It is difficult for me as well.

Whatever one might make of the brutal methods of the USSR, Putin's close connection to the Russian Orthodox Church should not go unnoticed.

That element does not come into play with bombing Syrians and Chechens of another faith. It is front and center of the message of what is going on in Ukraine. — Paine

Almost ever war that has ever been fought, it almost always has something to do with religion. Of course, it has almost always also to do with territory/power/money as well. And sometimes the aspects of one are used to justify the reasons of the other, which I think in this war Putin has claimed that western Influence is corrupting Ukrainian society/leaders and they need to save their fellow brothers and sisters (which they claim they view as fellow Russians) before the taint of western corruption destroys their moral values and/or socialist values.

I will admit it has kind of the old school church mentality of "we sometimes have to kill the heathens in order to try to save some of their souls" or perhaps maybe a kind of old Manifest Destiny vibe to it where Russia has to do what Russia has to do in or to keep socialism/communism alive. My guess if I had to pick one of the two is that if this invasion is just an isolated incident then it is just the former, but if it is a part of a broader plan that involves Russia wanting to take over other territories as well then it really isn't about some kind of "brotherly love" and trying to save their culture but more about Russia trying to take whatever they can while trying to create any excuse as to why they are doing it.

I agree that in an ideal world no country should be invaded by another. In fact, in an ideal world there would be no need for countries to take such an action.

Unfortunately, the world is not ideal and invasions do happen: Pakistan’s invasion of Kashmir (1947), China’s invasion of Tibet (1951), China’s invasion of India (1962), Turkey’s invasion of Cyprus (1974), America’s invasion of Iraq (2003), Turkey’s invasion of Syria (2019), etc., etc.

What is particularly interesting is that very little if any action was taken by the international community in response to the above (and many other) invasions. So, what makes Ukraine different? — Apollodorus

Well for some of the following reasons: A) Ukraine is a country in Europe B) there is a chance that the war could escalate and spill over to over European countries and start a larger conventional war similar to what happened in WWI and WWII C) as far as anyone can tell in the West, Ukraine wasn't an aggressor (unlike when US fought/invaded/occupied such places as Iraq/Afghanistan) D) the invasion is being done by Russian (aka. the old USSR boogey man who was supposed to be dead already) who still has NBC (nuclear/biological/chemical) weapons - you know the kind of "weapons of mass destruction" Bush Junior ranted and raved about as to why we had to go into Iraq in order to make sure a madman such as Saddam didn't have access to them and might use them if he couldn't have his own way. Well, I could be wrong but Putin has become this notion of what Bush Jr. and the republicans where afraid of what Saddam might become if we didn't go into Iraq again and stop him. However the difference is that at the drop of a hat, Putin CAN use Russia's NBCs/"weapons of mass destruction" and unleash hell on earth is he so wishes too.

I could be wrong but I think some of the reasons I gave are a good part of why this is different than other invasions that happened in the past.

I think part of the answer is that the West (US and UK in particular) has long seen Russia as an economic and military rival to be contained and, as far as possible, to be brought under Western economic, financial, and political dominance. — Apollodorus

You are correct that the US and her allies give push back (and sometimes undermine) Russia but they do that to ALL countries and even each other. The world nations are much like a school playground where there is a kind of pecking order and sometimes they even bully and harass each other. The only difference is there is no adult there to really supervise them so the children have to kind of supervise themselves, kind of like in lord of the flies I guess.

Additionally, Russia’s military operation in Ukraine frustrates NATO’s and the EU’s expansion plans. — Apollodorus

Actually I think Russia’s military operation in Ukraine is just about the best thing that could happen to it after WWII. NATO was formed in order to defend against the big old boogey man, the former USSR, and when the USSR collapsed the meaning for it's existence almost collapsed as well. However with Russia invading Ukraine the shock of such an action has been like using a defibrillator on a dying man, it has resuscitated the reason for NATO's existence.

Even Germany is talking about the need for rebuilding it's military in order to protect themselves from potential wanton aggression, and with the current situation going on nobody seems to think that there is really no issue/problem with them doing it.

Another factor that makes Ukraine different is the media coverage and the public response to it. Since the pandemic and the lockdowns, growing numbers of people have turned to the news and social media and have become susceptible to political and ideological influence or manipulation.

Zelensky himself is a media man and TV actor who for many years has used the media to sell himself and his narrative. His predecessor Poroshenko has described Zelensky as a “puppet of (oligarch) Kolomoisky” and his election as “the biggest electoral fraud in Ukrainian history”. — Apollodorus

Unless Kolomoisky is the devil himself (or perhaps even if he is), I can't really see how he can be worse than Putin. Every politician through out history has always either been called someone's puppet or a lose cannon who nobody can predict what they will do next. Your either a revolutionary or someone's stooge. If Zelensky is either a revolutionary, stooge, or a con-man (which is just really a kind of stooge that somewhat behaves as a king's jester) then he is really not that different then any other Western politician who has had to take the world stage. But of course since he BEHAVES more like a western politician then a pro-Russian one that could be enough of a reason for Russia to want to take him out.

This does not necessarily justify Russia’s invasion of Ukraine - it certainly doesn't justify bombing innocent and unarmed civilians - but it raises some pertinent questions concerning Zelensky’s legitimacy and the accuracy of the way the events are being presented to the public by the Western media.

Incidentally, the EU has announced a €1.2 billion loans package to Ukraine, in addition to €500 million in humanitarian aid and further hundreds of millions in military aid from the EU and US. I think it is safe to assume that in a country with corruption levels like those of Ukraine, a large part of that will end up in the wrong hands (or pockets).

In any case, instead of having one economic and military bloc constantly expanding at the expense of others, I think it would make more sense to have some kind of balance of power in the region and in the world. Otherwise there is a real danger that Western imperialism – economic, financial, military, political, and cultural - will lead to total world dominance by the US and its client states. — Apollodorus

Yes, in the US we are ruled by plutocratic leaders instead of one's put there through democratic means. However neither are Russia or China one's ruled through socialism but instead through autocracies.

More to the point, what do you think it would be like to like in a world ruled either by China, Russia, or the US and her allies? While it is almost a given that things in countries like the US could get worse instead of better (much like it has since the Cold War ended), but try to imagine a world where all leaders of other countries have to kowtow to the whims of either China's or Russia's leaders. I don't know if it will be exactly like in the book 1984, but I don't think it would be that much better.

More to the point if you had to choose which of the three would you rather have almost total world dominance?

In the short term, the West’s actions can only result in Russia turning to China and leaving the latter in a much stronger position than before vis-à-vis the West.

China Sees at Least One Winner Emerging From Ukraine War: China – New York Times

And yes, for a more complete picture it is important to look at it from various perspectives, including the Russian one .... :smile: — Apollodorus

Putin and Xi Jinping where already taking long romantic walks together and giving each other bjobs to each other before the invasion so if they come closer together for whatever reason, it is unlikely to be that much closer than they already are.

The only thing most of the West are concern about China becoming more "powerful" (which has been an issue/fear long before the invasion) is their threat to invade Taiwan in which the war in Ukraine has all but thrown a wet blanket on those plans since it is unlikely want to go ahead and punch that tar baby since they don't want to get into the same situation as Putin has.

Everything else China is doing is either kind of moot, or it is more or less part of various ongoing issues with China which have been going on for some time. As for anyone really trusting Xi Jinping or look for his leadership to resolve anything, all I can say is that it unlikely to happen. Western politician might not be the brightest people sometimes but even they will hesitate when given a poisonous snake and asked to kiss it.

Here is a video I found that might help explain some of problems between Russia and NATO and some of the thinking behind Putin (and those that support him in Russia) and why they felt justified in invading Ukraine. However, I imagine some people watching might feel that it is a bit slanted to one indoctrinated to what some of us in in West are thinking at this time, anyone that is in any way Pro-Putin are thinks the US/NATO caused the war in Ukraine themselves, don't say I didn't warn you that it viewpoint may not be one you agree with.

It’s understandable to be upset that Zelensky is losing, but (1) it isn’t my fault, (2) I don’t see why this is of concern to Finland, and (3) according to some, Zelensky is a thug as are the oligarchs behind him, as explained on the other thread, which is why a more balanced, rational, and less emotional, analysis would be preferable. — Apollodorus

Sorry to but in but I'm unaware of how Zelesky may be a thug as you say. Is it possible for you to explain where you have come to this conclusion?

To be honest the only thing I know about him was that he was a comedian before becoming the president of Ukraine and now that his country has been invaded he is trying to rally his country to fight against the Russians that him and many of his people see as invaders. If I was to take a guess he might be as corrupt and/or as incompetent as any other Western leader, but I think the fact that he just didn't grab a suitcase full of money and get the first flight out of there when the fighting broke out (which is what is often expected of most Western, Eastern, and other leaders in the world) i believe says something positive about him. But then again I could be wrong since as I said, I don't really know much about him.

Also I think it is a bit..premature to say either Russia or Ukraine is really "winning". Before the war, It was assumed in the West that if Russia did invade that almost all major cities in Ukraine would have already fallen by now, but it would be difficult for Russia to occupy it (much like the US tried to do in the middle eastern countries for the last couple of decades) if they had to deal with a well armed and organized insurgency. Since Ukrainians have doing exceptionally good so far, it is hard to imagine that even "IF" the Russians are able to get control of many of the major cities that they won't have a issue with any Ukrainian resistance after that. I guess in the end the question is going to be how long can each side deal with any attrition they are facing before they have to give in.

From where I'm sitting things are not looking that bad of the Ukrainians, even if they are suffering from thousands of civilian casualties. For them, there military losses are not completely debilitating (they are suffering about the same number as they Russians that invaded are) and I believe almost all projections before the invasion assumed that the Ukrainian would likely lose twice the number as the Russians since that is what often happens when a smaller army tries to hold off a larger army that is at least as well equipped (it was assumed the Russians would be better equipped but that may not be true)

As regards Putin’s alleged intention to rebuild the borders of the Russian Empire, (a) I see no evidence to support that claim and (b) as already explained, Ukraine has always been part of Russia, both Ukraine and Russia having been part of the same territory called Russia or “Land of the Rus(sians)” (роусьскаѧ землѧ, rusĭskaę zemlę), a.k.a. “Kievan Rus”.

