There must be an escrow, prepayment and airtight contract to ensure payment.
Miscellaneous News
- Thread starter bd popeye
- Start date
Will Russia accept the status of "Little Brother" in the China-Russia relationship? China did not subordinate foreign nations before Western industrialization, but it did have an 'Imperial Tributary system' where China was the 'Big Brother' and rest of the nations were 'Little Brothers', or even as a 'Father-Son' relationship with certain kingdoms like Joseon Korea. Not literally subordinate like a vassal.
Not literally subordinate, but the perception of 'junior status' in the relationship. Example, we joke amongst ourselves that UK is the junior lapdog of US in the US-UK relationship, but in reality, it's a sovereign-sovereign voluntary alliance with a huge economic/power disparity. Any long-term "alliance" between China-Russia would need mutual respect, but also recognition of defacto huge economic/power disparity.
Ukraine is an independent sovereign nation that can decide its own fate and future, I don't see anything wrong per se, unless you believe Ukraine should be part of USSR/Russia forever and breakup of USSR was an error in history.
This isn't comparable to Taiwan because Taiwan was never an independent sovereign country like Ukraine was (China never recognized Taiwan independence, but Russia recognized Ukraine independence).
The closest analogy would be Mongolia, an independent nation that is formerly part of Qing/ROC that PRC has formally recognized as independent. Hypothetically, IF Mongolia tried to enter into Mongol-American treaty alliance with prospect of US troops on Sino-Mongol border, then I agree, it makes sense for China to fck Mongolia up so she comes to her senses. So yea, if China annexed a strategic slice of Mongolia in response to Mongol seeking US alliance, then yes, I say that is "justified" on strategic grounds, but technically still is imperialistic annexation.
I agree, the cultural/history pull of geography is undeniable. The difference is Russia formally recognized Ukraine's independence as a separate nation in 1989 with a legally-binding agreement. China never recognized Taiwan's independence, so they are not comparable.
I agree with you, in the closest analogy of Mongolia seeking a US-Mongol alliance with US troops on China border, then Mongolia has zero critical thinking and needs to be SLAPPED with offensive military force so she knows her place and gives China proper respect. However, that would still an imperialist action by China since China recognized Mongolia's independence as sovereign nation.
Geopolitics is a lot more complicated than only Geographic Determinism. What about economic interests? What about historical memories of colonization/annexation by Russia? Geopolitics is multifaceted and to render it only down to geography is an oversimplification. China can just the same justification to annex Mongolia based on geography and loose historical connections.
So I agree 100% with you that by virtue of geography, smaller powers should defer to larger powers in terms of national security interests. (e.g., no THAAD in Korea because it disrupts the balance of power of bigger nations like China/Russia, or Cuba should not host any Soviet naval or missiles bases near US mainland)
Where we diverge is that larger power's national security concerns override all of smaller power's national security and economic interests solely based on geography and ethnic/racial kinship. The problem is that ignores economic interests (closer EU ties because EU is richer), ignores the momentum of history (Ukraine colonized by Russia, doesn't want to repeat that again), and ignores the independent status of Ukraine (Russia recognized Ukraine as an independent nation).If Russia wants Ukraine to stay in its's influence/orbit, it needs to offer economic benefits and promise to safeguard Ukraine's national sovereignty. You can't rely on the "Hard Stick" approach without offering "Carrots". Ironically, Russia's annexation of Crimea will push Ukraine even more into Western influence, because Russia offers fewer economic benefits while presenting itself as an military threat.
Whether you think Ukraine is capable of critical thinking is up to you, but Russia recognized Ukraine as an independent sovereign state in 1989 in a legally-binding treaty, so even if Ukraine's actions is suicidal and we don't like it, we have to respect it because it's an independent country according to Russia and United Nations. This is not even comparable to Taiwan where Taiwan isn't even an independent nation.
100% agree wholeheartedly. I don't want China to be dragged into an Middle East or Eastern European quagmire and potentially nuclear WW3 by putting all eggs into one basket with Russia.
Realistically, China doesn't have the option of whether or not it fights a nuclear WW3, if that is the path western powers choose. China should fight WW3 with Russia at its side rather than let the west dismember the Russian nation for a second time through regime change, at which point PRC would be in a weaker position in the western hegemony. This not to say a combined conflict between Russia+China+SCO (ex India) vs EU+US+Quad would see our sides victory above 30% probability, but that is still preferable to perpetual domination by America.
Last edited:
bajingan
Senior Member
China and india are the source of 75% to 80% of the APIs imported to america
Does americans really wants to see the cost of their xanax skyrocket? That is on top of their medical insurance premiums lol
Here is more information. Witten by Delaney who has a heavy pro US stance.
