Discussing Biden's Potential China Policy

  • Thread starter Deleted member 15887
  • Start date

PhSt

Junior Member
Registered Member
The West always had a soft spot for Russians (due to white nationalism) as show by their recent overtures to get Russia on their side. When's the last time the media even focused about Crimea? The focus is on China for now.

In my opinion, I think this is an inaccurate observation of the US attempt to court Russia to their side. This is simply a repeat of the US mission to get China to their side against the Soviet Union during 1972, except this time China and Russia's roles have been reversed.
Crimea may not be in the headlines but Russia is, and in a very negative light. Where is the West's soft spot for Russia when Russia is under a constant barrage of accusations from election meddling to poisoning of dissidents to getting banned from the Olympics and many more?
The US wants to play China and Russia against each other, both countries shouldn't fall for this trickery.

Death of Putin and his like minded friends will be very dangerous for China. There was a Pew poll showing that most Russian youth prefer a Russia-US relationship over Russia-China relationship.

Pew Research Center isn't exactly a reliable source that people can trust. This is perhaps another ploy by the West to drive a wedge between China and Russia. Last October Pew Research published a propaganda piece claiming that unfavorable views of China have reached historic highs in many countries. Should we believe this piece of propaganda?

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

I do not wish to make an impression that I am being antagonistic to your views, I just feel the need to express my points about this matter so I hope you wouldn't interpret my response as a form of hostility to your opinion.
 

localizer

Colonel
Registered Member
In my opinion, I think this is an inaccurate observation of the US attempt to court Russia to their side. This is simply a repeat of the US mission to get China to their side against the Soviet Union during 1972, except this time China and Russia's roles have been reversed.
Crimea may not be in the headlines but Russia is, and in a very negative light. Where is the West's soft spot for Russia when Russia is under a constant barrage of accusations from election meddling to poisoning of dissidents to getting banned from the Olympics and many more?
The US wants to play China and Russia against each other, both countries shouldn't fall for this trickery.



Pew Research Center isn't exactly a reliable source that people can trust. This is perhaps another ploy by the West to drive a wedge between China and Russia. Last October Pew Research published a propaganda piece claiming that unfavorable views of China have reached historic highs in many countries. Should we believe this piece of propaganda?

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

I do not wish to make an impression that I am being antagonistic to your views, I just feel the need to express my points about this matter so I hope you wouldn't interpret my response as a form of hostility to your opinion.

Yea previously I've considered the argument from counterside as well. The soft side I mentioned is from the US right-wing who wants Russia on their side because of race.

For example, the Trump supporter comments show that they were largely sympathetic to the Russians in the recent hacks:


It's hard to say what happens at this point, but news of Putin getting sick had me nervous during this critical time haha.

They failed to finish off Navalny though.


@PhSt I only pointed to the Pew Poll because I don't find it hard to believe that Russian youth prefer US over China, after all lots of them end up in the US.
But lots have changed in the last year, I'm interested in what new polls show.
 
Last edited:

ansy1968

Brigadier
Registered Member
In my opinion, I think this is an inaccurate observation of the US attempt to court Russia to their side. This is simply a repeat of the US mission to get China to their side against the Soviet Union during 1972, except this time China and Russia's roles have been reversed.
Crimea may not be in the headlines but Russia is, and in a very negative light. Where is the West's soft spot for Russia when Russia is under a constant barrage of accusations from election meddling to poisoning of dissidents to getting banned from the Olympics and many more?
The US wants to play China and Russia against each other, both countries shouldn't fall for this trickery.



Pew Research Center isn't exactly a reliable source that people can trust. This is perhaps another ploy by the West to drive a wedge between China and Russia. Last October Pew Research published a propaganda piece claiming that unfavorable views of China have reached historic highs in many countries. Should we believe this piece of propaganda?

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

I do not wish to make an impression that I am being antagonistic to your views, I just feel the need to express my points about this matter so I hope you wouldn't interpret my response as a form of hostility to your opinion.
Hi PhSt,

That is the plan of Trump (using Russia as a counterweight to China), but instead the establishment torpedo it (Russian gate)due to the influence of the globalist/internationalist (brat pack of Obama like Merkel, Macron and others). So the Russian bogeyman is a product of the Democrats , while CHYNNA (will be BIDEN CHINAGATE) is name card of the Republican, either way it's a disaster of American foreign policy cause it provide a pretext of a strategic alliance between Russia and China ,each supporting each others sphere of influence, Russia handling the European and the middle east, China the pacific. The contested issue is CENTRAL Asia, I think they had an agreement were China handle the economic issue while Russia the international affairs, both agree to subvert any attempted by the US to establish an influence. That's why the US will never withdraw from Afghanistan even if Trump orders it, it's a gateway to disrupt the BRI and a base for their destabilization effort. The evidence showed that the US military ignore/ delay his order and the Congress acted that it needs their approval for any plan withdrawal, surely violating the principle of separation of power within the branches of the US government.

