This article is based on a comment that was on one of my forums. In it, the person suggested that what he has read about China, from MM, reminds him of the society as depicted within the science fiction story “Starship Troopers” by Robert Heinlein. I have to admit that this is a profound observation. And I agree with him. Here, we will dissect this observation and add some of my personal comments to it.

The book

The book is well worth the read. I have it available in glorious and easy to read HTML here…

.

Starship Troopers Comparisons

Starship Troopers is perhaps the best-known novel of science fiction master Robert A. Heinlein. Unlike many science fiction novels, the longevity of Starship Troopers’ reputation has at least as much to do with controversies over its themes as the quality of the writing and storytelling.

I am afraid there is no getting around using the f-word here—there is significant debate as to whether Starship Troopers, which glorifies martial virtues and a highly authoritarian political constitution, is fascist.

This debate is muddied by the 1997 movie based on the book, which the filmmakers intentionally used as an artistic opportunity to engage in a reductio ad absurdum of militaristic culture.

Putting the movie aside, I want to explore the political economy of the novel itself.

My claim is simple: Starship Troopers is not fascist. Instead, it is an exploration of certain sociopolitical truths that, if ignored, doom a civilization to self-parody by the hemorrhaging of civic virtue.

The novel, told from the perspective of infantryman Juan “Johnnie” Rico, primarily depicts the transformation of a civilian into a soldier. But it is also a commentary on the qualities of a political structure that result in a durable social order.

The novel is set centuries into the future, where earth is part of a polity called the Terran Federation, a spacefaring civilization that extends humanity throughout the galaxy.

In this civilization, all high school students are required to take a course titled “History and Moral Philosophy,” which must be taught by a veteran of the armed services. Johnnie’s teacher, retired Lt. Col. Dubois, recounts to his students how the “twentieth century democracies” gradually experienced a breakdown in domestic law and order.

This occurred as these polities continued to grant more and more rights to their citizens, but did not impose accompanying responsibilities.

One result was a spike in crime, such that public spaces were no longer safe at nighttime and many were not safe during the day.

Later in the novel, we learn that international military disaster accompanied domestic political disorder.

A vaguely described war—between the “Chinese Hegemony” and an alliance of the United States, Britain, and Russia on the other—so exhausts the Western polities that they lose the ability to even maintain order within the armed services.

With the breakdown in social order, veterans of this war eventually take the law into their own hands. They form gangs to police their towns and cities, imposing martial law without any civilian oversight—of which it is unclear there could be any, given the previously mentioned political atrophy.

At first, this is unmistakably nothing more than vigilante justice.

But through sheer force, they are capable of maintaining a rudimentary peace. The order of martial law is a low form of order; no great civilization can flourish with a boot on its neck.

But eventually, not through any formal grant of legitimacy via democratic processes but a gradual acceptance of the new ad hoc regime, regularity returns to the social world.

On-the-spot justice gives way to regular procedures for ascertaining guilt and assigning punishment to perceived criminals.

As these practices become institutions, civilization shifts from one sociopolitical equilibrium to another.

With regularity comes justified expectations of future behavior by the new government, and along with it the rule of law, and the return of some semblance of democratic and parliamentary governance.

The chief difference is that society is now quasi-Spartan: only those with a military background can participate in the governance of the polity; key civilian positions are reserved by law for veterans; and those who do not perform at least two years of federal service cannot exercise “sovereign franchise.” That is, they cannot vote.

At various points in the novel, this narrative is referred to in order to point out two important truths about governance.

These truths are explored through the interplay of Johnnie’s character development and his eventual comprehension of his society’s governance structures.

The first of these truths has to do with the nature of sovereignty.

In the real world, we tend to view sovereignty in ethical terms. We answer “Who rules?” by asking, “Who ought to rule?” This is how we continue to affirm democratic legitimacy even though it is obvious that the will of the people has little to do with how modern Western polities are actually governed.

In contrast, the characters in Starship Troopers have no truck with romantic theories of governance that have no basis in reality.

At its root, sovereignty is power, which means force.

The quasi-military government of Starship Troopers exists because the founders of the Terran Federation, back when they were little more than a vigilante mob, were willing to impose themselves on others.

As it became clear that nobody could oppose them, they became the new de facto government, and eventually the new de jure government. The essential truth of sovereignty, in terms of who actually rules, is that sovereignty is inevitable and, in a higher sense, arbitrary.

Why do veterans govern the Terran Federation?

The only possible answer is because they can.

To be clear: This is not a claim that social order requires violence. It is the claim, as historically robust a truth as can be found, is that someone, somewhere, will wield the sword.

To the extent that our political constitutions can be founded on “reflection and choice,” our choice is not power versus self-governance.

Instead, it is responsible versus irresponsible power.

Now we see why so many worry about the glorification of fascism in Starship Troopers. Heinlein had the audacity to explore a world where Sparta works, and is durable.

Understandably, this puts our Western (American) Athenian sensibilities on Red Alert.

The novel’s justifications for franchise restrictions, perhaps the ultimate blasphemy in our egalitarian-democratic age, highlight a second sociopolitical truth:

Any society that decouples rights and responsibilities thereby enables irresponsible power.

…

Eventually, Johnnie is recognized as officer-caliber material.

He is sent to the Terran Federal Service’s equivalent of officer candidate school, which if anything is more grueling than basic training, both physically and mentally.

Chapter 12 of the novel illustrates the intimate link between rights, responsibilities, and a well-governed society in the form of a dialogue between a grizzled officer-instructor and a naïve cadet.

The instructor asks the cadet for “a reason—not historical nor theoretical but practical,” for limiting the franchise to discharged veterans.

The cadet goes through several incorrect explanations—that veterans are higher-quality beings, “picked men,” or that they are “more disciplined”—before he, along with Johnnie and the reader, are enlightened.

The instructor begins by wryly asserting,

“I handed you a trick question. The practical reason for continuing our system [of limited franchise] is the same as the practical reason for continuing anything: it works satisfactorily.”

This is a repeated emphasis on the fundamentals of sovereignty.

The instructor then goes through the restrictions on voting, or the exercise of political power more generally that have existed throughout history, and in what respect the restrictions of the Terran Federation differ.

The answer:

“Under our system every voter and officeholder is a man who has demonstrated through voluntary and difficult service that he places the welfare of the group ahead of personal advantage…. 

He may fail in wisdom, he may lapse in civic virtue. 

But his average performance is enormously better than that of any other class of rulers in history.”

The instructor takes a realistic, and hence grim, view of political power—again, remember the truth of sovereignty!—when he continues,

“To vote is to wield authority; it is the supreme authority from which all other authority derives…the franchise is force, naked and raw, the Power of the Rods and the Ax.  

Whether it is exerted by ten or by ten billion, political authority is force.”

Next the instructor singles out Johnnie to complete the narrative. He asks what the necessary complement to authority is, and Cadet Rico answers “Responsibility.”

This pleases the instructor, who finishes explaining why the political system of the Terran Federation has been both successful and stable:

Authority and responsibility must be equal—else a balancing takes place as surely as current flows between points of unequal potential. 

To permit irresponsible authority is to sow disaster; to hold a man responsible for anything he does not control is to behave with blind idiocy. 

The unlimited democracies [of the twentieth century] were unstable because their citizens were not responsible for the fashion in which they exerted their sovereign authority…. 

No attempt was made to determine whether a voter was socially responsible to the extent of his literally unlimited authority. 

If he voted the impossible, the disastrous possible happened instead—and responsibility was then forced on him willy-nilly and destroyed both him and his foundationless temple (emphasis added).

There you have it: The stark recognition that the right to vote is the right to rule, and that the right to rule without the responsibility of bearing the consequences of one’s decisions is a recipe for infantilism writ large.

One may dispute whether this specific form of civic virtue is the safest foundation on which a limited franchise rests.

But the key point, that there is such a thing as better and worse voters, and that empowering the latter is a sure path to gradual erosion of social cooperation, is sound.

It’s also one we desperately need to hear today.

And now, the inevitable caveats. There is some truth to the claim that, on its own, Starship Troopers is a dangerous form of social commentary.

Martial glorification is an inherently slippery slope, as any historian of Wilhelmine Germany can attest.

Furthermore, the kind of mind sympathetic to highly hierarchical governance is at risk of mistakenly thinking a whole society can be run like a barracks.

These impulses must be tempered by exposure to insightful commentary on what happens when power is, despite everybody’s best intentions, exercised irresponsibly, an unfortunately all-too-common occurrence. But all of these caveats do not diminish the wisdom that Starship Troopers conveys, all the more remarkable for being a work of fiction.

If we are unwilling to find a way to structure our political institutions such that rights are firmly coupled with responsibility, we will continue to see a ballooning of the former and an erosion of the latter.

The result will not be pretty, and we will deserve it.

But is China really like this?

As someone who has lived 40 years in America from birth, and then an additional 20+ years inside of China, I am positively affirm that Chinese society is very, very similar to the society that was depicted in the book.

Similar.

No, it’s not the evil “Communist regime” that the onslaught of anti-China Western propaganda spews daily in your “news” feeds.

It’s something else entirely.

But China is not Sparta. Nor is it like the Western “democracies”. It is a new social system that has never been seen before on the world. And the closest illustration of what it is, by far, is through the book “Starship Troopers”.

The tenants of the society depicted within the book

Let’s break down some of the core points in the book and how they manifest within China.

And I am going to tell you all, right off the bat, that this is information that you will not find in the American or “Western” press or “news”. They (the media) all are well-funded propaganda mills that actually believe their echo-chamber nonsense.

We will look at these tenants listed in the movie;

• Only those with a military background can participate in governance.
• At all levels discipline is required for success.
• Sovereignty is power, which means rule by force.
• Responsible versus irresponsible power.
• Rights and responsibilities are intertwined.

Only those with a military background can participate in the governance of the society.

Well, let’s begin with the understanding that not all things military resembles marching armies.

In America we have the Coast Guard, the Department of Homeland Security, The Civilian Conservation Corps, and The Peace Corps. What all these organizations possess is that the participants are volunteers that risk their lives, devote their time and careers, towards the betterment of society.

• Coast Guard = Working to protect society.
• Civilian Conservation Corps = Working to protect societies environment.
• Peace Corps = Working to support other societies for the good of all.

So if we use this model and expand “the military” to include “organizations that support the growth and maintenance of society” you can say…

Yes. Absolutely!

In China if you want to vote in the “democratic process” you must be a member of the “Party”, and to be a member, you must contribute and participate.

Service grants citizenship.

Those that do not participate; that do not excel in school; that do not help and volunteer, and those that do not join The Pioneers when in elementary, middle and high schools cannot participate in government within China. Period.

In China, not everyone can vote.

It is a meritocracy. The ability to vote requires that you, throughout your life, contribute to the good of society and do what ever is needed at any time of the day or night.

If the government asks you to help rebuild a dam, then you leave you job and do so. If the government asks you to build a hospital over night, then you do so. You don’t complain. You do it.

That is participation. That is a society that only allows contributors to participate in governance.

At all levels discipline is required for success.

Discipline is taught at a young age. And from Kindergarten on up, the students obtain daily discipline training, education on civic society, military behaviors and pure military field rife and combat training.

Here’s some videos that I collected. Some are training films. Some are recruitment films. Some are just studies. Some are personal videos. All in all a good mix. It will give you all a great idea about the Chinese military capability.

Discipline – Elementary Echool Soldiers

Young Pioneers and elementary children going through mandatory military training.

Some of the films have children in it going through training. These are the elementary-school Pioneers (the Chinese cub scouts). Everyone in China gets full military training. Those older kids, are in middle school. They are the ones wearing blue slacks with the white line training and shooting AK-74’s.

You will see closeups of the various electronic weapons systems, and the state of the art Chinese SEAL and Special Forces troops as well. You will see some videos about how Japan came into China and killed off so many innocent civilians. And note that now that every civilian can fire a gun, and fight, that is never going to happen ever again.

You can download the Video Archive HERE.101MB.

Discipline – Middle School Soldiers

It starts off with some more middle school assault weapon training.

Next is the elementary school pioneers who undergo physical obstacle course training. Notice that they do it while carrying a full military rifle. Also note that it’s both boys and girls. No one gets a pass. VIDEO.

The third video is the reservists. China has an active military and the reserves that meet every few weeks. VIDEO.

Training, training, training.

Fourth video is for the young Pioneers. For inspiration and training. Very, very interesting. If you don’t watch any of these videos here, you MUST at least watch this one.

China will NEVER allow a repeat of the “Rape of Nanjing”.

Watch this video.

So many interesting videos. Watch them all in this massive collection. You can download the Video Archive HERE. 257MB.

Discipline – The “Kitchen Sink”

Here’s another group. HERE. 381MB

Of course there are all sorts of interesting things in these videos.

Discipline – Learn about Chinese Society

Here we have some first grade students demonstrating their skills in front of the rest of the school in assembly. Note that all students not only learn English, but also get weekly lessons in military warfare, strategy, and operations. VIDEO.

And here are how a Pioneers assembly looks like. These are all first grade students around 6 years old. VIDEO.

Discipline. Merit. Training.

Sovereignty is power, which means rule by force.

Ah. This is the common anti-China narrative. But the reality is that China does not rule by force. Instead, they rule by compliance.

In China, everyone is expected to comply with the law. The entire nation is wired up with AI monitored video, audio and systems, and boy oh boy is that driving the American CIA bonkers! China knows who is doing what, where and why. It’s sort of like that Tom Cruse movie where you can follow a person’s movements from when they wake up in the morning throughout the day. That is China today.

It is invasive?

No, not really, with 1.6 billion people there is no way for people to monitored gulag style. Instead, AI monitors and flags dangerous behaviors. A social credit scorecard is used to connect individual behaviors to society hierarchy. If you are a dick, a bad person, a skank, you will be low on the hierarchy. But if you are good, helpful and volunteer, you will go up higher. It’s all merit driven.

And that is a great thing.

Responsible versus irresponsible power.

In Washington, DC, a tribunal of nine men and women spoke with one voice to affirm that the government and its henchmen can literally get away with murder and not be held accountable for their wrongdoing.

-John Whitehead

One of the core tenants of the book “Starship Trooper” was that only the responsible would be in the position of power to govern. that really riled up the sensibilities of many a free wheeling, casual, “good time Charlie” lover. And responsibility comes with wisdom, experience, effort and merit. You are not just “responsible” at birth. It is a learned behavior.

If you are not to be responsible, you become irresponsible. Not just to yourself, but to those around you. You need discipline, behavioral training, and coaching.

While the book refers to this trait on a personal level, the key point is that it applies throughout society. There is a real problem when you live in a family with an irresponsible parent. The entire household becomes dysfunctional.

Its even worse when an irresponsible person takes over the reins of government. And that must be prevented.

[1] At the system level

The system must screen for dangerous people.

The system that brings in leadership, and directors must be solid, substantive, rugged and robust. It must be such that all the problematic personalities; the greedy, the psychopathic, the sociopath, the narcissistic and the evil be forever barred from positions of power and control. This system is inherent inside the operation of the Chinese communist party. It is very, very difficult to join, and the requirements to do so are maintained by service-to-others (SEO) committees.

[2] At the operation level

The leadership must constantly be policed.

This is the bane of most societies and only in the last ten years has this changed in China. China has set up the “Corruption Police” and they have made “earth shattering” changes to all levels of government. The days of graft, vice, abuse of power are all gone. (Well, in the process of going away. There are always hold outs.) This “Corruption Police” are an elite group of SEO officers and agents that root out corruption at every level and work to functionally make the Chinese society a well-run meritocracy.

Rights and responsibilities are intertwined.

America talks and talks about Rights. There are no Rights in America. Every single (so called immutable Rights) now come with exceptions. And there are so many of these exceptions that they render the Rights useless.

While in China, the Rights of the people are maintained, policed and enforced. No wonder the Chinese have a 95% approval rate for their government.

But inside the ruined has-been nation of America, the story is quite different. With only a mere 15% of the population trusting the United States government, with a margin of error around 15%. Which means that somewhere between 0% and 30% of the United States citizenry trust the American government.

John White head said it best…

“We can zip our lips and bind our hands and shut our eyes.

In other words, we can continue to exist in a state of denial. Yet there is no denying the ugly, hard truths that become more evident with every passing day.

1. The government is not our friend. Nor does it work for “we the people.”
2. Our so-called government representatives do not actually represent us, the citizenry. We are now ruled by an oligarchic elite of governmental and corporate interests whose main interest is in perpetuating power and control.
3. Republicans and Democrats like to act as if there’s a huge difference between them and their policies. However, they are not sworn enemies so much as they are partners in crime, united in a common goal, which is to maintain the status quo.
4. The lesser of two evils is still evil.
5. Some years ago, a newspaper headline asked the question: “What’s the difference between a politician and a psychopath?” The answer, then and now, remains the same: None. There is virtually no difference between psychopaths and politicians.
6. More than terrorism, more than domestic extremism, more than gun violence and organized crime, the U.S. government has become a greater menace to the life, liberty and property of its citizens than any of the so-called dangers from which the government claims to protect us
7. The government knows exactly which buttons to push in order to manipulate the populace and gain the public’s cooperation and compliance.
8. If voting made any difference, they wouldn’t let us do it.
9. America’s shadow government—which is comprised of unelected government bureaucrats, corporations, contractors, paper-pushers, and button-pushers who are actually calling the shots behind the scenes right now and operates beyond the reach of the Constitution with no real accountability to the citizenry—is the real reason why “we the people” have no control over our government.
10. You no longer have to be poor, black or guilty to be treated like a criminal in America. All that is required is that you belong to the suspect class—that is, the citizenry—of the American police state. As a de facto member of this so-called criminal class, every U.S. citizen is now guilty until proven innocent.
11. “We the people” are no longer shielded by the rule of law. By gradually whittling away at our freedoms—free speech, assembly, due process, privacy, etc.—the government has, in effect, liberated itself from its contractual agreement to respect our constitutional rights while resetting the calendar back to a time when we had no Bill of Rights to protect us from the long arm of the government.
12. Private property means nothing if the government can take your home, car or money under the flimsiest of pretexts, whether it be asset forfeiture schemes, eminent domain or overdue property taxes. Likewise, private property means little at a time when SWAT teams and other government agents can invade your home, break down your doors, kill your dog, wound or kill you, damage your furnishings and terrorize your family.
13. We now find ourselves caught in the crosshairs of a showdown between the rights of the individual and the so-called “emergency” state, and “we the people” are losing.
14. All of those freedoms we cherish—the ones enshrined in the Constitution, the ones that affirm our right to free speech and assembly, due process, privacy, bodily integrity, the right to not have police seize our property without a warrant, or search and detain us without probable cause—amount to nothing when the government and its agents are allowed to disregard those prohibitions on government overreach at will.
15. If there is an absolute maxim by which the federal government seems to operate, it is that the American taxpayer always gets ripped off.
16. Our freedoms—especially the Fourth Amendment—continue to be choked out by a prevailing view among government bureaucrats that they have the right to search, seize, strip, scan, spy on, probe, pat down, taser, and arrest any individual at any time and for the slightest provocation.
17. Forced vaccinations, forced cavity searches, forced colonoscopies, forced blood draws, forced breath-alcohol tests, forced DNA extractions, forced eye scans, forced inclusion in biometric databases: these are just a few ways in which Americans continue to be reminded that we have no control over what happens to our bodies during an encounter with government officials.
18. Finally, freedom is never free. There is always a price—always a sacrifice—that must be made in order to safeguard one’s freedoms.

We cannot remain silent in the face of the government’s ongoing overreaches, power grabs, and crimes against humanity.

Evil disguised as bureaucracy is still evil. Indeed, this is what Hannah Arendt referred to as the banality of evil.”

But this is not the case in China.

In China if you want a Right, you must earn it, and then show responsibility for it. If you do not, then it will be withheld from you. On the day to day, practical level, this manifests as the Social Credit Scoring system.

To give a good example of this, consider the laws that require parents to be responsible for the bad things their children do. China’s parliament will consider legislation to punish parents if their young children exhibit “very bad behavior” or commit crimes.

Yeah it is the parents’ responsibility to take care of their children, whether the child is good or bad depends on the parents, educate the child in the path he should follow, and even when he is older he will not depart from it.

it’s called RESPONSIBILITY.

Conclusion

But China is Communist! They scream!

China says it’s a Social Democracy based on traditional Communist Values. While  America calls itself an exceptional democratic republic.

He says. She says. Who cares?

China today is something that cannot be easily explained in tight, narrow, traditional political definitions. While America is simple. It is a classic oligarchy ruled military empire.

Part of the problem with trying to solve or fix a problem is defining what the problem is. America is broke. It is broken, smashed, and a walking cluster fuck. That’s a fact Jack. If you cannot see it, then you must be mentally ill.

Meanwhile, China is the absolute opposite of it.

There are many, many similarities between the Chinese society and that of the society as depicted within the book “Starship Troopers” by Robert A Heinlein.

On a whole, I believe that China is doing things right.

They should be applauded for it. This system raised over a billion people out of poverty. This system has created a great “level playing field” for the vast bulk of Chinese society to have a moderate successful life, and this system is rocking the world with scientific discoveries, help, and innovation.

China is taking the world by the hand gently and moving it forward. I for one applaud it, and you should too. Do not fear that the billionaires can only become thousandaires, or that “‘ma freedoms to a vote in a democracy” would be restricted. Those are fears intentionally generated to make you fear what the world is becoming.

Do not fear.

Instead…

Look at what America has become. When you are ruled by the psychopathic in society, the society becomes ill, distressed and dysfunctional.

Here is America today…

The cities are inhabited by zombies. They really are. Video.

Well, not all the cities are inhabited by zombies.

You have a bunch of people walking around in “freedom”, “doing their own thing”. Such as this fine upstanding “pillar of the community” here. VIDEO.

There is no alternative. China is the future.

China is the future!

Just like in the movie “Starship Troopers”…

Do you want more?

You can find more articles related to this in my latest index; A New Beginning. And in it are elements of the old, some elements regarding the transition, and some elements that look towards the future.

.

Articles & Links

.

• You can start reading the articles by going HERE.
• You can visit the Index Page HERE to explore by article subject.
• You can also ask the author some questions. You can go HERE to find out how to go about this.
• You can find out more about the author HERE.
• If you have concerns or complaints, you can go HERE.
• If you want to make a donation, you can go HERE.

Americans have no idea what it would actually be like to have a real war. Most of them don’t even know that China has surpassed the US economically. Most Americans literally think a war with China would be similar to a war with Afghanistan or Iraq – something you watch on television that has no direct effect on your life, other than maybe causing gasoline prices to fluctuate.

This article is a collection of insightful articles, musings, and tidbits that most (not all) of my fellow Americans are completely unaware of occurring.

We will start with a big news item, and then approach it from the point of view of what is not being reported…

Meng Wanzhou

Huawei CFO Meng Wanzhou arrives in China after more than 1,000 days under house arrest in Canada, following a deal with U.S. prosecutors to end a fraud case against her.

• https://lnkd.in/drDFZUhr

Love China and China will love you. Millions and millions of people all over China watching live the return to freedom from Canada of the Huawei Boss. We were watching live in the local pub here in Dongguan. More exciting than watching a corrupt European football game. Very bad news for Canada as far as the average Chinese person is concerned. 

- Peter Weston

Yes. Big news in China.

Three Videos of just HOW BIG this is.

Everyone knows what happened. The United States Military Empire kidnapped a leading Chinese Industry leader on trumped up charges. Then after three years of no proof, they released her.

Why is this big news?

Imagine if China did the same thing to Jeff Bezos, Bill Gates or Steve Jobs.

Video 1

This is the announcement on Chinese media.

Video 2

Everyone in China is happy. It’s a big, big deal here.

Video 3

This is Shenzhen welcoming her home.

Can anyone tell me how this event has been reported in their individual nations? I am curious.

An always accurate MoA commentary on this event…

Yup. I do love MoA.

On journey home, Meng says “without strong motherland, no freedom today”

Now, imagine if the Chinese had behave like a bunch of Washington DC weak-wristed yes-men, who were only in their positions due to political graft.

Most likely, they would be uselessly fighting on the American and Canadian courts as we speak, and Meng would probably rot for at least some 15 years in prison.

Luckily, the Chinese are communists, so they don’t delve into bullshit. They saw her prison for what it really was – a political stunt – and counter-attacked accordingly, by arresting two of Canada’s ruling elite (i.e. the Canadian capitalist class) members.

The Release Of Meng Wanzhou’s Is A Small But Decisive Victory For China

The U.S. has given in to the Chinese demand to end its hostage holding of Huawei CFO Meng Wanzhou:

A plane believed to be carrying Chinese tech executive Meng Wanzhou took off from the Vancouver airport on Friday, marking a new stage in a legal saga that ensnared Canada — and two of its citizens — in a dispute between the U.S. and Chinese governments.

A B.C. court decided on Friday that the extradition case against Meng would be dropped after the Huawei chief financial officer reached a deferred prosecution agreement with the U.S. government.Michael Spavor and Michael Kovrig, the two Canadian citizens who were detained in China just days after Meng's arrest in Vancouver, are now on their way back Canada, Prime Minister Justin Trudeau confirmed on Friday evening.

The U.S. had accused Meng Wanzhou of misleading the opium dealer bank HSBC about Huawei’s relation with a local entity in Iran. This, the U.S. claimed, had led to breach by HSBC of its unilateral sanctions against Iran.

This was a constructed crime with the only evidence being some wording on one page of a longer power point slideshow which Meng Wanzhou surely had not edited herself.

The deferred prosecution agreement seems to admit that:

As part of her arrangement with U.S. prosecutors, Meng pleaded not guilty in a court Friday to multiple fraud charges.

The Huawei chief financial officer entered the plea during a virtual appearance in a New York courtroom. She was charged with bank fraud, wire fraud and conspiracies to commit bank and wire fraud more than two and a half years ago. 

...

The agreed statement of facts from Friday's U.S. court appearance said that Meng told a global financial institution that a company operating in Iran in violation of U.S. sanctions was a "local partner" of Huawei when in fact it was a subsidiary of Huawei.

The deferred prosecution agreement does not included any admission of wrongdoing, just an agreement on the facts.

The whole case was constructed and the arrest arranged by John Bolton when he was National Security Advisor under then President Donald Trump:

The Trudeau adviser said Mr. Bolton and other like-minded officials in the U.S. government were well aware of the significance of the arrest they were asking Canada to make. The adviser and a senior national-security official say they are convinced the U.S. picked Canada to arrest Ms. Meng – and did so in a last-minute rush – because they believed the Justice Department and the RCMP would honor the extradition request.

Trump then used Meng Wanzhou as bargaining chip in his trade fight with China:

Trump has linked resolution of the U.S. government’s dealings with Huawei to a potential trade agreement with China. He has said he would consider Huawei’s role in a trade deal at the final stage of negotiations, the court application says. 

...

“Prejudice to the fairness of these proceedings is made out by the president’s repeated assertions that (Meng’s) liberty is effectively a bargaining chip in what he sees as the biggest trade deal ever.”

The case gave Canada a lot of headaches as China had arrested two of its spies just days after Canada had followed the U.S. request to arrest Meng Wanzhou. Canada has denied that Michael Spavor and Michael Kovrig were spying for its services. However, Canada’s main spy agency, the Canadian Security Intelligence Service, welcomed the release of its boys:

During a July visit to China U.S. Deputy Secretary of State Wendy Sherman had been given two lists of issues that China demanded to be solved before it was willing to cooperate further with the U.S.:

In the List of U.S. Wrongdoings that Must Stop, China urged the United States to unconditionally revoke the visa restrictions over Communist Party of China (CPC) members and their families, revoke sanctions on Chinese leaders, officials and government agencies, and remove visa restrictions on Chinese students.

China also urged the United States to stop suppressing Chinese enterprises, stop harassing Chinese students, stop suppressing the Confucius Institutes, revoke the registration of Chinese media outlets as "foreign agents" or "foreign missions", and revoke the extradition request for Meng Wanzhou.

China sees the end of the Meng Wanzhou issue as a victory:

The high-profile case of Meng, which has become a political dilemma significantly affecting the global geopolitical landscape, has been settled through both legal channels and political wrestling, experts said, noting that China, the US and Canada have seen the best scenario with much compromise made by the Biden administration in resolving the matter. It also helped pave the way for the positive interaction between the world's largest economies in the near future amid strained China-US relations.

It was also one mistake of the US administration that has been corrected in line with the request of China, as China put forward two lists to the US during the bilateral talks in Tianjin in July, including the List of US Wrongdoings that Must Stop which urged the US to release Meng, showing that Beijing's US policies began taking effect and remaining mistakes of the US have to be corrected.

Commentator Pepe Escobar however, does not believe that the release of Meng Wanzhou will change much if anything:

Pepe Escobar @RealPepeEscobar - 11:49 UTC · Sep 25, 2021

MENG WANZHOU
- political kidnapping masked as criminal prosecution
- part of the demonization of Huawei
- near 3-year illegal detention
- fake charges
- “Justice” Dept. had to drop extradition request
- Hybrid War continues

While I agree that U.S. aggression against China will continue I do see this as a Chinese victory. China has disabled one of the weapons that U.S. had used against it.

From now on no country will risk to follow a U.S. requests to arrest a Chinese citizen:

The swiftness of the apparent deal also stands as a warning to leaders in other countries that the Chinese government can be boldly transactional with foreign nationals, said Donald C. Clarke, a law professor specializing in China at George Washington University’s Law School.

“They’re not even making a pretense of a pretense that this was anything but a straight hostage situation,” he said of the two Canadians, who stood trial on spying charges. 

Mr. Spavor was sentenced last month to 11 years in prison, and Mr. Kovrig was waiting for a verdict in his case after trial in March.

“In a sense, China has strengthened its bargaining position in future negotiations like this,” Professor Clarke said. “They’re saying, if you give them what they want, they will deliver as agreed.”

The U.S. had, via Canada, taken Meng Wanzhou as a hostage.

China replicated that by taking two Canadian citizens as hostages, thereby putting the pressure on the weaker power involved.

It also stopped imports of Canadian canola and pork. No government will want to repeat the experience of the Canadian one.

It worked and the people of Chinese are happy with the result:

The sentiment of patriotism prevailed at the scene. After the short speech, Meng waved to the crowds holding Chinese flags to welcome her at the airport, with a big smile, while singing a song for the motherland together with people at the scene.

People were still singing after Meng rode the bus to undergo epidemic prevention inspection at the request of Chinese Customs.

Groups of people, who wore protective suits, held flowers and welcome banners as they waited on the parking apron at the airport, as Chinese port cities have adopted strict epidemic prevention measures against COVID-19. Local media reports said earlier that Meng was expected to follow the 14 plus 7 days of quarantine following her arrival.

So this is indeed a victory but in a minor battle and in a war that is likely to see much bigger ones.

Other thoughts…

How did China know that the two Canadians were spies? Could it be that CIA incompetence exposed them and others? Seems very likely.

• https://foreignpolicy.com/2018/08/15/botched-cia-communications-system-helped-blow-cover-chinese-agents-intelligence/
• https://www.thecanadafiles.com/articles/michael-kovrig-and-spavor-are-spies-despite-obfuscations-of-canadas-mainstream-media

Keep in mind that China managed to roll up an entire CIA network of spies some years ago (ca. 2011), no doubt by methods such as that (and probably by using double agents like the Venezuelans did to fool the US into thinking their military would support Guido).

Eighteen ‘sources’ were reportedly neutralized in that one Chinese operation. Of course we don’t, and won’t, know the truth but it sounds like it was a pretty disastrous outcome for the CIA.

Do you think that there were other “round ups” that occurred but were not reported?

What happens to Western Spooks that go to China?

Concerning China's abilities at keeping track of Five Eyes spooks, what part of the imperial color revolution in Hong Kong was missing? What do we normally see in an American regime change operation after the US State Department's NGOs succeed in building protests that was lacking in Hong Kong?

Of course, the snipers.

So where are the snipers that the CIA trained up to spark the protests into a raging conflagration?

Obvious answer: At the bottom of Victoria Harbor wearing concrete boots. 

This was unlikely to have been done by Chinese intelligence themselves but rather by the Triads after some negotiations with mainland authorities. While the Triads are not allied with the Communists, they are part of the second system in that "One country, two systems" deal and have a deep interest in maintaining the status quo. The empire's color revolution seriously jeopardized that status quo and had to be neutralized.

Posted by: William Gruff | Sep 25 2021 21:22 utc | 36

…

In other news, this is excerpt from CGTN…

French writer exposes U.S. global hegemony

Updated 22:59, 25-Sep-2021
CGTN

The number of companies and entrepreneurs that have fallen victim to the U.S. global hegemony is unknown but Marc Lassus, founder of Gemplus, a manufacturer of smart cards (including SIM cards) is one of them.

After witnessing the Frenchman’s business making waves with users in the billions, the U.S. took control of the company and drove Lassus away, Chinese newspaper the Global Times has reported. Lassus said that their goal was, through the CIA and NSA, to spy on the whole world.

Lassus has told his story in a recently published book, “The Chip Trap.” During an interview with the Global Times, he shared his thoughts on Canada’s arrest of Huawei CFO Meng Wanzhou at the request of the United States.

"Meng Wanzhou's detention in Canada is just a pure scandal, as well as their request for extradition to the U.S," he said.

Huawei has a very significant technological advantage in 5G infrastructure and to some extent in fiber optics, their presence in Africa is also very strong and it is too late to beat them, Lassus said. Therefore, the U.S. used brutal and “cowboy” approaches to hinder Huawei’s business expansion.

He added that Meng’s case reminded him of his own experience. He was almost arrested on similar, trumped-up “charges” during a private trip to Cuba but he miraculously escaped imprisonment in the U.S.

"The move from the Trump administration to Biden's will not change much the U.S. policies," he noted.

He also mentioned that the U.S. claim that it values free markets is “pure hypocrisy.” They use any possible means to suppress other countries’ high-tech companies from being successful in international markets, such as Huawei, ZTE and places pressure on chip manufacturers such as Samsung.

Lassus said he was optimistic about the cooperation between China and Europe, which is entering into a new era with ties becoming more strategic, more complex but more promising.

"It is very clear now China should put more effort and investment than ever to develop key technologies in the semiconductor industry such as key equipment, materials and design tools, and so on. Especially when the U.S. is trying to ban any exchange between world-leading companies and China," he said.

Yes, and so China is doing so. How are the billions in new investments in the IC / AI / IoT technology corridor HK, Zhuhai, and Guangzhou being reported in your nations?

The long arm of U.S. jurisdiction dates backs to over a decade ago when the world’s biggest power felt threatened by the rapid ascent of other economies. Now the possibility of losing technological advantage haunts Washington, which has resorted to bending the law to gain a competitive edge. Bribery, fraud, and violating sanctions are commonly used pretexts for the U.S. to strike down any individual, entity or country that it feels threatened by.

Frederic Pierucci, an executive of Alstom, a French power and transportation conglomerate, was arrested by the FBI when his plane arrived at New York’s John F. Kennedy International Airport on April 14, 2013. He was charged with bribing Indonesian officials to win a power plant contract.

Coincidentally or not, the arrest of Pierucci, then president of the French power titan’s boiler subsidiary, ran parallel to the largest business acquisition by the American General Electric (GE) of its French rival Alstom’s energy business.

Lassus said it was only after January 2019 when Frederic Pierucci published his book “Le Piege Americain,” also known as “The American Trap,” that he felt free, credible, and publicly protected to come out with his story.

“Pierucci’s book relates the U.S. aggression, through General Electric, to take control of ALSTOM, a French company. Pierucci has been put for two years in jail in the US! A real scandal,” Lassus said.

An interesting comment that I read…

The comment goes…

Two things I would like to add here.

One, this is embarrassing as a Canadian. We don't have ANY politician who saw through this. NONE. 

Many internationalist Canadians saw through this within the first 3-7 days, but none were in government, and none were even (audible) in Parliament. 

This is utter international relations incompetence.

As we learned from the immigration lawyers for the defense, this case was rigged from the very start - the arrest should not have happened; 

The signs for a different than advertised goal by the FBI were overt; 

The RCMP should not have been allowed to enter into it with the border guard; 

The Prime Minister and Justice Minister should have been reachable instead of 'on their weekend';

Etc, etc...

Beyond that, if the President of the USA then makes a statement politicizing the arrest, the Prime Minister of Canada has no right to hide behind "Executive vs Justice" power, As the extradition agreement explicitly states that the PM can intervene through the Justice Minister to avert political abuses of the extradition agreement.

So this is totally on Trudeau's incompetence and cowardice.

Two, this US subversion of Huawei will not work because XXXXXXX has understated, hugely, the Chinese distance created from the stone-age USA in current day digital progress.

I was shocked as a Canadian European, coming into Chicago and Ohio in 2000 and discovering how far behind the USA was in simcard and digital technology. 

It caught up, but barely.

Now, China is too far ahead and is running much faster than the US is or has the capacity to.

China has already won - this Huawei case is just a little side cake - because they have all the infrastructure and are way beyond 5G - they are building the next universe and America can't even have the data points to dream about it.

As a Canadian expat he is seeing what I have seen. But I am in technology, R&D and manufacturing. I can tell you that the USA is behind, but no one wants to listen to MM.

Do you agree with me that China is much more advanced in technology, or the Western narrative that soon, say in 2025, China will surpass the USA?

And this interesting rebuttal…

In Canada’s defense — the authorities here were dealing with John Bolton, a known a**h@le who believes in breaking eggs to make omelettes.

Interviews with Canadian ultra political insider, Peter Donolo on BNN Bloomberg (just BNN back then maybe?) expressed concern about who would replace the just fired National Security Advisor.

So Canada’s political class protested through the media (which is how you gotta do it with the neocons, just ask Russia) about John Bolton’s appointment.

Somewhere I picked up that Canada was threatened with having US troops at the Vancouver airport if Canada refused to act in the interests of American security.

The Michaels are 5th columnists.

They don’t work for CSIS, Canada, the Canadian political class or any other Canadian national interest or institution.

Their arrest was quite possibly arranged behind-the-scenes between China and Canada to get Bolton fired as well as the other results b mentions. And a very important piece of this is the Canadian Ambassador to China, Dominic Barton.

Check out this man’s resume.

His appointment could have been at the request of China, quite possibly, another Canadian concession (although Trudeau wanted him in that role previously, but he declined).

Here’s an interesting note (not by me) on how the flight route that was used to bring Meng back to China (Google Translated from Russian):

“And by the way, about the small details of today’s event, the evacuation of Meng Wangzhou from Canadian captivity.

Look how they dragged her from Vancouver to China, you can shoot an action movie (I think the Chinese will easily shoot it).

On the question of when they soberly assess the situation and understand that agreements with Canada and international law are one thing, but the Arctic region, where the Northern Sea Route is, is completely different and, somehow, under the wing of Shoigu and friends, it is calmer and safer.”

Original post with pictures: https://vk.com/wall288925483_789259

All this is very interesting, but let’s not forget one thing…

Naughty China citizen Meng was charged with breaking a United States law while she was inside of China.

US Justice Dept, Jan 28, 2019
Meng is charged with bank fraud, wire fraud, and conspiracies to commit bank and wire fraud.

“As charged in the indictment, Huawei and its Chief Financial Officer broke U.S. law and have engaged in a fraudulent financial scheme that is detrimental to the security of the United States,” said Secretary Nielsen.

“They willfully conducted millions of dollars in transactions that were in direct violation of the Iranian Transactions and Sanctions Regulations, and such behavior will not be tolerated." . . .here

The US hasn't given up trying to convince China citizens to obey US laws.
US Justice Dept, Sep 24, 2021

Meng Wanzhou, CFO of Huawei Technologies, admitted today that she failed to tell the truth about Huawei’s operations in Iran, and as a result the financial institution continued to do business with Huawei in violation of U.S. law. Our prosecution team continues to prepare for trial against Huawei, and we look forward to proving our case against the company in court.” . . .here

United States laws only work within United States territory. Just like Chinese laws only work within China, and South African laws only work in South Africa.

Obviously the idiots in Washington DC do not respect other people’s (geographic) space.

What’s with this issue? Why don’t Americans understand that once you leave the USA, there are different laws, rules, regulations, culture and society and the USA cannot violate the national sovereignty of others in other nations?

And this interesting response…

Ms Meng ‘the Merciless’ was monstered by ‘(inter)National Interests’.

Who the fuck have the US the right to arrest people in foreign countries? For breaking the unilateral US sanction on another country??

That is not simple Exceptionalism...

...it’s is gross Overeach.

It can only be dumb superiority complex and racism to have thought that they can talk loud and carry a big stick to keep the savages subdued.

That Canadians have meekly re-elected the controlled scion of ones of the Empires CEO’s who was brought up by the Fascists of the West and the Money is pure pathetic Stockholm syndrome exhibited by voters in the west over the last 50 years.

We deserve all we get!

Canadians did to Meng what Sweden did to Assange and what the Decimate Empire is doing to the World in clueing as I say their own subjects as is happening daily now to the U.K. subjects because of BrexShit.

Chaotic scenes at petrol stations!

...In one of the richest countries in the World.

The MSM are fully controlled Mockingbird operatives. Independent journalism is muted and inprisoned, like Craig Murray is.

I’ll link to my post on the open thread that addresses why the Empire and Eva cornered rat and it’s Masters are morbidly stuck in their death throes as China changes human history on planet Earth with a competent partner in Russia and their SCO.

‘Are we getting it yet barflies?
Posted by: D.G. | Sep 23 2021 17:31 utc | 171 ‘

And another comment…

The Hauwei angst in the west is because China has ‘leapfrogged’ the Western modernity with nextgen tech and AI in their daily commercial environment.

The west having legacy ageing tech infrastructure and systems that hasn’t been squeezed of the last drop of payback/profit from it!

That’s how they have always rolled.

Capturing IP rights and shelving innovation.

They couldn’t do that with 5G and plus.

Or with AI in public services.

Which makes them natural predators of similar organizations in the west by virtue of the WTO ‘open to competition’ rules. Which were designed under the assumption they only would work in one direction.

It is that simple. Expect no mercy but be willing to accept that They will not act like we would and will not stoop to such savage western expectations.

Posted by: D.G | Sep 25 2021 20:23 utc | 27

What about the UN?

The UN Charter, in its Preamble, set an objective:

"to establish conditions under which justice and respect for the obligations arising from treaties and other sources of international law can be maintained".

Ever since, the development of, and respect for international law has been a key part of the work of the Organization.

This work is carried out in many ways – by courts, tribunals, multilateral treaties – and by the Security Council, which can approve peacekeeping missions, impose sanctions, or authorize the use of force when there is a threat to international peace and security, if it deems this necessary. These powers are given to it by the UN Charter, which is considered an international treaty. As such, it is an instrument of international law, and UN Member States are bound by it. . .here

China has been clear about the US ‘rules-based international order’ i.e. US laws, which go against the UN Charter.

Mar 18, 2021

SECRETARY BLINKEN: Well, good afternoon, and welcome. On behalf of National Security Advisor Sullivan and myself, I want to welcome Director Yang and State Councilor Wang to Alaska, and to thank you very much for making the journey to be with us.

I just returned myself from meetings with Secretary of Defense Austin and our counterparts in Japan and the Republic of Korea, two of our nation’s closest allies. They were very interested in the discussions that we’ll have here today and tomorrow because the issues that we’ll raise are relevant not only to China and the United States, but to others across the region and indeed around the world. Our administration is committed to leading with diplomacy to advance the interests of the United States and to strengthen the rules-based international order.

That system is not an abstraction. It helps countries resolve differences peacefully, coordinate multilateral efforts effectively, and participate in global commerce with the assurance that everyone is following the same rules. The alternative to a rules-based order is a world in which might makes right and winners take all, and that would be a far more violent and unstable world for all of us. Today, we’ll have an opportunity to discuss key priorities, both domestic and global, so that China can better understand our administration’s intentions and approach.

Director Yang responded–

What China and the international community follow or uphold is the United Nations-centered international system and the international order underpinned by international law, not what is advocated by a small number of countries of the so-called “rules-based” international order. 

And the United States has its style – United States-style democracy – and China has the Chinese-style democracy. 

It is not just up to the American people, but also the people of the world to evaluate how the United States has done in advancing its own democracy. 

In China’s case, after decades of reform and opening up, we have come a long way in various fields. 

In particular, we have engaged in tireless efforts to contribute to the peace and development of the world, and to upholding the purposes and principles of the UN Charter. . .here

So it’s a showdown between the USA and the UN. China and Russia and the rest of the world (minus the UK, and Australia) want to stand with the UN. The USA wants to be God over all. Is this an exaggeration?

And China plays down the line.

U.S. Deputy Secretary of State Wendy Sherman visited Tianjin, China July 25-26 2021 and was presented a list of US “wrongdoings that must stop”, also mentioning specifically Meng Wanzhou

• China puts forward two lists during talks with visiting U.S. deputy secretary of state

In the List of U.S. Wrongdoings that Must Stop, China urged the United States to unconditionally revoke the visa restrictions over Communist Party of China (CPC) members and their families, revoke sanctions on Chinese leaders, officials and government agencies, and remove visa restrictions on Chinese students.

China also urged the United States to stop suppressing Chinese enterprises, stop harassing Chinese students, stop suppressing the Confucius Institutes, revoke the registration of Chinese media outlets as "foreign agents" or "foreign missions", and revoke the extradition request for Meng Wanzhou.

Meng’s release is creating waves.

• Chinese citizens are giving unprecedented support to the government.
• Overseas Chinese are ever more united behind China.
• Even those anti-communist and brainwashed Chinese in Taiwan, Hong Kong and elsewhere are quietly admitting the positive result – because they understand that they could be the target of arrest by America in future if this turns out the wrong way.
• It is giving a tough-love lesson to the serially abused vassal states, e.g. Japan (Toshiba), France (Alstom), Germany (Siemens) and countless others. I don’t know what are their politicians and executives thinking right now: shame, regret, impotent, admiration or some combination of these?
• It has delivered a bloody punch to the war-mongers and anti-China neocons, who are licking their wound.

And finally,

• It is giving hope to the rest of developing countries. Countries who treasures their independence and dignity needs to grow a spine and learn to grab a stick.

But that is not the only thing going on…

Eurasia Takes Shape: How the SCO Just Flipped the World Order

The SEO. It’s going to become a really big deal in the next few years. Pay attention.

SEO = Russia + China + Iran + India

As a rudderless West watched on, the 20th anniversary meeting of the Shanghai Cooperation Organization was laser-focused on two key deliverables: shaping up Afghanistan and kicking off a full-spectrum Eurasian integration.

.

The two defining moments of the historic 20^th anniversary Shanghai Cooperation Organization (SCO) summit in Dushanbe, Tajikistan had to come from the keynote speeches of – who else – the leaders of the Russia-China strategic partnership.

Xi Jinping:

“Today we will launch procedures to admit Iran as a full member of the SCO.”

Vladimir Putin:

“I would like to highlight the Memorandum of Understanding that was signed today between the SCO Secretariat and the Eurasian Economic Commission. 

It is clearly designed to further Russia’s idea of establishing a Greater Eurasia Partnership covering the SCO, the EAEU (Eurasian Economic Union), ASEAN (Association of Southeast Asian Nations) and China’s Belt and Road initiative (BRI).”

In short, over the weekend, Iran was enshrined in its rightful, prime Eurasian role, and all Eurasian integration paths converged toward a new global geopolitical – and geoeconomic – paradigm, with a sonic boom bound to echo for the rest of the century.

That was the killer one-two punch immediately following the Atlantic alliance’s ignominious imperial retreat from Afghanistan.

Right as the Taliban took control of Kabul on August 15, the redoubtable Nikolai Patrushev, secretary of Russia’s Security Council, told his Iranian colleague Admiral Ali Shamkhani that “the Islamic Republic will become a full member of the SCO.”

Dushanbe revealed itself as the ultimate diplomatic crossover. President Xi firmly rejected any “condescending lecturing” and emphasized development paths and governance models compatible with national conditions. Just like Putin, he stressed the complementary focus of BRI and the EAEU, and in fact summarized a true multilateralist Manifesto for the Global South.

Right on point, President Kassym-Jomart Tokayev of Kazakhstan noted that the SCO should advance “the development of a regional macro-economy.” This is reflected in the SCO’s drive to start using local currencies for trade, bypassing the US dollar.

The SEO is an enormous geopolitical force. Not only in geography, but populaiton, and in manufacturing and technology competance. What is going in in the news in the MM readership’s nations about this subject? How is it being reported on the “news”?

Watch that quadrilateral

Dushanbe was not just a bed of roses. Tajikistan’s Emomali Rahmon, a staunch, secular Muslim and former member of the Communist Party of the USSR – in power for no less than 29 years, reelected for the 5^th time in 2020 with 90 percent of the vote – right off the bat denounced the “medieval sharia” of Taliban 2.0 and said they had already “abandoned their previous promise to form an inclusive government.”

Rahmon, who has never been caught smiling on camera, was already in power when the Taliban conquered Kabul in 1996. He was bound to publicly support his Tajik cousins against the “expansion of extremist ideology” in Afghanistan – which in fact worries all SCO member-states when it comes to smashing dodgy jihadi outfits of the ISIS-K mold .

The meat of the matter in Dushanbe was in the bilaterals – and one quadrilateral.

Take the bilateral between Indian External Affairs Minister S. Jaishankar and Chinese FM Wang Yi. Jaishankar said that China should not view “its relations with India through the lens of a third country,” and took pains to stress that India “does not subscribe to any clash of civilizations theory.”

Ouch! Could the “third country” (he referenced) be the United States?

That was quite a tough sell considering that the first in-person Quad summit takes place this week in Washington, DC, hosted by that “third country” which is now knee deep in clash-of-civilizations mode against China.

Pakistani Prime Minister Imran Khan was on a bilateral roll, meeting the presidents of Iran, Belarus, Uzbekistan and Kazakhstan. The official Pakistani diplomatic position is that Afghanistan should not be abandoned, but engaged.

That position added nuance to what Russian Special Presidential Envoy for SCO Affairs Bakhtiyer Khakimov had explained about Kabul’s absence at the SCO table: “At this stage, all member states have an understanding that there are no reasons for an invitation until there is a legitimate, generally recognized government in Afghanistan.”

And that, arguably, leads us to the key SCO meeting: a quadrilateral with the Foreign Ministers of Russia, China, Pakistan and Iran.

Pakistani Foreign Minister Qureshi affirmed: “We are monitoring whether all the groups are included in the government or not.” The heart of the matter is that, from now on, Islamabad coordinates the SCO strategy on Afghanistan, and will broker Taliban negotiations with senior Tajik, Uzbek and Hazara leaders. This will eventually lead the way towards an inclusive government regionally recognized by SCO member-nations.

Iranian President Ebrahim Raisi was warmly received by all – especially after his forceful keynote speech, an Axis of Resistance classic. His bilateral with Belarus president Aleksandr Lukashenko revolved around a discussion on “sanctions confrontation.” According to Lukashenko: “If the sanctions did any harm to Belarus, Iran, other countries, it was only because we ourselves are to blame for this. We were not always negotiable, we did not always find the path we had to take under the pressure of sanctions.”

Considering Tehran is fully briefed on Islamabad’s SCO role in terms of Afghanistan, there will be no need to deploy the Fatemiyoun brigade – informally known as the Afghan Hezbollah – to defend the Hazaras. Fatemiyoun was formed in 2012 and was instrumental in Syria in the fight against Daesh, especially in Palmyra. But if ISIS-K does not go away, that’s a completely different story.

Particular important for SCO members Iran and India will be the future of Chabahar port. That remains India’s crypto-Silk Road gambit to connect it to Afghanistan and Central Asia. The geoeconomic success of Chabahar more than ever depends on a stable Afghanistan – and this is where Tehran’s interests fully converge with Russia-China’s SCO drive.

What the 2021 SCO Dushanbe Declaration spelled out about Afghanistan is quite revealing:

1. Afghanistan should be an independent, neutral, united, democratic and peaceful state, free of terrorism, war and drugs.

2. It is critical to have an inclusive government in Afghanistan, with representatives from all ethnic, religious and political groups of Afghan society.

3. SCO member states, emphasizing the significance of the many years of hospitality and effective assistance provided by regional and neighboring countries to Afghan refugees, consider it important for the international community to make active efforts to facilitate their dignified, safe and sustainable return to their homeland.

As much as it may sound like an impossible dream, this is the unified message of Russia, China, Iran, India, Pakistan and the Central Asian “stans.” One hopes that Pakistani PM Imran Khan is up to the task and ready for his SCO close-up.

Oh, I think that it’s going to work out. What does the MM readership think will happen?

Oh, have you noticed…

The Chinese and the Russians have been devoting all sorts of energy moving around all their ICBM’s all over the place. You never saw this in the USA, and very rarely in Russia and China, though you heard about it. But now a days, it’s very common with ICBM fleets moving all over China and Russia. Imagine that.

I wonder why…?

VIDEO.

The Zhuhai Airshow…

Big stuff in my home town.

Song Zhonping, a Chinese military expert and TV commentator, told the Global Times on Tuesday that switching to Chinese engines means the J-20 is now completely domestically made, and this will significantly contribute to the mass production and the performance boost of the aircraft.

American neocon publications are calling the J-20 as a “cheap knock off “. Do you think this is so, or what are your thoughts on the J-20?

That troubled Western peninsula

The New Silk Roads were officially launched eight years ago by Xi Jinping, first in Astana – now Nur-Sultan – and then in Jakarta.

This is how it was reported at the time.

The announcement came close to a SCO summit – then in Bishkek. The SCO, widely dismissed in Washington and Brussels as a mere talk shop, was already surpassing its original mandate of fighting the “three evil forces” – terrorism, separatism and extremism – and encompassing politics and geoeconomics.

In 2013, there was a Xi-Putin-Rouhani trilateral. Beijing expressed full support for Iran’s peaceful nuclear program (remember, this was two years before the signing of the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action, also known as the JCPOA).




Despite many experts dismissing it at the time, there was indeed a common China-Russia-Iran front on Syria (Axis of Resistance in action). Xinjiang was being promoted as the key hub for the Eurasian Land Bridge. Pipelineistan was at the heart of the Chinese strategy – from Kazakhstan oil to Turkmenistan gas. Some people may even remember when Hillary Clinton, as Secretary of State, was waxing lyrical about an American-propelled New Silk Road.

Now compare it to Xi’s Multilateralism Manifesto in Dushanbe eight years later, reminiscing on how the SCO “has proved to be an excellent example of multilateralism in the 21stcentury,” and “has played an important role in enhancing the voice of developing countries.”

The strategic importance of this SCO summit taking place right after the Eastern Economic Forum (EEF) in Vladivostok cannot be overstated enough. The EEF focuses of course on the Russian Far East – and essentially advances interconnectivity between Russia and Asia. It is an absolutely key hub of Russia’s Greater Eurasian Partnership.

A cornucopia of deals is on the horizon – expanding from the Far East to the Arctic and the development of the Northern Sea Route, and involving everything from precious metals and green energy to digital sovereignty flowing through logistics corridors between Asia and Europe via Russia.

As Putin hinted in his keynote speech, this is what the Greater Eurasia Partnership is all about: the Eurasia Economic Union (EAEU), BRI, India’s initiative, ASEAN, and now the SCO, developing in a harmonized network, crucially operated by “sovereign decision-making centers.”

So if the BRI proposes a very Taoist “community of shared future for human kind,” the Russian project, conceptually, proposes a dialogue of civilizations (already evoked by the Khatami years in Iran) and sovereign economic-political projects. They are, indeed, complementary.

Glenn Diesen, Professor at the University of South-Eastern Norway and an editor at the Russia in Global Affairs journal, is among the very few top scholars who are analyzing this process in depth. His latest book remarkably tells the whole story in its title: Europe as the Western Peninsula of Greater Eurasia: Geoeconomic Regions in a Multipolar World. It’s not clear whether Eurocrats in Brussels – slaves of Atlanticism and incapable of grasping the potential of Greater Eurasia – will end up exercising real strategic autonomy.

Diesen evokes in detail the parallels between the Russian and the Chinese strategies. He notes how China “is pursuing a three-pillared geoeconomic initiative by developing technological leadership via its China 2025 plan, new transportation corridors via its trillion-dollar Belt and Road Initiative, and establishing new financial instruments such as banks, payment systems and the internationalization of the yuan. Russia is similarly pursuing technological sovereignty, both in the digital sphere and beyond, as well as new transportation corridors such as the Northern Sea Route through the Arctic, and, primarily, new financial instruments.”

The whole Global South, stunned by the accelerated collapse of the western Empire and its unilateral “rules-based order…

… now seems to be ready to embrace the new groove, fully displayed in Dushanbe: a multipolar Greater Eurasia of sovereign equals.

Interesting chat on my morning feed…

America controls both the currency (USD, the international reserve currency) and conduit (SWIFT) for international trade. This is their global imperial power.

They can print paper (out of nothing) to buy the world’s limited and precious resources while the rest of the world must earn or borrow the paper. They also decide who can or cannot trade. In addition, they control all the banks and financial institutes doing international business.

America can strangle and impose oppressive fines, indict and hijack, as well as corrupt and incite regime change, to turn any intransigent player into a whimpering idiot. They control the world’s media and the narrative. America can do no wrong and you’re all assholes living in hellholes.

Most importantly, America can print paper to build the greatest military force to control your mineral resources and trade routes, meanwhile pacifying and civilizing sundry barbaric people of defenseless countries.  And guess who is paying for this monstrosity? If you think it’s the American taxpayers, you’d be wrong. It’s all smoke and mirrors.

The ruling class in America creates a ton of money from thin air which becomes debt that the rest of the enslaved world must buy. That debt becomes a debt of the American people which they can never repay, therefore they become debt slaves, quietly complying to their master’s orders.

And the money created eventually ends up in the coffers of the 1% American military industrial financial warmongering scammers. Since the rest of the enslaved world ends up being holders of American debt that pays almost no interest, of a currency that is being printed at exponential rate, and paying interest that is also printed out of thin air, you the victims are paying for the oppressive weapons of the American monstrosity.

Capische?

By the way, America did not invent this beautiful scheme. After kicking the Persians out of Greece in 479 BCE, Athens was the liberating hero beloved even by their perennial enemy, the Spartans. Then Athens formed the Delian League to fight the Persians.

Everyone must pay the League and send their sons to fight. The treasury of the League soon ended up in Athens, and used to enrich Athenians. Member cities desiring to leave the League were sacked, their men slaughtered, their women enslaved, and their sons castrated.

Athens at the head of the League became an imperial power even crueler than the Persians. In less than a generation, Athens turned from being the most admired Greek city state into the most hated. Eventually, it led to war with the Spartans, who allied with the Persians to destroy Athens. That's what happens to empires.

The question of setting up an international currency for trading is theoretically fine, and the SDR of the IMF serves that purpose to some extent, but at the end of the day, America still controls the IMF and SDR is but an accounting tool. Power and trust are what cause a promissory note to be used as a token of wealth for trading between countries.

Nixon actually defaulted and robbed the world blind. It’s a well known history which you can read up on your own (Google Nixon gold default). America and its dollar still has power, but trust is badly eroded. There is no good alternative at the moment that can challenge the USD, but China’s RMB is gaining, slowly and steadily.

The digital RMB is dangerous for the US dollar hegemony because people can pay anywhere in the world just by using a smartphone, and the transaction is done instantaneously, without the need for clearing through banks, without any bank fees, and certainly does not need clearing through any American system, completely kicking America out of the loop.

No more American clearing.

No more SWIFT.

No more waiting for days going through the international banking system.

And most importantly…

No more American unilateral sanctions.

Besides, RMBs are appreciating because of China’s growing economic power, which by the way, is based on production and innovation rather than running the printers, persistent lying, and highway robbery.

Below is an article about what happens if America defaults on its treasury bills. I suggest that China shouldn’t have to worry about its 1 trillion dollar reserve. America won’t let China buy anything valuable with it anyways. Anything of value China wants to buy is against America’s “national security”.

America will eventually have to pay up, as the T-bills in China’s reserve is only a small portion in the whole pot.

In any case, the collapse of the USD hegemony is much more valuable to China and the rest of the world than empty American paper promises, which by now should be badly discounted.

If you trust habitual liars, then it’s your problem.

The fall of the USD hegemony means that America can no longer print its way out of problems and let the rest of the world bail them out. They’ll have a hard time printing trillions for their military adventures.

Every trip to the South China Sea must be balanced against servicing their debt.

Their bases all around the world may have to figure out a way to generate an income, maybe by selling military shirts and boots, all made in China, of course.

Do you think that this is being overstated? Do you believe that somehow America will steer it’s financial ship into a safe harbor and regain control of it’s economic abilities?

And this is what those inside of Australia think of the Morrison submarine deal…

As three former prime ministers in Paul Keating, Malcolm Turnbull and Kevin Rudd have already pointed out, AUKUS puts Australians in greater danger, renders Australia a vassal to foreign power and antagonises our neighbours in the region.

Depending on how you count them, there are probably already four US bases in operation now:

• Pine Gap near Alice Springs, Northern Territory,
• Naval Communication Station Harold E. Holt, north of the town of Exmouth, Western Australia,
• Robertson Barracks in Darwin, Northern Territory,
• Australian Defence Satellite Communications Station near Geraldton, WA.

However, the US military already has access to all major Australian Defence Force (ADF) training areas, northern Australian RAAF airfields, port facilities in Darwin and Fremantle, and probably future access too to an expanded Stirling naval base in Perth.

Under AUKUS, this may just be the beginning. It was largely ignored during the AUKUS media blitz and the dramatic cuckolding of the French but Peter Dutton had this to say at his press conference on September 16,

Unveiling plans for new facilities on Australian soil for US naval, air, and ground forces would entail “combined logistics, sustainment, and capability for maintenance to support our enhanced activities, including … for our submarines and surface combatants”. That is on top of “rotational deployments of all types of US military aircraft to Australia”.

If the plan is to shred Australia’s sovereignty and make us a target for China, he is succeeding with aplomb. We are about to be swamped by US military.

Oh, and worth a view…

“We made SARS. And we patented it on 19/4/2002, before there was any alleged outbreak in Asia”:

•   https://chinarising.puntopress.com/2021/09/07/we-made-sars-and-we-patented-it-on-19-4-2002-before-there-was-any-alleged-outbreak-in-asia-david-e-martin-testifies-at-the-german-corona-inquiry-committee-july-9th-2021-avtran/

Oh, Very few international companies returned back to America…

The “Trump Trade War” did not bear any fruit. None of the companies returned back to America.

• https://www.thestar.com.my/aseanplus/aseanplus-news/2021/09/26/us-china-trade-war-did-not-bring-american-firms-home-research-finds

A little story by “PM”

"In Spring of 2000, I took my newly wedded mainland-Chinese wife to North America to visit the rest of the extended family. 

We spent a week in Las Vegas so that my wife could experience a bit of American decadence. 

One day, we walked into the Vegas Saks Department Store to browse on jewelry. An aged sales-lady immediately walked over and struck up a conversation. 

My wife didn't speak a word of English, but I spoke like a native Canadian. The sales-lady asked us where we were from. I could have said we were from Hong Kong. I certainly could have said we were Canadians. 

Unlike a lot of people who declared themselves Hong Konger or Taiwanese when traveling in the West, I said we were from China, and just by being confident in our own skin (I used to travel to Vegas every year for conventions and knew every nook and cranny), demonstrated that we were not ashamed to be Chinese. 

Aftermath: the old lady said if we were interested in anything, be sure to ask for her, as she had the authority to give Chinese tourists a discount. Nudge nudge wink wink. It was a revelation. I knew Chinese shoppers loved haggling, but I didn't know you could haggle at Saks."

Greenback’s crisis-opportunity

This article / comment is from a anti-China writer who views the e-RMB as a “pipe dream” and that the USD will regain it’s role as the leading and only global reserve currency.

Even bigger questions hang over the global financial system.

The efforts by China, Russia, Saudi Arabia and other major economies to de-dollarize world trade is a work in progress, at best. The same goes for developing Asia, which spent the years since the region’s 1997-98 financial crisis pledging to wean economies off the dollar.

Try as export-driven economies may, the dollar and US Treasuries are still the linchpin of the global trading system. Yet the political shenanigans on display in Washington could change that – and quickly.

The “empire is crumbling” and the dollar is “slowly losing its sheen,” says Peter Koenig at Renmin University of China. Slowly, but surely, he says, the dollar “is losing its weight in the international financial market.”

Technological change is accelerating the timeline, particularly as China outpaces the US in the race to bring a central bank-issued digital currency to market, says strategist Dante Alighieri Disparte at financial services firm Circle.

“With the explosive proliferation of cryptocurrencies, including China’s introduction of a digital renminbi, it is not surprising to hear panicked warnings about the looming decline of the dollar,” Disparte says.

It’s not the whole story, of course. If Biden’s Washington plays its cards right, Disparte notes, the dollar could end up being the “prime beneficiary of today’s market developments.”

Yet the dollar is at the mercy of politics and politics can be highly toxic. If the current squabbling in Washington devastates trust in the core asset of the global financial system, current obsessing over China Evergrande will become a mere side show.

Oh. Jackie Ma. What have you done?

Jack Ma bought or invested in more than 30 media outlets, set up a university for the super rich (only those who owe a business worth $30m are qualify to enrolled as students, he is using such strategy to form a 1% gangster circle thinking he could one day control the media, economy, and government. But his link to Wall Street has been exposed in the process of Xi full scale anti corruption campaign.

His money laundering Alibaba Alipay is not put under control, his rich ganger University was shut down, his media empire is in the process of dismantling.

His corrupt friends who Jack up property prices, manipulated stock market is gone one by one….

No capitalist can bully a real people government serving the interest of the people.

• https://www.scmp.com/tech/big-tech/article/3150002/alibaba-sell-stake-chinese-tv-network-estimated-us350-million-loss

Taiwan unification

China’s reunification with Taiwan might perhaps happen sooner than expected – The Greanville Post

• https://www.greanvillepost.com/2021/09/25/chinas-reunification-with-taiwan-might-perhaps-happen-sooner-than-expected/

Here’s a joke

There is a joke I heard in Chinese Internet:

US: We need to start a war to destroy China.
(Looks around all countries. Pause, silence… Then everyone replies at the same time)
Japan: You go first.
Korea: You go first.
India: You go first.
ASEAN: You go first.
Australia: I go first.

A comment

Cashless in China

No one uses cash any more in China. Oh we see it from time to time, but for most of us it’s a simple swipe of a QR code. That’s it. Bank visits are rare. ATM visits are unheard of. We’ve all adopted to it, and guess what? No fees to transfer money in any way shape or form.

No wonder the US Banking system is going into convulsions.

But…

Cash, cold hard cash, will never disappear. Cash will never be obsolete and we should all hope it will be with us for many years to come.

The need for payment that works with no-signal or no-electricity won’t go away no matter how digitally sophisticated we believe ourselves to be. 

Anyone living in hurricane or typhoon-prone areas, where storms can send society back to the Stone Age, understand this better than most. 

The passage below is from Cashless, Chapter 19, The case against CBDCs: The Illusion of Privacy  

The Swedish Civil Contingencies Agency went so far as to advise all residents to keep “cash in small denominations” at home in case of emergencies. The idea that a power cut, cyberattack, or major technology disruption would cripple the nation because of residents’ reliance on digital payment is a real concern. 

Anyone in the UK who had a credit card attached to WireCard payment systems experienced this firsthand when the company failed, and cards went offline for forty-eight hours. Saying that digital system failures can’t happen or will never happen seems foolish. 

So for the record, cash will be with us for some time to come. It provides a simple analog solution to payment in an increasingly digital world. To say that it has no place in our future [or has lapsed into obsolescence] is to deny the fragility of our digital systems, which, time and time again, fail spectacularly. 

Their failures are reminders of how new we are to this digital revolution and that cash, which has been around for millennia, will still be an integral part of our modernized financial system. 

I would go as far as to say that hearing the call to completely eliminate cash should make readers, even the most “cashless,” become wary. 

And about those Australian nuclear submarines…

Zarathustra says:

September 24, 2021 at 9:45 pm GMT • 1.5 days ago

.

Submarines

Idiotic stupidity.

US Propaganda is saying that the submarines will have nuclear power and missiles with conventional payload. How nice. Chinese can relax. I did never see in my live such a retarded statement. So what is this statement? Gentleman’s agreement?

So submarines can be built with nuclear power and loaded with conventional missiles. But if submarines are built with such a space dimension that they can store nuclear missiles and loading mechanism that can handle nuclear missiles, and firing tubes that can accept nuclear missiles.

Than what is worth the US statement.

Do American think that Chinese are retarded?

By the time those submarines will be built the Chinese can built four times more powerful countermeasures.

And then there is Afghanistan

Empire of chickenhawks: Why America’s chaotic departure from Afghanistan was actually perfect

We screwed up 20 years of pointless war. We didn’t win. We lost. Why wouldn’t we screw up the final exit?

By Lucian K. Truscott IV

Published September 25, 2021 8:00AM (EDT)

The biggest fallacy about our exit from Afghanistan is that there was a “good” way for us to get out. There is no good way to lose a war. With defeat comes humiliation. We were humiliated in the way we pulled out of Kabul — and we should have been, because we believed the lies we had been told right up to the last moment.

The lies we heard at the end of our war in Afghanistan wereas the same ones we were told, and were only too happy to believe, for 20 long years: that everything was going swimmingly. Remember earlier in the summer when the headlines were about how the Taliban controlled a large percentage of the territory in Afghanistan, but the Afghan government and its supposed army still controlled the provincial capitals and Kabul, and that was where the power was.

What a total crock of shit. Everyone was shocked — shocked — when the headlines started to come. Aug. 9, from the AP: “Taliban press on, take two more provincial capitals.” That story was a doozie. “On Monday they [the Taliban] controlled five of the country’s 34 provincial capitals.” It didn’t really matter which two capitals the Taliban had taken. You had to read way down in the story to discover they were Aybak, capital of Samangan province, and Sar-e-Pul, capital of Sar-e-Pul province. Where the hell were they? Who had even heard of them?

That was Monday. By Wednesday, Aug. 11, here was the headline in Al Jazeera: “Timeline: Afghanistan provincial capitals captured by the Taliban.” How many, you might ask? In two days, the count had ballooned from five capitals to 18. Eighteen. Later that day, both Al Jazeera and Reuters were reporting that U.S. intelligence sources were saying that Kabul could “fall to Taliban within 90 days.”

