....
Australian PM warns Chinese that new base would be 'red line' for Australia and the US...Western countries are scrambling over a security pact reached between China and Solomon Islands
https://www.foxnews.com/world/australian-pm-says-new-chinese-base-would-be-red-line-for-australia-usThink we're hitting the peak of the irony here. So how many here are going to start yelling about Solomon Islands' right to join whatever pact they want? Or Chinese cookies are different than Nuland's cookies? Surely China can find a lot more countries around the globe where it can offer some irresistibly profitable trading terms in exchange for some military cooperation. That's the problem with precedents, once you set them then you reap what you sow.
The justification for US screwing Cuba was that Cuba's proximity to US was an existential threat, that got us through cold war. Why, why did they have to challenge that and rock the boat now?
...
As far as Cuba, Castro's regime is not a representation of the people of Cuba, thus does not represent the will of the people living there. I will get flames for this, but that government, IMHO, while de-facto is the Cuban government, cannot be assumed to speak of behalf of the Cuban people and any agreement entered by it is not legit.
Chinese cookies are China's Communist Party's cookies, clearly a regime that cannot in anyway be assumed to represent the majority of the Chinese, even less now that Xi has decided to perpetuate himself in power. Again, I will get flames for this, but their government lacks legitimacy to act on behalf of their people.
If the majority of people of the S.I. and majority of people in China wish to have an agreement and are informed of the consequences (economic, political,...) then they should. There are some doubts about the level of representativeness of the current Prime Minister, who is
accused of being in China's pocket.Now, back to Putin's Russia, currently at war with Ukraine.
Ahh right, the "will of the people", totally objective position for international relations, who wouldn't buy up such logic. Now who do you think should decide which governments "speak on behalf of its people" enough to allow them to join pacts? Care to share your list? Did Bush represent the majority of Americans, majority supported, had an agreement and were informed of the consequences (economic, political,...) of getting into Afghanistan? So were Trump's and now Biden's actions?
I mean if we're going to make up justifications why some countries are not allowed to do things that others can, after the fact, why not just say that counties that are in a pact that begins with NA* or in alliance with such pact, can just do whatever they want, wile everyone else gets sanctioned?
S.I. GDP is just
$1.71 billion if China double/triple/10x... countries GDP overnight do you not think that majority wouldn't be dancing on the streets welcoming it's military in their houses?? Such idiotic diplomacy is what got us to this place. Now China is just going to buy up "majority" in every poor country that it wishes. If this is the best argument for foreign policy they can come up with, then it's a total diplomatic failure. No one with IQ higher than a rock will accept such mental gymnastics.
RE GDP, you are right to assume that people would be very happy about a better lifestyle - that is, if that money really ever reaches the average Joe. However, you should as well tell them that they are becoming a military target, should a war ever occur and they will be from then on depending on keeping in the good side of the CCP and thus loose their independence and, to a great degree, their freedom. You, see ... there are no free lunches, particularly, there are no free "swallow nests" when dealing with the CCP (and I am the one being classed as Naïve... oh my).#
By the way, if you have an army of, let's say 1000 soldiers and you have a base in your territory of, let's say 5000 Chinese soldiers, backed up by a massively superior force ... who's country is it?
See, you can argue about how representative democracies are, however, you cannot argue how representative is the system in Russia, China, Saudi Arabia, Iran... because there is no argument.
Your position is that "since representative governments are not perfect then everything is equally bad". Cuba and US have the same level of legitimacy for you. Also, you take the practical approach to world diplomacy, but an ethical approach to judging representation in democracies.
We do not agree, that's all. Certainly, I am not trying to make anything up, I am simply expressing my view. I do not need to "list" ... you need free press, respect for the law and the individual rights and a representative system to elect a government plus independent judiciary... the more the better),
Also, I am not trying to convince you of anything either, nor do I need to justify anyone else's doing and I am certainly not going to try to justify any of the Bushes - Junior is certainly psychopath IMHO.
I think that my way of seeing things is what corresponds to a civilized position in the XXI century. Tzars, despots, kings, feudal lords... that is medieval and humanity should strive to get rid of those systems and those who support and promote them.
I am not a fan of the US nor I defend their way of electing representatives, the massive private donations, the gerrymandering and many other of the idiosyncrasies of the voting system. I could say the same for France, UK (extreme gerrymandering), Spain (you vote for a list, not a person) and even Switzerland which tends to delegate too much into referendums, even for decisions that are too complex, ... you can name any representative system and it has its faults.
Wait, are you being sarcastic here? Talking about no free lunches, after Ukraine accepted Nuland's cookies?
