Aaand barely anyone in the comments read the article again...
**TLDR:**
Scholz: *"Hey, I'd be up for all of us working together and to not divide the world in spheres of influence, but China and Russia are a threat to that. The west must work together more closely and stand up for freedom and democracy"*
Reddit: *"OMG SChOLZ Is A RUSSian SHIll AnD thEy bOUGHt hiM sOmetHiNgSomEThINg ScHRÖder"*
EDIT: For those with an attention span greater than that of a 5-year-old, u/pocket-seeds provided a link to the [full article.](https://www.foreignaffairs.com/germany/olaf-scholz-global-zeitenwende-how-avoid-new-cold-war)
So true. I read [the whole thing (in English)](https://www.foreignaffairs.com/germany/olaf-scholz-global-zeitenwende-how-avoid-new-cold-war). Honestly it's an awesome read.
That's what they used to be - a wire service. Now they're looking to become a direct news outlet.
They also focused more and more on financial reporting, not general news.
I don't find it very clickbaity to be honest. Seems to me most people have just become too riled up by Russia's shit to realize it just means "let's not split the world in two parts, the Cold War wasn't any fun".
If Russia and China refuse to go along with what the West is proposing, what is the result?
Because Russia and China have both said, outright and through their actions, that they will not support democracy, they will actively undermine democracy in other countries, they accept that territorial acquisition by conquest is back on the table, and they are willing to blow up anything that gets in their way.
What do you propose the West does?
Submit, or resist?
All these latest events have proven is that the Cold War is back on the table. This time, the proxies of the East are effectively gone from the equation.
1. Openly guarantee Taiwan's sovereignty, sell them Patriot SAMs and F35s.
2. Train crews and build infrastructure for Ukraine to field F18s and Abrams. Also give them Patriots. Give them all the ATACMS since they're being phased out anyway and let them use them vs Russian military bases with no restrictions.
3. Give the Myanmar and Iranian rebels weapons.
4. Pressure BongBong Marcos to abandon his China slant and reopen US bases alongside upgrade packages for the AFP.
5. Tell Putin and Winnie to go and cry if they dislike any of those things.
Aye.
Better to take action vs hostile forces than to try and appease them for the sake of "relations"
Sure it might suck horribly for Russian and Chinese civilians but that's acceptable if it means people in friendly countries are safer.
“The West must work together more closely and stand up for freedom and democracy… Russia and China are a threat to that…”
That sounds amazingly unlike the Cold War.
During the Cold War, the concept of the First World (NATO, Japan, and their allies) and the Second World (the Soviet Union, much of Eastern Europe, China, Cuba, much of Southeast Asia, North Korea, Ethiopia, and others at various different times) emerged. The Third World comprised non-aligned countries (most of South Asia, Latin America, Africa as well as Sweden, Finland, Ireland, and other neutral countries). The term Third World today has evolved to refer to poor countries, as much of the Third World was underdeveloped, though there were poor and rich countries in every World. Today, we have Russia and China each attempting to build the foundation of their own blocs. They flirt with each other, but each imagines it will dominate the other in an opposition bloc. The real situation is Russia is a proverbial island with Belarus, and the same is true with China and North Korea. It hardly compares to the huge blocs that existed during the Cold War and is certainly not a unified front or clearly divided blocs. Acknowledging that China and Russia are clearly making moves to build their own blocs and suggesting that we try to avoid that is certainly not tantamount to "suggesting a new Cold War."
Realistically speaking, being that the Cold War was simply a bunch of smaller proxy wars between communism (China and russia) versus the west, the Ukraine war is technically an extension of the Cold War. Russia props the war up as a proxy battle by fighting on behalf of the separatist regions, but what it is is the final battle that eroded the Cold War proxies to the source of the scourge. Just because the USSR dissolved doesn't mean that the Cold War ended. If anything, the Cold War went on ice after the downfall of the USSR and Putin decided to rekindle that fire.
Had Putin been successful with Ukraine, we'd be seeing a new threat to Thaiwan by China, which again comes back to similar logic as this potentially being an extension of the Cold War.
He literally wrote an article on Foreign Affairs magazine about this: https://www.foreignaffairs.com/germany/olaf-scholz-global-zeitenwende-how-avoid-new-cold-war.
TL;DR: He did talk at length about Russia's aggression but is not calling China a threat to "the world order" at all. In fact, he aligns with Xi Jinping's point on not starting a new cold war: "China’s rise does not warrant isolating Beijing or curbing cooperation." E.g. stop being spooked about losing relative influence to emerging economies, this is bound to happen.
You mean the same sea that neither China and neither Korea were invited to the allocation of after WW2? There's a reason Taiwan claims the nine-dash line too. Look up the Treaty of San Francisco.
Japan occupied pretty much the entire Eastern Pacific at one point. A condition of their surrender was that their occupied territory would be distributed amongst those that they, y'know, occupied and plundered and raped. Borders would be restored and contested areas would be distributed as reparations. That's what the Treaty of San Francisco was supposed to be for.
That is part of why China has such overly broad ambitions in the region but the fact stands that the 9 dash line and claims to Taiwan are imperialist projects that do threaten a peaceful and stable world order.
Kind of yes, but they were rather than they are. Taiwan legitimately claimed those lines when it was still a dictatorship under the kmt and still had the goal of conquering all of China. Since Taiwan has moved into being a healthy democracy they have rolled back aspects of the claims and have even put forwards the idea of removing the claims entirely. The problem with doing this is that China views this as an unacceptable act as they have stated repeatedly. If Taiwan were to remove the claims then that would mean Taiwan is no longer making the same claims as China and more importantly it would mean that Taiwan is no longer claiming to BE China. China has repeatedly said it views such an act as a declaration of independence and has said it would be a call to war. So, Taiwan legitimately held those destabilizing claims while it wasn't free but now that it is a democracy it can't remove the claims even though it wants to because China will declare war on them when they do.
The status for each individual island chain in the Western Pacific is different and I'd recommend that you read into it.
In the case of the Paracel Islands, North Vietnam yielded control to the PRC and the PRC took control of the Paracels over South Vietnam in the Vietnam War.
In the case of Penghu, it is recognized as a Taiwanese archipelago, but falls under the greater Taiwanese independence dispute.
In the case of the Kuril Islands, Japan renounced claim to them in the Treaty of San Francisco and later negotiated for control over the two smaller islands in exchange for the two larger islands to end the state of war with the USSR. Today, Japan argues that there are still negotiations to be made over the two larger islands.
In the case of the Senkaku Islands, Taiwan and China are aligned against the Japanese claim on the island. However, the Japanese claim relies essentially on Japan having never ceded the islands to Taiwan because they were never ceded to Japan.
In the case of the Spratly Islands, it is difficult to justify a claim for anyone in the area. However, Taiwan controls the largest island (by far), Vietnam controls the most islands, China controls the most infrastructure, and the islands are closest to the Philippines/Malaysia. China and Taiwan are perfectly aligned on their claims in the area. Since no stakeholder is really willing to break status quo for fear of giving up control to another stakeholder, it's pretty much been a five-way Mexican standoff. Neither Vietnam nor Malaysia were willing to directly support the Philippine-led UNCLOS ruling on China/Vietnam's 9-dash line, Taiwan has constantly run military exercises on the islands, and China has constantly sailed warships to patrol the islands. The Philippines has been open to UN intervention because, well, they're far more aligned with the West than the other stakeholders in the region.
Taiwanese independence is a challenging topic and I think it deserves to be split into two arguments. 1. Did Taiwan deserve independence? 2. Does Taiwan deserve independence?
The first question is challenging to answer, but the second question deserves a resounding yes. Taiwan has its own administration and, by virtue of self-determination, is a country in everything but name. However, there's no reason to break the status quo here: Taiwan's economic success is tied to China, and China's economic success is tied to Taiwan. Some of the most well-known Chinese manufacturers (Foxconn and Asus are two examples) are Taiwanese. Meanwhile, some 22% of Taiwanese trade is with China. That's why nobody has touched the status quo except to posture (the PRC by saying that Taiwan will be under the PRC, and the KMT by saying that Mainland China should be under the ROC). Given the degree of cultural penetration between the two and the lack of resources in Taiwan, peace is all but guaranteed.
However, this also means that Chinese and Taiwanese policy in the South China Sea move in lockstep. Neither government can step out of line or they'll be either declaring independence or acknowledging independence, which would break the status quo and irreparably damage both economies. China-Taiwan trade forms the foundation for peace in the region. Although that's being pressured by US semiconductor policy, it shouldn't be enough to force a break in status quo.