The fact is that Ukraine became separated from Russia only after being invaded and occupied by foreign powers (Mongols, Lithuanians, Poles). It follows that Putin has a point and his views need to be taken into consideration even if we disagree with his actions. IMO a discussion based exclusively on the views of countries like Finland (or any others) that have nothing to do with Ukraine is not a proper discussion. But if you think it is, go ahead, I’m not holding you back …. :smile: — Apollodorus

Ok, you might have a point in that there may be some truth to this issue and that Putin (and those that support him) see this as more as a civil war than a war between two countries, but does that really justify his actions or wise for him to invade?

I don't know if your aware of this but there is a somewhat similar issue with China. It was what it calls a "breakaway province" know as Taiwan and it has been threatening Taiwan with military action if it is unwilling to rejoin China peacefully. I believe for over 50 years now Taiwan has more or less been it's own independent country since the Chinese government fled mainland after the communist took it over.

Ever though it has been over 50 years now, still China still sees Taiwan as a rogue province that is just unwilling to properly accept Chinese rule over it.

In this instance do you believe China has the right to use military action in order to take them over and if so do you think the US, Japan, and any of her allies have to interfere in such a war?

Also what about any other country that has a military and can try to take of lands from weaker countries that were once part of their own empire at one time. If it is "ok" for either Russia and/or China to do this why wouldn't be "ok" for any quasi-world super power to just do whatever it wants, wouldn't green lighting any or all such wars just be a signal to the world that only might makes right and international rights and laws have become worthless?

The historical background of the conflict in Ukraine needs to include Stalin's starvation of the country, where the agenda to destroy the Kulaks was combined with exerting central control over the 'Soviets.' It should be remembered that Ukraine was the kick off of the Holocaust, where the Nazi idea that Jews were behind Communism became a rule of engagement in Operation Barbarossa. The USSR only recognized a general loss of "innocent people" rather than a specific genocide after the war.

The policy of erasure and denial of people in Ukraine has been a Cheka legacy since the Bolshevik revolution.

With the politics of the Cold War leading to the Iron Curtain and the formation of NATO, Putin has taken up the language of ultranationalists to deny Ukrainian nationality now that the USSR and the Warsaw Pact no longer exists. Putin forgot to hold a referendum in Ukraine on the matter.

Taiwan emerged on the other side of this Cold War dynamic as a resistance to Communism. The situation is very different in economic terms because China is integrated with production on a global scale where Russia is a big player in only a few industries. — Paine

That you for pointing this issue out for me. The only things I remember reading anything similar about this issue was that on the Eastern side of the conflict in WWII many countries readily welcomed the Nazi's when they came in and "liberated" their countries from Stalin and possibly saved some of them from dying from starvation from what I believe use to be called the "Harvest of Sorrow", which was a plan where Stalin would steal wheat and other food from countries like Ukraine which Stain would turn around and sell it to the West in order to do things like to help fund his government, build up is military, and create factories to start building Russia industrial complex which hardly existed when he gained power. My guess as to why he did this was that Russia didn't have much of anything to export to Western countries so he had to come up with some "creative" way to jump start Russia's economy, even if it cost millions of people their lives.

The other thing I remember reading about the Eastern side of German conflict was that it was in many ways more brutal than on the Western conflict. I believe there was an issue when either the Russian or Germans would take control of a town they would not only install people in power that supported them, but they would often round up dozens of citizens suspected of being supporters of the other side and would shot them and leave their bodies out as a warning to others as to what will happen to them if they too were found to be supporting the enemy. According to one German soldier this started partly because the Russians had a policy to execute politicians and any citizens that where found to be helping the Germans and when his unit (and possibly other units like his) retook towns where the Russians did this, the decided to round up anyone they suspected of helping the Russians do this to their friends (ie captured German soldiers when they took over the town) and kill them in the same manner. I guess what I'm trying to say is that for a while each side didn't really have much of advantage over another so it is believed some of those that were fighting started resorting to more, and more brutal tactics in order to demoralize the enemy which of course often cause regular soldiers (who may have not really desired to resort to such means) become more brutal themselves, because they were fighting an enemy they believed was inhuman.

Also on top of that issue there was something similar to a civil war going on at that time. Some of the people under the control/influence of the Russia government took up arms and fought against Russian troops themselves. Of course, the Germans would sometimes take advantage of this and use such people to set up friendly governments or support groups for their side, but it also would cause the Russians who had to fight both the Germans and insurgent "Russians" (or whatever country these citizens were in) to have to be a bit heavy handed since the were basically fighting both an invasion by the Germans an a civil war with their fellow country men from within.

This might help in explaining why it possible for Russia and countries that "supported them" to possibly lose more than 25,000,000 people during WWII (many more than any other country in the war) since a lot of those casualties may have been caused by them killing each other. And I believe that number doesn't include those that died do the Harvest of Sorrow. To be honest now that I think of it, I find it hard to fathom how any society can survive such loses/sorrow and find a way to continue on.

The Warsaw Pact was an alliance between the USSR (aka the Soviet Union) and several countries that were never in the Soviet Union, even if they were expected to submit to its wishes. Do you mean the former Soviet republics (Ukraine, Georgia, Belarus, Uzbekistan, Armenia, Azerbaijan, Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, Moldova, Turkmenistan, Tajikistan, Latvia, Lithuania and Estonia) or are you actually saying that Putin wants to somehow integrate the Warsaw Pact countries (Albania, Bulgaria, Czechia, Slovakia, Hungary, Poland, Romania, and the eastern part of Germany) into a single country along with Russia and presumably all the former Soviet republics as well? — jamalrob

I know that it would be next to impossible for Russia to re-integrate all or perhaps even most of the former Warsaw Pact countries into something like the former USSR, but that doesn't mean that those in power in Russia wouldn't want to do it's best are trying to get some of those countries back into their control by helping install leaders that are more friendly to Russia.

For what little I know about the issue, I think it is a given that while some people in Russia do want to return Russia back to it's glory days of being something like what the former USSR was I don't think they are really willing to use military action in each country to regain all of them. Ukraine may be the exception since some of those in Russia still consider it part of Russia. I guess sort of in a way like how in the US when the South separated from North, the North went to war to retake it. But since Ukraine in most ways is a separate country with it's own government, it really isn't a break way province from Russia or at least that is how it looks like for the rest of the world.

At any rate I'm sure Russia would like to install a puppet government (or any kind of government friendly to Russia) in Ukraine in any of the former Warsaw Pact countries and even in Western countries as well if they are able to. And although I could be wrong but I believe China has a similar agenda of it's own in order to further their own plans.

The funny thing is that, historically, the term "imperialism" has been used in reference to 1800's Britain and France, and continues to be mainly associated with the West:

The term was and is mainly applied to Western and Japanese political and economic dominance, especially in Asia and Africa, in the 19th and 20th centuries.

Imperialism - Wikipedia

I think political, economic, and considering NATO, military dominance today is primarily exerted by the West, not by Russia. Any discussion that fails to take this into account is bound to be biased and not particularly balanced, IMO. — Apollodorus

What you say is may be likely true, but from what I understand it hardly changes the dynamics of the issue. While it may be true that the US and her allies have more or less military dominance over most of the world and it is a given that any country (or countries) that are not happy about it may seek to undermined it for their own reason, I don't think such an issue in any way can help justify Russia and/or China from trying to invade other countries.

I'm not saying that the US and her allies are the "good guys" and Russia, China, and/or anyone else not happy with the West are the "bad guys" as it is a given that at any given moment if those in power in the West are asleep at the switch that other powers will take advantage of it. What I am saying is that when these countries overplay their hand in trying to undermine the West and/or seize more power for themselves through military means that they should expect pushback or retaliation from the US and her allies. I think you can agree on that.

Taiwan is pretty much the world's most important factory of semiconductors. Whoever has Taiwan has the say over one of the most important commodities in the world.
Who wouldn't want that?! — baker

I agree, but wanting to take something and actually taking it are two different things. I sure China would love to take over Taiwan's semiconductor making facilities but they would most likely have to invade Taiwan in order for them to have any hope in getting them. The problem with that such an invasion would likely be more costly and difficult than the one in Ukraine and it is highly likely that even "IF" they could capture such facilities that someone would deliberately blow them up or at least destroy most of the multi-million dollar equipment in order so that China can not use them.

In the words of Helmuth von Moltke "No Plan Survives First Contact With the Enemy". I like to think Putin's plan to easily take over Ukraine is a text-book example of this issue.

No Plan Survives Contact With the Enemy
https://bootcampmilitaryfitnessinstitute.com/military-and-outdoor-fitness-articles/no-plan-survives-contact-with-the-enemy/

In regard to the EU, it will be interesting to see how the Far Right parties will respond to the attack upon Ukraine. There has been support for Putin from them for the last ten years or so. — Paine

It has been kind of interesting how some in the republican party have become kind of cozy with Putin and those that support his pro-USSR agenda. I'm believe it is a combination of them lately liking to say things that are nor politically correct (likely Trump always does) and a kind of mentality that Putin/Russia is no longer really any threat. Of course it is unlikely that it is going to be easy to stay that way after the war with Ukraine started (which right now feels like it happened months ago). Being a politician that is/was cozy with Russia and Putin is kind of like in one of those science fiction where they are exploring another planet and they come across some cute and fuzzy creatures that look like they might make great pet. However once you get too close they bear their razor sharp fangs and coming at you in the hopes that they can turn you into your dinner.