Surprise! Three days later, the evacuation of Kabul began. On Sept. 1, two weeks later, CBS News headlined: “This is the last American soldier to leave Afghanistan” with an eerie night-vision video capture of Maj. Gen. Chris Donahue, commander of the U.S. Army 82nd Airborne Division, XVIII Airborne Corps, headed up the ramp of a C-17 cargo jet wearing full combat gear including bulletproof vest and helmet with night-vision goggles attached, carrying his M-4 automatic rifle.

How did Afghanistan collapse so quickly to Taliban control? Because “we” — the U.S. military and its NATO allies — never controlled it to begin with. Nor did our puppets in the so-called Afghan government. The idea that we ever did, that we ever “controlled” or even had our finger on the pulse of the “graveyard of empires” was a lie.

You know who told us that lie? Every government from George W. Bush on, and every general ever put in charge of that doomed mission. Every single one of them reported that all was well, that the Afghan army was 300,000 strong, that the Taliban was on the run, that the Afghan air force was taking over from the missions flown by American warplanes, that the Afghans had their own helicopters now. And that the Afghan president, whether it was Ashraf Ghani or Hamid Karzai, was firmly in charge back in Kabul.

And you know who went along with that fiction? The United States Congress, which voted for 20 years to spend the $2 trillion we pissed away over there, and each of the presidents — yes, including Barack Obama and Donald Trump — who approved every increase of troops, every troop withdrawal, every “surge” that was advertised as the solution to end all solutions, the thing that would finally put the Taliban on the run.

Remember all the Taliban commanders we were told were killed?

A drone strike took out this one!

Another drone strike took out that one!

Wow! We had to be winning if the Taliban was losing so many important leaders!

And then there were the keyboard commandos back in Washington and New York, and the neocons from the Council on Foreign Relations, and the growing chorus of retired generals — among them all of the commanders of our Afghanistan mission — who were all over the op-ed pages and cable news assuring us that All Was Well, as they racked up the megabucks sitting on the boards of defense contractors selling all the military shit that was winning the war for us.

"The eight generals who commanded American forces in Afghanistan between 2008 and 2018 have gone on to serve on more than 20 corporate boards,"

the Washington Post reported on Sept. 4, three days after we exited from Kabul with our tail between our legs.

There was Gen. Stanley McChrystal, who oversaw the big “surge” of 2009 that was the answer-to-end-all-answers to every problem we were having over there. He has been “a board member or adviser for at least 10 companies since 2010, according to corporate filings and news releases,” the Post reported. There was Gen. Joseph F. Dunford Jr., who commanded allied forces in 2013 and 2014, who went on to serve on the board of Lockheed Martin, the gigantic defense contractor. There was Gen. John R. Allen, commander in Afghanistan before Dunford, who is the president of the Brookings Institution, which has received $1.5 million over three years from Northrop Grumman, according to the Post. And Gen. David Petraeus, who preceded Allen and now sits on the board of KKR, a private equity firm in New York with many investments in the defense industry.

All of these gentlemen — and let’s take a moment to note they are all men, not a female commander among them — reported back to us from their command posts in Afghanistan how well things were going over there, how we were all over the Taliban, how the Afghan government was successfully “standing up” its well-equipped, well-trained army to defend the country from the Taliban. And then they went on cable TV and continued their lies when they got back to the U.S. and retired from the Army, because that’s what generals today do. They sit on corporate boards, they give incredibly well-paid speeches, they go on TV and they rake in the Big Bucks because they were so successful in Afghanistan … and in Iraq, too. Remember Petraeus and his “surge” in 2007? Boy, were we ever surging, huh? I remember Newsweek published a cover image of Petraeus in 2004 wearing in his combat fatigues, standing on a tarmac with a Blackhawk helicopter behind him, with the headline: “Can this man save Iraq?” The story, believe it or not, was about how Petraeus was taking over the training of the Iraqi army, and that was what was going to “save Iraq.” Don’t you think we should have concluded, when the “surge” became necessary in 2007, that Petraeus had utterly failed in his mission to train the Iraqi army and “save Iraq” back in 2004?

The words “crock of shit” again come to mind, but they are far, far from adequate. These presidents, and these members of Congress, and these generals, and these war-happy pundits, ran a great big gigantic con on the citizens of this country who were paying the taxes which — someday, perhaps — will pay for the $2 trillion we pissed away over in Afghanistan, and the trillions we pissed away in Iraq, too. They lied over and over and over again that with just another troop surge, or another troop withdrawal (because suddenly everything was hunky-dory) and of course just another infusion of billions and billions of dollars and the lost of a couple thousand more American lives we could “win” in Afghanistan and “win” in Iraq.

Over there, they laughed at us. The Afghans and the Iraqis who took the money, took all the equipment we gave them, took 20 years of our politics and our “prestige” as a nation, and the whole time they were laughing their heads off, because they knew what we didn’t know. None of it was working. None of it would ever work. And one day we would be headed out of both countries with our tails between our legs, because that’s what you do when you lose.

That’s why our frantic, chaotic exit from Kabul was perfect, because it perfectly capped off 20 years of lies about what was really going on over there, 20 years of frantic, chaotic thrashing around and throwing money and the bodies of young American men and women at a problem that could never be solved. It was an enormous delusion that we, the United States of America, could march into those countries thousands of miles away from our shores and — if we spent enough money and invented and fielded enough “mine resistant vehicles” and fired enough missiles from enough drones at enough “Taliban commanders” — could somehow emerge from those quagmires victorious.

We couldn’t, and we didn’t, and when that American major general, all kitted-out in the combat gear we spent 20 years dressing our soldiers in, scampered up the ramp of that cargo jet to steal away from the Kabul airport in the middle of the night, it was the absolute perfect ending to the perfect disaster the war in Afghanistan had always been. We were humiliated in front of the entire world, as we should have been. The way we left Afghanistan “did damage to our credibility and to our reputation,” the famous Gen. Petraeus told CBS when it was all over.

Yeah, it did, Dave, and it should have. Maybe now the geniuses who got us into those godforsaken disastrous wars and kept us there will think twice before they do it again.

Except, wait. That was supposed to have been the great “lesson of Vietnam.” Never mind.

American debt is looming large…

the US federal government’s rivers of borrowed money running dry and in urgent need of replenishing. The other is a major Chinese property developer which has run into financial trouble, because the company veered off the road by squandering too much on making electric cars and sponsoring a football club.

As US federal debt default looms, US Treasury Secretary Janet Yellen is facing her biggest test in her eight-month tenure to convince reluctant Republican lawmakers to agree to raise the US’ national debt limit, which is currently set at $28.5 trillion. The stakes are high, because if Yellen’s effort fails, the US financial system will collapse.

Yellen has called Republican leaders to convey the economic danger which lays ahead, bluntly warning that the Treasury Department’s ability to stave off default is limited, and the failure to lift the debt cap by late October would be “catastrophic” for the country and the world.

Six former US treasury secretaries last week sent a letter to top US lawmakers, warning them a default would roil financial markets and blunt economic growth. According to US media reports, Yellen last week also warned the nation’s largest banks and financial institutions about the very real risk of a default. She has spoken to chief executives of JPMorgan Chase, Bank of America, BlackRock and Goldman Sachs, briefing them the likely disastrous impact a federal default will produce.

To make things worse, both Democrats and Republicans in the US are at each other’s throats now over US President Joe Biden’s new $3.5 trillion spending bill, which proposes heavy tax raises on rich families and corporations, and has met fierce opposition from Republican lawmakers. Whether they will compromise on the debt limit, by making a last-minute deal with the White House to reduce Biden’s giant spending plan remains to be seen.

Market analysts say if the US government defaults on its colossal debt, a financial system crisis of a magnitude larger than the 2008-09 debacle could occur, which is estimated to lead to an evaporation of $15 trillion in wealth and loss of 6 million jobs in the US. The capital market is now on tenterhooks facing a potential financial time bomb.

Do you think that the USA will raise the debt ceiling, or will default? There is a third option, that China and Russsia would “bail out the USA”. What do you think will happen?

Consequences.

Ever since President Trump was elected it was millions of dollars in a hate-hate-hate China narrative. And this has resulted in all sorts of violence, bad will, and Congressional action. What is not being reported is how the Chinese feel about America and Japan today.

Here is a Chinese car with pro-Japan and Pro-America stickers and wording. VIDEO.

How AP, Reuters And SCMP Propagandize Their Readers Against China

From MoA

A typical ‘western’ anti-China propaganda claim is that China is using its military aggressively. ‘Western’ news agencies do this on a regular base when they report of Chinese air maneuvers around Taiwan.

Oh my goodness!

This report by the South China Morning Post, based on AP and Reuters items, is a perfect example for that:

25 Chinese warplanes enter Taiwan’s air defence zone

Taiwan’s air force scrambled again on Friday to warn away 25 Chinese aircraft that entered its air defence zone, according to the defence ministry in Taipei.Taiwan has complained for a year or more of repeated missions by China’s air force, often in the southwestern part of its air defence zone close to the Taiwan-controlled Pratas Islands.

The latest PLA air force mission involved 18 J-16 and four Su-30 fighters plus two nuclear-capable H-6 bombers and an anti-submarine aircraft, the Taiwan ministry said.

It said Taiwan sent combat aircraft to warn away the PLA aircraft, while missile systems were deployed to monitor them.

The Chinese aircraft all flew in an area close to the Pratas, with the two bombers flying closest to the atoll, according to a map that the ministry issued.

I do not believe that China would fly its bombers and jets into Taiwan’s “air defense zone” because that is the geographic area where Taiwan would actually shoot to take them down.

So I checked with the news agency reports the SCMP story is based on. AP headlines:

China sends 25 fighter planes toward Taiwan on National Day

TAIPEI, Taiwan (AP) — China sent 25 fighter jets toward self-ruled Taiwan in a large display of force on China’s National Day Friday.The People’s Liberation Army flew 18 J-16 fighter jets as well as two H-6 bombers, among other planes. Taiwan deployed air patrol forces in response and tracked the Chinese aircraft on its air defense systems, the island’s Defense Ministry said in a statement.

China has sent planes toward the island it claims as part of its territory on a near daily basis in the last couple of years, stepping up military harassment with drills.

No “air defense zone” there but one extra point for “military harassment”. Reuters is less subtle:

China marks national day with mass air incursion near Taiwan

TAIPEI, Oct 1 (Reuters) – Taiwan’s air force scrambled again on Friday to warn away 25 Chinese aircraft that entered its air defence zone, the defence ministry in Taipei said, the same day as China marked its national day, the founding of the People’s Republic of China.Chinese-claimed Taiwan has complained for a year or more of repeated missions by China’s air force near the democratically governed island, often in the southwestern part of its air defence zone close to the Taiwan-controlled Pratas Islands.

The latest Chinese mission involved 18 J-16 and four Su-30 fighters plus two nuclear-capable H-6 bombers and an anti-submarine aircraft, the Taiwan ministry said.

So the “air defense zone” claims comes from Reuters. It is however 100% fake news. Neither did the Chinese airforce fly into the “air defense zone” of Taiwan nor did Taiwan claim that it did.

Here is the original news item from the Ministry of Defense of Taiwan. The headline and first line say it all:

Air activities in the southwestern ADIZ of R.O.C.

Air activities in the southwestern ADIZ of R.O.C.

…There is no “air defense zone” (ADZ) in there. Instead there is Taiwan’s ADIZ, or “Air Defense Identification Zone”, into which Chinese planes ‘intruded’.

What is an ADIZ one might ask:

An air defense identification zone (ADIZ) is airspace over land or water in which the identification, location, and control of civil aircraft is performed in the interest of national security. They may extend beyond a country's territory to give the country more time to respond to possibly hostile aircraft. The concept of an ADIZ is not defined in any international treaty and is not regulated by any international body..

Some countries unilateral declare an ADIZ around this or that territory. They ask any plane entering it to identify itself. As ADIZ are unilateral ‘pretty please’ requests with no binding power they are regularly ignored

Taiwan’s ADIZ is quite ridiculous as it covers parts of mainland China:

Taiwan has an ADIZ that covers most of the Taiwan Strait, part of the Chinese province of Fujian, Zhejiang, and Jiangxi and part of the East China Sea and adjacent airspace. Most of the ADIZ of Taiwan is built on its exclusive economic zone. Taiwan’s ADIZ was designed and created by the United States Armed Forces (USAF) after World War II.

The Taiwanese Defense Ministry Military News Updates claim that Chinese ‘violations’ of its ADIZ happen each and every day.

The Reuters fake news piece also says that the Chinese planes flew near to Pratas Island (Dongsha) which China as well as Taiwan both claim as their territory.

In fact mainland China is nearer to Pratas than Taiwan is.

The Twitter account of Taiwan’s Defense Ministry just posted this map of the alleged ‘violations’ which perfectly shows how ridiculous such claims are:

The AP report is misleading as it implies a special meaning to something that happens regularly. The Reuters piece is obviously fake news as it claims that Taiwan’s defense ministry said something which it did not say.  The SCMP deserves to be criticized too as any reporter and editor covering such news should know the difference between an ADZ and an ADIZ and should have recognized that the “air defense zone” claim in the Reuters piece is obviously bollocks.

That said all three fulfill their intended purpose. They propagandize those who read them against China by depicting normal military training of China’s armed forces as aggression against its neighbors.

Posted by b on October 1, 2021 at 16:52 UTC | Permalink

It’s just another example of just how the anti-China narrative is being pushed, and pushed and pushed relentlessly. Nothing good can happen from this. I believe that the American and the Australians, and the Brits are now all worked up into a frothy fury against China and will support a war. Do you agree with me on this, or do you have other thoughts?

How things are being handled…

Curious. This next article…

Huawei CFO gets hero’s welcome; Canadians land quietly

The tallest building in Shenzhen lit up with scrolling slogan “Welcome Home, Meng Wanzhou” across its facade. 

The two Canadians freed by Beijing returned to their homeland with less fanfare Huawei CFO gets hero’s welcome; Canadians land quietly | National Post

• https://nationalpost.com/news/canada/huawei-cfo-gets-heros-welcome-canadians-land-quietly

Fact Sheet: U.S. Interference in Hong Kong Affairs and Support for Anti-China, Destabilizing Forces”

As published on Ministry of Foreign Affairs of China's website. /fmprc.gov.cn

Editor’s note: Grenville Cross is a senior counsel and professor of law, and was previously the director of public prosecutions of the Hong Kong SAR. The article reflects the author’s opinions and not necessarily the views of CGTN.

In recent years, China’s achievements have surpassed all expectations, and the United States has become increasingly paranoid. It realizes its post-war hegemony can no longer be taken for granted, and that its star is slowly fading. Ever since the UK-based Center for Economics and Business Research reported in December 2020 that China will overtake the U.S. to become the world’s largest economy by 2028, five years earlier than previously forecast, it has been panic stations in Washington D.C.

The U.S., however, faces massive problems, and they are getting worse. It is burdened with a huge national debt, standing at $28.4 billion in August, about $1.7 billion more than a year earlier. Its foreign policy is a shambles, with the Afghanistan debacle being but the latest example, and even its closest allies are appalled by its incompetence and duplicity. Indeed, after the AUKUS deal between the U.S., Australia and the UK was sprung on an unsuspecting world on September 15, France, which was cheated out of a submarine contract, denounced it as a “stab in the back”, and, for the first time ever, withdrew its ambassador from Washington D.C.

Instead, however, of taking a long, hard look at itself, the previous and present U.S. administrations have resorted to scapegoating China, hoping to deflect attention away from their own woes. Although most of its problems are of its own making, the U.S. has sought to blame China not only for its own ills but also those of the world, thereby laying the groundwork for hostile interventions. It has decided that one of the ways of dealing with China is by fomenting internal dissent and spreading misinformation about it, just as it has done in its efforts to weaken Russia.

On June 9, 2019, when the protest movement in Hong Kong and its armed wing declared war on society, ostensibly over the SAR government’s fugitive surrender bill, the U.S. saw its chance. Although the proposals would have facilitated the return of criminal fugitives to 177 jurisdictions, subject to court oversight, and were entirely reasonable, the U.S., to inflame tensions, demonized them, and provided every encouragement to the protesters.

Indeed, on August 6, 2019, at the height of the violence in Hong Kong, the U.S. Consul General’s political counselor, Julie Eadeh, met covertly with protest leaders, including Joshua Wong Chi-fung and Nathan Law Kwun-chung, at a local hotel, presumably to share U.S. views on the insurrection and provide ongoing advice.

Again, after Brian Leung Kai-ping, one of the rioters who trashed the Legislative Council complex on July 1, 2019, causing damage estimated at HK$50 million ($6.4 million), fled the city, he was not only welcomed to the U.S., but also invited to the Congress as an honored guest.

Instead of denouncing the rioters who were bringing death and destruction to Hong Kong streets, the then Secretary of State Mike Pompeo endorsed the protest movement’s demands, supported their anti-police agenda, and sought to blame the government for the insurrection.

Even when the protest movement targeted the rule of law by firebombing the courts and threatening the judges, Pompeo and his cronies continued to lionize the protest leaders, and to whitewash their excesses. It was, by any yardstick, partisanship of the worst sort, and represented a new low in U.S. foreign policy.

Even when anti-China legislators, linked to the protest movement, sabotaged the work of the Legislative Council, preventing the passage of legislation for nearly seven months in 2019-20, the U.S. condemned the initiatives taken to get things back on track. Even though it would never have tolerated obstructionism of this type at home, it expected the authorities to allow it in Hong Kong, although the name of its game was, of course, mischief-making.

But with the exclusion of legislators bent on mayhem, and their replacement with responsible citizens committed to the well-being of Hong Kong and the national good, the city now has the prospect of effective governance.

Working through front organizations, the U.S. provided multifaceted support to the protest movement and its allies throughout the insurrection. They included various U.S.-based entities, including the National Endowment for Democracy, always generous with its cash when opponents of the Hong Kong SAR government came knocking, and the U.S. Agency for Global Media.

It has also now come to light that various other U.S.-backed groups were complicit in the uprising, including the Oslo Freedom Foundation, the Albert Einstein Institute and the Centre for Applied Nonviolent Action and Strategies, which, despite their fancy names, all had sinister agendas. Although many of them operated in the shadows, this cannot be said of the U.S. Strategic Competition Act 2021, which allocated $10 million for the promotion of “democracy in Hong Kong”, a euphemism for stirring up trouble.

Once, however, the National Security Law was enacted, it provided the Hong Kong Special Administration Region (HKSAR) government with the tools it required to save the city’s way of life and capitalist system, and put an end to undercover operations by foreign powers. The U.S., however, responded by imposing sanctions on the city, revoking its favorable trade status, and suspending the agreement on surrender of fugitive offenders with the HKSAR.

Not once, however, did the U.S. explain how it thought damaging Hong Kong like this would in any way benefit its people, which was revelatory. Perhaps more than anything else, its inability to justify its actions highlighted not only its determination to undermine China by ruining Hong Kong, but also its willingness to throw a long-standing friend under the bus, just as it has now done to France, which also made the mistake of trusting it.

The U.S. attempts to destabilize Hong Kong are a disgrace, as well as a betrayal. The lengths to which it was prepared to go to hurt China beggar belief, and they have now been chronicled for all to see by the China’s Ministry of Foreign Affairs.

On September 24, it issued a Fact Sheet entitled “U.S. Interference in Hong Kong Affairs and Support for Anti-China Destabilizing Forces”, which is highly detailed and a real eye-opener. It exposes cynical, comprehensive and intensive efforts by a global bullyboy to ruin one of the world’s most successful cities, and is essential reading for anybody wishing to know the depths to which the U.S. is prepared to sink.

Quite clearly, if the evidence contained in the Fact Sheet were to be presented in a court of law responsible for trying the U.S. for willful depredations against Hong Kong and its people, the only possible verdict would be “guilty as charged.” This, alas, will never happen, but great comfort can nonetheless be derived from the city’s survival, against all the odds.

Although, at one point, China’s adversaries thought they could bring Hong Kong to its knees and destroy the “one country, two systems” policy, they have, after the nation rallied round, been decisively thwarted. Indeed, with the Central Government’s steadfast support, the city has emerged from its experiences stronger than ever, and can now face its future with renewed confidence.

Fact listing

It’s a long list. You can skim over and refer to it later…

List of facts about U.S. intervention in Hong Kong affairs and support of anti-China forces in Hong Kong

2021-09-24

https://www.fmprc.gov.cn/web/wjbxw_673019/t1909400.shtml

List of facts about U.S. intervention in Hong Kong affairs and support of anti-China forces in Hong Kong

2021-09-24

　　1. Concocting Hong Kong-related bills, discrediting China’s Hong Kong policy, interfering in Hong Kong’s internal affairs, and wantonly interfering in China’s internal affairs.

　　1. On November 27, 2019, the then-U.S. President Trump signed the “Hong Kong” concocted by the U.S. Congress in order to show his support for the anti-China and Hong Kong forces and obstruct the efforts of the Chinese Central Government and the Hong Kong SAR government to stop violence, curb chaos, and restore order. The Human Rights and Democracy Act” and the “Prohibition of Export of Related Ammunitions to Hong Kong Police”. The relevant bill slanders the Chinese central government for undermining Hong Kong’s high degree of autonomy, authorizes the US President to impose sanctions against relevant Chinese officials such as denying entry and freezing assets in the US, and requires the US Secretary of State to submit an annual report on Hong Kong affairs and prohibit the US from exporting tear gas and pepper spray to Hong Kong. , Rubber bullets and stun guns and other police equipment.

　　2. On July 14, 2020, the then US President Trump signed the “Hong Kong Autonomy Act.” The law requires sanctions against so-called foreign individuals or entities related to China’s breach of Hong Kong-related obligations, as well as foreign financial institutions that conduct important transactions with related individuals or entities, and supports so-called “persecuted” Hong Kong residents to enter the United States. On the same day, Trump signed No. 13936 “Presidential Executive Order on the Normalization of Hong Kong”, which determined that the situation in Hong Kong constitutes a threat to the security, foreign policy and economy of the United States, and accordingly declared a national emergency, including the suspension and cancellation of special grants to Hong Kong. Preferential treatment, authorization to impose sanctions on Hong Kong entities and individuals, etc.

　　3. On February 18, 2021, Meeks, Chairman of the Foreign Affairs Committee of the US House of Representatives, proposed the so-called “resolution condemning China and the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region for continuing to violate the rights and freedoms of Hong Kong people”, slandering the Chinese central government and the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region government for upholding the rule of law. The case was approved by the House of Representatives on April 19.

　　4. The U.S. Congress is reviewing several negative Hong Kong bills, including: On January 25 and February 8, 2021, U.S. Republican Representative Curtis and U.S. Senator Rubio proposed “Hong Kong” in the House of Representatives and Senate, respectively. The Safe Harbor Act requires the U.S. government to provide refugee status to “Hong Kong independence” elements involved in the Hong Kong riots; on March 18, 2021, Republican Senator Rubio proposed the so-called “condemnation of the Chinese government and the Chinese Communist Party for repressing Hong Kong. Including the arrest of democrats and repeated violations of the “Sino-British Joint Declaration” and Hong Kong Basic Law resolutions”; on June 24, 2021, Republican Senator Sass proposed the “Hong Kong Democratic Congress Gold Medal Bill”, clamoring to Li Zhiying , Luo Weiguang, Zhang Jianhong, Zhou Daquan, Chen Peimin, Zhang Zhiwei, Yang Qingqi and other Hong Kong “Apple Daily” executives and all staff members of the newspaper awarded the American Association Gold Medal; June 30, 2021, Democratic Congressman Malinowski Introduced the “Hong Kong People’s Freedom and Choice Act of 2021”, which requires the provision of asylum for anti-China chaos in Hong Kong, criminals and criminals, and provide them with convenient access to the United States; on June 30, 2021, Republican Representative Perry proposed “Hong Kong The Freedom Act requires that the US President be authorized to recognize the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region as an “independent country.”

　　2. Flagrantly imposing sanctions in an attempt to obstruct the smooth implementation of the Hong Kong National Security Law and the relevant decisions of the National People’s Congress of China in Hong Kong.

　　1. On May 29, 2020, the then US President Trump announced the cancellation of Hong Kong’s special status and Hong Kong’s commercial preferential measures.

　　2. On June 29, 2020, the then U.S. Secretary of State Pompeo announced that the export of U.S. defense equipment to Hong Kong will now be banned, and the export of U.S. defense and dual-use technologies to Hong Kong will be restricted.

　　3. On June 29, 2020, the then US Secretary of Commerce Ross issued a statement officially abolishing the special trade treatment for Hong Kong, prohibiting the sale of dual-use high-tech equipment to Hong Kong, and will continue to evaluate the cancellation of other special treatments in Hong Kong.

　　4. On June 30, 2020, the U.S. Department of Commerce announced the termination of the Hong Kong export license exception treatment and prohibits the export of defense equipment and sensitive technology to Hong Kong.

　　5. On August 7, 2020, the U.S. government announced sanctions against 11 officials of the Chinese Central Government and the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region Government on the grounds of enforcing the Hong Kong National Security Law and undermining Hong Kong’s high degree of autonomy.

　　6. On August 11, 2020, the US Department of Homeland Security announced that from September 25, Hong Kong exports to the United States must indicate the origin of “China” and prohibit the use of the “Made in Hong Kong” label.

　　7. On August 19, 2020, the US State Department announced the suspension or termination of the three bilateral agreements signed with Hong Kong, including the transfer of fugitive offenders, the transfer of sentenced persons, and the exemption of international shipping profits tax.

　　8. On October 14, 2020, the U.S. State Department submitted its first Hong Kong-related report to the U.S. Congress in accordance with the requirements of the “Hong Kong Autonomy Act.” The financial institutions related to the above-mentioned persons impose sanctions.

　　9. On November 9, 2020, the U.S. State Department announced sanctions against four officials of the Chinese Central Government and the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region Government on the grounds that they threatened Hong Kong’s peace, security, and high degree of autonomy.

　　10. On December 7, 2020, the US State Department imposed sanctions on 14 vice-chairmen of the Standing Committee of the National People’s Congress of China on the grounds that the Standing Committee of the National People’s Congress of China enacted the Hong Kong National Security Law and disqualified four opposition members of the Hong Kong Legislative Council.

　　11. On January 15, 2021, the then US Secretary of State Pompeo issued a statement on the grounds that the Hong Kong police arrested 55 so-called democrats and imposed sanctions on 6 officials of the Chinese Central Government and the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region Government.

　　12. On March 16, 2021, the US State Department updated the “Hong Kong Autonomy Law” report, and announced the update of the list of Hong Kong-related sanctions and additional financial services based on the relevant decisions adopted by the National People’s Congress to improve the Hong Kong election system and the implementation of the Hong Kong National Security Law. Sanctions.

　　13. On July 7, 2021, the White House issued the so-called “Notice on the Continuing Implementation of the National Emergency Concerning Hong Kong”, announcing the extension of the so-called “national emergency declared in response to the situation in Hong Kong” and extending the US sanctions against Hong Kong for one year.

　　14. On July 16, 2021, the US State Department, the Department of Commerce, the Department of Homeland Security, and the Department of the Treasury fabricated the so-called “Hong Kong Business Warning” and discredited Hong Kong’s business environment on the grounds that the SAR implemented the Hong Kong National Security Law and the suspension of the “Apple Daily”. , Vilified the development of Hong Kong and the prospects of “one country, two systems”, and announced sanctions on seven officials of the Liaison Office of the Central Committee of Hong Kong. US Secretary of State Blincoln also issued a so-called statement on the first anniversary of the implementation of the Hong Kong National Security Law, slandering the National Security Law and attacking the Chinese government’s policy towards Hong Kong.

　　3. Slander and slander the affairs of the Special Administrative Region, arbitrarily discuss the enforcement actions of the Hong Kong police, and undermine the prosperity and stability of Hong Kong.

　　1. On February 25, 2019, the then U.S. Consul General in Hong Kong, Tang Weikang, publicly expressed in an interview his concern about the SAR government’s proposed revision of the Fugitive Offenders Ordinance, claiming that the amendment may affect the implementation of the bilateral agreement between the United States and Hong Kong.

　　2. On March 21, 2019, the U.S. State Department issued the “2019 Hong Kong Policy and Law Report”, claiming that the freedom of speech in Hong Kong has been eroded and that the Chinese government has increased its intervention in Hong Kong affairs, causing damage to Hong Kong in many ways.

　　3. On May 7, 2019, the US Congress “US-China Economic and Security Evaluation Committee” issued a report that slandered the SAR government’s amendment to the Fugitive Offenders Ordinance and “eroded Hong Kong’s autonomy”, which constituted a serious threat to the national security of the United States and the economic interests of the United States in Hong Kong. risk.

　　4. On May 16, 2019, the U.S. State Department issued a statement falsely claiming that the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region Government’s amendment to the Fugitive Offenders Ordinance threatened the rule of law in Hong Kong and was concerned about this.

　　5. On June 19, 2019, when Speaker of the House of Representatives Pelosi spoke at the Christian Science Monitor’s breakfast meeting, he ignored the various extreme atrocities committed by anti-China and Hong Kong elements, claiming that “2 million people took to the streets to oppose the amendment. The Fugitive Offenders Ordinance, isn’t that a beautiful landscape?”, openly condoned and encouraged anti-China chaos in Hong Kong to use illegal and violent means to confront the central government and the SAR government.

　　6. On July 26, 2019, Engel, then chairman of the Foreign Affairs Committee of the U.S. House of Representatives, falsely claimed that the Hong Kong police used violence in handling demonstrations, which damaged Hong Kong’s international reputation in governance and justice.

　　7. On September 17, 2019, the United States “Congress-Executive China Committee” held a hearing on the situation in Hong Kong, beautifying the anti-revision violent demonstrations, discrediting the SAR government’s handling of the Hong Kong police, falsely claiming that it undermined the “one country, two systems” and Hong Kong autonomy.

　　8. On September 28, 2019, the US “Congress-Executive China Committee” issued a statement on the fifth anniversary of Hong Kong’s “Occupy Central”, discrediting “One Country, Two Systems” and the central government’s policy towards Hong Kong.

　　9. On October 7, 2019, the then-U.S. President Trump stated that he hoped that the Hong Kong protest issue would be resolved humanely. The people of Hong Kong were great. They waved the American flag and more than 2 million people participated in the protest. Nothing like this has ever happened before.

　　10. On October 24, 2019, the then-U.S. Vice President Mike Pence delivered an anti-China speech at the Wilson Center, a think-tank in Washington. He repeatedly mentioned Hong Kong’s “regulation turmoil”, claiming that “Hong Kong is a living example, showing how China would embrace freedom. What will happen”.

　　11. On November 21, 2019, Speaker of the House of Representatives of the United States Pelosi made a public speech after the “Hong Kong Human Rights and Democracy Act” was passed and reviewed, claiming that “China’s commitment to Hong Kong’s complete autonomy has been broken” and deliberately distorting “One Country, Two Systems” , Confusion of right and wrong.

　　12. On December 10, 2019, the US Consul General in Hong Kong, Smith, wrote an article in Ming Pao in Hong Kong, threatening that “the United States has consistently committed to human rights in Hong Kong”, claiming that “the United States’ enactment of the Hong Kong Human Rights and Democracy Act demonstrates the universal value of the United States. The commitment of the United States reflects the United States’ concern about Beijing’s erosion of Hong Kong’s autonomy.”

　　13. On May 22, 2020, the then U.S. Secretary of State Pompeo issued a statement on the “Decision on Establishing and Improving the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region’s Legal System and Implementation Mechanism for Maintaining National Security” by the National People’s Congress of China, slandering the Hong Kong National Security Law as “ Impose” and “undermine Hong Kong’s high degree of autonomy.”

　　14. On May 27, 2020, the then U.S. Secretary of State Pompeo once again issued a statement on the imminent review and approval of the Hong Kong National Security Law by the National People’s Congress of China, arguing that the United States hopes that Hong Kong, as a “fortress of freedom”, can become a model for “authoritarian” China, and to The U.S. Congress “confirmed” that Hong Kong should no longer enjoy the treatment granted to it by U.S. law before July 1997.

　　15. On May 28, 2020, the U.S. State Department submitted the “2020 Hong Kong Policy Law Report” to Congress, confirming that Hong Kong cannot continue to enjoy the special treatment provided by U.S. law.

　　16. On June 30, 2020, the then U.S. Secretary of State Pompeo issued a statement falsely claiming that the implementation of the Hong Kong National Security Law undermined “One Country, Two Systems” and violated the Sino-British Joint Declaration and the commitments made in Hong Kong’s Basic Law.

　　17. On July 1, 2020, the Speaker of the U.S. Congress, Pelosi, after passing the “Hong Kong Autonomy Act” in the U.S. House of Representatives, falsely claimed that the Hong Kong National Security Act is a “cruel and comprehensive suppression of Hong Kong, undermining Hong Kong’s freedom, and marking’one country, two systems.” ‘Death’.

　　18. On July 6, 2020, US Consul General Smith in Hong Kong falsely claimed that Hong Kong’s national security law erode the basic human rights and freedoms of Hong Kong people and create an atmosphere of self-censorship, which is a tragedy in Hong Kong.

　　19. On July 14, 2020, the then US Secretary of State Pompeo issued a statement supporting the so-called “primary election” illegally held by the Hong Kong opposition.

　　20. On July 23, 2020, the then US Secretary of State Pompeo delivered the so-called “Communist China and the Future of the Free World” anti-China speech, maliciously attacking the leadership of the Communist Party of China and China’s political system, spreading the China threat theory, and slandering the so-called strengthening of the Communist Party of China The control of Hong Kong has beautified Luo Guancong and other anti-China chaos in Hong Kong into democracy fighters.

　　21. On July 31, 2020, the then White House spokesperson McNerney stated that the United States opposed the Hong Kong SAR government’s disqualification of opposition candidates.

Fact Sheet: U.S. Interference in Hong Kong Affairs and Support for Anti-China, Destabilizing Forces

2021/09/24

I. Enacting Hong Kong-related Acts, vilifying China’s policy on Hong Kong, meddling in Hong Kong affairs, and wantonly interfering in China’s internal affairs

1. On 27 November 2019, in collusion with those who are opposed to China and attempt to destabilize Hong Kong and obstruct efforts of China’s central government and the government of the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region (HKSAR) to stop violence and restore law and order, then U.S. President Donald Trump signed into law two bills passed by the U.S. Congress, i.e. the Hong Kong Human Rights and Democracy Act of 2019 and the Act to prohibit the commercial export of covered munitions items to the Hong Kong Police Force. These bills accuse China’s central government of undermining the high degree of autonomy of Hong Kong, authorize the U.S. President to impose sanctions such as inadmissibility to the United States and asset blocking against relevant Chinese officials, require the U.S. Secretary of State to submit a report regarding Hong Kong affairs on a yearly basis, and prohibit U.S. exports of police equipment, such as tear gas, pepper spray, rubber bullets and stun guns, to Hong Kong.

2. On 14 July 2020, then U.S. President Trump signed into law the Hong Kong Autonomy Act, which requires the imposition of sanctions with respect to the foreign individuals or entities involved in the so-called erosion of certain obligations of China with respect to Hong Kong and foreign financial institutions that conduct significant transactions with those individuals or entities. It also supported permanent residents of Hong Kong who have been “persecuted” to enter the United States. On the same day, Trump signed the President’s Executive Order 13936 on Hong Kong Normalization, which determined that the situation with respect to Hong Kong constitutes a threat to the national security, foreign policy and economy of the United States. He declared a national emergency on that basis, which included measures to suspend or eliminate the different and preferential treatment for Hong Kong, and to authorize sanctions against entities and individuals with respect to Hong Kong.

3. On 18 February 2021, Gregory Meeks, Chairman of the Committee on Foreign Affairs of the U.S. House of Representatives introduced a resolution condemning the so-called “continued violation of rights and freedoms of the people of Hong Kong by the People’s Republic of China (PRC) and the Government of the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region”, which slandered the efforts made by China’s central government and the HKSAR government to uphold the rule of law, maintain order and stability and protect the life, property and safety of Hong Kong residents. The resolution was adopted by the House on 19 April.

4. The U.S. Congress is considering several other ill-intentioned bills regarding Hong Kong:

On 25 January and 8 February 2021, Republican Representative John Curtis and Republican Senator Marco Rubio introduced the Hong Kong Safe Harbor Act in the House and the Senate respectively, requiring the U.S. government to designate refugee status to individuals espousing “Hong Kong independence” and participating in the riots in Hong Kong.

On 18 March 2021, Senator Rubio introduced a resolution condemning the so-called “crackdown by the Government of the People’s Republic of China and the Chinese Communist Party in Hong Kong, including the arrests of pro-democracy activists and repeated violations of the obligations of that Government undertaken in the Sino-British Declaration of 1984 and the Hong Kong Basic Law”.

On 24 June 2021, Republican Senator Ben Sasse introduced the Democracy in Hong Kong Congressional Gold Medal Act on conferring the Congressional Gold Medal to Jimmy Lai Chee-ying, Ryan Law Wai-kwong, Cheung Kim-hung, Royston Chow Tat-kuen, Chan Pui-man, Cheung Chi-wai, Yeung Ching-kee and all the executives and staff of Apple Daily, a newspaper in Hong Kong.

On 30 June 2021, Republican Representative Tom Malinowski introduced the Hong Kong People’s Freedom and Choice Act of 2021, calling for providing protected status to those who oppose China and provoke instability as well as law breakers and offenders in Hong Kong and for enhancing protocols to facilitate their travels to the United States.

On 30 June 2021, Republican Representative Scott Perry introduced the Hong Kong Freedom Act, calling for authorizing the U.S. President to recognize the HKSAR as “a separate, independent country”.

II. Imposing sanctions in an attempt to obstruct the implementation in Hong Kong of the Hong Kong National Security Law and relevant decisions of China’s National People’s Congress (NPC)

1. On 29 May 2020, then U.S. President Trump announced revocation of the special status and preferential economic treatment for Hong Kong.

2. On 29 June 2020, then U.S. Secretary of State Mike Pompeo announced the immediate end of exports of U.S. defense equipment to Hong Kong and restrictions on exports of U.S. defense and dual-use technologies to Hong Kong.

3. On 29 June 2020, then U.S. Secretary of Commerce Wilbur Ross issued a statement, officially revoking Hong Kong’s special status in trade, banning exports of dual-use high-tech products to Hong Kong, and stating that further actions to eliminate differential treatment for Hong Kong were also being evaluated.

4. On 30 June 2020, the U.S. Department of Commerce announced the suspension of license exceptions for exports to Hong Kong, banning exports of U.S.-origin defense equipment and sensitive technologies to Hong Kong.

5. On 7 August 2020, the U.S. government imposed sanctions on 11 officials of China’s central government and the HKSAR government on the ground of enforcing the Hong Kong National Security Law and undermining Hong Kong’s high degree of autonomy.

6. On 11 August 2020, the U.S. Department of Homeland Security announced that after 25 September 2020, imported goods produced in Hong Kong may no longer be marked to indicate “Hong Kong” as their origin, but must be marked to indicate “China”.

7. On 19 August 2020, the U.S. Department of State announced the suspension or termination of three bilateral agreements with Hong Kong covering the surrender of fugitive offenders, the transfer of sentenced persons, and reciprocal tax exemptions on income derived from the international operation of ships.

8. On 14 October 2020, the U.S. Department of State submitted its first report to Congress pursuant to the Hong Kong Autonomy Act, listing 10 officials of China’s central government and the HKSAR government as “persons undermining the autonomy of Hong Kong” and threatening to impose sanctions on financial institutions related to these individuals.

9. On 9 November 2020, the U.S. Department of State announced sanctions on four officials of China’s central government and the HKSAR government for “threatening the peace, security and autonomy of Hong Kong”.

10. On 7 December 2020, the U.S. Department of State imposed sanctions on 14 Vice Chairpersons of the Standing Committee of the NPC of China on the ground of the NPC Standing Committee formulating the Hong Kong National Security Law and disqualifying four opposition members of Hong Kong’s Legislative Council.

11. On 15 January 2021, then U.S. Secretary of State Pompeo issued a statement, announcing sanctions on six officials of China’s central government and the HKSAR government for arresting 55 so-called “pro-democracy politicians and activists” by Hong Kong police.

12. On 16 March 2021, the U.S. Department of State updated its Hong Kong Autonomy Act report, announcing an updated list of sanctioned individuals and additional financial sanctions following the NPC’s decision to improve the electoral system of Hong Kong and implement the Hong Kong National Security Law.

13. On 7 July 2021, the White House issued a Notice on the Continuation of the National Emergency with Respect to Hong Kong, announcing the continuation of the so-called national emergency declared with respect to the Hong Kong situation, and extended U.S. sanctions on Hong Kong for one year.

14. On 16 July 2021, the U.S. Department of State, Department of Commerce, Department of Homeland Security and Department of Treasury jointly issued a so-called “Hong Kong Business Advisory” on the ground of enforcing the Hong Kong National Security Law and closing of Apple Daily, in an attempt to cast doubt over Hong Kong’s business environment as well as the development of Hong Kong and the prospects of One Country, Two Systems in Hong Kong. In addition, new sanctions were announced on seven officials of the central government’s liaison office in the HKSAR. On the same day, U.S. Secretary of State Antony Blinken issued a statement “marking one year of Hong Kong’s national security law”, in which he made groundless attacks on the Hong Kong National Security Law and the Chinese government’s policy on Hong Kong.

III. Making unfounded charges against HKSAR affairs and law enforcement actions taken by Hong Kong police in an attempt to undermine Hong Kong’s prosperity and stability

1. On 25 February 2019, then U.S. Consul General to Hong Kong Kurt Tong expressed in an interview his concerns about the HKSAR government’s plan to introduce amendments to the Fugitive Offenders Ordinance, saying that an amendment could have some impact on the implementation of the bilateral arrangements between the United States and Hong Kong.

2. On 21 March 2019, the U.S. Department of State released 2019 Hong Kong Policy Act Report alleging that freedom of expression in Hong Kong was facing setbacks, and that the increased intervention by China’s central government in Hong Kong affairs had “adversely impacted Hong Kong in multiple areas”.

3. On 7 May 2019, the U.S.-China Economic and Security Review Commission of U.S. Congress issued a report, alleging that the HKSAR government’s proposed extradition bill would “erode Hong Kong’s autonomy” and create serious risks for U.S. national security and economic interests in Hong Kong.

4. On 16 May 2019, the U.S. State Department issued a statement, alleging that the HKSAR government’s proposed amendments to the Fugitive Ordinance would threaten Hong Kong’s rule of law and expressing concerns about it.

5. On 19 June 2019, U.S. House Speaker Nancy Pelosi addressed a breakfast meeting hosted by The Christian Science Monitor in which she turned a blind eye to the extremist and violent acts committed by those who were opposed to China and attempted to destabilize Hong Kong and claimed that “the demonstration by some two million people against the extradition bill” was “a beautiful sight to behold”. She thus openly urged rioters to take illegal and violent actions against the central government and the HKSAR government.

6. On 26 July 2019, then Chairman of the U.S. House Foreign Affairs Committee Eliot Engel issued an unfounded statement about the so-called “police brutality in response to protests in Hong Kong”, alleging that “it has tarnished Hong Kong’s international reputation for good governance and fair administration of justice”.

7. On 17 September 2019, the U.S. Congressional-Executive Commission on China held a hearing on Hong Kong. At the hearing, the violent demonstrations against the extradition bill was whitewashed while the response of the HKSAR government and police was attacked as undermining One Country, Two Systems and Hong Kong’s autonomy.

8. On 28 September 2019, the U.S. Congressional-Executive Commission on China made a statement on the fifth anniversary of the so-called “Umbrella Movement protests”, in an attempt to vilify One Country, Two Systems and the central government’s policy on Hong Kong.

9. On 7 October 2019, then U.S. President Donald Trump said that “we just want to see a humane solution” in Hong Kong. He talked about the “great people over there” and said “they are flying the American flag”, “I saw two million people. I’ve never seen anything like it”.

10. On 24 October 2019, then U.S. Vice President Mike Pence delivered an anti-China speech at the Wilson Center, in which he mentioned the turbulence over the amendment bill in Hong Kong several times. He alleged that “Hong Kong is a living example of what can happen when China embraces liberty”.

11. On 21 November 2019, in her remarks made after the passing of the Hong Kong Human Rights and Democracy Act, U.S. House Speaker Nancy Pelosi deliberately misrepresented One Country, Two Systems, alleging that China has broken the promise of high degree of autonomy.

12. On 10 December 2019, U.S. Consul General in Hong Kong Hanscom Smith wrote an article for Ming Pao, a Hong Kong newspaper, asserting that “human rights are universal, which is why the United States stands with Hong Kong”. He claimed that the adoption of the Hong Kong Human Rights and Democracy Act by the United States reflected its commitment to universal values and its concern over Beijing’s measures that erode Hong Kong’s autonomy.

13. On 22 May 2020, then U.S. Secretary of State Mike Pompeo issued a statement on the adoption of the NPC Decision on Establishing and Improving the Legal Systems and Enforcement Mechanisms for Safeguarding National Security in the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region, in which he made unfounded accusations that the National Security Law was “imposed” on Hong Kong and would “undermine Hong Kong’s high degree of autonomy”.

14. On 27 May 2020, then U.S. Secretary of State Mike Pompeo issued another statement on the Hong Kong National Security Law to be deliberated and adopted by the NPC in which he claimed that the United States once hoped that Hong Kong, “as a bastion of liberty”, would provide a model for “authoritarian” China. He also stated that he would certify to Congress that Hong Kong does not continue to warrant treatment under U.S. law in the same manner as U.S. laws were applied to Hong Kong before July 1997.

15. On 28 May 2020, the U.S. State Department submitted to Congress the 2020 Hong Kong Policy Act Report and certified that Hong Kong did not continue to warrant differential treatment under U.S. law.

16. On 30 June 2020, then U.S. Secretary of State Mike Pompeo made a statement, asserting that the Hong Kong National Security Law undermines One Country, Two Systems, and violates commitments made in the Sino-British Joint Declaration and the Basic Law of the HKSAR.

17. On 1 July 2020, following the adoption of the Hong Kong Autonomy Act by the U.S. House of Representatives, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi alleged that the Hong Kong National Security Law was “a brutal, sweeping crackdown against the people of Hong Kong, intended to destroy the freedoms they were promised” and it “signals the death of the One Country, Two Systems principle”.

18. On 6 July 2020, U.S. Consul General in Hong Kong Hanscom Smith asserted in an interview that using the Hong Kong National Security Law to erode fundamental freedoms and create an atmosphere of self-censorship is a tragedy for Hong Kong.

19. On 14 July 2020, then U.S. Secretary of State Mike Pompeo issued a statement in support of the so-called “primary election” organized by the opposition in Hong Kong.

20. On 23 July 2020, then U.S. Secretary of State Mike Pompeo delivered an anti-China speech titled “Communist China and the Free World’s Future”. In the speech, he attacked the leadership of the CPC and China’s political system, fabricated the so-called “China threat”, accused the CPC of “tightening its grip on Hong Kong” and called Nathan Law Kwun-chung and other individuals who are opposed to China and attempt to destabilize Hong Kong as fighters for democracy.

21. On 31 July 2020, then White House Press Secretary Kayleigh McEnany stated the United States’ opposition to the HKSAR government’s decision to disqualify opposition candidates.

22. On 7 August 2020, the U.S. Consulate General in Hong Kong issued a statement, blatantly smearing and attacking the Hong Kong National Security Law and alleging that it was “never about security, but rather, was intended to silence democracy advocates”.

23. On 11 September 2020, then U.S. Secretary of State Mike Pompeo attacked China in a statement on a case of illegal border crossing made by 12 Hong Kong residents in an attempt to meddle in China’s judicial sovereignty.

24. On 11 November 2020, then Assistant to the President for National Security Affairs Robert O’Brien asserted that China’s actions disqualifying the opposition legislators from Hong Kong’s Legislative Council violated the Sino-British Joint Declaration and that the United States will identify and sanction those responsible for extinguishing Hong Kong’s freedom.

25. On 12 November 2020, then U.S. Secretary of State Mike Pompeo issued a statement on the disqualification of four opposition legislators. He accused the lawful decision of the NPC of being an “onslaught against Hong Kong’s freedoms” and clamored for “holding accountable the people responsible for eroding Hong Kong’s autonomy and freedoms”.

26. On 6 January 2021, then U.S. Secretary of State Mike Pompeo issued a statement on the Hong Kong police’s lawful arrest of 53 opposition members who were suspected of violating the Hong Kong National Security law. He called for the “immediate and unconditional release” of those people and threatened further sanctions.

27. On 14 January 2021, the U.S. Congressional-Executive Commission on China released its so-called “2020 Annual Report”, alleging that the One country, Two systems framework has been dismantled. The Commission called for providing shelters for offenders from Hong Kong based on U.S. domestic laws and blatantly exerted pressure on the HKSAR government against its law-based administration.

28. On 11 March 2021, the Spokesperson of the U.S. State Department made unwarranted charges against the passage of the NPC’s Decision on Improving the Electoral System of the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region, asserting that the decision was a continuing assault on democratic institutions and a direct attack on Hong Kong’s democratic processes.

29. On 11 March 2021, U.S. Secretary of State Antony Blinken released a statement on the passage of the NPC’s Decision on Improving the Electoral System of the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region in which he asserted that it was a direct attack on the autonomy, freedoms and democratic processes of Hong Kong.

30. On 30 March 2021, the U.S. State Department released a 2020 Country Report on Human Rights Practices, vilifying the Hong Kong National Security Law and attacking law-based administration by the HKSAR government and law enforcement carried out by Hong Kong police.

31. On 31 March 2021, the U.S. Department of State issued the 2021 Hong Kong Policy Act Report, accusing China of undermining the autonomy and rights and freedoms in Hong Kong and stating that Hong Kong would no longer receive the differential treatment previously accorded to it under U.S. laws.

32. On 1 April 2021, U.S. Consul General to Hong Kong Hanscom Smith, in media interviews and articles published on newspapers such as the South China Morning Post and Ming Pao, vilified the major steps China had taken to improve HKSAR’s electoral system and to formulate and implement the Hong Kong National Security Law. He alleged that changes to the electoral system would render Hong Kong’s election results meaningless, and threatened to impose U.S. sanctions in an attempt to embolden those who are opposed to China and attempted to destabilize Hong Kong.

33. On 16 April 2021, Nancy Pelosi, Speaker of the U.S. House of Representatives, tweeted that the arrest of Martin Lee and others who are opposed to China and attempt to destabilize Hong Kong was “another sign of Beijing’s assault on the rule of law” and felt “saddened and disturbed”.

34. On 17 April 2021, U.S. Secretary of State Antony Blinken tweeted that sentencing for politically-motivated charges “are unacceptable” and called for the “release” of those who are opposed to China and attempt to destabilize Hong Kong.

35. On 7 May 2021, U.S. Secretary of State Antony Blinken tweeted that “the United States stands with the people of Hong Kong”. He called for rejecting the sentencing of those who are opposed to China and attempt to destabilize Hong Kong and their immediate release.

36. On 27 May 2021, U.S. Secretary of State Antony Blinken issued a press statement on the State Department website, unwarrantedly accusing the Chinese government of undermining the democratic institutions of Hong Kong and calling for all individuals arrested under the Hong Kong National Security Law to be released and their charges dropped.

37. On 3 June 2021, U.S. Secretary of State Antony Blinken issued a press statement on the State Department website, claiming that “the United States will stand with” the people of China who demand that their government respect “universal human rights”, and he called those who are opposed to China and attempt to destabilize Hong Kong “brave activists”.

38. On 4 June 2021, the U.S. Consulate General in Hong Kong lit up electric candles inside its the office window in support of the so-called candlelight vigil staged by those who are opposed to China and attempt to destabilize Hong Kong.

39. On 5 June 2021, U.S. Secretary of State Antony Blinken tweeted that those who are opposed to China and attempt to destabilize Hong Kong were inspiring and called for the immediate release of those arrested.

40. On 11 June 2021, in an interview with Reuters, U.S. Consul General to Hong Kong Hanscom Smith alleged that the enactment of the Hong Kong National Security Law had created an “atmosphere of coercion” threatening both Hong Kong’s freedoms and its standing as an international business hub.

41. On 21 June 2021, at a press briefing, the spokesperson of the U.S. Department of State, under the pretext of media freedom, accused the HKSAR government of using the Hong Kong National Security Law to suppress independent media and stifle freedom of expression.

42. On 24 June 2021, in a statement released on the White House website, U.S. President Joe Biden, using media freedom as a pretext, called Apple Daily’s closure “a sad day for media freedom” and a signal of “intensified repression by Beijing”.

43. On 29 June 2021, the U.S. Congressional-Executive Commission on China held a roundtable on the one-year anniversary of the enactment of the Hong Kong National Security Law, making unwarranted charges against human rights and the rule of law in Hong Kong.

44. On 30 June 2021, at the one-year anniversary of the enactment of the Hong Kong National Security Law, the U.S. Consulate General in Hong Kong, in disregard of facts, openly attacked the legislation, alleging that it curtails Hong Kong’s freedom of expression.

45. On 1 July 2021, the U.S. Department of State issued the so-called “2021 Trafficking in Persons Report”. In the part on China, the report denigrated Hong Kong’s successful efforts to combat human trafficking, and demonized the Hong Kong National Security Law.

46. On 13 July 2021, the spokesperson of the U.S. Department of State unwarrantedly accused China of continuing to undermine Hong Kong’s autonomy and business environment, and called for international attention.

47. On 21 July 2021, the U.S. Department of State issued the so-called Investment Climate Statements. In the part on Hong Kong, the Statements played up the so-called security risks of the Hong Kong National Security Law and defamed Hong Kong’s business environment.

48. On 2 August 2021, the U.S. Consulate General in Hong Kong posted “Bearing Witness” on its website, listing individuals who have been held accountable in accordance with law for opposing China and attempting to destabilize Hong Kong. The list contains such information as their names, the dates of their arrests, the dates they were charged, charges made against them, and their conviction dates.

IV. Shielding and supporting those who are opposed to China and attempt to destabilize Hong Kong, providing platforms for them to advocate “Hong Kong independence” and spread political disinformation, and justifying the acts of those lawbreakers by twisting facts and misleading the public.

1. On 17 March 2019, the U.S. Consulate General in Hong Kong arranged for a delegation of the U.S.-China Working Group of the U.S. House of Representatives to meet with Anson Chan Fang On-sang, Martin Lee Chu-ming and Joshua Wong Chi-fung and others. These people told the media afterwards that they discussed with the U.S. side issues such as the HKSAR government’s disqualification of opposition candidates from the Legislative Council election, the proposed amendments to the Fugitive Offenders Ordinance, and Hong Kong’s political development.

2. From 19 to 26 March 2019, Anson Chan Fang On-sang, Dennis Kwok Wing-hang, Charles Mok Nai-kwong and several others visited the United States, where they met with U.S. officials including then Vice President Mike Pence, Speaker of the House of Representatives Nancy Pelosi, then principal policy adviser to the U.S. Secretary of State Miles Yu, and then Assistant Secretary for Indo-Pacific Security Affairs of the U.S. Department of Defense Randall Schriver. They also met with officials from the State Department Office to Monitor and Combat Trafficking in Persons and members of the Congressional-Executive Commission on China and the U.S.-China Economic and Security Review Commission. Anson Chan and others urged the U.S. administration to impose sanctions on Hong Kong and pleaded for U.S. support for the anti-amendment bill movement launched by the opposition. The U.S. side arranged for them to give speeches at such institutions as the McCain Institute at Arizona State University and the Heritage Foundation. This provided a platform and support for Anson Chan and others to preach “Hong Kong independence” and spread political disinformation.

3. From 13 to 17 May 2019, six people, namely Martin Lee Chu-ming, Lee Cheuk-yan, Mak Yin-ting, Margaret Ng Ngoi-yee, James To Kun-sun and Nathan Law Kwun-chung, visited the United States and met with U.S. House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, then Secretary of State Mike Pompeo, then White House National Security Council Senior Director for Asian Affairs Matt Pottinger and others. The U.S. Congressional-Executive Commission on China arranged for them to attend a so-called hearing on Hong Kong and ask the HKSAR government to withdraw the draft amendments to the Fugitive Offenders Ordinance.

4. On 14 May 2019, the U.S. National Endowment for Democracy held a seminar on the proposed amendment to the Fugitive Offenders Ordinance by the HKSAR government, discussing the so-called “new threats to civil society and the rule of law in Hong Kong”. The Endowment arranged for Martin Lee Chu-ming and others who are opposed to China and attempt to destabilize to attend the seminar. Participants of the seminar called for taking immediate action to stop what they described as the “evil law”.

5. From 7 to 11 July 2019, Jimmy Lai Chee-ying, who is opposed to China and attempts to destabilize Hong Kong, visited the United States and met with then Vice President Mike Pence, then Secretary of State Mike Pompeo, then National Security Advisor John Bolton, then Assistant Secretary of State David Stilwell and others. Jimmy Lai lobbied for U.S. intervention in Hong Kong affairs, and discussed with the U.S. side developments in Hong Kong surrounding the amendment bill and the so-called “autonomous status of Hong Kong”, for which he received positive response from the U.S. side.

6. On 6 August 2019, Hong Kong media reported that Joshua Wong Chi-fung, Nathan Law Kwun-chung and other leading figures of Demosistõ, an organization for “Hong Kong independence”, met with officials of the U.S. Consulate General in Hong Kong and called on the U.S. side to adopt a Hong Kong human rights and democracy act as soon as possible and impose sanctions on Hong Kong.

7. On 17 September 2019, the U.S. Congressional-Executive Commission on China arranged for Joshua Wong Chi-fung, Dennis Ho Wan-see, Nathan Law Kwun-chung, Sunny Cheung Kwan-yang and others to attend a hearing under the so-called title of “Hong Kong’s Summer of Discontent and U.S. Policy Responses”. This provided a platform and support for Wong, Ho, Law and Cheung to advocate “Hong Kong independence”, spread political disinformation and smear the central government of China and the HKSAR government.

8. On 17 September 2019, U.S. Senator Todd Yang attended a press conference held on Capitol Hill to inaugurate the so-called Hong Kong Democracy Council, an organization supporting “Hong Kong independence”.

9. From 12 to 13 October 2019, U.S. Senator Ted Cruz visited Hong Kong and met with Jimmy Lai Chee-ying, Anson Chan Fang On-sang, Dennis Kwok Wing-hang, Charles Mok Nai-kwong, Bonnie Leung Wing-man and other leading figures among those who are opposed to China and attempt to destabilize Hong Kong. Cruz appeared at a protest site dressed in black and told the media that he did not see any violence. He accused the Hong Kong police, who had been enforcing the law with great restraint, of violent suppression.

10. From 22 to 26 October 2019, Jimmy Lai Chee-ying, Martin Lee Chu-ming and others who are opposed to China and attempt to destabilize Hong Kong visited the United States and met with Speaker of the House of Representatives Nancy Pelosi, then Assistant Secretary of State David Stilwell, Chair of the Congressional-Executive Commission on China Jim McGovern and several members of Congress.

11. On 4 February 2020, at the invitation of U.S. senator Rick Scott, Nathan Law Kwun-chung, who is opposed to China and attempts to destabilize Hong Kong, attended the U.S. President’s State of the Union address.

12. On 5 March 2020, then U.S. Deputy Assistant Secretary of State for East Asian and Pacific Affairs Jonathan Fritz and U.S. Consul General to Hong Kong Hanscom Smith met with Charles Mok Nai-kwong and some others who are opposed to China and attempt to destabilize Hong Kong.

13. On 21 March 2020, U.S. Consul General to Hong Kong Hanscom Smith met with Joshua Wong Chi-fung, Sunny Cheung Kwan-yang and Fergus Leung Fong-wai, among others, and accepted a so-called petition from Wong. Wong urged the United States to impose sanctions on HKSAR government officials and members of the Hong Kong police by invoking the U.S. Hong Kong Human Rights and Democracy Act.

14. On 18 April 2020, then U.S. Secretary of State Mike Pompeo issued a statement making groundless accusations against Hong Kong police’s arrest of individuals who are opposed to China and attempt to destabilize Hong Kong.

15. On 27 May 2020, U.S. Senator Joshua Hawley met with Joshua Wong Chi-fung and others who are opposed to China and attempt to destabilize Hong Kong.

16. On 1 July 2020, the U.S. Senate Committee on Foreign Relations held a hearing and arranged for Nathan Law Kwun-chung, Lee Cheuk-yan and others who are opposed to China and attempt to destabilize Hong Kong to attend the hearing via video link, providing a platform for them to vilify the Hong Kong National Security Law and the central government’s policy on Hong Kong.

17. On 21 July 2020, then U.S. Secretary of State Mike Pompeo had a one-on-one meeting in London with Nathan Law Kwun-chung, a “Hong Kong independence” advocate who had fled to the UK, in a move to embolden Law. Law smeared China’s central government and the HKSAR government, and called on the United States to exert more pressure on China.

18. On 10 August 2020, then National Security Advisor Robert O’Brien issued a statement claiming that the U.S. side is “deeply troubled by the arrest of pro-democracy advocates” including Jimmy Lai Chee-ying and calling on Beijing to repeal the Hong Kong National Security Law.

19. On 16 December 2020, the U.S. Senate Committee on the Judiciary arranged for Nathan Law Kwun-chung, a “Hong Kong independence” advocate, to attend a hearing via video link. Law claimed that the Hong Kong National Security Law restricted Hong Kong people’s freedom of expression and right to protest, and urged the United States to grant asylum to more Hong Kong people.

20. On 6 January 2021, then U.S. Secretary of State Mike Pompeo issued a statement expressing so-called concern over the arrest of more than 50 individuals who are opposed to China and attempt to destabilize Hong Kong.

21. On 15 January 2021, then U.S. Secretary of State Mike Pompeo issued another statement making irresponsible comments about the HKSAR government’s arrest made in accordance with the law of individuals who are opposed to China and attempt to destabilize Hong Kong, including an American lawyer. He called on China to immediately release individuals sanctioned under the Hong Kong National Security Law and drop charges against them.

22. On 31 January 2021, nine U.S. senators and house representatives including Jim McGovern, Marco Rubio and Jeff Merkley wrote a joint letter to the Nobel Peace Prize Committee nominating the so-called “pro-democracy movement in Hong Kong” for the 2021 Nobel Peace Prize.

23. On 28 February 2021, U.S. Secretary of State Antony Blinken posted a tweet to “condemn the detention of and charges filed against pan-democratic candidates in Hong Kong’s elections” by the HKSAR government.

24. On 16 April 2021, U.S. Secretary of State Antony Blinken issued a statement making unwarranted accusations against China over the sentencing of Martin Lee Chu-ming, Jimmy Lai Chee-ying and other individuals who are opposed to China and attempt to destabilize Hong Kong.

25. On 8 July 2021, Joshua Huck, Chief of the Economic and Political Section of the U.S. Consulate General in Hong Kong, attended as an observer an HK court trial of individuals suspected of illegally planning, organizing and carrying out the “35 +” and “10 steps to mutual destruction” plan. When interviewed by the media, he claimed that the Hong Kong National Security Law is about suppressing the freedom of Hong Kong people and sought to glorify and justify individuals who are opposed to China and attempt to destabilize Hong Kong.

V. Colluding with some countries to exert pressure, and teaming up with allies to interfere in Hong Kong affairs and make irresponsible comments by such means as joint statements.

1. On 27 May 2020, the United States Mission to the United Nations issued a statement calling for a UN Security Council meeting on Hong Kong. The statement claimed that Hong Kong is “a matter of urgent global concern that implicates international peace and security”.

2. On 28 May 2020, foreign ministers of the United States, the United Kingdom, Australia and Canada issued a joint statement on Hong Kong, attacking the Hong Kong National Security Law to be adopted by China’s NPC.

3. On 17 June 2020, foreign ministers of the United States and other G7 countries and the High Representative of the European Union issued a joint statement on Hong Kong. In an attempt to put pressure on China, the statement claimed that the Hong Kong National Security Law would undermine One country, Two Systems and Hong Kong’s high degree of autonomy, and urged the Chinese government to reconsider the relevant decision.

4. On 9 August 2020, foreign ministers of the United States and other Five Eyes countries issued a joint statement on Hong Kong, slandering the central government’s policy on Hong Kong and urging China’s NPC to revoke the disqualification of the four opposition members of the Legislative Council.

5. On 18 November 2020, foreign ministers of the United States and other Five Eyes countries issued a joint statement on Hong Kong, attacking the decision of the Standing Committee of the NPC on the qualification of members of the Hong Kong Legislative Council and China’s policy on Hong Kong.

6. On 9 January 2021, foreign ministers of the United States, the United Kingdom, Australia, and Canada issued a joint statement on Hong Kong. The statement expressed so-called serious concern on the arrest of 55 individuals who are opposed to China and attempt to destabilize Hong Kong by Hong Kong police in accordance with law, and accused the Hong Kong National Security Law of being a clear breach of the Sino-British Joint Declaration, undermining the One Country, Two Systems framework, and curtailing the rights and freedoms of the people of Hong Kong.

7. On 12 March 2021, foreign ministers of the United States and other G7 countries and the EU High Representative for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy issued a joint statement on Hong Kong. The statement claimed that the changes made by the Chinese government to Hong Kong’s electoral system were aimed at eliminating dissent in Hong Kong and would undermine Hong Kong’s high degree of autonomy.

8. On 5 May 2021, the G7 foreign ministers’ meeting attended by the United States and other relevant countries issued a joint statement which smeared the Chinese government’s policy on Hong Kong, distorted the policy of One Country, Two Systems, made irresponsible comments on the internal affairs of the HKSAR, and supported those who are opposed to China and attempt to destabilize Hong Kong. The United States also proposed at the meeting the setting up of an international group called “friends of Hong Kong”, in an attempt to get other Western countries on board to interfere in Hong Kong affairs.

9. On 13 June 2021, the G7 Summit issued a communiqué which made groundless comments on Hong Kong and called on China to respect human rights and fundamental freedoms, and the high degree of autonomy for Hong Kong enshrined in the Sino-British Joint Declaration and the Basic Law.

10. From 21 June to 14 July 2021, during the 47th session of the UN Human Rights Council, the United States and 43 other countries signed a joint statement against China initiated by Canada, expressing “concern” over “human rights abuses” in Hong Kong.

On 1 July, the United States led a side event on the one-year anniversary of the Hong Kong National Security Law which slandered the Hong Kong National Security Law and the rule of law in Hong Kong. Twenty governments and nine non-governmental organizations were asked to attend it.

11. On 10 July 2021, the U.S. Department of State website published a joint statement made by 21 countries including the United States and some European countries, all being members of the so-called Media Freedom Coalition, expressing “strong concerns” about the closure of Apple Daily and the arrest of those who are opposed to China and attempt to destabilize Hong Kong. The statement also made groundless accusations against the law enforcement efforts of the HKSAR government, the Hong Kong National Security Law, and the central government’s policy on Hong Kong.

Where is the world heading to?

People are starting to recognize that within 18 months from now, a nuclear armed Australia will be the "tip of the speak" to militarily confrontation with China. 

Thus (supposedly) sparing New York City, Washington DC, and Los Angles from nuclear destruction...

From the Times of Israel.

China-US nuclear line up on collusion course.

In the Middle East, dictatorial regimes and terrorist militias about to breathe a sigh of relief as the United States and its allies withdraw from Afghanistan and perhaps soon from Iraq.

There is a perception in the region that it is believed that for more than two centuries, first Britain and then the United States were a bone stuck in the throat of the region.

Throughout the twentieth century and the first two decades of the twenty-first century, they kept brought nothing but war, violence, and the fragmentation of nations on the map, for the Middle East. The war and conflict only achievement of the great powers, especially in the oil and energy sector in this region.

Now the table is turned.

With the first energy revolution, the United States became depleted of Middle Eastern oil by acquiring shale oil, and now, by moving to clean energy, seeks its geopolitical priorities no longer in the Middle East but in the Indo-Pacific region.

Leading oil historian Daniel Yergin delves deeply into these geopolitical changes in the post-oil world in his new book, The New Map, published September 14 2021 in New York. He says that just as the map of the world changed after the First World War at the beginning of the twentieth century, so in the twenty-first century there will be a new map of the world.

The world has been waiting for years for a strategic and geopolitical confrontation between China and the United States.

A confrontation that took place inevitably, but in any case, and for any reason, the leaders of the two countries pushed it back.

Thursday, September 16, 2021 marked another historic day for the world. On this day, the leaders of the three countries of Australia, Britain and the United States suddenly appeared on world television and announced a security defense agreement and a tripartite core.

A statement that shook the world.

China, in its first response, threatened Australia with a nuclear attack.

The Chinese do NOT bluff, and if they say something, you all had best LISTEN. Or do you think that they are liars and bluff and bluster all the time with hollow and empty threats?

The Global Times, the English-language organ of the Chinese Communist Party, immediately reacted to the statement and attacked the treaty with the most naked words. A treaty that introduced new acronyms to world political literature. AUKUS is the acronym for this new treaty, which according to Politico is the newest and ugliest acronym for America.

The three-way security pact between Australia, the United Kingdom, and the United States will equip Australia with eight nuclear-powered submarines over eighteen months, as well as providing Australia with many artificial intelligence technologies, costumes, defense, and security facilities.

In other words, while the United States has either withdrawn or is withdrawing from Afghanistan, Saudi Arabia, Iraq, and Syria, it is now conducting a nuclear and security camp in the Pacific against China. What Reuters has interpreted as a new Cold War that is affecting the geopolitics of the world.

The American camp in the Pacific has greatly hurt Europe, and especially France. So much so that France called it a stab in the back, and France’s foreign minister Jean-Yves Le Drian called it a barbaric, one-sided, and unpredictable decision in an interview with Radio France, reminiscent of Trump’s actions. Le Drian, who could not hide his anger, added: “I am angry and bitter. This is not done between allies.”

But why is France so angry?

There are two reasons for France’s anger: First, France was previously set to sell submarines to Australia under a $ 40 billion deal, but has now been barred from a lucrative deal.

But another important reason is that in the first major transatlantic security treaty, not only France but also Europe was ignored. The ignorance that Josep Borrell, High Representative of the European Union for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy, called painful in a statement published by The Wall Street Journal.

What can be seen from what happened on Thursday in the world geopolitical scene, is that, the United States has not tolerated China’s growing progress and has finally resorted to a military alignment in its nuclear nature.