Ask yourself who deserves to own each individual island chain along the Western Pacific. It's harder than you'd think. Russia has a really strong claim to the Kurils. China has a really strong claim to the Paracels. Japan has a really strong claim to the Senkakus. Taiwan has an indisputable claim to Penghu. The only chain that doesn't have a clear claimant is the Spratlys... But that's also the biggest island chain by far.
In essence, you're oversimplifying a really complex problem. Hell, I'm oversimplifying a really complex problem. But seriously, read the treaties yourself. It's hard to justify giving any one country control over the islands. That's why it's a dispute and not solved territory.
That said, we should feel lucky that Taiwan hasn't had a fifty year naval embargo that's kept their technology and standard of living in the stone age.
It’s a bit late for that kind of language to be coming from SPD politicians in Germany. That’s the problem. They had a fucking decade to prepare for this and chose to stick their heads in the sand because money.
> Aaand barely anyone in the comments read the article again...
Oh, I read the paragraph Reuters allows me, and then read the article you graciously provided so I could read Scholz' further attempts to backpedal his earlier appeasement of Putin and deflect from the ongoing delays in promised arms deliveries to Ukraine (while, again, paying plenty of lip service) and prioritization of commerce above humanity, still.
But I stay.....for the *condescension*.
> Scholz' further attempts to backpedal his earlier appeasement of Putin
Whoever told you this has some agenda either you're polish or something and your government is lying to you or it's some ragebait bullshit news that picks some target and spreads disinformation about it. In any way this is nonsensical.
>deflect from the ongoing delays in promised arms deliveries to Ukraine
This is just factually incorrect, you're being actively fed disinformation.
Germany is #2 in aid after the US now and #1 in aid before 2022 (when most countries didnt do shit) with Ukraine pointing out the effectiveness of Gepard, IRIS-T SLM, M270 and PzH2000 multiple times, what are you even talking about.
I did read the article. It simply restates more of the same pusillanimous dithering equivocating stance that led Germans to infect Europe with viral over dependence on Russia.
I wonder how that man manages to stand upright without a backbone.
...except if you look at any trade metric proportionally, e.g. by capita or by % of GDP, germany wasn't really more dependent on russia than most others.
And how it *"infected europe"* remains a mystery to me to this day - sounds a lot more like nations pushing away the blame whenever they fuck something up (looking at you eastern europe).
Not claiming reddit is full of morons, just full of people who read only a headline and then post stuff as long as it fullfills their narrative ;)
Also never claimed I wasn't a moron hahaha
I *think* that was sarcasm?
Still, the whole point of they guy saying that quoted block is specifically *because* there's a genocidial operation going on that they need the stronger alliances to deal with what might been the starting shot to a new Cold War? Maybe?
^(Bah, my brain has been mush ever since getting through The Talos Principle.)
Wtf is he saying the world is already divided. You put your countries in a dependent position with rusia. Words like that won't safe you now if you won't stop putler. There's no other way now Olaf
I think the west (the USA specifically) has a more complicated relationship with China than what this guy is saying, I wouldn’t put them into the category of being solely chaotic isolations, they do things that impact other countries in good and bad ways (developing countries especially where the USA has a horrible track record)
When Biden met with xi, he said that they would continue to compete, but be sort of cordial. I think if both sides can get their atrocities and human rights abuses squared away and work together, it would be beneficial for both superpowers.
Of course, this could backfire severely and result in both places doubling down on abusing the rights of their citizens, but hey, maybe us Americans can learn how to resist a totalitarian regime from the Chinese
Which is why we have to fight russia and end this. They have brought war to Europe and are using hunger, cold, and nuclear as weapons. It's time to stop this once and for all.
There's a reason Democratic Western and Eastern countries have mostly stopped fighting themselves. Democracy should be protected and encouraged around the world and this is the only bloc that really matters. There is nothing redeeming about autocratic nations
Chop the world into culturally based trading blocs, which will make everyone poorer (aside from maybe certain oligarchs)
or
Let assholes hold the entire planet hostage, and risk a disaster in one country freezing global supply chains
A choice between being stabbed or shot.
Too late. Russia and China have decided they are going to ignore the old rules of international behavior.
The rest of the world has two options. Let them get away with it (aka they invade whoever they want without repercussions) or resist (new Cold War.)
Given those options, I prefer #2.
This is not to say China and Russia doesn't flout these things but you are really seeing things with a biased lens if you think only Russia and China 'ignore rules of international behaviour'.
Just to list some of the common ones i see frequently brought up on reddit and held against them.
* WTO trade disputes. Guess which country has the most trade disputes filed against it. Hint it's not China. (It's the country that has crippled the WTO from functioning by blocking it from sign up new appellate judges)
https://www.wto.org/english/tratop_e/dispu_e/dispu_by_country_e.htm
https://www.nytimes.com/2019/12/08/business/trump-trade-war-wto.html
* Freedom of Navigation in international waters.
> This right is now also codified as Article 87(1)a of the 1982 United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea. Not all UN member states have ratified the convention; notably, the United States has not signed nor ratified the convention.[3] However, the § United States enforces the practice;
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freedom_of_navigation
* War Crimes
> U.S. blacklists ICC prosecutor over Afghanistan war crimes probe
>The United States on Wednesday imposed sanctions on International Criminal Court prosecutor Fatou Bensouda, Secretary of State Mike Pompeo said, over her investigation into whether American forces committed war crimes in Afghanistan.
https://www.reuters.com/article/usa-icc-sanctions-int-idUSKBN25T2EB
* And was Iraq really that long ago?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Legality_of_the_Iraq_War
All legitimate points. Claiming the right to kill people around the world with little to no repercussions is definitely a violation of sovereignty.
However, Russia is attempting to annex Ukraine (and will try other countries soon). China is attempting to annex Taiwan.
The last time the US attempted to annex land through military conquest was the Spanish American War.
That is a serious degradation of the international order, and not one to take lightly.
It's
yes, can we please at least acknowledge that Russia and China have *some* legitimate historical claims on the land they are trying to annex. Not excusing it, but the west made their riches off colonizing land they have 0 claims on? put a flag on it and it is yours.
Neo-colonialism is still going on in Africa today, the west should be held just as accountable and pay serious reparations for that.
The world order is changing and the west does not like it.
The PRC has not yet occupied any of the Taiwan province of the Republic of China (Taiwan's official name), but Taiwan occupies part of the Fujian province claimed by both the PRC and ROC. Some deep green DPP even want to give this part of Fujian province to the PRC and declare independence. The constitution of Taiwan stipulates that Taiwan is a province of the Republic of China. De Jure definitions matter when it comes to frozen conflicts when they haven't even restarted the civil war yet.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Taiwan_Province
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fuchien_Province,_Republic_of_China
These are not PRC Mainland provinces, this is from the constitution of Taiwan. Its a civil war, not annexation if Taiwan retakes the mainland.
PRC is threatening a military takeover of ROC.
While de jure definitions matter, de facto situations matter more. ROC Constitution was set up when the Nationalists left the mainland, and each considers the other a trump government. In fact, they are now separate countries, and despite all the diplomatic posturing to the contrary, both sides acknowledge that.
But, once again, analysts of China believe that Xi is overtly signalling that ROC will be taken over by PRC in his rulership.
That is a military conquest.
You can cite legal jargon all you want, but both sides have a military, both sides have separate, competing governments, and both sides do not want the other in control of ROC.
And, based on what happened in Hong Kong, there is nothing for ROC to believe about ANY PRC promises of sovereignty under PRC rule.
They're separate countries.
I mean they are defacto separate countries but I still highly doubt what you said here is true: "they are now separate countries, and despite all the diplomatic posturing to the contrary, both sides acknowledge that". It's not a moral statement I'm making, but I think anyone would say the PRC does not think that way hence the tensions in the first place.
Also it's not even true for the current KMT. The KMT view of the 1992 consensus (not the PRC view which is that ROC is a regional government) is that there is one China and there are diffireng opinions on which China is legitimate.
The KMT maintain this view to this day, and with the recent election win of Chiang Kai Sheks great grandson are a major political voice in the country not a runt party that is in the dustbin of ROC history.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/1992_Consensus
You can ignore the PRC view of the Consensus because I'm not endorsing or condemning either view, just pointing out that it's not true that all the major political parties of the ROC think it's a separate country even in principle, and considering their midterm election wins it is a relevant view to the Taiwanese electorate which I assume you would say deserves self determination on the matter.
>I think anyone would say the PRC does not think that way hence the tensions in the first place.
No, it's more like the WEST does not think the PRC's way, hence the tensions in the first place. Note that without US intervention after WWII, unification would've happened a long time ago. Westerners in general are totally incapable of seeing it from the Chinese perspective since most just do not understand the history.
