Germany won't engage militarily anyway and we will continue to trade, too. The only threat to the relations can only come from the CCP restricting trade.
Germany simply doesn't have a navy, overseas territories in the Pacific, nuclear submarine deals with Australia, a space force, a war-deciding satellite-internet company, or an air force that could fly further than Switzerland.
On the economic side, Maybachs and Porsches sold to Chinese customers pay for our standard for living. We won't bite the hand that feeds us.
On really crucial industries, we don't have anything, especially not in China: Social networks with billions of users, AI, computer chips, raw materials, PV cells - nothing. We couldn't cut them off from anything critical because we don't have it.
To China, we're harmless. That's why they don't care. Smile and wave, boys.
>On really crucial industries, we don't have anything, especially not in China: Social networks with billions of users, AI, computer chips, raw materials, PV cells - nothing. We couldn't cut them off from anything critical because we don't have it.
From what I have heard Chinese factories use alot of German engineering. It's been a key component of China's ascent and the current leverage they have over western interests.
From China's perspective there is still hope for Germany. There are still political forces in Germany who believes in Merkel's old pragmatic change-through-trade approach to foreign policy. Even if Baerbock is not one of them, she represents an administration which clearly have those elements in it.
To me it is obvious what path Germany will take. It cannot do a two-front economic war both against Russia and China at the same time.
So maybe they won't outright insult the US like Macron did but they will not join an US-led cold war on China.
> So maybe they won't outright insult the US like Macron did but they will not join an US-led cold war on China.
Is saying that the EU shouldn't blindly follow the US position "insulting" to the US now? In that case, Macron is even more right. Any "friend" or "ally" that might be insulted if you don't immediately agree with them on anything (but of course only one way, they will often ignore you) isn't a reliable friend or ally.
France knows the US isn't a reliable ally since the Suez crisis. Look at what happened to the US allies in Afghanistan or to the Kurdish fighters in Syria for a more recent exemple. The issue is that it's a useful one.
Its more a factor of not wanting to participate in the hypocrisy that is required to continue to allow American's to commit war crimes and crimes against humanity under the guise of 'protecting democracy'. Nobody outside the American agitprop bubble believes that is really the purpose of the USA's demands, any more.
Even if the American people are afraid of it, the rest of the world is quite capable of viewing the evidence of American war crimes and crimes against humanity. Especially the French, who consider this a vital issue, given the extent of their borders invalidation by refugees from America's wars ...
> Its more a factor of not wanting to participate in the hypocrisy
Yeah, no, it absolutely is not that. France is all too happy to sell war equipments to countries guilty of crimes against humanity when it’s in its own interest (who said Saudi Arabia?). I applaud any actions in favour of more autonomy within or especially without the EU - an alliance which stopped making sense for France after the 2004 enlargement and was already dubious after 1995 - but let’s not pretend it’s done out of any kind of virtue.
If ethics are the driver, how does France feel about China’s neocolonial expansionism, its geo-ethnic concentration camps and its insistence on terminally annexing a peaceful independent democracy off its shores? And if we’re talking about hypocrisy and reliability, what about China’s hypocrisy and naked lies in diplomacy (decades of promises to reform with zero intent to follow through) and its opportunistic all-spectrum IP theft-by-coercion?
How does France feel empowering and collaborating with a functionally-totalitarian centralized government operating on Han ethnonationalism which sees the existence of large democracies as a threat to its internal affairs (all Xi Jinping Socialist Thought For International Relations global PR campaigns notwithstanding)?
I’d think that even if commitment to those principles turn out to be French agitprop, at least France remembers how it goes to let that kind of governance complex rise to (near-)hegemonic power.
How do you feel about living in a country torturring kidnapped people without ever bringing them in front of the justice system, sponsoring mass violence in South America through its drug policies and weapon industry, which provably sponsored the Indonesian genocide in 1965, paid for the coup which put a totalitarian military dictatorship in place in Chile instead of the democraticly elected government of Allende?
The USA has no lessons to give to anyone regarding foreign diplomacy. There is no truth behind the idea that China is bad and the USA is the force for good. Both countries want to export their own model of exploitation. Both countries are trying to make the rest of world subservient. Both care about their own interest first and foremost. Both are pretty aweful in their own way. I wish we didn't have to deal with either. Sadly the world is what it is. Non alignment seems wise.
> So maybe they won't outright insult the US like Macron did
When did Macron outright insult the US?
