Why are you using Russia and China as examples of the bad guys here. They're not asking for global access to everyones data, the UK is. The UK are the bad guys.
Why did you assume the context was "bad guys?" It's a well-known fact that there's a lot of geopolitical tension between Russia/China and Western Europe. The comment is raising the point that by setting this precedent they are opening the doors for their geopolitical rivals to publicly do the same (we already know it happens through private state-sponsored cyber gangs).
I read it as using Russia and China as the other guys, rather than the bad guys. The idea is to eliminate any pre-existing feelings of trust and illustrate the fact that once your data is held by anyone in the global intelligence community you should think of it as being held by everyone in the global intelligence community.
Whatever you think of their politics, they are authoritarian in structure. There are fewer restrictions on what those governments can do with the information. I’m not saying anyone should trust the UK government here, but it’s easier to see the risks in a country that doesn’t have to be accountable to the people or the legal system.
I dont think that is actually true in those cases.
Relations with China were pretty cosy till they did a 180 around the second Bush administration and started all that Wolf Warrior diplomacy, 9 dotted line stuff, Hongkong crackdowns.......
Regarding Russia, nobody really cared at all till it was absolutely impossible to ignore. Putin seems to think that he needs the west as an enemy to bolster his standing and power. Just remember after starting the full scale invasion he proudly declared "I hope I will now be heard" or something to that effect. In Russian mass media the imperial project has long been clear and accepted.
I was pretty sure there was a flipflop in the book too, though. Where the narrator reported now being at war with whomever, and that they had always been at war with that party.
Sure, but the parent comment was aimed at the western side and not at the Russians. The West did everything it could to ignore and deny Russians growing hostility because it would have been inconvenient and maybe it would go away somehow.
> Relations with China were pretty cosy till they did a 180 around the second Bush administration and started all that Wolf Warrior diplomacy, 9 dotted line stuff, Hongkong crackdowns.......
No, relations with China were warm right up through the end of the Obama administration and into Trump's first term. That's why the first approach China took to the Biden administration was to hope for straightforward normalization of relations.
China started issuing 10-year visas to Americans under Obama. The Wolf Warrior movies, after which the policy is named, started coming out in 2015.
That's a... unique take. You might want to check out the Century of Humiliation. [1] The one thing you do have right is that "good relations" in contemporary times seem to translate into "completely subservient, even to point of a willingness to engaging in self detrimental behavior if demanded." What happened around the second Bush administration was that China no longer had to be subservient, because their economy started booming, and so they could stand up for their own basic interests. One of the very few things they've pushed for is relative autonomy alongside Taiwan, which is even part of an agreement we ostensibly agree to, while then working to undermine that relationship in every way possible. You are either subservient or an enemy. Hegemony in a nutshell.
The same is largely true of Russia as well. Far from wanting the US as an enemy, Putin even inquired about joining NATO in the Clinton era. I'm sure there were some snickers about 'he doesn't get it, does he'? In fact the CIA initially felt Putin would be a terrible leader since he'd be unable to reign in Russia which was spiraling into chaos and mass criminality in the 90s. Their foresight there was about as accurate as usual.
We are talking post 2000s here. What are you referring to with "completely subservient, even to point of a willingness to engaging in self detrimental behavior if demanded." ?
The notion that China is somewhat entitled to dominate its neighbors because it had a bad run 1-2 centuries ago is a bit silly.
and who exactly are we to dictate what a 5000 years old country and civilisation gets to do when we literally fund the mass murder of an entire group of people because it's "God's Promise" ?
The point is that nobody, certainly not the US, cares about things like territorial integrity or 'human rights.' Recent events have caused the US to have to completely drop the facade, which is in many ways a good thing (even if the situation in question is catastrophic and in no way good). It's all just a pretext to the expansion of power and influence. In the case of Taiwan the history of the country is important. The "Republic of China" was a nationalist force that overthrew dynastic China and eventually managed to unify the country in 1927. They were themselves then overthrown in 1949 by the CCP. Their leadership and forces fled to Taiwan (which was already a part of China), and overthrew the local forces there. The CCP did not pursue them beyond that and so the Civil War ended there.
The Republic of China then tried to gain international recognition as an independent nation but, to this day, basically nobody recognizes them as such. And eventually this led to the emergence of the 'one country, two systems' where China would allow some basic autonomy to the province, yet it would remain a part of China. This was accepted by most of the world, including the US. While simultaneously we then did (and are doing) absolutely everything possible to ensure the emergence of a new civil war in the region. It's not at all because we care about Taiwan (beyond it being in a strategically useful location), but primarily to weaken and destabilize China.