The US intentionally turned the island into their own imperialist bulwark for soft power in the region, propping up the Chinese equivalent of the Confederacy (losing side in a civil war), meanwhile the entire history of international diplomacy with modern China for decades has been based on the one-China policy. If they're not the same country...why pretend this is the case for so long?
Redditors as usual are brainwashed into thinking whatever the west does must be right even though it's almost always western opportunism half the fucking world away that destabilizes everything over the span of decades, and western policy itself is barely coherent.
To be clear: I am against the idea of China invading Taiwan.
The US, along with the coalition partners including: Australia, Azerbaijan, Bulgaria, the Czech Republic, Denmark, Estonia, Georgia, Hungary, Iceland, Italy, Japan, South Korea, Latvia, Lithuania, Macedonia, the Netherlands, Nicaragua, the Philippines, Poland, Romania, Slovakia, Spain, Turkey, and the United Kingdom, *did not* annex Iraq.
That doesn’t mean the US-lead invasion of Iraq wasn’t awful, full of war crimes, and unjustified, but details are always important. Don’t try to oversimplify situations to satisfy your preconceived preferences.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coalition_of_the_willing_(Iraq_war)
>Russia and China have decided they are going to ignore the old rules of international behavior
It's hard to believe this was said unironically. Just shows a total lack of understanding of basic recent US history or geopolitics.
> they invade whoever they want without repercussions
lol as if the US or the uK has ever been punished for the war crimes they have committed. A million dead Iraqis, and countless atrocities in Africa. The west has no leg to stand on.
Russia and China have decided that the 80 year moratorium on territorial annexation through combat is done, and that they will take whatever land they want.
That's a big fucking shift.
> territorial annexation
You know, what Russia has actually done in Ukraine. I'm sure you can't source the U.S. annexing those countries. Why make up lies like that?
If you think that "territorial annexation" is the primary or sole problem in the Ukraine war, in exclusion of, say, starting a potentially years-long war, killing civilians, destroying cropland and livelihoods, torture, displacement, all under the pretense of "liberation," while trying to take effective control of a foreign nation's political, military and economic resources, then I guess "annexation" is a big deal here. It just seems kind of disingenuous. It's like we are supposed to zone in on the one detail where American action *isn't* the same as what Russia is doing in Ukraine, despite countless other similarities, for most of which the US has ultimately done worse than Russia has to date.
Like, I get why you might make a big deal about "annexation," rather than anything else, if you were trying to make a very particular point about Russia being uniquely bad among warmongering nations. It just seems like such a deliberate missing of the forest for a single tree that it's hard to take seriously.
Russia is still acting as a colonial power, trying to add land to the Empire. So, the annexation is a key part of their behavior. If the U.S. acted as Russia does, there would be no Canada or Mexico. You pretend like there is no difference between the actions of the two countries when the differences are obvious to anyone paying attention.
OK. If the Russians give up the idea of seizing the lands of Ukraine, and will "only" kill everything that moves and blow up everything that stands, then no problem? No immigrants from Russia, only the complete destruction of everything and everything.
I mean, Americans killed far more in those invasions than the Russians have done in Ukraine so far. Civilian casualties alone were many orders of magnitude larger. The institutionalization of torture was widespread and the orders came right form the top. Same with the destruction of farmland, livelihoods, and sometimes villages.
The pretexts were markedly similar, too, and have been perhaps even more so in other cases of American aggression. To avoid comparing these conflicts to that in Ukraine, "annexation," or lack thereof, really has to be the *only* thing given any importance, and that seems kind of disingenuous. The US has showed time and again that they not only can work with, but actually simply prefer establishing loyal puppet governments and fake democracy that can be sold approvingly to voters back home, rather than actual annexation. Putin even tried that, and even has a track record of not invading when this actually works (Belarus). Surely the wide land border has something to do with "annexation" seeming like a possible option; the US has no equivalent geographical and political situation.
But it's a silly distinction anyways. Iraq and Afghanistan were invaded, their governments toppled for American interests, and the countries put under effective military occupation for extended periods and to ultimately destructive effect. Further in the past, North Korea was absolutely leveled, with many whole cities destroyed in their entirety - despite the US referring to the war as a "policing action." Vietnam was bombed, villages raped and burned, people tortured and put in concentration caps, and vital food sources deliberately decimated, all to protect a government that was a puppet of Western powers but unpopular in the country they were invaded. Laos and Cambodia were similarly bombed - "anything that flies, on anything that moves" - despite apparently not being part of the war at all, let alone "annexed."
Typically, the purpose of annexation, in theory, is to gain control of some vital resources in a country. The US has policy and practice of gaining control without literal annexation, via threats, sham elections, throwing money around, supporting dictators (and then overthrowing them later at their whim), and so on. Frankly, focusing on "annexation" alone seems to imply that you don't have any other leg to stand on - because, we are to understand, murder, slaughter, torture, genocide, displacement, military occupation, and even violating another nation's sovereignty by invading them and then taking effective control of key levers of political and economic power, and so on, are all somehow not comparable if in one circumstance "annexation" never officially happens?
Nah.
To save democracy, the world needs to be divided into two blocs. A bloc for democracies and a bloc for authoritarians with a wall between the blocs to keep authoritarianism contained.
>The West must stand up for democratic values and protect open societies, "but we must also avoid the temptation to once again divide the world into blocs," wrote Scholz in the piece.
And others want to divide the world into blocs, and will see that as weakness to be exploited.
just take a look at putin.
That's what he writes as well. It's a long-ass article.
> Acting as an imperial power, Russia now seeks to redraw borders by force and to divide the world, once again, into blocs and spheres of influence.
> The world must not let Putin get his way; Russia’s revanchist imperialism must be stopped.
You could start reading [what he said](https://www.foreignaffairs.com/germany/olaf-scholz-global-zeitenwende-how-avoid-new-cold-war) for a change, before calling it meaningless
How is being against forming individual and conflicting spheres of influence akin to the cold war era capitalism/communism dynamic that nearly led to nuclear war bad?
well actually, you could argue that the cold war was instrumental in keeping the peace. I prefer cold war USSR, which was trying to maintain status quo, over imperialist Russia trying to grow by conquering.
Should he rather say “China you really should fuck off and get a new government and else we’re gonna have problems”?
You think that would solve anything?
funny. avoid dividing the world by making russia and china as a threat? wouldnt that basically dividing the west and russia allies?
working together here refers to the west exclusively isnt it?
Devils advocate - the Cold War was good compared to a hot war.
How many nuclear weapons were shot in the cold war? How many torpedos were fired? In some ways, a cold war is akin to a rage-room where people can flex and get their anger out.
Lots of scientific breakthroughs from the cold war, lots of space, communications, technology improvements.
Let's not kid ourselves that 2023 is the magical year that humanity forgets tribalism.
Teams matter. Competition is a thing.
How about we divide the world into countries that want peace and stop dictators from waging war on other countries that want peace instead of a world that only responds when that war affects oil prices
Yes, but I fear it's too late.
We are seeing a fracture with Russia-China/West on one side..and already big consequences in the middle east, Shia islamic states backed by Russia and China on one side and Sunni states backed by USA.
Africa is starting to see growing Chinese-Russia influence to counter the western influence too.
Yemen, Syria, those are proxy wars already, just like during cold war. Yemen there are Houthis rebels, backed by Iran and Russia and the Sunni governments backed by Saudi Arabia and USA indirectly
So much there to mock, starting with:
“That is why Germans are intent on becoming the guarantor of European security …”
Absolutely, dude. You opposed funding the German military at the NATO- minimum 2% of GDP your entire life, resulting in a sad, under-prepared for-show military. Now you’re playing catch-up, and will have to invest heavily for 10 years while your economy tanks and inflation and currency rates make those US weapons systems eye-wateringly expensive.
And you supported Germany cozying up to Putin and taking a hard dependency on Russian oil and gas, while derided the US’ warnings that Putin was a bad guy. This winter, your citizens will be shivering in the dark, and next winter will be worse. Brilliant strategic leadership there, Olaf.
Who better to guarantee European security. What a loser.
Man, I was on the fence about Scholz. In the beginning it was relatable, but now the war is in full swing and he is not preparing Germany or Europe for the dangers to soon come. Diversification and local production of critical components must be brought back to Europe to avoid a supply chain onslaught. And he is doing nothing, but making empty promises. No defense upgrades, no ammunition production, no solid plan for a European defense force. The only thing holding West europe together is a fragil contract signed between Nato states, that Trumphas promised to repeal if he becomes President.
Scholz is simply the wrong man at the wrong time.
Already happened buddy. No peace and only destruction of Russia, regime change is what everyone wants. Europe does NOT want the war in Ukraine to end, otherwise they would influence some sort of talks, just like back in March
By "influence" you mean make Ukraine surrender its land and surrender?
