Miscellaneous News

supercat

Colonel
For those English learners in China who are as open-minded, well-read, and intelligent as some followers of this website, sooner or later they will find out that they have been duped by the Western MSM. I'm saying this from my personal experience. I was once an avid reader of Western MSM. Not anymore, in fact, now it's often the case that I take the opposite view of whatever the Western MSM peddle about China.

I find this polling as bias as you can get. Firstly, it is done solely online and with more people with college degrees which makes the demographics much more liberal and pro peaceful unification. However, one interesting finding is that older people tend to favor a military response. Presumably, it is due to the fact that older people want the reunification resolved and still living to witness it so that they can be part of that history. As for younger more nationalistic population, they might have more patience as they feel China is growing stronger everyday and the longer China waits the stronger China gets.

Although, this poll/article is intended to showcase and sow doubt that absolute majority of mainland Chinese is willing to get back Taiwan at any cost. Which corresponds with the Weibo post that some Western educated Chinese have advocated four ways to tackle Taiwan issue and sow doubt of the central government legitimacy from unification isn't in the interest of the general public, unification is against international law, the US isn't an enemy of China, US is a friend of mainland Chinese, and Chinese leaders are the ones responsible for inciting conflicts between the US and China.


Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
Although earlier studies have concluded that younger Chinese tend to be more nationalistic and hawkish, this poll found that in fact older respondents tended to favour more aggressive policy choices such as full-scale war or military coercion.

"Perhaps the older Chinese have now become more impatient and are more willing to see the Taiwan issue resolved, presumably during their lifetime, one way or the other, rather than wait indefinitely," the authors explained.

View attachment 113074
More than 50% is a majority. More than 700 million Chinese support a full-scale war is good enough for now.

China is building infrastructures and promoting peace, trade, and common prosperity all over the world. Conclusion:
China poses the 'biggest challenge of our age to global security and prosperity'.

LMAO - the copium for Bakhmut is just ludicrous.
 

ficker22

Senior Member
Registered Member

BoraTas

Major
Registered Member
This is what I call retaliation :D China is harming US national security by cutting off monkeys.

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

https%253A%252F%252Fs3-ap-northeast-1.amazonaws.com%252Fpsh-ex-ftnikkei-3937bb4%252Fimages%252F2%252F4%252F5%252F5%252F45645542-1-eng-GB%252Fphoto_SXM2023042100000474.jpg


Prices of laboratory monkeys in the U.S. have jumped around 15-fold from pre-COVID levels, with China having blocked exports and a new stable source yet to be found. The shortage could delay development by American pharmaceutical manufacturers, making the problem a matter of national economic security.
 

Chevalier

Major
Registered Member

Such is the Ghoulish nature of the atlanticists, themselves a product of Pizzagate parties.
This seems like a logical move from the US and India. The emergence of the WS-15 puts the PLAAF far ahead of the IAF.

I disagree with the comment that says that China and India are not historical enemies. In my opinion, Chinese culture is inherently at odds with Hinduism. China must continue to distance itself from India and strengthen ties with Pakistan, Bangladesh, Sri Lanka, and ASEAN.
More accurately, Chinese culture is at odds with Anglo chauvinist cultures such as that in modern India. There was no issue between the Mughals and China (although perhaps muslim Pakistan has more claim to the Mughals than India), but there was certainly issue with Indians aping Anglos such as during the 60s and Doklam and Galwan.
This is what I call retaliation :D China is harming US national security by cutting off monkeys.

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

https%253A%252F%252Fs3-ap-northeast-1.amazonaws.com%252Fpsh-ex-ftnikkei-3937bb4%252Fimages%252F2%252F4%252F5%252F5%252F45645542-1-eng-GB%252Fphoto_SXM2023042100000474.jpg
Again, why don't the anglo americans use that superior freedom and liberal democratic thought to innovate better?
That was the selling point of the Washington Consensus during the 90s to today, after all. 'Become a white worshipping cuck slave to anglo america and you will get high technology'.
 

baykalov

Senior Member
Registered Member
Of all the ridiculous posts about Ukraine I have read in the past year, this is one of the most insane.

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

In Vladimir Putin’s war against Ukraine, one of his weapons is Russia’s status as a permanent member of the United Nations Security Council, which entails the power to block any resolution. It’s a legacy of World War II and the decision to reserve this status to the five victors, including the Soviet Union.

