The Mao-Kissinger Meeting of 1973 | Hacker News Reader

The Mao-Kissinger Meeting of 1973

gaodawei.wordpress.com

215 pointsprude287 comments

The memcon between Nixon and Mao (with Kissinger present) is also pretty interesting[1].

[1]: https://digitalarchive.wilsoncenter.org/document/memorandum-...

It's very interesting how Mao claimed he preferred "rightists" in power in the West, because leftists were usually pro-Soviet.

> Mao: That is to say, I voted for you [Nixon] during your election. [...] I like rightists. People say you are rightists, that the Republican Party is to the right, that Prime Minister Heath is also to the right. [...] They also say the Christian Democratic Party of West Germany is also to the right. I am comparatively happy when these people on the right come into power.

> Kissinger: [...] those on the left are pro-Soviet and would not encourage a move toward the People’s Republic, and in fact criticize you on those grounds.

> Mao: Exactly that. Some are opposing you [Nixon]. In our country also there is a reactionary group which is opposed to our contact with you. The result was that they got on an airplane and fled abroad.

(I know this is just small talk and people don't always say what they mean, but...)

I dont have the source at hand, but soviets also preffered republicans to the left, since they could always make a dral with republicans while the lwft was too ideological.

Depends on what do you mean by the ‘left’ bolsheviks often viewed social-democratic and (to a lesser extent) liberal parties as their greatest threats. They were all appealing to the same demographics but were diametrically opposed on certain core points (democracy, free speech, political oppression etc.) making any real cooperation impossible.

The Weimar republic was a great example of that, the liberal/socialist government which was in power during it’s entire lifetime was so unstable and eventually collapsed because a significant proportion of the electorate continued voting for the bolsheviks. They wouldn’t even cooperate to prevent the far-right from coming to power (of course it’s not like they had a choice, moderate voters would have immediately shifted to the right if the socialists tried working with communists).

So it’s not that surprising. Stalin had no issue working with Hitler and supplying Germany with raw material which were necessary for their conquest of France (during the period western communist parties suddenly became rabidly pro-nazi..) until all of that blew up in his face…

Of course that was already quite different in the 60s and 70s after the Soviet were no longer as focused on ideological purity (and mass murder by extension).

> Stalin had no issue working with Hitler

To be honest, the other european powers (France, but especially the UK) also had a big trust issue with Stalin, and provably had a big role in making the unthinkable (the communist-nazi alliance) happen.

> also had a big trust issue

Stalin spent the last few years murdering millions of people. Without the benefit of hindsight Hitler clearly seemed like the more benign options prior to 1939..

Sad as it may be, I don’t think this has ever been a real problem for other countries. In the case of Stalin, the issue was lending credibility to socialism. Herr Hitler looked like a respectable man because he was very much against socialism, sending those filthy reds to a lager.

Weimar Germany was mostly dominated (to the extent that it could've been, being such a mess and of course they never had an outright majority) by the socialist party. They hated the bolsheviks as much as(if not more) anyone, even going as far to having them shot and thrown into canals...

Arguably without Stalin and USSR supporting German communists most of their voters (~10% of the country) would've shifted to the Socialists party. Strengthening the Socialist-Liberal-Christian Democrat coalition and making it harder for far-right parties to take power.

UK had a socialist government between 1929 and 1931 and the Labor prime minister continued running the government until 1935 supported by the Conservatives after the Labour party split (and unlike today the Labour party considered themselves to be actual socialists). Socialists also had significant influence in the French republic as well.

> Herr Hitler looked like a respectable man because he was very much against socialism

Or rather the French and the British were much more preoccupied in dealing with their internal issues during the Great Depression to pay too much attention to what was happening in Germany.

Also The British prime minister at the time when first came to power and for the 4-5 years after that was a self-avowed socialist. Which would have made it a bit weird if what you're saying was right.

> In the case of Stalin, the issue was lending credibility to socialism

Why are you equating Bolshevism/Communism with Socialism? The bolsheviks overthrew a Socialist government to come to power after all and suppressed all socialist parties whenever and wherever they could.

You have a point when you notice that I lazily used “socialism”, I did mean the bolsheviks and the communist revolutionaries.

I think the rest wouldn’t change much: the things you mention don’t have much to do with having moral scruples against Stalin’s mass murders. It seems to me that the main reason was still “we don’t do business with bolsheviks”. Of course the main reason is not the only one, and had the other powers realized who was leading Germany they maybe would have been more open to Stalin’s requests…

> I think the rest wouldn’t change much: the things you mention don’t have much to do with having moral scruples against Stalin’s mass murders.

I don't agree ( if you also include Lenin's mass murders). Of course a lot of it has to do with the fear the the Bolsheviks would do the same in their countries in they ever came to power.

> It seems to me that the main reason was still “we don’t do business with bolsheviks

Main reason of what? Poland had some pretty good reasons to not want any soviet troops in it's territory.

> would have been more open to Stalin’s requests…

Like allowing him to have Eastern Europe? Well the Anglo-Polish treaty even had a secret clause saying that it only applied in case Germany specifically attacked Poland and Britain was not obliged to join the war in case the Soviets invaded.

Again it's not that relevant. It's highly unlikely that Germany could have defeated France in 1940 without Soviet support. Germany had almost no oil and many other vital resources left after the invasion of Poland (it imported most of it's oil from America). So the Soviets simply had to stay out it. They chose to support Germany instead. I really don't see how anything that the allies did could be considered to be more foolish and/or shortsighted than the German–Soviet Commercial Agreement of 1940.

Amongst other things Germany would've entirely ran out of grain, rubber, manganese and oil by the Autumn of 1941 or much earlier without the imports form the USSR but Stalin had a better plan which resulted in millions of unnecessary deaths..

I don't think this factored into Western distrust. The West had sided with White Russians and against Bolsheviks since forever, way before any purges or Holodomor or whatnot.

It's interesting that Stalin tried to get the West's help against Hitler before he giving up and making a truce with Germany to buy time.

Keep in mind that Germany was close and Hitler had stated he intended to expand eastwards towards Russia and he had declared that "Bolshevik Jews" were the ultimate enemy of Germany. If Stalin felt the Soviet Union wasn't ready for that fight, it makes sense that he would try to stall it. (Yes, then there's Poland and all that jazz. History is complicated).

> the liberal/socialist government which was in power during it’s entire lifetime was so unstable and eventually collapsed because a significant proportion of the electorate continued voting for the bolsheviks

Seems to still be the case today: the far left fighting with the moderate left.

> "during the period western communist parties suddenly became rabidly pro-nazi."

Please could you provide some reference?

Orwell writing?

This is normal pragmatism and real-politik. Mao is looking after his and China's interests.

The public are usually fed simplistic, emotional propaganda by their governments, all of them: good vs evil, right thing to do, freedom, whatever. But in fact policies are based on interests and cold calculations.

Funny thing is that things started to go bad for Mao when he suddenly started to have ideals.

Luckily Xiaoping entered the chat and the rest is Chinese history.

(I have always liked the Chinese for their pragmatism. Americans are too far up their own ass).

> Luckily Xiaoping entered the chat and the rest is Chinese history.

I think Deng Xiaoping is a direct result of these developments during the Mao years.

Things would have been very different for China, without the rapprochement with the west. Without friendly terms with the west they would have to maintain an enormously big army.

Think of a China today that is more like North Korea.

So basically Russia in 2023?

> Without friendly terms with the west they would have to maintain an enormously big army.

They don't?

it was relatively low, for quite some time.

comparable to they population and GDP?

> Mao is looking after [..] China's interests

Yes, just like during the "Great Leap Forward" and the cultural revolution. Sure...

He was a complicated person and even in China people discuss his flaws. They see him similar to how we view George Washington.

Washington shaped the nation, but also massacred Native Americans and didn't free his slaves until after his death.

The Chinese see Mao as someone who gave them their pride back, but most of his socioeconomic policies were failures.

I'm not trying to do a "whataboutism" here, just trying to bring some perspective of how the average Chinese person thinks of Mao.

I don't think equating Washington and Mao makes even the tiniest bit of sense. Washington never aspired be an absolute ruler or to fundamentally transform the American society into something else by force.

But yeah I get your point, it's unfortunate that China never had its Khrushchev moment.

They were equating those two people in terms of how people look back at each of them and see positives despite acknowledging significant negatives.

I'm not somebody who can say to what extent that comparison does or doesn't make sense, but your response is irrelevant because they weren't saying that Mao and Washington were comparable in terms of their aspirations or specific actions.

> I'm not somebody who can say to what extent that comparison does or doesn't make sense

It is unfortunate that you feel that way because it's not all ambiguous.

I mean for instance a German person could say "that Bismarck and Hitler were comparable in terms of their aspirations or specific actions" and they would technically be correct in a certain way (much more so than someone comparing Mao and Washington anyway). However that would be in no way a morally sensible comparison.

Godwin's law strikes again...

Apply the logic for why Mao was as bad as Hitler, read up on the Bengal famine, and you'll come to the conclusion that Churchill was also Hitler. But of course he wasn't Hitler, and famines aren't on the same scale as the Holocaust.

While you're educating yourself, perhaps read up on Mao's nationalist counterpart in the Civil War, a fascist dictator and war criminal named Chiang Kai-Shek. I would find the comparison to George Washington and Chiang Kai-Shek to be quite distasteful. George Washington was not a bad man by the standards of his time, he was not a dictator, and he was not a war criminal.

Conversely, Chiang Kai-Shek was a murderous tyrant even by contemporary standards. During the White Terror of 1927, he infamously stated he'd prefer to kill 1000 innocent people "by mistake" than let one communist live. Over 300,000 people were murdered during this purge alone, and that's a floor. Some estimates put the death toll in the millions. We'll never know the true body count. Unfortunately, it was not difficult to kill people without a trace in rural China at this time. At any rate, it was a crime against humanity within an order of magnitude of Stalin's Great Purge. And this was just one of the many, many atrocities committed by Chiang Kai-Shek. I don't think anyone could fight this monster and win, without becoming a monster themselves.

And yet, I have no trouble understanding why Taiwanese people might have mixed feelings about this heinous man. Without Chiang Kai-Shek, there would be no Taiwan. As it stands, only 12 UN nations recognize Taiwan as an independent country. Nationalism is a helluva drug...

Why is it that we all know Mao Zedong's name in infamy, and not Chiang Kai-Shek? Because we are always eating from the trashcan of ideology.

He thought he was.

I don't think Mao was a crook in the sense of "stealing money and the country be damned". I think he was motivated by a vision for his country, why else fight so fiercely against the nationalists and the Japanese? He believed in something.

Whether the Great Leap Forward or any one of his policies was a disaster is orthogonal to whether he believed in doing a great good for China.

To be fair a crook would most likely killed way less people, having a competent crook in charge is generally by far not the worst option.

He did neither, the revolutionaries kept out of all major battles, letting the nationalists and Japanese duke it out and then mop up the remains. He believed in violence and power and that everyone was like him.

Wikipedia lists multiple battles between the Chinese Red Army and the Nationalists, and also states they joined together to fight the Japanese. It lists multiple engagements/actions from 1927 to 1936.

Claiming Mao "believed in violence" adds nothing new, really. Most revolutionaries believed in violence as a means to reach an end. Nationalists did, too.

I think it's not controversial that Mao had a vision for his country which he tought would make China great, he was a visionary and an ideologue. You don't have to agree with his vision to acknowledge he had one.

Which helped china industrialize and develop nukes... The primary concern for china at that time was being invaded and/or nuked by the US and/or the Soviet Union. Also, it's silly to blame or praise Mao or Kissinger or anyone for the success or failure of a major country. Mao nor Nixon nor Xi nor Putin nor Trump are "gods". They are ultimately figureheads of the state/elites. You can easily tell what is propaganda by the way any media focuses on an individual rather than a system, elites, etc. Ever notice how it's always the singular Putin or Xi or Trump or Biden who is the "bad" guy in propaganda?