The US turning its back on this new approach is understandable to its Middle East allies; But why it ousted its European allies, especially France, in the first transatlantic treaty is a question that the future will answer.

Nope. They are not pausing to think. They are ramping up for a war against China.

Idiots.

And China is ready.

Meanwhile, Taiwan declared an unprecedented US$9 billion increase in military spending the day before to meet China’s threat — a development that will not go over well in Beijing.

There is also danger that the highly controversial AUKUS defence treaty between the UK, the US, and Australia may drag Britain into a battle with China over Taiwan.

Zhao Lijian, a spokesperson for China’s foreign ministry, called the AUKUS pact an example of a “obsolete cold war zero-sum thinking.”

“On a scale of one to 10, how likely is it that we’ll see a military clash between America and China over this issue?” LBC host Matt Frei questioned Inkster.

“Right now, we’re up to eight,” Inkster replied.

…

“The best-case scenario is that both China and the United States realize they are on an equal footing militarily, with neither having a significant edge.

“This acknowledgement could help to keep the peace, even if it is shattered. That is our only ray of hope.”

“We may be approaching a tipping point when the Chinese party-state believes that peaceful reunification with Taiwan is not possible,” Inkster added.

As Inkster spoke, across the pond at the Air, Space & Cyber conference in National Harbor, Maryland, Air Combat Command’s Gen. Mark D. Kelly told attendees that China must be challenged, Air Force magazine reported.

The “cold, hard realities” are that the Air Force was superbly prepared and trained to defeat a peer adversary — Russia — 30 years ago, then achieved a highly lopsided victory in Iraq, Kelly said.

But in the last 20 years, USAF was optimized for combat in a “permissive environment” that didn’t test the force. During that same time, China was focused completely on “the high-end fight, and fighting us.”

…

China’s force structure and systems are “designed to inflict more casualties in the first 30 hours of combat than we’ve endured over the last 30 years in the Middle East,” Kelly said.

No shit. What have I been saying?

China does not believe in "surgical strikes" within strictly defined target battle zones.

they believe in all-out brutal, devistating, absolute destructive war that does not descriminate and smashes things and breaks them relentlessly.

As the United States Air Force inventory has aged and diminished, the balance with China has tilted more toward Beijing, he added.

Kelly said Russia has been able to annex Crimea and China has claimed parts of the South China Sea “without firing a shot” because contesting those situations has become harder thanks to adversary air defenses.

To regain the advantage — “to be a resolute world power ”— the US, through its Air Force, has to be able to penetrate “highly contested sovereign [airspace],” Kelly asserted.

Nigel Inkster has worked at the International Institute for Strategic Studies (IISS) since 2007. He is the former Director of Future Conflict and Cyber Security and currently a Special Adviser at IISS. His research portfolio at IISS has included transnational terrorism, insurgency, transnational organized crime, cyber security, intelligence and security and the evolving character of conflict.

Source: Brinkwire.com, Air Force magazine, CyberStability.org, Wikipedia

Scandal in Taiwan

I wonder how this is being reported in the United States?

Current Taiwan president has a fake PhD and fake PhD thesis. After a UK court earlier this year ruled that the university should released all documents on Tsai Ing-wen’s, we now see a press conference re the investigation.

Will she be trial for teaching in a Taiwan University with the fake PhD? And step down as president by lying to the voters?

Scholars on the island open Tsai Ing-wen’s thesis door to the final trial press conference and choke on falsified papers

https://www.tellerreport.com/news/2021-09-10-scholars-on-the-island-open-tsai-ing-wen%E2%80%99s-thesis-door-to-the-final-trial-press-conference-and-choke-on-falsified-papers.Byg5FEF_ft.html

A full length video of the final trial press conference :

https://youtu.be/QkoF2Ba44pc

Never Forget…

VideoHere…

Do you think that he is right? That China would respond, or that they would try to retreat a little to save face?

New Report Documents the Deadly Impact and Global Condemnation of US Sanctions

A Russian hostage now?

What comes around goes around

Call it Karma or what have you, but when you have had centuries of taking, taking, taking… sooner or later that becomes who you are. And unless you replenish the “closed system” (Those who understand the concept of a “Prison Planet” understand.) this activity will manifest in your life; in your community, and in your people.

This is America downtown. VIDEO.

The United States wants all QUAD members to have nuclear weapons.

The QUAD consists of the US, Australia, India and Japan.

Up until two weeks ago, only the USA and India had nuclear weapons, then arrangements were made to place nuclear weapons systems in Australia. Now the United States is pushing for Japan to have nuclear weapons systems.

A ton-load of articles out of the United States neocons…

• Surprise: Japan Could Quickly Build Nuclear Weapons …

https://nationalinterest.org/blog/reboot/surprise...

• How Japan Could Go Nuclear | Foreign Affairs

https://www.foreignaffairs.com/articles/asia/2019...

• What if Japan Became a Nuclear Weapons …

https://nationalinterest.org/blog/reboot/what-if-japan-became-nuclear-weapons...

• Japan rejects nuclear ban treaty; survivors to keep …

https://apnews.com/d6f84ab7f40837e523605fdf1b562dc5

• Imagine This: Japan Builds Nuclear Weapons | The National …

https://nationalinterest.org/blog/buzz/imagine...

• Even if it doesn’t want them, Japan should get nukes to …

https://www.thepopcan.net/post/even-if-it-doesn-t...

• How Japan Could Go Nuclear | Foreign Affairs

https://www.foreignaffairs.com/articles/asia/2019...

• China’s Nuclear Threat Against Japan: Hybrid Warfare And …

https://www.dailywire.com/news/chinas-nuclear...

Aug 07, 2021 · The U.S. should consider all options, including negotiations with Japan to deploy land-based nuclear medium or intermediate-range ballistic missiles in Japanese territory. The offer of U.S.-controlled missiles will act to prevent Japan from deciding to build its own nuclear weapon capability in response to the Chinese threat, thus preventing ... 

-China’s Nuclear Threat Against Japan: Hybrid Warfare 

Are these people fucking nuts or what?

And the BRI

Tom Fowdy exposes further Western propaganda, this time about China’s BRI:

“A new ‘study’ has concluded that Beijing’s huge worldwide investment programme is ‘losing momentum’ as debts mount. But a closer inspection of the facts tells a different story.

“Western mainstream media yesterday began posting in tandem a purported ‘study’ from which Reuters spun its own headline: ‘China’s Belt and Road plans losing momentum as opposition, debt mount – study’.

"The study, as noted in the report, was sponsored by the US government through the surrogate of its own international relief [and Color Revolution sponsoring] agency, USAID, and proceeded to present the usual cliches that China was maliciously saddling nations in “hidden debt,” encouraging corruption and promulgating environmental damage in participating countries, and claimed that opposition to the investment programme was mounting."

Fowdy is good at digging, but in this case he didn’t need to expend much effort:

"It is strange that large scale emphasis on that [forced labor] has disappeared, and now the agenda is being turned toward trashing the Belt and Road Initiative. But we knew this was coming. When the US Senate prepared its ‘strategic competition’ bill earlier this year, it notably earmarked $300 million in funding to deliberately spread 'negative news' regarding 'the impact of China's Belt and Road Initiative' throughout the world. To no surprise whatsoever, this is what the newly published BRI ‘study’ is doing, and it's a sign of things to come."

Fowdy then tells us some of the lies being used to discredit. He follows that with facts, a category of information Western media doesn’t appear to use in its reports anymore:

“Here’s a flavor of what they aren’t telling you. A study from Refinitiv, one of the world’s largest providers of financial markets data and infrastructure, found that, as of 2019, over $516 billion worth of BRI projects had been completed with a cancellation rate of just 0.3%. It counted 2,631 different projects across the world, in more than 120 countries.

“To name but a few examples of BRI successes:

• China finished a metro system in Lahore, Pakistan, last year,
• opened a 1000MW nuclear power plant in the same country in May,
• is building Africa’s largest building in Egypt,
• as well as the largest building in South Asia (the Lotus Tower in Colombo, Sri Lanka),
• and is on the verge of finishing the China-Laos High Speed Railway.
• Multiple direct transcontinental railway routes through China to Europe have also been opened.

“The study by Refinitiv, which is headquartered in the UK, also proceeded to pour cold water over the idea of a ‘debt trap’ for participating countries, noting that a review of 40 cases of China’s external debt renegotiations painted a different picture. The BRI is not being imposed, it is not dogmatic and nor is it monolithic, and it is more flexible and pragmatic than it’s given credit for.” [My Emphasis]

In other words, the BRI is essentially the opposite of the Washington Consensus’s Structural Adjustment Programs which impose development crippling austerity and serve to enrich the global 1%. Fowdy closes by exposing the utter bankruptcy of the Outlaw US Empire’s attempts to counter the long overdue development of the Global South:

“The idea that developing countries blindly and naively accept one-sided terms, jump into self-penalizing agreements, and thus don’t know ‘what their best interests are’, is insulting. It is promoting, as usual, the idea of ‘Western saviorism’, one that has been used as a justification for colonialism and domination for centuries. There is a staggering lack of historical self-awareness and sensitivity in those who advocate such claims.”

In about 30 years, the Global South will be on par with many Western nations, while surpassing those destroyed by Neoliberalism. And ya know, there really aren’t very many Western Nations, and very few of them are actually independent.

David BK Tan chimes in on the “collapse” of China…

I am seeing a lot of inaccurate articles on the western media championing the “demise” of the Chinese economy.

Besides the erroneous comparison of Evergrande to Lehman Brothers (see my post https://bit.ly/3uyUDvq) , I am also seeing articles referring to the current debt plight of Evergrande as China’s “Heisei Bubble” moment. Heisei (平成) era is the period of Japanese history corresponding to the reign of Emperor Akihito from 8 Jan 1989 until his abdication on 30 Apr 2019. The Japanese would call it Heisei bubble (平成バブル & バブル (baburu) is actually a loanword from English & hence it sounds like bubble) since the burst of its asset price bubble happened during the 平成 era .

Actually you do not need to have a PhD in economics to understand that China is not having a “Heisei Bubble” moment. What you need is to look at “First Principles” of economics to understand their differences.

If you have studied mathematics/physics in school, you might remember “First Principles” which are like axioms. So if you have no economics background, you can treat the common economics principles like axioms without the need to understand them in details & use such principles for investigative purpose. Actually such “First Principles” approach is useful in general as it helps you to probe further in a new area to gain some understanding.

The First Principle that you would need in this case is :

​GDP of a country  =C+I+G+(X−M) where
C=Consumer spending on goods and services
I=Investment spending on business capital goods
G=Government spending on public goods and services
X=Exports
M=Imports​

You also need to know some common facts on #Japan in the 80s like its exports were very strong & thus it contributed strongly to its GDP. Its strong exports in the 80s resulted in the poor sales of local products in the US & so we had the US-Japan trade wars in the 80s which affected its trade.

So if we look at trade (% of GDP) vs GDP figures for Japan since mid- 80s, you find that its trade plunged but GDP abnormally increased. Since trade was a impt contribution to its GDP, this suggests that there would be anomalies like over-consumption/over-investment or even both. So if you are interested in the cause, you might probe further. But suffice to say, you know for China to have a  “Heisei Bubble” moment, its trade must plunge like Japan’s since China is also an export-oriented economy. I have attached the second image displaying China’s trade as % of GDP vs its GDP & you will realise that its plunge in trade happened after 2006 which was due to Great Financial Crisis but its trade has been decelerating since then which is in tandem with the decelerating GDP growth.

In a nutshell, #China does not have the anomaly of Japan’s Heisei moment with over-consumption/over-investment etc since the GDP was falling in accordance with the fall in trade since 2007.

US War Plans with China Taking Shape

From HERE.

The US and its allies continue beating the drums of war in regards to China, but how serious is this? Will it really lead to war, or is it merely posturing meant to give the US the most favorable position on the other side of a fully ascendant China?

A critical inflection point identified by US war planners for years is approaching, where China’s economic and military might will irreversibly surpass the US and the center of global power will likewise irreversibly shift from West to East creating a global balance of power unseen for centuries. A closing window of opportunity estimated to close between 2025 and 2030 allows the US to carry out a limited war with China, resulting in a favorable outcome for Washington. Beyond that, the US will find itself outmatched and any attempt to curb China’s rise rendered futile.

The propaganda war, and the war itself this propaganda aims to justify and rally support for, is unmistakable, particularly for those who have witnessed similar buildups ahead of the US-led invasion of Iraq in 2003, or US-led military interventions in nations like Libya and Syria from 2011 onward.

A recent 60 Minutes Australia segment titled, “War with China: Are we closer than we think?,” presented an amalgamation of this ongoing propaganda used to vilify the Chinese government, dehumanize the Chinese people, and create sufficient anger, fear, paranoia, distrust, and hatred in hearts and minds across the planet to justify what would be for the 21st century, an unprecedented war.

For the United States, a war with China would be the first of its kind, a war with a peer or near-peer competitor armed with nuclear weapons.

Yet US war planners are fairly confident that the conflict could be confined to East Asia, remain conventional, and see a favorable outcome for the US that would secure its primacy over Asia for decades to come.

A victory for the US would not be military in nature, but rather hinge on “nonmilitary factors,” and focus on disrupting and setting back China’s economy and thus the power propelling China past the United States at the moment.

The 2016 US War Plan Coming to Life

These conclusions were laid out in a 2016 RAND Corporation document titled, “War with China: Thinking Through the Unthinkable,” commissioned by the Office of the Undersecretary of the Army and carried out by the RAND Arroyo Center’s Strategy, Doctrine, and Resources Program. The report notes that the RAND Arroyo Center is part of the RAND Corporation and is a federally-funded research and development center sponsored by the United States Army.

The report notes that America’s military advantage is in decline vis-a-vis China, but also lays out several current realities that would favor the US should hostilities unfold.

It states on page 9 of the PDF document:

We postulate that a war would be regional and conventional. It would be waged mainly by ships on and beneath the sea, by aircraft and missiles of many sorts, and in space (against satellites) and cyberspace (against computer systems). We assume that fighting would start and remain in East Asia, where potential Sino-USflash points and nearly all Chinese forces are located.

The RAND document admits that China’s forces are concentrated in Chinese territory and that virtually all flash points that could trigger a conflict are likewise located in the region. This implies that US forces would need to be more or less right up to China’s shores and regional claims, and insist on interfering in regional disputes or intervene in matters between Taiwan and mainland China.

The Nuclear Question

Many assume any war between China and the United States would escalate into a nuclear exchange. However, this is unlikely except under the most extreme conditions.

Regarding nuclear and conventional warfare, the RAND document makes a compelling argument, stating:

It is unlikely that nuclear weapons would be used: Even in an intensely violent conventional conflict, neither side would regard its losses as so serious, its prospects so dire, or the stakes so vital that it would run the risk of devastating nuclear retaliation by using nuclear weapons first. We also assume that China would not attack the US homeland, except via cyberspace, given its minimal capability to do so with conventional weapons. In contrast, US nonnuclear attacks against military targets in China could be extensive.

The report studies a window of opportunity that began in 2015 and stretches to 2025. Current developments seem to indicate the US may see this window extend as far as 2030, including the recent announcement of the “AUKUS” alliance where US-UK-built Australian nuclear-powered submarines would be coming online and ready to participate in such a conflict around the early 2030’s.

US May Trade Heavy Military Losses for China’s Economic Ruination 

Under a section titled, “The Importance of Nonmilitary Factors,” the RAND report notes:

The prospect of a military standoff means that war could eventually be decided by nonmilitary factors. These should favor the United States now and in the future. Although war would harm both economies, damage to China’s could be catastrophic and lasting: on the order of a 25–35 percent reduction in Chinese gross domestic product (GDP) in a yearlong war, compared with a reduction in US GDP on the order of 5–10 percent. Even a mild conflict, unless ended promptly, could weaken China’s economy. A long and severe war could ravage China’s economy, stall its hard-earned development, and cause widespread hardship and dislocation.

Considering the current shape of US-Chinese relations, the emphasis on economics and trade, and the persistent, even desperate attempts by the US to not only inflict as much damage on China’s economy ahead of a potential conflict as possible, but also its attempts to “decouple” from China’s economy as fast as possible could be interpreted as tying off a limb before amputation.

Preparations Already Underway to Exploit China’s Economic Damage

The report notes the follow-on effects of the economic damage such a conflict would inflict on China. It would open the door for already on-going US machinations to undermine China’s social and political stability to expand and do tremendous damage, perhaps even threatening the cohesion of Chinese society.

It states specifically:

Such economic damage could in turn aggravate political turmoil and embolden separatists in China. Although the regime and its security forces presumably could withstand such challenges, doing so might necessitate increased oppressiveness, tax the capacity, and undermine the legitimacy of the Chinese regime in the midst of a very difficult war. In contrast, US domestic partisan skirmishing could handicap the war effort but not endanger societal stability, much less the survival of the state, no matter how long and harsh the conflict, so long as it remains conventional. Escalating cyberwarfare, while injurious to both sides, could worsen China’s economic problems and impede the government’s ability to control a restive population.

The mention of “separatists in China” is particularly important. These groups, often made up of armed extremists, are supported by an extensive international network funded by the US government itself.

Separatism in China’s Xinjiang and Tibetan regions is openly supported by the US government and has been sponsored by Washington for decades. The US National Endowment for Democracy’s official website lists its programs for Xinjiang, China as, “Xinjiang/East Turkestan,” “East Turkestan” being the separatist name for Xinjiang. The organizations listed, including the Uyghur Human Rights Project and the World Uyghur Congress openly admit on their respective websites that they view Xinjiang – contrary to international law – as “occupied” by China rather than a territory of China.

In a move that could very likely be a warning of just how close to a US-provoked conflict with China we may be, the US State Department de-listed the East Turkestan Islamic Movement (ETIM) in 2020 claiming it had not been active for over a decade.

Yet by the US’ own admission US military forces struck ETIM targets in Afghanistan as recently as 2018, and just this year ETIM representatives gave an interview with US-based Newsweek magazine.

ETIM is still listed by a number of nations as well as the UN itself as a terrorist organization.

Economic turmoil, armed insurrection, and socio-political instability are factors the US has openly attempted to impose on China for decades and is still placing pieces on the gameboard toward this objective. If a conflict were to break out, those pieces would clearly already be in place to maximize Washington’s ability to exploit economic damage inflicted by the conflict.

Targeting China’s Trade Lanes at Sea

 The RAND paper notes specifically the impact on Chinese trade a conventional conflict confined to East Asia would have. The report notes:

…while the United States has sophisticated sensors to distinguish military from nonmilitary targets, during war it will focus on finding and tracking the former; moreover, Chinese ISR is less sophisticated and discriminating, especially at a distance. This suggests very hazardous airspace and sea space, perhaps ranging from the Yellow Sea to the South China Sea. Assuming that non-Chinese commercial enterprises would rather lose revenue than ships or planes, the United States would not need to use force to stop trade to and from China.16 China would lose a substantial amount of trade that would be required to transit the war zone. The United States expressly threatening commercial shipping would be provocative, hazardous, and largely unnecessary. So we posit no US blockade, as such.

Of course, the US has a variety of tools at its disposal that it regularly uses upon the international stage to impede free commerce. It is an irony since Washington often accuses Beijing of “threatening” such commerce in regions like the South China Sea while Washington is actually impeding it on a global scale.

NPR in its 2020 article, “US Seizes Iranian Fuel From 4 Tankers Bound For Venezuela,” would note:

According to The Associated Press, quoting unnamed USofficials, no military force was used in the seizure of the cargo, and none of the ships was physically impounded. Instead, US officials threatened ship owners, insurers and captains with sanctions to force them to hand over their cargo, the AP reported.

Because of America’s still formidable grip over international media, it would be extremely easy to sink vessels engaged in commerce and blame it on China or claim it was accidental. A total blockade would not be necessary to deter the majority of commerce in the region, only a few examples would be needed for the self-preservation of shipping companies to de facto cut off trade.

Another concerning warning sign was the Pentagon restructuring an entire branch of the US armed forces, the US Marine Corps, to specifically fight a single nation (China), in a very specific region (East Asia), with very specific tactics (shutting down straits used for commercial shipping).

Defense News in a 2020 article titled, “Here’s the US Marine Corps’ plan for sinking Chinese ships with drone missile launchers,” would claim:

The US Marine Corps is getting into the ship-killing business, and a new project in development is aimed at making their dreams of harrying the People’s Liberation Army Navy a reality.

The article also noted:

Marine Corps requirements and development chief Lt. Gen. Eric Smith told reporters last year during the Expeditionary Warfare Conference that the Marines want to fight on ground of their choosing and then maneuver before forces can concentrate against them.

“They are mobile and small, they are not looking to grab a piece of ground and sit on it,” Smith said of his Marine units. “I’m not looking to block a strait permanently. I’m looking to maneuver. The German concept is ‘Schwerpunkt,’ which is applying the appropriate amount of pressure and force at the time and place of your choosing to get maximum effect.”

The US Marine Corps has already decommissioned all of their main battle tanks as part of this restructuring which took less than a year – signifying the urgency of US preparations.

The US taking ships out in busy commerce straits and creating an environment that would cripple trade between China and the rest of the world would have a heavy impact on China’s economy.

On page 67 of the PDF document, RAND includes a graphic depiction of China’s projected GDP losses versus the US, giving us a compelling motive for the US to wage a war it knows it will suffer heavy military losses amidst, but emerge economically stronger than a China that will otherwise, barring such a conflict, surpass the US within this window of opportunity.

China Knows, But Can China Beat the Clock? 

It is very obvious that China’s Belt and Road Initiative (BRI) is an attempt for China to diversify away from Asia-Pacific trade routes the US is clearly making preparations to attack and disrupt.

Pipelines running through Pakistan as part of the China-Pakistan Economic Corridor (CPEC) and through Myanmar to Kunming in Yunnan Province would help move hydrocarbons bound for China from the Middle East without passing through waters the US could disrupt in the conflict it is clearly preparing for.

However, these alternative routes are already under attack.

US-sponsored separatists operating in Pakistan’s southwest province of Baluchistan regularly attack and kill Chinese engineers and the infrastructure itself.

Protests organized by US-sponsored opposition groups target Gwadar Port, CPEC’s terminal.

Just this year alone, France 24 would report in April a bombing targeting a hotel the Chinese ambassador to Pakistan was staying at but who luckily wasn’t at the hotel at the time of the bombing. In July, the BBC reported that 9 Chinese engineers working on CPEC projects were killed in a targeted attack. And according to Reuters, in August, 2 children were killed during a suicide bombing targeting Chinese engineers in Baluchistan.

US-backed opposition groups have been attacking Chinese investments in Myanmar since the military ousted the US client regime headed by Aung San Suu Kyi and her National League for Democracy (NDL). CNN would report in March, just a month after the military took over, that the opposition was lighting Chinese factories ablaze.

US government-funded Myanmar opposition media outlet, The Irrawaddy, published an article in May titled, “Deadly Attack on Pipeline Station Spotlights China’s High Stakes in Myanmar,” claiming:

The importance of the project was highlighted in February when Chinese officials held an emergency meeting with Myanmar officials, at which they urged the military regime to tighten security measures for the pipelines. They said the project is a crucial part of Beijing’s Belt and Road Initiative (BRI) in Myanmar and insisted that “any damage to the pipelines would cause huge losses for both countries.” The request came amid growing anti-China sentiment in Myanmar, where protesters—angered by Beijing’s blocking of the UN Security Council (UNSC)’s efforts to take action against the coup leaders—have threatened to blow up the pipelines.

The article concludes by quoting a Swedish journalist claiming:

It would come as no surprise if attacks were carried out against, for instance, the pipelines, he said. “And attitudes will not change unless the Chinese government stops its support for the Myanmar military. That should be a real concern.”

Xinjiang, China, also serves as a critical juncture for China’s BRI and we can clearly see the US promoting separatism there. The recent “Uyghur Tribunal” organized by the abovementioned US-funded World Uyghur Congress aims at further undermining Beijing’s efforts to counter US-sponsored armed separatism in Xinjiang by placing additional international pressure on China for implementing necessary security measures to prevent it.

The continued US-sponsored attacks on China’s BRI, the US-led military build-up along China’s coasts, and the propaganda war the US is waging to control the narratives surrounding both, represents a race against time for both Washington and Beijing.

For Washington, it is attempting to create the conditions in which RAND predictions of China’s economic devastation following a conventional conflict confined to East Asia can be transformed into reality.

For Beijing, it is attempting to run out the clock and assume the economic, military, and political power it needs to fully deter any such conflict, and assume its position as the largest, most powerful economy on Earth.

All things being equal, China has the world’s largest population – a population that is hardworking and well-educated. China’s educational institutions are producing millions more science, technology, engineering, and mathematics graduates than the US per year. China’s massive trade networks ensure its economy has plenty of resources. It should become the largest economy. And only a war of aggression, chosen to be waged by Washington will stop this from coming to pass.

US foreign policy in the 21st century has demonstrated in action the true nature of its foreign policy versus what Washington’s politicians say with words from behind podiums or its media says in front of cameras about a “rules-based international order.”

The only rule we can see demonstrably upheld is “might makes right.”

Only time will tell whether or not the US “makes right” its smaller nation with its smaller economy clinging to primacy over China for decades to come before it no longer has the “might” to do so.

MM thoughts on this “article”…

There’s some pretty fucking huge assumptions being made. They are going to get people killed.

• Any war with China will be nuclear.
• It will not be fought against China alone. It will be forght against the SEO (Russia and all the other nations.)
• The window of “opportunity” will not be in 2025 – 2030. It was in 2004 to 2009. It has long passed by.
• If Chinese citizens, cities or geography is attacked, and destoyed so will be the fate of American citizens, cities and geography.
• It will not be a long drawn out conventional war on or near China. It will be international, and vicious. And it will be devistating, and over in a short period of time.
• Internal Chinese dissidant groups, all funded by the USA, have mostly been rooted out and eliminated if not violently crushed.

What are your thoughts after reading this particular bilge out of America and promoted in Australia?

Other thoughts…

re: A closing window of opportunity estimated to close between 2025 and 2030 allows the US to carry out a limited war with China . . .blah blah

That piece of garbage was written by Brian Berletic, “who is a Bangkok-based geopolitical researcher and writer.” In no way could the US “carry out” (whatever that means — it’s not a professional military term) a limited war with China.

Posted by: Don Bacon | Oct 1 2021 18:44 utc | 12

If the US warmongers want to provoke a war with China, I would say go to it. The US will lose. And in doing it will discover their mistake. You can’t defeat China’s economic dominance by military action.

Posted by: Laguerre | Oct 1 2021 18:59 utc | 15

I saw the article as a (mistaken) claim that the should take advantage of a window of opportunity and attack China.

US War Plans with China Taking Shape . . .China’s massive trade networks ensure its economy has plenty of resources. It should become the largest economy. And only a war of aggression, chosen to be waged by Washington will stop this from coming to pass.

Posted by: Don Bacon | Oct 1 2021 19:10 utc | 17

China is not waiting for economic dominance over Taiwan to push the unification envelope. China simply don’t care about taking up governance over people who are brainwashed to be hostile to them. Only that China, in principle, would not give up sovereignty over the territory called Taiwan. The present situation is fine with them.

China’s economy has exceeded USA’s long ago–IMF and World Bank said 2014, but my understanding is 2010 or earlier. Just that the way GDP is calculated, the USA’s mode of non-productive sectors are given weights that is not deserved. How does the legal sector produced 10% of what people in the USA consume? How does a business consultant’s 1 hour of free-wheeling opinion voicing produce $1,000 worth of goods and services? USA’s 21+ $T of GDP is Lucy In The Sky, a hallucination.

Taiwan people are just plain stupid, brainwashed, and clinching to what they consider as the last straw. They know it’s a straw, but they don’t know that this straw is still effective only because China doesn’t give a damn about them.

Posted by: Oriental Voice | Oct 1 2021 19:37 utc | 26

War with China;

There is a sort of conceptual mistake when talking about US “capabilities” and warmongering. It is not the Military who want a “sort of” war, but the military-industrial complex, who need credible enemies.
IT is the Oligarchic owners of defense industries who want continued hostilities. As long as they can make cash. (Or rather, relieve the sheeple of their woolly coats – “for their own good”).

Most Generals go throught the “revolving doors” of industry-think*tank-Military, sometimes Political etc. So they are on both sides at the same time, they are not separate identities.

The Industry needs to be able to produce the “ultimate military rabbit out of the hat projects”, lots of them, at an enviable cost-overrun. ….. and to get rid of most of the product rapidly afterwards, to enable “replacement”.

For this they need “threats” agogo. Built in obsolescence and fruitful and intimate connections and relations with budgetteers.
*

Talking about budgets, NATO for 2021 defense spending;
https://www.zerohedge.com/geopolitical/how-much-nato-countries-spend-defense

US defense spending $811 billion. Not including other “secret” or “war” budgets. (The Afghanistan spending was concealed as War budget, and was independent from the standard defense budget. This will need “replacing” with another “war” situation for budget purposes)
The other NATO countries => $363 billion
Total $1.2 trillion per year. (Known)
(Turkey is the ONLY NATO country which has reduced it’s defense spending by 4%)
*

So we come back to China, Russia, NKorea, Iran as “credible” threats, even if they are not. As well as the others; Venezuela, Cuba etc. as walk-on bit-players to keep the propaganda tirade on the boil.

Whether there is a war with China or not, it must be profitable. The propaganda (as per b’s post) is only marketing for pre-emptive expenditure on the whole militarized industry. Advertising exageration?

Posted by: Stonebird | Oct 1 2021 20:50 utc | 34

Here’s a live display of shipping activity in east Asia. The US will block this and not pay a heavy price for doing so? The two dozen US military bases in Japan and half a dozen in South Korea won’t be leveled? Plus all US Navy surface ships at sea?

Posted by: Don Bacon | Oct 1 2021 19:51 utc | 28

Wow the Pacific Fleet is going to be busy!

I guess they’ll be inspecting every ship that goes through the Straits of Malacca. They’ll need to keep an eye on Suez and Panama too incase someone tries to sneak through.

Posted by: dh | Oct 1 2021 20:23 utc | 32

Thank you for the link to marine traffic. My immediate thought from that first glimpse was ah! that’s why China and its neighbours are busy building terrestrial rail and road systems. Equally obvious why Reuters an other liars are forever pumping the fear china, fear debt bondage mantra.

Posted by: uncle tungsten | Oct 1 2021 21:45 utc | 39

There will be war between the empire and China. It is the Thucydides trap, and there is no way out of it. In fact, the first shots of that war have already been fired with the empire using biological WMDs against China. The only questions about the war are when does the shooting start and how bad does it have to get before the empire concedes… assuming the empire is quickly convinced that defeat is inevitable and so doesn’t escalate to nuclear weapons.

There has been discussion about the empire marshaling its gimps on the front line; trying to get Japan and Australia and not-so-Great Britain to take point in the fight. I am of mixed opinion as to whether this is good or bad. On the one hand it helps legitimize the empire’s aggression and makes the forces arrayed against China seem stronger. As well, if a country like Australia is the first to take a punch from China for the empire the optics will be bad. It would look like China being a bully and kicking America’s yappy pet chihuahua. Furthermore, I am quite fond of Japan and the Japanese people and I’d rather not see them hurt again.

On the other hand, if combat operations start directly between the US and China then it is a forgone conclusion that the Chinese will pull their punches, at least in the beginning. The US, for its part, will go right for the kill from the very start. This means that China will take a terrible beating while they come to realize that the fight is serious and will not be gentlemanly. If the fight starts with Japan this will not be an issue. Japan has a karmic debt to China and the Chinese will not pull their punches in a fight with them. China will come down on Japan like an avalanche and deal Japan a very swift and decisive defeat. This decisiveness is crucial as it will help convince the empire that further aggression is futile and thereby help prevent escalation by the empire. While it would pain me to see that happen to Japan , it is one of the best outcomes that prevents things from spiraling to Armageddon.

Of course, the prefect outcome would be for Britain to take the lead in the fight and get instantly and utterly crushed, as the British also have a deep karmic debt that the Chinese wouldn’t hesitate to collect on. That would have the same benefit of interrupting the empire’s escalation, but would spare the Japanese and possibly even teach the British some humility (yeah, lots of luck with that last, right?).

Posted by: William Gruff | Oct 1 2021 21:52 utc | 40

I have to agree with you on Thucydides Trap. Interesting that you consider Covid as the first salvo the Empire fired. Actually China suspected SARS was the first salvo. That’s one reason they put effort into researching corona virus and means of containing such viral spread. Unlike Russia, they won’t openly accuse the Empire of biological warfare without possession of the smoking gun, but they will be very alert to future implantation of biological kinks coming from Empire’s direction.

Meanwhile, you’re also right that the Empire has been maneuvering to goat their lackeys to serve as canon fodders against China, even with some success. India is a prominent example. They would love for Japan to go head-on against China–the more Japanese casualties, the better narrative to build global mobilization of forces against China. Interesting that you sentimentally like Japanese and abhors the idea of them getting hurt. I guess you’re not informed of the extent of evil the Japanese had done around a century ago. Have you heard of the Nanjing Massacre, the 3-totality strategy (total plunder, total burning, total killing) in sweeping villages to ensure Chinese resistances would get no refurbishments, Project 731-germ warfare??? In fact, it was Project 731’s research dossier that started Fort Detrick lab. I suppose you consider that to be 75-100 years old past, and one should forgive and forget. Well, I can’t. Especially not when today’s Japan can’t even come clean and admit to what they have done. I don’t see a reborn Japan.

Posted by: Oriental Voice | Oct 1 2021 22:45 utc | 43

Today, the Outlaw US Empire is a Neoliberal Oligarchy while China’s a Social-Democratic nation–when both are objectively examined. Geoeconomically, the Empire’s dependent on China, not the other way round. As was overtly made very clear at the Alaska meeting, the Outlaw US Empire cannot deal with China from a position of strength either geopolitically or geoeconomically.

As I wrote a few days ago to zero objections, China and the Eurasian Bloc coalescing around it when seen in relation to the Outlaw US Empire differs little than how Yamamoto saw the dynamic between Japan and the USA prior to Pearl Harbor–Japan was sure to lose no matter what it did.

And yet again, several members of the Joint Chiefs of Staff have publicly stated that they want no war with either Russia or China. They’re what Martyanov calls realists who understand the genuine balance of power no longer favors the Outlaw US Empire even when NATO is added.

Biden and the Ds just as Trump and the Rs desperately need his version of MAGA–Build Back Better–to become reality. But with the USA geoeconomically dependent on China, how is it ever going to accomplish that if it starts a war with its primary supplier if the funds ever get allocated?! Yes, the Merchants of Death constantly need an existential threat to justify their existence, and that’s the special interest fueling the war talk that the generals refute.

Then, IMO, this new set of polling results must be added to the equation–public sentiment for war against some other nation not named Congress doesn’t exist:

“Arguably more disturbing were the implications for the ‘other’ party if secession did not occur. A sizable majority of both Trump and Biden voters agreed with the statement that ‘if our society so wants, it is the duty of every true citizen to help eliminate the evil that poisons our country from within.'”

That ought to scare just a few Neoliberal grifters as the public agrees without knowing that it does on the very source of the problem being domestic. Soon, both sides will know they agree, and 2022 elections are going to see lots of fireworks.

Posted by: karlof1 | Oct 1 2021 23:22 utc | 47

"On the contrary, no-ones talking of a land invasion of China, just the blocking of the SLOC which would have a catastrophic effect on China’s economy."

Now hold on a second.

Given that the U.S. and most countries in the world are heavily dependent on China for manufactured goods (both finished and unfinished), what would be the effect of cutting off Chinese commercial shipping on the world’s economy?

Well, I’ll tell you, it would be a depression followed by mass outrage that the U.S. government could have deliberately brought such a catastrophe down upon everyone’s heads.

Are U.S. foreign and economic planners that stupid? They definitely are stupid, but I doubt that the actual owners (George Carlin’s word) of the country would stand for it.

Posted by: Rob | Oct 2 2021 0:20 utc | 49

“A closing window of opportunity estimated to close between 2025 and 2030 allows the US to carry out a limited war with China, resulting in a favorable outcome for Washington. Beyond that, the US will find itself outmatched and any attempt to curb China’s rise rendered futile.”

This is chilling.

In light of this, the current coercive and zealous covid vaccination program in the Anglosphere can also be seen as drills preparing for possible biological warfare.

If the US mainland and Australia are relatively protected in the eventuality of this conventional war with China, biological warfare (regardless of who initiates it) creates vulnerability.

It all makes sense now: why California is mandating vaccination for school children when their risk of dying from covid is 2 per million infected.

Posted by: Moses | Oct 2 2021 1:22 utc | 53

Taiwan is part of China. Both governments’ (Beijing and Taipei) Constitutions states that fact.

So, there are no issues, problems or arguments on any of these: ADZ, ADIZ or any other matters. PRC airplanes can fly or land anywhere, including Taipei, period.

This is what the press stenographers are distracting you from.

This is the real news of our times, not the drivel pumped out by and then rerun by its handmaidens of deceit.

Posted by: uncle tungsten | Oct 2 2021 2:03 utc | 60

This is not 1944 where you can float troop transports across the Pacific to attack an enemy. We live in an age of satellites and hyper sonic weapons. If there is a war it will be a series of short furious naval battles in which the holders of land in the area will be the victors. Will Korea and Japan join? At their great peril maybe.

While the media coverage is bullshit China is boiling the frog in water slowly with Taiwan being the frog. I am sure China has though about the suppression of enemy air defenses like the US has done effectively with the Wild Weasel. I am sure China has the capacity to take out a good portion of Taiwan’s radar and air defense system. They can systematically destroy their naval bases along with their communication infrastructure and military bases without a boot on the ground. Taiwan can do little in return.

If China decided to act it would be over rather quickly with a loss of prestige on the world stage. I am sure they have thought about that as well. The US is in no position do do anything other than bitch and moan. Taiwan will have to cut some sort of deal with China at some point or China will act I do believe. When that will happen is anyones guess.

Posted by: circumspect | Oct 2 2021 6:42 utc | 73

While I fully agree to your conclusion that the US can’t sensibly do anything when China decides to forcefully reunite Taiwan with the mainland, I do not see that China is boiling the frog.

China has not tightened any tensions, neither towards Taiwan, not in the SCS or ECS. The “nine dash line” is a naval border claimed by the ROC and Jiang Jieshi (Chiang kai Shek) in 1944 at earliest, and at that time, neither of FUKUS challenged that claim. That as an aside.

As to Taiwan, China has tried since decades to go a long and patient way towards unification, by strengthening ties between the territory and the motherland. Taiwan companies are heavily invested in mainland China (and vice versa where not sabotaged by the DPP administration), between 1 and 2 million Taiwan inhabitants live permanently or for long periods in mainland China, there are some hundred thousand marriages.

China has made clear that the one country, two systems situation can go on for long as long as there is no secession attempt. In that case China will act swiftly.

Hu Xijin in the Global Times described the outlines of such a forceful unification when commenting US weapon sales to Taiwan. Once China would act, there would be powerful satiation attacks by missiles, air force, and naval firepower destroying all major airports, military targets on land, military naval installations, and naval forces of Taiwan. After that a full force landing on Taiwan and all its islands would follow.

There is no reasonibly thinkable possible outcome where the attacking side could be repelled or defeated. And there is no way how a naval attack of the US, AUKUS, Quad or whomever could succeed. And it is very doubtful that even the most radical forces in the US would wage a nuclear war over Taiwan.

As to Taiwan, it is their side who is stirring up the conflicts by buying “recognition” by some Baltic SS Shitholes like Lithuania who are living on EU pockets so don’t have much to lose. Ukraine rowed back when receiving a warning from Beijing. The DPP clowns should just stop their separatist provocations. A Chinese proverb says “the rat that gnaws the tiger’s tail invites destruction”.

Posted by: aquadraht | Oct 2 2021 7:57 utc | 76

karlof1 @47: "The Thucydides Trap was again debunked... The antagonists are supposed to be copycat rivals to each other, but that wasn't the case with Athens or Sparta then..."

And yet the Peloponnesian War happened anyway. The details of personality are not relevant as personality is not what causes war. A rising power inevitably displaces the existing power, and the existing power resists the loss of its dominance. This basic pattern is unavoidable.

"...the Outlaw US Empire cannot deal with China from a position of strength either geopolitically or geoeconomically..."

Absolutely correct. So what tools does that leave in the “Outlaw US Empire’s” arsenal to defend its hegemony? Or do you imagine the empire will give China a sportsman-like handshake, say “Well, it was a nice run but you win. It’s your turn to show the world direction now. I’ll just retire to tending my garden.”? Laughable balderdash!

"...relation to the Outlaw US Empire differs little than how Yamamoto saw the dynamic between Japan and the USA prior to Pearl Harbor..."

Absolutely! Many of the generals and admirals know what they are up against, but Japan ended up at war with the USA anyway. Admiral Yamamoto’s realization that war would be an enormous mistake changed exactly what?

There will be war. Xi knows it, and the Chinese people in general know it.

That is why they are investing significant chunks of their resources preparing for it. China’s military is specifically designed to defeat the empire and any of the empire’s vassals that get pushed into the fight.

The war is not “if” but “when”.

The Chinese know that they are under biological weapons attack, but as Oriental Voice @43 points out they are not squealing about it as a western nation would.

Delays to the overt war still work to China’s advantage: The empire gets weaker and China gets stronger. The greater that strength disparity the more China can control the course of the war and steer that war away from doing lasting damage to humanity.

"A sizable majority of both Trump and Biden voters agreed with the statement that 'if our society so wants, it is the duty of every true citizen to help eliminate the evil that poisons our country from within."

Precisely so. And what is the tried and true method to distract a population from internal issues? Why, external war of course.

It amazes me to see bright people who are fully aware of much of the crazy shit the empire has done over the last couple decades still trying to project the empire’s future behavior based upon the assumption that it will be rational.

The empire has not been rational and it will not become rational while it remains an empire. In fact the empire will become more irrational with every passing day as its end draws nearer.

Everything karlof1 @47 says points towards war. How can someone as bright and knowledgeable as karlof1 think these things mean peace is on the verge of breaking out?

Posted by: William Gruff | Oct 2 2021 12:14 utc | 80

For those trying to dismiss the post by “Down South @8 (I’m looking at you Don Bacon @57), here is a link to the original report by the RAND Corporation that the analysis is based upon: War with China: Thinking Through the Unthinkable.

This is from the RAND Corporation. That is the closest thing the empire has to a brain. What is notable, despite the recognition in the report that the empire’s days of uncontested dominance are waning, the report paints an overly optimistic picture for the empire.

Being chilled is entirely called for.

There will be war.

Posted by: William Gruff | Oct 2 2021 12:51 utc | 82

In regards to the prospect of war with china, while I am sympathetic to gruff’s perspective, I think it still simplifies the situathon. thr US side is not monolithix while MICIMATT has institutionally mobilized all the psyops effortsz, and the Pentagon has moved to ‘pivot to asia’ since Obama, there are nevertheless the Mark Milleys that understand that there is no way for the US to win in the Asia Pacific theater against china. they wouls not only lose the war but also bleed global prestige.

That said, when the institutional gears are grinding as they are, so called strategic thinking ceases to be rational or even strategic. trying to predict what an irrational institution will do makes little sense.

Secondly, the us is already at war with china, hybrid war. it’s not as if we need to wait for some trigger event — it is already ongoing! Hong Kong color revolution, whose failure is now abundantly clear. the ongoing xinjiang campaign. and let’s not forget that china depleted a staggering amount of its US reserves in 2015 in order to fight off US orchestrated capital flight so it could harvest Chinese assets in the cheap, like they did in the asian financial crisis.

That’s not much talked about at MOC, but I’ve heard Chinese analysts speak of that financial warfare as a watershed moment. watershed because its failure precipitated more desperate and maniacal measures afterwards. keep in mind that was before the hong Kong and Xinjiang psyops.

As for biological warfare, regardless of one’s view on the origins of covid, there was a spate of agricultural pests in the trump era that devastated Chinese food production. everything is being tried.

So, war js ongoing. to instead await and analyze and predict some trigger military event like Taiwan is to miss the forest for the trees. if what’s been happening doesn’t count as aggression on par with warfare, then that is already to have internalized empire propaganda that things like sanctions are not acts of war.

Posted by: mastameta | Oct 2 2021 14:07 utc | 86

The Anglo’s started WW1 to maintain their global hegemony. They started WW2 for the same purpose. Yet somehow people believe it is too far fetch that they would start a war with China to maintain the same hegemony they fought 2 WWs over?

Read the RAND report. They know they will suffer heavy military casualties and their economy will collapse by 10% but all that will be worth it if they can inflict heavy damage on China’s economy in the region of a 30-35% collapse.

What do you think the purpose of all this China bashing coverage in the media is about that b highlights? It is to prepare the populace for the coming conflict with China.

Posted by: Down South | Oct 2 2021 14:19 utc | 87

mastameta @85: "trying to predict what an irrational institution will do makes little sense."

A cornered animal is irrational, but it is easy to predict what it will do.

"secondly, the us is already at war with china, hybrid war."

Yes, of course, but the war will go overt and kinetic. That is the only path available to the cornered dog of an empire. The growling and snarling threats, the urinating on the carpet, nothing else it does opens a path back to power for the empire.

"... china depleted a staggering amount of its US reserves in 2015... "

This is policy, like that in Russia, to reduce exposure to the US dollar. To the empire that in itself is an act of war.

Yes, the war is currently on already, but it remains somewhat covert. When I talk about war starting above I am referring to overt military conflict.

Posted by: William Gruff | Oct 2 2021 15:15 utc | 90

Any experienced warfare guy will say the same, the most important element of any war is logistics. And that is the US’s main downfall in any war with China. The US does not have the capability to supply the fighting elements with the ammunition, food, repair parts etc that they would require to conduct a war on the other side of the vast Pacific Ocean which covers about one-third of the earth’s surface.

And where would those forces be? The Marine Corps plan is to move Marines from one small island to another on small ships, and then have these Marines to place indirect fire on China targets. I don’t see anyone volunteering for that ridiculous scenario. But hey, it keeps dollars in the Pentagon budget.

Another problem for the US is that both China and Russia have fielded versions of hypersonic weapons that can travel faster than five times the speed of sound (Mach 5 is about 3,806 mph) and potentially hold U.S. capital and logistical ships at risk. These missiles have a range of up to a thousand miles. The US has no defense against them and aircraft-carrier launched planes don’t have sufficient range to rectify the problem.

So it would be a maritime-based war with US major warships not able to get anywhere close to the Asian mainland, which means no war at all.

Posted by: Don Bacon | Oct 2 2021 20:12 utc | 103

"...the most important element of any war is logistics."

Absolutely so. Fancy weapons and great troop morale get you nowhere if you cannot get them to the theater of operations along with lunch. The notion that the US can land ground forces on the Chinese mainland to occupy and annex China is absurd. That’s the “Risk” board game version of geopolitics.

But the empire doesn’t need to annex China. The empire just needs to economically set China back a couple decades. There is a faction within the empire who believe this is doable in part with a naval blockade.

Posted by: William Gruff | Oct 2 2021 21:42 utc | 109

Gabriel Collins did a very good report for the US Naval War College Review on the practicality of a maritime oil blockade of China – even in 2018 he was not too optimistic, “A Maritime Oil Blockade Against China—Tactically Tempting but Strategically Flawed”. China would also have access to Russia, Central Asia, ASEAN etc. for food and other supplies, and would have inevitably created large stockpiles before any conflict.

https://digital-commons.usnwc.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1735&context=nwc-review

"The scenarios also highlight the reality that, within historically realistic response parameters, China very feasibly could adapt to conflict conditions and withstand a blockade for a longer period than an outside power realistically could sustain the operation. At the most fundamental level, a blockader would find itself increasingly isolated on the world stage, which would complicate its ability politically, economically, and militarily to continue its campaign."

"The significant long-term reduction in revenue to major oil and commodity exporters as a result of decreasing oil-demand volumes and depressed prices could exert profound internal political effects and trigger new conflicts and in- flame existing ones across the Middle East and parts of Africa. Sufficiently serious regional contingencies could divert U.S. military resources from the Asian theater, particularly if the United States found itself politically and diplomatically isolated on the world stage. This could undermine the sustainability of a distant energy blockade against China."

Posted by: Roger | Oct 2 2021 22:00 utc | 111

China doesn’t need to invade Taiwan, the two entities are already close enough on everything that counts, trade, inward investments, tourism, cultural exchanges, the lot.

China’s power is anchored in making things and selling them on every world market, by the turn of the century around a third of her GDP was coupled with exports, by 2019 this ratio was down to 15%, it must have gone up during the months of covid as the Chinese economy was the only one resuming working.

For the Americans to disrupt the sea lines from the Chinese ports would be counterproductive unless they were to find a substitute for the stuff manufactured in China for the US market, some 80% of US imports from China are on behalf of US brand names, Apple is but the one most visible example.

Despite of the warmongering China still enjoys the the Permanent Normal Trade Relations Partner status (PNTR) google for what the partner status offers, China was granted it by Bush at the time of her joining WTO. If the Americans were serious about disrupting China’s trade hence the country’s economy they would withdraw the PNTR status, they haven’t, which tells you they are stuck until they figure where else to source what comes from China.

Posted by: Baron | Oct 2 2021 23:15 utc | 115

“an established power will generally try to prevent a rising power to become so powerful that it could challenge the established power.”

I think this is a good description of the Thucydides Trap. I don’t believe the theory should be taken any more literal then that and it isn’t supposed to be some deterministic scientific comment were causality is linear an absolute. It also doesn’t require a shooting war to hold true.

Given the current situation, and The Empire’s multi-pronged attempt to harm China, I think it is fair to say the Thucydides Trap has already been sprung.

…

Having said that, I don’t think a shooting war is inevitable. I also think a blockade isn’t likely as that would almost absolutely lead to a shooting war.

People forget China has a lot of oil and other resources. Enough oil and gas to last five years without imports. They are also well connected to Russia, Central Asia and South East Asia, so even a successful naval blockade could be gotten around.

I disagree China wouldn’t invade if forced into this position. They’d take Taiwan quickly and it would be impossible to prevent them from taking South Korea, which would lead to many thousand American POW’s and KIA. They’d also have total control of the areas within the first Island chain which would provide a lot of strategic avenues.

Not to mention a blockade wouldn’t slow down their industrial production, instead it would push their industry into war-time hyper production giving China unlimited missiles to strike at everything from Gaum on in.

That isn’t to say The Desperate Empire might not try a blockade or find a way to stumble into a stupid war…it is to say it would turn out very badly for The Empire and hasten their demise rather then slow down China’s rise.

Posted by: Haassaan | Oct 2 2021 23:19 utc | 116

In fact, in case of a war between the US and China the GIs would even lack the pants to shit into as they are manufactured in China.

Posted by: aquadraht | Oct 2 2021 23:38 utc | 118

Given the current situation, and The Empire's multi-pronged attempt to harm China, I think it is fair to say the Thucydides Trap has already been sprung.

This is clear to me as well.

Having said that, I don't think a shooting war is inevitable.

Agreed. But I don’t think the possibility of a shooting war is remote either.

I also think a blockade isn't likely as that would almost absolutely lead to a shooting war.

I disagree with this. Merely the threat of attack will cause shipping rates to skyrocket. That ends China’s manufacturing advantage and ME oil supply.

China can adjust … but how quickly?

I disagree China wouldn't invade if forced into this position. They'd take Taiwan quickly ...

When I said China wouldn’t invade, I was responding to Don Bacon’s comment about the importance of logistics. There wouldn’t be logistics necessary for a battle for Taiwan because China can take Taiwan before such logistics become a factor.

And I don’t think South Korea would fall quite so quickly or easily as you believe.

China provides a governance model that may inspire the Western public to demand real change. So we see propaganda attacks against China. And rising tensions help to vitiate that propaganda.

Posted by: Jackrabbit | Oct 3 2021 0:33 utc | 119

I also think a blockade isn’t likely as that would almost absolutely lead to a shooting war.

“I disagree with this. Merely the threat of attack will cause shipping rates to skyrocket. That ends China’s manufacturing advantage and ME oil supply.

China can adjust ... but how quickly?"

Yes, but isn’t that what a blockade would do? The very purpose of the blockade is to prevent China from shipping to harm their industry.

I’d argue that once a blockade is in place, China has no choice but to hit with everything they have short of nukes. They aren’t going to wait around while their economy and industrial production is stifled…they will make the USA pay the price, and then some…and that is completely within their capabilities.

It looks to me like China is prepared for war, they would be able to switch to war production mode almost immediately. It would be the West that would be slow to adjust.

In the event of war, China does not need ME oil, they have enough domestic oil to wage a multi-year war.

South Korea wouldn’t fall easily, neither would Taiwan for that matter, but they would fall, there is no way to reinforce either once the shooting starts. Tens of thousands of casualties on both sides within a short amount of time.

To continue fighting USA would need a draft. Given current social conditions in The States how do you think a draft would play out?

Posted by: Haassaan | Oct 3 2021 0:57 utc | 122

Thank you Roger @ 111 and Baron @ 115 for trying to inject a dose of reality into this notion of a USN or even AUKUS enforced blockade of China.

Gruff @ 109 re: "a faction within the empire who believe this is doable with a naval blockade...."

First, blockade is an act of war, and the Chinese would be well within their rights to attack and sink any ship trying to enforce any such blockade whether in their own territorial or international waters. So there’s a high probability that any attempt to actually enforce a blockade would lead to a real hot war in East Asia. And, once again, this blockade would be completely illegal since there would be absolutely no UNSC approval for any such action.

Second, with the lengthy supply chains required to support such an effort even from Pearl Harbour, the US probably will have to utilise it’s most forward military bases in the region which means both South Korea and especially Japan which is home to over a dozen major bases that are locations for key Indo-Pacific assets of the USN, USAF and USMC. If these bases or rather their units actually launch military attacks against China then the countries that house those bases would themselves be open to direct military retaliation from China.

Both S Korea and Japan rely on shipping lanes well within the range of the Chinese conventional missile arsenal. The Chinese could respond with their own form of a blockade, shutting down the Japanese and S Korean SLOCs in a week or two by sinking (or threatening to sink) tankers and container ships in the Sea of Japan. The Japanese and SK economies require vast volumes of imported energy and other raw goods resources and are just as vulnerable as China is to a maritime blockade. So if the US wants to play the blockade game then China has options and can respond in kind with similar types of action against not only two major US allies but two of the largest economies in the world.

Third, on top of the above, nobody mentions the huge, and I mean huge, amount of trade between the countries of ASEAN ie SE Asia and China. Indonesia alone has I believe almost $50-60 billions of trade with China per annum. Add in Thailand, Malaysia, Vietnam, Singapore etc. and you’re talking at least a couple of hundred billion pa. Are these countries going to sit back and allow the US and its Anglo Saxon poodles to destroy their economies? Nope, didn’t think so.

Finally, everyone really should read the books by Andrei Martyanov to understand the new realities, that the next war in the Pacific won’t be won by some USMC “island hopping” strategy or another round of Midways and Coral Seas. It’s going to be won by the country that can launch salvo after salvo of conventional anti ship and anti air and other conventional missiles. Think about it – there’s lots of numbers thrown around on the internet re the Iranian and Hezbollah guided missile arsenals, 10,000, 20,000, 30,000 etc. That’s Iran and Hezbollah working under the most stringent sanctions in the world.

So how many advanced anti-ship missiles do you think the manufacturing powerhouse that is China has stored away for a rainy day? Bear in mind, some of those missiles have been in mass production for several years now. 40,000? 50,000? More? And, yes, there’s some question re the actual operational efficacy of Chinese anti-ship missile targeting. Still, assuming they get their targeting systems right (maybe with a little help from Shoigu et al!) how long do you think the USN and its allies will last when the Chinese fire salvoes of a 100, 200, 500, or even 1000 Anti-Ship missiles per day for a week or even two?

Posted by: thermobarbaric | Oct 3 2021 1:30 utc | 125

Yes, I mentioned naval blockade as one example of the empire escalating to overt warfare against China in addition to its current covert war. Yes, realistically such efforts by the empire cannot succeed beyond a temporary and relatively brief suppression of China’s GDP. But next year it will be even harder for the empire to dent China’s economic growth, and the year after harder still.

Are you so foolish as to think the empire will give up without a fight?

It doesn’t matter that it is a bad idea. The empire is out of alternatives to war.

Posted by: William Gruff | Oct 3 2021 1:43 utc | 126

"In a few years, another country with a nuclear submarine fleet will appear in the world – Australia. What kind of submarines will this country receive from its allies, what kind of combat capabilities do they provide, and according to what scenario can they be used to contain China’s military power?

Everything is learned by comparison. What are the eight multi-purpose nuclear submarines that Australia will receive (not to be confused with submarines armed with ballistic missiles)? Let’s compare them with other fleets.

First, take the example of China, against which (at least, so they say) everything is being planned. Now China has only nine multi-purpose nuclear submarines, with low stealth. Three of them are Project 091; these are old and noisy vessels that have almost no combat value. The remaining six are Project 093, more modern boats, which, however, are inferior to modern American and British ones. In fact, only these six have a real combat value, and it is this number that should be taken into account.

...Here is just one of many examples. Geographically, Australia can completely block the connection between China and the Indian Ocean: there is a direct exit there and this is not controlled by China in any way. China only has the Strait of Malacca, which with its new submarines Australia will be able to block from the Indian Ocean. Or go past Australia itself, with the same submarines and its aircraft. There is no other road by which a large amount of oil can be supplied to China.


... It is worth recognizing that the world is on the verge of war. Australia’s agreement with the United States and Britain says exactly this. An ordinary world war with tens of millions of dead, as one option, or with hundreds of millions; after all, no one has canceled nuclear weapons. Such a war is almost inevitable.

Moreover, knowing what deadlines the ‘partners’ set for themselves, you can roughly understand the time for which they are preparing the ‘hot phase’. And looking at how other countries are preparing for the next world war, it’s time for us to take a critical, honest and non-biased look at how we are preparing for it.”

https://anti-empire.com/the-first-russian-strategic-assessment-of-the-australia-uk-us-usuka-submarine-pact/

Posted by: daffyDuct | Oct 3 2021 1:48 utc | 127

The increased cost of trade would spur industry in the West 

Factories will just pop up everywhere? No.

 As China becomes more like USA 

Never happen. Chinese are what they are, and it isn’t becoming more like Americans. It has to do with 5,000 years of culture, Confucianism, Taoism etc. So Chinese have a whole different way of looking at matters, such as working together toward a better life (which they have largely accomplished) w/o the petty political combative self-aggrandisement “democracy” so dominant in the USA.

Chinese do this under a qualified up-through-the-ranks leader, and not having to accept an elected weirdo as in the US.

The fact that Chinese are different from Americans, and will never be like them, has been a deep disappointment in Washington, but that’s the way it is and the way it will be.

Posted by: Don Bacon | Oct 3 2021 3:31 utc | 136

Below is from Xinhuanet

BEIJING, Oct. 2 (Xinhua) -- For years, the unspoken truth about Western media is that their veneer of objectivity has come off a long time ago. While touting themselves as the epitome of trustworthiness and honesty, some media practitioners in the West have no qualms about propagating lies against China.

As the coordinated anti-China smear campaign is gaining steam, more intrepid journalists with a conscience are calling it out despite the tremendous pressure to silence them.

In one of the most excoriating rebukes against Western media's manipulation of the public opinion against China, Javier Garcia, head of the office of the EFE News Agency of Spain in Beijing, announced earlier this week that he would soon leave journalism, as the flagrant information manipulation by Western media "has taken a good dose of my enthusiasm for this profession."

The departure of journalists like Garcia is a giant loss to the industry, which is in dire need of introspection. For those who choose to stay and disagree with the highly biased and distorted reporting on China, they are usually confronted with a monolithic propaganda structure in the West to ignore, silence and discredit them.

The past few years have seen a lot of deplorable cases where anyone who dared to maintain objective and impartial positions on China were accused of being on the payroll of the Chinese government or even worse.

While they are working arduously to suppress impartial information and hoping it to pay off, some media in the West, especially in the United States, should expect that the chickens will come home to roost, as their own political order is at risk.

Even James Murdoch, son of right-wing media mogul Rupert Murdoch who owns FOX News, castigated U.S. media for amplifying disinformation that successfully sowed falsehoods.

"Those outlets that propagate lies to their audience have unleashed insidious and uncontrollable forces that will be with us for years," he told the Financial Times shortly after the U.S. Congress riot in early January.

For those Western media who are still slandering China's peaceful development, it is time for them to think twice.

Posted by: psychohistorian | Oct 3 2021 6:15 utc | 139

One important note on something that is getting zero coverage in the “news”…

Big news in aerospace circles, and all over China is the great diversity of the new state-of-the-art military weapons that are being shown in my town (where I live). Zhuhai. It’s all very awesome. Some of the aircraft are real surprises, and it might take the USA decades to play catch up. VIDEO.

The First Russian Strategic Assessment of the Australia-UK-US (USUKA) Submarine Pact

A serious Russian strategic assessment of the UK-USA-Australia decision to start basing nuclear armed nuclear submarines in Australia 18 months from now…

Unlike diesel-electrics, nuclear subs can contribute to the US blockade of China from the Pacific and in the Malacca

John Helmer 26 Sep 21

Following last week’s meeting in Washington of Australia’s Foreign Minister Marise Payne, the Australian defence minister and their US counterparts, a strategic military and basing agreement was announced between Australia, the UK and US (AUKUS). This is being reinforced with summit meetings in Washington this week.

The declared target of their war-making preparations is China.

Australian strategy against Russia in the Pacific region follows in lockstep with the US. But for the time being the Russian enemy, and Russian submarine and surface fleet operations in the Indo-Pacific region, are not being discussed by Australian officials in public; at least not to the extent when President Vladimir Putin last visited Australia in November 2014 with a nuclear-powered, nuclear armed naval escort.

Ahead of schemes for strategic warmaking in the Pacific, the US, the UK and Australia are also engaged in proxy war operations. These have accelerated recently in Myanmar, where Russia and China are allied in support of the military government of  General Min Aung Hlaing. Next, from both sides, state bribery, subversion, putsch-making, and other special operations are likely to accelerate in the Pacific islands from Fiji to Papua-New Guinea.

For the moment, the initial reaction to AUKUS from the Russian Foreign Ministry has been as close to uncritical as the ministry can be.” Spokesman Maria Zakharova said last Thursday:

“We noted the plans, announced by Australia to build nuclear-powered submarines as part of an ‘enhanced trilateral security partnership’ agreed yesterday by the United States, Great Britain and Australia. We proceed from the premise that being a non-nuclear power and fulfilling in good faith the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty, Australia will honour its commitments under this document, as well as the IAEA Safeguards Agreements along with its Additional Protocol. We hope that Canberra ensures the necessary level of cooperation with the IAEA in order to rule out any proliferation-related risks.”

The first detailed technical and strategic assessment of the AUKUS scheme has followed this week in Vzglyad, the leading strategy publication reflecting the Russian General Staff and GRU assessments. A translation from the Russian article by Alexander Timokhin follows.

In a few years, another country with a nuclear submarine fleet will appear in the world  – Australia. What kind of submarines will this country receive from its allies, what kind of combat capabilities do they provide, and according to what scenario can they be used to contain China’s military power?

Everything is learned by comparison. What are the eight multi-purpose nuclear submarines that Australia will receive (not to be confused with submarines armed with ballistic missiles)? Let’s compare them with other fleets.

First, take the example of China, against which (at least, so they say) everything is being planned. Now China has only nine multi-purpose nuclear submarines, with low stealth. Three of them are Project 091; these are old and noisy vessels  that have almost no combat value. The remaining six are Project 093, more modern boats, which, however, are inferior to modern American and British ones. In fact, only these six have a real combat value, and it is this number that should be taken into account.

I must say that the Chinese have made tremendous progress if we start from their initial level. Their submarines are already armed with good torpedoes and means of countering enemy torpedoes. But they are still very far from British ‘Astutes’ or American ‘Virginias’.

Theoretically, the ‘Virginia’ of the latest modification (the block, as the Americans say) will be able to be used when delivering a high-precision massive non-nuclear strike on Chinese territory. In this case, the Australians will be able to increase the American salvo. In the future, when the Americans finish their hypersonic missile program for the Navy, this strike may also be very fast.

It will be a separate story if the Americans again trample on international norms of behaviour and deploy nuclear weapons on Australian submarines before the war. Then, using cruise or hypersonic missiles, Australia will be able to cause China (and not only it) simply monstrous damage. And just ordinary Tomahawks with their fast, surprise launch can cause considerable damage to the side attacked – and the tactical and technical characteristics of the ‘Virginia’ will allow you to secretly approach even a well-guarded shore and deliver a sudden and unexpected blow.

Naturally, this is true if Australia builds ‘Virginias’ with vertical missile launch installations, and not ‘Astutes’, which can only use Tomahawks through torpedo tubes. There is no answer to this question yet.

In the event of a war more or less close to a classic naval war, these submarines will create an additional threat to China, and China will be required to allocate additional forces to this threat, which it will need very much in a war with the United States and Britain,  even without Australia.

The Chinese are taking care of their fleet and developing it. They have anti-submarine surface forces and anti-submarine aviation, but when performing combat tasks outside the combat radius of their base (coastal in colloquial language) aviation, the problem of combating enemy submarine forces will become quite acute for China. Chinese surface ships will be subjected to air strikes by Australian based and American carrier-based aircraft; anti-submarine aircraft will not be able to work without cover; in fact, all tasks will have to be solved by Chinese nuclear submarines. They do not reach the western (that is, the future Australian) level yet, and they will be forced to act against heterogeneous enemy forces (submarines, anti-submarine aircraft, surface ships) without support.

How will China respond?

China has hope – there are new multi-purpose nuclear submarines being created, designated in the foreign press as Type 095, and in China itself 09-V. According to visual assessment of images of the boat, it is clear that China is trying to introduce a large number of technical solutions that increase the stealth of the submarine and the range of detection for its underwater targets. It is clearly visible that the boat is being created specifically for combat.

But what success the Chinese will have is an open question, and most importantly, even these boats will not see superiority in quality;  ideally there will be approximate parity.  At the same time, if the current pace of updating the submarine forces in China continues, then China will be inferior to the Americans and the British in numbers even without Australia, and even more so with it. These new boats are still in the planning stage — China has not built any of them yet. And another hostile nuclear submarine fleet will definitely require the Chinese to invest very quickly and very seriously in expanding their production; that requires time, money, and resources.

Can China ignore this threat? No.

Here is just one of many examples. Geographically, Australia can completely block the connection between China and the Indian Ocean: there is a direct exit there and this is not controlled by China in any way. China only has the Strait of Malacca, which with its new submarines Australia will be able to block from the Indian Ocean. Or go past Australia itself, with the same submarines and its aircraft. There is no other road by which a large amount of oil can be supplied to China.

Australia would never have had these opportunities in this form if it had continued its work on the purchase of non-nuclear submarines from France.

A non-nuclear (in fact the same diesel-electric) submarine is not capable, for example, of going under water at a high speed, as the ‘Virginias’ and ‘Astutes’ can, and secretly, without a critical increase in noise.

A non-nuclear boat needs to deliver fuel to the combat service area, an atomic one does not need to – a nuclear submarine is not tied to nearby bases or to fuel, and it can operate disproportionately more freely than a diesel-electric one, even with an air-independent power plant.

In combat, a nuclear submarine also has a lot of advantages, up to the possibility of sometimes getting away from the enemy’s torpedo by running. For a hypothetical Australian-French non-nuclear submarine, this would be impossible. The hydroacoustic complex on the ‘Virginias’ is generally difficult to compare with something, and this is the range of target detection and the range of shooting at it.

Now China, in addition to measures to counter the submarine fleet of the United States and Great Britain, will also have to take into account Australia, which wants to get a nuclear submarine more powerful than anything that China has at present.

What does the battlefield look like in numbers? If we start from how many of the ‘Virginias’ are already built and under construction to go into service by 2036, when the Australians want to get their eight submarines, then we can assume that there will be about 20 units. And they will not be able to throw everything at China; some of the submarines will be needed in case of emergency operations against Russia.

Thus, an additional eight Australian submarines will increase the number of units opposing China by at least a third, compared only with American submarines. This is even more than the British will be able to give for the war with China. China will have to increase both the submarine and other fleet forces by a comparable number.

In general, for China, these eight additional enemy submarines are a fresh handful of bones in the throat. That’s about what the Americans planned to do with the British. That’s what eight nuclear submarines are.

This is what caused the reaction of the Chinese to the news. The Chinese Foreign Ministry said that the transfer of nuclear submarine construction technologies to Australia harms the nuclear non-proliferation regime and ‘exacerbates the arms race’, as well as the fact that the United States and Great Britain ‘extremely irresponsibly’ apply double standards. These admonitions, of course, will not have any effect.

And what does this mean for Russia? If Australia wants to have eight multi-purpose submarines by 2036, then by that year we will ideally have four Yasen-class vessels in the Pacific Ocean – the ‘Novosibirsk’, ‘Krasnoyarsk’, ‘Vladivostok’ and, presumably, the ‘Perm’.

Is for the future boat of the project 545 with the code-name ‘Laika’, the form in which the ‘Laika’ was presented to the president in December 2019 indicates the deliberate obsolescence of the project. And most importantly – it is extremely doubtful that these boats will be in service by the mid-thirties. This is another example of how many there will turn out to be — eight nuclear submarines in one theatre of military operations.

However, the western ‘partners’ may have difficulties in implementing these wonderful plans.

Is everything so simple?

There is one aspect in all of this that can complicate everything. The production of as many as eight nuclear submarines, stuffed with high-tech systems to the brim, is not an easy matter. If we assume that the Australians will build some kind of ready-made project, for example the ‘Virginia’, then in any event they will up to 14 years for the construction of eight nuclear submarines if they start next year. This is an ultra-fast pace for eight units; the Americans themselves take five years to build one ‘Virginia’ from the popint of laying the keel to delivery to the Navy.

Is it possible for the Australians to meet the deadlines? Yes, but only in an “expansive’ way – laying more submarines a year than the Americans. And this requires, firstly, shipyards in sufficient quantity to build submarines;  secondly, workers and engineers;  and thirdly, the supply of components from the United States, which can become the bottleneck of the project because of the existing crisis in American shipbuilding. Does Australia have all this in the right amount? The allies will not be able to help them there;  they do not have enough themselves.

