Russia vs Ukraine

[alchemist]

International law defines a sovereign state as a state that has:
- A permanent population (Taiwan has this)
- Defined territory (Taiwan has this)
- A government not operating under another (Taiwan government operates independantly, democratically voted in by the people of Taiwan)
- The capacity to interact with other sovereign states (Taiwan does this in droves, especially considering that it has major trading partners all over the world)

If you're talking about Internation Law, Taiwan meets all legal definition of Sovereign State. The issue of recognition isn't about meeting international law. If that were the case, it would already be considered a Sovereign State. The issue is that:

1) Countries don't want to piss off China as a trading partner, so they won't accept Taiwan as a state

2) Taiwanese government still technically holds the title of "Republic of China". While that's completely separate to the current ruling government of China, it holds name value which makes it hard to see them as independant

But law wise, yep. They are a sovereign state.

Absolutely... But like I said, the second approach is the dominant approach in the world and while the majority of the world consider Taiwan a province of China, that is the end of it... And that won't change since China is a regional power of 1.4 billion people, a nuclear power, a top 2 economy globally... So all these provocations as to a global NATO, AUKUS, US Speakers of the House visiting Taiwan, massive weapons sales to Taiwan etc. is just feeding Taiwan into a different wood chipper

 

[Tassie Devil]

Just so I understand.

Why are we talking about Taiwan/China in this thread?

Why does this war always have to be compared to something else whether it be Iraq or whatever?

Can't we just talk about this one?

 

[alchemist]

Just so I understand.

Why are we talking about Taiwan/China in this thread?

Why does this war always have to be compared to something else whether it be Iraq or whatever?

Can't we just talk about this one?

Because Ukraine is a proxy war between Russia and the West and the groundwork for another such proxy war is being laid in Taiwan between China and the US

 

[Tassie Devil]

Because Ukraine is a proxy war between Russia and the West and the groundwork for another such proxy war is being laid in Taiwan between China and the US

Clearly the US is potentially gaining a lot from this war, as is the rest of the world supporting either side. I don't think that's ever been up for debate. It's certainly become a US vs Russia thing, as I imagine many world events will.

But, it doesn't take away how this war started and that has Russia not illegally invaded Ukraine this proxy war as you call it never would've happened

 

[Doogie]

Why such a limited focus?

Because you used the term neocon which is a limited focus in itself.

 

[Hacky McAxe]

Absolutely... But like I said, the second approach is the dominant approach in the world and while the majority of the world consider Taiwan a province of China, that is the end of it... And that won't change since China is a regional power of 1.4 billion people, a nuclear power, a top 2 economy globally... So all these provocations as to a global NATO, AUKUS, US Speakers of the House visiting Taiwan, massive weapons sales to Taiwan etc. is just feeding Taiwan into a different wood chipper

But Taiwan is also doing that. And they're doing it because they want sovereignty. Should we ignore them because China is more powerful?

 

[alchemist]

Because you used the term neocon which is a limited focus in itself.

I wanted to say aggressive American foreign policy that has 800+ military bases across the world, that has adopted doctrines exalting itself as the sole global superpower committed to ensuring no other nation approaches its influence and power, that pushes an opaque rules based international order without defining what that order is or the specific rules, that has imposed economic sanctions to one degree or another on a third of the world, that has militarily intervened in numerous countries the world over without UN approval and far from her own borders, that has targeted other nations civilian infrastructure, openly interfered in the domestic politics of other nations, that has not committed to a 'no first strike' policy on the use of nuclear weapons etc.

 

[alchemist]

But Taiwan is also doing that. And they're doing it because they want sovereignty. Should we ignore them because China is more powerful?

YES!

The US never recognised USSR sovereignty over the Baltic states and from memory, no American politician ever visited them between 1945 and 1991... But they never pushed the issue because it would be a suicidal move for the Baltic states

 

[Hacky McAxe]

YES!

The US never recognised USSR sovereignty over the Baltic states and from memory, no American politician ever visited them between 1945 and 1991... But they never pushed the issue because it would be a suicidal move for the Baltic states

You really think that if China invaded Taiwan and started killing people, and Taiwan begged for help, we should just ignore it?

 

[Doogie]

I wanted to say aggressive American foreign policy that has 800+ military bases across the world, that has adopted doctrines exalting itself as the sole global superpower committed to ensuring no other nation approaches its influence and power, that pushes an opaque rules based international order without defining what that order is or the specific rules, that has imposed economic sanctions to one degree or another on a third of the world, that has militarily intervened in numerous countries the world over without UN approval and far from her own borders, that has targeted other nations civilian infrastructure, openly interfered in the domestic politics of other nations, that has not committed to a 'no first strike' policy on the use of nuclear weapons etc.

