US - Pakistan relationship

[Musings]

Ffs - stop the personal attacks now.
@PakFactor - need to calm down bro - enough now

 

[PakFactor]

Ffs - stop the personal attacks now.
@PakFactor - need to calm down bro - enough now

Will do, boss.

 

[Watandar]

@RescueRanger will you look at this? I'm an Indian today. Lol

Coming back to topic, it's baffling how people think dictator Munir sucking up to Trump means the US-Pakistan relationship is improving. We have seen Ayub-Kennedy, Reagan-Zia and most recently Bush-Musharraf, but the relationship remained entirely transactional. It's always been about what services Pakistani dictators can provide to America and in return how much cash and guns they can get.

In Trade, investment, exchange of government delegations, interaction between cultures, educational exchange , tourism, all these vital areas the US - Pakistan relationships is non existent and will remain as such until Pakistan puts its house in order.

 

[Musings]

Anything not related to the topic will be removed

 

[Panda_Hi]

As for China, the last several decades haven't borne any fruit worth mentioning. In this relationship, the Chinese are just tolerating you due to their need to counter India; besides that, you have no value.

▲▲▲ WOW.......!

Whether or not what you said is true, I hope you don't think China is to blame for all of it.

As for China, I already said they're tolerating you because of countering India; once that threat to them is gone or they settle their differences, there will be a change in the relationship; as one can only for so long carry a dead horse they already caring the North Korean and now Russia horse. Truly unfortunate that China has no solid partners it can form into a coalition.

I'm not quite sure what kind of solid partnerships you think China should build with other countries.
Perhaps you could explain what you have in mind, and then we can discuss it. What do you think?

---------------------------

I'm from Taiwan, and Taiwan and mainland China share many similarities in how history is taught. Although our perspectives and areas of emphasis differ, we share much of the same historical background and basic facts regarding these events.

So the following account largely reflects the shared historical understanding of people on both sides of the Taiwan Strait. ▼▼▼

◉ From the late Qing dynasty to the end of World War II, Tsarist Russia and the Soviet Union were the foreign powers responsible for some of China's greatest territorial losses, through unequal treaties and other means.
If we also include the territorial loss resulting from Outer Mongolia's independence, which the Soviet Union helped bring about, China lost approximately 3.23 million square kilometers of territory. This is a rough estimate, equivalent to about 1/3 of China's current land area.
That is almost the size of India, or roughly 3.7 times the size of Pakistan.

In the historical narratives on both sides of the Taiwan Strait, there is a clear historical continuity between Tsarist Russia, the Soviet Union, and today's Russia.
As a result, many Chinese people tend to see these three as successive political entities with a strong historical connection. Can you imagine how wary of Russia this history has made many Chinese people?
Even though China and Russia have closer relations today than in the past, that does not mean China can simply forget its past territorial losses and strategic rivalries.

It is true that China appears to be helping Russia to some extent today. But apart from diplomatic and economic considerations, there may be another factor.
China also has to consider the possibility that if Russia were to fall into severe turmoil or even collapse, it could create serious border security problems, potentially sending large numbers of refugees into China.
That could be a disaster. The same concern applies to North Korea.

◉ As for North Korea, when the United Nations forces were preparing to cross the 38th parallel and advance north during the Korean War, China warned the United States through diplomatic channels against foreign troops crossing the line and against expanding the war.
According to US State Department diplomatic records from that time, American officials believed that China might not take military action if only South Korean troops crossed the 38th parallel.
This suggests that China was not simply looking to start a war with the United States. Rather, it was particularly concerned about the security threat posed by foreign troops advancing north toward China's borders.
In fact, China was far weaker than the United States at the time and had only recently suffered enormous destruction from World War II. China would not have wanted a war with the United States unless it felt it had no other choice.

After the Korean War armistice, China and North Korea signed the Treaty of Friendship, Cooperation and Mutual Assistance in 1961. It remains China's only formal military alliance treaty.
However, their relationship has experienced many ups and downs, including periods of serious tension. China has even supported United Nations sanctions against North Korea over its nuclear weapons program.

From China's perspective, North Korea is a highly unpredictable neighbor. It frequently threatens South Korea and Japan with its nuclear weapons, which makes it a source of trouble for China.

China's desire to prevent North Korea from going to war or suddenly collapsing does not mean China agrees with all of North Korea's policies, let alone that it supports North Korea unconditionally.

Exactly my point: Pakistan is a mere tool for the Chinese until its utility is no longer needed, if and when the Indian issue is resolved on its own basis.

From one perspective, Pakistan could indeed be described as a tool of China. But then again, couldn't China also be described as a tool of Pakistan?

Taiwan, Japan, and South Korea could likewise be described as tools of the US, and vice versa. The United States also needs these partners to achieve its strategic objectives, just as they need the US to achieve their own.

There is undoubtedly an element of mutual interest and exchange in relations between countries. The real questions are what each side gains from the relationship and whether the cooperation continues to serve both sides' interests.
If we look at everything from a negative perspective, then any country can be described as another country's tool simply because their relationship involves mutual interests.

At the most basic level, the world is made up of people. Relationships and organizations at different levels, including couples, families, companies, and countries, are all made up of people.
In that sense, relationships between people are reflected, on a larger scale, in the relationships between couples, families, companies, and countries.

If we scrutinize every relationship to determine whether it involves an exchange of interests, then couldn't even parent-child relationships and romantic relationships be seen as involving some degree of using each other?
But would that mean all these relationships are nothing more than people using each other, with no other value?

 

[Panda_Hi]

Anything not related to the topic will be removed

I'm sorry. I only saw this notice after posting my reply. My apologies.