Shanghai Cooperation Organisation (SCO) and Global South strategic cooperation

_killuminati_

Senior Member
Registered Member
Smells like he's coping that US will make some secret triumphant return any day now... Remember, they can always "replace anyone they don't agree with"! Lmao

Sometimes counteroffensive that go nowhere are just that. Counteroffensive that go nowhere. Saudi cutting oil is US psyops, pivoting to China is US psyops. Switching to yuan is US psyops. Any day now, the 4D chess will reveal itself and all the psyops will be justified... Not.

If military bases is king, then Iran has way more soldiers forward deployed outside its own country in the ME than US. Military is of key importance, but particularly when it comes to countries that can't fight well, diplomatic control is a cornerstone as well.
I already made it clear previously that the US need not respond to anything in the region as long as Arab countries continue to follow USA's long-held goal: legitimize Israel. What's there to cope? Arabs are being ethnically cleansed routinely while Saudis look the other way, as usual. Increasing relations with China hasn't changed anything. Israel still commits every crime in the region with impunity, a proxy state of US/UK. So what is the benefit of targeting Saudis today when they are establishing American interests.
 

taxiya

Brigadier
Registered Member
Since when in modern times has China provided security guarantee to Saudi Arabia or any country for that matter?
Actually, China does provide such guarantee to DPRK through treaty.

Article 2
缔约双方保证共同采取一切措施,防止任何国家对缔约双方的任何一方的侵略。一旦缔约一方受到任何一个国家的或者几个国家联合的武装
进攻,因而处于战争状态时,缔约另一方应立即尽其全力给予军事及其他援助

Once a party is under attack, the other party shall provide military and other assistance.


China and USSR provided mutural guanrantee all the way up to 1990s untill its expiration. It is later replaced by a lesser treaty with Russia. Today's Sino-Russo treaty calls for imediate consultation in the event of one party under attack. The treaty does not specify what kind of outcome the consultation is expected. But that is up to everyone's imagination.

Same thing goes with many others. For example, China did not have any treaty with Combodia but China invaded Vietnam for that matter, and fought for more than ten years. Pakistan doesn't have any such treaty with China either, but I am sure that Pakistan is assured more than a treaty.

So we probably will never see a security guarantee to SA even if there is one effectively.

Yes, China carries out "non interference diplomacy" but that is not the same thing of not getting violent when her close ally is attacked. It all depends on if that country is willing to be firmly on China's side.
 
Last edited:

Biscuits

Major
Registered Member
I already made it clear previously that the US need not respond to anything in the region as long as Arab countries continue to follow USA's long-held goal: legitimize Israel. What's there to cope? Arabs are being ethnically cleansed routinely while Saudis look the other way, as usual. Increasing relations with China hasn't changed anything. Israel still commits every crime in the region with impunity, a proxy state of US/UK. So what is the benefit of targeting Saudis today when they are establishing American interests.
So US only sets such low goals as Arabs recognizing Israel (which btw many of them don't even do). You know, something which even China and Russia does...?

Well, I'll not complain, it's convinient for China that they can get any type of resource right, diplomacy and security effort while "US need not respond to anything" (cannot?) as long as some Arabs pay lip service towards eventually doing something with Israel which China is doing today.

If you think China must physically eliminate Israel, you're thinking way too narrow. They have their needs and their vulnerabilities, with the right mix of rewards and punishments, Israel too will have a role to play in China's diplomatic architecture. Half a decade ago, people said reapproachment with Saudis were impossible, because China was too close to Iran. Let them keep cooking and see in what state Israel ends up post-conflict, I think the picture will become more clear then, just like the picture is now becoming more clear in Ukraine.
 

_killuminati_

Senior Member
Registered Member
So US only sets such low goals as Arabs recognizing Israel (which btw many of them don't even do). You know, something which even China and Russia does...?

Well, I'll not complain, it's convinient for China that they can get any type of resource right, diplomacy and security effort while "US need not respond to anything" (cannot?) as long as some Arabs pay lip service towards eventually doing something with Israel which China is doing today.