All of which can be accused of Russia and China. I know you will say the first no strike policy however 1983 showed that was a furphy when it came to the Soviets. And China has never really been pushed to that level but I've no doubts if push comes to shove, that policy is out the window for all parties.

As I said - details are where it is at. Getting back on topic - NATO busted the non-expansion agreement first. Fair play. Was Russia's response to that in both Georgia and the Ukraine proportionate to the issue? Would the average Ukrainian, knowing what they know now, been so pro-Europe and NATO if they knew this is the outcome of that? Maybe Russia did know that by pushing hard against NATO expansion it would solidify ex-satellite anti-Russo views and hence justify a more hawkish policy in Russia which in turn solidifies Putins position.

Now theres Neocon for you.

 

[alchemist]

You really think that if China invaded Taiwan and started killing people, and Taiwan begged for help, we should just ignore it?

Nation-states are generally speaking rational entities pushing their own interests (except the Europeans now who have lost their minds)... If we accept that the Chinese are rational actors, then we have to assume China would only invade Taiwan out of desperation (eg. actual Taiwanese independence) because such a war would be very costly to them --> it would not be an expeditionary type war that the Americans love to fight in another hemisphere killing Ayrabs... So, don't make them desperate by painting them into a corner... So, with the example of Taiwan independence, don't recognise Taiwan in those circumstances (like Catalonia remains unrecognised)... because if it does become a war between China and Taiwan, I doubt even the Americans could save Taiwan

 

[Hacky McAxe]

Nation-states are generally speaking rational entities pushing their own interests (except the Europeans now who have lost their minds)... If we accept that the Chinese are rational actors, then we have to assume China would only invade Taiwan out of desperation (eg. actual Taiwanese independence) because such a war would be very costly to them --> it would not be an expeditionary type war that the Americans love to fight in another hemisphere killing Ayrabs... So, don't make them desperate by painting them into a corner... So, with the example of Taiwan independence, don't recognise Taiwan in those circumstances (like Catalonia remains unrecognised)... because if it does become a war between China and Taiwan, I doubt even the Americans could save Taiwan

Which is fine if China didn't suggest any encroachment. But that's not the case. The US visiting Taiwan, and them saying that they support Taiwan's independence, only came after China started suggesting that they would take Taiwan soon. The US/Western response is very much a response to China's aggression, just like the US/Western response in Ukraine was a response to Russia's aggression.

 

[alchemist]

All of which can be accused of Russia and China. I know you will say the first no strike policy however 1983 showed that was a furphy when it came to the Soviets. And China has never really been pushed to that level but I've no doubts if push comes to shove, that policy is out the window for all parties.

As I said - details are where it is at. Getting back on topic - NATO busted the non-expansion agreement first. Fair play. Was Russia's response to that in both Georgia and the Ukraine proportionate to the issue? Would the average Ukrainian, knowing what they know now, been so pro-Europe and NATO if they knew this is the outcome of that? Maybe Russia did know that by pushing hard against NATO expansion it would solidify ex-satellite anti-Russo views and hence justify a more hawkish policy in Russia which in turn solidifies Putins position.

Now theres Neocon for you.

Neither Russia nor China have anywhere near the sort of global military presence that the Americans do... The Russians have a base in Syria, there might be one in Eastern Africa (Djibouti?) and are all over Belarus including staging tactical nuclear weapons on its territory... China would be in a similar position, I would think... The Americans have hundreds of bases all over world in allied countries, in neutral countries, even in enemy countries

The Americans push a self serving rules based international order whereas the Russians and Chinese, on its face granted, seek a return to international law and institutions

The Americans have pushed the notion of the US as the indispensable nation globally (Madeleine Albright) whereas the Russians and Chinese have quite tactfully pushed a multipolar world

The Americans have recently (see Marco Rubio) decried the growing process of de-dollarisation because it creates a concurrent global economy and financial structures which will mean that the US won't be able to use economic sanctions anymore in the near future

China has not been to war with another country since 1979(?) with Vietnam and Russia's wars since the end of the USSR have been internal (Chechnya), on its borders (Georgia, Ukraine), or by invite (Syria)... The US, on the other hand, have waged wars in the Middle East, the subcontinent, the Balkans, Africa etc. far from their own territory making it far harder to argue self defence