And if the Australians build some kind of British project – either the ‘Astute’  or, as is now rumoured in Britain, the future project of a British multi-purpose submarine, which should replace the ‘Astutes’, then nothing will work out. Britain is barely coping with the construction of its submarines by itself, including the part played by related companies. In the case of the ‘Astutes’, some of the related parties are from France engaged by by the Anglo-Saxons. On the other hand, the British can in this way compensate for the losses of the French from the broken Australian contract for non-nuclear submarines. Still, the problem of timing will also arise in  this case.

The Australians seem to understand this. On Sunday, September 19, the Australian Defense Minister Peter Dutton said that Australia will not wait until its nuclear submarines are built, but will buy or lease British or American ones.

This is quite possible. However, not with British submarines, but more likely with American ones, although such a scheme would not lead to the desired increase in anti–Chinese forces; there would still be as many submarines against China, just some of the flags would change. But, firstly, by the time the construction of their series is completed (even if not all and with a delay), the Australians will already have experience working with nuclear submarines, and secondly, the United States now has problems with repairing its submarines (they do not pull, as they say), and renting some of their ships to Australia for the Americans will in fact mean their salvation as combat units, even under a foreign flag.

In general, it is possible to make Australia a country with a nuclear submarine fleet quickly. Moreover, the authors of this initiative have an extremely serious reason for all this. Such gigantic investments and sharp political turns are not carried out just like that. The hegemony of the Anglo-Saxons in the world is seriously shaken, both because of their own internal weakness, and because of the growth of China, and the sabotage of their system of power by Russia. It is quite obvious they will not give up their power over humanity and the benefits resulting from this in a favourable fashion.

It is worth recognizing that the world is on the verge of war. Australia’s agreement with the United States and Britain says exactly this. An ordinary world war with tens of millions of dead, as one option, or with hundreds of millions; after all, no one has canceled nuclear weapons. Such a war is almost inevitable.

Moreover, knowing what deadlines the ‘partners’ set for themselves, you can roughly understand the time for which they are preparing the ‘hot phase’. And looking at how other countries are preparing for the next world war, it’s time for us to take a critical, honest and non-biased look at how we are preparing for it.”

Big, huge changes, in the near future (a tentative list)

by Andrei for the Saker blog

Truly, tectonic changes are happening before our eyes, and today I just want to list some of them but without going to deep into specific analyses, that I plan to do later in the coming weeks.  But just looking at this list is impressive enough, at least for me.  So, here we go:

The Anglos are circling the wagons:

The planned sale of US/UK SSNs to Australia is nothing short of a HUGE game changer.  It is also just the tip of a big iceberg:

• The US seems to have de-facto given up on Europe, not only because the UK left or because the EU is crashing and unmanageable anyway, but because the political grip the US had on the continent is now clearly slipping: NATO is a paper tiger, the “new Europeans” have outlived their utility and Russia has basically successfully diffused the threat from the West by her titanic effort to develop capabilities which make an attack on Russia suicidal for any country, including the USA, whether nukes are involved or not.
• By screwing over France, the US has jettisoned a pretty useless ally which had a short hysterical fit, but is already going back to its usual groveling and begging (BTW – those who think that de Gaulle was the last French patriot capable of telling Uncle Shmuel to “take a hike” are wrong, Mitterrand was the last one, but that is a topic for another day).
• Of course, in political/PR terms, the US will continue to declare itself committed to NATO and the EU, but the “body language” (actions) of the US directly contradicts this notion.
• For all its immense progress since the 80s and 90s, China still has two major technological weak points: aircraft engines and SSNs.  It just so happens that these are also two real US strong points.  By deploying 8 more SSNs near China, the US is very intelligently maximizing the use of its best assets and hurting China were it will hurt the most.  This does come with some very real risks, however, which I will discuss below.

The BRICS is close to becoming useless:

Brazil is currently run by the US and Israel.  South Africa is in a deep crisis.  As for India, it is doing what it has been doing for decades: trying to play all sides while trying to weaken China.  So it sure looks like the BRICS are becoming the “BRICS” which really leaves us with “only” the “RC” alliance which actually has a real name: the Chinese call it the “Strategic comprehensive partnership of coordination for the new era”.

Again, I don’t think that anybody will formally dissolve what was a rather informal alliance to begin with, but de-facto the BRICS seems to be loosing much of its former glamour and illusions.  As for Russia and China, they are not going to “save” the former BRICS members out of some sense of sympathy especially not against their own will: let them save themselves, or at least try.  Then, maybe.

Also, let’s be honest here, BRICS was an economic concept which was mostly an alliance of weak(er) countries against the big economic and military powers of the North and West.

As for the Russian-Chinese alliance (let’s call it that, even though formally that is not what this is), it is, by itself, already more powerful than BRICS and even more powerful that the united West (US+NATO+EU+etc.).

The SCO is changing (thanks to Uncle Shmuel), fast

If Biden was a secret “Putin agent” (“KGB agent” is the preferred term in the US, at least by those who do not seem to realize that the KGB was disbanded thirty years ago) he could not have done “better” than what he did in Afghanistan.  Now, thanks to this galactic faceplant, the small(er) guys in the SCO (Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, Tajikistan, Uzbekistan) are now getting seriously concerned about what will happen next.  Even better, the (very powerful) Iran will officially become a SCO member this month!  Again, neither Russia not China “need” the SCO for their defense, but it sure makes things easier for them.  Speaking of Afghanistan, Pakistan is already a SCO member, as is India.

It is important to note that the SCO will not become an “Asian NATO” or an “anti-NATO” or anything similar.  Again, why would Russia, China and other want to follow a failed model?  They have repeated ad nauseam that their alliances are of unions of (truly!) sovereign states and that this union will not impede on this sovereignty in any ways (besides, neither Russia not China need to limit the others SCO members sovereignty to begin with).

The EU is slowly committing economic and political suicide

Initially, France had a major hissy fit, but is probably not doing the only thing France should do after what happened: leave NATO and slam the door on it, very loudly.  De Gaulle or Mitterrand would have done so immediately, but Macron?  Being the ultimate spineless fake that he is, it would be miraculous if he did anything meaningful (other than brutally repressing all the riots in France).

At this time of writing the result of the elections in Germany are too close to call, but even if NS2 is allowed to function, the level of russophobic hysteria in Europe is so extreme that the following will almost certainly happen: the EU will continue with its rhetoric until the prices go even further up, at which point they will turn to the only country which the EU desperately need to survive: the much hated and feared Russia.  Don’t quote me on that, but last week I remember the following prices for 1000 cubic meters of gas in Europe (just under 1000 dollars), the Ukraine (1600 dollars) and Belarus (120 dollars).  I might have memorized this wrong (I was traveling), and this might have changed, but the bottom line is this: only Russia can’t give the EU the energy it needs, and she has exactly ZERO reasons to make those russophobic prostitutes any favors (other than symbolic).  And even if my memory played a trick on me, what is certain that the prices for energy are soaring, the EU reserves are very low, and the temperatures falling.  Welcome to the real world 🙂

I won’t even go into the “multiculturalism” “inclusivity” “positivity” and other Woke nonsense which most of the EU countries have accepted as dogmas (even Switzerland caved in).

The US is like an aircraft breaking apart in mid-air

As most of you know, I have decided to stay away from internal US politics (for many different reasons).  So I will just use a metaphor: the US is like an aircraft which, due to pilot incompetence and infighting, is breaking apart in mid-air with its passengers still arguing about who should be the next pilot as that could make any difference.  Some passengers will continue to argue until the hit the ground.  Others are engage in “mid-air fistfights” apparently believing that if they succeed in beating the crap out of the other guy, they will somehow prevent gravity from doing what it does.

The reality is much simpler: a system that is not viable AND which cannot reform itself (too busy with self-worshiping and blaming others for everything) can only do one thing: collapse and, probably, even break-apart.  Only after that can the US, or whatever the successor state(s) will be called, rebuilt itself into something totally different from the US which died chocking on its own arrogance this year (like all the other empires in history, by the way, the latest one being the Soviet one).

The Russian elections

The results are in and they are yet another galactic faceplant for the AngloZionist Empire.  The main Kremlin Party took a hit, the Communists did very well, Zhirinovski’s LDPR lost a lot and a new (moderately pro-Kremlin) party made it in for the first time.  Considering the many billions of dollars the West has spent on trying to create a Belarus-like crisis in Russia (Navalnyi, Petrov, Boshirov & Co.), this is yet another truly gigantic failure for the West.

If anything, the rise of the KPRF shows that a lot of people are fed up with two things: 1) what they see as a tepid, if not outright weak, Russian foreign policy towards the West and 2) with the liberal (economically speaking) policies of Putin and his entourage.

Absolutely NOBODY in Russia wants “better relations” or any kind of “dialog” with the rabidly russophobic West.  And to the extend that Russia and the USA simply *have* to talk to each other (being nuclear superpowers) they, of course, will.

But the EU as such is of zero interest to Russia.  And if Russia needs to get something done (like what anyway?), she will talk to the US, not its EU underlings.  For all its problems, the US still matters.  But the clowns of the EU?

[Sidebar: the word “Communist” usually elicits a knee-jerk reaction from brainwashed US Americans.  But for the rest of them, let me just say that while I don’t think the KPRF is what Russia needs and while I have nothing good to say about Ziuganov or most of the KPRF leadership, I will say that KPRF does not mean Gulags, hammers and sickles smashing Ukie babies, Russian tanks in downtown Warsaw or any such nonsense.  There are several “Communist” parties in Russia, and none of them are even remotely similar to the kind of party the bad old CPSU was.  So while US politicians feel very witty to speak of the CCP-virus and that kind of nonsense (Ted Cruz is officially my “favorite idiot” in Congress now), this is so far detached from any reality that I won’t even bother explaining it here.]

The COVID pandemic

Wow, just wow.  Where do I even begin???  Biden’s speech on this topic was hateful declaration of war on all those who don’t fully accept the “official” White House line.  The fact that many (most?) of those who do not accept the official party line DO accept an even dumber version of events does not make it right to force them into choosing between their beliefs and, say, their job, or their right to move around.

Again, after listening to Biden I kept wondering if he was a “Putin agent” as his actions are only accelerating the breakup of the “US aircraft” I mentioned above.  You can say many things about COVID-dissidents, but you can’t deny them two things: 1) a sincere belief in their ideas and 2) an equally sincere belief that their core freedoms, values and rights are trampled upon by pathological liars and crooks (aka politicians + BigPharma).

They will resist and, yes, violently if needed.  Because for them it is a both a matter of personal human dignity and even survival!

At least, and so far, the US still has a powerful Constitution which will make it very hard for the current nutcases in the White House to do what they apparently want to do (force 80M US Americans to obey “or else”).

Furthermore, Federal courts cannot be simply ignored.

Also, US states still have a lot of power.

Finally, most US Americans still hold dear the ideals of freedom, liberty, small government, privacy, etc. But EU countries have no such protections from governmental abuse: true, in the US these are all rights are weakened by the day if not the hour, but at least they have not been *officially* abrogated (yet?).

If you want to see how bad things can get without such rights, just look at the pandemic freak show in Canada, Australia or New Zealand!

Finally, and irrespective of its actual origin (I am still on the fence on that), the COVID pandemic wiped all the make-up and has showed the entire world the true face of the West and its rulers: weak, ignorant, arrogant, hypocritical cowards whose only true concern is to cover their butts and “grab whatever can be grabbed” before the inevitable and final explosion (nuclear, economic or social).

Now back the the Aussie SSNs

The sale/lease of these SSNs is not only a danger for China, but also one for Russia.

Simply put, Russia cannot and will not allow the Anglos to strangle China like they did with Japan before WWII.

The good news is this: the latest Russian SSNs/SSGNs are at least as good as the latest Seawolf/Virginia class, if not better.  Ditto for ASW capabilities.

What Russia does lack is the needed numbers (and Anglo submarine fleets are much lager, even “just” the USN alone) and funds, both of which China has (or can have).

From the Kremlin’s point of view, the Anglos are trying to create an “Asian NATO”, something which neither China nor Russia will allow.

The Chinese already informed the Aussies that they are now a legitimate target for nuclear strikes (apparently, Australia wants to become the “Poland of the Pacific”), while the Russians only made general comments of disapproval.

But take this to the bank: the Russian General Staff and the Chinese (who both probably saw this coming for a while) will jointly deploy the resources needed to counter this latest “brilliant idea” of the Anglos.

In purely military terms, there are many different options to deal with this threat, which ones China and Russia will chose will become apparent fairly soon because it is far better to do something prevent that delivery from actually happening than to deal with eight more advanced attack submarines.

By the way, the Russians are also semi-deploying/semi-testing an advanced SSK, the Lada-class, which has both very advanced capabilities and, apparently, still many problems.  SSKs are not capable of threatening SSNs in open (blue) waters, but in shallower (green/brown) waters such as straits or littorals, they can represent a very real threat, if only by “freeing up” the SNNs to go and hunt into the deep (blue) waters.  Also, the main threat for subs comes from the air, and here, again, China and Russia have some very attractive options.

Conclusion: interesting times for sure…

Like the Chinese curse says, we are living in very interesting times.

The quick collapse of the Empire and the US is, of course, inherently very dangerous for our planet.

But it is also a golden opportunity for Zone B nations to finally kick the Anglos out and regain their sovereignty.

True, the US still has a lot of momentum, just like a falling airliner would, but the fact  remains that 1) they ran from Afghanistan and 2) they are circling their Anglo wagons shows that somebody somewhere does “get it” and even understood that in spite of the huge political humiliation both of these development represent for narcissistic politicians and their followers, this was a price which absolutely HAD to be paid to (try) to survive.

In my article (infamous) analysis ” Will Afghanistan turn out to be US imperialism’s “Last Gleaming”?” (it triggered even more hysterics and insults than usual, at least on the Unz review comments section) I wrote this: “the British Empire had the means of its foreign policies. The US does not.”

This is now changing.

Yes, what the Anglos (aka 5 eyes) are doing is a retreat.  But it is a *smart* one.  They are cutting off all the “useless imperial weights” and going for the “smaller but stronger” option.

We might not like it, I certainly don’t, but I have to admit that this is pretty smart and even probably the only option left for the AngloZionist Empire.

At the very least, it is now clear that the Anglos have no allies, and never had them.

What they had where colonial coolies who imagined themselves as part of some “community of civilized, democratic and peace-loving, nations”.  These coolies are now left in limbo.

So, who will be the next one to show Uncle Shmuel to the door?  My guess is the Republic of Korea.  And, frankly, since the DPRK is not a country the Empire can take on, and since China will only increase its (already major) influence on both the DPRK and the ROK, the US might as well pack and leave (maybe for Australia or occupied Japan?).

Okay, end of this overview of developments.

Latest Developments in China (US Products)

Not reported in the English media is that all Chinese factories that are making products for the United States are now “power off” for much of the week. Supposedly this is part of the “Climate control agreement” that Biden and Xi Peng agreed upon.

What it functionally means is that factories (in China) that make American products must stop working for a set period of time per week depending on the percentage of American products that they export.  The rule sort of goes like this…

• • • <16% = One day no work.
    • 30% = Two days no work.
    • 45% = Three days no work.
    • 60% = Four days no work.
    • 75% = Five days no work.
    • 100% = No work allowed.

Keep in mind that in China every factory works a six day week.

Since exports to the United States make up around 10% of the total exports out of China, there will be some discomfort with this ruling.

Oh, and by the way…

Over the weekend, a major (retired) Senior CCP member wrote a strong worded letter to XIPeng that the situation with the United States is so serious that normal military use policies must be reconsidered. In specific, he advised that the “no use of military until attacked” be scrapped in favor of a “first strike – preventative posture” against openly belligerent and hostile forces.

This has been making it’s way though the Chinese social media and the overwhelming opinion that this is something that needs to be done immediately.

The Battle at Lake Changjin

China takes a page out of the West’s playbook in war movie production. The Battle at Lake Changjin about the Korean War (1950-53) deals with Chinese troops exploits during what’s known in China as the War to Resist US Aggression and Aid Korea.

It’s this observer’s mind-set that echoes that of the West:

"In view of the long-lasting China-US strategic rivalry, China needs more films themed on the War to Resist US Aggression and Aid Korea, which is helpful to enhance China's cohesion and confidence, said Song Luzheng, an international relations researcher at the China Institute of Fudan University in Shanghai."

Oh, the film is a huge success, smashing all Chinese box office records.

Yes, the waking of the Dragon will be seen as a huge mistake by the West that ushered in its downfall.

Looks to be an OUTSTANDING MOVIE. It’s a true story. We see personal sacrifice. Bravery. Compassion and fierce loyality to the Chinese nation.

Check out this one minute video summary clip… VIDEO

CHINA RECONSIDERS…

From The Sun…

The global appeal for peace comes as a top Chinese diplomat warned his country to re-examine their promise to only use nukes in retaliation, in response to the new alliances forming in the region.

Beijing’s former ambassador to the UN, Sha Zukang said China must make the first nuclear strike against the US if Joe Biden continues to defend Taiwan.

He said:

"The unconditional no first use is not suitable . . . unless China-US negotiations agree that neither side would use [nuclear weapons] first, or the US will no longer take any passive measures to undermine the effectiveness of China’s strategic forces. 

The strategic pressure on China is intensifying as (the US) has built new military alliances and as it increases its military presence in our neighbourhood."

The threat came ahead of a meeting between the US, India, Japan and Australia – dubbed the Quad, in Washington, host by Joe Biden.

During a meeting of the China Arms Control and Disarmament Association in Beijing last week he said:

"The policy not to be the first to use nuclear weapons unconditionally has given China the moral high ground internationally. But for some time in the future, the US will see China as its main competitor and even its enemy. Can this policy be re- examined and fine-tuned?"

Final Comment

Do you all have a headache? I sure do. All of this bullshit is because a group of assholes in Washington DC have this deleterious fantasy of enslaving the world, and they are so fucking cock-sure that they can do it.

Enough of this craziness.

Time to relax.

Here’s a nice gif. It’s getting close to that time of the year.

When the weather started to get damp and cold, I would bring my kitties in and they would sit in front of the nice wood store and stare at it for hours.

Do you want more?

You can find more articles related to this in my latest index; A New Beginning. And in it are elements of the old, some elements regarding the transition, and some elements that look towards the future.

.

Articles & Links

.

• You can start reading the articles by going HERE.
• You can visit the Index Page HERE to explore by article subject.
• You can also ask the author some questions. You can go HERE to find out how to go about this.
• You can find out more about the author HERE.
• If you have concerns or complaints, you can go HERE.
• If you want to make a donation, you can go HERE.

I dedicate this article to "Nick" who asked what will the Middle East look like when China replaces the United States as the dominant nation.

I want to take a moment and acknowledge that there is a lot of historical events going on right now.  (Sigh.) They have been covered through the various “news” outlets over and over all with various “spins” and opinions. I am sure that you are all getting tired of this. Especially for youse Americans who are (probably) just exhausted by it all.

Yes, the pre-planned Clusterfuck in Kabul, or Bay of Pigs 2.0, or whatever shook the world as victims of 20 years of lies and death reasserted a modicum of control over their situation. The outrage and howling from the CIA-controlled media and the Establishment over Biden's correct decision is hilarious.

Posted by: gottlieb | Aug 22 2021 14:11 utc | 1

It’s been a very crazy week.

Personally, I’ve been a tad busy, but then you have the US failure in Afghanistan. But… is it really a failure, or just a regrouping?

The long-term optimism of China is great but the US does not care about that.  The US has not been number one at anything for a long time;  not education, literacy, healthcare, internet speed, and all the things called "human development".  At the turn of the century the U.S. ranked about 18 on the UN Human Development Index adjusted for equality.  Today it is 28.  

Yet if you ask the average American what country is the best in the world, he will say the US.  The people do not even realize how far they have fallen compared to the rest of the world.  That shows how good the US propaganda system is.  The US is #1 at propaganda.  #1 in military spending too, although the technology of the weapons is declining.  #1 in obesity.  #1 in junk culture.  Yes, bread and circus to keep the masses happy works.

The U.S. does not care about the development of the people.  It does not care about cooperation.  

The U.S. does not care about winning wars.  Wars are the end in itself.  It is how the wealth of the people is transferred upwards.  That is why during the "War OF Terror" the U.S. has been steadily declining "when adjusted for equality" from 18 to 28. 

The U.S. has not "lost" in Afghanistan, because it had nothing to lose.  Nor has the U.S. pulled out of Afghanistan.  

It has just been a pivot.  

CIA special activities, special forces and mercenaries are "stay behinds".  They will now regroup the mujahideen and create a civil war that will last for another 20 years.  They will also intensify direction of the mujahideen to former Russian republics, Chechnya, Xinjiang, Myanmar, Thailand, and anywhere else they can get a foothold for regime change and to attack the BRI.

The US takes China and Russia's kindness as weakness.  It will take what kindness is offered and then stab the giver in the back.  The US will use whatever sabotage it can against the BRI.  

America is not interested in cooperation.  

The battlefield of propaganda has been well prepared for the American people.  They believe the US has many aggressive enemies, and all (illegal) US wars (of aggression) are defensive.  The vast majority believe anything from the CIA's Mighty Wurlitzer.

Regards,

[name withheld]

This (mid-August 2021) was a week where the U.S. retreat from Afghanistan overshadowed everything else. That is okay as huge consequences will flow from these events. The future history books (or what ever they will use) will record these events as one of the most significant dates and contributing events that will eventually lead up to the start of the “New Beginning” of the new global order.

And it will, as this comment foreshadows…

When will other occupied suzerainties ask Imperialist forces to leave? 

The Taliban has been fighting the Imperial forces since their occupation started. However, people in Germany, Japan, South Korea,… that have been occupied by the Imperialists over many decades do nothing. Aren’t they democracy? What does it tell about these SUZERAINTIES? What percentage of their transactions are in Imperialist’s currencies? Are you okay with imperialism? Imperialists go back!

Name a democracy that isn’t a suzerainty.

Will Afghanistan’s fiasco create any wave of change?

Posted by: Max | Aug 22 2021 14:23 utc | 3

Hey! What the heck is a “suzerainty”? That’s a new word for me.

"a position of control by a sovereign or state over another state that is internally autonomous." 

So, a nation can be under the control of another nation, while still having it’s own domestic laws, rules and culture. So Japan, would be under the control of the United States as a vassal state, but is still allowed to keep Japanese culture, society, laws and rules domestically. However, internationally, it must obey and do what ever the United States says.

The USA tells Japan to join the QUAD. They join the QUAD. The USA tells them to buy USA debt. They buy USA debt. But if the girls want to wear kimonos, watch strange television, and have a giant penis festival, that’s just fine.

So Japan is a suzerainty of the United States.

Hey! You learn something every day.

So it has got me to thinking. You know. I start to ponder things, and wonder about things. So, I wonder what the difference between a suzerainty and a “vassal state” is?

Vassal state

State
A vassal state is any state that has a mutual obligation to a superior state or empire, in a status similar to that of a vassal in the feudal system in medieval Europe. 

Vassal states were common among the Empires of the Near East, dating back to the era of the Egyptian, Hittite and Mitanni conflict, as well as Ancient China. 

The use of vassal states continued through the middle ages, with the last Empire to use such states being the Ottoman Empire. 

The relationships between vassal rulers and empires was dependent on the policies and agreements of each empire. 

While payment of tribute and military service is common amongst vassal states, the degree of independence and benefits given to vassal states varied. Today, more common terms are puppet state, protectorate, client state, associated state or satellite state.

-Wikipedia

So, to me it appears that as a Vassal State, the controlling Empire can also dictate domestic behaviors, society and laws as it deems necessary. While a suzerainty is permitted domestic autonomy.

We can thus think that a “suzerainty” is a subset of a “vassal state”.

Interesting stuff.

It puts the entire perspective of what the world really looks like and operates into a much greater perspective. And most certainly what the United States actually is in the greater scheme of things.

To the world at large, the United States is a big massive, bad bully. That if not “tamed” by the rest of the world, it will end up consuming it and destroying it. As stated in this video. Funny how this section was never shown on American media…

Some haggling seems to continue today but the outcome is assured.

Trump has something to say…

Yada, yada, yada.

Now for the “meat”…

Big warning; long read.

And as my articles tend to be long, expect this one to be encyclopedic. To fully understand what is transpiring in this far-away mountainous area you need to know some history. And Jeeze! There’s a lot of history.

By the time you are 25% done reading, you should be moe informed than a full 90% of the people around you. At 50%, that number jumps to 95%, and at the end of this article, you will be more informed than 99.99999% of those around you.

Such a responsibility!

Do you want this level of understanding?

We will avoid all the great pilliages of the Genghis Khan and the Persions and all the rest, and we will start when the UK British Empire decided to annex the region as a Vassal State.

Then we will explore how the Soviet Union Empire decided to annex the region as a Vassal State.

And finally, we will explore how the United States Military Empire decided to annes the region as a Vassal State.

Long read. As I said.

So first, some history…

The usual disclaimers apply. Content edited for this venue all credit to the original authors, etc.

Britain’s first war in Afghanistan: what happened and why?

HistoryEXTRA

Britain’s first war in Afghanistan took place in the Victorian era, beginning in 1839. Historian William Dalrymple explores the conflict in conversation with Rob Attar, in a piece first published in 2013, and discusses what parallels can be drawn with the fighting in recent years

British forces managed to recapture Kabul later that year and elsewhere laid waste to the countryside but eventually decided to pull out of the country altogether. Dost Mohammad returned to Kabul in 1843 and his dynasty would remain in power until the 1970s.

William Dalrymple, author of Return of a King: The Battle for Afghanistan, discusses the First Anglo-Afghan War in conversation with Rob Attar

How does your book change our understanding of the First Anglo-Afghan War?

It is one of those old chestnuts that’s already got a shelf-and-a-half of books written about it. So it seemed the only point of dedicating four years to this was to try to completely rewrite the story, obviously with a view to seeing it in the light of what is going on now, but more specifically trying to cover both sides of the story, which has never been done before. To date, not one book on the war has used a single Afghan source. Everything we have is entirely from the British side.

I did several trips to Afghanistan to search out more sources and by the end I had nine full-length Afghan accounts of the war. What emerged from them was that the war had a completely different dramatis personae and a more fractured regional make-up than the British seemed to be aware of. They saw an undifferentiated wall of bigoted bearded Afghans coming towards them but in reality the resistance was divided by tribe, ethnic group and language.

My most exciting find was the autobiography of Shah Shuja. He had been written off by the British and Afghan nationalists as a weak and hopeless guy, but I think he was wonderful. He was a poet, civilised and immensely likeable. He just didn’t have military luck ever in his career.

Astonishingly he was from the same sub-tribe, the Popalzai, as current Afghan president Hamid Karzai. We’ve put the same guy in twice! And he was brought down by the Ghilzai who today make up the foot soldiers of the Taliban. This is the same tribal war, continuing under slightly different flags, 170 years later.

Has your research changed your view of the First Anglo-Afghan War’s origins?

The account I give is subtly, but not completely, changed from previous versions. The basic reason for the British invasion was a blown-up fear of Russian intervention and here there are parallels, oddly enough, with the war in Iraq, with a ‘dodgy dossier’. A group of hawks manipulated intelligence to exaggerate a threat that didn’t exist in reality as substantially as they thought it did.

There was this episode when a young great gamer, Sir Henry Rawlinson, was riding through Persia to join the Shah of Persia’s camp in the north-west of the country. One night Rawlinson found himself in the very dodgy borderlands between Persia and Afghanistan and, just as dawn was breaking, he witnessed a party of horsemen coming down the valley towards him. He saw that they were Russian Cossacks heading in the direction of the Afghan border. He headed them off at the top of the pass and found them eating their breakfast.

There was a young Russian officer who refused to talk to him in Russian, Persian or French but agreed to chat in Jagatai Turkish. He told Rawlinson he was on his way to the Persian camp so Rawlinson rode straight there to see the Shah. The Shah said that the Russians were nothing to do with him but were going to open diplomatic relations with Dost Mohammad in Kabul.

This was the yellowcake of its day [in 2002, it was claimed that Saddam Hussein had been trying to obtain yellowcake uranium to develop weapons of mass destruction]. For 30 years hawks had been worrying about Russia moving towards Afghanistan and there was this whole literature already in London about Russia taking Afghanistan then sweeping down the Khyber and expelling the British from India. There was no evidence for this at all until this chance discovery.

There was this new governor general, Lord Auckland, who had inherited a group of belligerently hawkish and Russophobic advisors, led by the hopeless William Macnaghten. They ignored the advice of the one British official in India who really knew Afghanistan, Alexander Burnes. He was sending despatches saying that Dost Mohammad wanted to ally with the British rather than the Russians, but they didn’t listen and advised Auckland to oust Dost Mohammad and bring in what they described as the ‘ousted legitimate ruler’ Shah Shuja.

How did the British fare in the early military operations?

The war followed the same trajectory as the current conflict. Everyone warned that it would be catastrophically difficult, but in fact they conquered the country almost instantly with minimal casualties. Then you had, as happened in 2001, the government crowing that they’d seen off the naysayers and it was going to be easy.

For the first year it did seem to be so.

The Afghans were very friendly and their noblemen went hunting, did amateur theatricals and played cricket with the British. But slowly it began to unravel, from Helmand, working northwards. There was more and more resistance until the British found themselves surrounded in Kabul without any control of the countryside around it. Again, it was exactly the same as the situation today.

Where did this resistance come from?

Here my interpretation is different from that of the British. They assumed that the Afghans were rising up against Shah Shuja as much as themselves but it’s quite clear that a lot of the resistance was from irritated royalists who wanted Shah Shuja to shed his allegiance to the British. They thought the British were abusing agreements he’d made with them, which was indeed the case.

The initial idea had been that Shah Shuja would be given rule and the British would just help him enforce it, but, rather like with the tensions between Karzai and the British and Americans, increasingly the British got irritated with their own puppet and tried to bully him or take unilateral action. Macnaghten and Burnes gradually despaired of ever running Shah Shuja effectively and just took control of Afghanistan themselves.

What we get very clearly from Afghan sources is the motivations of individual leaders, which were all quite different. Abdullah Khan Achakzai was a young aristocrat whose girlfriend was seduced by Burnes, so for him it was a personal slight. He made a wonderful speech the night before the rebellion saying: “We have to put a stop right here and now, otherwise these English will ride the donkey of their desires into the field of stupidity, to the point of having us all arrested and deported into foreign imprisonment.”

Aminullah Khan Logari was a self-made man who had worked his way up for over 60 years of service. He was treated very peremptorily by a young British official who threw him off his lands. It was people such as Logari and Achakzai who kicked the whole thing off. They called everyone to arms and, within a few days, 50,000 had gathered in Kabul to fight the British.

Did the British just retreat then?

There were two quite substantial battles that they lost through their incompetence and then they retreated. It was during the retreat under the promise of safekeeping that they got shot down. The East India Company at the time still used the Brown Bess musket, which was great in a flat European field like Waterloo but couldn’t fire long distances or uphill. The Afghans had these clumsy big jezails that took an hour to load but nonetheless could fire a mile downhill and were perfect for mountain warfare.

How did the British allow this catastrophe to happen?

It was quite fantastically incompetent British leadership. As well as Burnes and Macnaghten, who were always at each other’s necks, there was this gout-ridden old general called William Elphinstone who hadn’t seen action since the battle of Waterloo and was an invalid. On the first morning of the revolt he tried to get on his horse, which fell on top of him and he was more or less out of the action from there. By their own indecision and hopelessness the British lost the war very quickly. They lost all their food and ammunition within about 48 hours and it was only a matter of time before they had to retreat.

Was it a political or military decision to pull out of the country altogether?

Retreat was inevitable once they’d lost their food and ammunition, so that was a military decision. The Kabul garrison was wiped out but there were others surviving in Jalalabad and Kandahar. They were reinforced and the following spring they returned and laid waste to southern Afghanistan.

This army of retribution committed war crimes on a grand scale, raping and murdering women and children.

After that, the decision to pull out was an economic one and this is also true of the later conflicts. Resistance can be defeated but only at huge cost, because the country is so diffused and the geography makes it so difficult. Plus there is no way of defraying the cost of the occupation. If you invade Iraq you can take the oil, or in the Punjab you can tax the rich, fertile land, but the entire tax revenue of Afghanistan never paid then and doesn’t pay now even a fraction of the cost of occupation.

How might your book inform policy makers today?

I do think there’s a huge amount to be learned from the Afghan version of events. It gives a precision into understanding the resistance, which has been lacking to date.

The story of the First Anglo-Afghan War provides clear warnings about the dangers of being trapped in Kabul, surrounded and with no allies, having fallen out with the people you put into power.

The problem is that each generation fails to learn these lessons.

George Lawrence was one of the troops taken hostage during the retreat and so survived to write his memoirs. He saw history repeating itself in the 1870s with the Second Anglo-Afghan War and he roused himself to write a letter to The Times. He said:

“A new generation has arisen, which instead of profiting from the solemn lessons of the past, is willing and eager to embroil us in the affairs of that turbulent and unhappy country… The disaster of the retreat from Kabul should stand forever as a warning to the statesmen of the future not to repeat the policies that bore such butter fruit in 1839–42.”

He wasn’t listened to in 1870, and this is now the fourth lost Afghan war.

William Dalrymple is an award-winning writer and historian based in India. His books include The Anarchy: The Relentless Rise of the East India Company (Bloomsbury, 2019), Koh-i-Noor: The History of the World’s Most Infamous Diamond, co-authored with Anita Anand (Bloomsbury, 2017) and Return of a King: The Battle for Afghanistan (Bloomsbury, 2014) 

This article was first published in the February 2013 issue of BBC History Magazine

So what the heck is going on?

Lessons of the Soviet Withdrawal from Afghanistan

Middle East Policy Council

After Soviet forces withdrew from Afghanistan in 1988-89, the regime it was defending there fell. This experience contributes to present fears that, if America withdraws from Afghanistan, the regime it is defending will also fall. A closer look at Soviet and Russian actions between 1988 and 1992, though, suggests that this need not have been the result then — and that it need not be the result of an American withdrawal now either.

The Soviet Union invaded Afghanistan in December 1979 to prop up the Marxist regime that had come to power the previous year but which appeared to be on the verge of collapse.

Unlike the Soviet invasions of Hungary in 1956 and Czechoslovakia in 1968, however, Soviet forces encountered prolonged resistance that they were unable to defeat.

In order to promote his goals of domestic reform and improving Moscow’s relations with the West, Gorbachev withdrew Soviet forces from Afghanistan (which he had termed a “bleeding wound”) between May 1988 and February 1989.

At the time, it was widely predicted that the Marxist regime Moscow had been supporting in Afghanistan would fall within a few months — or even weeks — of the final departure of Soviet forces.

The regime of President Najibullah, however, survived until April 1992, over three years after the Soviet withdrawal.

Several factors contributed to the regime’s longevity, including the continuation of Soviet military and economic assistance, the mistakes made by some of the mujahideen (the Afghan forces that had fought against the Soviet occupation) as well as their Pakistani supporters, divisions among the various mujahideen groups, and the Najibullah regime’s successful exploitation of these problems.

After the downfall of Gorbachev and of the Soviet Union itself in December 1991, though, Moscow’s assistance to Najibullah ended.

Without this assistance, Najibullah was unable to continue effectively exploiting the weaknesses of his adversaries. Instead, they were able to exploit his, and so his regime fell. This paper will examine how Moscow’s actions helped Najibullah survive but then contributed to his downfall, as well as how Moscow’s actions affected the other factors influencing the fortunes of the Afghan Marxist regime.

1989-91: Soviet Support for Kabul Continues

Although the Soviet troop presence in Afghanistan ended in February 1989, large-scale Soviet military and economic assistance to its Marxist protégés there continued.

As Soviet troops withdrew, they left behind literally all their matériel except for the vehicles needed to transport them back over the border. In addition, as Soviet forces withdrew from Eastern Europe following the downfall of communist regimes there in late 1989, some of this weaponry was transferred to Afghanistan.

From early 1989 to late 1991, Soviet assistance to Kabul reportedly amounted to $300 million per month. Perhaps this is not a large figure by today’s standards, but it was a much greater amount than the mujahideen were receiving after the Soviet withdrawal, and was a considerable financial burden on the economically beleaguered USSR.

Weaponry that Moscow supplied to Kabul included MiG- 27 fighter jets (the Afghan Marxist regime had an air force with some 200 aircraft plus helicopters). In addition, as Zalmay Khalilzad (whom President George W. Bush appointed as special presidential envoy for Afghanistan and then U.S. ambassador to Kabul) noted in 1991,

Moscow has provided more than thirteen hundred Scud-B missiles, hundreds of shorter range Frogs, several hundred tanks, and sixteen hundred five-ton trucks. To keep Kabul supplied, the Soviets launched the biggest air supply effort in its history, sending some twenty-five or more IL-76 transport planes to Kabul each day for much of 1989 (Khalilzad 1991, 82-83).

Indeed, all this was reportedly more than the Marxist regime could effectively use. To help them, though, Moscow left behind about 300 advisers, some of whom reportedly participated in the firing of the Scud missiles at mujahideen targets. (In addition to a regular army of 55,000 men, the Kabul regime also had the support of a 10,000-strong presidential guard and various militias, including an especially effective one raised and led by the ethnic Uzbek leader, General Abdul Rashid Dostum.)

When the Soviets withdrew, much of the anti-foreign-presence motivation for many Afghans to fight with the mujahideen disappeared.

Indeed, some mujahideen groups themselves appeared tainted for being so very close to Pakistan. Soviet assistance also allowed Kabul to effectively compete with Pakistan and the various mujahideen groups based there in paying off local commanders and tribal leaders inside Afghanistan.

While Pakistan tied its support to various mujahideen groups not only to whether or not they fought against Kabul but whether they did so in the manner specified by the ISI, Kabul gave support to various groups just in exchange for not fighting against it. As Khalilzad noted at the time, “Najib’s offer is more attractive than ISI’s; while ISI wants it clients to fight and risk their lives, Najib is willing to pay if the commanders agree not to fight” (Khalilzad 1991, 81).

Further, the groups Pakistan supported were not always effective. In March 1989, some 15,000 Pakistani-backed mujahideen forces attacked the town of Jalalabad. Their unwillingness to accept prisoners, though, meant that the defending government forces had strong motivation to fight on. Although the mujahideen laid siege to the town, the Kabul government was able to resupply and reinforce its garrison by air, launch a counterattack, and break the siege by mid-May 1989. This was a major humiliation for Pakistan and its allies.

In addition to military assistance, though, Moscow provided Kabul with key economic assistance. As mujahideen forces approached Kabul and interrupted the supply of food and other consumer goods into the city, the Soviets airlifted these commodities to the Afghan capital.

At Moscow’s urging, the Kabul regime attempted to broaden the basis of its support by downplaying its Marxist nature, appointing non-Marxists to visible positions and trying to appeal to nationalism.

According to contemporary accounts, though, these efforts were not particularly successful, as the Marxist regime — especially President Najibullah — was extremely unpopular with the Afghan population. Indeed, while outwardly broadening the base of the regime, it appears that Najibullah actually narrowed it by increasing reliance on his hard-core supporters.

But while Najibullah and his regime lacked popular support, the mujahideen themselves frequently provided Afghans with strong incentive either to support the Marxist regime or to see it as the lesser of two evils. The mujahideen’s efforts to impose an economic blockade on Kabul as well as their periodically shelling it did nothing to endear them to the citizens of the capital.

Even worse, when the mujahideen captured the town of Khost in March 1991, they not only looted it but killed all the government forces they had captured instead of holding them prisoner. This action not only created fear in other towns; it also made clear to irresolute government forces that defecting to the mujahideen was probably not an option for them.

Mujahideen groups also fought among themselves, and this was something that the Marxist government was able to exploit. As was noted in the International Institute for Strategic Studies’ Strategic Survey 1989-1990,

…by early 1990, although the mujahideen continued to control the bulk of the countryside, most of them had in effect ceased being mujahideen, in the sense that they were no longer fighting against the central government, but were instead attempting to work out compromises with Kabul which would ensure their local power, particularly against their former fellow comrades in arms. 

Most local commanders had reverted to the traditional relationship between local powers and a weak central state that has shaped Afghan history since the eighteenth century. 

The central state is seen less as an enemy than as a referee which can help to promote the interests of the local group. 

This development was expected to play a decisive role after the collapse of the Najibullah regime, not before. 

That it has come into play so soon is a result of the unexpected adroitness of the regime, aided by the ineffectiveness of US-Pakistan policies (IISS 1990, 160).

At the time, Khalilzad seemed to suggest that the Afghan Marxist regime might even come out on top in the ongoing conflict, when he noted that the Kabul regime “…is likely to increase its efforts to reach out to make deals with commanders and the supporters of the former king at the expense of the majority of the Peshawar-based leadership. Should it succeed, it can reduce the fighting in the country” (Khalilzad 1991, 84).

1992: Russian Support Ends

But, of course, the Afghan Marxist regime did fall in April 1992. Once again, Russian actions appear to have played a key role in bringing this about.

Shortly after the failed August 1991 coup attempt in Moscow and under very different political circumstances, Moscow and Washington agreed to stop aiding their respective Afghan allies as of January 1, 1992.

Not only did Moscow end its arms supply to Kabul, but it also stopped providing it with food and fuel. By contrast, although Pakistan had agreed to stop aiding the mujahideen, Saudi aid to them via Pakistan continued.

Shortly after this in February 1992, Najibullah (a Pushtun) apparently tried to bolster his authority over the Uzbek militia chieftain Dostum by appointing a fellow Pushtun as a commander in the northwestern Uzbek heartland.

But if this was his intention, it backfired in April 1992, when Dostum defected from the government and joined forces with long-time anti-Soviet Tajik mujahideen commander Ahmad Shah Massoud (whose relationship with both Pakistan and the Pushtun mujahideen groups it supported was adversarial). Non-Pushtun forces from the north and Pushtun forces from the south then rushed to capture Kabul, with the Marxist regime splitting along ethnic lines and either joining forces or making deals with their ethnic kin.

Najibullah resigned and sought sanctuary inside the UN compound in Kabul after his attempt to reach the airport was blocked (by his erstwhile ally Dostum, according to some).

The Islamic State of Afghanistan was declared, but the mujahideen remained divided.

After a short, sharp battle for control of Kabul, the Dostum-Massoud alliance prevailed over their Pushtun opponents, for the time being. Russia appeared to play no role in these events.

Conclusions from the Russian Experience

Six observations can be made about the events described here:

First, even after the withdrawal of Soviet forces was completed in February 1989, Soviet military and economic assistance enabled an unpopular regime to remain in power in Afghanistan — at least, in the major population centers — for over three years.

Second, despite continuing to receive significant aid from Pakistan and other nations, the mujahideen were unable to overthrow the Afghan Marxist regime so long as that regime was receiving significant aid from the Soviet Union.

Third, opposition to the Afghan Marxist regime appeared to decline after Soviet troops withdrew. Further, while they had not performed effectively during the period of Soviet occupation, the effectiveness of Afghan government forces increased significantly after the Soviet withdrawal.

Fourth, after Soviet assistance to Kabul ended at the beginning of 1992, the Afghan Marxist regime’s strength declined rapidly.

Fifth, the collapse of the regime in April 1992, though, was not due just (or perhaps even mainly) to the actions of the Pakistani-backed Pushtun mujahideen. Indeed, the immediate downfall of the regime was precipitated by the defection of the previously pro-regime Uzbek militia leader, Dostum, to the side of the non-Pushtun opposition to the regime.

Sixth, as the collapse of the regime approached, the most salient division in Afghanistan was not Marxist vs. Islamist, but Pushtun vs. non-Pushtun.

History, of course, is not destined to repeat itself. These six observations from the 1989-92 period, however, may have salience for the present as well as the short- and medium-term future. They suggest the following:

First, even after the withdrawal of ISAF forces is completed by the end of 2014, American and allied military and economic assistance to the current less-than-popular Karzai government may enable it to remain in power in the major population centers.

Second, the Taliban are not destined to return to power, despite the likelihood that they will continue to receive Pakistani assistance so long as the Kabul government continues to receive significant aid from America and its coalition partners.

Third, opposition to the Karzai government may actually decline after the American and coalition withdrawal. Once they are responsible for their own survival, the effectiveness of Afghan government forces may quickly increase.

Fourth, if American and allied support for it ends, the Kabul government’s strength is highly likely to decline rapidly.

Fifth, under these circumstances, ethnic divisions within the Kabul government leadership are likely to become exacerbated. It is highly likely that the non-Pushtun officer corps would seek to oust the Pushtun president, Hamid Karzai, and his entourage.

Sixth, even if (indeed, especially if) the Taliban manage to seize control of Kabul once again, the most salient division within Afghanistan is once again likely to be Pushtun vs. non-Pushtun.

Well that was pretty dry and scholarly…

And yeah. That’s what it was.

Real events are colorful, painful, full of joy and sadness. They are visceral.  Here’s a far better explanation…

Afghanistan: The Soviet Union’s War in Vietnam

By William Stroock

In late 1979, the Democratic Republic of Afghanistan was torn apart by a civil war pitting the weak Communist government of Hafizullah Amin against several moderate and fundamentalist Muslim rebel armies.

The war had been brought about by Amin’s incompetence and corruption, his vicious program of political repression, the massacre of entire village populations, and a ham-handed agrarian “reform” program that disenfranchised tribal leaders.

He followed the very exactly same mistakes as the Americans and the South Vietnamese did back in the 1960's.

Fearing that Amin would be defeated and replaced by a government of Muslim fundamentalists or—even worse—pro-American intellectuals, the Soviet Union launched an invasion on Christmas Eve aimed at removing Amin and replacing him with a more reliable strongman.

To pave the way for the invasion, Soviet advisers with the Afghan Army tricked their clients into incapacitating themselves.

In one case, the Soviets told an Afghan armored unit that new tanks were about to be delivered but that, due to shortages, the gas in the old tanks would have to be siphoned out. The Afghans obligingly siphoned gas out of their tanks, rendering them useless.

In another instance, Soviet advisers told an Afghan unit to turn over all their ammunition for inspection, something that likewise was done without question.

Sneaky. Very sneaky.

A Former Prime Minister Declares Himself President

By the time the first Soviet transport planes landed at Kabul airport carrying elements of the 103rd Guards Airborne Division, the Afghan Army was largely incapable of fighting back.

On December 27, the Soviet 5th Motorized Rifle Division rolled across the borders toward Herat, Shindahd, and Kandahar, while the 108th Motorized Rifle Division drove on Kabul.

The 201st Motorized Rifle Division advanced toward Kunduz.

That same day, Soviet troops captured the Kabul radio station and attacked the presidential palace, killing Amin.

December 27, 2019

By Frud Bezhan

KABUL — Afghanistan’s communist President Hafizullah Amin was lying unconscious in his bed.

A KGB agent who had infiltrated Amin’s staff as a cook had poisoned the president and his ministers during lunch at the Tajbeg presidential palace in Kabul.

It was December 27, 1979.

Two Soviet doctors, unaware of the KGB plot, worked desperately to revive Amin at the palace. His ministers were rushed to a military hospital.

“The doctors put tubes through his nose and mouth to pump his stomach,” Faqir Mohammad Faqir, the interior minister, who had rushed to the palace, tells RFE/RL. “When his stomach was cleaned out, the doctors took him to the bathroom. For 30 minutes they poured cold water over him.”

After four long hours, Amin gradually regained consciousness. Still groggy, he muttered to Faqir, one of his most trusted men, to go to the nearby Defense Ministry building.

A few hours later, the Afghan president was lying in bed in his underpants when scores of KGB special forces stormed the presidential palace, killing Amin and his family members amid fierce clashes. Soviet forces also seized key government buildings and military installations in Kabul in a coordinated attack.

Moscow considered Amin, who had studied in the United States, an unpredictable ally. Some in the Kremlin suspected he had attempted to forge links with Washington. Meanwhile, his penchant for using brutal methods to crush his rivals fueled growing opposition to communist rule in Afghanistan.

Moscow installed Babrak Karmal, a rival communist leader, as president the next day. Thousands of Soviet troops and hundreds of planes and tanks crossed into Afghanistan in the following days.

The invasion was the start of a devastating, decade-long Soviet occupation that would set Afghanistan on a path for decades of conflict.

“The Soviet invasion was the worst day for Afghans,” says the 86-year-old Faqir as he trudges through the empty halls of the Tajbeg Palace, which is now being reconstructed. “It was the darkest day,” he adds. “The most miserable day for Afghans. The misery that started that day continues until today.”

‘So Much Firing’

When Faqir arrived at the Defense Ministry, army chief Yaqub Khan was at a meeting with several Soviet military advisers in his office.

After greeting the guests, Faqir turned to sit down on a couch, when there was a burst of gunfire. He dashed to an adjacent room to take cover.

“After a few moments, Yaqub Khan entered the room and fell on the bed,” Faqir says. “He had been shot twice and seriously wounded.”

Minutes later, Khan died.

Drenched in Khan’s blood, Faqir grabbed his handgun and aimed it at the door.

“There was so much firing that you couldn’t hear anything,” Faqir says, retelling the story as he slowly trudges through the National Museum, which back then housed the Defense Ministry. “The [Soviets] were throwing hand grenades, firing rockets, and using Kalashnikovs.”

‘They Look Like Russians’

Khan’s secretary, Dawlat Waziri, was sitting at his desk at the Defense Ministry building when the shooting erupted.

“I got up, grabbed my Kalashnikov, and I opened the window,” says Waziri, who was then 26 years old. “I saw that there was gunfire coming from down there, so I fired a few rounds.”

Waziri says the attackers were wearing “yellow uniforms and woolen hats.” “I thought to myself, ‘They look like Russians,'” he says.

He then stormed into Khan’s office where, he says, he saw a Soviet translator shoot his boss.

Waziri rushed out the door and into the hallway. He spotted a Soviet soldier and dashed to take cover. “Before I could fire, he fired at me,” he says. “A bullet struck my wrist. I dropped my Kalashnikov. Then another bullet struck me in the stomach and one in my right leg.”

Waziri stumbled into a nearby room. A grenade landed nearby, smashing the door and setting it on fire.

He was cornered.

“I thought for a second, ‘Why did the Russians fire at me?'” Waziri recalls. “Just then, they were about to throw a second grenade. So, I opened the window and jumped out.”

Waziri broke his legs and shattered his hip in the jump from the second floor.

He passed out.

‘Shots Were Fired’

Before the attack, hundreds of Soviet paratroopers — members of the Soviet Army’s Muslim Battalion — and KGB special forces had surrounded the palace, taking cover in the heavy snow.

The KGB forces stormed the palace while the Soviet troops provided a ring of security around the building.

“Our job was to neutralize any reinforcements that came to Amin’s aid,” Vytas Luksys, a former Soviet paratrooper from Lithuania, tells RFE/RL.

“It was dark,” recalls Luksys in the capital, Vilnius. “There wasn’t much time to think about what was happening where. We had to focus on carrying out our orders. We heard that shots were fired, but we couldn’t pay much attention to it.”

The KGB special forces, most of them in sportswear or plainclothes, went floor to floor battling the Presidential Guard and members of Amin’s family.

No reinforcements came to Amin’s help, much to Luksys’s relief. “I don’t know how I would have fared,” he says. “We had very little experience with night-vision devices, guns, and machine guns.”

Within hours, the battle was over. Over 200 Afghans were killed and over 1,000 surrendered. Declassified KGB files said over 100 Soviet personnel were also killed in the fierce clashes.

Amin is believed to have died of gunshot wounds.

All his male relatives at the Tajbeg Palace were either killed in the clashes or executed. His wife, daughter, and grandchildren were sent to prison.

‘It Was Better To Die’

Faqir had been holed up inside one of Khan’s personal rooms for seven hours when he heard a colleague’s voice. “He said, ‘If anyone is in the room he should put down his weapon and come out,'” he says. “He was my friend, so I decided to come out.”

When Faqir came out he was handcuffed by Soviet troops. “That was when I realized that the Soviets had attacked us,” he says. “I shouldn’t have left the room. I didn’t want to surrender. It would have been better to die.”

Soviet forces whisked Faqir away to their military headquarters. He was sentenced to death and transferred to Pul-e Charkhi, the notorious prison outside Kabul where Amin was alleged to have sent thousands to their deaths.

Waziri, meanwhile, woke up in an operating room in the hospital the day after the invasion.

“I was piled up along with the dead bodies,” Waziri says. “When they realized I was still alive, they took me to the operating room in the hospital.” He would be in the hospital for 13 months recovering from his wounds.

Afterward, Waziri served as an officer in the Soviet-backed Afghan army.

Luksys visited the Tajbeg Palace the next morning to find scenes of destruction. “It was a big beautiful palace that had been turned into a mess,” he says. “There were beautiful carpets. Furniture, tables, intricate stucco, very pretty chandeliers.”

“There was blood, but no dead bodies by that time,” Luksys recalls.

After the storming of the palace, Soviet forces wrapped the bodies of Amin and his family members in carpets and buried them in unmarked graves.

Their bodies have never been found.

‘Biggest Betrayal’

The element of surprise was key to the Soviet Union’s lightning seizure of Kabul.

The Soviet decision to topple Amin was a shock, including to the Kabul regime, which had forged close ties with Moscow since communists seized power after a bloody coup in 1978.

“The Soviets committed the biggest betrayal,” Faqir says. “We had a brotherly relationship. We had no idea that the Russians would attack us.”

Faqir was released from prison in 1989 after the Soviet withdrawal from Afghanistan, having served 10 years and three months.

Luksys served two years in the Soviet Army before leaving in 1981.

Military Quagmire

The events of December 27, 1979 would have a lasting effect, unleashing a four-decade war that has yet to end.

The Soviet Army soon got bogged down in a costly military quagmire against the mujahedin, the U.S.-backed Islamist rebels.

The Soviet Union pulled its troops out of Afghanistan in 1989 after an estimated 2 million Afghans and at least 15,000 Soviet soldiers had been killed. Millions of other Afghans were displaced, living mainly as refugees in Pakistan and Iran.

The mujahedin toppled the communist regime from power in 1992. But within months, a devastating civil war erupted among the warring mujahedin factions, paving the way for the rise of the Taliban.

By then, the Soviet Union no longer existed.

In a radio address broadcast from the Soviet Union, former prime minister Babrak Karmal, who had been handpicked by Soviet authorities, declared himself president.

The DRA army had an impressive strength on paper, numbering 13 infantry divisions and 22 independent brigades.

There were also 40 separate regiments.

This force was composed of at least 70 percent conscripts, including thousands of men who had been rounded up by government press-gangs and forced to serve in the army.

What few volunteers there were usually became junior and noncommissioned officers. Despite the press gangs and financial incentives to volunteer, DRA army units were badly under strength, sometimes by as much as 40 percent.

The army was decimated by desertions and riddled with mujahideen spies. Supplementing the army was the KHAD, or secret police, numbering 100,000 men.

Hope for Stabilizing the Region Was Failing

Soviet planners had hoped that the invasion and coup would stabilize the situation enough for the DRA army to take control.

In fact, their strong-armed tactics devastated morale in the Afghan Army and led to further desertions and defections.

Even worse, enraged mujahideen took to the field and engaged Soviet forces in open battle outside Kandahar, in Jalalabad, and along the Salang highway.

After the Soviets’ massive firepower overwhelmed them, the mujahideen retreated into the mountains along the Afghan border and switched to guerrilla-style tactics.

The Soviets followed.

The Red Army deliberately waged war on Afghan civilians and drove them over the border into Pakistan. By doing so, they hoped to deny the mujahideen local support and a native population to hide among.

In 1980, the Soviets mounted a large-scale offensive into the Kunar Valley that resulted in the expulsion of nearly all of the valley’s 150,000 residents.

A similar offensive was undertaken to the south in the Sultani Valley. Supporting these Soviet attacks were clearing operations south of Kabul and around Kandahar that destroyed dozens of villages. Similar operations were launched throughout the country in 1981, but with little long-term success.

Guerrilla Attacks and Civilian Casualties

In the face of the Soviet onslaught, mujahideen forces retreated into the mountains or melted into a population made friendly by repeated Soviet and Afghan Army atrocities.

When the mujahideen did come out and fight, they subjected Soviet forces to a constant stream of guerrilla attacks.

DRA troops were no match for the mujahideen. In daring assaults in April and September of 1981, the mujahideen temporarily seized Kandahar from DRA forces and left only after the Soviet Air Force bombed them.

Compounding anti-Soviet sentiment brought about by the Red Army’s complete disregard for Afghan civilian casualties was the brutality of the common Soviet soldiers, who regularly took out their frustration on the Afghan populace.

An Afghan farmer passing through a Soviet roadblock could count upon his valuables being stolen and his wife being raped. Mounted Soviet troops seemed to take great joy in shooting at Afghans along the road. Soviet advisers, officers, and NCOs treated their Afghan proxies with contempt.

The frustration of the Soviet fighting man was easy to understand.

Soviet soldiers were conscripts who often received only three weeks of basic training before being sent to savage Afghanistan.

Once there, a new recruit was bullied by veteran soldiers and brutal NCOs. Soldiers were badly paid, ill fed and clothed, and lived in tents.

Many soldiers found relief from their situation in the form of the opium or locally produced alcohol. Hungry conscripts sometimes traded their weapons to the Afghans for food. Fevers and infections caused by unsanitary camp conditions decimated thousands of Soviet recruits.

Hills Swarming With Mujahideen

Despite the Soviets’ various campaigns of annihilation, the hills outside the major Afghan cities were swarming with mujahideen.

Soviet army units were confined to their bases and traveled only on the main roads.

Traveling at night in anything other than a large convoy was suicidal.

The Soviets, like their American counterparts in Vietnam, were heavily reliant on helicopters for movement through the hostile countryside. Also mirroring the American approach in Southeast Asia, the Soviets used only a bare fraction of their military might, refusing to delegate more men and material than were absolutely necessary.

They even went so far as to call the 40th Army in Afghanistan a “limited contingent of forces.”

By 1981, the mujahideen numbered as many as 150,000 fighters organized into seven main Sunni Islam parties.

Three Islamic fundamentalist organizations had roots reaching back to the 1960s, and a fourth group formed in 1982 to serve as an umbrella organization and raise money for the cause throughout the Islamic world. There were also three “moderate” parties.

These were formed after the 1978 coup, and although not as radical as the other four groups, they were still Muslim organizations. There were also three smaller Shiite groups with ties to Iran.

Excellent Fighters, but Poor Soldiers

The average mujahideen fighter was an illiterate farmer or herder. Although they were excellent fighters, mujahideen tended to be poor soldiers.

They disliked field craft, were reluctant to crawl even when under fire, and were often unwilling to conduct sabotage missions, as these were not seen as glorious and honorable.

They were terrified of Soviet land mines, which often maimed rather than killed—the former being considered a fate worse than death.

Mujahideen saw firearms as a status symbol, and most were excellent shots. They took great pride in their centuries of tribal warfare and raiding, and consequently they believed that they had little to learn from Pakistani and Western advisers about how to fight a modern superpower.

In 1982, the closest thing the mujahideen had to a central command was the Afghan Bureau of the Pakistani Inter-Services Intelligence agency, or ISI.

Led by General Mohammed Yousaf, the Afghan Bureau operated numerous training camps in the border area, provided advisers from the Pakistani Army, and funneled supplies to the mujahideen.

These were provided by the American Central Intelligence Agency, which bought weapons from sellers all over the world, including China, Egypt, and, ironically, Israel, which sold equipment it had captured during the various Arab-Israeli wars.

The Afghan Bureau also tried to coordinate mujahideen attacks. This inevitably led to conflicts.

Afghan leaders were interested in disrupting Soviet supply lines and sabotaging infrastructure, while mujahideen commanders wanted to engage Soviet troops in open combat.

Still, some highly valuable and successful attacks were carried out. In one bold raid, mujahideen fighters loyal to Ahmad Shah Massoud fought their way onto Bagram Air Base, attacked Soviet barracks packed with sleeping troops, and hit the airstrip, destroying 23 aircraft.

They then retreated to their bases in the nearby Panjshir Valley.

Ahmad Shah Massoud

In the aftermath of the airport raid, the Soviets launched a massive counteroffensive against the Panjshir Valley designed to destroy mujahideen forces and install permanent DRA army garrisons there.

The Panjshir Valley juts out from the Hindu Kush, pointing like a dagger at Kabul and Bagram Air Base.

The Salang highway, the road over which 90 percent of the Soviets’ supplies were carried, went right past the valley entrance.

Running through the valley is the Panjshir River. The banks were dotted with villages, farms, and vineyards. Dozens of canyons were home to small, isolated villages. At the beginning of the war, some 100,000 people of Tadjik origin resided there.

The valley was also home to the mujahideen’s most feared commander, Ahmad Shah Massoud.

Born in 1953 in Herat, Massoud was part of Afghanistan’s minuscule educated class, having attended the French-run Lycee Istaqlal and the Russian Polytechnique Institute (both located in Kabul) where he studied engineering.

Massoud was an accomplished athlete, voracious reader, and spoke French, Pashto, and Dari.

During his time in Kabul, he became politically active, joining the Jamiat-e Islami party.

When Mohammad Daoud seized power in 1974, Massoud fled to Pakistan, where he underwent military training and studied the art of war, particularly the campaigns of Mao Zedong, Che Guevara, and North Vietnamese General Vo Nguyen Giap.

He returned to Afghanistan in 1978 and began operations in the Panjshir Valley, quickly gaining a cadre of tough, loyal followers who waged a guerrilla war against DRA forces.By 1980, Massoud controlled the entire valley.

The Ambitious “Panjshir V”

Massoud’s rebel army was a pan-Afghan force numbering more than 3,000 Tadjiks, Pashtuns, Turkmen, and Uzbek fighters.

He divided the valley into 25 field commands, each defended by a small unit called a sabbet.

These were supplemented by a number of moutariks, or mobile companies. Each moutarik numbered about 75 men and was subdivided into platoons of three.

Moutarik fighters received extra rations and a welfare benefit for their families back home. Each unit had in its arsenal three machine guns, three RPG-7 grenade launchers, one mortar, and a ZPU-2 antiaircraft gun.

Panjshir V, as the Soviet operation was called, was ambitious.

At the valley entrance, the Soviets deployed the 103rd Guards Airborne Division, the 66th Separate Motorized Rifle Brigade, one regiment from the 108th Division, one regiment from 201st Division, the 345th Parachute regiment, and elements of the 866th and 181st Separate Motorized Rifle Regiments.

There were also significant DRA forces, four infantry regiments, and parts of the 37th Commando Brigade.

Under the Soviet plan, heliborne troops from the 103rd Guards Airborne Division would seize villages and hilltops throughout the valley and pin down mujahideen fighters.

At the same time, Soviet/Afghan motorized forces would advance along both banks of the Panjshir River. In this way, the Soviets hoped to bring Massoud’s army to battle and destroy it in detail.

To mislead Massoud as to the actual target, a diversionary attack would be launched against the Ghorband district to the north.

And here is yet another group of lessons...

And so… now we have the American debacle…

And this here it kind of sums things up from the point of view of American “allies” and other neocons throughout the American military empire. They are not happy…

…and emotion is clouding their judgement.

Yeah. It’s a mess.

What is HELL is America and the UK doing there in the first place?

Well, here’s some clear and true points well stated…

And let’s not forget what he said in his younger days as the President of Singapore. This next video has to be one of the very best video clips that I have ever seen in my life. Check it out…

And now, since you all know a little bit of history, and a little bit about the UK and RUssian experience, you should be well equipped to read this great article…

Nasrallah: Afghanistan is worst debacle in US history, Biden hopes for civil war

1051 Views August 22, 2021 5 Comments

Resistance News Unfiltered

Speech by Hezbollah Secretary General, Sayed Hassan Nasrallah, on August 17, 2021, on the occasion of the commemoration of the 9th night of Ashura, two days before the martyrdom of Imam Hussein.

Transcript:

[…] My last point is Afghanistan, which I quickly mentioned before. What is happening in Afghanistan right now is an emergency situation that is grabbing the attention of the whole world. Inside the United States, this is the main event all are talking about, and of course everyone blames each other, just like in Lebanon, people are all the same: the Republican Party blames the Democrat Party, blames Biden, and describes the scene as a humiliation for the United States, (a proof of) weakness, helplessness, failure, historic defeat, shame, disgrace, etc. If we want to faithfully describe (the political situation in the United States), we can say that they are tearing each other apart. The same goes for the position of European countries, of the leaders of certain European countries [United Kingdom, France, Germany…], who speak with very strong and very negative words to assess the situation in Afghanistan.

Suppressed crocodile tears: that’s all British Defense Secretary Ben Wallace has to offer all his Afghan allies that the Royal Army won’t evacuate.#Afghanistan https://t.co/HbIh7DR9ay
— Le Cri des Peuples (@cridespeuples2) August 21, 2021

It is indeed a striking and vitally important spectacle, filled with lessons to be learned, and we all must…

It is not something that one or two speeches is enough to describe, for the situation continues to develop, and deserves everyone to watch it carefully and think about it seriously, very seriously.

This should not simply be of interest to (pseudo-)experts (in) strategic (issues), who are very numerous today, ma sha Allah, experts, analysts, no: all men and women (must feel) that what is currently happening in Afghanistan (is their concern), and all that has been said so far remains little in the face of the importance and consequences of what is happening in Afghanistan, at the historical, strategic, ideological, cultural, political, psychological and moral levels.

And those who must be the most assiduous in the reading (and the interpretation) of this (considerable) event to draw the strategic and historical consequences from it are the peoples of this region. Yes, the people of the Middle East must be the first to care about what is happening. Because what is happening in Afghanistan is a very big and even masterful lesson.

The images that you see and have all seen on TV screens speak for themselves… and all the media around the world (follow and broadcast what is happening), because however strong the censorship system of the United States may be, (it is powerless to prevent the mass distribution of these images).

On the subject of social networks and the Internet, which the United States has opened up and spread around the world to instrumentalize them in color revolutions here and there, they find themselves caught in their own trap, because even inside of the United States, the government of Biden can certainly influence such newspapers or such television channels (to dissuade them from broadcasting these humiliating images), but how could it prevent millions and tens of millions of users of social networks who disseminate and share these images?

And glory to God, these are exactly the same images as in Vietnam!

As in Saigon, the (American nationals) climbed stairs to access a helicopter on a roof (and escape), we see exactly the same thing happening at Kabul airport! It’s extraordinary ! A real photocopy! Can we believe that this is just a coincidence?

PHOTO 1: US diplomat evacuate US from embassy via helicopter as the #Taliban enter #Kabul from all sides. #Afghanistan (2021)

PHOTO 2: US diplomat evacuate US from embassy via helicopter as the PAVN & Viet Cong capture of Saigon, Vietnam (1975) pic.twitter.com/YamWmzjOay

— Stefan Simanowitz (@StefSimanowitz) August 15, 2021

Either way, the images of Afghanistan and the fall of Afghanistan into the hands of the very movement that the United States fought for 20 years and expelled (from power), before handing the country over to them on a silver platter…

The Taliban flag flies over Kabul airport.

I have already mentioned Afghanistan in my previous speech [cf. below], and today Biden took the floor to try to defend himself…

I said before that instead of rushing to achieve the withdrawal of his troops, as long as the American forces were present , and since the Afghan forces (formed by the USA) have 300,000 to 400,000 members —between soldiers and police forces— he should have cut a deal between the Afghan government and the Taliban, in favor of the formation of a transitional government, which would have avoided everything that happened, allowing the United States to withdraw with dignity.

Why didn’t he do this?

Because he couldn’t bear to stay any longer (in Afghanistan). Honestly! It was not out of respect that Biden did not do this.

And don’t take my word for it, listen to what Biden himself said! Listen to Biden, listen to his Secretary of State and his National Security Advisor… Because now they are forced to explain themselves to the American people…

They do not explain themselves to the peoples of the world, but to the American people who is amazed at these humiliating images of defeat and failure.

Listen to his explanations, and you will understand the American point of view.

I’m not going to make you a (full) TV report, but I hope everyone will listen carefully to what Biden said yesterday, today, and what American (authorities) will say in the days to come.

Give seriously some time to their statements, as this will give a good understanding of the historical and strategic consequences of the (humiliating) defeat and (monumental) failure of the United States and NATO in Afghanistan. It is a matter of concern to us as peoples of the region, and gives us lessons that we can use for our present and our future.

I’m going to stop on two points (of Biden’s speech).

In his speech today, he said

“We have spent over a trillion dollars, that is over a thousand billion dollars! They spent a trillion dollars in Afghanistan! And they left crestfallen, empty-handed, with Honaïn’s shoes as the saying goes, humiliated, defeated, ashamed, in disgrace. And this according to the admission of their own media, and Western media. What does this prove?

That they have failed (miserably), that they have been routed, that they are helpless, ignorant and stupid.

Biden himself said that the US did not foresee that the Afghan government and forces would collapse so quickly, and was surprised that they neither fought nor resisted. The Secretary of State and the National Security Advisor said the same thing. What does this indicate?

People imagine the United States to be a demigod, omniscient, analyzing and mastering everything at their fingertips, knowledgeable about everything, able to plan everything through its state-of-the-art study and planning centers with top notch skill and technology, with huge & infaillible plans, etc.

But the reality is far from all that!

In our region, the United States is ignorant, unable to understand anything!

For decades, they have been repeating the same mistakes, deploying the same experiments and the same calculations doomed to failure!

This is one of the lessons to be learned!

Biden says it is not the fault of the United States, but the fault of the Afghan forces who did not fight. But my dear, these Afghan forces, you left them without air force, because the air force is in your hands, (and you did not allow them to develop it), while claiming that you spent a trillion dollars .

This is the first point.

Second, these Afghan forces were led by your generals, who prepared doomed (war) plans for them! What (war) plans did you concoct, what (military) advice did you provide to these Afghan forces?

Third, what did Biden want (ultimately)? What does his confession reveal? Because he did not know how to hold his tongue, too entangled in his defense (awkward, and he unmasked himself).

He wanted a civil war!

He wanted the Afghan forces to wage war on the Taliban, a war between hundreds of thousands (of fighters) against hundreds of thousands (of fighters), and he would just have to sit down and enjoy the spectacle. bloody in Afghanistan.

