Miscellaneous News

Temstar said:

Correction my good man, it's down to 12 now:

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

Click to expand...

So from what I read, that is 10 countries lost in the last 8 years of the DPP.

FriedButter said:

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

"If we run out of weapons, we will fight with shovels," Ukrainian Foreign Minister Kuleba told ABC News.

Click to expand...

Home Depot, Lowes issued a joint statement below:

MixedReality said:

China needs to change its strategy on Taiwan.

Click to expand...

Why? China's getting stronger; ROC and its Western allies getting weaker. Balance tilts towards China every day. What needs to change?

MixedReality said:

No point having all this economic power and military power if you’re scared to use it.

Click to expand...

Use how? It's currently being used forming regular flight and sailing incursions closer and closer to Taiwan's shores. Do you mean it's time to issue the ultimatum? To retake the island?

The "no point in having it if it's not gonna ba used" could have been said any day, 10 years, 20 years ago. But there is a point: the point is to continue grow to a level where your force is intimidating enough such that its value can be realized without being physically used, at a detriment, no matter how small, to China. And by that time, if it does need to be used, the detriment will indeed be very small. When China is signficantly and publically more powerful than the US, the Taiwan Issue will be much easier to solve.

There would be urgency on China's part if the power balance began to shift in the other direction. For now, the urgency is all theirs but they cannot use it. For China, the Taiwan Issue continues to serve as a driving force for Chinese people to work hard for our nation and our biggest national goal. I do believe that China's rise could downshift to a slower tempo caused by being content with one's achievements, once the Taiwan Issue is resolved in China's favor. Such a tempo would be much more appropriate for maintaining a lead rather than trying to catch up and close a gap. Even if ultimately China would comfortably retake Taiwan either way, it would be much better to surpass the US/West first before reintegrating the island because doing it in the other order is not only more dangerous but could cause China's final ascent to stall or at least take much longer.

MixedReality said:

Time has come to significantly up the pressure on the island and send a message to the rest of the world. Chinese sovereignty must be respected.

Click to expand...

China has done many things in that regard; what exactly would you like to see? To go further would risk a conflict taking place now when it would be better for China and worse for the West should the conflict take place later.

MixedReality said:

Otherwise people stop respecting you like this and don’t take your seriously.

Click to expand...

The entire West is not at peace because of fear of China. All conflicts that the West has started, military, technological, and economic, throwing the world into tumultuous times, are done to try to stop China's ascent. The US disrespected a virus, causing mass deaths in America, because it lost its head desperately trying to outdo the Chinese economy. For China to be concerned that the West may not respect it or take it seriously is like a 400 pound bodybuilder with muscular dysmorphia (psychological condition where one always perceives onself to be in poor physical shape despite actually being close to or even above elite).

Lethe said:

Taiwan claims that Nauru flipped to the PRC because Australia isn't paying them enough to detain folks who turn up on our shores seeking asylum.

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

Leaving the ethics of Australia paying the tiny, poor nation of Nauru to house asylum seekers for us to one side, paying $350m/yr to operate a detention facility, plus $6m year for every person actually detained there, seems like a pretty damn good deal for someone, just not the Australian taxpayer. Though it seems what we were really paying for all these years was Nauru's recognition of the ROC...

Click to expand...

Rather surprised that the ROC rebels didn't just go with "It must have been the SeeSeePee who paid Nauru to switch teams!" from the get-go, lol.

But, TBF, money politics is often a big factor when dealing with Pacific island nations WRT recognizing Beijing vs Taipei as the sole leader of One China. To put it simply, who gives more money often wins the recognition.

This is also a reminder that this isn't the first time where Nauru has switched from ROC to PRC. Same goes for a few other Pacific island nations, plus one or two Latin American ones too.

Of course, with China's national strength and economic prowess growing by the day, and with China's uniquely superior capability at island-building (which will prove crucial for the ultimate survival of these island nations in the face of worsening climate change) - Perhaps the trend of switching recognition from Taipei to Beijing amongst these island nations would hopefully become more permanent-in-nature going forward.

ACuriousPLAFan said:

Rather surprised that the ROC rebels didn't just go with "It must have been the SeeSeePee who paid Nauru to switch teams!" from the get-go, lol.

But, TBF, money politics is often a big factor when dealing with Pacific island nations WRT recognizing Beijing vs Taipei as the sole leader of One China. To put it simply, who gives more money often wins the recognition.

This is also a reminder that this isn't the first time where Nauru has switched from ROC to PRC. Same goes for a few other Pacific island nations, plus one or two Latin American ones too.

Of course, with China's national strength and economic prowess growing by the day, and with China's uniquely superior capability at island-building (which will prove crucial for the ultimate survival of these island nations in the face of worsening climate change) - Perhaps the trend of switching recognition from Taipei to Beijing amongst these island nations would hopefully become more permanent-in-nature going forward.

Click to expand...

The reason many of those islands supports the rebellion against Beijing is because Beijing, unlike the ROC, does not engage in petty bribing of their undeserving, pot bellied officials.

ACuriousPLAFan said:

Rather surprised that the ROC rebels didn't just go with "It must have been the SeeSeePee who paid Nauru to switch teams!" from the get-go, lol.

But, TBF, money politics is often a big factor when dealing with Pacific island nations WRT recognizing Beijing vs Taipei as the sole leader of One China. To put it simply, who gives more money often wins the recognition.

This is also a reminder that this isn't the first time where Nauru has switched from ROC to PRC. Same goes for a few other Pacific island nations, plus one or two Latin American ones too.

