Miscellaneous News

horse

Colonel
Registered Member
If NATO cannot deal with Russia now and if the population cannot by gas or food ever again from Russia which will ultimately cause wide spread suffering, how the heck can they expect to handle China that is literally their life line

What they are saying is rather stupid shit.

They are saying NATO is going to deal with Russia today, and then deal with China tomorrow.

Why use the word deal, or the term deal with?

What is the point? What is the goal?

Have no clear goal, and they will wind up nowhere.

The older people around this forum, they have heard this before.

The objectives for the Vietnam War, after a while they all become very vague for the Americans. We know what eventually happened there.

Same thing is going to happen here.

When they use the word deal with, that means there is no goal or objective, which means there is no plan.
 

Coalescence

Senior Member
Registered Member
Chinese non-interference is just a myth.
Please ask UNITA (Angola), UWSA (Myanmar), Kolang army (Myanmar), and Khmer Rouge (Cambodia, with the blessing of King Sihanouk in Beijing) if China doesn’t provide material support
I second this. The non-interference stance is just a ruse and also because China currently doesn't yet have similar capabilities to interfere in internal affairs similar to US. US started with more resources and time to build up contacts, organizations and connections within their target countries, which given them a bigger lead than China who only now has the resources to interfere but need more time to build up.

Most of the elites in each countries have a stake in US hegemony, because of their wealth, assets or status is stored within US, so it will be hard for China to persuade them to change camps. The US also managed to brainwash and indoctrinate the common populace through media propaganda and proselyting "freedom and democratic values" in youth through controlling educational institute and standards. So China could create incentives for elites to store their wealth in China, creating prestigious universities and luxury real estate, target countries that US doesn't good reputation and foothold in like Latin America and Africa with positive propaganda and influence their elites.

It would take a decade for China to be able to completely challenge US in the development in this field, but they would be able to win more countries easily like Cambodia and Solomon Islands as they slowly improve/learn strategies, create more connection and contacts, and allocate more resources into it. For now, China should focus on development of their own economy and military as it is more urgent, create backup plans when countries fall under US camp, and continue development in the field of "interfering in other country's affair".
 

Jingle Bells

Junior Member
Registered Member
Chinese non-interference is just a myth.
Please ask UNITA (Angola), UWSA (Myanmar), Kolang army (Myanmar), and Khmer Rouge (Cambodia, with the blessing of King Sihanouk in Beijing) if China doesn’t provide material support
Well, to exist in this world, as a part of this world, is to interfere with others.

Just like how the US forced China to buy a lot of US food and agricultural products in the past years, in order to decrease the "imbalance" of China-US trade. And now, since there is an upcoming food shortage, they are now accusing China of "hording food".

And trust me, if China start selling these food at market price, the West will accuse China of profiting from the hunger of others.
If China start selling these food at lower than market prices or even give them out for free, they will accuse China for disrupting market order, and for trying to manipulate and control poor (short-of-food) countries into being China's minions.

There is no satisfying your rivals/enemies, you can do no right in their eyes. Even if you sacrifice yourself to save them, they will still curse you for dying (because that creates an imbalance to their world because the vacuum you left behind).

It was after realizing these, did I start to leave my old "angry youth" (愤青) past behind me.
 

Mohsin77

Senior Member
Registered Member
There have been a lot of brainlet takes about China's non-interference policy, as if that policy is all that stands in the way of China building an alliance that would put NATO to shame and make it the strongest power in the world by a country mile and cure male pattern baldness. Unfortunately, things are much more complicated than that.

America came out of the Second World War with half the world's wealth. 5% of the world's population had half its wealth, which means a single American had on average 19x the wealth of the average non-American. This is the environment in which America built the alliance system that today China is challenging. Where was China at the end of the Second World War? Where was China just thirty years ago? You expect China to have an alliance system like America's? No can do - America took them all. What China has left are slim pickings. There's only one way to accomplish that and it's to resoundingly defeat America in war in front of everybody. Whatever interference/non-interference policy China adopts won't change that.

