|
fishmech posted:You keep rambling on as if the reaffirmation of the previous status quo except North Korea remains under more sanctions is some sort of radical change. Why is that? Honestly a lot appears to be changing right now, even if a lot of it is tentative and subject to further scrutiny. It's just bad timing to have made a stand for the idea that nothing's actually happening, especially given the new field of potential concessions and diplomatic connections that are being made this week alone.
|
#
?
Apr 21, 2018 05:23
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 22, 2024 16:31 |
|
|
Kavros posted:Honestly a lot appears to be changing right now, even if a lot of it is tentative and subject to further scrutiny. It's just bad timing to have made a stand for the idea that nothing's actually happening, especially given the new field of potential concessions and diplomatic connections that are being made this week alone. There is always some tentative bullshit going on. It only matters once things actually change. Like "the US can still have troops in SK" isn't a concession, US troops have been in South Korea for 73 years continuously and the last time nk seriously attempted to contest that ended 65 years ago. All the purported "concessions" amount to "we'll complain less" or "we will continue to do the same stuff in slightly different places".
|
|
#
?
Apr 21, 2018 06:09
|
|
|
Or, perhaps, Xi is simply utilizing his pressure w/r/t North Korea to get them to finally come to the table by revoking support? China's end goal in the region is to be the hegemon. Anything they do is to be viewed through that lens. They would want removal of US troops because it directly affects their ability to project military force as a means of extending their influence in the region. Signaling by NK that the would be totally fine with US troops remaining there is a reversal of a major position they have held for 70~ years and has implications. e: what i'm basically saying is that NK appears to be operating on its own with this offer after China started to signal its willingness to follow sanctions. I read the meeting with Xi as NK attempting to sweet talk their way back into the good graces of China and failing, hence these sudden offers. But all of this is theorycraft, since no one really knows what either Xi or Kim are thinking except for them and people high in their administrations. Grapplejack fucked around with this message at 11:35 on Apr 21, 2018 |
|
#
?
Apr 21, 2018 10:55
|
|
|
China wants US troops out of the region, they also no the US isn't actually going to ever agree to it even with Trump. However, Trump coming to the negotiating table is a net-benefit to them and Kim especially if they are able to win a compromise that keys key parts of the NK nuclear program intact.
|
|
#
?
Apr 21, 2018 13:49
|
|
|
Normalization and, hopefully, a peace treaty will call into question the logic of keeping troops in South Korea, especially 15-20 years down the line when the US no longer has the global reserve currency and can't easily afford housing troops and bases all over the world. Not to mention that China will have drawn both Koreas deeper into the new East Asian-centered global economy. NK has outlived its usefulness as a land barrier to US attack, because China just isn't really afraid of that anymore.
KaptainKrunk fucked around with this message at 19:19 on Apr 21, 2018 |
|
#
?
Apr 21, 2018 19:16
|
|
|
If we somehow end with peace in the peninsula, China will be very happy (and fast) to try and attract both sides to their "One Belt, One Road" initiative (even if they lie in the opposite direction, lol).
|
|
#
?
Apr 21, 2018 19:26
|
|
|
KaptainKrunk posted:Normalization and, hopefully, a peace treaty will call into question the logic of keeping troops in South Korea, especially 15-20 years down the line when the US no longer has the global reserve currency and can't easily afford housing troops and bases all over the world. Not to mention that China will have drawn both Koreas deeper into the new East Asian-centered global economy. NK has outlived its usefulness as a land barrier to US attack, because China just isn't really afraid of that anymore. There is literally no reason for two Koreas to exist.
|
|
#
?
Apr 21, 2018 19:54
|
|
|
fishmech posted:There is literally no reason for two Koreas to exist.
|
|
#
?
Apr 21, 2018 22:47
|
|
|
TenementFunster posted:i think there was a war? yeah but that doesn't count, it wasn't the oppressed people of one korea rising up against the oppressors from the foreign country of other korea, it was more that neither side could quite steamroll the other in a civil war because the other guys had a superpower buddy too
|
|
#
?
