why did the sino-soviet split have to happen? (lemmygrad.ml)

submitted 1 month ago by borschtisgarbo@lemmygrad.ml to c/chapotraphouse@hexbear.net

55 comments fedilink hide all child comments

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments

[-] AssortedBiscuits@hexbear.net 2 points 1 month ago

All of these anti-Russia states are also anti-PRC and vice versa. They are bound by the same economic interests and collaborate in warfare, both economic and conventional.

This wasn't really true for the EU until recently. The EU wasn't that anti-China and is still digging their feet to join the anti-China crusade. Just look how divided they are when discussing the car tariffs.. Traditionally, they make a lot of noise about being anti-China and pro-human rights while doing fuckall from the perspective of actually anti-China countries like Japan and the ROK. Of course, when push comes to shove, they'll do as they're told in the end.

Which is what has been happening lately, and which the PRC apparently failed to recognize last century. All of the relevant states are just free facto subjects of the US.

They simply made the correct assessment that the US cared more about the Soviet Union than China because Soviet Union was far more economically developed with a much scarier military on top of having status as the world's first worker state. Meanwhile, China then was poor as fuck with a GDR per capita lower than most African countries.

Don't have the time to engage with the rest of your content right this moment. Will Jane to do this later.

I think we just disagree too much to have a productive conversation at this point. I don't think it will be a fruitful use of your time to engage with my points since I would most likely disagree with it anyways.

[-] Tomorrow_Farewell@hexbear.net 1 points 1 month ago

I have updated the previous comments.

This wasn't really true for the EU until recently. The EU wasn't that anti-China and is still digging their feet to join the anti-China crusade

By the same logic, it's also not true that NATO is an anti-Russia alliance, given that, until relatively recently they were fine with Russia. In particular, they even controlled Russia in the 90s, and were fine exploiting Russia as their neo-colony with as little disturbance as possible until 2022.

Just look how divided they are when discussing the car tariffs

Do you call this 'divided'? 10 in favour, 5 against, with the only prominent member of NATO voting against being Germany.

Traditionally, they make a lot of noise about being anti-China and pro-human rights while doing fuckall from the perspective of actually anti-China countries like Japan and the ROK

Except for attempting to dismantle the PRC's access to a market that is important to the PRC and preventing the PRC from destroying NATO's manufacturers while Japan and the RoK keep doing what, exactly?

Of course, when push comes to shove, they'll do as they're told in the end

Meaning that they are in an anti-PRC alliance, contrary to your prior claims.

They simply made the correct assessment that the US cared more about the Soviet Union than China

And the evidence for the correctness of that assessment is what, exactly?
Also, how does it follow from that assessment that the PRC should have sabotaged both the USSR and other countries anti-colonial struggles?

Meanwhile, China then was poor as fuck with a GDR per capita lower than most African countries

Yes, that's kind of an expected consequence of decades of warfare, genocide, and victimisation by colonialism.
Notably, the PRC sabotaged other countries struggle against colonialism and genocide. Not sure how that was supposed to help the PRC with the problem you just outlined.