Helmut-WK
Member
- Nov 26, 2007
- 2,050
- 420
- Country
- Germany
- Gender
- Male
- Faith
- Protestant
- Marital Status
- Married
But not in the USA or Western Europe, as Russia today does.Alas that is historically inaccurate.. Communist China actively involved itself in the politics of several African and Latin American countries, including Tanzania and Peru.
A dwarf like Taiwan with a permanent seat in the security council was irrational, so the seat to the PRC was inevitable.In retrospect, we should never have allowed the PRC to take the place of the Republic of China at the UN and in diplomatic relations, and the UK should never have returned Hong Kong to them.
As to Hong Kong, a plebiscite whether the people wanted to join Taiwan or the PRC would have been better. But maybe China was too strong to risk that. But in retrospect …
You cannot partner with someone who attacks you. Putin once said he wanted USA and NATO to be destroyed. Europe tried to make partnership with Russia, but Putin did use such partnership only to attack us (e.g. killing critics abroad, hacker attacks from Russia, …).But since that happened, this creates a strategic imperative to partner with Russia to counter the threat of an expanding China.
I doubt that 4 powers are that much more stable then 3.This situation will continue until India becomes a superpower. Once there are four legitimate nuclear superpowers (since Britain and France have neglected their nuclear arsenals to a large extent, although France less so than the UK), geopolitical stability should increase, since the incentive to triangulate will disappear. It is triangulation that makes groups of three so inherently politically unstable.
You cannot equate all kinds of triangulation. The »check and balance« idea is based on the triangulation of legislative, executive and judiciary.One famous American author remarked that in politics, no shape is as unstable as a triangle. As we can see from the collapses of the Roman Triumvirates.
Upvote
0