This is what happens when you ban DJI in favor of Skydio warez
Miscellaneous News
- Thread starter bd popeye
- Start date
It seems you don't recognize any situation besides total win, total loss and stalemate. Let me introduce you to the idea of a partial victory. Not an unconditional victory but one side comes out on top.
Taiwan situation:
1. The Taiwan situation exists because of the civil war. It makes sense to evaluate the entire civil war in that case.
2. The goal of RoC was elimination of the PRC. The goal of the PRC was elimination of the RoC. The way to eliminate another polity is to reduce their area of control to 0. I am not aware of an alternative method.
3. PRC reduced area of RoC control by 99% before the conflict was frozen. Therefore the PRC has a partial win, as the settlement is favorable, but not complete. It is not a stalemate.
4. A stalemate implies that the 2 parties came out equal. Chiang did not want to lose 99% of his territory. He was not better off now (defined as closer to completion of goals) than he was at the start of the conflict. Mao did want to gain 99% of China's territory. Mao is better off than he was at the start of the conflict. Therefore Mao won.
Iraq situation:
1. The Iraq situation exists because the US wanted more control over Iraqi oil and to install a US friendly government. The US already had bases throughout Saudi Arabia, Qatar and Jordan. Iran's primary goal was elimination of a hostile Iraqi government and the establishment of a pro Iranian, pro Shia government. That had been its goal since 1980 with the start of the Iran Iraq War. It's secondary goal was to prevent the US from achieving any conflicting goals.
2. Today the Shia government has become entrenched and China is one of the biggest buyers of Iraqi oil. The US is a negligible customer of Iraqi oil. US bases are redundant, but it is a minor win.
3. Since the US achieved some goals in Iraq, but Iran achieved all goals in Iraq except for prevention of US achieving all goals, this is a partial Iranian victory.
In fact I'll comment on Kosovo too. If it's a stalemate then Yugoslavia and NATO walked away equal. But they didn't, as Yugoslavia no longer exists but NATO does and now includes former Yugoslavian states. It doesn't matter that Serbia still exists as a rump state, NATO won most of its goals.
An analogy:
If there is only total win, total loss and stalemate in health, then either someone is a top athlete, exactly average or dead.
There is no such thing as an amateur athlete, or someone really sick but alive, they're all average since they're clearly neither a top athlete or dead.
The cancer patient and the college basketball player are equal. Not NBA means average or dead. They're not dead, thus they're average.
If there is only total win, total loss and stalemate in health, then either someone is a top athlete, exactly average or dead.
There is no such thing as an amateur athlete, or someone really sick but alive, they're all average since they're clearly neither a top athlete or dead.
The cancer patient and the college basketball player are equal. Not NBA means average or dead. They're not dead, thus they're average.
A stalemate is an inconclusive outcome in which both sides claim partial victory or nothing at all.
In the Chinese Civil War, the PRC's victory was nearly universally accepted.
But today the status of Taiwan and the cross-strait relations are a situation universally accepted as a stalemate. Where Taiwan is a de facto independent territory but not recognized by China.
But by your logic China really lost Taiwan if control of the territory is the most important aspect.
A victory of the independence movement and a defeat for the PRC China.
And by that logic, the Ukrainians are partially winning, achieving most of their objectives, maintaining 83% of their sovereign territory and armed by NATO.
And the Russians are partially losing by securing only 17% of the territory and failing in most of their objectives.
Or both may claim partial victory or partial defeat. This is essentially inconclusive.
I will ask you a sincere question: is China losing to India because Arunachal Pradesh is controlled by the Indian government?
Last edited:
No because Arunachal Pradesh is part of Tibet and China controls 90% of Tibet. The goal is 100% control of Tibet by both sides.
The current situation is 90% in favor of China. Another partial victory.
You really should read Art of War.
China figured out Art of War 2,300 years ago, it seems western culture still hasn't.
Taiwan was pursuing 100% total conquest of mainland China until 1976. It was forced to give up this goal because it was laughably unrealistic based on its weakness.
In fact Taiwan used the exact same cope as you proposed: when it was almost entirely defeated, and could not change its defeat, it changed its goals so that it would look like a stalemate under its new goals. But the very fact that it was forced to reduce the ambitions of their goals is proof that they lost. Otherwise why not push for 100% conquest?
Ukraine's original goals as stated in 2022 by Zelensky himself was retaking all Russian occupied regions in Crimea, Donbass, Kherson and Zaporozhye, eliminating the Russian military in Ukraine and joining NATO. Citations available on request.
In 2024, his only remaining goal is joining NATO. He has dropped his goals for Crimea and Donbass.
Putin has not changed his goals. It is still demilitarization of Ukraine, preventing it from joining NATO, keeping Crimea and annexation of Donbass, Thereon and Zaporozhye.
Putin has partially achieved his goals. He did not entirely demilitarize Ukraine but has severely harmed its military, and has taken most of the 4 regions, but not all. Ukraine has not joined NATO.
Zelensky has achieved 0 of his goals. He has not eliminated the Russian military or harmed its ability to project strategic power, retaken any of the 4 regions he set out to do or joined NATO.
Is this a stalemate? Doesn't look like it. Zelensky achieved a lower % of his goals, as in 0%, vs Putin, who achieved a nonzero % of his goals.
No, because India does not claim control over Tibet, only over Arunachal Pradesh. China that claims all of Tibet.
So India has 100% control over its claim in this region. This means India is winning by your logic.