Apr 22, 2018 00:27
|
|
I CANNOT EJACULATE WITHOUT SEEING NATIVE AMERICANS BRUTALISED!
|
fishmech posted:You keep rambling on as if the reaffirmation of the previous status quo except North Korea remains under more sanctions is some sort of radical change. Why is that? Yeah you’re right, the US Secretary if State attending high level meetings in Pyongyang is just a affirmation of the status quo  can you literally never accept when you’re wrong? Why do you double down in every single thread you post in jfc
|
|
#
?
Apr 22, 2018 06:54
|
|
|
A Typical Goon posted:Yeah you’re right, the US Secretary if State attending high level meetings in Pyongyang is just a affirmation of the status quo He's attending high level meetings where the only promises seem to be "everything stays as before". And "we'll stop using the test site that's likely to collapse any minute". These don't change anything in the dynamic. Why do people like you insist on being wrong?
|
|
#
?
Apr 22, 2018 06:57
|
|
|
It's not that nothing is happening, but much less is happening than the juicy headlines are suggesting. NK's statement on closing the test site and stopping missile testing is "we're done testing and we're satisfied," which is the opposite of saying they're going to wind down the program. They're leaving open their usual ways of reneging on everything, they're not actually offering to give up their nukes, and some critical questions haven't been answered yet, like are they going to stop doing space launches, solid-fuel rocket research, and development of short-range missiles? The best hope in any of this is simply that Trump is ultra-dumb and wants to put his name on something that he can talk up as a breakthrough, so he might accept a complete garbage deal and maybe even give up way too much for it, but it's better than starting a war.
|
|
#
?
Apr 22, 2018 07:45
|
|
|
A Typical Goon posted:Yeah you’re right, the US Secretary if State attending high level meetings in Pyongyang is just a affirmation of the status quo I'm a bit skeptical because NK would be negotiating from the strongest position yet and I see them only increasing demands in a way that wouldn't be acceptable. But let's see.
|
|
#
?
Apr 22, 2018 08:52
|
|
|
Analysts have been saying for years that NK will start negotiating when they have finished their nuclear and ICBM programs. Now that they have completed it everybody is suddenly surprised that they start negotiating... Granted, things seem to be moving a bit faster than expected, but this whole process has been entirely predictable and in line with what they have been doing for decades. The only material change to the status-quo has been that NK is now a full-fledged nuclear power, something the west still seems to be in denial about.
|
|
#
?
Apr 22, 2018 09:24
|
|
|
mobby_6kl posted:When did that happen? https://twitter.com/realdonaldtrump/status/986555533535731712?s=21
|
|
#
?
Apr 23, 2018 00:09
|
|
|
All signs point to Trump expecting to get so much from the North Koreans before he gives them anything tangible that there's no way they're going to come to terms, especially since it's still unclear how much North Korea's even offering in the best of circumstances. Trump's fickle as hell though, so who knows what he'll actually end up offering if/when the meeting takes place. https://twitter.com/NarangVipin/status/988177417364795393
|
|
#
?
Apr 23, 2018 01:55
|
|
|
so it's war then
|
|
#
?
Apr 23, 2018 02:46
|
|
|
^^^ We'll see. Mike Pompeo isn't SoS, John Sullivan is. Trump nominated him but he's not confirmed yet and quite possibly never will be. E: South just turned off the speakers they had blaring propaganda into North, so there's something: http://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-43861161 mobby_6kl fucked around with this message at 11:05 on Apr 23, 2018 |
|
#
?
Apr 23, 2018 08:16
|
|
|
mobby_6kl posted:^^^ Mike Pompeo is not only not the Secretary of State at the moment, he's still serving as the CIA director and is not meant to be a diplomat. The CIA is supposed to stay divorced from politics, so the CIA director trying to play Secretary of State while actively gunning for the job isn't a good sign. It's getting the CIA involved in policy-making.
|
|
#
?
