Miscellaneous News

FairAndUnbiased said:

China doesn't have a local partner like the US or Iran do. Iran, Russia and Pakistan aren't particularly local to Syria, so you're relying on a partner of a partner to do things. China also isn't geared for an expeditionary fight that far.

The Syrian people themselves are also unusually hostile to China. More than even Indians. Indians today begrudgingly admit they're behind China and correctly identify their regime as the problem. Syrians blame and belittle China while whitewashing terrorists.

So in summary, 3 reasons:

1. China isn't strong enough to project power to Syria in sufficient degree to make up for Syrias own weakness on the ground.

2. Syrians don't want to help themselves enough.

3. Syrians have looked down on China for a long time and are worse than even Indians about it.

They don't want China's help. They don't think Chinese provide value. And China can't exert the effort to help them as much as they'd like without weakening elsewhere.

Click to expand...

FairAndUnbiased said:

Syrians blame and belittle China while whitewashing terrorists.

Click to expand...

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...

Bellum_Romanum said:

That's the most IDIOTIC and FUNNIEST thing one can read coming from the retards that's Syria and Syrians. You lot can't even manage or maintain what passes for a country without a western overlord to essentially dictate to them what to do and what not to do. Not to mention the fact that any pretense of civility is simply based on their theocratic (majority religious folks) belief system imposed upon all people including the infidels. And they have the nerve to belittle CHINA? From the position of what exactly? And we're supposed to help those folks that openly mock China? Well, show the world how to govern according to your book and see how things unfold -- I hope for the best in the most honest sense of the word.

Click to expand...

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. 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.


View attachment 140839

"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.

Click to expand...

FairAndUnbiased said:

Here's some samples:

Their "appreciation" for Chinese COVID aid. Every comment saying it's only for Assad, it's a shit vaccine, muh yogurts, etc.

https://www.reddit.com/r/Syria/comments/ld1nse
Their "appreciation" for Chinese earthquake aid. Same story.

https://www.reddit.com/r/Syria/comments/11272av
Contrast to the reaction to Lebanon aid.

https://www.reddit.com/r/Syria/comments/10w0xq8
Seriously, even Indians are more humble, and that's not something I say lightly.

Click to expand...

Randomuser said:

To be fair, Reddit is an English language website so it will attract a subset of people rather than the average person. A lot of larpers will also be there since we know Reddit is astroturfed.

Click to expand...

GZDRefugee said:

@FairAndUnbiased This is a big one. Nobody on SDF would use r/china as a representation of what Chinese people think.

Mossad/Langley, I see you bastards.

Click to expand...

FriedButter said:

Iranian and Russian ground units were limited. Holding a position is impossible when the backbone of the military is throwing down their arms and deserting. Are you suggesting they should allow themselves to be surrounded as the SAA drop their arms, runs away, and does nothing to resist. So they will be surrounded in the Aleppo region as the SAA runs towards Damascus. Creating a completely avoidable disaster for yourself. As for Assad have you ever noticed that none of the Russian officials have mentioned his name once publicly. Not by the foreign minister or the president.



China has lost nothing as their Middle East interests was more about the established players then creating their own sphere. You are trying to scapegoat China because of Russia and Iranian pet project blowing up. The US interest in Syria is not a major burden to themselves and neither is it a huge drain on their resources. It hasn’t been a priority objective for them ever since Obama departed.



As I already mentioned before. This is a domestic political decision of the other side. Demanding that China start dictating what information is permitted in a partner country (Syria was never an ally.) is only going to damage foreign relations. The other side must have their own political will to act in the information space. Only then China and Russia may provide assistances if requested by the other side. You cannot go to another country, demand what they can and cannot do, and expect that they won’t start turning back to the west or downgrade relations with China.



The region is unstable. US bases get attacked on a frequent basis for many decades. How can you insist that it would pay off when everyone knows the US is going to fund their terrorist groups to attack Chinese investments and personnel. Afghanistan more or less remained stable and it is in China national security interest to keep it that way as they share a land border with each other. Their geopolitical importances for China due to the proximity to Xinjiang which is a province the west has been trying to destabilized for decades.

Of course the people of Iraq and Syria wants better infrastructure but what does that have to do with China? The government is suppose to act the interests of their country. Are they working for the Chinese people or the Syrian/Iraqi people at the expense of China. Being more wealth does not matter if the security situation in the region cannot be relied upon for the safety of investments or personnel.



The only delusional one is you with the criminal negligences and gross incompetences. You are suggesting that China should build bases 3200 land/air miles or 9200 nautical miles from any resupply or reinforcements. Right off the door step from NATO Europe. Have you gone insane? In the event of a conflict, those bases will be immediately cut off and destroyed. China military modernization and buildup is to protect the mainland. They are not in any position to be building big bases around the world.



Do you think China isn’t aware of that? Why do you think they are modernizing by replacing their military of old ancient assets with advanced modern assets. Alongside the expansion of nuclear weapons. Do you think the J20 came out 5 decades ago? Do you think there is thousands of J20s that China could move around? Do you think there are extra naval ships that China could send around the world against 11 US carrier groups?



Participating in the fashion as suggested is a road to disaster. Instead of concentrating your forces. You will instead spread them out thinly and allow the other side to conduct defeat in detail operations. Throwing away valuable assets that could be used in the event of a conflict in the pacific region. Do you think those bases is capable of resisting against carrier groups on their own? Cut off from supplies and reinforcements. Is China suppose to risk valuable air and naval assets on long range resupply missions?

Click to expand...

FairAndUnbiased said:

China doesn't have a local partner like the US or Iran do. Iran, Russia and Pakistan aren't particularly local to Syria, so you're relying on a partner of a partner to do things. China also isn't geared for an expeditionary fight that far.

The Syrian people themselves are also unusually hostile to China. More than even Indians. Indians today begrudgingly admit they're behind China and correctly identify their regime as the problem. Syrians blame and belittle China while whitewashing terrorists.

So in summary, 3 reasons:

1. China isn't strong enough to project power to Syria in sufficient degree to make up for Syrias own weakness on the ground.

2. Syrians don't want to help themselves enough.

3. Syrians have looked down on China for a long time and are worse than even Indians about it.

They don't want China's help. They don't think Chinese provide value. And China can't exert the effort to help them as much as they'd like without weakening elsewhere.

Click to expand...