The Brink of War?

[Dragonman]

It isn't irony, it is Orwell's 1984. "Democracy" funds weapon via "Peace fund" and calls for war while names it "fight for Peace". "War is peace". Oceania vs Ostasia.

.

Exactly. Just as "special military operation" is a euphemism for "illegal invasion" and "war," protests in Russia are considered “unrest,” anyone disagreeing with the authorities” is an “extremist,” the annexation of Crimea turns into “reunification,” and the occupation of Ukrainian lands during a full-scale invasion into “liberation.”

[Moses]

As my comment was not about whether or not Hong Kong was a sovereign state, your answer misses the point. My comment was a reference to the treaty known as the Sino-British Joint Declaration between the of the United Kingdom and China, signed in 1984 and setting the conditions in which Hong Kong was transferred to Chinese control and for the governance of the territory for 50 years after 1 July 1997 handover, and to the way in which the PRC and the CPC has behaved since 2014.

In my opinion China may do with Hong Kong whatever they wants, despite any agreements, unless they will start to bomb it like Ukraine did with Eastern territories. And no one state has rights to intervene - it is internal affairs of China. Slowdown in changes in integration of Hong Kong is just a good will of China - it has full sovereignty on Hong Kong as own territory.

[Dragonman]

In my opinion China may do with Hong Kong whatever they wants, despite any agreements, unless they will start to bomb it like Ukraine did with Eastern territories. And no one state has rights to intervene - it is internal affairs of China. Slowdown in changes in integration of Hong Kong is just a good will of China - it has full sovereignty on Hong Kong as own territory.

What your opinion illustrates is the reason why we in Taiwan don't trust either the CPC or the PRC, i.e., the fact that they signed an international treaty and then ignored its terms, particularly the part which stated that "the central government's policies for the territory were to remain unchanged for a period of 50 years after 1997." They lied.

In 2017, a PRC Foreign Ministry spokesman described the Sino-British Joint Declaration of 1984, which set out the policies for governance of Hong Kong for 50 years from 1997, as “a historical document [that] no longer has any realistic meaning”, adding: “It also does not have any binding power on how the Chinese central government administers Hong Kong.” Four days later, however, another PRC Foreign Ministry spokesman declared a much-older 1890 Sino-British treaty, concerning the Doklam region in Bhutan, was still as binding as ever - because they claim it is an historical part of imperial China.

The PRC practices "cherry picking" which international treaties they honor. How long do you think it will be before a PRC Foreign Ministry spokesperson comments that the Sino-Russian border demarcation treaty is also “a historical document [that] no longer has any realistic meaning”?

[Moses]

How long do you think it will be before a PRC Foreign Ministry spokesperson comments that the Sino-Russian border demarcation treaty is also “a historical document [that] no longer has any realistic meaning”?

Russia has nuclear weapon, dear. So that situation is unthinkable.

[Dragonman]

Russia has nuclear weapon, dear. So that situation is unthinkable.

1. Your thinking is faulty, as Russia threatens other nuclear powers with nuclear war (e.g., France, the US and the UK) if/when it loses the war with Ukraine. What Russia threatens, the PRC can.

2. The PRC has 1.412 billion people and the Russian Federation has 143 million. Society's needs come before those of the individual in the PRC (e.g., the PRC executes more people than the rest of the world combined each year) and it would not put the lives of citizens before the needs of the CPC. History demonstrates this, e.g., Mao Zedong's so-called "Great Leap Forward" from 1959/1960–1962, coupled with the people's commune and Four Pests campaigns, resulted in an estimated 15–55 million people dying of starvation during the "Great Chinese Famine" (Chinese: 三年大饥荒; literally 'three years of great famine'), more than any other single famine in recorded human history, or almost 10 times the death toll in Stalin's Holodomor. In the PRC, as in the USSR, people are dispensable.

[Moses]

1. Your thinking is faulty, as Russia threatens other nuclear powers with nuclear war (e.g., France, the US and the UK) if/when it loses the war with Ukraine. What Russia threatens, the PRC can.

