[Ygg2]

Sure. But many countries have their "weak" spots.

Let Nancy Pelosi go to Catalonia on a military jet, without Spain's approval. It would be a major scandal.

Or hell, if Xi Jinping got around US government on a submarine, and appeared in Texas to support its independence.

All independence is based on having some autonomy (trivial) and no one other calling your bluff.

[stale2002]

No, actually. I do not think many people would care if Xi made some speech in texas.

Mostly that sounds just funny. He can go ahead and do that.

[Ygg2]

It was a fantastical example, but I doubt US would look kindly to sedition.

US doesn't look kindly to someone endangering their energy supplies. Let alone territorial integrity

[stale2002]

That is where you would be wrong. People in the US are free to talk all they want about fantastical topics.

In fact, in Texas people make political comments about independence frequently.

In Puerto Rico, there have even been literal votes, where the people actually voted on what they want to do with this US territory, and independence was one of the options.

Further examples of these topics coming up, are the frequent comments I hear about how california, or pacific states should form up and create their own country.

And to give a more historical example, I believe a couple decades ago, there was a major Alaska independence party. This party actually even won a governorship, at one point!

People who claim that the topic of states leaving the US, is some taboo topic, that will get you sent to jail, or start a war, if people simply talk about it, are just wrong.

You are just wrong. People talk about this stuff, all the time, and there have even been official votes on this stuff. And wars aren't started over it.

[Ygg2]

> People in the US are free to talk all they want about fantastical topics.

It's one thing to talk between US people on various topics. Another is for head of foreign state to covertly enter your country and espouse a topic that's controversial and could cause problems for you down the line.

> And to give a more historical example

To give a more recent historical example. Election of Donald Trump. And the role Russia played. Steele dossier non-whistanding.

From what I gather, merely buying up trolls and doing some marketing was enough for US to have hissy fit, over it.

[stale2002]

> It's one thing to talk between US people

It's not just talking though! Instead it is actual votes, in actual territories, about becoming independent from the US. Like the votes that have happened in Puerto Rico.

If there was a vote in Taiwan, and they voted to officially say that they are independent (although they are independent already, they just haven't officially said so), I can assure you that the mainland would not treat such a case as how we literally have allowed Puerto Rico to have such votes.

That's why this is a false equivalence. In Puerto Rico we literally have allowed independence votes. Whereas regarding Taiwan, if they change the name on an embassy, China threats to bomb them, even though Taiwan is already independent, and this has been the case for 70 years.