As someone who both speak and read French, I haven't seen him say anything particularly shocking. As far as I know, the whole thing is mostly the US press being its usual self.
Macron said Europe should aim for more independance and refuse to be a vassal of the US, that Europe shouldn't let the US drag it in its own current commercial conflict with China and that France stands being the status quo regarding Taiwan as it has always done.
> So maybe they won't outright insult the US like Macron did but they will not join an US-led cold war on China.
Until the US actually changes recognition over from China to Taiwan this is a joke. The US is just saber-rattling right now, and Macron pretty much said the EU should not blindly follow either side but listen to what the people want. So I think the other reply here is more on point about people not wanting to give up QoL should Europe decide not to side against China.
Both Baerbock and Macron are just there to milk China for whatever China has left. They both know China is now entering its third year of its own Great Depression, with 30% unemployment rate (even food delivery jobs are scarce now), 90% unemployment rate for new grads (it's so bad, Guangzhou government just sent 500k youth to countryside for a program), 80% retail collapse (entirely empty malls in Beijing, Shanghai, Shenzhen), 50% real estate price collapse, 40% export collapse. CCP can't hide this kind of economic collapse when Germany companies are closely watching the sales figures of cars and luxury goods of its own stores in China.
I realize it is hard to find data on China that is trustworthy in particular if you do not trust its government. But what you can do is to look at trade data with other countries and that data does not show the economic collapse you are describing.
According to the office for national statistics in China, for jan/feb of 2023 http://www.ce.cn/xwzx/gnsz/gdxw/202303/27/t20230327_38464161..., car manufacturing profits is down 41%. non-metal products manufacturing profits is down 39%. chemicals manufacturing profits is down 56%. electronics manufacturing profits is down 71%. In fact, all businesses have dropped 22% in profit.
That's data with existing businesses. It's been reported that within the last 2 years, China has had 1M+ SMB closures.
I know I won't change your mind but for everyone else do note that HN is one of the worst places to get unbiased opinions on the country if you actually have curiosity on this matter.
Go watch unbiased Chinese citizen videos like https://www.youtube.com/@laobaixing-CN, https://www.youtube.com/@China559, https://www.youtube.com/@user-ii2lv3iq9rhttps://www.youtube.com/@zgbx if you want the truths. But I highly doubt you speak any mandarin, or for that matter, pay any attention to recent events coming out of China. Since otherwise you would know about Apple, dell, hp, lg, Kyocera currently shifting manufacturing out of China. Or how Guizhou just became the first Chinese state to file for bankruptcy. Or how Chinese government just raised retirement age from 60 to 65.
It's not too hard to sample some people shitting all over their country basically in any country. There tons of these "unbiased truths" about the collapse of western civilization, or racial theories, or alternative medicine or whatever.
How do you figure this is actually representative?
Or the fact that the entire German gov mobile communication stack was recently handed over to Apple (email, calendars) and Wire (messaging). Both US owned.
> applications for e-mail, calendars and contacts integrated into commercial iPhones..
maybe I did misread you. You lamented the "hand over" of "the entire German gov mobile communication stack" to Apple. But what you show is BSI audited iOS and verified their own Indigo solution to be compliant with their requirements for handling VS-NfD documents (one solution of a handful of others).
So VS-NfD bits will pass that software stack sure - but as I was sceptic if "the operational part" was handled by Apple, I don't see this supported. An MDM will set endpoints for email/carddav/caldav to .de gov servers, I hope :)
Yeah, the EU is almost completely dependent on China without willing to sacrifice a rather significant drop in quality of life, which it proves over and over again it completely unwilling to do.
That works both ways. If the EU slams the door shut, the Chinese export market suffers. The Chinese are playing this very clever. The EU matters more to them than the US as a market and weakening ties between those two allies (classic divide and conquer) is a good move. Hence the Chinese are all friendly smiles when Germany pays them a visit. Win win. That visit has just one goal to ensure trade continues to function, which is a mutual interest of course. And also helps prevent things escalating into war.
The US is of course highly selective when it comes to human rights. It says one thing to China and another thing to Saudi Arabia on the same topic.
There's a lot more one could say about the apparent double standards applied there and elsewhere. But it all boils down to economic interests and level of influence it allows the US to wield. The EU is no different of course. Nor China.