Of course, with China's national strength and economic prowess growing by the day, and with China's uniquely superior capability at island-building (which will prove crucial for the ultimate survival of these island nations in the face of worsening climate change) - Perhaps the trend of switching recognition from Taipei to Beijing amongst these island nations would hopefully become more permanent-in-nature going forward.

Click to expand...

There is little doubt that Beijing will have made both immediate and ongoing commitments to Nauru that resulted in this change.

At first glance it seems comical and absurd that there could be a connection between Australia's "regional processing centre" on Nauru and that government's recognition of PRC vs. ROC. Yet income derived from that centre apparently constitutes the of the Nauruan government's revenue. So one can appreciate how a fall in the number of asylum seekers being detained there, as has occurred in recent years, resulting in a meaningful reduction in government revenue, could present acute short-term budgetary issues that may have encouraged them to seek... alternative arrangements.

siegecrossbow said:

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

Click to expand...

"A big Chinese delegation unnerves U.S. diplomats in Davos"
Translation: Too many Chinese people scare us, 10 being at or past that number.

"A U.S. ambassador wants to make sure Secretary of State Antony Blinken sees a Swiss official, too."
Translation: We know Beijing is front and center but can we skim one off the side?

"Miller believes it would be bad optics if S doesn’t at least have a handshake with new Pres of Swiss Confederation,"
Translation: Optics over substance, it's the Western way.

"At least as of the date of the State Department document, no Chinese official was being made available to see Blinken while he’s in Davos."
Translation: We went from being the world's most feared and respected nation to one that can't get a single person out of 10 Chinese diplomats to meet with us in a 4 day event we'll all be attending in the same building. Perhaps if there were more than 10 we'd have a chance? Oh wait, that would scare us more...

Meanwhile, the Chinese delegation's just there minding thier own business doing their jobs.

manqiangrexue said:

Meanwhile, the Chinese delegation's just there minding thier own business doing their jobs.

Click to expand...

If Blinken actually did his job maybe he wouldn’t have to worry so much.

siegecrossbow said:

If Blinken actually did his job maybe he wouldn’t have to worry so much.

Click to expand...

His time is for styling his hair. And to be honest, he doesn't have much to offer compared to China's manufacturing capacity, construction capability, and soon, technology. Just like Bolton and Pompeo, he's getting sent around the world in an expensive suit but an empty briefcase.

4Runner said:

Some random thoughts on wars between US, China and/or Russia.

We all witnessed first-hand historical record of the Cold War. There was no hot wars of any scale between US and USSR. Proxy war was the name of the game during the Cold War, while US and USSR had gone out of their ways to prevent direct military conflicts.

Let me relate and explain. I have never fought a war as a soldier. In other words, I have never shot anybody. But I did engage in a few street fights when I was growing up as a teenage. I can tell you this: people who have engaged in real-life fights never talk about fighting lightly, not mentioning war. When you put yourself in a real danger, you become more rational and pragmatic than you could possibly have thought or imagined before that. You never go after your peers until you are facing direct existential threats from them.

MAD prevented direct military conflicts between US and USSR during the cold war. The exact same logic applies to the situation between US and China. While USSR had overwhelming nuclear force, China has credible counter strike capability and enormous economic power. Under no circumstances will there be direct military conflicts between US and China from now on. Possible 20 years ago, but not now, and absolutely not in the future. When serious people talk about possible scenarios of military conflicts, they are actually talking about proxy wars in worst case scenarios.

If US today could not coerce Russia in the European theater, anyone thinks US can coerce China over Taiwan needs to have his head checked. As long as China does not take the bait, Taiwan is going nowhere. Based on my fighting experiences, Japan or S Korean would more likely be annihilated before US and China were shooting at each other over Taiwan.

US knows Taiwan is an extremely emotional subject to the Chinese. China knows what it takes to resolve the Taiwan issue. The great irony is, on this subject, always about "at what cost". So China has been essentially trading time for price.

There is no war between US and China, period. Everything else is a fair game ......

Click to expand...

"While USSR had overwhelming nuclear force, China has credible counter strike capability and enormous economic power. Under no circumstances will there be direct military conflicts between US and China from now on. Possible 20 years ago, but not now, and absolutely not in the future."

This is an extremely dangerous view, and I fervently hope that China's decision-makers do not share it. Similar complacency led to the Century of Humiliation.

Rank Amateur said:

"While USSR had overwhelming nuclear force, China has credible counter strike capability and enormous economic power. Under no circumstances will there be direct military conflicts between US and China from now on. Possible 20 years ago, but not now, and absolutely not in the future."

This is an extremely dangerous view, and I fervently hope that China's decision-makers do not share it. Similar complacency led to the Century of Humiliation.

Click to expand...

The actual reason for the temporary defeat of China by western empires were material, chiefly the deindustrialization caused by the disastrous monetary policy of the Ming, which not only removed China's industry, but laid the groundwork for a coup by the congenitially inept Qing junta, a regime no more skilled that the average modern Argentinian despot, doomed to stagnation by its inherent values.

Biscuits said:

The actual reason for the temporary defeat of China by western empires were material, chiefly the deindustrialization caused by the disastrous monetary policy of the Ming, which not only removed China's industry, but laid the groundwork for a coup by the congenitially inept Qing junta, a regime no more skilled that the average modern Argentinian despot, doomed to stagnation by its inherent values.

Click to expand...

You mean the dynasty that lasted longer than the US currently has been in existence, and to which modern China owes its geographical security?