Also, if the great leap forward and the cultural revolution were as bad as the propaganda says it was, china wouldn't have been able to industrialize. China would have crumbled and become a vassal of the US or the Soviet Union.

Along those lines runs the delimiter of the often times blurry spectrum of today's western-leftism: The Pro-Soviet western marxists of the past often became today's western pro-Russian "populists", while the western Maoists of the 1968s became today's Pro-NATO "progressives".

None of what you wrote makes any coherent sense in this world. I don't even know where to start…

The OP’s statement is perfectly coherent and sensible. A number of soixante-huitards who flirted with Maoism are now in favour of strong European defense against Russia. Moreover, Maoism deemphasized the individual, but today those ex-Maoists are more likely to support individualist things like gender self-selection.

> The Pro-Soviet western marxists of the past often became today's western pro-Russian "populists"

Please expand on that. The only thing that backing the Soviet Union and current day Russia seem to have in common is that they are both aggressive, authorities regimes. Maybe I’m missing some nuance here.

To clarify: it both makes no sense and also occurs. I've seen it in my country. Our Communist Party supports Russia in the current war, out of nostalgia for the Soviet Union.

Does it make sense? None at all. Russia and the Soviet Union share nothing today. Putin likes to remember past military glories of the USSR but rebukes communism and his country is the land of oligarchs. Ideologically Russia and the USSR are nothing alike.

I've not read anything from Maoists on Russia's current invasion, but I likewise can believe they oppose it, for the same broken thought process: if they identify Putin's Russia with their hated historical enemy, the Soviets, then of course they are against it!

Completely bonkers, I know, but it has some bizarre logic.

I also have friends like that, that are just too far invested in the "America is always evil" narrative. Yes, the US does plenty dubious things. It doesn't contradict Putin being even worse.

Ralf Fücks is a prime example:

From Maoist to Green Party Member and government funded NATO war hawk.

There are many ex-Maoists who have found a home in the right wing of the Greens.

https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kommunistischer_Bund_Westdeuts...

https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zentrum_Liberale_Moderne

Not surprising given Marx's theory, that capitalism, unchecked, was bound to become centralised, and monopolised. Thus, creating the conditions for a revolutionary transition to totalitarian dictatorship of the proletariat. But leaping too soon to communism retards that process.

I don't think "totalitarian" is part of Marx credo. Dictatorship is not used in that sense, and in any kind, according to Marx this dictatorship is transitional and must also end.

Agreed about the "not leaping" too soon comment, though.

In the end I think Mao simply saw the USSR as the more immediate threat, and faraway rightists in America were less of a concern -- and if they opposed the Russkies, so much the better!

Looks like some game of chess: China stopped supporting North Vietnam, but that didn't stop North Vietnam from invading South Vietnam, after the pullout. However at that point no one in the US cared about any domino theory, because the US was now friends with China against the Soviet Union.

I wonder what the chess pieces were all thinking...

The Chinese split from north Vietnam is just a consequence of the sino-Soviet split that began under kruschev. However, the Vietnamese did help with Soviet tech to preserve and display Mao’s body, at least.

both China and the Soviet Union were supporting North Vietnam at the same time - up until 1968 (when they had this war over an island). The Sino Soviet split happened much earlier, in 1961.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/China_in_the_Vietnam_War

The great friendship between China and the USA started after that border conflict in 1968, as China was looking for a counterweight.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sino-Soviet_border_conflict

I mean Mao was playing Nixon and Kissinger against Brezhnev.

The funny part is where Kissinger is taking all of the credit for the US China rapprochement.

But 1973 things were falling apart, they would last until the war end with America (otherwise Mao wouldn’t have gotten his crystal casket), but by the late 70s Vietnam and china were at war.

China and the USSR never quite "split" from North Vietnam until well after the end of the war in 1975 (the Sino-Vietnamese war in 1979 was the China aplit which was mended in the 80's).

The Sino-Soviet split had already happened (as you mentioned) and North Vietnam played China and the USSR off against each other "who can be the best friend of an important communist revolutionary government?".

It wasn't until the US engaged both China and the USSR in detente, and the war had progressed to such an extent it was obvious the US was leaving, that Vietnam moved way down the list of priorities for both the USSR and China. Both countries continued to support North Vietnam, but it was heavily tempered by what they might lose with the US.

The Sino-Soviet split came to mind when listening to Xi swear to be Putin's BFF and blood brother forever. Is Putin really stupid enough to fall for that? He will be polishing Xi's boots with his tongue soon enough.

Depends on what Xi is planning over Taiwan, that is where things get complicated.

They are all trying to build alliances for that contingency.

It also depends on if Xi is planning to take Primorsky Krai from Russia in the future or not.

When Russia celebrated its 160 year anniversary of taking Vladivostok from China, there were descenting voices in Beijing calling to reverse another so called "humiliation".

Countries are allied until they are not.

Putin signed a treaty to protect Ukraine, it didn't stop him from attacking them in 2014 or escalating that again last year.

"Every country protects in established order of the rights of its citizens living in another country, in accordance with commitments to documents of the Organization for Security and Co-operation in Europe and other universally recognized principles and norms of international law, agreements within the Commonwealth of Independent States."

Ukraine stopped following the contents of that treaty after the US supported Maidan coup.

Ukraine stopped following the contents of that treaty after the US supported Maidan coup.

Sounds like the Ukrainian people should have harbored a lot of resentment against the US for interfering with their democratic process, if true. Was that the case?

In any event, what concern was this of Russia's? Russia has problems of its own, and for a nuclear-armed nation, external threats are a long way down the list. Maybe they should worry more about how to improve their own country and less about how to wreck everybody else's.

"Sounds like the Ukrainian people should have harbored a lot of resentment against the US for interfering with their democratic process, if true. Was that the case?"

Of-course, why did you think Donetsk and Luhansk regions held secession referendums in 2014 ?

"Maybe they should worry more about how to improve their own country and less about how to wreck everybody else's."

Why would Russia not interfere in their immediate neighbourhood in a nation filled with a large number of Russian ethnic people who were turned into second class pariahs thanks to US interference ?

Also..you must be joking about wrecking? Maybe the US should follow that advice first ? Pot/Kettle ? Look at Libya - a nation that used to have free healthcare, electricity and subsidized housing. Now brought to the stone age - famine and extreme poverty - all thanks to the manoeuvrings of the US statement department and NATO bombings.

> Of-course, why did you think Donetsk and Luhansk regions held secession referendums in 2014 ?

Because there were Russian soldiers holding a gun to their back forcing it.

Igor Girkin who was a FSB officer and one of the former leaders of the DPR or LPR armies recently admitted it was mostly Russians and wasn’t really a civil war.

> Why would Russia not interfere in their immediate neighbourhood in a nation filled with a large number of Russian ethnic people who were turned into second class pariahs thanks to US interference ?

Because this never happened, this is a persistent myth spouted by people like Putin to justify the rape and torture of Ukraine.

"Because this never happened, this is a persistent myth spouted by people like Putin to justify the rape and torture of Ukraine."

A "myth" recorded in Ukraine's laws by passing bills like 5670-d that effectively made the Russian language illegal in most aspects of public life. Doing so in a multi-ethnic nation in any other part of the world would have raised howls of fascism and anti-democracy by the US mass media and state dept and extensive condemnations in the UN. But hey, its Ukraine - a promised NATO partner - who cares about the folks affected ?

> A "myth" recorded in Ukraine's laws by passing bills like 5670-d that effectively made the Russian language illegal in most aspects of public life. Doing so in a multi-ethnic nation in any other part of the world would have raised howls of fascism and anti-democracy by the US mass media and state dept and extensive condemnations in the UN. But hey, its Ukraine - a promised NATO partner - who cares about the folks affected ?

That law is merely about recording the offical language of the country as being Ukrainian, and having it be used, an attempt to preserve the national identity of Ukraine, as _Ukrainian_ and not as _Russian_.

This desperate attempt to look oppressed by Russia is pathetic at this point.

"This desperate attempt to look oppressed by Russia is pathetic at this point."

This desperate attempt to deflect the actual and real ramifications of the law which made Russians pariahs in their communities is utterly laughable. Maybe you should take some time to investigate yourself. No Russian in theatres, no Russian on documents, No Russian film dubbings, be careful talking Rusian or get beat up or killed - spend some time talking to folks from Donbass and understand the kind of oppression they faced, before you call oppression as pathetic.

Gee. I wonder why the interests of ethnic Russians might not be respected by the majority of the Ukrainian populace.

It's not prejudice when you have a Holodomor in your history books.

> spend some time talking to folks from Donbass and understand the kind of oppression they faced, before you call oppression as pathetic.

I don’t need to speak to FSB and GRU agents to know what the Russian intelligence community is trying to push as the narrative in Ukraine thanks.

If they think that the main language of the country they are in being the offical language of the area then perhaps they should move to a country where that language is the offical language.

But I don’t expect that to happen because Russians are forever imagining oppression and have forever something to gripe about.

Well, it certainly seems their instincts to separate themselves from Russia and Russian culture and seek greater alignment with the West were correct. One side has a future, the other is a gas station with nukes, run by mobsters (although it could be argued that I'm misspelling 'monsters' here.)

Who decides who are the mobsters anyways ? Invading and occupying sovereign nations and stealing resources from them doesn't make the US a mobster apparently. Human rights and sovereignty is only grandiosely trumpeted when it is in the favour of the US.

> Human rights and sovereignty is only grandiosely trumpeted when it is in the favour of the US.

I’m pretty sure there was endless articles about the human rights situation in most countries the us invaded and also massive protests so this is patently false.

Bills like 5670-d that effectively made the Russian language illegal in most aspects of public life.

Nope, that's not what it does. It really not helpful to post opinion-piece fodder like this -- which you obviously haven't made even minimal effort to fact-check.

> US supported Maidan coup.

What a load of bollocks.

The Ukrainian people made a choice to topple their corrupt government and take control of their countries destiny. Which is an inalienable right.

Yeah, with a truckload of support and sponsorship from Victoria Nuland - the shining [Coup Lady] of the US state department - who also picked the post coup leaders.

She wasn't just involved in Ukraine. Was involved in Libya as well - gleefully cheering on when Gadaffi and his grandsons were killed one by one by NATO forces.

"What a load of bollocks."

Keep sticking your head into the sand.

> Yeah, with a truckload of support and sponsorship from Victoria Nuland - the shining [Coup Lady] of the US state department - who also picked the post coup leaders.

You got any evidence of this that doesn’t stink of Russian propaganda?.

This is about Nuland's interference:

https://www.theguardian.com/world/video/2014/feb/07/eu-us-di...

My favorite part was when Victoria Nuland poisoned Yuschenko with dioxin and turned him into an orange version of the Yellow Bastard from Sin City, years before orange skin became en vogue in American political circles. Also, there was that time when Nuland went on a hunting "vacation" in Donbas and bagged a Boeing, then hotfooted it across the Russian border with an innocent twinkle in her eye. And don't forget the time Nuland massacred dozens of protesters who objected to Yanukovych placing loyalty to Moscow over loyalty to his own country.

That lady gets around.

Yes, it's a game.

Who has the nastiest trick? Who liquidates more people? Who overthrows more regimes? ...

sometimes Russia wins, sometimes the US wins

I do not know much about Mrs. Nuland and do not care about her. But she seems to be a good player:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Victoria_Nuland

She wasn't just involved in Ukraine. Was involved in Libya as well

Your basic problem here is that you're confusing "trying to get involved" with "actually being involved and affecting events in a significant way".

In short, the idea that Nuland's shenanigans did anything to move the needle on the ground is utter BS -- fodder for leftwing opinion websites in some Western countries, but not something that anybody in Ukraine takes seriously.

All those "coups" were directly followed by elections, elections even the donbas participated and was thus represented in Ukraine assembly, until Russia waltzed on. And all the western civilization mimicry will not undo what happened on the ground. Russia is as shameless a imperial power in its day to day, as the US was at its darkest hours (Vietnam, Iraq)

> I wonder what the chess pieces were all thinking...

talk to those in ukraine and taiwan now.

