Miscellaneous News

Q

quim

Junior Member
Registered Member
Overbom said:
I will add another reason which imo is the most important:

4. What is in for China's national interest to spend so many resources, economic, military, diplomatic along with reputational hit, geopolitical etc. What would be the gain? Would the gain be enough to compensate for spending all these resources and, most importantly, incurring such a tremendous opportunity cost?
Click to expand...
The West has been spending resources since 1500, or since 1200 if we count the crusades, and treats it as an investment. It seems that they managed to gain territories, influence and worshipers around the world.

Being passive in the face of this is asking to have your own territory partitioned between the powers.

The Crusades made the Italian republics the richest and most influential countries during the Renaissance. Then Spain came and invaded and crushed Italy during colonialism. Then France came and crushed Spain during the Enlightenment. Then Great Britain came and crushed France during industrialization. Then the US came and crushed Great Britain and all of Europe since the Great Wars.

The only way to become and remain a superpower is to compete and weaken enemies during wars.

China also has every chance of crushing the US. But being passive and just waiting for someone else to fall doesn't really seem like a way to succeed.

The last time China saw the West arrive and remained inert, it was only a matter of time for the Chinese to be humiliated and the territory partitioned between Europeans, Americans and Japanese.
 
T

taxiya

Brigadier
Registered Member
tokenanalyst said:
The thing is...China did invest billions in Syria.

View attachment 140779
Click to expand...
And you believe these western propagandists?

According to Ministry to commerce published in January 2024 well before (impossible to hide), by the end of 2022 China's total accumulated investment in Syria was 13.24 million USD. That is 0.44% of what the western source alleged. We don't have the figure for 2024, but the picture is clear, it is nothing compared with what the west tried to project.

To put things in perspective, the US spent $320 million in a floating pier in Gaza that lasted for less than 2 months. Even if we calculate in the fact of US being wastefull and cut the cost to 32 million, that is still 2 months lossing twice of China spent in many years.

As a reference, by the end 2022 China's accumulated investment in Iraq was 2.5 billion USD. The figure for Iran was 3.5 billion USD.


1734048141377.png

"China loosing whenever something happens" is a text book western propaganda. For example, China "lost" when Imran Khan got in office, China "lost" again when he was removed from the office. Or China "lost" whenever Sri Lanka, Bangladesh, Thailand etc. change leaders regarless who is replacing whom.

This western talking point does have its success in causing panic and hysteria among many members here. But luckily China isn't a western "democrazy", influencing stupid mass does less in affecting policy than in the west.
 
Last edited:
proelite

proelite

Junior Member
taxiya said:
And you believe these western propagandists?

According to Ministry to commerce published in January 2024 well before (impossible to hide), by the end of 2022 China's total accumulated investment in Syria was 13.24 million USD. That is 0.44% of what the western source alleged. To put things in perspective, the US spent $320 million in a floating pier in Gaza that lasted for less than 2 months. Even if we calculate in the fact of US being wastefull and cut the cost to 32 million, that is still 2 months lossing twice of China spent in many years.

As a reference, by the end 2022 China's accumulated investment in Iraq was 2.5 billion USD. The figure for Iran was 3.5 billion USD.


View attachment 140839

"China loosing whenever something happens" is a text book western propaganda. For example, China "lost" when Imran Khan get in office, China "lost" again when he was removed from the office. Or China "lost" whenever Sri Lanka, Bangladesh, Thailand etc. change leaders regarless who is replacing whom.

This western talking point does have its success in causing panic and hysterial among many members here. But luckily China isn't a western "democrazy", influencing stupid mass does less in affecting policy than in the west.
Click to expand...

China lost but at what cost?
 
R

Ringsword

Junior Member
Registered Member
Last edited:
P

PandaAI

Junior Member
Registered Member
quim said:
The West has been spending resources since 1500, or since 1200 if we count the crusades, and treats it as an investment. It seems that they managed to gain territories, influence and worshipers around the world.

Being passive in the face of this is asking to have your own territory partitioned between the powers.

The Crusades made the Italian republics the richest and most influential countries during the Renaissance. Then Spain came and invaded and crushed Italy during colonialism. Then France came and crushed Spain during the Enlightenment. Then Great Britain came and crushed France during industrialization. Then the US came and crushed Great Britain and all of Europe since the Great Wars.

The only way to become and remain a superpower is to compete and weaken enemies during wars.

China also has every chance of crushing the US. But being passive and just waiting for someone else to fall doesn't really seem like a way to succeed.

The last time China saw the West arrive and remained inert, it was only a matter of time for the Chinese to be humiliated and the territory partitioned between Europeans, Americans and Japanese.
Click to expand...

I would say that China is the only country doing the heavy lifting in terms of weakening the American empire by developing its economy, industrial base, technology, military. China’s development itself is giving an alternative to the Western bloc for the world. Russia just don’t have the power of the USSR to weaken the Western grip of the world fundamentally. China is the only hope remaining for the world. Therefore China has to be very smart and strategic on what battles it gets into until it’s ready.

Things like reducing oil dependence by transitioning to EVs, self sufficient in high end chips, develop developed digital yuan and CIPS for international payments, further build up Navy and Air Force, increase nuclear arsenal, etc are needed before going into full on confrontation with the West. Going too early is a mistake that benefits the West. China is realistically the only country that has the smart leadership and the vast scale to end the Western domination. China is the biggest fish the West want to eliminate to preserve their 500 years of dominance.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top