This seems like one of Putin's motivations for invading Ukraine. He couldn't stand having a prosperous Ukraine aligned with the EU and the US that could foment discontent inside Russia.

Ukraine is far poorer than Russia.

He would like to keep it that way.

True, but Ukraine was on a very great trajectory, just like the baltic states. They were all proof that you don’t need the Russian federation.

It's not just that he couldn't stand it, but rather what it does to his position inside Russia. If your business model is to rabbit on about how wonderful Russia is, and how sucky all other countries are, if there's a more successful more free country next door containing almost the same kind of people, then your words are hollow.

Not really..

USA will not have a hostile cuba, just as Russia won’t have a hostile Ukraine, and China won’t have a hostile Taiwan on its doorstep.

> USA will not have a hostile cuba

USA will, from all signs, not only continue to have a hostile Cuba, but also create a hostile Mexico.

And that's even before considering the internal hostility to the regime that the deliberately-engineered major economic collapse--that is already happening despite numerous policies that will deepen it still being in the pipeline and not yet in place--will create.

The US withdrawing from international engagement, trashing alliances, and trashing its own economy may enable competing powers more space to dominate their own regions, but it doesn't do anything to strengthen the US's regional position, it radically weakens it.

And a hostile Canada!

Not as much of a clear explicit threat to imminently engage in an armed invasion of Canada as the one to do so to Mexico, but, yes.

Ukraine was the poorest country in Europe, and by most metrics, worse off than Russia before the war.

Sure, you can write all sorts of alt-history fanfiction about how great it would be if 2014 didn't happen, but that's just one of many possible futures.

Leaving aside the war, Ukraine has many of the positive resources of the Baltics (just more so.) There is every reason to believe that an EU-aligned (or member) Ukraine would be an economic success story.

China is a democracy. It's literally what you're describing Taiwan as. That said I do agree that it does cause China's superiority to be called into question. Imagine if the Confederate states of America managed to take hold of Cuba and hold out.

EDIT: I'm literally factually correct. In 5 of the 6 indexes China has a Democracy score where as Brunei, an absolute monarchy, doesn't!

> China is a democracy

Regardless of which democracy index (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Democracy_indices) you consult, they all disagree with that statement.

V-dem, Bertelsmann, and EDI literally has scores for China. You'll notice places like Brunei, an absolute monarchy, isn't on the list.

Because China is a democracy and Brunei is not a democracy.

> V-dem, Bertelsmann, and EDI literally has scores for China.

I think you confuse being listed on those indices with being a democracy.

On V-dem China takes place 177 of 179, the Bertelsmann index categorized China as "hard-line autocracy" and EDI categorizes it as "authoritarian"

"A list of democracies that don't score non-democracies" having China by definition means the indexes consider China a democracy.

> "A list of democracies that don't score non-democracies"

This definition is nowhere to be found on any of this indices. I assume its your interpretation, which, as already said, is flawed.

For example Saudi Arabia is listed on all of those indices even though its an absolute monarchy and the poster child for an autocracy.

Legally (according to their constitution) USSR was also a democracy. But that hardly meant much in practice. Of course the Chinese society is probably much "freer" than than the Soviet one was prior to Gorbachev's reforms but again.. an extremely low standard.

China has a fig leaf of a democracy. It meets the simplest definition of a democracy, the citizens do get to vote on something. Compared to most of the developed world, it's a far cry from a liberal democracy that allows for dissenting positions and parties. China's flavor of governing is objectively neither good nor bad (they have managed to become a superpower after all) but it's nothing like the democracies of the West.

Brunei isn't on the Bertelsmann because it is small (<1 million people), not because of its political structure.

The EDI explicitly does not try to asses whether a country is democratic or not, but just allows relative comparisons. It also doesn't include smaller countries but doesn't have as clear of a cutoff.

If you are going to use inclusion on one or more of these lists as an argument, you'll have actually cite where those lists use status as a democracy as a criteria for inclusion and how that is assessed.