But since you are the one speaking, what are your thoughts as a pawn?

It's pretty clear, no? Ukrainians seek the destruction of Russia as the political system that we know today, Taiwanese seek maintaining the status quo.

Can't say I can speak for Ukraine and Taiwan as you do but I would imagine Taiwan wouldn't want a status qou with missiles striking Taipei on an almost daily basis.

No missiles are striking Taipei. "Keep status quo" means keep everything as it is now.

It might be short-sighted, but opinion polling and foreign policy are more or less clear on this point.

I think Taiwanese are being pretty long sighted. Sentiment has been steadily shifting in favour of eventual full independence for a long time, but the consensus is still clearly to defer it, perhaps indefinitely.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Taiwan_independence_movement#O...

I also reject the characterisation of Ukraine or Taiwan as chess pieces. In both cases the western policy is not to push either country towards this or that decision, or this or that status. The policy is to support the self determination of Ukrainians and Taiwanese respectively.

The trigger for the 2014 Russian invasion of Ukraine was not any statement or decision made in the west, it was the policies of the Ukrainian parliament supported by popular demonstrations of ordinary Ukrainians in Kyiv. Likewise China isn't concerned about any US inciting action in respect of Taiwan, it's worried about Taiwan itself choosing to declare independence.

> The policy is to support the self determination of Ukrainians and Taiwanese respectively.

Self determination? I thought people of Crimea and Catalan enjoy the same rights. You seem to be comfortable for dual standard western policies here.

In the referendum on Ukrainian independence in the 90s every single oblast voted for Ukrainian independence, including Crimea. In Donetsk and Luhansk it was over 80% with very high turnout.

The idea that ethnic Russian means pro Russian is propaganda. It’s just not true. Azov may be unpleasant, but they are undeniably pro Ukrainian, were based in and recruited from Russian speaking areas where under 1% of the population spoke Ukrainian at home. Their web sites used to all be in Russian.

are you saying that Ukrainians want more than to just not be invaded?

Yes, they want to not be invaded now, not invaded in 5 years, in 10 years, etc. No pieredyshka.

the gall, am I right? /s

"We have no eternal allies, and we have no perpetual enemies. Our interests are eternal and perpetual, and those interests it is our duty to follow."

This is why it's funny to see people view the war in Ukraine as a "good guy vs bad guy". The geopolitics are incredibly complicated and there is a lot behind the scene the average person doesn't see.

the war in Ukraine is not funny at all, it has all the potential to turn into WW3.

The problem with that view of geopolitics is that not all leaders or states (and in the case of dictatorships these are the same) are rational about their interests.

Sometimes you're dealing with a Hitler, and you cannot deal with those in terms of "interests", and the interests of the dictator may differ from the interests of the state.

Such is the case with Putin. This invasion was not in the interests of the state. It was in his own interests, but he is dictator, so his interests win out.

> This invasion was not in the interests of the state.

Well a significant proportion (the majority?) of Russians don’t really agree with that and I bet there would be close to zero opposition to the war had Russia actually managed to win in the first few months.

Likewise very few Germans didn’t support Hitler when they defeated France and again there was basically no serious internal opposition until Germany started losing the war.

Germany absolutely had a great casus belli against France. France had treated Germany horribly (and invaded Germany first).

Very different situation from Russia/Ukraine.

> Very different situation from Russia/Ukraine.

That's a bizarrely absurd attitude.

> and invaded Germany first

So if Russia now invaded Poland or the Baltic States and France/US/UK 'attacked' Russia in response that would not be a justifiable thing to do? Because that's exactly what you're saying...

> France had treated Germany horribly

1. Yes. But that happened 20 years ago as a response to a German invasion of France (and Belgium but why would anyone care about the people that get caught in between...). And both countries were on a path towards reconciliation after Locarno. This does not make Nazi actions in any way more justifiable...

> a great casus belli

The world thankfully does not work like a Paradox grand strategy game...

France required Germany to pay for all the destruction that Germany caused by first invading France in WW1. France and Poland knew Germany was a belligerent nation, and in 1921 signed a mutual defense pact. Germany knew this and invaded Poland, knowing France would attempt to defend Poland.

To be fair the allies also did this https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blockade_of_Germany

They maintained the blockade for almost a year after the armistice (just in case..). A hundred thousand died in the famine and a generation of children suffered severe malnutrition.

Now maintaining the blockade during the war was understandable but maintaining it after the fighting was over just to get better terms? Well that’s something many people would find hard to forgive..

> France and Poland knew Germany was a belligerent nation, and in 1921

No it had much more to do with the Polish-Soviet war than with Germany. The Soviets were seen (and rightly so) as a much bigger threat to Eastern and Central Europe than Germany in the 20s

The geopolitics are incredibly complicated

Not really - it's quite straightforward, actually

and there is a lot behind the scene the average person doesn't see.

Such as?

> why it's funny to see people view the war

Why? I mean you have a point about geopolitics. But it’s still about as stupid as someone saying the exact same words about Poland 1939..

You have a megalomaniac dictator waging an unnecessary imperialist war of aggression . That should make it pretty straightforward, no?

> a lot behind the scene the average person doesn't see.

the overall goals and interests of all sides seem to be pretty transparent to be fair

"You have a megalomaniac dictator waging an unnecessary imperialist war of aggression ."

Yes, one that was raised by the KGB, and his work possible consisting of coordinating left wing terrorists in the west.

"That should make it pretty straightforward, no?"

Sadly no. Because his character and the general political ideas and red lines of the russian establishment were known.

Ukraine was russias sphere of interest/domain.

So the west going into ukraine, helping with the coup and promising them EU and NATO, while knowing that russia can never accept it - was a clear path to war from the beginning.

Would the US tolerate mexico become a china military ally? Doubtful. One of the unwritten laws.

The geopolitical realities are, that it was known that going into ukraine would likely lead to some war.

Which is why most of the world considers this war a proxy war between Nato russia. And it partly is.

But yes, it is also a war for independence of a small nation against an evil empire. But the empires in the west seldom care about the actual people on the grounds. They care for their interests. And currently ukraines and Natos interests are mostly aligned, which is why they get support.

If china suddenly becomes a bigger problem and now there would be a need to play Putin against them - then Ukraine would be on their own very quickly.

It is already starting now, with the west medias more and more implying that it was indeed Ukraine that blow up north stream. Whether they did it, or not: this is a way of showing them, they can change the narrative in the west quite quickly. War is dirty. And also Ukraine has lots of dirt on their hands now. Showing some of that dirt will make the public change opinion. This is geopolitics in action.

> Would the US tolerate mexico become a china military ally? Doubtful. One of the unwritten laws.

Exactly. The Ukraine situation would be tantamount to Canada or Mexico entering into a military alliance with Iran -- not acceptable and a direct cause of war.

> Exactly. The Ukraine situation would be tantamount to Canada or Mexico entering into a military alliance with Iran -- not acceptable and a direct cause of war.

How is it any different to Finland joining NATO? (which they just did).

The difference is the shared history and language.

(also true for border regions with finnland, but way less overall as finnish is a different language family)

Russian nationalism consideres Kiev the root of the russian culture (but they might change that narrative soon).

Also, they are really not happy about it.

> The difference is the shared history and language.

I don't think a language matters with a war with NATO.

> Also, they are really not happy about it.

Yet there is no war, shows you that NATO really works as a deterrence to Russia and that it had nothing to do with Ukraine being close to Russia and in NATO.

Yes but then this very statement directly contradicts the "realpolitik" as pect so loudly touted earlier.

It's not about pragmatism, it's a sort of nationalistic fervor!

> Also, they are really not happy about it.

I think they are just inherently unhappy and miserable because they are Russians living in Russia.

Ukraine did not enter any military alliances with anyone they just wanted to stop being a puppet/client state of Russia.

Also the only two things Russia has going for it are their energy resources and their nukes. It's a poor second tier/regional power without that (even with the oil/gas/etc. it still has a 2.5x lower GDP than Germany despite an almost 2x higher population).

I tried to figure out if this reasoning is plausible by reading a few history books on the subject predating 2021- just to be sure i would not be sucked into group think. Turns out ALL historians tend to disagree heavily (Kappeler, Applebaum, Plokhy.. Checked on their national background too) Problem with these self proclaimed realists you are referring to is they dont have any solutions, never had (see 1993), have been wrong in the past, continue to be so… most reasonable among them is Kissinger, and even he is very much on the moderate side. It is up to you to reconsider or make yourself comfortable with Tucker Carlson.

Historians disagree on what exactly?

That USA would in fact tolerate chinese military in mexico?

"It is up to you to reconsider or make yourself comfortable with Tucker Carlson"

And strong disagree. I don't have to make myself comfortable or align with any character or movement, just because most of the world wants only to think in black and white.

>> That USA would in fact tolerate chinese military in mexico?

This is such a poor rhethorical question. Why play with hypothethicals like Mexico and China, if Europe already has direct Russian nukes in Kaliningrad enclave in the middle of Europe with constant threats of destroying Warsaw and London? And yet, that's tolerated, unlike what people like you suggest and imagine.

Relevant maps: https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/worldviews/wp/2016/11/23...

I happen to live in europe, so I am quite aware of our situation. But europe is not the US, as far as I know.

And the US diplomatic stance towards EU inofficially was something like "fuck the EU".

I also know how "the west" moved further east step by step. Which is in general very fine by me, as I do prefer living by western standards (and I was born in the east).

So I certainly would not stand in the way, if Ukraine wants to go pro west. If I would not have little children I seriously would have considered going to the war as a volunteer. So much for context of "people like me"

But that doesn't change one thing how the US plays this geopolitics game. Or our governments, sure. They are not better, just weaker.

>> But europe is not the US, as far as I know.

Doesn't really change anything in the equation. Russian missiles in Kaliningrad can hit key US military installations like Ramstein AFB and RAF Lakenheath with practically no warning. They are a direct threat from a hostile country that keeps making threats about using them, this is far more serious than any imagined Mexican alliance.

And yet, the reaction is... what? Where are B52s bombing Kaliningrad?

>> I also know how "the west" moved further east step by step.

I am sure you do. Can you tell me why Russian apologists always phrase it as if a shadowy cabal in Washington forced countries into international cooperation, instead of portraying as it actually was?

"Can you tell me why Russian apologists always phrase it as if a shadowy cabal in Washington forced countries into international cooperation "

Because it was verbally promised by different high ranking officials, that the NATO would NOT move further east.

This does not create trust.

>> Because it was verbally promised by different high ranking officials, that the NATO would NOT move further east.

Not according to the Soviet foreign minister at the time. He also explains why this conspiracy theory is nonsense: at the time when that verbal promise was allegedly given, no-one could even imagine that Warsaw Pact would cease to exist. According to him, NATO status of Warsaw Pact countries was not discussed with Western officials, not discussed within Warsaw Pact, and not within Communist Party circles in Moscow either.

https://www.spiegel.de/international/europe/interview-with-e...

Nor did you answer my question. Why do Russian apologists try to word this as NATO was somehow forced upon Eastern Europe instead of integration into international institutions being their own long-term goal?

It is not a conspiracy theory that german foreign minister Hans-Dietrich Genscher, assured "NATO will not expand to the east".

As Shevardnadze clarifies, all they talked about NATO was strictly in the context of German reunification and attempts to take quotes out of context are anarchronistic. What assurances did the USSR need if it had a large nuclear-equipped group of forces in Poland?

And besides that, many years later, but months before former Warsaw Pact countries started official NATO negotiations, NATO and Russia signed a treaty that gave a green light.

So one one side of the conspiracy theory, you have a handful of scraps arranged to look like something, and on the opposing side you have actual written agreements and recollections from key people directly involved in those events.

> Hans-Dietrich Genscher

And all present, past and future politicians in Germany, Poland, US end everywhere else are supposed to be permanently bound by what a former German foreign minister supposedly said before leaving office back in 1992.

Makes perfect sense.

The matter is murky in the details, but it certainly isn't a "conspiracy theory".