Apr 23, 2018 14:09
|
|
|
chitoryu12 posted:Mike Pompeo is not only not the Secretary of State at the moment, he's still serving as the CIA director and is not meant to be a diplomat. The CIA is supposed to stay divorced from politics, so the CIA director trying to play Secretary of State while actively gunning for the job isn't a good sign. It's getting the CIA involved in policy-making. yeah but what do you expect from the trump admin
|
|
#
?
Apr 23, 2018 14:38
|
|
|
chitoryu12 posted:It's getting the CIA involved in policy-making.
|
|
#
?
Apr 23, 2018 14:46
|
|
|
the cia, involved in policymaking? oh my stars and garters, we can't have that
|
|
#
?
Apr 23, 2018 15:32
|
|
|
fishmech posted:You keep rambling on as if the reaffirmation of the previous status quo except North Korea remains under more sanctions is some sort of radical change. Why is that? "Drr, nothing's really changed and it won't have changed until it actually changes." Thank you for the useless contribution, fishmech. Tell your boss that progress reports and forecasts are meaningless, because at this moment things are the same as last time until it becomes obvious that they aren't. You're trying to get me to engage with you and satisfy your fetish for useless pedantry. That's as far as I'm willing to go with you on this at this time, and I hope you don't suffer too much from blue balls for it. Grapplejack posted:Or, perhaps, Xi is simply utilizing his pressure w/r/t North Korea to get them to finally come to the table by revoking support? China's end goal in the region is to be the hegemon. Anything they do is to be viewed through that lens. Yes, that's my point. China taking a more active engagement with North Korea does support their goal of regional hegemony. Accepting a collapse in relations (and North Korea potentially having to be concilliatory to the US if things go bad for them) does not work towards that goal. US: "North Korea's got problems with military threats, human rights, they need to be sanctioned and pressured to reform because of that blah blah blah gobble gobble gobble/" China: "Whatevs, turkeys. Keep talking your useless rhetoric while we press forward in resolving this problem our own way." That's what hegemony means. It would mean that China no longer feels that it has to dance in tune with the US, at least so far as North Korea's behavior and its responses to it are concerned. It means, like two dance partners, that the US is thrown off of its footing. Grapplejack posted:They would want removal of US troops because it directly affects their ability to project military force as a means of extending their influence in the region. Signaling by NK that the would be totally fine with US troops remaining there is a reversal of a major position they have held for 70~ years and has implications. If hegemony is defined solely by military power, you might (emphasis on that) be correct. But it's defined just as much by economic concerns, by political actions, by cultural interchange and compatibility, and other stuff. That's what China is trying to work with in the region. The US military can sit and spin in South Korea, because so long as China's belief is that they're ultimately all talk and no show, and won't do anything unless North Korea or China acts first, then that suits China's needs just fine. The removal of US troops from the peninsula would be the cherry on their sundae, but it's not really the main concern at this point. And something that has been languishing for seventy years is more likely to hit a change point than it is to continue. Especially when the will to keep the war going is based more around a bunch of threats, provocations, and escalations than actual sustained combat. Grapplejack posted:e: what i'm basically saying is that NK appears to be operating on its own with this offer after China started to signal its willingness to follow sanctions. I read the meeting with Xi as NK attempting to sweet talk their way back into the good graces of China and failing, hence these sudden offers. I just think that Kim wouldn't bother hitching up the rail car and going to Beijing in person unless it was for something productive and gainful for him. And part of that would involve laying the groundwork for getting the US monkey off of North Korea's back (and by extension, keeping that US monkey out of China's hair). Even if that's by means of toning down the provocations and making diplomatic gestures to assuage the US for the time being. KaptainKrunk posted:Normalization and, hopefully, a peace treaty will call into question the logic of keeping troops in South Korea, especially 15-20 years down the line when the US no longer has the global reserve currency and can't easily afford housing troops and bases all over the world. Not to mention that China will have drawn both Koreas deeper into the new East Asian-centered global economy. NK has outlived its usefulness as a land barrier to US attack, because China just isn't really afraid of that anymore. Exactly, though I'm not forecasting the state of the US. But Trump's election and the level of incompetency it's displaying gives China fuel to tell its neighbors, "Look, you can't rely on a bunch of dipshits six thousand miles across the Pacific Ocean forever, even if they've been the big dog on the block for as long as most of you have been alive." China leading a charge in getting North Korea towards a more normalized state and laying the groundwork for the Koreas to have peace really throws off the US position for why its in South Korea. It changes the tacit reasoning from "The US is in South Korea to defend it against the North!" to "Um, why are we (why are you, from the South Korea perspective) still in South Korea?". Sinteres posted:All signs point to Trump expecting to get so much from the North Koreans before he gives them anything tangible that there's no way they're going to come to terms, especially since it's still unclear how much North Korea's even offering in the best of circumstances. Trump's fickle as hell though, so who knows what he'll actually end up offering if/when the meeting takes place. I think it's just a formality at this point. "Oh yeah, you guys are still technically involved, so fine, let's have a meeting and see what happens." It's not a done thing or totally peril-free, obviously, but I imagine that North Korea and China are banking on the US military holding Trump in check if he tries to stir poo poo unnecessarily.