Really? I found the EU's willingness to cut themselves off from Russian fuel supplies, despite the risk of their own citizens literally freezing as a result, to be uncharacteristically ballsy. (And yes, I know the EU still imports some Russian gas, but it's a lot less than they used to, and they got quite lucky since the winter was mild.)
Russia is a credible invader for parts of the EU, and the people know it. Germany is still facing the economic consequences of what happened to east germany. Leaders had enough citizen support on the ground to take action.
China is not seen as an invader. People agree they might be nasty in some aspects, but not where it hits them.
A small correction - Russia cut off EU from gas, not the other way round. The EU had a long term plan to wean itself off Russian gas, but Russia pre-empted it.
The ballsy part was that EU was leading a foreign policy (support for Ukraine) while knowing it will probably lead to Russia cutting off the gas supply.
> A small correction - Russia cut off EU from gas, not the other way round
Do people in Europe actually believe that to be the case? Is this yet another "Russia blew up its own billion dollar industry" thing again?
> it will probably lead to Russia cutting off the gas supply
So, the supply disruptions have absolutely nothing to do with Europe freezing payments and accounts, as well as disrupting all the ecosystem around the industry with sanctions?
You can't really live in a reality where you both claim yourself to be a victim of a countries supply disruptions and lead an economic war against it, right? How is that not doublethink?
> The ballsy part was that EU was leading a foreign policy (support for Ukraine)
We now publicly (thanks to Merkel's and Hollande's confessions) know that EU had been preparing to a full scale war under the guise of peace agreements. "Ballsy" is an ironic way to describe this situation, especially when any talk of negotiations or even a ceasefire gets shunted at.
> Do people in Europe actually believe that to be the case?
Of course.
> So, the supply disruptions have absolutely nothing to do with Europe freezing payments and accounts,
The gas was being paid for. There's basically no time or casual connection to frozen accounts. Bulgaria was e.g. one of the first cut-off countries despite not freezing any accounts.
> You can't really live in a reality where you both claim yourself to be a victim of a countries supply disruptions and lead an economic war against it, right?
I'm not playing the victim card. Europe did what it did, knowing the probable consequences. All I'm saying is that it was Russia who stopped pumping the gas, not Europe.
> We now publicly (thanks to Merkel's and Hollande's confessions) know that EU had been preparing to a full scale war under the guise of peace agreements.
Nice try at throwing the blame everywhere, maybe people will forget that that Russia is invading Ukraine for the 3rd time in the last 10 years. But sure, it's Germany who is the bloodthirsty country.
I don't believe Merkel anyway. Her foreign minister Steinmeier (current German president) has been actively pushing for Minsk-2 implementation. I believe she just tries to whitewash herself.
> The gas was being paid for. There's basically no time or casual connection to frozen accounts.
EU sanctioned Russia's foreign assets and froze accounts, preventing Russia from using it's funds. Gazprom was specifically sanctioned as a government-related entity. I am not making this up, I am googling as I type: "was gazprom sactioned by EU?", "was russia accounts frozen by EU?", etc. All of this is public information.
Unless you claim that this had happened in some other plane of the multiverse, this IS your time and casual connection. Moreover, this is literally not paying - these funds remain in the EU economy, kept reinvested by bankers who manage them while boosting EU liquidity.
> Bulgaria was e.g. one of the first cut-off countries despite not freezing any accounts.
Is Bulgaria not a EU state that paid in EUR to Gazprombank’s Luxembourg-based accounts?
The whole "payment with roubles" shenanigans were meant as a bypass for these sanctions (again, not making this up, it was specifically the EU officials who assessed this procedure as "breach of sanctions" https://www.ft.com/content/aa0d294b-0982-4f94-a327-a93300444... )
> I'm not playing the victim card. Europe did what it did, knowing the probable consequences
That's exactly what you are doing. Either EU decided to engage in an economic war with Russia, willing and aware of possible consequence, or "evil Russia unexpectedly stopped dealing with us" - pick one, both is doublethink.
> All I'm saying is that it was Russia who stopped pumping the gas, not Europe.
That is quite an ironic statement, given all the background of the Nord Stream 2 story.
> maybe people will forget that that Russia is invading Ukraine for the 3rd time in the last 10 years
When you start to remembering things that didn't actually happen - it's a bad sign, man. Sorry, I just had too many conversations like that, discussing the collapse of the Ukrainian government and all the following events and each time it boils down to dehumanising huge chunks of Ukrainian population that was not happy about the fact that their elected government (try overlaying Ukraine's 2010 election map on the map of the present conflict) was brought down.
