| ▲ | laughing_man 11 hours ago |
| China has started border skirmishes with India every twenty years or so since the founding of the PRC. And then there's Tibet. Just because they haven't initiated a mass invasion of Eastern Siberia you shouldn't get the idea China isn't pursuing an expansionist foreign policy. |
|
| ▲ | rfoo 11 hours ago | parent | next [-] |
| China maintain the view that Tibet is part of China since the establishment of PRC, and they make this very explicit. Same for their border disputes with India. China never admitted that they believe it's not theirs. Mea while China does not ever say that Japan or Korea is part of China (and it's the only reason why they keep North Korea from collapsing despite it being super annoying). So, again, any example of China suddenly started to claim lands? |
| |
| ▲ | krior 11 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | They also claim that the Taiwan-island is part of their territory. Since Its currently full of taiwanese people and China holds regular military exercises around that island an invasion does not seem far-fetched. | | |
| ▲ | boringg 7 hours ago | parent [-] | | It may not be far fetched but it would absolutely be a self inflicted wound to the PRC. Galvanizing global concern towards china. | | |
| |
| ▲ | dmurray 9 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | Don't most people maintain the view that Tibet is part of PRC China? They might think further autonomy or independence for it would be a good thing, like the Basque Country, but the control isn't really disputed right now. And nobody really seems to think it should be part of India. In contrast to Taiwan, where the governments in both Beijing and Taipei officially maintain that those places are part of the same country, and the international community sometimes pretends the same and only recognises one government, but de facto everyone trades with both countries and deals with both governments. | |
| ▲ | SUKEIRAA 7 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Senkaku_Islands | | |
| ▲ | rfoo an hour ago | parent | next [-] | | Okay it belongs to Taiwan, and they actually claim it, period. | |
| ▲ | RobotToaster 6 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | Islands that were stolen from China during the Imperial Japanese occupation? |
| |
| ▲ | actionfromafar 9 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | North Korea is a buffer zone. That's the reason. | |
| ▲ | thaumasiotes 8 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | > Same for their border disputes with India. China never admitted that they believe it's not theirs. Not an issue I follow, but I did read something that said China had proposed swapping claimed territory for zones of actual control, and India turned them down. | |
| ▲ | exe34 11 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | isn't that the same clever argument that Comrade Vladimir uses in Ukraine? | | |
| ▲ | laughing_man 8 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | It's literally the same argument that every king, dictator, or president used to justify invasions in Europe (and presumably most of the world) since the end of feudalism. Even the Austrian moustache man justified his invasion of Russia based on myths of Aryan people having held that land in the distant past. | | |
| ▲ | thaumasiotes 8 hours ago | parent [-] | | > Even the Austrian moustache man justified his invasion of Russia based on myths of Aryan people having held that land in the distant past. Interestingly enough, there's a recent theory putting the location of the proto-Germanic speakers in Finland. | | |
| ▲ | HeinzStuckeIt 6 hours ago | parent [-] | | > there's a recent theory putting the location of the proto-Germanic speakers in Finland. There is no credible theory to that effect. Either you have stumbled on something that is not taken seriously, or you are misunderstanding the consensus. Namely, Proto-Germanic speakers did visit the eastern Baltic coast for trading and raiding, and so there are Germanic loanwords into Finnic languages of Proto-Germanic date, but the agreed location where Proto-Germanic formed is in Scandinavia, not Finland. | | |
| ▲ | thaumasiotes 4 hours ago | parent [-] | | > Either you have stumbled on something that is not taken seriously, or you are misunderstanding the consensus. I'm not sure you have a good grasp on the meaning of the word "recent". A recent theory, by definition, must differ from the consensus. > There is no credible theory to that effect. https://www.biorxiv.org/content/10.1101/2024.03.13.584607v2 Granted, they don't say "Finland". They say "the northeast along the Baltic coastline". | | |