On the subject of Pakistan, I'll defer to @Mohsin77's judgement, but it seems to me the point of American interference is not to put an anti-China government in power. There is no such government in Pakistan. The point is to keep Pakistan in a state of perpetual instability so China can't build it up. Even if all the governments are "friendly" to China, these recurring coups will keep projects in a chronic state of delays, problems, etc.

But one thing I noted was Bajwa's recent disgusting speech where he said something to the effect of, "Pakistan buys weapons from China because America leaves us no choice when they cut off exports. All our best equipment is from America. Daddy America, please take us back!" But it's like that trolling article that was posted recently said: he's a Sandhurst/West Point type. Qamar Bajwa is 62 years old - when he was attending a military academy, China's GPD was $300 billion (it's close to $30 trillion today for context).

This is what China is struggling against. It's rise was so recent and so rapid that, as Graham Allison put it, people haven't had time to be astonished.

The Bajwa speech was seen by everyone as a capitulation to the US, but that's because the Army is much more adept at diplomacy than Imran Khan. Lest we forget, Khan literally said he'd shoot down USAF drones and fighters at one point, basically threatening open war with the US. I think we can all agree that wouldn't be an ideal situation either.

Now compare that to the Army. Consider the past 20 years and the Afghan War. The Army was very compliant (officially) to the US. That whole 'non-NATO ally' crap was happening. We were buying practically free Vipers etc. But the entire time that the US military was flying over Pakistani airspace, CPEC was gaining steam on the ground, under the supervision of the Army. Also the Taliban, which the US was fighting in Afghanistan, were basing all their operations from Pakistan (lolz.) There's a reason why Pakistan is the most hated country in the State Department and the Pentagon. We did screw them over, but it was payback for the Pressler Amendment, so they deserved it.

During this same time, the crook politicians were in power in Pakistan as well, but they didn't stop CPEC. Were things inefficient? Of course. But our strategic integration with China continued throughout that period. And in this speech by Bajwa, he again emphasized that CPEC is continuing, regardless of our relations with the US.

Also consider, that China has never indicated that it wants Pakistan to be completely cut-off from the US, because that's not in China's interest. Look at the case of Russia right now. Does China want Russia to be completely cut off from the EU and be totally dependent on China? That can be a very expensive proposition for China. The same applies to Pakistan's case.

Now, as for the "best" weapon systems, everyone knows that Pakistan is never getting Raptors etc. from the US anyway. Even though there was a time when we got Vipers before anyone else (before it was even approved for export.) But those days are long gone. They ended the day Pakistan decided to go nuclear. And that was a decision made by both the Army + Civilians. The die was cast decades ago, and there is no going back. When the US hit us with sanctions, completely screwing everything up for our military and our economy, it proved to Pakistan that the US can never be trusted. So we bit the bullet, and didn't give up our nukes.

At the same time, neither the US, nor Pakistan, want to be outright enemies. We may hate each other, but we have business to do. And the US can pull a lot of strings to sabotage Pakistan, so we'd rather not pick this fight right now. We need to focus on growth, and having the US block our every move is not in our interests. You have to pick your fights and the timing of those fights.

As for the story of PTI and Imran Khan, that is far from over. He is still the most popular leader in Pakistan and will most likely return even stronger. If anything, this is a good learning experience for him. He's admitted he made a lot of mistakes in his party management during his tenure. He needs to learn from his mistakes, make the corrections, and then mount another offensive.
 
Last edited:

KYli

Brigadier
China non-interference policy was borne out of the open door policy in 1978. In order to focus on economic development, Deng Xiaoping announced that China would no longer sponsor and involve in other countries internal struggles. Deng Xiaoping had ended many foreign aids to Africa, Latin America and Southeast Asia. The aim is to rebuild trust with neighbors and Western powers that China no longer would impose and spread ideology to other countries so no longer posed a threat to the international liberal ruled bases order. Another reason is China was pretty much broke after CR and didn't have resources to continue to support any ambitions.

Interesting time ahead.
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
 

Topazchen

Junior Member
Registered Member
Its because of the "non-interference" bs policy.