2. The PRC has 1.412 billion people and the Russian Federation has 143 million. Society's needs come before those of the individual in the PRC (e.g., the PRC executes more people than the rest of the world combined each year) and it would not put the lives of citizens before the needs of the CPC. History demonstrates this, e.g., Mao Zedong's so-called "Great Leap Forward" from 1959/1960–1962, coupled with the people's commune and Four Pests campaigns, resulted in an estimated 15–55 million people dying of starvation during the "Great Chinese Famine" (Chinese: 三年大饥荒; literally 'three years of great famine'), more than any other single famine in recorded human history, or almost 10 times the death toll in Stalin's Holodomor. In the PRC, as in the USSR, people are dispensable.

The most significant is: China in 20 years became world most successful country: from poor agriculture country to world #1 by manufacturing power.

1679551119174.png

[Dragonman]

The most significant is: China in 20 years became world most successful country: from poor agriculture country to world #1 by manufacturing power.

1679551119174.png

As usual, when you cannot rebut a point made, you change the topic. This answer is not related in any way to your earlier comment about the Sino-Russian nuclear arms balance as a deterrent to possible/probably border tensions.

As the graph in the illustration begins in 1990, the figure should be 30 years, not 20 years.

From another perspective, taking the graph starting point further back, China's rise to becoming world #1 by manufacturing power could be dated from Mao's 1953 'Five Year Plan,' which would signify the PRC's first large scale campaign to industrialize, which means it took longer than 20/30 years. Or, given that China has 3,500 years of written history (the longest continuous history of any country in the world), it could be argued that Chinese industrialization is simply a copy of that which began with the British Industrial Revolution around 1760. It simply took them a long time to catch up, after the hard work had been done by other countries.

[Moses]

As usual, when you cannot rebut a point made, you change the topic. This answer is not related in any way to your earlier comment about the Sino-Russian nuclear arms balance as a deterrent to possible/probably border tensions.

There is nothing to discuss. Russia is nuclear country. That means nobody will risk. For sure even in China exists nationalistic fractions in CPC, as in any country, but nuclear power is nuclear power.

[Dragonman]

There is nothing to discuss. Russia is nuclear country. That means nobody will risk. For sure even in China exists nationalistic fractions in CPC, as in any country, but nuclear power is nuclear power.

As you wrote: "That means nobody will risk" - including Putin.

That is why Putin's threats to use nuclear weapons against countries supplying Ukraine with weapons need to be seen in this context. The corollary argument is: The UK, France and the USA are nuclear countries. The UK, France and the USA are members of NATO. The language used in the NATO treaty is very specific, saying “an armed attack” on any member will be considered an attack on all members, and that members would then would “assist the Party or Parties so attacked by taking forthwith, individually and in concert with the other Parties, such action as it deems necessary." Therefore, a Russian nuclear attack on the UK or any NATO country is very likely to bring a response in kind from other NATO countries. The US has six military bases in the UK, several within easy reach of London. A nuclear attack on, e.g., the UK would also be considered a nuclear attack on the USA bases, and will bring a response in kind. Moreover, an undisclosed number of the UK's nuclear weapons are at sea at all times in the UK's Trident submarines. Though Russia has marginally more (34 - if they are all capable of being used) nuclear weapons than the UK, France and the USA combined, it would take only one allied nuclear weapon to obliterate Moscow (or any of Putin's palaces, including his "forest palace" on the Black Sea coast near Gelendzhik, Krasnodar Krai, which can be located by satellites or possibly Google maps).

If the threat of a Sino-Russian conflict is unthinkable because both are nuclear powers, then a NATO-Russian conflict involving the use of nuclear weapons is an empty Russian threat.

[Moses]

then a NATO-Russian conflict involving the use of nuclear weapons is an empty Russian threat.

Nope. It works. Perfectly works. Every NATO bureaucrat while giving interviews specially highlight what NATO isn't part of conflict. Just for precautions. All Western countries decline demands of Ukraine for long-ranged weapon. Why? Because of Russian warning what it will cross red line.