"I have a lot of respect for House Speaker Nancy Pelosi. But if she does go ahead with a visit to Taiwan this week, against President Biden’s wishes, she will be doing something that is utterly reckless, dangerous and irresponsible.

Nothing good will come of it. Taiwan will not be more secure or more prosperous as a result of this purely symbolic visit, and a lot of bad things could happen. These include a Chinese military response that could result in the U.S. being plunged into indirect conflicts with a nuclear-armed Russia and a nuclear-armed China at the same time.
....
There are moments in international relations when you need to keep your eyes on the prize. Today that prize is crystal clear: We must ensure that Ukraine is able, at a minimum, to blunt — and, at a maximum, reverse — Vladimir Putin’s unprovoked invasion, which if it succeeds will pose a direct threat to the stability of the whole European Union.

To help create the greatest possibility of Ukraine reversing Putin’s invasion, Biden and his national security adviser Jake Sullivan held a series of very tough meetings with China’s leadership, imploring Beijing not to enter the Ukraine conflict by providing military assistance to Russia — and particularly now, when Putin’s arsenal has been diminished by five months of grinding war.
....

The timing could not be worse. Dear reader: The Ukraine war is not over. And privately, U.S. officials are a lot more concerned about Ukraine’s leadership than they are letting on. There is deep mistrust between the White House and President Volodymyr Zelensky of Ukraine — considerably more than has been reported.

And there is funny business going on in Kyiv. On July 17, Zelensky fired his country’s prosecutor general and the leader of its domestic intelligence agency — the most significant shake-up in his government since the Russian invasion in February. It would be the equivalent of Biden firing Merrick Garland and Bill Burns on the same day. But I have still not seen any reporting that convincingly explains what that was all about. It is as if we don’t want to look too closely under the hood in Kyiv for fear of what corruption or antics we might see, when we have invested so much there. (More on the dangers of that another day.)

Meanwhile, senior U.S. officials still believe that Putin is quite prepared to consider using a small nuclear weapon against Ukraine if he sees his army facing certain defeat."

https://www.nytimes.com/2022/08/01/opinion/nancy-pelosi-taiwan-china.html

ltlee1 <ltlee1@hotmail.com> wrote:
> "I have a lot of respect for House Speaker Nancy Pelosi. But if she
> does go ahead with a visit to Taiwan this week, against President
> Biden’s wishes, she will be doing something that is utterly reckless,
> dangerous and irresponsible.
[…]
> https://www.nytimes.com/2022/08/01/opinion/nancy-pelosi-taiwan-china.html

In *LONG* term shift of US official (formal) position on Taiwan is
"likely" (quite possible). No earlier "medium *reversible* signals"
will make it look "not too good". So in short/medium term the question is:
Will Pelosi's visit cross "point of no return"? IMHO it is unlikely.

NEVER forget US fundamental switch of "One *ROC China" to "One PRC China".
"Not rule out" something similar magnitude every few decades.

--
A. Filip : Big (Tech) Brother is watching you.
| Defeat is worse than death because you have to live with defeat.
| (Bill Musselman)

On Tuesday, August 2, 2022 at 2:05:10 PM UTC-4, A. Filip wrote:
> ltlee1 wrote:
> > "I have a lot of respect for House Speaker Nancy Pelosi. But if she
> > does go ahead with a visit to Taiwan this week, against President
> > Biden’s wishes, she will be doing something that is utterly reckless,
> > dangerous and irresponsible.
> […]
> > https://www.nytimes.com/2022/08/01/opinion/nancy-pelosi-taiwan-china.html
>
> In *LONG* term shift of US official (formal) position on Taiwan is
> "likely" (quite possible). No earlier "medium *reversible* signals"
> will make it look "not too good". So in short/medium term the question is:
> Will Pelosi's visit cross "point of no return"? IMHO it is unlikely.

Is Thomas Friedman really that ignorant such that he doesn't know what you write above?
I, for one, don't believe that. His criticism of Pelosi recklessness is 3 folded. All of them
rational.

1) "Nothing good will come of it. Taiwan will not be more secure or more prosperous as a
result of this purely symbolic visit, and a lot of bad things could happen. "

2) Timing is wrong.
"There are moments in international relations when you need to keep your eyes on the prize.
Today that prize is crystal clear: We must ensure that Ukraine is..."

3) Were U.S. allies consulted?
"And if you think our European allies — who are facing an existential war with Russia over
Ukraine — will join us if there is U.S. conflict with China over Taiwan..."

>
> NEVER forget US fundamental switch of "One *ROC China" to "One PRC China"..
> "Not rule out" something similar magnitude every few decades.

