Well, they look like idi*ts now.Not sure if this news was publicized, but Jeffrey Sachs says Bennet revealed the reason why the US sabotaged the initial talks between Russia and Ukraine was so the west didn't look soft to China![]()
Well, they look like idi*ts now.Not sure if this news was publicized, but Jeffrey Sachs says Bennet revealed the reason why the US sabotaged the initial talks between Russia and Ukraine was so the west didn't look soft to China![]()
China really lives rent-free in their head, eh?the US sabotaged the initial talks between Russia and Ukraine was so the west didn't look soft to China
the pen is indeed mightier than the sword in that it is very easy to backstab people with a sharpened, poisoned pen, while a sword is much more obvious.People who say the pen is mightier than the sword have clearly never been stabbed; I say talk is cheap and actions speak infinitely louder than words.
Why do you think it's good to have meetings with people like American politicians? They do nothing but lie and it's a total waste of time. If I wanted to hear regurgitated points, I'd break out the recording of our last meeting. Americans show up, talk like clowns, partially say things they can brag about saying when they go back to US media and partially give lip service to "friendship and cooperation" only to sanction you and introduce anti-China bills a week later. In addition to the time wasted (rather have meetings with local leaders on how to improve China itself than stare at Blinken's face making fart sounds thinking about what to have for dinner), why give legitimacy to people who talk and behave like that? Unless they give up some concessions that make it worth China's time, I say China should publically announce that because Americans act like clowns and never match actions with words, they are not worth China's time, and therefore their meeting requests will fall on deaf ears. That would send a powerful signal to the world, with many countries wondering what side will be the next global superpower to follow, that China is all business, no bullshit.
The only way this impasse will be broken is when China becomes the dominant power and the US comes to accept a diminished global role thus ending its aggression and ceding its position in Asia to China. Words and meetings have no effect on this impasse, only a shifting power dynamic. People who say the pen is mightier than the sword have clearly never been stabbed; I say talk is cheap and actions speak infinitely louder than words.
I feel like I don't even know what issue you're talking about. This is my general feeling towards the entire Sino-US relationship upon entering the final phase of China challenging the US rather than being a poor country only suited for making things for the US.I feel like you might be too riled up about this issue.
China's rise in power is a constant trend, not an ebb and flow, and that is the main influencing factor to how the Sino-US relationship is conducted. And also, talking is pointless when the other country talks about friendship but acts in a hostile manner. If the US said what they meant and their actions followed, then sure. But their politicians say random things then actions contradict them; it's sitting down with a table of clowns to talk serious business. You'd have a more productive meeting with the janitor of a company than with American politicians. To get Americans to act, you can only show them your power and the consequences. No words are needed; survival instinct will guide them to back down their aggression.There are always going to be ebbs and flows to sensitive issues, but constant engagement helps reduce serious escalations.
Your entire post reads like Disney level diarrhea about talking and working together when in the real world, there are 2 countries that both want to be the dominant power. There is no cooperation there. You sound like a child asking why 2 boxers pounding each other's faces in for the heavyweight world title don't just sit down and talk it out.The rest of your post reads like some of nationalist nonsense which just doesn't translate to realistic and healthy policy objectives.
But the US engagements with talks with no serious meaning to reduce tensions, just like the many "engagements" with Sadam Hussein government before regime changing the entire country killing thousands.I feel like you might be too riled up about this issue. There are always going to be ebbs and flows to sensitive issues, but constant engagement helps reduce serious escalations.
The rest of your post reads like some of nationalist nonsense which just doesn't translate to realistic and healthy policy objectives.
This is nonsense and you know it.I think it is also just positive to have these meetings regardless of regurgitated talking points. Not having any method of communication is silly, and while things are frosty between the US and China now, it doesn't mean persistent and continued attempts at breaking the impasse cannot bear fruit in the future.