Many different issues are touched in this article, and a lengthy statement to differ likely does not help with anything. I would like to emphasize that in thermodynamics, the world is going to maximal entropy -- maximal variations, disorder, etc. Human civilization, however, is built on ordering. Putting wood studs and rocks in proper order can build a house. Burning iron ore with coke can give us raw iron before further refinement. And iron is about the very basis of all things "modern". Then people build tribal structure, countries, then League of Nations, and UN.
But the world is still fundamentally an unordered place. Even inside the better organized, the cultivated garden, there are still disorder. See all the LGBTQ activities now overflows from many media channels. They even captured the Olympics. Ordering, comes from somebody forcefully arrange something. Luckily wood studs and stones do not complain. But if your kids come to mess up the specific order, then you have to rework and drive them away as they don't understand the ordering as yet. Now what if somebody wants to build a company by arranging people and dictate how things are done ? it is fine as long as people work for him on their own will.
But how about a government want to rearrange people's lives because they think looking from the top, they would get a better "ordering" ? This can be as small as city council mandates every house must have two flower pots at the front (as in some areas of Switzerland) or as big as government conscripts you son into army to fight in Vietnam for a cause you do not support. Dr. Sun Yat-Sen said that human rights do not come from God. Instead, people's right comes from fighting. Only when the peasants hit the nobleman into bleeding would he agree to a lighter tax. Kings have to get their heads cut off to realize that a parliament composed of elected representatives from the people. Kings certainly did not agree at first. Only when enough heads rolled, democracy started to flourish. Chinese Communist head Mao said "Political power comes from the barrels of the guns." it is simply more naked and brutal than what Dr. Sun had said, but it is essentially the same meaning.
The British would still have an American colony today if the Americans did not gang up and bought guns and shoot the British soldiers. And they got shot at and died too.
Before Hitler, there were already endless empires fighting each other, looting left and right, massacre at will. A single farmer could not do anything. Even if they gang up and build their own fortress, it usually did not work at the end. The salvation always come from somebody far away, outside of or at the fringe of the imperial power, able to organize an army with people who are not afraid to die, and sufficient replacement and armament, to start rebellion. That was how Mongolian empire and its various branch Khanates were gradually destroyed, from different rebellions, at different times. Eventually, the Mongolian Empire becomes only a legend in the books, and modern Mongolia is nowhere close.
Hitler was able to conquer most of the Europe, it eventually took two powers to defeat his regime: Russians o n the east and American/British on the west. Statistically speaking, it was the Red Army who broke the back of the German army. By the time Americans landed on the Normandy beach, four allied armies fought against two German armies, later three when Holland was included. The size of the conflict on the east is probably four times as big. So outside forces have to be counted on to help the defeated countries to get their houses back. In the ancient days, these defeated kings would have to pay heavily for the armed help they get. European countries pay by playing vassals for USA all the time up to now. And European politicians are still fighting for the US interests when their farmers are complaining about directives coming from Brussel (the EU).
If the League of Nations was too weak to be effective, then UN seemed to be more effective because of Korean War. But Korean War is really an American war with some side shows by other countries. The same UN played totally as servants when Israelis evict Palestinian families from their houses past midnight, losing their house, heir dates tree, their cows, their land. But UN has a tent and food waiting for them. It is really US playing the role to soften the harsh actions of the Israelis. The problems cited for the old UN are really rooted that UN was designed as a vehicle to serve US interests. Russian interests was sometimes served, as Russian delegates rarely veto anything unless it is directly related to Russian interests. UN does not appear to be powerful enough to solve the middle east conflict, frankly, because USA is not powerful enough to solve the middle east conflicts. In addition, the Arab world simply do not trust USA being sincere. They call USA the Great Satan for some good reasons.