Not rule out.
But then that of decision is not really a matter of US say so. In case you do not
already know, switching from One ROC China to One PRC China were approved by
both the UNSC and the UNGA. In your opinion, when will the UNSC and/or the
UNGA vote for a reversal?
>
> --
> A. Filip : Big (Tech) Brother is watching you.
> | Defeat is worse than death because you have to live with defeat.
> | (Bill Musselman)

ltlee1 <ltlee1@hotmail.com> wrote:
> On Tuesday, August 2, 2022 at 2:05:10 PM UTC-4, A. Filip wrote:
>> ltlee1 wrote:
>> > "I have a lot of respect for House Speaker Nancy Pelosi. But if she
>> > does go ahead with a visit to Taiwan this week, against President
>> > Biden’s wishes, she will be doing something that is utterly reckless,
>> > dangerous and irresponsible.
>> […]
>> > https://www.nytimes.com/2022/08/01/opinion/nancy-pelosi-taiwan-china.html
>>
>> In *LONG* term shift of US official (formal) position on Taiwan is
>> "likely" (quite possible). No earlier "medium *reversible* signals"
>> will make it look "not too good". So in short/medium term the question is:
>> Will Pelosi's visit cross "point of no return"? IMHO it is unlikely.
>
> Is Thomas Friedman really that ignorant such that he doesn't know what you write above?
> I, for one, don't believe that. His criticism of Pelosi recklessness is 3 folded. All of them
> rational.
>
> 1) "Nothing good will come of it. Taiwan will not be more secure or more prosperous as a
> result of this purely symbolic visit, and a lot of bad things could happen. "

Symbols are usually not critical but they may be important.

> 2) Timing is wrong.
> "There are moments in international relations when you need to keep your eyes on the prize.
> Today that prize is crystal clear: We must ensure that Ukraine is..."

Do you expect anytime soon *significant* switch in PRC policies about
Ukraine and Russia? IMHO It is possible but not too likely.
In practice the visit may lower chances of PRC taking (slightly) less
Russia friendly stance.

> 3) Were U.S. allies consulted?
> "And if you think our European allies — who are facing an existential war with Russia over
> Ukraine — will join us if there is U.S. conflict with China over
> Taiwan..."

It looks like _possible_ start of *very slow motion* shift from much
wider perspective

>> NEVER forget US fundamental switch of "One *ROC China" to "One PRC China".
>> "Not rule out" something similar magnitude every few decades.
>
> Not rule out.
> But then that of decision is not really a matter of US say so. In case you do not
> already know, switching from One ROC China to One PRC China were approved by
> both the UNSC and the UNGA. In your opinion, when will the UNSC and/or the
> UNGA vote for a reversal?

From PRC position *official* recognition of Taiwan as an independent
sovereign country would not be similar magnitude?

--
A. Filip : Big (Tech) Brother is watching you.
| My friend has a baby. I'm writing down all the noises he makes so
| later I can ask him what he meant. (Steven Wright)

"A. Filip" <anfi@wp.eu> wrote:
> ltlee1 <ltlee1@hotmail.com> wrote:
>> On Tuesday, August 2, 2022 at 2:05:10 PM UTC-4, A. Filip wrote:
>>> ltlee1 wrote:
>>> > "I have a lot of respect for House Speaker Nancy Pelosi. But if she
>>> > does go ahead with a visit to Taiwan this week, against President
>>> > Biden’s wishes, she will be doing something that is utterly reckless,
>>> > dangerous and irresponsible.
>>> […]
>>> > https://www.nytimes.com/2022/08/01/opinion/nancy-pelosi-taiwan-china.html
>>>
>>> In *LONG* term shift of US official (formal) position on Taiwan is
>>> "likely" (quite possible). No earlier "medium *reversible* signals"
>>> will make it look "not too good". So in short/medium term the question is:
>>> Will Pelosi's visit cross "point of no return"? IMHO it is unlikely.
>>
>> Is Thomas Friedman really that ignorant such that he doesn't know what you write above?
>> I, for one, don't believe that. His criticism of Pelosi recklessness is 3 folded. All of them
>> rational.
>>
>> 1) "Nothing good will come of it. Taiwan will not be more secure or more prosperous as a
>> result of this purely symbolic visit, and a lot of bad things could happen. "
>
> Symbols are usually not critical but they may be important.
>
>> 2) Timing is wrong.
>> "There are moments in international relations when you need to keep your eyes on the prize.
>> Today that prize is crystal clear: We must ensure that Ukraine is..."
>
> Do you expect anytime soon *significant* switch in PRC policies about
> Ukraine and Russia? IMHO It is possible but not too likely.
> In practice the visit may lower chances of PRC taking (slightly) less
> Russia friendly stance.
>
>> 3) Were U.S. allies consulted?
>> "And if you think our European allies — who are facing an existential war with Russia over
>> Ukraine — will join us if there is U.S. conflict with China over
>> Taiwan..."
>
> It looks like _possible_ start of *very slow motion* shift from much
> wider perspective
>
>>> NEVER forget US fundamental switch of "One *ROC China" to "One PRC China".
>>> "Not rule out" something similar magnitude every few decades.
>>
>> Not rule out.
>> But then that of decision is not really a matter of US say so. In case you do not
>> already know, switching from One ROC China to One PRC China were approved by
>> both the UNSC and the UNGA. In your opinion, when will the UNSC and/or the
>> UNGA vote for a reversal?
>
> From PRC position *official* recognition of Taiwan as an independent
> sovereign country would not be similar magnitude?

