>>45016
>but if one from any of the Anglo countries why not be glad for that, and consider it The Rules?
I understand but then one should just admit it and not hide under the guise of "protector of the 'rest of the world' against the 'bellicose' chinese". Say "Anglo-based world order" then

>>45011 (cont.)
>created an even tougher encirclement around them.
Do nothing: be militarily encircled
Do something unsuccessfully: suffer a worse military encirclement
Do something successfully: break the encirclement
Finding herself in such situation, would Australia not give it a go? Would any country not give it a go? You are being unreasonable
>There were far better ways to go about this for them.
I'm not hearing any
>I'm not sure if you know this but Chiang Kai Shek was in control of Taiwan until 1975...
Don't play the fool. I said very clearly "would never have approved of the servile attitude now displayed by the globohomo acolytes in the island", that is the pathetic subservience of the ruling DPP to Washington, complete in its feminist, homo and negrophilic neoliberal "woke" package. A self-respecting character like Chiang, and a strong organization like the KMT used to be, would not allow itself the role of a mere separatist satrap and disposable battering ram against the CCP and the mainland. Reunification was the goal of both the KMT and the CCP, despite their opposition
>They still accept it, it's convenient for them.
You are correct, it is still the official policy. But obviously some new signs (warships around, military drills, selling military equipment, flying politicians in,etc) are starting to point in a different direction
>muh wolf warrior diplomacy