Sure. Unfortunately that’s not what counts. Also history is more complicated and doesn’t start in 2014.
Wang was said to have given Kallas – the former Estonian prime minister who only late last year took up her role as the bloc’s de facto foreign affairs chief – several “history lessons and lectures”.
Ukraine seems to be more of a unipolar project than a multipolar project. The important part is the last part of the last sentence.
David C. Hendrickson, in his article in Foreign Affairs on November 1, 1997, saw the core of the book as the ambitious strategy of NATO to move eastward to Ukraine’s Russian border and vigorously support the newly independent republics of Central Asia and the Caucasus, which is an integral part of what Hendrickson said could be called a “tough love” strategy for the Russians. Hendrickson considers “this great project” to be problematic for two reasons: the “excessive expansion of Western institutions” could well introduce centrifugal forces into it; moreover, Brzezinski’s “test of what legitimate Russian interests are” seems to be so strict that even a democratic Russia would probably “fail”.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Grand_Chessboard
Of course there can also be wars in the multipolar world. But there are enough started by the US that peace seems to be secondary.
Why should it not happen? If they track everybody crime becomes impossible, as does dissent. The latter is the motivation, the former, as you say, the talking point. Not looking forward to it, but political development suggests that it will happen.
Once all thieves are ‘treated’, who should move a bike?
So what does all that violation of human rights actually buy us?
Violated humans. Political stability by removing all dissidents.
I am not arguing for surveillance, I just assume that it will come.
The US wants to stay the hegemon but China is advancing technology faster than the US. The conflict is about the multipolar world. Unfortunately the US, and the EU, haven’t explained why they don’t want to be part of a multipolar world.
What technology will disappear in the next 10 years?
It will be fully automated. You mark the position and time, an AI checks the record and the thief will be punished. No police nor judge needed.
Bike locks. Surveillance will be expanded to the point that petty crimes will become impossible.
Why the downvotes? Do you disagree with the expectation or do you dislike the development? The question is about what will happen, not what we want to happen. I don’t like it but I expect full surveillance in 10 years.
Wang hasn’t said it. He almost said the opposite. Please check my other comment for details.
They don’t have those plans. That’s insinuated to distract from what the minister actually said and implied.
I have poined this out in the other post: https://feddit.org/post/15221478
This article is slightly misleading if compared with the SCMP article which has big implications on understanding the global power dynamics. Draw your own conclusions.
SCMP:
Chinese Foreign Minister Wang Yi told the European Union’s top diplomat on Wednesday that Beijing does not want to see a Russian loss in Ukraine because it fears the United States would then shift its whole focus to Beijing, according to several people familiar with the exchange.
vs
As the war in Ukraine drags on, Wang’s reported comments suggest that Russia’s war in Ukraine may serve China’s strategic needs as focus is deviated away from Beijing’s mounting preparation to launch its own possible invasion into Taiwan.
It’s subtle, but the attack on Taiwan is an interpretation. The minister means something else.
If the economic development continues, Taiwan will want to join China. Thus the focus of the US is interpreted differently by China, more like the focus Iraq or Afghanistan received.
SCMP:
During a marathon four-hour debate on a wide range of geopolitical and commercial grievances, Wang was said to have given Kallas – the former Estonian prime minister who only late last year took up her role as the bloc’s de facto foreign affairs chief – several “history lessons and lectures”.
Some EU officials felt he was giving her a lesson in realpolitik, part of which focused on Beijing’s belief that Washington will soon turn its full attention eastward, two officials said. One interpretation of Wang’s statement in Brussels is that while China did not ask for the war, its prolongation may suit Beijing’s strategic needs, so long as the US remains engaged in Ukraine.
vs
that they believed Wang was providing Kallas with a lesson in realpolitik during the four-hour encounter.
No mentioning of the “history lessons and lectures”, which is a friendlier way of saying that he has referenced past behavior that suggest that the EU is in the wrong.
There seems to be ignorance about what is going to happen even right at the top of the EU. The Chinese minister is calling bullshit. Yet Kallas must have already known better.
Yes, go on from there. Shit happened. What will be next?
Soldiers. All those weapons from the automation don’t carry themselves to the front. Robots would be too valuable for that.
That’s the elephant in the room.
For those who don’t know, Trump is threatening tariffs on Spain for not complying.
To me it means that the threat of leaving Nato is a ruse to facilitate armament for a big war against China. Fewer people would support that.
BAE Systems is a major supplier.
How would the military industrial complex not kill Trump if this were true?
That’s strange because even in his James Bond movies I think blond, not Bond.
I know. I was not prepared for a .world community to demand and not oppose that way of thinking.
Ironic. Venice was commissioned by people like Bezos
Fine with me.
People can come together and build big things without elites, kings or bosses sitting down and telling everyone what to do. Just because societies that greatly limit the power of the elites no longer exist, having been crushed, doesn’t mean they don’t work.
Could. Hating Bezos instead of coming together and start building is the mental trap I try to point out in my other comments that is not accepted. Right now people need commissioning if they keep thinking the way they think, and they don’t want to hear it.
There are pockets that work, like Wikipedia or Burning Man. But they grew slowly and are not blueprints to get other projects done.
How is it exploitative? If you get market rates for your work or pay market rates for the stuff you buy, you don’t lose in transactions.
Those who maximize value extraction optimize resource allocation and bring prices down for everybody.
And yet, what other options exist right now?
But starting another regular company would end up with yet another billionaire, if successful. To avoid billionaires, businesses have to be structured and financed differently anyway.
It’s always duopolies because the elite doesn’t trust itself. This leaves some room for business.
Unipolary didn’t have strict rules either.
Neither is convenient for me because there will be a very inconvenient war. It’s just that people only count when there is an election, and then they only count as a manipulatable resource. Otherwise nobody in power cares about what people want.
You are right about your expectations about future wars. It’s time to come up with something to make a better future.