Miscellaneous News

Blitzo

Lieutenant General
Staff member
Super Moderator
Registered Member
The Washington DC isn't done with trying to turn WestPac into a sea of destruction:

My guess is that Washington DC wants English Vegetable to purge the ROC military of any remaining pro-KMT and pro-unification elements, therefore fully transforming Taiwan into another Ukraine in the WestPac.

Therefore, I think Beijing should really kickstart preparation for a total war against the US-led NATO-plus/+ (here, 'plus/+' means US "allies" that are outside of NATO) - Enter into semi-wartime economy, increase military budget and personnel recruitment, expanding equipment and platform procurement, intensifying improvement and upgrade efforts, heighten military R&D efforts across the board, prepping the populace for worst-case scenarios during wartime, etc.

In the meantime, however, Beijing should also try to keep the conflict delayed for as long as possible.

This kind of preaching to the choir isn't necessary, and that degree of alarmism and grievance airing isn't that useful.
To yourself and to others, chill out a bit.


@KampfAlwin and others, there's no need to keep posting twitter threads that are essentially just arguments for the sake of mocking them here.


None of the above is a formal warning in any form, and is not in moderator red or blue. It's just some friendly advice for now.
 

Abominable

Major
Registered Member
The Russian pranksters Vovan and Lexus have struck again, I think at this point they have everyone in Washington on speed dial.

This time it's Mark Esper, former head of the Pentagon under Trump. He was a general before his political career but has transitioned to uniparty warhawk quite seamlessly.


Most of the call is amateurish but there is one nugget. Around 6 minutes he's talking about his conversations with Shoigu when he was in power. He says he spoke a little about Syria and Libya but of his conversations with him was about China....

It goes along with what we've been hearing from other leaks, like the German admiral who thought NATO should partner with Russia against China because they were both "Christian".

I'm convinced the Russians were employing maskirovka since 2014. They were telling the Americans what they wanted to hear about China and completely blindsided them when they launched the war.
 

Abominable

Major
Registered Member
You can see him grasping at straws to come up with an excuse lmao. I like how people who claim they are ‘free thinkers’ who criticizes the faults of the West never ever, EVER criticize them at all. Just look at this comment.

His logic is that China wouldn’t punish them if there wasn’t public backlash, therefore the response on the disaster in the US is justified. Lol!
LOL, he keeps digging a deeper hole for himself. The baby formula incident was a criminal act. If you deliberately adulterate your product with a potential toxin you are breaking the law and you get punished - the legal system doesn't need public backlash to operate. Isn't their criticism of China that it's supposedly an authoritarian police state?

With the Ohio mess, the regulations are so bad it will be questionable whether the railway operators were even breaking the law. It could drag on for years and make some lawyers and Wall Street guys rich before the taxpayer inevitably picks up the tab. The American regime spent weeks trying to censor and ignore what happened, public outcry is literally the only reason why anything is being done.

Btw, top quality post as always, @BoraTas
 

Stryker

Junior Member
Registered Member
That Island in SCS in urgent need of militarization now. This clown Marcos has gone too far. Wise decisions to hold back on the investments in PH by China so far despite the overtures by Duterte. When the population is dumb and toxic, no matter who holds the office, he has to dance to their tunes, this doesn't mean Marcos had any affinity to improve PH-CN relations in the first place. Show them their third world place by imposing restrictions on visas of their maids and nurses and banning their stupid bananas for health & safety reasons while militarizing that Island. Enough with the niceties. Maybe even tell the coast guard to start ramming their fishing boats or whatever, puny little bunch of islands wanna play tough with a superpower? So be it.
 

siegecrossbow

General
Staff member
Super Moderator
It's a good sign for a country, especially one as large as China, when your critics have to go back to an incident that happened 15 years ago to find something bad they can point to for their whataboutery.

He already lost when he had to compare the shining beacon on the hill with an authoritarian hellhole like the hundred acre woods.
 