As far as I can tell, Russia has been more or less been ostracized from the West and any politician that either has said nice things about Putin and or Russia will be questioned as to "whom" their actual loyalty lies with. I could be wrong but I don't think anyone wants to be thought of as a possible "manchurian candidate" at the present time. I believe at least we don't have to worry about Lindsey Graham having this issue as for Tucker Carlson... I'm not so sure.

Sen. Lindsey Graham's apparent call for Putin to be assassinated draws backlash
https://www.npr.org/2022/03/04/1084548984/lindsey-graham-putin

How Russia Is Using Tucker Carlson in its Propaganda
https://www.newsweek.com/how-russia-using-tucker-carlson-propaganda-pawn-1687402



I could be wrong but I believe once upon a time the republican party was pretty good at having a unified message/ideology and they where not as fragmented as the democrats were at that time. Lately it is hard to know what they really stand for other than just trying to be reelected.

I thought we already had a pro-NATO thread (see Ukraine Crisis), so I for one fail to see how having two is going to make the discussion "more objective". — Apollodorus

I can understand the confusion, but try to understand that sometimes when a thread gets to be 80+ pages long and there seems to be no real single subject that posters are talking about it starts becoming hard to know what the discussion is about.

When I started this thread i was hoping to focus on the "larger" issues and perhaps less of the ongoing day to day issues that may be currently going on such as the refugee crisis, civilians being bomb/attacked, whom killed whom, etc. etc. I know those are all real issues in an ongoing war, but they may not help us get a clearer picture at some of the larger forces at play. And that is why I created this thread to address.

BTW, which countries is Russia "willing to occupy" and how have you "realized" this? — Apollodorus

IMHO, I believe Putin and those that support him in Russia would be more than happy to reintegrate any and all former Warsaw Pact (that are currently on less then friendly terms with Russia) back into the "loving" arms of mother Russia and for all of them and Russia to create a USSR 2.0.

That may seem either laughable or merely wishful thinking for those in power in Russia since up until a few weeks it was a given that Russia won't be willing to risk World War III in order to take over any former Warsaw countries through military force. Of course, there is the problem for Russia that many of these countries are not exactly happy to become merely "satellite states" (countries that were meant to bear the brunt of a attack if NATO tries to fight Russia) again and to be ruled by puppet governments controlled by Russian.

Part of this comes from the fact that China is considering doing something similar on the other side of the world and trying to expand it's base of influence. If you knew about that issue you might be able to understand some of the parallel developments/problems with that and things happening in Russia but that is a whole other can of worms that I shouldn't get into on this thread. If you would like to know more there is a thread I created where I discussed this issue with other forum members you can go check out:

https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/12136/what-are-odds-that-in-the-near-future-there-will-be-a-conflict-with-china/p1

For now I think it is safe to say that both the USSR,...oops I mean Russia wants to expand it's base of power in the world in order to become a super power that can rival the US and her allies and China is trying to do the same thing as well. While China's and Russia's goals and situation are not exactly the same, I think it is safe to say that they are not all that different.

..which tells what kind of a clusterfuck and a brainfart this "special military operation" has been. — ssu

I think it is almost a given that things are not really going to plan if Putin and those that support him in Russia where really hoping for Ukraine to capitulate or roll over after a small/quick invasion into their capital and major cities. However since it is plausible that the mindset of those in command of the Russia forces is one where they are willing to lose/sacrifice a lot of their men and resources in order to achieve their objectives, they might still be able to snatch victory from the jaws of defeat just yet.

From what little I know of the conflict it sounds like they have already lost around 10% to 20% of their forces from either being killed, captured, or wounded and I'm guessing that their loses in vehicles could be around the same number. Supposedly they are planning on replenishing such numbers with reservist in Russia and possibly from mercenaries from Syria and the Middle East.

I think the long term problem for them is if they continue to incur such loses in the future as they have in the last few weeks (and if the Ukraine resistance shows no signs of weakening) it might start getting harder and harder to keep deploying more men and resources to the region for them. Of course, it is likely those who are fighting the Russians hope eventually happens.

I don't know how well the propaganda war is going for them at home but I imagine they are doing everything they can in order to sort of "sugar coat" the issue for the people back in Russia. It is weird but sometimes if you can make people believe there is no real war going on and/or that your winning a war when you are actually losing, things may not seem so bad for those in Russia who don't really know what is going on. Here in the West many of us watching videos of Russian vehicles being destroyed, building being blown up, and civilians getting killed know that the conditions in Ukraine are mostly likely like hell for both the Ukrainians left there and the unlucky Russians sent in there to fight them.

Only time will tell whether the last few weeks where just a minor SNAFU/setback for the Russian military which they are able to overcome or if it will be part of are larger ongoing cluster you know what where the Russians are unable to maintain their occupation.

China has a frontline seat into looking how the US and the West respond to these kinds of actions. And what ought to be noted that Taiwan (or the Republic of China) is for the US a Major non-NATO Ally. That means it will respond far more aggressively to defend Taiwan than with Ukraine. — ssu

Yeah it is kind of ironic that the US has stated that it is willing to protect Taiwan from China, but is unwilling to do the same for Ukraine because we are afraid of triggering "World War III". If we went to defend Taiwan from China then it is almost a given that it could escalate the war much the same way as if we did go in to help Ukraine. I think the only difference is that in the mind of those in power in the US we have been aware of this issue for a longer time and more prepared (perhaps more in a mental sense than anything else) if this actually happens. However to me it really isn't all that different.

If you mean when Russia attacked in 2014, yes. If you refer to the current "special military operation", then I'm not so sure. — ssu

To be honest I'm not so sure either, but my guess is that Taiwan has been threaten for decades now by China of a possible invasion where as Ukraine it has been only a few years that this has been going on. As far as I know Russia really hasn't up until now threaten Ukraine with invasion so in their minds they haven't really considered the possibility of war with one of the biggest militaries in the world, so i guessing they haven't planned for it the same way as Taiwan has had to do.

Perhaps there really isn't that much of a difference, however there still is a body of water between them and mainland China and of course it is almost a given they will get more support from the US and her allies if China does try to invade, so I guess those are still two advantages they have going for them.

My guess is that the size of their entry in Who's Who or a history book is probably not their main motivation, but ego is certainly a factor.

The main thing is power and its attendant benefits -- cash, land, population, control, etc. How does this apply to Putin's case? He already has tons of cash, land, population, control, etc., so it isn't clear to me how wrecking Ukraine would benefit him and his various apparatchiks. Has he been taking steroids? Is he suffering from raging hormones? Is he mentally unstable? Is there some sort of obscure economic motive here? Ukraine is a major grain producer; so is Russia. Maybe Putin wants an even bigger share of food commodity markets? (I'm grasping at straws here) — Bitter Crank

A few months ago I was talking to my older brother who works for the US government as a translator about the issue of why China is so fired up about trying to retake Taiwan. He thought about the it and made a remark about the age of Xi Jinping being 68 years old (close to the same old as that my brother is) and that "men around that age" are often of a mind set of wondering what kind of what mark that they will leave on the world and they are often desperate to use whatever time/resources they have at their disposal to complete any unfinished business before they pass from this world to the next.

Putin is 69 years old so I think it is a given that if this issue could apply to Xi Jinping then it could apply to Putin as well. In a way it may sound like a trivial issue since it might not even be true, however if it is true and it is something that is effecting Putin's thinking then it may likely been one of the factors for going through with the invasion, and it may be one of the reason's he is willing to keep doubling up the risks even if things are not going according to plan. In a way it is not all that different then how some of the minds of young male teenagers think when they are starting to become closer to being an adult, for them it feels like their really is no real tomorrow for them (or any tomorrow they really want to be a part of) so taking any kind of risk, even dangerous ones like taking drugs or life threatening stunts, can be justified in their minds since the consequences of not taking such incredible gambles is worse then if they take them.

Putin is one of the riches people in the world and perhaps could be the riches person in the world, but all that money and power won't help him when he is no longer around. I could be wrong but I think if Russia tried to take over Ukraine covertly ( use poison or assassinate their president and other leaders who might oppose them, use bribes and spies to install their own operatives in order to take over positions of power, etc.) it might have had a better chance of working and/or been easier then is what is going on now. But that would have taken more time and wouldn't have been as dramatic as getting Ukraine to capitulate through a show of force, even "IF" the chances of getting Ukraine to ever capitulate where very slim to none from the beginning.

I could be wrong, but I think Putin may have gone from a cold calculating/insidious ex-KGB monster he once was to something more like a reckless/impetuous teenager that wants/needs immediate results much like a spoil kid often behaves. Whatever he really wants I believe it is something that can not easily be gotten with money and it is unlikely that for a man of his age he can waste a lot of time getting it in the old time consuming underhanded way he might have been able to when he was younger.

Also it is plausible the longer he waited to invade Ukraine the harder it might be to overwhelm them with a show of force, similar to the problem with China in that the more time China uses to get ready to invade Taiwan the more time the US and Taiwan has to prepare for said invasion and make it even more difficult for them if they do decide to invade.

I'm hoping for a rebellion in Russia given the declining economy, government crackdown on media sources and the death of many thousand Russian sons in a senseless war against their Ukrainian cousins. — Harry Hindu

In a way I would like to see that happen but I have a feeling that is unlikely to happen. Putin is incredibly paranoid and I don't think anyone that doesn't like him can get anywhere near him. On top of that, it is hard to say what would happen in Russia if someone else seized power. It is hard to imagine someone worse than Putin, but there exist the possibility if Putin wasn't in charge then whomever replaced him might be just as bad.

I guess it is just best to hope that whatever the results of the conflict in Ukraine is that it puts a wet blanket on Putin's/Russia's dream of taking over other countries and rebuilding something like the former USSR. Of course even that might be to much to hope for.....and even if that happens there is still the problems with China's plan on more or least trying to do the same thing.

