Miscellaneous News

james smith esq

Senior Member
Registered Member
First of all, I am far from convinced that there is going to be a war except possible skirmishes along the current line of control.

Hypothetically if a war does happen, I guess Russia's objective is limited to significantly destabilize the Ukrainian government to collapse, a regime change. To do so, Russia does not need to defeat Ukrainian army all over Ukraine (deeply into unfriendly western Ukraine), no trouble for long logistic line in enemy territory. What need to be done is to punch through couple of points of the line of control, quickly defeat some Ukrainian units, go deeply into Ukrainian area, then quickly pull back. This can be repeated many times until the Ukrainian changes course. My idea is essentially a replay of what China did in 1978 to Vietnam. At that time Vietnam did not pull out of Cambodia because the firm USSR support and most importantly Vietnam was not a western democracy. Ukraine today is more vulnerable even if it continuously receives western aid because the government can easily collapse when people suffer enough.
I’d think that, if Russia were to invade, they’d simply advance to the topographical feature that provides most tactical and strategical advantage, this being the eastern bank of the Dnieper River (minus any assault on Kiev). It’s well within range of T-72s and 90s on internal fuel, wouldn’t require extended logistical lines, is within range of Islander missiles, would be easiest to defend from counter-attack, and it could provide an excellent negotiating “red-line”, i. e., no NATO military actions (should they get involved) east of the center-line of the river. Thus, if Ukraine wants their territory back, recognize the break-away republics, and permanently rescind the application to join NATO.

With no Russian intention of ever crossing the Dnieper, this would allow NATO to make whatever symbolic deployments they choose to without affecting the strategic calculus in the least. Ukrainian leadership would be left to choose between territorial integrity or being the new east-Germany.

God forbid the Russians did assault Kiev with the outcome being a west and east Kiev.
 
Last edited:

victoon

Junior Member
Registered Member
I kinda disagree with this ex-deputy chief of Party History Research Centre
the us was able to bounce back from decline in the past because it was able to rob and loot other industrialized countries via unequal treaties

plaza accord was one of those treaty, after japan signed that economic surrender her gdp growth was only 1.1% for decades in contrast the us experienced a decade of extraordinary recovery in growth rates in 1990s
The us enjoyed accelerated employment, productivity and wage growth, as well as faster investment and consumption growth in the later 1990s, while japan experienced lost decades

Now the us is facing another industrialized superpower nation (with a larger gdp ppp) that in contrary to japan refused to sign economic surrender plaza accord 2.0

How will the us bounce back from decline if it can't "harvest" China? So far the answer is not encouraging
They can't even agree to sign $1.9t infrastructure plan build back better which is vital for their own interest, political polarization is such that now msm openly talked about incoming civil war as soon as 2024

A parasyte cannot survive if it unable to find a host to consume
This article has a misleading title and the write up doesn't precisely convey what Zhang was saying. But if you only read the direct quotes, listed below, you can see that instead of PREDICTING US bouncing back (which you disagreed), he is arguing we should NOT predict the future because it's futile. And definitely should NOT act like we are destined to win. I can't agree more. Underestimating or just write off our rival is the last thing China should do in this historical junction.

“The US’ role as a global leader is declining but, from historical experience, the US is also a country with a strong capacity for self-regulation. So it needs to be seen whether there will be an adjustment in the United States in the future,”
“It is important that we do not pin the hopes for our development on the inability of the United States to solve its own problems,”

I don't mean to be rude, but I think dismissing the US as a 'parasite' is probably the type of thoughts Zhang is warning against. Do they benefit from their hegemonic position? certainly. But that's hardly their only source of power. we underestimate our enemy to our own detriment. Qing made the fatal error of dismissing western achievements, resulting China being humiliated for a century. The west underestimated China's ability to constantly reinvent herself, making it just a bit easier for us.

In the end, the past can not be changed, so we have to accept it no matter how hard it is. and the future is unwritten, so we have to actually write it.
 
Last edited:

getready

Senior Member
My problem is that It’s not that it’s owned by a South Korean, it’s that it’s owned by a cuck
Indeed. At the start of pandemic I recall his early covid video got a ton of views and recommendations from western audience. I didn't watch it so not sure if it's really good but I guess that's why he started sucking up to them or maybe he already did earlier. Never followed him.
 

getready

Senior Member
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

Im not deliberately focusing on these sort of news but come across it a few times every year that it is no longer an exception but the rule. Moreover I'm only mostly reading news from Australia so goodness know how many other cases from other countries or those unreported. It really is reprehensible
 

Chish

Junior Member
Registered Member
"
I don't think it is a correct statement that Japanese Govt ban Chinese owning Toyota shares, anybody could buy Toyota shares, even I have some

What Japanese rule is that need to get approval from Japanese govt to own certain % of certain industries. So for minor buyers, won't get impacted. And it applies to any foreigners, not only Chinese
"Ban" may not be technically right but the intention was to seriously limit China involvement. The following article may explained it better.
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

"Japan puts Toyota, Sony and 516 other firms on ‘national security’ list to counter China risk, foreign raiders"

"Foreigners buying 1 per cent or more in core firms face tighter investment scrutiny, versus previous threshold of 10 per cent
Japan takes step in line with measures adopted by US, Europe and others to counter China security risk"
 

pmc

Major
Registered Member
there is no thread for Europe economics
Italian with substandard parts for Boeing. before that German vehicles emission problems. French with there electricity production shutdowns. Europe does not have large digital firms to attract best people yet its manufacturing and infrastructure development is falling and we havent seen the impact of energy crises.