But the Soviet Union no longer exists. Russia’s membership is owing to another, far more obscure event, a meeting on Dec. 21, 1991. The U.S.S.R. was about to be officially dissolved. Leaders from 11 of the 15 newly independent states—all but Georgia and the Baltics—gathered in Alma-Ata, Kazakhstan (now Almaty).

The result, after a few hours of debate: a letter from Russian President Boris Yeltsin to the U.N. secretary-general informing him of the establishment of the Commonwealth of Independent States and the agreement that Russia would succeed the Soviet Union at the Security Council.

The recipient might have observed that nothing in the U.N. Charter allows a group of states to dispose of the seat of a permanent member. He might have objected to the notion of a “successor state,” which appears in no law or official text. He might have noted that nine of the 11 states that made this decision weren’t U.N. members at the time. (Ukraine and what is now known as Belarus were founding members, giving the Soviets three seats for the price of one.) Given the novelty of the situation and the importance of the Security Council, the secretary-general should at least have demanded a formal debate in the General Assembly. Instead, Yeltsin’s notification was ratified without discussion. Many U.N. member countries heard about it on the news.

Russia’s permanent membership and the veto power it confers have no legal basis. The Russian Federation has terrorized the world for decades under a false pretense. Which brings me to an idea: Ask the U.N. to reopen the dossier and to re-examine the original power grab that laid the foundation for our current disorder. Consider how, from Bucha to Mariupol and through to the deportation of thousands of children out of Donbas, Russia has flouted the foundational principles of the U.N. And revoke the authority that Yeltsin and Mr. Putin snatched.

What then would become of the 1945 pact and the heritage of the “Great Patriotic War”?

The Red Army’s First Ukrainian Front did more than its share in World War II—among other things, liberating the Auschwitz death camp. And if there’s a former Soviet country that stands for anti-Nazism today, it’s Volodymyr Zelensky’s Ukraine.

Ukraine can and should inherit the rights of a fallen Russia. Remove the Russian Federation from its seat as a permanent member and transfer it to Ukraine. Memory permits it, morality wishes it, and an open debate among united and sovereign nations could decide it.
 
Last edited:

Bellum_Romanum

Brigadier
Registered Member
Of all the ridiculous posts about Ukraine I have read in the past year, this is one of the most insane.

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

In Vladimir Putin’s war against Ukraine, one of his weapons is Russia’s status as a permanent member of the United Nations Security Council, which entails the power to block any resolution. It’s a legacy of World War II and the decision to reserve this status to the five victors, including the Soviet Union.

But the Soviet Union no longer exists. Russia’s membership is owing to another, far more obscure event, a meeting on Dec. 21, 1991. The U.S.S.R. was about to be officially dissolved. Leaders from 11 of the 15 newly independent states—all but Georgia and the Baltics—gathered in Alma-Ata, Kazakhstan (now Almaty).

The result, after a few hours of debate: a letter from Russian President Boris Yeltsin to the U.N. secretary-general informing him of the establishment of the Commonwealth of Independent States and the agreement that Russia would succeed the Soviet Union at the Security Council.

The recipient might have observed that nothing in the U.N. Charter allows a group of states to dispose of the seat of a permanent member. He might have objected to the notion of a “successor state,” which appears in no law or official text. He might have noted that nine of the 11 states that made this decision weren’t U.N. members at the time. (Ukraine and what is now known as Belarus were founding members, giving the Soviets three seats for the price of one.) Given the novelty of the situation and the importance of the Security Council, the secretary-general should at least have demanded a formal debate in the General Assembly. Instead, Yeltsin’s notification was ratified without discussion. Many U.N. member countries heard about it on the news.

Russia’s permanent membership and the veto power it confers have no legal basis. The Russian Federation has terrorized the world for decades under a false pretense. Which brings me to an idea: Ask the U.N. to reopen the dossier and to re-examine the original power grab that laid the foundation for our current disorder. Consider how, from Bucha to Mariupol and through to the deportation of thousands of children out of Donbas, Russia has flouted the foundational principles of the U.N. And revoke the authority that Yeltsin and Mr. Putin snatched.

What then would become of the 1945 pact and the heritage of the “Great Patriotic War”?

The Red Army’s First Ukrainian Front did more than its share in World War II—among other things, liberating the Auschwitz death camp. And if there’s a former Soviet country that stands for anti-Nazism today, it’s Volodymyr Zelensky’s Ukraine.

