Comments by "Persona" (@ArawnOfAnnwn) on "CHINA vs. VIETNAM: the New Race of the Century - VisualPolitik EN" video.

@joshlewis575 As if the Americans don't launch cyberattacks of their own lol. One of the most infamous cyberattacks of all was carried out by the US (stuxnet), and that's just one of the ones we've heard of.
15
"Allies of freedom" lol. Cos apparently being against China (or perhaps just for the west) makes you an 'ally of freedom' these days. And I say this as an Indian. We're not interested in being part of your great power games. We have our own interests and will pursue them as we see fit. Vietnam's issues with China go way way back. India has actually fought a war with China in modern times. So has Japan, although they were the attackers there. Hong Kong is part of China that the Brits took and now want to pretend is still somehow part of the west in spirit even after giving it back. Thailands' approach is as pragmatic as they come. And Nepal is trying to tread a very fine line. None of these countries have any interest in your ideological rhetoric of "freedom", and have seen enough of the hypocrisy of that characterization to not buy into it. None more so than Vietnam. This is politics, not some childish tale of good versus evil. Indeed most of these countries are authoritarian themselves. "Allies of freedom" lmao!
2
@Argozification in realpolitik terms, sure. That's how foreign policy is chosen, but that's not how it's marketed. It's always sold to the public on some sort of moral or ideological grounds, and enough people buy into that shit that it works. Even now the conflict between the US and China is being painted as a fight between good and evil, as opposed to just two great powers competing for dominance.
1
@fullmetaltheorist The point is that none of these places are trying to be "allies of freedom", and all have had their own issues with China for far longer than the West has (and have had issues with the West as well, much like China itself). You want to think of this in terms of some sort of grand moral or ideological conflict (much like how the previous Cold War, and even before that WW2, was framed), but these countries have been and are pursuing their own sovereignty and security aims for far longer. This recent rhetoric coming from the West against China frankly comes off as spoiled, arrogant and hypocritical. Spoiled because China poses little real existential threat to you, but it does to us, yet we're now being conveniently conscripted to participate in your fight. Arrogant because it promotes the primacy of a western-led international order as paramount (don't kid yourself if you think China is playing spoilsport with a multi-lateral world order - there hasn't been any such thing for a long time, China is upsetting the reigning world hegemon). And hypocritical because it comes from the same people who've helped snuff out freedom movements and supported authoritarians when convenient all over the world, both in modern times and even more directly in the centuries prior to that. Wasn't long ago that India was being treated as a pariah by America, or Vietnam was being bombed to kingdom come. We're under no illusions. There is no good and evil here. We will navigate this conflict just as we've navigated all previous ones - in our own interests, not yours.
1
@fullmetaltheorist Worth noting that HK was itself coercively leased from China by the British after they won the Opium Wars. So besides these 23 years, the city has historically always been part of China. It was only taken away (along with a few other ports) by European powers for a while, during what the Chinese often call the Century of Humiliation. And if you're curious about the name of those wars - it was literally a drug war. The British fought for the right to sell opium in China, which the Chinese had tried to stop because of its devastating effects on the empire. As for Taiwan, its independence is contested. It's not recognized as independent by most of the world (including even the US) cos China insists on that, although it has plenty of public sympathy. It was also historically part of China, but separated when the CCP won the Chinese civil war and took over the country, with the former govt. fleeing to Taiwan and setting up shop there. Technically both govts. lay claim to being legitimate the govt. of China as a whole, although Taiwan has been easing off from that in recent years in favor of independence instead. There's plenty of videos online on both of these topics. I'd recommend going to history channels rather than political ones though, as the issues are pretty politically charged and so narratives tend to be biased. Or just read about it on Wikipedia.
1
The last thing India needs is a war. It can defend its borders well enough, but invading China would be a losing proposition, especially when it has a hostile neighbor to its west that can and will take advantage of the situation. What might look like a two-front war with China would be more of a two-front war for India. The Chinese have little to fear - both the Himalyas and the enormous Tibetan plateau give them plenty of strategic depth. India has none. One major incursion by China into the Siliguri 'chicken neck' and India loses its entire north-east. And that's on the opposite side of the country from where Pakistan would come from. And then there's the fact that China controls the source of a lot of the major rivers to India. We stand to gain very little from a war. Defense sure, but offense no.
1