Or if you want it another way: The visit may be not "the smartest"
move but canceling it *NOW* (for nothing) would be even less smart.
"Sometimes Wrong but Never in Doubt".

--
A. Filip : Big (Tech) Brother is watching you.
| Remember: Silly is a state of Mind, Stupid is a way of Life.
| (Dave Butler)

On Tuesday, August 2, 2022 at 10:23:55 AM UTC-7, ltlee1 wrote:
> "I have a lot of respect for House Speaker Nancy Pelosi. But if she does go ahead with a visit to Taiwan this week, against President Biden’s wishes, she will be doing something that is utterly reckless, dangerous and irresponsible.
>
> Nothing good will come of it. Taiwan will not be more secure or more prosperous as a result of this purely symbolic visit, and a lot of bad things could happen. These include a Chinese military response that could result in the U.S. being plunged into indirect conflicts with a nuclear-armed Russia and a nuclear-armed China at the same time.
> ...
> There are moments in international relations when you need to keep your eyes on the prize. Today that prize is crystal clear: We must ensure that Ukraine is able, at a minimum, to blunt — and, at a maximum, reverse — Vladimir Putin’s unprovoked invasion, which if it succeeds will pose a direct threat to the stability of the whole European Union.
>
> To help create the greatest possibility of Ukraine reversing Putin’s invasion, Biden and his national security adviser Jake Sullivan held a series of very tough meetings with China’s leadership, imploring Beijing not to enter the Ukraine conflict by providing military assistance to Russia — and particularly now, when Putin’s arsenal has been diminished by five months of grinding war.
> ...
>
> The timing could not be worse. Dear reader: The Ukraine war is not over. And privately, U.S. officials are a lot more concerned about Ukraine’s leadership than they are letting on. There is deep mistrust between the White House and President Volodymyr Zelensky of Ukraine — considerably more than has been reported.
>
> And there is funny business going on in Kyiv. On July 17, Zelensky fired his country’s prosecutor general and the leader of its domestic intelligence agency — the most significant shake-up in his government since the Russian invasion in February. It would be the equivalent of Biden firing Merrick Garland and Bill Burns on the same day. But I have still not seen any reporting that convincingly explains what that was all about. It is as if we don’t want to look too closely under the hood in Kyiv for fear of what corruption or antics we might see, when we have invested so much there. (More on the dangers of that another day.)
>
> Meanwhile, senior U.S. officials still believe that Putin is quite prepared to consider using a small nuclear weapon against Ukraine if he sees his army facing certain defeat."
>
> https://www.nytimes.com/2022/08/01/opinion/nancy-pelosi-taiwan-china.html

"By visiting, Pelosi will actually give Xi an opportunity to divert attention from his own failures — a whack-a-mole strategy of trying to shut down the spread of Covid-19 by using lockdowns of China’s major cities, a huge real estate bubble that is now deflating and threatening a banking crisis and an immense mountain of government debt resulting from Xi’s unrestrained support for state-owned industries."

Yup. Xi is like that. An unprincipled jerk.