Ukraine can and should inherit the rights of a fallen Russia. Remove the Russian Federation from its seat as a permanent member and transfer it to Ukraine. Memory permits it, morality wishes it, and an open debate among united and sovereign nations could decide it.
This man needs to be ignored and laughed out in any room with this dumb ass of a commentary. Mr. Levy has been talking, writing nonsense a top his perched Ivory tower that he's forgotten how to live a normal human being free from the trappings of his overpaid meandering nonsense that's produced nothing of significance or even life changing in any part of the global south. I would write much harsher words to describe this vulgar of a man but that would be inappropriate.
 

baykalov

Senior Member
Registered Member
Financial Times: How Zelenskyy upstaged G7 summit to confront Ukraine doubters

Ukrainian president defies host Japan’s expectations by timing attendance to ambush Brazil and India.

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

With the skeleton of Hiroshima’s A-Bomb Dome as a backdrop, Japanese prime minister Fumio Kishida ended the G7 summit with a call for global peace and a world without nuclear weapons, after being upstaged by Volodymyr Zelenskyy’s appearance.

Only a few weeks earlier, Kishida had thought “the hurdle was too high” for the Ukrainian president to attend the gathering in person. However, Zelenskyy was determined to make his first visit to Asia since the start of Russia’s invasion, according to people involved in the preparations.

Whether by accident or design, the timing of Zelenskyy’s arrival in Hiroshima presented a rare opportunity to meet — or ambush — non-G7 leaders in attendance from Brazil and India, two developing powers that have maintained ties with Moscow.

It was also the perfect setting to garner support for Ukraine’s plans to end the war, which have been vying with rival proposals by China and others that seek a ceasefire without calling for Russia’s full withdrawal, according to Japanese and European officials.

When Zelenskyy joined the meeting of G7 leaders on Sunday, some speakers including French president Emmanuel Macron proposed the drafting of a “joint communication” to fully align the group behind the Ukrainian peace plan.

Dubbed the “Hiroshima peace principles” by one diplomat, it would have stood in contrast to the Chinese alternative and other proposals being suggested by various parties. The intention was to make it clear the G7 was in lockstep and to impress this upon their invited guests, not least India and Brazil.

“We are here in the city of peace and as such it’s a very good place to discuss the possibility of peace [in Ukraine],” said a European Commission official at the summit.

But as the summit drew to a close, plans for a declaration fizzled out. However, its main messages were broadcast nonetheless. At his news conference, Kishida laid out four principles that the participants had agreed on, including the importance of the UN Charter and the rule of law, as well as achieving the original aim of projecting solidarity with Ukraine.

“This war isn’t just European,” Macron told reporters ahead of Sunday’s talks. “It’s the opportunity to discuss, exchange and convince partners of this enlarged G7 . . . India, Brazil, Indonesia and several other countries from the south, who have sometimes not exchanged as much with Ukraine.”

“This allows Zelenskyy to express himself to powers of the world who at times are exposed to just one discourse,” Macron added, making reference to the upcoming summit of the Brics countries of Brazil, Russia, India, China and South Africa.

After arriving on Saturday, Zelenskyy held bilateral talks with the G7 members as well as the leaders of India and South Korea.

“The continuing war in Ukraine is a huge problem for the entire world. India and I will do everything we can for a resolution,” said India’s prime minister Narendra Modi with Zelenskyy beside him.

It was the first time the two leaders had met since Russia’s full invasion of Ukraine last February. Modi, who was seated next to Zelenskyy during the final session at the summit, greeted the Ukrainian leader with a warm handshake and joked with him as members of the press were ushered out.

Later at the summit table, Modi also called for UN reform, noting the organisation was not able to take any effective action since Russia was a member of its Security Council, according to officials who witnessed the discussions.

A meeting with Brazilian president Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva proved to be more difficult. Zelenskyy ultimately left Japan without speaking directly to Lula, a leader who rolled out the red carpet for Russia’s foreign minister Sergei Lavrov during his visit to Brasília.

When asked whether he was disappointed that the meeting did not happen, Zelenskyy replied: “I think he [Lula] should be the one disappointed.” Macron even made a personal plea for Lula to take the meeting, according to one person briefed on their conversation.

But several Brazilian officials disputed the idea that Lula declined a meeting, saying a scheduling clash simply occurred. One said Lula had agreed to a meeting on Sunday at a time requested by Ukraine. The Brazilian team had even secured a Ukraine flag to display in the room in the Ana Crowne Plaza Hotel where the two leaders might come face to face. “We were available,” the Brazilian official said.

Kori Schake, head of foreign and defence policy at the American Enterprise Institute, said Zelenskyy’s attendance was important from a US domestic and an international perspective.
 
Top