>>46236
I just lol at the tryhard attempts to affix communism to any mention of mainland china :) Reminds of foaming-at-the-mouth liberals always pointing out those russian *hackers*, or the foaming-at-the-mouth trumptards repeating Pompeo's mantra of *china* virus. Such cases
Taiwan and other territories stolen (language used then) from China (Qing) were returned as part of the Potsdam arrangement to China (RoC). Later the UN recognized your beloved gomunist china as the "only legitimate representative of China". Anyway, no matter what political or economic system was in place during those periods, it is still chinese history, land, and people, and in allusion to ancient history, one could say the current government in Beijing is effectively the current ruling "dynasty" of china
>Ad hominem attacks
Considering the style and the immediate rise that the darned gomunist chinks get out of you, I just guessed that you were the same guy who in another thread was stringing me along with bullshit like "the war on terror was not a real war bro" and so on. I have no problem calling him a lousy shitposter. Did I guess wrong?
>they really have made themselves
<I'm sure it has nothing to do with any Russian
My point was: No, they did not "make themselves"
>Read the whole sentence you are quoting so you don't look silly. Number one enemy I said.
Ok, I concede this, your statement is not "nonsense" as such. Maybe there is indeed a definite ranking of enemies and Russia hasn't recently been at the top, and maybe now it is, but I'm not completely sure this is a good model. In my view, the strategic focus of US foreign policy seems to split and fluctuate often as a result (mostly) of domestic politics: there is a faction that seems preoccupied with directing the focus towards russia, eastern europe, and the middle-east, while another competing faction wants to move it towards china as east-asia. Their goals should ultimately the same (maintaining or extending hegemony) but internal political squabbles, and occasional external stimuli, are always taking place making the empire's aim ebb and flow and sometimes appear contradictory even. Consider the most recent example: Maidan Cookies Nudelman just made a statement on behalf of us diplomacy/foreign-policy in which she asks china to exert pressure over russia wrt ukraine, so that, with the hype deflated or the crisis averted, "we" (meaning usa) can go back to "bbb" (meaning """containing""" china some more) lol
>They just happened to start doing it a lot more in a much short space of time and they just happened to start mobilising units and sending them east* and telling their people to prepare for a war and adopting quite a bellicose and threatening stance in general. Nothing that would worry anybody at all.
I agree. USA should not have done that
>hide it more and it was working until they were noticed again, and that is when they made those demands.
Nope. it doesn't match the timeline.
>It had promised not to remember?
It had? What did it promise? Maybe you are making reference to the sino-british joint communique but that agreement applied to the years-long hand-over process which ended in 1997. From that point on, only the beijing-hongkong law applies (a law that is subject to the legislature in beijing). And although the electoral system in hongkong was altered that law is still in effect
I think a localised "2 systems" political arrangement is really interesting technology, so I hope they will be wise enough to find a way to honestly keep it without compromising sovereignty. So far beijing gave itself (through a committee of pro-china local politicians plus the liaison office) a veto on HK legislative candidates. It will take time to see if/how it works in the context of HK democracy