On Wednesday, August 3, 2022 at 5:36:53 AM UTC+8, bmoore wrote:
> On Tuesday, August 2, 2022 at 10:23:55 AM UTC-7, ltlee1 wrote:
> > "I have a lot of respect for House Speaker Nancy Pelosi. But if she does go ahead with a visit to Taiwan this week, against President Biden’s wishes, she will be doing something that is utterly reckless, dangerous and irresponsible.
> >
> > Nothing good will come of it. Taiwan will not be more secure or more prosperous as a result of this purely symbolic visit, and a lot of bad things could happen. These include a Chinese military response that could result in the U.S. being plunged into indirect conflicts with a nuclear-armed Russia and a nuclear-armed China at the same time.
> > ...
> > There are moments in international relations when you need to keep your eyes on the prize. Today that prize is crystal clear: We must ensure that Ukraine is able, at a minimum, to blunt — and, at a maximum, reverse — Vladimir Putin’s unprovoked invasion, which if it succeeds will pose a direct threat to the stability of the whole European Union.
> >
> > To help create the greatest possibility of Ukraine reversing Putin’s invasion, Biden and his national security adviser Jake Sullivan held a series of very tough meetings with China’s leadership, imploring Beijing not to enter the Ukraine conflict by providing military assistance to Russia — and particularly now, when Putin’s arsenal has been diminished by five months of grinding war.
> > ...
> >
> > The timing could not be worse. Dear reader: The Ukraine war is not over.. And privately, U.S. officials are a lot more concerned about Ukraine’s leadership than they are letting on. There is deep mistrust between the White House and President Volodymyr Zelensky of Ukraine — considerably more than has been reported.
> >
> > And there is funny business going on in Kyiv. On July 17, Zelensky fired his country’s prosecutor general and the leader of its domestic intelligence agency — the most significant shake-up in his government since the Russian invasion in February. It would be the equivalent of Biden firing Merrick Garland and Bill Burns on the same day. But I have still not seen any reporting that convincingly explains what that was all about. It is as if we don’t want to look too closely under the hood in Kyiv for fear of what corruption or antics we might see, when we have invested so much there. (More on the dangers of that another day.)
> >
> > Meanwhile, senior U.S. officials still believe that Putin is quite prepared to consider using a small nuclear weapon against Ukraine if he sees his army facing certain defeat."
> >
> > https://www.nytimes.com/2022/08/01/opinion/nancy-pelosi-taiwan-china.html
> "By visiting, Pelosi will actually give Xi an opportunity to divert attention from his own failures — a whack-a-mole strategy of trying to shut down the spread of Covid-19 by using lockdowns of China’s major cities, a huge real estate bubble that is now deflating and threatening a banking crisis and an immense mountain of government debt resulting from Xi’s unrestrained support for state-owned industries."
>
> Yup. Xi is like that. An unprincipled jerk.

Nah.

ltlee1 <ltlee1@hotmail.com> wrote:
> On Tuesday, August 2, 2022 at 2:05:10 PM UTC-4, A. Filip wrote:
[…]
>> NEVER forget US fundamental switch of "One *ROC China" to "One PRC China".
>> "Not rule out" something similar magnitude every few decades.
>
> Not rule out.
> But then that of decision is not really a matter of US say so. In case you do not
> already know, switching from One ROC China to One PRC China were approved by
> both the UNSC and the UNGA. In your opinion, when will the UNSC and/or the
> UNGA vote for a reversal?

ROC with veto power in UNSC voted itself out from UNSC?
Yet another hard to believe political miracle! :-)

--
A. Filip : Big (Tech) Brother is watching you.
| We were happily married for eight months. Unfortunately, we were
| married for four and a half years. (Nick Faldo)

On Wednesday, August 3, 2022 at 12:18:55 PM UTC-4, A. Filip wrote:
> ltlee1 wrote:
> > On Tuesday, August 2, 2022 at 2:05:10 PM UTC-4, A. Filip wrote:
> […]
> >> NEVER forget US fundamental switch of "One *ROC China" to "One PRC China".
> >> "Not rule out" something similar magnitude every few decades.
> >
> > Not rule out.
> > But then that of decision is not really a matter of US say so. In case you do not
> > already know, switching from One ROC China to One PRC China were approved by
> > both the UNSC and the UNGA. In your opinion, when will the UNSC and/or the
> > UNGA vote for a reversal?
> ROC with veto power in UNSC voted itself out from UNSC?
> Yet another hard to believe political miracle! :-)

Miracle?
The GA voted ROC out first.
PRC taking ROC's seat in the UNSC was accepted by the other UNSC members.

Anyway, the fact since then is that ROC is not considered an independent country.
22 small nations still recognized the ROC, today only 5.
> --
> A. Filip : Big (Tech) Brother is watching you.
> | We were happily married for eight months. Unfortunately, we were
> | married for four and a half years. (Nick Faldo)

On Wednesday, August 3, 2022 at 9:37:39 AM UTC-7, ltlee1 wrote:
> On Wednesday, August 3, 2022 at 12:18:55 PM UTC-4, A. Filip wrote:
> > ltlee1 wrote:
> > > On Tuesday, August 2, 2022 at 2:05:10 PM UTC-4, A. Filip wrote:
> > […]
> > >> NEVER forget US fundamental switch of "One *ROC China" to "One PRC China".
> > >> "Not rule out" something similar magnitude every few decades.
> > >
> > > Not rule out.
> > > But then that of decision is not really a matter of US say so. In case you do not
> > > already know, switching from One ROC China to One PRC China were approved by
> > > both the UNSC and the UNGA. In your opinion, when will the UNSC and/or the
> > > UNGA vote for a reversal?
> > ROC with veto power in UNSC voted itself out from UNSC?
> > Yet another hard to believe political miracle! :-)
> Miracle?
> The GA voted ROC out first.
> PRC taking ROC's seat in the UNSC was accepted by the other UNSC members.
>
> Anyway, the fact since then is that ROC is not considered an independent country.
> 22 small nations still recognized the ROC, today only 5.