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
 

plawolf

Lieutenant General
Russia doesn't want to annex/conquer Ukraine just like China didn't want to annex/conquer Vietnam during the Sino-Vietnam war.

Russia might consider limited 'punitive expedition' against Ukraine to "punish it" and then withdraw, just like China launched a limited 'punitive war' to "punish" Vietnam, China declared limited objectives achieved and unilaterally ended the war.
In Russia's case, it's punishing Ukraine for pro-Western/anti-Russian attitude and soliciting NATO alliance. In China's cases, it's punishing Vietnam for pro-Soviet/anti-Chinese attitude, attacking Chinese allies (Cambodia), and USSR-Vietnam mutual defense treaty (encirclement)

First of all, that’s a fundamentally flawed and deliberately petty and condescending interpretation of the Sino-Vietnam war as promoted by the west and Vietnam.

The goals of the Chinese intervention (invasion is the wrong term since China never had any territorial designs on northern Vietnam) were primarily to curbstomp Vietnamese delusions of grandeur and attempts to annex all of South East Asia after their high from driving out the Americans.

Failure to do so early could very easily have resulted in the vastly expanded Vietnam turning their greedy eyes northwards towards China after they had consolidated their hold on SE Asia, especially with Soviet backing and maybe even egging them on.

This was why China deemed it an imperative to deal with Vietnam sooner rather than later, and lso to drive a wedge between the fledging Vietnamese-Soviet partnership by proving the Soviets were not willing to fight and die for their new Vietnamese allies, least that relationship deepened and China gets sandwiched between the Soviets to the north and the new Vietnamese empire to the south, enriched by its new conquests and equipped with the latest in soviet weaponry, at which point China might have faced a two pronged invasion by both looking to re-absorb China into the Soviet lead communist order as a true vassal.

The secondary objective was to relieve Vietnamese military pressure on Chinese allies they were attacking.

With the tertiary objective one of destroying as much as their best and most experienced combat forces and war industries as possible to further de-fang them.

Punitive economic damage was only a peripheral consideration and mainly a by product of the destruction of Vietnamese war industries rather than being the primary aim and goal.


In Russia's case, a limited attack on Ukraine would demonstrate NATO's un-reliablity and un-trustworthiness to Ukraine and the world, while at same time demonstrate Russian willingness to assert sphere of influence and confront NATO.
Except it won’t. Nobody expects NATO to fight and die for Ukraine, a non-NATO member. But if Ukraine was admitted to NATO, the organisation would be treaty bound to fight for Ukraine or else face the immediate collapse of the NATO alliance. That is why Ukraine is desperately pushing for NATO membership now, and a pointlessly petty Russian punitive war will only make Ukraine more determined to join to prevent another sub attack.

China shattered the USSR-Vietnam mutual defense pact and encirclement containment effort, and Russia is attempt the same punitive attack to achieve similar results vis-a-vis NATO encirclement.
Two major issues. First, there is no mutual defence pact between NATO and Ukraine to shatter. Attacking Ukraine now would almost certainly lead to the creation of just such a pact.

Secondly, there was zero chance of Vietnam forming an alliance with America as a consequence of the Sino-Vietnam war, but every chance of Ukraine entering just such a pact after. The two are nothing alike.

That's why this talk that Ukraine is to Russia as Taiwan is to China is non-sense. Ukraine is Russian sphere of influence (ex-colony too) encroached by West just like Vietnam is Chinese sphere (ex-colony too) encroached by West/Soviet. China even mobolized 1 million troops along Sino-Soviet border to dare them to protect Vietnam (which they didn't, shattering the encirclement effort).

Just as comparing Ukraine to Taiwan is nonsense, comparing Ukraine to Vietnam also doesn’t make sense.

Any military kinetic action short of total annexation will only strength Ukraine’s desire to join NATO, rather than make them disillusioned with the prospect of getting security assurances from NATO.

Maybe Putin is trying to psych NATO out by showing them in no uncertain terms that NATO expansion to include Ukraine is a red line Russia cannot and will not allow NATO to cross.

But my main issue with that is that it is only a bandaid at best, and does not and cannot address the fundamental core issue of both Ukraine and NATO wanting to join. After the war, Russia will still be in exactly the same position as it is now, with NATO wanting to admit Ukraine despite Russian war threats. So what has Russia achieved?
 
Top