People in China call Russians the people of fighting. Not because Russians like to invade other countries, including China, during the late Manchurian dynasty and the early days of the Republic of China. The admiration is about how Russians defended their countries in the last 200 years. Russian soldiers, even as they curse the Czar, still fought bravely and stubbornly until the Bolshevik Revolution. After fighting against USA for global hegemony, crashed in 1991, and now rebuilt by Putin, Russians show they still can fight (Ukraine war is considered a civil war in Russia, and I agree with them) If some Ukrainians really want to have their own country, then they have to fight. They did fight, but more importantly, they coerced people would be equally happy as Russians to fight for them while the Banderalists act as the black shirts and shoot those who fall back. For some Ukrainians who really believe they will be better off as part of Russia, they fight as well, as resistance behind enemy lines for Russian Forces. All those devastating long range attacks deep inside Ukraine territory is possible only because of these resistance fighters detect and report the location of important targets. Some attacks may require laser light markers shined onto the targets, etc.
Ordering things takes energy. Keep things in order also takes energy. Creating peace requires fighting. There is no such thing as permanent peace. When the old men die, their memory, lessons of a life time, are gone with them. In general, very little is passed down to the next generation. So every 80-90 years, people would have to relearn certain lessons. Our situation today is closer to WW1 eve than WW2 eve. Remember that most people in most countries were enthusiastic about the war. A new UN cannot resolve such problems. A more powerful UN would become just a super-sized EU, with more power, and more capable of creating havoc than bureaucrats of Brussel. 160+ countries. It is not realistic to have USA one vote, and Tonga one vote as well. Some order can be achieved by such global organization. But peace can be kept more through out regional alliance. The reason is people closer to a problem tend to have better understanding of the problems, and usually more skin in the game. At the UN level, most countries have no skin in the game when Japan invaded China in 1937. USA provided trade sanctions and diplomatic pressure. Finally Japan attacked Peral Harbor. The way to acquire peace ? Fighting all the way to the Tokyo Bay.
I studied wars since I was 11. I have never experienced one, but I think I can comprehend the trauma caused by war. Unfortunately there is no way out. Leave it to the nature, then all things will go maximal entropy (a measure on extent of variations) Keeping your garden in order is an everyday effort. Losing one day's work is enough to make a difference to the more careful eyes. For the earth with 7 billion people and without sufficient natural resources to keep all them properly fed, clothed, housed, and have meaningful lives no matter how much effort we put in. Mathematically there is no such resource, my lord. So war is inevitable. If you want to keep order, you need to dispense energy, and use energy wisely.
My point about a New United Nations is I am not sure the current U.N. Charter would get rid of single veto votes, which has to go.
Your point that Tongo would have the same power as the U.S. is not exactly correct as they are not a permanent member of the Security Council.
Currently there is 15 members and they more or less pass U.N. law and one country can Veto it is terrible, I realize why it was there during the cold war, in relation to Pearl Harbour and I understand what you stated from prior knowledge of my own.
You figure the “cease fire” vote in the U.N. General Assembly and then the U.S. just vetoes it in the Security Council??? Joe Biden is a self proclaimed Zionist what do you expect, single veto votes help NO one. But 4/5 of the entire U.N. should account for something that’s 80%? Here is a old U.N. vote
Even this did not meet the 80% threshold I proposed, but later ones would have met this thresh hold. So I really don’t buy the Tongo argument due to their size. Maybe Canada should have less of a say to due to their smaller size of being about 1/10 of the U.S. by population? Or maybe India is 1.6 billion so they should have 5x the say of the U.S. has?
Its about the frame of mind and way of thinking. Tongo is just as important as the United States, if not, kick them out of the U.N.?
I guess, I will just give up and you mush my ideas into yours. It usually the story of my life after spinning my wheels a few times as injured worker and not getting any where many many many years ago. My old pal and retired U.S. Army General and combat nurse(GS-14) - now long gone forewarned me about trying argue against the government in any way shape or fashion that very few ever succeed against them. So now I usually just give up.
I have wrote about solving housing, food security, building code designs, Summertime Ice road supply lines, rodent infestations in metro areas. Gun Control definitions and ideas for Canada, U.S. and Mexico. I just post two ideas here on Substack and you want to now change it out of context. I just keep it in my Gmail Drafts
This size of Tongo problem argument exists every where, even in Trade Unions. I belonged to a fairly large international local back in the day; and as unions sent delegates to conventions. Ours local had many to send as a per our large membership, some locals only had one or two as they where small. I always thought this very unfair as I would often get up to speak and state this then I was booed off. I stated its about differences of opinion and ideas, the small locals where just drowned out their ideas and opinions meant nothing. It is the same with the shitty single veto vote it simply needs to go. Israel has only gotten this far because the U.S. is ruled by political Zionists who hold a veto.