|
|
#
?
Apr 25, 2018 00:44
|
|
|
Kthulhu5000 posted:"Drr, nothing's really changed and it won't have changed until it actually changes." Thank you for the useless contribution, fishmech. Tell your boss that progress reports and forecasts are meaningless, because at this moment things are the same as last time until it becomes obvious that they aren't. Once again, show your evidence that things are actually going to change instead of this just being part of the standard cycle of cool-down after the threats start getting a little too real for North Korea. Your assertions that this is going to change everything kinda require proof of that.
|
|
#
?
Apr 25, 2018 00:51
|
|
|
Kthulhu5000 posted:-snip- What's with all these prima facie assumptions that no matter what happens China wins out? Do you believe that the entire region is just waiting to jump into Chinese arms at the first opportunity and the only thing stopping them is North Korean intransigence? And that China isn't currently going through its own considerable problems that the US can easily aggravate if it chooses to? Based on what we know (which is very little) Kim might have gone to Beijing to ask for overt diplomatic and financial support but they said "No, we can't afford to antagonize the US what with all this trade war poo poo and our economic problems and the fact that a lot of our international goodwill has already been sapped by Xi becoming dictator for life and our SCS adventurism."
|
|
#
?
Apr 25, 2018 00:58
|
|
|
Barring some catastrophe, China's ascent is inevitable.
|
|
#
?
Apr 25, 2018 01:28
|
|
|
KaptainKrunk posted:Barring some catastrophe, China's ascent is inevitable. This is a dubious, reductionist assumption that only fools would base their geopolitical analysis on. Especially when most of the basis of the assumption ultimately comes from unreliable sources that everyone chooses to believe.
|
|
#
?
Apr 25, 2018 01:30
|
|
|
fishmech posted:Once again, show your evidence that things are actually going to change instead of this just being part of the standard cycle of cool-down after the threats start getting a little too real for North Korea. Maybe you should learn to listen to that little voice inside (or look at your rap sheet) and perhaps button up and peace out from a thread once in a while. You aren't really discussing or contributing anything but whiny pedantry at this point, all for the sake of gratifying your own ego. Fishmech gonna Fishmech, but it doesn't mean I have to play your weird game just because you demand it. Expand your horizons a bit and unclench your rear end cheeks. Not everything comes down to a binary "correct / not correct" result in this world. You want to make this interesting? Write up some conditions for analysis, put $20 on the line, and we'll see how things have shaken out in a year. Otherwise, "whose right, whose wrong" is a meaningless game to play now anyway, because gently caress if you or I have any bearing on what will happen. Fojar38 posted:What's with all these prima facie assumptions that no matter what happens China wins out? Do you believe that the entire region is just waiting to jump into Chinese arms at the first opportunity and the only thing stopping them is North Korean intransigence? And that China isn't currently going through its own considerable problems that the US can easily aggravate if it chooses to? China's going to be a strong regional power, at least, which is about as good as being a power in a multi-polar global framework. It's not that any of its neighbors are looking to get into bed with China, but rather that China is going on a charm offensive of looking competent, stable, and forward-thinking, so that its neighbors will either back off from the US or look to China to fill US-sized gaps that the US can't or won't fill in the future. And it's not as if nations like Japan or South Korea necessarily love their relationships with the US, either. Especially if they're hosting our troops, entwined in our economic agreements, and basically having to play politics with us or get left out in the global cold. Fojar38 posted:Based on what we know (which is very little) Kim might have gone to Beijing to ask for overt diplomatic and financial support but they said "No, we can't afford to antagonize the US what with all this trade war poo poo and our economic problems and the fact that a lot of our international goodwill has already been sapped by Xi becoming dictator for life and our SCS adventurism." The fact that China isn't the top dog on the global stage helps them. Everyone looks at the US (because it has spent much of the twentieth century up to today trying to make it that way) and gets uneasy when we veer from the image of bedrock stability we've cultivated, but no one really cares too much about what China is currently doing except for cranks and political junkies. China can probably afford to prop up North Korea for a while. It's not like they're scrounging around in the couch cushions looking for spare change to keep the