83
EU says China trained Russian troops to fight in Ukraine war (www.straitstimes.com)
submitted 2 months ago by to c/europe@feddit.org
61 comments fedilink hide all child comments
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] 1 point 2 months ago* (last edited 2 months ago) (1 child)

25% want to.

That's not true.

Are you serious right now?

Yes. Instead of accepting a status quo that exists as long as the PRC exists, they still voluntarily pursue the idea of something that will inevitably lead them into war, personal suffering and economic hardship. It is a very dumb thing to do, fuelled only by nationalist ideals and the desire of petty revenge. The PRC could choose to move beyond those dastardly motives and continue living their very successful life, yet they don't.

The PRC is very clear that Taiwan becoming sovereign means Western empire at their doorstep.

So? Since when can you choose your neighbours? Also, this is de facto already the case for as long as the PRC exists. Yet, the PRC managed to become a leading country. What exactly is their problem they want to spark a major war for, threatening their prosperity they just managed to accumulate?

That is not, actually, what they want.

So they don't consider Taiwan as part of their country?

I said that Han colonization is a different historical process from European colonization.

Yet you seem to have a problem with only one of these forms of colonialism.

But the result in China has ALWAYS been a multi-national multi-ethnic state

If you mean by that that there's a state where one master ethnicity enforces its command on all its subdued subjects within that state, yes. That's a very weird thing to defend, though.

I don’t have to defend Han Supremacy, nor their genocides, nor their settler colonialism. It’s all bad, and the harm needs to be repaired. I’m happy to be consistent on that front.

So you don't defend it. Yet, it is the foundation for your claim of the entitlement of the PRC to control Taiwan, as both are effectively Han states?

It’s not weird at all. I just operate with a different set of facts than you. China has over 250 indigenous languages with over 1000 living speakers

That has become clear. Yea, and some of these cultures, the ruling Han elite even allows to continue to exist, in a tightly controlled and monitored way. I mean, how could they do it differently, as their entire state is built on continued Han Supremacy. So as soon as a culture seems to be no longer in line with this core principle of this so-called People's rule, that in fact is actually the rule of a Han elite, you get your culture destroyed (Tibet) or yourself locked up in concentration re-education camps. I just love PRC apologists clamour against imperialism, while they happily and blindly defend a state that has that much imperialism in its core. I'd say a true imperialist would distance themselves as much from Western as from Eastern imperialism, as they actually oppose the idea of imperialism itself. Yet, what can instead be seen online are people that love to label themselves 'anti-imperialists', as that is a noble badge to wear, while actually only being tribalistic anti-westernists yearning for an extremely simple binary world view of bad and hence good.

What happened in Taiwan, as I’ve stated many times, is that foreign militaries intervened in internal Chinese politics for the purpose of subjugating China militarily.

The whole Chinese Civil War was heavily influenced by the respective global powers. Both the US and the Soviet Union used their respective Chinese group to achieve a result they liked. Each propped up their group in a hope to lead them to victory. Both Chinese sites were used as puppets.

So, would you say that South Korea should annex North Korea?

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] -2 points 2 months ago (1 child)

    At this point it's obvious you're not here to discuss facts and reason about them. You're here to filter facts and misinterpret them deliberately to fit your preferred conclusion.

    1. Your link says literally nothing about secession, despite my claim being about secession
    2. You assign individual motives to a state, despite repeated attempts by me to establish that psychologizing a state it not how we understand behaviors of states
    3. You don't believe China has a right to self-defense
    4. You don't actually understand any aspect of my position despite repeated explanations about my position, as indicated by you asking whether they consider Taiwan part of China
    5. You think I don't have a problem with Han colonialism despite my saying I do
    6. You avoid any and all reasoning that would establish the Han settlers on Taiwan as part of the same process you think is terrible and undermines claims of sovereignty
    7. You repeat imperialist propaganda without any evidence, stating without evidence that Tibet has had its culture destroyed (it hasn't, it's thriving) and claiming that the crisis in Xinjiang was about cultural misalignment instead of the thousands of bombings, mass stabbings, and riots over multiple decades.
    8. You hold the position that is aligned with Western imperialist goals ("Since when can you choose your neighbours?") but also believe that everyone who disagrees with you actually has a simple Manichean worldview that cannot account for nuance when I have clearly and firmly established the multiple problems of layered contradictions in the Chinese context and established my position for the conditions required for resolution.

    And then you pivot to Korea in a way that is so disingenuous and so obviously ignoring literally everything I've said about the nature of sovereignty, Western imperialism, mutual security, nationhood and statehood, that it's clear you're having a discussion with yourself and not with me.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] 1 point 2 months ago* (1 child)

    Your link says literally nothing about secession, despite my claim being about secession

    Someone that doesn't consider themselves Chinese is seceding from China.