Thank you for the response. I think I am to change my thinking of Tonga too small to justify one vote, as I happened to be thinking about similar things from the same angle, such as US national politics and decision among the states. One-person-one-vote does have flaws for US national matters through per person referendum. UN is a different matter. Although large and powerful countries will always dominate world stage and things that eventually happened, the forum must give smaller nations a voice, not based on population size, to provide sufficient binding power to the few large bullies in the room.
However, current UN will not do it and cannot be changed, because it is really designed to be a tool for USA although same veto right was given to other nations. Current charter already allows general assembly to override the security council, but not the permanent council members. Obviously with first among the equals, there cannot possibly be much good acts, especially when the bully is USA. The international society is still a jungle, although US domestically is a more ordered garden, and better ordered in the past.
I am a retired computer engineer, born in Taiwan, and came to USA for graduate studies in 1984. Having been here for 40 years, I think I have witnessed the bulk of the process of decline of this once great country. I have also given up in physical world to change things. I like what I learned about the Fabian Society in college. While it was a left leaning socialist club, it did have a distinction to always focus on policy decisions rather than moral high ground. Some would say UK has been a fairly stable socialist country for many reasons (certainly including overseas looting) but a group of MP trying to design better policies and willing to promote and debate them is surely one of the reasons. In comparison, modern day USA at the top are short of such people Massie may be different, plus Ron Paul and Rand Paul. I don't always agree with them, but I think they do focus more on actual policies than rhetoric.
So from my perspective, you are one of the few who are still willing to discuss issues. In comparison, places like zerohedge.com, while tilting conservative and full of quick wits, commentators are not quite interested in discussing policy design. I do hope you can write more pieces and publish them in substack. Your good ideas just might one day give younger minds, like J.D.Vance a spark when you don't expect it.
Yes, I very much like professor John J. Mearsheimer. I do like to add he is authoritative on European matters, but his grasp about Asian matter, especially China, is somewhat off. I think he sees USA and China as opposing polar position without paying enough attention to the mutual dependency. Mutual dependency is why a decoupling stage has to happen first before USA can really solve the China problem in a traditional imperial fashion.
I am sorry but most typical Americans are really stupid and not too self aware, maybe organized religion or a country's dictatorial policies are to blame, it is likely this way with many countries if not all.
The problems Prof. Mearsheimer speaks of are simply the DNA of the political arms of America, it is called Wet Leather Foreign and Domestic policies; by that I mean the policies since the creation of the United States are mostly as sharp as about a pound of wet leather.
On YouTube I commented (reworked) : One such example of wet leather policy Israel aside, is when Henry Kissinger, a total moron thinking he and Nixon could bribe China with "prosperity" there by getting appeasement from China as a counter balance to the Soviet Union - well how did that work out?
THEN - Booting Taiwan out of the U.N. and making China a permanent member of the U.N. Security Council and now making them a member of the W.T.O; thereby F-ing Taiwan?
(Then around 1977) Now embracing China with the One Mandarin Policy aka One China Policy. What about the Uyghurs or Tibet? One what?
The Uyghurs are in force labour camps that have crematoriums, that have been spotted and confirmed by satellite. Israel is just another shade of ass-hole grey. It's also the Recipient Class of the Donor Class, Americans with any brains need not to vote for any political party that gets such bribes from lobbyists, they all need to be outed, in one giant alphabetical list NOT to vote for them regardless of the cost or party, as they are ALL political crooks!!
The problem with ALL the Colonial and Majorities of any country; this most definitely includes The One China Policy and Zelinsky's approach to the Russian diaspora in the border regions of Ukraine before the war, not that it would have changed anything, as Putin is Putin and like all leaders and despots they all have their own demented way of thinking.