Look, China is a big boy and responsible for its own actions. Taiwan has been an autonomous and sovereign entity for many generations. If China invades Taiwan there most likely will be war, if not then not.
You can always construct some historical and geographical claims and justifications. Haven't you heard, China is a near Arctic nation now.
Regarding your edited added hegemony aspect. That is only true if you define subservience as curtailing your imperialist ambitions.
When the US was engaged in Afghanistan and Iraq the Bush admin and diplomatic circles floated the idea to get China to take on more responsibility in the South China Sea to help manage those territorial disputes.
After all the US was stretched thin and China had and would gain(ed) so much from the rule based order that surely they would be interested in maintaining the status quo and continue to prosper.
Well, next thing China released a map reaffirming their ridiculous 9 dotted line claims and dashed any hope of a cooperation.
Same way the Soviets wanted to “join” NATO in the 50s. To effectively castrate it and make it ineffective.
It would have been easier for them to politically and economically dominate Eastern European countries from “within”.
> Hegemony in a nutshell
From Chinese and Russian perspective sure. Especially Russian politicians have seen the entire world through an exceptionally imperialist lens for centuries.
On the other hand the US has probably been the most “benign” hegemony (relative to their power) in history (still a hegemony of course).
One of the ways the great empires of old learned to create sustainable empires was by giving an exceptional degree of freedom and liberty to those under their control. The US has not been benign in any way shape or form, but what we have done is become the first empire whose borders are not de jure defined, but instead de facto - driven by extreme behind the scenes influence, manipulation, and violence when necessary.
I lose track of exactly how many countries we dominate, but Wiki gives "at least 81 overt and covert known interventions in foreign elections" with another study offering "64 covert and six overt attempts at regime change". [1] Those were both after WW2, and these are only verified "incidents." And this has been paired alongside endless wars, often on completely false pretext, that have led to the deaths of millions and the displacement of what has likely been hundreds of millions. The recent revelations of US AID are also interesting where a ridiculous chunk of "independent media" worldwide seems to largely be a branch of the US intelligence services.
To call this "benevolent" is of course absurd. It's just a new form of imperialistic hegemony, through any and all perspectives. The only asterisk comes in the fact that since it's based on subterfuge instead of in your face stuff, some people remain mostly ignorant to the ways of the world - I suspect especially so amongst those in the US and without a passport.
> Regarding Russia, nobody really cared at all till it was absolutely impossible to ignore.
Regarding Russia, people have cared since the Bolshevik Revolution in 1917. The fear of communism and concerns about Russia grew until the red scare in the 1920s, through the cold war, and continues to do this day. There has never been a single point in your life when "nobody really cared at all" about Russia.
America's concerns over Russia died down a lot from what it was after the collapse of the USSR but never really went away. That said, if Putin hadn't been doing his best to fan the flames America would probably still be focused on the middle east as their new favorite boogeyman.
That was USA scorched Vietnam.
That was USA killing civilians in Iraq and Afganistan.
That was USA overthrowing foreign goverments, including Ukrainian...
And then it preached to Russia on what to do with neighboring states...
USA did a lot of nasty things. But since WW2, it did not invade other countries with explicit intent to annex them and forcibly assimilate their population.
Simply because that has bad optics. We "invade countries" on a regular basis, just not with tanks and battleships, and not to annex them or take their citizens but to get what we want out of them without having to do those messy things.
I'm 100% for my country but we do pull some shifty shit then scream to the heavens when somebody else does the same thing.
Nobody said that it's okay. But there are degrees of evil, and there's clearly one here. The guys who come, drop bombs on you, and leave again are bad, but the guys who come and drop bombs on you and then stay and imprison you and erase your entire culture by force are obviously worse.
> But since WW2, it did not invade other countries with explicit intent to annex them and forcibly assimilate their population.
True but the current lunatic POTUS is essentially threatening that to 2 territories (Canada, Greenland), making noises towards part of a 3rd (Panama), and explicitly calling for ethnic cleansing in a 4th (Gaza). I think the USA's "we're not as bad as Russia" sheen is rapidly disappearing (which makes sense when you consider the two lunatics at the top are essentially considered to be Putin lackeys.)