Not surprisingly -- different participants have different recollections of what was said, and in what context. As a counterpart to the above, we also have Baker's assurances, made to the Soviets at the time “neither the President nor I intend to extract any unilateral advantages from the processes that are taking place". And that the Americans understood that “not only for the Soviet Union but for other European countries as well it is important to have guarantees that if the United States keeps its presence in Germany within the framework of NATO, not an inch of NATO’s present military jurisdiction will spread in an eastern direction.”

Which certainly sounds like verbal promises that "NATO would not move further east". There is also Gorbachev's famous assessment of the whole matter, after the fact: “It [NATO expansion] was definitely a violation of the spirit of the statements and assurances made to us in 1990".

Not that these assurances had the status of signed treaties -- and not that any of this stuff in any way justifies, minimizes or "explain" the current conflict, which as we know has one aggressor and by this point is entirely one-sided.

But the statements above are part of the historical record -- not some conspiracy theory, or the inventions of Russian apologists.

Soviet leadership, including Gorbachev himself, have explicitly denied that any assurances existed. Like Shevardnadze, he denied that they even talked about it with western counterparts. In his own words: "The topic of ‘NATO expansion’ was not discussed at all, and it wasn’t brought up in those years. … Another issue we brought up was discussed: making sure that NATO’s military structures would not advance and that additional armed forces would not be deployed on the territory of the then-GDR after German reunification. Baker’s statement was made in that context…"

Nobody brought the alleged assurances up when former Warsaw Pact joined NATO either. This narrative didn't exist until mid-2000, by which time NATO enlargement had largely ended.

The spirit that Gorbachev bitterly speaks about is his idea of "Common European Home" that did not come to fruition, as Eastern Europe didn't want to have anything to do with Russians after half a century of oppression and turned their backs as soon as they could choose their own path. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Common_European_Home

Soviet leadership, including Gorbachev himself, have explicitly denied that any assurances existed.

As regards Gorbachev -- what did he say actually, and when?

And why would he say the exact opposite in his RBTH interview in 2014? (Granted, this is RBTH -- but I think we can be reasonably confident that the interview is not a fabrication and that he is being quoted correctly). Here's his quote again, in full context - and it's clear he's not not referring to the Common European Home:

The decision for the U.S. and its allies to expand NATO into the east was decisively made in 1993. I called this a big mistake from the very beginning. It was definitely a violation of the spirit of the statements and assurances made to us in 1990. With regards to Germany, they were legally enshrined and are being observed.

My quote is from the same interview. I repeat: "The topic of ‘NATO expansion’ was not discussed at all, and it wasn’t brought up in those years."

If that interview leaves anything unclear, then Spiegel tried to get a "yes, assurances existed" answer from foreign minister Shevardnadze from several different angles, but he replied to every attempt with a "No."

Spiegel: https://www.spiegel.de/international/europe/interview-with-e...

Mmm -- my sense is that you're also "arranging scraps" here to get them to line up and support the narrative that you like.

By my reading, Gorbachev's later statement -- "definitely a violation of the spirit of the statements and assurances made to us in 1990" (referring to NATO's decisive steps towards expansion starting in 1993) -- is more holistic, and seals the matter.

Not that there was "conspiracy" to hoodwink the Soviets from the beginning, per your straw-man argument. But still -- against the spirit of the statements and assurances made at the time, 'twas. Shevardnadze's statements might seem to contradict this, but not really -- Shevardnadze is focusing on the details; Gorbachev is talking about the bigger, "moral" picture if you will.

And that's why I call it a conspiracy theory - it relies on a small number of select snippets, interpreted in the most favorable way possible, ignoring things like explicit statements to the opposite from the very same sources. A textbook example of conspiratorial thinking.

The facts are simple:

1. Possible NATO status of Warsaw Pact countries was never discussed.

2. There was no assurance from NATO to Soviet Union on possible NATO status of Warsaw Pact countries.

3. Key members of the Soviet leadership explicitly deny any such assurances.

4. Russia never brought up any such assurances when Warsaw Pact countries joined NATO.

5. Russia and NATO signed a treaty greenlighting NATO enlargement before any official talks with Warsaw Pact countries started.

What was discussed in 1990:

1. Integration of East German military into NATO structures.

2. Size and composition of German military after reunification.

3. Placement of NATO forces (that is, from the US, UK, and elsewhere) in East Germany.

This has nothing to do with NATO status of Warsaw Pact countries.

Placement of NATO troops (discussed) and potential members of NATO (not discussed) should not be confused.

Russia and NATO signed a treaty greenlighting NATO enlargement before any official talks with Warsaw Pact countries started.

Which can't possibly be the CFE - so which treaty (and which specific provisions of that treaty) are you referring to?

Your notion of "conspiracy theory" is plainly at odds with the commonly accepted definition of the term, BTW. But we'll move past that for now.

I am referring to the 1997 Founding Act on Mutual Relations, Cooperation and Security between NATO and the Russian Federation. It was signed in May 1997 during NATO summit in Paris. At the next summit in July, the first former Warsaw Pact countries were invited into NATO. Official negotiations began in September.

I see no conflicts with commonly accepted definitions of conspiracy theory: "a theory that explains an event or set of circumstances as the result of a secret plot by usually powerful conspirators" (Merriam-Webster).

How did former Warsaw Pact countries end up in NATO?

According to conventional understanding, former Warsaw Pact countries seeked political, economic and military security through cooperation in international organizations ranging from Council of Europe to NATO.

According to the conspiracy theory, NATO and Russia made a secret deal to divide Europe, but the USA did not keep their side of the deal, intentionally misled Russia and forced Warsaw Pact countries into NATO in order to encircle, attack and destroy Russia.

So ... again, you're splitting hairs here. And then some.

Official "invitations" to the first round countries (PL, CZ, SK, HU) were issued around 1997 -- but that's the last step in the process. Official "talks" began much sooner. Already the formation of Visegrád Group in 1991 (whose purpose was largely to get these countries ready to integrate into the EU and NATO).

Anyway by 1993 talk of these countries joining NATO was already all over the news (NYT: "Yeltsin 'Understands' Polish Bid for a Role in NATO").

So right there -- you're way off base. The Founding Act itself it pretty long-winded, but I'm not seeing any text that "greenlights" NATO expansion (other than by simply not mentioning the topic).

As to conspiracy theories: the whole point is, what you were referring to was a certain line of (dubious) argumentation or reasoning -- "relying on snippets of facts". Which is certainly very often an aspect of conspiracy theories, but nothing to do with the key substance of the term.

No one (except fully deluded Russian apologists by this point) believes in that particular theory you cite. I certainly don't, and don't feel I need to respond to any ridiculous insinuations that I do.

Anyway, look -- you're certainly quite adept yourself at pulling up snippets of fact. But across the board -- I'm just finding your thinking to be rather muddled; you extremify and hyperbolize a lot; and that you're just not seeing the forest for the trees (in addition to getting a lot of the "trees" themselves wrong). And as a result, this discussion just isn't very productive.

So I'm going to have to bow out at this point, and let you hash these topics over in the privacy of your own thoughts. Which is a pity, sort of (since it seems we would probably agree on a lot of basic things about this conflict that other people seem to be horribly confused about -- such as who the aggressor is, and why they started it).

But at the end of the day -- not really.

>> Official "invitations" to the first round countries (PL, CZ, SK, HU) were issued around 1997 -- but that's the last step in the process.

Not the last step at all. In July 1997, NATO invited Poland, Czech Republic and Hungary to accession talks, to be correct. Talks began in September and took until 1999 to conclude. Full membership was achieved only in March 1999. Invitation to accession talks is by no means a formality or a last step.

>> Anyway by 1993 talk of these countries joining NATO was already all over the news (NYT: "Yeltsin 'Understands' Polish Bid for a Role in NATO").

... and that was considered as far-fetched as Ukraine's ambitions towards EU and NATO membership were in 2021. Something that everyone politely nodded to, but very few believed would happen in any meaningful timeframe. Russian army was still in Poland in 1993. Poland was in a socio-economic disaster then. Energy crisis, insane inflation and organized crime, inability to even pay government employees' wages, let alone participate in international organizations as an equal. NATO membership and American nuclear umbrella were mythical dreams at that time, often ridiculed in the press, as you will discover if you dig deeper into old newspapers. The tone changed during accession talks when it began to look like entry into NATO was really going to happen.

>> The Founding Act itself it pretty long-winded, but I'm not seeing any text that "greenlights" NATO expansion (other than by simply not mentioning the topic).

From the treaty: "To achieve the aims of this Act, NATO and Russia will base their relations on a shared commitment to the following principles: /.../ respect for sovereignty, independence and territorial integrity of all states and their inherent right to choose the means to ensure their own security, the inviolability of borders and peoples' right of self-determination as enshrined in the Helsinki Final Act and other OSCE documents;"

NATO established this clear understanding with Russia in writing before anyone was invited to accession talks.

>> But across the board -- I'm just finding your thinking to be rather muddled, and that you're just not seeing the forest for the trees (in addition to getting a lot of the "trees" themselves wrong).

The only ones trying to muddy things are those who ignore a decade-long political process in European politics and its huge bureaucratic trail, and try to give a simple alternative explanation that hinges on a handful of out-of-context quotes from Baker and Genschler, because there is nothing else to back it up. It's like quoting some overly alarmist NASA memo questioning radiation shielding of Apollo spacecraft, and using that to "prove" that the Moon landings never happened - ignoring the immense work that 400 000 people and countless institutions and companies all across the world put into it over a decade, and all the trails they left behind.

You have to throw away a decade worth of European diplomacy to subscribe to the Russian talking point about broken promises and encirclement.

> I'm just finding your thinking to be rather muddled; you extremify and hyperbolize a lot

I’m sure but I find that this description perfectly fits your reply or the comments you posted earlier.

The fact that russia wishes to make some words into existence does not mean they existed.

It is a historical fact, that german foreign minister Hans-Dietrich Genscher, assured "NATO will not expand to the east".

That does not make it any binding international agreement, sure. But some of those words existed.

> It is a historical fact, that german foreign minister Hans-Dietrich Genscher, assured "NATO will not expand to the east".

East in Germany,

Context is important, how could the German foreign minister ever promise anything about any other country?.

Don’t you know? national sovereignty is a myth and great powers such as Russia (lol..) have an inherent right to impose their will on everyone between the Oder and Pacific ocean because mr. Genscher renounced Germany’s claim to Eastern Europe.

> Because it was verbally promised by different high ranking officials, that the NATO would NOT move further east.

This was about easy Germany and never about anything else except in the fever dreams of people like Putin.

And on that note NATO has too this day kept its promise regarding east Germany even though the country the promise was made to no longer exists.

> was verbally promised

Who cares. Eastern European countries are sovereign and can do as they please if they consider it to be in their national interest.

> This does not create trust.

It goes both way. Trusting dictators under any circumstances is an exceptionally idiotic thing to do.

Also it might be hard to grasp however politicians in in charge to change every few years and beholding them to some “verbal promises” made by their predecessor is absurd.

Monroe doctrine has nothing to say about Kalingrad.

The US invaded Grenada so for sure they would invade Mexico.

I invite you to look at a map if you think the US would be so cavalier about invading Mexico as it was about Grenada. I'm not saying it couldn't, I'm just saying it's not a thing you do lightly.

Mexico is a huge country, Grenada is a tiny island so no, probably not “for sure”.

Also it’s hypothetical and and entirely absurd scenario barely worth discussing.

„Historians disagree on what exactly?“ Nato expansion beeing the root cause of russian aggression. I recommend reading kappeler. He knows the russian language and history very well (what does nearsheimer know?), translated Putins essay and had no illusions about his intentions. We need to take those people serious who have been right with their predictions, not those who have failed and keep repeating the same talking point ad naseam.

I will read Kappeler then.

But I think I was clear that I have no illusions about Putin. He probably still dreams of a eurasian empire led by him. And he respects only raw power.