Recognition is one thing. Opposition to an unprovoked PRC invasion, quite different.

You are being quite overly simplistic, and your statements do not reflect the reality.

bmoore <bmoore@nyx.net> wrote:
> On Wednesday, August 3, 2022 at 9:37:39 AM UTC-7, ltlee1 wrote:
>> On Wednesday, August 3, 2022 at 12:18:55 PM UTC-4, A. Filip wrote:
>> > ltlee1 wrote:
>> > > On Tuesday, August 2, 2022 at 2:05:10 PM UTC-4, A. Filip wrote:
>> > […]
>> > >> NEVER forget US fundamental switch of "One *ROC China" to "One PRC China".
>> > >> "Not rule out" something similar magnitude every few decades.
>> > >
>> > > Not rule out.
>> > > But then that of decision is not really a matter of US say so. In case you do not
>> > > already know, switching from One ROC China to One PRC China were approved by
>> > > both the UNSC and the UNGA. In your opinion, when will the UNSC and/or the
>> > > UNGA vote for a reversal?
>> > ROC with veto power in UNSC voted itself out from UNSC?
>> > Yet another hard to believe political miracle! :-)
>> Miracle?
>> The GA voted ROC out first.
>> PRC taking ROC's seat in the UNSC was accepted by the other UNSC members.
>>
>> Anyway, the fact since then is that ROC is not considered an independent country.
>> 22 small nations still recognized the ROC, today only 5.
>
> Recognition is one thing. Opposition to an unprovoked PRC invasion,
> quite different.
>
> You are being quite overly simplistic, and your statements do not
> reflect the reality.

Is he on the only side with aversion to inconvenient "details"? :-)

--
A. Filip : Big (Tech) Brother is watching you.
| What!? Me worry? (Alfred E. Newman)

On Thursday, August 4, 2022 at 3:37:06 AM UTC-4, A. Filip wrote:
> bmoore <bmo...@nyx.net> wrote:
> > On Wednesday, August 3, 2022 at 9:37:39 AM UTC-7, ltlee1 wrote:
> >> On Wednesday, August 3, 2022 at 12:18:55 PM UTC-4, A. Filip wrote:
> >> > ltlee1 wrote:
> >> > > On Tuesday, August 2, 2022 at 2:05:10 PM UTC-4, A. Filip wrote:
> >> > […]
> >> > >> NEVER forget US fundamental switch of "One *ROC China" to "One PRC China".
> >> > >> "Not rule out" something similar magnitude every few decades.
> >> > >
> >> > > Not rule out.
> >> > > But then that of decision is not really a matter of US say so. In case you do not
> >> > > already know, switching from One ROC China to One PRC China were approved by
> >> > > both the UNSC and the UNGA. In your opinion, when will the UNSC and/or the
> >> > > UNGA vote for a reversal?
> >> > ROC with veto power in UNSC voted itself out from UNSC?
> >> > Yet another hard to believe political miracle! :-)
> >> Miracle?
> >> The GA voted ROC out first.
> >> PRC taking ROC's seat in the UNSC was accepted by the other UNSC members.
> >>
> >> Anyway, the fact since then is that ROC is not considered an independent country.
> >> 22 small nations still recognized the ROC, today only 5.
> >
> > Recognition is one thing. Opposition to an unprovoked PRC invasion,
> > quite different.
> >
> > You are being quite overly simplistic, and your statements do not
> > reflect the reality.
> Is he on the only side with aversion to inconvenient "details"? :-)

What details?
Like the obvious fact that the civil war between the PRC and the ROC is
not yet finished? And there is no cease fire or peace agreement among them?

Or the detail that the US government acknowledging/agreeing both sides
belong to ONE CHINA was really dumb?

Please read some Chinese history. Koxinga's Taiwan, Qing's Taiwan, ROC's
Taiwan are all Chinese people's Taiwan.

