I have told those before. But first things first.
We can no longer stay silent on BLM.
We need to make sure black people have their own separate country in Native America. China should be staunch voice in this regard.
Ladakh Flash Point
- Thread starter Mt1701d
- Start date
- Status
We can no longer stay silent on BLM.
We need to make sure black people have their own separate country in Native America. China should be staunch voice in this regard.
Not gonna happen. The Chinese government is realist and pragmatic. There is no gain whatsoever to China. Even for strategic gain, there is none. And this can easily backfire to Chinese minorities.
The best course of action is just grab your popcorn, and watch how the Americans destroying themselves in racial issues.
Edit. i just realize this is off topic.
plawolf
Lieutenant General
Talk is cheap, at the end of the day, it’s only hard power that matters.
American announcements would be farts in the wind if all America did was talk. What makes people take notice of what the American says is that if you don’t follow their dictates, they can and will use hard power to destabilise your country.
Without direct foreign funding and support, popular uprisings are extremely rare and almost always doesn’t amount to anything.
Just contrast Libya with Egypt. The Libyan rebels were foreign sponsored AstroTurf, and still would have been wiped out had their paymasters not intervened militarily directly themselves.
The Egyptian uprising was actually genuine grass roots, but in the end all they managed was to change one foreign propped up figurehead for another, with the Muslim brotherhood tortured and massacred on a scale and with such depravity it would make some medieval practices seem civilised and restrained in comparison. Indeed, Egypt actually became a popular American rendition destination because of the expertise of their torture masters.
Chinese government verbal support for BLM would be meaningless without hard power support of money, organisation, communications/coordination and potentially even more kinetic support like weapons and training. But China cannot provide such material support without risking war.
Just as how it’s only America who dares to offer direct material support to HK rioters because only America doesn’t feel it needs to worry about China declaring war on it over such actions, unless and until China has the raw hard power to feel the same about the possibility of America declaring war over its support for BLM, it cannot afford to get caught making such support, which means it cannot make such support to start with.
American announcements would be farts in the wind if all America did was talk. What makes people take notice of what the American says is that if you don’t follow their dictates, they can and will use hard power to destabilise your country.
Without direct foreign funding and support, popular uprisings are extremely rare and almost always doesn’t amount to anything.
Just contrast Libya with Egypt. The Libyan rebels were foreign sponsored AstroTurf, and still would have been wiped out had their paymasters not intervened militarily directly themselves.
The Egyptian uprising was actually genuine grass roots, but in the end all they managed was to change one foreign propped up figurehead for another, with the Muslim brotherhood tortured and massacred on a scale and with such depravity it would make some medieval practices seem civilised and restrained in comparison. Indeed, Egypt actually became a popular American rendition destination because of the expertise of their torture masters.
Chinese government verbal support for BLM would be meaningless without hard power support of money, organisation, communications/coordination and potentially even more kinetic support like weapons and training. But China cannot provide such material support without risking war.
Just as how it’s only America who dares to offer direct material support to HK rioters because only America doesn’t feel it needs to worry about China declaring war on it over such actions, unless and until China has the raw hard power to feel the same about the possibility of America declaring war over its support for BLM, it cannot afford to get caught making such support, which means it cannot make such support to start with.
China has benefited from American stability and trade. It doesn't really add anything for China if the US really collapses or anything as dramatic as that. They are also customers and American wealth and spending has contributed to those favourable economic conditions. Okay things might get to the level where China would much rather lose such a massive source of income than to deal with war or even greater threats on its political system.
It doesn't help China at all to promote the destruction of the US or something along those lines. It doesn't help to have a staunchly anti-China US either which appears to be how the Americans will approach the coming competition. If all things were as they were in the last 50 years or so, then China easily capitalises on all its natural advantages and eventually comes out on top. This doesn't bode well for the western elites. In the past, China was simply not economically or industrially threatening at all and as soon as it begins to show it has potential to become one, they are trying their hardest to disrupt China's continued rise. But there is a possibility things calm down between the US and China, or at least have extremely tame struggles drawn out so long, there is no effective damage to China's long term achievements.