I still think, it could have gone all very different. For example by sanctioning the russian people in charge and not the whole russian population after 2014. Or not getting involved in Maidan. Or by not invading Iraq, setting a often cited precedent. Putin allmost literally saying: "If the US can just ignore international law and invade a country, so can I"

Which national origins of these historians were you referring to?

I wanted to make sure to have native russians on the list too, not just american or european. You will have a very hard time finding historians with international publications blaming nato like nearsheimer.

Well, we don't know if it would have been possible to change the course of history for the better- right? Might have been even worse- consider 1994. A great deal of effort has been made to respect russian interests, handover of nukes in 1994, no to Nato in 2008, eyes closed on chechnya and georgia, little consequences in 2014... The reasoning was always to respect the russian sphere of influence. But as you say, Putin respects only raw power. "Showing respect" does not equal "raw power". So what we are seeing is less "geopolitics in action" but history in the making, unless you are not willing to give "the people of Ukraine" any voice in this. Now, this is where Kappeler could be helpful. I encourage you reading what he has to say about "maidan involvement".

Russian security interests lie:

https://www.reddit.com/r/CredibleDefense/comments/t2mb0c/the...

I feel people bringing realpolitik into this fail to see the not-so-real politik of what happens when national sentiment is misaligned with their interest.

It's all a sham anyway, as if smaller countries are not worthy of self determination and are just at the whims of great powers. And a nauseous point of view.

And it's a moot point as well, considering that Russia is no longer a great power. Russia can barely keep itself together at the moment.

"Russia can barely keep itself together at the moment."

Which is the reason why they started the war in the first place. They feel cornered. And a smarter politics by the west, would not have pushed them so much.

But I am all for self determination of even the smallest states.

But I do not really see this as the goal or applied politics of the US, nor EU, nor obviously russia.

It can happen as a side product, like when the kurds were supported, when it fit the greater game and dropped when that changed. And now Ukraine is important and get supported and tomorrow that can change again. The determining factors are likely not idealism.

> They feel cornered

They put themselves in that corner.

> And a smarter politics by the west,

Like allowing Russia to take half of eastern Europe. If anything Europe was way to soft with Russia, they should started moving away from their over reliance on Russian gas in the early 2000s.

"Like allowing Russia to take half of eastern Europe."

They already had it. And they gave up on it voluntarily. But they think they made a bad deal as it was simply considered a sign of weakness by certain hawks. So now they try the hard way again.

(obviously oversimplification, but the topic is full of it anyway)

> They already had it. And they gave up on it voluntarily

You can't say they they gave up eastern Europe voluntarily when they didn't have a choice. They could handle a revolution in a single Warsaw pact country not in all of them at the same time and especially not at a time when the internal situation in the USSR itself was quite precarious.

> made a bad deal

What deal? There was a no deal involving entire Eastern Europe (how could there be?). What they did sign was the Budapest Memorandum which only affected Ukraine, Belarus & Kazakhstan. And they broke every single point of that treaty, except the one prohibiting the usage of nuclear weapons against any of these countries. In contrast the other signatories (US and UK) did not violate a single one.

First, russia is not a monolithic coherent group.

"And they broke every single point of that treaty, except the one prohibiting the usage of nuclear weapons against any of these countries"

Second, much later.

Third, there were russian troops all over east europe. Lots of them. (I remember)

They could have smashed any uprising - but they choose not to. They choose democracy at that time. And it did not pay off for them, which is why they are back to authoritian. But there was a time when they were open for change. In my opinion, the west blew it.

> They could have smashed any uprising - but they choose not to.

Doubtful, unless you're talking about the soldiers choosing not to. The coup attempt in 1991 proved that the army in general had no interest in propping up the failing communist regime.

Even if they wanted to they failed to defeat Chechnya a couple years later despite it being smaller several than east Europe by several magnitudes.

> But there was a time when they were open for change. In my opinion, the west blew it.

Well most of Eastern Europe ended up doing just fine despite most of the 90s being a disaster there just like in Russia. So it seems like Russia actually blew it themselves (and well to be fair Ukraine and Belarus too).

> First, russia is not a monolithic coherent group.

Well I'm sorry but you're the one who keeps saying "they" and that "Russia wanted X" which implies that they are a single monolithic coherent group (then again one might argue whether that's really the case in Russia currently).

"I only robbed your house because you threatened to join the neighborhood watch!" -- Russia

Explain what "smarter politics" means in such a context.

For starters:

- not eroding and breaking international law by invading Iraq, setting a precedent cited by Putin

- not signing the Den Hague invasion act

- not getting involved in various "revolutions" in the east, like Ukraine

- not targeting all russian people with sanctions after 2014, but only those in charge

You know, in general leading by good example. If we want a international law forbidding countries to invade each other - it only works if the law applies to everyone. This I would consider smart politics.

So you believe that the Ukrainian people are fundamentally incapable of making their own decisions. Clearly it was a very divided country with multiple swings back and forth without the assistance of NATO/EU/US. How was 2014 that different from 2004?

> Would the US tolerate mexico become a china military ally?

US and China are global superpowers. Without the nukes Russia is a regional power at best.

> But the empires

What empires? Why do you think US cares about Ukraine that much, prior to 2014 it was a sideshow at best. They'd prefer to focus on the Pacific/China but Russia doesen't let them.

> If china suddenly becomes a bigger problem and now there would be a need to play Putin against them

How does that make any sense? Why would Russia side with US/EU if China hypothetically invaded Taiwan? Makes no sense...

> implying that it was indeed Ukraine that blow up north stream

Where do you get these things?

> they can change the narrative in the west quite quickly

Who is "they"? The illuminati? Lizard people?

"But yes, it is also a war for independence of a small nation against an evil empire. "

This is what I wrote.

So I do not see, how you come to that conclusion:

"So you believe that the Ukrainian people are fundamentally incapable of making their own decisions. "

That should make it pretty straightforward, no?

It's a simplistic viewpoint that misses a lot of factors.

You can't really understand the conflict, where it might go and how it might end if you don't under the history of the region, what drives each state, and what their aims are.

It's like saying "iPhone sells well because it's a better phone". That's true, but tells you nothing.

> It's a simplistic viewpoint that misses a lot of factors.

Sure let’s say so, please enlighten us…

> where it might go and how it might

You’re implying that Russia was planning to be in this position it ended up in all along. That didn’t massively miscalculate it’s ability to quickly defeat Ukraine with a decapitating strike?

> end if you don't under the history of the region

I do.

> It's like saying "iPhone sells well because it's a better phone". That's true, but tells you nothing.

Fantastic analogy. Really makes you think..

> This is why it's funny to see people view the war in Ukraine as a "good guy vs bad guy". The geopolitics are incredibly complicated and there is a lot behind the scene the average person doesn't see.

This war is as clear as WW2 if you don’t see that then I don’t know what to say, it’s plain as day to most people.

Talking about WW2, a lot of people still think Soviets were the good guys. Forgetting how nazis and soviets split eastern europe. And later soviets forgot to leave.

And that's clear to everyone nowadays. You really see anyone disputing that?

I will dispute that. Double genocide theory is a debunked right wing nationalist myth, sorry. [1]

I'm not saying they were saints but they were on the same moral plane of the Allies, wishing to set up buffer states instead of absorbing them fully into the USSR. Political repression was a real issue in the eastern bloc countries but it's no where near as bad as what the US, France, or UK did in the post war period with their colonies, segregation, bombings, or coups.

[1] https://jewishcurrents.org/the-double-genocide-theory

Soviets did absorb plenty of buffer countries fully into USSR. Along with massacring a lot of people and/or sending them to gulags.

You’re thinking about USSR of 1980s when political repression and some hair cutting was the main issue. But USSR up to mid 1950s was a tad more evil to say the least.

And „debunking double genocide theory“ is fighting a strawman. Let’s talk how USSR started WW2 along with Nazis. Let’s talk Katyn or Rainiai. Let’s talk gulags. Stalin’s purges. Early USSR social reforms and consequences.

Buffer states are a debunked strategic concept from the 18 century, useless in times of nukes.

There are plenty of tankies and just naive leftist who wish to believe that USSR was good.

> because the US was now friends with China against the Soviet Union

The US also got the anti-communist genocide and friendly dictator it desired in Indonesia, which was considered a major win for its interests in the region.

It was mostly anti-Han resentment of the empires citizens and collaborators that last conquered them. The average citizen is very unidrologic during a genocide, mostly in it for discrimination - revenge or profit.

> mostly anti-Han resentment

Lying.

[1]

> An estimate is that around 2,000 Chinese Indonesians were killed (out of a total estimated death toll of between 500,000 and 3 million people), with documented massacres taking place in Makassar, Medan and Lombok island. [...] Ethnic Balinese and Javanese made up the vast majority of people who were massacred.

---

> the average citizen

Killings were primarily directed by the army, which did so with an explicitly anti-communist bent facilitated by the US.

[2]

> With very few exceptions, the killings were not spontaneous but carried out with a high degree of organisation. Most of the victims were also detainees of the Indonesian Army, making the killings summary executions.

> Despite a consensus at the highest levels of the U.S. and British governments that it would be necessary "to liquidate Sukarno", as related in a CIA memorandum from 1962, and the existence of extensive contacts between anti-communist army officers and the U.S. military establishment – training of over 1,200 officers, "including senior military figures", and providing weapons and economic assistance – the CIA denied active involvement in the killings. Declassified U.S. documents in 2017 revealed that the U.S. government had detailed knowledge of the mass killings from the beginning and was supportive of the actions of the Indonesian Army. U.S. complicity in the killings, which included providing extensive lists of PKI officials to Indonesian death squads, has previously been established by historians and journalists.

[1][2] - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indonesian_mass_killings_of_19...

This reminded me of the great story where Kissinger, on that trip, asks Zhou Enlai "What do you think of the French Revolution" and Zhou replies "It's too soon to tell." I love that, and it is what I say when people ask "how are you" too early in the morning.

But I've also been trained by a passion for too-good-to-be-true quotes and that one definitely sounds too good to be true. Guess what - it is. But for an interesting reason:

https://marginalrevolution.com/marginalrevolution/2011/06/it...

https://mediamythalert.com/2011/06/14/too-early-to-say-zhou-...

Zhou might have meant something important by that. If you think that La Terreur set the pattern for many other terrors since, then the fact that the struggle against La Terreur hadn't (probably hasn't) finished quite yet might make that retort quite frank and meaningful.

He was talking about the student protests of May 1968. The quote later got misunderstood to be about the French Revolution.

From https://marginalrevolution.com/marginalrevolution/2011/06/it...: "I distinctly remember the exchange. There was a misunderstanding that was too delicious to invite correction."

Side note - I always wondered why English speakers tend to 1. keep the original language article and 2. capitalise it even though it is not in the original language. Why is it “La Terreur” and not “la Terreur” or “the Terreur”?

I've no idea why I capitalized "La".

English is not my native tongue but I believe that in English "the" preceding a name means something specific, something near a proper name, while the absence of "the" means something common.

"they were all struck by lightning but John was killed by _the_ final lightning*"

I'm not entirely sure I get what this tells us. A degree of cynicism in politics is inevitable, for the players. And, Kissinger was undoubtedly playing. As was Mao, with other people.

Interesting Edgar Snow was brought up, I read his long March piece as a child, it's pretty accessible. ("Red Star over China" 1937)

Zhou EnLai was a survivor and a moderating force in the bad times. The national museum in Tienanmen square celebrates his life quite quietly. I saw photos of Zhou all through China on shop walls, drinking tea and having a smoke with people. Deng somehow less so. There's a rather odd fashion statement moment when all three of Deng, Mao and Zhou can be seen separately in photos, sporting a western style golf cap like Bing Crosby. "I'll get back to par on the ninth hole, just after I finish reconstructing steel industry furnaces and representing the farm sector in a standup" -I doubt they had much time for golf, but maybe they liked listening to Bing on 78s?

Ironic that Kissinger talked about US hopes for Iran, they royally fucked up with the Shah, and what followed pretty much defined the US/USSR battle lines in the middle east. So much can be laid at the door of misplaced US diplomacy.