What this aforementioned problem is; is that every culture or type of people look at the same thing but see the finished canvas in a different way, I learned this from a very dear departed friend as we often would sporadically go to the Art Gallery. We would stare at the same painting but come up with different observations and sometimes the meaning of creation of certain aspects of the old oil.
My departed friend was a true artist, he often said even though I could not create anything much better than stick drawings he would say; I was born 20,000 years too late. He did say I could almost get into the mind of the artist who created it, to the what of, of the painting. Maybe it is an art code? Maybe that is why I really get Ai Weiwei art https://www.theartstory.org/artist/ai-weiwei/ that no words could articulate.
In summary: Great powers and all countries more or less fail, as they do not integrate with the minority they expect, or rather demand the minorities intergrade, or rather conform to them this is one of, if not China's Greatest Flaws. The One China Policy is a fundamentally flawed policy, Just as a One America or America First policy is, or a One Canada or One Euro policies, they are ALL equally as flawed to a lesser or greater degree of impact - there is NO "one" anything, we are all individuals that sometimes can work together for a common goal, but WE all are likely to do it in different ways.
Wow, you know chinese side business very well. In many aspects, China and Russia are both victim of imperialism. I get a little but definitely not entirely when you say we are all individuals. I don't see the "bad guys" really believe they can integrate us like the "borg" but rather they simply ask us to be the obedient sheep.
Refine my writing. Don't you think that I tend to meander along a main theme but detour often? I consider myself not yet focused enough. Even for substack, it is better to focus on only one subject at a time, and I tend to cover all related points when I can/should bypass. Besides, don't you think my writing is a bit "choppy". That it is surely English but simply does not feel right ? English is my second language. Unable to write concisely and smoothly have always been my problems among the fellow engineers.
Your writing skills are better than my writing skills - But I thought you meant you could refine what I wrote to then you publish, but then the context would be lost? I usually write an correct things over much time. I Did this with the first part of Peace in the Middles East; the videos and attachments were for context of a point of view.
Many different issues are touched in this article, and a lengthy statement to differ likely does not help with anything. I would like to emphasize that in thermodynamics, the world is going to maximal entropy -- maximal variations, disorder, etc. Human civilization, however, is built on ordering. Putting wood studs and rocks in proper order can build a house. Burning iron ore with coke can give us raw iron before further refinement. And iron is about the very basis of all things "modern". Then people build tribal structure, countries, then League of Nations, and UN.
But the world is still fundamentally an unordered place. Even inside the better organized, the cultivated garden, there are still disorder. See all the LGBTQ activities now overflows from many media channels. They even captured the Olympics. Ordering, comes from somebody forcefully arrange something. Luckily wood studs and stones do not complain. But if your kids come to mess up the specific order, then you have to rework and drive them away as they don't understand the ordering as yet. Now what if somebody wants to build a company by arranging people and dictate how things are done ? it is fine as long as people work for him on their own will.
But how about a government want to rearrange people's lives because they think looking from the top, they would get a better "ordering" ? This can be as small as city council mandates every house must have two flower pots at the front (as in some areas of Switzerland) or as big as government conscripts you son into army to fight in Vietnam for a cause you do not support. Dr. Sun Yat-Sen said that human rights do not come from God. Instead, people's right comes from fighting. Only when the peasants hit the nobleman into bleeding would he agree to a lighter tax. Kings have to get their heads cut off to realize that a parliament composed of elected representatives from the people. Kings certainly did not agree at first. Only when enough heads rolled, democracy started to flourish. Chinese Communist head Mao said "Political power comes from the barrels of the guns." it is simply more naked and brutal than what Dr. Sun had said, but it is essentially the same meaning.
The British would still have an American colony today if the Americans did not gang up and bought guns and shoot the British soldiers. And they got shot at and died too.
Before Hitler, there were already endless empires fighting each other, looting left and right, massacre at will. A single farmer could not do anything. Even if they gang up and build their own fortress, it usually did not work at the end. The salvation always come from somebody far away, outside of or at the fringe of the imperial power, able to organize an army with people who are not afraid to die, and sufficient replacement and armament, to start rebellion. That was how Mongolian empire and its various branch Khanates were gradually destroyed, from different rebellions, at different times. Eventually, the Mongolian Empire becomes only a legend in the books, and modern Mongolia is nowhere close.