More like the Union holding out for 70 years in Puerto Rico after the Confederates won. In what sense do you mean China is a democracy? I may be brainwashed on CIA propaganda, but as far as I understand only party-vetted candidates may stand for election.

Wait do you not know what the KMT did? They're a rightwing party that killed/disappeared 30k journalists and intellectuals in Taiwan. How in the world is that comparable to the "union"? (But also yes Puerto Rico might be a better example).

In the sense that they're on the V-Dem index, they have election laws, they have voter rolls, they have voter turnout, etc. Yes they have one party, so you don't directly vote for the President, but neither do Americans.

It's democratic because it's on the index? Every state is one the index. China ranks 177 out of 179 states on the index lol. So sure, where a perfect democracy score is 1.0, they score 0.015. It's not zero.

Yes, the KMT dictatorship era was awful. You might be surprised to know that in Taiwan there are national holidays commemorating those persecuted by the KMT. The reason The ROC (Taiwan) is more aptly comparable to the Union when making an analogy to alternative American history is because it was the original, legitimate government of China and the PRC were the rebels, just like the USA and Confederacy.

You are confused. Look at Taiwan's present, not its long gone past. As I mentioned in another thread, during my last trip to Taiwan, I revisited the Chiang Kai-shek Memorial Hall, which features a museum where Chiang Kai-shek's life and rule are documented. The errors and brutality of his rule in particular are well-documented and preserved, officially accessible to all citizens and visitors. This is a wonderful example of transparency. You won't find anything like this in mainland China.

> China is a democracy

You get to vote sometimes but there's only one party...

Democracy isn't when you have multiple parties. It's when you elect people to govern. Many americans think that America has a uniparty, despite all appearances.

I feel like you have it the wrong way around. There are a lot of political setups where you "elect someone" that are absolutely not democracies. I can be an authoritarian supreme leader who allows citizens to elect who will run their province (from my choice of candidates of course!) and I really don't think it's reasonable to claim that this situation is a "democracy".

It's autocracy with democratic characteristics.

I agree your criticisms of democracy in the US and Taiwan have some validity but in terms of deciding whether China might be a democracy or not they seem like whataboutism.

Russia is a great example of this.

> I can be an authoritarian supreme leader who allows citizens to elect who will run their province (from my choice of candidates of course!)

by that definition, the united states wouldn't even be called a democracy

If you consider a one party state authoritarian regime as powering the common people's will, then I guess it is.

China has "democracy" in the same way it has the freedom of speech.

In China, you can vote for The Party, or, for The Party. Much like how in the USA, you can vote for the red wing of the Centralized Corporate Power Party, or the blue wing of the Centralized Corporate Power Party.

Much like how in China, you have the freedom to stand in Tienanmen Square and shout "Down with the USA, long live Chairman Mao, long live The Party" much like you can do so in Times Square or in front of 1600 Penn or in downtown LA.

Sorry, your argument is that everything that isn't an absolute monarchy is a democracy?

This is basically the George Bush argument "they hate us because of our freedom". Totally absurd.

They don't hate them, but it is an emberassment that a group from the same culture is so successful under a different political system that allows for more freedom. That combined with cultural revanchism about not breaking up the country (and having spent a lot of time there I can tell you it is strong) makes the existence of Taiwan as an independent nation a real sore point.

I don't think the CCP views Taiwan as more successful than mainland China. The CCP position is that Taiwan is already part of China and by that logic Taiwanese success is automatically Chinese success. I agree that cultural revanchism plays a major role.

They might not be more successful, but they are still very successful given the difficulties they face, and any Chinese person with half a brain can realize they give lie to the idea the CCP likes to propogate that there's something intrinsic to Chinese culture that requires an authoritarian approach.

This doesn't really make sense, the Chinese standard of living has risen to very comfortable levels over the past couple decades. There aren't throngs of desperately poor Chinese people longing for the capitalist democratic paradise over in Taiwan.

If anything, China's rising wealth and living standard is a threat to the United States' sense of superiority. I don't see the US saying "Screw it, let's try totalitarianism" if it wasn't falling behind.