But it was good to engage with China, and I think most Chinese now would be happy a pair of cynical bastards met and talked it out.

Nixon wasn't much more than a figurehead in this.

Christopher Hitchens was right: Kissinger was a war criminal so I tend to regard this kind of verbatim report as reflecting two criminally minded geniuses shooting the breeze together.

> Christopher Hitchens was right: Kissinger was a war criminal so I tend to regard this kind of verbatim report as reflecting two criminally minded geniuses shooting the breeze together.

Perhaps, but the trade arrangements made at that meeting have essentially been policy for every Administration since. That's very interesting. What to make of that? Why have no U.S. Presidents (except, maybe, maybe in rhetoric, Trump) wanted something different? The point is that Kissinger figured out something very important, and got it done, and it's lasted half a century. Policy momentum is a fascinating thing, and how to arrange for it.

Another question I have is why Mao's intense hostility to the Soviets. Yes, Kruschev's Secret Speech was the cause of their schism, but why did all the premiers who followed Kruschev fail to right things with the Chinese? And why did Kruschev not find a way to smooth things with Mao? "Look, that Speech is not an attack on you, it's just me shoring up support in the USSR by attacking Stalin, and that works because Stalin made himself so feared, m'kay?" And why wouldn't that work, as long as the Speech stayed Secret and even if not, as long as it stayed out of the public eye in China? Well, ok, Kruschev couldn't keep it that secret, but still, the premiers that followed him could have denounced that speech and made things ok with China. But this hostility survived Mao's death, even when Deng Xiaoping essentially (but not overtly) accepted Kruschev's position against personality cults! Why? Only now, maybe, the Russians are finally repairing that schism.

Really, TFA is extremely interesting.

And yes, it's clear that to some degree Mao and Kissinger were playing roles, being flattering and saying things they probably didn't really mean.

And then there's Mao's quip about Americans not being "awakened". Who knows what he meant, but Kissinger either did or pretended. Mao might have meant something very pedestrian, or perhaps something sinister, or perhaps something very good -- it'd be good to know.

I'm not all the way through reading this and I'm just full of questions.

Say what you will about the protagonists, but these memos are riveting.

The soviets were patronising. Mao resented Stalin's operatives telling him what to do all the time pre 49. Post 49, nothing much Russia did was in China's longterm interest. China and India were in border dispute which still rancours yet the soviets wanted some degree of amity with India, leading the non aligned nations in the UN there was much for them to profit from not supporting China across that boundary dispute. The Korean war probably started overt resentments which had things like inner/outer Mongolia to stew over since day 1. When Russia blew hot, China was cold, and vice versa. When Russia went with peaceful coexistence China was still militant. In the end, they were "much too much in love to get along"

> Perhaps, but the trade arrangements made at that meeting have essentially been policy for every Administration since. That's very interesting. What to make of that? Why have no U.S. Presidents (except, maybe, maybe in rhetoric, Trump) wanted something different? The point is that Kissinger figured out something very important, and got it done, and it's lasted half a century. Policy momentum is a fascinating thing, and how to arrange for it.

It's no great secret, the US business community wanted access to China's huge market. That's been true since the 1800s. Nixon and Kissinger, and their successors, especially Clinton, were just acting in their political donors' interest. That's why it happened and why it lasted, until Xi and Trump at least.

Kruschev was explicitly attacking cults of personality and individuals hoarding too much power at the expense of the party.

It’s hard to imagine how could Mao have not taken this seriously.

> Kissinger was a war criminal so I tend to regard this kind of verbatim report as reflecting two criminally minded geniuses shooting the breeze together.

Of course he was / they were. But guilt v. innocence is too crude a distinction to say anything meaningful about history. There's a lot going on that that distinction can't account for. In the end, they're all guilty, and we're all guilty, and only a childish craving to see oneself as innocent and project all badness onto others imagines otherwise.

p.s. This is not a criticism. I enjoyed your comment.

Everyone isn’t guilty to the same degree. Seeing guilt at different degrees doesn’t necessitate innocence. Casting blame evenly or vaguely isn’t good.

There are many instances of guilty vs less guilty throughout history. The current world is built off of the colonizing of the Americas and the lessons and reactions from that. There’s no both sides to that. The west was and has always been wrong with imperialism. Kissinger doesn’t need to be white washed.

Exactly this. There's people responsible for not paying their parking tickets on time, and then there's folks such as Kissinger and Madeleine Albright that have the blood of hundreds of thousands of people on their hands. Lets not sweep it all under the same rug.

The issue here is that, when you live in the same society, the effects of these killings tend to trickle down to benefits towards you.

Not being able to see that the shoes we wear can be the product of child exploitation on the other side of the world is the problem, that allows people on the top to act the way they do.

Plenty of people today are aware of things like clothing being made in unsavory conditions. Few can afford clothing themselves in the alternatives, however. Even in the grocery store, you have to pay sometimes double for free range eggs. Not everyone has the disposable income to pay extra for the morally conscious choice. We are limited to what the market makes available at our own price points, you never have much choice in the matter.

> But it was good to engage with China, and I think most Chinese now would be happy a pair of cynical bastards met and talked it out.

Is this referring to Mao and Kissinger? Calling Mao and Kissinger collectively cynical doesn’t fit. The imperialist war criminal being a cynical bastard makes sense. Not the eastern revolutionary leftist. That necessitates optimism.

I don't know how to describe the great leap forwards if not cynical. Nor Stalin's collectivization of agriculture.

Their brand of idealism permitted the sacrifice of millions for what they believed was the greater good. I suppose there is a certain kind of optimism there, but it's still deeply cynical.

> That necessitates optimism.

Only if you’re into mass murder and artificially induced famines. The cultural revolution was another very ‘optimistic’ policy (well from the perspective of some deranged lunatics anyway)

As awful as Kissinger was Mao was just on another level of awfulness…

The fascinating thing with Kissinger is that he's still alive, still wields political influence, and has been active for eighty years and was wielding his influence in essentially all major conflicts during that time. He just published another book and just celebrated his 100th birthday.

He started out as a German Jewish refugee. Fought in WW II and became an American, ended up being part of the post WW II effort to administer Germany, and then started his career in political science and international politics.

The nineteen sixties and seventies were a complicated era. The war in Vietnam was an ugly affair, and Kissinger's involvement with negotiating the peace deal is what earned him a controversial Nobel peace price. It was also the peak of the cold war and Kissinger was basically coordinating policy in a number of proxy wars across the world. Iran/Iraq, Chile, Vietnam, etc. and projecting US power everywhere he could.

Calling him a war criminal is a bit rich. But undeniably some of the decision making at the time backfired in a big way and Kissinger was at the core of a lot of that. Both during the Nixon era and long after when he advised administrations all the way until now.

Particularly the decision to prop up a lot of corrupt despots in order to prevent the Russians from gaining influence has caused a lot of long lasting conflicts that continue to play out today. You could make the point that the US ultimately won the cold war. Albeit at the cost of triggering a lot of other ugly conflicts.

The Iranian revolution is probably one of his bigger failings. Triggered directly by him backing the wrong horse in Iran, which ultimately lead to the Iranian revolution, the US providing military aid to Iraq, the Iran/Iraq war, the Iran contra affair (where the US provided weapons to Iran) the Russian/Afhanistan conflict where they US also provided lots of military aid, both Gulf wars, more recently the Afghanistan and Syrian conflicts. And there's of course the decades long support for the brutal regime in Saudi Arabia, the US involvement in various revolutions across Africa and South America. There's a pattern there of the US backing the worst regimes in order to divide and conquer and gain/expand its influence and power. That's what big countries do.

Was Kissinger involved with and personally responsible for all of that? Probably not but he was definitely advising a lot of politicians and this soft power via military aid, diplomacy, meddling, propping up despots, etc. definitely is his style. But he was only in office for a few years and during that time his big focus was ending an ugly war in Vietnam that he did not start. There were hard line politicians before and after that. He certainly has been on the sideline advising many of them for decades. Especially the hard line policies under the Reagan and both Bush presidencies have his finger prints all over them and he also consulted Democratic presidents like Carter, Clinton, Obama, and Biden. But does that make him a criminal? If so, there are a lot of other war criminals. And they are enabled by voters who keep voting for this sort of thing.

This is disgusting, Kissinger is absolutely a war criminal.

He played both sides and helped sabotage the 68' peace talks by leaking information to Nixon, just to get a job within either administration. So great, he helped end a war he prolonged for years and was involved with the bombing of neighboring countries.

What was the right horse in Iran?

Kissinger did not end the war, or help in ending it, though. He did eventually help negotiate a withdrawal of US troops from Vietnam, but only after having participated in several serious war crimes, as well as helping to sabotage the 1968 Paris peace talks, as a political move to get clout with the Nixon campaign in the first place.

Famously, Lê Đức Thọ, who was jointly given the Nobel with Kissinger, refused to accept it, partially because peace had not in fact been achieved.

Well, Chris didn’t have any problem killing a lot of baby killing in Iraq. Made Pol Pot proud.

On Dunkirk:

> Chairman Mao: They shouldn’t have attacked Moscow or Kiev. They should have taken Leningrad as a first step. Another error in policy was they didn’t cross the sea after Dunkirk.

> Dr. Kissinger: After Dunkirk.

> Chairman Mao: They were entirely unprepared.

> Dr. Kissinger: And Hitler was a romantic. He had a strange liking for England.

> Chairman Mao: Oh? Then why didn’t they go there? Because the British at that time were completely without troops.

> Dr. Kissinger: If they were able to cross the channel into Britain… I think they had only one division in all of England.

> Prime Minister Chou: Is that so?

> Dr. Kissinger: Yes.

> Prime Minister Chou: Also Sir Anthony Eden told us in Germany at that time that a Minister in the Army of Churchill’s Government said at that time if Hilter had crossed the channel they would have had no forces. They had withdrawn all their forces back. When they were preparing for the German crossing, Churchill had no arms. He could only organize police to defend the coast. If they crossed they would not be able to defend.

Mao making fun of the idea of the USSR invading China and getting the Chinese treatment:

> Chairman Mao: If there are Russians going to attack China, I can tell you today that our way of conducting a war will be guerrilla war and protracted war. We will let them go wherever they want. (Prime Minister Chou laughs.) They want to come to the Yellow River tributaries. That would be good, very good. (Laughter.) And if they go further to the Yangtse River tributaries, that would not be bad either.

Angus Calder has a quote I can't recall about the "fight them on the beaches" speech Churchill gave, somebody in the house of commons said something to the effect "well we will be flinging beer bottles at them, it's all we've bloody got" and indeed the home guard was being taught how to make Molotov cocktails by ex Spanish civil war volunteers, and parading with pikes. A three man suicide squad technique was deviced to jam tank tracks with a baulk of wood, climb onto the tank top and set off a sticky bomb or a Molotov cocktail.

Getting 350,000 men and some materiel back from Dunkirk was a big deal.

Mao had similar concerns in the long March. Just surving was half his battle.

The British Navy was intact though, and the Germans did not have air superiority. Had they had air superiority they'd have been able to keep the British Navy at bay and then invaded. It was a close-run thing.

But Germans didn’t even have the naval to capacity to successfully execute a mostly uncontested landing unless there was perfect weather.

Eric Hobsbawm notoriously said counterfactual history is shit but that said, who knows what a demoralised British government might have done with a successful German landing even if small.

Suppose the germans just forced the local french fisherman at gunpoint to take them over. Would the royal navy lay waste to thousands of french fisherman in the same seas as thousands of british fisherman loaded with their soldiers? I’m surprised the germans also didn’t just lay waste to them at dunkirk with indirect fire.

> fisherman in the same seas as thousands of british fisherman loaded with their soldiers?

Logistically it was impossible to launch an invasion at the same time as the Dunkirk evacuations were happening. Even if they manage to get to England on a few fishing boats what would they do there?