Hitler was able to conquer most of the Europe, it eventually took two powers to defeat his regime: Russians o n the east and American/British on the west. Statistically speaking, it was the Red Army who broke the back of the German army. By the time Americans landed on the Normandy beach, four allied armies fought against two German armies, later three when Holland was included. The size of the conflict on the east is probably four times as big. So outside forces have to be counted on to help the defeated countries to get their houses back. In the ancient days, these defeated kings would have to pay heavily for the armed help they get. European countries pay by playing vassals for USA all the time up to now. And European politicians are still fighting for the US interests when their farmers are complaining about directives coming from Brussel (the EU).
If the League of Nations was too weak to be effective, then UN seemed to be more effective because of Korean War. But Korean War is really an American war with some side shows by other countries. The same UN played totally as servants when Israelis evict Palestinian families from their houses past midnight, losing their house, heir dates tree, their cows, their land. But UN has a tent and food waiting for them. It is really US playing the role to soften the harsh actions of the Israelis. The problems cited for the old UN are really rooted that UN was designed as a vehicle to serve US interests. Russian interests was sometimes served, as Russian delegates rarely veto anything unless it is directly related to Russian interests. UN does not appear to be powerful enough to solve the middle east conflict, frankly, because USA is not powerful enough to solve the middle east conflicts. In addition, the Arab world simply do not trust USA being sincere. They call USA the Great Satan for some good reasons.
People in China call Russians the people of fighting. Not because Russians like to invade other countries, including China, during the late Manchurian dynasty and the early days of the Republic of China. The admiration is about how Russians defended their countries in the last 200 years. Russian soldiers, even as they curse the Czar, still fought bravely and stubbornly until the Bolshevik Revolution. After fighting against USA for global hegemony, crashed in 1991, and now rebuilt by Putin, Russians show they still can fight (Ukraine war is considered a civil war in Russia, and I agree with them) If some Ukrainians really want to have their own country, then they have to fight. They did fight, but more importantly, they coerced people would be equally happy as Russians to fight for them while the Banderalists act as the black shirts and shoot those who fall back. For some Ukrainians who really believe they will be better off as part of Russia, they fight as well, as resistance behind enemy lines for Russian Forces. All those devastating long range attacks deep inside Ukraine territory is possible only because of these resistance fighters detect and report the location of important targets. Some attacks may require laser light markers shined onto the targets, etc.
Ordering things takes energy. Keep things in order also takes energy. Creating peace requires fighting. There is no such thing as permanent peace. When the old men die, their memory, lessons of a life time, are gone with them. In general, very little is passed down to the next generation. So every 80-90 years, people would have to relearn certain lessons. Our situation today is closer to WW1 eve than WW2 eve. Remember that most people in most countries were enthusiastic about the war. A new UN cannot resolve such problems. A more powerful UN would become just a super-sized EU, with more power, and more capable of creating havoc than bureaucrats of Brussel. 160+ countries. It is not realistic to have USA one vote, and Tonga one vote as well. Some order can be achieved by such global organization. But peace can be kept more through out regional alliance. The reason is people closer to a problem tend to have better understanding of the problems, and usually more skin in the game. At the UN level, most countries have no skin in the game when Japan invaded China in 1937. USA provided trade sanctions and diplomatic pressure. Finally Japan attacked Peral Harbor. The way to acquire peace ? Fighting all the way to the Tokyo Bay.
I studied wars since I was 11. I have never experienced one, but I think I can comprehend the trauma caused by war. Unfortunately there is no way out. Leave it to the nature, then all things will go maximal entropy (a measure on extent of variations) Keeping your garden in order is an everyday effort. Losing one day's work is enough to make a difference to the more careful eyes. For the earth with 7 billion people and without sufficient natural resources to keep all them properly fed, clothed, housed, and have meaningful lives no matter how much effort we put in. Mathematically there is no such resource, my lord. So war is inevitable. If you want to keep order, you need to dispense energy, and use energy wisely.
Finally finished reading.