Civil war, bloodbath… BHL’s wildest dream for #Afghanistan
“It’s good for Israel” https://t.co/cKg7aC3YyR
— Le Cri des Peuples (@cridespeuples2) August 21, 2021

Whereas if he had humanity, and cared (for the well-being) of people as he claims, he would have presided over an agreement and a settlement of the conflict before withdrawing from Afghanistan.

(This contempt for the lives of Afghans) is an ethical and moral downfall of the American administration!

This moral degradation is emphasized even by leading politicians and commentators in the United States and elsewhere.

This is why Biden says today that he wanted a political solution (between the Afghan government and the Taliban), but that Ashraf Ghani, the Afghan President, did not want it. You see? Biden pins the blame on him, and claims to be faultless!

These words reminded me of those verses of the Qur’an which speak of the devil:

“[And Satan will say when the matter is decided: “It was God Who gave you a promise of truth: I too promised but I failed in my promise to you. I had no authority over you except to call you but ye listened to me.] Then reproach not me but reproach your own souls. » [Quran, 14, 22]

(The damned) are invited not to impute to the devil (their bad actions which will lead them to Hell), but to only blame themselves!

What were the American administrations doing with all the those tax dollars in Afghanistan? pic.twitter.com/winabg5GEn
— Syrian Girl  (@Partisangirl) August 16, 2021

It was you (pro-US Afghans) who put yourselves at the service of the Americans, who listened to them and obeyed them, who placed your hopes in them and bet on them, but they got to the point where they told you (quite simply) fare well,  « Bye-bye » [Nasrallah says it in English].

And what kind of « Bye-bye » are we talking about?

What is happening at Kabul airport is incredible, it is heartbreaking and sad. Because in the end (these Afghans who want to flee) are human beings. We have all seen this (American military) plane advance with dozens of people around it, without worrying about them, without the pilot stopping, while he could have run over them!

AFGHANISTAN CONFLICT

Kabul airport on the morning Of August 16, 2021#HORRIFIC
 SHOCKING video shows Afghans HANGING ONTO AMERICAN AIRCRAFT'S UNDERCARRIAGE as it takes off!#Afghanistan #Kabul #AfghanistanCrisis #Taliban #USA pic.twitter.com/WR1v1niXK4
— The RAGEX (@theragex) August 16, 2021

SHOCKING video shows Afghans HANGING ONTO AMERICAN AIRCRAFT’S UNDERCARRIAGE as it takes off!#Afghanistan #Kabul #AfghanistanCrisis #Taliban #USA pic.twitter.com/WR1v1niXK4

And he saw that people had clung to the plane, but took off anyway! Whether they fall and crash (horribly to the ground) or not, that’s not his problem!

Desperate Afghans trying to flee the Taliban hanging on to US military plane to get out of Kabul and fall to their deaths. Low flying US Apache helicopters chasing Afghan civilians off the runway with their rotor blades. But Julian Assange is the criminal? pic.twitter.com/RPT1o48MqL
— Kim Dotcom (@KimDotcom) August 16, 2021

This is the United States! What I’m telling you is all over the media, I’m not inventing anything! They embarked police dogs, but did not embark the Afghans who collaborated with them!

U.S. military dogs being evacuated from Afghanistan on Sunday. pic.twitter.com/fxfIA49zEq
— Phillip Walter Wellman (@pwwellman) August 16, 2021

They embarked equipment which costs only money, but did not embark human beings, who are human beings, men, with human rights! Such is the United States, (this is their true face)!

Everything that is happening in Afghanistan, even if in Lebanon we are absorbed by our daily problems, I hope that we will pay attention to it and will consider it as the pivotal moment that it is, because for 50 or 60 years, there was nothing like it.

And this will have a great impact on international policies, international relations, international alliances. And today, those who observe and comment on these events most attentively are the Israelis!

If the US stopped supporting Israel tomorrow, Tel Aviv would fall faster that Kabul.

— Syrian Girl  (@Partisangirl) August 16, 2021

Because when Biden said, and this is a message to all of America’s allies in the region (including Israel), when Biden was defending himself, he said something very, very, very, very, very, very, very… (repeat it until you lose your breath) important, and I hope America’s “friends” in Lebanon and the region will read this very carefully.

Biden said

“American troops cannot and should not be fighting in a war and dying in a war in the place of anyone else.“

If anyone expects the Americans to come and fight for them, this is what Biden says!

Listen up Taiwan.

Listen up Australia.

Listen up South Korea.

Listen up Europe.

And in order not to fight for anyone else, he is ready to endure a historic and humiliating defeat in Afghanistan! When we talk about Lebanon or whatever, in comparison, it is only an (insignificant) detail (in the eyes of the Americans).

At least 40 people have died since Monday in a stampede and shooting in Kabul International Airport, TOLOnews TV channel reported – citing a Taliban commander who is inside the airport.
According to him, the people died after “foreign troops opened fire” as well as a stampede

— ASB News / MILITARY (@ASBMilitary) August 17, 2021

In conclusion, in what is happening in Afghanistan, are very big and very important lessons, and we must take advantage of them and act accordingly, at the cultural, ideological & emotional levels, at the level of our choices, of our hopes, of our our reading (of events), of our alliances, of our infrastructure, at the economic, political, military, security levels, etc.

This was my conclusion during my last speech, when I said that we must only rely on God and on ourselves!

We must not wait for the United States, nor their training, nor their advice, nor their support, nor their false promises, nor their plots! We do not want their good nor their evil.

Of course no good can come from them. The good resides in our people, in our (Arab-Muslim) Community, in our region, in the Arab-Muslim peoples. It is on them that we must rely. Because we have all these possibilities and capacities.

This is so sweet.
The Iranian interpreter got emotional when Sayyed Nasrullah said Iran never abandones its allies, biggest evidence being the dismembered hand of martyr Qassem Soleimani in Iraq where he was assassinated beside his ally and friend Abu Mahdi Al Muhandis https://t.co/m1nRrXbkkA
— Marwa Osman || د. مروة عثمان (@Marwa__Osman) August 20, 2021

I am done on this subject.

I will meet you tomorrow, for the 10th night (of the month of Muharram, the eve of the martyrdom of Imam Hussein), the night of the last meeting, and of the big fare well.

Peace be upon you, O my master Aba ‘Abdillah al-Hussein, and on the souls who dwell in your court! On you, from me, the Peace of God, forever, as long as I exist and as long as night and day last! May God not make this the last time I am visiting you! Peace be upon Hussein, upon ‘Ali son of Hussein, upon the children of Hussein and upon the companions of Hussein!

Peace be upon you, as well as the Mercy of God and His blessings.

The Taliban has a sense of humor:

Ultimate insult? Taliban fighters mock iconic Iwo Jima flag-raising photo, posing in seized US military gear

Fox News was all over the place with this photo, probably to try to induce the USA to go back to Afghanistan.

That won’t happen, because the USA was militarily defeated, there was never any withdrawal/pullout.

They have every reason, however, to be very, very angry…

Too much denial:

CBS accused of eco-overreach after claiming CLIMATE CHANGE ‘helped strengthen’ Taliban

I’ve never seen the American people so inconsolable before. If their mothers had died tragically, it wouldn’t be that much grief. Didn’t imagine a defeat in godforsaken Afghanistan would be so devastating.

And then we have this…

Follow the money.

“A Big Money Funneling Operation” — Afghanistan Vet Reflects On Withdrawal Of US Forces (Michael Tracey, July 13, 2021)

Has the Dollar Empire given up the dream of a global empire?

Haven’t seen strong signals to conclude “yes.”

What is the national hierarchy in the Financial Empire?
The Financial Empire is a global debt based financial system administered by the City of London and Wall Street, and enabled by NATO & Six Eyes (Five Eyes [USA+UK+Aus+Can+NZ] + Israel)?

The Global Financial Empire’s hierarchical structure looks like the following:

• Core: SIX Eyes – English Union, huge debt generators, negative trade balance (U$A, UK)
• Conquered: EU/Germany,.., Saudi Arabia, Japan, South Korea – Debt distributors, positive trade balance (supporting the US$)
• Capital Rich: Russia, China, Brazil, Africa, Iran, ME – (Resource/Asset rich)
• Circumference countries: ROW

The U$A is the top management layer, CEO/CFO. It has a board seat. Why is it creating lots of IOUs?

Please look at the Dollar Empire’s key players in the treasury bond market.
Who are the sophisticated investors that are buying NEGATIVE “real” yields?
Who bought the $5 Trillion piled on the Monstrous U$A National Debt in 15 Months?

The Financial Titanic (Dollar Empire) is taking water (Debt) at an exponential rate. This is UNSUSTAINABLE. Are Americans sleeping or having fun while music is playing?

The average age of a global reserve currency is 94 years (80-110). It is said the US$ started on its reserve trajectory in 1921.

When will this Financial Titanic break?

Something to ponder about while you read over the next article.

Here's another article.

Despair in the Empire of Graveyards

Or Gilbert and Sullivan Come to Afghanistan, Depending on Your Perspective

Forty-six years ago in a previous comedy I was in Saigon, recently having been evacuated from Phnom Penh in an Air America—CIA—Caribou carrying, in addition to me, several ARVN junior officers and perhaps a dozen BUFEs (Big Ugly Fucking Elephants, the ceramic pachyderms much beloved of GIs).

America had already embarked on its currently standard policy of forcing small countries into wars and then leaving them in the lurch.

In Cambodia this led to the reign of Pol Pot, the ghastly torture operation at Toul Sleng, and a million or so dead. In the unending fight for democracy, casualties are inevitable.

At the time Saigon was tense because Ban Me Thuot had fallen and the NVA roared down Route One toward Saigon.

To anyone with the brains of a doorknob, the American adventure in Vietnam was coming to an end, but the embassy was studiedly unconcerned.

Embassies do not have the brains of a doorknob, but are keenly aware of public relations. Acknowledging the inescapable is not their way.

As usual, Washington would rather lie than breathe, and did.

As in Cambodia, so in Nam, and so later in Afghanistan.

Apparently a genius at State realized that a lot of gringo expats lived in Nam—the number six thousand comes to mind, but may be wrong—and that six thousand hostages taken when Saigon fell would be bad PR.

So the embassy in Kabul—Saigon, I meant to say, Saigon—quietly announced that expats could fly out on military aircraft from Ton Son Nhut.

They didn’t, or at least many didn’t. The NVA continued its rush toward Saigon.

The expats didn’t fly out because they had Vietnamese wives and families and were not going to leave them, period. These wives may not have had the trappings of pieces of paper and stamps and maybe snippets of ribbon. These things do not seem important in Asian war zones. But the expats regarded them as wives. Period. The family went, or nobody did. Period.

The embassy didn’t understand this because embassies are staffed by people from Princeton with names like Derek who wear pink shirts and don’t know where they are. The ambassador is usually a political appointee being rewarded for campaign contributions and probably doesn’t speak the language as few gringos spikka da Pushto or Vietnamese or Farsi or Khmer. For example, nobody at all in the embassy in Cambodia spoke Khmer.

The rank and file of State are better suited to a high-end Rotarian barbecue than a Third World city teeming with strange people in funny clothes eating God knows what horrible things in winding frightening alleys.

And so the State people could not understand why an American would marry one “of them,” as in the embassy I once heard a gringa put it. It was a good question. Why would a man marry a pretty, sleek, smart, self-reliant woman who wanted family and children? It was a great mystery.

The Taliban—NVA, I mean–NVA kept coming closer. A PR disaster loomed.

Meanwhile the PR apparatus insisted that the sky wasn’t really falling even as it did and no, no, no the US had not gotten its sit-down royally kicked by a ratpack of rice-propelled paddy maggots, as GIs described the opposition.

Many in government seemed to believe this. This was an early instance, to be repeated in another part of Asia, of inventing a fairyland world and then trying to move into it.

Finally State faced reality, a novel concept. It allowed quietly that expats and their families could fly out, military. It was getting late, but better than nothing.

The comedic value of this goat rope grew, becoming more amusing by the hour. I was trying to get a young Vietnamese woman out as she had worked for the embassy and we suspected things might not go well with her under the NVA.

Call her Linda. Linda and I took the bus to Tan Son Nhut. The Viet gate guards gave her a hard time, envying her for getting out while they could not, but we got in.

I was going to tell the State people that we were married but that while I was in Can Tho, by then in VC hands, see, the marriage papers had slipped from my carrying case.

This was obvious bullshit, but I guessed that if I made a huge issue of it they would bend rather than get in a megillah with a reporter, no matter how unimportant.

We found ourselves in a long line of expats with their families leading to the door of a Quonset hut, inside of which a State official was checking papers. Some of the expats had around them what appeared to be small villages of in-laws, brothers of wives, sisters, everything but the family dog.

An official with a bull horn told us to write down all their names and the relationships on clipboards being passed around. Tran Thi Tuyet Lan, sister, for example.

Then a genius at the embassy or Foggy Bottom realized that something resembling a third of Viet Nam was about to come out, listed as in-laws.

Policy changed, at least in Washington which was as usual blankly ignorant of reality on the ground. At Tan Son Nhut this meant telling men that they had to leave parts of their families behind, which they weren’t going to do.

This would not look good above the fold in the Washington Post. Dozens of Americans taken captive because the State Department would not let their families out.” All was confusion because the US had spent years telling itself that the disaster couldn’t happen. What to do?

American ingenuity kicked in. At the Quonset hut the guy with the bullhorn announced, “From now on, all mothers-in-law are mothers, all brothers-in-law are brothers. Change your forms.” All along the line, magic markers went through “in-law.”

This meant that some women had two mothers, but this under the circumstances seemed a minor biological quibble.

The guy with the bull horn was at most three feet from the guy in the Quonset hut who was certifying papers as valid. He solemnly looked at the papers with their strike-through’s, , certified them as correct, and that was that. A field expedient.

Hours and hours went by. Night came. Tempers frayed. Nobody seemed to have planned how actually to get these people out. Nobody seemed to have planned anything. Finally a 130 howled in.

This was the Lockheed C-130 Hercules, a four-engine turboprop cargo bird and a magnificent plane. It taxied over. The engines did not shut down. The prop wash was strong and hot.

The tail ramp dropped.

The waiting mob were rushed aboard without ceremony. There were no seats in the dark cavern of the fuselage. That would have required planning, which no one in Washington had thought of. The air reeked of burned aviation kerosene. We squatted on the cargo deck while an Air Force guy with a bullhorn warned, “Keep the kids’ hands out of the expansion slots, you’ll lose them.”

The real-world Air Force didn’t have people named Derek in pink shirts and if you told it all rules off, get the job done, it did. Ramp up, fast taxi, takeoff run, tight corkscrewing climb with the engines running at power I didn’t know they had.

The NVA and VC were now very close due to incompetent planning (have I mentioned incompetent planning?) and might have SAM-7s so it wasn’t a good idea to fly over territory they now controlled. Cutting and running from a stupid war run by generals as clueless as they were careerist, with Saigon spinning below, seen through open doors amid tightly packed peasants going they had little idea where.

Days later when we got to San Fran on a chartered airliner, hundreds of refugees were dumped into the main concourse, no immigrations, customs, or paperwork.

And now we have done it all over again in Kabul, complete with helicopters over the embassy and a panicked evacuation undertaken way too late and sudden concern for turncoat Afghans who made the mistake of working for the US. There is talk of importing 20,000 Afghan refugees to America. I find it amusing that many conservatives, who thought the war was peaches because it was about democracy and niceness and American values, now object to importing people their dimwitted enthusiasms put in line to be killed. Use and discard. Countries and people.

There was the now-traditional underestimation of the speed of the insurgent advance, the predictable deprecation of the “good” Afghans for not fighting with sufficient enthusiasm for the Empire: If they didn’t care enough to defend their country, Biden would say with earnest cluelessness, what could we do?”

So why did this happen? Why another rush to the exit as the world laughs? Which the world is doing. In a sentence, because if you do something stupid and it doesn’t work, it probably won’t work when you do it again.

The psychological explanation is slightly more complex. Vietnam is a good example. America invaded a country of another race, utterly different culture, practicing religions GIs had never heard of, speaking a language virtually no Americans spoke, a country exceedingly sick of being invaded by foreigners, most of them white. in Afghanistan the designated evil was terrorism, in in Viet Nam communism, but the choice of evils doesn’t matter. You have to tell the rubes at home something noble sounding.

Then the Americans did as they always do, training the ARVN, the Army of the Republic of Vietnam, to fight the communists to impose democracy, which the Viets had not asked them to do. But when you ask some Viets (Bodes, Laos, Iraqis, Afghans) to fight other Viets (Bodes, etc.) to kill their own people for the benefit of the invaders, they are not greatly charmed.

With a predictability that makes sunrise seem chancy, they desert, fight lackadaisically, with officers charging the US pay for soldiers who do not exist, and probably go over to the other side en masse when the collapse comes. Which latter the Afghan army just did. Duh, as the kids say.

The speed of the Taliban advance took Americans by surprise because officers are liars and had been hiding the deplorable state of the “Afghan” army, its numbers, morale, degree of training, and phenomenal rates of desertion.

Often the American officer corps thinks that if it can just have a little more time, they can win, so lying is a part of the war effort.

Biden bought into this, announcing that the Afghan army vastly outnumbered the Taliban and was better armed and trained and the insurgents couldn’t possibly do what they proceeded to do.

Another reason is that the American style of war recruits its enemies. Soldiers are not the Boy Scout defenders of civilization that so many like to imagine. They kill a lot of civilians, many tens of thousands in the bombing of cities such as Baghdad and Hanoi.

Ground troops come to detest the natives whom they designate gooks, zipperheads, sand niggers, camel jockeys, and the like.

They commit war crimes that, when discovered, are called “isolated incidents,” when in fact they are common.

Fragmentation bombs produce such things as a little girl crying with her belly torn open and intestines falling out while her mother goes stark raving bugfuck mad watching her daughter bleed to death and she can do nothing about it.

But it is for democracy and American values, and anyway the ragheads breed like flies, and besides, CNN won’t air it.

Today drone strikes hit weddings and other gatherings.

When you kill people in a village, the young men join the insurgents, wanting revenge. When a few thousands were killed in Nine-Eleven, Americans exploded in rage. Three thousand is a small fraction of the numbers killed in, say, the attack on Baghdad.

The Iraqi soldiers killed in a hopeless attempt to defeat the Americans were sons, fathers, husbands, brothers of other Iraqis. How much love do we think it engendered in Iraqis? This seems not to occur to Washington.

Militaries at bottom are amoral. Afghans know of the torture operations at Guantanamo and Abu Ghraib. Americans seem to dismiss such things as minor. They are not. Afghans seeing Moslems lying in pools of blood at Abu Ghraib, or being paraded around naked in hoods, are going to want to kill someone. Guess who.

American wars last a long time because no one has an incentive to end them. American casualties are low, especially now with the killing mostly done from the air against peasants with no defenses.

No important American ever gets killed. American wars are all class wars, with the dying being done by blue-collar suckers from Kansas or the deep South, not by Bush II, Hillary, the other Clinton, Bolton, Bannon, Obama, Blinken, Biden, Cheney, Kamala, Trump, and the rest of those not required to fight.

The US public has little idea of what goes on in its wars because the corporate media hide them. the Pentagon having learned that the media are their worst enemy, not the Taliban.

It would not surprise me if one unfettered camera crew, filming the corpses and mutilated children and devastation, could force an end to such a war.

Americans are not heartless but calculatedly uninformed. Wars are also extremely profitable for those who provide the bombs, fuel, vehicles, and so on. If the US loses a war, the contracts stop, and equally if it wins.

Keeping it going for decades provides a steady revenue stream.

What’s not to like?

Finally, or as much as I am going to worry about, there is the 1955 Syndrome, the engrained belief that America is all powerful.

This is arrogance and self-delusion. In the Pentagon you encounter a mandatory can-do attitude a belief that the US military is indomitable, the best trained, armed, and led force in this or any nearby galaxy.

In one sense this is necessary: You can’t tell the Marines that they are mediocre light infantry or sailors that their aircraft are rapidly obsolescing, their ships sitting ducks in a changing military world, and that the whole military enterprise is rotted by social engineering, profiteering, and careerism.

But look around: The US has failed to intimidate North Korea, chase the Chinese out of its islands in the South China Sea, retrieve the Crimea from Russia, can’t intimidate Iran, just got run out of Afghanistan, remains mired in Iraq and Syria, failed to block Nordstream II despite a desperate effort, and couldn’t keep Turkey from buying the S-400.

The Pentagon plans for the wars it wants to fight, not the wars it does fight. The most dangerous weapons of the modern world are not nukes, but the Ak-47, the RPG, and the IED. Figure it out.

And now the US comes home, leaving Afghanistan in ruins for decades. Use and discard.

Here's another note, collected over the week...

And then we have this little blub that also came to the MM mailbox...

From [redacted]

I have to tell you that there has been a lot of messages, articles, comments and thoughts flowing back and forth all week. Here's another...

And then we have this article...

And then we have this article...

The War Comes Home

A nation is made of race, ethnicity, culture, and identity. Ernst Renan called it a “daily plebiscite.” He said a nation needs a “common will in the present,” and the wish to perform great deeds in the future. Identity is a feeling, but feelings, emotions, personalities and beliefs come from the blood. We don’t create ourselves, and we can’t be other than what we are. Polities are temporary, but peoples endure.

I remember September 11, 2001. I never knew what people meant by “blood running cold” until I looked at New York City from my favorite hill and saw the smoking ruin where the Trade Center had been. I felt a deeply personal insult.

An abstraction called “America” hadn’t been attacked. This was something real. “Freedom” wasn’t under attack. It was my city, my people, my country that these savages had assaulted. American unity was awesome. President George W. Bush could have asked for anything from the country. The grief and righteous anger could have changed the world.

Now these feelings seem absurd and embarrassing. Patriotism is at a record low, even among conservatives. It’s hard to define what “America” means, or if it even exists.

Part of this is because the response to the attacks had nothing to do with defending America. President Bush could have stopped immigration, worked to defend the Christian faith he supposedly holds, and renewed patriotism. He did none of these things. Multiculturalism and anti-white preferences are far stronger today. Rather than seizing the moment to push assimilation and patriotism in schools, they teach Critical Race Theory and other anti-white ideas. Islam, once a marginal force in American life, has joined homosexuality and black identity as one of our national totems.

In 2001, the attackers entered the country legally through holes in our immigration laws. The holes are still there and immigration is worse than ever. The Muslim population of the United States has grown continuously, despite support for a total ban on Muslim immigration. Keith Ellison, the first Muslim in Congress, was a black nationalist who once argued for ending the Union — and no black congressmen ever said that was wrong. We fought in Afghanistan and Iraq to bring “democracy” to foreigners, who rightly hated us for trying to turn them into something they were not. The Iraq War’s most lasting consequence, and the greatest impact of the so-called Christian Right, may have been to destroy what was left of Christianity in Iraq. A SEAL team eventually killed Osama bin Laden. Crowds cheered, but that seems hollow now.

What was the purpose of the wars? If they were to “spread democracy,” they failed. If they were to defend the “American way of life,” they failed. The America of 2021 is a nightmare to a patriot from 2001. It’s bad enough that today’s “American way of life” is imposed on us, let alone on foreigners. If the War on Terror was supposed to keep us “safe,” that also failed. America seems far more besieged than before 2001, despite trillions spent and intrusive surveillance. America even faces the possibility of real defeat in a conventional war against great powers. If our government took foreign terrorism seriously, we would not have a porous border.

What happened over the last 20 years is something deeper. Thousands of Americans are still in Afghanistan, and the defense secretary said the world’s sole superpower has “no capability” to go outside the Kabul airport to get them out. “There was nothing that I or anyone else saw that indicated a collapse of this [Afghan proxy] army and this government in 11 days,” said General Mark Milley, Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff. Incredibly, he didn’t resign. President Biden bizarrely defended himself by saying that the scenes of desperate people fleeing the country and falling off airplanes were from “four, five days ago.”

We had to leave Afghanistan, but it’s astonishing that we had no plan to protect Americans, secure weapons, or even protect the airport. Those in charge pay no price for failure.

After September 11, Americans thought American power had been roused and we would smite our enemies. Instead, we sacrificed thousands of young men to bring “democracy” to foreigners. Iraqi and Afghani cooperation (or collaboration) went no farther than a paycheck. Many Americans even died at the hands of their supposed “allies” in “green on blue” attacks, which killed more than 150 coalition troops by 2020.

Now we have a supposed “obligation” to bring in Afghans. How many “green on blue” attacks will we get in the homeland? President George W. Bush (in)famously defended the wars by saying that “we will fight them over there so we do not have to face them in the United States of America.” Now, it appears we fought Afghans “there” so we could bring Afghans “here.” If an estimated 99 percent of Afghans want to make Sharia the basis of law, it’s hard to claim we are bringing “pro-American” Afghans here. The ones who come will learn in no time to complain about “white supremacy.”

The United States could have pulled out of Afghanistan in late 2001 after removing the Taliban and still continued the hunt for Bin Laden, who was in Pakistan. The US could have declared victory after it killed Bin Laden. Instead, the country spent trillions trying to turn Afghanistan into a liberal democracy. This included propping up a miserably corrupt government, promoting female politicians who never visited their constituencies, spending more than $780 million on “gender programs,” celebrating “Pride Month,” and, most infamously, punishing American soldiers who tried to stop child abuse by Afghan allies. And we were supposed to be fighting for the “good guys?”

There isn’t even an “Afghanistan.” It is a patchwork of tribes. Rather than working with the tribes, the United States tried to impose an artificial “national” government. The United States rejected the idea of re-establishing the Afghan monarchy, which had the support of most tribes. Instead, America imposed Hamid Karzai. The ungrateful stooge now blames the USA and NATO for his country’s collapse. Old ethnic and tribal patterns have re-emerged.

The Taliban is mostly Pashtuns, the largest ethnic group. Just as in 2001, the old “Northern Alliance” is coming together in Panjshir, led by the son of the legendary commander Ahmad Shah Massoud, a Tajik. Afghanistan’s tribal society may make it almost impossible for foreigners to conquer, but it also makes it almost impossible to unify. Turning tribal groups into Afghans is hard enough. America should never have tried to turn them into proto-Americans.

Indeed, we can’t even turn refugees into Americans. And they certainly won’t be grateful. The most prominent “refugee” in American life is Rep. Ilhan Omar. She said September 11 was nothing more than “some people did something,” and brags, “This is not going to be the country of white people.” Tucker Carlson says she’s proof our country is “not very good at resettling refugees.” The Hmong, another group of American “allies” imported after Vietnam, have been a disaster for America and a burden on social services.

America itself is turning into a tribal society. Pat Buchanan explains:

The more diverse we have become, it seems, the less united we have become, even about public manifestations of patriotism — the American flag, the national anthem, the pledge of allegiance. Nor do our history, holidays and heroes unite us as once they did. 

Whites are second-class citizens. The “American” government discriminates against us, “American” schools shame our children, the government hands out contracts by race, and anti-white mobs tear down our history. Media and academia have successfully broken many whites to the point they have a negative bias against their own group. “American” law enforcement is selective. Corporate America funds Black Lives Matter and other anti-white movements. If this were happening to any other group, many Republicans would say it justified military intervention in the name of human rights.

Is the system that rules us worth defending? No. If that makes me a “traitor,” I would say only that there is nothing to betray. Our rulers have already betrayed us.

The Afghan and Iraqi wars did nothing to protect this country. They made things worse. Every servicemen sent was sacrificed by a government that doesn’t deserve them. Soldiers deserve respect, but their commanders and politicians deserve scorn. I have yet to hear one veteran say the wars were worth it. Even the legendary Pat Tillman came to oppose the Afghanistan War — before he was accidentally killed by his own comrades. “Were all our sacrifices wasted?” heartbroken veterans ask. Yes.

Reporters brag about getting the military to purge white soldiers, sailors, airmen, and Marines who had a racial consciousness. Perhaps we should thank them. Eighty-five percent of those who died in Afghanistan were white. Their government clearly doesn’t appreciate them. Afghanistan was not worth one life, nor are the interests of politicians and financiers.

The military teaches Critical Race Theory. General Mark Milley was telling Congress less than two months ago why we had to study “white rage.” He should have been studying intelligence reports on the Taliban.

Patriots must not die for the interests of those who despise them. If China moves on Taiwan, let journalists, defense contractors, and affirmative action pets do the fighting. The Global American Empire’s interests are not ours.

After September 11, it was common for liberals to mock the idea of a “War on Terror,” How do you fight an idea? No one is mocking the fight against “hate.” If those in power want to wage war, it may be against us.

President Biden’s “National Strategy for Countering Domestic Terrorism” is designed to spy on white advocates and censor us. The Patriot Act and other national security laws pushed through after September 11, 2001 are now used against American citizens. If the FBI decides you are under investigation, it can seize your assets, and there is nothing you can do. The United States government has lost all moral authority to call Russia or China authoritarian. Even the Taliban is mocking Facebook (which is under increasing pressure by the federal government to censor content) for hypocrisy on free speech.

Even liberal news outlets are now doubting the supposed “militia” plot to kidnap Michigan Governor Gretchen Whitmer. It appears the FBI was encouraging the plot, not thwarting it. (An FBI agent involved in the investigation was just arrested for assault.) Shun anyone who ever talks about violence. He’s probably a government employee looking to justify his paycheck.

PayPal and the ADL are teaming up to investigate the financial transactions of users to fight “racism.” When a system mouthpiece, Jimmy Fallon, mentioned that whites were a declining share of the population, the audience applauded, which even Mr. Fallon found bizarre. And there was the widespread celebration at the death of Ashli Babbitt, who was a misguided victim.

When I see the scenes of retreat and shame in Afghanistan, I feel humiliation, but also schadenfreude. This strips naked the fools who have been sending soldiers to die. I long for the America that was, and mourn for the brave men who died for a government that doesn’t deserve them. And yet there is a certain satisfaction in the ruling class’s humiliating defeat.

The Jewish publication Tablet, marveling at the desire of the American elite to destroy its own country, says:

 [T]here are no institutional elites left to ask whether it’s a good idea to purge the combat ranks of the U.S. military by targeting “white supremacism.” America’s all-volunteer military is 43% minority, but the majority of its combat units are made up of white males. So why purge them? To make America vulnerable to foreign adversaries? Maybe the elites are more fearful of the domestic cohort still armed with a powerful group solidarity — i.e., patriotism — and most likely to defend what the elites are determined to destroy.

It’s frightening to see American leadership pulling America apart at the seams. And it’s shocking to see our constitutional order ripped to shreds as the establishment undercuts property rights, imposes capricious public health regulations, mandates experimental medical treatments, and holds political prisoners. 

This author is right. The elite wants to unmake the middle class and sees patriotic white men as the real threat. This leaves us with a tragic choice between our people and “our” government. On September 12, 2001, I’d have attacked someone who even suggested there was a distinction. Today, I find myself a man without a country. I don’t discount the possibility of a solution within the system. We must obey the law, pay our taxes, and fight to reclaim our rights. But there may be no electoral solution. Our future may be South Africa.

We should talk openly of secession That is how this country began. Those who rule us don’t value the Founders, but we do.

Two decades after September 11, America’s rulers are disgraced, humiliated, and unaccountable. What legitimacy do they have besides their courts and their guns? We must build alternative institutions that can win the loyalty of our people. We must provide for them in the dark times that are coming.

As we turn our backs on the Regime, we do not turn our backs on America. America can survive the degenerate ruling class on the Potomac. If the last few weeks have taught us anything, it’s that a strong tribe can outlast a failing empire.

We are the nation. America is ours and always will be. Renan had an “abridged hymn of every fatherland” that quoted from a Spartan song: “We are what you were, we will be what you are.” If we can get enough whites to believe that, anything is possible. The empire is dying; let the nation be reborn.

The years ahead will be dark, but we should rejoice. We live at arguably the most important time in our people’s history. America, Western Civilization, and the white race can survive only as one. It’s up to us.

Had, enough? Here's another...

“Do it by force, don’t give any other country a choice.”

The situation was much like what was expressed in the old joke about the Lone Ranger and Tonto finding themselves surrounded by Indians. “What are we going to do, Tonto,” asked the Lone Ranger.

“What do you mean, ‘We,’ white man?” Tonto replied.

“It’s obvious that I and Congress have been misinformed, and that the intelligence agencies had no clue about the country that they were reporting on for the last two decades.”

“Given this acquiescence in support for the Taliban, I was obviously correct in withdrawing the American occupation forces. 

Contrary to what Congress and the Executive Branch was told, there was no support by the Afghans for the Americans. 

I now realize that to the Afghan population, the government officials that America installed simply took the money we gave them...

... and put it into their own bank accounts...

... instead of paying the army, police and other parts of civic society.”

“At least there’s a silver lining: We won’t be spending any more than the $3 trillion that we’ve already sunk over there. 

We can now afford to use the money to build up domestic U.S. infrastructure instead.”

“If we don’t fight the Vietcong in their country, we’ll have to fight them over here.”

(I bet the serial numbers were not recorded. Imagine if that were done and the U.S. could announce these C-notes demonetized!)

“to prevent collusion and maintain security dependence among the vassals, to keep tributaries pliant and protected, and keep the barbarians from coming together.”

Here's yet another. Man! I am intentionally whipping a dead horse. But by the time this is all over, you all won't want to hear anything else about this section of the world...

White Flagged America

Sick of this, he told an interviewer he wished they would just disappear.

“From your life?”

“No, from this earth.”

And that's the way it is, Jack!

But, but, but America has just created the largest military budget in history to "counter" China. Obviously a grand World War III is planned. What then? Can America destroy China?

China, Russia conclude joint military exercise

And then we have this piece...

Now, let's focus on China, as China will play a major role in this region.

United States blackmail.

And then during the time of writing, the news broke.  Part of the Xinjiang story, is pure hard blackmail:  the US-based nongovernmental organization (NGO) The Worker Rights Consortium (WRC) blackmailed, bribed, and extorted a Chinese company and its US cooperative partner for $300,000 by threatening to hype up fabricated “forced labor” issues related to China’s Xinjiang Uygur Autonomous Region.

https://www.globaltimes.cn/page/202108/1230759.shtml

The complete Xinjian story of forced labor, a genocide (with no dead people), prison camps et al is falling apart like an overripe watermelon that just smashed itself falling off the watermelon buggy and is not fit for eating any longer.

A MUST READ report…

While we are on the topic of extortion, Alex Rubinstein did some undercover work.

He says:

“Using a friend’s company on my application and adopting a fake persona, I attended a three-day summit on religious freedom where leading figures in the Democratic Party including Nancy Pelosi, USAID Director Samantha Power and Secretary of State Anthony Blinken ...

...joined up with anti-gay Evangelicals, 
...a slew of shady NGOs and 
...multiple bonafide cults to ratchet up pressure against China.”:

From this ‘Davos of Religious Freedom’, we see top democrats, top republicans, the Christian far right, some clear cults, NGO’s with no history, and just about every anti-China organization in the world right across the spectrum.

The objective?  Balkanization under the guise of religious freedom as the new front in the new China cold war.

This report is incredibly detailed and would need some time to read through.

It is however recommended to understand the vast array of forces aligned in the new cold war against China.

https://realalexrubi.substack.com/p/top-democrats-unite-with-christian

More anti-China planning

And the 2nd part is out, titled: A Cult, a Fake Gov’t & US-funded NGOs Hold Panels Panning China…

https://realalexrubi.substack.com/p/cult-fake-govt-ngos

How the CIA infultrates China

And this is how medical philanthropy US to China actually operates:

https://saker.community/2021/08/02/tarnished-american-philanthropy-in-china/

So, what is happening in China?

Simply said, strong strong words. 

The recent visit of US Deputy Secretary of State Wendy Sherman, despite the usual initial nice and welcoming words apparently did not go down well.  “A Chinese Foreign Ministry spokesperson said that the talks were in-depth, frank, and beneficial to the relationship between the two countries.”

Days later the story changed materially.   “We will no longer make unilateral efforts to maintain the public opinion atmosphere in China-US relations. Using illegal sanctions as a pretext, the US, aided by Canada, has effectively kidnapped a high-ranking Chinese corporate official, Meng Wanzhou, and is still threatening her with possible imprisonment. No other nation behaves so brazenly in defiance of international norms.

“The basis for such changes is that Chinese society has become fed up with the bossy US and we hold no more illusion that China and the US would substantially improve ties in the foreseeable future.

The Chinese public strongly supports the government to safeguard national dignity in its ties with the US and firmly push back the various provocations from the US.

In the face of the malicious China containment and confrontational policy adopted by the two recent US administrations, the Chinese people are willing to form a united front, together bear the consequences of not yielding to the US, and win for the country’s future through struggles.

In other words, Chinese society would unconditionally support whatever tough counterattacks the Chinese government would launch in the face of US-initiated conflicts in all directions toward China.

The US should abandon forever the idea of changing China’s system and policies through sanctions, containment, and intimidation.

We hope US allies in the Asia-Pacific, especially Japan and Australia, can weigh the situation.

They should not act as accomplices of the US’ China containment policy and place themselves at the forefront of confronting China, or they are betting their own future.”

https://www.globaltimes.cn/page/202107/1229704.shtml

And this is the message that is still prevailing in China and internal to her people.

Huawei’s Meng Wanzhou was in the dock in a Canadian court this last week but at the time of writing, I have not seen any reports.

Chinese Technology is amazing…

Check out this video…

Further details:

Far more world leaders visit China than America: “If leadership diplomacy was an Olympic sport, Beijing beats Washington to the gold medal.”

In 2019, 79 foreign leaders visited China, while only 27 called on the United States.

More world leaders have visited China than the United States in every year since 2013. Many US allies visited China more often than the United States, including those of South Korea, Germany, the Philippines, Thailand, Singapore, and New Zealand.

Read full article →

South East Asian issues

Foreign Minister Wang Yi said ties with Southeast Asia are a priority for China and called for “multilateralism with Asian characteristics”, as the country seeks to counter US moves in the region.

“China has always made Asean its priority for diplomacy in the region … and firmly supports Asean’s central role in regional cooperation,” Wang said, according to the Chinese foreign ministry readout on Thursday.

“Both sides should conduct frequent communication on all levels, and continue with mutual understanding and support for each other’s core interests.”

Read full article $→ 

Strong arming failures

US drops visa fraud charge against Chinese researcher accused of hiding ties to Chinese military.

Days before trial was expected to start, US prosecutors ask judge to dismiss charge against cancer researcher Tang Juan.

Imagine that!

Federal agents said Tang allegedly sought refuge at the Chinese consulate in San Francisco after they interviewed her at her home.

Read full article $→ 

More strong arming failures

The US dropped cases against five Chinese researchers accused of hiding ties to the Chinese military.

The China Initiative has raised concern about racial profiling of Asians, however, and led to calls for investigation into the DOJ’s conduct.

Judges had already dismissed parts of two cases after it was revealed FBI agents hadn’t properly informed them of their rights against self-incrimination.

Read full article $→

Trying to regulate into oblivion

U.S.-listed Chinese firms must disclose Chinese government interference risks. The Securities and Exchange Commission said Monday that Chinese companies listed on U.S. markets must disclose the risks of the Chinese government interfering in their business as part of their reporting obligations.

Read full article $→

No overseas coal projects.

For the first time since 2013, China funded no overseas coal projects in H1. Last month, ICBC announced that it would begin to phase out coal project financing, and pulled out of a major $3 billion coal power plant project in Zimbabwe.

Then Beijing  published fresh guidelines encouraging overseas enterprises to invest in greener projects and dump environmentally risky ones.

Read full article →

Selections from Godfree Roberts’ extensive weekly newsletter: Here Comes China. You can get it here: https://www.herecomeschina.com/#subscribe 

Further selections and editorial and geopolitical commentary by Amarynth.

---

Geopolitical moves:

Most of the geopolitical space was taken up by the US withdrawal from Afghanistan.  Soon Lavrov and his Chinese counterpart Chinese Foreign Minister Wang Yi, moved in, boots ‘n all, with SCO.

http://thesaker.is/russia-china-advance-asian-roadmap-for-afghanistan/

North Korea and China

A geopolitical story of note is the confirmed friendship between Xi Jinping and North Korea’s Kim Jong-un pledging to strengthen their friendly relations as they exchanged messages on the 60th anniversary of a bilateral landmark defense treaty.

Under the 1961 agreement, China and North Korea must automatically defend each other when one of them is attacked. Xi said he is ready to work with Kim to “take bilateral friendly cooperation to a new level and deliver more benefits to the two countries and two peoples.” 

Read full article $→

Huawei Kidnapping

Meng Wanzhou’s extradition case suffered a major blow.

A Canadian judge ruled that HSBC documents showing that US authorities had made selective, misleading and “outright false” claims about the Huawei CFO could play no part in the case.

[Ed: Under Hong Kong’s controversial extradition law one had to commit a crime. Under Canadian law one can be extradited if they “may” have committed a crime].

Read full article $→

Taiwan to be toast

On Taiwan, the Chinese have put down their red lines and a warning:  “We advise the US and the island of Taiwan not to misjudge the situation and not to underestimate our determination and will to punish their provocation. They must be prepared to face a sudden blow.”

• https://www.globaltimes.cn/page/202107/1228873.shtml
• https://www.globaltimes.cn/page/202107/1228730.shtml

---

Hey! Look what’s coming to Africa!

Well, I heard that President Biden is going to throw some more billions of dollars for more High Speed Train development in the United States. I am sure that the lawyers, the accountants, and the bankers are all very excited about the money. But look at what is going up in Africa…

Made by America? Nope. Made by China.

Two good-feel-good stories:

Pandas

Wild Giant pandas are no longer endangered, but they are still vulnerable with a population outside captivity of 1,800.

Authorities have expanded their habitats and replanted bamboo forests to feed them.

The number of Siberian tigers, Amur leopards, Asian elephants, and crested ibis has also “visibly increased” as a result of conservation efforts.

Read full article  →

Elephants

And those wandering elephants are still wandering.  Excepting western reporting considers this story as: “Cuddly elephants are the latest propaganda weapon in President Xi Jinping’s propaganda offensive to present a more ‘lovable’ global image of China.

The elephants are just one manifestation of Beijing’s decade-long obsession with boosting what it calls its ‘discourse power.’”  Sydney Morning Herald. 

Read full article →

I’ve seen western reporting say things like:  Marauding and destructive elephant herd in China demolishes the countryside.  So, now we know, even good-feel-good stories out of China are weaponized.

(Could we imminently expect a headline saying .. marauding Chinese elephants EAT pandas in JinJiang?  Xi Jingping personally responsible for giving the order.  For those who find themselves temporarily without a sense of humor, this is meant as humor although it illustrates the media from the west that will use anything and everything to continue the media war).  

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t0bf8y-Qbo0 

---

Business:

It is hard to choose what to put first from this growing Chinese juggernaut.  Let’s start with banks:

The world’s top banks are Chinese: ICBC, China Construction Bank, Agricultural Bank of China and Bank of China hold the top four positions for the fourth year in a row. ICBC has been at the top of the table for nine consecutive years.

Its Tier 1 capital has grown to $439.9bn, the highest individual bank total on record and a $59.7bn increase YoY.

Capital levels continue to grow significantly, up 18.6% YoY compared to the global average of 12.7%. They now account for 30% of global aggregate Tier 1 capital in the Top 1000 compared with 11% in 2011 and 5% in 2001.

Read full article →

Chinese GDP a growing

GDP grew 18.3% in Q1 and 12.7% in H1 YoY. Urban unemployment is 5%, and 6.98 million new urban jobs, 63.5 percent of the annual target, were created in the first half. Per capita disposable income increased 12.6% YoY.

Read full article $→

Chinese exports are up, up, up!

Exports up 32.2% in June, from 27.9% in May, YoY. Imports increased by 36.7% y/y last month, down from 51.1% y/y growth in May. The trade surplus was $51.5 billion in June, and to $45.5 billion in May.

Read full article $→

China trade with Europe

January – May, Chinese trade with Germany, $92.8 billion, grew 36% YoY and France $32.9 billion rose 44%. China has proposed cooperating with Germany and France for Africa’s development and aims to reopen investment deal with EU.

Read full article →

Six new projects

Six new projects broke ground at Gwadar Port, a flagship of the China-Pakistan Economic Corridor (CPEC): a fertilizer factory, an animal vaccine factory, a lubricant factory and an exhibition center.

A 300MW imported coal power plant has been in construction since 2019 and the Power Purchase Agreement was signed earlier this year.  

Read full article  →

Didi Ride-share

Beijing’s investigation of Didi jolted global markets and tech startups canceled overseas IPOs. Keep, backed by SoftBank, Alibaba-backed medical data solutions provider, and Ximalaya, the podcast app, all canceled IPOs, admitting that regulators had discouraged them from listing overseas.

The Financial Times says the “debacle signals [the] end of [a] steady stream of New York listings for Chinese companies.”

Read full article $→

Wall-street hurting

China’s Tech Crackdown Hits Wall Street’s Wallet. U.S. listings of Chinese companies have accounted for nearly 8 percent of Goldman Sachs’s underwriting fees so far this year, and over 12% of underwriting revenue over the previous five years. Didi Chuxing is just the tip of the iceberg.

Read full article  →

Remember, the Chinese work together as one singular organism

You try to hurt it, and all Hell will break loose, the people in the United States and the West have absolutely no concept or idea of what they are going up against. It’s like those cocky Space Marines in Aliens II (the movie) and then were FUCKING slaughtered in three minutes.

The Chinese are not what everyone thinks.

Compliance in China

A Global Times op-ed explains that Chinese tech companies are moving from an era of “barbaric growth” to an “era of compliance,” in which internet companies learn to observe domestic laws and regulations. China has long held restrictions on foreign investment but a loophole, called a VIE, allowed companies to bypass those rules. Chinese internet companies “should now step out of the gray area and move toward normalized corporate governance.

Read full article  →

Decoupling from the “West”

China seems intent on decoupling its companies from Western markets. The Economist. Nearly $2 trillion in shareholder wealth is on the line.

Read full article  $→

IPOs under investigation

How Chinese clampdown targets offshore listings: China’s securities regulator is setting up a team to review plans by Chinese companies for initial public offerings (IPOs) abroad, including those using a corporate structure that Beijing says has led to abuse.

Read full article  →

US continues to blacklist

In a separate act of decoupling, the U.S. Commerce Department today added 14 Chinese entities to its growing economic blacklist over their participation in “China’s campaign of repression, mass detention, and high technology surveillance” in Xinjiang. The companies include AI and other tech firms based in Xinjiang, Beijing, and Chengdu.

Read full article $→

More YoY

Couriers delivered 49 billion pieces in H1, up 46% YoY, and added an average of 2 billion pieces of express delivery per month, with business volume approaching 10 billion in a single month, constantly hitting new record highs.

Read full article $→ 

TikTok

TikTok will stop requiring employees to work an extra day every two weeks, following a similar move by its local rival Kuaishou. Under the arrangement, workers were paid double their regular daily rate when working on weekends and triple during legal holidays, a bonus that some young professionals preferred to better work-life balance.

Read full article $→

Electric Vehicles

Two of China’s three best-selling electric vehicles in June were Shanghai-built Tesla models, shining a light on the U.S. automaker’s popularity in the world’s largest auto market despite recent setbacks there like a regulatory probe into the safety of its autopilot system.”

Read full article $→

Battery swapping centers

China is embarking on a building spree for battery swapping centers, as the nation’s network of swapping centers numbered 716 at the end of June, nearly three times the amount at the end of last year.

Read full article $→

Shanghai Microelectronics

Shanghai Microelectronics sells its 600/20 flagship lithography machine for 90 nm chips. By Q4, it will offer machines for 28 nm, replacements for ASML’s 1980Di machine and next year will offer 14 nm. machines. “China has world-class EDA(Electronic design automation) startups–companies with worldwide customers.”

Read full article $→

China Space……

For the SpaceONauts – China’s space sector is getting too big and too busy to report on in this Sitrep and magazine format and I’m sure there are media focused on the sector.  Just a little while ago, we have this reusable suborbital spacecraft with its successful first launch.  It leaves earth horizontally, and returns vertically, like an airplane.

---

China and Syria signs rebuilding and BRI investments

Until a little while ago, at the time of writing, this was a rumor.  Now it is fact.

Chinese FM arrives in Syria, meets officials and signs agreements

https://www.presstv.ir/Detail/2021/07/18/662478/Chinese-FM-arrives-in-Syria,-meets-officials-signs-agreements

China to help rebuild the Ukraine

There is another similar type of rumor, very small in the press as yet, that China is now active in the Ukraine in terms of rebuilding and perhaps farming contracts.  This is very small currently but keep your eyes open.

On these two items, one has to remember the ‘double helix’ of China and Russia.

---

This is but a fraction of what I gleaned from the Here Comes China newsletter.  Godfree has some delicious longer reads in his newsletter:   https://www.herecomeschina.com/#subscribe

And if all this isn't enough, then let's start talking about America and how it fits with the changing global situation...

Lesser Evil Politics Assure Greater Evil Economics

By Frank Scott

A new American president is presenting a program for renewal of human values in the marketplace unheard of since the 1930s but still projecting American military domination and environmental destruction far beyond the awareness of most Americans.

Continued insistence that Russia and China are major global threats to everyone and not just American monopoly capitalists resonate not only in the cosmic void between the ears of our mentally disabled foreign policy experts but echo in the minds of innocent Americans since that’s all they get from major, and all too often minor media.

The charge that China is conducting genocide on its Islamic people coming from the butchers of hundreds of thousands of Islamic people in the middle east would be a dreadful sick joke if not so incredibly evil, but poor souls condemned to network media remain stuck in a misinformation chamber amplifying our ruling power’s message day in and day out.

The fact that growing majorities have little or no faith in government or media is a hopeful sign but until we totally clean out the sewage system much of corporate news has become, the stench that wafts up remains a carrier of the information pandemic.

While alleged economic threats from China actually do offer market competition to the empire ( and market competition is supposed to be good, according to the theology preached by the priest-rabbi-therapists of the church of capital ) and China is under the control of communists who at least try, not always with success, to force it to work for the common good and not just the minority of Chinese capitalists, why and how and to whom is that a threat?

Only to America where majorities exist in numbers of those in debt but never those who vote nationally.

This is called  “our” democracy by many wishful thinkers still unaware that the political process is owned and operated by the wealthiest minority, which spends billions to maintain political control by purchase and rental of candidates and office holders.

Citizens innocently proclaiming this hustle as “our” democracy are like past slaves referring to “our” plantation.

If they were the minority house negroes of the time they could afford such fantasy but the overwhelming majority who toiled in the fields and suffered the most brutal treatment had no such luxury.

And as if the treatment of these two powerful nations didn’t show enough imperial idiocy, that of a nearly helpless tiny nation currently, as usual, under assault, is greater indication of lunacy bordering on stark raving insanity.

After 60 years of a murderous attempted strangulation of the Cuban political economy, that tiny nation survives with the support of the overwhelming majority of governments on earth.

Recently at the United Nations 184 countries voted to end the filthy American embargo with only Murder Inc. headquartered in the USA and Israel still, as always out of step with the overwhelming majority while spouting humanitarian rhetoric and practicing murderous brutality.

This still finds well meaning people waving flags and quoting bibles and constitutions as though these fabled symbols clean up the reality of degenerate social practice as hypocritical as a rapist claiming victims only to assure they do not suffer sexual frustration.

The anti-Cuban lobby, second only to that of Israel in its control of American foreign policy, was originally a creature of the Cuban upper classes who escaped to Miami from the revolution that was working to spread education, jobs, health care and other necessities of life to the greatest number of people who had long been denied by American partnership with Cuban ruling power.

They loom large in the current scenario of an alleged uprising against the terror and horror of millions of people eating, going to school and getting health care despite the ugly embargo and other violent attempts to smother the island of 11 million so that capital might again profit from gambling and drugs, as it did before 1960.

Meanwhile, another bloody lie in Afghanistan has ended with the Taliban, the group we were allegedly protecting poor afghans from, has taken over the government of their own country.

This after billions have been spent and hundreds of thousands murdered in pursuit of profits while good people here have been fed stories about emancipating women and educating afghans to the joys of democracy like ours, where hundreds of thousands of Americans live in the street while we spend trillions to kill people and billions to care for pets.

And far beyond wretched national policies looms the global curse of what private profit industrial and war marketing are doing to the environment shared by humanity and not just one or anther national identity group often claiming super status with a special connection to deities ranging from Santa Claus to the Easter bunny for all they are worth in the material world.

Words about democracy are not balanced by deeds of mass murder, oppression and absolute support for rich minority rule that assures continued profit making from exploitation of workers whether they clean toilets, drive buses, pilot airplanes or walk dogs.

Like the sex workers who use their private parts to create private profits for their entrepreneurial pimps, those who create, package and deliver the consumer goods that are the foundation of the economy are doing it for the benefit of owners and investors rather than their own which would be far better served if they owned and ran the businesses they form the foundation for while others get rich on their labor.

Facing horrible news at what the future of humanity looks like under the environmental stress called climate change, more people than ever are working to end foul methods of economics that assure disaster for humanity but trying to do so while maintaining market rules of private profit assures further destruction or worse, simply throwing people out of work they do only to survive and thus destroy hope of survival.

The future must be to keep people alive by assuring the public good before any pursuit of private profit. We do not need professional economists to explain that capitalism is the only answer to social problems all the while collecting fat salaries and investment opportunities while society fails more quickly under their rule.

In truth, if workers are doing dirty work that affords them salaries so they can pay their rent, mortgages and other life supports, but it costs society billions to have to clean up the mess they create, we would all best be served by paying them to not go to work.

We’d be saving the billions we’d have to spend to clean up the mess they created in service to private profiteers and assure their survival by using those mammoth savings to help them learn and get better jobs for them and everyone else, that serve all of us and not simply minority investors.

As the world grows more threatened and conditions become more dangerous with the USA holding several hundred military bases in foreign countries and surrounding Russia and China with troops and war ships, immediate action must be taken to both confront environmental conditions that threaten us all and war like preparations that are profitable to a criminal minority while threatening the planet and all its people.

In short, we need global democratic communism before anti-social capitalism destroys us all.

email: fpscott@gmail.com Frank Scott writes  political commentary and satire which appears online at the blog Legalienate  http://legalienate.blogspot.com)  

Let’s not forget the Amazing HST that has revolutionized China, and is now changing all of Asia…

Now, let’s move on to the biggest project of the century; the BRI…

The Belt and Road Initative

From my mail box by [redacted].

Here we focus on making people understand that the Belt & Road Initiative is the Endeavor of the Century.

And a message for all thos neocons who wants World War III with China & Russia…

Things are not going to happen as you think.

Never forget that the Chinese are super patriotic

If you try to hurt the Chinese now, they will SLIT YOUR FUCKING THROAT.

Of course, there is no one at the helm in the United States these days. What ever professional diplomatic corps that used to exist has been sacked and replaced with toadies who are just political donors. And they have no concept of the shit-load of trouble that they are walking into.

It absolutely reminds me of the Hungarian and Polish leadership that tried to take on Genghis Khan and his hordes of blood-thirsty killers.

Here’s a Chinese preschool.

Now, a few years older. Here’s a video of Chinese “cub scouts” (Optional in Elementary School)…

Next a video of Chinese Middle School Students (Mandatory. Everyone in China get’s this training.). When a kid is in middle school, they must attend Summer training at different levels. They make up the basis for the conscript army.

Next a video of some Chinese Para-Military. There are all sorts of para-military forces embedded within China. This group is a regulatory arm of the Corruption Police. Of course, they are all trained in the warrior arts.

Next video shows some of what China’s professional warrior class can do. China is hardly a “peasant army fielding old AK-47 clones”.

And of course, everyone knows that China is no match for America’s professional military with it’s “Warrior Culture”, massive numbers of high-technology weapons, and the “never-give-up-Rambo spirit!

Anyways, here’s some topical links.

Topical Links

• August 16 – Afghanistan – Chaos Pictures Increase Fallout From U.S. Defeat
• America leaves Afghanistan, and the regional geopolitics take over
• AB INITIO: AFGHANISTAN – Patrick Armstrong
• Video: Disaster at Kabul Airport One, two

sayed salahuddin @sayedsalahuddin - 11:59 UTC · 22 Aug 2021

Almost all parts of Afghanistan enjoying peace for a week now after over 42 years of war, but Kabul airport has become the most violent part.

• August 17, 2021 – Afghanistan – Taliban Press Conference Notes
• Transcript of Taliban’s first news conference in Kabul – Al Jazeerah
• The Taleban’s rise to power: As the US prepared for peace, the Taleban prepared for war – AAN – Recommended Longread
• Afghanistan – What Will Happen Next? A Provisional Government And A New Constitution.
• The Ides of August – Sarah Chayes
• Reflections on Events in Afghanistan – 5. Putin: Taliban is the reality
• Afghanistan Faces Economic Shock as Sanctions Replace Foreign Aid
• August 20 – Britain Wants A Rerun Of The War On Afghanistan
• August 20 – Afghanistan – The New ‘Northern Alliance’ Resistance Has Already Fallen Apart

Conclusion!

We went from the history behind Afghanistan and the various military empires that tried to conquer it, to the gnashing of the teeth and wailing of the American cheerleaders who are in shock and pain.

Then, we started to review how this obscure nation fit in with the global power play and that means the “collective West” and Asia. Where “Asia” is China, Iran and China together.

Then, if that isn’t enough…

…we see that China continues to grow.

And even though the “news” about China is all doom and gloom…

… no one in the “West” has any idea of what a force China is right now, and how insurmountable a united Asia is against the fat, weak, corrupt United States and it’s vassals.

There is no question that for the twenty years that the United States has been in Afghanistan not one American leader read any history…

… not one American diplomat or military general or expert had any idea about what was actually going on in that section of the globe.

And since Afghanistan was such an enormous drain in money, resources, and “news”, once can only imagine the poverty of United States ability in other Geo-political arenas.

The best thing for the United States to do right now is to die quietly in a hole somewhere and allow the rest of the world to carry on.

Provocative?

Yes, I suppose, but it is accurate.

We know that with the enormous outlay of military funding that the United States fully plans to engage China in a serious war. And they plan to do it not only in the South China Sea, but on Chinese soil. This will not work out the way that everyone plans.

As I have said before, China is a serious, serious nation, that does not play.

Video of the future of Africa with Chinese help.

Read my Deagel reports, if you don’t know what I am talking about. Right there is everything that you need to know about the future of the world. And what you can do about your little part of it.

Do you want more?

You can find more articles related to this in my latest index; A New Beginning. And in it are elements of the old, some elements regarding the transition, and some elements that look towards the future.

.

Articles & Links

.

• You can start reading the articles by going HERE.
• You can visit the Index Page HERE to explore by article subject.
• You can also ask the author some questions. You can go HERE to find out how to go about this.
• You can find out more about the author HERE.
• If you have concerns or complaints, you can go HERE.
• If you want to make a donation, you can go HERE.

It’s pretty obvious. Don’t you know. The propaganda onslaught. The “classified” documents, the full spread of dis-info plummeting the American citizenry to hate China as the great evil. Yeah. You have to be a blind moron not to see what is coming.

• Intel officials draft classified report as they near finish of 90-day Covid probe…

Now, I have repeatedly argued that the American government is a wreck, that it’s leadership are “brain dead”, and somehow the entire crooked mess is running on auto-pilot straight towards the abyss. Since I have been making these accusations, not one single person has been able to come forward and prove to me otherwise.

What we do know is that America is following a well documented historical progressing that leads towards a major war.

• Massive propaganda campaign.
• Hybrid warfare at all levels.
• A setting up of where the fields of conflict will occur.
• A manipulation of “allies” to engage conflict as proxies.

And finally…

• A trigger event or “incident” that will set everything in motion.

I argue that this trigger event is the Coronavirus pandemic. With a secondary excuse for a “fall back” contingency to be Taiwan.

There is a full wide “shotgun approach” to provide a wide selection of potential incident vectors from with the Untied States can capitalize upon to use as an excuse to generate a war.

But, it’s proven that the Coronavirus was in the USA months before China…

Yes. That is very true.

But it does not matter.

The lies and the narrative is being driven top down in favor of a war, and it “ain’t stopping for shit”. Never the less, the “safe” inoculation strain was released in the United States a full six months before the deadly lethal version COVID-19B was released on CNY in China. As this video clearly states…

Lies, Lies, and then more lies…

If is functionally the case that every single article in the “West” must contain negative things about China. But this is wrong and it is really rather counter-productive. As China is spending it’s resources to make Asia successful, and to help everyone associated with it.

The only things that America can point to as accomplishments are wars and things that happened fifty years ago. There has been ZERO positive, good, supporting efforts in any ways, shape of form originating out of the Untied States for a long, long, LONG time.

If China buys a steel factory, the American media is all aghast and in hysterics!

• Why a Chinese firm really bought British Steel – BBC News
• COMPANY NEWS China to Buy Used Mill; A New Approach …
• China’s HBIS buys control of Tata Steel’s Southeast Asia …

How about hearing the other side of the story…

Some history

Who or what is driving all the things that I have listed above? China, Iran? Russia? Nope every single one has a direct budget path that is directly traced to the United States Federal Budget out of the Untied States Congress.

This looming fiasco is being driven by the United States Congress.

• Now, I have gone into great detail about the bio-weapons carpet bombing of China by the (then) head of the Bio-Weapons office, John Bolton.
• I have also covered, also in great detail the failure of the Hong Kong “Color Revolution”.
• As well as the Uighur Muslim insurgency in XinJiang.
• Not to mention the collapse of the United States NGO-backed Tibet movement.
• I have also spent time discussing what happened when the Trump assault flotilla / armada entered the South Pacific Sea in late 2020, and sailed home “with it’s tail between it’s legs”.
• As well as the realities of what is going on in Taiwan.

Well, you know that these idiots in the United States Congress don’t read MM. Have no concept of anything other than their echo chambers, have never fought in a real war, and have no concept of who the fuck they are threatening.

A quick and dirty summary of some of the major elements…

Here’s a simple map of what has been going on regarding China. There are many more efforts involved, but if I put them all on the map it would be unreadable. So I greatly simplified it to this simple diagram.

A look at the results so far…

And now, here is the state of affairs. The United States was able to install “puppet military regimes” in both Myanmar, and Thailand, but was unsuccessful with Laos, Cambodia, and Vietnam. All the NGO and “color revolutions” inside of China failed. All of the bio-weapons attacks inside of China failed. All of the insurgency efforts inside of China failed.

It’s like a sickness

There is nothing that can stop this massive anti-China effort from coming to it’s natural conclusion. America will find an excuse. An “incident” will be triggered, and then Congress will declare war, and then all Hell is going to break out.

Though, in truth all the preparations will be in place long before Congress “rubber stamps” the war. Congressional approval will only be a formality.

But China is not run by morons, and idiots. It is meritocracy. You can we well assured that China will not wait to be attacked before making it’s own very substantial moves.

And it can really get you down.

All this negatively, the hopelessness of it, and your singular ability to do anything about it is frustrating and so very stressful.

War is like a board-game I

So while (in the game of chess) the United States side is moving it’s rooks, pawns, knights and bishops in play for a check-mate…

…the Chinese see this, and are playing Go. And they are moving their pieces in a very complex and intricate manner.

You know…

…there are so many interesting facets to this entire Geo-political arena right now, that we really need to sit down and look at things in a far simpler way. Like the games mentioned above, they cut away all those details and just look at the kinds of people who are pushing for war, and those who are pushing back.

Thus we have this substantially simplified narrative.

Never the less, if you really want to get down into the dirt and details, references abound. No, I am not talking about the flood of anti-China bullshit cascading out of the government mouthpieces in America. That is all just bullshit.

Instead, I am talking about writings from third party, supposedly (mainly) “disinterested parties” look at the entire thing askance from a distance. Like this article, for instance…

COVID-19, Hillary Clinton’s “mission” and neo-Lysenkoism. Column by Gennady Onishchenko

The main political outcome of the anthrax controversy story after the September 11, 2001 terrorist attack was more than serious. The well-known Hillary Clinton, then a senator from New York, then Secretary of State and candidate for President of the United States, came to Geneva after the events of September 2001 to attend a meeting of the working group on the development of a mechanism for monitoring compliance with the Biological Weapons Convention. She came not just like that, but with a very specific “mission”.

Let me remind you that the origins of this convention, which was adopted in 1972 and then ratified by almost all UN countries, were the USSR, the United States and the United Kingdom. It was the first international disarmament treaty to prohibit the development, production and stockpiling of bacteriological and toxin weapons, as well as their destruction.

But after the ratification of this document, an important issue remained unresolved — a mechanism for monitoring compliance with the convention was needed. At that time, this mechanism was being developed by extremely reputable experts, including from Russia. And so Hillary Clinton, under the pretext that her country was the target of an attack using biological weapons, said that the United States is withdrawing from work on a control mechanism. And without their participation, this document could not be adopted. At the same time, Hillary knew perfectly well that it was in the United States that biological weapons were used against her people, even a congressional commission came to this conclusion, although their conclusions were half-truths.

And the truth was that in the United States, which considers itself a beacon of democracy and freedom, the first terrorist act using biological weapons in the third millennium was committed. And with a high degree of probability, the US military and, possibly, some politicians were behind this terrorist attack. And this was done solely to address political issues, including to justify US military operations abroad.

An investigation conducted in the United States itself proved conclusively that the anthrax strain used in mailings was developed back in the 1950s as a combat formulation. The research was conducted in the same military laboratory at Fort Detrick, from where, as the investigation found out, the most dangerous strain was leaked. Although Washington claimed that Fort Detrick had not been engaged in offensive biological weapons programs since the mid-1960s, from what we know, there is great doubt that this secret military laboratory has switched to flower breeding.

In addition, it was simply impossible to carry out an operation to distribute combat anthrax spores alone: the pathogen had to be not only isolated, but also cultivated, accumulated a sufficient amount of it, packaged, and so on. All of this was even theoretically impossible to do without anyone noticing.

Realizing that in the event of any international investigation, all this will come out, the United States decided to torpedo the creation of a mechanism for monitoring compliance with the convention. It was with this “mission” that Hillary Clinton came to Geneva. The Americans were very afraid that everything would come out: if there was a mechanism, they would have to host an international working group, which would not have representatives of the United States and which would have full authority to request any documents, question all witnesses, and so on. This is what the Americans were so afraid of. It was important for them to hide the fact that sending out spores was not the act of a lone terrorist, but the result of a conspiracy.

And now, in 2021, the United States is trying to get out of the situation in which it drove itself and the whole world in 2001. Everyone understands that today there is a danger not of biological warfare (this is still unlikely), but of what is much more terrible — biological terrorism. But in the absence of a legitimate internationally recognized control mechanism, which was never developed due to the fault of the United States, today this area is completely uncontrolled.

When a World Health Organization (WHO) commission arrived in China earlier this year to investigate where the COVID-19 pandemic started, it had no real authority. WHO tried to simulate the control mechanism, but they did not succeed. Well, there were market experts in Wuhan, interviewed someone, but they were not allowed in any laboratories, and China had every right to do so. As a result, the WHO published a helpless four-page report, on the basis of which no serious conclusions about the origin of the pandemic are simply impossible.

Russia sees all these dangers, so back in 2006 at the G8 summit, which was held in St. Petersburg, at the initiative of our country, a document was adopted concerning the spread of infectious diseases. The document emphasized that we are aware of all the risks in this area, including those associated with possible man-made cases of the spread of dangerous infections.

So all the accusations against China from the United States about the origin of COVID-19 are attempts by the Americans to regain priority in research in the field of the use of the most uncontrolled weapons of mass destruction to date — biological weapons. Two decades after the events of September 2001, the United States is trying to take revenge, which is why it is so actively “hitting” China.

At the same time, let’s not forget that the United States deliberately delayed the development of science in this area for two decades in order to conceal its crimes, which in its consequences is comparable to the famous Lysenkoism.

In fact, we are dealing with the phenomenon when the American civilization, which considers itself the greatest and most powerful, actually demonstrates a primitive conceit.

For no reason at all, the United States has assumed the right to decide everything for everyone, interfering in the affairs of other countries.

At the same time, for two decades now, they have been demonstrating their helplessness in terms of their willingness to bear responsibility even to their own people.

(Lysenkoism is a recognized anti-scientific concept, the founder of which is considered an academician Trofim Lysenko, which existed in the USSR in the 1930s-1960s. The consequence of this concept was the persecution of scientists, as well as the denial of the science of genetics, which had a detrimental effect on Soviet agriculture. In a figurative sense, the persecution of scientists for their "politically incorrect" scientific views is now called Lysenkoism or neo-Lysenkoism. — Approx. FAN).

Complex eh?

Yes, it is always so easy to get all caught up in the interesting details. When none of them really matter at all.

They do not matter.

What is actually going on is really quite simple. The American leadership is panicking. They have run the nation into the ground, and the people are very, very restless. The entire nation is coming apart at the seams, and the leadership must find some way to place blame. Because if they accept the blame, they will be hanging from nooses on light posts.

They chose China.

America is falling apart at the seams, and today the police must ride around in tanks and armored cars, as America is ripe for an explosion of anger as this video plainly shows…

America is a mess….

It is undeniable. America is a fucking mess. It really is. The people are brain dead either on drugs or electronic manipulation feeding a steady diet of hate, fear, and addiction. The oligarchy live inside well guarded and protected enclaves like the castles of yore. And when you see the reality it slaps you right in the face.

As in this reality video… go ahead watch it. I double-dare you.

Blame it all on China…

The Chinese leadership is not having any of this, and knows full well where this is all leading towards.

They have had centuries of strife, hunger, starvation, looting and war. If you think that they will not fight for their place on the earth, you are sadly mistaken.

What China had to go through for the past 100 years is beyond imagination.

For a big part of it, China had to suffer shameless looting from Western imperialists, had land and resources stolen, and saw millions of its people massacred by Japanese invaders. All these atrocities left the China obliterated and the repercussions rung on for decades and set China into years of poverty and famine.

For a big part of the past 100 years China had been working their arse off to repair the damage and get their people out of poverty, increase the literacy rate and restore prosperity to the country.

And for 90 of the past 100 years you hardly hear the West talk about “human rights”, but all of a sudden when China’s economy seem to be threatening Western dominance of the world, the Western countries started to gang up on them with fabricated claims of human rights violation.

Only those countries who have been in the same boat as China, those who have been bullied, looted and taken advantage of by the shameless Western powers understand all the BS that China is getting.

-Jong Mun Goh

Distill everything

So really, if you want to distill everything into it’s simplest components, its really American Leaders want a war where the Chinese leaders die.

Sounds harsh. But it's accurate. 