If China doesn't want to interfere, the West will gladly do it. This "take the high road" thing only works out in fairy tales

Interference is a domain. If China refuses to engage/fight in it, then the West will win it and then proceed to damage China.
In this case, IK is very beneficial for China because he has been developing and reforming Pakistan's economy. The stronger Pakistan is, the stronger China becomes.

If the opposition parties (= corrupt thieves) come in power, then this means a weak Pakistani economy which is not in China's interests.

Its all about who can develop Pakistan more. IMO the person who can do that is IK, and as such this is the guy that China should want to be in power
Chinese propaganda is not sophisticated enough to make inroads and cultivate a rabidly pro China constituency.
The US propaganda and influence is wide and deep from NGOs to media. Undoing or matching that will take decades and a paradigm shift in foreign policy and domestic messaging
China's non-interference policy exists because propping up so-called friendly regimes is s sure way to create more problems for yourself down the road.

The US may be very good at destroying, but they can't build anything. China can work with those countries regardless of what government is in power.
Again the American political system, massive soft power and narrative control through compliant media makes it very easy to get away with those fuck ups.

I'm not sure China can pull that off
 
Last edited:

Strangelove

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

The stunning spectacle of the European Union (EU) committing slow motion hara-kiri is something for the ages. Like a cheap Kurosawa remake, the movie is actually about the US-detonated demolition of the EU, complete with the rerouting of some key Russian commodities exports to the US at the expense of Europeans.

It helps to have a 5th columnist actress strategically placed – in this case astonishingly incompetent European Commission head Ursula von der Lugen – with her vociferous announcement of a crushing new sanctions package: Russian ships banned from EU ports; road transportation companies from Russia and Belarus prohibited from entering the EU; no more coal imports (over 4.4 billion euros a year).
In practice, that translates into Washington shaking down its wealthiest western clients/puppets. Russia, of course, is too powerful to directly challenge militarily, and the US badly needs some of its key exports, especially minerals. So, the Americans will instead nudge the EU into imposing ever-increasing sanctions that will willfully collapse their national economies, while allowing the US to scoop everything up.

Cue to the coming catastrophic economic consequences felt by Europeans in their daily life (but not by the wealthiest five percent): inflation devouring salaries and savings; next winter energy bills packing a mean punch; products disappearing from supermarkets; holiday bookings almost frozen. France’s Le Petit Roi Emmanuel Macron – perhaps facing a nasty electoral surprise – has even announced: “food stamps like in WWII are possible.”

We have Germany facing the returning ghost of Weimar hyperinflation. BlackRock President Rob Kapito said, in Texas,“for the first time, this generation is going to go into a store and not be able to get what they want.” African farmers are unable to afford fertilizer at all this year, reducing agricultural production by an amount capable of feeding 100 million people.

Zoltan Poszar, former NY Fed and US Treasury guru, current Credit Suisse grand vizir, has been on a streak, stressing how commodity reserves – and, here, Russia is unrivaled – will be an essential feature of what he calls Bretton Woods III (although, what’s being designed by Russia, China, Iran and the Eurasia Economic Union is a post-Bretton Woods).

Poszar remarks that wars, historically, are won by those who have more food and energy supplies, in the past to power horses and soldiers; today to feed soldiers and fuel tanks and fighter jets. China, incidentally, has amassed large stocks of virtually everything.
Poszar notes how our current Bretton Woods II system has a deflationary impulse (globalization, open trade, just-in-time supply chains) while Bretton Woods 3 will provide an inflationary impulse (de-globalization, autarky, hoarding of raw materials) of supply chains and extra military spending to be able to protect what will remain of seaborne trade.

The implications are of course overwhelming. What’s implicit, ominously, is that this state of affairs may even lead to WWIII.

Rublegas or American LNG?
The Russian roundtable Valdai Club has conducted an essential
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
on what we at The Cradle have defined as
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
– the real geoeconomic game-changer at the heart of the post-petrodollar era. Alexander Losev, a member of the Russian Council for Foreign and Defense Policy, offered the contours of the Big Picture. But it was up to Alexey Gromov, Chief Energy Director of the Institute of Energy and Finance, to come up with crucial nitty-gritty.