Or do you believe full scope of consequences, how it will be crossing Russia's red line and Ukraine becoming a military target, resulting in loss of life that we're seeing now, was fully disclosed to Ukrainian people as condition of accepting those cookies??
BTW if you're any country in central or south Americas with opposing views from US...who's country are you? Or better yet, how long will you have before you're sanctioned?
My position is that all big boys get their own sandboxes (spheres of influences). After loosing the cold war, Russia's sand box was eroded down to bare bones of Belarus, Ukraine, and Kazakhstan (all Russian speaking countries). And more or less everyone was fine with/accepted it. USA/Europe were growing, Russia was more liberal and positioning itself towards Europe. Now what genius decided to ruin that stability by taking Ukraine out of Russia's sandbox with cookies, is beyond me. And after that claiming the following:
One of the most senior US officials in the Pacific has refused to rule out military action against Solomon Islands if it were to allow China to establish a military base there, saying that the security deal between the countries presented “potential regional security implications” for the US and other allies.
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2022/apr/26/us-wont-rule-out-military-action-if-china-establishes-base-in-solomon-islandsSo Russia in 2014 when it was in shambles and was not a threat to anyone, shouldn't consider loosing a Russian speaking country ally, through which majority of its gas is exported to EU, as having "potential regional security implications". But somehow Solomons Islands have regional security implications for Australia which is 1.000miles away and US which is 10.000miles away? No one can be expected to swallow such BS, and that's how wars start.
Now what I hope is that US haven't gone full retarded, in fact clandestinely filling up the Ukraine with weapons and bringing their army from 0 to 101% in 8yrs [although by leveraging NAZIs] points to US fully expected Russian retaliation. Now this will either bare fruits and will bring a fall of Putin, or will be a total diplomatic fuck up, EU would be freezing and unable to compete on global markets (due to higher costs of raw resources), while Russia is pushed into China's hands and now with set precedent China uses same playbook to buy loyalty of poor countries situated closely to its adversaries. Great high risk low reward move...
I might be taking a practical approach, but your approach that any hypocrisy and blatant double standards could be justified by claiming that it represents the "will of people" just doesn't hold water. If anything it makes pushing back on China impossible when US does exactly the same thing.
Was a fan of Switzerland, bottom line their referendums and neutrality worked out great for them (isolation by alps helped out too). But by bending over on bank reporting to US, and now joining EU sanctions, the saying "neutral as Switzerland" doesn't make much sense anymore. In fact i have no idea what they have left going for them, that Nazi gold they're holding must be running out soon, and not sure how much millennials care about great watches. But in any case, as far as all regimes having issues, sure can't argue there, but then should we start with biggest offenders, those who start the most wars, who objectively caused the most loss of life, who's weapons kill the most people bar none?
There are consequences for setting precedence and breaking international norms. Claiming unique rights because you represents the "will of the people" just makes you a clown in international relations
You consider that all governments are equally legit, so North Korea and Denmark are at the same level to you. I disagree - legitimacy comes from the will of people, period. Anything else is slavery and serfdom.
Ukraine, as far as I know, is not accepting NATO bases nor troops in its territory as of now, although the people could decide so if properly informed of the consequences. They certainly know now the consequences of not being protected. I never said that this lunch is free either, but stands a better chance of increasing living standards while keeping a reasonably representative government.
As said, if the people of the SI, properly informed of the consequences, decide to enter an (extremely asymmetric) treaty with the CCP, they are free to do so. The key is being properly informed and properly represented when making the decision. This is not entering and agreement with China, it is entering an agreement with a ruling elite that has China under their thumb.
On the Ukrainian topic, I partially agree. Would be an Ukraine under Putin's control be stable: most likely yes. Would that be a country that could develop, advance and have a choice about their destiny? Not a chance.
Again, if you take a short term and practical approach, Ukraine joining the EU and looking west makes no sense. If you look into the future and want a higher degree of freedom, social progress and development, it does.
But in any case, as far as all regimes having issues, sure can't argue there, but then should we start with biggest offenders, those who start the most wars, who objectively caused the most loss of life, who's weapons kill the most people bar none?
Oh, sorry, I did not answer this. The regimes that have caused the most violent (no-defensive or otherwise reasonably justified) deaths are Communism under Stalin, Japan imperialism under the military junta, Nazi Germany and, to the scale of it's time, the Roman Empire. I you want to count the number of wars, the Roman Empire probably.
However the answer you are looking for, as profiting from war in the last few decades, US & Russia. Both are major weapons dealers.
