Miscellaneous News

plawolf

plawolf

Lieutenant General
muddie said:
Just to add, Sinochem could consider just dumping their Pirelli stake and China make a statement questioning the viability of investing in Italian companies. There is nothing strategic about holding Pirelli for China.

Further retaliation against Pirelli should be communicated behind closed doors, especially in regards to their tire sales in China.
Click to expand...

Several obvious problems with that approach.

Firstly, at the most superficial financial level, one does not simply buy a majority stake in a major company on the stock market since there will never be that amount of shares just floating around. Usually such stakes comes at a significant premium above and beyond the listed share price of the shares precisely because of the controlling stake aspect of the buy. To simply dump the shares at market value would mean a significant net loss on the investment for Sinochem. Indeed, there just won’t be the normal market demand to absorb all those shares, and as soon as a certain percentage threshold is reached (which will be far below Sinochem’s holdings), every professional trader in the world will know what is going on, and the share price will nosedive and Sinochem will need to stop selling or take a massive loss on the share sales. As soon as the fire sale is over, the company share price will rebound, so it won’t do any lasting damage beyond to Sinochem’s bank account.

Secondly, as already mentioned by others, this move sets an unacceptable precedent that must be strongly, and I would argue, disproportionately resisted and punished. Doing anything less risks opening the floodgates to similar Chinese-Exclusion-Act-2.0 level discriminatory clauses popping up all over the place as greedy western politicians and their rich puppeteers look to effectively rob China of all its overseas investments.

In many ways, this is a perfect illustration on why China should never, and will never limit its military preparedness to merely being able to defeat western military misadventures in China’s backyard. This is a key reason why Chinese military modernisation and expansion is focused so much on the navy and expeditionary combat capabilities.

If Chinese military might is purely defensive and geographically limited to its own homeland, there is little China can do to protect its overseas investments from being plundered like what happened to Russian assets. And China doesn’t have to have done anything wrong for that to have happened. All it would take is for the west to find some pretext to start a war with China, and then re-write the law books to make it perfectly ‘legal’ to seize Chinese state and private assets when they come to fight China and loose. In order to safeguard Chinese foreign investments, China needs to develop and maintain the expeditionary hard military power needed to come to the homes of the Europeans and take what they stole back.
 
B

Biscuits

Colonel
Registered Member
plawolf said:
Several obvious problems with that approach.

Firstly, at the most superficial financial level, one does not simply buy a majority stake in a major company on the stock market since there will never be that amount of shares just floating around. Usually such stakes comes at a significant premium above and beyond the listed share price of the shares precisely because of the controlling stake aspect of the buy. To simply dump the shares at market value would mean a significant net loss on the investment for Sinochem. Indeed, there just won’t be the normal market demand to absorb all those shares, and as soon as a certain percentage threshold is reached (which will be far below Sinochem’s holdings), every professional trader in the world will know what is going on, and the share price will nosedive and Sinochem will need to stop selling or take a massive loss on the share sales. As soon as the fire sale is over, the company share price will rebound, so it won’t do any lasting damage beyond to Sinochem’s bank account.

Secondly, as already mentioned by others, this move sets an unacceptable precedent that must be strongly, and I would argue, disproportionately resisted and punished. Doing anything less risks opening the floodgates to similar Chinese-Exclusion-Act-2.0 level discriminatory clauses popping up all over the place as greedy western politicians and their rich puppeteers look to effectively rob China of all its overseas investments.

In many ways, this is a perfect illustration on why China should never, and will never limit its military preparedness to merely being able to defeat western military misadventures in China’s backyard. This is a key reason why Chinese military modernisation and expansion is focused so much on the navy and expeditionary combat capabilities.

If Chinese military might is purely defensive and geographically limited to its own homeland, there is little China can do to protect its overseas investments from being plundered like what happened to Russian assets. And China doesn’t have to have done anything wrong for that to have happened. All it would take is for the west to find some pretext to start a war with China, and then re-write the law books to make it perfectly ‘legal’ to seize Chinese state and private assets when they come to fight China and loose. In order to safeguard Chinese foreign investments, China needs to develop and maintain the expeditionary hard military power needed to come to the homes of the Europeans and take what they stole back.
Click to expand...
Rather than going to them militarily to collect, it would be easier to take back the same or more in penalties from the west, since the west has more stakes inside China than the other way around.

China doesn't need a large military because it needs to collect from unreliable nations. It needs a large military to fulfil it's international obligations as the largest economy, to keep trade lanes safe and open, to stop expansionist countries and deal with international crisis.