Lethe

Captain

The "rules-based order" is a recent innovation by the United States to lend legitimacy to its efforts to maintain and extend its hegemony outside the inconvenient bounds of international law:

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

The origin of the rules-based rubric can be seen in US strategic documents. Neither of President Clinton’s 1994 or President Bush’s 2000 National Security Strategies made reference to a rules-based order. Barack Obama’s 2010 Strategy only mentioned rules-based once although its is notable that he advocated the US “must now build the sources of American strength and influence, and shape an international order [italics added] capable of overcoming the challenges of the 21st century

By his next National Security Strategy in 2015 President Obama’s emphasis had shifted. While there are only five direct references to a rules-based international order much of the substantive argument is closely related. The 2015 Obama Strategy notes the US has an obligation “to lead the way in reinforcing, shaping, and where appropriate, creating the rules, norms, and institutions [italics added]” and to “uphold and refresh the international rules and norms”. For Obama the rules are American rules for American objectives enforced by America.

The shift from international law to a rules-based order framework in public diplomacy and strategic policy is a rational one on America’s part. The sovereign equality of states is a key principle underlying international law, denying America’s exceptionalism and hegemony. In theory, international law is politically neutral, and formally neutral among regime types, including between autocracies and democracies. The equality and neutrality aspects, disturbingly for US policy makers, allows for the possibility for non-democratic states influencing international law making.

Finally, international law is only applicable to those states who formally agree to be subject to it; this is the consensus principle. Ideally, international law is the antithesis of, and superior to, power politics in international relations. The reality is different.

Restricting its foreign policy activities within the norms and processes of international law doesn’t sit well with the struggling hegemon, and American administrations have had to invent the imaginary but vague regime of a “rules-based global order”.

Unlike the Cold War era international law is no longer a fruitful arena for America. As power shifts occur and non-western states seek to claim the neutrality and sovereignty international law offers, the US has had to cloak its activities under a new disguise.

So it is no accident that the "rules-based order" is entirely compatible with America being able to do whatever it likes (including sabotaging its allies' critical infrastructure). The concept was invented by the hegemon to lend a veneer of respectability to its practices and preferences.
 

luminary

Senior Member
Registered Member
Most of the call is amateurish but there is one nugget. Around 6 minutes he's talking about his conversations with Shoigu when he was in power. He says he spoke a little about Syria and Libya but of his conversations with him was about China....

It goes along with what we've been hearing from other leaks, like the German admiral who thought NATO should partner with Russia against China because they were both "Christian".

I'm convinced the Russians were employing maskirovka since 2014. They were telling the Americans what they wanted to hear about China and completely blindsided them when they launched the war.
Or they could've been genuine. Russia plays both sides. In fact, they far prefer their European brethren to the asiatic hordes. If not for NATO's missteps, Russia wouldn't have turned to China. Even now you'll find Russian commentators complaining how China isn't doing enough to supply them and confront the US, while Russians are selflessly shedding blood directly fighting the hegemon. It's rather similar to how Ukraine (and to an extent all proxy states) beg and at the same time secretly resent the US. It's in Russia's natural interests to stir up trouble between east and west so that China is weakened and has no choice but to turn to Russia.

The "Christian" factor is funny but it's exactly the way white imperialistic states like Germany and Russia think. Never forget that Russia was also part of the 8 nation alliance. China's rise is no less existential to them and their worldview.
 

baykalov

Senior Member
Registered Member
"OUR WAR". BoJo’s 8-point wet dream:


Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

6. Plan for Russia’s Future
NATO and the alliance’s partners must prepare for the aftermath of Ukraine’s victory: a diminished Russia. The lack of strategic thinking about Russia’s future is concerning. Western thinking has over-focused on Putin’s personal role in recent years. Contingency planning for after the war should include scenarios ranging from a hardline post-Putin regime to the possible disintegration of the Russian Federation.

While taking advantage of any opportunities arising for engagement with civil society leaders within Russia, allies should seize the opportunity presented by the large and growing Russian diaspora. Working to consolidate the emigres’ identity around the values of the free, democratic world will help shape Russia’s political future when they return.

7. Combat Authoritarian Influence Operations in the Global South
Western countries should strengthen efforts and relationships in Latin America, Africa, and Asia. Russia and China successfully target audiences and stoke anti-Western sentiments in these regions. Russia peddles false narratives about the war, while China uses soft-power tools and financial dependence to legitimize its role on the world stage and silence potential critics. Both countries attempt to portray universal values, such as human rights and the rule of law, as dangerous or alien Western ideas. The alliance must advance a comprehensive strategy to counter these influence operations and uphold universal values.
 
Top