Hmm? I think you’ve got that backwards. Ukraine is the one trying to reclaim lost territory that’s currently under Russia’s control, is it not? What year exactly should we revert world borders back to and why?

I wonder if you can see the problem with the naive solution of trying to “lock in” whatever the present borders are. If a country seizes territory, even without any justification, that territory is now part of the present borders, and therefore would be “locked in” by that standard, suggesting that anyone who tried to take it back is the aggressor (until they succeed in reclaiming it).

I think that what you’re asking is a very complicated and valid question, even if you didn’t mean it in earnest. The question of what makes a country legitimate is quite complicated. I would argue that the “north star” of legitimacy is what outcome is best for the people. In the case of Taiwan, I think the best outcome is to maintain the status quo of de facto independence without rocking the boat with things like formal independence. It’s not worth starting world war 3 over a formality.

But when you have a “country” like the Confederacy or Tibet, which keeps people in bondage under horrible conditions, then obviously the best outcome is for them to be defeated and taken over by someone else. Slavery and serfdom are automatically delegitimizing.

There’s also another reason why reunifying Tibet was justified, which is explained very succinctly by the 1944 US War Department film, “Why We Fight: The Battle For China:” (around 8:20)

But how could Japan, only 1/20th the size of China, and with only 1/6th it’s population, think of conquering China, much less the world?

Modern China, in spite of its age old history, was like the broken pieces of jigsaw puzzle, each piece controlled by a different ruler, each with his own private army. In modern terms, China was a country, but not yet a nation.

The part of China’s history where it was broken up into these warlord states was part of what they call, “The Century of Humiliation,” when Chinese people were subject to imperialism and aggression from many different countries, worst of all being Imperial Japan. Because the country was so fractured, it was difficult to mount an organized, collective defense. This was understood by basically everyone, by the US, by the communists, and by the nationalists. That’s why the communists and nationalists were willing to form a unified front against the warlord states despite their major ideological differences, because it was obvious to everyone at that time that a unified China - a “One China Policy” - was important and necessary. Even today, both the PRC and ROC formally agree on the idea of a One China Policy, and the US has (in the past at least) as well.

But again, today, I personally believe in maintaining the status quo, where Taiwan is de facto independent. There’s significant precedent that this can maintain peace and keep everyone relatively satisfied. The same precedent did not exist in Tibet or in any of the other warlord states. Furthermore, Taiwan has significantly better human rights and conditions in general than Tibet where you’d die a serf at age 30. The whole “Free Tibet” thing is pure propaganda, only followed by people who are completely ignorant of the actual facts of what life was like there before, and of the history in general.

several other countries by force, including all of Tibet.

Tibet has historically been part of China for a long time, which is probably why Taiwan claims it along with the rest of China (in fact, Taiwan’s claims go further and include Mongolia). Tibet broke away along with a bunch of other warlord states in the chaos following the fall of the Qing dynasty, and was never internationally recognized as an independent country. Its people were freed from the tyrannical, slave owning theocracy and rejoined the country, which led to the doubling of their average life expectancy (along with the rest of China). China’s claim to Tibet is about as valid as the US claim to the Confederate States.

All of that happened over 70 years ago under Mao, before the country shifted focus with major reforms in the 80s. Though to be fair to you, there aren’t exactly a lot of recent wars involving China for you to choose from, are there? Not your fault you have to go back 70 years.

The Emperor’s Naked Army Marches On.

Here, we consciously prioritize the voices of the global majority

Based. Exactly this.

Anyone who considers themself a leftist should dream of a world where one’s birthplace does not determine their political power, and should be outraged at how much global power the US wields, through force, despite comprising such a small segment of the global population. The principle of “one person, one vote” while living in an imperial hegemon means that we have a responsibility to prioritize the voices and perspectives of the global majority, and of the people affected by our countries’ aggression who have no say in our politics.

…even if that means getting called “selfish” by scratched liberals on .world who explicitly say that American lives are more valuable than those of foreigners.