If you think China must
physically eliminate Israel, you're thinking way too narrow. They have their needs and their vulnerabilities, with the right mix of rewards and punishments, Israel too will have a role to play in China's diplomatic architecture. Half a decade ago, people said reapproachment with Saudis were impossible, because China was too close to Iran. Let them keep cooking and see in what state Israel ends up post-conflict, I think the picture will become more clear then, just like the picture is now becoming more clear in Ukraine.
I haven't said anything regarding what China must and must not do, so don't put words into my mouth like you've been doing previously. My comments were about US' relationship with KSA which is largely independent of China. What China does with KSA is irrelevant to anything I've written unless you can substantiate that China is involved in Saudi internal politics.

USA has it's strategic interests in the region and Israel is it's military arm. Given the fact that Israel can do almost anything in the region without consequence, what else would the US need? Most Arabs have de facto accepted Israel even if they don't officially recognize it. The ones that are aggressive and reluctant usually get bombed: Iraq, Syria, Lebanon, Libya. You're trying very hard to insinuate that the entry of China will somehow change the status quo, but are incapable of substantiating it. Although I do believe that the US is losing it's grip physically, but at the same time, it's proxy (Israel) is being empowered. And while China's entry may reduce dependence on USA, I have not seen China provide any kind of assurance to MENA that they'd involve themselves in a conflict with the US.
 

Serb

Junior Member
Registered Member
The ones that didn't fail have the major influence beyond their borders. Anyways, it is very early in this development. But the way things are progressing, one by one, everyone will accept Israel.

Maybe you haven't acknowledged the idea that Israel itself is a Western proxy state. Thus, US need not be there physically so long as Israel is there and most major regional players have accepted Israel: Qatar, Jordan, Egypt, Saudi Arabia, UAE.. who is left? Bombed to stone age Syria and Iraq, Iran and Yemen are the only ones who will resist. Lebanon, Kuwait, Bahrain and Oman are non influential.

No one has accepted Israel, every country you listed votes regularly against Israel in UN resolutions, supports the 2-state solution from 1967 which Israel opposes, start initiatives against Israel in human right courts, on ministerial and state-head levels always condemn and criticize Israel, withdraws their ambassadors, don't recognize Israel and not consider Hamas a terrorist organization, depending on which the country listed by you we are talking about.

So, just because they are not directly militarily attacking Israel you mean that they are accepting it? Maybe it's because it's none of their business? Hamas already choose Iran pretty much as its backer so it's understandable that the Sunni faction won't start a war over them like Iran's proxies are doing, but that doesn't mean that they will help Israel either. And we know that Israel without US help is pretty much done once they are left 1 vs 1 with Iranians.
 

_killuminati_

Senior Member
Registered Member
No one has accepted Israel, every country you listed votes regularly against Israel in UN resolutions, supports the 2-state solution from 1967 which Israel opposes, start initiatives against Israel in human right courts, on ministerial and state-head levels always condemn and criticize Israel, withdraws their ambassadors, don't recognize Israel and not consider Hamas a terrorist organization, depending on which the country listed by you we are talking about.

So, just because they are not directly militarily attacking Israel you mean that they are accepting it?
Yes. That's what de facto means. Many of these countries trade with Israel. Egypt allows Israeli ships access to the Suez Canal. Saudi Arabia allows Israel to use its commercial airspace. UAE has direct flights to Israel. Jordan shares water with Israel. Jordan and Egypt also openly conduct trade with Israel via QIZ. What does that mean? That means these countries have de facto recognized Israel as an independent entity.

Like I said previously, voicing concerns and voting in the farcical UN is moot. It establishes nothing. 600+ UN resolutions have been passed against Israel since 1948 which achieved absolutely nothing!

Maybe it's because it's none of their business? Hamas already choose Iran pretty much as its backer so it's understandable that the Sunni faction won't start a war over them like Iran's proxies are doing, but that doesn't mean that they will help Israel either. And we know that Israel without US help is pretty much done once they are left 1 vs 1 with Iranians.
'None of their business' doesn't sit well with the Six-Day War and Yom Kippur War, where all of these 'none of their business' countries fighting against Israel. Maybe you are also unaware that Gaza was an Egyptian territory until 1967.

Hamas is Sunni. And they chose Iran because the Arabs backed out.
 

Serb

Junior Member
Registered Member
Yes. That's what de facto means. Many of these countries trade with Israel. Egypt allows Israeli ships access to the Suez Canal. Saudi Arabia allows Israel to use its commercial airspace. UAE has direct flights to Israel. Jordan shares water with Israel. Jordan and Egypt also openly conduct trade with Israel via QIZ. What does that mean? That means these countries have de facto recognized Israel as an independent entity.