> Would the royal navy lay waste to thousands of french fisherman

The British didn’t have that many qualms about blowing up a significant part of the French navy as a mere precaution. So yes. That not how successful naval invasion work though anyway. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Attack_on_Mers-el-Kébir

I wonder if Mao was truly stupid enough to believe that German could’ve invaded Britain without naval and air superiority or they were all talking in jest.

After all he was the man who thought of killing all the sparrows in China and forcing people to build non-functional steel smelters in their backyard instead of working in their fields..

> Chairman Mao: You have about 600, 000 Chinese in the United States. We probably don't even have 60 Americans here. I would like to study the problem. I don't know the reason.

I wonder if he studied it and what he found.

The full context of that quote sheds some light on this:

> Chairman: The Chinese people are quite xenophobic [排外得很]. You can accommodate many ethnic groups. We don’t have many foreigners in China. You have many different ethnic groups. You have 600,000 Chinese in the United States, but we probably don’t even have 60 Americans. I don’t know why.

I think by the last sentence he meant he didn't know what the reason for the xenophobia was.

I thought about moving to an Asian country as a white person. I asked myself: What does it mean to be Korean? What does it mean to be Taiwanese? What does it mean to be Malaysian?

In most Asian countries ethnicity not a wildly different concept than nationality. So to be Korean means you share a history with other Koreans.

America, at least the liberal side of America, has tried to push the definition of being American towards a set of ideals and values. Someone is not American because they had ancestors who killed british and grew up in a church, but because they believe in human rights and freedom, and that those are things worth sacrificing for.

Without a values based idea of nationality, it means that other nationalities come to exploit your opportunities and you as a country are letting them in to exploit them.

If you've never contemplated the question "What does it mean to be an american?" this is one of the most interesting political/structure of society reads I've read to date: https://www.amacad.org/publication/what-does-it-mean-be-amer...

This "are we an ethnic society", "are we a grouping of ethnic societies", or "are we a values based society" idea makes the state of modern American politics make a lot more sense.

Are you a society? Or just people living within the same economic zone and with the same language?

While your central thesis probably has merit, I just want to point out that the way you present it sounds incredibly ignorant and simplistic to anyone in Asia. Maybe Japan and Korea are more ethnostates.. but it's sorta ridiculous to say it's an Asian things

Within 5 minutes of arriving in Kuala Lumpur you will see more diversity than in most American cities - with equal parts Indian, Chinese and Bumi (ethnically Indonesian). I mean.. maybe they all just look "asian" to you, but they're distinct to anyone from the region. On top of that you will regularly see people from the middle east and elsewhere.

The Chinese, outside of han-nationalist circles, typically do not see themselves as an ethnostate (but by contrast the Taiwanese sort of do) - that was sort of the central theme of the 2008 olympics.. and I've met many minorities in China that would be confused and maybe offended if you suggested they weren't Chinese

So by extension Taiwanese also view themselves as Chinese, but typically not part of China geopolitically. ( a lot of the issues here stem from linguistics.. b/c in Chinese there are many separate terms to distinguish things like ethnic Han, culturally Chinese, Chinese citizens of the PRC and other subtleties - I'm not going to pretend to understand all of them)

Thailand is also incredibly pluralistic, though minorities are more integrated into one culture.

There isn't typically "founding father" hero worship and the same ideological cohesion as in the United States, but it's also simplistic to say that doesn't exist at all. You have for instance Sun Yat-sen who is .. sort of founding-father-like (his ideology doesn't seem as coherant as in the US though) . If you want ideological though, the most obvious is Maoism. Ideological purity is sort of unacceptable in the post-Cultural Revolution period, but it's still a powerful force in their society

Han runs China with a strong majority. For western provinces where minorities are a majority, the symbolic governor will always be an ethnic minority (eg Tibet will have a Tibetan governor), but the real power will be held by the Han party secretary. Some of the party secretaries that have run Tibet and Xinjiang are famous hardliners that have probably created more problems than they’ve solved.

Interesting stuff. I won't pretend to understand the inner workings of the party haha. I have heard they very aggressively rotate party members so that they don't establish deep rooted regional networks - and that you aren't ever assigned from the region you're from. So that seems to be in line with what you illustrate. I also know they have intense quotas for minorities and affirmative action - but with the demographics involved I don't imagine you'd really get anyone other than Han executives most of the time

Though in the end it's a bit besides the point. The state and the people concerned for the most part don't perceive themselves as an ethnostate - and it's their selfidentification which is at play here. I could see it changing - but a Han ethnostate would be a bit scary. It'd mean loosing legitimacy over minority areas - but there are huge Han minorities in most Asian countries. So far the Chinese state hasn't pushed the line that it's got an obligation to represent their interests (though it's come up)

It's interesting that by contrast in my experience in Taiwan there is much more of a perception that they're a Han ethnostate. There are a few "aboriginal" and other minorities - but it's mostly viewed as a curiosity

I think the ethnostate label isn’t really accurate in China. Paternalistic state is more accurate, Confucian values still hold. The goal isn’t create a monoethnic state, rather the Han see themselves as best apt to govern and guide the other ethnic groups. A lot of the ethnic tension simply comes from minorities seeing such paternalism as condescending.

Paternalism is just a different word for oppression. It encodes the power relationship, but with the implication of care.

Ask the Uighers, Tibetans, and the Hong Kongers, or even the Taiwanese what they think of china's "Paternalism," or if they feel China is a caring "parent."

> A lot of the ethnic tension simply comes from minorities seeing such paternalism as condescending.

This is an equivocated way of saying ethnic minorities feel oppressed by the ethnic ruling class.

> the Han see themselves as best apt to govern and guide the other ethnic groups

This statement seems like barely concealed "Han supremacy".

Your words say the architecture of china is an ethnostate while the phrasing is a facade of benevolence.

I agree with your criticism and should have called out Malaysia's multiculturalism instead of going with the (wrong) implication expressed by where I asked that question; that in Malaysia ethnicity = nationality.

FWIW, my experience of Malaysia, admittedly as very much an outsider, is that it is multiple ethnicities living together, rather than a society bound by a set of shared values so I would assume the primary lens of politics is still ethnicity. Are various ethnicities vying for dominance, or are people vying for specific ideals? When "Indian, Chinese and Bumi" look at each other do they first experience "us" or do they first experience "them?"

America is dealing with these problems and it would be charitable to say that America is a values first country, although I think America is doing better than most. My experience is that Malaysia is probably doing the best in Asia.

> There isn't typically "founding father" hero worship and the same ideological cohesion as in the United States

That touches on the fundamental idea I am trying to convey (the one I am conveying much much much more poorly than the article I linked).

Are people deifying a "founding father" or are they deifying the ideals for which they stood? Do they engage with their history (of having founding fathers and what they did) or their values (influenced by and reasoned about by their founding fathers).

> I've met many minorities in China that would be confused and maybe offended if you suggested they weren't Chinese

Are they experiencing being Chinese through sharing the Chinese history, or are they being Chinese through sharing Chinese values? Could black people go to China and share those values and experiencing being Chinese or does the fact that black people do not share Chinese history make them ineligible to be Chinese?

> Are they experiencing being Chinese through sharing the Chinese history, or are they being Chinese through sharing Chinese values?

I don't think that'd be a meaningful distinction for most people. The history is deeply intertwined with the values

> Could black people go to China and share those values and experiencing being Chinese or does the fact that black people do not share Chinese history

I'm actually not quite sure what "share history" really means in practical terms. Most people don't in a personal capacity connect with historical events.. But the reason you don't see black people "become Chinese" is mostly because the culture is basically too big and deep to integrate with. Maybe a rabid sinophile could learn to live like a local - but that's so exceedingly rare that it'd always be a novelty.

Europeans often joke that America doesn't have culture and history , and the reality is that it's pretty bare bones and you can "catch up". Western individualism is easy to swallow and for the rest we're pretty flexible.

To give you a more concrete motivating counterexample. I've met American born Chinese in Taiwan - locals always view them as "other" bc they didn't grow up immersed in the culture and history and its always obvious. They ethnically match, but they aren't local

I mean, just read on!

Even after covid and the new Cold War there are certainly more than “60 Americans” in China today.

I bet there are several magnitudes mores Americans in China now than there were in the 60s…

> Chairman Mao: (Gestures with his hand and points to his books.) But if the Soviet Union would throw its bombs and kill all those over 30 who are Chinese, that would solve the problem for us. Because the old people like me can’t learn Chinese. We read Chinese. The majority of my books are Chinese. There are very few dictionaries over there. All the other books are in Chinese.

Mao is responsible for spreading Mandarin over all the provinces. He himself spoke with such a bad accent that towards the end of his life there was only one person that could understand him, his secretary or nurse or someone like this. Joke says that she was running China for a while since no one could verify her translation. Also, I am guessing a lot of people were still illiterate at the time.

Aha, gotcha.

Still awkward joke.

Not really. He just meant that old people find it hard to learn to speak Mandarin, even if they can read the Chinese script (which is the same for all Chinese languages). He likely saw this as a major obstacle to his vision of a grand, unified China. He's also responsible for the simplified Chinese script, which was introduced everywhere but in Hong Kong and Taiwan. They are still very mutually intelligible, from what I understand.

I mean the part about actually bombing people is of course a joke, I think even such an exceptional psychopath-stateman like him wouldn't do it.

That's the dilemma with the CCP. They are a murderous regime but they also made China into a powerful centralised state that can meet as equals with any Western country. They've always been the real nationalists.

China has been a unified empire before Europeans traded seashells with each other (I'm exaggerating here a bit). It is about 10 times older than the United States or Russia in its current post-mongolian iteration.

China being weak was unusual in the history of civilizations.

While I am firmly in the western camp, not recognizing reality is foolish.

Exaggerating a lot. The first unified empire (Qin dynasty) is comparable to Alexander the Great's empire and didn't last much longer.

China being weak is also remarkably common -- but there often wasn't a strong enough nearby power to exploit the situation.

Just to touch on this - Cantonese is not really mutually intelligible with modern Chinese, that's CCP propaganda. They're big on the idea that there's only one Chinese language, and there are "regional dialects" but...those dialects meet an awful lot of criteria for being a different language. It's very similar to their push to make all Chinese culture and history Han Chinese.

The mandarin spoken in Taiwan is 1:1 with that in Beijing (minus the accent) but the characters for the language are radically different, to the point where someone knowing simplified Chinese is essentially illiterate in Taipei and vice versa.

I wouldn't say it's quite that bad. The simplified characters are a lot older than the CCP and are often used in handwriting all over the Sinosphere. The traditional characters are still sometimes used in West Taiwan for things like shop signs.

> sometimes used in West Taiwan

LOL. I was confused and thought you meant the Western part of Taiwan, which made no sense. But I get your joke now: West Taiwan = mainland China.

Moreover, I doubt that the use of Mandarin was widespread in Taiwan before 1949 when Kuomintang occupied Taiwan.

Before that, most people from Taiwan were either natives, who spoke an Austronesian language, or Chinese immigrants who had come during the previous 4 centuries from Fujian, who spoke a Hokkien dialect very different from Mandarin.

Yeah if you want to shut down a conversation in Taipei, or suddenly run into "oh no I don't understand your English," bring up the treatment of the native Taiwanese.

To be fair to the ROC, the Japanese colonial era was FAR worse to them than anything that happened post 1949, but still.

many would say the white terror was far worse then the japanese

Only partly.

> towards the end of his life there was only one person that could understand him, his secretary or nurse or someone like this

> Mao had been in poor health for several years and had declined visibly for at least six months prior to his death. There are unconfirmed reports that he possibly had ALS or Lou Gehrig's disease.[1]

[1] https://simple.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mao_Zedong

Absolutely fascinating, thank you.

Not gonna lie this is the first time I’ve read the term “memcon”

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Memorandum_of_conversation

Thanks. This was really un-Google-able.

Edit: ChatGPT was able to answer: https://chat.openai.com/share/7dd3589f-7cf7-4c37-b613-63b57b... .