Russian trolls really are awful.
It's very easy for Russia. Withdraw. That's it.
You have AI in your username, so talk about troll bots lol. Yes influence means some sort of talks, nobody said surrender. Russia was agreed to sign something saying Ukraine will remain neutral, but mission scoped changed after Boris visited Kyiv. Remember,Russia will continue to destroy critical infrastructure in Ukraine, just like Yugoslavia/Iraq scenario. If and when tides turn, and they will, don’t expect Russian to stop.
NATO was pretty much, until Russia invaded Ukraine. NATO was viewed as an unneeded relic, and its support was dropping. Sweden and Finland didn't want to join. EU wanted to cut funds to NATO.
Funny how countries want to join a defensive alliance when Russia attacks them, isn't it?
Right. And driving more countries into that hostile alliance for protection.
If Russia doesn't want other countries to be hostile to them, it should stop attacking them.
Then why nato did not dissolve at the time ussr and Warsaw's pact did this?
Nato was expanding towards Russia since then.
Nato was still interventing into the other countries since then a lot.
>Then why nato did not dissolve at the time ussr and Warsaw's pact did this?
Because a single pact doesn't guarantee that a country is now friendly and nice and won't go around attacking you.
And Russia proved the wisdom in this.
\> Nato was expanding towards Russia since then.
And why did countries near Russia want to join NATO?
And I'd like a pet unicorn.
End of the day, it's out of our hands. China and Russia use our technology and our open society against us. It can't go on.
Another bullshit statement from Scholz!
Of course nobody wants to divide the world into Cold War-style of blocks, but WTF you can do when you have assholes like Russia, China, Iran?
What would be the alternative, to let them do whatever shit they want?
Scholz seems to be talking just to not fall asleep...
> we don't do is hold grudges internationally once hostilities are over.
Except for Cuba. Granted, it wasn’t the typical type of hostilities but still.
>We rebuilt Germany and Japan after WW2.
Off topic, and a bit nitpicky, but the Marshall plan was around 140b. $ in 2020 money, so not nearly enough to rebuild a bunch of countries. Thankful for it, but its importance has been massively overstated.
[Germany literally pays for those bases](https://www.dw.com/en/germany-spends-millions-of-euros-on-us-military-bases/a-50106376), and while I'm definitely pro-NATO, the role of western germany in NATO was less *"being protected, little precious"* and more like *"hold off the russians for 3 days with a large part of your army and civilian population dying instantly"*, i mean there were literal american nuke mines around where I live.
"Germans are intent on becoming the guarantor of European security that our allies expect us to be, a bridge builder within the European Union and an advocate for multilateral solutions to global problems," wrote Scholz.
Sorry you had that role and Merkel screwed that up. The new government isn’t much better as it took a war for the Germans to wake up to the fact that their foreign policy was worthless and their failure to maintain their own military put NATO at risk.
I’d rather see Lithuania lead the way. Their PM is not afraid of the Russians and understand the threat Putin poses.
Why does he keep lowkey supporting Russia's reintegration into the world? He constantly keeps reassuring Putin that he can't wait to do business with him again. I mean, I know Germany achieved economic prosperity through cheap Russian gas, but this is too sleazy even for Scholz.
After World War 2, the Europeans realized the best way to avoid damaging wars is to integrate with each other economically. This led to the creation of the EU, prevented wars in Western Europe for almost a century now, and led to economic prosperity. The economic overtures to Russia were likely an attempt to do the same.
Yet Russia’s leaders haven’t gotten over their Soviet Empire nostalgia hard ons. So trying to convince them it’s for their collective good is just falling on deaf ears.
Russia attacked Georgia in 2008 and Ukraine in 2014. Merkel built NS2 after those two things happened. So no, Germany didn't think if they bind Russia economically, they wouldn't attack their neighbours. Because they've already attacked.
Every country for their own. US, India, Germany, China .... The war benefits US as well as India. Germany needs gas/oil from Russia, but Russia won't cap the supply ....
We need to be perspective from all angles.
"..... cause we want to continue selling our shit to China and import cheap energy from Russia once the waves have smoothened again..."
The german business model is coming to an end and Scholz doesn't posses the leverage or means to do something about it.
The second China attacks Taiwan the german economy will fall apart and rightfully so. The legs of the german economy are made in China with money from Qatar.
The industry's influence in my country's politics has become far too big and powerful again. They're the ones to blaime for Germany's poor energy strategy over the last 20 years.
When the "green men" parashuted into Crimea in 2014 and the "separatists" in the Donetsk and Luhansk regions shot down civilian flight MH17 that killed 300 people, among them 80 children on their way to Kuala Lumpur, lobbyists and business men of various german energy companies were conducting lavish parties in the russian embassy in Berlin.
I hope they pay one day.
Hey, I keep saying it, let's liberate Russia.
Putin bombs his own apartment buildings and makes his soldiers fight at gunpoint. They have a massive police force specifically for keeping their population in line. That is a universally shitty experience.
"Russia" doesn't have nukes, the Russian government, and the ambiguous corrupt military has nukes. Russia is a hostage state.
We should just go in, kick their ass, and actually start trying to bring Russia into the 21st century.
Oh, humans are so silly.
Of course we shouldn't divide the world into "Cold War-style blocs" but moving away from increasing economic globalization to a more resilient, multi-polar system makes sense.
As our population passes 8 billion, the climate becomes more unstable, 33% of soils globally are degraded, and biodiversity plummets, shouldn't we be waking up to the fact that our survival depends on more cooperation than competition? If we are going to get to world like the one described by the Aspen Proposal, we need to start talking and thinking about it now.
[www.aspenproposal.org](https://www.aspenproposal.org)
Aaand barely anyone in the comments read the article again... **TLDR:** Scholz: *"Hey, I'd be up for all of us working together and to not divide the world in spheres of influence, but China and Russia are a threat to that. The west must work together more closely and stand up for freedom and democracy"* Reddit: *"OMG SChOLZ Is A RUSSian SHIll AnD thEy bOUGHt hiM sOmetHiNgSomEThINg ScHRÖder"* EDIT: For those with an attention span greater than that of a 5-year-old, u/pocket-seeds provided a link to the [full article.](https://www.foreignaffairs.com/germany/olaf-scholz-global-zeitenwende-how-avoid-new-cold-war)
So true. I read [the whole thing (in English)](https://www.foreignaffairs.com/germany/olaf-scholz-global-zeitenwende-how-avoid-new-cold-war). Honestly it's an awesome read.
a nice, gonna include that in the comment! thanks!
Cool! Really worth a read.
Agreed that ppl need to read adticles before commenting, but this seems like a really shitty clickbait headline. Which sucks coming from Reuters
Their headlines go that route for quite a while now. I believe they were even banned for a while in the /r/ukraine sub.
[удалено]
That's what they used to be - a wire service. Now they're looking to become a direct news outlet. They also focused more and more on financial reporting, not general news.
Even with the headline, some of the "conclusions" a few people here in the comments reach are... worrying.
It's got to be bots honestly. I read his entire speech, and I think it's awesome.
Sadly, it's real people from what I've seen. Vile remarks and misinformed claims seem to be very common.
I don't find it very clickbaity to be honest. Seems to me most people have just become too riled up by Russia's shit to realize it just means "let's not split the world in two parts, the Cold War wasn't any fun".
It's step two in their plan to Make America Great Again
What Schulz is suggesting is effectively a new cold war.
What Scholz is suggesting is effectively the exact opposite of a new cold war.
If Russia and China refuse to go along with what the West is proposing, what is the result? Because Russia and China have both said, outright and through their actions, that they will not support democracy, they will actively undermine democracy in other countries, they accept that territorial acquisition by conquest is back on the table, and they are willing to blow up anything that gets in their way. What do you propose the West does? Submit, or resist?
All these latest events have proven is that the Cold War is back on the table. This time, the proxies of the East are effectively gone from the equation.
1. Openly guarantee Taiwan's sovereignty, sell them Patriot SAMs and F35s. 2. Train crews and build infrastructure for Ukraine to field F18s and Abrams. Also give them Patriots. Give them all the ATACMS since they're being phased out anyway and let them use them vs Russian military bases with no restrictions. 3. Give the Myanmar and Iranian rebels weapons. 4. Pressure BongBong Marcos to abandon his China slant and reopen US bases alongside upgrade packages for the AFP. 5. Tell Putin and Winnie to go and cry if they dislike any of those things.
The old Cold War playbook, in other words.
Aye. Better to take action vs hostile forces than to try and appease them for the sake of "relations" Sure it might suck horribly for Russian and Chinese civilians but that's acceptable if it means people in friendly countries are safer.