It doesn't help China at all to promote the destruction of the US or something along those lines. It doesn't help to have a staunchly anti-China US either which appears to be how the Americans will approach the coming competition. If all things were as they were in the last 50 years or so, then China easily capitalises on all its natural advantages and eventually comes out on top. This doesn't bode well for the western elites. In the past, China was simply not economically or industrially threatening at all and as soon as it begins to show it has potential to become one, they are trying their hardest to disrupt China's continued rise. But there is a possibility things calm down between the US and China, or at least have extremely tame struggles drawn out so long, there is no effective damage to China's long term achievements.
If their soldiers freeze to death they can blame it on low quality Chinese winter gear. China makes money and India gets scape goat. Win-win for all.
When Trump first was elected and the trade war happened, I did a lot of reading trying to figure out how this thing is going to end. I have come to the conclusion that in one decade, the U.S. and China will switch places, with China on top. Now there won't be any fireworks or big announcements. Life will go on, but this will have big implication for a country like India. Betting on the wrong horse, especially if the winning horse is your neighbor, will have serious and negative consequences for India.
At the moment, India is maybe fourth on the list of theaters that China needs to think about fighting. The first is South China Sea, Second is Taiwan, Third is East China Sea. The cost of maintaining the status quo to the Chinese side is minimal. 50K troops and some infrastructure spending on a region that needs it anyways. On the Indian side, if the Chinese decide to drag this out, it is nothing less than catastrophic. A third of the military budget pour down a rat hole each year. China has not even escalate their moves yet. Given the many internal fissures in India, there are many areas the Chinese could exploit. Further escalation like cutting fiberoptic cables, which the Indian IT industry depend on, or destroying power plants for the key regions are also options. India does not really have a way to counter such moves. At the moment, breaking up India does not suit China because that diverts too much resources and they will end with the U.S. military at its doorstep. so the objective is to keep the fighting to low level skirmishes and strike enough terror on the Indian military to keep a very large size troops at the border. There is no danger of India invading. The terrain is just to damn inhospitable for that.
If you know about the Sino-Vietnamese war, this is how Deng brought Vietnam to its knees. The initial war saw a lot of casualties on the Chinese side, but the Vietnamese side saw a much bigger lost of troops and suffered a lot of damages in North Vietnam, something a smaller country cannot afford. The subsequent ten years of low intensity fighting was devastating to Vietnam while the Chinese economy continues to grow at a healthy clip. This eventually saw the Vietnamese came to its senses and gave up the dream of trying to be the big man in South East Asia.
Already, the Chinese are at the cusp of building a carrier that can stand toe to toe with the U.S., with a budget that is a small fraction of the U.S. In another decade, they may be the one that initiates an arms race. If they decide to build twenty CSGs, the U.S., really does not have a way to follow without breaking the piggy bank. I don't know if we would even have the capacity to follow suit if the money is there. We have not even talked about the many new platforms that has yet to come out. As many in this forum have witnessed, they will come out given the level of research and investment they are doing. As their economy grow, there will be more money for these activities. Once the U.S. realize the futility of trying to contain China and retreat to the other side of the Pacific Ocean, India will face the danger of being broken up. This could happen in as little as two decades.
Singapore was lucky to have a leader that can understand the international power structure. Vietnam in 1980 and India since the inception of the country unfortunately do not have leaders that are wise enough to understand. India can ill afford to have China as its enemy.
Last edited:
Out of all three, SCS might be resolved soon. While media keeps drumming conflict, I read on Quora that Chinese is softening their approach in UN communications and recently Duterte also open for more negotiation.
And also this is my question? Should China accept solution that is not 100% of her maximum claims for the sake of conflict resolution and good relations? In my opinion she should.
SCS will not subside until the U.S. resign to its position as number two. We are still at least two decades from that. While the Chinese navy is ascendant, there won't be any substantive deals, but strategically dialing up or down the tension and things like code of conduct, or resource sharing(which either side can back out of ) are possible.
- Status