My point about a New United Nations is I am not sure the current U.N. Charter would get rid of single veto votes, which has to go.
Your point that Tongo would have the same power as the U.S. is not exactly correct as they are not a permanent member of the Security Council.
Currently there is 15 members and they more or less pass U.N. law and one country can Veto it is terrible, I realize why it was there during the cold war, in relation to Pearl Harbour and I understand what you stated from prior knowledge of my own.
You figure the “cease fire” vote in the U.N. General Assembly and then the U.S. just vetoes it in the Security Council??? Joe Biden is a self proclaimed Zionist what do you expect, single veto votes help NO one. But 4/5 of the entire U.N. should account for something that’s 80%? Here is a old U.N. vote
https://x.com/UN_News_Centre/status/1717992371906839005
Even this did not meet the 80% threshold I proposed, but later ones would have met this thresh hold. So I really don’t buy the Tongo argument due to their size. Maybe Canada should have less of a say to due to their smaller size of being about 1/10 of the U.S. by population? Or maybe India is 1.6 billion so they should have 5x the say of the U.S. has?
Its about the frame of mind and way of thinking. Tongo is just as important as the United States, if not, kick them out of the U.N.?
I guess, I will just give up and you mush my ideas into yours. It usually the story of my life after spinning my wheels a few times as injured worker and not getting any where many many many years ago. My old pal and retired U.S. Army General and combat nurse(GS-14) - now long gone forewarned me about trying argue against the government in any way shape or fashion that very few ever succeed against them. So now I usually just give up.
I have wrote about solving housing, food security, building code designs, Summertime Ice road supply lines, rodent infestations in metro areas. Gun Control definitions and ideas for Canada, U.S. and Mexico. I just post two ideas here on Substack and you want to now change it out of context. I just keep it in my Gmail Drafts
This size of Tongo problem argument exists every where, even in Trade Unions. I belonged to a fairly large international local back in the day; and as unions sent delegates to conventions. Ours local had many to send as a per our large membership, some locals only had one or two as they where small. I always thought this very unfair as I would often get up to speak and state this then I was booed off. I stated its about differences of opinion and ideas, the small locals where just drowned out their ideas and opinions meant nothing. It is the same with the shitty single veto vote it simply needs to go. Israel has only gotten this far because the U.S. is ruled by political Zionists who hold a veto.
Thank you for the response. I think I am to change my thinking of Tonga too small to justify one vote, as I happened to be thinking about similar things from the same angle, such as US national politics and decision among the states. One-person-one-vote does have flaws for US national matters through per person referendum. UN is a different matter. Although large and powerful countries will always dominate world stage and things that eventually happened, the forum must give smaller nations a voice, not based on population size, to provide sufficient binding power to the few large bullies in the room.
However, current UN will not do it and cannot be changed, because it is really designed to be a tool for USA although same veto right was given to other nations. Current charter already allows general assembly to override the security council, but not the permanent council members. Obviously with first among the equals, there cannot possibly be much good acts, especially when the bully is USA. The international society is still a jungle, although US domestically is a more ordered garden, and better ordered in the past.
I am a retired computer engineer, born in Taiwan, and came to USA for graduate studies in 1984. Having been here for 40 years, I think I have witnessed the bulk of the process of decline of this once great country. I have also given up in physical world to change things. I like what I learned about the Fabian Society in college. While it was a left leaning socialist club, it did have a distinction to always focus on policy decisions rather than moral high ground. Some would say UK has been a fairly stable socialist country for many reasons (certainly including overseas looting) but a group of MP trying to design better policies and willing to promote and debate them is surely one of the reasons. In comparison, modern day USA at the top are short of such people Massie may be different, plus Ron Paul and Rand Paul. I don't always agree with them, but I think they do focus more on actual policies than rhetoric.
So from my perspective, you are one of the few who are still willing to discuss issues. In comparison, places like zerohedge.com, while tilting conservative and full of quick wits, commentators are not quite interested in discussing policy design. I do hope you can write more pieces and publish them in substack. Your good ideas just might one day give younger minds, like J.D.Vance a spark when you don't expect it.