No dispute that he’s talking a lot of nonsense, but don’t rule out that he is bluffing in a major way with all of this stuff in hopes it will help him to win various concessions. If they can be convinced that Trump genuinely might roll in on an Abrams, pave Gaza from one side to the other, and fill it with Trump casinos, he thinks, then the parties will be more open to making a deal that isn’t ludicrous but is still painful to both sides (as a compromise must be).
Note that I don’t believe it is a genius 4D chess move, or a particularly well executed version of the strategy. But just because his pronouncements are so ridiculous and impractical, and just plain offensive, and just because he’s an idiot, that still doesn’t mean it’s not a bluff.
Gaza has nothing with which to do a deal. So far as I can see, which admittedly isn't necessarily all that far, the only parties there that have any meaningfully influential levers to pull are Israel (whose current (unpopular) leader is welcoming this) and Egypt (who have the Suez canal).
(I don't think anyone outside the region is sufficiently motivated to care, though now I think about it I wonder if Iran could buy a nuke or ten from either Russia or North Korea? If so, or indeed if anyone else in the area can, they also become relevant).
Caveat for all of this: I'm guessing wildly on that and you shouldn't take this as deeper than armchair/pub talk.
> All that supplying Hamas with weapons and Syria stuff, going back to backing Egypt in 20 century attacks on Israel, shows at least Russia cares
Could be, but Russia is currently grinding itself to exhaustion on a fraction of the discretionary budget of NATO countries that are also going "hmm, we can't trust the US any more either, and need to build up our own stockpile…", so I don't see them as being strong enough to be relevant — except by selling nukes.
I rather suspect that violations of that particular treaty will be taken very very seriously, something along the lines of the White House saying: "We know Russia sold them to Iran, we're going going to count any Iranian use of them as if Russia used them itself. Tehran nukes our friends in Tel Aviv, means we nuke Moscow." (North Korea, being much smaller and acting like it's constantly under threat from everywhere, might not see any novel risk).
But perhaps that wouldn't be a problem, even for Russia — fait accompli has a way of changing things, and a nuclear armed Iran might make Israel call for international oversight and join the ICC even at the expense of throwing Netanyahu under the metaphorical bus.
Yeah, on this one I can only speculate on the real-life endgame Trump imagines he's going to negotiate using this bluff. Maybe he thinks the Arab countries like Jordan could be convinced to demand of Hamas that they stand down in general. Although I certainly don't see either that demand, nor compliance with it, happening.
Yeah, but until American troops are actually in Greenland, Panama, etc., comparing this country to Russia is nuts.
Trump, even in his most incandescently orange rage, STILL doesn't make as many nuclear threats as Putin does. He certainly has been unable to imitate Putin domestically.
One of the big differences between the USA and Russia, is that the US doesn't actually need to annex a country to get what it wants. The US historically acts on behalf of US owned businesses so they can extract mineral and fossil fuel wealth which is funnelled colonial era style back into the US economy. There is no need to plant a flag when it is cheaper and more efficient to achieve the same effect with Chevron.
Using diplomacy and business is good because it leads to LESS DEATH. And anyone can use it. Especially Moscow which had a ton of influence in post soviet space. It was free to be nice and negotiate with Ukraine and get policies good for both but it decided it's beneath it.
It's a choice not a "need". It's a revealing choice. Implying Russia "needed" to annex a country is very revealing too. Like if they don't have enough land and or resources already. You know how sparsely populated it is?
"Need" is obviously being used to refer to capability to execute interests here, and not requirement for survival. The US didn't need to have the cia help oust the Australian government in the 80s, nor did it need to install sympathetic governments across south America for the sake of its mineral companies, but it did it anyway. Russia does not have international mineral businesses with the capability to operate in these places in the same way the US does. Ethics of death only comes into it insofar as if the US did claim territory, it suddenly becomes responsible for the well being of the people living there, which it avoids by privatising the exploitation.
This is ridiculous. Someone with an actual, literal boot on their neck will hear your spiel about exploitation and laugh as much as they can manage.
The US is a state, and like all states it's a sociopath. The reason it's better than others is because it resorts to force later and less often than other states.
It is unironically better this way; your argument implies that having robust systems of law, transnational corporations, and global trade are somehow just as bad as a war of conquest.
They are not in any of those today, but a very recent history suggests they might be only if the government is serious enough to achieve the goals stated by Trump.