Conflict is a constant in the world order, new or old. There are political / economic / ethnic / religious / cultural fault lines all over the globe that regularly result in conflict, casualties, disruption, famine, various forms of collapse, and so on. This has been the case for decades, if not centuries. Just for example, the civil war in Sri Lanka between the Tamils and Sinhalese between 1983 and 2009. Most people in the world were not greatly bothered about it, but for the people who lived there a bad time was had by all. JUST one example among many.

The invasion of Ukraine by Russia bothers far more people than the Tamil Tigers vs. the Sinhalese ever could, A) This is taking place on NATO's steps, if not on its porch. B) Russia (and the former USSR) are/were big-name enemies to several big-name states. The people of Ukraine, unlike Iraqis or Afghans are democratic westerners. Thanks to Stalin (famine), Hitler (invasion and genocide), Chernobyl (reactors go boom!), and now Putin we have seen great suffering in Ukraine. We are more predisposed to think kindly of them than say... the people of Nagorno Karabakh.

At least 10,000,000 people were in the Ukrainian diaspora. They are a visible ethnic group in many places. There are roughy 2.5 million people of Ukrainian descent in Canada and the United States. Their presence in many countries makes their suffering, courage, and cause-in-general more accessible than that of Sudan or Yemen.

The remarkable unity displayed by EU and Nato member adds to the immediacy of their needs. If instead, only Cyprus, Portugal and Norway were helping the Ukrainians, we would probably care less about them. — Bitter Crank

Yeah, I don't know much about what use to be called "The Harvest of Sorrow" where it has been estimated up to 20 to 30 million people died in Ukraine and other places in Russia from starvation from Stalin stealing wheat and other food from his people, but I'm pretty sure the descendants of those that went through it haven't forgotten.

To be honest, I'm not surprised by the constant wars and conflicts in this world but more surprised by the lack of it since WWII. Often those in power rarely are happy with the wealth and comfort that such power (and money) provides for them and instead of being content with what they have they more often than not seek dominance over those who they do not already have dominance over. And the lose of thousands, or even hundreds of thousands of lives of soldiers under their command and the lands they invade are a small price to pay if it helps cement a bigger place in the history books for them.

The only thing I imagine prevents more wars from happening since WWII is the existence of nuclear weapons, but I believe that as new leaders from various countries start coming on the scene in the coming decades the risk of nuclear war is going to be less of a deterrent than it use to be since it is much more difficult to get one's place in the history books (and/or elevate your country to "super power status) without invading other countries that are unlikely able to stop your own armies. Whether this will increase the chances of nuclear conflict then it has in the past remains to be seen, but something tells me that either those that are planning on invading other countries don't think the US and her allies will resort to nuclear weapons if they do invade or perhaps they just no longer care.

Sorry I'm late in replying....things have been crazy over the last few days and I haven't had time to get back to this thread.

Basically the invasion of Ukraine by Russia has been a geopolitical earthquake that isn't at all over yet. Both NATO and EU have transformed a lot in only few days. And Russia has made a move that will define it's path for a very long time. The Russian Roulette has been played and the gun has fired. Who gets killed is the real question.

Obviously China now sees how effective (or ineffective) the sanctions of the West are and will take that into consideration. And China is the obvious candidate to hold peace talks with Ukraine and Russia, as now Russia is quite dependent of China thanks to the sanctions. So for China, this all is good. Only if Russia collapses it's bad. — ssu

As far as I can tell, Putin and those in Russia that support his cause were hoping that they would A) be able to occupy Ukraine without much resistance and/or B) the West/NATO (as well as other countries wouldn't take much notice of the invasion.

Because neither of these things happened, Russia is having to take a larger bit of a sh+t sandwich then they were expecting to do. While some of this may help China in some ways, I think it makes China's realize it's plan of invading Taiwan and taking it through military force any time in the near future a more complex and difficult endeavor then they were hoping for. The US and her allies may not wish to get directly get involved with defending Ukraine while it is in a war with Russia, but I think it is a given that the same isn't true if China tries to start a war with Taiwan. I could be wrong but also Taiwan's army is a bit more prepared for an invasion than Ukraine was when Russia attacked, although I don't know if those in Taiwan could do a better job of repelling an invasion then the Ukrainians if and when the Chinese finally are able to get their soldiers to the island. The only way to really know is if and when China finally decides to go through with it.

Let's first think what Taiwan is for China.

For the PRC Taiwan is basically the last remnants of the Civil War where the Kuomingtang retreated. It would be like if during the US Civil War the Confederacy would not have surrendered, but had retreated to present Puerto Rico and the US Virgin Islands and held high their flags on those islands to this day. There in the Caribbean the former secessionists would now have prospered and continued with everything the Confederacy was about. If not at the present having anymore slaves, they would still at least have some kind of Apartheid-type segregation. All this would simply annoy the hell out of US politicians as the Confederacy on a small island would be "unfinished business" and the liberals would demand to end finally such blatant racism and a stain in the Americas. To get public support and a notch in the history books by finally squashing the rebels and ending segregation would be obvious temptation for any "Northern" politician.

For China Taiwan represents a similar annoyance and temptation.

Especially when Taiwan is a) more prosperous per capita than mainland China and b) it's now a democracy. It's existence is this annoying remark how weak China still is and where the American "line of islands" start. Yet this jingoistic bait has also it's drawbacks. First, if the US responds and gets angry (let's say the Chinese sink an American flat top) your facing all out war with the US. Second, even if the US only gives materiel support, invading an island can end up in a huge "Bay of Pigs times twenty"-fiasco, a failure that wouldn't only threaten the present leadership but perhaps the position of the whole Communist Party itself. An invasion of Taiwan could basically result in an Chinese version of the Gallipoli campaign: a humiliating costly defeat. And then it could ruin the economy, the lucrative trade China enjoys. And thus China is extremely closely looking at what is happening to Russia now. How effective are the sanctions. And how willing is the West to arm Ukraine. China can also look at how Putin, who has tried from 2008 to truly modernize the Russian armed forces, is now performing against a determined foe. — ssu

You are right that Taiwan is very prosperous, but I think China wants it more for strategic purposes almost more than anything else. If they were able to A) take it without much of a fight and/or B) without much notice from the Us and her allies in the region, it would signal to the world that China is the new "super power" in the world in which even the US can't do really anything to stop. I know that kind of sounds silly (and/or crazy) to those of us that understand the situation but it was only a few weeks ago that almost EVERYONE was saying the same thing about Putin's idea of invading Ukraine. I could be wrong but I believe that if China thinks that they might be facing some or a lot of the same consequences that Russia is facing right now with invading Ukraine if they attack Taiwan, then it is likely they may not want to go through with it right now. However there is also the possibility they may want to seize on the opportunity while Russia is doing this to attack Taiwan while the world is distracted by that conflict and attack while the US (and some of our allies) is weakened by the sanctions we are imposing on Russia.

Again I know that sounds crazy but given that most of us in the West thought Putin trying to invade Ukraine was crazy, I wouldn't put it past those in power in either Russia or China to try ANYTHING in order to gain more power given the current state of affairs.

The same way the British invaded 80% (invaded or otherwise acquired) of the world? Just want to clarify that the King or Kings of England whoever they were was, " an authoritarian leader who openly speaks of the "empire", who by force tries to claim land and increase that empire's borders". That would be consistent. The same way the Spanish, Portuguese, Germans and others created empires? Maybe Putin is living in the past.

The United States has not threatened Sweden or Finland, but I think they may be the rare exceptions.

Putin is authoritarian, yes. He is also entitled to an opinion. If you say he should have found a better way to achieve his goals without invading a country and causing mayhem then that is valid. Maybe he is not smart enough to do that. Or maybe that was impossible. So what does he do? Give up on his goals?

Might as well ask the Ukrainians to stop fighting after 14 years and save lives. The fighting is going to stop sometime, so totaling up a high body count to make a point is one option, but I do not support it. — FreeEmotion

I may be misinterpreting what you are saying, but from what I read from your post but it seems you are in some part agreeing with Putin's actions. If that is what your position is, I will agree with the idea that Putin for the most part seems rational and may have his reasons to invade Ukraine as he has beyond just trying to return Russia in some way back to it's former USSR glory days, but Putin must have known that the US, Europe, and the rest of our allies can not allow just sit on our hands as his forces invade Ukraine and act in may ways the same way they did before the end of the Cold War.

Putin's/Russia's action was bound to cause a reaction from the West, and this reaction (sanctions, sending military aid to Ukraine. etc.) was of course going to be interpreted as more "hostile" actions from the West, even though Russia themselves have done the same thing in wars that the US was fighting in. I guess what I'm trying to get at is what do you think Putin (and those that support him) end game is? To become as powerful as they were before the breakup of the USSR or even more powerful? We already have China trying to become the largest superpower in Asia, and if they achieve that will they stop at that? It is a given that not everyone is 'happy' about the US and her allies trying to be the only superpower in the world (along with US military bases on almost every corner of it) , but would the world be any better with one or more autocrats changing that dynamic and for them to either rule the world or part of it with an iron fist much like every autocrat before them has?

I could have quoted any of this, but this part summarized it well. Yeah, I think you make a good point. You have to have money to make money. This on top of sourcing connections.. You have to know the the people that start the manufacturing process. You need to know the people to source the capital resources to create the end product. This takes money and supply connections. That's how the capital overlords become the overlords in the first place. Usually they do indeed have a prototype or an idea, but that is usually for a first product line that quickly gets improved or scratched and remade with more expert input.. Now the overlord has the time to get the financing, sourcing, and accounting the materials. Then they simply become about big picture ideas: marketing strategies, acquisitions, stockholder information, etc.

I still think there is a point to be made that we are often the passive recipients of technology. Either way, I think there is tremendous amount of inertia to change this system you and I have written about. — schopenhauer1

I think I more or less agree with everything you said in this post. :grin:

If you go internet surfing to discover the scientific answer to this question, you're bound to come across this article. In it, the authors state, "Life has now entered a sixth mass extinction." The footnotes for that statement refer to three articles. In one case, the author is referring to an article he himself wrote. A second reference is to the popular Barnosky article which does not conclude that we are in a mass extinction event, but that it's possible in the next 300 years. The third reference is an article by Pimm, which also does not conclude that we are in a sixth mass extinction event. In short, this is poor science.