And when countries like America half-confess or at least refuse to wash their hands clean of alleged desire for expansion, and these countries have raised their military spending far above the normal and are building dozens of aircraft carriers, then China must eclipse such countries militarily, to keep the global balance stable.
 
O

Overbom

Brigadier
Registered Member
coolgod said:
https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1670697285229985792
https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1670696270124679168

I guess we'll soon find out if Blinken's Christmas wish came early this year. He better have something important to say when meeting Xi Da Da, no more of this no decoupling but we need guardrails nonsense.
Click to expand...
For people who think that Western propaganda is all lies. Back channel negotiations about meeting Xi were probably positive as long as Blinken's meetings with Qin and Wang Yi went well

From 2 weeks ago:
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

U.S. and China Prepare for Possible Blinken Visit to Beijing​

Trip later this month by the American secretary of state may include a meeting with Xi Jinping​

Click to expand...
 
S

Shadow_Whomel

Junior Member
Registered Member

France summons allies in challenge to German-led air defence plan​

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!


France is challenging a German-led plan to build up Europe’s air defences, in another sign of brewing tensions over how the region should counter the threat posed by Russia.
The disagreement will set the backdrop to an air defence strategy conference in Paris on Monday, which partly aims to wrest back momentum from the Berlin-backed European Sky Shield initiative, whose launch blindsided French officials last year.
Convened by President Emmanuel Macron on the sidelines of the
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
, French officials describe the event as a forum for debate among EU defence ministers, US and Nato military officials, and industry executives.
But Macron’s push also reflects more fundamental differences between Paris and Berlin over how to promptly strengthen military defences against Vladimir Putin’s Russia while at the same time fostering Europe’s industrial base.
German chancellor Olaf Scholz unveiled Sky Shield last October to create a European air and missile defence system by jointly procuring equipment, and 17 countries have since signed up, including the UK, the Baltic states, Sweden and Finland.
Olaf Scholz and Emmanuel Macron
Olaf Scholz, left, and Emmanuel Macron at a meeting earlier this month have major differences in opinion about military defence © Ludovic Marin/AFP/Getty Images
Russia’s invasion of Ukraine and its heavy use of munitions and missiles to attack from the skies were a wake-up call that Europe could no longer neglect its air defences. “We have a lot of catching up to do in Europe”, Scholz said in an August speech setting out his vision for air defence.
But key countries such as France, Italy and Poland have remained on the sidelines, showing the challenges of overcoming national industrial interests even as
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
are
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
up across Europe. Paris in particular was caught off guard by Sky Shield’s announcement and
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
a Franco-German summit in part to signal its pique.
While French and German officials have avoided public criticism of each other’s plans, differences are evident behind the scenes. Germany initially planned to send a senior official instead of defence minister Boris Pistorius, but changed course over the weekend.
Macron has implicitly criticised Sky Shield for relying too much on weapons systems manufactured outside Europe, while not adequately considering how to best deter Russia, including by potentially acquiring long-range missile strike capabilities.
Air defence “is first a strategic issue before being an industrial one, but obviously, it must be based on a balance of offensive actions and defensive actions”, Macron said in a recent speech.
“When I see certain countries which increase their defence spending to massively buy non-European systems, I simply tell them: ‘You are preparing the problems of tomorrow!’”
In Berlin, officials see the French criticism as unfounded and argue that the urgency of closing gaps in air defences means that procuring “off-the-shelf” systems is preferable to “lengthy and often cost-intensive” new developments. In the letter of intent sent to Nato last year seen by the Financial Times, the countries taking part in Sky Shield agreed to “pragmatic solutions” to “enable swift progress” on air defences.
Iris-T air-to-air missile launchers
Germany has signed off on a set of Iris-T air-to-air missiles from its own manufacturer Diehl for €900mn © Diehl Defense via ABACA/Reuters
Although countries in Sky Shield each make their own procurement choices, Germany has said it plans to buy Iris-T missiles from homegrown manufacturer Diehl group for medium-range protection, the Patriot from US-based Raytheon Technologies for long range, and the Arrow 3 from Israel for very long range. The German parliament last week signed off on the first purchases: a set of six Iris-T units for €900mn and the first tranche of funds in a $4.3bn deal for the Arrow 3 missiles.
In Paris, the exclusion of the Franco-Italian SAMP-T missile defence system made by MBDA and Thales, which serves a similar range as the US-made Patriot, has proven a sore point.
“France is upset that Sky Shield is largely based on US and Israeli technology when there is a European alternative, and that the project has in effect left out southern Europe,” said Shahin Vallée, a former adviser to Macron who works at the German Council on Foreign Relations.
A French official denied that Paris was motivated by such competitive concerns. The conference was not intended to undermine Sky Shield, the person said, but rather to hold a much-needed discussion over the broader strategy of how to protect European skies, including the roles of Nato and the EU as well as deterrence from nuclear weapons held by France and others.
A second French official pointed out the risk that spending billions on air defence systems could provoke a new arms race with Moscow.
A SAMP/T missile launcher
The exclusion of the Franco-Italian SAMP/T missiles, which have a similar range as the US Patriot, is a sore point in Paris © Kacper Pempel/Reuters
About 20 officials at minister level were expected to attend the conference, along with representatives from Nato and the US.
No specific deals are expected at the conference. But Macron is expected to speak at the closing and Paris may hold similar events in the future.
One senior western official whose country is part of the Sky Shield initiative was unenthusiastic about the French manoeuvring with the conference. “It’s perplexing and difficult to understand why the French feel the need to do this,” the person said. “The whole point is to not have competing ideas.”
Within Nato, the Sky Shield initiative is seen as a positive step to achieving better interoperability and standardised defence platforms, the lack of which has been laid bare by the war in Ukraine. Countries’ weapons often do not work seamlessly together and militaries cannot always resupply their allies.
Pistorius said it was important to him that the Sky Shield initiative was not seen as a rival to Nato or the EU.
“Everything that is procured can be integrated into the existing structure,” he told the FT. “You can see from this that we are not in competition with the French conference in Le Bourget.”