> I believe she just tries to whitewash herself.
I doubt that anyone around the world, besides a small European corner, sees it as whitewashing and not as legitimising Russia's actions. You can't act like a guarantor of peace and then confess that you were totally lying without hurting your credibility.
Just think how this looks from an outsider's perspective: Russia claims that Ukraine wants to genocide people of Donetsk and isn't going to resolve this peacefully with Minks agreements as it promised to, and then European leaders go "yeah, we were totally preparing Ukraine for war all while dragging time under the guise of a peace agreement".
> Gazprom was specifically sanctioned as a government-related entity.
Gazprom was sanctioned in February 2022, Bulgaria was cut off from Russian gas in September 2022, with most other countries still buying Russian gas for months. Why specifically Bulgaria (whose role in freezing the assets was minimal) and why 6 months later? There's simply no connection to the frozen assets.
> Either EU decided to engage in an economic war with Russia, willing and aware of possible consequence
That's what I've been saying since my first comment from this thread - EU engages in economic war, but cutting out the gas was not an EU action, it's the Russian retaliation.
> When you start to remembering things that didn't actually happen - it's a bad sign, man.
Wait, you're claiming that Russia did not invade Ukraine?
> You can't act like a guarantor of peace and then confess that you were totally lying without hurting your credibility.
More like an appeaser of the imperialistic invader / aggressor.
> Russia claims that Ukraine wants to genocide people of Donetsk
Oh right, 2013 Donetsk was the scene of a genocide while 2022 Mariupol is the face of liberation. Honestly can't fathom this doublethink.
> Bulgaria was cut off from Russian gas in September 2022, with most other countries still buying Russian gas for months. Why specifically Bulgaria (whose role in freezing the assets was minimal) and why 6 months later?
Google tells me that it was April, not September. I assume September was when the long-term contract had expired. Google also tells me that the payment scheme was finalised by Russia also in April.
I also see that it wasn't "specifically Bulgaria", but also Poland, and by that time a few of other European countries had already switched to a new scheme. So no, there is nothing specific about Bulgaria.
> That's what I've been saying since my first comment from this thread - EU engages in economic war, but cutting out the gas was not an EU action, it's the Russian retaliation.
So let me get this straight: when you block your credit card and e.g. Spotify stops providing a service to you - is it a normal and expected business practice, or is it a sinister retaliation?
EU leaders just plainly shot Europe in a foot and now try to shift responsibility on evil Russia, as it totally should have continued to pump gas for free.
> Wait, you're claiming that Russia did not invade Ukraine?
Well not 3 times. If you count it like that, that means you dismiss and ignore the revolution, the civil war and all the people who were not happy about the fact that some mob had stolen their country.
> More like an appeaser of the imperialistic invader / aggressor.
"imperialism" in this case is merely a narrative to dismiss the actual substantial causes for the war. Imperialists don't plead for peace agreements in a wake of war.
> Oh right, 2013 Donetsk was the scene of a genocide while 2022 Mariupol is the face of liberation. Honestly can't fathom this doublethink.
That's because you are making wrong assumptions here. First of all, it's not some childish tale of oppression and liberation and thankfully back in 2013 Ukraine was not successful, so Donetsk didn't turn into a scene of genocide in its common sense. Secondly, it's one thing to invade a country unprovoked, and it is a completely different thing to push the frontlines away from your borders and people who associate themselves with you onto the people who are gathering strength for their "final solution of Donetsk problem" all while acting like they are totally peaceful good guys (well not really, only on the higher political levels).
It's just... Remember when Macron had leaked the private conversation he had with Putin just before the war, where Putin said that Zelensky isn't going to fulfil Minks agreements and is preparing for war, and Macron replied something along the lines of "have faith and patience". Remember how everyone was like "hurr-durr, stoopid Russia, we see through your bullshit"? Well now it turns out that Putin was telling the truth and Macron was full of shit in a room full of journalists. What the hell?
And let's be honest, it's not 2013 Donetsk, it's 2013-2022 Donetsk. Enough time for a child to be born and grow up enough to go to school, without ever in their life knowing peace and not war - go figure which is more tragic.
> Well not 3 times. If you count it like that, that means you dismiss and ignore the revolution, the civil war and all the people who were not happy about the fact that some mob had stolen their country.