This article delivers the opinion of Doug Erwin, a paleontologist and expert in mass extinctions. He makes a couple of observations:


1. We aren't in a mass extinction now, though it's possible that we could enter one in the future

2. People who announce that we're in a mass extinction may think they're doing their cause a favor, but in fact, they're actually presenting a no-win scenario. No action would make any difference. So if they're trying to encourage no action, they've chosen the right strategy. — frank

I guess we better get ready to have to start to eat some soylent green in the near future, regardless if it is actually made from either sea-weed or people.

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

Hopefully in this upcoming dystopian future we won't have Charlton Heston running around. I think I can handle having to eat green wafers made from human corpses but having to deal with him would be too much to bear.

So, I'm not talking about access to political information or even general knowledge on how technology works. But literally be able to make and produce items. Can you design and produce a transmission, for example? Nope, that would rely on the expertise of other people who know far more and are probably paid quite handsomely for it.. You would need to be involved in a whole litany of supply chain networks that you have no access to. It is to be distributed and doled out to the consumer and to their workers by the gods of car distribution (aka boards and owners of car companies). — schopenhauer1

I could be wrong but that really isn't about access to information but more about one's access to resources and/or people that manage such a thing. If one has enough money (or knows the right people) one could start a company or corporation that designs transmissions without hardly any knowledge on how a transmission works.

Two examples of this are Stanley Tools and the Edison Electric company. In the case of Stanley tools in the early years of American construction there where many handymen that invented tools that made their work easier but after inventing such a tool they would either not make any money on it or would go bankrupt trying to make and sell it. The founder of Stanley likely didn't really have the knowledge to invent such things but instead would go around and buy the patents from those that did invent such things. And since he had enough money to buy the patents, create an assembly line, and create the logistics to move such products to the market he was much more successful making and selling such items where the inventors of such items where not. One of the things one should know about the process of designing/inventing new products is that when it comes to making new products where there is little to market already for them is that more often than not is that even if one has access to the resources to create, build, and distribute such items (or any item for that matter) more often than not they will NOT make profit off any given product but instead will make a profit if they come up with several new products and one of those products IS successful and off the profits off that one item they will make up for the failures of the ones that produce no profits and/or those that cause a lose when they try and sell them.

With Thomas Edison although we are often told in history lessons he was a very successful inventor/businessman, the truth is that he probably couldn't invent anything even if his life depended on it and instead hired an small army of scientists and engineers who instead did about 99.9% of the leg work required in inventing and creating any of the products that his company made. Edison merely had access to the money (as well those that were willing to fund him) and the business savvy to produce and sell to his consumers and clients. I also believe that he was so ruthless that he gave little credit for those who came up with the inventions for his company nor really would compensate them for their hard work so much like the Stanley Tools story, the actual inventors of various products sold by the company really didn't see much profit for their hard work.

In the real world of businesses and corporations, one's about to know how something works and the ability to invent a product often isn't a real profitable one unless one is able to come up with a product that is relatively inexpensive to make and ship, can be sold for an amount that is a lot more than whatever cost it is to make and ship (or whatever costs it takes to get to a consumer), and that there is a large enough demand for them to keep on making and selling it to the consumer year in and year out. In the end it is really about who has the money, resources, and the knowledge to support such operations and not about who has the knowledge on how to invent and create such products since if a company that invents such a product is successful they can either be bought out or simply crushed by a bigger company such as Netscape was crushed by Microsoft when Microsoft started including Internet Explorer for free with their Windows operating system, when at the time one would have to pay in order to use the Netscape browser (and it was Netscape who really first came up with the idea of the commercial browser that people use today).

In a way, what it really boils down to is a saying I was often told when I worked at the casino, "In the end, it is almost always a given that it is the BIG money that wins". What that basically means is for gamblers is if all other things are equal (such as skill, etc.), the player at the table with the most money will win in the end will be able to keep on playing while the other players who have less money will have to at some point walk away because they will no longer be able to keep on playing and will have to walk away from the game.

I don't know if you agree with all of this but I think my argument is a pretty sound one where it is more about how one knows how do things like run a business/corporation, logistics/operations, and either have lots of money and/or have access to it through banks or people to fund them then it has anything to do with one's ability to know how something works and invent a product in the first place. After all the world is full of corporations who rely on products that where invented by other people or companies, but in the end they merely created a similar product and were more successful in selling and making a profit from it. Since one's ability to invent things isn't really a ticket to becoming wealthy, I can't see it being a reason to argue as it being the major sticking point that you are suggesting it to be.

So I am in alignment with what you are saying, but I guess I am looking at it from a different angle than traditional left politics. So I notice that you mention wealth and taxes and profits. Well, much of these are held up in stocks and such.. so spreading around the wealth would mean a lot of times, spreading around the stocks, which just means more people holding stocks in corporations, etc. However, I am trying to get at it not just as an inequality of wealth (the traditional model), but an inequality of information. So this definitely is more in line with Marx' idea of controlling means of production, but it emphasizes not just some sort of public "ownership" but public knowledge of how things work. In other words, we are alienated from the technologies that make our stuff, and we are rendered helpless consumers because of this. We are literally doled out only the portion of knowledge necessary to keep the corporate/business owner interests going. We can read up on stuff sure, but we will never actually have any technological efficacy because we lack access to the actual technology. We can maybe make do with hobby projects like using a Raspberry Pi or something like that, but this is not the same.. It is a simulation of that technology and makes little impact on how people live in the world. I am not sure if this is making sense. — schopenhauer1

One thing I guess I should point out is that I don't really believe that "socialism" is good and capitalism is "bad", but more along the lines that a mixture of both might be better than a system that is too reliant on one or the other. To be honest I'm not sure exactly what that would look like other than the fact that before the cold war ended it seemed that the US was more willing to do things like have strong unions, more social programs for the poor, etc. then what currently exist. Today in many circles it ludicrous to even suggest that anything even close to socialism might be a good idea or work such as universal minimal income or more and/or stronger unions. Also I believe that the people running the government decades ago were more watchful and/or of those who run huge corporations in order that their power couldn't overwhelm either the market or the government itself, however I think that is no longer the case since it is more or less a given that the richest families in America (such as the Koch brothers) control it and it is very difficult or next to impossible for the powers that be to keep such groups in check.

I'm not exactly sure if this inequality of access to information is as much a problem as you say it is unless you are talking about the difference between those that live in the developed world and those that do not or perhaps those that have access to the internet. I guess this is a debatable subject and would likely require a thread all by itself, but for me it seems like those of us who barely survive by living hand to mouth (which is more or less true of your humble narrator) who are still able to access the internet and most of the information that other people do are more overwhelmed by their lack of access to other resources (such as food, a car to get around in, proper medicine, etc.) than their lack of not knowing what is going on in the world. I guess one could argue that there is a large gap between those that struggle to survive because they have less time and energy to invest in knowing what is going on around them and the fact that those with money and power have the ability to do things like push out propaganda that suits their needs, donate/bribe politicians, and buy media outlets to control access to what the masses are able to know; however all of this has been going on since around the beginning of the industrial age so I believe it is more of an underlining or ongoing problem that something "new".

Below are a few videos and links that talk about some of the issues I have been trying to address in either the post in this thread or perhaps posts on similar issues in other threads. In reality such information is merely scratching the surface of the problem but I believe if either you (and/or anyone else reading this post) watch the videos and read the articles in the links than you will have a better understanding of what I'm talking about.






It’s the Inequality, Stupid - Eleven charts that explain what’s wrong with America.
https://www.motherjones.com/politics/2011/02/income-inequality-in-america-chart-graph/

America’s Wealth Gap Is Much More Obscene Than You Had Imagined - And it’s a problem for everyone.
https://www.motherjones.com/politics/2021/04/americas-wealth-gap-is-much-more-obscene-than-you-had-imagined/

Rich people more unethical, likely to cheat and steal, study finds
https://theworld.org/stories/2012-02-28/rich-people-more-unethical-likely-cheat-and-steal-study-finds

CNN - Are rich people more unethical?
https://www.cnn.com/2012/02/27/health/rich-more-unethical/index.html

So my whole argument here is a sort of devil's advocate. I started another thread perhaps truer to my own philosophy.. that the fact that we don't understand the technology we use is a sort of alienation on various fronts that allows for exploitation of the keepers of the knowledge.. I am sort of mocking the system whereby people must crawl to another fiefdom of technology-hoarders to dispense little pockets of productive activities for the workers, so that they can consume and make other technology-hoarders (uh, producers), money and so on.. — schopenhauer1

I hear you, I kind of thought you might be trying to make the argument you made even though you really didn't think that way. However in this post cold war world we live it where it is believed that capitalism is the only economic system that can work and where a lot of people think Ayn Rand was a great philosopher/thinker, it is hard to know for sure if you where really being serious with what you said or if you were just playing devil's advocate as you said.

On the old philosophy forum there use to be a member there that was really pro-capitalism there ( I believe his moniker was "Fried Egg" or something like that) and he use to make arguments not that different then the one you tried to make in the opening post, however he was really serious about what he was saying. I think that perhaps the difference between what he argued and what you I believe is that he tried to argue from some kind of scientific/economic theory model and basically didn't think about and/or care about the social issues brought by because of the differences between the have's and those who are disenfranchised because they are unable to be part of that group. I haven't seen him in this forum and I guess I'm only mentioning him to point out that that I have at least seen people try to make somewhat similar pro-capitalism arguments even if they kind of cherry-pick the aspects of the argument they wish to address, so don't blame me too much for thinking that what you said in your OP might be what you believe.