lights on. North Korea is a nation of 25 million or so people, used to a fair amount of deprivation already, so it's not like keeping things stable is going to be too difficult or costly if the general national apparatus still exists and can be reinforced. And this is especially the case if North Korea opens up more, develops a more robust market economy, and normalizes things with South Korea and Japan to get goods and money coming in. China could also see North Korea as a potential economic release valve for its own economic issues; if Chinese workers are starting to get too expensive for basic work, then Chinese companies can outsource it to North Korea and get that labor cost advantage for a bit longer. Fojar38 posted:This is a dubious, reductionist assumption that only fools would base their geopolitical analysis on. Especially when most of the basis of the assumption ultimately comes from unreliable sources that everyone chooses to believe. As opposed to your view that the future is just going to a flatline progression of what's been happening already? This seems like a hazardous assumption to make.
|
|
#
?
Apr 25, 2018 02:09
|
|
|
Kthulhu5000 posted:Maybe you should learn to listen to that little voice inside (or look at your rap sheet) and perhaps button up and peace out from a thread once in a while. You aren't really discussing or contributing anything but whiny pedantry at this point, all for the sake of gratifying your own ego. So once again you have no proof that things are actually changing, you just want to ramble on about your weird ideas about China in the Korea thread. Meanwhile all the sane people can see that this no more meaningful than the last time the Korea cycle reached the peace-feelers stage and a Republican idiot president played a big part in disrupting that. You'd make a great New York Times columnist.
|
|
#
?
Apr 25, 2018 02:19
|
|
|
fishmech posted:So once again you have no proof that things are actually changing, you just want to ramble on about your weird ideas about China in the Korea thread. Meanwhile all the sane people can see that this no more meaningful than the last time the Korea cycle reached the peace-feelers stage and a Republican idiot president played a big part in disrupting that. If that allows you to rub one out, then you're welcome.
|
|
#
?
Apr 25, 2018 02:37
|
|
|
Kthulhu5000 posted:China's going to be a strong regional power, at least, which is about as good as being a power in a multi-polar global framework. It's not that any of its neighbors are looking to get into bed with China, but rather that China is going on a charm offensive of looking competent, stable, and forward-thinking, so that its neighbors will either back off from the US or look to China to fill US-sized gaps that the US can't or won't fill in the future. This perception of China is mostly one held by western liberals, and it's one held almost entirely on the basis of reacting to Trump rather than an accurate and objective assessment of Chinese policies or power. We can afford to do so because China is on the other side of the planet for most of us. The situation looks far different to actors who actually reside in East Asia and need to deal with the reality of the PRC regularly harassing their territorial waters, farting giant gas clouds over them, and using its economic influence as a blatant political cudgel. The TPP is moving forward despite Trump's withdrawal and quadrilateral security arrangements between the US/India/Australia/Japan are being revived after years of being dead on arrival, all despite Trump. This is because the USA being in a period of chaotic confusion at the very top not only doesn't mean that the US suddenly lacks credibility in the region, but it doesn't stop the geopolitical motions that are occurring independent of Washington politics, specifically regional security and economic alliances being formed to counterbalance Chinese power. The idea that East Asian geopolitics can be summarized as a great game between China and the US with everyone else as pieces to be won over by one side or the other is unbelievably sophomoric and causes bad policy choices, not the least of which because it creates a false equivalency between the USA and China's relative influence. Kthulhu5000 posted:As opposed to your view that the future is just going to a flatline progression of what's been happening already? This seems like a hazardous assumption to make. The flatline progression assumption is actually the "China is going to get stronger and more powerful exponentially and indefinitely into the future." Except that hasn't been the case since around 2013, and especially over the past few years, as China's problems have begun to become more and more apparent. That the "China Rising" narrative has been an axiomatic truth for the first decade of the 21st century has a tendency to blind people to signs of Chinese decline, however. Xi removing term limits combined with the 2015 Chinese market crash has delivered some notable blows to it.
