NationStates

Punished UMN wrote:

North Washington Republic wrote:
Xi and Putin have also consolidated power and do have near sole control over their governments, because they imprison or kill any opposition that is a threat to their power. Putin and Xi are the leaders and near absolute rulers of China and Russia for the near future. Even if we drop our opposition to Russia’s attempts to expand influence(which I believe it shouldn’t), Putin doesn’t give two hoots if Xi annexs Taiwan. Why should he? He doesn’t have a reason too.

Which is why we should give him a reason to, the sanctions on Russia are crippling, if we agree to lift those and allow Russia to consolidate its near-abroad in-exchange for some form of diplomatic accord, there could be real progress.

As for your analysis of China, I don't think you're well-enough acquainted with the CCP's internal structure or internal affairs to say that Xi is an absolute ruler. Xi is very popular in China but the actual legal institutions of the PRC are solid enough that it's not a personalist dictatorship.

Punished UMN wrote:

Great Aletia wrote:The Chinese Navy won't be ready for a major war for at least another decade, if not two. It takes time to built a fleet, especially aircraft carriers, and China isn't going to do anything before they're ready.

I think the scale of the Chinese naval buildup in the last ten years undermines that notion.

Senkaku wrote:

Stellar Colonies wrote:It's always interesting to have the US, a country which has territories stretching from its Pacific coast to Guam, disliking the PRC attempting to annex islands which are comparatively in the general vicinity of its mainland.

...which doesn't at all excuse the PRC's bullying of the South China Sea-bordering countries (those islands are packed in amongst a bunch of other countries while the American Pacific islands are not really, I guess) and their rather ominous designs upon Taiwan, a country to which they have no legitimate claim, but still.

I mean, they do have a pretty legitimate claim as far as territorial claims can ever be said to be legitimate, but "legitimacy" doesn't really mean anything if the logical consequences of a "legitimate" right being enforced would be a nuclear holocaust and the blood-soaked immolation of at least one prosperous democracy.

North Washington Republic wrote:

Punished UMN wrote:Which is why we should give him a reason to, the sanctions on Russia are crippling, if we agree to lift those and allow Russia to consolidate its near-abroad in-exchange for some form of diplomatic accord, there could be real progress.

As for your analysis of China, I don't think you're well-enough acquainted with the CCP's internal structure or internal affairs to say that Xi is an absolute ruler. Xi is very popular in China but the actual legal institutions of the PRC are solid enough that it's not a personalist dictatorship.

Lifting the sanctions isn’t going to be enough for Putin. Putin won’t accept anything less than the dismantling of NATO, that would be extremely dangerous for former USSR states. It is a waste of time trying to negotiate with Putin because he cannot be trusted. He wouldn’t approach us this with good faith.

Punished UMN wrote:

North Washington Republic wrote:
Xi and Putin have also consolidated power and do have near sole control over their governments, because they imprison or kill any opposition that is a threat to their power. Putin and Xi are the leaders and near absolute rulers of China and Russia for the near future. Even if we drop our opposition to Russia’s attempts to expand influence(which I believe it shouldn’t), Putin doesn’t give two hoots if Xi annexs Taiwan. Why should he? He doesn’t have a reason too.

Which is why we should give him a reason to, the sanctions on Russia are crippling, if we agree to lift those and allow Russia to consolidate its near-abroad in-exchange for some form of diplomatic accord, there could be real progress.

As for your analysis of China, I don't think you're well-enough acquainted with the CCP's internal structure or internal affairs to say that Xi is an absolute ruler. Xi is very popular in China but the actual legal institutions of the PRC are solid enough that it's not a personalist dictatorship.

New Jacobland wrote:

Saiwania wrote:I want war with China, but it shouldn't be a direct war because China is a nuclear power. I see plenty of potential to be had for sabotaging their belt and road initiatives across the board. There is perhaps just enough unrest in Xinjiang that can be exploited. The people there aren't loyal to China and are being oppressed. If a proxy war is sparked there, China's military might can be drained over time if the cards are played right. It should be like the Soviet's attempt to conquer Afghanistan.

China will be unable or unwilling to invade Kazakhstan as well because it is protected by Russia. If the vestiges of the Sino-Soviet split are still enough in terms of remnants, Russia can be persuaded to align against China as being more in its best interests.

Certainly. Direct war and the world is over, but Cold War-esque proxy conflicts and economic diplomacy can still be good for the West

Mandicoria wrote:

New Jacobland wrote:Certainly. Direct war and the world is over, but Cold War-esque proxy conflicts and economic diplomacy can still be good for the West

Ah yes, because tearing up third world nations and ruining countless lives for future generations is a great idea.

New Jacobland wrote:

Adamede wrote:The US and Russia are never going to “reach an understanding”. The United States is a naval power that wants to stop a major Eurasian superpower from arising and a Russia is a land focused power that wants to become said Eurasian superpower.

At least they could try to ally against commie China. Maybe...

Punished UMN wrote:

North Washington Republic wrote:
Xi and Putin have also consolidated power and do have near sole control over their governments, because they imprison or kill any opposition that is a threat to their power. Putin and Xi are the leaders and near absolute rulers of China and Russia for the near future. Even if we drop our opposition to Russia’s attempts to expand influence(which I believe it shouldn’t), Putin doesn’t give two hoots if Xi annexs Taiwan. Why should he? He doesn’t have a reason too.

Which is why we should give him a reason to, the sanctions on Russia are crippling, if we agree to lift those and allow Russia to consolidate its near-abroad in-exchange for some form of diplomatic accord, there could be real progress.