The US will never accept Russia until the American leave NATO. Europe as a whole feared Russia, China is far away. The price of being a superpower is that you never satisfied anybody with your decision. The only way to solidify your alliance is to have a common enemy and I think the American is not stupid to antagonize both Russia and China. It's part of the plan all along. A new cold war with both will solidify it's hold on it's vassal state (NATO in Europe, the quad plus SK in the pacific). You can hear it from the news the constant repeat of collective action of the like minded liberal thinking nation against both China and RUSSIA.
 
Last edited:

PhSt

Junior Member
Registered Member
Biden space advisers urge cooperation with China

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

This could be a potential opportunity for China to undo some hostilities that have been fomented by the previous Trump regime. Not sure if there is a chance to bring back the partnership between China and the US to pre-Trump levels but any form of cooperation is welcome. The US must be closely watching China's recent success in its own space program and realized that collaboration in this area will be more beneficial
 

gadgetcool5

Senior Member
Registered Member
I wouldn't pay too much attention to what Trump thinks. He is out in 30 days.

The Republican party really doesn't like Russia at all, it's only Trump personally. But if you look at Republicans' views of Putin in polls, it's very low. And if you look at Republican politicians, they treat Russia like crap. And if you look at the US military industrial complex stance towards Russia, it has hardened under Trump. The reality is the West will never accept a powerful Russia as long as the NATO alliance is there because that would threaten NATO partners.

The only people in the West who like Russia are racists, those who want to pit Russia and China against each other, and far leftists. The latter group however is slightly more friendly towards China as well.

From a realpolitik standpoint, it's in Russia's interest to strengthen China, because the West's fear of China is where their leverage comes from. If the West didn't fear China, Russia would be completely isolated and screwed over. With a powerful China, Russia has at least a powerful potential partner no matter what. Similarly, the more powerful Russia is, and the more the West fears Russia, the better for China. Russia and China shouldn't play into the hands of their enemies and be pitted against each other.
 

Gatekeeper

Brigadier
Registered Member
As a minority, Katherine Tai will need to go above and beyond to prove her loyalty to America. Don’t expect her to be soft on China just because she’s ethnically Chinese.

Also, Chinese people are the worst at hating on other Chinese people. It’s the minority mentality.

Oh, I expect her to be twice as tough, just so she can "prove" herself.

It's like something I noticed with British "Indian" ethnic politicians of the right wing of the Tory party. They seem to put an extra effect in on anything anti immigrants. It seems as they have to prove themselves. They are so way out there, there would even make the most racist Tories blush.
 
D

Deleted member 15887

Guest
Not sure where to put this, but I thought it was most relevant here:
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

Sections of interest:
Within the CIA, China’s seething, retaliatory response wasn’t entirely surprising, said a former senior agency official. “We often had [a] conversation internally, on how U.S. policymakers would react to the degree of penetration CIA had of China”—that is, how angry U.S. officials would have been if they discovered, as the Chinese did, that a global adversary had so thoroughly infiltrated their ranks. The anger in Beijing wasn’t just because of the penetration by the CIA but because of what it exposed about the degree of corruption in China. When the CIA recruits an asset, the further this asset rises within a county’s power structure, the better. During the Cold War it had been hard to guarantee the rise of the CIA’s Soviet agents; the very factors that made them vulnerable to recruitment—greed, ideology, blackmailable habits, and ego—often impeded their career prospects. And there was only so much that money could buy in the Soviet Union, especially with no sign of where it had come from. But in the newly rich China of the 2000s, dirty money was flowing freely. The average income remained under 2,000 yuan a month (approximately $240 at contemporary exchange rates), but officials’ informal earnings vastly exceeded their formal salaries. An official who wasn’t participating in corruption was deemed a fool or a risk by his colleagues. Cash could buy anything, including careers, and the CIA had plenty of it.
Over the course of their investigation into the CIA’s China-based agent network, Chinese officials learned that the agency was secretly paying the “promotion fees” —in other words, the bribes—regularly required to rise up within the Chinese bureaucracy, according to four current and former officials. It was how the CIA got “disaffected people up in the ranks. But this was not done once, and wasn’t done just in the [Chinese military],” recalled a current Capitol Hill staffer. “Paying their bribes was an example of long-term thinking that was extraordinary for us,” said a former senior counterintelligence official. “Recruiting foreign military officers is nearly impossible. It was a way to exploit the corruption to our advantage.” At the time, “promotion fees” sometimes ran into the millions of dollars, according to a former senior CIA official: “It was quite amazing the level of corruption that was going on.” The compensation sometimes included paying tuition and board for children studying at expensive foreign universities, according to another CIA officer. Chinese officials took notice. “They were forced to see their problems, and our mistakes helped them see what their problems were,” recalled a former CIA executive. “We helped bring to fruition what they theoretically were scared of,” said the Capitol Hill staffer. “We scared the shit out of them.” Corruption was increasingly seen as the chief threat to the regime at home; as then-Party Secretary Hu Jintao told the Party Congress in 2012, “If we fail to handle this issue well, it could … even cause the collapse of the party and the fall of the state,” he said. Even in China’s heavily controlled media environment, corruption scandals were breaking daily, tainting the image of the CCP among the Chinese people. Party corruption was becoming a public problem, acknowledged by the CCP leadership itself.