In many ways it is worse that what I argued and you said, the system has always been a bit lopsided toward the rich but it is getting more so each year. Corporations no longer pay the lion share of the taxes through profits (instead it comes from wages), and it seems like the power people have through voting and/or other means hardly makes a difference anymore. i don't have the time right now, but in the next day or so I will research and look through some of my old stuff to find various links and YouTube videos might shed a little more light on this issue then I can by myself.

This thread started from a tangent on an earlier one between me and StreetlightX. That part of the thread is here: https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/10310/solutions-for-overpopulation/latest/comment

So this thread is continuing that discussion.. The last couple of posts went something like this:

CEOs/business owners provide incomes, healthcare, and even vacations for their employees. They can move to a new CEO/business owner's domain (business) if they want. What is wrong with this arrangement? Things to consider:

1) The business owner (if a smaller business) gambled his own time, resources, and money (or debt) to generate the capital to start his/her business.

2) The workers are getting market-value salaries that sustain their survival and entertainment, rents/mortgages, food, clothes, HVAC, water, healthcare, car payments, disposable income for goods/services of all kinds.

3) The basis for technology is businesses interacting with other businesses to gather the goods/services to create products that sell and sustain their workers.

What is wrong with this arrangement? To see this in more detail, please read these posts:

schopenhauer1: The CEO of a small tech company gets paid $2 million. The head developer gets paid $300,000. A mid-level developer and R&D personnel $150,000. The tech support gets paid $60-75,000. The sales people range from $70-$200,000. The people in the manufacturing get a range from $45-$85,000 depending on their position. Customer service and related personnel get $50,000. They all get increases every year 5% for inflation. Everyone likes their little hierarchy. In larger companies, the numbers may be more and more room for ladder-climbing. Third world nations that are chiefly exporting and living subsistence want this little hierarchy too. You are trying to take that away with themes of "no property". Rather, the CEO gambled, and put in that effort 30 years ago and deserves the reward of profit-maker and figure head. The developers and mid level people are getting paid enough to live comfortably and do those things mentioned earlier (BBQs, TVs, etc.).. The third world see this and want it exported to their country. So these people would ask you what is your problem? Is it the big guys? The international corporations? The ones that pay the "real bucks" and you can climb much further up the hierarchy? Why would they hate "that"? Hey, you might even get healthcare too! (Bestowed from government or business/fiefdom).

The workers think, "Why should we own the capital.. The owner put that initial gamble and work into the company. It is his profits. He is gracious enough to pay me enough to live. I get to go on vacation soon!".

The only response you will give is some cliched notion of starving Africans who are not a part of this system right? But that is itself a different problem than taking away property. You are confusing development issues and issues surrounding fundamentals of property... But I'll be charitable and assume you are NOT going down that cliched road of third world vs. first world in this justification for no property (in the first world). So if that's the case, what is the need for taking away the capital from those who gambled to create the growth of business (and bestowment of jobs) created from that initial capital? So we will go back to global, mega corporations right? Because they are employing low wage workers in third world companies? So we go back to that... So really it is back to large corporations.. and so you fall into simply "liberal" who wants get rid of multnational corporations that exploit third world countries. That is right in line with "liberal" versions of standard capitalism. Get in line.

What would you say to the people in that small business scenario who are content (enough) with their pay, vacations, and healthcare? To them, the hierarchy sustains. The capitalist class CEO has provided for them. — schopenhauer1

If I was to play the devils advocate, I could argue that a dictator or a leader of a criminal syndicate (or anyone like them) has just as much right to their ill gotten gains as the CEO you are talking about. Just like a CEO the leader of a dictatorship or criminal enterprise has to make sure those underneath them are take care of as well deal with anything or anyone who threatens; and sometimes with violence if necessary which is something that CEOs themselves almost never have to deal with.

Because there are so many parallels between those who run countries, criminal organizations, and those who run corporations, in my humble opinion one could declare there really isn't that much difference at all. In fact, one could argue that the difference the philosophy of corporate capitalism (which is really crony capitalism/plutocracy not real capitalism) and something like pure unfiltered Machiavellianism, is that "capitalism" is merely a form of Machiavellianism where the rich and powerful are supposed to wear kid gloves when resolving issues and not have to resort to violence in order determine who gets to be at the top of the heap.

And if some or most of the workers realizes that the wealthy and powerful are really just using Machiavellian tactics in order to make THEM seem all that important (awhile degrading the value of their workers and the work they produce) then it is up to those workers to work together, organize, and take measure in order for the owners of the companies they work for don't exploit them.

It isn't a matter about the owners being the "good guys" and unionized workers being the "bad guys" or vice versa, it is merely a fact that for companies the bottom line is that they need to do everything they can to make a profit so they can grow, pay dividends to their shareholders, and have some surplus cash to either pay off loans or save for a rainy day; and the easiest way to do this is pay their workers as little as possible while yet trying to squeeze as much blood, sweat, and tears out of them as they possibly can while they are at work. And of course, it is often in the best interest of any worker for the to be measures in place (such as minimum wage, OSHA, the Department of Labor) to make sure if any organization is not in compliance with doing enough for their workers, there will be actions taken against said company.

And I believe it also should be said that in the developed world today, more effort and resources are being expended but corporations, the rich, and the powerful to undermine workers and their rights then to be used to make sure people that work for any company are being treated well and get the compensation they deserve for doing the work they do.

In a way it is kind of silly to talk about the "intrinsic values" that the CEO, those that finance the company, and it's workers give or provide to a company while either creating a product or service for their customers. These values are as real as the values that either a dictator provides for his people or a Mafia boss provides for his henchmen and 'clients'. When a farmer or butcher kills a cow they are not the ones that produced the meat from the cow, it was the cow that created the meat that one gets from it's body. However it is a given that an animal can not be compensated (or that one who killed it would want to do that) for the meat that one gets from it's body after it is killed, nor would it likely want to. While one could argue that the cow and other animals are "compensated" by the fact that we take care of them before they are butchered for meat or other products we produce from them, one would find that such conditions if used on humans would be considered something like slave labor or perhaps even worse.

The same could be said about many other things to exploit either animals, plants, or the environment around us in order to take something from someone (if you can think of an animal as someone) or something in the environment (which is kind of not that different from either stealing from or exploiting someone) and claim that such actions magically "produce" something out of nothing other than the human actions that it to to procure such resource is really a foolish notion. However this cartoon that is taught by those that favor our current form of capitalism and corporate American is believed by almost most Americans.

The people that created the system that is used to exploit the world around us (much like your average consumer might obtains a twinkie, open and eats it, and carelessly discards it's wrapper) merely want the people that live and work in said system to either not know or care to know about what is really going on. The reason for this is if they understand that they have a clear understanding of how the world around them is exploited merely in order to maximize a companies profit potential, they might stop for a moment and wonder "Gee if they are willing to ruthlessly exploit the world around me in order to just make a few bucks are they above using whatever measures available to them as a worker or a consumer to use me as well?" and the answer is more or less "no", those who run corporations as well as those in power are not above exploiting workers, customers, and other people as well in order for them to get what they want.

Again this is not about those that run corporations or those in power being more necessarily "evil" or "good" than the rest of us, it is just about that such people already have the resources and means to make sure their interests are being considered and protected while it is more or less a given that the rest of us don't have such a luxury since we don't have access to said resources and/or connections. In the end, the version capitalism we are taught about in school doesn't really exist, instead that is merely a façade to cover up the political machinery that has been used since the days of colonialism (and even before then) where those with wealth and power use those beneath them for their own ends, much in a way that a famer might use his cattle for his personal gain. The concepts of "human rights", "justice", "etc" only exist for those wealthy enough in the system to afford such luxuries and don't necessarily apply (or at least apply the same way) to those of us who can't afford the resources required to protect and provide for us the same way as those who live in a caste higher than us.

In a way, the system set up in the post-colonial western world is not that much different then the caste system that use to exist in in India, where you have things like priests and kings at the top and peasants, labors, as well as the "untouchables" at the very bottom. Again i could be wrong, but I see a parallel between the caste/class system that exist in the west and the caste system created and used in India. While someone like a spin doctor from a western country might be able to create an almost convincing argument where it sounds like CEOs and corporate owners are being "used" and "under appreciated " by liberal politicians, their cohorts, as well as those who have been brainwashed by the evil powers "socialism" propaganda, as a philosopher/someone who has been taught about critical thinking stop and ask yourself is the social system in the US (and some other countries) not that different then the caste system from India, and if you believe it is ask yourself who is more likely to be exploited in such a system. Do you think it is more likely that the kings and priests who are being used/ under appreciated/ exploited or do you think it is more likely peasants, labors, and/or "untouchables" who are being treated in such a way. Again I could be wrong about such parallels existing between the India and Western caste/class systems, but if you do agree that they do exist I think you can see the fallacies that arise when those on the top of a caste system try to argue that they are the one's being "exploited".

If you're omniscient, then you must also know that you are. Kind of comes with the territory.
By contraposition, if you don't know that you're omniscient, then you're not. Makes sense.

I, for one, can safely say that I don't know if I'm omniscient or not, as a matter of certainty I mean.
So, I guess I'm not, I can't be, as per above.
But then I actually know that I'm not, with certainty, since I just found that out deductively.
I know there are things unknown to me.
Which is contrary to me safely not knowing in the first place.

Contradiction, it seems? What went wrong?

As an aside, of course I'm not omniscient, that would be a rather bold assertion.
Also, there are a few ways in which omniscience leads to an infinite regress. — jorndoe

In my humble opinion, in order to be omniscient one not only must know about everything but even more importantly they most also know about all events that have taken place and the consequences of every action take either by humans or nature. In other words they are kind of a "super computer" that can perfectly predict any data science question or problem that is thrown their way. Also it is pretty much a given that they can read every person's thoughts since they are completely aware of the circumstances that led them to be they are at any given moment and can predict every action whether it be a physical one or merely a mental one.