Mandicoria wrote:

New Jacobland wrote:Certainly. Direct war and the world is over, but Cold War-esque proxy conflicts and economic diplomacy can still be good for the West

Ah yes, because tearing up third world nations and ruining countless lives for future generations is a great idea.

Punished UMN wrote:

North Washington Republic wrote:
Lifting the sanctions isn’t going to be enough for Putin. Putin won’t accept anything less than the dismantling of NATO, that would be extremely dangerous for former USSR states. It is a waste of time trying to negotiate with Putin because he cannot be trusted. He wouldn’t approach us this with good faith.

I mean the inverse of that is basically Putin's view of us, in large part because of dualist views of policy from the West such as you promote.

Senkaku wrote:

Punished UMN wrote:I mean the inverse of that is basically Putin's view of us, in large part because of dualist views of policy from the West such as you promote.

Letting one authoritarian nuclear-armed Eurasian land empire put its boot on our allies' throats so that a different one might end up in a slightly weaker position to do almost the exact same thing seems like a mighty strange way of trying to actually make the world a better place.

This thread makes me feel bad for Chinese hardliners, no wonder they're so freaked out. We truly are a bloodthirsty and ignorant species.

Ayytaly wrote:

Senkaku wrote:Letting one authoritarian nuclear-armed Eurasian land empire put its boot on our allies' throats so that a different one might end up in a slightly weaker position to do almost the exact same thing seems like a mighty strange way of trying to actually make the world a better place.

This thread makes me feel bad for Chinese hardliners, no wonder they're so freaked out. We truly are a bloodthirsty and ignorant species.

And yet the lesser of two evils is for the US to work with China to the point that Mongolia can be turned into a buffer state.

Infected Mushroom wrote:Taiwan is a part of China. I hope for peaceful reunification.

The problem here is the USA, they are trying to divide the Chinese people and make them fight with each other. You only have to look at a world map and ask the real question here... what is America, a North American country, doing an entire giant ocean away in Asia?

At the end of the day, the PRC is minding its own business. Other countries are trying to encroach. But times have changed, this isn’t the 1800s anymore. I think that’s what many governments have to understand.

Stellar Colonies wrote:

Infected Mushroom wrote:Taiwan is a part of China. I hope for peaceful reunification.

The problem here is the USA, they are trying to divide the Chinese people and make them fight with each other. You only have to look at a world map and ask the real question here... what is America, a North American country, doing an entire giant ocean away in Asia?

At the end of the day, the PRC is minding its own business. Other countries are trying to encroach. But times have changed, this isn’t the 1800s anymore. I think that’s what many governments have to understand.

The PRC has no business encroaching on Taiwan, and doing so is certainly not 'minding their own business'.

The US did not start this conflict, but it has certainly delayed the occupation of Taipei.

From what I can ascertain, the PRC is simply not wanted. The Taiwanese apparently do not want to be annexed, they just want to be left alone.

Ayytaly wrote:

Stellar Colonies wrote:The PRC has no business encroaching on Taiwan, and doing so is certainly not 'minding their own business'.

The US did not start this conflict, but it has certainly delayed the occupation of Taipei.

From what I can ascertain, the PRC is simply not wanted. The Taiwanese apparently do not want to be annexed, they just want to be left alone.

Did you black out around the time Trump pulled out of the TPP, and gave China ample power vacuums to fill?

Stellar Colonies wrote:I was speaking of over the course of the last sixtyish years in general.

That is comparatively very recent.

Northern Socialist Council Republics wrote:

Stellar Colonies wrote:I was speaking of over the course of the last sixtyish years in general.

That is comparatively very recent.

I mean, when you're going into the whole "who started it" business, you're delving into the extremely messy history that is the Xinhai Revolution, the Age of Warlords, and the Second Nationalist-Communist War... and historical claims are a silly way of looking at conflicts like these anyways.

The Taiwanese do not wish to be ruled by the CCP, and honestly that is all that needs to be said. I tend to have a few more reservations for independence movements, but this isn't an independence movement. These people are already independent in every way that matters. Why shouldn't they stay that way?

I mean, when you're going into the whole "who started it" business, you're delving into the extremely messy history that is the Xinhai Revolution, the Age of Warlords, and the Second Nationalist-Communist War... and historical claims are a silly way of looking at conflicts like these anyways.

The Taiwanese do not wish to be ruled by the CCP, and honestly that is all that needs to be said. I tend to have a few more reservations for independence movements, but this isn't an independence movement. These people are already independent in every way that matters. Why shouldn't they stay that way?

Stellar Colonies wrote:

Ayytaly wrote:
Did you black out around the time Trump pulled out of the TPP, and gave China ample power vacuums to fill?

I was speaking of over the course of the last sixtyish years in general.

That is comparatively very recent.

Senkaku wrote:

Punished UMN wrote:I mean the inverse of that is basically Putin's view of us, in large part because of dualist views of policy from the West such as you promote.

Letting one authoritarian nuclear-armed Eurasian land empire put its boot on our allies' throats so that a different one might end up in a slightly weaker position to do almost the exact same thing seems like a mighty strange way of trying to actually make the world a better place. What’s the moral calculus on basically trading the Baltics for Taiwan, in your scenario here? It seems almost better to just do nothing and let Taipei wither on the vine, at least then we won’t have as active a hand in the coming evils.

This thread makes me feel bad for Chinese hardliners, no wonder they're so freaked out. We truly are a bloodthirsty and ignorant species.