I sometimes really think that the German Chancellor is a brainiac. This joint European air defence plan actually didn't inform the French, but chose to work with the British instead, seriously?
 
Fedupwithlies

Fedupwithlies

Junior Member
Registered Member
Jiang ZeminFanboy said:
https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1670720976856940545

I have the feeling that next week there will be new proposed pack of sanction against Chinese companies, never trust the American snake
Click to expand...
I wonder if Bill Gate's visit had anything to do with this.

I'm pretty sure rich people in the US have an out-sized say in how the US is run and honestly the US oligarchs are feeling a bit uneasy with US-China tensions lately.

The number of CEO's visiting China plus Bill Gates arriving and meeting in person might be the real powers behind the US meeting Xi Jing Ping, and then having the figurehead come along with some good PR.
 
plawolf

plawolf

Lieutenant General
Biscuits said:
Rather than going to them militarily to collect, it would be easier to take back the same or more in penalties from the west, since the west has more stakes inside China than the other way around.

China doesn't need a large military because it needs to collect from unreliable nations. It needs a large military to fulfil it's international obligations as the largest economy, to keep trade lanes safe and open, to stop expansionist countries and deal with international crisis.

And when countries like America half-confess or at least refuse to wash their hands clean of alleged desire for expansion, and these countries have raised their military spending far above the normal and are building dozens of aircraft carriers, then China must eclipse such countries militarily, to keep the global balance stable.
Click to expand...

Seizing foreign assets in your own territory is always a dubious move, since even though those assets are foreign owned, they are still in your country generating profits, employing people, paying taxes and generally contributing to your economy. From a national prospective, seizing them is like moving change from your left pocket to your right pocket, the value of the asset and its economic contribution doesn’t change.

It only makes sense in the west because connected private individuals gets to massively profit off of those seizers by making foreign government assets into their own private property, so they get to collect the interest/royalties from those assets instead of foreign governments, and can sell those assets for massive personal profits. But those ‘benefits’ are meaningless in modern China where such overt and blatant corruption has been largely tamed.

Seizing foreign assets also will negatively impact FDI, as it fundamentally undermines trust in the safety of those investments.

Finally, with the way the world economy is developing, Chinese own assets in western countries will soon be worth more than western assets inside China, if that tipping point has not already been reached.

Also, maybe I wasn’t being as clear as I could be, China developing a large and powerful military with global reach isn’t just, or even primarily about literal debt collecting at the point of the sword. It’s about being able to impose unacceptable and inescapable direct costs on the west as a means to get them to moderate their greed and cuntfuckery. You think the Italians will be more likely to be reasonable and respectful to you if you make a great moral argument from afar, or if you can come and leave a horse head in their bed when they try to fuck with you and yours?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top