Of course it would be a non-trivial problem to both build or even to correctly hypothesize how to create such a machine (or how a sentient being could process such information). All that we can do is create some semblance of a system that can handle it by either a machine or be calculate through some analytical means by a person. How a real computer system could cope with real omniscient like problems or how a sentient being could deal with such issues (other than through committees or groups of scientist, politicians, etc. which we do in real life) is a bit beyond the scope of either today's science or technology is capable of. In fact we are hardly aware of what it would be like to be omniscient of any given circumstances. The only two academic fields that deal with problems relating to such issues are critical thinking (which philosophy is merely an discipline of) and perhaps critical thinking. There is also data science but that is a field that deals with how to make machines solve such issues.

I believe the only hint at what it might feel like to be omniscient is that it would be like being a character in a movie yet they would already know what was going to happen in the coming hours or days in the movie so they could change their actions based on what they already know what was going to happen. Perhaps if taken a step even further, such a character would know not only every action that was most likely going to happen (ie how the events would normally play out), but also what would happen if other actions were taken instead, such as with Bill Murray in the movie ground hog day. Of course real omniscience would take knowledge of what would happen in close to an infinite number of possible situations and would also require knowledge of again close to an infinite number of subjects as well as all the details contained in such subjects, but the ability to have the power to nearly perfectly predict what would happen in any given circumstances is as close as to what we can understand what it would be like to be omniscient.

So with the Youtube-video I would be extremely cautious or sceptical. It argues that the Chinese trying to make "racial targetting" bioweapons. This guy is a China-commentator and even if he has made some nice videos about ordinary life in China, but here he is talking about things where he obviously is a layman. But if you find other credible sources saying similar, I can change my mind. The conspiracy theory of COVID being a bioweapon put out there by China is so bizarre that likely it's used to discredit any talk of the lab leak hypothesis, which is a genuine possibility.

I remember there were earlier allegations made that South Africa was developing such "race-targetting" bioweapons. Well, the Apartheid-era South African "Project Coast" is now over and quite much literature is there about it and what little I have glossed over doesn't tell of anything as crazy as this. Blacks were targeted or planned to be targeted, but with bioweapons that would harm whites too. — ssu

To be honest, I can't find any reliable source that says they know about any bio-weapons or programs working on such that are designed to target any specific race. That shouldn't be too much of a surprise since such weapons and programs would be classified as the highest of state secrets and since China is almost a police state in and of itself it would be hard for anyone outside of the US or some other countries spy agency to be able to access such information. so public knowledge of such is not likely.

However, it should be noted that one doesn't really need to even develop such a weapon to have such much of the desired effect since if a country that develops a virus has either a vaccine and/or other measures in place that can lessen the effect before a virus was released, they could minimize the harm in their own country. In many ways that is what has happened with Cov-ID, while the rest of the world has been trying to deal the virus China has been trying to take advantage of the situation to undermine the US and her allies in order to strengthen their own position as a world super power.





While it is hard to prove that China deliberately created the Cov-ID to create the havoc that it has, it isn't so hard to prove that they are trying to take advantage of situation caused by the mess that they made. While it may seem like only crackpots would believe that China would create and use viruses or other bioweapons to their own advantage, I think the current situation proves that they are not really above doing it if they are really motivated to do so. Take that with the fact that on many occasions the people in power in China have publicly said that they are ready to do anything in the near future in order to secure their place as the world's most powerful superpower and I'd say that it is a problem waiting to happen as long as China (and possibly like minded groups with vast resources as well) isn't content until the rest of the world has to kowtow to their whims.

Yes, things are bad but in truth they have always been bad through out human history. When we are children we are kind of told a lie that things are so bad, human beings are more of less in control of our on destiny, and that things are only going to get better due to science and technology.

My guess is the angst you might be feeling right now is just a sudden awareness of the nihilistic of human existence you were not previously aware of. As a person who themselves suffers from things like general trauma disorder (something similar to PTSD), ADHD, social anxiety disorder, etc. I have learned ways of tuning out information that might depress me, using gallows humor to cope with problems, as well as try to look on the positive side of things.

I'm not sure if you are wishing for either a means to handle the mental problems of the situation or a means to fix it, but if you are wishing for the former I suggest learning mental tricks in order to not look to hard at the negative aspect of things and with the latter realize that it is a non-trivial problem that there is hardly anything you can do other than perhaps make something of yourself and/or perhaps learn ways to influence others. By ourselves we are merely special snowflakes by ourselves but together mankind is a force of nature that is sometime a force not to be reckon with by even by aspects of nature itself.

While the human race isn't really more or as powerful as nature itself, I believe we are unlikely to be snuffed out at any time in the near future. While human existence is more or less bleak and almost futile it isn't really nay more than it has in the past. It is just for some people it seems more bleak today then it has been a few years ago, however the change in the human condition is relatively a minor one when you look at what mankind has had to go through in order to continue to exist for up to the present.

I don't know if it is true or not but I have been watching some video's and reading some articles about China considering using bio-weapons (ak. the "B" part of NBC weapons that i talked about in an earlier post). Some people even believe that the whole Cov-Id outbreak was because of "accident" at on of Chinese labs where they where experimenting on the SAR virus. I know that any talk about China trying to weaponize viruses and other biological measures is hearsay without more evidence, but it should be noted that it isn't that far from fantasy since it should be noted that Japan during WWII was more or less trying to do the same thing but at the time medical technology was too primitive to allow them to target specific ethnic groups.

The "had to" is debatable. We have to in order to prop up a manufacturing sector with inefficient contracts because our consumer goods corporations went overseas to increase their profits. We have 11 aircraft carriers and twice the deck space of the world combined. I think the Chinese government is more concerned with their government not being undermined by appearing weak. Trying to get 1.4 billion people operating under a system that is not tailored to competitive interests is a contest against human nature. — Cheshire

I think I more or less agree with your statement. When one is a superpower it is almost always a hard time to keep one's manufacturing sector, infrastructure, social programs, etc. as good as other developed countries who DON'T have to spend as much as you do on your military. A good example of this is pre-WWII Britain who was constantly having to deal with the issue of having the strongest navy and yet overtax or underspend on other sectors while doing so. I think the problem kind of boils down to is in the short term it is easier to spend on the military then the private sector or at least until everything starts falling apart like it did in Russia at the end of the Cold War.

I'm sorry to everyone that has posted and I haven't gotten to reply to yet. I have been dealing with a UTI infection and because of it haven't been feeling all that well. I will try to look at and read the posts submitted and reply in a timely manner.

Perhaps you have "seen nothing... to explain," but I did give an explanation. I guess you missed it. — T Clark

Can you be so kind as to give me a link/point out which post you are referring to? I have looked at all your posts in this thread and all I can see in your posts is more or less you merely stating your opinions without really anything to back them up. Maybe I missed something in one of those post or perhaps you are referring to a post in a different thread, however in either case in would be helpful if would show me where in your posts you put something that supports your position and isn't just a statement of what your beliefs or opinions are.

I think China has the potential to become the new American right-wing bogeyman that keeps us dumping 700 billion tax dollars into a peacetime war machine while children starve, bridges collapse, and public education devolves into for profit bible schools. — Cheshire

Yeah, this problem goes all the way back to the Cold War where the US government always had the issue of whether it was better to invest in either butter or bullets. Since we have almost always had to spend more money on our military than pretty much all other countries combined it is pretty much a given which of the two gets the most attention. I have a feeling that this isn't going to change at any time in the near future.

Guns versus butter model
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Guns_versus_butter_model
https://www.investopedia.com/terms/g/gunsandbutter.asp

I think China is already trying to do that and it will only stop if the international community takes concerted action to stop it.

The European Union has just announced a €300bn fund to counteract growing Chinese influence:

EU launches €300bn fund to challenge China’s influence – BBC News

The head of British intelligence has said that China is now the biggest external threat on account of its aggressive foreign policy including espionage and subversive economic activities:

China now our biggest priority, says head of MI6 – The Times

China is trapping poor nations with data snares and debt, says MI6 chief – The Times

And anti-China resistance is growing in Africa, India, and elsewhere:

China calls on citizens to leave eastern Congo after attacks – AP

So, there seems to be growing awareness of the danger posed by China's foreign policy and a certain degree of willingness to put up resistance.

The only problem is that if the West keeps putting pressure on Russia by constantly expanding NATO and interfering in Ukraine and elsewhere, Russia will see itself forced to side with China against the West.

A more logical approach would be for the West to form a united front with Russia, India, Japan, and Africa to stop China's growing economic expansionism and militarism. — Apollodorus

Excellent post! :D

I more or less agree with everything you said and applaud the fact you also pointed out some of the issues I haven't gotten around to point out myself. You are clearly someone who has done some due diligence on the subject and is knowledgeable about the current set of circumstances involving China.

To be honest, I have no idea why the West has chosen to continued to have such frosty relations with Russia other than some of the people in our country still think of them the same way we did during the cold war as well as some of the aggressive behavior of Russia since the cold war ended. Perhaps it is just a case of old habits dying hard and politicians on both sides still like to wave their fists at each other in order for them to gain support from their constituents. While China and Russia are currently on friendly terms, I don't think they are friendly enough to aid one another in a war with the US if it is happens that either China or Russia is the one that decides to start one with us. However whether this is true or not remains to be seen.

I believe for a variety of reasons, I believe the US and her allies are making efforts in order so that Russia and China may not be as friendly or get more friendlier with each other. Perhaps this may involve trying to create friendly ties between Russia and the US (and perhaps her allies) but I'm not really aware of what the real goals are since I haven't read up on them.

So...

1. The People's Republic of China wants to get the Republic of China back, and will use bullying and coercion to do it.
2. It wants some islands in its vicinity, for trade and control and regional dominance and all that.
3. The Chinese are exploiting Africans in the context of global capitalism.
4. They're doing espionage.

