this post was submitted on 01 Mar 2025
1478 points (99.0% liked)

politics

30954 readers
1922 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 US politics and contain quality and original content. Social Media adjacent hosts like Substack are allowed, but ONLY if they tie back to a company/subsidiary. No personal or friend group blogs and no self-promotion. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and re-hosted 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 other users of being bots or paid actors.
  3. No memes, trolling, misinformation, or low-effort posts/comments (including reposts). If you see posts like this that anger you, do not engage. Report, block, and live a happier life than they do. Any slap-fight is subject to comment removals. Fights full of rule violations will result in temporary bans to cool off.
  4. No manipulating votes via bots or alt accounts; this will result in permanent bans. 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 an account ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be permanently banned.

We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules and use critical thinking when reading, posting, and commenting. Users that repeatedly have 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. The reason(s) behind moderator action(s) are publicly available through the Modlog.

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 3 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
[–] SpaceCowboy@lemmy.ca 4 points 2 years 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.