I find it strange that the people in this civil war, where somehow instantly trained on complicated Russian military equipment, procured enough of this equipment to fight and then when they captured enough ground they eventually installed get this.
A former Russian FSB agent as the head of the military. Thats totally what happens in a totally 'real' civil war right.
> trained on complicated Russian military equipment
What complicated Russian military equipment? Hypersonic missiles? Any other equipment designed in Russian Federation that was actually used in combat even after the full-scale war had started? Or is it all old Soviet stuff, the same stuff that Ukraine uses? The country that had conscription service which implies that a substantial number of adult men in Ukraine are trained to operate this equipment?
> procured enough of this equipment to fight
Donetsk had military installations. Even a whole military academy, AFAIK. Though I don't doubt that Russia had started supplying DNR under the table at some point.
> A former Russian FSB agent as the head of the military.
Seizing an opportunity for themselves. Given the specific ideological matter along which the Ukraine had been torn, this isn't an unimaginable thing.
> Thats totally what happens in a totally 'real' civil war right.
Define "real"? Is the civil war in Syria real? Was the civil war that had collapsed the Russian Empire real? If it is the foreign influence that confuses you - that is actually an expected thing: In most cases the sides of the civil war gravitate to nearest opposing poles of power, with the exception for secluded places like America.
It's important not to be dismissive of the fact that the root cause of all the problems is that people in Ukraine can not agree on a sustainable way to run their country and that people in Donbas have no less rights then the people who pushed for the revolution. Everything else is just bullshit that distracts everyone from what's important - the people.
> Define "real"? Is the civil war in Syria real? Was the civil war that had collapsed the Russian Empire real? If it is the foreign influence that confuses you - that is actually an expected thing: In most cases the sides of the civil war gravitate to nearest opposing poles of power, with the exception for secluded places like America.
A war that isn't started by a foreign power to try and destabilise the country is what id call a 'real' civil war, and it's clear the one in Ukraine was started by Russia.
> It's important not to be dismissive of the fact that the root cause of all the problems is that people in Ukraine can not agree on a sustainable way to run their country and that people in Donbas have no less rights then the people who pushed for the revolution. Everything else is just bullshit that distracts everyone from what's important - the people.
The root cause for a lot of it is Russian interference just like it is in what is it now? 4?, 5? post soviet states now.
> and it's clear the one in Ukraine was started by Russia.
Clearly it wasn't Russia who started a revolution in Ukraine, was it? This is just going in circles, really. You are just avoiding the wrong-think of even assuming that just as there were people passionate about Euromaidan, there might have been others that had the opposite view. You are denying the nature of what a revolution is.
> Russian interference just like it is in what is it now? 4?, 5? post soviet states now.
Well sure, the Soviet Union had been dissolved like shit and Russia will inevitably be tied into every other issue, that's one of the reasons CSTO exist.
Honestly, if "interference" is actually a principal problem, it is kinda ironic that it's only Russia that bothers you.
> We now publicly (thanks to Merkel's and Hollande's confessions) know that EU had been preparing to a full scale war under the guise of peace agreements
Which was the right thing to do, we always knew Russia would invade again and any peace agreements with Russia aren't worth the paper they are written on. Russia already broke the previous agreement they had with Ukraine to never invade the country anyway.
> Russia already broke the previous agreement they had with Ukraine to never invade the country anyway.
I am not that good of a legal expert to track each and every treaty, but I doubt that there was an agreement formulated exactly like that. For example the Budapest Memorandum article 3 was technically broken when Europe and the US were fast to support a coup in Ukraine.
> So why would this time be any different?
Because this essentially legitimises Russia's motive for the war.
It was 100% right thing to for the people of Donetsk, who got invaded by Russian forces in 2014.
> I am not that good of a legal expert to track each and every treaty, but I doubt that there was an agreement formulated exactly like that. For example the Budapest Memorandum article 3 was technically broken when Europe and the US were fast to support a coup in Ukraine.
So because the US / Europe broke the Budapest Memorandum the Russians can also break every single part of it because they feel like it?.
> It was 100% right thing to for the people of Donetsk, who got invaded by Russian forces in 2014.
They got invaded by the new Ukrainian government's "anti-terrorist" forces, consisting largely of shady shaved-head guys with very particularly thematic tattoos - as no one else wanted to take part in that senseless bloodshed.