But privately, U.S. officials believe, Chinese leaders also feared the degree to which corruption had allowed the CIA to penetrate its inner circles. The CIA’s incredible recruiting successes “showed the institutional rot of the party,” said the former senior CIA official. “They ought to [have been] upset.” The leadership realized that unchecked corruption wasn’t just an existential threat for the party at home; it was also a major counterintelligence threat, providing a window for enemy intelligence services like the CIA to crawl through. This was a global problem for the CCP. Corrupt officials, even if they hadn’t been recruited by the CIA while in office, also often sought refuge overseas—where they could then be tapped for information by enterprising spy services. In late 2012, party head Xi Jinping announced a new anti-corruption campaign that would lead to the prosecution of hundreds of thousands of Chinese officials. Thousands were subject to extreme coercive pressure, bordering on kidnapping, to return from living abroad. “The anti-corruption drive was about consolidating power—but also about how Americans could take advantage of [the corruption]. And that had to do with the bribe and promotion process,” said the former senior counterintelligence official.
There were other ripple effects. By the late 2000s, U.S. intelligence officials had observed a notable professionalizing of the Ministry of State Security, China’s main civilian intelligence agency. Before Xi’s purges, petty corruption within the agency was ubiquitous, former U.S. intelligence officials say, with China’s spies sometimes funneling money from operations into their own “nest eggs”; Chinese government-affiliated hackers operating under the protection of the Ministry of State Security would also sometimes moonlight as cybercriminals, passing a cut of their work to their bosses at the intelligence agency. Under Xi’s crackdown, these activities became increasingly untenable. But the discovery of the CIA networks in China helped supercharge this process, said current and former officials—and caused China to place a greater focus on external counterespionage work. “As they learned these things,” the Chinese realized they “needed to start defending themselves,” said the former CIA executive.

Kinda changes my perspective on Xi tbh. It's like a 3D chess move: when Xi said he was anti-corruption, we all thought it was a euphemism for consolidating power, but in actuality, he actually did implement anti-corruption measures because it makes people vulnerable to being assets for foreign governments.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

localizer

Colonel
Registered Member
Not sure where to put this, but I thought it was most relevant here:
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

Sections of interest:






Kinda changes my perspective on Xi tbh. It's like a 3D chess move: when Xi said he was anti-corruption, we all thought it was a euphemism for consolidating power, but in actuality, he actually did implement anti-corruption measures because it makes people vulnerable to being assets for foreign governments.

Definitely a new perspective for my ignorant ass
 

antiterror13

Brigadier
Not sure where to put this, but I thought it was most relevant here:
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

Sections of interest:






Kinda changes my perspective on Xi tbh. It's like a 3D chess move: when Xi said he was anti-corruption, we all thought it was a euphemism for consolidating power, but in actuality, he actually did implement anti-corruption measures because it makes people vulnerable to being assets for foreign governments.

Very good article indeed. Can't wait to read the second and third part that will be published on the 22nd and 23rd

"Editor’s Note: This is the first in a three-part series. The second part, to be published Dec. 22, covers how U.S. intelligence under Barack Obama struggled as Xi Jinping consolidated his power. The third part, to be published on Dec. 23, covers the Donald Trump era and the growing cooperation between Chinese intelligence and tech giants. "
 
Top