Russia, so far, was selling 155 billion cubic meters of gas to Europe each year. The EU rhetorically promises to get rid of it by 2027, and reduce supply by the end of 2022 by 100 billion cubic meters. Gromov asked “how,” and remarked, “any expert has no answer. Most of Russia’s natural gas is shipped over pipelines. This cannot simply be replaced by Liquified Natural Gas (LNG).”
The risible European answer has been “start saving,” as in “prepare to be worse off” and “reduce the temperature in households.” Gromov noted how, in Russia, “22 to 25 degrees in winter is the norm. Europe is promoting 16 degrees as ‘healthy’, and wearing sweaters at night.”

The EU won’t be able to get the gas it needs from Norway or Algeria (which is privileging domestic consumption). Azerbaijan would be able to provide at best 10 billion cubic meters a year, but “that will take 2 or 3 years” to happen.

Gromov stressed how “there’s no surplus in the market today for US and Qatar LNG,” and how prices for Asian customers are always higher. The bottom line is that “by the end of 2022, Europe won’t be able to significantly reduce” what it buys from Russia: “they might cut by 50 billion cubic meters, maximum.” And prices in the spot market will be higher – at least $1,300 per cubic meter.
An important development is that “Russia changed the logistical supply chains to Asia already.” That applies for gas and oil as well: “You can impose sanctions if there’s a surplus in the market. Now there’s a shortage of at least 1.5 million barrels of oil a day. We’ll be sending our supplies to Asia – with a discount.” As it stands, Asia is already paying a premium, from 3 to 5 dollars more per barrel of oil.
On oil shipments, Gromov also commented on the key issue of insurance: “Insurance premiums are higher. Before Ukraine, it was all based on the Free on Board (FOB) system. Now buyers are saying ‘we don’t want to take the risk of taking your cargo to our ports.’ So they are applying the Cost, Insurance and Freight (CIF) system, where the seller has to insure and transport the cargo. That of course impacts revenues.”

An absolutely key issue for Russia is how to make the transition to China as its key gas customer. It’s all about the Power of Siberia 2, a new 2600-km pipeline originating in the Russian Bovanenkovo and Kharasavey gas fields in Yamal, in northwest Siberia – which will reach full capacity only in 2024. And, first, the interconnector through Mongolia must be built – “we need 3 years to build this pipeline” – so everything will be in place only around 2025.

On the Yamal pipeline, “most of the gas goes to Asia. If the Europeans don’t buy anymore we can redirect.” And then there’s the Arctic LNG 2 project – which is even larger than Yamal: “the first phase should be finished soon, it’s 80 percent ready.” An extra problem may be posed by the Russian “Unfriendlies” in Asia: Japan and South Korea. LNG infrastructure produced in Russia still depends on foreign technologies.

That’s what leads Gromov to note that, “the model of mobilization-based economy is not so good.” But that’s what Russia needs to deal with at least in the short to medium term.

The positives are that the new paradigm will allow “more cooperation within the BRICS (the emerging economies of Brazil, Russia, India, China and South Africa that have been meeting annually since 2009);” the expansion of the International North South Transportation Corridor (INSTC); and more interaction and integration with “Pakistan, India, Afghanistan and Iran.”
Only in terms of Iran and Russia, swaps in the Caspian Sea are already in the works, as Iran produces more than it needs, and is set to increase cooperation with Russia in the framework of their strengthened strategic partnership.

Hypersonic geoeconomics
It was up to Chinese energy expert Fu Chengyu to offer a concise explanation of why the EU drive of replacing Russian gas with American LNG is, well, a pipe dream. Essentially the US offer is “too limited and too costly.”
Fu Chengyu showed how a lengthy, tricky process depends on four contracts: between the gas developer and the LNG company; between the LNG company and the buyer company; between the LNG buyer and the cargo company (which builds vessels); and between the buyer and the end user.

See link for rest of the article.
 
Top