Look, I recognise your username and I am well aware on your views on the matter. We've already clashed multiple times and there is really nothing to discuss when you insist on dismissing the idea that people who overwhelmingly voted for president elect in 2014 might not be happy with the fact that some mob had stolen their country.
Keep in mind that people can live in a single country and have different preferences and political opinions. That is absolutely normal and expected in a normal situation, and even more so, much more sharply, during a revolution. I don't get how can anyone imply monolithicity in 2014 Ukraine.
> Look, I recognise your username and I am well aware on your views on the matter. We've already clashed multiple times and there is really nothing to discuss when you insist on dismissing the idea that people who overwhelmingly voted for president elect in 2014 might not be happy with the fact that some mob had stolen their country.
Ah yes the country was stolen by the people such a novel idea, I understand you're mad because the Russian puppet got ousted for going against the people then ran away to his masters in Moscow.
But please keep telling me how the 'Ukrainian rebels' in Donetsk were using Russian air defence systems and then electing to put a former Russian FSB agent in as head of the military.
Opinion polls prove my theory, at least in Germany: if elections were held today, the current government coalition wouldn't be able to govern anymore - despite widespread general support for the sanctions against Russia, but just a small percentage of malcontents is enough to tip the scale...
Define "extremely popular" - they now have 416 out of 736 seats in the Bundestag, so around 56%, which is a relatively comfortable majority. This was achieved with SPD getting 25,7% of the vote, the Greens 14,8% and FDP 11,5% (the numbers don't add up because some parties didn't make the 5% limit, so the parties that do make it get a larger percentage of seats). According to the latest opinion polls, SPD would now get 19% (~6pp less), the Greens 17% (~2pp more) and FDP 7% (~4pp less). So, not a huge drop, and even a plus for one of the three parties, but still well below 50%...
The question is whether we are dependent on China rather than the outside world. Let's not forget that there are many places that are now cheaper than China for manufacturing, and aren't potential political foe. It's also worth remembering that the movement of outsourcing of western manufacturing to China happened within only about 10 years (ie late 90s to late 2000s). That's actually pretty fast.
It's no longer textiles and cheap plastic trinkets "we" outsource to China - there's a lot of technical knowledge, infrastructure & skill now available in China that is not easily replaceable by opening a factory in Bangladesh or Turkey.
It would still be a sucky ten years, a sacrifice many people probably don't want to make. It's like the natural gas situation. We could already have a robust renewable setup here technology-wise, but it was easier to just rely on cheap gas. Now we cannot pull that renewable wonderland out of a hat over night...
Quality of life? That requires buy-in from voters in a democratic society [1], and voters are humans, and humans are selfish. Phones made with cobalt mined by children? Shirts made in sweatshops in Bangladesh? But my QoL!
[1] Well even dictatorship China relented when protests against Covid restrictions got too big.
> [1] Well even dictatorship China relented when protests against Covid restrictions got too big.
Ultimately, all societies are democratic, because they require the buy-in from the population. The moment the population isn't willing to play nicely anymore, a state is doomed. See: France, ca. 1789.
Divide and conquer, this has been China's approach for a long time.
When Australia started to get closer to the US, China put blocks on imports, delayed customs clearance for food (so it spoiled), hoping to break Australia away from the Western Alliance.
When Macron wanted to visit China, he was welcomed with open arms.
China knows they can't go up against the entire Western world, but if they can peel off each country - one by one - they can go up against the US alone (or think they can), whether it be economic or military warfare.
So it can do what it wants. Like control the South China Sea. Invade Taiwan. Reroute all rivers flowing into India for itself. Steal natural resources from countries. Control foreign governments. Basically everything it does now but without having to worry about everyone rallying against them.
China won't invade Taiwan. Xi isn't going to oversee the massacre of fellow Han people. There is very little appetite within the CCP for openly invading Taiwan.
Looking at the diplomatic wins China has racked up recently, it's entirely possible Taiwan willingly folds itself into China within a decade.
Doubtful. People in Taiwan don’t consider themselves Chinese. They don’t want anything to do with China. A lot of Taiwanese believe they have more in common with japan than they do with China.
After what happened with HK they do not believe China can be trusted at any capacity.
China is banking on KMT winning next year so they can try and invade from the inside. But Taiwan won’t go peacefully.
Exactly. You know which country is most willing to see a war around China's border? The US. That's the most effective way it can form an anti-China aliance and hit its biggest rival.