Trump era policy papers list specifics about targeting the Chinese leadership to institute a USA favorable "regime change".

It’s difficult to see any hope…

It certainly seems that way, doesn’t it?

And now we have to cope with the reality…

These millions of dollars that is pouring towards Hate-hate-hate-china will manifest into something one way or the other. You simply do not irradiate the minds of 330 million people and not have something happen as a result of it.

Such as shown in this video.

And this hate is manifesting…

Black on Asian crime is up in triple digits, and it is horrible. And what is the American government doing? Why it is funding more and more hate. Well, sure it’s going to result in people getting hurt, but it’s going to also result in other things as well. Be careful what you wish for.

Check out this video…

This is the Internet MEME about the United States (out of China)…

A mere four years ago, everyone in China had a good opinion of America. That started to change under Trump, and Biden has just kicked that opinion to the ground and stomped on it. To most Americans it doesn’t matter. But the truth is that it DOES matter.

If America is ever going to catch up to the rest of the world it just cannot isolate and threaten. It just looks like some kind of sick mentally retarded psychopath prison escapee. Check out this video meme.

But you know…

Life, real life is nothing like the brain-dead, zombies that are trying to cope in America today. The reality is that the rest of the world is actually doing pretty well, and China is doing great. Precisely because they concentrate on the needs of the people and not grabbing everything for personal profit and fighting wars to make money. Which is the USA model.

I want to ram this idea home with a “bitch slap” of reality. Here’s a sexy “everyday” video of a typical Chinese girl, in her house, making delicious typical healthy Chinese food for her Chinese family.

You wonder why the Chinese are happy, and healthy? Well it is because they eat well, live a stress free life, and are not taxed and regulated into oblivion. To either die, want to die or quiver in nervous exhaustion on some street corner. That’s why!

Check out this great sexy video! There’s few things sexier than a happy woman and food, glorious food!

And in Russia

It’s not like the “entire world is going down the tubes”. the rest of the world is doing well. None of those “new” “progressive” ideas where everyone can be a slob and do “their own thing” as a sign of “freedom”. People elsewhere, outside of the “bastions of freedom” are living quite well.

Check out this article, translated from Russian HERE.

“Still then go to bed” Why an American is surprised how a Russian woman makes a bed (says an American)

In everyday moments, residents of Russia often surprise me, probably because they are more demanding of cleanliness in the house. Still, for an American, some habits that are unacceptable for a Russian at all are quite normal, for example, walking around the house in shoes or collecting dirty dishes. Yes, a lot depends on the person, but the mentality is also very influenced. Therefore, in this publication I want to write about a rather curious difference in such a simple action as making a bed.

To be honest, every time I was surprised that my girlfriend, even living alone, kept the bed made. But I attributed it to the fact that she does not want to look in front of me inappropriately, women 🙂 However, the other day I realized that making a bed is a routine thing. In the morning, the girl insistently asked me to get out of bed, because it was time to bring me to a “decent look”.

With this process, I helped, but in my head I wondered: “Why complicate it so much?” Before that, I did not even notice that many Russians have a bed made quite difficult. That is, it is not enough just to carefully lay the blanket on top and throw a few pillows on top. Russians are serious about this matter, so you need to perfectly lay the blanket evenly, use a blanket or blanket on top, decorate it with pillows.

Again, I wonder how picky the Russians are sometimes, especially when compared to the Americans. The fact is that most People in America do not fill the bed at all, because the bedroom is a personal space. If the owner does not want to carefully bring the bed in perfect order every day, then he will not do this. And overall, I also don’t see anything wrong with not making the bed, especially if there is a bedroom. But before you go to bed, you do not need to prepare a place for bed.

But I was much more amazed when the girl told how in childhood Russians were taught to make beds. In kindergarten, time was necessarily allocated after an hour of sleep, when children had to independently bring the beds to the desired appearance. It’s funny that the beloved shared the story with some discontent. Because even in kindergarten there were certain requirements, the blanket was folded in a certain way, the blanket was flat, and the pillow had to stand, while a little at an angle.

I listened, and I felt sorry and funny at the same time. So that’s where all this desire to perfectly make a bed before you have breakfast comes from. When, if not from an early age to accustom the child to order? Probably, there would be a similar practice in America, then maybe I would also not be able to safely leave the bed “as it happens”. Although there is an interesting observation about Americans, the older, the more likely the bed is to be made.

…

And in the Middle East…

Isn’t this just wonderful?

And back in China…

Han traditional period clothing has really become a fashion statement. China, being traditional and conservative in culture has embraced these styles. You cannot go a day without seeing someone wear these clothes, and the little girls love to wear them. Not only are they cool appearing, but they are super comfortable, and very elegant.

Why is the rest of the world doing far better, being far happier while (on a GDP level) making far less money, and obeying social rules of “normal” behaviors and roles? What is going on?

The Western Financial Empire is collapsing

The financial empire that the “West” has created is a “house of cards”.

A plan, organization, or other entity that is destined to fail due to a weak structure or foundation (likened to a literal house of cards, which is built by balancing playing cards against one another, and is very easily toppled).

-House of Cards Idiom

To keep it running, there must be inflation. As long as the inflation isn’t too bad (read: too noticeable; Keeping up with yearly employee raises of 2%) it is tolerated, and the entire corrupt system runs.

But when the leadership is incompetent, or crazy, or a disaster hits, and they make gargantuan sized budgets with no oversight, then inflation expands past this 2% marker. And it becomes noticeable.

Congress has authorized nearly $4 trillion in spending over the past year to help address the economic crisis caused by the coronavirus pandemic, but only about $3 trillion of it has been spent.Roughly a third of that money went directly to struggling families through stimulus checks, expanded unemployment payments and food stamps.

-Congress has already approved $4 trillion

Initially, the way to control the “rabble” is to lie. The media would report that inflation is under control and not that bad. Such as this Forbes Article (always a mouth piece for the Federal Government).

Aug 11, 2021 · Is Inflation Under Control? The price of a number of products has been on the rise since the first wave of the pandemic in April 2020. However, despite the 500% increase in the cost of freight from China, the consumer price index for the 12 months ending June 2021 stood at 2.2% compared to 1.8% for the 12 months ending June 2020.

-Is Inflation Under Control?

Ah.

But it’s all just another puzzle piece in this large playing-board.

War is like a board-game II…

Well, Perhaps to better illustrate what is going on, we should consider that the Chinese are actually playing a layered strategy game such as Mahjong. Instead of Go (as I suggested earlier).

So maybe it’s better to visualize the Chinese playing Mahjong. Both Go and Mahjong are very simple games, that get very complex, very quickly with layers upon layers of strategic moves.

And that while the United States have many very capable people, those in positions of power are actually simpletons drunk on power.

So by all observation, America is actually just playing checkers…

And China is playing it expertly.

China has allied with China with the tightest relationship ever, and the agreements and the joint efforts are simply astounding. Right now units are being cross trained in use of each other’s equipment. So that Russian military  can use Chinese equipment and the Chinese can use Russian equipment. Not to mention that the leaders of both nations are in the supreme military headquarters of each nation.

As is illustrated in this video. Not that any American would ever see it. These videos are banned in America. Well, they are, but luckily MM is a “small potatoes” operation.

In this clamorous kaleidoscope of United States centered insanity…

We can see elements of reason from those who lie outside of irradiated, and bombarded nation. We can see that calm heads, and minds exist. We can see that thoughtful intentions are being manifested. We can see that  there is a changing and a turning of the world towards something better. And over time, seriously, the USA looks more an more like a real cesspool.

Don’t believe me? Look at this video from the French Quarter in New Orleans, Louisiana…

And this video of New York City. This is the largest and most prized American cities. It is “the shining city on the hill”.

And this video from Boston, Massachusetts. Even in the safe “bedroom communities” guns are being fired. Robberies are being committed and no one is safe.

And this video. I believe that it is Chicago, Illinois. Mob rule. Very little support of the government. Hatred abounds. Crime is normal.

And this video from New York City. The police must go out in mass, as the people, all unemployed, mostly on drugs, are always in danger. It is mob or crime rule and those that desire safety and security have moved out of the city.

As you all can see, the United States is a mess. The government has very little control over the nation. It is falling apart at the seams, and the smart people are fleeing to safer areas where they can have some degree of control over their personal lives.

Meanwhile the government is demanding the rest of the world be like the Untied States because it is the “shining city on the hill”. It cannot get any more bizzaro than this!

War is like a board-game III

Yet, you know, judging from the just insane actions that we observe happening in the United States today, perhaps the game of checkers is really giving the Washington DC leadership more credit than what is due. By all accounts and purposes, it looks like America is playing a different kind of game. No, it’s not chess. No, it’s not checkers. It’s Tic-tac-toe.

And China, well they are far more sophisticated.  No, they are not playing Go. Nor are they playing Mahjong. They are engaged in a competitive Sudoku puzzle.

What the West Gets Wrong About China

Three fundamental misconceptions by Rana Mitter and  Elsbeth Johnson. From the Harvard Business Review Magazine (May–June 2021)

When we first traveled to China, in the early 1990s, it was very different from what we see today. Even in Beijing many people wore Mao suits and cycled everywhere; only senior Chinese Communist Party (CCP) officials used cars. In the countryside life retained many of its traditional elements. But over the next 30 years, thanks to policies aimed at developing the economy and increasing capital investment, China emerged as a global power, with the second-largest economy in the world and a burgeoning middle class eager to spend.

One thing hasn’t changed, though: Many Western politicians and business executives still don’t get China. Believing, for example, that political freedom would follow the new economic freedoms, they wrongly assumed that China’s internet would be similar to the freewheeling and often politically disruptive version developed in the West. And believing that China’s economic growth would have to be built on the same foundations as those in the West, many failed to envisage the Chinese state’s continuing role as investor, regulator, and intellectual property owner.

Why do leaders in the West persist in getting China so wrong? In our work we have come to see that people in both business and politics often cling to three widely shared but essentially false assumptions about modern China. As we’ll argue in the following pages, these assumptions reflect gaps in their knowledge about China’s history, culture, and language that encourage them to draw persuasive but deeply flawed analogies between China and other countries.

[  Myth 1  ]

Economics and Democracy Are Two Sides of the Same Coin

 Many Westerners assume that China is on the same development trajectory that Japan, Britain, Germany, and France embarked on in the immediate aftermath of World War II—the only difference being that the Chinese started much later than other Asian economies, such as South Korea and Malaysia, after a 40-year Maoist detour. According to this view, economic growth and increasing prosperity will cause China to move toward a more liberal model for both its economy and its politics, as did those countries.

It’s a plausible narrative. As the author Yuval Noah Harari has pointed out, liberalism has had few competitors since the end of the Cold War, when both fascism and communism appeared defeated. And the narrative has had some powerful supporters. In a speech in 2000 former U.S. President Bill Clinton declared, “By joining the WTO, China is not simply agreeing to import more of our products, it is agreeing to import one of democracy’s most cherished values: economic freedom. When individuals have the power…to realize their dreams, they will demand a greater say.”

But this argument overlooks some fundamental differences between China and the United States, Japan, Britain, Germany, and France. Those countries have since 1945 been pluralist democracies with independent judiciaries. As a result, economic growth came in tandem with social progress (through, for example, legislation protecting individual choice and minority rights), which made it easy to imagine that they were two sides of a coin. The collapse of the USSR appeared to validate that belief, given that the Soviet regime’s inability to deliver meaningful economic growth for its citizens contributed to its collapse: Russia’s eventual integration into the global economy (perestroika) followed Mikhail Gorbachev’s political reforms (glasnost).

In China, however, growth has come in the context of stable communist rule, suggesting that democracy and growth are not inevitably mutually dependent. In fact, many Chinese believe that the country’s recent economic achievements—large-scale poverty reduction, huge infrastructure investment, and development as a world-class tech innovator—have come about because of, not despite, China’s authoritarian form of government. Its aggressive handling of Covid-19—in sharp contrast to that of many Western countries with higher death rates and later, less-stringent lockdowns—has, if anything, reinforced that view.

China has also defied predictions that its authoritarianism would inhibit its capacity to innovate. It is a global leader in AI, biotech, and space exploration. Some of its technological successes have been driven by market forces: People wanted to buy goods or communicate more easily, and the likes of Alibaba and Tencent have helped them do just that.

But much of the technological progress has come from a highly innovative and well-funded military that has invested heavily in China’s burgeoning new industries. This, of course, mirrors the role of U.S. defense and intelligence spending in the development of Silicon Valley.

But in China the consumer applications have come faster, making more obvious the link between government investment and products and services that benefit individuals. That’s why ordinary Chinese people see Chinese companies such as Alibaba, Huawei, and TikTok as sources of national pride—international vanguards of Chinese success—rather than simply sources of jobs or GDP, as they might be viewed in the West.

Thus July 2020 polling data from the Ash Center at Harvard’s Kennedy School of Government revealed 95% satisfaction with the Beijing government among Chinese citizens. Our own experiences on the ground in China confirm this.

Most ordinary people we meet don’t feel that the authoritarian state is solely oppressive, although it can be that; for them it also provides opportunity. A cleaner in Chongqing now owns several apartments because the CCP reformed property laws. A Shanghai journalist is paid by her state-controlled magazine to fly around the world for stories on global lifestyle trends. A young student in Nanjing can study propulsion physics at Beijing’s Tsinghua University thanks to social mobility and the party’s significant investment in scientific research.

Many Chinese believe that the country’s recent economic achievements have actually come about because of, not despite, China’s authoritarian form of government.

The past decade has, if anything, strengthened Chinese leaders’ view that economic reform is possible without liberalizing politics. A major turning point was the financial crisis of 2008, which in Chinese eyes revealed the hollowness of the “Washington consensus” that democratization and economic success were linked. In the years since, China has become an economic titan, a global leader in technology innovation, and a military superpower, all while tightening its authoritarian system of government—and reinforcing a belief that the liberal narrative does not apply to China.

That, perhaps, is why its current president and (more crucially) party general secretary, Xi Jinping, has let it be known that he considers Gorbachev a traitor to the cause for liberalizing as he did, thereby destroying the Communist Party’s hold on the USSR. And when Xi announced, in 2017, that the “three critical battles” for China’s development would fall in the areas of reducing financial risk, addressing pollution, and alleviating poverty, he also made it clear that the objective of these reforms was to solidify the system rather than to change it. The truth, then, is that China is not an authoritarian state seeking to become more liberal but an authoritarian state seeking to become more successful—politically as well as economically.

In much Western analysis the verb most commonly attached to China’s reforms is “stalled.” The truth is that political reform in China hasn’t stalled. It continues apace. It’s just not liberal reform. One example is the reinvention in the late 2010s of the Central Commission for Discipline Inspection. Empowered by Xi to deal with the corruption that had become so prevalent early in that decade, the commission can arrest and hold suspects for several months; its decisions cannot be overturned by any other entity in China, not even the supreme court.

The commission has succeeded in reducing corruption in large part because it is essentially above the law—something unimaginable in a liberal democracy. These are the reforms China is making—and they need to be understood on their own terms, not simply as a distorted or deficient version of a liberal model.

One reason that many people misread China’s trajectory may be that—particularly in the English-language promotional materials the Chinese use overseas—the country tends to portray itself as a variation on a liberal state, and therefore more trustworthy. It often compares itself to brands with which Westerners are familiar. For example, in making the case for why it should be involved in the UK’s 5G infrastructure rollout, Huawei styled itself the “John Lewis of China,” in reference to the well-known British department store that is regularly ranked as one of the UK’s most trusted brands.

China is also often at pains to suggest to foreign governments or investors that it is similar to the West in many aspects—consumer lifestyles, leisure travel, and a high demand for tertiary education. These similarities are real, but they are manifestations of the wealth and personal aspirations of China’s newly affluent middle class, and they in no way negate the very real differences between the political systems of China and the West.

Which brings us to the next myth.

[  Myth 2  ]

Authoritarian Political Systems Can’t Be Legitimate

Many Chinese not only don’t believe that democracy is necessary for economic success but do believe that their form of government is legitimate and effective. Westerners’ failure to appreciate this explains why many still expect China to reduce its role as investor, regulator, and, especially, intellectual property owner when that role is in fact seen as essential by the Chinese government.

Part of the system’s legitimacy in the eyes of the Chinese is, again, rooted in history: China has often had to fight off invaders and, as is rarely acknowledged in the West, fought essentially alone against Japan from 1937 until 1941, when the U.S. entered World War II. The resulting victory, which for decades the CCP spun as its solo vanquishing of an external enemy, was reinforced by defeat of an internal one (Chiang Kai-shek in 1949), establishing the legitimacy of the party and its authoritarian system.

Seventy years on, many Chinese believe that their political system is now actually more legitimate and effective than the West’s. This is a belief alien to many Western business executives, especially if they’ve had experience with other authoritarian regimes. The critical distinction is that the Chinese system is not only Marxist, it’s Marxist-Leninist. In our experience, many Westerners don’t understand what that means or why it matters. A Marxist system is concerned primarily with economic outcomes.

That has political implications, of course—for example, that the public ownership of assets is necessary to ensure an equal distribution of wealth—but the economic outcomes are the focus. Leninism, however, is essentially a political doctrine; its primary aim is control. So a Marxist-Leninist system is concerned not only with economic outcomes but also with gaining and maintaining control over the system itself.

That has huge implications for people seeking to do business in China. If China were concerned only with economic outcomes, it would welcome foreign businesses and investors and, provided they helped deliver economic growth, would treat them as equal partners, agnostic as to who owned the IP or the majority stake in a joint venture. But because this is also a Leninist system, those issues are of critical importance to Chinese leaders, who won’t change their minds about them, however effective or helpful their foreign partners are economically.

This plays out every time a Western company negotiates access to the Chinese market. We have both sat in meetings where business executives, particularly in the technology and pharmaceutical sectors, expressed surprise at China’s insistence that they transfer ownership of their IP to a Chinese company. Some have expressed optimism that China’s need for control will lessen after they’ve proved their worth as partners. Our response? That’s not likely, precisely because in China’s particular brand of authoritarianism, control is key.

A Leninist approach to selecting future leaders is also a way the CCP has maintained its legitimacy, because to many ordinary Chinese, this approach produces relatively competent leaders: They are chosen by the CCP and progress through the system by successfully running first a town and then a province; only after that do they serve on the Politburo.

You can’t become a senior leader in China without having proved your worth as a manager.

China’s leaders argue that its essentially Leninist rule book makes Chinese politics far less arbitrary or nepotistic than those of many other, notably Western, countries (even though the system has its share of back-scratching and opaque decision-making).

Familiarity with Leninist doctrine is still important for getting ahead. Entry to the CCP and to a university involves compulsory courses in Marxist-Leninist thought, which has also become part of popular culture, as evidenced by the 2018 TV talk show Marx Got It Right. And with handy apps such as Xuexi Qiangguo (“Study the powerful nation” and a pun on “Study Xi”) to teach the basics of thinkers including Marx, Lenin, Mao, and Xi Jinping, political education is now a 21st-century business.

The Leninist nature of politics is also evidenced by the language used to discuss it. Political discourse in China remains anchored in Marxist-Leninist ideas of “struggle” (douzheng) and “contradiction” (maodun)—both seen as attributes that force a necessary and even healthy confrontation that can help achieve a victorious outcome. In fact, the Chinese word for the resolution of a conflict (jiejue) can imply a result in which one side overcomes the other, rather than one in which both sides are content. Hence the old joke that China’s definition of a win-win scenario is one in which China wins twice.

China uses its particular authoritarian model—and its presumed legitimacy—to build trust with its population in ways that would be considered highly intrusive in a liberal democracy. The city of Rongcheng, for example, uses big data (available to the government through surveillance and other data-capturing infrastructure) to give people individualized “social credit scores.” These are used to reward or punish citizens according to their political and financial virtues or vices.

The benefits are both financial (for example, access to mortgage loans) and social (permission to buy a ticket on one of the new high-speed trains). Those with low social-credit scores may find themselves prevented from buying an airline ticket or getting a date on an app. For liberals (in China and elsewhere), this is an appalling prospect; but for many ordinary people in China, it’s a perfectly reasonable part of the social contract between the individual and the state.

Such ideas may appear very different from the outward-facing, Confucian concepts of “benevolence” and “harmony” that China presents to its international, English-speaking audience. But even those concepts lead to considerable misunderstanding on the part of Westerners, who often reduce Confucianism to cloying ideas about peace and cooperation. For the Chinese, the key to those outcomes is respect for an appropriate hierarchy, itself a means of control. While hierarchy and equality may appear to the post-Enlightenment West to be antithetical concepts, in China they remain inherently complementary.

Recognizing that the authoritarian Marxist-Leninist system is accepted in China as not only legitimate but also effective is crucially important if Westerners are to make more-realistic long-term decisions about how to deal with or invest in the country. But the third assumption can also mislead those seeking to engage with China.

[  Myth 3  ]

The Chinese Live, Work, and Invest Like Westerners

China’s recent history means that Chinese people and the state approach decisions very differently from Westerners—in both the time frames they use and the risks they worry about most. But because human beings tend to believe that other humans make decisions as they do, this may be the most difficult assumption for Westerners to overcome.

Let’s imagine the personal history of a Chinese woman who is 65 today. Born in 1955, she experienced as a child the terrible Great Leap Forward famine in which 20 million Chinese starved to death. She was a Red Guard as a teenager, screaming adoration for Chairman Mao while her parents were being re-educated for being educated. By the 1980s she was in the first generation to go back to university, and even took part in the Tiananmen Square demonstration.

Then, in the 1990s, she took advantage of the new economic freedoms, becoming a 30-something entrepreneur in one of the new Special Economic Zones. She bought a flat—the first time anyone in her family’s history had owned property. Eager for experience, she took a job as an investment analyst with a Shanghai-based foreign asset manager, but despite a long-term career plan mapped out by her employer, she left that company for a small short-term pay raise from a competitor.

By 2008 she was making the most of the rise in disposable incomes by buying new consumer goods that her parents could only have dreamt about. In the early 2010s she started moderating her previously outspoken political comments on Weibo as censorship tightened up. By 2020 she was intent on seeing her seven-year-old grandson and infant granddaughter (a second child had only recently become legal) do well.

Had she been born in 1955 in almost any other major economy in the world, her life would have been much, much more predictable. But looking back over her life story, one can see why even many young Chinese today may feel a reduced sense of predictability or trust in what the future holds—or in what their government might do next.

When life is (or has been within living memory) unpredictable, people tend to apply a higher discount rate to potential long-term outcomes than to short-term ones—and a rate materially higher than the one applied by people living in more-stable societies. That means not that these people are unconcerned with long-term outcomes but, rather, that their risk aversion increases significantly as the time frame lengthens. This shapes the way they make long-term commitments, especially those that entail short-term trade-offs or losses.

Thus many Chinese consumers prefer the short-term gains of the stock market to locking their money away in long-term savings vehicles. As market research consistently tells us, the majority of individual Chinese investors behave more like traders. For example, a 2015 survey found that 81% of them trade at least once a month, even though frequent trading is invariably a way to destroy rather than create long-term fund value.

That figure is higher than in all Western countries (for example, only 53% of U.S. individual investors trade this frequently); it’s also even higher than in neighboring Hong Kong—another Han Chinese society with a predilection for gambling and a similar, capital-gains-tax-free regime. This suggests that something distinctive to mainland China influences this behavior: long-term unpredictability that’s sufficiently recent to have been experienced by or passed on to those now buying stocks.

That focus on securing short-term gain is why the young asset manager in Shanghai left a good long-term job for a relatively small but immediate pay raise—behavior that still plagues many businesses trying to retain talent and manage succession pipelines in China. People who do take long-term career risks often do so only after fulfilling their primary need for short-term security. For example, we’ve interviewed couples in which the wife “jumps into the sea” of starting her own business—becoming one of China’s many female entrepreneurs—because her husband’s stable but lower-paid state-sector job will provide the family with security.

The one long-term asset class in which increasing numbers of Chinese are invested—that is, residential property, ownership of which grew from 14% of 25-to-69-year-olds in 1988 to 93% by 2008—is driven also by the need for security: Unlike all other assets, property ensures a roof over one’s head if things go wrong, in a system with limited social welfare and a history of sudden policy changes.

China’s rulers see foreign engagement as a source less of opportunity than of threat, uncertainty, and even humiliation.

In contrast, the government’s discount rate on the future is lower—in part because of its Leninist emphasis on control—and explicitly focused on long-term returns.

The vehicles for much of this investment are still the CCP’s Soviet-style five-year plans, which include the development of what Xi has termed an “eco-civilization” built around solar energy technology, “smart cities,” and high-density, energy-efficient housing. Ambition like that can’t be realized without state intervention—relatively fast and easy but often brutal in China. By comparison, progress on these issues is for Western economies extremely slow.

Decisions—by both individuals and the state—about how to invest all serve one purpose: to provide security and stability in an unpredictable world. Although many in the West may believe that China sees only opportunity in its 21st-century global plans, its motivation is very different. For much of its turbulent modern history, China has been under threat from foreign powers, both within Asia (notably Japan) and outside it (the UK and France in the mid 19th century). China’s rulers, therefore, see foreign engagement as a source less of opportunity than of threat, uncertainty, and even humiliation.

They still blame foreign interference for many of their misfortunes, even if it occurred more than a century ago. For example, the British role in the Opium Wars of the 1840s kicked off a 100-year period that the Chinese still refer to as the Century of Humiliation. China’s history continues to color its view of international relations—and in large part explains its current obsession with the inviolability of its sovereignty.

That history also explains the paradox that the rulers and the ruled in China operate on very different time frames. For individuals, who’ve lived through harsh times they could not control, the reaction is to make some key choices in a much more short-term way than Westerners do. Policy makers, in contrast, looking for ways to gain more control and sovereignty over the future, now play a much longer game than the West does. This shared quest for predictability explains the continuing attractiveness of an authoritarian system in which control is the central tenet.

. . .

 Many in the West accept the version of China that it has presented to the world: The period of “reform and opening” begun in 1978 by Deng Xiaoping, which stressed the need to avoid the radical and often violent politics of the Cultural Revolution, means that ideology in China no longer matters. The reality is quite different. At every point since 1949 the Chinese Communist Party has been central to the institutions, society, and daily experiences that shape the Chinese people. And the party has always believed in and emphasized the importance of Chinese history and of Marxist-Leninist thought, with all they imply. Until Western companies and politicians accept this reality, they will continue to get China wrong.

Maybe, so says the Harvard Elite…

Here’s an article out of China. Commenting on Bloomberg saying that China WILL BE ISOLATED from the rest of the world. Yeah.As if you can isolate the world’s factory. Sure….

Dynamic zero-case route won’t get China ‘isolated’: Global Times editorial

Meanwhile, while the United States screams and hollers and threatens…

Three Chinese think tanks published a joint research report on Monday criticizing the U.S. response to the COVID-19 pandemic.

The Chongyang Institute for Financial Studies of Renmin University, the Taihe Institute and Intellisia gathered dozens of former politicians, intellectuals, scholars, policy- and decision-makers and practitioners to contribute to the report.

According to the report titled “‘America Ranked First’?! The Truth about America’s Fight against COVID-19,” the United States deserves to be the world’s No. 1 anti-pandemic failure, the world’s No. 1 political-blaming country, the world’s No. 1 pandemic spreader, the world’s No. 1 politically-divisive country, the world’s No. 1 currency-abusing country, the world’s No. 1 turbulent country during the pandemic, the world’s No. 1 disinforming country, and the world’s No. 1 country advocating origin tracing terrorism.

The report said the U.S. failed to contain the virus and had the most COVID-19 cases and deaths in the world. As of August 7, 2021, the United States had reported 35,530,951 cumulative confirmed cases of COVID-19, including 613,658 deaths while some U.S. media still rated the country number one in the world for its pandemic response.

“The latest absurd example is the Bloomberg reporting on a ranking, COVID resilience ranking, the United States comes No. 1, this can’t be taken seriously,” Martin Jacques, a senior fellow from Cambridge University, said at a presser about the report via video link.

Jacques also argued if the coronavirus pandemic hadn’t happen amid fraying China-U.S. relations, the story could’ve been much different, adding, “COVID-19 is probably the greatest test of governance the world has seen since the Second World War, the United States and the West failed miserably.”

The COVID-19 pandemic has seen U.S. business closures and waves of unemployment occurring faster and on a larger scale than expected. The lower class and other vulnerable groups are facing higher risks of unemployment. The gap between rich and poor further widened as wealth flowed into the hands of a few more quickly, said the report.

It also noticed that social unrest is a “chronic disease” in the United States as the pandemic is acting as an “amplifier” to further exacerbate social tensions. This year, the U.S. topped the list of crime rates in developed countries, much higher than countries such as the United Kingdom, Canada, and Spain, as well as many developing countries. Social unrest manifests itself in three main ways: guns out of control, hate crimes and political chaos.

The report found that lack of common sense and scientific knowledge were direct causes for the U.S. failing to constrain the pandemic’s impact, and pointed the finger at former U.S. President Donald Trump for spreading fake news about the virus.

“Donald Trump might be the strongest driving force on creating fake COVID-19 information,” it said.

The report blamed the pandemic for tearing up U.S. society, with conspiracy theories about the origin of the virus exacerbating bully attitudes and discrimination towards Asian Americans.

Democrats and Republicans were divided on virus containment measures, especially mask mandates and America’s laissez-faire on containing the virus had also had a ripple effect on other countries. “After the outbreak of the pandemic, over 20 million U.S. citizens went abroad, accelerating the spread of the virus,” the report said.

Wang Wen, executive dean from Chongyang Institute for Financial Studies of Renmin University, said: “When it comes to issues like vaccination, social distancing, and almost any policies regarding COVID-19 containment, U.S. politicians have barely reached a consensus. This is the tragedy of America’s political and social system.”

It also identified a lack of responsibility from the U.S. in terms of providing COVID-19 vaccines to other countries. Duke University’s Global Health Innovation Center estimated that by the summer of 2021, the United States may have a surplus of 300 million or more doses of COVID-19 vaccine. The Wall Street Journal reported on May 17 that the United States had exported only 3 million doses of COVID-19 vaccine

“Exported vaccines from the U.S. take up less than one percent of its total vaccine production,” said the report.

Do you all know what this reminds me of?

Seriously. It reminds me of this…

Appearing on The Moment podcast, Tarantino shared a childhood story about how his mother used to side with his teachers after they called him out for writing screenplays in school.

According to Tarantino: "In the middle of her little tirade, she said, 'Oh, and by the way, this little 'writing career,' with the finger quotes and everything. This little 'writing career' that you're doing? That shit is over."

"When she said that to me in that sarcastic way, I go, 'OK, lady, when I become a successful writer, you will never see one penny from my success. There will be no house for you. There's no vacation for you, no Elvis Cadillac for mommy. You get nothing. Because you said that.'"

As for a true emergency? "Yeah. I helped her out with a jam with the IRS," Tarantino admitted. "But no house. No Cadillac, no house."

He added, "There are consequences for your words as you deal with your children. Remember, there are consequences for your sarcastic tone about what's meaningful to them."

Tarantino is absolutely right about that. 

Negative comments parents make can have a lifelong impact on their children's lives — no matter how small they may seem to those hurling them. Consider this another reminder that you should always support your kids' dreams, no matter how far-fetched they may seem.

And that’s the USA today. It was a cocky arrogant, bullshit nation, ruled by psychopathic personalities that have done everything in it’s power to put the rest of the world down. Now it is collapsing and still being a jack-ass.

Here’s a golden gem from the old Seinfield television show…

No soup for you!

“No Soup For You” or “NO SOUP 4 U” is a catchphrase that was initially uttered in a 1995 episode of the American comedic sitcom Seinfeld. Online, the phrase is often used in the context of message boards and forums in reply to other users who have made requests or demands that are denied or cannot be fulfilled.

No Soup for You / Soup Nazi | Know Your Meme

So the world is a mess!

Well it appears that way, but it really is not.

The USA is a mess. The UK is a mess. The South Africa is a mess. Israel is a mess. And the degree of how much of a mess it is is directly tied to how closely that nation is connected to the Untied States.

So Australia wants to be connect to the United States hip to hip, then you can expect Australia to collapse just like America is collapsing. Iceland, which isn’t, is not collapsing. Sweden which is following the EU led American directives, is a mixed bag. Like I said. The closer the nation is tied to America, the more of a fucked up mess it is today.

So what?

Well, to see what is actually going on, you have to take a couple of steps back and look at the Big BIG picture.

And how can you deal with this?

Well, you really don’t need to get into the details. You just need to concentrate on your life, and your family life selfishly. The only things that you have any control over is your immediate reality.

Guys, guys, guys. It seems like the world is coming apart at the seams. So what can you do?

You turn off the “news”. You walk outside. You listen to the birds. You go into a restaurant and have a delicious meal. You smell the air. You hop on a bicycle and ride. You play with your kitties, or romp with your dog.

After a few days of this, then you take in MEASURED “news”.

If you live in Idaho, what the Hell is going on in New York should be of no concern to you. If you read anything about China, but haven’t been there in the last two years, then discard it as noise. Who gives a fuck of Mr. XXXXX says YYYYY that will do ZZZZZ? It’s all just a blimp on the big picture.

People! The ONLY way for you all to get through this period of strife is to be a Rufus.

That’s the ONLY way.

How do you control your reality?

You be a Rufus.

Listen to me.

You center your mind. You shut down the “news”. You kick away all the negative influences in your life. You stop eating processed food and replace it with good delicious home cooked fresh foods. You perform meditations. You operate your affirmation campaigns. You spend time with loved ones and pets. You smile. You help people in your community. You make friends and associations in your community and you cultivate them. Be the best you can be. And you be a Rufus.

Or in an easier to read format…

• You center your mind.
• You shut down the “news”.
• You kick away all the negative influences in your life.
• You stop eating processed food and replace it with good delicious home cooked fresh foods.
• You perform meditations.
• You operate your affirmation campaigns.
• You spend time with loved ones and pets.
• You smile.
• You help people in your community.
• You make friends and associations in your community and you cultivate them.
• Be the best that you can be.
• And you be a Rufus.

Be the Rufus?

Be the Rufus. This is what I mean when I say that you must be part of something larger; be part of your community. Be a giver. Not a taker. Lord knows there are far too many money-grubbing taker in this world. Contribute. Help. Make the day of someone just a little bit better. Buy a coffee for a coworker. Smile.

Yes. We must be the Rufus. Sure this guy would probably get in trouble for being late. Maybe his boss will dock his pay. If it was America, he might even lose his job. But not here. Not now. He’s a Rufus, and he “felt” that something was amiss. He did not wait. he did not call the police. He took action.

He selflessly helped others in need.

Be the Rufus.

In a world that is seemingly “off the rails”, with a terribly inefficient, corrupt and moronic government, where everything is going wrong and you are being pinched by all sides with a crazy media shouting at you “it’s China’s fault!”…

Be the Rufus.

That’s it really.

You must be the Rufus.

It doesn’t take much. All it takes is to be aware and contribute to the general well being of your community. If there is trash on the road in front of your house, you clean it up. You don’t wait for the government to do so. If your grass needs cut, you cut it. If your neighbor needs a hand you give it to him. If your mailbox is an eyesore, then spruce it up.

When an emergency happens, you as the Rufus, spring into action. Be the Rufus.

Be the Rufus!

When an emergency happens, you take part and be helpful.

Sometimes it’s easy and sometimes it’s hard. Like preventing an infant from having seizures. But a Rufus does what ever is necessary. Be that Rufus. Be the best you can be.

So yeah, the United States is collapsing. The leadership are a group of self-centered ignoramuses. And you might be stuck, trapped and inside this massive cesspool on fire. What can you do?

Again.

Focus on you. Be part of your community. Smile. Make other feel good about themselves and want to see you. Be helpful. Devote good efforts to make your house good, calm, strong and cohesive. Spend time with pets and loved ones. Eat healthy food. Do your affirmation campaigns. Be the Rufus.

Just being helpful is all it takes.

Sometimes you have to take extraordinary measures.

Here’s a military soldier abandoning his post to rescue a three year old from getting squashed by an income horde or cars and trucks. Yikes!

A Rufus is there to help others.

A Rufus is part of the community. They are appreciated. They are loved. They are the organized person that everyone know that they can count on. They are the guiding light that everyone in need turns to.

You see, once you change your mind and decide to participate within a community, and be helpful to others you change. Your mind; and then your entire being, becomes a service to others sentience. STO.

The madness in the United States today is mostly and primarily affecting three other sentience’s;

• Service to self (STS).
• Service for another (SFA).
• Disjointed Sentience (DJS).

By changing your being, and by doing your prayer affirmation campaigns you are able to create a kind of “non-physical” zone around you and your family and community. It’s not ironclad, though. But it is certainly strong enough to take most of the hits and pings from the society that surrounds yours.

Certainly brute force assaults, and intentional disruptive attacks can damage what ever you can throw up, but if you just follow the basic format that I have provided, you all will be fine. You all will be just fine. You will be just fine.

The False Flag Event

The American “leadership” (whatever it leads is another question) seems to be intent in generating a false flag event to trigger a war with China. We all can prevent that within our affirmation campaigns, and we can isolate our communities from any successful chaos that might result as an effect of it.

Do not fear the insanity.

Just focus on you, your family and friends, and your community. Stick to the basics, and play the “long game”. Everything will be quite different one decade from now. All you all want to do is “ride it out” unscathed. To do this, just follow MM advice and Be The Rufus.

You don’t have to rescue anyone. You just need to be extra considerate. You need to be more humane and understanding. You need to be sensitive to the needs of those around you and be helpful to them.

A Rufus makes it his job to help others. To keep his community clean, and patrolled and away from crime. A Rufus holds his society responsible for what ever happens to it, and works to correct wrongs, and punish those who are selfish or corrupt at all levels. A Rufus participates…

A Rufus lends a hand to those in need.

A Rufus goes and visits a dying friend, no matter what the law says, and comforts him as only a meat-pie lady could A Rufus cares about the feeling of others. A Rufus helps the children; the animals; the cats; and the dogs. A Rufus is always there to make the community a better place to live in.

A Rufus helps others.

A Rufus doesn’t drive past an gawk at a car accident. They get out of their car and help. They do what ever they can. They are the people that make the community and their actions are attractive and contagious. All it takes is a few Rufus’s in the community and soon, others will start acting that way too.

Be the Rufus.

Make the world a better place.

A Rufus volunteers.

When there is a need in the community, the Rufus doesn’t complain. They don’t bitch and moan, they go out and work. They volunteer, and if there isn’t any kind of organization to correct the problems, they set one up themselves.

Even if it is hot, and you are suffering from heat exhaustion. A Rufus “takes it on the chin”. A Rufus makes a difference in their community.

A Rufus is the person that you can count on.

A Rufus is not perfect, and is jut a human. But the Rufus strives to be more than just a user; a complainer, a parasite on society. A Rufus contributes.

Here’s some unpaid volunteers in China. They are working long, long days, and then collapse in the public areas to get some sleep before they begin again. A Rufus makes the world a better place.

Be the Rufus.

..

Be the Rufus.

Final words

You are never alone if you are part of a community. You might be weak in some areas, but the community will compensate. And your strengths can be used to make the community strong. Remember the rule of three. Three people make a community. Be part of your community. And the bigger; the better.

You WILL BE appreciated. As this video clearly shows.

Do you want more?

You can find more articles related to this in my latest index; A New Beginning. And in it are elements of the old, some elements regarding the transition, and some elements that look towards the future.

.

Articles & Links

.

• You can start reading the articles by going HERE.
• You can visit the Index Page HERE to explore by article subject.
• You can also ask the author some questions. You can go HERE to find out how to go about this.
• You can find out more about the author HERE.
• If you have concerns or complaints, you can go HERE.
• If you want to make a donation, you can go HERE.

Oh man! I was hoping that the fantasy that “America will regain it’s power and strength and continue to rule the world” will dissipate.

Not so.

Over the weekend, I have been bombarded with articles talking about how America is ready to fight for democracy™ and freedom™ again! This time against China.

And that, all that is needed is a few billions of dollars, and some pluck from “Allies”, and then China would “be toast“.

Bombarded. Non-stop cascade of news “articles” (disguised propaganda pieces) and comments (often with a sizable portion of ‘bots – there just can’t be that many brain-dead people in the United States, can there?)

As in what the fuck?

Can’t I just get a break.

I guess not. Sigh.

And then you have these gung-ho “patriots” who think that everyone else outside of America are rats that need to be stepped on and killed, like some kind of vermin.

Generational warrior culture, eh?

Ever hear of Genghis Khan?

Dude, I just and to enjoy my day. I want to walk, and relax. I want to eat fine delicious food. I want to drink some nice wine. I want to play with the pets, smell the lush moist air, and cavort with pretty girls.

But noooo…

I have to endue a flood of anti-China bullshit and endure comments on how America is going to kick-some -Chinese-ass. Sheech!

I know. I know. I KNOW.

You fund half a billion dollars in anti-China propaganda, of course it’s going to materialize. The only thing that I am surprised about is that there’s no Hollywood movies depicting Rambo-like American soldiers gloriously bayoneting the evil Chinese in a war picture.

Maybe. Soon.

First off, let’s recognize the fact that the United States Military Empire believes that it can use nuclear weapons while avoiding a MAD all-out nuclear response.

Yup! That’s true.

These fucking moron “geniuses” in Washington DC actually believe that they can use nuclear weapons against either Russia or China, and that they will NOT shoot nuclear weapons back.

Can you fucking believe it?

Let’s look at this article to flush out this curious fantasy…

“MindWar must be strategic in emphasis, with tactical applications playing a reinforcing, supplementary role. In its strategic context, MindWar must reach out to friends, enemies, and neutrals alike across the globe…

...through the media possessed by the United States which have the capabilities to reach virtually all people on the face of the Earth…

State of the art developments in satellite communication, video recording techniques, and laser and optical transmission of broadcasts make possible a penetration of the minds of the world such as would have been inconceivable just a few years ago. 

Like the sword of Excalibur, we have but to reach out and seize this tool; and it can transform the world for us if we have the courage and integrity to enhance civilization with it. 

If we do not accept Excalibur, then we relinquish our ability to inspire foreign cultures with our morality. 

If they can then desire moralities unsatisfactory to us, we have no choice but to fight them on a more brutish level.”

– “From PSYOP to MindWar: The Psychology of Victory” by Col. Paul Vallely and Maj. Michael Aquino, a document written to increase the influence of the “spoon-benders” in the U.S. military.

About one year ago, the U.S. military conducted a simulation of a “limited” nuclear exchange with…

…Russia.

This was strange news on several accounts.

For one, this sort of thing is not typically announced in the candid detail U.S. defense secretary Mark Esper described to journalists, giddy that he got to “play himself” in this war game scenario.

It was as if he were preparing for a Hollywood movie doing his best John Wayne impression:

“If you got them by the balls their hearts and minds will follow.”

However, the most concerning revelation of this simulated exercise was the announcement to the American people that;

“it might be very possible to fight, and win, a battle with nuclear weapons, without the exchange leading to an all-out-world-ending conflict.”

In other words, throw your cares to the wind, that is, the “spirit wind” known as kamikaze, because…

…America is going for it.

In the transcript of a background briefing on the war game exercise, senior Pentagon officials described their tactic further.

They explained that their confident calculation on being “victorious” in this exercise completely relied on the supposition that such a confrontation would remain “limited” in its nuclear exchange.

“It’s a very reasonable response to what we saw was a Russian nuclear doctrine and nuclear capability that suggested to us that they might use nuclear weapons in a limited way,”

…a senior official stated.

It seems what senior Pentagon officials are really saying here about the predictability of the Russians, is that there seems to be a line the Russians won’t cross in the case of a nuclear conflict…

…but the Americans sure will.

Hans Kristensen, director of the nuclear information project at the Federation of American Scientists tried to play down the “rodeo circus” and reduce the high profile announcement of the U.S. military exercise.

Instead Hans stated it was simply a marketing gimmick to “justify” the new nuclear weapons since we are entering the new budget phase. “So all of this has been played up to serve that process.” stated Kristensen.

I don’t know about you but I am getting some serious déjà vu.

Didn’t we already go through all of this with the disastrous JIC-502 spookery?

JIC-502 intelligence report titled “Implications of Soviet Possession of Atomic Weapons” drafted in Jan 20th 1950, turned out not to be an intelligence report at all but rather a sales pitch.

It began in a dangerous manner, claiming that a nuclear-armed Soviet Union had introduced the notion that;

“a tremendous military advantage would be gained by the power that struck first and succeeded in carrying through an effective surprise attack.”

For more on this refer to my paper.

It was JIC-502 which would be the first to put forward [1] a justification for the preventive first strike concept, supported by [2] a massive military buildup under the pretense of pre-emptive war.

NSC-68 would be drafted the same year and called for a massive military buildup to be completed by 1954 dubbed the “year of maximum danger,” the year JIC-502 claimed the Soviets would achieve military superiority and be able to launch war against the U.S.

But the Soviets never did launch such a war, and all claims of their capabilities let alone their intentions turned out to be entirely fraudulent…

…so what was it all for?

• Did the U.S. have to put everything into expanding their military, turning away from the concept of a nation at peace made up of citizen soldiers and instead towards a nation in perpetual war?
• Isn’t this a made up of the Nietzschean fantasy of Übermensch (Beyond-Man) super soldiers, the very thing that Eisenhower warned against?
• Did this all have to happen in defense of “peace and security” of the free world?
• Why were the predictions of the JIC-502 completely unfounded?
• Were the predictions based off of corrupted data?
• Did the Soviets simply change their mind?

…Or was it never about a pre-emptive war but rather was always about global dominance.

What would the American people think if they knew the truth, that their entire military industrial complex was never built for the protection of the “free world” in opposition to dictators and despots but rather the very opposite? That it simply thought its ideology the superior one, the only lawful dictatorship that had the right to rule, even if it meant by force.

In the words of Vallely/Aquino:

“If we do not accept Excalibur, then we relinquish our ability to inspire foreign cultures with our morality. If they can then desire moralities unsatisfactory to us, we have no choice but to fight them on a more brutish level.”

This may look like just a “rodeo circus” but it is far far worst.

As Edgar Poe elaborated in his “The System of Dr. Tarr and Professor Fether”, the asylum is quite literally being run by the lunatics.

What do Jedi Warriors, Spoon-benders, the First Earth Battalion and Men Who Stare at Goats Have in Common?

For those who need a refresher of the film Dr. Strangelove’s synopsis, it is about what could happen if a lunatic had the authority to bypass the U.S. president and cause a nuclear escalation between the U.S. and USSR.

In the movie, it is U.S. Air Force General Jack Ripper who initiates a nuclear attack to destroy the USSR under the premise that once the U.S. government is briefed on the situation, they would have no choice but to commit 100% towards a hostile attack against the USSR, in order to prevent nuclear retaliation.

The reason why General Jack Ripper is fully convinced that it is absolutely necessary to destroy the USSR is because he believes that the communists are conspiring to pollute the “precious bodily fluids” of the American people.

Fluoridation is the most monstrously conceived and dangerous communist plot we have ever had to face. 

-General Jack D. Ripper

Gen. Jack Ripper goes on to describe how he first discovered this Soviet ploy, after sexual relations with a woman and how he felt empty inside but that luckily he was astute enough to be able to accurately deduce the cause of this feeling of emptiness as due to being drained of his “life essence”, all part of the communist conspiracy for sure.

General Jack D. Ripper: Mandrake, do you realize that in addition to fluoridating water, why, there are studies underway to fluoridate salt, flour, fruit juices, soup, sugar, milk... ice cream. Ice cream, Mandrake, children's ice cream.

Group Capt. Lionel Mandrake: [very nervous] Lord, Jack.

General Jack D. Ripper: You know when fluoridation first began?

Group Capt. Lionel Mandrake: I... no, no. I don't, Jack.

General Jack D. Ripper: Nineteen hundred and forty-six. 1946, Mandrake. How does that coincide with your post-war Commie conspiracy, huh? It's incredibly obvious, isn't it? A foreign substance is introduced into our precious bodily fluids without the knowledge of the individual. Certainly without any choice. That's the way your hard-core Commie works.

Group Capt. Lionel Mandrake: Uh, Jack, Jack, listen... tell me, tell me, Jack. When did you first... become... well, develop this theory?

General Jack D. Ripper: [somewhat embarassed] Well, I, uh... I... I... first became aware of it, Mandrake, during the physical act of love.

Group Capt. Lionel Mandrake: Hmm.

General Jack D. Ripper: Yes, a uh, a profound sense of fatigue... a feeling of emptiness followed. Luckily I... I was able to interpret these feelings correctly. Loss of essence.

Group Capt. Lionel Mandrake: Hmm.

General Jack D. Ripper: I can assure you it has not recurred, Mandrake. Women uh... women sense my power and they seek the life essence. I, uh... I do not avoid women, Mandrake.

Group Capt. Lionel Mandrake: No.

General Jack D. Ripper: But I... I do deny them my essence.

--  General Jack D. Ripper 

In other words, Gen. Jack Ripper is unequivocally insane.

Unfortunately, this type of thinking in the U.S. military is not reserved to pure fiction.

Sometime in the late 1980s then Col. Paul Vallely, Commander of the 7th Psychological Operations Group and then Maj. Michael Aquino, PSYOP Research & Analysis Team Leader authored a paper titled “From PSYOP to MindWar: The Psychology of Victory”, which discusses the necessity to wage perpetual psychological warfare against friend and enemy populations alike, and even against the American people.

As stated in the paper:

“MindWar must target all participants to be effective. 

It must not only weaken the enemy; it must strengthen the United States. 

It strengthens the United States by denying enemy propaganda access to our people, and by explaining and emphasizing to our people the rationale for our national interest in a specific war…

There are some purely natural conditions under which minds may become more or less receptive to ideas, and MindWar should take full advantage of such phenomena as atmospheric electromagnetic activity, air ionization, and extremely low frequency waves.”

Of course the terms “enemy” and “national interest” are not elaborated on, nor is the matter of free will even considered but rather that mind control is not only “natural”, it is essential.

Besides the overtly fascist and occultist content in the paper, the proposal had a disturbing similarity to the Total Information Awareness (TIA) program launched by the Donald Rumsfeld Pentagon.

TIA was a global propaganda and mega-data-mining plan that was supposedly scraped after a series of negative news stories.

On Aug 17th, 2005 The New York Times published an article that discussed how “a military intelligence team repeatedly tried to contact the FBI in 2000 to warn about the existence of an American-based terrorist cell that included the ring leader of the Sept. 11 attacks” as reported by veteran Army intelligence officer Lt. Col. Anthony Shaffer.

The information came from the highly classified intelligence program “Able Danger”, which had successfully identified the terrorist ringleader Mohamed Atta and three other hijackers of the 9/11 terrorist attack in mid-2000, well over a year before the actual 9/11 attack.

According to New York Times article, Shaffer learned later that lawyers associated with the Special Operations Command of the Defense Department had canceled the FBI meetings “because they feared controversy if Able Danger was portrayed as a military operation that had violated the privacy of civilians who were legally in the United States.” (Able Danger was linked in its function to the TIA program)

However, this is only part of the truth, the by far uglier truth is that they were already fully aware of the 9/11 terrorist ring and didn’t want a wrench thrown into the gears so to speak.

…

…

What The Fuck?

…

Gen. Vallely, Lt. Col. Aquino and Col. Alexander (author of “The New Mental Battlefield: Beam Me Up, Spock”) are leading figures within the Special Operations community.

In addition, Gen. Stubblebine III, Gen. Schoomaker, Gen. Downing and Gen. Boykin are the four names most often cited as promoters of programs like the “Goat Lab,” “Jedi Warriors,” “Grill Flame,” “Task Force Delta,” (aka the spoon-benders) and the “First Earth Battalion,” and have held top posts within the military intelligence and Special Operations commands.

These were the programs that promoted the idea that one could learn to bend a metal spoon, walk through walls, and burst the hearts of goats with the use of “mind over matter” techniques.

In 1979, Lt. Col. Channon presented a 125 page document called “The First Earth Battalion,” which outlined “non-lethal” techniques that would soon be adopted by the military.

These techniques were many and included the use of atonal noises as a form of combat psychological warfare and widespread experimentation with psychoelectronics and other means of debilitation.

On March 10th, 1991, then Deputy Secretary of Defense Paul Wolfowitz while serving as chief policy advisor to then Defense Secretary Dick Cheney, wrote the memo “Do We Need a Non-Lethal Defense Initiative?” in which he wrote, “A U.S. lead in non-lethal technologies will increase our options and reinforce our position in the post-Cold War world.”

Though no mention was made of Col. Alexander, who spear-headed the non-lethal weaponry campaign, Alexander at the time of the memo had retired from active duty and was heading the Non-Lethal Weapons Program at Los Alamos National Laboratory.

In 1990, Col. Alexander published “The Warrior’s Edge” and states its goal as to:

“unlock the door to the extraordinary human potentials inherent in each of us. To do this, we, like governments around the world, must take a fresh look at non-traditional methods of affecting reality. 

We must raise human consciousness of the potential power of the individual body/mind system – the power to manipulate reality. 

We must be willing to retake control of our past, present, and ultimately, our future.” (emphasis added)

Investigative journalist Jon Ronson, in his book “The Men Who Stare at Goats”, goes through how ‘psychic warriors’ such as Uri Geller and Jim Channon were called back into government service after 9/11, and that a series of meetings in 2004 were held between Gen. Schoomaker and Jim Channon to start a think tank which would utilize “First Earth Battalion” techniques in Afghanistan and Iraq.

The Non-Lethal Techniques of Guantanamo, Abu Ghraib and al-Qa’im

According to a 1998 International Committee of the Red Cross presentation before the European parliament intended on evaluating how “non-lethal” the non-lethal technologies promoted by Alexander, Channon et al. actually are in reality, it was found that non-lethal weapons are simply defined as weapons with a less-than 25% fatality rate.

Perhaps this is what the senior Pentagon officials were referring to in their “limited” nuclear exchange scenarios.

Included in the list of non-lethal weapons now widely used in the U.S. military are lasers, extremely low frequency (ELF) weapons, and various chemical, biological and audio stun weapons that can cause permanent damage such as blindness, deafness and destruction of the gastrointestinal system.

…

…

Sigh.

…

According to Ronson and The New Yorker writer Jane Mayer, many of the torture techniques employed at Guantanamo Bay, Abu Ghraib and the less-well-known al-Qa’im near the Syrian border in Iraq, are based on Channon and Alexander’s non-lethal conceptions.

Jim Channon actually confirmed this in an email correspondence with Ronson.

At one point in his investigation, Ronson asks Stuart Heller, friend of Jim Channon, if he could name one soldier who was “the living embodiment” of the First Earth Battalion, to which Heller responds unhesitatingly “Bert Rodriguez.”

Ronson continues in his book, “In April 2001, Bert Rodriguez took on a new student. His name was Ziad Jarrah.”

Rodriguez taught Jarrah “the choke hold and the kamikaze spirit. You need a code you’d die for, a do-or-die desire.” Rodriguez added, “Ziad was like Luke Skywalker. You know when Luke walks the invisible path? You have to believe it’s there…

Yeah, Ziad believed it.

He was like Luke Skywalker.”

Rodriguez trained Ziad Jarrah for six months.

On Sept 11, 2001, Ziad Jarrah took control of the United Airlines flight 93 as part of the orchestrated 9/11 terrorist attack.

Meet Dr. Strangelove

At the end of the film Dr. Strangelove we are finally confronted with the “top lunatic” so to speak who was really in charge this whole time.

For all the “top brass” in the war room, nobody was really in control of the situation this entire time since the entire “war scenario” was set-up as a positive feedback loop within the doomsday plan of a lunatic.

You see, the belief that one can bend spoons, walk through walls, and burst the hearts of goats is not the problem.

It is the belief held by top officials within the U.S. military industrial complex that their ideology of appropriate morality is to prevail.

Therefore, one must use these mind-over-matter techniques to achieve the ultimate goal, “the power to manipulate reality”, that global dominance can be achieved without wiping out the world.

That somehow “it might be possible to fight, and win, a battle with nuclear weapons, without the exchange leading to an all-out-world-ending conflict,” and if not…

…we may all die for a lunatic’s dream in the process.

Sweet Jesus!

Oh, but that’s only an appetizer. You see, not only is the entire city of Washington DC bat-shit crazy but they have corrupted the military rank and file. These once-brave soldiers now have become psychopathic “yes men” to mad-men.

And they are playing with dangerously power weapons.

• Weapons that could launch a global pandemic (been there – done that.)
• Weapons that could destroy and collapse trade (been there – done that.)
• Weapons that could alter the reality of America (been there – done that.)
• Weapons that could devastate entire nations …

…pending..

I like that. Psychopathic Barbarian Crusaders. Sounds so apt.

General Jack D. Ripper: Your Commie has no regard for human life, not even his own. And for this reason, men, I want to impress upon you the need for extreme watchfulness. The enemy may come individually, or he may come in strength. He may even come in the uniform of our own troops. But however he comes, we must stop him. We must not allow him to gain entrance to this base. Now, I'm going to give you THREE SIMPLE rules: First, trust NO one, whatever his uniform or rank, unless he is known to you personally; Second, anyone or anything that approaches within 200 yards of the perimeter is to be FIRED UPON; Third, if in doubt, shoot first then ask questions afterward. I would sooner accept a few casualties through accidents rather losing the entire base and its personnel through carelessness. Any variation of these rules must come from me personally. Any variation on these rules must come from me personally. Now, men, in conclusion, I would like to say that, in the two years it has been my privilege to be your commanding officer, I have always expected the best from you, and you have never given me anything less than that. Today, the nation is counting on us. We're not going to let them down. Good luck to you all.

--  General Jack D. Ripper 

The US-Japanese Alliance Against China Risks World War

.

In 2003, when several lawyers, including myself, visited North Korea to learn more about socialism there, we were shown US Army documents captured in 1950 by the communist forces.

In 1950, the communist forces seized control of Seoul and overran the American Army headquarters.There, they secured all the documents, cypher’s, and data that they found.

The documents confirmed that it was the US and its puppets in South Korea that invaded the north, not the other way round.

Their objective was to crush the local communist forces. Set up strongly fortified launching zones, and then attacking China.

Their plan failed and ended in an American rout.

But what did surprise me was the evidence in the documents that the Americans also had the help and advice of Japanese Army officers who had remained in Korea at the end of the war between the US and Japan that ended in 1945.

Two growing empires went to war in the Pacific against each other but in the end the defeated and occupied Japanese soon joined the growing American empire.

And it was its drive for world domination and Korea was the first proof of their fealty to the US.

A fealty tolerated not only because of their defeat but also because American capital and Japanese capital have the same interest; the subjugation and exploitation of China.

On July 6, 2021 the Japanese Deputy Prime Minister stated at a Liberal Democratic Party function, that if China acted to take control of Taiwan…

… as is its right to do since it is an integral part of China…

… then Japan would defend Taiwan.

Why?

Well, because because such an action by China would represent an “existential threat to Japan.”

“If a major incident happened, it’s safe to say it would be related to a situation threatening the survival of Japan. 

If that is the case, Japan and the US must defend Taiwan together.” 

Why it would be an “existential threat to Japan” ?

He did not explain.

…

That he spoke for the leadership of Japan is clear.

Now keep in mind…

That any interference (by anyone) in China’s actions regarding the Chinese Provence of Taiwan…

…would be an aggression against China…

…and would be in absolute violation of the Japanese Constitution.

For this constitution prohibits Japanese Self-Defense Forces from taking any offensive actions.

And this is a quite clear violation of the UN Charter.

…

In response China has stated time and again that it is prepared to defeat both the US and Japan…

…if they try to interfere when China retakes control of Taiwan.

Which (unfortunately) every action by the Americans and Taiwanese is provoking them to do.

…

Of course…

The Americans recognize that they do not have enough strength in the region to interfere alone.

And so they have lured Britain, France, and Germany, as well as the ever-eager Australians, to send in naval forces to the South China Sea to support the American and Japanese assault plans.

It is more than ironic to see four nations that were bitter enemies of Imperial Japan in World War II, now colluding with Japan.

Not only that, but to once again attack China and that Germany, an ally of Japan in the Second World War, once again is attempting to throw its weight around in the world.

What is the matter with these people?

The Chinese have a long and bitter memory of the Japanese invasion and occupation of their lands in the 1930s and 40’s just as the Koreans have the same bitter memories of Japanese occupation.

But we realize now that the defeat of the fascists and militarists in Germany and Japan in 1945 was not their final defeat.

The governments who fought those two nations also had fascist elements within them.

These elements, these people, hoped that the Nazis would crush communism in the USSR and the Japanese would do the same in China.

…

Instead, the elements of world capital that supported or tolerated fascism and relied on imperialism to increase their profits.

And they quickly reorganized.

And, led by the far right in Washington, created the NATO military alliance to continue the assault on the USSR and now on Russia, China and other independent nations.

They wear different clothes now.

But they use the same lies and techniques of propaganda as the Nazis and Japanese militarists as they prepare for another war against China and Russia.

…

On July 30, 2021 the Chinese government had to warn the British government and its naval task force, led by the new British aircraft carrier, Queen Elizabeth, to keep away from its territorial waters or face the consequences.

Yet, at the same time the US and France conducted military exercise with dozens of US F22s and French Rafale aircraft near Hawaii.

All this while the French beef up their forces in Tahiti.

And while the Americans have dispersed their fleet of bombers and fighters including F35s from their big base on Guam, which the Chinese can destroy quickly, to smaller bases, making it more difficult for China to destroy those aircraft.

This type of dispersal is usually seen in war settings, when war is on going or imminent.

At the same time the Germans announced that they will be sending a frigate to the South China Sea in support of the Americans and Japanese.

While the Americans sent more ships into the Taiwan Strait this week. Some may see all this as sabre rattling.

But that is a lot of sabres, and they are doing a lot more than just rattling them.

As Hans Rudiger Minow stated in German Foreign Policy,

“The intensification of western manoeuvres and their growing focus on combat missions, which are highly realistic under current circumstances, coincide with prognoses by high-ranking US military officials, predicting that a war between the United States and China is probable in the near future. 

For example, recently NATO’s former Supreme Allied Commander Europe (SACEUR), Ret. Adm. James G. Stavridis, was quoted with the prognosis that “our technology, network of allies and bases in the region, still overmatch China” – for now. 

However, “by the end of the decade – if not sooner” the People’s Republic “will be in a position” to “challenge the US” at least “in the South China Sea.” 

Recently Stavridis published a novel in which he depicted a fictional war erupting between the USA and China in 2034. 

In the meantime, he considers “we may not have until 2034 to prepare for this battle – it may come much sooner.” 

Some of his colleagues in the military are predicting that “it is not about 2034,” the Big War could come earlier – possibly even “2024 or 2026.”

But it is not China that is seeking a war.

So who is pushing this insanity?

Who is pushing for war…?

The propaganda machines in the west, all part of the military-industrial complex, are legion.

But one of the worst is the Hudson Institute.

Founded in 1961 by Herman Khan, formerly of the Rand Institute, who was famous for playing nuclear war games and theorizing on the possibilities of using nuclear weapons in war.

Its current leadership and membership include fascists like Mike Pompeo, Seth Cropsey and many others who served in various US government regimes or the US military establishment.

Seth Cropsey’s bio states,

“Cropsey began his career in government at the US Department of Defense as assistant to Secretary of Defense Caspar Weinberger and subsequently served as deputy undersecretary of the Navy in the Ronald Reagan and George H.W. Bush administrations, where he was responsible for the Navy’s position on efforts to reorganize DoD, development of the maritime strategy, the Navy’s academic institutions, naval special operations, and burden-sharing with NATO allies. 

In the Bush administration, Cropsey moved to the Office of the Secretary of Defense (OSD) to become acting assistant secretary, and then principal deputy assistant secretary of defense for special operations and low-intensity conflict. Cropsey served as a naval officer from 1985 to 2004.

“From 1982 to 1984, Cropsey directed the editorial policy of the Voice of America (VOA) on the solidarity movement in Poland, Soviet treatment of dissidents, and other issues. Returning to public diplomacy in 2002 as director of the US government’s International Broadcasting Bureau, Cropsey supervised the agency as successful efforts were undertaken to increase radio and television broadcasting to the Muslim world.” 

In other words…

…

Cropsey penned a recent article published in The Hill, a US right wing journal covering events in Washington entitled ,“Japan Signals An Opening for US in Countering China”.

In it he praised the statement by Taro Aso that Japan will support Taiwan (in case of China acting to take control of its island).

The justification being [1] that China seeks “world dominance” and [2] that there will be a war with the USA in the near future (and Japan wants to be on the winning side).

LOL.

He further states that the Japanese have now made a “decisive shift” in foreign and military policy.

He dismisses the Japanese constitutional prohibition on Japanese offensive actions and calls for Japan to increase it military forces and support to “counter” China.

He wrote:

“Defending Taiwan is a difficult proposition. The PLA is at its strongest within the First Island Chain, particularly around Taiwan, given Beijing’s concentration of naval, air, and missile forces. 

To defend the island, the US and its allies would have to operate squarely within China’s missile range, jeopardizing the high-value capital assets upon which American combat power depends.

“However, Japan and the US both field significant submarine fleets — Japan’s small but quiet battery-powered boats are an effective counterpart to America’s larger nuclear-powered attack submarines. 

Submarines are immune to the missiles upon which the PLA would rely to gain sea and air control over Taiwan. 

If supported by a sufficient fast-boat mining effort, and a robust enough network of mobile ground-launched anti-ship and anti-air missiles, a Japanese-American submarine surge could defeat a PLA invasion of Taiwan, or at minimum prevent the fait accompli for which China hopes.

Given this strategic reality.”

He calls for more military exercises with the US and Japan, France, and Britain and their other allies to “prepare for war.”

He then adds the lie that “preparing for war is essential to deterring it” when what he really means is that America is preparing for war in order to wage war.

Come on! 

Everyone knows that America is planning to attack China. Destroy it. Invade it,  Conquer it, and then convert it into a vassal state. Let's be real. Please!

The forces of peace and reason in the world must denounce these war preparations as a danger to the entire world for a war on China…

….will bring in Russia…

…and others (nations that no one is thinking about)…

… it will lead to world war…

…then to nuclear war…

… and (possibly) the end of humanity.

…

And the author goes on to say…

We must denounce these criminals and demand the International Criminal Court prosecutor take action to warn the Americans, and indict the leaders of the US allies over which it has jurisdiction, their propagandists like Seth Cropsey, and all the rest who are conspiring to commit aggression, the supreme war crime, the final act of insanity, because it seems to me that is what war with China will be, the final act in the human drama.

We wont have to wait for abrupt climate change to finish us off.

But the ICC says nothing about all this and the UN Security Council is rendered impotent.

So who then is left to object, to say enough is enough, to hell with the criminals and their wars, except us, the people, But what can we the people do?

Yes, protest, petition, write, shout, cry, join peace groups like the one I belong to, the Canadian Peace Congress, do anything you can but get up, stand up, as Bob Marley called for us to do, and as John Lennon demanded, Give Peace A Chance.

…

…

Noble thoughts, but it ain’t gonna happen.

Obviously he has been sleeping under a rock for the last 75 years. You cannot write letter or petition anyone. They are above all this. They are a run-away locomotive and it is fast approaching a rickety old bridge that is long in need of repair.

It will not go well.

What about Russia?

All the time all this “saber rattling” is going on by the United States Military Empire, and the hate-hate-hate narratives are flooding the “news” media, what else is going on that isn’t being reported?

Remember boys and girls. To know what is really going on, look for what IS NOT being reported.

Well, Russian and Chinese troops and military have been practicing and coordinating their military strategies ALL YEAR.

Of course you would NEVER hear about this on FOX “news”, CNN, BBC, or any other mainstream “news” website. Check out some of these videos…

And then here’s another.

Here’s a great movie showing how Russian soldiers are being trained to use Chinese weapon systems, while the Chinese are also being trained to use the Russian weapons systems.

Let’s dig a little deeper. Shall we?

This next article is from a pro-Japan, pro-American author that tries to rationalize Japan going to war with China over Taiwan. He comes to the conclusion that ABSOLUTELY Japan would go fight the Chinese…

…and with help from the USA, probably would win.

How Far Would Japan Really Go to Defend Taiwan?

Japan defense report says Taiwan's 'stability' is integral to its 'security', putting Tokyo's pacifist forces on a new collision course with Beijing

When Japanese Deputy Prime Minister Taro Aso said on July 5, 2021 that Tokyo would come to Taiwan’s aid in the event of a Chinese invasion, Beijing’s sharp response was predictable.

“We will never allow anyone to meddle in the Taiwan question in any way,” Chinese Foreign Ministry spokesman Zhao Lijian said the day after Aso made his surprise remark.

“No one should underestimate the resolve, the will, and the ability of the Chinese people to defend their national sovereignty and territorial integrity.”

But Aso’s statement was no slip of the tongue. A week later, on July 13, Japan released its annual defense report, which for the first time mentioned the importance of maintaining “stability” around Taiwan because it “is important for Japan’s security.”

China’s response, again, was sharp and immediate.

The Chinese Communist Party mouthpiece Global Times ran an op-ed stating that “Japan will ‘lose badly’ if it defends Taiwan secessionists.”

…

…

China does not play. Do not take the warning lightly.

…

The piece quoted an anonymous Beijing-based military analyst as saying, “Even the US could not defeat China militarily in the West Pacific region now, so what makes Japan believe it’s able to challenge China with force?”

Good question.

While the motivations behind Tokyo’s recent statements are unclear, Japan and Taiwan are openly on the same side.

In Asia’s intensifying new Cold War, where an increasingly assertive and militarily powerful China is the obvious but usually unspoken adversary.

Japan and Taiwan do not share official diplomatic relations — Tokyo recognizes Beijing as the sole legitimate government of China.

However, the two sides are known to share intelligence through back channels.

In May last year, as Taiwanese President Tsai Ing-wen began her second term in office, then-chief Cabinet secretary, now prime minister, Yoshihide Suga said that Japan is eager to develop its ties with Taiwan.

Eager.

(I wonder if American money played a role? Hum.)

…

…

Japan’s annual foreign policy report, known as the Diplomatic Bluebook, describes Taiwan in its latest edition released on April 27 this year as an “important partner and friend.”

It also said Japan backs Taiwan’s campaign to attend the World Health Assembly, the decision-making body of the World Health Organization (WHO).