> --
> A. Filip : Big (Tech) Brother is watching you.
> | What!? Me worry? (Alfred E. Newman)

ltlee1 <ltlee1@hotmail.com> wrote:
> On Thursday, August 4, 2022 at 3:37:06 AM UTC-4, A. Filip wrote:
>> bmoore <bmo...@nyx.net> wrote:
>> > On Wednesday, August 3, 2022 at 9:37:39 AM UTC-7, ltlee1 wrote:
>> >> On Wednesday, August 3, 2022 at 12:18:55 PM UTC-4, A. Filip wrote:
>> >> > ltlee1 wrote:
>> >> > > On Tuesday, August 2, 2022 at 2:05:10 PM UTC-4, A. Filip wrote:
>> >> > […]
>> >> > >> NEVER forget US fundamental switch of "One *ROC China" to "One PRC China".
>> >> > >> "Not rule out" something similar magnitude every few decades.
>> >> > >
>> >> > > Not rule out.
>> >> > > But then that of decision is not really a matter of US say so. In case you do not
>> >> > > already know, switching from One ROC China to One PRC China were approved by
>> >> > > both the UNSC and the UNGA. In your opinion, when will the UNSC and/or the
>> >> > > UNGA vote for a reversal?
>> >> > ROC with veto power in UNSC voted itself out from UNSC?
>> >> > Yet another hard to believe political miracle! :-)
>> >> Miracle?
>> >> The GA voted ROC out first.
>> >> PRC taking ROC's seat in the UNSC was accepted by the other UNSC members.
>> >>
>> >> Anyway, the fact since then is that ROC is not considered an independent country.
>> >> 22 small nations still recognized the ROC, today only 5.
>> >
>> > Recognition is one thing. Opposition to an unprovoked PRC invasion,
>> > quite different.
>> >
>> > You are being quite overly simplistic, and your statements do not
>> > reflect the reality.
>> Is he on the only side with aversion to inconvenient "details"? :-)
>
> What details?
> Like the obvious fact that the civil war between the PRC and the ROC is
> not yet finished? And there is no cease fire or peace agreement among them?
>
> Or the detail that the US government acknowledging/agreeing both sides
> belong to ONE CHINA was really dumb?
>
> Please read some Chinese history. Koxinga's Taiwan, Qing's Taiwan, ROC's
> Taiwan are all Chinese people's Taiwan.

Russian Ukraine, Russian, Pribaltika, Russian Poland, Russian East Germany,
British Colonies in North America. 70 years of de facto "separation"
*DOES COUNT*.

Anyway I agree in significant part with you about US hitting long term
consequences of short/medium term driven decision to acknowledge
"One *PRC* China". Abrupt *official* U-turn would look "awkward".
Good enough excuses will happen sooner *or later*.

About Pelosi visit: IMHO It may be driven by internal US politics.
Attacks on Biden for risking Twain being second Ukraine are likely.
After the visit such attacks will promote "another democrat (D)".

--
A. Filip : Big (Tech) Brother is watching you.
| Nothing astonishes men so much as common sense and plain dealing.
| (Ralph Waldo Emerson)

On Thursday, August 4, 2022 at 7:13:09 AM UTC-4, A. Filip wrote:
> ltlee1 wrote:
> > On Thursday, August 4, 2022 at 3:37:06 AM UTC-4, A. Filip wrote:
> >> bmoore <bmo...@nyx.net> wrote:
> >> > On Wednesday, August 3, 2022 at 9:37:39 AM UTC-7, ltlee1 wrote:
> >> >> On Wednesday, August 3, 2022 at 12:18:55 PM UTC-4, A. Filip wrote:
> >> >> > ltlee1 wrote:
> >> >> > > On Tuesday, August 2, 2022 at 2:05:10 PM UTC-4, A. Filip wrote:
> >> >> > […]
> >> >> > >> NEVER forget US fundamental switch of "One *ROC China" to "One PRC China".
> >> >> > >> "Not rule out" something similar magnitude every few decades.
> >> >> > >
> >> >> > > Not rule out.
> >> >> > > But then that of decision is not really a matter of US say so. In case you do not
> >> >> > > already know, switching from One ROC China to One PRC China were approved by
> >> >> > > both the UNSC and the UNGA. In your opinion, when will the UNSC and/or the
> >> >> > > UNGA vote for a reversal?
> >> >> > ROC with veto power in UNSC voted itself out from UNSC?
> >> >> > Yet another hard to believe political miracle! :-)
> >> >> Miracle?
> >> >> The GA voted ROC out first.
> >> >> PRC taking ROC's seat in the UNSC was accepted by the other UNSC members.
> >> >>
> >> >> Anyway, the fact since then is that ROC is not considered an independent country.
> >> >> 22 small nations still recognized the ROC, today only 5.
> >> >
> >> > Recognition is one thing. Opposition to an unprovoked PRC invasion,
> >> > quite different.
> >> >
> >> > You are being quite overly simplistic, and your statements do not
> >> > reflect the reality.
> >> Is he on the only side with aversion to inconvenient "details"? :-)
> >
> > What details?
> > Like the obvious fact that the civil war between the PRC and the ROC is
> > not yet finished? And there is no cease fire or peace agreement among them?
> >
> > Or the detail that the US government acknowledging/agreeing both sides
> > belong to ONE CHINA was really dumb?
> >
> > Please read some Chinese history. Koxinga's Taiwan, Qing's Taiwan, ROC's
> > Taiwan are all Chinese people's Taiwan.
> Russian Ukraine, Russian, Pribaltika, Russian Poland, Russian East Germany,
> British Colonies in North America. 70 years of de facto "separation"
> *DOES COUNT*.

