reunification. They don't want to fight a war if they don't have to. At the same time, peaceful reunification is a core interest of China. Which means that they will go to war, but only if they believe peaceful reunification is no longer possible. So yes they do watch the US to make calculations. But even if…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Reunification means that both side recognize that they're Chinese. Things like systems or ideology are not that important and can be worked out. They could have different governments. In fact a federation solution was proposed (and rejected) in the 80s. Furthermore, the Chinese sense of history is much longer. There are many examples in Chinese history in which some territory splitted off and then reunified later. So…
> that both side recognize that they're Chinese [...] But if they no longer claim to be part of the family Don't they all consider themselves Han people? How do they configure their identity? Their ethnic and historical ties do not appear to be severable.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
That’s not what was said whatsoever. Make your own comments, don’t try and fail to interpret others’ comments and restate them.
That looks like "drawing conclusions", not like "attributing thoughts". "B wants stasis¹" // "Hence if A breaks it by removing doubts, B will act" - this is what was actually diplomatically declared, reminded, renewed in the past hours. ¹"stasis" - not the most proper expression of what is sought, but just to remain close to the original post in question.
They said “Put another way:” That is literally restating what the OG commenter said but with spin.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
That looks like "drawing conclusions", not like "attributing thoughts". "B wants stasis¹" // "Hence if A breaks it by removing doubts, B will act" - this is what was actually diplomatically declared, reminded, renewed in the past hours. ¹"stasis" - not the most proper expression of what is sought, but just to remain close to the original post in question.
It doesn’t look like “drawing conclusions at all” They said “Put another way:” That is literally restating what the OG commenter said but with spin.
The OP said, "A will refrain from B under condition C: the general intention of A is to refrain from B".
The replying poster noted, "Admitting that A intends to refrain from B under condition C, the intention is also not to refrain from B, failing condition C".
The replying poster is correctly noting that the relation is not just "C→¬B", but "C→¬B ∧ ¬C→B".
FooBarWidget notes one half of the story; throw10920 remarks that the other half is also present. Correctly one states - reassuringly - "do not see a false extreme: B is not an absolute set intention", but the other notes that at the same time it should not be forgotten that "B is a set conditional intention". Which is what A has stated for a long time: "the reunification will happen: peacefully if possible, coercively otherwise".
The 'put another way' formula is logically imperfect but rhetorically admissible, it is in a clear context. Of course throw10920 did not "repeat" what FooBarWidget wrote, «what was said»: he proceeded in the debate from the immediately preceding move posing a new "line".
It is a "put another way" not in terms of restricting to the original poster's idea (thus re-reading it), but starting from the poster's idea in the context of given information.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Once again, China doesn’t have to fight.
Taiwan is critical to China on all levels. 1) politicians see unifying China as their life goal for historical reasons, from Republic of China to People's Republic of China, it is something colonizers do not understand. I don't understand why people paying a high price to buy some old artifacts stolen from China back, but apparently for something, it is about pride. I believe the government would fall if they declare…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Once again, China doesn’t have to fight.
And the US doesn't have to isolate China or send warships to the SCS. The US didn't have to give Tsingdao to the Japanese, which directly triggered protests that led to the birth of the CPC. The KMT didn't have to be so corrupt that the majority population sided with CPC which led to KMT fleeing to Taiwan. And yet, those ships have sailed. We aren't in this mess just because China is supposedly a bad guy, there are r…
If China attacks Taiwan, it is absolutely because of China. It would, after all, but their own choice to engage in such a war of aggression.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
And the US doesn't have to isolate China or send warships to the SCS. The US didn't have to give Tsingdao to the Japanese, which directly triggered protests that led to the birth of the CPC. The KMT didn't have to be so corrupt that the majority population sided with CPC which led to KMT fleeing to Taiwan. And yet, those ships have sailed. We aren't in this mess just because China is supposedly a bad guy, there are r…
> We aren't in this mess just because China is supposedly a bad guy, there are real relevant historical reasons why things are the way they are, and they can't be swept under a rug. If China attacks Taiwan, it is absolutely because of China. It would, after all, but their own choice to engage in such a war of aggression.