Russia vs Ukraine

[alchemist]

The rise of BRICS lends weight to the world generally not falling for the American lies.

you mean this comedian isn't really the Ukrainian Winston Churchill or the 21st Century George Washington?

 

[XPICATE]

you mean this comedian isn't really the Ukrainian Winston Churchill or the 21st Century George Washington?

Astonishing,i know.

 

[Hacky McAxe]

the problem with the above thinking is the ''One China Policy"... if Washington and London and Brussels and Canberra were in principle for self determination of Taiwan, then reverse the policy and have at it

And they may do that eventually, but we all know why they haven't. Trade. They don't want to piss off China more than they have to.

The US invaded Iraq because Saddam was building WMDs or so the story went... Israel launched a pre-emptive attack on Egypt, Jordan and Syria in 1967 believing that the Arabs were going to attack them first... the Cambodian genocide ended with the Vietnamese invasion in 1978 etc... sometimes justifying things isn't condoning or condemning it, merely understanding it

100% agree there. I understand why Russia did it. I don't think it was purely out of fear of NATO/US, but it was at least a large part of it. I understand the mentality behind it.

But everytime someone criticises Russia invading Ukraine, you seem to attack them. So I have to ask, do you think Russia's invasion was justified?

 

[alchemist]

100% agree there. I understand why Russia did it. I don't think it was purely out of fear of NATO/US, but it was at least a large part of it. I understand the mentality behind it.

But everytime someone criticises Russia invading Ukraine, you seem to attack them. So I have to ask, do you think Russia's invasion was justified?

I believe Washington and London fed Ukraine into a wood chipper believing - hoping - that the wood chipper would breakdown and then they would have their way with it... and Berlin and Paris and Rome etc. all went along with it because they are afraid of Washington and were convinced that the sanctions would work quickly and a humbled and broken down wood chipper would crawl back to the West and concede... and worst of all, if that doesn't happen (ie. a humbled Russia) and all that is left of Ukraine is mulch, Washington and London will just shrug it off blaming the evil wood chipper

 

[Doogie]

the problem with the above thinking is the ''One China Policy"... if Washington and London and Brussels and Canberra were in principle for self determination of Taiwan, then reverse the policy and have at it

Bro - u keep saying this but you're wrong on this one. One China policy and what it means for both China and Taiwan has never been agreed on between the two despite 30+ years. Third party participants during the 92 consensus universally agreed, there was bugger all consensus. The term itself didn't exist to the naughties.

And since then, both China and Taiwan have told the world what their view of what was agreed to is, despite evidence to the contrary. Its a furphy.

 

[alchemist]

Bro - u keep saying this but you're wrong on this one. One China policy and what it means for both China and Taiwan has never been agreed on between the two despite 30+ years. Third party participants during the 92 consensus universally agreed, there was bugger all consensus. The term itself didn't exist to the naughties.

And since then, both China and Taiwan have told the world what their view of what was agreed to is, despite evidence to the contrary. Its a furphy.

It is not a question about what the "One China" policy means between Beijing and Taipei but what it means between China and the rest of the world since the Carter Administration adoption of it

 

[Hacky McAxe]

I believe Washington and London fed Ukraine into a wood chipper believing - hoping - that the wood chipper would breakdown and then they would have their way with it... and Berlin and Paris and Rome etc. all went along with it because they are afraid of Washington and were convinced that the sanctions would work quickly and a humbled and broken down wood chipper would crawl back to the West and concede... and worst of all, if that doesn't happen (ie. a humbled Russia) and all that is left of Ukraine is mulch, Washington and London will just shrug it off blaming the evil wood chipper

That didn't even remotely answer my question

 

[Doogie]

It is not a question about what the "One China" policy means between Beijing and Taipei but it means between China and the rest of the world since the Carter Administration adoption of it

Two different policies. And lets go with the US one. Two things out of it basically. The US doesn't call Taiwan 'Taiwan' and pollies cannot visit. That was it. China thought they had a legup and in response Taiwan introduced the three noes policy and martial law to enforce it. That finally relaxed in the late 80s and then the 92 Consensus. The US armed and maintained diplomatic relations through all of it with Taiwan and is well along the line of completely winding it back.