Their troops were in fact in Iraq, Afghanistan, Syria, Serbia...
This does not excuse the atrocities and conquest as performed by Russia, while it's true USA does worry about optics much more (i.e. their presence in Serbia was a lot more toned down than in Iraq or Afghanistan, as Serbia is a European "culture" similar to the rest of Europe).
US go-to is "liberating" a territory, which is — interestingly — the same excuse Russia is using in Eastern parts of Ukraine (and which is why it's likely working with most of their own population, obviously helped with media control).
Thing is, when we look at countries that are "liberated" by US in this day and age, they don't look like US puppet states long-term. Look at Iraq for a prime example.
Russia OTOH did indeed use the "liberate" rhetoric wrt Ukraine, but at this point it made it clear that it intends to annex all territory that it can occupy.
It should be noted that the word "liberate" in a military context has a very long history in Russian war propaganda specifically, which is a big reason why they keep using it. It is an immediate call-out to WW2, which has a near-religious status in Russia, but even beyond that, e.g. the 1939 partition of Poland with the Nazis and annexation of West Ukraine and Belarus was also described as "liberation" then.
I think Russia only ever wanted to annex (or really, make into independent states) Eastern parts of Ukraine, even though it attempted to run over all of it (including Kyiv).
Now, Russia has done this already in Georgia: they consider two territories under their occupation independent states, and not part of Russia.
USA does things differently: after establishing military control, it gets local businesses bought out by US companies (investment, right?) while they are struggling, and attempts to influence political landscape.
I'd certainly choose US approach over the other, but ideally, we'd get neither.
Are you the speaker for the majority of the population?
Or is that claim based on the election results, in a state where opposition leaders, journalists, war critics, or even simple lesbians get jailed for said “crimes”?
If majority opposed the war, it would be shameful to support it in public.
Think about it. Autocracy argument here is not relevant: you are not punished for being silent. But if you knew all the neighbors around you oppose something, you'd be ashamed to support it publicly. People are social creatures, and the fear of being rejected by your kind is deeply ingrained in everyone.
Yet, we see people with their real names and pictures support the war on social media. We see kids in Z swag on the streets. We see people signing up and participating in stealing/rapping/torturing/murdering.
If the majority opposes the war, then how come over 1 million already willingly signed up? They were not forced. Aren't they afraid of being judged by their neighbors? Are those 1 million sociopaths? Just statistically this doesn't add up.
So yeah, I'd suggest you drop your silly LLM argument, and go outside your bubble (I conclude you are in russia).
>Yet, we see people with their real names and pictures support the war on social media.
Mostly bots, minor officials, public sector employees and their relatives (they are forced to publish pro-war materials on their and their relatives social media under the threat of losing their jobs)
>If the majority opposes the war, then how come over 1 million already willingly signed up?
That's less than 1 percent. And keep in mind that to get that one percent, they are paid about 20x the average region salary every month.
>and go outside your bubble
Judging by your arguments, you are not in a bubble, you are directly broadcasting Putin's propaganda about popular support. And this is at a time when, to get his agenda in media, Putin has to sentence people to real prison terms not even for posts with condemnation of war on social media, but even for likes under such posts.
New insult unlocked: indirectly suggest my debate partner's arguments are so simplistic and low-quality that they must be generated by an LLM, which I attempt to exploit with a simple jailbreak.
It was in fashion quite long ago on Twitter, after people broke real russian propaganda bots with this (you know, the ones who posed as Americans or Europeans supporting russia, etc.).
Interesting, I'd never heard of this. Anecdotally, I happen to be an American who's very understanding of Russia's response to the the Euromaidan protests in 2014, in which the CIA more or less staged a Jan 6th in Ukraine to coup the legitimately elected government and install what was functionally a US puppet government - one that treated ethnic minorities within the southern and eastern regions of Ukraine about the same way that the ATF treated the Branch Davidians. This is context that is part and parcel of understanding why Putin invaded, which is key if we wish to avoid the suffering, death, and devastation of war in the future. All of that loss is for nothing if society does not learn the painful lessons in diplomacy it desperately needed that might have prevented the war.
I'm not stating that Russia is justified, nor am I suggesting that you should believe them to be.
It's an ugly response with deadly ramifications to an ugly first move with deadly ramifications made by the US government.
