this post was submitted on 01 Mar 2025
1480 points (100.0% liked)

politics

22431 readers
3823 users here now

Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!

Rules:

  1. Post only links to articles, Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.

Links must be to the original source, not an aggregator like Google Amp, MSN, or Yahoo.

Example:

  1. Articles must be relevant to politics. Links must be to quality and original content. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and rehosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
  2. Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
  3. No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive. Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.
  4. Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
  5. No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in a ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be banned without warning

We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.

All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.

That's all the rules!

Civic Links

Register To Vote

Citizenship Resource Center

Congressional Awards Program

Federal Government Agencies

Library of Congress Legislative Resources

The White House

U.S. House of Representatives

U.S. Senate

Partnered Communities:

News

World News

Business News

Political Discussion

Ask Politics

Military News

Global Politics

Moderate Politics

Progressive Politics

UK Politics

Canadian Politics

Australian Politics

New Zealand Politics

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
 

Summary

Trump and Zelenskyy's confrontational Oval Office meeting advanced "mob boss foreign policy" serving Russian interests.

Trump and Vance bullied Zelenskyy when he refused their "extortionate" minerals deal or to thank them despite Trump's stated intent to reduce support for Ukraine.

Zelenskyy effectively countered their claims by noting Russia's 2014 invasion and correcting historical inaccuracies, which angered the Americans.

This represents the first openly “anti-US, anti-Western, anti-democracy foreign policy in American history.” Russians embraced it, and Putin ally and former Russian president Dmitry Medvedev celebrated the exchange.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] somewa@suppo.fi 114 points 4 weeks ago (26 children)

Reality is that every other country will look down on USA for years. USA is not going to be considered trustworthy trading partner nor trustworthy ally.

[–] Tyrangle@lemmy.world 7 points 4 weeks ago (1 children)

Really curious what this means for Taiwan. Their sovereignty depends on US support, but with Trump at the helm, we're just as likely to cut a deal with Xi and stay home when the fighting starts.

[–] EmpireInDecay@lemmy.ml 3 points 4 weeks ago (4 children)

It means nothing for Taiwan, the US has supported the One China policy regarding Taiwan for decades and still do.

[–] Tyrangle@lemmy.world 7 points 4 weeks ago (1 children)

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_US_arms_sales_to_Taiwan

The US has been arming Taiwan for decades. Why would that be necessary if the US considered Taiwan to be part of China? You're confusing diplomacy for policy.

[–] freddydunningkruger@lemmy.world 5 points 4 weeks ago (1 children)

Maybe you can tell us why China hasn't gone ahead and invaded Taiwan yet, if the US has supported the One China policy for decades?

[–] ClassStruggle@lemmy.ml 2 points 4 weeks ago (1 children)
[–] Womble@lemmy.world 2 points 3 weeks ago

No, they dont

When the United States moved to recognize the People’s Republic of China (PRC) and de-recognize the Republic of China (ROC) in 1979, the United States stated that the government of the People’s Republic of China was “the sole legal Government of China.” Sole, meaning the PRC was and is the only China, with no consideration of the ROC as a separate sovereign entity.

The United States did not, however, give in to Chinese demands that it recognize Chinese sovereignty over Taiwan (which is the name preferred by the United States since it opted to de-recognize the ROC). Instead, Washington acknowledged the Chinese position that Taiwan was part of China. For geopolitical reasons, both the United States and the PRC were willing to go forward with diplomatic recognition despite their differences on this matter. When China attempted to change the Chinese text from the original acknowledge to recognize, Deputy Secretary of State Warren Christopher told a Senate hearing questioner, “[W]e regard the English text as being the binding text. We regard the word ‘acknowledge’ as being the word that is determinative for the U.S.” In the August 17, 1982, U.S.-China Communique, the United States went one step further, stating that it had no intention of pursuing a policy of “two Chinas” or “one China, one Taiwan.”

To this day, the U.S. “one China” position stands: the United States recognizes the PRC as the sole legal government of China but only acknowledges the Chinese position that Taiwan is part of China. Thus, the United States maintains formal relations with the PRC and has unofficial relations with Taiwan. The “one China” policy has subsequently been reaffirmed by every new incoming U.S. administration. The existence of this understanding has enabled the preservation of stability in the Taiwan Strait, allowing both Taiwan and mainland China to pursue their extraordinary political and socioeconomic transitions in relative peace.

As is confirmed in your first link, the USA acknowledges that the Chinese position is that Taiwan is a part of China, and recognise that the PRC is the government of China, they deliberately do not say if they consider Taiwan a part of China or not.

[–] Olhonestjim@lemmy.world 4 points 4 weeks ago (1 children)
[–] EmpireInDecay@lemmy.ml 1 points 4 weeks ago (1 children)

Did you think you were being clever?

[–] SpaceCowboy@lemmy.ca 4 points 4 weeks ago

You should read up on the policy of strategic ambiguity with regards to China.

Generally speaking it's a "speak softly but carry a big stick" approach. "One China" policy is speaking softly. Sailing warships through the Taiwan Strait is brandishing the big stick. That tells China the reality of the situation... One China means Taiwan is de jure part of China, but is de facto an independent country. Why would China invade Taiwan if it's already part of China? Such a thing wouldn't make sense!

But if China were to invade Taiwan they would be an explicit action that indicates Taiwan is not already part of it. There would be no more One China policy because China ended it through their actions.

When Biden was President he made a typical Biden gaff when he was saying things that didn't conform to the One China policy. Whoopsie! Didn't mean that... seriously, the One China policy is still going strong *wink*. Was that just a typical Biden gaff, or was that him saying the real policy on Taiwan? We can't know for sure, but China got the message. That's strategic ambiguity.

Needless to say Donald Trump has no understanding of the nuance of strategic ambiguity. In fact he's more worried about not upsetting his good friend Xi.

load more comments (24 replies)