China and India working their differences out would be a tectonic shift in geopolitics.
Indeed. I saw that India is trying to position itself based on the possibility of stricter sanctions against China by becoming a trading partner that can sell Chinese goods on the market, thereby enriching itself. And to that I say, Deng couldn't have predicted just how awesome his strategy really was.
Haha, I was just watching this vid making a similar point with Hungary and Turkey where China can set up shop, and then export goods bypassing the sanctions regime. We also see this happening with resale of Russian oil to the west on a massive scale.
https://youtu.be/eQcTkt6WEOw
Ooh, the Russian oil resale angle is a new perspective on this. Once you figure out to do this for one commodity, it makes you can extend it to other commodities more readily. So in this interpretation, the Ukraine conflict and subsequent sanctions created the conditions for traditionally "non-aligned" economies to develop profit motive around obviating sanctions, creating the market forces required to subvert sanctions regimes almost overnight. Very interesting idea.
Absolutely, all the financial frameworks are now in place, political contacts, etc. Now all the countries that act as intermediaries between Russia and the west, can start offering the same kinds of services to China. I expect this will be a huge niche going forward given that even if the west does get serious about reindustrializing, it's going to take many decade to do so.
The other aspect of this scheme is that it perpetuates western dependence on the global south. As long as cheap goods can keep making their way in, it's very difficult for local businesses to compete within these niches. Ironically, it's the very strategy that the west has been using to keep other countries from developing. Now, it's being turned back on the west.
It's interesting because you'd think, given the nature of abstractions, that the USA would have established a new layer of abstraction to get ahead of this phenomenon (especially given how potent their financial sector has been). But instead it seems like we're hitting the end of the abstraction process and there's nothing left to do but deal with material reality. Maybe crypto was an attempt to level up to the next abstraction but it failed? It's curious.
The simple answer is that production of physical goods has been moved to China and other countries due to the dynamics of financial capitalism. These are the actual necessities that people need to live. You can't abstract over this stuff because these are material things that need to be produced. And the abstractions we see resulting from all the sanctions and tariffs that US imposes are these proxies that exist to create compliance with the letter of the law. You get shell companies, intermediary countries, etc. Ultimately, the goods have to make their way from where they're produced to the hands of the consumers in the west.
Yeah, but that's not my question. The history is that we did abstract over this stuff for the last 50 years and postmodernism would indicate that it is in theory possible to continue to abstract ad infinitum because symbols. The curious thing is that the material reality is coming to bear now, which either means there is a deterministic end to the abstraction or there is a contingent end to the abstraction. If contingent, we should be able to point to another possible abstraction that was failed or to a failure to continue developing abstractions faster than material reality could come to bear. I think the financial sector continued creating abstractions at a pretty rapid clip, which seems to indicate that maybe there's a deterministic end to the abstraction here. But also crypto is a failed abstraction and that could potentially point to a path towards further abstraction but execution was insufficiently thorough to prevent material conditions from breaking through.
I guess I am saying it's not enough for me to understand the immediate causes and I'm looking for larger analysis which likely won't arrive for another couple of decades (but I like speculating)
The process of abstraction was merely an illusion. It works so long as the west possess the means to command the labor of other regions, which was accomplished by making their currencies the world reserve currencies (the dollar and euro together make up like 90% of international trade) and foreign direct investment.
The flaw of postmodern theory is that 1. All symbols exist in the real world and thus can never be separated from reality and real processes and 2. You can't eat symbols. Human life remains governed by material reality and not symbols.
That's an interesting proposal. I'm keen to read more along these lines. I'm a fan of Milikan's Beyond Concepts. Got any other recommended reading?
I found a YouTube link in your comment. Here are links to the same video on alternative frontends that protect your privacy:
Agreed, and the next (optimistic) step from there would be sorting out the mess in Pakistan and fixing India-Pakistan relations (if China/Russia could broker it with Iran and the Saudis, it's possible).
India, Russia, and China are as complimentary a trio as you can get (when you discard the colonial divide-and-conquer disputes the west loves to agitate). The three working together should be able to set India on the track to truly be a second China (an industrial, scientific, economic, etc giant) as its potential allows.
Indeed, the problems that India and Pakistan have aren't insurmountable, and as US loses influence over them there will be increasingly less reason to be hostile to each other. I completely agree that Russia and China are both acting as strong positive influences in that regard because they too want to see stability in the region.
Militancy is spiking in Indian occupied Kashmir and even overflowing to Jammu now. There are rumours that Pakistan has returned to it's original master for alms and they are making Pakistan ramp up militancy to destabilise CPEC/BRI projects in the region. That's the reason for the thaw, there's a new frontier opening up for both India and China. I highly doubt any similar thawing between Indian and Pakistan is possible in the near future. Or any future, for that matter, where the military establishment in Pakistan hasn't been decapitated.
Oh... well, shit. I knew of the circumstances with Imran Khan and the PTI (and Pakistan being an army with a country is nothing new), but I didn't know things were getting that bad. Hopefully it doesn't go full Ukraine...
Yeah, I'm pleasantly surprised. I wonder how the U.S would react to that though. Probably wouldn't be thrilled at losing a potential instrument against China, but the sanctions machine sure doesn't seem to work like it used to.