This isn't out of character for the US government either, to be clear. The CIA is the premier global expert on covert, astroturfed regime change, after all. Even though we're getting worse at forcing our way of life on foreign populations (Afghanistan, Vietnam), that doesn't negate the dozens of success stories across decades the CIA has under their belt, from the fruit wars in central and south America to illegitimate shahs in Iran... American imperialism is never hard to find.
None of this is true. Yanukovych, the Ukrainian president with strong Russian backing, torpedoed a highly beneficial EU-Ukrainian trade deal under last-minute Russian pressure[1]. Ukrainian youth, who had the most to win from increased trade, employment and studying opportunities, staged a series of mass protest[2]. Yanukovych responded with gradual increase of violence, starting with hired thugs[3] attacking protesters, and culminating with police snipers killing 108 protesters on/around 20 February 2014[4]. That was such a shock that Yanukovych lost all political footing in Ukraine overnight. As he was about to get arrested and criminally tried, he went into hiding. After he was officially declared a wanted fugitive[5], Russian secret services evacuated him to Russia. The very next day after the wave of violence, on 21 February 2014, the Ukrainian parliament assembled and voted unanimously with 328-vs-0 to hold snap elections to find a replacement. Not even a single representative of his own party opposed this. The elections were held on 25 May 2014[6] and the results were recognized by everyone, even by Russia[7].
Calling this chain of events a "CIA coup" is an indication of baffling ignorance of the actual facts. Whoever gave you this "understanding" blatantly lied to you.
> Yanukovych, the Ukrainian president with strong Russian backing, torpedoed a highly beneficial EU-Ukrainian trade deal under last-minute Russian pressure
Several EU countries torpedoed a highly beneficial China-EU trade deal under last-minute USA pressure. Time for a euro maidan?
Bro you found the most biased news sources on the planet. How about you cite the financial times if this is so clear?
I don't see any evidence that the CIA counciled Ukraine to avoid war. I see a lot of evidence that they'd push for exactly the opposite. Even if they didn't meddle (which is straight unbelievable), they're cackling with happiness that their buffer state went to war.
Why would the CIA council things? It would be president and state department.
If we're talking about the Revolution of Dignity the EU and US sadly didn't care that much and generally advised the opposition to try to compromise with Yanukovych. It was Yanukovych himself who decided to flee and Putin who decided to invade in 2014.
And Ukraine didn't go to war, Russia was the one who invaded Ukraine. Ukraine was merely defending itself. Ukraine tried to find a way to avoid the war, Russia was not interested.
Do you think Putin is a US puppet?
In 2022 Biden repeatedly pointed out that the planned full scale invasion was an even worse even stupider idea. Putin invaded anyway.
Gee let's consider here why nobody trusts the cia.
Anyone who says otherwise is either trying to get along with another american or is simply retarded. But I repeat myself. We americans are not a terribly skeptical people and absolutely deserve what we get. Morons. Why bother complaining about fascism if we don't even bother to tear down obviously evil structures like the cia? What is the goddamn point?
> in which the CIA more or less staged a Jan 6th in Ukraine to coup the legitimately elected government and install what was functionally a US puppet government
If you start with groundless conspiracy theories it's not surprising where you may end up. The CIA had nothing to do with the revolution of dignity, which was a grassroots protest movement or Ukraines government voting to remove the president after he abandoned the country.
Also Ukraine has had 2 fair and free elections since then (Zelensky beat the incumbent by a landslide) unlike Russia or the parts of the country unfortunate enough to be under their control.
A coup was actually carried out by Russia in crimea. An actual coop where Russian soldiers surrounded the local government at gunpoint
> one that treated ethnic minorities within the southern and eastern regions of Ukraine about the same way that the ATF treated the Branch Davidians.
This is false and shows you have no knowledge of Ukraine or Russia. Zelensky is from a minority group(Jewish) and is a native Russian speaker the current head of the army is an ethnic russian born in Russia.
That's not to mention how Russia treats ethnic minorities or even ethnic Russians in territories they capture
> This is context that is part and parcel of understanding why Putin invaded, which is key if we wish to avoid the suffering, death, and devastation of war in the future.
He invaded because he's an imperialist. It's pretty simple
> All of that loss is for nothing if society does not learn the painful lessons in diplomacy it desperately needed that might have prevented the war.
You're imagining this was Americas fault. The only thing America could have done differently to prevent the war was if they somehow agreed to defend Ukraine or get all NATO members to agree to let them join.