The US have deliberately attacked civilian infrastructure of not only enemies (eg. there was a pipeline in the USSR that the CIA proudly sabotaged in the Reagan years) but also of an ally with Germany and Nordstream which fundamentally undermines Europe's future prosperity by ensuring that Europe will have to spend 3-4x times for liquified natural gas via boat... And this is consistent US foreign policy to oppose economic and energy integration between Russia and Europe for decades regardless of whether it's a Democrat or Republican in the White House

The US remains the only country to have used nuclear weapons and Biden has walked back a pledge to adopt a "no first strike'" policy... Which then begs the question what is the difference between America's "vital interests" and Russia's "existential threats" justifying the use of nuclear weapons

Biden’s Nuke Review Omits ‘No First Use’, Kills Naval Cruise Missile

The president, who pledged during the campaign to use nuclear weapons only in response to a similar attack, declined to set that as U.S. policy.

www.defenseone.com

Through the machinery of NATO, the US is able to influence and shape foreign policy of a huge block of 31(?) nations whereas Russia and China have again tactfully pushed a "partnership" only between the countries and rejected Cold War era bloc politics... A modern day Delian League with the US in the role of the Athenian Empire of antiquity

Russia engaged in peace negotiations with Ukraine at Turkey's request in March 2022 until Boris Johnson sabotaged the negotiations... China put forward a position paper for solving international disputes which the US rejected for Ukraine... In contrast, the US has consistently pushed for a military solution only in Ukraine regardless of the cost to Ukraine

Etc.

 

[alchemist]

Which is fine if China didn't suggest any encroachment. But that's not the case. The US visiting Taiwan, and them saying that they support Taiwan's independence, only came after China started suggesting that they would take Taiwan soon. The US/Western response is very much a response to China's aggression, just like the US/Western response in Ukraine was a response to Russia's aggression.

The West has been in Ukraine for decades... This idea that the West only came to Ukraine after the Crimean annexation is false

As for Taiwan, let's assume Chinese talk of reunification represents an encroachment... What substantive value did Nancy Pelosi's visit give? The Chinese responded with war games and exercises blockading Taiwan and using live fire weapons demonstrating what would happen if Taiwan pushes for independence... And the West's response? The Germans go to China, criticise their human rights record, and push a "de-risking" policy with China to finally kill the German economy --> bravo Annalena... Macron goes to China, states that Europe has to pursue a foreign policy independent of the US, is labelled a lickspittle and traitor and backtracks... Rishi Sunak labels China the greatest challenge of the 21st century while the British economy unofficially slips into recession... The Americans keep sending weapons and military advisers to Taiwan while pushing for a NATO office in Japan and enlisting Australia to curb Chinese aggression by protecting trade routes with China from China etc.

What's more, the West have given China the perfect partner in Russia which sits on an estimated $75 trillion dollars in natural resources (which is why the West is attacking Russia) and can bridge certain gaps militarily that China lags behind the US in (eg. hypersonic missiles, submarine warfare)

 

[Doogie]

Neither Russia nor China have anywhere near the sort of global military presence that the Americans do... The Russians have a base in Syria, there might be one in Eastern Africa (Djibouti?) and are all over Belarus including staging tactical nuclear weapons on its territory... China would be in a similar position, I would think... The Americans have hundreds of bases all over world in allied countries, in neutral countries, even in enemy countries

The Americans push a self serving rules based international order whereas the Russians and Chinese, on its face granted, seek a return to international law and institutions

The Americans have pushed the notion of the US as the indispensable nation globally (Madeleine Albright) whereas the Russians and Chinese have quite tactfully pushed a multipolar world

The Americans have recently (see Marco Rubio) decried the growing process of de-dollarisation because it creates a concurrent global economy and financial structures which will mean that the US won't be able to use economic sanctions anymore in the near future

China has not been to war with another country since 1979(?) with Vietnam and Russia's wars since the end of the USSR have been internal (Chechnya), on its borders (Georgia, Ukraine), or by invite (Syria)... The US, on the other hand, have waged wars in the Middle East, the subcontinent, the Balkans, Africa etc. far from their own territory making it far harder to argue self defence

The US have deliberately attacked civilian infrastructure of not only enemies (eg. there was a pipeline in the USSR that the CIA proudly sabotaged in the Reagan years) but also of an ally with Germany and Nordstream which fundamentally undermines Europe's future prosperity by ensuring that Europe will have to spend 3-4x times for liquified natural gas via boat... And this is consistent US foreign policy to oppose economic and energy integration between Russia and Europe for decades regardless of whether it's a Democrat or Republican in the White House