The Bluebook stated diplomatically that Taiwan had been successful in fighting the Covid-19 virus and “there should be no blank spaces on the world map.” China, which considers Taiwan a renegade province that should be “reunited” with the mainland, strongly opposes Taiwan’s participation in any international bodies.

The Bluebook also said that Japan would cooperate with “more countries” to promote freedom of navigation and the rule of law in the Asia-Pacific region.

In matters of geostrategic importance, Japan already works closely with the US, India and Australia under the so-called “Quad.”

Yup. This is the Pacific "NATO" that was set up by neocon Mike Pompeo.

Taiwan could be seen as a silent partner, or at least an ally, to the strategic grouping because it is a vital link in the China-focused island chain of defense which stretches from Japan’s main islands to Okinawa, Taiwan, the Philippines and the Malaysian part of Borneo.

The so called “First Island Chain”.

But you know, The control of the “First Island Chain” is a “pipe Dream”. It’s under Chinese control now.

America Is Betting Big on the Second Island Chain | RAND
Sep 08, 2020 · The United States has deep and abiding interests in the Second Island Chain. But China's growing influence in the region could complicate U.S. plans. Washington will almost certainly seek to strengthen security cooperation with Pacific Island states in the Second Island Chain and bolster defensive positions on U.S. territories in the region.

However, the bigger question remains: what exactly would Japan be prepared to do if China did try to invade Taiwan?

What would Japan do?

Whatever the anonymous military analyst quoted in the Global Times might think, Japan certainly has the means to challenge China militarily.

On December 21, 2020, the Japanese government approved the ninth consecutive rise in military spending, marking a historic record of 5.34 trillion yen (US$51.7 billion.)

Japan’s Self-Defense Forces (JSDF), as they are formally known, are comprised of nearly 250,000 active personnel and another 50,000 in reserve, and are equipped with the latest weaponry and technology procured mainly from the US.

Hum. China has the world’s largest army, with more than 2 million active personnel

The Japanese Navy is believed by military analysts to be the strongest in the region after America’s…

…and thus superior to China’s still underdeveloped but steadily growing naval forces.

LOL. Don't be so sure.

China’s underdeveloped military forces…

Um. Sure. What ever you want to believe.

…

Some history

I want to remind you all that when it seems like America is “losing”, then “the gloves come off”, and real nasty things will take place.

Like in Korea when the Chinese Army routed the American forces…

In late 1950 American forces suffered a series of disastrous defeats in Korea at the hands of Chinese troops, and the report from a Pentagon committee in early December emphasized the importance of accelerating the development of bioweapons such as Q Fever, plague, and anthrax together with the necessary delivery mechanisms for covert use, while especially praising the CIA for its effectiveness in that regard. This secret report was eventually declassified by a FOIA request in 1996.

Around the same time that report was being written, a British sergeant retreating through a deserted North Korean village before advancing Chinese troops observed American military personnel, masked and gloved, carefully removing large quantities of feathers from special containers and flinging them into the empty houses before he was warned away by American MPs. He later stated that he had obviously witnessed “a clandestine operation” of some sort and mentioned that a few days afterward he was required to take an unspecified vaccine. This curious vignette appears in Unit 731, a 1989 historical account of Japan’s biowarfare program written by two BBC journalists, but oddly enough the incident was removed from the American edition of that same book.

Months later, the North Korean foreign minister issued a formal complaint to the United Nations that America had used illegal biological warfare, attacking his own troops and those of China with smallpox. These mysterious outbreaks had occurred a few months earlier, but only in areas recently occupied by retreating American forces. The accusations briefly appeared in the Western media, but were ridiculed and hotly denied by American government spokesmen.

Around the same time that Communist troops were sickening and dying, around two hundred American soldiers in the same theater had also been suddenly stricken by a mysterious outbreak of Songo fever, never before seen in Korea but with symptoms quite similar to smallpox and a specialty of America’s Japanese biowarfare mentors. Strict censorship prevented these stories from reaching the American media until many months later, at which point our government claimed that the illnesses had been spread by Chinese troops. But the disease seemed entirely absent from the hundreds of miles of Korean territory the enemy forces had traversed, and only appeared in a narrow belt along the front lines, with our stricken servicemen believing that they seemed to be spread by infected field mice or voles. Voles had long been regarded by American researchers as an excellent vector for their bioweapons, and when interviewed years later for a history of the Korean War, one of the leaders of our local CIA efforts explained that his covert operations had created a defensive belt along the front lines.

The use of bio-weapons, chemical weapons, and nuclear weapons will be the direct result if the United States is unable to achieve it’s objectives.

Thus, we see WHY after eight (8x) bio-weapons targeting livestock in China, John Bolton, the head of the Bio-Warfare office under President Trump) launched COVID-19B against the Chinese. As well as the two follow up bio-weapons in July and late August.

So now…

The “drums of war” are beating again. And they are louder than ever. They are so loud that it is giving me a headache.

What’s China (and Russia) to do?

According to the Washington-based think tank the Center for Strategic & International Studies, Beijing has made substantial progress in the construction of a third aircraft carrier as Type 003, which is …

“slated to become the largest surface combatant in the Chinese People’s Army Navy (PLAN) and significantly upgrade China’s naval capabilities.”

But the crux of the strategic matter is that Article 9 of Japan’s supposedly pacifist, post-World War II constitution.

it specifically outlaws war as a means to settle international disputes.

And the Japanese Self Defense Force (JSDF) are therefore legally only allowed to defend the country if it comes under attack.

Only if it comes under attack.

But Mr. Aso has argued that Taiwan is situated only 112 kilometers from some islands that are part of Okinawa prefecture and therefore a Chinese invasion could represent an “existential threat” to Japan’s security.

You know. Too close for comfort.

It's like having a restaurant next to a gas station. The gas station is robbed, so the restaurant owner gets his gun and goes over to the gas station to shoot everyone. You know. Just in case.

In that direction, the Japanese navy’s first aircraft carrier since World War II is nearly ready to deploy. It is designed to carry up to 28 light or 14 larger aircraft.

Woo woo.

Jeffrey Hornung, a political scientist at the US-based Rand Corporation, wrote in a May 10 paper that Japan would not need to get directly involved in a military conflict over Taiwan.

But, he suggests, if Washington sought to defend the democratic, self-ruled island, “at a minimum, the United States would require access to its bases in Japan, which would execute combat operations in, over and around Taiwan.”

Yada. Yada. Yada.

The JSDF would in that way “act as a force multiplier for any US-led operation. That means US requests for Japanese involvement would be almost certain.” In other words, Japan’s involvement would be limited to “non-combatant, rear-area support roles” in fields such as “supply, maintenance, transportation, engineering and medical services,” Hornung writes.

Okinawa is proximal to Taiwan and the US base there would be at the front of any military action against China.

…

….

If Japan wanted to get involved.

…

If China decided to attack Okinawa, or for argument’s sake any base on Japanese territory, such an attack could be interpreted as an act of aggression and Japan would have the right to act in self-defense.

But that scenario also raises another important question: would the US be prepared to intervene and defend Taiwan? The US and Taiwan, officially the Republic of China, shared a defense treaty before Washington established diplomatic relations with China on January 1, 1979.

..

On that day, the US withdrew its recognition of the Republic of China and terminated the 1955 “Sino-American Mutual Defense Treaty between the United States and the Republic of China.” Because either party had to notify the other about the termination a year in advance, the treaty remained in place – at least nominally – until January 1, 1980.

Then it ENDED.

The now null-and-void 1955 treaty, which stipulated that if one country came under attack the other would provide military support, was in certain aspects replaced by the 1979 Taiwan Relations Act.

…

Under the Act, the US was no longer be obliged to defend Taiwan, the US embassy in Taiwan was closed and relations were maintained through a non-profit corporation registered in the District of Columbia known as the American Institute in Taiwan (AIT), which functions as a de facto embassy.

…

The ambiguity of the relationship is evident in a Taiwan Relations Act clause that says that “the United States will make available to Taiwan such defense articles and defense services in such quantity as may be necessary to enable Taiwan to maintain sufficient self-defense capabilities.”

…

The Act’s intention appears to be to dissuade Taiwan from declaring independence from China, while at the same time discouraging China from invading Taiwan. But that all came into force when Jimmy Carter was America’s president and China was still a fairly poor country, not the regional superpower it has become today.

As Beijing celebrated the 100th anniversary of the founding of the Chinese Communist Party on July 1, President Xi Jinping reiterated his pledge to incorporate Taiwan into the mainland.

“Solving the Taiwan question and realizing the complete reunification of the motherland are the unswerving historical tasks of the Chinese Communist Party and the common aspiration of all Chinese people,” Xi said in a speech.

Every Chinese must work together, “resolutely smashing any ‘Taiwan independence plots,’” the Chinese leader added. China has recently flexed its muscles in that direction with air force jets and bombers making frequent incursions into Taiwan’s airspace.

…

In this new geopolitical environment, it would be impossible for the US to stay idle if Xi turned his tough rhetoric into military action and actually sent forces to invade Taiwan.

In that scenario, Japan could and would not stay neutral.

To be sure, Deputy Defense Minister Aso is known for his public gaffes, which are often corrected or denied by the government after being uttered.

But as Corey Wallace, a foreign policy expert at Kanagawa University in Yokohama was quoted saying in the July 12 issue of Foreign Policy, the slip this time may have been deliberate and reflect what Japanese officials have long believed privately.

Either way, Xi is playing with certain fire by talking about Taiwan’s “reunification” with the mainland.

LOL. Taiwan is PART of China. Xi Peng can say anything he wants about his nation. And the rest of the world can howl. He's not playing with fire. Just like Joe Biden is not playing with fire when he announces a new road project in West Virginia.

Even with China’s recent military and naval build-up, Beijing still faces formidable odds in invading Taiwan, which would almost inevitably result in a wider conflict – one Japan could inevitably play a crucial, military role.

…

Do not be so sure…

Don’t be so sure. Seriously. There are MANY things in play here. Keep in mind that a war with China, in such close proximity would devastate that nation to a point that it might turn into such a churned up mass of radioactive rubble that it would need to be renamed “Commode”.

…

Let’s keep in mind WHO we are talking about…

China is not some nation filled with bicycle riding peasants who were issued a cheap SKS clone. China is a fierce strong proud, and patriotic nation. Their children speak both English and Chinese by the time they are in middle school. Everyone attends scouts, and gets full-military training in elementary school. It is a nation that promotes STEM graduates by demonstrated merit, punishes those who violate the rules with extreme harshness, and never bluffs.

Chinese boy scouts… Check out the videos.

And, here’s another…

Still not convinced…

How about this one…

It is so easy to forget who the Chinese actually are…

With a non-stop anti-China barrage hitting everyone 24-7, all year it is so easy to villainize  people who you only know by the two dimensional cardboard cut out that Mike Pompeo, John Bolton, and Tom Collins created. It’s not even remotely true.

Do not lulled into believing that the Chinese are backwards, and ill-prepared. Or that they are starving and cannot wait to be “liberated” for democracy™.

Not only are the Chinese skilled, work as a team (automatically) but there are BILLIONS of them, all working together for the common good. Anyone who wants to tangle with this dragon is seriously in need of a lobotomy.

China is not a third-world military. They are peer-capable with the best that America has. What’s more they outnumber everything that the United States can compile against it. And never forget, they WILL USE nuclear weapons if attacked.

Count on it.

You are a fucking idiot if you don’t realize this.

It’s so easy to think that China would be an “easy kill”, if all you see and read in within your own bubble of isolation. Much like those kings who “pooh-pooh” the offers by Genghis Khan for trade. But then they found out that their large army of 20,000 knights on white horses were no match for 5,000,000 angry, pissed off, huns riding in at dawn.

And let’s not forget that the vast bulk of technology comes from China. China posses the vast number of factories, and consists of thousands of design centers. No, not the “technology centers” that you see in the USA which is really a nice building, and staffed with one or two engineers that outsource to China, the rest being marketing, finance, attorneys and IT folk. No, China is the place where the real things are designed and made.

Stuff that isn’t advertised. Like robotic “hand grenades”. How would you like your base or complex over-run with these little guys each one a bomb?

.

Trying to avoid war…

Let’s look at how China is trying to avoid war. Let’s look at what they are doing to make any war with China a very, very costly mistake….

While China has not publicly released a new nuclear posture statement that supersedes the 2006 White Paper, the construction of new missile silos configured to hold solid-fuel ICBMs possessing multiple warheads changes the nuclear posture options for China. 

The most likely change is to transition from a pure retaliatory strike capability (“counterattack in self-defense”) to a launch-on-warning posture.

This posture means the Chinese missiles would leave their silos when an attack was detected.

This differs from the previous posture, where the missiles would be waiting for a nuclear attack to actually occur. 

Given China’s declared nuclear policy, a launch-on-warning posture allows China to retain its no-first-use policy while simultaneously ensuring the survivability of its nuclear forces.

A US-Sino nuclear arms race is already underway – and we know who the winner will be

Scott Ritter is a former US Marine Corps intelligence officer and author of 'SCORPION KING: America's Suicidal Embrace of Nuclear Weapons from FDR to Trump.' He served in the Soviet Union as an inspector implementing the INF Treaty, in General Schwarzkopf’s staff during the Gulf War, and from 1991-1998 as a UN weapons inspector. 

Follow him on Twitter @RealScottRitter

Since the 1960’s, China has maintained a no-first-use nuclear policy and pledged never to engage in an arms race. However, thanks to the destabilizing impact of US nuclear policy, it has begun an arms race – and it plans on winning.

A quick history lesson: China detonated its first atomic weapon on October 16, 1964. In doing so, it became the fifth country – after the United States, the Soviet Union, the United Kingdom and France – to possess nuclear weapons. Since then, China has developed and deployed a modest arsenal of strategic nuclear weapons delivery systems, with the goal of maintaining a minimum nuclear deterrent against other nuclear-armed powers, with a particular focus on the US.

The 2006 Defense White Paper, issued by China’s State Council Information Office, provides the most authoritative description of the country’s nuclear strategy.

China’s fundamental goal, the White Paper states,

“is to deter other countries from using or threatening to use nuclear weapons against China.” 

This deterrence comes from

“principles of counterattack in self-defense” (i.e., “assured retaliation”.) China “remains firmly committed to the policy of no first use of nuclear weapons at any time and under any circumstances.” 

Moreover, it

“unconditionally undertakes not to use or threaten to use nuclear weapons against non-nuclear-weapon states or nuclear-weapon-free zones.”

The White Paper goes on to declare that China

“stands for the comprehensive prohibition and complete elimination of nuclear weapons,” and that it believes in the “limited development of nuclear weapons” while aiming “at building a lean and effective nuclear force capable of meeting national security needs.” In conclusion, the White Paper notes, “China exercises great restraint in developing its nuclear force,” and “it has never entered into and will never enter into a nuclear arms race with any other country.”

From its inception in 1966, the Chinese People’s Liberation Army Rocket Force has relied upon a single missile – the DF-5 – as its primary strategic nuclear delivery system.

A massive, two-stage liquid-fuel rocket which, depending on what variant one is talking about, can deliver a single warhead (DF-5A), three warheads (DF-5B) or 10 warheads (DF-5C) to targets 12,000 km (7,456 miles) from the point of launch.

The DF-5, based in hardened concrete silos, was designed to be able to survive a nuclear attack in sufficient numbers to enable China to deliver a country-killing nuclear counter-strike.

The DF-5, however, had several operational drawbacks which, as the strategic nuclear capabilities of potential adversaries (i.e., the United States) improved, made its survivability in a nuclear conflict more problematic.

First and foremost, as a liquid-fuel rocket, it is loaded into its silo with empty fuel tanks (the fuel and oxidizer used are highly corrosive, and if stored in the missile, would make it unusable in a matter of months.) Before it can be launched, therefore, the DF-5 must be fueled, a process that can take several hours.

The Chinese also stored the DF-5 without its warheads. As such, while the missile is being refueled, special teams would be bringing the nuclear warheads from nearby storage shelters and mounting them on the missile body.

The DF-5 is extremely vulnerable during this time, and as the accuracy and time of flight capabilities of US nuclear forces (in particular the Trident D5 system) improved, the Chinese assessed that their DF-5 nuclear deterrent was vulnerable to being taken out by a first strike.

Beginning in the 1970’s, China began developing solid-fuel rockets for use as mobile intercontinental ballistic missiles (ICBMs).

The first of these, the DF-31, was deployed in 2006, as a road-mobile system.

By 2013, the Chinese produced and fielded an improved version, the DF-31A. The DF-31 is armed with a single nuclear warhead.

In 2016, China completed testing for a more modern solid-fuel ICBM, the DF-41, which has begun to enter service as a mobile missile. The DF-41 carries 10 independently targeted nuclear warheads.

Between the DF-5, DF-31, and DF-41 missile systems, China was assessed, as of 2019, of possessing around 218 nuclear warheads (It has an additional 68 nuclear warheads carried on submarines and manned bombers.)

But even with this mix of silo-based DF-5s and mobile DF-31/41 missiles, China believed its forces remained vulnerable to a pre-emptive strike by American nuclear and, increasingly, conventional forces.

After all, that is what all the military policy planners in Washington DC are discussing right now. A first strike attack against China prior to an invasion.

This concern appeared to be magnified in the aftermath of the American withdrawal from the Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces (INF) treaty in 2019, and the emerging threat of intermediate-range missiles appearing on the periphery of China’s borders.

The first sign that China was adapting to this new reality came in the form of significant improvements and additions to its massive Jilantai training area, located near the city of Jilantai in China’s Inner Mongolia province.

Constructed in 2013, the Jilantai training area was the premier training grounds for the People’s Liberation Army Rocket Force, with specialized training constructed for both silo- and mobile-missile operations.

Around 2016, however, China began constructing new silos that appeared to be too small to hold the massive DF-5, leading Western analysts to assess that the Chinese were preparing to house their solid-fuel ICBMs, either the DF-31, DF-41 or both, in a silo configuration.

The importance of this distinction is that, while mobility provides for an element of survivability in a classic nuclear exchange scenario, the mobile missiles are vulnerable to loiter weapons.

Loiter weapons are in great use by the United States, such as armed drones, or precision stand-off weapons, such as the kind of ground-launched cruise missiles being developed by the US in the post-INF treaty era.

By placing some of its solid fuel ICBMs in silos, China virtually eliminates the threat from drones and cruise missiles, and because these missiles don’t have to be fueled, reduces the vulnerability to US strategic nuclear weapons such as the Trident D5.

The scope and scale of the silo construction led some analysts to conclude that perhaps the Jilantai training area was going to assume a limited operational posture, based upon the number of silos under construction.

This assessment was made moot, however, by the discovery of what many analysts believe is a massive missile base, containing 120 silos, under construction near Yumen in Gansu province, and another, containing a potential 110 additional silos, near the city of Hami in Eastern Xinjiang province.

These silos appear to be similar to the new ones seen at the Jilantai training area, leading analysts to assess that the Chinese intend to load them with either the DF-31, DF-41 or both.

Many analysts believe that China may opt only to load a few of these silos with missiles, creating the potential for a “shell game” defense that would complicate nuclear targeting by the US.

But even if only 80 of these silos were loaded with DF-41 ICBMs, China’s warhead total would expand considerably, adding up to 800 new warheads to their arsenal.

While China has not publicly released a new nuclear posture statement that supersedes the 2006 White Paper, the construction of new missile silos configured to hold solid-fuel ICBMs possessing multiple warheads changes the nuclear posture options for China.

The most likely change is to transition from a pure retaliatory strike capability (“counterattack in self-defense”) to a launch-on-warning posture.

This means the Chinese missiles would leave their silos when an attack was detected instead of waiting for a nuclear attack to actually occur.

Given China’s declared nuclear policy, a launch-on-warning posture allows China to retain its no-first-use policy while simultaneously ensuring the survivability of its nuclear forces.

However, if one is an American strategic nuclear planner, one cannot ignore the reality that China is edging close to having a legitimate first-strike capability, especially if it places missiles in every one of the silos under construction.

Faced with a potential first-strike capability from both Russia and China…

… and in light of the growing cooperation between Russia and China on defense issues…

…regarding what both nations view as the growing threat from the United States…

… the US may be compelled to look at increasing its nuclear arsenal, or dramatically altering its own nuclear force posture and composition, in order to match this emerging threat.

This, however, would be a prohibitively expensive proposition.

Which leaves arms control.

The Biden administration is currently trying to tie US arms control talks about reducing the strategic nuclear arsenals of the US and Russia to China.

Russia has rejected this out of hand, noting that it has nothing to do with the Chinese nuclear arsenal, and therefore the US should be approaching China directly on this matter.

US-China nuclear reduction talks, however, are impractical when one compares the relative threat posed by 200-plus Chinese ground-based ICBMs.

While the US arsenal of several thousand strategic warheads housed in a nuclear triad consisting of silo-based ICBMs, submarine-launched ballistic missiles and air-delivered nuclear weapons.

The level of reductions in the US arsenal that would make any strategic nuclear forces reduction talks viable for China could not be matched by China, and as such would be politically impossible for the US to agree to.

If, however, the Chinese were to complete the two new silo bases and fill them with DF-41s, each of which armed with 10 warheads, then the US and China could negotiate mutually acceptable reductions based on strategic parity.

Such negotiations would be complicated by the need to factor in not only Russia, but also the nuclear arsenals of France and the UK (as American NATO allies), as well as the nuclear arsenals of lesser powers such as Pakistan, India, Israel and North Korea.

The bottom line, however, is that China appears to have breached its commitment “never to engage in a nuclear arms race of any kind.”

The facts show that China entered this new phase of nuclear weapons development and deployment as a reaction to developments by potential adversaries (i.e., the US).

However, let there be no doubt – this is an arms race.

The placement of the Chinese silo bases appears, by intent, to be outside the range of anticipated US intermediate-range weapons, such as cruise missiles.

This means that there will be increased pressure placed on the States to field a new generation of silo-based ICBMs to replace the aging Minuteman III missiles.

As well as a new generation of submarine-launched missiles…

And missile-carrying submarines…

And a new generation of manned bomber…

… all in numbers greater than current forecasts call for.

The US cannot afford to enter this kind of arms race with China. Simply put, China has out Ronald Reagan-ed the US, flipping the Cold War theory that the US outspent the Soviet Union, bankrupting it, and accelerating its collapse on its head…

… so that it’s the US that’s being outspent, bankrupting itself, and pushing itself closer to collapse.

Hopefully, the US leadership is wiser than their Soviet counterparts before them. But, if history has shown us anything, the US is addicted to the power it believes it accrues by possessing a large nuclear weapons arsenal, and like any addict, liberating oneself from its drug of choice is difficult, if not impossible.

And keep in mind that the Chinese and the Russians possess hyper-velocity missile technology

From MoA. Worth the reprint.

Why Hypersonic Missiles Are Real Game Changers – by Gordog

A Technical Look at the Science Behind the Headlines

by Gordog

The Americans are now crying ‘uncle’ about Russia’s hypersonic weapons. After the most recent flight test of the scramjet-powered Zircon cruise missile, the Washington Post on July 11 carried a Nato statement of complaint:

"Russia’s new hypersonic missiles are highly destabilizing and pose significant risks to security and stability across the Euro-Atlantic area," the statement said.

At the same time, talks have begun on the ‘strategic dialog’ between the US and Russia, as agreed at the June 16 Geneva Summit of the two presidents. The two sides had already agreed to extend the START treaty on strategic weapons that has been in effect for a decade, but, notably, it was the US side that initiated the summit—perhaps spurred by the deployment of the hypersonic, intercontinental-range Avangard missile back in 2019, when US weapons inspectors were present, as per START, to inspect the Avangard as it was lowered into its missile silos.

But what exactly is a hypersonic missile—and why is it suddenly such a big deal?

We all remember when Vladimir Putin announced these wonder weapons in his March 2018 address to his nation [and the world]. The response from the US media was loud guffaws about ‘CGI’ cartoons and Russian ‘wishcasting.’ Well, neither Nato nor the Biden team are guffawing now. Like the five stages of grief, the initial denial phase has slowly given way to acceptance of reality—as Russia continues deploying already operational missiles, like the Avangard and the air-launched Kinzhal, now in Syria, as well as finishing up successful state trials of the Zircon, which is to be operationally deployed aboard surface ships and submarines, starting in early 2022. And in fact, there are a whole slew of new Russian hypersonic missiles in the pipeline, some of them much smaller and able to be carried by ordinary fighter jets, like the Gremlin aka GZUR.

The word hypersonic itself means a flight regime above the speed of Mach 5. That is simple enough, but it is not only about speed. More important is the ability to MANEUVER at those high speeds, in order to avoid being shot down by the opponent’s air defenses. A ballistic missile can go much faster—an ICBM flies at about 6 to 7 km/s, which is about 15,000 mph, about M 25 high in the atmosphere. [Mach number varies with temperature, so it is not an absolute measure of speed. The same 15,000 mph would only equal M 20 at sea level, where the temperature is higher and the speed of sound is also higher.]

But a ballistic missile flies on a straightforward trajectory, just like a bullet fired from a barrel of a gun—it cannot change direction at all, hence the word ballistic.

This means that ballistic missiles can, in theory, be tracked by radar and shot down with an interceptor missile. It should be noted here that even this is a very tough task, despite the straight-line ballistic trajectory. Such an interception has never been demonstrated in combat, not even with intermediate-range ballistic missiles [IRBMs], of the kind that the DPRK fired off numerous times, sailing above the heads of the US Pacific Fleet in the Sea of Japan, consisting of over a dozen Aegis-class Ballistic Missile Defense ships, designed specifically for the very purpose of shooting down IRBMs.

Such an interception would have been a historic demonstration of military technology—on the level of the shock and awe of Hiroshima! But no interception was ever attempted by those ‘ballistic missile defense’ ships, spectating as they were, right under the flight paths of the North Korean rockets!

The bottom line is that hitting even a straight-line ballistic missile has never been successfully demonstrated in actual practice. It is a very hard thing to do.

Consider that a modern combat rifle with a high-velocity cartridge can fire a bullet at a speed of about 1,200 meters per second [1.2 km/s]. That is barely one fifth the speed of an ICBM warhead, and only about half the speed of a short or intermediate-range ballistic missile. Clearly, intercepting anything that flies double or even five times the speed of a rifle bullet is going to be a daunting task. [Note from our previous discussion on the space race and the technicalities of orbital flight, that the ICBM does not reach orbital velocity, but flies on a suborbital trajectory—although it does exit the atmosphere].

Between the two, speed and maneuvering, the latter is much more effective in evading defensive interception.

We know this from many actual battlefield results. When the US launched large salvoes of subsonic Tomahawk cruise missiles at Syria in 2017 and again in 2018, a number of them were intercepted by Syrian air defenses. But not nearly all. Many did get through despite the T-Hawk’s relatively slow speed of about 500 mph, which is only about M 0.7. But the cruise missile’s ability to fly low to the ground and maneuver in flight, changing direction constantly, make it a tough target to hit. Likewise in the Falklands War, the Argentines used subsonic and fairly short-range, French-made Exocet sea-skimming cruise missiles to sink several large British warships, including a then-state-of-the-art Royal Navy destroyer, HMS Sheffield.

Even bird hunters know this, and will use a shotgun that scatters many pellets over a wide area rather than a bullet-firing rifle to take down slow-flying, but maneuvering, land and waterfowl! Obviously, if you combine high speed WITH maneuvering, you will have a missile that is going to be very difficult to stop. [If not impossible, with something like the Avangard, which reaches ICBM speeds of up to M 25!].

But let’s lower our sights a little from ICBMs and IRBMs [and even subsonic cruise missiles] to a quite ancient missile technology, the Soviet-era Scud, first introduced into service in 1957! A recent case with a Houthi Scud missile fired at Saudi Arabia in December 2017 shows just how difficult missile interception really is:

At around 9 p.m…a loud bang shook the domestic terminal at Riyadh’s King Khalid International Airport.

‘There was an explosion at the airport,’ a man said in a video taken moments after the bang. He and others rushed to the windows as emergency vehicles streamed onto the runway.

Another video, taken from the tarmac, shows the emergency vehicles at the end of the runway. Just beyond them is a plume of smoke, confirming the blast and indicating a likely point of impact.

The Houthi missile, identified as an Iranian-made Burqan-2 [a copy of a North Korean Scud, itself a copy of a Chinese copy of the original Russian Scud from the 1960s], flew over 600 miles before hitting the Riyadh international airport. The US-made Patriot missile defense system fired FIVE interceptor shots at the missile—all of them missed!

Laura Grego, a missile expert at the Union of Concerned Scientists, expressed alarm that Saudi defense batteries had fired five times at the incoming missile.

‘You shoot five times at this missile and they all miss? That’s shocking,’ she said. ‘That’s shocking because this system is supposed to work.’

Ms Grego knows what she’s talking about—she holds a physics doctorate from Caltech and has worked in missile technology for many years. Not surprisingly, American officials first claimed the Patriot missiles had done their job and shot the Scud down. This was convincingly debunked in the extensive expert analysis that ran in the NYT: Did American Missile Defense Fail in Saudi Arabia?

This was not the first time that Patriot ‘missile defense’ against this supposedly obsolete missile failed spectacularly:

On February 25, 1991, an Iraqi Scud hit the barracks in Dharan, Saudi Arabia, killing 28 soldiers from the U.S. Army's 14’th Quartermaster Detachment.

A government investigation revealed that the failed intercept at Dhahran had been caused by a software error in the system's handling of timestamps. The Patriot missile battery at Dhahran had been in operation for 100 hours, by which time the system's internal clock had drifted by one-third of a second. Due to the missile's speed this was equivalent to a miss distance of 600 meters.

Whether this explanation is factual or not, the Americans’ initial claims of wild success in downing nearly all of the 80 Iraqi Scuds launched, was debunked by MIT physicist Theodore Postol, who concluded that no missiles were in fact intercepted!

As the missile experts in the NYT point out:

Shooting down Scud missiles is difficult, and governments have wrongly claimed success against them in the past.

Governments have overstated the effectiveness of missile defenses in the past, including against Scuds. During the first Gulf War, the United States claimed a near-perfect record in shooting down Iraqi variants of the Scud. Subsequent analyses found that nearly all the interceptions had failed.

Why is shooting down Scuds so difficult? Because this was arguably the world’s first hypersonic missile [it flies at M 5 and does MANEUVER]!

If we take a closer look at this missile, we see that it is propelled nearly throughout its entire flight. This is the key. The warhead only separates from the missile body a few miles [mere seconds], before reaching its target. That missile body contains a means for maneuvering the missile, by means of thrust vector—using graphite paddles that move into and out of the rocket engine exhaust stream, as seen here. So it will be jinking and jibing as it enters the terminal phase of flight—making it a very hard target to radar track and shoot down!

Once the warhead separates, the spent missile body falls harmlessly to the ground, as it did just outside the Riyadh airport, landing on a nearby street. It is this now uselessly falling body that could be locked onto by air defense radars and hit by interceptor missiles—while the warhead itself sails unobstructed overhead.

The only real problem with those ancient Scuds was their accuracy. They could be off by hundreds of meters. But of course, accuracy and missile guidance systems have come a long way since then. The modern successor to the Scud, the Russian truck-launched Iskander, has an accuracy of about 5 meters! It too, is really a hypersonic missile that reaches M 7, but has a range of only 500 km—which was dictated by the now-defunct INF treaty, from which the Trump administration unilaterally withdrew.

The Russian Iskander-M cruises at hypersonic speed of 2,100–2,600 m/s [Mach 6–7] at a height of 50 km. The Iskander-M weighs 4,615 kg carries a warhead of 710–800 kg, has a range of 480 km and achieves a CEP [circular error probable] of 5–7 meters. During flight it can maneuver at different altitudes and trajectories to evade anti-ballistic missiles.

Iskander is generally described, at least in the west, as a ‘quasi-ballistic’ missile. But ‘quasi’ or not, the US considers the Iskander a very dangerous weapon, and a type of weapon which it does not yet possess. In fact, the US’ attempts to develop its very first hypersonic missile have been rather slow out of the blocks. Its first flight test attempt with the proposed Lockheed-Martin AGM183 [aka ARRW] in April of this year, did not even manage to release the rocket from the wing of the B52 carrier! The second attempt, on July 29, managed to get the rocket to release, but the engine failed to fire!

Clearly the US is many years away from fielding a working hypersonic missile. These early tests were only supposed to test the rocket, and carried a dummy ‘glide vehicle’ which is supposed to separate from the rocket once it reaches a speed of about M 6 or so, and then glide to its target while maneuvering.

The prototype missile would carry a frangible surrogate for that [glide] vehicle that would disintegrate after release.

However, it is unclear how an unpowered gliding body is going to accomplish aerodynamic maneuvering INSIDE the atmosphere. The concept of boost-glide, which is used by Avangard, works by hoisting the glide vehicle up above the atmosphere, at ICBM speed, where the ‘glider’ can then skip off the upper layers of the atmosphere like a flat pebble skipping over the surface of a still pond.

The overall flight range of AGM183 is a claimed 1,000 miles [1,600 km]. Clearly such a short-range missile, and reaching a speed of only about M 8 at most [based on statements of reaching its target in a flight time of 10 to 12 minutes] is not going to be able to use the boost-glide means of maneuvering, which requires exiting the atmosphere.

The Technical Deep Dive (If you are not inclined to follow technical details jump to the conclusions.)

So let’s look at Russian hypersonic technology in a little more detail, so that we may understand more than just what the technically-challenged media are telling us. From what the Russian military has already fielded, we can see that hypersonic missiles come in all shapes and sizes. Some, like Avangard, are launched by powerful ICBM rockets and have ICBM-like striking range. Others, like Zircon, are more like a Tomahawk or Kalibr cruise missile, powered by an air-breathing engine, and able to aerodynamically maneuver throughout their flight to the target—but flying about ten times faster.

Others, like Kinzhal, which appears to be an evolution of the Iskander [itself an evolution of the Scud] are powered by relatively small rockets and are designed to maneuver gas-dynamically [thrust vectoring], again, during all phases of flight, right up to the target.

These are the three primary types for purposes of basic classification. They all fly very fast [up to M 25 for Avangard], but they use different propulsion systems, and different means of maneuvering. Let’s begin with the Kinzhal, since we already understand the basics of how a Scud or Iskander works. In the case of Kinzhal, it is launched from a very high speed and height by a MiG31 interceptor aircraft, which is designed to fly up to 1,500 km at a cruising speed of M 2.4, at a height of about 20 km.

By carrying even an unmodified Iskander up to this speed and height, its range could easily double, to about 1,000 km—since the rocket chemical energy required to reach that height and speed would be saved, and could be expended on increasing its flight range.

The range given for Kinzhal is 2,000 km, but it is not clear if that includes the flight range of the MiG31 carrier aircraft. My guess would be that it does. The MiG has a combat radius of over 700 km at its M 2.4 cruise speed. That means that after release, the Kinzhal would need to fly for about 1,300 km before hitting its target—for an overall system range of 2,000 km. In fact, the MiG could fly a significant portion of its flight subsonically, saving fuel, and accelerate up to supersonic cruise speed, or even its top speed of M 2.8, only in the last couple of hundred km, before launching Kinzhal. It would then circle back and return to base subsonically again. This would increase range even more.

Either way, it is a safe bet that the overall range to a target, say a US aircraft carrier, from the takeoff point of the MiG [now deployed in Syria], is realistically going to be no less than the stated 2,000 km, if not more. This is certainly a game-changer for US naval dominance! Carrier-based aircraft would have no chance to fly far enough from their floating airfield to intercept a MiG31 launching a Kinzhal at 1,000 km or more distance from the ship. The F/A-18 has a combat radius for air-to-air missions of only 740 km. Obviously, it is not going to be able to reach the MiG launching from outside of 1,000 km.

Now let us look at the Zircon cruise missile that Nato is complaining about. So far, this missile has been successfully test-flown at target distances of up to about 450 km. The Russian MoD says its range is actually in excess of 1,000 km, and that flight tests to maximum range will be forthcoming.

This too is a game-changer. The Zircon will be carried by Russia’s new class of surface warships in the frigate or ‘small destroyer’ size, as well as on the new Yasen-class cruise missile nuclear subs that are now coming into service. These state-of-the-art subs will also carry subsonic Kalibr cruise missiles with a maximum range of 4,500 km! Combined with the air-launched Kinzhal, the US Navy will face some very stiff challenges—from the air, from the sea, and even from under the sea. It should be noted that both the Zircon and Kinzhal are not exclusively anti-ship missiles. They can just as readily target land objects, including Nato command and control centers—which Putin has said Russia will do, in the event of any kind of western aggression!

But Zircon is also a technological tour de force. The unique feature of the Zircon is its scramjet engine. This is the first time that the world has a production engine of this type—something which has long been a goal for both the US and Russia.

Not surprisingly, the Russians flew the world’s first scramjet prototype back in 1991—the Kholod, which means ‘cold’ in Russian. Remarkably, in the Yeltsin détente atmosphere of the early nineties, the Russian developers of the world’s first functional scramjet engine, the Central Institute of Aviation Motors [CIAM] invited Nasa to participate in the flight tests at the Sary Shagan test range in Kazakhstan. The results were published in the US professional literature, here, and here.

But despite this technology boost from Russia, the US has not been able to keep up. Its experiments with scramjet engines, although wildly hyped in the media, have been dormant for several years. It appears that the US has given up on the idea of building a working scramjet engine for the time being—much as they gave up, decades ago, on the idea of building a closed-cycle rocket engine, having deemed the technology ‘impossible.’

So what is a scramjet engine anyway? To fully understand this, let’s first look at how a turbojet engine works. Here is a picture that is worth a thousand words. Air enters the front of the engine and is then compressed by a number of rotating blades on a series of wheels, similar to a fan or propeller. The compressed air is then passed into the burner, or combustion chamber, where fuel is squirted in and the result is a high temperature and high-pressure gas that then drives the turbine wheels—which are bladed in a way similar to the compressor wheels up front.

The turbine wheels and compressor are on a single shaft and rotate at the same speed—so it is the energy of the gas driving the turbines, that drives the compressors. The remaining energy in the gas is squeezed out through a nozzle, which accelerates the gas flow, which, in turn, creates thrust—on the principle of Newton’s Third Law, action-reaction. The force of the fast-moving mass flow of gas out the nozzle, must be compensated by a REACTION force in the opposite direction [forward thrust], as per the conservation of momentum principle. Hence all jet engines, whether air-breathing or rocket, are called reaction engines.

Now what happens when you want to go very fast with a turbojet engine? Well, you basically hit a wall, due to the physics of airflow]. The faster you go, the greater the ram pressure on the front of the engine. This ram pressure [technically called dynamic pressure, or ‘Q’] is like kinetic energy—it increases by the square of speed. [KE = M x V^2 / 2; Q = rho x V^2 / 2; they are the same except mass is replaced by density, rho, since we are dealing with a flowing fluid instead of a solid particle!]

In simple terms, dynamic pressure [aka ram pressure] is what you feel on your hand when you stick your hand out the window of your car while driving on the highway.

The results of this quadratic pressure rise with speed are profound! At a typical passenger jet cruise speed of 450 knots, or M 0.8, the pressure increase from ram effect, at the front of the engine fan, is about 1.5. Also, the engine inlet must SLOW the airflow down to about M 0.5, so that the rotating blades can work efficiently.

If you increase flight speed to M 2, the pressure rise at the engine face due to ram effect is seven-fold! At this speed, you don’t even need a compressor or turbines.

This is the idea of the ramjet engine—you need no moving parts, just an air inlet that is designed to slow down the airflow to below sonic velocity, turning kinetic energy into pressure energy. The combustion chamber is simply a pipe with fuel squirters, where that compressed air is burned with fuel, and then expelled through a nozzle, exactly as on the turbojet. In fact the afterburner on supersonic fighter jets works exactly like a ramjet engine—fuel is squirted in and combusts with air that was used for cooling the combustion chamber walls upstream [only a small amount of air is burned in a turbojet engine, with air to fuel ratios of over 50, compared to about 15 for a car engine.] An illustration of an afterburner shows the simple basic geometry.

But the ramjet hits a speed limit too, just like the turbojet. In both cases it has to do with the falling efficiency of the engine inlet at higher speeds: more of the kinetic energy of the high-speed airflow is converted into heat, rather than usable pressure. In a turbojet, the heat limit is reached by about Mach 3, when the heat of that incoming air exceeds the materials limit of the compressor blades. In the ramjet, eliminating those unneeded blades and all the other moving parts raises the temperature limit to a much higher value—so flight up to about Mach 5 is possible.

Above those speeds, the Ramjet faces a different kind of problem. As flight speeds continue to increase, the efficiency of turning that kinetic energy into pressure continues to decrease steeply. This pressure loss is due to a series of shockwaves generated by slowing down the airflow in the engine inlet passage, upstream of the combustion chamber. The biggest shockwave and biggest pressure loss happens when the flow finally transitions to below sonic velocity. This is called the normal shockwave, because it is perpendicular [normal] to the inlet wall, as seen in this illustration of a supersonic inlet and its shockwaves.

So the speed limit comes because most of that ram pressure is not recoverable—it is simply dissipated into heat by the inlet shockwaves.

Enter the scramjet. Here, the flow is never actually slowed to below sonic velocity. That’s why it’s called a SCramjet, for supersonic combustion—the airflow through the combustion chamber is well above Mach 1, perhaps closer to Mach 2. By comparison, the flow in a turbojet enters the burner at just M 0.2, ten times slower—and in the afterburner and ramjet, it is about M 0.5.

This solves the speed limit issue of not having any more pressure energy available. But it comes with HUGE challenges. At a flight speed of M 6 or 7, the craft is moving at a speed of about 2,000 m/s. The main challenge is the flame front speed of combustion. Even if it took only one hundredth of a second to combust the air-fuel mixture, it would require a combustion chamber 20 meters long! That is hardly practical of course, but is in line with the flame propagation speed of aviation kerosene. That is why the afterburner jetpipes on supersonic aircraft are several meters long.

So we see that each type of airbreathing engine, turbojet, ramjet and scramjet, has its own speed limit, as shown graphically here. Even the scramjet will run into a wall at some point. The vertical measure is specific impulse [ISP], which is engine efficiency, per mass of fuel burned. We see that ISP decreases the faster we go, in any type of engine—it simply means that fuel use rises much faster than flight speed!

But back to the main challenge of the scramjet, which is flame speed. This is strictly a limit of the chemical physics of fuel combustion. Hydrogen burns ten times as fast as kerosene, but is not a practical fuel—it must be cooled to near absolute zero to be liquid, and so is not storable, and cannot be launched at will without time-consuming fueling. All of the previous scramjet experimental prototypes, both US and Russian, used cryogenic liquid hydrogen fuel. But the Zircon uses a kerosene-based fuel innovation that the Russians call Detsilin-M.

The exact means by which the Russians have achieved this fuel chemistry is of course a tightly held secret, but it is clearly a remarkable breakthrough in chemical engineering—comparable to the breakthrough in materials science that led to the closed-cycle, oxygen-rich staged combustion rocket engine in the 1960s [which the US still has not demonstrated].

In a previous discussion here, the technically-inclined commenter and longtime gyroplane pilot PeterAU1, dug up some interesting material about ‘doping’ kerosene with certain additives to enhance flame front speed. But the technicalities of that subject are beyond the scope of this relatively brief introductory discussion. [Although I’m sure we may hear more in the comments section!]

Conclusions:

The bottom line is that the Zircon represents not only a formidable and very deadly weapon—but it is indicative of the engineering capabilities of the Russian aerospace industry. It is an impressive achievement that is in fact groundbreaking. As mentioned already, Zircon is only the beginning of scramjet engine use by the Russian military. The next generation of such missiles, like the already mentioned Gremlin, will be even smaller and more capable in range and speed. At some point in the future, we may even see scramjet engines on superfast civil aircraft—but that is probably a long way off yet.

An even bigger engineering accomplishment is the astonishing Avangard boost-glide vehicle. But I will leave that remarkable story for another discussion.

The bottom line is that these new Russian technologies are in fact tilting the global military balance going forward. They are game-changing because they are UNSTOPPABLE with today’s air defense technology. Just like the Plains Indians couldn’t hope to stop, with their bows and arrows, the US cavalry with their repeating rifles.

Even more profound may be the psychological effect that Russia’s engineering accomplishments must be exerting on the American psyche, which is used to assuming that they have the smartest engineers and make the best military hardware.

That is demonstrably NOT the case anymore.

And that may be the biggest game-changer of all!

The smart thing…

Knowing the Chinese, it’s just a simple matter of treating the Taiwanese as brothers and sisters. Inviting them over to China (as they can travel easily back and forth now) and let the Taiwanese decide for themselves if they want to reunify with China or not.

Face it.

China is doing so much better than Taiwan is.

Oh, sure, Taiwan is wealthy. But it is Western wealth. All the money is concentrated in the hands of a few greedy oligarchs. It’s not spread out among the people. And when the Taiwanese come into China they see the life that they SHOULD be living in Taiwan. They see what COULD happen in Taiwan, if the nation unified together.

Like in this amazing video here… A Taiwanese girl comes to China for the first time and here’s her impressions…

Conclusion

If America “jumps the gun” and initiates hostilities before 2023, it will quickly escalate and go nuclear and Russia and China together would level America. The QUAD allies might talk big, but one the nuclear detonations start to happen, you can pretty much expect them to sit “the game” out.

If the United States holds off on hostilities past into 2023, what we would see is an economic contraction in the United States and the Western client states. A decline in the value of the US dollar and rampant inflation. Depending on American actions, the military budget will be seen as bankrupting the country, and meanwhile China is prospering and looking like some kind of space-age utopia. This comparison between the two would be strikingly obvious, and exacerbated with the 2022 Olympic games. This would be a very dangerous time indeed. This is the time where it is difficult to predict.

If the hostilities delay to 2025 or later, then there won’t be much that America can do. It has shot it’s last wad, and spent up all it’s fuel. The nation is running on vapors right now, and whatever advantages it once had, it has been squandered away by the greedy and evil.

Now matter how you look at it, China is clearly the superior governance model…

This is America in 2021. This is it. Look closely at the video…

And this is China in 2021. Watch the video…

Quick Summary

Technology has completely changed the balance of forces globally. Yet the evil, corrupt and powerful somehow believe that they can prevent this new reality, and capitalize upon it for personal profit. By all accounts, they are about two decades too late, and they understanding of reality is inaccurate.

How the world adjusts to this new reality is open to conjecture, as it could go very bad to just a minor discomfort. It all depends on a number of variables that are in play right now. Stay tuned.

And keep in mind…

Next time you read some gung-ho neocon advocating war because America is strong, and has perfected small unit warfare…

… remember this video of Chinese boy and girl scouts…

And this one too…

Do you want more?

You can find more articles related to this in my latest index; A New Beginning. And in it are elements of the old, some elements regarding the transition, and some elements that look towards the future.

.

Articles & Links

.

• You can start reading the articles by going HERE.
• You can visit the Index Page HERE to explore by article subject.
• You can also ask the author some questions. You can go HERE to find out how to go about this.
• You can find out more about the author HERE.
• If you have concerns or complaints, you can go HERE.
• If you want to make a donation, you can go HERE.

Somehow, everyone is assuming that those nations that “signed up to support the United States in the “containment” of China, would actually do so. And, I have argued “don’t be so sure”.

And while there might be a few “hanger’s on” such as Australia (only if the Morrison government remains in power), the chances are slim that the QUAD would exist and remain viable.

I argue that there is a very strong likelihood that most (if not all) of the QUAD would “high tail it back home” and leave the United States hanging “with it’s dick in it’s hands“…

…Were there to be a conflict between the USA and China.

To Americans, it seems that America is still strong and powerful and has a trio of “toadies” (nations that it can “push around”) and who will “stand by the United States” and do what ever it wants.

This is not true.

It’s not 1980.

No matter what the American mainstream and alternative media wants to say. The truth is that the rest of the world really doesn’t give a shit about America. They don’t care about Americans. They want America bullshit out of their lives, and are only going along with America now, out of survival. Once America shows signs that it can no longer punish these people, they will abandon America faster than you can shake a leg.

Asia has united into one enormous and powerful group. And all the nations bordering on this entity either wants to be part of it, or be independently respected by it. They most certainly do not want to piss off this massive, enormous united Asia.

The rest of the world is not at all like it is portrayed in the American media.

It’s an exciting period full of CHANGE.

The United States Military Empire is collapsing in upon itself. And this is creating voids where the rest of the world can rejoice and start living “normal” lives again. This is not just some nice phrases. It’s the absolute truth. The United States has become the world’s captor, torturer and all-around bully. Americans call this “policing the world for democracy”.

As shown in this micro-video…

In this article, we look at the probable alignments with the United States Military Empire construction known as “The QUAD”. And we put it in context with the great global realignments that are taking place.

How the USA views China

But this narrative is for American consumption. It is a fantasy. It is a lie. And it will end up getting a lot of Americans killed.

This isn’t your standard BBC or CNN, or FOX “news” fare.

This is the real deal and what is actually going on.

The following is from Fred Reed, and judging from the comments in the comments section, about 75% of the American commenters are indigent and aghast that Fred would write something other than “American Rambo can kick anyone’s ass”. It’s a great read. Check it out…

How Taiwan Will Fall Into Beijing’s Lap, Like an Overripe Mango

I will now explain war, or some of it. If you wonder how some mutt in Mexico with a computer thinks he knows about strategy, well, look at what we have in Washington. How could I be worse?

In geopolitical circles, blather swirls over whether the United States can defend Taiwan against a Chinese invasion in a regional war. Sez I, it doesn’t matter whether it can if it won’t, and China will likely get the island without invading. The key is to think about how things look from Taiwan.

Washington is vague about whether it would militarily defend Taiwan. Taiwan presumably has noticed. Further, America does not recognize Taiwan as an independent country. More waffling. The implication is that Washington might, or might not, do something, or something else, depending on unspecified things, probably or at least possibly.

This sounds like hedging, a disguised American recognition that this isn’t 1955, and China is no longer a bamboo republic that makes pencils and cheap plastic buckets for Walmart. As China’s military power grows, and thus the cost of a war, America’s equivocation will likely become more equivocal. Throw in that America does $550 billion in commerce annually with the Middle Kingdom, including countless things America doesn’t make but can’t do without, and war with China doesn’t look real feasible. This too has probably occurred to Taipei.

The fashion in naval circles is to talk about the First Island Chain, which is a sort of barrier along the coast of China, the Kuriles, Japan, Okinawa in the Ryukyus, Taiwan, the Philippines, and even Borneo. The idea, apart from some fairly silly notions about “containing China,” is that these islands will want to join with Washington, which is somewhere else, to fight China, which is right there, to defend Taiwan, which also is right there.

Now, who would actually defend Taiwan—that is, go to war with China? Japan? Note that Japan is within missile range of China, and probably does not want missiles of large warhead raining down on Tokyo. Japan gets ninety percent of its petroleum from the Persian Gulf and, If Tokyo’s reserves of oil run out, Japan stops. All of it. China has pretty good submarines these days. The beltway Hawklets might say, “Don’t worry. We have magic anti-submarine stuff, no prob.” Given America’s military record, would you buy a used car from these people?

Do you suppose the Japanese have thought of this?

Washington might say, not to worry, we have antimissile gadgets, THAAD, and Patriot, and Aegis, and we can escort your tankers. But none of these weapons has much of a track record, and neither does America.

Further energizing Japan’s likely unenthusiasm for fighting Washington’s wars is that trade with China is crucial to the Japanese economy, and that Taiwan isn’t all that valuable to Tokyo. Today Japan trades with Taiwan, and with China. If Taiwan became part of China, this trade would probably continue with nothing changing but the letterhead.

Lastly, Japan may have noticed America’s propensity for getting its vassals (or allies, clients, or poodles, take your choice) into wars and then leaving them in the lurch. Think Vietnam, Cambodia, Laos, Afghanistan and, soon, Syria and Iraq. This would leave Japan in a shooting war with China, all by itself. If the gringos lose a war, they can just go home. Japan is not mobile.

The Japanese might whisper into American ears, “All cool, Round Eye. But it’s just your empire on the line. It’s our ass. we’ll sit this one out.”

South Korea might think similar thoughts regarding use of its air bases, especially given that the Korean peninsula has a land border with China. Washington doesn’t. Seoul needs a war with the Middle Kingdom like it needs smallpox. “Tell you what, Round Eye, bugger off….”

Taiwan would get wind of this through back channels if not by sheer deduction.

How would a regional war over the Taiwan Strait look to an adult commander of an aircraft carrier? He might think, “Hmmm. Squinty-eyed rascals good engineers. Make’m Mars probe, worke’m. Train go three hundred sixty miles hour. Work’em. Maybe make’m missiles work’em good too. Hmmmm. Bad juju.”

The Navy’s PR operation will say that Chinese missiles don’t really amount to anything, this to protect the budget for its favorite bathtub toys and the only surface ship that justifies the existence of the Navy. But of course China can build swarms of missiles to arrive simultaneously.

Further, realists in Washington might ask themselves what would happen if the war didn’t go as planned, as wars usually don’t, and a carrier and three destroyers became marine barbecues before sinking. War games and Pentagon studies suggest that this is quite likely. To save face, the hawks would have to turn a regional war into a world war, which America would win. “Win.” Millions would die and the world economy stop. Never underestimate the influence of vanity in world affairs.

Taiwan could divine all of this. It could also divine that the Navy had divined it.

In recent years China has shown itself to be very good at engineering all manner of things, and has emphasized antiship missiles, including but not limited to terminally guided ballistic missiles of range far greater than that of carrier aviation. Do they work as advertised? We don’t know. A carrier captain would probably want someone else to find out.

Despite growly aphasic pronunciamientos from the White House, and chirpy assurance from Navy PR, grownups in the Pentagon might think, “You know…maybe a war with China isn’t a great idea. How about lunch instead at a really good rib joint on the Hill?”

Taiwan would know of these doubts. This would further undermine hope of American defense.

Now, suppose that China keeps on doing what to all appearances it is doing: increasing its amphibious- assault assets, improving and enlarging its already highly non-negligible air force, building missiles and increasing its number of marines. Meanwhile the Chinese navy grows like kudzu on a Georgia road cut. China can increase its forces across the Strait virtually without limit. The US cannot. At some point, past or future, Taiwan will face assault forces it has no chance whatever of repelling by itself. Taipei would notice this.

Further suppose that China keeps doing what else it has been doing for some time: practicing amphibious assaults that could at any moment become real assaults. Thus no one—read, America—would know whether the attack would come in two months, five years, or never. This would require keeping defensive forces, such as carriers, on station constantly and at a high state of readiness. Militaries do not do this well, and it is expensive. Moreover, after long periods of peace militaries do not mobilize quickly as it is discovered that there aren’t many of things there ought to be lots of because of some budget cut, or something, and the whole enterprise turns into a gargantuan goat-rope.

What kind of attack might Taiwan expect? I haven’t talked to the Chinese General Staff for weeks now, and so am making this up. But the goal would probably be to get the war over before America had time to react. Keeping invaders out is one thing, getting them out another. So, maybe a sudden attack with ballistic missiles to crater runways with simultaneous mass missile attack on air defenses with amphib ships simultaneously setting sail. At fifteen knots it would take about eight hours to reach the island. With heavy air support from China’s highly non-negligible air force, Chinese troops might well get ashore and into cities before America’s hypergalactic indomitable military could get its thumb out of…well, never mind. The Americans would be caught flatfooted by a fait accompli. Washington would face the joyful choice of bombing Chinese soldiers inside Taiwanese cities, or—this is Saturday Night Live territory—undertaking a land war in Asia against China.

It may be that Taiwan has thought of this.

Finally, there is TSMC, Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Company. While little known in America, TSMC makes most of the world’s high-end chips, including those of Apple and…the Pentagon. America currently is not able to make its own.

This throws a fascinating wild card into things. If in an attack, TSMC were destroyed, by either side, or captured and held hostage, the effects would be no end entertaining. Today’s world, perhaps more than most people know, depends on chips. An astonishing proportion of advanced chips come from the island. Replacing its fab lines somewhere else would take years. The other, though lesser, source of chips is Samsung in South Korea, also in Chinese missile range. Washington is trying to cripple China’s tech by not allowing it access to advanced chips. Presumably this increases Beijing’s incentive to annex Taiwan.

Anyway, Biden couldn’t risk losing Taiwan as it would affect the midterms. But what it comes to is that with China being the largest trading partner of something like 165 countries, war isn’t real practical. The Taiwanese have probably figured this out.

So what does Taiwan do, seeing an overwhelming invasion force looming and not believing that Washington is really going to go to war to defend it? The choice would be to fight, be devastated as it lost, and face harsh conditions after—or to come to the best agreement it could and surrender without fighting. Anyone want to make bets?

Correction: Last week, in a moment of brainlock, I said that Pompeo was in the Navy. No, the Army. Mea culpa.

Some selected comments…

I’ve a hunch that, that is a key factor in China’s desire in getting its “lost province” back?. Taiwan integrated into China proper would then have a huge share, even a near monopoly on certain high capacity chips. 

Since we’ve allowed a great bulk of our industrial/infrastructure base to be outsourced, we’ve become dangerously dependent on others to maintain this menagerie. 

We could eventually (maybe) rebuild our capacity but is the skill set even here anymore to do that or sustain it?. 

We may go berserk & launch a war against China but if China does indeed have those hypersonic missiles available then they could send much of the pacific fleet to Davy Jones’ locker. And since it takes years to build those naval vessels we, out of desperation may go nuclear?. Then it’s Adios Muchachos..

So, me thinks that we’re rapidly approaching a scenario that there is very little we can do about it. Accept that we screwed the pooch big time in allowing so much our productivity base to be so gutted & in doing so, hamstrung our very future (we’ll never admit that!). 

We can swallow our pride & acknowledge what we’ve done to ourselves? (fat chance!). 

Gracefully accept we’re a waning power? (fat chance!). 

Or, freak out & go berserk that we’re no longer the top dog & launch a conflagration that’ll turn this world into a charnel house? (Most likely).

I really don’t think most Americans realize how completely batsh*t insane & evil their leaders & the psychos in the Pentagon truly are?. Maybe sanity will prevail, but looking at the zio-America lunatic asylum, it doesn’t bode well..

-BluEidDvl

The ‘junk’ sold in Walmart and Target, most of which are now being sourced OUTSIDE of China, are ‘AMERICAN’ goods, albeit made in foreign countries such as Vietnam. 

Chinese companies hardly sell to the US market which has become marginal to the Chinese economy, as ‘Chinese’ exports now account for less than a few percent of China’s GDP. 

Those so-called ‘Chinese’ exports to the USA consist mostly of ‘AMERICAN’ goods such as Apple’s iPhones, manufactured in China by Asian contract manufacturers like Foxconn. But those contract factories are now being relocated to lower-cost countries such as Vietnam. 

The rest of ‘Chinese’ exports which consist of industrial commodities such as LED panels are now being routed to Mexico where OEMs assemble them into final products such as TVs. 

In a few more years, ‘Chinese’ exports to the USA, while still large, in total volume will nevertheless decline further to less than 1% of China’s GDP which will be driven more by domestic consumption and internal demand over the next few decades.

The days when China was the ‘factory of the world’ is over.

-antibeast

What this author misses is that many Chinese-based manufacturers have their plants in Taiwan. The companies are headquartered in Beijing or Shanghai, and use Taiwan for manufacturing because labor is actually cheaper and more skilled than many places in China.

So, would China bomb the crap out of Taiwan, knowing they’re destroying their own factories? 

How about another thought – would China bomb the crap out of Taiwan in an effort to control it’s government – only to then turn around and rebuild it? 

Look at what happened in Hong Kong; China assimilated the former colony almost without a fight.

As much as I hate to do this – I sort of agree with Alfred Thayer Fred, I think. Once the real pressure is on, Taiwan will come to an “agreement” with the PRC and allow itself to be subsumed into greater China. Thereby ending the “Two-China” position that’s lasted since the early 1950s.

-RonCharest

Let someone in one of the QUAD nations explain…

The issue is whether or not the QUAD nations will stick with the USA and go against China. It’s so easy to find armchair strategists. Especially in America where they have been fed a steady diet of “American exceptionalism” and “military might”.

Let’s see what some of the more influential people (who speak English) in these QUAD nations have to say…

And then there’s Russia

Of course, the Ignorant Americans are all thinking that Russia and China are somehow enemies…

Russia has no love for China so don’t be so sure about them coming to China’s aid. 

-MarkinLA

Hardly.

The Russian-China Alliance

Merry Christmas and Happy new Year, from China and Russia with love! This analysis by “Larchmonter” in 2014. Written seven years ago. He’s a contributor of the site, “The Vineyard of the Saker”, a describes what may be a game-changer in terms of the geopolitical status quo. In short, The American Empire dying a fast death, and Russia and China may be able to pick up the pieces and create a system not based on cold, brutal, myopic psychopathy.

Article HERE. All credit to him, and realize that it is very dated. China and Russia have make considerable joint progress since this was written.

Vladimir Putin said it clearly: “Russia and China will have a significant effect on the entire system of international relations. The relationship will be a significant factor in world politics and will affect the contemporary architecture of international relations . . .” And to state precisely what this relationship means in geopolitical sea change, President Putin continued: “Russia and China have never had such trusting relations in the military field as they do now. Military exercises have been in joint war games at sea and ground both in Russia and China.” (1)

Update: Russia and China have vastly increased the strength of their relationship.

Russia and China are celebrating their “strategic partnership”, and have been vastly expanding their cooperation since 2014. Their close alliance is based on economic and geopolitical considerations. While it is mutually beneficial, it also has its limitations. However, in the mid-term, both China and Russia appear to be willing to overlook potential fields of tension, for instance in Central Asia.

-Russia and China: The Potential of Their Partnership

The mega trade deals we have seen this year and military exercises are more than normal cross-border trade or cooperative events between neighbors or partners. (2) The ‘relationship’ is affecting the global order. The two nations are forming a resistance front against destabilization and the weapons of chaos of a unipolar system.

Update: China and Russia has vastly increased military cooperation; to include military liaison in each military headquarter, trade in the latest military weapons systems, and avionics, and engines.

The closeness of China and Russia’s cybersecurity relationship is not dependent on their ties with each other, but is defined in relation to the US. Just as China and Russia advocate for multipolarity to challenge the perceived US’s unipolar world view and values, their cooperation in cyberspace demonstrates the same focus on the US.

-China-RussiaCybersecurityCooperation

Russia and China are working together to stabilize international trade, diplomacy and military balances; yet, ironically, this is disruptive.

Russia and China are sovereign nation resistance fighters against the Hegemon. The Hegemon is the unipolar Empire of the United States.

Hegemon = United States Military Empire

This context of geopolitical strategies is paramount to bear in mind. The Hegemon is threatening to contain both Russia and China economically with exclusionary trade agreements (TPP and TTIP) that leave China and Russia out or marginalized as second tier members, while each is bordered militarily with nuclear weapons on missiles of the trade partners, Hegemon’s allies and vassals. (This is the so-called missile defense shield of the West.)

Update: This United States effort has failed and collapsed.

These hegemonic trade agreements will shut out China and Russia from further integration with the two groups. Limits for growth, suppression of development due to monopoly of intellectual properties, oppressive clean energy and pollution control regimes, limits on construction and sale or purchase and use of certain commodities will slow infrastructure projects, not only within both nations, but constrict each nation from contracting for projects in other nations (their own partners that are emerging or developing nations).

Update: The Trump efforts to conduct these suppressive actions have all collapsed completely.

Thus, the Hegemon has the strategic intention to limit the elimination of poverty in the world, and control trade everywhere on the globe. The unipolar world will be finalized and secured by the Hegemon. There will be Elites and there will be poverty forever for most of the remaining nations.

Update: This was written during President Obama's term in office, and before President's Trump and Biden. Today in August 2021, it is clear that the attempt to create a unipolar world has utterly and completely failed.

Of course, the resistance and evolutionary partnering by Russia and China has made this hegemonic outcome impossible, unless one or both Russia and China are destabilized and/or regime change ensues. Therefore, what both nations face is an economic and military challenge that clearly is existential in threat level. Russia is first, and China is next on the hegemonic hit list.

Update: The United States Military Empire has attacked both Russia and China using every weapon at it's disposal, short of direct military engagement. Including bio-weapons authorized by John Bolton, who tried to induce starvation in China, and then the three lethal viruses unleashed in China in 2020. All efforts have so far, failed dramatically.

Full Spectrum Battlefield

The threat against China and Russia is a full spectrum battlefield: they are facing potential AirSeaSpaceCyberElectromagnetic warfare, not exempting chemical, biological and nuclear; soon to include laser and hypersonic weapons; economic warfare; and war by proxy armies, NGO organizations, covert operators and agents, with global media demonization and propaganda in psyops mode.

Update:  China has perfected shutting down all these expensive systems. I have written extensively on it. And it is the primary reason why the Trump 8-carrier battle armada went home in 2020 in defeat.

Each nation in the resistance partnership had to permit the other to look, touch and feel deeply into one another’s most treasured defense secrets, once armed against the other, now united with a new partner.

Update: This is true, and partially the reason why Russia and China are so close right now.

They knew they were in the same ‘foxhole’ facing the same enemy. And they both understood, that in time, neither would survive without the other. There had never been a hegemon so desperate or so fundamentally weak, yet so powerfully equipped to destroy all normalcy, perhaps, most of humanity, if need be, for it to survive. China-Russia had to protect one another and then try to save humanity and world order.

The initial United States attack was economic, not military. It hit Russia.

Background of the Resistance to the United States Military Empire

Neither Russia nor China presented themselves as rivals to the Hegemon, and both considered they had trade partnerships, geopolitical cooperative relationships and multitudinous common interests with the Hegemon. There were some irritations at the edges, but nothing was truly confrontational, except that which was instigated, paid for, planned and managed by the Hegemon with its vassals.

Update: This was the case in 2014. From 2016 to present, it's been a full-spectrum hybrid-war against both China and Russia. With China taking the brunt of the assaults.

So, economy, military and terrorism are the main battlefields in this full spectrum containment and destabilization against the Hegemon’s two greatest resistors. (This resistance is to unipolar domination in all its manifestations.)

Thus, we came to 2014. Because of the Sochi Olympics, the year 2014 became the focus of the color revolution rebirth in Ukraine. The ‘planners’ in the State Department and CIA had eight years to aim a two-prolonged destabilization that turned the failed Orange Revolution in Kiev into the Maidan. We all are very aware that this transformation was evil at its core, illegal, murderous, unconstitutional and had only one aim – to present Russia with an armed, psychologically-tuned, xenophobic Ukrainian force that would, first sweep away the Russian language, then the Russian speakers, i.e., Ukrainian citizens, in East Ukraine, next to Rostov and along a virtual open border, with nominally few defenses, merely, formal ‘crossings’ with no vestige of militarization on either side.

This violent upheaval was timed perfectly while President Putin presided over a $50 Billion investment in developing Sochi, hosting the 2014 Winter Olympics, eight years of stewardship identifiable as his greatest public project and intended to lift the internal spirits of his people, while demonstrating, as the Chinese had in 2008 with a Summer Olympics, that Russia, too, was back to greatness, accomplished and peaceful, a tourist attraction year-round in Sochi, and all troubles were in the past.

President Xi had announced he would attend the opening ceremonies. China and Russia were coming of age and were proud to show support in all matters of interest to both. They had voted as one to stop the American air attack on Syria, vetoing the resolution in the Security Council, and demanding resolution of the conflict by diplomatic means. So, in peace and war, sports and commerce, the two leaders scheduled six meetings for 2014. Some would be bi-lateral, some within the context of multi-lateral groups in which both held membership.

Update: Over the last seven years since this article was written both Russia and China operated as a singular block to oppose any United States Military Empire moves against each other. This block has been largely successful.

But Ukraine and the Maidan coup also attacked China in its pocketbook and its plans for East Ukraine and Crimea. China has a long history of interaction with Ukraine. Not just the modern ‘state’ of Ukraine, peeled off from the Russian Federation, in 1991, by Yeltsin in the Belovezha Accords. They were linked by technology and science study in the days before the Soviet Union threatened China and the two had hot shooting border wars, 1960-1989.

In December 2013, the Chinese and Ukraine had signed a strategic partnership agreement that was inclusive of guarantees of a shield against nukes because Ukraine has signed the non-proliferation treaty. China was guaranteeing Ukraine protection from any aggressor, quite unusual in China’s foreign policy actions. This was signed on December 5, 2013.

Update: Contrary to what the American "news" media says, President Putin says Russians and the Ukraine are "brothers". Here.

Chinese scientists and technicians trained in Ukraine, studied in Ukraine, and purchased from Ukraine when it was the home base of rockets, missiles, aircraft engines, and other software and metallurgically-supported systems.

Ukraine was where Russia (Soviet Union) had invested hundreds of billions of dollars in institutes and industries for computation, mathematics and weapons development. Ukraine was from whom the Chinese bought the incomplete aircraft carrier that China has since finished and called the Liaoning.

The Chinese recently were coming back to Ukraine and the Black Sea wealthier than ever, and desiring to help Ukraine with infrastructure while getting food from the fertile fields, grains, vegetables and fruits.

In Crimea, the Chinese were interested in the Kerch Bridge project and possible tunnel from Russia to Crimea.

These are China’s strengths today – infrastructure, roads, rail, fibre optic, ports, bridges, and building what they saw as the western depot for the Eurasian Economic Belt, and New Silk Road.

China understood Ukraine was Russian, at least the east and south were Russian. They had the contracts with Ukraine in Russian and Chinese. These contracts and diplomatic partnerships were part and parcel the Chinese connecting the dream of President Xi’s Eurasian Silk Road with the Putin Eurasian Union dream.

Ukraine was crucial because both dreams had merged into one gigantic Eurasia Development concept to be powered with Russian energy sources and Chinese wealth.

Update: This week.

Aug 05, 2021 · On June 30, China and the Ukraine signed a major agreement regarding the financing and construction of transport infrastructure. China-Ukraine relations have improved considerably since the blocking by Kyiv of a Chinese takeover of the Motor Sich company in March 2021.

-A new China-Ukraine partnership - OBOReurope

Ukraine was to function as the turntable to Europe, north, west, east and south. Ukraine benefited from the gas pipeline to Europe. It could have become a very rich transit point. Instead, Kiev chose suicide and began to kill its own citizens, going into virtual bankruptcy, losing its sovereignty, and festering into freakish and zombified ghoulery. Ukraine embraced fascism and Nazism, as it waged a war of attrition upon its entire nation. So far, Ukraine is losing the war against Ukraine, predictably, logically and tragically. However, it did stop China’s investments, forestalled the Ukrainian development projects, and does not permit itself to trade with anyone the Hegemon does not approve. (We all remember ‘Czech apples’, a sad consequence of similar vassal behaviour by the Czechs.)