So One China is a still a furphy - China wants Taiwan and its chips and Taiwan doesn't want Chinese government. Nothing more and nothing less no matter what was signed where.

 

[Hacky McAxe]

It is not a question about what the "One China" policy means between Beijing and Taipei but what it means between China and the rest of the world since the Carter Administration adoption of it

One superpower wants small country, other superpower agrees, therefore small country should surrender and accept their fate.

 

[Tassie Devil]

seems like much of the world is pro-Russian or at least not buying into the West's shtick... and I am more anti-US Neocon/war machine than pro anything else

Why do you keep swerving the question? Don't see thé big deal personally

 

[alchemist]

Two different policies. And lets go with the US one. Two things out of it basically. The US doesn't call Taiwan 'Taiwan' and pollies cannot visit. That was it. China thought they had a legup and in response Taiwan introduced the three noes policy and martial law to enforce it. That finally relaxed in the late 80s and then the 92 Consensus. The US armed and maintained diplomatic relations through all of it with Taiwan and is well along the line of completely winding it back.

So One China is a still a furphy - China wants Taiwan and its chips and Taiwan doesn't want Chinese government. Nothing more and nothing less no matter what was signed where.

Okay... So what is the status of Taiwan internationally? A country? Merely a province of another country?

 

[Hacky McAxe]

We all know why the US and most Western countries are doing what they're doing. Russia is a potential superpower, they get in a conflict with Ukraine and everyone backs Ukraine to stop Russia because they are Russia. China (the main Superpower opposition to US) threatens Taiwan's sovreignty and the US and other Western countries respond with heroism. I'm sure it has nothing to do with the fact that Taiwan is the largest manufaturer of semi-conductors and China controlling Taiwan would mean future global dominance over potentially the most important sector in the world.

Meanwhile Sudan and Myanmar are being torn to pieces due to civil war, and no one cares. Not because they are internal issues, but because they aren't vital resources.

The motivations are always going to be greedy. But none of that matter because Russia invaded Ukraine. That's Russia's fault, no one elses. And if China invades Taiwan, that's China to blame. No one else.

 

[Doogie]

Okay... So what is the status of Taiwan internationally? A country? Merely a province of another country?

Per the UN? That China is a part of China but not part of the PRC. After that its up to individual countries and how far they want to push against the Chinese view.

Your point is?

 

[Tassie Devil]

One superpower wants small country, other superpower agrees, therefore small country should surrender and accept their fate.

l

We all know why the US and most Western countries are doing what they're doing. Russia is a potential superpower, they get in a conflict with Ukraine and everyone backs Ukraine to stop Russia because they are Russia. China (the main Superpower opposition to US) threatens Taiwan's sovreignty and the US and other Western countries respond with heroism. I'm sure it has nothing to do with the fact that Taiwan is the largest manufaturer of semi-conductors and China controlling Taiwan would mean future global dominance over potentially the most important sector in the world.

Meanwhile Sudan and Myanmar are being torn to pieces due to civil war, and no one cares. Not because they are internal issues, but because they aren't vital resources.

The motivations are always going to be greedy. But none of that matter because Russia invaded Ukraine. That's Russia's fault, no one elses. And if China invades Taiwan, that's China to blame. No one else.

Spot on. And not hard to understand

 

[Doogie]

@alchemist - I don't want to pile on but as I said b4 - I don't get it.

You've stated you're against US neocon/war machines. Pending what definition of neocon you want - I prefer this in relation to the US.
"a tendency to see the world in binary good/evil terms", a "low tolerance for diplomacy", a "readiness to use military force", an "emphasis on US unilateral action", a "disdain for multilateral organizations" and a "focus on the Middle East"

I can replace each of the US and regional terms with a Russo or Sino interpretation. They are all the same.