Does count toward what?
Please specify.
>
> Anyway I agree in significant part with you about US hitting long term
> consequences of short/medium term driven decision to acknowledge
> "One *PRC* China". Abrupt *official* U-turn would look "awkward".

Feel free to judge the Nixon administration. Does not change anything.
that ONE CHINA was the reality then, and it is the reality now. ROC was not
recognized by any world power since it was kicked out by the UN. US
media may have a different spin. But then their readers have been living
in a bubble.

> Good enough excuses will happen sooner *or later*.

Good news?
Who knows? May be nuclear winter is better than global warming.
>
> About Pelosi visit: IMHO It may be driven by internal US politics.
> Attacks on Biden for risking Twain being second Ukraine are likely.
> After the visit such attacks will promote "another democrat (D)".
> --
> A. Filip : Big (Tech) Brother is watching you.
> | Nothing astonishes men so much as common sense and plain dealing.
> | (Ralph Waldo Emerson)

ltlee1 <ltlee1@hotmail.com> wrote:
> On Thursday, August 4, 2022 at 7:13:09 AM UTC-4, A. Filip wrote:
>> ltlee1 wrote:
[…]
>> > Please read some Chinese history. Koxinga's Taiwan, Qing's Taiwan, ROC's
>> > Taiwan are all Chinese people's Taiwan.
>> Russian Ukraine, Russian, Pribaltika, Russian Poland, Russian East Germany,
>> British Colonies in North America. 70 years of de facto "separation"
>> *DOES COUNT*.
>
> Does count toward what?
> […]

After 70 years of separation it "may be" time for *formal* divorce.

--
A. Filip : Big (Tech) Brother is watching you.
| I'm going to Vietnam at the request of the White House. President
| Johnson says a war isn't really a war without my jokes. (Bob Hope)

On Thursday, August 4, 2022 at 11:45:44 AM UTC-4, A. Filip wrote:
> ltlee1 wrote:
> > On Thursday, August 4, 2022 at 7:13:09 AM UTC-4, A. Filip wrote:
> >> ltlee1 wrote:
> […]
> >> > Please read some Chinese history. Koxinga's Taiwan, Qing's Taiwan, ROC's
> >> > Taiwan are all Chinese people's Taiwan.
> >> Russian Ukraine, Russian, Pribaltika, Russian Poland, Russian East Germany,
> >> British Colonies in North America. 70 years of de facto "separation"
> >> *DOES COUNT*.
> >
> > Does count toward what?
> > […]
>
> After 70 years of separation it "may be" time for *formal* divorce.

What formal divorce?
On America's say so?

Taiwan is China's Taiwan. People could certainly emigrate to elsewhere
if they don't want be part of One China.

Anyway, it is China's internal affair.

> --
> A. Filip : Big (Tech) Brother is watching you.
> | I'm going to Vietnam at the request of the White House. President
> | Johnson says a war isn't really a war without my jokes. (Bob Hope)

ltlee1 <ltlee1@hotmail.com> wrote:
> On Thursday, August 4, 2022 at 11:45:44 AM UTC-4, A. Filip wrote:
>> ltlee1 wrote:
>> > On Thursday, August 4, 2022 at 7:13:09 AM UTC-4, A. Filip wrote:
>> >> ltlee1 wrote:
>> […]
>> >> > Please read some Chinese history. Koxinga's Taiwan, Qing's Taiwan, ROC's
>> >> > Taiwan are all Chinese people's Taiwan.
>> >> Russian Ukraine, Russian, Pribaltika, Russian Poland, Russian East Germany,
>> >> British Colonies in North America. 70 years of de facto "separation"
>> >> *DOES COUNT*.
>> >
>> > Does count toward what?
>> > […]
>>
>> After 70 years of separation it "may be" time for *formal* divorce.
>
> What formal divorce?
> On America's say so?
>
> Taiwan is China's Taiwan. People could certainly emigrate to elsewhere
> if they don't want be part of One China.
>
> Anyway, it is China's internal affair.

It is *your* opinion/position. I do not share it "fully".
Are you eager to stress/break test it?

Do you really expect majority pf the world to support
one PRC China ruled nu communist party up to integration
by military invasion?