Update: Substantial changes in the Ukraine has made most of this ancient history.

As events developed in late winter, two things happened on Feb. 23, 2014: Kiev fell to the junta’s snipers and the Olympics ended. The Sochi Olympics were a huge, resplendent success, despite the unprecedented West’s media campaign to disparage and nullify the actuality. The media might as well have declared the sun gone from the sky and all the oceans had dried.

Sochi and Putin had triumphed, no disaster, no terrorism, just a brilliant project with a superb display of Russian culture and expertise. The Russians also dominated the winter sports and competitively defeated American athletes in most venues. Sochi has since hosted the Formula 1 race in August.

The facility has been declared by the racers and the industry as the best racetrack facility in the world. Again, you can’t make this stuff up. Putin was on a roll. The more the West demonized him the greater Russia looked, the higher his approval ratings and the more China wanted him as a partner, a unique partner.

China’s Unique Partnership

China has 58 or so partnership agreements with various nations. There are many categories. They created a new definition for its supreme category with Russia: Comprehensive Strategic Collaborative Partnership.

Since there is this unique partnership that sets it apart, we should look closer at what is going on since 2014.

This should be seen an evolutionary event, not merely a resistance movement against the United States Military Empire.

Update: Call it what you may, the Russia and China alliance is much stronger than other other treaty and relationship in the history of the world.

Nature provides what it needs for a species to survive. Humanity is seeing this within the relationship of China and Russia.

I call it the Double Helix, merely because it is apt as a metaphor, not because every biologic or chemical fact in DNA is represented in the relationship. But similarities exist and Double Helix depicts this evolution nicely.

Update: President Putin has referred to the relationship between Russia and China as "symbiotic". A symbiosis is an evolved interaction or close living relationship between organisms from different species, usually with benefits to one or both of the individuals involved.

To decode the DNA of the relationship in this Double Helix of Bear and Dragon, we can look closer at the ‘base pair molecules’ of each strand.

First, there are the ‘helices’ that each strand comprises. These are the complimentary characteristics that make this new genetic partnership work. They are what we would normally evaluate to decode any single nation’s ‘DNA’.

Some nations have similar, some less.

But none have as much as or as profoundly essential to sustain continued growth and development and separation from the United State Military Empire.

Helices

Geography that spans thousands of miles of common borders (2,607 mi.), natural resources and multi-ethnic masses of peoples, large defensive militaries, recent emergence as developing economies, self-reliant market capitalist systems with state-managed controls, millionaires and billionaires and relatively modest middle class tiers, deep distrust of Communism as an economic solution, and massive state-owned enterprises in the key industries.

• What one nation lacks, the other has.
• What one nation excels in, the other aspires.
• What one nation needs immediately, the other is ready to deliver.
• What one nation needs over time, the other is prepared to supply or access for the duration.

And most clearly, both nations have the same existential threat from the same source, using the same means to threaten both. Ergo, the unique partnership.

A quote from Lu Shiwei, a senior research fellow with the Institute of Modern International Relations at Tsinghua University: “The close relationship between China and Russia is not only out of economic concerns, as the two complement each other’s economy. These active efforts are also a reflection of political necessity and desire.” (emphasis mine)

Wealth, energy, military, finance, banking, Space, satellites, education, IT, chemicals, microelectronics, water, agriculture, transportation, infrastructure, and a common dream, while confronting a common enemy are the significant molecules. Upon these markers, the Double Helix was formed. It was a process, not a sudden event. But it was evident in 2014 as a repeated event. It was to geopolitics as Sochi was to sport. It was unique and it happened.

Let’s visit these ‘molecules’ and look at what has transpired just in this momentous year of 2014.

Molecules

We’ll turn on the lights with energy molecules. Oil, gas and coal, nuclear and LNG acquisition, provisioning, transport, pipelines, storage, exploration, resource development, innovation and technological development, and, probably, reverse engineering of Western tools, as well as investment, loans, advanced payments, equity purchases, and job creation. The following ‘deals’ are ‘base paired’, not merely supply-purchase deals. This is far beyond vendor-customer in nature.

Gas: Two gigantic projects, the Power of Siberia and the Altai Pipeline.

The first is in Eastern Siberia. It will is delivering gas from terminal in Vladivostok to China, and at Blagoveshchensk across Amur River. It was signed May 21, 2014 between Gazprom and CNPC. It is a 30-year deal, later extended 5 years by agreement in October.

The second project is in Western Siberia and will bring is bringing gas to North-western China. Gazprom and CNPC signed the deal originally in 2006, it was put on hold, restarted in 2014 at APEC by Putin, November 9th.

What is key to these are the establishment of infrastructure, manufacture and supply of pipe, construction crews, job creation in support of two of the largest projects in mankind’s history, simultaneously. This along a border that historically has been a hotspot, where wars have been fought between the two nations.

Presidents Putin and Xi said do it.

And, it is done.

September, it began with Russian shovels and Chinese advance payments, $25 Billion. Once connected, the two nations will are receiving ‘marrow’ transfers each requires to continue growth. Siberia and the Far East come alive as viable sectors of the Russian economy; China receives clean energy and moves people into its Northwest and North, and some into Far East Russia.

Its foreign investments in Russia pay dividends, and Chinese capital grows. The plans go deeper, and involve more than finance, acquisition of commodities and exploitation of natural resources. More, later, in this energy section.

Update: It appears that Russia will be supplying all the gas needs of China.

The Russian energy project, "Power of Siberia", one of the largest gas pipeline projects on the planet, will begin by the end of 2019, expected to not only meet China’s heavy demand for gas but also benefit both sides as a large amount of jobs will be created.

-China-Russia energy cooperation deepens - CGTN

Someone had best tell this ill-informed commenter;

You are perhaps forgetting that China imports nearly all of its oil, and about 40% of its food (mostly from the U.S.) It also imports a great deal of coal from the U.S. for its coal-fired generators. And most of its alfalfa hay for feeding livestock. (Yes, really.)

Cut off China’s oil imports, and stop exporting food, hay, and coal to China (and freeze its U.S. assets, like Smithfield pork) and suddenly China is no longer in a position to wage war against anyone.

-The Scarlet Pimpernel

Oil: Rosneft has access to Chinese ‘advance payments’ and is accessing them to pay its off-shored loans coming due in December and first quarter 2015.

This mechanism is a product of deals signed in early 2014. The loans were to buy TNK-BP for $31 Billion and are not a result of falling prices.

The acquisition deal was encouraged by China, and China indicated at the time it would buy equity in Rosneft so the liquidity to complete the deal was in Rosneft’s hands in timely fashion. These agreements now seem prescient as the economic war ensues using oil price collapse, off-shore credit denial and rubble shorting in Forex trading.

China has now received much greater supplies of Russian oil and an increased involvement with Rosneft shares and has an alliance to develop technologies in exploration, drilling, extraction and transport. Rosneft and CNPC, likewise, are seen to be less rivals for oil and more partners. This has been indicated in the works for Arctic exploration and development and off-shore Crimea for oil and gas.

Update: Oil and Gas are flowing from Russia into China.
.
China, Japan and South Korea are major buyers of Russian oil, various long pipelines, then, are built to transport the oil from Europe to East Asia.

With more than 4,800 kilometers, the ESPO pipeline, also known as the Eastern Siberia-Pacific Ocean oil pipeline, starts from Tayshet central-south Russia to northeast China's oil city of Daqing, able to supply about 15 million tons of oil every year.

The Yamal LNG is China's first large-scale energy cooperation project with Russia under the Belt and Road Initiative (BRI). China also built tankers to ship LNG through sea routes thanks to China-Russia cooperation on Arctic exploration.

China and Russia are poised to further deepen their energy cooperation as their top leaders both pledged provide policy support during a bilateral energy business forum in June.

As comprehensive strategic partners of coordination, China and Russia enjoy deepening cooperation in all spheres, which has forcefully promoted the two nations' common development and revitalization, Chinese President Xi Jinping said.

Describing energy cooperation as the "most significant, most fruitful and most wide-ranging" area of bilateral cooperation, Xi said the two sides' close coordination has played a positive role in safeguarding the fair, just, reasonable and orderly international energy order.

To consolidate and deepen their energy cooperation, Xi made four proposals.

Firstly, business entities should lead the cooperation and stick to the principles of mutual benefits, win-win results and being commercially viable. Financial insurance and energy cooperation should be enhanced for mutual support and mutual promotion.

Secondly, new potentials should be tapped to upgrade the cooperation. Cooperation in energy technical standard should be strengthened for mutual recognition and synergy. Technological innovation, the integration of information technology with the energy sector, and cooperation in energy research and development (R&D) should all be deepened. Experience sharing, capacity building and think tank exchanges should be enhanced for mutual learning.

Thirdly, the cooperation should promote the integration of interests, and aim for a more comprehensive and integrated cooperation along the whole industrial chain. The two sides should focus on the present while looking into the future, stick to complementary advantages and win-win results to expand and deepen their cooperation.

Fourthly, cooperation in global energy governance should be stepped up for the sustainable development of energy. The two sides should work together to firmly safeguard multilateralism and actively conduct multilateral cooperation to play a constructive role in the global energy governance system.

Xi said China and Russia enjoy broad prospects and tremendous potentials in energy cooperation. "I would like to work with President Putin to lead and promote our governments in creating an even better business environment for our enterprises and provide more comprehensive policy support."

He expressed belief that companies of the two countries, under the shield of the comprehensive strategic partnership of coordination for a new era, will work together to further promote their cooperation to benefit the two peoples.

Russian President Vladimir Putin said the energy business forum was jointly initiated by him and Xi last year as a platform for the two sides to explore expanding cooperation in oil and gas, electric power and renewable energy.

Energy cooperation has become an important and integral part of the Russia-China comprehensive strategic partnership of coordination, and the fastest growing area of bilateral cooperation, and it is mutually beneficial, Putin said.

The two countries have made positive progress in energy cooperation in infrastructure construction, trade, and technological R&D, Putin said, adding that important oil and gas pipelines and large-scale cooperation projects are making headway as scheduled.

"The Russian government will improve related laws, regulations and policies to create a favorable market environment for foreign companies to invest and operate in Russia," he said.

-China-Russia energy cooperation deepens

Coal: Siberian and Far East coal development, Rostech and Shenhua Group agreed to are exploring and develop coal deposits in Siberia and Far East. They will are constructing coal-fired plants that will sell electricity in Russia, China and other Asian countries.

The two companies will also build has built a marine coal terminal at Port Vera in the Primorsky Territory, Far East. That project begins 2015, operational 2018-2019.

Update: Russia helps China when the Australian Morrison government stops coal exports.

Mar 11, 2021 · In December, Elgaugol, the company behind the Elga coal project in the Russian Far East, agreed to launch a joint venture with China’s Fujian Guohang Ocean Shipping Group that will export metallurgical coal to China. The Elga project aims to ship 30 million tons of coal to China in 2023, almost doubling Russia’s total coal exports to China, which stood at around 33 million tons in 2019.

-Russia looks to replace banned Australian coal exports to China.

They will build are building high voltage transmission lines to China. Social and transport infrastructure will be are being developed concurrently.

So, this coal ‘deal’ is not a typical commodity deal. It is long-term, and builds the Far East and North China. It brings a permanent electrical utility produced in Russia to the people and industries of China. It expands a port; it uses trucks, rail, and GPS systems that are co-developed.

Update: More agreements and treaties between Russia and China on coal.

In December 2020, Russia’s Elgar Coal Company and China’s Fujian Air China Ocean Shipping (Group) Co., Ltd. signed an agreement to establish a joint venture to export coking coal to China. The related project is expected to supply 30 million tons of coal to China from 2023-this will nearly double Russia's total coal exports to China from about 33 million tons in 2019.

-Russia wants to increase coal exports to China and replace ...

Nuclear: Rosatom will is building the Tianwan NPP (nuclear power plant), 7th and 8th power blocks. They are already building have completed the 3rd and 4th power blocks.

They will build have built in Harbin two power units.

Rosatom may will participate in VVER reactors (pressurized water) with two fast breeder reactors, floating nuclear power plants.

Presently, China has deals with Westinghouse for 26 nuclear units. Clearly, the Chinese would prefer to have their inland reactors Russian-design and supplied than locked into Westinghouse technology. (The two are different and fuel sources are particularly mutually exclusive, as Ukraine is finding out as it turns to the U.S. for refueling.)

Update: China and Russia are increasing their nuclear technology exchanges.
.
May 20, 2021 · The Tianwan plant in Jiangsu Province is the biggest such project between China and Russia, which is a joint venture by Jiangsu Nuclear Power Corporation and Atomstroy, a subsidiary of Russia's nuclear power giant Rosatom. The Xudapu plant in Liaoning Province is a new joint project between the two countries.

-China-Russia cooperation: A new type of major-country ...

LNG: Construction of a plant in Northern Russia. Yamal LNG and CNPC and development of South Tambeiskoye field. Equity stake for China in Vladivostok LNG is part of the deal.

Update: Ever since Trump and Biden initiated a hybrid-war against China, Russia has stepped in and forged strong relationships with China all across the board.
.
Jun 02, 2021 · Russian energy giant Novatek and China's Zhejiang Energy signed an agreement on long-term liquified natural gas (LNG) supplies from the Arctic LNG 2 project at the St. Petersburg International Economic Forum (SPIEF) on Wednesday.

-Russia’s Novatek agrees long-term Arctic LNG supplies to China

Things That Fly

Some military, some dual use, some civilian.

But we’ll begin with GPS and see how the ‘Double Helix’ is working in Space.

Satellites: Both China and Russia have GPS satellite systems. GLONASS is the Russia system. Beidou is the Chinese system. The Russian system is larger, more mature and covers the entire globe. The Chinese system is new, limited in coverage and not mature nor densely accurate and improving every month.

The Chinese often do things in measured, metric, stages. An agreement to place ground stations inside China by Russia will gives China a global GPS capability for its defense and second strike weapons, as well as for its commercial use for the world’s soon to be largest navy and the world’s largest most diverse ocean and fishing fleet. (Two teens swapping kisses couldn’t get closer.)

Update: Russia and China will explore space together.

With their agreement, the partners are signaling an alternative to a U.S.-led order in space. On March 9, 2021, the China National Space Administration (CNSA) and Russian Space Agency (ROSCOSMOS) signed a Memorandum of Understanding (MoU) for the joint construction of an autonomous lunar permanent research base. 

-The Strategic Implications of the China-Russia Lunar Base

Russia will has put GLONASS stations in one of China’s airfields and on a navigable river as pilot projects to develop cooperation in the field of navigation.

The airport project will currently aids landing and signal monitoring systems using zonal-navigation methods that will be working on GLONASS and Beidou constellations. (It should be noted that most airfields in China are dual-use military-civilian and the PLA controls most traffic in the air.)

Russia’s advanced systems and experience will enable provide training for Chinese air traffic controllers and aero navigation teams to learn modern satellite technologies. The river navigation project will currently monitors and correct and track boats on internal water routes.

Auspiciously, Beidou was named for the Great Bear constellation.

• China and Russia will be building a moon base together
• Pivoting from NASA, Russia partners with China
• Russia and China agree to build joint lunar space station
• The Strategic Implications of the China-Russia Lunar Base
• China and Russia to build lunar space station – BBC News

Space: Roscosmos Federal Space agency. China is interested engaged in building Russian rocket engines and joining manned space exploration, navigation satellite and remote sensing projects.

Production of electronic component parts, materials science, construction of spacecraft and rocket engines are in the works in process.

Exchange of manned spacecraft visits to Russian and Chinese orbiting stations and joint expeditions to deep space are beginning talks mature. Space is a battlefield according to the U.S. defense doctrine.

The Double Helix sees dual use potential.

Update: China and Russia are both going to be part of the Chinese space station, and the Lunar Moon Base.

Aircraft: Nov. 11, 2014, Aviation Industry Corp China and Rostec signed an agreement. Russia and China are forming possess a working group to carry out a project to distribute products, and prepare and implement projects in Russia, China, and 3rd countries, and to provision for warranty servicing and ensuring post-warranty service of equipment.

Update: China and Russia are forming a massive joint aerospace industry. It is trans-borders, and will have the strengths of both nations participating.

The China-Russia International Aircraft Cooperation, or CRAIC, wants to begin constructing the first CR929 before the end of the year. The collaboration has already shortlisted several subcontractors, most of whom are reportedly subsidiaries of China’s state-owned Aviation Industry Corporation (AVIC). 

-China And Russia Want To Start Building The 1st CR929

This creates strategic cooperation in development of aircraft, helicopters, engines, aircraft materials, avionics and radar equipment. This brings a new phase and transition to comprehensive cooperation between two state-owned corporations.

Long haul aircraft: Joint venture, similar to Russian-Italian JV for Sukhoi SuperJet 100. $10 Billion project to compete with Boeing and Airbus.

Update: In process. Mature.

May 30, 2016 · The project is part of a reported $13 billion aviation cooperation deal signed in 2014 during President Vladimir Putin’s visit to China. The long-haul plane will be developed in Russia and assembled in China. A special engineering center will be created in Russia to undertake technical and electronics production.

-Russian-Chinese passenger jet to take on Boeing & Airbus

Dual use aircraft heavy helicopter: Russia and China will build is building a heavy helicopter probably based on the Mi-26 from Russian Helicopoter-Rostvertol. It will be for China and third parties, initially.

Update: Mature and in process.

Aug 30, 2019 · China and Russia have fully agreed upon and signed a commercial contract on a joint heavy helicopter development project, said Miao Wei, China's Minister of Industry and Information Technology, on Wednesday. "For the next step, the Chinese government will accelerate the progress for a project approval and finish it as… 

-China, Russia Sign Heavy Helicopter Deal | DefenceTalk

S400: Triumf air defense missile systems; six battalions. Delivery will be started in 2016, $3 Billion. Rosboronexport and Chinese Defense Ministry signed on 11-26-14.

China gets state of the art missile defense. This nullifies Japan’s air power, U.S. air power, and protects the Double Helix’s Asian Pacific flank. Nothing in the missile defense arsenal of any nation is as important as this system, and now, China will get it.

Russia is was building the S500 for itself. That is the nature of technology capacity intrinsic to Russia. It has marched for forty years with derivations, updates, refinements and new systems that have protected the Motherland and the territories of its allies. Russian defense is the world standard.

Update: Forget about the S400. Already these systems have been delivered to China and are in operation. It seems that the production of the S400 has stopped, and it looks like the most advanced S500 systems are now being supplied to China. Especially since the United State Military Empire is Hell-bent on a war.

Apr 08, 2021 · Pondering whether China should consider the S-500 for its own air and space defense arsenal, Lin recalled the long history of Russian-Chinese cooperation …

- Chinese Media Impressed by Russia’s S-500

Now, from the Arctic to Vietnam, Russia and China will have has a defense system facing the U.S. Navy and U.S. Air Force missile command. Similarly, these systems will proliferate along the New Silk Road as Eurasia infrastructure develops. Force multiplication for Russia’s southern underbelly on China’s investment means a safer more secure Russia.

Submarines: AIP technology, propulsion acoustic stealth and long duration submergence technology transfer with the sale of an Amur 1650.

Update: Amazing developments in submarine technology and massive shipbuilding events have placed substantially modernized and capable submarines in both the Russia and Chinese fleets.
According to RIA Novosti, a state-controlled Russian news agency, Russia and China are collaborating on a new submarine design (in Russian). The project is being coordinated by Russia's Federal Service for Military-Technical Cooperation.

-China And Russia In Mysterious New Submarine Project

Air-independent propulsion using electrochemical generators and new combat systems for electronic warfare, a passive antenna sonar to detect silent targets at long range make this a submarine platform for defensive second strike (MAD).

Update: Amazing developments in submarine systems age going on in response to the belligerence of the United States Military Empires desire for war.

Aug 25, 2020 · On Tuesday, Russia's Sputnik news agency quoted an official as saying Russia was designing a 'non-nuclear' submarine with China. Viktor Kladov, Director for International Cooperation and Regional Policy of the state arms export corporation 

- Russia working with China to design submarine, missile ...

Russia is pursuing this sea-based deterrence and China also is expanding its extensive submarine fleet for a second deterrence platform system.

Tests of Russian Bulava ICBM from submerged sub, the Vladimir Monomakh, signaled this capability for Russia back in 2013.

Update: Amazing developments in submarine systems age going on in response to the belligerence of the United States Military Empires desire for war.

Aug 27, 2020 · According to RIA Novosti, a state-controlled Russian news agency, Russia and China are collaborating on a new submarine design (in Russian). The project is being coordinated by Russia's … 

- China And Russia In Mysterious New Submarine Project

This transfer of technology assures that China will have it also.

An Amur 1650 would be equipped with 18 missiles. China has been testing  MIRV-ed warheads for its missiles since 2010.

Update: Amazing developments in submarine systems age going on in response to the belligerence of the United States Military Empires desire for war.

Aug 26, 2020 · "We are currently cooperating with the Chinese side on a joint project of a new generation non-nuclear submarine," Viktor Kladov, a director of Russian state-owned defense corporation Rostec, told... 

- Russia and China Working Together on Advanced Weaponry ...

This deal calls for 4 submarines, joint development and construction, to begin 2015, 2 built in Russia, 2 built in China.

Update: Amazing developments in submarine systems age going on in response to the belligerence of the United States Military Empires desire for war.

Aug 20, 2020 · That cooperation in air and missile defense could also support the submarine component of Russia-China strategic cooperation in the Arctic is reasonably clear, but the analyst then makes the most...

- China and Russia Might Be Headed Towards Naval Supremacy …

IT and Microelectronics: Russian rocket, space and defense enterprises will buy electronic components from China worth $1 Billion.

Update: Russia and Chinese trade, agreements and research in the high-technology fields are astounding in their scope and breadth.

While Russia and China are signing joint agreements to develop high-tech research centers and initiatives, the outlook is more complex beneath the surface. These trends reflect the result of mutual interests and alignment of technological imperatives, which have contributed to the expansion of high-tech efforts between the two countries. 

- The Resilience of Sino-Russian High-Tech Cooperation ...

Working with China Aerospace Science and Industry Corp for dozens of items as alternatives to U.S.-sourced parts.

Update: Russia and Chinese trade, agreements and research in the high-technology fields are astounding in their scope and breadth.

In our new report, A new Sino-Russian high-tech partnership: authoritarian innovation in an era of great-power rivalry, published today by ASPI’s International Cyber Policy Centre, we map out the unique ecosystem underpinning expanding technology cooperation between Moscow and Beijing. China and Russia have not only expanded their military cooperation but are also undertaking more extensive technological cooperation, including in 5G, artificial intelligence, robotics, biotechnology, new media and the digital economy 

-A new Sino-Russian high-tech partnership emerges as US tensions mou…

Russia will need to purchase these alternative items for 2-2.5 years until their own industry can manufacture electronic components that are radiation-resistant for Space and match military standards for mil systems. This has been a $2 billion American supply in the past.

No Longer.

China is now supplying those parts.

Update: Russia and Chinese trade, agreements and research in the high-technology fields are astounding in their scope and breadth.

May 25, 2021 · Russia is developing an array of autonomous weapons platforms utilizing artificial intelligence as part of an ambitious push supported by high-tech cooperation with neighboring China. 

- Russia Is Building an Army of Robot Weapons, and China's ...

Technology Parks: October 14, 2014 a memorandum to jointly build high-tech parks in each country to further innovation in science and technology. In Shaanxi, China, in the town of Xixian Fendong, a technology park of four square kilometers, and in Moscow, at the Skolkovo Innovation Center, 200,000 sq. meters of buildings will be built.

China and Russia are deepening and expanding their ties — economic, military, technological — as external pressures limit their access to overseas markets and technology. Both countries hope the collaboration will help to compensate for domestic deficiencies and to compete successfully with the United States in today’s critical technologies.  

This bilateral relationship, currently celebrating its 70th anniversary, has ebbed and flowed in the decades since the Soviet Union and the People’s Republic of China opened diplomatic relations. This relationship, now upgraded to and characterized as a “comprehensive strategic partnership of coordination for a new era,” is continuing to evolve amid today’s great power rivalry. 

For Moscow, certain Chinese products, services and experience may be the lifeline for its industry, government, and military need to wean themselves from high-tech Western imports. 

For Beijing, Russia’s skilled engineers and mathematicians are a valuable resource for tech and defense industry giants that are hungry for talent and faced with increasingly unfavorable conditions in the United States and Europe. And its military hopes to draw on Russian proficiency in designing advanced weapons and experience using emerging capabilities on today’s battlefields.

Consequently, the Sino-Russian strategic partnership has increasingly concentrated on technology and innovation. In the wake of Xi Jinping’s visit to Moscow in May 2015, the Chinese and Russian governments have signed a series of agreements to develop new realms of cooperation. In June 2016, China’s Ministry of Science and Technology and Russia’s Ministry of Economic Development signed the “Memorandum of Understanding on Launching Cooperation in the Domain of Innovation.” The notion of these nations as linked in a “science and technology cooperation partnership for shared innovation” has been elevated as a major pillars of this relationship.

-Defense One

Satellite offices for the Chinese park in Beijing, Shanghai, Guangdong and Heilongjiang will follow on.

In Russia, offices in Kaliningrad, Vladivostok and the Russian republic of Tatarstan. Two sovereign wealth funds, the Russian Direct Investment Fund, and the Chinese Investment Corporation are leading the investments.

Cyber Security: International cyber security agreement is set for was set up during the first half 2015. Prevention of cyber incidents developing into full-scale conflict, collaboration in the operation of nation Internet segments, closer interaction on international platforms dedicated to cyber security issues.

It is going to be broader than a cyber non-aggression pact.

The Russians and Chinese are discussing a new Internet to break the monopoly and intrusion by the U.S. and NSA, CIA, etc.

Update: Russia and China are both working together to fight the United States Military Empire's control of cyber-warfare and blaming it on them. Remarkable progress is being made to this end.

Dec 16, 2020 · Russia and China concluded a bilateral cybersecurity agreement in May 2015, described by some media as a „non-aggression pact.“ While the framework of the pact was largely borrowed from its previous agreement under the Shanghai Cooperation Organization, the effectiveness of implementing its „commitment not to hack fighting each other“ remains in question.

- Russia China Cybersecurity Agreement

Education: 100,000 student exchange program. Already 25,000 Chinese in Russian higher education, 15,000 Russians in Chinese education and internships.

Far Eastern Federal University will teach Russian to Chinese students.

Joint University in China will have Moscow State University curriculum as core. Already Moscow State and Beijing University of Technology opened a university in the city of Shenzhen. It opened in Sept. 2016.

Update: The centers for education, research, technology and development are located inside of both Russia and China.

Jun 20, 2019 · The agreement between Tsinghua and Saint Petersburg will lead to the creation of a Russian Research Institute at the Beijing university, which will conduct research on Russia-China relations in areas such as industrial development, education, science and technology.

-Academic ties grow between Russia and China

China as Russia’s Bank

It is evident from the nature and size of interactions between China and Russia, China has determined to construct a floor for the Russian economy. Just as the Federal Reserve secretly saved the EU banking systems by QE and passage of funds to select banks in the EU, China is doing similarly with Russia during the sanctions regime.

Update; Apr 09, 2021 · China and Russia each scaled back their U.S. Treasury holdings, with Russia channeling cash into renminbi holdings. And China has ramped up the digital currency drive it began in 2014, with the ...

-Analysis | China and Russia announced a joint pledge to ...

Instead of creating debt, it is swapping currencies and keeping corporations liquid, taking equity positions in state-owned enterprises, making loans and advances on deals both within Russia and between Russia and China.

Update: China, Russia move to unseat the dollar as the No.1 currency. China is not slackening its pace in mounting Beijing’s challenge to the US dollar as the world’s reserve currency. Now that the International Monetary Fund has included the yuan (renminbi) in the Special Drawing Rights (the currency basket that provides additional support to ...

-China, Russia move to unseat the dollar as the No.1 currency

There were three wounds to the Russian economy.

First, prior to United States sanctions there was heavy flight of foreign investment out of Russia.

Second, United States sanctions brought on more of that loss of capital investment and a credit crunch.

Third, the drop in the price of oil affected the ruble. So, credit loss, liquidity loss, tax revenue loss and a battered currency has slowed growth and caused inflation inside Russia.

Not so today.

Update: Jul 14, 2021 · China cheers Russia’s move away from US dollar in favor of yuan. Beijing has welcomed Russia’s decision to cut the US currency from its National Wealth Fund and give the yuan a bigger role, China’s Foreign Ministry has announced. Last week, Russia fully eliminated the US dollar from its National Wealth Fund, reducing its share from 35% to ...

-China cheers Russia’s move away from US dollar in favor of ...

Both Russia and China have invested heavily in gold, manufacturing capability, and discharging the American debt that they have acquired over the last few decades. The end result has not only make their economies stronger, but enabled them to implement electronic currency, and in China this is a mature technology that 99.5% of the people use.

China’s Capacity

China has the wealth to manage these issues in the short term. Russia’s reserves and gold cache, natural resources and intellectual property are collateral for any contingency.

Russia’s economic size (GDP) is comparable to the sum of 3 provinces in China – Guangdong, Jiangsu and Shanghai taken as one economy. The Chinese have 31 provinces and autonomous regions. So, managing a floor for Russia economically as a reserve force is easy for the Chinese.

Premier Li indicated that, “China may be able to help reduce the damage (of sanctions) as Russia looks east for business and financing, but it is far from a total offset.” Oct. 13, 2014

The intention is clear. China needs Russia, not just Russian gas and oil.

Update: Mar 27, 2020 · China and Russia have used the new coronavirus pandemic as an opportunity to lead efforts at the United Nations to lift American and European sanctions against a number of countries, including Syria. They have sized on UN Secretary-General Antonio Guterres’ recent call for a nationwide ceasefire in Syria to demand sanctions relief. 

-Exclusive - China, Russia Lead Campaign to Avoid ...

Currency: Currency swap agreement signed by Premier Li Oct.13, 2014, duration 3 years, extendable.Yuans and rubbles will be used as settlements of trade. This deal is empowering for the yuan as an international currency, likewise Russia’s rubble. It also empowers the BRICS nations to have more input in international finance as it diminishes the dollar’s use for settlements.

Update: Jun 06, 2019 · Russia and China sign deals worth US$20 billion as Xi Jinping and Vladimir Putin’s growing friendship bears fruit ... security and trade. After six years' working overseas in Brussels and ...

-Russia and China sign deals worth US$20 billion as Xi ...

Sberbank financing letters of credit in yuans with Russian companies. Provides safety through diversification of currencies. Pairing on the Moscow and Shanghai stock exchanges since Dec. 2010. Russian firms have been using HKD and yuan.

Banking: Agreement between Russian VTB Bank and Bank of China.

Another deal is VTB, VEB and Russian Agriculture Bank, all hit by sanctions, signed framework agreement with Export-Import Bank of China to open credit lines.

Update: Jun 17, 2019 · Another alternative is China’s CIPS (China International Payments System), which several Russian banks have also connected to, especially to ease banking operations between the two countries, according to Vladimir Shapvalov, also of the CBR, who said at last week’s SPIEF conference: “As for the cooperation on payment systems, a range of banks are already connected to CIPS, …

-Russian & Chinese Alternatives For SWIFT Global Banking ...

Credit Card: Union Pay of China has replaced Visa and Mastercard, while Russia develops its own national brand credit card system. The Russian credit card system UEC (universal electronic card) was implemented in 2017. Both Russia and China “leapfrogged” the credit card system with QR based electronic e-payments.

Update: The China National Advanced Payment Systems (CNAPS) 中国人民银行现代化支付系统 is the primary domestic electronic payment system in China. Unlike the separation of ACH and wire payment systems in the United States., CNAPS encompasses both ACH-type (low-value) payments and wire-type (Real Time Gross Settlement “RTGS”) payments. 

-Treasurer’s Guide to China Payments | PNC Insights

Finance: China Development Bank (CDB) agreed to financing $500 million for Russian mobile phone operator MegaFon. CDB also agreed on annual financing of $1 Billion to the Russian Grid.

FDI Equity stakes: A stake in Gazprom’s Vladivostok liquid natural gas terminal, and shares purchased by CNPC in oil producer Rosneft. New privatization of part of Rosneft, maybe up to 9%. Already China holds 0.6% since 2006. Not only state-owned enterprises, but large private corporations and entrepreneurs are poised with capital investment in Russia.

Russia is rated one of the top economies (despite sanctions, ruble drop, threats and vodka weaknesses) by leading analysts and investment gurus. Russia should begin to show GDP growth rates that seem unthinkable today (5-6%) in 4-5-6 years. China will pump-prime large sectors of this, and get excellent returns on its investments. Further out, 10-15 years, Russia will be robust and stable with a growth outlook and diversified line-up of products and services and a nearby Eurasian market easy to service.

Motor Vehicles: Great Wall Motors plant in central Russian Tula Region to build 150,000 Haval four-wheel drive vehicles/yr. $522 million per year investment, 2500 jobs.

Petrochemical Technologies: Joint venture construction of a rubber production plant between petrochemical companies Sibur and Sinopec, oil company, to be based on Russian technologies located in Shanghai. Rus-China split 25.1-74.9. Technology transfer. The two have previously worked together in Rasnoyarsk for rubber production in Siberia. Split is reversed in Russia’s favour there. Rubber produced will be supplied to China.

Construction: Bridges and transport links across Russian-Chinese border. Rail companies Russian Railways and China Railway Corp. have agreed on logistics centres, development of passenger traffic and reduction of tariffs.

Update: Apr 28, 2021 · Three of the six ‘economic corridors’ of the BRI pursue this goal: the New Eurasia Land Bridge aims to connect China to Poland by rail links through Kazakhstan, Russia and Belarus, the China, Mongolia, Russia Economic Corridor aims to build rail and road links through Russia to Estonia and Finland, and the China, Central Asia, West Asia Economic Corridor would link Central Asia to Turkey, … 

-Ambivalent partners: The complex Russia-China relationship

Infrastructure: High Speed Rail project: Moscow to Kazan 770 kilometers. It will ultimately link to Beijing. The China side is Beijing to Urumqi, Xinjiang.

Moscow subway extensions to be built by Chinese investors, New Moscow district. Total deal for $10 Billion, signed May 19, 2014; 93 miles, 70 stations.

This is a key foreign investment partnership project. Deal between Mosinzhproekt and China Railway and Construction and China International Fund.

Housing: 460,000 housing units (25 million sq. meters of housing) to be built for Russian Family Housing program of the Construction, Housing and Utilities Ministry, June 25, 2014. Talks began in China in May 2014.

Kostroma Region: China’s interest in jewellery industry, agriculture and wood processing. Investors and manufacturers form Shandong and Guangdong provinces have made tours. Work on organizing modern agriculture enterprises, developing agritourism and logistics.

Thus, there was organic necessity for the evolutionary change in the relationship of China and Russia. The commodities and energy deals between the two are annual at $40 Billion, but now will go to $200 Billion/yr. Trade between the two is at $90 Billion. Comparatively, the EU trade is $413 Billion. China is in danger with EU dependency. China’s own economic slowdown is completely the result of the EU being generally in recession.

As Russia develops and trade expands, China will have an economy it can influence and, partially, remotely manage, especially in its growth sectors and technological innovations. These sectors and innovations will spur China’s internal growth, and that follows its five-year plan to substitute export dependence with internal development.

It helps stabilize China’s economy.

SCO Eurasian Security

Barely known to most people, the Shanghai Cooperation Organization will become the key Eurasian organization through which the diverse national interests of India, Pakistan, China, Russia, Iran, and Vietnam are served in a cooperative environment.

United in their economic development through the reality of Eurasia Economic Belt, all their security issues versus terrorism, separatism and criminal drug and human trafficking are handled within SCO. Though it is not a military alliance, it uses joint military and policing activities in an interesting array.

Ultimately, SCO is a defensive layer against destabilization proxies (think ISIS, Taliban, AQ, East Turkistan Islamic Movement, PKK, PUK Kurds) that may be mounted against any one or more member states. Should Turkey finally come into the fold of SCO, along with Iran, NATO will be neutralized against member states. These SCO developments are in the cards. It takes time, but India and Pakistan are in line to full membership in 2015, and then Iran and Turkey will complete a powerhouse of SCO members, all with the same interests, no matter how diverse the cultures and ideologies.

There is a generally unspoken tool of destabilization – Islamic terror in the form of direct Wahhabi-driven conflict (AQ, ISIS, Taliban, etc.) and the more covert separatist programs that affect both nations (and in Russia’s case, its Middle East allies and customers, who just happen to be investment partners with China for oil and infrastructure projects).

China was susceptible to destabilization in Xinjiang, Tibet, Taiwan, Hong Kong and, perhaps, Inner Mongolia, though unlikely in any to be remotely eventful while China is a vibrant economy. Full bellies and fat wallets don’t arm rebellions.

• Xinjiang. China has won the hearts and minds of the Uighur Muslims there. And have located enormous military presence there designed to counter any United States Military Empire NGO / CIA efforts there.
• Tibet. China has crushed the Untied States backed insurgency and terrorist cells, and have increased trade and travel to that once isolated region with high speed trains, and generous investments to the local indigenous peoples there.
• Taiwan. Still in play, but it is unlikely that the desire for independence will survive in the next decades.
• Hong Kong. China completely suppressed the United States Military Empire backed NGO’s and terror cells. IN 2020, Donald Trump threw up his hands and announced “We lost Hong Kong”.

It was so generally peaceful in Xinjiang, that up until 2012, unarmed police were the rule for security forces in the Province (Autonomous Region). Until several unarmed policewomen and men were stabbed to death by terrorists-separatists trained by AQ and Taliban in Pakistan, the Chinese never used repression or harsh tactics. Now that the terrorists get Syria-based training by off-shoot Wahhabi fanatics, the PLA military is being used, specially trained police teams and a regime of control is being brought to parts of Xinjiang.

China is using Chechnyan Republic President Kadyrov’s tactics with terrorists. They are killing them on sight in large numbers whenever possible. Those who go to trial, if violent or plotters of violence, get the death penalty.

Actually, three years of organ harvesting while doing hard labor and then killed with a single bullet to the back of the head after you eat a McDonald's Happy Meal.

Eurasia development faces embedded potential ethnic, tribal, Islamic and criminal forces that will have to be dealt with as China pushes into Central Asia and works with Afghanistan and Pakistan.  Rubbing their “hands together”, the U.S. and NATO remnants and paid allies in Uzbekistan and Tajikistan have been planning to stir security problems.

Update. All this has failed. The United States Military Empire has pulled out of Afghanistan, and all the neighboring nations are enthusiastically embracing the BRI.

Not Global Military Alliance

Most profoundly, the Double Helix is not a global military alliance. Both nations eschew military alliances beyond regional.

However, the test of the double helix bonding had to work out the military affinities, or the existential threat would not be blunted and turned away. Both militaries had to be able to imagine a force structure and force protection that conjoined their defenses, systems, intelligence, communication and command integration if needed.

This unity might take years, but they had no time to waste. This could not be superficial, so they had to permit intrusive sharing. This might be difficult because their languages were so different. They overcame all obstacles because of necessity and leadership. President Putin and President Xi had identical needs. Their nations were subjects of containment by the United States Military Empire with its allies who surrounded their nations with an array of full spectrum platforms and systems that challenged them 24/7, any weather, any phase of the moon.

China and Russia were growing rich while the United States Military Empire was growing poor, and China and Russia were growing, while the United States Military Empire was shriveling its once-great economy with endless wars, debt, waste and corrupt practices.

Surprise

The great expanse of Russia from the Baltic and Black and Caspian seas to the Pacific, Yellow Sea and Sea of Japan as an east-west territory now had an East Asia, Southeast Asia, South Asia and Central Asia adjunct – China.

Russia could be seen as even larger than largest geographically. Her pipelines, highways, airports, seaports and weapons systems would be connecting and protecting nations from the Arctic to the Indian Ocean, as well as from the Eastern Europe borders to the Kurill Islands and Vladivostok, touching China for border crossings at Zabikalsk-Manzhouli and Pogranichy-Suifenhe in Heilongjiang Province along the Black Dragon/Amur River.

This unity is about much more than Harbin’s massive ice sculptures or Russia’s massive oil and gas reserves buried deep below snow, ice and frozen rock. This Double Helix was going to be about strategic surprise.

China had surprised the United States Military Empire twice before with weapons.

One was its satellite killer (kinetic hit-to-kill vehicle) that took out one of its own old satellites in 2007. Another more advanced test was launched in 2013. What made this tough for the Intel agencies to know in advance was the missile carrying the ASAT weapon was launched from a road mobile launcher.

The other surprise was China’s carrier killer missile, land based, that could take out a carrier from one thousand miles away. The Mach 10 DF-21D is indefensible except by electronic countermeasures and luck.

Both weapons were exactly what China needed to shock the U.S. Space command and the U.S. Navy. They are still stunned and worried by the Chinese capacity and their own Intel failure. Both weapons are land-based and mobile, making the Chinese defenses agile and elusive.

While threats abound, the Double Helix grows

On the Chinese side are people, masses of people, one third of whom have been raised from serfdom to middle class in just 30-plus years. The Chinese have also mastered ‘opening up’ their economy to venture capital, industrialization and service sector organizations, without losing control to foreign interests.

They have kept a central bank separated from IMF and from the Federal Reserve and western central bank systems.

They have kept state management control of all strategic industries.

They have used foreign direct investment to spectacular advantage, forcing joint ventures to ultimately share intellectual property, patents and design copyrights.

The Chinese have forced technology transfers wherever they needed to have state-of-the-art and could not reverse engineer it.

They learned every capitalist trick from studiously analyzing the American rise from frontier agricultural nation to the greatest global economic power. The Chinese admire America’s rise into an economic behemoth while fearing its government and global hegemony.

Most importantly, the Chinese protected the RMB, the yuan, from manipulation.

They carefully introduced the yuan to trading partners, but never allowed their currency to fully trade as a Forex currency. China pegs its yuan to the U.S. dollar, thus restricting manipulation and speculation. There is no float rate and interest rates are state-controlled. The yuan gradually became convertible from dollars, yens, Swiss francs, Euros, Hong Kong dollars and rubbles. The Chinese use RMB for bilateral settlement, case by case.

The China-Russia plan for international reserved currency is to propose a bundle of currencies, not one, as the dollar serves today. If the IMF does not act favorably, there may be turmoil coming to that system.

China has many allies for such a move. This clearly signals, though they are the largest economy, they do not desire or plan for dominance or to expose themselves to the concept of being the unipolar nation by replacing the United States. They want influence and cooperative leadership positions in new international institutions, and the Chinese signal that policy in every way. The Dragon prefers to be the Panda, most of the time.

Rise of Shanghai

The Chinese shrewdly used the Hong Kong dollar and Hong Kong stock exchange and the former royal colony’s banks for their own flexibility until they were ready to dwarf what once was thought to be Asia’s financial heart.

Shenzhen, next door to Hong Kong, had been selected by Deng Xiaoping for the initial showcase of ‘opening up’ for a good reason. Hong Kong was the enormous port for imports and exports, and Hong Kong was the last ‘western’ banking centre that capitalists trusted doing business with Beijing.

Now that center of finance and banking would be Shanghai; a Shanghai stock market and the RMB that would soon rule Asia because Beijing had the scale to do it. One of the unmentioned realities of the recent Occupy Central and the ‘yellow umbrella’ circus in Hong Kong is the city will be second to Shanghai soon, and it will be at the economic mercy of Beijing. Shanghai will be the new world center of banking and finance in a decade or two. This is now assured with Eurasia development, New Silk Road, Maritime Silk Road and the Double Helix.

London, desperately grasped a piece of the Chinese currency action just in time. It will be a RMB clearing house, an offshore RMB center. New York’s financial industry may not yet understand that it, too, will succumb to the Dragon’s wealth creation sometime in the coming decades.

These are reasons for containment and destabilization by the United States Military Empire and the Elites who do understand this inevitability. But, Eurasia tips the globe to the East. And the ‘Double Helix’ is one centrifugal force spinning the power toward Asia and Eurasia.

Scale–Size Matters

Scale matters if a nation knows how to use it (for example, China does, India doesn’t). Scale in factory output, cheap labor, high savings rate, massive infrastructure development, and logistics were things never seen on earth until China.

Even the U.S. during WWII could not match what China was now doing.

And all the while, the earnings were piling up by the trillions in the Bank of China, Agricultural Bank of China, China Construction Bank, Industrial and Commercial Bank of China, and the People’s Bank of China (Central Bank of PRC).

In terms of cash on hand, China’s horde of cash and U.S. Treasury Bills and purchases of gold was unprecedented.

The dynamics has changed the Dragon not only into ‘the factory of the world’. China became one of the shrewdest bankers of the world.

China’s state-managed economy enables it to do things other countries don’t do. China can direct its state-owned enterprises (SOEs) to invest in projects domestically or in foreign projects.

This is actually another form of geopolitical financial power.

The treasuries of those SOEs are like bank accounts at the disposal of the Central Government. The Premier, presently, Li Keqiang, is the economic Czar, so to speak. The seven members of the Standing Committee of the Politburo execute the five-year plans, with President Xi Jinping setting the targets philosophically and Premier Li directing the government bureaucracy, banks and SOEs to achieve the goals.

Growth Matters

Growth is everything to Chinese new-born capitalists.  Growth is a word and event that is not happening in the Empire of the United States Military Empire .

EU is in reverse and the U.S. is a phantom economy, sucking assets from the middle class and expanding a dependent base in a highly vertical reformation of the economy.

Elites have it all.

The good jobs and careers are gone. Social conflict is rising. America has lost its way. No five-year plan for growth, no one-year plan, not even a plan for the next quarter.

The U.S. economy has been built to serve the Elites and their need for greed.

All processes serve that need well.

The markets are rigged in dark pools, derivatives and criminality that goes unchecked, save a few ‘insider trading prosecutions’ and ‘big bank fines’ that feed the government with ‘revenues’ or transfers of wealth from stockholders (middle class) that are not direct taxes.

Wealth Matters

In China, the wealth is in the control and management of the state. Savings are used for the wealth development of the nation and its people.

Yes, one million millionaires and hundreds of billionaires have done well in the rapid growth of China.

However, they do not have elite control of the economy.

They play their role in the public and private sectors, and in foreign investments and tourism, but they don’t alter the public plans or manipulate the public markets (though they try, as it is human nature to be greedy or criminal or irresponsible).

The revenues in the coffers of capitalist China enable President Xi to make any project in any country happen.

He is bankrolling the BRICS development bank, the Asian Infrastructure Investment Bank and the Eurasian Economic Belt and Maritime Silk Road development.

These are like multiple Marshall Plans without the military conquest.

They are meant to transform other trading partners from dirt poor into middle class economies capable of buying Chinese products, using Chinese expertise, and ultimately, purchasing services from China.

It is elementary economics. Invest in a nation, build its infrastructure, expand trade with it, educate their young; then that nation emerges from poverty, develops its own production capacity, and matures.

All the while, the trade partner climbs the value chain of products and services China offers.

China can do this on a scale unlike any nation ever.

It does it in Africa, Latin America, Southeast Asia, South Asia and the Middle East (except the U.S. has pushed back with ISIS to destroy Iraq and Syria, and with AQ in Libya where China has massive infrastructure and oil investments. Likewise, China has previously agreed upon Ukraine and Crimea development investments pre-the junta coup.)

So, with Russia so close and in need of what China can do on such large scales, the gigantic natural resources exploitation and infrastructure needs of Russia have met the gigantic financial capacity and commodity needs of China. The resolution of the hegemonic threat through peaceful means was logical and a product of the minds of Presidents Vladimir Putin and Xi Jinping. Thus, the Double Helix.

The Result facing the United States Military Empire

The U.S. and NATO would need Michael the Archangel to defeat China-Russia, and from all signs, he’s aligned with the Bear and its Orthodox culture.

There is no weapon, no strategy, no tactic conceivable in the near future (which is all the Double Helix needs) to damage either of these rising economies now that they are ‘base pairs’.

China will get stronger and bigger.

Russia will get stronger and bigger.

And within the next three to five years, the international systems of finance and banking and trade settlement, currencies and credit ratings and development loans will be thoroughly changed.

It is tantamount to disarmament of the United States Military Empire ‘s most dangerous weapons.

Ironically, only the United States Military Empire ‘s military will remain.

The United States Military Empire will lose its most devastating weapons that enslave, subject, humiliate, ruin and change regimes – its economic weapons.

Future

The better part of the world’s nations will have moved on to solving problems. Nations will think in different terms and relationships. Sovereignty and regions will matter again. Cooperation will regulate competition.

Win-win will replace domination.

What was once ‘honorable and necessary’ will be looked at as criminal, if war and chaos is the only solution a former United States Military Empire or alliance can offer.

Perhaps, some form of NATO and its Islamic Wahhabi terror forces it has been cultivating with the Saudis, Qataris and other devils with billions of dollars will persist. But they will ultimately grow cold and brittle and not be viable unless they become pirate marauders. There will be no economic sustenance available for such forces.

China acting in its own interests?

Of course, China is acting in its own interests.

But any organism – and a nation is not an edifice, it is an organism – has life-sustaining needs. And the China organism needs blood.

That blood is oil and gas.

The China organism needs a nervous system that can’t be shut down by shock wave or sabotage. IT security and radars, satellites and on-ground defense systems are imperative components of such a nervous system.

And the organism of China, huge as it is, packed densely with people, needs stability for sleep, for rest, for meditation.

Russia, as powerful a nuclear force in the world, has China’s enormous back, adds to its blue water defenses, mans the digital and electronic turrets, and changes and hardens the geographic, economic and financial targets that the United States Military Empire could use to contain, destabilize and cause regime change in Beijing, thereby, toppling the state governance by the Communist Party of China.

There are no substitutes for the decades ahead of such a vital molecular bonding as the Double Helix.

Equality of Effect

So, the double helix metaphor works for both in equanimous ways.

Russia receives its blood through yuans, loans, use of Union Pay credit card system, joint ventures, advance payments, dependable contracts and logistical solutions.

China provides a territorial shield and additional force multiplication for Russia’s nervous system.

Finally, stability, too, is necessary for Russia to breathe and get forward momentum in critical areas of development.

There will always be housing for Russians in Russia now that China is close.

China can put up tens of thousands of housing units in a few months, if not days.

There will be alternate sources of food.

The most basic needs of Russian people are secured with the double helix pairing. China bought the largest pork producer in America and is already shipping pork to Russia.

China is so efficient in some food processes that American scallops are shipped to China for cleaning, then come back to U.S.

Foreign Policies and Societies

Metaphor or not, the Double Helix is real.

It serves as the new DNA structure but does not change the external policies or internal societies of either nation. It merely is the new organism architecture against which the United States Military Empire will flail.

Now the two sovereign nations will be presenting themselves as one double helix.

This ‘one’ is not a merger, not an alliance, not even a commonality of interests.

Those are represented through SCO, APEC, etc.

This ‘one’ is force multiplication and projection of power within a fourth dimension of geopolitics. It multiplies all the molecules or magnifies them. To attack or target the IT or satellites of either is to strike both.

Destabilize either, and both are struck.

Contain one, both are contained. Demonize one, both are vilified.

Custer found that it was not just Lakota Sioux he faced. He faced Arapaho, Arikara, Cheyenne, Crow, Santee and seven bands of Lakota (Blackfeet, Brule, Hunkpapa, Oglala, Minniconju, Sans Arc and Two Kettle).

This was an object lesson.

Historically, on the plains of America, Native Americans had done the same as China and Russia. Their error was not to do it much sooner and everywhere long before they were overwhelmed by the invading immigrants.

China and Russia have acted in timely fashion.

Dragon-Bear

China-Russia have become impossible to defeat militarily, impregnable to sanctions and economic destabilization, and have created a unique partnership.

China and Russia are co-ventures into a new international architecture built on sovereign states’ responsiveness to each nation’s own people.

Looking across the Black Sea from Romania or across Ukraine from Poland, Lithuania or Germany, or from across the Atlantic like Canada or the United States, you see the Bear-Dragon.

Likewise, looking across the Pacific or the East China Sea or South China Sea at China you will see the Dragon-Bear.

The United States Military Empire and its vassals will understand that attacking one is an attack on both.

The Double Helix cannot be undone. Russia and China are the founders of the Eurasian Economic Marketplace of 3.5 billion (half the world). It has a thirty-year initial mission.

And during those thirty years they will have built the New Silk Road, the Maritime Silk Road, the Eurasian Economic Belt, and lifted Iran, India, Pakistan, Bangladesh, the Stans of Central Asia, Mongolia, the Southeast Asian nations and probably, fixed parts of Ukraine, and parts of Eastern Europe, some southern European nations and, maybe, some North African nations in the meanwhile.

China and Russia are unified as one.

Geopolitical Surprise

Now, let’s return to the Shoigu in Zhongnanhai mystery. And let’s think of geopolitical surprise. Imagine if General Shoigu and Premier Li Keqiang were discussing North Korea. Background: Putin has been reaching out to Glorious Leader Kim’s regime, and we know the deal Putin would want to get done with Pyongyang’s regime: Give up the nukes, and the Double Helix will protect you.

Give up the nukes and we’ll force the U.S. to leave the Korean peninsular.

Give up the nukes and China and Russia will develop your infrastructure.

Give up the nukes and begin integration with the South economically and that process will include Russia and China.

Give up the nukes and you will never walk alone.

North Korea could look at Iran and see that Russia and China have shielded Iran. And if Iran moves away from nukes, the Double Helix protects her. Syria has given up chemical weapons and Syria, for all the ISIS and NATO chaos, stands because of Russia and China.

Let us take a look again at General Shoigu’s itinerary. Who did Shoigu go to after Beijing? Pakistan. Who aids North Korean nuke program? Pakistan. Shoigu was not traveling this route in this sequence by happenstance.

China is drawing Pakistan away from the U.S. and wants to coordinate anti-terror operations with Islamabad. There also is the withdrawal of NATO and the U.S. from Afghanistan. Russia, China and Pakistan will take on this burden in order to get development of the Eurasian Silk Road and Economic Belt established. Everything is changing in South Asia. China and Russia will fill the vacuum.

It is quite the nature of China to encourage Russia to send symbolic messages to those who might need another tap on the head. Iran and North Korea are regional and global threats that the Double Helix wants to turn into partners and markets.

Tough Cop?

Shoigu went forward with that “portfolio”. He represented ‘the base-paired one’. The Chinese know their limits and their weaknesses. They might bully the Southeast neighboring fishermen and even cut off an American naval ship. But they are not the tough cop Russia is.

The Chinese are the soft interlocutor, the mollifier. The only time China gets tough is in business negotiations or if you insult the Party or the People.

However, this nuclear disarming or chemical weapons disarming small regimes is the rough and tumble of the street and alleys, something Russia knows and China does not aspire to.

It takes a 8th Dan martial arts President who destroys opponents with his armed forces in real world combat to get the focused attention of Pyongyang and Islamabad. He did in Syria and is doing it in Iran. He generally uses military protective shield with economic development deals.

North Korea is desperately trying to weaponize their atomic devices. Pakistan would be the bearer of this technology. It is conceivable Pakistan’s military assistance deal with Russia, signed by Shoigu, would have ‘rewards’ for staying out of North Korea’s nuclear program.

The meeting in Beijing just may have been to assure Shoigu that all the financing needed to stabilize the Korean peninsula will be available if and when Putin gets Kim to join with the sovereignists and force the Hegemon off the Korean Peninsula.

Regional Effect

What this would mean for China and Russia beyond safety and security is a new market, more easily exploited mineral resources, a fast developing economy that can use what both nations have.

North Korea can add additional military as regional reserve forces should the Hegemon linger in Asian Pacific.

Nuclear disarmament automatically means South Korea is actively drawn into the Eurasian Economic Belt. It leaves the region with no threat against the Hegemon’s allies, Japan and Philippines. America’s Pacific Century ends when the nukes go away in North Korea.

Vladimir Putin might think this way. For what is North Korean’s regime but a criminal gang (oligarchs wrapped in dead communist rhetoric and delusional arrogance)? Putin knows this species and how to deal with it. Only the Double Helix could make this transformation happen. Neither nation alone has been able to influence the Kim dynasty by itself.

The Chinese have been insulted by Pyongyang and frustrated by Kim. The Chinese public laughs at the buffoonery of the North Korean regime. Beijing only wants him around so the U.S. does not move closer up the Peninsula. But the new reality of Eurasia emerging changes the outlook for Kim. Opportunity and advantage turn his way. A mortal threat to his regime can be removed, and he can still have sovereign security. Win-win-win in a deft surprise move.

Such a cataclysmic geopolitical event of Pyongyang surrendering its nukes would force the U.S. to concede its raison d’etre for a presence on the landmass in the Asia Pacific region. South Korean public pressure for U.S. forces to leave would be rising. Okinawa would want the U.S. out. Eventually, the U.S. would be merely ‘one of several’ using the blue waters of the Western Pacific and Asian coastal seas. The U.S. would logically have to return to Hawaii as its most western outpost. After all, it would be protecting no one from any threat any longer.

Russia and China would be the regional defenders of peace and stability, and further south, India and Vietnam would join, not the U.S. Navy.

The U.S. may be an Asian Pacific nation, but no more so than Chile or Mexico. What the U.S is not is an Asian nation, nor a Eurasian nation. What the U.S. would become is what it always should have constrained itself to – a North American nation.

Japan

Everything becomes harmonized economics after such an event. Japan needs Eurasian assistance. The West has used up two generations of young people in Japan, manipulating its economy and government. Its dynamic innovation and growth is moribund. They cannot even manufacture a safe vehicle airbag or run a nuclear power plant safely.

It’s all manufactured, designed, and packaged in China.

Philippines

Perhaps, the Philippines would remain close to the U.S., but it will be a singular Asian vassal in the South China Sea.

Manila may align with Australia, but eventually the Maritime Silk Road and the Asian Infrastructure Investment Bank will entice them to choose progress with Asia or perpetual colonization by the United States Military Empire.

Update: Jul 27, 2021 · In her brief remarks, Philippine Ambassador to China Erlinda Basilio expressed to the Chinese guests the Filipino people’s commitment to their centuries-old friendship with the Chinese people, and she explained that, inspired by a popular Filipino song, the Embassy chose the theme “Hawak Kamay” to convey how Filipinos will not abandon their Chinese friends in their time of need.

-Philippines - China Friendship Day: A Day of Smiles in Beijing

What happens in Taiwan?

Taiwan will remain the last Chinese choke bone if China is foolish enough to open wide the Dragon’s mouth and take the bait. The latest local Taiwan city elections which damaged the KMT powerbase heightens the U.S. ‘Free China’ agitators. It certainly sets back Cross-Straits progress. However, if that means Xi will have to play rough, he has the economic leverage as the tool to use, not his military.

Taiwan is in perpetual recession. The once great ‘grey box’ and pirate copyist economy of the 80’s and 90’s has been eclipsed by South Korean semi-conductor, device and chip manufacturing and soon will feel the rise of Vietnam, Malaysia and other South-east and South Asia players in Taiwan’s national electronic sport. Most Taiwanese investment capital seems to be heading to the Mainland, Brazil or Taiwan’s nearby competitors. Foxconn is everywhere but Taiwan, including Brazil.

This leaves angry Taiwanese students for the U.S. to manipulate. And perhaps there will be strident resistance groups against Cross-Straits unification, but hunger and despondency will change the dynamics once the U.S. retreats and all those young minds see Eurasia develop as China has on the other side of the narrow straits. They can Skype and Tweet for revolution, even hold coloured umbrellas, but that does not bring in foreign investment to rebuild their own economy.

The Dragon typically has endless patience. Taiwan will test President Xi’s patience for certain. He hoped to see Taiwan in a Hong Kong-like arrangement of ‘One China-Two systems’. That is not going to happen before the U.S. retreats to Hawaii.

The U.S. has infinite capacity to inflict pain and suffering on its most loyal vassals. No one in America, except Taiwanese-Americans, will even know of the pain suffered in Taipei, Kaohsiung, Taichung and Tainan until the U.S lets go.

North Korea changes everything.

The Far East and Siberia, the North of China, Mongolia, the Arctic, the Yellow Sea and Sea of Japan become a zone of trade, tourism and growth when North Korea steps down from the precipice. If Iran with nukes is unacceptable to Russia and China, certainly North Korea is worse. Both nations, Russia and China, have worked assiduously to prevent proliferation. And they have immediately rewarded nations that give up WMDs.

The Sony False Flag

Sony is hacked! It has to be the North Koreans! Demonization of North Korea is predictable. The FBI says so. However, nearly all independent hacking experts, those with vast experience in government security of IT and anti-hacking work, agree the Sony hack is not North Korean.

First, understand the Internet connections in Asia. North Korea has one ISP. Just as China has second tier status on the Internet and all connections go through only Shanghai, North Korea can get on and off the Internet only through one route. Easy for NSA to monitor. Easy to prove. But we get no hard proof, easy to provide. We get a short form handout white paper-like slice of FBI baloney. So, unless the hack came from a 3G phone network, it had one port of entry to the Internet, namely Star Joint Venture Co.

The U.S. must make certain North Korea remains nuclear. And it is swiftly moving to put ‘terror status’ back on Pyongyang. The hope within the Hegemon’s brain trust, to use the term lightly, is that this will stop Russia and China from offering economic help in return for the nukes. But the result will be whatever the double helix can arrange if they can arrange it with Kim.

What would follow?

With North Korea emptied of its arsenal, the Double Helix may move next to expose the secret program the Japanese have for nukes. Fukishima melt down was a double disaster, because like Dimona in Israel, the nuclear secrets leaked out for the world to know that what Japan, like Israel, was desperate to cover up was a weapons program abetted by the U.S. and France.

Whatever comes from the Double Helix of China-Russia, it will be a surprise that stuns the Hegemon, for certain. That is the style of both nations. The world has gotten closer to ‘better’ in 2014, while it has gotten ‘worse’. That is because, though bad things will always happen, better things will always happen, also. Flames and death in Ukraine and the Middle East are terrible, but the emergence of Eurasia is a budding flower, and it is poison only to the Hegemon.

Civilizations Win

Most of us will live to see a new international, global dynamic. Some of us will feel its nourishment. Some of us will be stuck in the cavern of Elites who have run the world for centuries. Just as the North Pole shifts, geopolitical poles shift. Economic poles shift, also. A containment policy or exclusionary trade treaty or covert destabilization program cannot stop 3.5 billion people inspired by two enlightened leaders who have the same metaphorical DNA. The tectonic shift is too much for mere mortals of the West who have run out of ideas, lies, bullets, bombs, false flags and proxies to win and control mankind. The Hegemon has bad DNA that cannot adapt to the fresh air and sunlight of the truth. Humanity will win its freedom and civilizations will prosper.

Russians and Chinese Win

Russians and Chinese citizens will look within their own civilizations for solutions to the challenges and threats cast at them by the United States Military Empire. The motivations exist to create wise solutions that are not martial, nor dominant, nor exploitative nor unjust.

Relying on experts and NGOs of the West will be understood as opening the doors to the enemy and housing the terrorists and saboteurs sent by the United States Military Empire.

The resistance to United States Military Empire is an historic lesson to the civilizations of Russia and China. The allure of the West is stripped off once-empowering words, models and ideals like ‘democracy’, ‘freedom’, ‘friendship’, ‘allies’, ‘partners’, ‘success’, and ‘security’. The patina of ‘exceptional’ and ‘greatness’ has worn away.

The peoples of Russia and China are heirs to great civilizations. They have cultures and institutions that are grounded in sage principles and centuries of profound accomplishments in art, science, technology and human endeavors. They need not emulate any other nation or culture or educational system.

Sovereignty, like individuality, is the unique identity that must be cherished. Then, international cooperation and partnership is grounded on strengths of those choosing to join with others out of free choice not coercion.

What to look forward to…

The events to look forward to in Russia-China relations in 2021 include the continued growth of Russian-Chinese trade, the signing of a docking agreement between the Eurasian Economic Union and China, Chinese investments in the Russian Far East, and the strengthening of cooperation between the two countries in the process of solving international problems.

Strategic partnership

Russian President Vladimir Putin gave the most accurate commentary on the relations between the two countries at his annual press conference in December.

There is a national consensus in Russia on the development of relations with China and that regardless of the election results, Russia and China will be strategic partners in the long historical period ahead. The logic of a comprehensive strategic partnership between Russia and China has been formed, and relations between the two countries are moving forward in all spheres.

Common challenges and threats in the international arena

In 2021, Russia and China will maintain the same position on major global issues, including the resolution of the Korean crisis and the Syrian conflict. 2020 saw the joint initiative of Russia and China on the ‘double pause’. This position is constructive and is the only initiative that so far promises to achieve a peaceful settlement of the Korean crisis.

Cooperation between the two countries on the situation on the Korean Peninsula is the most successful example of foreign policy coordination between independent and sovereign powers in the world today. The two countries can use this experience to develop a consistent policy on Syria and focus on the settlement of the situation in that country after the conflict.”

The U.S. Factor

Foreign policy factors will also help strengthen Russian-Chinese relations, while both countries will have to encounter tough challenges.

In the U.S. National Security Strategy announced by Biden, Russia and China are described as countries that issue serious challenges to Washington. This means that the U.S. will develop a corresponding strategy for our two countries and those regions in which we are interested.”

The U.S. will try to prevent China and Russia from consolidating their positions in these regions. However, that factor will only contribute to the strengthening of Russian-Chinese relations.

Investment in the Far East

The trend of steady growth in the volume of trade between the two countries is seen as one of the achievements of Russian-Chinese relations in 2017. According to data from China’s General Administration of Customs, in the first 11 months of 2017, the trade volume between Russia and China grew by 21.8% compared to last year, reaching $76.06 billion.

It should be noted that our trade volume is less significant today and more attention should be paid to the structure of trade. At the moment that structure has not changed and is dominated by energy.”

Trade volume may grow in 2021 due to an increase in Russian exports of non-raw materials to China, including electronic platforms.

There is demand in the Chinese market for Russian sunflower oil, as well as for expanded trade in flour and flour products. There is a need for dialogue with China on the issue of expanding quotas for Russian producers.” Cooperation in the Far East could also be a driver for the development of Russian-Chinese trade and economic relations in 2021.

Chinese investments currently amount to $4 billion, accounting for 7% of total investments in the region and 85% of total foreign investments.

The increase in Chinese investments in the region is likely to come from the development of LNG projects, cross-border infrastructure development, the development of over-development zones, and the active participation of Chinese companies in housing construction.”

Eurasian Economic Union agreement with China

The Eurasian Economic Union’s economic partnership agreement with China is almost ready to be signed, probably in early 2022.

One of the most anticipated events is the agreement between the Eurasian Economic Union and China. However, the agreement still needs to be improved in terms of its practical content. For a long time, the significance of the docking has remained only at the political level and should involve specific economic projects.”

This is a non-preferential agreement, i.e. it does not provide for reduction of tariffs. But it is very important for the Eurasian Economic Union, because the integration union needs to be legitimized, including for the World Trade Organization and the integration process in the Asia-Pacific region. This is politically important.

Increased tourist traffic

The Russian tourism industry is very much looking forward to the 2018 group travel visa-free agreement being modified due to current conditions. Under the new agreement, the minimum group size will be reduced to three people and the possible in-country stay was extended to 21 days, and no Russian invitation is required.

With the introduction of electronic document delivery methods, the work of tour companies will be simplified. Russian tourists will be able to travel to China in small groups without individual visas, and Chinese tourists will be able to recuperate and treat in sanatoriums in Russia that offer a 21-day course of treatment.

Much of the growth of Chinese tourists is being pinned on electronic visas. The system was introduced within the Vladivostok Free Port in 2020. It is expected that the system will be extended to eight regions from 2021. The system is most popular among Chinese citizens: 2,300 Chinese tourists have already used it to travel to Vladivostok.

E-visa is an important initiative to attract individual tourists to Russia. It is expected that the electronic visa system will be introduced in Kaliningrad, the westernmost point of Russia, and in Murmansk and Arkhangelsk, which are popular with Chinese tourists.

Finally, let’s summarize…

Asia has united. America is not the “bright and shining city on the hill” that stands for freedom and “democracy”, but rather a corrupt military empire that is thrashing about as it collapses.

The entire world can see this.

And while the United States Military Empire has been trying to set up the QUAD, and a list of vassal states to fight it’s wars for them, the leaders who agree to do so, can kiss their sweet nations good-by. A unified Russia-china alliance would render their entire nations into radioactive rubble.

Thus my argument that (for the most part) the QUAD would collapse, and what ever military effort that the United States Military Empire would cobble together would be lost in quick flashes of light and enormous causalities.

But I could be wrong…

Finally to quote UNZ..

Finally, the state of decay of the US state might already be so advanced that we can consider it as profoundly dysfunctional and basically collapsing/collapsed.

The first option (soft landing) is unlikely, yet highly desirable.

The second option (chaos-induced retreat) is more likely, but much less desirable as it is only a single step back to then make several steps forward again.

The last option (profoundly dysfunctional and basically collapsing/collapsed) is, alas, the most likely, and it is also, by far, the most perilous one.

For one thing, options #2 and #3 will make US actions very unpredictable and, therefore, potentially extremely dangerous. Unpredictable chaos can also quickly morph into a major war, or even several major ones, so the potential danger here is very real (even if totally unreported in Zone A).

This, in turn, means that Russia, China, Iran, the DPRK, Venezuela or Cuba all have to keep their guard up and be ready for anything, even the unthinkable (which is often what total chaos generates).

What do you think?

Of course, the Ignorant Americans are all thinking that Russia and China are somehow enemies…

Russia has no love for China so don’t be so sure about them coming to China’s aid. 

-MarkinLA

Hardly.

Do you want more?

You can find more articles related to this in my latest index; A New Beginning. And in it are elements of the old, some elements regarding the transition, and some elements that look towards the future.

.

Articles & Links

.

• You can start reading the articles by going HERE.
• You can visit the Index Page HERE to explore by article subject.
• You can also ask the author some questions. You can go HERE to find out how to go about this.
• You can find out more about the author HERE.
• If you have concerns or complaints, you can go HERE.
• If you want to make a donation, you can go HERE.