I’ll just leave this here

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/south_asia/4640773.stm

Xovietian materials is alway high quality, with reasonable pricing. Our family still kept some things from those days, they're high quality !

Nowdays, i couldn't buy anything except for some forced computer for work. Reason: materialism sucks my ** that most of them is bad quality on purpose for you to rebuy/repair for some time.

Probably the most consequential outcome of US-China cordiality in the early 1970s was that China contracted with US firms to build ammonia-fertilizer factories:

> "In the early 1970s, China negotiated contracts with foreign firms for construction of thirteen large nitrogenous-fertilizer plants. By 1980 all thirteen plants had been completed, and ten were fully operational."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Technological_and_industrial_h...

By the early 1980s, China's food production was finally on a stable footing, and this was largely due to the import of "Green Revolution" technology enabled by the opening up of trade with the West:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_agriculture_in_Chin...

It can be said with a fair degree of certainty that both the Soviet and Chinese systems of Communist authoritarianism prevented the kind of innovative approaches to agricultural production that the more open academic research environment in the United States encouraged. The contrast between Norman Borlaugh and Trofim Lysenko is somewhat instructive in that regard, and it seems Mao's China had no shortage of Lysenko types.

Of course, the consequences of the Green Revolution, i.e. steep population growth and increased reliance on fossil fuels, were not really understood at the time, either. Now we sort of have the tiger by the tail, while steadily increasing climate stress is starting to undercut agricultural production, in China, India, Africa, Europe, the USA...

> Of course, the consequences of the Green Revolution, i.e. steep population growth

The Green Revolution didn't cause population growth. That happens on its own.

It did prevent massive famines. You have to be pretty far out in whackadoodle land (or a psychopath, or perhaps both) to think that's a bad thing. As an atheist, I can't really tell the Pope how to run his religion, but if there's anyone who deserves to be canonized I think it's probably Borlaug. He's even got a miracle under his belt.

How does China's Yuan Longping (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yuan_Longping) stack up against Borlaug, in your opinion?

"The Wizard and the Prophet" is a very good read in that respect. It's about the contrasting views and results of these two scientists:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_Vogt

> "According to Charles C. Mann, "Vogt...laid out the basic ideas for the modern environmental movement. In particular, he founded what the Hampshire College population researcher Betsy Hartmann has called 'apocalyptic environmentalism'—the belief that unless humankind drastically reduces consumption and limits population, it will ravage global ecosystems."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Norman_Borlaug

> "...an American agronomist who led initiatives worldwide that contributed to the extensive increases in agricultural production termed the Green Revolution. Borlaug was awarded multiple honors for his work, including the Nobel Peace Prize, the Presidential Medal of Freedom and the Congressional Gold Medal."

Was one right, and the other wrong? Or perhaps there is a broader understanding, one that can incorporate both viewpoints.

Environmental alarmists might not always be wrong, but they have been so far. I don't know why they hate their own species and wish to see it extinct, but then I am not a psychiatrist.

Do you want the Star Trek future we've all dreamed about since we were kids? People like Borlaug will get us there if anyone can. They deserve your attention, not the likes of Vogt and Erlich and the others.

The idea that somehow the maximum population of humans should be limited to single digit billions or even hundreds of millions should be disgusting to reasonable people.

Man, the word "interpreter" was used far too liberally.

Was this before mao killed millions of Chinese or after?

After.

Was this before or after Kissinger killed millions of people?

I think this is what is being referred to

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Leap_Forward

AFAIK, the biggest problem is some influential "scientists", especially this guy https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trofim_Lysenko, advocated for a kind of "communist farming" with some really strange idea of how plants work which led to some horrible results.

I'm sure it's more complicated but upon closer inspection I haven't seen any real evidence of the deaths being an intrinsic result of leftist ideology

>At the top of the stairs, I glimpsed Eric Schmidt, the billionaire former Google CEO who co-authored a book on artificial intelligence with Kissinger. I asked him what it was like to collaborate with Dr. K, but he turned back inside.

At Kissinger's birthday party a few days ago.

From a European perspective it is really refreshing to see some direct words spoken, here.

Mao questioning the US-allegiance of Western-Europe i.e. 1) the Gaullist approach which was successfully soften by Kissinger through Pompidou and 2) the "Ost-Politik" by Brandt.

On the second point Mao pokes a little bit longer:

>You in the West have always had a policy. The beginning of both World Wars was pushing Germany against Russia.

Kissinger is excellently trying to counter any suspicion by speaking clearly to the point:

>But pushing Russia to attack China is not our policy. Because if a war breaks out in China, the danger to us is as great as a war breaking out in Europe.

But Mao still holds his ground and develops his overplayed suspicion further:

>That’s exactly what I wanted to say. Are you now pushing West Germany to make peace with Russia and then pushing Russia to move eastward? I suspect that the entire West has such a line. Eastward, mainly towards us, and also towards Japan, and partly towards you, in the Pacific and Indian Oceans.

So, that Kissinger has to admit they do not have full control over the current foreign policy of Germany as in France, now, but the i.e. US-army is still very present, to give some hard dealt reassurances at the end.

>Kissinger: We don’t agree with Germany’s policy. We would rather have the opposition party in Germany come to power. The opposition party in Germany doesn’t pursue this policy.

[[Long stretch of text from US side memcon]

Chairman Mao: Yes, that’s our feeling. We are also in favor of the opposition party in Germany.

Dr. Kissinger: They conducted themselves very stupidly.

Chairman Mao: Yes, they were defeated. The whole of Europe is thinking only of peace.

Prime Minister Chou: The illusions of peace created by their leaders.

Dr. Kissinger: Yes, but we will do our best to strengthen European defenses and keep our armies in Europe.

Chairman Mao: That would be very good.

I also very much like the excursion to the German roots of Kissinger and where Mao openly albeit casually talks about Hitler's military strategy in WWII. Kissinger insights that the Germans are/were hopeless romantics and Hitler let his strategy be dictated by artistic intuition are met with Mao indirect dry mentioning of the "Treaty of Versailles" as a great humiliation for Germans; here imho weakly echoing the Opium Wars as a great humiliation for the Chinese by the hands of the then world-power Great Britain. Implying/mildly threatening that humiliation isn't always a good long term strategy in dealing with geopolitical adversaries/problems and can lead to quite dangerous out of control passions.

>Dr. Kissinger: He conducted strategy artistically rather than strategically. He did it by intuition. He had no overall plan.

Chairman Mao: Then why did the German troops heed him so much?

Dr. Kissinger: Probably because the Germans are somewhat romantic people and because he must have had a very strong personality.

Chairman Mao: Mainly because during the First World War the German nation was humiliated.

Dr. Kissinger: Yes, that was a very important factor.

Mao then entertains the half-phantasy how they would cope with the Soviets invading China - with Guerilla tactics utilizing the invasion of the terrain into their advantage - directly admitting how he can clearly see that it could play very well in the hands of the US by weakening the Soviets substantially. Interestingly a similar strategy - to create a 'Vietnam situation' for the Soviets - was deployed 6 years later, elsewhere, namely in the mountainous Afghanistan/Pakistan region through "Operation Cyclone"[0].

>Chairman Mao: If there are Russians going to attack China, I can tell you today that our way of conducting a war will be guerrilla war and protracted war. We will let them go wherever they want. (Prime Minister Chou laughs.) They want to come to the Yellow River tributaries. That would be good, very good. (Laughter.) And if they go further to the Yangtse River tributaries, that would not be bad either.

Dr. Kissinger: But if they use bombs and do not send armies? (Laughter)

Chairman Mao: What should we do? Perhaps you can organize a committee to study the problem. We’ll let them beat us up and they will lose any resources. They say they are socialists. We are also socialists and that will be socialists attacking socialists.

Dr. Kissinger: If they attack China, we would certainly oppose them for our own reasons.

Chairman Mao: But your people are not awakened, and Europe and you would think that it would be a fine thing if it were that the ill water would flow toward China.

Dr. Kissinger: What Europe thinks I am not able to judge. They cannot do anything anyway. They are basically irrelevant. (In the midst of this Chairman Mao toasts Dr. Kissinger and Mr. Lord with tea.) What we think is that if the Soviet Union overruns China, this would dislocate the security of all other countries and will lead to our own isolation.

Chairman Mao: (Laughing) How will that happen? How would that be? Because since in being bogged down in Vietnam you met so many difficulties, do you think they would feel good if they were bogged down in China?

Dr. Kissinger: The Soviet Union?

Miss Tang: The Soviet Union.

Chairman Mao: And then you can let them get bogged down in China, for half a year, or one, or two, or three, or four years. And then you can poke your finger at the Soviet back. And your slogan then will be for peace, that is you must bring down Socialist imperialism for the sake of peace. And perhaps you can begin to help them in doing business, saying whatever you need we will help against China.

Dr. Kissinger: Mr. Chairman, it is really very important that we understand each other’s motives. We will never knowingly cooperate in an attack on China.

Chairman Mao: (Interrupting) No, that’s not so. Your aim in doing that would be to bring the Soviet Union down.

Dr. Kissinger: That’s a very dangerous thing. (Laughter)

[0]https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Cyclone

Is everything every written by or about Kissinger somewhere on the internet?

I'm pretty sure it would be one of the highest quality textsets you could get for this whole LLM thing.

> somewhere on the internet

if you mean free, no, I don't think so. You can buy the books, of course.

What's interesting about this?

It's a major turning point in geopolitics, involving two political genius war criminals having a remarkably frank and honest exchange of views.

They're batting around the idea of Japan going Soviet at one point. I was fascinated.

There's a hold out Japanese communist movement, from pre ww2

There's also a truly bizarre subculture of pro North Korean longterm Japanese resident people.

It would not surprise me that in the 70s anyone in politics could believe a soviet Japan was possible. The Baath party slaughtered the Iraqi communists in the sixties, Indonesia slaughtered The Sukharno supporting communists along with passive support from the UK and Australia and USA, British forces in Malaysia were expelling 40,000 villagers for communist sympathies, communist rebels in the Philippines were firing up, and the Vietnam war embroiled Vietnam, Lao, Cambodia in the same torment. Allende would die in Chile inside the next two years: a Marxist government had been in power for a year.

Frank and honest? There's so much bullshitting in this convo I can smell it 50 years later.

Anyway, my comment was not to say that this is document is stupid but rather "could someone please point out the interesting bits".

Also that Henry Kissinger is still alive and turned 100 few weeks ago. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Henry_Kissinger

Fun fact: Kissinger has lived for so long that Commodore BASIC, SQL, Apple DOS, and the TCP/IP protocol were all created after he retired from government service. Not after he was born, but after he retired.

People like Kissinger never retire, he still shape our world https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2023_Bilderberg_Conference

When you're just so damned good at the job that Satan won't let you retire.

Are you daft? It's two of the greatest/most-importants minds of the 20th century meeting in the post ww2 era.

From the western side - Kissinger is arguably right up there with Machiavelli, his influence is immutable. and Mao sort of made modern china.

You left out the Evil multiplier.

These are also two of the most vile things to live in the last 500 years. Their great minds are what allowed them to get away with the murder hundreds of millions.

That doesn't make these memos not interesting. Quite the contrary!

I didnt claim that, yes these evil POSs are fascinating, but that doesnt make them any less despicable :-)

Hey, please omit swipes from your HN posts. Your comment would be fine without that first bit.

If you wouldn't mind reviewing https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html and taking the intended spirit of the site more to heart, we'd be grateful.

I don't think u/dontupvoteme meant it the way you took it. "Are you daft?" didn't come across as a swipe but as a bit of a British-like exclamation on their point. Could be a language thing.

Considering how understated British insults are, this looks like a slap to the face comparatively speaking.

Or just emphasis.

Yes that was out of line, apologies.

> What brings us together is a recognition of a new situation in the world and a recognition on our part that what is important is not a nation's internal political philosophy. What is important is its policy toward the rest of the world and toward us

These men had the ability to make a whimsical comment that might snowball into absolute government policy for decades(centuries) to come that sort of butterfly effect is intriguing and not commonplace.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com