| ▲ | HeinzStuckeIt 4 hours ago | parent [-] | | Yes, I’m afraid that you are still misunderstanding the research. Your linked article speaks about gene flow associated with the movement of pre-Proto-Germanic speakers to Scandinavia, but later Proto-Germanic formed in southern Scandinavia according to the longstanding consensus. This is clearly spelled out in the abstract: “Following the disintegration of Proto-Germanic, we find by 1650 BP a southward push from Southern Scandinavia.” There’s no new theory here at all, just some nice archaeogenetic evidence to support a quite traditional view. FWIW, I work in a closely related field and am constantly reading Germanic–Finnic and Baltic–Finnic contact literature, and I can assure you this is old-hat stuff. |
|
|
|
| |
| ▲ | sebmellen 9 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | Bingo |
| |
| ▲ | testdelacc1 9 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | > Perhaps there are not many instances in history where one country has gone out of her way to be friendly and cooperative with the government and people of another country and to plead their cause in the councils of the world, and then that country returns evil for good Jawaharlal Nehru (India’s Prime Minister), on the day that China launched an unprovoked surprise war against India in 1962. It was a crushing victory for China, and they grabbed all their territory they wanted. More can always be said but here’s a 2 minute video that explains the war - https://youtu.be/zCePMVvl1ek You know how Mao said diplomacy flows from the barrel of a gun? That wasn’t a metaphor. That is PRC policy since 1949. |
|
|
| ▲ | iamacyborg 7 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| > And then there's Tibet. I suspect they only care about Tibet in as much as it’s crucial for freshwater supply across significant parts of Asia, which is precisely why there are border clashes with Indian forces. |
|
| ▲ | kamaal 9 hours ago | parent | prev [-] |
| Speaking as an Indian. Most of these are just diplomatic flexing of muscles which mostly reduce to literally nothing. There is not going to a be a war in the modern context. Secondly, only one war has happened between China and India, in which arguably we Indians kind of started it- Read here- https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Forward_policy_(Sino-Indian_co... """
The forward policy had Nehru identify a set of strategies designed with the ultimate goal of effectively forcing the Chinese from territory that the Indian government claimed. The doctrine was based on a theory that China would not likely launch an all-out war if India began to occupy territory that China considered to be its own. India's thinking was partly based on the fact that China had many external problems in early 1962, especially with one of the Taiwan Strait Crises. Also, Chinese leaders had insisted they did not wish a war.[18] """ |
| |
| ▲ | gsky 9 hours ago | parent [-] | | Nonsense. China occupied big chunch of Indian land. They will be a big war sooner or later. It's just how the world works | | |
| ▲ | kamaal 9 hours ago | parent [-] | | You want us(Indians) and Chinese to go to war. We stubbornly refuse to. Both countries, have now have growing economies with stable politics, and social direction. Things can only get better from here, and will. Whatever issues exist, we resolve by talking. Often, a few give and take moves are needed, which are mostly ok. Because way bigger good things await these both nations. And we want them. Either way there is no theatre. The Himalayas make a large wall and ensure no big border conflict can even happen. Even through missiles. The remainder is irrelevant, and both parties are more than happy to just keep talking until some agreement is in place, which even without isn't much of an issue with regards to economy, resources or anything. Much ado about nothing! | | |
| ▲ | eagleislandsong 8 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | As someone who has been living in Asia for decades (including in several of China's neighbouring countries), thank you for this even-handed take. It aligns very well with my own experience of how people living in these regions outside of the Western media bubble generally think about China. | | | |
| ▲ | RobotToaster 6 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | > You want us(Indians) and Chinese to go to war. We stubbornly refuse to. Americans love sending other people into meat grinders for bankers' profit. | |
| ▲ | rixed 7 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | Thank you for voicing a different tone than the seemingly prevalent obscene warmongering. I believe people of good will are generally less comfortable speaking out and are therefore underrepresented, including here on HN. |
|
|
|