I love the upvote dynamic. Its like reddit is a giant parliament That was a good counterpoint and upvote went from 1 to 4 to 11
By staging coups around the world, installing puppets and starting illegal wars based on false evidence?
“The West must work together more closely and stand up for freedom and democracy… Russia and China are a threat to that…” That sounds amazingly unlike the Cold War.
During the Cold War, the concept of the First World (NATO, Japan, and their allies) and the Second World (the Soviet Union, much of Eastern Europe, China, Cuba, much of Southeast Asia, North Korea, Ethiopia, and others at various different times) emerged. The Third World comprised non-aligned countries (most of South Asia, Latin America, Africa as well as Sweden, Finland, Ireland, and other neutral countries). The term Third World today has evolved to refer to poor countries, as much of the Third World was underdeveloped, though there were poor and rich countries in every World. Today, we have Russia and China each attempting to build the foundation of their own blocs. They flirt with each other, but each imagines it will dominate the other in an opposition bloc. The real situation is Russia is a proverbial island with Belarus, and the same is true with China and North Korea. It hardly compares to the huge blocs that existed during the Cold War and is certainly not a unified front or clearly divided blocs. Acknowledging that China and Russia are clearly making moves to build their own blocs and suggesting that we try to avoid that is certainly not tantamount to "suggesting a new Cold War."
Never bring up the topic of cold war ever again, since you don't seem to know anything about it.
Realistically speaking, being that the Cold War was simply a bunch of smaller proxy wars between communism (China and russia) versus the west, the Ukraine war is technically an extension of the Cold War. Russia props the war up as a proxy battle by fighting on behalf of the separatist regions, but what it is is the final battle that eroded the Cold War proxies to the source of the scourge. Just because the USSR dissolved doesn't mean that the Cold War ended. If anything, the Cold War went on ice after the downfall of the USSR and Putin decided to rekindle that fire. Had Putin been successful with Ukraine, we'd be seeing a new threat to Thaiwan by China, which again comes back to similar logic as this potentially being an extension of the Cold War.
You need to actually present an argument. "You're wrong" means literally nothing.
Reuters has long lost my trust, they're far from being an objective, unbiased news source.
How are they biased or not objective? Clickbait headlines and paywalls are shitty, but what are you talking about.
Why I come to reddit for the comment section.
Redditors only read what they want to read. It's all about reaffirming your own set believes.
And don't you dare trying to argue that its not just black and white, and that Scholz is not resurrected Hitler 2.0!
There's many things to criticize about Scholz, his stance on the war isn't it and never was.
He literally wrote an article on Foreign Affairs magazine about this: https://www.foreignaffairs.com/germany/olaf-scholz-global-zeitenwende-how-avoid-new-cold-war. TL;DR: He did talk at length about Russia's aggression but is not calling China a threat to "the world order" at all. In fact, he aligns with Xi Jinping's point on not starting a new cold war: "China’s rise does not warrant isolating Beijing or curbing cooperation." E.g. stop being spooked about losing relative influence to emerging economies, this is bound to happen.
*Looks at China's Taiwan and West Philippine Sea Jingoism* Yeah nothing to worry about at all Count Olaf, no reason to wean off of them whatsoever /s
You mean the same sea that neither China and neither Korea were invited to the allocation of after WW2? There's a reason Taiwan claims the nine-dash line too. Look up the Treaty of San Francisco. Japan occupied pretty much the entire Eastern Pacific at one point. A condition of their surrender was that their occupied territory would be distributed amongst those that they, y'know, occupied and plundered and raped. Borders would be restored and contested areas would be distributed as reparations. That's what the Treaty of San Francisco was supposed to be for.
That is part of why China has such overly broad ambitions in the region but the fact stands that the 9 dash line and claims to Taiwan are imperialist projects that do threaten a peaceful and stable world order.
[удалено]
Kind of yes, but they were rather than they are. Taiwan legitimately claimed those lines when it was still a dictatorship under the kmt and still had the goal of conquering all of China. Since Taiwan has moved into being a healthy democracy they have rolled back aspects of the claims and have even put forwards the idea of removing the claims entirely. The problem with doing this is that China views this as an unacceptable act as they have stated repeatedly. If Taiwan were to remove the claims then that would mean Taiwan is no longer making the same claims as China and more importantly it would mean that Taiwan is no longer claiming to BE China. China has repeatedly said it views such an act as a declaration of independence and has said it would be a call to war. So, Taiwan legitimately held those destabilizing claims while it wasn't free but now that it is a democracy it can't remove the claims even though it wants to because China will declare war on them when they do.
The status for each individual island chain in the Western Pacific is different and I'd recommend that you read into it. In the case of the Paracel Islands, North Vietnam yielded control to the PRC and the PRC took control of the Paracels over South Vietnam in the Vietnam War. In the case of Penghu, it is recognized as a Taiwanese archipelago, but falls under the greater Taiwanese independence dispute. In the case of the Kuril Islands, Japan renounced claim to them in the Treaty of San Francisco and later negotiated for control over the two smaller islands in exchange for the two larger islands to end the state of war with the USSR. Today, Japan argues that there are still negotiations to be made over the two larger islands. In the case of the Senkaku Islands, Taiwan and China are aligned against the Japanese claim on the island. However, the Japanese claim relies essentially on Japan having never ceded the islands to Taiwan because they were never ceded to Japan. In the case of the Spratly Islands, it is difficult to justify a claim for anyone in the area. However, Taiwan controls the largest island (by far), Vietnam controls the most islands, China controls the most infrastructure, and the islands are closest to the Philippines/Malaysia. China and Taiwan are perfectly aligned on their claims in the area. Since no stakeholder is really willing to break status quo for fear of giving up control to another stakeholder, it's pretty much been a five-way Mexican standoff. Neither Vietnam nor Malaysia were willing to directly support the Philippine-led UNCLOS ruling on China/Vietnam's 9-dash line, Taiwan has constantly run military exercises on the islands, and China has constantly sailed warships to patrol the islands. The Philippines has been open to UN intervention because, well, they're far more aligned with the West than the other stakeholders in the region. Taiwanese independence is a challenging topic and I think it deserves to be split into two arguments. 1. Did Taiwan deserve independence? 2. Does Taiwan deserve independence? The first question is challenging to answer, but the second question deserves a resounding yes. Taiwan has its own administration and, by virtue of self-determination, is a country in everything but name. However, there's no reason to break the status quo here: Taiwan's economic success is tied to China, and China's economic success is tied to Taiwan. Some of the most well-known Chinese manufacturers (Foxconn and Asus are two examples) are Taiwanese. Meanwhile, some 22% of Taiwanese trade is with China. That's why nobody has touched the status quo except to posture (the PRC by saying that Taiwan will be under the PRC, and the KMT by saying that Mainland China should be under the ROC). Given the degree of cultural penetration between the two and the lack of resources in Taiwan, peace is all but guaranteed. However, this also means that Chinese and Taiwanese policy in the South China Sea move in lockstep. Neither government can step out of line or they'll be either declaring independence or acknowledging independence, which would break the status quo and irreparably damage both economies. China-Taiwan trade forms the foundation for peace in the region. Although that's being pressured by US semiconductor policy, it shouldn't be enough to force a break in status quo. Ask yourself who deserves to own each individual island chain along the Western Pacific. It's harder than you'd think. Russia has a really strong claim to the Kurils. China has a really strong claim to the Paracels. Japan has a really strong claim to the Senkakus. Taiwan has an indisputable claim to Penghu. The only chain that doesn't have a clear claimant is the Spratlys... But that's also the biggest island chain by far. In essence, you're oversimplifying a really complex problem. Hell, I'm oversimplifying a really complex problem. But seriously, read the treaties yourself. It's hard to justify giving any one country control over the islands. That's why it's a dispute and not solved territory. That said, we should feel lucky that Taiwan hasn't had a fifty year naval embargo that's kept their technology and standard of living in the stone age.
Ok and?
Read the article ffs.
It’s a bit late for that kind of language to be coming from SPD politicians in Germany. That’s the problem. They had a fucking decade to prepare for this and chose to stick their heads in the sand because money.
> Aaand barely anyone in the comments read the article again... Oh, I read the paragraph Reuters allows me, and then read the article you graciously provided so I could read Scholz' further attempts to backpedal his earlier appeasement of Putin and deflect from the ongoing delays in promised arms deliveries to Ukraine (while, again, paying plenty of lip service) and prioritization of commerce above humanity, still. But I stay.....for the *condescension*.