So, imperialism. Which is what Western powers also did openly until the 1960s TBH, and less openly until today. Let's hope that Xi is less deluded than Putin and realizes that cooperation is better than confrontation. And the West has to try to remove some of the eggs from the Chinese basket and put them somewhere else...
> Which is what Western powers also did openly until the 1960s TBH
Sure. I wasn’t born then. But I would like to think society and governments have grown up since then and we can agree that invasion is wrong. Abuse of power is wrong.
Britain has given up a lot of what it took. It has no control or say in australia or New Zealand. It gave HK back. Left Singapore, Myanmar, India. Etc.
Obviously we can’t change what happened. None of us on HN or our families etc had any say in what happened for generations before we were born.
But in 2023 we should be at a point where we can acknowledge it’s wrong and stop it from happening.
In 1999 australia also voted to maintain its ties with Britain. But because of 1975 Britain has less powers in australia. When was the last time Britain interfered with Australia to a large extent?
"break" has many meanings, but assuming you meant "break up" instead of "destroy":
- China has openly supported Macron's "strategic autonomy" principle which aims to distance EU from USA.
- Ever since Xi got his regime extended, they've been inviting nation leaders to increase their influence. In last 5 months, they've invited Germany, Iran, Spain, France and Brazil.
- They've brokered a peace deal between Iran and Saudi. Which is another loss for US influencer in middle east, threatening the current petrodollar hegemony.
Note that I'm not condemning China. It's just an observation. And honestly, they would be dumb if they didn't do this while US is pissing off their key allies with rate hikes and the IRA Act.
> China has openly supported Macron's "strategic autonomy" principle which aims to distance EU from USA.
I find this completely normal, but also shortsighted in a way. A more strategically autonomous and assertive EU wouldn't blindly follow US' follies (cf. Iraq), but that doesn't mean it won't side with the US for a just cause (cf. Ukraine). The democratic values in the US, Canada, UK and EU are too similar for a complete strategic divergence in policies. Therefore we'd get a more strong, integrated and assertive EU leading the way in many areas trade, manufacturing and regulations-wise, that still collaborates with US and friends when it makes sense and the cause is just (so not in invading Iran on imaginary pretenses, but if China invades Taiwan brutally à la Russia invading Ukraine, probably).
In short term, China loves "strategic autonomy" because Macron has also suggested that China invading Taiwan should not be EU's business under the principle(apparently he used much stronger words but was censored by his own communications team)
In longer term, (pure speculation) I think China may believe that after a while, China would have so much global influence that even strategically autonomous EU would be reluctant to side with US even for blatantly "unjust" cause.
And don't forget, the situation is extremely messy from a legal perspective. Taiwan is an island, run by the Republic of China, the losers of the Chinese Civil War, and both them and the PRC (mainland China) say there's only one China, and it's them. That's what the world recognises too, only one of them is the real China, and there's nothing else.
For all intents and purposes Taiwan is a separate independent country nowadays thay doesn't actively claim to be China, but it's too late to change the situation (like by amending their constitution or status to say they're a separate country, Taiwan, and don't have anything to do with China anymore) because anything done today just might piss off China(PRC). Technically if China invades Taiwan, they'd be within their internationally recognised legal rights to retake a runaway province from the losers of a civil war. From a humanitarian perspective it would be a disaster of course, but on what grounds does anyone defend Taiwan when barely any country recognises Taiwan exists in the first place?
Legal perspective? The only way you can enforce legality is with force. And whose is going to do that? The UN?
Countries gain sovereignty either when the country they split off of allows it or they have the means to occupy and defend the land they claim is soverign.
> Legal perspective? The only way you can enforce legality is with force
Dubious. The current legality of the situation is that Taiwan is de jure part of China (PRC), and the ROC is nobody. Nobody is enforcing that with force, it's maintained by the unwillingness of the ROC to provoke the PRC, and the unwillingness of the PRC to risk their credentials and trade over this, or they're hopeful one day the ROC will peacefully join them if relations and trade are good enough.
> Countries gain sovereignty either when ... they have the means to occupy and defend the land they claim is soverign.
Haiti, or much more recently Abkhazia, South Ossetia, Transnistria, North Cyprus, etc. prove this wrong. Even if you have full control of some land and claim to have full sovereignty over it, unless others recognise you, you're in a very bad situation. No international recognition -> no trade or international relations -> perpetually poor.