The US remains the only country to have used nuclear weapons and Biden has walked back a pledge to adopt a "no first strike'" policy... Which then begs the question what is the difference between America's "vital interests" and Russia's "existential threats" justifying the use of nuclear weapons

Biden’s Nuke Review Omits ‘No First Use’, Kills Naval Cruise Missile

The president, who pledged during the campaign to use nuclear weapons only in response to a similar attack, declined to set that as U.S. policy.

www.defenseone.com

Through the machinery of NATO, the US is able to influence and shape foreign policy of a huge block of 31(?) nations whereas Russia and China have again tactfully pushed a "partnership" only between the countries only and rejected Cold War era bloc politics

Etc.

Russia and China both have a few more than you've stated but maybe thats more of a reflection of trust of non interference in sovereignty. I'm sure both Russia and China would love to have military bases in Australia - but we have no trust in that.

And seriously - rules based order? Russia routinely veto's or doesn't follow anything the UN says against it. China refuses to sign anything relating to international maritime law (which has more concerted support worldwide than the UN).

Multipolar world? Tell that to Chechnyans and Tibetans.

De dollarisation? It also creates more instability in world currency by not having a common basis for economic comparison. And in countries with soaring debt, makes more sense than ever.

Yep - I'll agree with the military actions. But didn't you say by invitation is ok? A good chunk of these military actions were by invitation. Not saying all - Iraq and Afghanistan were disgraces.

The US attacked Nordstream? And its part of some geopolitical plot? C'mon bro - I've heard a report of a Ukrainian presence and also reports of a Russian presence. As for civilian infrastructure - you're comparing a pipeline to say - the Mariupol theatre?

As for the nukes - yeah the US has to live with that. Plus the circumstances of that were fairly specific and not really in the first strike last strike scenario. But lets talk 1983 - where if Petrov followed his standing order - nuclear war was on. And not the puny ass stuff the US used - the serious stuff. And who knows if China have had their own 1983 incident.

And no - Russia invades sovereign countries on its borders and China just sends 500 'fishing vessels' to claim the land in disregard of international maritime law.

The funny thing about all of this (and we can talk history from 70 years ago as some sort of indication to the next 5 years - but I prefer the here and now). The US at least has a democratic system where a leader is gone after 2 terms. Both Russia and China changed their democratic systems at the behest of the incumbent to ensure they stayed in power with their views. So whatever the US has done - it ultimately has had to answer to its own constituents. If you try to argue in Russia or China - you end up with Thallium poisoning, falling out of a high window or just disappearing off the planet for a while for some 're-education' (Jack Ma for example).

So if you're anti-US - thats cool. They've done some poor things over the years. You're entitled to that view - but to give the Russians and Chinese a free pass is to me making arguments based on who they are, now what they have done.

But let me give you the key difference. You can have your views here in Australia. You could probably have them in the US as well. But if you lived in Russia or China and you had the opposite views to what you have now and put them on the sino or russo version of the Kennel - you'd be either hauling rocks somewhere or playing hide and seek with a piece of bamboo. What would you prefer?

 

[XPICATE]

That didn't even remotely answer my question

Oh the irony

 

[alchemist]

In truth, I am not anti-American... They enshrined fundamental human rights into their founding documents which is the true American exceptionalism and for anyone that enjoys a good turn of phrase, have a read through the Declaration of Independence

But an ugly clique of hawks have highjacked US foreign policy in Washington and instead of challenging them, the legislature and the establishment and the media have all been bought off to pacify the people

I will respond to your post in the next couple days... Sick of typing on my phone

 

[Mr 95%]

But if you lived in Russia or China and you had the opposite views to what you have now and put them on the sino or russo version of the Kennel - you'd be either hauling rocks somewhere or playing hide and seek with a piece of bamboo.

100% Dooges I ‘work’ with two Chinese carers and they speak of the exact sentiments..not so colourful mind you..but exactly this.

 

[DinkumDog]

Seems the Rooskies are turning on each other:

Russia accuses mercenary chief of armed mutiny after he vows to punish top brass

Russia accused mercenary chief Yevgeny Prigozhin of armed mutiny on Friday after he alleged, without providing evidence, that the military leadership had killed a huge number of his fighters in an air strike and vowed to punish them.

www.reuters.com

Whaddya know, war based on a lie, not going so well.

 

[Cook]

Incredible turn of events. This guy has some massive balls