Source? It’s in their constitution.

They’ve been “just recently” talking about how Taiwan is theirs for the past 70 years and haven’t done shit.

I live in a world where basic pattern recognition exists.

Personally, I’m just waiting for the aggressive, expansionist country of Switzerland to end it’s occupation of Zurich.

You should try basing your beliefs on facts and evidence sometime.

Yes, as they have since the war, just as Taiwan claims China. Your point?

Peace with Taiwan has been maintained for nearly a hundred years, with a mutual understanding that nobody would try to force the issue too hard (look up “strategic ambiguity”). In recent years, the US has been recklessly deviating from that understanding and now people treat the status quo as “Chinese aggression,” because of propaganda.

OK, next time someone calls me a tankie, I’ll just say, “Actually, I don’t support sending tanks to Ukraine” and I’m sure that’ll clear things up and convince them I’m not a tankie.

I mean, the people did vote for her…

No they didn’t.

B-b-b-b-b-but China might, possibly, at some point in the future, try to reclaim Taiwan! Both sides! Two things true at once! Me speculating about something possibly happening is the exact same as the thing actually happening!

Or she’s just selling out and kissing ass in hopes that the invaders will install her as a puppet and grant her money and power.

Quisling

There’s 195 countries in the world and we’re engaged in like 7 different wars so that’s 188 wars that Trump has prevented by not randomly deciding to attack them /s

That as an argument falls apart pretty quickly when you remember they made a blitz attack for Kiev on the first day into areas not expressing a desire to separate.

That logic relies on a big assumption that I don’t agree with, that fighting has to be contained to the specific territory in dispute. If the United States invaded Greenland and Greenland attacked NYC, despite Greenland not having any claim on NYC, that wouldn’t really be a mark against Greenland. It’s a matter of military strategy that if you can destroy enemy capabilities or force them to defend multiple fronts or knock them out entirely, you’ll probably try.

I said the USA did not start this war, and you are saying it was started by local separatists. Which back to the Revolutionary war comparison that’s spot on again

I didn’t exactly say it was started by local separatists. I said that who started it depends on which political entities you consider legitimate. If the separatists are more legitimate than the central government, you could say that the central government started it. In the same way, if you consider the American revolutionaries more legitimate than the British, then you could argue that the British started that war by infringing the American right to self-governance and popular sovereignty.

To use another comparison: the Vietnam War is generally seen as an act of US aggression, but at the time, it was claimed to be a defensive war, protecting the Republic of Vietnam from foreign supplied rebels. The reason that interpretation fell out of favor is because the Republic of Vietnam is generally regarded as having been a US puppet.

Now, I personally don’t know to what degree each side represents popular will or to what extent they are just proxies of foreign governments. But my point is that if you allow the other user’s claim that the Ukrainian government was set up through US meddling, that significantly muddles the question of who started what, whether the separatists had justification to declare independence and whether Russia had justification to respond to their requests.

You fail to link “us meddling” to justification for a war. Or more accurately an invasion of a sovereign nation.

A bunch of armed men seized parliament and established a new government which banned opposition parties. Another bunch of armed men seized local government buildings and declared independence, after which they requested Russia send troops to come to their aid. Each side claims the other was foreign-backed while theirs was a legitimate expression of popular will.

Whether Russia invaded or responded to a request for aid depends on the legitimacy of the separatists and of the central government. When France sent troops to the British colonies in America, we don’t generally consider that an invasion.

If the US meddled in overthrowing Ukraine’s previous government and picking out the new one (and there’s some evidence of that) then it calls into question whether the central government has more legitimacy than the separatists, and whether they really had the right to send tanks in to suppress the separatist rebellion.

“Holier-than-thou leftist” reporting in.

The story of the emperor with no clothes has a very optimistic view of society because in real life the boy who shouted out that he had no clothes would be beaten with a stick.

So they’re going to go to somebody like MTG instead.