It wasn't, they only joined because Japan and later Nazi Germany declared war on them. If it was about "freeing" anyone, they would have stepped in much earlier.
And just to be clear, the US had a massive part of the Allied war effort against the Axis, but they didn't singlehandedly win the war or free anyone, it was a joint effort with similarly massive Soviet and British (and Commonwealth) parts. As a reminder, Britain spent months fighting alone, and the vast vast majority of German troops were always on the Eastern Front while the Western Allies fought against subpar foreign "volunteers" or third-rate recovering German troops on the continent.
> It wasn't, they only joined because Japan and later Nazi Germany declared war on them. If it was about "freeing" anyone, they would have stepped in much earlier.
Only because of isolationist "not my problem"s like GP, the current fringe right in the US, and others on HN. That's what we're fighting to not be like.
Everything you said is pretty much true. It's also true that without the US, and especially US+UK, WW2 would've turned out very differently. Soviets could not beat the Nazis themselves. So you can still appreciate the US, UK, and the Soviets for freeing Europe. And the US and UK are telling Europe that you don't get to be saved by us and then shirk your responsibility to save someone else.
And you’re glad it was the Soviets?? Didn’t turn out so well for East Germany, Poland, Slovakia, Hungary, Ukraine, etc.
No, China hasn’t set foot in Taiwan. If it does, by murdering thousands, then yes Apple would be rightfully seen as collaborators. As would you for supporting indifference to a murderous bloody invasion.
It doesn't; what is happening is the result of changed attitudes towards China particular in the US. It would have preferred to trade more with and have further cultural ties with the US.
> China knows they can't go up against the entire Western world, but if they can peel off each country - one by one - they can go up against the US alone
German state visits to China all follow the same pattern. We go there, we bring presents, we talk about 'human rights' for a few minutes - a fig leaf just so we can claim moral superiority at home - and then we talk business for the next two to three days.
Up to now, that worked pretty nicely. Beijing knows that Germany, and by extension Europe, is unwilling to stop cooperating, especially since China for the longest time has been Europes 'extended workbench'. Berlin knows that Beijing is a reliable partner in manufacturing. Everyone is happy, no-one wants to change the status quo.
The situation is similar to the situation with Russia pre-2020 - and the last thing Europe needs is the US rattling the bars of another reliable partner.
We'll see. China has been just about to invade Taiwan for 40 years, or longer.
That being said: Russia was relatively little intertwined with our (= European and American) economies. That's a different situation with the PRC. I think it is not unlikely that there will be less unity in a "Case Taiwan".
> I think it is not unlikely that there will be less unity in a "Case Taiwan".
That's possible, but the consequences will still be vast. Many countries will go into a decade accelerating decoupling their economies from China. High tech will take a huge hit, stock markets may crash, ...
A more authoritarian rulership in China with a democratic Taiwan as an alternative model is at odds.
Crazy how the Western media still clings on to people like Baerbock. Swear to God, even media in the dying days of the Ceausescu regime was not that deluded, and I say that as a on-and-off (mostly on) Economist reader for 15+ years and I also used to glimpse at some newspapers that my dad used to bring home when I was a kid (for the Ceausescu media part).
The reactions on Baerbock's previous sloppy remark that "we are in war with Russia" showed that nobody takes her seriously. China knows that they can more or less ignore her and wait until the current government is pushed out and replaced by a more sane one.
> Responding to Ms Baerbock’s expression of concern about the violation of human rights of the Uighurs, a Muslim minority in the western region of Xinjiang, he talked about “lies” that were being spread about Xinjiang. He said Ms Baerbock could come to the region at any time to see for herself.
Well well well. She should have said that IF she and her entourage receive guarantees that they are free to drive wherever they want AND free to photograph whatever they see, then she will take him up on his offer.
Germany won't engage militarily anyway and we will continue to trade, too. The only threat to the relations can only come from the CCP restricting trade.
Germany simply doesn't have a navy, overseas territories in the Pacific, nuclear submarine deals with Australia, a space force, a war-deciding satellite-internet company, or an air force that could fly further than Switzerland.
On the economic side, Maybachs and Porsches sold to Chinese customers pay for our standard for living. We won't bite the hand that feeds us. On really crucial industries, we don't have anything, especially not in China: Social networks with billions of users, AI, computer chips, raw materials, PV cells - nothing. We couldn't cut them off from anything critical because we don't have it.
To China, we're harmless. That's why they don't care. Smile and wave, boys.