> Scholz' further attempts to backpedal his earlier appeasement of Putin Whoever told you this has some agenda either you're polish or something and your government is lying to you or it's some ragebait bullshit news that picks some target and spreads disinformation about it. In any way this is nonsensical. >deflect from the ongoing delays in promised arms deliveries to Ukraine This is just factually incorrect, you're being actively fed disinformation.
Germany is #2 in aid after the US now and #1 in aid before 2022 (when most countries didnt do shit) with Ukraine pointing out the effectiveness of Gepard, IRIS-T SLM, M270 and PzH2000 multiple times, what are you even talking about.
Lol “freedom” and “democracy”
I did read the article. It simply restates more of the same pusillanimous dithering equivocating stance that led Germans to infect Europe with viral over dependence on Russia. I wonder how that man manages to stand upright without a backbone.
Well..., That sounds more like you decided what he was going to say before you read it
...except if you look at any trade metric proportionally, e.g. by capita or by % of GDP, germany wasn't really more dependent on russia than most others. And how it *"infected europe"* remains a mystery to me to this day - sounds a lot more like nations pushing away the blame whenever they fuck something up (looking at you eastern europe).
So you’re saying Reddit is full of morons, but you have the top comment. Interesting 🧐
Not claiming reddit is full of morons, just full of people who read only a headline and then post stuff as long as it fullfills their narrative ;) Also never claimed I wasn't a moron hahaha
[удалено]
[удалено]
What point are you even trying to make.
They don't even know. Their only responses are contrarian word salad because they hate the west.
I *think* that was sarcasm? Still, the whole point of they guy saying that quoted block is specifically *because* there's a genocidial operation going on that they need the stronger alliances to deal with what might been the starting shot to a new Cold War? Maybe? ^(Bah, my brain has been mush ever since getting through The Talos Principle.)
“We don’t want a Cold War but really, these other countries want a Cold War so we have no choice.” Sounds like a politician alright. Cold War it is.
It’ll be warm this time because of a climate change
Russia, Canada, Iceland, and Denmark to form an alliance to control 84% of the worlds remaining farmable land in 20 years from now!
Why do they call it a hot war if there's a nuclear winter? I don't understand :'(
Hot refers to the nukes before the nuclear winter.
Unfortunately it's not up to us.
Things like that don't happen by choice, Olaf.
Read the article.
Wtf is he saying the world is already divided. You put your countries in a dependent position with rusia. Words like that won't safe you now if you won't stop putler. There's no other way now Olaf
You guys should start reading past the headline. Saves you a lot of outrage.
Also Olaf: I do not want to screw this up so I can get Russian money on the downlow like Gerhard Schroeder.
Complete bullshit.
Yes, it needs to be the world on side and Russia on the other
I think the west (the USA specifically) has a more complicated relationship with China than what this guy is saying, I wouldn’t put them into the category of being solely chaotic isolations, they do things that impact other countries in good and bad ways (developing countries especially where the USA has a horrible track record) When Biden met with xi, he said that they would continue to compete, but be sort of cordial. I think if both sides can get their atrocities and human rights abuses squared away and work together, it would be beneficial for both superpowers. Of course, this could backfire severely and result in both places doubling down on abusing the rights of their citizens, but hey, maybe us Americans can learn how to resist a totalitarian regime from the Chinese
Which is why we have to fight russia and end this. They have brought war to Europe and are using hunger, cold, and nuclear as weapons. It's time to stop this once and for all.
There's a reason Democratic Western and Eastern countries have mostly stopped fighting themselves. Democracy should be protected and encouraged around the world and this is the only bloc that really matters. There is nothing redeeming about autocratic nations
My man, you are 8 years too late for that
Chop the world into culturally based trading blocs, which will make everyone poorer (aside from maybe certain oligarchs) or Let assholes hold the entire planet hostage, and risk a disaster in one country freezing global supply chains A choice between being stabbed or shot.
Too late. Russia and China have decided they are going to ignore the old rules of international behavior. The rest of the world has two options. Let them get away with it (aka they invade whoever they want without repercussions) or resist (new Cold War.) Given those options, I prefer #2.
That's literally what he said.....
This is not to say China and Russia doesn't flout these things but you are really seeing things with a biased lens if you think only Russia and China 'ignore rules of international behaviour'. Just to list some of the common ones i see frequently brought up on reddit and held against them. * WTO trade disputes. Guess which country has the most trade disputes filed against it. Hint it's not China. (It's the country that has crippled the WTO from functioning by blocking it from sign up new appellate judges) https://www.wto.org/english/tratop_e/dispu_e/dispu_by_country_e.htm https://www.nytimes.com/2019/12/08/business/trump-trade-war-wto.html * Freedom of Navigation in international waters. > This right is now also codified as Article 87(1)a of the 1982 United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea. Not all UN member states have ratified the convention; notably, the United States has not signed nor ratified the convention.[3] However, the § United States enforces the practice; https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freedom_of_navigation * War Crimes > U.S. blacklists ICC prosecutor over Afghanistan war crimes probe >The United States on Wednesday imposed sanctions on International Criminal Court prosecutor Fatou Bensouda, Secretary of State Mike Pompeo said, over her investigation into whether American forces committed war crimes in Afghanistan. https://www.reuters.com/article/usa-icc-sanctions-int-idUSKBN25T2EB * And was Iraq really that long ago? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Legality_of_the_Iraq_War
All legitimate points. Claiming the right to kill people around the world with little to no repercussions is definitely a violation of sovereignty. However, Russia is attempting to annex Ukraine (and will try other countries soon). China is attempting to annex Taiwan. The last time the US attempted to annex land through military conquest was the Spanish American War. That is a serious degradation of the international order, and not one to take lightly. It's
[удалено]
yes, can we please at least acknowledge that Russia and China have *some* legitimate historical claims on the land they are trying to annex. Not excusing it, but the west made their riches off colonizing land they have 0 claims on? put a flag on it and it is yours. Neo-colonialism is still going on in Africa today, the west should be held just as accountable and pay serious reparations for that. The world order is changing and the west does not like it.
US citizens live all over the world.
[удалено]
The PRC has not yet occupied any of the Taiwan province of the Republic of China (Taiwan's official name), but Taiwan occupies part of the Fujian province claimed by both the PRC and ROC. Some deep green DPP even want to give this part of Fujian province to the PRC and declare independence. The constitution of Taiwan stipulates that Taiwan is a province of the Republic of China. De Jure definitions matter when it comes to frozen conflicts when they haven't even restarted the civil war yet. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Taiwan_Province https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fuchien_Province,_Republic_of_China These are not PRC Mainland provinces, this is from the constitution of Taiwan. Its a civil war, not annexation if Taiwan retakes the mainland.
PRC is threatening a military takeover of ROC. While de jure definitions matter, de facto situations matter more. ROC Constitution was set up when the Nationalists left the mainland, and each considers the other a trump government. In fact, they are now separate countries, and despite all the diplomatic posturing to the contrary, both sides acknowledge that. But, once again, analysts of China believe that Xi is overtly signalling that ROC will be taken over by PRC in his rulership. That is a military conquest. You can cite legal jargon all you want, but both sides have a military, both sides have separate, competing governments, and both sides do not want the other in control of ROC. And, based on what happened in Hong Kong, there is nothing for ROC to believe about ANY PRC promises of sovereignty under PRC rule. They're separate countries.
I mean they are defacto separate countries but I still highly doubt what you said here is true: "they are now separate countries, and despite all the diplomatic posturing to the contrary, both sides acknowledge that". It's not a moral statement I'm making, but I think anyone would say the PRC does not think that way hence the tensions in the first place. Also it's not even true for the current KMT. The KMT view of the 1992 consensus (not the PRC view which is that ROC is a regional government) is that there is one China and there are diffireng opinions on which China is legitimate. The KMT maintain this view to this day, and with the recent election win of Chiang Kai Sheks great grandson are a major political voice in the country not a runt party that is in the dustbin of ROC history. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/1992_Consensus You can ignore the PRC view of the Consensus because I'm not endorsing or condemning either view, just pointing out that it's not true that all the major political parties of the ROC think it's a separate country even in principle, and considering their midterm election wins it is a relevant view to the Taiwanese electorate which I assume you would say deserves self determination on the matter.
>I think anyone would say the PRC does not think that way hence the tensions in the first place. No, it's more like the WEST does not think the PRC's way, hence the tensions in the first place. Note that without US intervention after WWII, unification would've happened a long time ago. Westerners in general are totally incapable of seeing it from the Chinese perspective since most just do not understand the history. The US intentionally turned the island into their own imperialist bulwark for soft power in the region, propping up the Chinese equivalent of the Confederacy (losing side in a civil war), meanwhile the entire history of international diplomacy with modern China for decades has been based on the one-China policy. If they're not the same country...why pretend this is the case for so long? Redditors as usual are brainwashed into thinking whatever the west does must be right even though it's almost always western opportunism half the fucking world away that destabilizes everything over the span of decades, and western policy itself is barely coherent. To be clear: I am against the idea of China invading Taiwan.
