The topic is cybercrime and espionage, not nuclear brinksmanship or colonialism. Whatever parallels can be drawn don't seem to be very relevant, so the comment comes off as an attempt to deflect criticism.
Maybe it wasn’t clear, but I think the comment is explaining the importance for superpowers of keeping their immediate surroundings politically aligned - china wants NK on their side for the same reason neither the US or the URSS wanted nukes on their doorstep.
I do wonder what's the state of history education today when one only learns a basic history event today, and through a layman's forum post which is surely going to have all the complete perspective as opposed to setting out an explicit agenda.
You can’t separate colonialism and imperialism from Korea. As if any of us know what Korea would be doing if the west didn’t invade then sanction among other things.
That’s not what imperialism means. At all. Next you’ll say China wanting reunification with its own people is imperialism but NATO in Ukraine isn’t. Or they can be equivocated.
I haven’t heard about the disarming stuff. I don’t think that part happened.
What an apt comparison you make in your apologia for dictatorships! For the imperialist Beijing regime to "reunify" with an independent state in Taiwan which it never controlled is just like the czarist empire based in Moscow "reunifying" with Ukraine: It's an autocracy invading an independent democracy, killing people, and taking away their right to self-determination.
Comparing this with Ukraine wanting to join NATO or the EU for the defense of their right to self-determination and to live free of an authoritarian police state is laughable. But such a comment can only come from ignorance of the differences between systems of government with human rights and those with none, or else be sheet wicked propaganda paid for by an authoritarian regime.
The equivocation here is in your comment - one must wonder what your actual motive is.
Ukraine arguably gave up its sovereignty when it became a neo-colony of the imperialist west and NATO in 2014.
No one has the heavens mandate to any land. We are only human. Not gods. You don’t get to do whatever you want on the land of your nation state just because of blood and soil arguments like you and your blood is from there.
Western and liberal democracy is not about human rights.
If China never had claims to Taiwan…then the KMT never should’ve gone there either according to your logic. And don’t have rights to that land now unless settler logic is used.
> one must wonder what your actual motive is.
I am an anti-imperialist and [pan-]nationalist. I don’t hide that. That is in contrast to most westerners or Europeans who go based off enlightened centrist and liberal vibes along with western, white, settler, and European chauvinism and supremacy.
>> You don’t get to do whatever you want on the land of your nation state just because of blood and soil arguments like you and your blood is from there.
Yet you get to invade your sovereign, self-governing and peaceful neighbors if you're Russia or China, and have such grand imperialist adventures all while claiming to be anti-imperialist? How convenient. And oh, Russia's annexation of Crimea isn't about blood and soil? That was sure the pitch made to its own population.
You say you're a pan-nationalist, but then what's wrong with Ukraine choosing to ally with Europe? Is pan-nationalism only valid when the alliance is under Kremlin despotism? Whatever Putinism is, it certainly isn't about human rights either. [Perhaps you meant you are pan-Slavic? In that case, Kiev may as well be your capital]. And if you're so cynical as to believe that no system is any better than any other system when it comes to human rights, who are you or the despots and tyrants you side with to declare who should do what? What system are you offering the citizens of Taiwan or Ukraine that they would want? Your entire argument seems to boil down to a circle of hypocrisy: The people of some country have no inherent right to be there, so even if a larger belligerent power has no right either, there's nothing wrong with annihilating whatever freedom the local people have.
By your statements, you are actually justifying settler-colonialism. Should the Han take over Tibet and dispose of Tibetans? Sure, in your opinion, since no one has claim to land. (Strange how the new settlers lay claim to the land though, isn't it?) What right do native American people have to their land? None, according to you. So then what's this imperialism of America you're yapping about? It would be easier to say: It's not as if America has done anything China or Russia isn't currently doing. But that would be playing into your trap of equivocation. As a Tibetan freedom fighter friend of mine once said, when I suggested that America was sliding toward authoritarianism: never ever compare America to how much worse things are in a dictatorship like China. To do so is an insult to everyone fighting for their freedom from these thugs around the world.
If Ukraine had wanted to join Putin's Russia, they had ample opportunity. If Taiwan wanted to join China, they could do so tomorrow by a majority vote. And if your only argument is that the West is no better and just as hypocritical - apart from the fact that I believe you to be arguing in bad faith - then what difference is it to you which sphere of influence they end up in?
I said two labels to give an idea of my politics. You’re not supposed to think everything revolves around your interpretation of those labels.
> So then what's this imperialism of America you're yapping about?
Same here. You saw me say a general principle and then assumed a bunch of logic. As if what I said isn’t a basic general philosophy that many societies and cultures have had (none that you like ofc).
—
I think the political knowledge gap between us is too wide so it will just keep resulting in the same issues of you projecting your [white and liberal] supremacist ego on to others.
Like thinking pan nationalism can mean the global north too. A bananas thing to say while accusing others of being bad faith or hypocritical.
