Trump calls Taiwanese President causes Rift with China - Page 3 - Politics Forum.org | PoFo

Wandering the information superhighway, he came upon the last refuge of civilization, PoFo, the only forum on the internet ...

Talk about what you've seen in the news today.

Moderator: PoFo Today's News Mods

#14745494
One Degree wrote:The US foreign policy, since WWII, has been based upon giving countries money to be our friends.
We are universally despised because of it.


Hmm, that sounds more like China. They give countries money and infrastructure to buy influence. But they end up being dispised for it due to their knack of infuriating the locals.

America is not universally dispised. Many people I met in SE Asia are desperate to get a job with an American company. The pay and conditions are good and the boss is generally pretty cool. Nobody wants to work for a Chinese company because the pay is low, conditions are bad and the boss is generally a prick.

I think you overstate antipathy toward the US. Most nations fear and hate their neighbours rather than the US and thus prefer America to play a strong role in maintaining global order. The US lead order differs from the empires that preceded it because America is willing accepted as global hegemony rather than being a power that imposes control without consent.


Trump has thrown them off balance by saying we are no longer going to do this. We will expect everyone to pay their fair share and we will treat you as friend or enemy based upon our shared interests.
The US will have stated goals and it will be up to others whether they want to be our friends or enemies. We will no longer pay you to do so.
He has also stated his intentions to be non interventionist.
A lot of good will come of this. Europe will be forced to provide for their own defense, and become a stronger ally of the US as a result. They will no longer have a need to bash us for our interference.
The US may actually embrace a 'democratic' Russia instead of placing hurdles in their path in the name of human rights.
In short, throwing everyone off balance allows us to undo many of the mistakes of the past. We are calling a 'reset', 'rewind', 'start over'.


What is likely to happen is that US credibility will suffer. That will make things harder for the US.
#14745503
I am not a world traveler, so I will accept your view as more correct than mine on how the US is viewed.
Our media makes it impossible to know the truth about anything, so I prefer personal experiences as proof.
As far as US credibility, I don't know how we could hurt it any further. I can't imagine that anyone believes our 'intervention for human rights' line anymore.
#14745524
One Degree wrote:
We are universally despised...
As far as US credibility, I don't know how we could hurt it any further.



Yes. USA is despised around the world. You may ask
..Why?


Since the end of the Second World War, the United States of America has attempted to overthrow more than 50 governments, most of which were democratically-elected.

[1]Attempted to suppress a populist or nationalist movement in 20 countries.

[2]Grossly interfered in democratic elections in at least 30 countries.

[3]Dropped bombs on the people of more than 30 countries.

[4]Attempted to assassinate more than 50 foreign leaders.

In total: Since 1945, the United States has carried out one or more of the above actions, on one or more occasions, in the following 69 countries (more than one-third of the countries of the world):

Afghanistan
Albania
Algeria
Angola
Australia
Bolivia
Bosnia
Brazil
British Guiana (now Guyana)
Bulgaria
Cambodia
Chad
Chile
China
Colombia
Congo (also as Zaire)
Costa Rica
Cuba
Dominican Republic
East Timor
Ecuador
Egypt
El Salvador
Fiji
France
Germany (plus East Germany)
Ghana
Greece
Grenada
Guatemala
Honduras
India
Indonesia
Iran
Iraq
Italy
Jamaica
Japan
Kuwait
Laos
Lebanon
Libya
Mongolia
Morocco
Nepal
Nicaragua
North Korea
Pakistan
Palestine
Panama
Peru
Philippines
Portugal
Russia
Seychelles
Slovakia
Somalia
South Africa
Soviet Union
Sudan
Suriname
Syria
Thailand
Uruguay
Venezuela
Vietnam (plus North Vietnam)
Yemen (plus South Yemen)
Yugoslavia

"The US are at the moment the most violent nation on earth. They are the largest producer and exporter of weapons of mass destruction and have the world's biggest military budget comprising 36 percent of the total world military spending.

The media has told us repeatedly that some Middle Easterners hate the U.S. only because of "freedom" and "prosperity." Missing from this explanation is the historical context of the U.S. role in the Middle East, and for that matter in the rest of the world. This basic primer is an attempt to brief readers who have not closely followed the history of U.S. foreign or military affairs, and are perhaps unaware of the background of U.S. military interventions abroad, but are concerned about the direction of our country toward a new war in the name of "freedom" and "protecting civilians."

The United States military has been intervening in other countries for a long time. In 1898, it seized the Philippines, Cuba, and Puerto Rico from Spain, and in 1917-18 became embroiled in World War I in Europe. In the first half of the 20th century it repeatedly sent Marines to "protectorates" such as Nicaragua, Honduras, Panama, Haiti, and the Dominican Republic. All these interventions directly served corporate interests, and many resulted in massive losses of civilians, rebels, and soldiers. Many of the uses of U.S. combat forces are documented in A History of U.S. Military Interventions since 1890.



Edit
And Serbia
#14745571
The problem is not the US intervened but they left after intervening. The world would be much better off if the US had either made all those areas US territories eligible for state hood or stayed out. The half ass approach does not work.
#14745584
Han racist imperialist expansion has been going on for over 2000 years now. There is a little sign that they are going to change. If war with the Han aggressors is inevitable sooner or later, perhaps its better to have the war sooner.
#14745604
One Degree wrote:The problem is not the US intervened but they left after intervening. The world would be much better off if the US had either made all those areas US territories eligible for state hood or stayed out. The half ass approach does not work.

:eh: You think America would be more respected if we turned into an empire that wants to take over the world?

Your problem is that you have completely disregarded the racist character of American foreign policy. Those countries were not white, so they were never elligible for statehood, which would have challenged white hegemony. Obvious example of that: Puerto Rico. Unless we can whitewash a country, we're not going to bring it under our domain.

Also which countries exactly did you want us to offer statehood to?
#14745606
President Trump needs to stand up to a militant China that now resembles Imperial Japan in the 1930s with its expansionist agenda. Otherwise, China will end up in gobbling up the South China Sea along with Taiwan in the near future. American presidents have been too sensitive about this issue, giving in to Beijing's propaganda that Taiwan is an integral part of China. Taiwan is a former Japanese colony which is under the threat of losing its independence and we are obliged to intervene in case of a Chinese invasion. 80.8 percent of Taiwanese citizens identify themselves as Taiwanese and 51.2 percent think Taiwan should become become an independent country, while only 14.9 percent would like to see a Chinese takeover of Taiwan.

Taipei, May 27 (CNA) More than 80 percent of local people identify with Taiwan, and over half of them favor independence for the country, according to a survey published Friday by a foundation.

The survey on the political attitudes of Taiwanese, conducted by the Taiwanese Public Opinion Foundation, showed that 80.8 percent of citizens identify themselves as Taiwanese, while 8.1 percent see themselves as Chinese, and 7.6 percent claim to be both Taiwanese and Chinese .

The survey also found that 51.2 percent think it would be better for Taiwan to become an independent country in the future, while 14.9 percent would prefer to see unification of the two sides of the Taiwan Strait.

http://focustaiwan.tw/news/afav/201605270005.aspx
#14745614
:eh: You think America would be more respected if we turned into an empire that wants to take over the world?

Yes, but first we need to grant our own states a lot more autonomy and create a country that respects the differences of it's citizens. If we could do this, then I think a lot of the world would be happy to become states.
My views on local autonomy mean I view the United States becoming more of a United Nations as our founding fathers intended.
#14745642
In reality, when you have the capability to look at things in an unbiased way, If china wanted to invade Taiwan there would be nothing the US could do about it,. US forces are now thinly spread around the world and if the Chinese planned it well it would be over in two shakes of a camel's tail before the US could muster up enough fire power to stand up to them in the region,
The Nuclear option is also obsolete against china since they have whats known as "SSC" second strike capability.

But why would China risk any rash decisions when in 20 years the whole world will be under their control?
in 10 years from relative obscurity they have become the 2nd largest economy in the world and the second most powerful military in the world.
They have on average 7% growth year in year out (thats 7% more than the US in the past decade) 8) and their military is also the fastest growing.
so best plan of action and seemingly their chosen plan of action is waiting.
#14745671
garrulousunlawful wrote:In reality, when you have the capability to look at things in an unbiased way, If china wanted to invade Taiwan there would be nothing the US could do about it,. US forces are now thinly spread around the world and if the Chinese planned it well it would be over in two shakes of a camel's tail before the US could muster up enough fire power to stand up to them in the region,
The Nuclear option is also obsolete against china since they have whats known as "SSC" second strike capability.

But why would China risk any rash decisions when in 20 years the whole world will be under their control?
in 10 years from relative obscurity they have become the 2nd largest economy in the world and the second most powerful military in the world.
They have on average 7% growth year in year out (thats 7% more than the US in the past decade) 8) and their military is also the fastest growing.
so best plan of action and seemingly their chosen plan of action is waiting.


They probably won't invade Taiwan due to the panic it would cause in Asia's financial markets. China is dependent on the global economy. They can't afford to upset that.

As to the inevitablity of China's rise, that should be viewed with skepticism. They have an impending domestic credit crisis, their growth is actually stalling and economic stagnation a looming on the horizion. They have big environmental problems also. Furthermore, they really aren't as popular in Asia as they think. Chinese views of how others see them are unrealistic. They are in for a shock.

Their ambition, Xi Jinping's vision of the China dream, is a return to the status of the middle kingdom. Yet the world has changed from the time when China was preeminent. They aren't isolated anymore, he world is a more complex place. Other Asian powers simply won't accept the old idea of tributary status to Beijing. China's dream ignores reality.

To make matters worse, they are starting to encounter Islamic extremism in Central Asia, along their new Silk Road. What's more, internal stability isn't that great in China. The government rules as much by fear as by law. Xi himself depends on financiers and the military to hold onto power. His legitimacy is pinned to the China dream. Should it faulted, China will likely descend into political chaos as rivals attempt to take control.

Clearly their rise is about to enter a bit of turbulence. They will be a significant nation simply due to their size. But it is by no means certain that they will succeed in their current trajectory.
#14745682
@foxdemon

you are absolutely spot on with all the points in your arguments, thank god I meet another user here in this forum that argues his points not according to personal preference, emotions, undue patriotism or as I put it wishful thinking, but rather based on reality. Trust me there are not many here. Those whom I have met, I could probably count with one hand.

I agree except most these problems apart from environmental problems(well in china's scale anyway) has already befallen the ranks of the leading nations of status quo.

Suffering from a delusional self image though is in my opinion is a far more serious problem effecting the US in addition to euphoric and unachievable colonial goals born out of desperation.

Desperation attribute to short sighted planning and realisation that the short lived unipolar world of late 90s is now effectively history, Euphoric attributed to the belief they can roll the dice back.

the US has the worlds biggest economy along with the worlds biggest debt, China has the worlds second biggest economy and the worlds 10th biggest debt last time i looked, That in itself speaks volumes.
a country of 1.4 billion with one seventh of Britain's (country of 70 million)debt, this leaves them huge room to make moves.

finally, most voters have fallen for Trumps fairy tale of moving manufacturing back to the US. As an example a simple t shirt produced in the US would cost in the region on 1000% of a t shirt produced in China, a cost that inevitably will be levied onto the consumer and when the consumer is unable to carry that cost then come the reverberations.

So all in all their situation is not any worse than other leading countries as it stands in my opinion. For what its worth I wouldnt antagonise them because they do have ways of hurting the US if they chose to throw a tantrum.

what say you?
Last edited by garrulousunlawful on 05 Dec 2016 08:26, edited 1 time in total.
#14745727
One Degree wrote:The US foreign policy, since WWII, has been based upon giving countries money to be our friends.


You can't change that. Every man has his price. As a businessman he surely knows you can't get anything for free.

All governments have to weigh and balance out gains vs. costs. Both for domestic AND foreign policy. Why should the PRC give unilateral concessions to another state all of a sudden? Obviously you only give concessions on something because you gain a minority if not majority of the ratio of the balance.

If the you gain at least 40% and the other 60%, that's better than less. Same correspondingly when you gain the most about something, why capitulate to conceding more than 50% just like that? Without getting anything in return on something else.....oh come on.
#14745764
ThirdTerm wrote:American presidents have been too sensitive about this issue, giving in to Beijing's propaganda that Taiwan is an integral part of China. Taiwan is a former Japanese colony which is under the threat of losing its independence and we are obliged to intervene in case of a Chinese invasion. 80.8 percent of Taiwanese citizens identify themselves as Taiwanese and 51.2 percent think Taiwan should become become an independent country, while only 14.9 percent would like to see a Chinese takeover of Taiwan.


Taiwan is also the island fortress where historically legitimate ROC government of the entire dominion of China is technically in exile. This is why Taiwan is called formally "The Republic of China(Taiwan)" and uses the REAL CHINESE FLAG.

The PRC will never stop seeing Taiwan as a political threat even if Taiwan is given status as it's own country by the UN, after all the government of Taiwan is in fact historically the Government of The Republic Of China. And they will never change the actual formal name of their country, nor will they change their original version of the flag of China, nor will the Kuomintang cease to be a major political force in The Republic Of China.

People who say Taiwan should be "it's own country and left alone" obviously know little about how the Taiwan Government is in fact historically the legitimate government of China in exile on the Island of Taiwan, and the Taiwanese flag is in fact the historically legitimate flag of "The Republic of China".... All of it.

This is why the PRC will never stop seeing Taiwan as "the renegade province", and why the PRC will always see a need to wipe it out. After all, their old political and military enemy remains a powerful force in Taiwan. Taiwan represents the last remaining hold out of a bloody civil war.
#14745782
Realistically there is nothing the US can do about mainland-Taiwan affairs, the territory will be reincorporated politically with the mainland eventually peacefully or by war. It already is economically.

But it doesn't mean US presidents have to be cucked about that reality. Answering phone calls is not going to cause a rift and it has zero implications for the reality stated above. Trump could sell Taiwan $10 billion in arms every year and it wouldn't make a difference because it wouldn't change the lopsided strategic balance that is only becoming more lopsided every day.
#14745822
So, Why Can't You Call Taiwan? wrote:President-elect Donald Trump has committed a sharp breach of protocol—one that underscores just how weird some important protocols are.

It’s hardly remembered now, having been overshadowed a few months later on September 11, but the George W. Bush administration’s first foreign-policy crisis came in the South China Sea. On April 1, 2001, a U.S. Navy surveillance plane collided with a Chinese jet near Hainan Island. The pilot of the Chinese jet was killed, and the American plane was forced to land and its crew was held hostage for 11 days, until a diplomatic agreement was worked out. Sino-American relations remained tense for some time.

Unlike Bush, Donald Trump didn’t need to wait to be inaugurated to set off a crisis in the relationship. He managed that on Friday, with a phone call with the president of Taiwan, Tsai Ing-wen. It’s a sharp breach with protocol, but it’s also just the sort that underscores how weird and incomprehensible some important protocols are.

Trump’s call was first reported by the Financial Times, but the Trump campaign soon confirmed it and issued a readout of the conversation:

President-elect Trump spoke with President Tsai Ing-wen of Taiwan, who offered her congratulations. During the discussion, they noted the close economic, political, and security ties exists between Taiwan and the United States. President-elect Trump also congratulated President Tsai on becoming President of Taiwan earlier this year.
Why would Trump not speak with Tsai? Here’s where the strangeness starts. The U.S. maintains a strong “unofficial” relationship with Taiwan, including providing it with “defensive” weapons, while also refusing to recognize its independence and pressuring Taiwanese leaders not to upset a fragile but functional status quo. It’s the sort of fiction that is obvious to all involved, but on which diplomacy is built: All parties agree to believe in the fiction for the sake of getting along.

The roots of this particular fiction date to 1949, when Chiang Kai-shek’s Republic of China was routed by Mao Zedong and the Communists, and Chiang fled to Taiwan. The U.S., in Cold War mode, continued to recognize the ROC in Taiwan as China’s rightful government, and so did the United Nations. But in 1971, the UN changed course, recognizing the People’s Republic of China—or as it was often called then, Red China—as the legitimate government. In 1979, the United States followed suit. Crucially, the communiqué proclaiming that recognition noted, “The Government of the United States of America acknowledges the Chinese position that there is but one China and Taiwan is part of China.”

Officially, this has also been the policy of Taiwan for almost a quarter century. Under the 1992 Consensus, another artful diplomatic fiction, both Taipei and Beijing agreed that there was only one China and agreed to disagree on which was legitimate, as well as maintaining two separate systems. During the Bush years, the U.S. said it would defend Taiwan in an attack, but Bush also pushed back on Taiwanese moves toward independence.

Despite recognizing the PRC, the U.S. has kept close ties with Taiwan since 1979. The State Department notes that “Taiwan is the United States’ ninth largest trading partner, and the United States is Taiwan’s second largest trading partner.” More importantly, the U.S. has sold some $46 billion in arms to Taiwan since 1990, which are intended as defensive. Last December, the Obama administration sold $1.8 billion in anti-tank missiles, warships, and other materiel to Taipei. Of course, the “defensive” purpose to all of this is against China, the most plausible aggressor against Taiwan. Naturally, the arms sales have consistently annoyed the Chinese. (Recently, China has been on a campaign of land-grabbing and saber-rattling across the South China Sea, trying to assert greater control and influence.)

“The Chinese leadership will see this as a highly provocative action, of historic proportions.”
Though the triangle between the U.S., China, and Taiwan sometimes flares up, the general goal of all three has been to maintain the fragile status quo. By speaking to President Tsai, and praising U.S. relations with Taiwan, Trump threatens to upset that delicate balance. Reaction to the call was immediate and, for the most part, aghast.

“The Chinese leadership will see this as a highly provocative action, of historic proportions,” Evan Medeiros, former Asia director at the White House National Security Council, told the FT. “Regardless if it was deliberate or accidental, this phone call will fundamentally change China’s perceptions of Trump’s strategic intentions for the negative. With this kind of move, Trump is setting a foundation of enduring mistrust and strategic competition for U.S.-China relations.”

Ari Fleischer, Bush’s first White House press secretary, noted that he wasn’t even allowed to refer to a Taiwanese government. My colleague James Fallows, not generally a man given to overreaction or caps-lock, was blunter: “WHAT THE HELL??” he tweeted.

As is typically the case with Trump, it’s hard to tell whether this blithe overturning of protocol is intentional or simply a result of not knowing, or caring, better.

There are various reasons Trump might be intentionally poking China. Trump spoke harshly about China throughout his presidential campaign, accusing Beijing of currency manipulation, land-grabbing, and taking advantage of the United States. He also showed a willingness, if not an eagerness, to slaughter nearly every sacred cow of American foreign policy.

Some Trump confidants have suggested existing policy on Taiwan should become one of them. John Bolton, who served as Bush’s ambassador to the UN, has been advising Trump, and Bolton has been a very public advocate of the U.S. cozying up to Taiwan in order to show strength against China.

Even if the provocation is intentional, that doesn’t mean Trump has acted wisely. “I would guess that President-elect Trump does not really comprehend how sensitive Beijing is about this issue,” Bonnie Glaser, director of the China Power Project at the Center for Strategic and International Studies, told The Hill.

Some observers suggested that the call fits with the pattern of Trump intertwining his business and political interests, pointing out that he’s currently seeking to open luxury hotels in Taiwan.

But it’s also possible that Trump just stumbled into the matter, Being There-style. Trump tweeted Friday evening that Tsai had called him, presenting himself as just the guy who picked up the handset. It’s unclear how studied the decision to take it was, or whether it was studied at all. Senator Chris Murphy, a Connecticut Democrat, assailed Trump for not taking it seriously. “Foreign policy consistency is a means, not an end. It’s not sacred. Thus, it’s Trump’s right to shift policy, alliances, strategy,” Murphy said in a pair of tweets. “What has happened in the last 48 hours is not a shift. These are major pivots in foreign policy w/out any plan. That’s how wars start.”

It’s also hard to know how big a deal Trump’s call is. China did not immediately comment. A White House official told The New York Times that the administration was only informed of the call after the fact, and said the fallout could be significant. There were other questions. Wouldn’t Beijing see that what Trump did was a blunder, but not a major shift in policy? Isn’t the Chinese government sophisticated enough not to take Trump at face value?

Trump’s previous conversations might provide hints on whether foreign governments will take Trump seriously. As Uri Friedman wrote today, Trump’s conversation with Pakistani Prime Minister Nawaz Sharif has already had repercussions. The Pakistani government put out a readout that read suspiciously like a near-verbatim transcript of Trump’s words, capturing the tone the president-elect uses. His promise to “play any role that you want me to play to address and find solutions to the outstanding problems” might sound to an American who just observed the election as so much Trumpian space-filling, but it made headlines in Pakistan, where some interpreted it as a nod to Pakistan’s conflict with India in Kashmir. Hussain Haqqani, Pakistan’s former ambassador to the United States, told the Times it appeared Pakistani officials had taken Trump’s words too seriously.

China is perhaps a more sophisticated foreign-policy player than Pakistan; it’s certainly a more important one. But as Fallows points out, a China that sees Trump as buffoon probably isn’t good for American interests either.

For the time being, the most important thing to watch is probably for Beijing’s announcement. That will be the first clue as to whether Trump’s phone call will set in motion a huge realignment of American policy and relationships with China and Taiwan—or if it will be another Hainan Island incident, barely remembered 15 years on.
#14745831
Igor Antunov wrote:Realistically there is nothing the US can do about mainland-Taiwan affairs, the territory will be reincorporated politically with the mainland eventually peacefully or by war. It already is economically.

But it doesn't mean US presidents have to be cucked about that reality. Answering phone calls is not going to cause a rift and it has zero implications for the reality stated above. Trump could sell Taiwan $10 billion in arms every year and it wouldn't make a difference because it wouldn't change the lopsided strategic balance that is only becoming more lopsided every day.


We agree on a reunification, what we disagree on is the circumstances on which that is to occur. No doubt you believe the PRC should just invade Taiwan.

I am of the belief the ROC should be restored to power, the Flag of China should be returned to it's rightful place in Beijing and Mao should be ripped down like Saddam's statue was.... Replaced by the picture of Sun Yatsen. Hong Kong should be annexed properly too as part of the process of democracy building.

However the communist party should, like the Kuomintang, be allowed to exist as a party within the new Democratic system. China should not return to the one party system.
#14745835
garrulousunlawful wrote:@foxdemon

you are absolutely spot on with all the points in your arguments, thank god I meet another user here in this forum that argues his points not according to personal preference, emotions, undue patriotism or as I put it wishful thinking, but rather based on reality. Trust me there are not many here. Those whom I have met, I could probably count with one hand.

I agree except most these problems apart from environmental problems(well in china's scale anyway) has already befallen the ranks of the leading nations of status quo.

Suffering from a delusional self image though is in my opinion is a far more serious problem effecting the US in addition to euphoric and unachievable colonial goals born out of desperation.

Desperation attribute to short sighted planning and realisation that the short lived unipolar world of late 90s is now effectively history, Euphoric attributed to the belief they can roll the dice back.

the US has the worlds biggest economy along with the worlds biggest debt, China has the worlds second biggest economy and the worlds 10th biggest debt last time i looked, That in itself speaks volumes.
a country of 1.4 billion with one seventh of Britain's (country of 70 million) leaves them huge room to make moves.

finally, most voters have fallen for Trumps fairy tale of moving manufacturing back to the US. As an example a simple t shirt produced in the US would cost in the region on 1000% of a t shirt produced in China, a cost that inevitably will be levied onto the consumer and when the consumer is unable to carry that cost then come the reverberations.

So all in all their situation is not any worse than other leading countries as it stands in my opinion. For what its worth I wouldnt antagonise them because they do have ways of hurting the US if they chose to throw a tantrum.

what say you?



Here's another interesting read Thucydides Trap. This article presets the opposite view in regards to China's strength. More importantly it illustrates just how likely it is that China and America might end up at war. It would take very impressive statesmanship on both sides to avoid Thucydides trap. Given what Trump is like, may as well start digging the bomb shelter.


It is worth comparing American and Chinese self images and their vision for the world. Both nations are similar in that they have a notion of their national exceptionalism. Both are similar in that many of their citizens have little idea of the world outside their nation and thus don't understand how others see them. Their both sort off live on their own little planet. We can see there is plenty of opportunity for misunderstanding.

The vision each has is quite different. The American idea for their world order is built on the notion of a "Shining City on the Hill", an example of values, progress and affluence for the rest of the world would want to emulate. The Chinese vision, the "China Dream", is to restore their nation to the traditional status as the middle kingdom (ie: the centre of the world) and so absolve their shame in the century of humiliation. For a people who regard themselves as superior, the eclipse of their power due to the west and Japan being more advanced, deeply traumatised the nation.

America wants to retain the post war reconstruction of the Westphalian order, since their are the centre off it, while China wants to replace that order with their traditional model of other nations being regarded as tributaries.

In order to avoid a costly war that would bring both nations down, both sides would have to change the way they think. I would be supervised if the Chinese and the Americans will manage to do this.
#14745903
A somber read, sends shivers down my spine, an old mentor of mine always used to say:

-If you want to predict the future with acceptable accuracy, Look at the past

here in table from the site, indicates that in 16 cases 12 of them ended in war, in my book that spells out 75% chance of war between the two.
Image

the site speaks of this eventuality in the coming decades, I hope it doesnt happen in the next 3 decades, After that I dont care.
Its a pretty selfish view I know because with luck on my side i would at most have another 30 years to live, by which time I will be 83 ;)
Russia-Ukraine War 2022

ISIS wants to create a division between Chechens […]

PoFo would be a strange place for them to focus o[…]

In my opinion, masculinity has declined for all o[…]

@ingliz good to know, so why have double standar[…]