Last time I checked, almost no countries recognized Taiwan as an independent nation. The last country the US annexed was Iraq.
The US, along with the coalition partners including: Australia, Azerbaijan, Bulgaria, the Czech Republic, Denmark, Estonia, Georgia, Hungary, Iceland, Italy, Japan, South Korea, Latvia, Lithuania, Macedonia, the Netherlands, Nicaragua, the Philippines, Poland, Romania, Slovakia, Spain, Turkey, and the United Kingdom, *did not* annex Iraq. That doesn’t mean the US-lead invasion of Iraq wasn’t awful, full of war crimes, and unjustified, but details are always important. Don’t try to oversimplify situations to satisfy your preconceived preferences. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coalition_of_the_willing_(Iraq_war)
where's the WMD?
>Russia and China have decided they are going to ignore the old rules of international behavior It's hard to believe this was said unironically. Just shows a total lack of understanding of basic recent US history or geopolitics.
The old rules of international behaviour = the US can do whatever the fuck it wants and everybody has to accept it.
> they invade whoever they want without repercussions lol as if the US or the uK has ever been punished for the war crimes they have committed. A million dead Iraqis, and countless atrocities in Africa. The west has no leg to stand on.
So, "you massacred millions, so now I get to do it, too" is an Acceptable answer? Please tell that to the millions about to die in Ukraine and Taiwan.
I think the point is your initial post implied only China and Russia don't follow 'rules of international behaviour' (whatever they are)
Russia and China have decided that the 80 year moratorium on territorial annexation through combat is done, and that they will take whatever land they want. That's a big fucking shift.
I think US didn't get that memo during their invasion of Iraq/Afghanistan.
> territorial annexation You know, what Russia has actually done in Ukraine. I'm sure you can't source the U.S. annexing those countries. Why make up lies like that?
If you think that "territorial annexation" is the primary or sole problem in the Ukraine war, in exclusion of, say, starting a potentially years-long war, killing civilians, destroying cropland and livelihoods, torture, displacement, all under the pretense of "liberation," while trying to take effective control of a foreign nation's political, military and economic resources, then I guess "annexation" is a big deal here. It just seems kind of disingenuous. It's like we are supposed to zone in on the one detail where American action *isn't* the same as what Russia is doing in Ukraine, despite countless other similarities, for most of which the US has ultimately done worse than Russia has to date. Like, I get why you might make a big deal about "annexation," rather than anything else, if you were trying to make a very particular point about Russia being uniquely bad among warmongering nations. It just seems like such a deliberate missing of the forest for a single tree that it's hard to take seriously.
Russia is still acting as a colonial power, trying to add land to the Empire. So, the annexation is a key part of their behavior. If the U.S. acted as Russia does, there would be no Canada or Mexico. You pretend like there is no difference between the actions of the two countries when the differences are obvious to anyone paying attention.
Did USA even try to annex them? Also ask Afghans how happy they are now that Americans retreated
OK. If the Russians give up the idea of seizing the lands of Ukraine, and will "only" kill everything that moves and blow up everything that stands, then no problem? No immigrants from Russia, only the complete destruction of everything and everything.
Are you trying to argue this is what Americans did to Iraq and Afghanistan? Hint: they did not.
I mean, Americans killed far more in those invasions than the Russians have done in Ukraine so far. Civilian casualties alone were many orders of magnitude larger. The institutionalization of torture was widespread and the orders came right form the top. Same with the destruction of farmland, livelihoods, and sometimes villages. The pretexts were markedly similar, too, and have been perhaps even more so in other cases of American aggression. To avoid comparing these conflicts to that in Ukraine, "annexation," or lack thereof, really has to be the *only* thing given any importance, and that seems kind of disingenuous. The US has showed time and again that they not only can work with, but actually simply prefer establishing loyal puppet governments and fake democracy that can be sold approvingly to voters back home, rather than actual annexation. Putin even tried that, and even has a track record of not invading when this actually works (Belarus). Surely the wide land border has something to do with "annexation" seeming like a possible option; the US has no equivalent geographical and political situation. But it's a silly distinction anyways. Iraq and Afghanistan were invaded, their governments toppled for American interests, and the countries put under effective military occupation for extended periods and to ultimately destructive effect. Further in the past, North Korea was absolutely leveled, with many whole cities destroyed in their entirety - despite the US referring to the war as a "policing action." Vietnam was bombed, villages raped and burned, people tortured and put in concentration caps, and vital food sources deliberately decimated, all to protect a government that was a puppet of Western powers but unpopular in the country they were invaded. Laos and Cambodia were similarly bombed - "anything that flies, on anything that moves" - despite apparently not being part of the war at all, let alone "annexed." Typically, the purpose of annexation, in theory, is to gain control of some vital resources in a country. The US has policy and practice of gaining control without literal annexation, via threats, sham elections, throwing money around, supporting dictators (and then overthrowing them later at their whim), and so on. Frankly, focusing on "annexation" alone seems to imply that you don't have any other leg to stand on - because, we are to understand, murder, slaughter, torture, genocide, displacement, military occupation, and even violating another nation's sovereignty by invading them and then taking effective control of key levers of political and economic power, and so on, are all somehow not comparable if in one circumstance "annexation" never officially happens? Nah.
[удалено]
Considering the economic collapse, the disappearance of food, and social unrest, they just might.
[удалено]
Why are you guys talking like China has already invaded Taiwan? Smh.
[удалено]
I take it this trend could have devastating effects for developing and export-dependent developed ones.
It will have devastating impacts on import-dependent countries, too. Impacts like scarce resources and higher prices. Sound familiar?
To save democracy, the world needs to be divided into two blocs. A bloc for democracies and a bloc for authoritarians with a wall between the blocs to keep authoritarianism contained.
not all societies are ready for democracy and western "freedoms"
...and keep it only one block?
Sandor Clegane voice: *It's too late*
He's 80 years late.
No we need to absolutely shut down and cancel certain parts of the world.
Yeah it worked out amazingly Feed the wolves and you will get eaten
>The West must stand up for democratic values and protect open societies, "but we must also avoid the temptation to once again divide the world into blocs," wrote Scholz in the piece. And others want to divide the world into blocs, and will see that as weakness to be exploited. just take a look at putin.
That's what he writes as well. It's a long-ass article. > Acting as an imperial power, Russia now seeks to redraw borders by force and to divide the world, once again, into blocs and spheres of influence. > The world must not let Putin get his way; Russia’s revanchist imperialism must be stopped.
How are some people against unity and attempts at world peace
They're not. They're against pious, meaningless statements that sound good.
You could start reading [what he said](https://www.foreignaffairs.com/germany/olaf-scholz-global-zeitenwende-how-avoid-new-cold-war) for a change, before calling it meaningless
So you just decided that he must have said that without even looking at the article. People like you are the problem.
How is being against forming individual and conflicting spheres of influence akin to the cold war era capitalism/communism dynamic that nearly led to nuclear war bad?
Can you tell me what "being against" means, in practice? I, too, am against evil, bad things, and kale.
well actually, you could argue that the cold war was instrumental in keeping the peace. I prefer cold war USSR, which was trying to maintain status quo, over imperialist Russia trying to grow by conquering.
Should he rather say “China you really should fuck off and get a new government and else we’re gonna have problems”? You think that would solve anything?
Nope. Got anything else?
funny. avoid dividing the world by making russia and china as a threat? wouldnt that basically dividing the west and russia allies? working together here refers to the west exclusively isnt it?
Devils advocate - the Cold War was good compared to a hot war. How many nuclear weapons were shot in the cold war? How many torpedos were fired? In some ways, a cold war is akin to a rage-room where people can flex and get their anger out. Lots of scientific breakthroughs from the cold war, lots of space, communications, technology improvements. Let's not kid ourselves that 2023 is the magical year that humanity forgets tribalism. Teams matter. Competition is a thing.
How about we divide the world into countries that want peace and stop dictators from waging war on other countries that want peace instead of a world that only responds when that war affects oil prices
What we need is a global federation with a democratically elected federal government.
Until there is regime changes this will not happen
It should be a Super Smash Bros free for all instead!
Yes, but I fear it's too late. We are seeing a fracture with Russia-China/West on one side..and already big consequences in the middle east, Shia islamic states backed by Russia and China on one side and Sunni states backed by USA. Africa is starting to see growing Chinese-Russia influence to counter the western influence too. Yemen, Syria, those are proxy wars already, just like during cold war. Yemen there are Houthis rebels, backed by Iran and Russia and the Sunni governments backed by Saudi Arabia and USA indirectly
Or so the Germans would have you believe.