Its why I hate these buzzwords. Its an easy way to dodge the details and get lost in a broader ideology.

 

[alchemist]

One superpower wants small country, other superpower agrees, therefore small country should surrender and accept their fate.

Let's leave the practical discussion of the potential consequences of Taiwan agitating for independence alone for now

From memory, there are two schools of thought in international law as to the qualifications required for a region/province etc. to be recognised as a sovereign state... One looks at the effective control over territory, proper institutions, the will of the populace, contiguity of the territory and people etc. in order to qualify as an independent and sovereign nation... The other school is simply that enough other sovereign states recognise said region/province as an independent and sovereign nation

Now, although the first school is the better approach, in practice it is the second approach that is the dominant approach internationally --> ie. that enough other nations recognise you as independent... For example, Catalonia can have a hundred independence referendums and can be as rich and ordered as possible, while Spain enjoys the support of most countries as to its sovereignty and territorial integrity, Catalonia ain't going anywhere... On the other hand, territories of former federal states (eg. Bosnia and Herzegovina) can be descending into chaos and civil war and yet nations rush to recognise it and that is the end of it

So... when it comes to Taiwan, the dominant approach is what the rest of the world does and does not recognise... And the majority of the world recognises Taiwan as part of China making it in effect a domestic issue and talk of Taiwanese sovereignty as unnecessarily and deliberately provocative

 

[alchemist]

@alchemist - I don't want to pile on but as I said b4 - I don't get it.

You've stated you're against US neocon/war machines. Pending what definition of neocon you want - I prefer this in relation to the US.
"a tendency to see the world in binary good/evil terms", a "low tolerance for diplomacy", a "readiness to use military force", an "emphasis on US unilateral action", a "disdain for multilateral organizations" and a "focus on the Middle East"

I can replace each of the US and regional terms with a Russo or Sino interpretation. They are all the same.

Its why I hate these buzzwords. Its an easy way to dodge the details and get lost in a broader ideology.

Do it... Replace the US and West terms with their Sino-Russian counterparts and let's see where we are at

 

[Doogie]

Do it... Replace the US and West terms with their Sino-Russian counterparts and let's see where we are at

Well I only really have to change a few things - 'focus on ex-soviet republics' and 'focus on the pacific'.

Russian unilateral action and Chinese unilateral action. Only difference is the first is by the military and the second is economic.

Everything else is already on point.

 

[Hacky McAxe]

Let's leave the practical discussion of the potential consequences of Taiwan agitating for independence alone for now

From memory, there are two schools of thought in international law as to the qualifications required for a region/province etc. to be recognised as a sovereign state... One looks at the effective control over territory, proper institutions, the will of the populace, contiguity of the territory and people etc. in order to qualify as an independent and sovereign nation... The other school is simply that enough other sovereign states recognise said region/province as an independent and sovereign nation

Now, although the first school is the better approach, in practice it is the second approach that is the dominant approach internationally --> ie. that enough other nations recognise you as independent... For example, Catalonia can have a hundred independence referendums and can be as rich and ordered as possible, while Spain enjoys the support of most countries as to its sovereignty and territorial integrity, Catalonia ain't going anywhere... On the other hand, territories of former federal states (eg. Bosnia and Herzegovina) can be descending into chaos and civil war and yet nations rush to recognise it and that is the end of it

So... when it comes to Taiwan, the dominant approach is what the rest of the world does and does not recognise... And the majority of the world recognises Taiwan as part of China making it in effect a domestic issue and talk of Taiwanese sovereignty as unnecessarily and deliberately provocative

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.

 

[alchemist]

Well I only really have to change a few things - 'focus on ex-soviet republics' and 'focus on the pacific'.

Russian unilateral action and Chinese unilateral action. Only difference is the first is by the military and the second is economic.

Everything else is already on point.

Why such a limited focus?