Something to watch https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f4opzJiXAz0
Yes, I very much like professor John J. Mearsheimer. I do like to add he is authoritative on European matters, but his grasp about Asian matter, especially China, is somewhat off. I think he sees USA and China as opposing polar position without paying enough attention to the mutual dependency. Mutual dependency is why a decoupling stage has to happen first before USA can really solve the China problem in a traditional imperial fashion.
I am sorry but most typical Americans are really stupid and not too self aware, maybe organized religion or a country's dictatorial policies are to blame, it is likely this way with many countries if not all.
The problems Prof. Mearsheimer speaks of are simply the DNA of the political arms of America, it is called Wet Leather Foreign and Domestic policies; by that I mean the policies since the creation of the United States are mostly as sharp as about a pound of wet leather.
Regarding https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Tz4ypuFKWZw&lc=Ugzk9oJVTTFe3xc_vHt4AaABAg
On YouTube I commented (reworked) : One such example of wet leather policy Israel aside, is when Henry Kissinger, a total moron thinking he and Nixon could bribe China with "prosperity" there by getting appeasement from China as a counter balance to the Soviet Union - well how did that work out?
THEN - Booting Taiwan out of the U.N. and making China a permanent member of the U.N. Security Council and now making them a member of the W.T.O; thereby F-ing Taiwan?
(Then around 1977) Now embracing China with the One Mandarin Policy aka One China Policy. What about the Uyghurs or Tibet? One what?
The Uyghurs are in force labour camps that have crematoriums, that have been spotted and confirmed by satellite. Israel is just another shade of ass-hole grey. It's also the Recipient Class of the Donor Class, Americans with any brains need not to vote for any political party that gets such bribes from lobbyists, they all need to be outed, in one giant alphabetical list NOT to vote for them regardless of the cost or party, as they are ALL political crooks!!
The problem with ALL the Colonial and Majorities of any country; this most definitely includes The One China Policy and Zelinsky's approach to the Russian diaspora in the border regions of Ukraine before the war, not that it would have changed anything, as Putin is Putin and like all leaders and despots they all have their own demented way of thinking.
What this aforementioned problem is; is that every culture or type of people look at the same thing but see the finished canvas in a different way, I learned this from a very dear departed friend as we often would sporadically go to the Art Gallery. We would stare at the same painting but come up with different observations and sometimes the meaning of creation of certain aspects of the old oil.
My departed friend was a true artist, he often said even though I could not create anything much better than stick drawings he would say; I was born 20,000 years too late. He did say I could almost get into the mind of the artist who created it, to the what of, of the painting. Maybe it is an art code? Maybe that is why I really get Ai Weiwei art https://www.theartstory.org/artist/ai-weiwei/ that no words could articulate.
In summary: Great powers and all countries more or less fail, as they do not integrate with the minority they expect, or rather demand the minorities intergrade, or rather conform to them this is one of, if not China's Greatest Flaws. The One China Policy is a fundamentally flawed policy, Just as a One America or America First policy is, or a One Canada or One Euro policies, they are ALL equally as flawed to a lesser or greater degree of impact - there is NO "one" anything, we are all individuals that sometimes can work together for a common goal, but WE all are likely to do it in different ways.
Wow, you know chinese side business very well. In many aspects, China and Russia are both victim of imperialism. I get a little but definitely not entirely when you say we are all individuals. I don't see the "bad guys" really believe they can integrate us like the "borg" but rather they simply ask us to be the obedient sheep.
I think I am to refine it and publish on my substack as well.
Refine what?
Refine my writing. Don't you think that I tend to meander along a main theme but detour often? I consider myself not yet focused enough. Even for substack, it is better to focus on only one subject at a time, and I tend to cover all related points when I can/should bypass. Besides, don't you think my writing is a bit "choppy". That it is surely English but simply does not feel right ? English is my second language. Unable to write concisely and smoothly have always been my problems among the fellow engineers.
Your writing skills are better than my writing skills - But I thought you meant you could refine what I wrote to then you publish, but then the context would be lost? I usually write an correct things over much time. I Did this with the first part of Peace in the Middles East; the videos and attachments were for context of a point of view.