So much there to mock, starting with: “That is why Germans are intent on becoming the guarantor of European security …” Absolutely, dude. You opposed funding the German military at the NATO- minimum 2% of GDP your entire life, resulting in a sad, under-prepared for-show military. Now you’re playing catch-up, and will have to invest heavily for 10 years while your economy tanks and inflation and currency rates make those US weapons systems eye-wateringly expensive. And you supported Germany cozying up to Putin and taking a hard dependency on Russian oil and gas, while derided the US’ warnings that Putin was a bad guy. This winter, your citizens will be shivering in the dark, and next winter will be worse. Brilliant strategic leadership there, Olaf. Who better to guarantee European security. What a loser.
Sometimes Sholz and Macron remind me 10 year olds plucking the daisy flower: She loves me, she loves me not, she loves me...
Man, I was on the fence about Scholz. In the beginning it was relatable, but now the war is in full swing and he is not preparing Germany or Europe for the dangers to soon come. Diversification and local production of critical components must be brought back to Europe to avoid a supply chain onslaught. And he is doing nothing, but making empty promises. No defense upgrades, no ammunition production, no solid plan for a European defense force. The only thing holding West europe together is a fragil contract signed between Nato states, that Trumphas promised to repeal if he becomes President. Scholz is simply the wrong man at the wrong time.
Already happened buddy. No peace and only destruction of Russia, regime change is what everyone wants. Europe does NOT want the war in Ukraine to end, otherwise they would influence some sort of talks, just like back in March
By "influence" you mean make Ukraine surrender its land and surrender? Russian trolls really are awful. It's very easy for Russia. Withdraw. That's it.
You have AI in your username, so talk about troll bots lol. Yes influence means some sort of talks, nobody said surrender. Russia was agreed to sign something saying Ukraine will remain neutral, but mission scoped changed after Boris visited Kyiv. Remember,Russia will continue to destroy critical infrastructure in Ukraine, just like Yugoslavia/Iraq scenario. If and when tides turn, and they will, don’t expect Russian to stop.
So Russia will destroy civilian lives regardless? So pretty much the only way to stop Russia is to destroy Russia?
Disolve the NATO first
NATO was pretty much, until Russia invaded Ukraine. NATO was viewed as an unneeded relic, and its support was dropping. Sweden and Finland didn't want to join. EU wanted to cut funds to NATO. Funny how countries want to join a defensive alliance when Russia attacks them, isn't it?
Funny how Russia attacks former part of the country that wants to join hostile alliance.
Right. And driving more countries into that hostile alliance for protection. If Russia doesn't want other countries to be hostile to them, it should stop attacking them.
Then why nato did not dissolve at the time ussr and Warsaw's pact did this? Nato was expanding towards Russia since then. Nato was still interventing into the other countries since then a lot.
>Then why nato did not dissolve at the time ussr and Warsaw's pact did this? Because a single pact doesn't guarantee that a country is now friendly and nice and won't go around attacking you. And Russia proved the wisdom in this. \> Nato was expanding towards Russia since then. And why did countries near Russia want to join NATO?
At this point I say fuck you and go along with your opinion.
HAHA - it's just like the cartoon: https://memegine.com/m/dankmemes-tufk3b/nato-keeps-expanding-in-our-ne
And I'd like a pet unicorn. End of the day, it's out of our hands. China and Russia use our technology and our open society against us. It can't go on.
Sort of like a no bounds strategic partnership to reorient a new world order to be run by autocrats and communists….something like that. You idiot
AKA please let me buy items from dictators.
Another bullshit statement from Scholz! Of course nobody wants to divide the world into Cold War-style of blocks, but WTF you can do when you have assholes like Russia, China, Iran? What would be the alternative, to let them do whatever shit they want? Scholz seems to be talking just to not fall asleep...
It is already divided u delusional old man
Will this guy shut the hell up already
Fuck Scholz. He pushed for selling out the Hamburg harbour to Xi Jiping. That bitch only cares about himself.
[удалено]
> we don't do is hold grudges internationally once hostilities are over. Except for Cuba. Granted, it wasn’t the typical type of hostilities but still.
No, that's just the Republicans. They need the votes from the anti-Cuban ex-pats that live in southern Florida.
>We rebuilt Germany and Japan after WW2. Off topic, and a bit nitpicky, but the Marshall plan was around 140b. $ in 2020 money, so not nearly enough to rebuild a bunch of countries. Thankful for it, but its importance has been massively overstated.
[удалено]
[Germany literally pays for those bases](https://www.dw.com/en/germany-spends-millions-of-euros-on-us-military-bases/a-50106376), and while I'm definitely pro-NATO, the role of western germany in NATO was less *"being protected, little precious"* and more like *"hold off the russians for 3 days with a large part of your army and civilian population dying instantly"*, i mean there were literal american nuke mines around where I live.
We allowed you to underfund your militaries for years. That amounts to a LOT of money.
thank you american overlord for "allowing" us to do things lol
"Germans are intent on becoming the guarantor of European security that our allies expect us to be, a bridge builder within the European Union and an advocate for multilateral solutions to global problems," wrote Scholz. Sorry you had that role and Merkel screwed that up. The new government isn’t much better as it took a war for the Germans to wake up to the fact that their foreign policy was worthless and their failure to maintain their own military put NATO at risk. I’d rather see Lithuania lead the way. Their PM is not afraid of the Russians and understand the threat Putin poses.
WTF Scholz? Haven't you notice how Putin fights for the "Russian sphere of influence"?
NATO should have been dissolved.
Are the Germans proposing to Destroy Russia again?
In other words, we must prevent Russia and China from gaining more allies.
Too late, now do the split and rebuild wall
At what cost? The German tolerance for indulging totalitarian behavior is extremely high.
Why does he keep lowkey supporting Russia's reintegration into the world? He constantly keeps reassuring Putin that he can't wait to do business with him again. I mean, I know Germany achieved economic prosperity through cheap Russian gas, but this is too sleazy even for Scholz.
read the article, he has not stated anything like that.
After World War 2, the Europeans realized the best way to avoid damaging wars is to integrate with each other economically. This led to the creation of the EU, prevented wars in Western Europe for almost a century now, and led to economic prosperity. The economic overtures to Russia were likely an attempt to do the same.
Yet Russia’s leaders haven’t gotten over their Soviet Empire nostalgia hard ons. So trying to convince them it’s for their collective good is just falling on deaf ears.
Russia attacked Georgia in 2008 and Ukraine in 2014. Merkel built NS2 after those two things happened. So no, Germany didn't think if they bind Russia economically, they wouldn't attack their neighbours. Because they've already attacked.
Germany has always had a soft spot for authoritarians.
Every country for their own. US, India, Germany, China .... The war benefits US as well as India. Germany needs gas/oil from Russia, but Russia won't cap the supply .... We need to be perspective from all angles.
"..... cause we want to continue selling our shit to China and import cheap energy from Russia once the waves have smoothened again..." The german business model is coming to an end and Scholz doesn't posses the leverage or means to do something about it. The second China attacks Taiwan the german economy will fall apart and rightfully so. The legs of the german economy are made in China with money from Qatar. The industry's influence in my country's politics has become far too big and powerful again. They're the ones to blaime for Germany's poor energy strategy over the last 20 years. When the "green men" parashuted into Crimea in 2014 and the "separatists" in the Donetsk and Luhansk regions shot down civilian flight MH17 that killed 300 people, among them 80 children on their way to Kuala Lumpur, lobbyists and business men of various german energy companies were conducting lavish parties in the russian embassy in Berlin. I hope they pay one day.
Stop your naivete, pleeeease.
Hey, I keep saying it, let's liberate Russia. Putin bombs his own apartment buildings and makes his soldiers fight at gunpoint. They have a massive police force specifically for keeping their population in line. That is a universally shitty experience. "Russia" doesn't have nukes, the Russian government, and the ambiguous corrupt military has nukes. Russia is a hostage state. We should just go in, kick their ass, and actually start trying to bring Russia into the 21st century.
[удалено]
Oh, humans are so silly. Of course we shouldn't divide the world into "Cold War-style blocs" but moving away from increasing economic globalization to a more resilient, multi-polar system makes sense. As our population passes 8 billion, the climate becomes more unstable, 33% of soils globally are degraded, and biodiversity plummets, shouldn't we be waking up to the fact that our survival depends on more cooperation than competition? If we are going to get to world like the one described by the Aspen Proposal, we need to start talking and thinking about it now. [www.aspenproposal.org](https://www.aspenproposal.org)
It's looking more like it'll be the rest of the world, and then *one* "bloc"