|
|
#
?
Apr 25, 2018 02:41
|
|
|
Fojar38 posted:especially over the past few years, as China's problems have begun to become more and more apparent. To be fair this has also been a standard rebuttal to claims of China's looming superiority since before the financial crisis. People have been confidently predicting that China's bubble of bad loans and falsified economic data is about to collapse forever.
|
|
#
?
Apr 25, 2018 02:48
|
|
|
Sinteres posted:To be fair this has also been a standard rebuttal to claims of China's looming superiority since before the financial crisis. People have been confidently predicting that China's bubble of bad loans and falsified economic data is about to collapse forever. China doesn't have to collapse to begin to reach the limits of its economic and geopolitical clout. The idea that pointing out China's problems and limitations is the same as predicting imminent collapse is a lazy strawman. What's more, people who have been pointing out China's problems, including bad loans and falsified economic data, were in the very small minority until relatively recently (because their arguments are gaining traction as China's problems are in fact becoming more acute.) Fojar38 fucked around with this message at 02:53 on Apr 25, 2018 |
|
#
?
Apr 25, 2018 02:51
|
|
|
Forjar's been predicting the imminent demise of china for almost half a decade now. quote:This is because the USA being in a period of chaotic confusion at the very top not only doesn't mean that the US suddenly lacks credibility in the region, but it doesn't stop the geopolitical motions that are occurring independent of Washington politics, specifically regional security and economic alliances being formed to counterbalance Chinese power. What happens when president richard spencer begins the deportations in 2028? American foreign policy in east asia involves buying off the national bourgeoisie in Korea, Japan, and ethnic Chinese in Taiwan with goodies and immigration rights so they can all be lined up like ducks in a row to use against the USSR and PRC.
|
|
#
?
Apr 25, 2018 04:09
|
|
|
Peven Stan posted:Forjar's been predicting the imminent demise of china for almost half a decade now. Are you going to toxx for a Spencer presidency? quote:American foreign policy in east asia involves buying off the national bourgeoisie in Korea, Japan, and ethnic Chinese in Taiwan with goodies and immigration rights so they can all be lined up like ducks in a row to use against the USSR and PRC. It's not called the USSR anymore. 
|
|
#
?
Apr 25, 2018 04:36
|
|
|
Silver2195 posted:
|
|
#
?
Apr 25, 2018 04:44
|
|
|
https://twitter.com/CTVNews/status/988846499307147264
|
|
#
?
Apr 25, 2018 11:33
|
|
|
Eagerly awaiting next week when Trump says Kim Jong-un is the exact opposite of honorable and needs to learn his place before he dies.
|
|
#
?
Apr 25, 2018 13:36
|
|
|
At this rate Trump will soon call for confronting the capitalist pigdog Kim Jong Un.
|
|
#
?
Apr 25, 2018 13:59
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 22, 2024 16:31 |
|
|
https://twitter.com/CitationsPod/status/989171959241101313 This week's Citations Needed podcast looks promising
|
|
#
?
Apr 25, 2018 17:33
|
|
