Miscellaneous News

ACuriousPLAFan

Lieutenant General
Registered Member
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...
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.
 
Last edited:

Biscuits

Colonel
Registered Member
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.
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.
 

Lethe

Captain
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.

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

manqiangrexue

Brigadier
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
"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.
 

Rank Amateur

Junior Member
Registered Member
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 ......

"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.
 

Biscuits

Colonel
Registered Member
"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.
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.
 

solarz

Brigadier
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.

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

Serb

Senior Member
Registered Member
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 ......


The US from the beginning to the end of the Cold War period basically silently knew that they had the USSR under control completely and that they would eventually win over time. Heck, the existence of the USSR even helped America become as productive as possible. USSR wasn't any kind of threat to them economically and technologically. It was like some kind of exercise partner to them, with positive influence even, albeit with nuclear powers.

At its height the USSR had only about 50% of the US GDP, meanwhile, China has 130% of the US GDP now and still rising, not to mention its industrial capacity stronger than the entire West combined, it's totally above the US technologically as well, nearing the level of the entire West combined in that area as well.

Comparing this to the Cold War and the USSR is a major cope. Also at that time, you had politicians in the US still being somewhat rational and many times smarter than today objectively. They still didn't experience 1991 to 2008 "hyperpower", "end of history" period of hubris and delirium so they weren't so arrogant, etc.

They still think that they have some chance to win against China, and that's why they will start a war, while in reality, they are not. They already lost. They should've thought about going against China way earlier, but their hubris and arrogance didn't allow them to see it earlier.

Either way, it's not a proxy war when the US sends money, soldiers, weapons, and the third highest political seat in the US political establishment to provoke, congressmen, and senate members, to provoke on the legal province of China constantly, in the future maybe even VPs and presidents would be sent to the island. It's not a proxy war when they order the Philippines to provoke Chinese ships on a daily basis on Chinese territorial waters and islands, increasingly send more and more weapons and soldiers to military bases all around China, always sail around China excessively, etc.

These are direct attacks on China's own territory. It isn't like they provoked some Chinese mining company's rights and interests or attacked some Chinese mercenary group in Africa, so you could say it is a proxy war, with their own proxy groups, no, this is directly throwing gloves in the face of China itself, declaring a war with China itself.

That is not a "proxy war" that is like continuous slapping in the face and instigation of a hot war they 100% want to happen, because they know that China will eventually displace their global hegemony, leading to their collapse. So they want to take those better chances now, than in the future. At this point, due to internal divisions, they would really collapse if China's rise threatened the dollar and their global financial hegemony, they will really collapse.

They will really collapse if China threatens their global military hegemony. And that will surely happen, so that's why they want a war against China early while they still think that they have some chance, a better 50% chance today, than a 0% chance in the future. But they don't realize that they are already basically near 0%. A hot war is the reality.
 
Last edited:
Top