Amusingly, I suspect that US putting pressure on India over trade with Russia is precisely what drove in India to start realigning away from the west.
Same- capitalism is reverting back to its old (and "honest") roots. The west is basically cracking the whip and demanding the capitalists of the middlemen countries- like India, Mexico, Turkey, Hungary, etc... kill themselves and their capital, to lay themselves down as (what would also be largely ineffective) roadbumps in the way of the global south's (of which they are included) development...
The only thing the west has left, is violence. Same as always. They can install the worst sorts of cronies- blatant colonial governors like Milei, Marcos, and Zelensky- but even they are all on shaky ground; most of their people understand exactly what is going on, and at some point either the west is going to be wholly surpassed by the rest (sooner rather than later, though that'll still take a while- fingers crossed though, hopefully it'll be even sooner yet) or they're going to have to jump the gun and start WW3.
Yeah that is basically exactly what happened with Georgia, it's ruling party are libs but the West was pretty demanding that they straight up suicide bomb themselves into Russia, so they had to take anti-western measures.
Pretty much. It's pretty hilarious (if also terrifying, and sad)- western
diplomatshandlers are basically wandering across the world, looking for whoever's willing to sign themselves up to take the unenviable position as the "next Zelensky..." whoever's willing to take one for the team, with perhaps the possibility of getting a nice mansion in Miami or London at the end of it all... if they get out of their countries alive when it's all over (easier said than done, as the Ukrainization process also requires cultivating and arming all sorts of fascist maniacs like the Banderites as a support base for this sort of blatant self-destruction), and if the west decides they have enough use, rather than backstabbing them once they become an inconvenience...They really have nothing better to offer. You can see it with the client-states, but you can also see it with their own domestic policies- they have nothing to offer their citizenry either (or rather, they do, but the contradictions are such that it's essentially impossible without a significant change to the system). Only the most hopelessly compromised of countries, with the most deluded and cartoonishly corrupt of regimes in power will sign up for this, and even then - with the example of Ukraine in particular, they'd also have to have at least a bit of a death wish to boot.
They act like a needy, abusive spouse on the world stage. No wonder Japan is looking for the door. I think it's impossible now for a lot of decision makers globally to internally sell closer political/economic relations with the US. Why bet on a losing horse?
I bet Ukraine debacle has really shaken a lot of US vassals. All of a sudden everyone can see that the emperor has no clothes.
Is Wang Yi thorium-powered or something? Comrade doesn't seem to sleep
Love China but have never seen a remotely convincing argument for why they need to claim Arunachal
edit: this continues to be true
Because it's part of Tibet? Idk, why does India need to claim it? Why does India need to own Assam for that matter? Why can't Bangladesh have it? Or be its own state like Nepal or Bhutan? Historical claims are just like that, they're not objective and they often overlap. Who's to say who's right and who's wrong?
Because it's part of Tibet?
Nope, it's part of India. Look at a globe.
and yea, anyone can claim anything. But if you continue to claim the river that feeds 600 million people, expect not to be cooperated with
Well it depends whose globe i look at doesn't it? One side says one thing the other says another.
The point i was making is that most of the lines on the map that we call borders are really arbitrary and the arguments why they should be one way and not the other depend on your point of view. And the border between India and China is especially dubious in legitimacy because it was drawn by the British, and at a time when one of these two countries didn't even exist/was a colony and the other was too weak to defend its sovereign interests and territory.
And i don't understand the point you're making about rivers.
Well it depends whose globe i look at doesn't it?
Nope! It's like saying Colombia is part of North America
Again I can't believe I have to say this but yea crackers know literally fucking anything at all about the rest of the world challenge: impossible
I've heard of dividing borders on ethnicity but basing them on continental divides is a new one for me. Would you say all of Russia east of the Urals belongs to mongolia or something?
Yes. Look at a globe and then touch the relief textures. Arunachal is part of the Indian continental landmass, which is very very clearly defined by the Himalayas, Hindu Kush, and Arakan mountains
Simple!
"Touch the map, you will know intuitively know where the borders should be." and other sentiments that sound like they were dreamed up by hopping mad crackers about to reenact the scramble for Africa
So you support the cracker colonization of Africa? Countries are just constructs
Ok but we're talking about countries not geographical regions. You do know there's a difference between the country called India and the Indian subcontinent, right? There are more countries on the subcontinent than just India.
Countries and their borders are political constructs. You are of course free to think that a country should have its border on this or that geographical feature like a river or a mountain range, but reality is often more messy than that.
Geography is just one of many considerations that factor into where borders between two countries ultimately end up, there's all sorts of political factors like history, demography, economic and strategic importance, etc.
That's nice. If a country claims another country's land, then that country will not cooperate with it!
Which is exactly why China only claims it and doesn't hold it. They had occupied all of it way back in the 62 war and would've held on to it if it made sense. At this point, the claim is just a pressure tactic against an India that regularly takes potshots at China to impress US.
Yeah right they will take over the river of which the upper stream is already in tibet.
look at a globe, cracker
the river does not originate in Tibet, 90% of it originates in the mountains of Arunachal
- Showyea I'm sure all that white stuff is just ummmm cloud cover or something lul
Tibet is a significant front for China and anything they can do to maintain military security of the region against foreign meddling is strategically valid for them.
What gains ye from this knowledge, anyway? Will the dust praise ye?