Like I said previously, voicing concerns and voting in the farcical UN is moot. It establishes nothing. 600+ UN resolutions have been passed against Israel since 1948 which achieved absolutely nothing!


They are probably doing that for their economic benefit, after all, look at how Israel is standing economically and how Gaza is standing.

But, also, that won't help them much if the US were suddenly to back away from its support for Israel. Iran and its proxies would still quickly destroy them and Saudi Arabia and others won't/can't help Israel no matter what you dream about.

Israel is useless territory for the US, because, without the US, it is simply not self-sustaining territory in that kind of environment long-term, and it's second Ukraine right now.

Look at how much money, weapons they need to send them, data, and actual soldiers this time around, but they still can't defeat Hamas.
(Not just from the US, but from the entire West).

Imagine if Hezbollah and other Shia militias from Syria and Iraq were to join in completely, how much money, weaponry, industrial production, and strategic focus would the US need to lose there? It's the biggest geopolitical net loss I've ever seen in my entire life.

Israel is not a US proxy, because the US gets no value out of them, it just makes tens of times more important Muslim countries mad at them. It's like trading a bar of gold for a coin of gold, it makes no rational sense.

It is Israel that controls the US (America is Israel's proxy) through its zionist lobby organizations, not the other way around. The US is at a major net loss by supporting them. That's why the US supports Israel so much, or they are simply stupid.

You can't convince them that 9 million Israelis are more important than hundreds of millions of neighboring Arabs, it makes actually no sense at all. The only explanation for that net profit loss behavior is if the Zionists controlled the US government and made them behave like that.


'None of their business' doesn't sit well with the Six-Day War and Yom Kippur War, where all of these 'none of their business' countries fighting against Israel. Maybe you are also unaware that Gaza was an Egyptian territory until 1967.

Hamas is Sunni. And they chose Iran because the Arabs backed out.


They went into a war a few times for Israel so they stopped going anymore after losing so many times, it's normal human innate behavior.

Would you repeat the same mistake 5 times, or would you back down? (Even though they are much stronger than in the past).

It doesn't help that in the meanwhile Iran's influence completely took over Gaza.

What Egypt the least wants right now is Gaza or Palestinians inside of its borders lol.

And btw Egypt still helped keep Gaza functional thanks to those tunnels for many years, you forgot that, despite their relations with Hamas.
 
Last edited:

gelgoog

Lieutenant General
Registered Member
Hamas is Sunni. And they chose Iran because the Arabs backed out.
Claims that Hamas has ties to Iran are US and Israeli propaganda bullshit.

Hamas has its leadership in Qatar and they have ties to the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt and Turkey. They never got along with Iran. They fought each other on opposing sides in the Syrian Civil War.

That Iran and its supporters in Hezbollah have historical grievances with Israel is another thing altogether. This happened after Israel invaded the Shia's home turf in Lebanon leading to the creation of Hezbollah. That's why the Shia don't get along with Israel.
 
Last edited:

Michaelsinodef

Senior Member
Registered Member
Claims that Hamas has ties to Iran are US and Israeli propaganda bullshit.

Hamas has its leadership in Qatar and they have ties to the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt and Turkey. They never got along with Iran. They fought each other on opposing sides in the Syrian Civil War.

That Iran and its supporters in Hezbollah have historical grievances with Israel is another thing altogether. This happened after Israel invaded the Shia's home turf in Lebanon leading to the creation of Hezbollah. That's why the Shia don't get along with Israel.
???

Hamas definitely has ties to Iran and Hezbollah nowadays (definitely not when it was founded).

Like, both financial and military aid is something that they have gotten from Iran/Hezbollah (including training in Iran I believe, like for their fighters who used that flying vehicle suspended by parachute).
 

gelgoog

Lieutenant General
Registered Member
Hamas definitely has ties to Iran and Hezbollah nowadays (definitely not when it was founded).

Like, both financial and military aid is something that they have gotten from Iran/Hezbollah (including training in Iran I believe, like for their fighters who used that flying vehicle suspended by parachute).
There is zero proof of this and in fact lots of evidence against it. You are just repeating idiotic US propaganda. The US also used to claim that Al-Qaeda had training camps in Iraq before 2003. Instead they proliferated after the US took Saddam down.

If Hamas are being sponsored by Iran, how come they don't have any Iranian weapons, like the Houtis or Hezbollah?
 
Last edited:
Top