--
A. Filip : Big (Tech) Brother is watching you.
| A bird in the hand is worth two in the bush. (Cervantes)

On Tuesday, August 2, 2022 at 5:23:55 PM UTC, ltlee1 wrote:
> "I have a lot of respect for House Speaker Nancy Pelosi. But if she does go ahead with a visit to Taiwan this week, against President Biden’s wishes, she will be doing something that is utterly reckless, dangerous and irresponsible.
>
> Nothing good will come of it. Taiwan will not be more secure or more prosperous as a result of this purely symbolic visit, and a lot of bad things could happen. These include a Chinese military response that could result in the U.S. being plunged into indirect conflicts with a nuclear-armed Russia and a nuclear-armed China at the same time.
> ...
> There are moments in international relations when you need to keep your eyes on the prize. Today that prize is crystal clear: We must ensure that Ukraine is able, at a minimum, to blunt — and, at a maximum, reverse — Vladimir Putin’s unprovoked invasion, which if it succeeds will pose a direct threat to the stability of the whole European Union.
>
> To help create the greatest possibility of Ukraine reversing Putin’s invasion, Biden and his national security adviser Jake Sullivan held a series of very tough meetings with China’s leadership, imploring Beijing not to enter the Ukraine conflict by providing military assistance to Russia — and particularly now, when Putin’s arsenal has been diminished by five months of grinding war.
> ...
>
> The timing could not be worse. Dear reader: The Ukraine war is not over. And privately, U.S. officials are a lot more concerned about Ukraine’s leadership than they are letting on. There is deep mistrust between the White House and President Volodymyr Zelensky of Ukraine — considerably more than has been reported.
>
> And there is funny business going on in Kyiv. On July 17, Zelensky fired his country’s prosecutor general and the leader of its domestic intelligence agency — the most significant shake-up in his government since the Russian invasion in February. It would be the equivalent of Biden firing Merrick Garland and Bill Burns on the same day. But I have still not seen any reporting that convincingly explains what that was all about. It is as if we don’t want to look too closely under the hood in Kyiv for fear of what corruption or antics we might see, when we have invested so much there. (More on the dangers of that another day.)
>
> Meanwhile, senior U.S. officials still believe that Putin is quite prepared to consider using a small nuclear weapon against Ukraine if he sees his army facing certain defeat."
>
> https://www.nytimes.com/2022/08/01/opinion/nancy-pelosi-taiwan-china.html

Pelosi is a withered old woman. It's silly for any leaders in Asia-Pacific to pay her any attention. She has inferiority complex about her age. She wears high heel shoes but has to walk in small steps lest she falls like her President. They did a lot of cosmetic work to remove the appearance of creases on her face. But they cannot hide her senility.

It would be damned stupid of nations in the Asia-Pacific to create chaos in the region because of her.

On Thursday, August 4, 2022 at 2:23:43 PM UTC-4, A. Filip wrote:
> ltlee1 wrote:
> > On Thursday, August 4, 2022 at 11:45:44 AM UTC-4, A. Filip wrote:
> >> ltlee1 wrote:
> >> > On Thursday, August 4, 2022 at 7:13:09 AM UTC-4, A. Filip wrote:
> >> >> ltlee1 wrote:
> >> […]
> >> >> > Please read some Chinese history. Koxinga's Taiwan, Qing's Taiwan, ROC's
> >> >> > Taiwan are all Chinese people's Taiwan.
> >> >> Russian Ukraine, Russian, Pribaltika, Russian Poland, Russian East Germany,
> >> >> British Colonies in North America. 70 years of de facto "separation"
> >> >> *DOES COUNT*.
> >> >
> >> > Does count toward what?
> >> > […]
> >>
> >> After 70 years of separation it "may be" time for *formal* divorce.
> >
> > What formal divorce?
> > On America's say so?
> >
> > Taiwan is China's Taiwan. People could certainly emigrate to elsewhere
> > if they don't want be part of One China.
> >
> > Anyway, it is China's internal affair.
> It is *your* opinion/position. I do not share it "fully".
> Are you eager to stress/break test it?

Stress/break test is ongoing for decades.
One China is successful everyday there is peace across the Strait.
>
> Do you really expect majority pf the world to support
> one PRC China ruled nu communist party up to integration
> by military invasion?

No need to bring in the world.
The issue is nowadays is which nation wants to see military operation
over the Taiwan Strait. Taiwan is doing fine under One China.

"Taiwan, unlike what some media suggest, isn’t the most dangerous place
on Earth. Taiwan’s economy and the relatively free movement of people and
goods with China indicate a high level of mutual dependence. People in
Taiwan aren’t fretting over China’s threats; they are likely more concerned
about inflation than a military attack."

The obvious TRUTH is that the US wants to use Taiwan as a tool to weaken
China. Because one party China is rising. Western and American democracy
is in deep trouble.

> --
> A. Filip : Big (Tech) Brother is watching you.
> | A bird in the hand is worth two in the bush. (Cervantes)