US adds 33 Chinese companies to red flag list, unseals Hytera indictment
- Being added to the Commerce Department’s ‘unverified list’ means a firm faces tougher rules on doing business with American companies
- The Hytera indictment details a 13-year effort by the company and a group of former Motorola employees to steal technology
The US government on Monday announced restrictions on transactions with 33 Chinese organisations whose ownership is deemed to be “unverified”, and unsealed an indictment against a Shenzhen-based tech company from supplying US federal agencies.
The Commerce Department’s new “unverified list” entries are primarily hi-tech manufacturers, including those that produce laser components and pharmaceuticals, government research labs and two universities. US companies seeking to export to entities on the list must obtain a licence to do so.
One of the listed schools, Southern University of Science and Technology in Shenzhen, figured into the of a Massachusetts Institute of Technology professor accused of misrepresenting his relationship to China on funding documents. Charges in that case were dropped last month, when prosecutors said they did not have enough evidence.
One of the listed schools, Southern University of Science and Technology in Shenzhen, figured into the of a Massachusetts Institute of Technology professor accused of misrepresenting his relationship to China on funding documents. Charges in that case were dropped last month, when prosecutors said they did not have enough evidence.
The Commerce Department’s Bureau of Industry and Security said of the entities added that it “could not verify their bona fides because an end-use check on transactions subject to [export restrictions] in which these persons were parties could not be completed satisfactorily for reasons outside the US government’s control”.
The number of Chinese companies flagged by the Commerce Department, including those on the so-called and “military end-user” list has grown as policymakers try to halt the diversion of technology meant for commercial products to military applications that could undermine US national security.
Also on Monday, the Justice Department unsealed an indictment against Hytera Communications Corp – a Chinese supplier of professional mobile radio systems, also known as walkie-talkies, used by police – saying it conspired with former employees of Motorola Solutions to steal technology.
Prosecutors accused Hytera and the recruited employees, whose names are redacted, of a seven-year effort starting in 2007 to steal Motorola’s trade secrets “to accelerate the development of Hytera’s [mobile technology] products, train Hytera employees and market and sell Hytera’s … products throughout the world”.
The indictment details the defection of a group of employees from Motorola units based in Penang, Malaysia.
In one email cited in the court document, an employee is quoted as saying: “It is going to cause a lot of problem as we are technical people and bring along a lot of knowledge. We have/will signed the NDA [non-disclosure agreement] and some of our lies may cause problems once Motorola finds out.”
China’s efforts to out-compete the US in the hi-tech arena and acquire technology that could provide an edge in military technology have prompted executive branch programmes like the Justice Department’s , under which MIT professor Gang Chen was accused, and the various Commerce Department lists meant to hamper such transfers.
They are also the motivation behind bipartisan congressional efforts to counter Beijing on these fronts.
Last week, the House of Representatives , which, along with provisions on the defence and human rights fronts, would set aside more than US$50 billion in federal funds through 2026 to subsidise the domestic manufacturing of semiconductor chips.
A similar China bill, the US Innovation and Competition Act, passed the Senate by a two-thirds margin last summer. Negotiators from the House and Senate will need to negotiate a final bill that both chambers can pass and send to President to sign into law.
Source:
Are there still Chinese companies, research institutions and universities that rely on American, European and Japanese suppliers for essential components?
At this rate, any company that doesn't use US inputs will command a share price premium.
What does this even mean? In a practical sense, what would this entail?
I'll ask again, what does this recognition entail? Do you expect Moscow to regularly sing paeans to how big and strong China is and how lucky it is to be its "little brother"? China isn't some insecure narcissist whose fragile ego requires constant affirmation.
The only part of modern international relations you seem to get is the useless formalism. Who cares who recognized whom? Does the fact that Taiwan doesn't have a seat in the UN bring the PRC any closer to governing it? No. The only thing that will do that is China shifting the balance of power sufficiently in its favour.
As a practical matter, Russia is much closer to ruling Ukraine than China is to ruling Taiwan, despite their respective statuses at the UN.
We don't have to respect anything. When Russia signed that treaty in 1989, it was suitable for it. Now it isn't, so that treaty isn't worth the ink used to print it. That's how the world works, and that's how it's worked since the first treaty was signed.
Another member already demonstrated to you that Russia offered Ukraine a lot of economic inducements. Make an effort to internalize what you read because having a discussion with someone who just wants to hear his own voice is a waste of time.
I'm not interested in labelling and moralizing, that's an American thing. The only thing that interests me when evaluating any candidate action China might take is the expected benefits and expected costs of said action, nothing more.
It sure acts like it. Maybe the problem is that they haven't read their rejection letter from the UN closely enough.
Frankly, you need to develop a much healthier respect for the threat and use of force.