Miscellaneous News

Phead128

Phead128

Captain
Staff member
Moderator - World Affairs
US did set up a military airforces base in Kyrgyzstan (landlocked central Asian) for annual $150 million in aid (of which $63 million direct rent for base) each year to supply Afghanistan war. So US is definitely capable of penetrating deep into landlocked Central Asia force bases.
 
siegecrossbow

siegecrossbow

General
Staff member
Super Moderator
Overbom said:
Doctor, the meds!

"I am more confident than ever that we can walk, chew gum, and play chess at the same time. I look forward to continuing this work in the year ahead with you."
https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1509174865370169344
Click to expand...

How do you walk and play chess at the same time? On your phone or something? I would suggest against it since you are liable to walk into a pole if you are occupied with your phone.
 
M

MelianPretext

New Member
Registered Member
Bellum_Romanum said:
China should stop with this naive and archaic views of "non-interference" policy when her enemies are using that to China's great detriment. China should modify that stance that whenever American led stooges act in concert to damage Chinese allies, and national strategic interests, they will be met with equal if not greater reaction in whatever means necessary.
Click to expand...
Public figures in China seem to be domestically coming around to this perspective.

Coincidentally, an interview with Jin Canrong today talked around this subject:

We must avoid a hot war, this is a principle; at the same time, we must do our best to avoid a new cold war that will greatly harm the interests of both sides, but there are objective contradictions between the two sides, so I emphasize playing the clear card.

To play the clear card, we must first change the thinking of keeping a low profile.

Keeping a low profile at the moment is a kind of thinking that avoids reality. It has a logical error in thinking that as long as China doesn't say it, the US doesn't know. In fact, the strategic capabilities of the United States are still very good. It makes no difference whether you say it or not. It knows all about it. As I have said repeatedly, strategic research is particularly taboo to assume that you are smarter than your opponents, that you can deceive others, and you are easy to lose. Thinking of yourself as smart, always thinking about hiding and hiding things, this is not acceptable.

Keeping a low profile and keeping a low profile is regarded by many scholars and decision-makers as a permanent policy. In fact, it is only a product of a very special background. It has played some roles under very special conditions. Now that those conditions are gone, this strategic thinking will naturally change. .

On diplomatic rhetoric:

I am still thinking about this question, so the answer may not be mature. At the strategic level, we need to change the thinking of keeping a low profile and keep a low profile. At the technical level, we should be transparent. For example, military capabilities, industrial science and technology forces should be more transparent, and some diplomatic intentions should be clearer.

Some of the diplomacy we have launched is definitely based on China's national interests, but we need to be more transparent. In the exchanges between China and foreign countries, we have a problem, that is, there are too many clichés. Some of the words we say now are relatively empty, and people don’t believe them very much.

Scholars should also reflect on this point. Scholars today have several problems, one of which is that they always speak big words and clichés, and repeat the official language repeatedly. This is not acceptable. Scholars have to speak in their own words, otherwise there will be no convincing both internally and externally.

In addition, some vernacular or issues that can be explained clearly are deliberately described in a particularly obscure and advanced manner; and only by speaking such obscure words can one enter certain small groups, which is actually a kind of academic corruption. These are all things that need to change.

(Machine translated, full interview here:
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
)
 
J

Jingle Bells

Junior Member
Registered Member
texx1 said:
Then Xi ought to think about changing PRC's non-interference policy. Otherwise, it's always an useful excuse for west-leaning CCP liberals to prevent China from biting back.
Click to expand...
I see, what you mean by "biting back" is something that can give you some heart-throbbing feelings of excitement. Kinda like love at first sight. You want to fall in love. You want our dear CPC and PLA to flex their Big-China muscles to win your heart, your "少女心". Right?
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top