None of this backs up your statement. I don't approve of what they're doing and how they do it, but their foreign adventures are nothing in comparison with those of some other countries. In any case, none of it shows that they intend to actually invade and "swallow up" the rest of the world, as you claimed. That is just your frenzied fantasy. Taiwan is obviously a special case. — jamalrob

I could be wrong but your views are not all that different than some of those in Britain who wanted to avoid another war with Germany before World War II and who wanted to try a diplomatic tactic of "appeasement" with Hitler and Nazi Germany. I don't know if you realize it but the failure of not doing enough early on in the war pretty much had a catastrophic cost to England and in the end England was no longer the global super power is was before the war.

While it is unlikely the US and her allies in the region will make the same mistake England made with Hitler, it is almost all but a given that China is more than willing to do whatever it takes (other than perhaps having a full confrontation with the US and her allies) to seize control in the region. While China doesn't seem that threatening at the moment to you because of the US presence, a question you might what to ask yourself would you be happy and comfortable living in either Taiwan, Japan, or Australia right if there wasn't any US presence and the country you were in (as well as the people in it) had to deal with China's efforts to expand their domain and their willingness to use a military option if the country you were in wasn't willing to kowtow to ever whim or desire the China had for it. I could be wrong but I think you would be in an entirely different mindset if you were in that position and not the one you are currently in.

Many people disagree with many of my disagreements. No surprise. You and I see things differently. I've seen the trouble fear will get us into. — T Clark

When I said I disagree with your disagreement I was kind of just trying to be cute. I could be wrong but certain amount of fear is warranted in the case of dealing with China since they are nearly doing everything in their power to under the US and her allies in the Asia- Pacific region as well as else where. This might sound like the typical far mongering spewed from the West whenever they need a reason to spend more on their military and/or flex their military muscle, but China posses a larger threat then the terrorist in the middle east could EVER pose to the world. When I was younger I never thought it was really necessary to invade and/or start wars in Iraq, Afghanistan, etc just because they hold either oil or other strategic interest to the US but I don't think it is an option for the US and her allies to just sit on their hands after the actions they have taken in the recent years..

Love this movie. I think Rowdy Roddy Piper got an Oscar nomination. Didn't he? On the other hand, I don't plan to develop my foreign policy opinions based on it. — T Clark

You misread my post, it has really nothing to do with the movie and more about the problem of the misuse of power and the fact that those who often have almost all the power think that "might makes right" and that they are not accountable to the crimes they commit because they have to much power for anyone to hold them accountable. I could be wrong but I think you know the difference between living in a democracy from living in an authoritarian or military dictatorship. While the US and some of her allies don't really have a true democracy anymore (that is if there ever was one), they are still better then living under a military dictatorship that Hong Kong is under and what other countries will be like if China ever can get their hands on them,

As I noted, I don't think it makes any difference what you and I think is best. I think the days of superpowers are over, whether we like it or not — T Clark

Well I agree with you that we are merely plebs to the larger powers that be so are opinions are not really as relevant as those who could do something about it, unless either we can influence someone who can do something or enough of us plebs have a better understanding of the situation.

I have done my best to try to explain my position on why countries who have super power status (as well as the allies that support them) still make a difference in the world. However I have seen nothing in your posts to explain why you believe that the "days of superpowers are over" other than that is your opinion. As 180 Proof (another forum member) has often pointed out on this and other forums "positions not backed by any proof can be easily dismissed without any proof", and since you seem to be either unable or unwilling to explain why you believe what you are saying I have to assume it is merely a position that isn't backed by anything other than your mere opinion.

:chin:

Otherwise, your reply does not make anything close to a case for the claim that the Chinese intend to "swallow up one country after another", as you put it. — jamalrob

I guess you forgot about the fact that China is threating military action against Taiwan if Taiwan doesn't surrender to China in the near future. Also they are doing everything and anything they can to take over islands in Pacific through either political pressure or money, as well as threating India and other neighboring countries. Also China is trying to gain power in Africa, as well as trying to use computer espionage in any country they can in order to gain some leverage over whatever/whomever they can.

Here are some videos to give you an idea of what is really going on:

























Hopefully after you watch all these videos you will have a better idea of what China is trying to do.

Strongly disagree. I think the world without a superpower is where we're headed, and that's a good thing. — T Clark

I disagree with your disagreement. We still live in a world where might almost makes right and that has not changed since either the end of World War II and/or the Cold War. I don't know what makes you believe that either military and/or economic power is irrelevant anymore and the ability of any given country can think and claim they are a superpower because of it, but it seems obvious that the relevance of discussions as to whom is and isn't one should make it clear the importance of such economic/military capacity.

There is a quote from the movie "They Live" that goes something along the lines of "He who has the gold makes the rules" which roughly translates into "He who has power makes the rules which others have to live by". The latter more or less applies to the differences between those that are a superpower and those who are not.

I don't know if it is just wishful thinking on your part or if you have some valid reason why being a superpower isn't important but from where I'm sitting, I can't see a world where there either isn't superpower countries throwing their weight around or countries trying to build up the armies in order for them to have some kind of quasi-superpower status. I'm sure one could argue that it would be "nicer' if the nature of man was different and all of mankind could work together as one, but that is NOT the kind of world we currently live in. Perhaps if our world was threaten by some kind of alien race that wished to take over our world, maybe our differences would become moot and the entire human race would no longer squabble over who has what since our very existence could be on the line. However it isn't a given that such a situation would be that much better than the one we are already in.

This is the lie we told ourselves when we got into Vietnam. As I said, I think the days of superpowers are over. We'll see. Well, not me, I'll be dead by then. — T Clark

Well the real lie in many of our wars that it was really about certain rich men becoming richer at the expense of those that fought and suffer during such wars, however this can be said of almost all wars that are fought.

While the idea of having one (or more) super powers trying to act like a world cop doesn't sound all that great with all the problems that can be cause by this, neither is the idea of dozens and dozens of smaller countries always bickering and often fighting in order to either change or maintain the existing status quo. It isn't a given the former is always better than the latter, but I think as a rule of thumb it is more often harder when dealing with the latter since one's existence is often threaten by hostile neighbors who are almost always thinking of ways of coming over, taking over, and/or stealing your lunch in one form or another.

I guess such is the nature of man and conflicts since the beginning of time.

The more stable situation would be to have the influence of both. — frank

When I was young and before the Cold War ended, I use to think that in some way the USSR kept the US in check and the US kept the USSR in check. And with two separate superpowers with different ideology neither the forces of capitalism nor communism could become truly the dominant ideology in the world. Of course this changed when the Cold War ended.

Today it seems like capitalism has de-evolved into something more like plutocracy or neo-feudalism than democratic capitalism it use to be (that is if it even was ever that). But if you look at China instead of it being communist it itself has de-evolved into authoritarianism. Because of this, it is no longer really a conflict of ideology like the last Cold War but more merely about how the richest and most people in the world will decide how to carve up the world among themselves and how they will treat and rule the pleebs beneath them.

Because of this, there is no real benefit from China trying to wrestle control with the West.

I haven't seen anyone else seriously claim that the Chinese authorities have any such plan, or that it's a remotely probable scenario. Where do you get the idea from? — jamalrob

Do you have doubts that China if given the opportunity wouldn't use any military advantage it has to become the most influential super power in the Asia-Pacific and after becoming the most powerful country in that area then wouldn't work toward becoming the most powerful country in the world?

One could say that once upon a time China was mostly just interested in maintaining it's borders and merely defending itself from potential outside threats, but that is no longer the case. China now is trying to build up a military that potentially could one day rival that in the US and/or could potentially take on both the US and her allies at once. It may seem inconceivable that any country that wants to build up a military as big as the US would naturally want to challenge them, but it kind of works that way because if you have a big military it is almost a given you want to do something with it. And it is pretty much a given that China has some scores to settle after the last few hundred years where they where more victims of various wars then the other way around.

Also after you somehow manage to get extra territory through either political or military means it often emboldens one's leaders as to figure out what other territory may need to be taken in order to further their own national interest. While China may not be particularly interested in any other land than Taiwan at the moment, they are interested in taking over any territory which may help undermine the US and her allies while at the same time strengthening their own economy.

In a nutshell, all they want to do is find a way further political/military/economical agenda while at the same time undermine US/Western influence in the region at the same time. However in doing so they have set themselves on a collision course with Western countries and their allies, and on top of that they have mad verbal threats and military action against allies in the region. One may like to think of it as some kind of "peaceful" rabble rousing that China's is doing in order to get more "respect" from other, but if you lived in a country where someone from China told you that you need to kowtow before China unless you want to be blown to tiny bits by Chinese bombs, you may not think of China as the nice friendly China that you may envision them to be.

Also it is pretty much a given that if one wants to be the largest superpower in the world, it is unlikely one can do so by other countries merely peacefully accepting your desire to take them over and everyone just happily singing "Kumbaya" when you are done. A while back China had better political relations with neighboring countries such as Austria when all China seemed to want was beneficial trade relations with other countries, but when Austria realized that China was making great efforts to spy on them through cybercrimes that friendship got a lot colder. While it may not seem a big deal to be spying, and taking other actions with a friendly country in which you have good trade relationships with, it kind of makes one wonder what China is willing to do with countries that they don't even have good relationships with yet.

The bottom line is that China is expending an incredible effort to build up it's military and trying to command respect for other countries in order for people in said countries to recognize it's "authority" in certain matters since now it considers itself the world next greatness superpower. Whether or not it will be able to command such respect in the coming years, it is almost already a given that it thinks other countries should not interfere in any of it's plans..or else. While it hasn't exactly lived up to all of the threats they have made, it is hard not to believe that they would go through with them if they could. And the biggest obstacle in for them being able to just follow through with all of their current plans is many the US and her allies. I don't know about you but if I considered myself the world's biggest superpower and I needed to show other countries they need to kowtow before me, I would use the resources at my disposal to make an example of any country that is trying to undermine my counties authority. Of course that is IF my country was indeed the world greatest superpower and I wasn't just making hollow threats that I could back up with action.