    You don’t believe China has a right to self-defense

    They do. Invading an island is as little self-defence as bombing Iran.

    You hold the position that is aligned with Western imperialist goals (“Since when can you choose your neighbours?”)

    'Since when can you choose your neighbours' has nothing to do with 'Western imperialist goals' but is a fact that affects all countries globally.

    And then you pivot to Korea in a way that is so disingenuous

    Except it isn't. The PRC/ROC split is the result of the Chinese Civil War, just as the NK/SK split is the result of the Korean Civil War. Both wars ended in a status quo where neither side controls the entirety, de facto resulting in two separate countries since decades.

    So, if you negate the possibility of such an outcome in the Chinese question, you should negate this possibility in the Korean question and hence argue for South Korea, as the stronger part, to be entitled to force 'reunification' with the crippling North, which is rightfully theirs.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] -2 points 2 months ago (1 child)

    Someone that doesn’t consider themselves Chinese is seceding from China.

    This is why you're not worth talking to.

    They do. Invading an island is as little self-defence as bombing Iran.

    You're a completely disingenuous person.

    ‘Since when can you choose your neighbours’ has nothing to do with ‘Western imperialist goals’ but is a fact that affects all countries globally.

    You don't argue in good faith.

    The PRC/ROC split is the result of the Chinese Civil War, just as the NK/SK split is the result of the Korean Civil War

    You have a delusional grasp of history that serves only your pre-selected conclusions.

    Both wars ended in a status quo where neither side controls the entirety, de facto resulting in two separate countries since decades.

    And your pre-selected conclusions are exactly matched to Western imperialist goals.

    So, if you negate the possibility of such an outcome in the Chinese question, you should negate this possibility in the Korean question and hence argue for South Korea, as the stronger part, to be entitled to force ‘reunification’ with the crippling North, which is rightfully theirs.

    And you argue like a right-wing youtuber with zero self-awareness for how transparent you are.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] 1 point 2 months ago

    This is why you’re not worth talking to.

    You can shower me with whatever compliment you feel like. It doesn't change the fact that the Taiwanese don't consider themselves Chinese anymore. So does the world that currently is entertaining this charade of 'one China' to cater to the hurt feelings of the PRC. The Swiss moved on from being German or French you said, well so do the Taiwanese.

    You’re a completely disingenuous person.

    That might well be, but it doesn't change the fact that an attack on Taiwan by the PRC is not covered by self-defence.

    You don’t argue in good faith.

    So be it. But still, no country, notwithstanding any label whatever faction attributes to them has the right to choose its neighbours.

    You have a delusional grasp of history that serves only your pre-selected conclusions.

    To call the clearly observable outcomes of the Civil Wars of China and Korea 'delusional' sounds a lot like psychological projection.

    And your pre-selected conclusions are exactly matched to Western imperialist goals.

    Even if that were the case, to reject a conclusion because it 'benefits the other side' is not necessarily a sign of an open mind but thinking within hard-set boundaries. Something I bet you'd refuse.

    And you argue like a right-wing youtuber with zero self-awareness for how transparent you are.

    You should invest less time on obsessing with me and more on the gaping holes in your logic. Don't blame me for it.

    Let's recap:

    The PRCs rule is the outcome of a civil war, which was heavily influenced by both the US and the Soviet Union, which wanted their side to win.

    This rule never extended to the island of Taiwan, which remained under the control of the ROC.

    Until the 70s, this ROC was internationally considered 'China', the PRC was not.

    Then, the US wanted to benefit from the Soviet-Sino Split and recognised the PRC instead of the ROC. This lead to the switch of international recognition of the PRC as China instead of the ROC.

    Then, we saw the PRC becoming the factory of the US and the world, with the economic reforms of Deng Ziaoping introducing the market economy and ushering in the rise of capitalist elements in the PRCs economy

    Meanwhile, the ROC dropped its formerly firmly held ambition to reconquer Mainland China and instead, developed an own identity, where Taiwan was all they aspired to control.

    This is strongly opposed by the PRC, which strongly wants Taiwan to keep its 'Chinese' affiliation. We both know why.

    So, concluding: Taiwan is de facto a sovereign country. Just as South Korea and North Korea are. Or the PRC. The only reason why the international community doesn't call it as it is is due to the PRC threatening war for that case. Yet, this childish behaviour not worthy of one of the largest countries in the world cannot change what has been fact since the existence of the PRC: it does not hold any control over Taiwan. And not even the longest, most entangled excursion into whatever theory or story how mean 'the West' is, has been and will forever be, cannot change that.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent