[Patrickov]

You don't 'try for' a hostile CIA led and organized export of a degenerate system that turns you into a puppet at best, a failed state at worst (more common). It tries for you.

Any state that refuses to allow their own people live freely and critizise the government / state when it is wrong is a failed state which does not deserve independence (and yes, I do include some of the West's allies like Saudi Arabia here). CIA is not the cause here.

[Igor Antunov]

Any state that refuses to allow their own people live freely and critizise the government / state when it is wrong is a failed state which does not deserve independence (and yes, I do include some of the West's allies like Saudi Arabia here). CIA is not the cause here.

Give me a break, Chinese spend half their day complaining about social issues and government. You're a victim of your own governments unrelenting 24/7 propaganda. Those who complain the hardest organized movements and forced serious change. If half the shit chinese did in china they did in the west there would be mass police shootings and mass incarcerations on a monthly basis. Hong Kong students were handled beautifully, with kid gloves because they're stupid kids. Well kids have a chance to change, once you take away the brain rotting western propaganda.

It's when you go out and light people on fire or start taking money from the CIA that you get your fanny pushed in. Good riddance. Stop doing it.

[Patrickov]

@Politics_Observer

I actually refer to most democratic countries, not just the United States, even though it is probably the only country capable of beating the crap out of both China and Russia on its own.

And frankly, I care less about whether the United States itself is fully democratic or not. The example is based on whether a state can sort out problems and keep hope in people, rather than not having any problems at all.

What I see is the West is capable of doing this, and not for countries like Russia or China.

[Patrickov]

Give me a break, Chinese spend half their day complaining about social issues and government. You're a victim of your own governments unrelenting 24/7 propaganda. Those who complain the hardest organized movements and forced serious change. If half the shit chinese did in china they did in the west there would be mass police shootings and mass incarcerations on a monthly basis. Hong Kong students were handled beautifully, with kid gloves because they're stupid kids. Well kids have a chance to change, once you take away the brain rotting western propaganda.

It's when you go out and light people on fire or start taking money from the CIA that you get your fanny pushed in. Good riddance. Stop doing it.

This is pure slander on us Hongkongers without reliable evidence. You are spewing out Chinese propaganda with malicious purpose.

If there are so many people needing arrest the government has problem because it clearly failed. Even having so many people so easily "subverted" is a failure. The government must have underperformed to have so many people choosing to believe foreigners.

If anyone should be set on fire it will be the likes of you, but frankly that does not help matters.

[Wellsy]

Interesting take on China as a civilization.

[JohnRawls]

China is quickly spiralling in to deterioration and then stagfall as I like to call it. It took Russia 6-7 years after the economic growth has stagnated but it seems China managed to last around 12-18 months which is weird considering that there has not been any significant fall according to the statistics. There is a decline but it is not yet where it will be in 5-10 years. This is really concerning that China has pre-emptively ramped up nationalist and jingoist rhetoric. The threats to Taiwan are just a consequence of that.

[Crantag]

China is quickly spiralling in to deterioration and then stagfall as I like to call it. It took Russia 6-7 years after the economic growth has stagnated but it seems China managed to last around 12-18 months which is weird considering that there has not been any significant fall according to the statistics. There is a decline but it is not yet where it will be in 5-10 years. This is really concerning that China has pre-emptively ramped up nationalist and jingoist rhetoric. The threats to Taiwan are just a consequence of that.

China isn't falling.

It means little to me, from a self-interest perspective, if China does well or not. But they aren't falling.

[JohnRawls]

China isn't falling.

It means little to me, from a self-interest perspective, if China does well or not. But they aren't falling.

Well yes, stagfall is relative decline when you just stagnate while others grow. This has not happened yet but China is moving very fast in that direction. Usually nationalism and jingoism is a way for autocrats to smoothen the fall like Putin or Erdogan but it takes years for that. The fact that China is threatening Taiwan now is strange. Usually you would see couple years of relatively slow growth with steady ramp up of nationalism and jingoism. And then a lash out.

[Potemkin]

Well yes, stagfall is relative decline when you just stagnate while others grow. This has not happened yet but China is moving very fast in that direction. Usually nationalism and jingoism is a way for autocrats to smoothen the fall like Putin or Erdogan but it takes years for that. The fact that China is threatening Taiwan now is strange. Usually you would see couple years of relatively slow growth with steady ramp up of nationalism and jingoism. And then a lash out.

The Chinese government genuinely believes that Taiwan is an inseparable part of the Chinese nation. They aren't saying it just to distract their own population from bad economic news or something.

China's territorial integrity is a permanent and non-negotiable element of its policy platform. There are good historical reasons for this, dating back to the 19th century. Read up on China's 'Century of Humiliation' if you don't believe me.

[JohnRawls]

The Chinese government genuinely believes that Taiwan is an inseparable part of the Chinese nation. They aren't saying it just to distract their own population from bad economic news or something.

China's territorial integrity is a permanent and non-negotiable element of its policy platform. There are good historical reasons for this, dating back to the 19th century. Read up on China's 'Century of Humiliation' if you don't believe me.

Russia also believed that Crimea and Donbass are Russian. Historic reasoning always exist in such situations.

[Potemkin]

Russia also believed that Crimea and Donbass are Russian. Historic reasoning always exist in such situations.

Indeed. And, given that fact, it follows that neither China nor Russia are merely pretending to care about these issues, nor are they using these issues merely as a cynical distraction technique. They mean it.

[JohnRawls]

Indeed. And, given that fact, it follows that neither China nor Russia are pretending to care about these issues, nor are they using these issues merely as a cynical distraction technique. They mean it.

In case of Russia, the primary objective was distraction. Considering Taiwan wasn't on the books militarily before and now it is then it seems it is the same for China.

[Potemkin]

In case of Russia, the primary objective was distraction. Considering Taiwan wasn't on the books militarily before and now it is then it seems it is the same for China.

I believe you are wrong on both counts. Crimea was and is strategically vital to Russia, and cannot be allowed to fall into hostile hands. And Taiwan was always "on the books" for China. It only became a 'hot' issue when Taiwan started making noises about declaring UDI.

[Crantag]

I don't know if this is serious talk, but a war with America and China would be an absolute disaster, for America.

Russia was right to annex Crimea.

Sorry, but true.

The US can't win a war against China.

But, I do prefer Taiwan as independent.

[JohnRawls]

I believe you are wrong on both counts. Crimea was and is strategically vital to Russia, and cannot be allowed to fall into hostile hands. And Taiwan was always "on the books" for China. It only became a 'hot' issue when Taiwan started making noises about declaring UDI.

You might like the justification and the historic view of things but it doesn't change the reality of why Putin and his company did it. For them, the main idea was distraction because they could. This is the outcome of the hard lining position and stroking of the said jingoism and nationalism. I don't want to use the word predicted but lets use expected instead. Nemtsov even in late 2008 and 2009 was able to accurately estimate the trajectory of the Russian state as a whole for example. I guess that is why he got assassinated. 12 years later almost all of his estimations are true, be it war with Ukraine, sanctions, bad relations with the West or in general the behaviour of the state and its leaders.

[Potemkin]

You might like the justification and the historic view of things but it doesn't change the reality of why Putin and his company did it. For them, the main idea was distraction because they could. This is the outcome of the hard lining position and stroking of the said jingoism and nationalism. I don't want to use the word predicted but lets use expected instead. Nemtsov even in late 2008 and 2009 was able to accurately estimate the trajectory of the Russian state as a whole for example. I guess that is why he got assassinated. 12 years later almost all of his estimations are true, be it war with Ukraine, sanctions, bad relations with the West or in general the behaviour of the state and its leaders.

Did the West invade Iraq in 2003 as a "distraction" or just "because they could"? The West had less reason to invade Iraq than Putin did to take Crimea back. Crimea was and is strategically vital for Russia, and has always traditionally been part of Russia since the 18th century until Khrushchev simply gifted it to the Ukrainians in the 1950s. What's the West's excuse for invading Iraq, causing hundreds of thousands of deaths and wrecking the country, not to mention creating a power vacuum which allowed the rise of ISIS?

[JohnRawls]

Did the West invade Iraq in 2003 as a "distraction" or just "because they could"? The West had less reason to invade Iraq than Putin did to take Crimea back. Crimea was and is strategically vital for Russia, and has always traditionally been part of Russia since the 18th century until Khrushchev simply gifted it to the Ukrainians in the 1950s. What's the West's excuse for invading Iraq, causing hundreds of thousands of deaths and wrecking the country, not to mention creating a power vacuum which allowed the rise of ISIS?

"Whataboutism" much?

America doing horrible shit as a kneejerk reaction doesn't justify Russia, China or Turkey from ramping up jingoism and nationalism to smoothen their economic problems and the political fallout that comes from it. Visa versa also by the way. US wasn't even part of the discussion since it is not an autocratic or totalitarian society in the first place.

You of all should understand that there is always a justification for a conflict from both sides especially in the modern world. And it is up to the leadership of those countries to solve them either peacefully or forcefully or to ignore them or in any other way. Choosing the military option is a decision after all. The reason why that decision is done by authoritarian states in times of economic problems is because along with ramped up jingoism and nationalism, it provides popular support and makes them more popular so to speak. The sad part of this is that it doesn't fix the economic issues and they keep getting worse and worse over time.

[Potemkin]

"Whataboutism" much?

America doing horrible shit as a kneejerk reaction doesn't justify Russia, China or Turkey from ramping up jingoism and nationalism to smoothen their economic problems and the political fallout that comes from it. Visa versa also by the way. US wasn't even part of the discussion since it is not an autocratic or totalitarian society in the first place.

You of all should understand that there is always a justification for a conflict from both sides especially in the modern world. And it is up to the leadership of those countries to solve them either peacefully or forcefully or to ignore them or in any other way. Choosing the military option is a decision after all. The reason why that decision is done by authoritarian states in times of economic problems is because along with ramped up jingoism and nationalism, it provides popular support and makes them more popular so to speak. The sad part of this is that it doesn't fix the economic issues and they keep getting worse and worse over time.

America did not invade Iraq in 2003 as a distraction from their own economic problems, and Russia did not take back Crimea as a distraction from their own economic problems. Both sides had what they considered to be good reasons to do what they did. So why single out Russia or China for criticism, when what they have done and are doing is no worse than what the West has done and likely will do again?

[JohnRawls]

America did not invade Iraq in 2003 as a distraction from their own economic problems, and Russia did not take back Crimea as a distraction from their own economic problems. Both sides had what they considered to be good reasons to do what they did. So why single out Russia or China for criticism, when what they have done and are doing is no worse than what the West has done and likely will do again?

You are trying to obfuscate. The reasons, causes and objectives matter. US didn't stoke nationalism or jingoism and so on, Russia did. US was directly attacked, Russia was not. US response was a kneejerk reaction of a hegemon basically while Russian reaction was a way to be perceived strong and they really had very little choice in the matter because they already provoked the whole nationalism and jingoism mantra.

Russian invasion was a consequence of their own jingoism and nationalism stocking. The same situation happened when Yushenko came to power but the situation in Russia was less jingoistic and nationalistic because it had growth so there was no invasion at the time. On the other hand, when Yanukovich collapsed then Russia already stocked the flames, unleashed its propaganda and so on. Hence the outcome that we have.

[B0ycey]

@JohnRawls. I don't know where you get your information from, but 99 times out of 100, it is wrong. Russia took Crimea because Ukrainians ousted out Yanokovich, had ambitions to become a EU state and a member of NATO and that would mean a strategic port would be under Western control. Donbass, a Russian supporting region has not been annexed because it acts as a buffer region between Ukraine and Russia and the location doesn't have the strategic of importance like Crimea. The civil war is an advantage for Russia because it protects them whilst also taking resources away from them along with being profitable for them as well.

Taiwan is different. Both China and America had an agreement that Taiwan is part of China and one day will be reformed. It has always been Chinas ambitions to unite Taiwan to the mainland. The only reason this is an issue now was because of AUKUS and the islands 'Independence Day'. Whilst moves are made to push Independence for Taiwan, the China will always act. If we stop pushing that narrative, China will stop the flyovers. They maybe patient. And I don't see an invasion anytime soon. But they will take Taiwan one day. Whether that is Taiwan voting to reunite or whether they invade due to a push for Independence by Taiwan.

As for China falling, what stats are you looking at? Chinas growth since Covid...18.3%. In 2020 they had better growth than both the US and EU I might add too. And China have also decided the focus their economy internally now. It seems they want to untangle their economy from the West. And of course, China is the largest market on the planet. Russia have the lowest debt of all the major economies. They also have sanctions against it and are looking East for economic growth and have Sino-Russian deals formed. And they also have gas. So whilst the West is paying through the roof for fuel, Russia are laughing their way to the bank and will perhaps better their relationship with Europe due to their need in the next few years. So Russia have potential also.

It is the West who are more in danger of economically collapsing as it happens. Can their markets remain globally competitive with increasing fuel costs?