Miscellaneous News

Randomuser

Randomuser

Major
Registered Member
I kinda get why China doesn't overcommit to "unpopular" countries now unlike Russia.

China has loads of experience in investments both public government and private VC/PE.

No matter how much the guy is passionate about opposing the west, you have to have a realistic assessment of his capability. You can't be overoptimistic. Otherwise you end up like Russia who for example spent millions to billions in Syria just to lose it all. The US has more good investments coz its kinda easy to invest in a European country that has no wars. When it invests in high risk ones like Vietnam, Iraq and Afghanistan, it also ended up with nothing which is why you see the US standing back from taking direct control. It learnt fast after getting its hands burnt.

I guess that's why Pakistan better do it's part coz that's one of the few countries I would say China has heavy investments in.
 
Last edited:
I

iewgnem

Captain
Registered Member
Eventine said:
The US didn't act against Maduro until it became clear he wasn't going to be ousted via other means (e.g. color revolution, losing an election) and that he was starting to work more closely with China. There's always an escalation play book for regime change, and it also takes time to infiltrate and plan an operation.
Click to expand...
The fact that Maduro couldn't be ousted by other means should give you a clue it's not a one-man show.
Regime change requires the regime to actually change, Manduro isn't the regime, no more than Lai is the regime.
The escalation playbook requires US to go ahead with full occupation, because the regime is still there, likely more entrenched than ever, and even more likely to work with China.
 
E

Eventine

Senior Member
Registered Member
iewgnem said:
The fact that Maduro couldn't be ousted by other means should give you a clue it's not a one-man show.
Regime change requires the regime to actually change, Manduro isn't the regime, no more than Lai is the regime.
The escalation playbook requires US to go ahead with full occupation, because the regime is still there, likely more entrenched than ever, and even more likely to work with China.
Click to expand...
A regime can be held together by a single man. The US likely has a deal with other prominent figures of Maduro's regime (e.g. the vice president) and we'll see in the coming days how that shapes out. Strong men states are brittle in that sense.
 
I

Iracundus

Junior Member
Registered Member
I can see this going potentially 2 ways.

1) Like Libya. Kill the leader and lose interest, leaving the country to either fragment or pick up the pieces. This is a real possibility especially given Trump's likely dementia and non-existent attention span once he thinks he has secured "the win".

2) Like Afghanistan or Iraq. To actually try to extract oil would require immovable infrastructure, which I understand needs updating and repair, so this would require an occupation. Any collaborationist government would hold only so long as occupation continues. Once the US eventually loses interest or withdraws due to the political unpopularity of a long term ground occupation, and as casualties mount from any insurgency, the government collapses swiftly since it never established political legitimacy.
 
FairAndUnbiased

FairAndUnbiased

Brigadier
Registered Member
Randomuser said:
I kinda get why China doesn't overcommit to "unpopular" countries now unlike Russia.

China has loads of experience in investments both public government and private VC/PE.

No matter how much the guy is passionate about opposing the west, you have to have a realistic assessment of his capability. You can't be overoptimistic. Otherwise you end up like Russia who for example spent millions to billions in Syria just to lose it all. The US has more good investments coz its kinda easy to invest in a European country that has no wars. When it invests in high risk ones like Vietnam, Iraq and Afghanistan, it also ended up with nothing which is why you see the US standing back from taking direct control. It learnt fast after getting its hands burnt.

I guess that's why Pakistan better do it's part coz that's one of the few countries I would say China has heavy investments in.
Click to expand...
China's investment in North Korea worked quite well. Failed in Vietnam but also made sure everyone else failed and now Vietnam government makes a pilgrimage to Beijing every time they change leadership.

Let's also look at Syria.

How much did the US spend? $1 billion annually.

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

Russia spent $700 million per campaign in comparison.

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

Investing in culturally similar countries is a winning strategy. US success in South Korea and Japan was only possible due to the post-WW2 moment. If they didn't intervene in the Korean War, there would only be DPRK and Japan wouldn't have made more blood money off of Koreans, making Japan into a poorer frontline state that would've still had significant socialist influence and instability.
 
Randomuser

Randomuser

Major
Registered Member
FairAndUnbiased said:
China's investment in North Korea worked quite well. Failed in Vietnam but also made sure everyone else failed and now Vietnam government makes a pilgrimage to Beijing every time they change leadership.

Let's also look at Syria.

How much did the US spend? $1 billion annually.

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

Russia spent $700 million per campaign in comparison.

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

Investing in culturally similar countries is a winning strategy. US success in South Korea and Japan was only possible due to the post-WW2 moment. If they didn't intervene in the Korean War, there would only be DPRK and Japan wouldn't have made more blood money off of Koreans, making Japan into a poorer frontline state that would've still had significant socialist influence and instability.
Click to expand...
Damn. It costs that much huh? No wonder China has to choose very carefully. Just one or two bad investments can eat up a country's resources very easily. Even the US with its money printing is a lot more cautious now which is why they only changed Venezuela's leader instead of trying to change the whole country.

Compared to the US or even Russia (they backed Vietnam even after the Vietnam War ended), I still think China's investment in Vietnam went ok in the end. They do a lot of trade now and Vietnam doesn't actively try to piss off or oppose China. Its influence easily dwarfs US or Russia in Vietnam.

I think that the US only real successful rags to riches investment is in Korea. Everyone else was either on easy difficulty or just failed.
 
Chevalier

Chevalier

Major
Registered Member
Randomuser said:
Damn. It costs that much huh? No wonder China has to choose very carefully. Just one or two bad investments can eat up a country's resources very easily. Even the US with its money printing is a lot more cautious now which is why they only changed Venezuela's leader instead of trying to change the whole country.

Compared to the US or even Russia (they backed Vietnam even after the Vietnam War ended), I still think China's investment in Vietnam went ok in the end. They do a lot of trade now and Vietnam doesn't actively try to piss off or oppose China. Its influence easily dwarfs US or Russia in Vietnam.

I think that the US only real successful rags to riches investment is in Korea. Everyone else was either on easy difficulty or just failed.
Click to expand...
You’ll notice that South Korea only truly “took off” when the U.S. elites controlled all the chaebols after the 97 financial crisis, south Korea and its Samsung was only truly allowed to be considered an equal to apple in the U.S. once Samsung became Anglo Zionist owned, along with K-pop and everything else That could be marketed.
otherwise Samsung could’ve become the next Toshiba and Alstom.

https://twitter.com/i/web/status/2007460580089868702

given the strong language, I’d say there has not been a “negotiated settlement” over division of the globe, the U.S. is still operating from a very Hobbesian playbook. They’ll still burn Asia down before ever giving it up, therefore the Anglos must lose as much territory as possible.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top