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* (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